SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Ham]

... modern, phony, counterfeit practice does not produce Biblical results.

I think it just produces modern nuttiness. I'm not saying nuttiness is technically *wrong* or anything..

there are reasons I will not go anywhere within earshot of an offshoot's Sunday Night Service or some such..

it's always the SAME. Even the "manifestations".. they never change.. they are always the same..

same useless drivel. Same "positive" interpretations and words of "prophecy"..

modern, phony counterfeit practice seems to produce the same result, one time after another..

fine if that is your cup of tea. I've graduated to another level of nuttiness..

[Ham]

I dunno. I don't "despise prophecies" or some such.. it's just.. positive, continuously repeated words of affirmation do not necessarily equal prophecy..

[TrustAndObey]

You know VP's "all without exception" and "all without[sic] distinction" interpretation of the Greek words heteros and allos really don't stand up to language scrutiny. Those words do not mean that - they are more contextual.

I think you are confusing the distinctions in the word "all".. It had zero to do with "heteros" or "allos" (That's "another" vs "others"), and while VP screwed up by calling it "all without distinction vs all without exception", we all got the jist.. The word "all" in Greek and most languages can either be confined to a specific group or taken for all anytime everywhere.. The distinction should usually be noted in context, but not always. And with the section in Corinthians, the context is what? The gathering? Am I correct?

If so, then how would "no one "within the gathering" understanding" be an abnormal understanding to this verse?

From my viewpoint, to say that it MUST be absolute doesn't quite fit.. Could it, maybe.. But it would be like saying the verse about "nothing being impossible for you to do" is absolutely anything and has no caveats or smaller group of possibilities just cause the verse doesn't state it (And it also uses the exact same "no one/man/thing" Greek word)

[Ham]

I dunno.. to make such a distinction, one would almost have to time travel back to ancient Greece, learn the language..

modern analysis is fine.. but limited I think..

sometimes it looks for a pattern that is simply not there..

[Ham]

anybody know how these words .. sailed into modern usage? I mean current usage.. I think there is a current distinction between Chairos and Kronos.

[Raf]

Which words?

[Ham]

allos and heteros. Heteros tongues.. is there really a distinction between what they call simply different, by modern interpretation (allos)

[Raf]

I don't see where heteros and allos even come into play in this discussion. Is there a verse someone is pointing to where that distinction is important?

[Ham]

Kinds of tongues. Different kinds of tongues.. the greek word was heteros..

different, or of a distinct kind..

wierwillian advocates demand heteros to mean something it very well may have not meant..

it really is on topic, as you wish. :)

[Raf]

Ah, of course.

To another, diverse kinds of tongues.

It's still languages, no matter how you slice it. It's different from the language of the speaker. It's not different from human language.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Raf

[Ham]

and I could not agree more..

[Raf]

By the way, "different" kinds of tongues is not the word heteros OR allos. It's in italics. Heteros is in the term "to another," which is a reference to either the people receiving the gift or the profit of the manifestation, depending on your theology. It has nothing to do with the language.

[cman]

in reference to 'kinds'

chapter 15 is loaded

36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

[WordWolf]

(snip)

Also, within the verse there is plenty of leeway to describe the tongue not being understood by those in the prayer meeting. However, the verse doesn't state it that way - it states "nobody" which is pretty absolute. So the terminology right in the verse there indicates a more absolute sense of nobody understanding.

Unless, of course, my point stands.

I'm curious. I'm going to post it again.

Other than chockfull, can everyone else SEE my point?

I'm not asking if you AGREE- just if you SEE it.

You can see it and strongly disagree, of course.

I just want to confirm my communication is effective.

=====================

Here's the KJV of the verse.

I Corinthians 14:2

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

The phrase that's critical to chockfull's claim is

"for no man understandeth him."

The problem with this is that a cursory check of a Greek Interlinear will show the last word of the phrase

was completely added. It should be in italics.

That's why the NASB doesn't add the word.

Here's the NASB of the verse.

I Corinthians 14:2

For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

Does adding the word change the meaning?

It might.

If the meaning of the phrase is

"One speaks in a tongue and nobody who hears him can understand the tongue",

then the meaning is retained.

Of course, if that meaning is retained,

we have a rather obvious problem that now we have personal anecdotes we're supposed

to believe that directly contradict Scripture-

where someone spoke in a tongue and someone or some people understood.

However,

AND THIS IS MY POINT,

if the meaning of the phrase is

"One speaks in a tongue and can't understand the tongue"

and that has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else,

then a translator added a word and completely changed the meaning.

I Corinthians 14:2 (NASB)

For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

One speaking in a tongue, inasmuch as it's to God and not men, cannot possibly understand what he himself is

speaking-it's to God. However, it is mysteries in his spirit and directed to God.

That's one way of looking at it. And it conflicts with personal theology of some,

but doesn't produce a conflict with any instance in Scripture,

nor does it conflict with personal anecdotes related so far,

whether or not they happened exactly as believed.

So, everyone else,

whether or not you agree with me,

can you see what I'm saying and how someone can get there,

whether or not it's where you'd go?

[Ham]

give me a few moments, friend.. :) Quite intensive..

[cman]

so you are saying that the verse says

only the one speaking in a tongue, can't understand

?

[Ham]

the one speaking, not understanding what is spoken.. this makes the perfect mathematical game.. I mean, outsiders looking for a pattern of sorts..

[Raf]

I think the context is clear that neither the speaker nor the audience understands the LANGUAGE that is brought forth. I think the context is clear that the audience being spoken of is a typical worship service. I think the verse is clear that what is produced IS a language. No, it's not a major point. Rather, it's a given. Speaking in languages produces languages. The verse cannot be "absolute" and apply to all gatherings, or it would contradict Acts 2. Modern tongues speakers cannot believe it is "absolute" or applies to all gatherings, or they would be compelled to dispense with their precious anecdotes. But to believe that God confounds linguists so that they can't detect languages in glossolalia is to introduce an element of hocus pocus that is foreign to the text. The bottom line is that SIT remains, at its core, a very testable claim. If you're producing a language, then you're doing what the Word promises. If you're not, then you're doing something else.

You're doing something else.

[cman]

yes we got your point of view

[Raf]

I answered a specific question that you asked about what the verse In question is saying, and I applied it to the context of this thread. No need for you to get snippy about it, cman.

[cman]

not snippy at all

that's just the way you are taking things lately

you keep trying to keep this thread about you

[Raf]

I keep trying to return the thread to the topic. I answered your question with an on topic response. You answered with a patronizing dismissal that did not contribute to the discussion but instead made it personal. So I ask you to please stop.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Raf

[cman]

o hell, get over yourself,

i'll post whatever i see fit to post

[cman]

if you understand tongues it's not tongues any more

of course it's a friggin language

the language - the tongue of the spirit

hung up on the word language or somethin here

Edited November 7, 2012 by cman

[Raf]

Imagine that.

Listen, cman, you are being unnecessarily confrontational and deliberately rude. I'm asking you politely to knock it off. You are obviously capable of staying on topic without making things personal. I ask that you continue on that course.

Yes, I am hung up on the word language. Why that should be controversial, I have no idea. Manufactured excuses as to why language suddenly doesn't mean language anymore don't impress me as easily as they seem to impress others. If God promised to give me something that was indistinguishable from its counterfeit, I'd feel a little let down.