Speaking in tongues

[year2027]

God first

thanks waysider

I think it more than "Biblical"

as you pointed out God's is in waterfall too

did they forget that its in the stars also

did how many times did God talk to others in OT

the bible is a vain Book

God's Word is everywhere

its not complete

how can it be God still talking as you pointed out

with love and a holy kiss Roy

Edited February 22, 2010 by year2027

[cman]

The problem with tying to keep it "Biblical" is that evidence of speaking in tongues (at least, the glossolalia variety) predates Christ by 1,000 years.

yes, thanks waysider

and Bob, tongues are certainly biblical

with the majority of scripture written in tongues

[geisha779]

The problem with tying to keep it "Biblical" is that evidence of speaking in tongues (at least, the glossolalia variety) predates Christ by 1,000 years.

Or.. . . there are two distinct animals. . .. as I believe Paul was pointing out. Maybe the answer to why it predates Christ is in the epistles.

Edited February 22, 2010 by geisha779

[sirguessalot]

Bob...and all...

clearly we are all holding the hot edges of a topic where many very old unresolved arguments overlap

...common ground is rare...

i feel lucky if we’ve found even another inch of it...thanks

[sirguessalot]

i can assume...

...that we can agree that there are different methods of interpretation

and that we use different methods of interpretation

...that if our methods of interpretation dont match

then our interpretations wont match

...that objecting to an interpretation simply for not matching

is a recipe for perpetuating unnecessary and unresolvable arguments

...comparing world scripture as a way of deepening one's own faith

does not lead to invalidation of scripture...but confirmation

[cman]

...that if our methods of interpretation dont match

then our interpretations wont match

i'm not so sure about that one sirg

for instance, Bob's approach is

"the historical/ grammatical/logic hermeneutic

along with-

the God (and gods) of the Scriptures of the Hebrews and Christians"

i would think that somewhere along the line it would touch upon interpretations of the same and different nature

some where in it's workings there would be a cross road to another or more interpretations

and if seen, would they be followed,

or discarded,

[cman]

such is the meanings of the scriptures written in tongues as i mentioned

and you know of

that within them, the eye of the beholder sees what it can

Edited February 23, 2010 by cman

[year2027]

God first

thanks everybody

understands some how does he do this?

private interpretation/person interpretation he the hears both flesh/spirit

when i hear the tongues of God i also hear the tongues on flesh

flesh is the tongues of tongues men is the tongues of self

but tongues God is tongues our creator

with love and a holy kiss Roy

Edited February 23, 2010 by year2027

[sirguessalot]

cman

i agree

there is one

and there is many

it also seems that none match

not even the closest copies

whether interpretations of a section of scripture

or interpretations of experience (which includes all scriptures)

why post an argument against the validity of an interpretation

on the basis that "it does or doesnt say this or that"

without having first asking "how?"

let alone trying it?

seems more like a "historical/grammatical/logic hermeneutic"

but only within the bounds of (not in addition to)

"the God (and gods) of the Scriptures of the Hebrews and Christians"

and perhaps its reasonable to add that as with most all christian methods of interpretation

there are also vast bodies of even christian and hebrew thought and experience

that are also not within the bounds of the hermeneutic

...whether for not having heard of them yet...or intentionally...or otherwise

such as the differences between how protestants and catholics interpret

or how evangelical and pentecostals interpret

perhaps its also fair to assume that quite outside of the bounds of any declared hermeneutic

are the overwhelmingly majority of ways we interpret the scripture

our interpretations are influenced by and reference aspects of our experience

our bodies, our minds, our memories, our relationships, our dreams, our visions, even our suffering

would we not do well to include them in our hermeneutic?

...

which is perhaps why better than simply objecting to an interpretation because it dont match

is asking "how?"

maybe we "manifest word of wisdom" simply by asking well?

after all, asking "how" leads things like

"how aware of your own method are you?"

"how aware of my ways are you?"

"how aware of my ways am i?"

"how aware of our ways are we?"

seems as if in our quest for meaning and significance

along with all our other questions (like the 5 Ws)

we all already always also a living "how?"

inner storytellers keep going and going

interpreting the same realities

babbling brooks of living words

choirs of choirs of angels

Edited February 23, 2010 by sirguessalot

[cman]

yes i agree as well sirg,

without quoting scripture

maybe talk can occur and tongues happen

as they do without notice

as a thief in the night

'they shall' it says about many things

and when that happens - how - will it be interpreted

even by those that are doing what is promised

somehow some connect and see it in themselves and others

they shall seek death and not find it

a temporary thing that seems to last a lifetime

even after tasting it

i tell you.....

sometimes this dang sucks....

and sometimes i can sleep well

but most of the time

i rest better without knowing too much....

[year2027]

God first

thanks everybody

what is magic of tongues?

it that you speak the wonderful word of God.

is the interpretation of the word of God

is not discerning of spirits the dividing of spirit the flesh image from spirit image.

is not the working of miracles with the magic from love

is not the magic of healing the magic of life

is not faith the magic of believing

is not prophecy just the magic of thing coming

is not knowledge just magic learned

is not wisdom knowing true magic that your a fool

are these the magic you cry for

with love and a holy kiss Roy