Daniel Marsh
Well-Known Member
- Jun 28, 2015
- 9,750
- 2,615
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I did a little editing to shorten each part...
Hi Swordsman, besides reading the Bible in context, what other academic books gives one insight to this topic?
BINGO
I was not aware of laleo. IS there an author who points that out?
That is a fantastic point!!!!!!!!!!!! IS there an author who points that out?
I could not have said that better.
Who are those authors and their books? Concerning speaking gibberish, Jesus warns us to avoid it. "vain repetitions"
IS there an author who points that out? Does he print out the interlinear for those texts?
one always should outline a text via good grammar. Someone who wrote a book on Methodological Interpretation once spoke in a church I attended when I was in the USAF. He was Free Methodist and his books are hard to find now days.
Exactly, a phrase or word always gets its meaning from context. The JW's often do the word study fallacy the OPer did to deny who Jesus was. Example, John 17 "one in purpose" is read into John 10:30 "we are one" to deny that they are one in nature.
I still want to know whom, or where the primary source for that Rabbi is since online there is only one passing reference to it. And, it does not appear in any academic sources online that I could find.
The Testament of Job addition came from a cultic source as the links I gave in a post in this thread showed.
A main problem I have always noticed is a me-ism and lack of serving others.
There are a few outstanding exceptions. But, me-ism tends to rule like at Corinth.
The OP quote of the Romans 8:26 is just another example of a word study fallacy, mainly reading into the text.
again, just outline the grammar applies.
********
Gifts that serve the whole church are greater than those that are used for me-ism.
I'm afraid your post is full of errors.....
Hi Swordsman, besides reading the Bible in context, what other academic books gives one insight to this topic?
Acts 2 is the only description of the gift of tongues we have in scripture. It is clearly foreign human languages....are interpreted in the light of clearer ones (Acts 2).
BINGO
Luke uses the exact same terminology to describe the gift of tongues (glossa and laleo) as Paul does in 1 Corinthians. Luke was a close companion of Paul's and wrote Acts under the apostle's authority. I...
I was not aware of laleo. IS there an author who points that out?
...
The tongues the gentiles experienced at Cornelius' house was exactly the same as Pentecost. Peter says so in his report to the Jerusalem council in Acts 11:15,17:
“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning....So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”
It was because the Gentiles' manifestation of the Spirit was exactly the same as the disciples at Pentecost that the gentiles were accepted into the Church. If it was anything different the hated Gentiles would never have been accepted.
That is a fantastic point!!!!!!!!!!!! IS there an author who points that out?
Paul doesn't say tongues is a non-human language.
The point Paul stresses in his analogy is the failure of the sound to communicate, not on it being indistinct:
1 Cor 14:8 "if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?"
I could not have said that better.
The word glossa in scripture or any other ancient Greek literature is never used to describe gibberish. It has been shown in research by Christopher Forbes (and others) that the Pythia never spoke in gibberish but rather in mysterious sayings.
Who are those authors and their books? Concerning speaking gibberish, Jesus warns us to avoid it. "vain repetitions"
In the the NT and LXX the word glossa is clearly associated with foreign human language. Acts 2:4-11, 1 Cor 14:21, Rev 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15; Genesis 10:5, 20, 31; Deut 28:49; Neh 13:24; Esther 1:22; 3:12; 8:9; Job 15:5; Prov 17:20; Isa 3:8; Isaiah 28:11, 33:19, 66:18; Jer 5:15; Ezek 3:5,6; Dan 1:4; Zech 8:23;
IS there an author who points that out? Does he print out the interlinear for those texts?
That's right. Here is the full passage. It consists of 5 parallel 'IF' statements where Paul imagines 5 extreme hypothetical examples of a gift to emphasize the worthlessness of having spiritual gifts without love:
Even if someone had the gift of tongues to such a degree that they spoke in the language of angels, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them.If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge;
and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor,
and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
Even if someone had the gift of prophecy to such a degree that they knew ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie they were omniscient), but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them.
Even if someone had the gift of faith to such a degree that they could remove mountains, but didn't have love, it would be a worthless to them.
Even if someone had the gift of giving to such a degree that they gave ALL their possessions to the poor, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them.
Even if someone had the gift of giving to such a degree that they gave their own life, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them.
Paul is imagining having the highest conceivable degree of each gift, and saying even they would be worthless without love. None of these extreme hypothetical examples represent the normal operations of those gifts, including speaking with the tongues of angels.
one always should outline a text via good grammar. Someone who wrote a book on Methodological Interpretation once spoke in a church I attended when I was in the USAF. He was Free Methodist and his books are hard to find now days.
The word 'pneumatōn' (πνευμάτων) in 1 Cor 14:12 literally means 'spirituals'. ie spiritual somethings. The somethings are determined by the context. Eg It could be spiritual people, spiritual beings, spiritual words etc. But here the context of the verse is spiritual gifts. Which is what every single bible translation has translated it as. There is not a single version that has translated it as "since you are zealous for spirits", let alone "since you are zealous for angels":
1 Corinthians 14:12 - Bible Gateway
Exactly, a phrase or word always gets its meaning from context. The JW's often do the word study fallacy the OPer did to deny who Jesus was. Example, John 17 "one in purpose" is read into John 10:30 "we are one" to deny that they are one in nature.
Both of those books are apocryphal fairy tales. It would be no more plausible for a reader of the Testament of Job to believe they can speak in the language of angels than it would for someone today to believe they can fly after watching 'Superman Returns'.
Even if some of it's readers were gullible enough to believe that someone really did speak in the language of angels, that doesn't mean Paul beleived that is what was happening in Corinth.
Moving mountains, becoming omniscient, giving away all your possessions, giving up your own life are not the normal expected operations of those gifts. Neither is speaking in the language of angels.
I still want to know whom, or where the primary source for that Rabbi is since online there is only one passing reference to it. And, it does not appear in any academic sources online that I could find.
The Testament of Job addition came from a cultic source as the links I gave in a post in this thread showed.
'Kinds' (genos) in 1 Cor 12:10 means different kinds within the same family. It is the same word used in 1 Cor 14:10 "There are, perhaps, a great many KINDS of languages in the world"
Paul never mentions speaking in tongues in private. Speaking in tongues in private would be a misuse of a spiritual gift which are only for the purpose of ministering to others:
1 Peter 4:10 "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others"
1 Cor 12:7 "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good."
The point Paul is making in this verse is that the Corinthians were ONLY edifying themselves, when they should have been edifying the church. The 'but' immediately after indicates a deficiency. It is a rebuke, not an exhortation.
1 Cor 14:28 "But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God."
There is no mention of speaking tongues 'at home' in that verse. You are reading something into the verse that isn't there. The context remains 'in the church' throughout. In the church the speaker is to keep quiet and speak to himself and to God (silently) ie. just mouthing the words or at most whispering.
Outside the church Paul would not speak in tongues in private as that would be a misuse of a spiritual gift. He would have spoken in tongues in the marketplaces and streets during his missionary endeavors as a confirming miraculous sign that God was with him. Just as the disciples did at Pentecost.
A main problem I have always noticed is a me-ism and lack of serving others.
There are a few outstanding exceptions. But, me-ism tends to rule like at Corinth.
Romans 8:26 is nothing to do with tongues. No mention is made of tongues in Romans, and it would be completely out of place in this context, which is believers suffering under the weight of a sinful world. It is the Spirit who “groans” in intercession, not believers. Tongues however were words of praise, not groans of suffering. The disciples were not 'groaning' at Pentecost. Also the groans are ‘wordless’ ie. inaudible, inexpressible (ἀλάλητος) - and cannot be translated. And Romans 8:26 applies to all believers, whereas not everyone had the gift of tongues (1 Cor 12:30, Rom 12:4-6).
The OP quote of the Romans 8:26 is just another example of a word study fallacy, mainly reading into the text.
Not everyone had the gift of tongues.
1 Cor 12:29-30 "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?"
The expected answer to each question is "No". The context here is the body of Christ, the universal church (1 Cor 12:27). Not everyone in the body of Christ has the same gift. This point is made over and over again by Paul:
Romans 12:4-6 "For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us."
1 Corinthians 12:8-10 "To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues."
1 Corinthians 12:17 "If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?"
again, just outline the grammar applies.
The admonition to desire the greater gifts was addressed to the Corinthian church as a whole, not to the individual believer. Immediately before this verse Paul lists the gifts in order of importance - "first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues." The greater gifts are those listed at the head of the list (prophecy, teaching), not tongues which is at the bottom.
********
No. Read 14:5 again. It doesn't say that translated tongues equal to prophecy. It says the persons exhibiting those gifts are equal:
The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.
Gifts that serve the whole church are greater than those that are used for me-ism.
Upvote
0