Cessationism question

[1stcenturylady]

Here's where I follow the majority (both Pentecostal & Evangelical) position regarding Acts 2:4, where it was the 120 who were enabled by the Spirit to speak words of praise and adoration to the Father in the languages of the unregenerate Jews who were nearby.

As much as you are right in that at first glance Acts 2 can be deemed to be in opposition to 1Cor 14, we need to remember that the Day of Pentecost was a unique and certainly a remarkable event, where the Father had announced to the world, and particularly to the Jews that the Holy Spirit has now been given to his Children. For that matter, we have another 'issue' with the Day of Pentecost in that the 120 were all speaking words of praise (tongues) to the Father all at once, which is of course a practice which was later forbidden in 1Cor 14.

Leaving the wording of Acts 2:4 aside, I could not imagine why the Holy Spirit would empower the unregenerate to understand what the Holy Spirit was saying to the Father when the event of the Day of Pentecost was about the Holy Spirit being given to the fledgling Church.


Yes, thank you, I did.

God doesn't contradict His own word. Not only were the tongues supernatural, but the interpretation as well. God can give supernatural happenings to anyone, including Saul of Tarsus, an unregenerate Pharisee.

 

[Biblicist]

God doesn't contradict His own word. Not only were the tongues supernatural, but the interpretation as well. God can give supernatural happenings to anyone, including Saul of Tarsus, an unregenerate Pharisee.

Your right in that the Father will never go against His Word, which is why I would have to challenge this as we know that our ability to pray and praise God in the Spirit (tongues) is an activity of the Holy Spirit and not the Father, or for that matter with the Son. We know from Num 22:8 that the Father certainly empowered an Ass to speak, but in the New Covenant as he has informed us that tongues are the agency of the Holy Spirit then I could not imagine the Father going against this.

There is another complication with the Father being the agency of tongues, as this would mean that he would have to be the one who speaks through another back to himself as tongues are always (and without exception) words that are directed to the Father and no other.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

I spoke with a Catholic charismatic who would interpret tongues at home. More recently a Sr interpreted my prayers in a Catholic charismatic prayer group. Thanks for explaining about symphero and Barclay.

 

[Biblicist]

I spoke with a Catholic charismatic who would interpret tongues at home. More recently a Sr interpreted my prayers in a Catholic charismatic prayer group. Thanks for explaining about symphero and Barclay.

As much as probably all of us realise that tongues when accompanied with interpretation of tongues are designed for the congregational setting, there is probably no reason why we cannot allow the Holy Spirit to interpret what He is saying to the Father through us or through another family member to the Father; though this would have to be limited to what the Spirit is saying in praise as I could not imagine the Holy Spirit allowing us to know what he is saying to the Father as he is interceding about some very personal issues for a family member or someone else.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

As much as probably all of us realise that tongues when accompanied with interpretation of tongues are designed for the congregational setting, there is probably no reason why we cannot allow the Holy Spirit to interpret what He is saying to the Father through us or through another family member to the Father; though this would have to be limited to what the Spirit is saying in praise as I could not imagine the Holy Spirit allowing us to know what he is saying to the Father as he is interceding about some very personal issues for a family member or someone else.

Thanks, by Sr I meant a nun, and I was interceding for the group, to be delivered from evil, according to interpretation.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Your right in that the Father will never go against His Word, which is why I would have to challenge this as we know that our ability to pray and praise God in the Spirit (tongues) is an activity of the Holy Spirit and not the Father, or for that matter with the Son. We know from Num 22:8 that the Father certainly empowered an Ass to speak, but in the New Covenant as he has informed us that tongues are the agency of the Holy Spirit then I could not imagine the Father going against this.

There is another complication with the Father being the agency of tongues, as this would mean that he would have to be the one who speaks through another back to himself as tongues are always (and without exception) words that are directed to the Father and no other.

The three are one. You are seeing them in human terms and understanding. They work together as one. The Father knows what is being said, as it is His Spirit that is speaking. It is the Father's perfect will. But, I'm not going to go against your denomination's beliefs if they think the Trinity is so separate in operation, though I can't think which denomination that would be. I am not a denominationalist.

 

[swordsman1]

As for how the KJV has employed symphero or more properly with the archaic non-Biblical word 'withal', it follows the standard use where it is more of a linguistic tool where it attempts to make a particular word or sentence appear to flow better to our ear. It has nothing to do with our English "all".

Where do you get the idea that "withal" is "a linguistic tool where it attempts to make a particular word or sentence appear to flow better to our ear"? Do you have a source for that, or is it something you just made up?

It has already been pointed out to you that the word meant "with all", that being the origin of the word. See also:

King James Old English Word Definition Guide - 3rd Edition (2011) by Michael Williams.
WITHAL: With; together with; with all.​

King James use of Symphero:
1. (Mark 10:39 KJV) And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
2. (Luke 6:38 KJV) Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
3. (Acts 25:27 KJV) For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him.
4. (1 Corinthians 12:7 KJV) But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
5. (Colossians 4:3 KJV) Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:
6. (1 Timothy 5:13 KJV) And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
7. (Philemon 1:22 KJV) But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you.

I take it you meant to say "King James use of withal"? One thing that nobody could fail to notice from all those instances of "withal" is that they all have other people in view. Not once is it the word used in a private or personal context.

So when people attempt to say that the Manifestations of the Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts) were only given for the "common good", you can now easily correct this attempt at misdirection by pointing out that this is simply a bias toward a cessationist worldview.

So all the sources that acknowledge that 1 Cor 12:7 should be interpreted 'for the common good' are all part of a cessationist plot to deceive people are they? That would include the vast majority of modern bible translations including all the major ones (NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, NKJV, etc). As well as modern Greek lexicons such as BDAG, Mounce, Louw-Nida and Friberg. And also the vast majority of bible scholars who have produced commentary on this verse, including continuists such Fee, Thiselton, etc. All involved in a cessationist cover-up are they?

Mounce Lexicon
Gloss: to bring together; to be helpful, be gained; (n.) common good; (imper. verb) it is good, better, beneficial
Definition: to bring together, collect, Acts 19:19; absol. be for the benefit of any one, be profitable, advantageous, expedient, 1 Cor. 6:12; to suit best, be appropriate, 2 Cor. 8:10; good, benefit, profit, advantage, Acts 20:20; 1 Cor. 7:35; it is profitable, advantageous, expedient, Mt. 5:29, 30; 19:10

Friberg Lexicon:
25380 συμφέρω 1aor. συνήνεγκα; (1) transitively bring together, gather, collect (AC 19.19); (2) intransitively; (a) be of use, be profitable or advantageous (1C 6.12); (b) impersonally, with the dative followed by a ἵνα clause or an infinitive it is better, advantageous (MT 5.29; 19.10); neuter participle as a substantive τὸ σύμφερον profit, advantage (HE 12.10); πρὸς τὸ σύμφερον for the common good (1C 12.7)

BDAG Lexicon:
γ. subst. τὸ συμφέρον profit, advantage (Soph. et al.; ins; 2 Macc 11:15; 4 Macc 5:11; Philo; TestSol 7:2 D; Jos., Ant. 12, 54; 13, 152, τὸ αὐτοῦ σ. 14, 174. A common term, both sg. and pl. in ins in ref. to contributions to the public good by civic-minded pers., e.g. IPriene 119, 23 al.) τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ συμφέρον 1 Cor 10:33 v.l. τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον the common good (cp. τὸ δημοσίᾳ συμφέρον POxy 1409, 11; Ocellus [II BC] 48 τὸ σ. τῷ κοινῷ) B 4:10. πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον (τινός) for (someone’s) advantage 1 Cor 7:35 v.l.; 12:7 (Aeneas Tact. 469; schol. on Pind., I. 1, 15b; cp. Jos., Ant. 15, 22). Also ἐπὶ τὸ συμφέρον Hb 12:10 (cp. Appian, Liby. 89 §420 ἐπὶ συμφέροντι κοινῷ, Syr. 41 §217; Jos., Bell. 1, 558 and Vi. 48 ἐπὶ συμφέροντι).—Schmidt, Syn. IV 162-72. M-M. TW.

Louw-Nida Lexicon
ἑκάστῳ δὲ δίδοται ἡ φανέρωσις τοῦ Πνεύματος πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον.
‘the Spirit’s presence is made clearly known in each one of us, for the good of all’ 1 Cor 12.7.



Fee: "he concludes with the reason for this great diversity: "for the common good".

Thiselton: "The Spirit produces visible effects for the profit of all, not for self-glorification"

Garland: "The context makes it clear it refers to the common advantage".

Barrett: "... with a view to mutual profit, that is, the profit of the church as a whole (cf.xiv.12). Each member of the church has a gift; none is excluded. No member has his gift for own own private use; all are intended to the common good."

Grudem "they are given "for the common good" (1 Cor 12:7), and that they are all to be used for "edification" (1 Cor 14:26), or for the building up of the church."

Morris "Spiritual gifts are always given to be used, and to be used in such a way as to edify the whole body of believers, not some individual possessor of a gift.

Bruce: " And however various in character the gifts may be, all are given for the common good - a point illustrated later by means of the figure of the body (verses 12-27)"

Witherington: "v7 further stresses that the gifts have been given to each, not primarily for each person's own edification but for the common good."

Dunn: "Paul is quick to insist that the charism is not for personal use or benefit, but as a function of the body, and so ‘for the common good’ (1 Cor. 12:7), for the benefit of others, for the benefit of the whole."

Calvin: "As to this Paul answers (with a view to utility)— πρὸς τὸ σύμφερον; that is, that the Church may receive advantage thereby."

Oster: "Paul says that when a manifestation of the Spirit is given to a believer it is for the common good."

Bray: "One who receives any of these gifts does not possess it for his own sake but rather for the sake of others."

Hays: "This means that the church can never be homogeneous; it is to be made up of various individuals exercising different gifts and ministries "for the common good" (v. 7)"

Hodge: "They are not designed exclusively or mainly for the benefit, much less for the gratification of their recipients; but for the good of the church. Just as the power of vision is not for the benefit of the eye, but for the man."

Pascuzzi: "That which is an authentic manifestation of the Spirit must in Some way benefit others. The manifestations are given neither for self-glorification nor for advancing one's own status but for the common good."

Plummer & Robertson "πρὸς τὸ σύμφερον. 'With a view to advantage,” i.e. “the profit of all.' We are probably to understand that it is common weal that is meant, not the advantage of the gifted individual. "

Moffat: "Each member receives his particular manifestation of the Spirit, and receives it for the common good, not for self -enjoyment or self-display. "

Butler: "If it was the same God who was the Source of all the gifts, then they were all given for the common good (Gr. sumpheron, literally, “together-profiting”).

Horsley "Along with the insistence that all manifestations are "for the common good," his repeated "to one .. . to another" emphasizes both the activities of the Spirit and the members of the community who are to mediate the manifestations to one another"

Lipscomb: "But whatever gifts or manifestations of the Spirit are given to any one, are given for the instruction and profit of all. No gift was bestowed by the Spirit for the personal good of him alone on whom it was bestowed. These gifts were never so used. "

Barnes "To profit withal. Unto profit; i.e. for utility, or use, or to be an advantage to the church; for the common good of all. "

Soards "Whatever spiritual gifts are being manifested in Corinth, they are not for personal
privilege or glory, but for the common good."

Thomas "Secondary emphasis in verse 7 falls on "for the common good" or "for profit." Here in summary is the purpose of Spirit-produced manifestations. Each one has a spiritual ability for the purpose of benefiting the rest of the body of Christ."

Bruner "the varied services of the grace-gifts are all "for the common good."

Edgar "The purpose is for profit. It is evident from the remainder of the chapter that this profit is to be profit for others."

Sadler "To profit withal" ie for the edification and strengthening of the whole Church, not for each man's particular glory or advantage."

Locke "But the way, or gift, wherein everyone, who has the Spirit, is to show it, is given him, not for his private advantage, or honour, but for the good and advantage of the church."
McGee "What is the purpose of the gift? It is to build up the church, the body of believers. It is not to be exercised selfishly, but is to give spiritual help to Other believers."

Picirilli "The "profit" mentioned in v. 7 (same word as in 6:12; 7:35; 10:23) is the profit of the entire church: "the common advantage" (Orr-Walther 280)."

Tolley "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. The means, however, of openly displaying the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit thus granted to different individuals, is given to each not for his own, but for the general benefit. "

Sumner "given to every man to profit withal: “ divided to every man severally," in order that he might exercise them for the common good in the sphere of duty assigned him."

Will "But to each such demonstration of the Spirit is given to profit withal (πρὸς τὸ σύμφερον)“with a view of being beneficial to all." Never were such gifts distributed to men for private advantage or honor, but for edification and strengthening the whole Church.

Robertson "They were profitable to others: “ The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.”"

Ironside - "In other words, a spiritual gift is not given for show; it is not given so that a man may attract attention to himself; it is given for the edification of others"​

The following chart which starts from 382AD shows how 61 versions of the Bible have translated the Greek word symphero into English. A red tick indicates that a given version has employed a literal translation of symphero and a black mark indicates that the translators of a given version has employed a dose of doctrinal manipulation so to speak. I have indicated with a red "?" that I am uncertain if a particular version have chosen to be literal as with "profitable" or that they have chosen to employ a bit of doctrinal bias.

A few errors and omissions on your list:

The Clementine Vulgate is not an English translation, it is a translation of the Greek into Latin. For that you have supplied the Douay-Rheims translation which is an English translation from the Vulgate.

It is debatable whether the word "withal" should be ignored as you claim. So at best those versions should be marked "?" in my opinion.

Many versions are little more than minimal vocabulary revisions of existing translations and shouldn't be regarded as seperate translations. Such as the KJV spinoff's Noah Webster, American KJV, KJV 2000, KJ21, BRG (which only changes the color of the text!). Likewise the minor revisions of the NRSV, NIV, ESV etc, so it works both ways.

JB Phillips is a paraphrase, not a serious translation from the Greek.

You missed out ESV, Berean Study Bible, Berean Literal Bible, ICB, NHEB, Weymouth.

You have put the following in the wrong category:

NKJV "profit of all" (words in italics are deliberately added by the translators to clarify the meaning).
Disciples "for our benefit"
Worldwide English "so that all people may be helped."
Easy to Read "to help others"
NET "benefit of all"
Mounce "for the good of all"
NT for Everyone "so that all may benefit"
NIRV "in a special way. That is for the good of all."
Tree of Life "for the benefit of all"
ICT "to help everyone"​

So you have Wycliffe, Darby, Youngs, Douay-Rheims, AMPC, ISR, Jubilee, Holman, NABRE, Orthodox Jewish Bible. That's 10 archaic and/or obscure versions.

Whereas as I have NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, AMP, BSB, BLB, CSB, CEB, CJB, CEV, DLNT, ERV, EXB, GW, GNT, ICB, ISV, LEB, TLB, MEV, MOUNCE, NOG, NCV, NHEB, NET, NIRV, NKJV, NLV, NLT, NRSV, NTE, TLV, Tyndale, VOICE, WEB, WE, WEY. That's four times as many, including all the major versions.


If anyone is in doubt as to the meaning of 1 Cor 12:7 you only have to look at what Paul writes subsequently to understand that the gifts are 'for the common good'. After he lists examples of gifts in verses 8-10, he then launches into a lengthy discourse regarding the purpose of the gifts whereby he compares them to parts of the human body in verse 12-27. Paul goes to great pains to point out that individual parts of the human body operate for the benefit of the whole body, not for themselves, and is an analogy for gifted beleivers operating within the body of Christ.

Also 1 Cor 13:1-3 makes in plain that the gifts are only to be excercised in love, and love is never self-serving (v5).

This, combined with 1 Peter 4:10, leaves us in no doubt that the purpose of spiritual gifts are for the benefit of others, not ourselves.

 

[Biblicist]

The three are one. You are seeing them in human terms and understanding. They work together as one. The Father knows what is being said, as it is His Spirit that is speaking. It is the Father's perfect will. But, I'm not going to go against your denomination's beliefs if they think the Trinity is so separate in operation, though I can't think which denomination that would be. I am not a denominationalist.

As much as I appreciate that some hold to the view that the Holy Spirit fell upon the unregenerate as well in an attempt to fit in with Paul's teachings on tongues where they will always be given as inarticulate tongues, which on face value stands against what happens in Acts 2; the problem we have with saying that the "Three are One" is that we then move away from Trinitarian Theology into modalism.

 

[1stcenturylady]

As much as I appreciate that some hold to the view that the Holy Spirit fell upon the unregenerate as well in an attempt to fit in with Paul's teachings on tongues where they will always be given as inarticulate tongues, which on face value stands against what happens in Acts 2; the problem we have with saying that the "Three are One" is that we then move away from Trinitarian Theology into modalism.

I believe it is the true scriptural definition of the Trinity. "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." To think that one of them is not omniscient is not scriptural.

Tongues are not inarticulate. I never said that. All languages originate from God. But their purpose is NOT to be understood by a person of that language listening, as some have taught, perhaps you too. It is speaking to God alone. If God wants it interpreted and to whom, it is His sovereign will to do so. The passage made sure to note that these were devout Jews. They already belonged to God; He was bringing them to the next step.

 

[Biblicist]

Where do you get the idea that "withal" is "a linguistic tool where it attempts to make a particular word or sentence appear to flow better to our ear"? Do you have a source for that, or is it something you just made up?

It has already been pointed out to you that the word meant "with all", that being the origin of the word. See also:

King James Old English Word Definition Guide - 3rd Edition (2011) by Michael Williams.
WITHAL: With; together with; with all.​

I take it you meant to say "King James use of withal"? One thing that nobody could fail to notice from all those instances of "withal" is that they all have other people in view. Not once is it the word used in a private or personal context.

If we trowel the web long enough we can always find so called 'reliable' information that will do what we want it to do, but if you were to approach the question (which is not really a question at all) in an honest manner, then you will realise that withal is simply an archaic linguistic tool, which is what the various KJV commentaries say as well.

So all the sources that acknowledge that 1 Cor 12:7 should be interpreted 'for the common good' are all part of a cessationist plot to deceive people are they? That would include the vast majority of modern bible translations including all the major ones (NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, NKJV, etc). As well as modern Greek lexicons such as BDAG, Mounce, Louw-Nida and Friberg. And also the vast majority of bible scholars who have produced commentary on this verse, including continuists such Fee, Thiselton, etc. All involved in a cessationist cover-up are they?

One of the problems that I have is with how you regularly misquote the Lexicons with your continued wilful practice of not differentiating between Roman and italic type which is intended to help the reader to know when a Lexicon such as the BDAG is providing a Lexical definition or a gloss. What really annoys me is that you have been told that you need to stop doing this but here we are again where you are continuing this shameful practice. I wish that there were some forum rules in place that would stop this from happening; as such,

Forum members should avoid copying any lexical information that you provide.​

To further complicate matters, you have the annoying habit of providing commentary from various authors without providing the title of the commentary and page numbers and of course you often fail to understand what they say as well.

On the flip side, I realise that manipulation and misdirection are about the only two techniques that hardcore-cessationists can hope to employ to defend their worldview; which is something that most Evangelicals have observed for many years and why so few contemporary Evangelicals are prepared to openly support this now very discredited worldview.

A few errors and omissions on your list:

The Clementine Vulgate is not an English translation, it is a translation of the Greek into Latin. For that you have supplied the Douay-Rheims translation which is an English translation from the Vulgate.

Very good! Tell me, was the Latin Vulgate your first clue or was it with the text which said [Spiritus ad utilitatem]. As the chart I compiled has it's primary key set chronologically, then we cannot ignore the 1200 or more years where the Western church only used Latin. If I had the required linguistic skills and the space on the chart, I would have also included a sample of other languages such as those that are Germanic, Syriac and Armenian.

It is debatable whether the word "withal" should be ignored as you claim. So at best those versions should be marked "?" in my opinion.

Many versions are little more than minimal vocabulary revisions of existing translations and shouldn't be regarded as seperate translations. Such as the KJV spinoff's Noah Webster, American KJV, KJV 2000, KJ21, BRG (which only changes the color of the text!). Likewise the minor revisions of the NRSV, NIV, ESV etc, so it works both ways.

The chart originally had a column to show how the KJV and its deriviates have adhered to a literal understanding of sympheron, where even the NKJV was not prepared to go the way of some of the other contemporary versions by changing the proper meaning of sympheron to suit the agenda of at least the editors and publishers.

As space was beginning to become an issue, I had to delete this column and even my notations where certain versions had a common trait depending on who the publisher was; as my chart had been built using Excel they have been placed in as comments.

JB Phillips is a paraphrase, not a serious translation from the Greek.

You missed out ESV, Berean Study Bible, Berean Literal Bible, ICB, NHEB, Weymouth.

You have put the following in the wrong category:

NKJV "profit of all" (words in italics are deliberately added by the translators to clarify the meaning).
Disciples "for our benefit"
Worldwide English "so that all people may be helped."
Easy to Read "to help others"
NET "benefit of all"
Mounce "for the good of all"
NT for Everyone "so that all may benefit"
NIRV "in a special way. That is for the good of all."
Tree of Life "for the benefit of all"
ICT "to help everyone"
​

​

As Goldenkinggaze pointed out an omission (and an important one at that) I now have 65 versions on the chart which is about as far as I can go.

As for the use of italics by the various translation committees, the NIV84 came under heavy criticism as they only provided a few instances of italics, which meant that in a number of locations that they were inserting glosses or paraphrase into a passage which meant that the average reader was unaware of this. On most occasions, when a translation committee places words in italics it means that the words are not a component of the Greek word that is being translated. This means that the reader has to judge if the words in italics are the result of a legitimate decision or if it is the product of a slight-of-hand.

So you have Wycliffe, Darby, Youngs, Douay-Rheims, AMPC, ISR, Jubilee, Holman, NABRE, Orthodox Jewish Bible. That's 10 archaic and/or obscure versions.

Whereas as I have NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, AMP, BSB, BLB, CSB, CEB, CJB, CEV, DLNT, ERV, EXB, GW, GNT, ICB, ISV, LEB, TLB, MEV, MOUNCE, NOG, NCV, NHEB, NET, NIRV, NKJV, NLV, NLT, NRSV, NTE, TLV, Tyndale, VOICE, WEB, WE, WEY. That's four times as many, including all the major versions.

Your so called 'list' is certainly misleading which the chart shows. The Amplified (AMP) Bible only added in the gloss the "common good" in the recent 2015 update, which means that very few owners of the classic editions of the AMP would even be aware of this; does anyone own a copy of the latest edition!

I see that you have rightfully realised that the KJV makes no reference to a "common good" and of course the editors of the very popular NKJV were not prepared to face any unnecessary criticism by replacing the literal meaning of sympheron with a doctrinal gloss which is why they prudently chose to place "of all" in italics to let their readers know that the meaning is not contained within sympheron.

What the chart glaringly points out is that I have history on my side, which includes the Greek, Latin and English languages, where the doctrinal gloss the "common good" is a product of contemporary doctrinal issues which were not an issue prior to the Charismatic Renewal of the 1960's and 70's.

If anyone is in doubt as to the meaning of 1 Cor 12:7 you only have to look at what Paul writes subsequently to understand that the gifts are 'for the common good'. After he lists examples of gifts in verses 8-10, he then launches into a lengthy discourse regarding the purpose of the gifts whereby he compares them to parts of the human body in verse 12-27. Paul goes to great pains to point out that individual parts of the human body operate for the benefit of the whole body, not for themselves, and is an analogy for gifted beleivers operating within the body of Christ.

Here's where a clear understanding of the differences between the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11) and the 8 Congregational Offices (1Cor 12:18,28) are vitally important. I am more than happy to say that when it comes to the 8 Congregational Offices, which are intended for operation within the congregational meetings in particular, that they are there for the well being of the congregation, which is why each public use of tongues must be accompanied by an interpretation, which is something that is not required during times of personal praise and prayer.

 

[Biblicist]

I believe it is the true scriptural definition of the Trinity. "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." To think that one of them is not omniscient is not scriptural.

Tongues are not inarticulate. I never said that. All languages originate from God. But their purpose is NOT to be understood by a person of that language listening, as some have taught, perhaps you too. It is speaking to God alone. If God wants it interpreted and to whom, it is His sovereign will to do so. The passage made sure to note that these were devout Jews. They already belonged to God; He was bringing them to the next step.

As we have no examples or information outside of Acts 2 which suggests or even hints that tongues can be given in a known human language or where they can be directed to anyone but the Father, which Paul makes patently clear, then there is really no reason or support for the idea that Tongues are anything but inarticulate.

Must go!

Edit: Changed grammatical error 'no reason or support'

 

[1stcenturylady]

As we have no examples or information outside of Acts 2 which suggests or even hints that tongues can be given in a known human language or where they can be directed to anyone but the Father, which Paul makes patently clear, then there is really reason or support to the idea that Tongues are anything but inarticulate.

Must go!

As I made clear, I thought, I repeat in another way, tongues are legitimate languages created by God, Himself. However, when you read the account in Acts 2, the devout Jews HEARD THEM speaking in their own language. The emphasis was on the hearing/interpretation.

"8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?...we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God."

The reason why this is so important to understand correctly and not corrupt
God's word, is because of the false teachings of cessationists that have come to the same conclusion you have, and claim tongues was for preaching to foreigners UNTIL the Bible was compiled; therefore have ceased. But if you want to side with cessationists in this false doctrine when scripture is absolutely clear that not only was the speaking in tongues supernatural, but their HEARING was as well, which meshes completely with scripture that teaches emphatically that no man understands tongues, but God, and only understood supernaturally, then I won't bother trying to convince you. You are not open. In fact, you are the first Pentecostal I've shared this with whose spirit wasn't quickened to the truth of what God has taught me on tongues, and their value for today; and that includes twelve pastors...so far.

Good night.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

King James Old English Word Definition Guide - 3rd Edition (2011) by Michael Williams.
WITHAL: With; together with; with all.

Fee: "he concludes with the reason for this great diversity: "for the common good".

Thiselton: "The Spirit produces visible effects for the profit of all, not for self-glorification"

Garland: "The context makes it clear it refers to the common advantage".

Grudem "they are given "for the common good" (1 Cor 12:7), and that they are all to be used for "edification" (1 Cor 14:26), or for the building up of the church."

Locke "But the way, or gift, wherein everyone, who has the Spirit, is to show it, is given him, not for his private advantage, or honour, but for the good and advantage of the church."
McGee "What is the purpose of the gift? It is to build up the church, the body of believers. It is not to be exercised selfishly, but is to give spiritual help to Other believers."
​

So you have Wycliffe, Darby, Youngs, Douay-Rheims, AMPC, ISR, Jubilee, Holman, NABRE, Orthodox Jewish Bible. That's 10 archaic and/or obscure versions.

Whereas as I have NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, AMP, BSB, BLB, CSB, CEB, CJB, CEV, DLNT, ERV, EXB, GW, GNT, ICB, ISV, LEB, TLB, MEV, MOUNCE, NOG, NCV, NHEB, NET, NIRV, NKJV, NLV, NLT, NRSV, NTE, TLV, Tyndale, VOICE, WEB, WE, WEY. That's four times as many, including all the major versions.


If anyone is in doubt as to the meaning of 1 Cor 12:7 you only have to look at what Paul writes subsequently to understand that the gifts are 'for the common good'. After he lists examples of gifts in verses 8-10, he then launches into a lengthy discourse regarding the purpose of the gifts whereby he compares them to parts of the human body in verse 12-27. Paul goes to great pains to point out that individual parts of the human body operate for the benefit of the whole body, not for themselves, and is an analogy for gifted beleivers operating within the body of Christ.

Also 1 Cor 13:1-3 makes in plain that the gifts are only to be excercised in love, and love is never self-serving (v5).

This, combined with 1 Peter 4:10, leaves us in no doubt that the purpose of spiritual gifts are for the benefit of others, not ourselves.

The common good, does not exclude the speaker in tongues nor the interpreter. And to prophesy can benefit the prophet with all. Also secret thoughts revealed can appeal to an individual in the hearing. One at a time. With the laying on of hands on one person, can come for that one, a word of knowledge.

Praying in tongues is intended for private prayer, but if done after worship, I have experienced, can be interpreted, for the good of all.

In your quotes you mention the common good, and not for elevating one's own honour. The Corinthian church had in it the element of rivalry and jealousy, in context then, mentioning one's honour or glory, is reference to the sins of that church. As if to say "see here, I am an eye, you are a hand." But if the spiritual gift edifies the user only and does not promote him or her, for glory, then there is nothing wrong with that, except if they have many there, and limited time.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Young's Literal Translation is obscure because it is harder to read, older English and direct from the original language, no interpretation. But because it has no interpretation it is best.
1Co 12:7 And to each hath been given the manifestation of the Spirit for profit;

The KJV with numbers renders: "to bear together, to collect", and "withal" has no number. This implies a community spirit rather than vain glory, to say "I am the greatest!"... Since we bear in mind the contextual sins of the Corinthians, and this explains the wording about community spirit, rather than putting a limitation on the benefit of a gift for the good of all, only, instead of the good of the bearer, such as when he or she, is alone.

 

[Biblicist]

As I made clear, I thought, I repeat in another way, tongues are legitimate languages created by God, Himself. However, when you read the account in Acts 2, the devout Jews HEARD THEM speaking in their own language. The emphasis was on the hearing/interpretation.

"8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?...we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God."

As to tongues being a legitimate language, if you mean a human language then I would have to disagree with you, but if you were to say that tongues is a heavenly ‘language’ then I could agree; though the way that Paul describes tongues particularly in 1Cor 13:1 is that the angelic ‘language’ is better referred to as a tongue, which could be argued is Paul’s way of referring to how tongues could be a form of language that does not conform to that of mere mortals. So, does our heavenly tongue confirm or align itself to the rules that our mortal languages follow, or do tongues adhere to some other form of communication? As Paul goes to some length in 1Cor 14 to say that when the Holy Spirit prays through us to the Father that no man is ever able to comprehend what he is saying, then I would say that our heavenly dialect/tongue follows not a mortal language pattern but one that is of the heavens.

As to your statement which said the “emphasis was on the hearing/interpretation” then I would have to disagree, which is the position that the vast majority of Pentecostals and even Evangelicals hold to as we have recognised that Luke was placing emphasis on what was spoken and not what was heard. To add to this, I could not imagine for a moment how and why the Holy Spirit would be given to the unregenerate where they were supposedly being empowered to understand what the Spirit was saying to the Father – it makes absolutely no sense. Remember, on the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was given to the Church as our empowerment, he was not given to the world.

The following spoiler contains some remarks on Acts 2:4 by a Pentecostal scholar by the name of Mark Cartledge which in my opinion reflects the views of the vast majority of Pentecostals and certainly with those scholars who are Full Gospel:

Spoiler: Cartledge_Tongues

Speaking in Tongues: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, Mark J. Cartledge (2012) pp.4-5

Tongues in Acts Acts 2:1-13

Luke appears to understand the Pentecost phenomenon, which he designates as heterais glossais lalein (‘to speak with other tongues’: 2:4), to be xenolalia: that is, the speaking of actual (but unlearned) foreign languages.7 This is suggested prima facie by the very word glossa (the regular lexeme for human language),8 especially as it is qualified by hetera (‘other’). More important, this sense is virtually demanded co-textually, where it is said of the crowd of diaspora pilgrims that ‘they each heard them speaking in their own dialect’ (te(i) idia(i) dialekto(i) lalounton; v. 6;cf. v. 8);‘we hear them telling out, in our own native languages (glossai), the wondrous deeds of God’ (v. 11, matching v. 4 ‘in other tongues as the Spirit gave them boldly to declare’). This cannot naturally be taken as specifying a miracle of hearing rather than one of speech.9 It can only mean that the pilgrim characters in the narrative are portrayed by the narrator as astonished that these Galileans were actually boldly extolling God in their own wide variety of native diaspora tongues - and so, perhaps, can barely believe their ears (for Galileans could by no means be expected to have learned such far-flung languages). But the narrator in no way suggests his characters are mistaken: that the apostles did not speak so, rather that it was the hearing that was miraculous. We may not seriously doubt that Luke attributes the fundamental charisma in this process to the activity of God in the 120 believers upon whom his Spirit descended. He would hardly be inclined to suggest that the apostolic band merely (say) babbled ecstatically and incomprehensibly, while the Spirit worked, in the as-yet unbelieving diaspora pilgrims, the greater miracle of 'translation ex nihilo’ (or, at least, of being able to interpret the believers’ inspired but sub-linguistic adoration).10 No substantial problem is created for our view by the fact that some in the crowd comment ‘they are filled with new wine’ (v. 13).11 Luke envisages a very large crowd indeed by the time that Peter speaks his explanation (cf. 2:41); certainly not all will have understood the full variety of 'dialects’ the narrator envisages as having been spoken (vv. 8-11);12 and some could be expected to have heard nothing intelligible at all.13 Of course one should not try artificially to harmonise Luke’s details, but nor should one unnecessarily make a fool of him when one can plausibly explain how he may have viewed the scene. . .

The reason why this is so important to understand correctly and not corrupt
God's word, is because of the false teachings of cessationists that have come to the same conclusion you have, and claim tongues was for preaching to foreigners UNTIL the Bible was compiled; therefore have ceased. But if you want to side with cessationists in this false doctrine when scripture is absolutely clear that not only was the speaking in tongues supernatural, but their HEARING was as well, which meshes completely with scripture that teaches emphatically that no man understands tongues, but God, and only understood supernaturally, then I won't bother trying to convince you. You are not open. In fact, you are the first Pentecostal I've shared this with whose spirit wasn't quickened to the truth of what God has taught me on tongues, and their value for today; and that includes twelve pastors...so far.

Good night.

I am flabbergasted with regard to your statement that I supposedly “claim tongues was for preaching to foreigners UNTIL the Bible was compiled”; how could you ever come to such a conclusion particularly as I have spoken against this notion (which even some Pentecostals hold to) more strenuously than any other person has done on this forum.

You place yourself in an unenviable situation that I know that I never want to put myself into when you claim that “God has taught you something” that the vast majority of Pentecostals have rejected outright and where we will continue to do so. No amount of “God told me” claims will ever be able to counteract the Word of God and when the so called “God card” is presented it usually means that the person who is pulling such a card lacks the Biblical support for whatever position they are trying to sell. If you could refer those “12 pastors” to me or to a good Pentecostal commentary then we will be able to correct their misunderstanding on this matter.

 

[swordsman1]

If we trowel the web long enough we can always find so called 'reliable' information that will do what we want it to do, but if you were to approach the question (which is not really a question at all) in an honest manner, then you will realise that withal is simply an archaic linguistic tool, which is what the various KJV commentaries say as well.

Seeing as I have provided a number of sources that show that "withal" in the 1600's meant "with all", and you have provided absolutely no sources to backup your claim that the word was a linguistic tool to improve readability, then people can judge for themselves which is more likely to be correct.

One of the problems that I have is with how you regularly misquote the Lexicons with your continued wilful practice of not differentiating between Roman and italic type which is intended to help the reader to know when a Lexicon such as the BDAG is providing a Lexical definition or a gloss. What really annoys me is that you have been told that you need to stop doing this but here we are again where you are continuing this shameful practice. I wish that there were some forum rules in place that would stop this from happening; as such,
Forum members should avoid copying any lexical information that you provide.

I have already explained to you why that happens. When I am compiling long posts such as my previous one, I write it offline as I am not prepared to risk wasting maybe an hours work writing such a long post online only to lose the connection and find the post to be lost. When I copy and paste it to Wordpad it loses the font and typography. You know full well it is nothing disingenuous on my part. Seeing as virtually all commentaries do the same and not slavishly copy the fonts and typography from their lexicon citations then this is clearly nothing that bothers most people. If it bothers you then you can always look it up in your own copy and if you feel it adds clarity then post it here yourself.

To further complicate matters, you have the annoying habit of providing commentary from various authors without providing the title of the commentary and page numbers and of course you often fail to understand what they say as well.

On the flip side, I realise that manipulation and misdirection are about the only two techniques that hardcore-cessationists can hope to employ to defend their worldview; which is something that most Evangelicals have observed for many years and why so few contemporary Evangelicals are prepared to openly support this now very discredited worldview.

I have some news for you. We are writing on an informal discussion forum, not writing seminary dissertations where every citation must be documented right down to page numbers. The reason I abbreviated my 33 citations is because there are so many scholars who affirm that 1 Cor 12:7 means 'for the common good'. Not only would it have taken an inordinate amount of time to include all that information but it would have almost doubled an already very long section of post. If you think I am going to waste a lot of time writing out full titles (when most of them will be something like "Commentary on First Corinthians") and looking up page numbers of so many citations simply to satisfy your pedantic wishes, think again. You know full well my citations are accurate and I am not being deceitful as you rudely and falsely allege (I see the anti-cessationist ad hominems are creeping back in and we all know what that means). If it bothers you I suggest you go to Google Books and enter the author together with a snippet of the text into the search box and you will quickly find the title and page number of the citation.

Very good! Tell me, was the Latin Vulgate your first clue or was it with the text which said [Spiritus ad utilitatem]. As the chart I compiled has it's primary key set chronologically, then we cannot ignore the 1200 or more years where the Western church only used Latin. If I had the required linguistic skills and the space on the chart, I would have also included a sample of other languages such as those that are Germanic, Syriac and Armenian.

What was disingenuous about it is that you included it as an extra English translation when it is not. The translation you supplied for that entry was the Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate which you had already included elsewhere.

As Goldenkinggaze pointed out an omission (and an important one at that) I now have 65 versions on the chart which is about as far as I can go.

So the one's that get sacrificed are the genuine translations that support my view, and the one's that stay on your list are the one's that are essentially duplicates of previous entries and not new translations at all. How very fair of you. I notice your bias is also evident by the fact that you put ticks by versions that support your interpretation, and crosses against all those that don't.

As for the use of italics by the various translation committees, the NIV84 came under heavy criticism as they only provided a few instances of italics, which meant that in a number of locations that they were inserting glosses or paraphrase into a passage which meant that the average reader was unaware of this. On most occasions, when a translation committee places words in italics it means that the words are not a component of the Greek word that is being translated. This means that the reader has to judge if the words in italics are the result of a legitimate decision or if it is the product of a slight-of-hand.

As I have already explained to you italics indicate extra wording the translators have inserting to add clarity. Some Greek words require more than one English word to convey it's meaning. They are being honest in pointing this out. All translations add extra wording to one degree of other. Do you think words "what is" in your esteemed Holman version of this verse are there in the Greek? Or "withal" in the KJV, or "in a special way" in the NIRV? None of those are in italics as they perhaps should be. As it is the translators intent that these words are added to clarify the meaning of sympheron in this verse then the NKJV, Disciples, ERV, etc should be on my side not yours.

Your so called 'list' is certainly misleading which the chart shows. The Amplified (AMP) Bible only added in the gloss the "common good" in the recent 2015 update, which means that very few owners of the classic editions of the AMP would even be aware of this; does anyone own a copy of the latest edition!

If you had read my post properly you would notice that I have include AMPC in your list.

What the chart glaringly points out is that I have history on my side, which includes the Greek, Latin and English languages, where the doctrinal gloss the "common good" is a product of contemporary doctrinal issues which were not an issue prior to the Charismatic Renewal of the 1960's and 70's.

No. The reason the translations have changed over the decades is due to the advancement in the scholars' knowledge in the science of translation which was primitive to say the least before the twentieth century, and the evolution of the English language. Your conspiracy theory that all the modern translations are involved in some kind of doctrinal cover up is ludicrous in the extreme. I suppose you also beleive that man never went to the Moon, and that the CIA orchestrated 9/11? Of course the cover-up theories will suddenly disappear when a modern version supports your doctinal ideas, and it then becomes a 'superlative' translation.

Here's where a clear understanding of the differences between the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11) and the 8 Congregational Offices (1Cor 12:18,28) are vitally important. I am more than happy to say that when it comes to the 8 Congregational Offices, which are intended for operation within the congregational meetings in particular, that they are there for the well being of the congregation, which is why each public use of tongues must be accompanied by an interpretation, which is something that is not required during times of personal praise and prayer.

It has been pointed out to you at least twice that there is nothing "Congregational" about the list in 1 Cor 12:28-30. The context is the body of Christ, the universal church (v27 and previous). Congregations are not mentioned with regard to spiritual gifts until Chapter 14. Twice I have shown you that immediate context takes priority over wider context by quoting a textbook on hermeneutics. The fact that you keep perpetuating this schoolboy error when you know it is wrong suggests to me you are being deliberately dishonest in order to promote false teaching.

 

[1stcenturylady]

As to tongues being a legitimate language, if you mean a human language then I would have to disagree with you, but if you were to say that tongues is a heavenly ‘language’ then I could agree; though the way that Paul describes tongues particularly in 1Cor 13:1 is that the angelic ‘language’ is better referred to as a tongue, which could be argued is Paul’s way of referring to how tongues could be a form of language that does not conform to that of mere mortals. So, does our heavenly tongue confirm or align itself to the rules that our mortal languages follow, or do tongues adhere to some other form of communication? As Paul goes to some length in 1Cor 14 to say that when the Holy Spirit prays through us to the Father that no man is ever able to comprehend what he is saying, then I would say that our heavenly dialect/tongue follows not a mortal language pattern but one that is of the heavens.

As to your statement which said the “emphasis was on the hearing/interpretation” then I would have to disagree, which is the position that the vast majority of Pentecostals and even Evangelicals hold to as we have recognised that Luke was placing emphasis on what was spoken and not what was heard. To add to this, I could not imagine for a moment how and why the Holy Spirit would be given to the unregenerate where they were supposedly being empowered to understand what the Spirit was saying to the Father – it makes absolutely no sense. Remember, on the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was given to the Church as our empowerment, he was not given to the world.

The following spoiler contains some remarks on Acts 2:4 by a Pentecostal scholar by the name of Mark Cartledge which in my opinion reflects the views of the vast majority of Pentecostals and certainly with those scholars who are Full Gospel:

Spoiler: Cartledge_Tongues

Speaking in Tongues: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, Mark J. Cartledge (2012) pp.4-5

Tongues in Acts Acts 2:1-13

Luke appears to understand the Pentecost phenomenon, which he designates as heterais glossais lalein (‘to speak with other tongues’: 2:4), to be xenolalia: that is, the speaking of actual (but unlearned) foreign languages.7 This is suggested prima facie by the very word glossa (the regular lexeme for human language),8 especially as it is qualified by hetera (‘other’). More important, this sense is virtually demanded co-textually, where it is said of the crowd of diaspora pilgrims that ‘they each heard them speaking in their own dialect’ (te(i) idia(i) dialekto(i) lalounton; v. 6;cf. v. 8);‘we hear them telling out, in our own native languages (glossai), the wondrous deeds of God’ (v. 11, matching v. 4 ‘in other tongues as the Spirit gave them boldly to declare’). This cannot naturally be taken as specifying a miracle of hearing rather than one of speech.9 It can only mean that the pilgrim characters in the narrative are portrayed by the narrator as astonished that these Galileans were actually boldly extolling God in their own wide variety of native diaspora tongues - and so, perhaps, can barely believe their ears (for Galileans could by no means be expected to have learned such far-flung languages). But the narrator in no way suggests his characters are mistaken: that the apostles did not speak so, rather that it was the hearing that was miraculous. We may not seriously doubt that Luke attributes the fundamental charisma in this process to the activity of God in the 120 believers upon whom his Spirit descended. He would hardly be inclined to suggest that the apostolic band merely (say) babbled ecstatically and incomprehensibly, while the Spirit worked, in the as-yet unbelieving diaspora pilgrims, the greater miracle of 'translation ex nihilo’ (or, at least, of being able to interpret the believers’ inspired but sub-linguistic adoration).10 No substantial problem is created for our view by the fact that some in the crowd comment ‘they are filled with new wine’ (v. 13).11 Luke envisages a very large crowd indeed by the time that Peter speaks his explanation (cf. 2:41); certainly not all will have understood the full variety of 'dialects’ the narrator envisages as having been spoken (vv. 8-11);12 and some could be expected to have heard nothing intelligible at all.13 Of course one should not try artificially to harmonise Luke’s details, but nor should one unnecessarily make a fool of him when one can plausibly explain how he may have viewed the scene. . .

I am flabbergasted with regard to your statement that I supposedly “claim tongues was for preaching to foreigners UNTIL the Bible was compiled”; how could you ever come to such a conclusion particularly as I have spoken against this notion (which even some Pentecostals hold to) more strenuously than any other person has done on this forum.

You place yourself in an unenviable situation that I know that I never want to put myself into when you claim that “God has taught you something” that the vast majority of Pentecostals have rejected outright and where we will continue to do so. No amount of “God told me” claims will ever be able to counteract the Word of God and when the so called “God card” is presented it usually means that the person who is pulling such a card lacks the Biblical support for whatever position they are trying to sell. If you could refer those “12 pastors” to me or to a good Pentecostal commentary then we will be able to correct their misunderstanding on this matter.

So, this makes no sense. Now you are claiming that on the Day of Pentecost the 120 who were speaking in tongues were speaking to angels in their own languages! ROFL

 

[Biblicist]

Seeing as I have provided a number of sources that show that "withal" in the 1600's meant "with all", and you have provided absolutely no sources to backup your claim that the word was a linguistic tool to improve readability, then people can judge for themselves which is more likely to be correct.

Yes, I trust that this will be the case; of course, all that anyone needs to do is to start with one of the older lexicons or dictionaries that are based on the KJV, such as with a Strong's dictionary reference or even with Vine's KJV Dictionary.

I have already explained to you why that happens. When I am compiling long posts such as my previous one, I write it offline as I am not prepared to risk wasting maybe an hours work writing such a long post online only to lose the connection and find the post to be lost. When I copy and paste it to Wordpad it loses the font and typography. You know full well it is nothing disingenuous on my part. Seeing as virtually all commentaries do the same and not slavishly copy the fonts and typography from their lexicon citations then this is clearly nothing that bothers most people. If it bothers you then you can always look it up in your own copy and if you feel it adds clarity then post it here yourself.

To be fair, I should say that my rare use of bold colored text was probably a bit overboard where I should have said something that was more appropriate such as we need to be very careful with any lexical entries that we cut-and-paste for our reference.

When I started to post lexical entries awhile back I must admit that I was probably not all that judicious with the transcription errors; what I started to do was to place a cautionary note at the top of each lexical entry that there may be some errors in the pasted text. Once I realised that this was not satisfactory I actually stopped using the BGAD which seemed to be the one Lexicon that was giving me the most problems. At this point of time I am considering if I should completely stop posting OCR entries and instead convert them to PNG non-editable images before I post.

To summarise, we all need to be very careful with how we past lexical and dictionary material and if we cannot be sure that our efforts are 100% accurate then we should stop pasting them.

I have some news for you. We are writing on an informal discussion forum, not writing seminary dissertations where every citation must be documented right down to page numbers. The reason I abbreviated my 33 citations is because there are so many scholars who affirm that 1 Cor 12:7 means 'for the common good'. Not only would it have taken an inordinate amount of time to include all that information but it would have almost doubled an already very long section of post. If you think I am going to waste a lot of time writing out full titles (when most of them will be something like "Commentary on First Corinthians") and looking up page numbers of so many citations simply to satisfy your pedantic wishes, think again. You know full well my citations are accurate and I am not being deceitful as you rudely and falsely allege (I see the anti-cessationist ad hominems are creeping back in and we all know what that means). If it bothers you I suggest you go to Google Books and enter the author together with a snippet of the text into the search box and you will quickly find the title and page number of the citation.

Here's the problem that we have, if we were to follow the lines of the average forum member who probably thinks that a Strong's Concordance and maybe Vine's Dictionary and maybe even the old Thayer's Lexicon are useful tools then your point would be justified.

But when we raise the stakes as I have been doing with how I use the various contemporary Lexicons and with copious amounts of quoted commentary then the rules have to be adjusted. In fact, if we do not provide information such as the Book title, author and page number then we are not only doing ourselves a disfavour but we also run the risk of forcing a commentator to appear to be saying something that he did not.

A good case in hand is with Leon Morris's commentary on First Corinthians (1985) which is a heavily updated revision of his earlier 1958 edition. His commentary was probably the standard text on First Corinthians during the 1960's and 70's but as with most (or maybe all) commentators his work suffers from inconsistencies which is not a criticism but merely an acknowledgment of the difficult task of publishing a commentary, not only on the Scriptures but with probably all fields of endeavor, it is probably something that cannot be avoided.

Anyway, I am thinking about doing a brief study on his superb commentary on 1Cor 12, 13 & 14 particularly as he has used the term "the common good" for 1Cor 12:7 but elsewhere he states that tongues can be used to edify the individual Believer during times of personal praise and prayer. To my knowledge Morris was neither a cessationist nor a Continuist and hopefully I will be able to call into the University library here in Melbourne that he was once President of to read his original 1958 edition so that I can see where his views had changed. This is why it is important to provide book and page numbers as it helps the serious student of Scripture to check the validity of a quotation in a broader context.

What was disingenuous about it is that you included it as an extra English translation when it is not. The translation you supplied for that entry was the Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate which you had already included elsewhere.

Unless I am mistaken, the Douay-Rheims Bible (1899) differs from the Latin Vulgate (382/1563) but I must admit that I am not aware of what the differences are. As I mentioned previously, the editors of the Roman Catholic D-R decided to follow the tradition of the earlier L-V which maintains a line of about 1500 years of Latin practice, which is something that any lexicographer would point out.

So the one's that get sacrificed are the genuine translations that support my view, and the one's that stay on your list are the one's that are essentially duplicates of previous entries and not new translations at all. How very fair of you. I notice your bias is also evident by the fact that you put ticks by versions that support your interpretation, and crosses against all those that don't.

On the contrary, I could have included the MIT Idiomatic Translation (2012) which also follows a literal understanding of symphero and where it chose not to add the unnecessary gloss of 'withal'. In fact, I was tempted to replace some of the lesser known literal versions with for a contemporary version which employed the gloss "the common good" so that I could demonstrate that the term "the common good" is essentially only a recent development. As the various editorial boards all suffer from various forms of editorial bias which includes strong doses of political correctness and expediency then it could have proven a worthwhile exercise. We only have to look at how numerous contemporary editorial boards have embarrassed themselves with the heavy doses of egalitarian (ie, feminist) language.

As I have already explained to you italics indicate extra wording the translators have inserting to add clarity. Some Greek words require more than one English word to convey it's meaning. They are being honest in pointing this out. All translations add extra wording to one degree of other. Do you think words "what is" in your esteemed Holman version of this verse are there in the Greek? Or "withal" in the KJV, or "in a special way" in the NIRV? None of those are in italics as they perhaps should be. As it is the translators intent that these words are added to clarify the meaning of sympheron in this verse then the NKJV, Disciples, ERV, etc should be on my side not yours.

For those who have a reasonable or with even only a mediocre grasp of Biblical translation, we would all be aware that the use of italics can be both a friend and a foe, where they can be used as an Aid in Translation (AIT) or a tool to shift the meaning of a given word to placate a particular market.

If you had read my post properly you would notice that I have include AMPC in your list.

. . .

No. The reason the translations have changed over the decades is due to the advancement in the scholars' knowledge in the science of translation which was primitive to say the least before the twentieth century, and the evolution of the English language. Your conspiracy theory that all the modern translations are involved in some kind of doctrinal cover up is ludicrous in the extreme. I suppose you also beleive that man never went to the Moon, and that the CIA orchestrated 9/11? Of course the cover-up theories will suddenly disappear when a modern version supports your doctinal ideas, and it then becomes a 'superlative' translation.

As I said in my previous paragraph, political correctness and even doctrinal bias regularly play a part in the development of each and every translation of the Bible. It would not be hard to find some reputable information even online that has been produced by either a translation committee or by a previous member of one of the committees. Over the years I spent a lot of time reading on these matters and of course my time with Wycliffe Bible Translators here in Australia has allowed me to hear of these things first hand. In fact, you only need to look at the all too regular complaints with how either Wycliffe or one of the Arabic translation committees have over accommodated a particular word rendition to suit the Arabic market; it seems that you have a lot of catching up to do.

It has been pointed out to you at least twice that there is nothing "Congregational" about the list in 1 Cor 12:28-30. The context is the body of Christ, the universal church (v27 and previous). Congregations are not mentioned with regard to spiritual gifts until Chapter 14. Twice I have shown you that immediate context takes priority over wider context by quoting a textbook on hermeneutics. The fact that you keep perpetuating this schoolboy error when you know it is wrong suggests to me you are being deliberately dishonest in order to promote false teaching.

As you are a confessing hardcore-cessationist then I am not surprised that the content of 1Cor 12 is a mystery to you. I can understand that as you are one of the proverbial "have-nots" that what the "haves-have" can be disconcerting for you.

 

[Biblicist]

So, this makes no sense. Now you are claiming that on the Day of Pentecost the 120 who were speaking in tongues were speaking to angels in their own languages! ROFL

You seem to be taking a few, shall I say, rather interesting pathways with our discussions. Where in the world have I suggested such a silly thing? Of anyone on this forum I would probably be the strongest advocate that when we pray in the Spirit (tongues) that they are ALWAYS directed to the Father and spoken in an inarticulate communication which Paul refers to as being a tongue of the angels (1Cor 13:1), this is pretty much standard Pentecostal theology or Theology101.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Yes, I trust that this will be the case; of course, all that anyone needs to do is to start with one of the older lexicons or dictionaries that are based on the KJV, such as with a Strong's dictionary reference or even with Vine's KJV Dictionary.
portant to provide book and page numbers as it helps the serious student of Scripture to check the validity of a quotation in a broader context.

Biblicist, in e-sword, there is no number and definition in Greek for, withal. Why is that?
Obviously it was more important for Corinth, Collosae... to receive the Holy Spirit rather than books and messages. We need the word for faith and receiving as well as the commands and wisdom, but after that the Holy Spirit is foremost, true? The Holy Spirit is part of the complete message, and the message is not surely complete, since Nero killed the apostles and had John exiled. Would you agree? If we are to understand what the word meant to them then, culturally and contextually... then form what it is to mean to us today, then surely this emphasizes that it cannot be complete?