Speaking in Tongues- did all in the NT do it?

[amadeus2]

Agreed . . .

but this wasn't the issue . . . your post:



was.

Unintelligible would be the descriptive term to deliniate the ontology of tongues . . . hence Paul saying that his mind doesn't understand. Even if God understands . . . unintelligible still accurately relates tongues . . . for that is how Paul descibes it.

Paul described it as unintelligible and so it was to the natural mind and ears of man, but not to God to whom it should be addressed in such case. When it is addressed to man, then there should be an interpretation.

 

[amadeus2]

This really has nothing to do with my point about linguistic usage . . . which is not the relation of perception of events but the usage of words . . . within which vaugeness is much less then redacting an event and determinig what are facts and what are interpolations.

Regardless . . . we see the scriptures as inspired . . . so we have the communication that God wants us to have . . . and as far as Luke as a historian goes . . . time and again he has been proven right and accurate.

You are saying, in effect, that linguistics uses the scientific method. Yes, it does, but science like history cannot alone prove or disprove the existence of God and the things of God.


"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" Isa 55:8-9

Man's logic and man's science and man's mathematics and man's linguistics cannot be used to discern God's Truth. You want to use one or all of these to disprove God's ability to create a language that He can understand which fails to meet the basic requirements for a human language. It cannot be done. Any steps of proof which you pursue in such a line will place on God the limitations God has placed on man.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Unintelligible? I would say it depends on whether there is someone listening that understands the tongue language, or whether there is someone who gives the interpretation, or finally whether we are given the interpretation as we pray in our pray language.

Paul says no one understands . . . that means NO ONE. It is all encompassing.

Hence the reason for the GIFT of interpretation . . . a gift given by the Spirit. Without which there will be NO interpretation.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Paul described it as unintelligible and so it was to the natural mind and ears of man, but not to God to whom it should be addressed in such case. When it is addressed to man, then there should be an interpretation.

Agreed.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

You are saying, in effect, that linguistics uses the scientific method. Yes, it does, but science like history cannot alone prove or disprove the existence of God and the things of God.


"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" Isa 55:8-9

Man's logic and man's science and man's mathematics and man's linguistics cannot be used to discern God's Truth. You want to use one or all of these to disprove God's ability to create a language that He can understand which fails to meet the basic requirements for a human language. It cannot be done. Any steps of proof which you pursue in such a line will place on God the limitations God has placed on man.

God has chosen to reveal Himself through Christ and through man (through the Scriptures) as such He has chosen His mode of revelation.

He has communicated using human words in the Scriptures . . . as such Greek is a fairly precise language. In the case of Acts 2 the Greek is VERY clear as to what happened . . . this is not the case of one using a "man-made" device to interpret the supernatural revelation of God. It IS a case of using the mode of communication that GOD Himself has chosen to use in communication.

Better?

 

[amadeus2]

God has chosen to reveal Himself through Christ and through man (through the Scriptures) as such He has chosen His mode of revelation.

He has communicated using human words in the Scriptures . . . as such Greek is a fairly precise language. In the case of Acts 2 the Greek is VERY clear as to what happened . . . this is not the case of one using a "man-made" device to interpret the supernatural revelation of God. It IS a case of using the mode of communication that GOD Himself has chosen to use in communication.

Better?

I suppose that you believe the written Bible is the Word of God to each of us. I believe that the Word of God is that which He spoke and that which He writes on men's hearts.

Yes, He inspired men to write the book, but without a similar inspiration or leading of His Spirit, we still will not understand what He is saying. The written Bible itself, in any language, version, translation, copy etc. might even be considered an 'unknown tongue' in the sense that not just any reader will understand what God intended.

If we are hearing the Bible preached or taught we must have been given 'ears to hear' by God.

If we are reading or studying the book, we must have been given 'eyes to see' by God.

Without those, it will all be received as an indecipherable parable or an unknown tongue.

We do not need to understand the original Greek to understand the Bible, we need to be taught by the Holy Ghost.

 

[solo56]

Every new believer in the New Testament did receive the baptism of the Holy spirit and they all did speak in tongues...every instance recorded.

Acts 8: 14-17
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Here is one example of the people of Samaria receiving the holy ghost and none spoke in tongues. If they did, the scripture doesn't mention it.
[/FONT]

 

[RefrusRevlis]

Originally Posted by John 10:10
Actually tongues are,

"we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." (Acts 2:11),

and,

"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" (1 Cor 14:2).

Let's be guided by the truth of Scripture, instead of our own opinions.

The Acts quote shows the languages were human languages, but unlearned by the one speaking.

In 1 Corinthians 14:2 the verse talks about one person speaking an unknown language - people cannot understand him, because it is an unknown (to the person speaking and the people present) language. There is no concept of ecstatic speech, it is read into the text.

The scriptures do not teach that a person does not understand what they are saying. 1 Corinthians 14:14 is often used to show that the speaker does not know the meaning of what they are saying

 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unproductivehttp://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn1 (NRSV)

The question is "unproductive for whom?" -The answer is for the listener. I might have thoughts I want to convey to someone who does not speak English, but my thoughts they would not understand, because of the language barrier.
http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftnref1
Verse 16 show the context for verse 14. The understanding is on the part of the one hearing, not the speaker.

16 Otherwise, if you say a blessing with the spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since the outsider does not know what you are saying?
Refrushttp://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=35551135#_ftn1
http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=35551135#_ftnref1

 

[Floatingaxe]

Acts 8: 14-17
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Here is one example of the people of Samaria receiving the holy ghost and none spoke in tongues. If they did, the scripture doesn't mention it.[/FONT]

Sure it doesn't mention it, but it is understood. Everyone else receved tongues where it is recorded.

 

[Floatingaxe]

The Acts quote shows the languages were human languages, but unlearned by the one speaking.

In 1 Corinthians 14:2 the verse talks about one person speaking an unknown language - people cannot understand him, because it is an unknown (to the person speaking and the people present) language. There is no concept of ecstatic speech, it is read into the text.

The scriptures do not teach that a person does not understand what they are saying. 1 Corinthians 14:14 is often used to show that the speaker does not know the meaning of what they are saying

 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unproductive (NRSV)

The question is "unproductive for whom?" -The answer is for the listener. I might have thoughts I want to convey to someone who does not speak English, but my thoughts they would not understand, because of the language barrier.

Verse 16 show the context for verse 14. The understanding is on the part of the one hearing, not the speaker.

16 Otherwise, if you say a blessing with the spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since the outsider does not know what you are saying?
Refrus

Where the scriptures say that the mind is unfruitful when speaking tongues, it means that the mind is not engaged. Tongues bypasses the thoughts, speaking the mind of Christ. In prayer language, that is why we speak to God alone. Others wouldn't understand it either, and it isn't appropriate to speak out in prayer mode.

When exhortative tongues for the congregation comes upon a person, that also doesn't engage the mind UNLESS that person also is given the added gift of interpretation for all to understand what is being prophesied. Otherwise another comes forward to interpret.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

The Acts quote shows the languages were human languages, but unlearned by the one speaking.

In 1 Corinthians 14:2 the verse talks about one person speaking an unknown language - people cannot understand him, because it is an unknown (to the person speaking and the people present) language. There is no concept of ecstatic speech, it is read into the text.

The scriptures do not teach that a person does not understand what they are saying. 1 Corinthians 14:14 is often used to show that the speaker does not know the meaning of what they are saying

 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unproductivehttp://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn1 (NRSV)

The question is "unproductive for whom?" -The answer is for the listener. I might have thoughts I want to convey to someone who does not speak English, but my thoughts they would not understand, because of the language barrier.
http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftnref1
Verse 16 show the context for verse 14. The understanding is on the part of the one hearing, not the speaker.

16 Otherwise, if you say a blessing with the spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since the outsider does not know what you are saying?
Refrushttp://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=35551135#_ftn1
http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=35551135#_ftnref1

Sorry brother . . . it says MY mind (not if I pray other's minds are unproductive). The speaker has no idea what is being said . . . otherwise whay should he pray for an interpretation if he already knows? Plus . . . as already mentioned . . . Paul says NO ONE understands . . . this includes the speaker.

In Acts 2 . . . what was heard was not the same as what was spoken . . . glossa verses dialektos.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Acts 8: 14-17
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Here is one example of the people of Samaria receiving the holy ghost and none spoke in tongues. If they did, the scripture doesn't mention it.
[/FONT]

Yes indeed . . . yet most scholars agree that they spoke in tongues due to some manifestation causing Simon to want to purchase the ability to baptize one in the Spirit. Linguistically and contextually tongues makes the most sense.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I suppose that you believe the written Bible is the Word of God to each of us. I believe that the Word of God is that which He spoke and that which He writes on men's hearts.

Yes, He inspired men to write the book, but without a similar inspiration or leading of His Spirit, we still will not understand what He is saying. The written Bible itself, in any language, version, translation, copy etc. might even be considered an 'unknown tongue' in the sense that not just any reader will understand what God intended.

If we are hearing the Bible preached or taught we must have been given 'ears to hear' by God.

If we are reading or studying the book, we must have been given 'eyes to see' by God.

Without those, it will all be received as an indecipherable parable or an unknown tongue.

We do not need to understand the original Greek to understand the Bible, we need to be taught by the Holy Ghost.

I believe that the Scriptures are a FORM of the word of God . . . and I believe that they are the most trustworthy form.

I also believe that a prophetic announcement is a word from God . . . although not to the same standard (I can explain if you so desire).

But this still doesn't change the facts about the Greek . . . true that the Spirit who penned the words is indespensible in the process of faith and understanding the Scriptures . . . but the way that He moves in enlightenment is varied. For one, a simple perusal of the text is all that one needs and the Spirit has accomplished His will . . . but for another the will of the Spirit drives him/her deeper into the text and as close to the original conveyance as possible (like me) due to the standard that God has called one to.

 

[ThomasAugustus]

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Huh? How about some interaction?

 

[RefrusRevlis]

Sorry brother . . . it says MY mind (not if I pray other's minds are unproductive). The speaker has no idea what is being said

One reason my mind could be unproductive is because it does not assist anyone else. The tongue (unless interpreted) is not understood - in the context of the worship service. If I am the one speaking the tongue it is me who is being unproductive, not the audience.

Anyhow, a person who does not know the language they are speaking in fits the idea of 14:14. If I suddenly started to speak in Mongolian, my mind would be unproductive - I would not understand the words I was saying, nor would those around me.


It does not prove a "prayer language".

. . . otherwise whay should he pray for an interpretation if he already knows?

The interpretation was for the benefit of the others present. The person speaking without the aid of the interpreter was not edifying the church - the message was not getting through. A person with the dual gift of tongues and interpretation was more useful to the church. He could interpret other tongue speakers.

In Acts 2 . . . what was heard was not the same as what was spoken . . . glossa verses dialektos.

This is because in Acts 2, the gift of tongues was being used for its intended purpose - to communicate in a different dialect/language. The speaker spoke a glossa (he didn't know the language), but the recipient heard his/her dialektos. I don't get your point here.

Refrus

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

One reason my mind could be unproductive is because it does not assist anyone else. The tongue (unless interpreted) is not understood - in the context of the worship service. If I am the one speaking the tongue it is me who is being unproductive, not the audience.

Anyhow, a person who does not know the language they are speaking in fits the idea of 14:14. If I suddenly started to speak in Mongolian, my mind would be unproductive - I would not understand the words I was saying, nor would those around me.


It does not prove a "prayer language".



The interpretation was for the benefit of the others present. The person speaking without the aid of the interpreter was not edifying the church - the message was not getting through. A person with the dual gift of tongues and interpretation was more useful to the church. He could interpret other tongue speakers.





This is because in Acts 2, the gift of tongues was being used for its intended purpose - to communicate in a different dialect/language. The speaker spoke a glossa (he didn't know the language), but the recipient heard his/her dialektos. I don't get your point here.

Refrus

You had said this:

The scriptures do not teach that a person does not understand what they are saying

When actually they do.

As for Acts 2 and glossa verses dialektos . . . the point is that it can be proven that they spoke ecstatic tongues while the hearers heard in their own dialects. We can look at this if you would like.

 

[amadeus2]

I believe that the Scriptures are a FORM of the word of God . . . and I believe that they are the most trustworthy form.

I also believe that a prophetic announcement is a word from God . . . although not to the same standard (I can explain if you so desire).

But this still doesn't change the facts about the Greek . . . true that the Spirit who penned the words is indespensible in the process of faith and understanding the Scriptures . . . but the way that He moves in enlightenment is varied. For one, a simple perusal of the text is all that one needs and the Spirit has accomplished His will . . . but for another the will of the Spirit drives him/her deeper into the text and as close to the original conveyance as possible (like me) due to the standard that God has called one to.

The written scripture is certainly a guide and very 'trustworthy', and perhaps also as you say a 'form of the Word of God' but with the scriptures and man's apparently flawed discernments we have today literally thousands of 'Christian' churches, assemblies, groups, etc. Is it the 'most trustworthy form'? If that is the case then what did sincere believers do after John Beloved was gone but before the New Testament was written and distributed?

I have idea of what you mean, but would appreciate your explanation of your declaration: 'I also believe that a prophetic announcement is a word from God'.

Many of the initiating leaders of many existing Christian denominations today probably started as Martin Luther did, not wanting to start a new church, but rather to bring the current one closer to God. Unfortunately, not all of Luther's followers and not all of the followers of other sincere leaders of church groups had the same purpose as the leaders themselves. The difficulty with even a group established on a correct premise is that people like to find a nice comfortable place to sit with all of the answers already in place and carefully organized so they have immediate access.

This type of careful organization may work well for most business groups, but not with God's people. We can never sit comfortably back with a box of index cards with all of the answers or even a computer file with all of the answers. All of the answers are in His Word, Yes even in His written Word for us. But..there is not index that has all of the answers we will ever need. The search MUST continue until...until we have reached the end of our course. No vacations and no retirement from God.

For you the answer, or at least an answer, to finding the most Truth from the Bible is in understanding the original Greek. I won't disagree that this could be helpful and for you may be the best and even the necessary way. This is, however, not within the means or ability of every person seeking God. The Truth is not limited only to those persons with means to get into the Greek texts. It is rather to 'whosoever will'.

As to always getting something from the perusal of the written scripture, I would not be so definite even about that.

Yes, I agree that reading and studying the written Bible is very important and I strive to do just that every day. Yet, I have known at least one self-proclaimed atheist who knew more scripture than many self-proclaimed Christians and was able to support his position very logically using the Bible. A person can use the scripture to proof almost anything that he chooses, even that God does not exist.

[Of course, a servant of God who is seeking the Truth continually will have no trouble from such an educated atheist, but how diligent are many Christians in their pursuit of Truth?]

The key for me is in the need to bring the Bible to Life with God's help. You have apparently found a way to do that through your study of Greek, and that is fine for you. I would never presume to say that God would not use that. But neither would I presume to say that without Greek a person is limited.

The most important thing I see is to start at the bottom every time I start to talk to God or to study His Word or to do anything with regard to God. If I head for the pulpit instead of the altar at each approach to Him, I will probably get into more trouble than I am able to handle.

"When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Luke 14:8-11

Actually, I find very little on which we really disagree.

Give God all of the glory always!

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

The written scripture is certainly a guide and very 'trustworthy', and perhaps also as you say a 'form of the Word of God' but with the scriptures and man's apparently flawed discernments we have today literally thousands of 'Christian' churches, assemblies, groups, etc. Is it the 'most trustworthy form'? If that is the case then what did sincere believers do after John Beloved was gone but before the New Testament was written and distributed?

I have idea of what you mean, but would appreciate your explanation of your declaration: 'I also believe that a prophetic announcement is a word from God'.

Many of the initiating leaders of many existing Christian denominations today probably started as Martin Luther did, not wanting to start a new church, but rather to bring the current one closer to God. Unfortunately, not all of Luther's followers and not all of the followers of other sincere leaders of church groups had the same purpose as the leaders themselves. The difficulty with even a group established on a correct premise is that people like to find a nice comfortable place to sit with all of the answers already in place and carefully organized so they have immediate access.

This type of careful organization may work well for most business groups, but not with God's people. We can never sit comfortably back with a box of index cards with all of the answers or even a computer file with all of the answers. All of the answers are in His Word, Yes even in His written Word for us. But..there is not index that has all of the answers we will ever need. The search MUST continue until...until we have reached the end of our course. No vacations and no retirement from God.

For you the answer, or at least an answer, to finding the most Truth from the Bible is in understanding the original Greek. I won't disagree that this could be helpful and for you may be the best and even the necessary way. This is, however, not within the means or ability of every person seeking God. The Truth is not limited only to those persons with means to get into the Greek texts. It is rather to 'whosoever will'.

As to always getting something from the perusal of the written scripture, I would not be so definite even about that.

Yes, I agree that reading and studying the written Bible is very important and I strive to do just that every day. Yet, I have known at least one self-proclaimed atheist who knew more scripture than many self-proclaimed Christians and was able to support his position very logically using the Bible. A person can use the scripture to proof almost anything that he chooses, even that God does not exist.

[Of course, a servant of God who is seeking the Truth continually will have no trouble from such an educated atheist, but how diligent are many Christians in their pursuit of Truth?]

The key for me is in the need to bring the Bible to Life with God's help. You have apparently found a way to do that through your study of Greek, and that is fine for you. I would never presume to say that God would not use that. But neither would I presume to say that without Greek a person is limited.

The most important thing I see is to start at the bottom every time I start to talk to God or to study His Word or to do anything with regard to God. If I head for the pulpit instead of the altar at each approach to Him, I will probably get into more trouble than I am able to handle.

"When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Luke 14:8-11

Actually, I find very little on which we really disagree.

Give God all of the glory always!

Truly

I find very little on which we really disagree

My statement about the perusal of the text presumes faith (my application was for the believer) . . . so the same is not true for an atheist . . . one does not always just read the Scriptures and suddenly come to faith.

As for the canonization of the NT and the 300 approx. years inbetween . . . there is ample evidence that what we have as the NT today was more or less the already in circulation around 100 AD . . . assuming John wrote Rev. around 90 AD . . . the case for a faltering church without the NT becomes weak. What happened at the ratification of the NT was an affirmation of what the Church was already using . . . in lieu of many psuedopigrapha that were popping up (like what the Da Vinci Code is based off of).

As for the prophetic announcement . . . I am Charismatic/Pentecostal/Reformed (weird huh?) . . . as such I believe that the gift of prophecy is still active . . . as such . . . a true prophetic announcement from God . . . is God's word. One cannot logically subject one "word" of God to another if they are both truly from God.

The difference between the Scriptures and the prophetic is one of fallibility.

The orthodox understanding of the Scriptures is that they are the ONLY
1. Inspired
2. Infallible
3. Authoritative
Word of God . . . Scripture alone holds this triune position . . .
however, a prophetic word only holds 2 of the 3. If it is a true word from the Lord . . . it is inspired . . . and authoritative . . . but not infallible. This is the picture of prophecy that Paul presents . . . for prophecy, tongues, words of wisdom and knowledge etc. are to be JUDGED. This implies the humanistic element to the prophetic in the NT . . . so while it may not be fallacy (IOW in error) it maintains the potential to be fallible.

Scripture serves as the "cornerstone" if you will . . . it contains the most accurate account of Christ, who is the perfect revelation of God. As such, any subsequent revelation of prophetic nature will conform to what God has already revealed . . . for He will not contradict Himself (hence Paul saying that any prophetic announcement that calls Christ accursed is false).

does this make sense?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

The written scripture is certainly a guide and very 'trustworthy', and perhaps also as you say a 'form of the Word of God' but with the scriptures and man's apparently flawed discernments we have today literally thousands of 'Christian' churches, assemblies, groups, etc. Is it the 'most trustworthy form'? If that is the case then what did sincere believers do after John Beloved was gone but before the New Testament was written and distributed?

I have idea of what you mean, but would appreciate your explanation of your declaration: 'I also believe that a prophetic announcement is a word from God'.

Many of the initiating leaders of many existing Christian denominations today probably started as Martin Luther did, not wanting to start a new church, but rather to bring the current one closer to God. Unfortunately, not all of Luther's followers and not all of the followers of other sincere leaders of church groups had the same purpose as the leaders themselves. The difficulty with even a group established on a correct premise is that people like to find a nice comfortable place to sit with all of the answers already in place and carefully organized so they have immediate access.

This type of careful organization may work well for most business groups, but not with God's people. We can never sit comfortably back with a box of index cards with all of the answers or even a computer file with all of the answers. All of the answers are in His Word, Yes even in His written Word for us. But..there is not index that has all of the answers we will ever need. The search MUST continue until...until we have reached the end of our course. No vacations and no retirement from God.

For you the answer, or at least an answer, to finding the most Truth from the Bible is in understanding the original Greek. I won't disagree that this could be helpful and for you may be the best and even the necessary way. This is, however, not within the means or ability of every person seeking God. The Truth is not limited only to those persons with means to get into the Greek texts. It is rather to 'whosoever will'.

As to always getting something from the perusal of the written scripture, I would not be so definite even about that.

Yes, I agree that reading and studying the written Bible is very important and I strive to do just that every day. Yet, I have known at least one self-proclaimed atheist who knew more scripture than many self-proclaimed Christians and was able to support his position very logically using the Bible. A person can use the scripture to proof almost anything that he chooses, even that God does not exist.

[Of course, a servant of God who is seeking the Truth continually will have no trouble from such an educated atheist, but how diligent are many Christians in their pursuit of Truth?]

The key for me is in the need to bring the Bible to Life with God's help. You have apparently found a way to do that through your study of Greek, and that is fine for you. I would never presume to say that God would not use that. But neither would I presume to say that without Greek a person is limited.

The most important thing I see is to start at the bottom every time I start to talk to God or to study His Word or to do anything with regard to God. If I head for the pulpit instead of the altar at each approach to Him, I will probably get into more trouble than I am able to handle.

"When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Luke 14:8-11

Actually, I find very little on which we really disagree.

Give God all of the glory always!

I would also add that, true that one not need know Greek . . . but one also should not preclude the ministry of the teacher in the Body . . . hence teachers incurring a stricter judgement.

This means that God will call some to different places of exploration of the depths of what He desires to teach . . . here is where one gets into the Greek. One may only ever know the love of God through the cross of Christ . . . and die and enjoy union with their God for all eternity and never know the meaning of the term glossa . . . but seeing that men love to digress from the simplicity of faith . . . and seeing that we have a very real enemy who LOVES to bring discord and even death . . . there is a place for equipping the saints . . . and it is the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors teachers who are to equip the Body.

God has led me where He has for His purpose . . . being a minister and teacher . . . God has called me to be absolutely clear on what I believe . . . for this is what teachers build into others. And flux and fluidity are not charitible traits for faith (generally).

Yet I must also be humble in orthodoxy . . . I don't know it all . . . and if one appears who has delved deeper than I (and this would be obvious) . . . then I am to take the role of humble learning . . . not that I would land the same place that they have . . . but that I need to learn to appreciate the journey that they have traveled.