HE was giving you a reason NOT TO BABBLE like the Pagans, that was an ongoing problem in the Church of Corinth because SO MANY used to be pagans.
Your assertions here do not fit the argument Paul makes in I Corinthians 14. How do you get that out of this passage?
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Let's break it down:
2
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5
I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Paul says that he who speaks in tongues speaks mysteries with his spirit and that no man understands him. He says he edifies himself. Then he says that wanted them all to speak in tongues.
How is this calling speaking in tongues pagan babbling? Why would Paul wish the Corinthians would speak in tongues if it were pagan babbling. That makes no sense at all. Why would Paul later argue for the importance of speaking in tongues (mentioned briefly in verse 5, above) if what they were doing was speaking in pagan babblings?
Notice the arguments
he that speaks in tongues edifies himself----------> I would that ye all spake with tongues
he who prophesies edifies the church -----------> but rather that ye prophesied.
Speaking in tongues and edifying yourself is desirable. Prophesying and edifying the church is better.
Edification is not a bad thing in these verses. Speaking in tongues is not a bad thing. It is not a pagan thing. Paul introduces 'divers tongues' as a manifestation of the Spirit in chapter 12. There is no reference to pagan tongues in the epistle.
Paul throughout the first letter to the Corinithians is CORRECTING KNOWN PROBLEMS in the Church.
True, but that does not mean we should ignore what he is saying or ignore the doctrine that he is teaching.
1 Corinthians 12:2-3 (NIV)
[SUP]2 [/SUP] You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. {Babbling Tongues were common place in the Pagan Worship Centers, especially in the Worship of Apollo. There were THREE worship centers of Appollo within a couple blocks of where I think the Church at Corinth was located.
Show some evidence to prove that fact that babbling was a common thing among Apollo worshippers, particularly among the 'laity.' You wrote way back when that the priests of Apollo would tell people to "say 'batta batta'." I asked you for a source. I do not think you ever gave me one. This sounds like guesswork, if not from you, from whoever you got the idea from. Is there an ancient text that testifies to this?
Some commentators on the topic might assert that the oracle of Delphi spoke in gibberish. Do you have any quotes from the commentators, and what is their source? Hundreds of years before, Heroditus said she spoke in hexameter, a complicated poetic form. Plutarch was a priest of Apollo in the first century who said she may also speak in prose as well. It is clear he is talking about intelligible speech. Where is the evidence for babbling in the Apollo religion in the first place?
And if you have evidence, where is the evidence of it happening in the Corinthian church? Paul hints at no such thing. No statement of Paul, at all, that mentions speaking in tongues could reasonably be interpreted to refer to pagan tongues. Just go verse by verse. None of them fit.
I believe your theory comes from the liberal modernist types in the 1800's who didn't believe in miracles and did not really believe the Bible. They tried to explain miracles in terms of naturalistic phenomenon and treat Old and New Testament practices as variants of the religious practices among pagans. So speaking in tongues gets explained away as the same sort of thing the pagans were doing, as opposed to something supernatural. A few modern evangelicals, looking for arguments against speaking in tongues, repeat their arguments and now we have people who are otherwise evangelical repeating these liberal ideas on forums. Where is your evidence from scripture for pagan tongues in the actual church meetings in Corinth?
[SUP]3 [/SUP] Therefore {Remember what the THEREFORE is THERE FOR.} I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
Before he said 'no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God....' he referred to their pagan past. After 'no one can say, "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit' he tells them about manifestations of the Spirit. 'Divers tongues' is identified as a manifestation of the Spirit. This is clarified in the text. Now show me the passage which talks about the fake pagan tongues, because the speaking in tongues in this passage is a manifestation of the Spirit.
1 Corinthians 14:3-4 (NIV)
[SUP]3 [/SUP] But everyone who prophesies {means to proclaim the word of GOD to others without error, which was EXTREMELY important when in that age, almost NO ONE could afford a PERSONAL copy of the Word of GOD.} speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort.
The lack of copies of the complete canon does not define the meaning of the word 'prophesy.' Peter described Old Testament prophesying as holy men of old 'spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost' or it might be translated 'carried along by the Holy Ghost.' The say word for 'prophesying' is used to refer to what New Testament saints were doing when they prophesied.
Prophesying is revelatory in nature, which we know because Paul writes, 'if a revelation cometh to one sitting by'. His hypothetical example about prophesying is about all prophesying the secrets of a man's heart.
[SUP]4 [/SUP] One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.
ONCE AGAIN PAUL IS GIVING YOU A REASON NOT TO USE BABBLING TONGUES like the PAGANS.
WHY? BECAUSE HE ALREADY FORBADE EDIFYING SELF:
No he doesn't. You try to squeeze that out of a verse about not seeking your own. Paul isn't saying we can't eat. Eating edifies (builds us up) physically. Edification is a good thing in I Corinthians 14. Paul says that he who speaks in tongues edifies himself, and concludes "I would that ye all spake with tongues. He says that he who prophesies edifies the church and concludes 'but rather that ye prophesied.'
Edifying oneself is good. Edifying the church is better.
1 Corinthians 10:23-24 (NASB)
[SUP]23 [/SUP] All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.
[SUP]24 [/SUP] Let no one seek his own . . ., but that of his neighbor.
You are assuming selfish motives on the part of those who pray in tongues. The Corinthians might have been giving thanks in tongues because they wanted to give thanks well: 'for thou verily giveth thanks well.' Paul does not attribute their misuse of speaking in tongues to selfish motives, but implies it is due to a childish understanding. They either did not know and understand, or had not thought through the issues Paul raised in I Corinthians 14.
Is reading the Bible alone beneficial for you personally? Does it edify you? If so, is it forbidden? Let's not just try to use verses as a polemic against speaking in tongues. Let's consider how our interpretations actually should be applied to our own lives.
