Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
The word of God edifies. Man is corrupt and cannot edify himself as you suppose.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Speaking in Tongues (Privately, Outside of Church)
- Thread starter BenFTW
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The word of God edifies. Man is corrupt and cannot edify himself as you suppose.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Are these scripture in your Bible?
1 Cor 14:
4) He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
Jude:
20) But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
You have once again misinterpreted what is being said here.
1 Cor 14:4 in context does not say that the speaker does not know the tongue. The hearer does not understand and therefore is not edified. The speaker knows what they are saying quite probably scripture in their language and are thereby edified.
Jude 20 you imply that praying in the Holy Spirit is praying in a tongue, I suppose, but that is not what is in the text.
Believers pray in their known tongue in the Holy Spirit and are built up in the faith going from faith to more faith. The fervent effectual prayer of the righteous availeth much. James 5:16
For the cause of Christ
Roger
In chapter, God's gift of tongues edifies as long as it comes with interpretation.
In verse 2 coming from verse 1, Paul is explaining why the gift of prophesy is better than tongues, because tongues is not a stand alone gift as explained thru out that chapter as needing to come with interpretation for that tongue to be understood and fruitful to the tongue speaker.
So is Paul lying in that chapter when you apply verse to mean in that way? Then you have to take everything Paul said about that tongue in why it is not a stand alone gift.
And Paul explained that precedent in the 12th chapter so that you are wrong to read Paul's words out of context of the message of that chapter for why when zealous for spiritual gifts, to seek the gift of prophesy, even over tongues, because tongues is not nor can it ever be a stand alone gift.
This is a sure fire way to know whether or not you have the real God's gift of tongues or that other supernatural tongue that is found in the world before Pentecost which is nothing more than babbling nonsense for why it can never come with interpretation.
Yes 1 Cor 14:4 in context does say the speaker does not know what he/she is saying. Keep reading through 1 Cor 14:14 – For if I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don't understand what I am saying – NLT.
The word akarpos is an adjective, in the nominative case, gender is masculine, number is singular (not plural).
The singular masculine relates back to my understanding. The understanding of the person speaking in tongues is unfruitful.
Yes, that’s correct.
Again, from the New Living Translation: For if I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don't understand what I am saying
If, as you keep insisting, akarpos referred to others (plural) present, the number would be plural (not singular).
No, because it refers back to the noun ‘nous’, so it must have grammatical concordance.
The argument is whether ‘akarpos’ is used in the active or passive sense – doesn’t have anything to do with being singular or plural.
In the example above form the NLT version, it’s being translated in the passive sense.
Where does a person's mind bear fruit or produce understanding? The charismatic response is, 'In the person's own mind.' The text however identifies the fruit of a person's mind as being the understanding that occurs in the mind of others, not their own! The usage is active, not passive.
As Renton Maclachlan comments in his book Tongues Revisited – A Third Way:
“In v14 Paul equates 'my spirit prays' with 'my mind is unfruitful'. The terms are effectively addressing the same thing. In v15 he says that to have his 'mind unfruitful' is unacceptable and then addresses what he prefers. He wants to pray or sing 'with his spirit' as well as 'with his mind'. The context requires that praying or singing 'with his mind' is understood to mean praying or singing 'with his mind bearing fruit or being fruitful'. He omits words such as those I've added because the idea has already been defined negatively in v14.
In v16 Paul speaks of someone praising God 'with their spirit' and indicates that when they do this, some people do not understand and so cannot say 'Amen' to their comments. The text clearly says some hearers do not know what the speaker is saying. Praying or singing 'with their spirit' therefore means praying or singing that at least some others do not understand. Since it is a contrast that Paul is addressing, and since speaking, praying, singing 'with his spirit' refers to speaking that some people don't understand, to do these things 'with his mind bearing fruit' must refer to speaking others do understand.
Now what is the fruit that a person's mind bears? The answer is 'understanding'. I don't think anybody would disagree with this. The next question however is the important one. Where does a person's mind bear fruit or produce understanding? The charismatic response is, 'In the person's own mind.' However this answer is clearly wrong. The text identifies the fruit of a person's mind as being the understanding that occurs in the mind of others, not their own! This is an extremely important point as virtually the whole charismatic view of 'tongues' finally swings on the word 'unfruitful' referring to the speaker's own mind. To nail it down really securely, I'll run through it several more ways. Firstly, by analysing the verses that follow v14, and then by looking at those before it.
In the verses 13 through 17, there are numerous synonymous terms or ideas used. The initial statement of these ideas is in v13:
v13. For this reason anyone who speaks in a language should pray that he may interpret what he says.
Verse 14 then explains v13 in different words assuming there is no interpretation:
v14. For if I pray in a language, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
In v14, 'my mind is unfruitful' parallels the idea in v13 regarding interpretation. Verse 15 then assumes interpretation does occur:
v15. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.
In v15 the phrases 'pray with my mind' and 'sing with my mind'114 relate to the idea of interpretation in v13.
Verse 16 is parallel to v14:
v16. If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?
In v16 the term 'praising God with your spirit' assumes a situation where no interpretation occurs, leaving the other person without understanding.
Verse 17 then parallels v16 and relates all these ideas to the edification of others.
v17. You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.
Clearly then the terms 'my mind is unfruitful' and its unstated opposite, 'my mind bears fruit', refer to the languages spoken either being understood by others (through interpretation), or not being understood. The interpretation is for the other person, not the speaker. The context is all about getting edification, that is, the production of fruit (understanding) in others, through the languages spoken being interpreted for them. Therefore, 'my mind is unfruitful', does not refer to the speaker not understanding, but rather to the hearers not understanding. So to clarify the contrast Paul is making between 'spirit' and 'mind': one half of the contrast, the 'mind' side, refers to both the speaker and the hearers understanding the language that was spoken. The other half, the 'spirit' side, refers to the speaker understanding but the hearers not understanding.
Now let's look at the verses before v14. Verse 13 sets the scene for vv.14-19. In fact v14 starts with 'For...' pointing back to what has gone before. Verse 14 is an explanation of v13. Verse 13 also starts with 'For this reason...' pointing back even further for a reason. For what reason? Answer: that they should seek to edify the church (v12).
Verse 12 is in turn the conclusion from the six-verse discussion about there being all sorts of languages in the world, not one of them without meaning. In that discussion it is argued that if you don't understand another person's language, nor they yours, then you are foreigners to each other. Why? Because you don't understand each other. As a consequence, edification cannot occur. Because this is so and you are keen to be 'spiritual', make sure you speak so the church is edified. Therefore (v13), when you pray in a language, pray that you may be able to interpret - not for your own benefit but for the benefit of the congregation. 'For (v14), if I pray in a language, my spirit prays - that is, 'I pray' - but my mind is unfruitful - that is, 'the church is not being edified by my prayer.'
'So (v15), what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit and I will pray with my mind.' In other words, not only will I pray and be edified through my own prayer - which I understand but others don't - I will also pray so that fruit is produced in the congregation to their edification. The same goes for singing. In yet other words, either I will interpret or I will ask someone else to interpret, so that edification can occur.
To say it again, the place where understanding - fruit-bearing - fails to occur, is not the person's own mind but the mind of people in the congregation who need to be edified. They cannot be edified if they do not understand the language spoken. This thought is then extended and clarified in v16 and v17 where a person who doesn't understand the praise being given to God can't say 'Amen' to your thanksgiving. He doesn't know what you are saying. You're giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.
Paul then goes on to indicate how strongly he feels about this and the uselessness of foreign languages spoken without interpretation to people who don't know them. He says he knows more languages than any of them, but in the church - that is, a church as a particular multi-lingual community - he would rather speak five words that were understood by the hearers, than ten thousand in a language they did not understand.
The meaning of the term 'my spirit' can be illuminated by a somewhat similar term used earlier in the letter. Paul says,
1 Cor. 2 11. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
Thought and spirit here are related. The term 'spirit' is relating to the inner person. There is an analogy being established. Just as no one else knows us like we know ourselves, so only God knows himself fully. The charismatic says, however (on the basis of their misunderstanding of chapter 14), that our 'spirit' can function independently of our thoughts - as though our spirit is somehow a separate person inside our being which is independent of our 'thinking' person. The apostle Paul does not fragment our being in this way. The term 'spirit' here simply refers to the intangible 'me': the inner 'me' that can only be known by others through revelation, that is, through 'me' 'revealing' myself to others, usually by means of verbal communication. 'My spirit prays' simply means 'I pray', which in the particular context of chapter 14 happens to be prayer in a language others don't understand.”
Inasmuch as the manifestation of tongues was first introduced to mankind on day of Pentecost, is that what you consider "a relatively recent phenomenon"?
Look, it's relatively straightforward: The people gathered for Pentecost (Jews and converts) came from Judea and the Diaspora (Eastern and Western). Even though there were many different lands, there were only two languages spoken by Jews in those lands: Greek and/or Aramaic. No need for a language miracle, the apostles were familiar with both. The ‘manifestation of the Spirit’ at Pentecost was the inspiration to preach to the people in these languages as well as perhaps inspiration on what to say. These languages as opposed to the correct language (culturally and religiously) to use in this situation: Hebrew. To use anything else but Hebrew in this situation would amount to a breaking a cultural and religious taboo – as silly as it may sound today, it just wasn’t done (although, Greek was slowly gaining acceptability as a viable alternative to Hebrew) - people were expecting to hear Hebrew, instead they got their native languages of Greek and Aramaic. Hence the amazement, confounding and accusations of drunkenness. What many also fail to observe is that despite there being Jews “from every nation under heaven” (idiomatic for “from all over the place”), nowhere in the entire narrative does it even remotely suggest that communication was ever an issue to begin with.
What modern tongue speakers are doing is nothing remotely similar to what happened on Pentecost. Glossolalia (modern T-speech) entered the world of Christianity relatively recently (within about 150 years or so); it’s just not as old as you want it to be.
You can disagree all you want and you can find all your naysayers to support your belief to make yourself comfortable in your denial of Scripture. That still does not convert the manifestation from the manifestation into your so-called NCNLU's, or your author's insistence that there was any "synthesis trying to make sense of the experience in light of the narrative of Scripture".
That is your opinion. Another blanket statement made by you with absolutely no proof as to the accuracy of your claim.
It seems though that this is exactly what is happening – modern T-speech just doesn’t exist in the Bible, I don’t know why there’s such an insistence on equating “tongue(s)” to something other than what the word actually means – a (real) language. You have to justify/legitimize/proof what you’re doing in light of Scripture. What you’re looking for though, just isn’t there; it never was. But some Pentecostalism/Charismatic denominations without tongues fall rather flat; so what is in the Bible is reinterpreted to make it there.
1 Cor.14 focuses on the proper use of tongues, not its nature. In Acts 2, it is clear tongues referred to known languages.
It strikes no Christian practitioner of speaking in tongues as odd that every single controlled example of speaking in tongues has produced “private prayer language”, (NCNLU’s) never a real identifiable language. Indeed, no one who has ever spoken in tongues in a controlled, observed setting has ever produced a language that was recognized by a Linguist and unknown to the speaker.
I’ll say it again – record yourself speaking tongues for about a minute and then play it back over and over and actually listen to what your producing. Is it really language, or something that just mimics language?
The singular masculine relates back to my understanding. The understanding of the person speaking in tongues is unfruitful.
Yes, that’s correct.
Again, from the New Living Translation: For if I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don't understand what I am saying
If, as you keep insisting, akarpos referred to others (plural) present, the number would be plural (not singular).
No, because it refers back to the noun ‘nous’, so it must have grammatical concordance.
The argument is whether ‘akarpos’ is used in the active or passive sense – doesn’t have anything to do with being singular or plural.
In the example above form the NLT version, it’s being translated in the passive sense.
Where does a person's mind bear fruit or produce understanding? The charismatic response is, 'In the person's own mind.' The text however identifies the fruit of a person's mind as being the understanding that occurs in the mind of others, not their own! The usage is active, not passive.
As Renton Maclachlan comments in his book Tongues Revisited – A Third Way:
“In v14 Paul equates 'my spirit prays' with 'my mind is unfruitful'. The terms are effectively addressing the same thing. In v15 he says that to have his 'mind unfruitful' is unacceptable and then addresses what he prefers. He wants to pray or sing 'with his spirit' as well as 'with his mind'. The context requires that praying or singing 'with his mind' is understood to mean praying or singing 'with his mind bearing fruit or being fruitful'. He omits words such as those I've added because the idea has already been defined negatively in v14.
In v16 Paul speaks of someone praising God 'with their spirit' and indicates that when they do this, some people do not understand and so cannot say 'Amen' to their comments. The text clearly says some hearers do not know what the speaker is saying. Praying or singing 'with their spirit' therefore means praying or singing that at least some others do not understand. Since it is a contrast that Paul is addressing, and since speaking, praying, singing 'with his spirit' refers to speaking that some people don't understand, to do these things 'with his mind bearing fruit' must refer to speaking others do understand.
Now what is the fruit that a person's mind bears? The answer is 'understanding'. I don't think anybody would disagree with this. The next question however is the important one. Where does a person's mind bear fruit or produce understanding? The charismatic response is, 'In the person's own mind.' However this answer is clearly wrong. The text identifies the fruit of a person's mind as being the understanding that occurs in the mind of others, not their own! This is an extremely important point as virtually the whole charismatic view of 'tongues' finally swings on the word 'unfruitful' referring to the speaker's own mind. To nail it down really securely, I'll run through it several more ways. Firstly, by analysing the verses that follow v14, and then by looking at those before it.
In the verses 13 through 17, there are numerous synonymous terms or ideas used. The initial statement of these ideas is in v13:
v13. For this reason anyone who speaks in a language should pray that he may interpret what he says.
Verse 14 then explains v13 in different words assuming there is no interpretation:
v14. For if I pray in a language, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
In v14, 'my mind is unfruitful' parallels the idea in v13 regarding interpretation. Verse 15 then assumes interpretation does occur:
v15. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.
In v15 the phrases 'pray with my mind' and 'sing with my mind'114 relate to the idea of interpretation in v13.
Verse 16 is parallel to v14:
v16. If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?
In v16 the term 'praising God with your spirit' assumes a situation where no interpretation occurs, leaving the other person without understanding.
Verse 17 then parallels v16 and relates all these ideas to the edification of others.
v17. You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.
Clearly then the terms 'my mind is unfruitful' and its unstated opposite, 'my mind bears fruit', refer to the languages spoken either being understood by others (through interpretation), or not being understood. The interpretation is for the other person, not the speaker. The context is all about getting edification, that is, the production of fruit (understanding) in others, through the languages spoken being interpreted for them. Therefore, 'my mind is unfruitful', does not refer to the speaker not understanding, but rather to the hearers not understanding. So to clarify the contrast Paul is making between 'spirit' and 'mind': one half of the contrast, the 'mind' side, refers to both the speaker and the hearers understanding the language that was spoken. The other half, the 'spirit' side, refers to the speaker understanding but the hearers not understanding.
Now let's look at the verses before v14. Verse 13 sets the scene for vv.14-19. In fact v14 starts with 'For...' pointing back to what has gone before. Verse 14 is an explanation of v13. Verse 13 also starts with 'For this reason...' pointing back even further for a reason. For what reason? Answer: that they should seek to edify the church (v12).
Verse 12 is in turn the conclusion from the six-verse discussion about there being all sorts of languages in the world, not one of them without meaning. In that discussion it is argued that if you don't understand another person's language, nor they yours, then you are foreigners to each other. Why? Because you don't understand each other. As a consequence, edification cannot occur. Because this is so and you are keen to be 'spiritual', make sure you speak so the church is edified. Therefore (v13), when you pray in a language, pray that you may be able to interpret - not for your own benefit but for the benefit of the congregation. 'For (v14), if I pray in a language, my spirit prays - that is, 'I pray' - but my mind is unfruitful - that is, 'the church is not being edified by my prayer.'
'So (v15), what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit and I will pray with my mind.' In other words, not only will I pray and be edified through my own prayer - which I understand but others don't - I will also pray so that fruit is produced in the congregation to their edification. The same goes for singing. In yet other words, either I will interpret or I will ask someone else to interpret, so that edification can occur.
To say it again, the place where understanding - fruit-bearing - fails to occur, is not the person's own mind but the mind of people in the congregation who need to be edified. They cannot be edified if they do not understand the language spoken. This thought is then extended and clarified in v16 and v17 where a person who doesn't understand the praise being given to God can't say 'Amen' to your thanksgiving. He doesn't know what you are saying. You're giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.
Paul then goes on to indicate how strongly he feels about this and the uselessness of foreign languages spoken without interpretation to people who don't know them. He says he knows more languages than any of them, but in the church - that is, a church as a particular multi-lingual community - he would rather speak five words that were understood by the hearers, than ten thousand in a language they did not understand.
The meaning of the term 'my spirit' can be illuminated by a somewhat similar term used earlier in the letter. Paul says,
1 Cor. 2 11. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
Thought and spirit here are related. The term 'spirit' is relating to the inner person. There is an analogy being established. Just as no one else knows us like we know ourselves, so only God knows himself fully. The charismatic says, however (on the basis of their misunderstanding of chapter 14), that our 'spirit' can function independently of our thoughts - as though our spirit is somehow a separate person inside our being which is independent of our 'thinking' person. The apostle Paul does not fragment our being in this way. The term 'spirit' here simply refers to the intangible 'me': the inner 'me' that can only be known by others through revelation, that is, through 'me' 'revealing' myself to others, usually by means of verbal communication. 'My spirit prays' simply means 'I pray', which in the particular context of chapter 14 happens to be prayer in a language others don't understand.”
Inasmuch as the manifestation of tongues was first introduced to mankind on day of Pentecost, is that what you consider "a relatively recent phenomenon"?
Look, it's relatively straightforward: The people gathered for Pentecost (Jews and converts) came from Judea and the Diaspora (Eastern and Western). Even though there were many different lands, there were only two languages spoken by Jews in those lands: Greek and/or Aramaic. No need for a language miracle, the apostles were familiar with both. The ‘manifestation of the Spirit’ at Pentecost was the inspiration to preach to the people in these languages as well as perhaps inspiration on what to say. These languages as opposed to the correct language (culturally and religiously) to use in this situation: Hebrew. To use anything else but Hebrew in this situation would amount to a breaking a cultural and religious taboo – as silly as it may sound today, it just wasn’t done (although, Greek was slowly gaining acceptability as a viable alternative to Hebrew) - people were expecting to hear Hebrew, instead they got their native languages of Greek and Aramaic. Hence the amazement, confounding and accusations of drunkenness. What many also fail to observe is that despite there being Jews “from every nation under heaven” (idiomatic for “from all over the place”), nowhere in the entire narrative does it even remotely suggest that communication was ever an issue to begin with.
What modern tongue speakers are doing is nothing remotely similar to what happened on Pentecost. Glossolalia (modern T-speech) entered the world of Christianity relatively recently (within about 150 years or so); it’s just not as old as you want it to be.
You can disagree all you want and you can find all your naysayers to support your belief to make yourself comfortable in your denial of Scripture. That still does not convert the manifestation from the manifestation into your so-called NCNLU's, or your author's insistence that there was any "synthesis trying to make sense of the experience in light of the narrative of Scripture".
That is your opinion. Another blanket statement made by you with absolutely no proof as to the accuracy of your claim.
It seems though that this is exactly what is happening – modern T-speech just doesn’t exist in the Bible, I don’t know why there’s such an insistence on equating “tongue(s)” to something other than what the word actually means – a (real) language. You have to justify/legitimize/proof what you’re doing in light of Scripture. What you’re looking for though, just isn’t there; it never was. But some Pentecostalism/Charismatic denominations without tongues fall rather flat; so what is in the Bible is reinterpreted to make it there.
1 Cor.14 focuses on the proper use of tongues, not its nature. In Acts 2, it is clear tongues referred to known languages.
It strikes no Christian practitioner of speaking in tongues as odd that every single controlled example of speaking in tongues has produced “private prayer language”, (NCNLU’s) never a real identifiable language. Indeed, no one who has ever spoken in tongues in a controlled, observed setting has ever produced a language that was recognized by a Linguist and unknown to the speaker.
I’ll say it again – record yourself speaking tongues for about a minute and then play it back over and over and actually listen to what your producing. Is it really language, or something that just mimics language?
In that bold portion of your quote is where you made an error there, brother. Your sister below has given the scripture to prove that the tongue speaker does not know what he is saying for why Paul is teaching tongue speakers to pray that another will interpret so that the tongue speaker will understand for that tongue to be fruitful to himself.
BenFTW has been led to believe that he can interpret his own tongues, but the precedent set in the 12th chapter signify that is not happening and why tongues will never be used for private use.
Which is why in chapter 14 in context of the message Paul is giving which is why prophecy is the gift to seek after, you can't take verses about God's gift of tongues for what it does as if it can be used privately when thru out that chapter that same tongues has to be interpreted in order for the tongue speaker to understand it for that tongue to be fruitful to himself. That is why prophecy is better than tongues because tongues has to come with interpretation even for the tongue speaker..
:smile:
Of course it does, Roger.
1 Cor 14:
2) For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
14) For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
That's why in public tongues must always be interpreted.
That is a direct contradiction of scripture.
Compare 1 Cor 14:15 with Jude 20. Also Eph 6:18.
Speaking in tongues is praying in the spirit. When people pray in the spirit, they are edifying themselves, and when they speak in public and interpret, the church is edified.
1 Cor 14:15 states that praying in the spirit is speaking in tongues. Read the context, Roger.
Indeed it does. Both prayer with your understanding and speaking in tongues are very beneficial.
That's because the Bible plainly and clearly states that in public, the person who speaks in tongues is to be the one who interprets.
1 Cor 14:
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.
13) Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
I have read your attempts to explain that those verses do not mean what they say, Enow. It's beyond belief how you cannot just read the words and accept them for what they say.
1 Cor 12 does not discuss interpretation of tongues except to mention it in v10.
1 Cor 14:
28) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Same old Enow...
Christians are to covet to prophesy, yes. In the church, the one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues UNLESS HE INTERPRETS so the church is edified.
Paul never stated that he prophesied more that the entire Corinthian church, but he did say he spoke in tongues more than all of them.
You are forbidding people from speaking in tongues, Enow, something the Bible specifically states you should not do.
The word unknown is not in the actual text but has been supplied by the translators. In any case there is nothing here to support the outrageous contention that the speaker does not comprehend the language he is speaking.
That is of no help to your position.
Hardly just a simple reading of the text.
Sorry but you are making scripture fit your preconceived ideas to justify your conduct.
You are simply impressing on the passage an interpretation that suits your personal bias. You are reading into the text not reading out of the text.
Only one type of prayer is beneficial and it is not spinning off into unknown undisciplined thoughts. We are to guard our hearts not open them up to every wind of doctrine.
2Ti 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
That is correct.
One more time:
1 Cor 14:
2) For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
14) For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
The simple reading of the text says that when a person speaks in tongues he does not know what he is saying.
Sigh. You simply aren't reading what the words say.
And your cessationist view is your personal bias that you cannot get past.
Two types of prayer are beneficial, praying in your known language and praying in tongues (1 Cor 14:15), neither of which is "spinning off into unknown undisciplined thoughts".
Agreed!
Wonderful scripture, Roger!
Makes you wonder why it is in the scripture; because those from before knew that is what was meant?
If Paul is asking tongue speakers to pray that another may interpret, then obviously, the tongue speaker does not understand that tongue for why unknown was added to the text. Paul citing the desire to understand what was said by praying for another interpreting that tongue, shows he does not know the tongue when it was spoken.
Tongue speakers that try to wrest Paul's words out of context to imply that they can use tongues privately in the 14th chapter are ignoring how that application is going against scripture in the 12 chapter of that same book of the Corinthians, but they see it not.
Paul's message thru out that 14th chapter in directing the believers zealous for spiritual gifts was to seek the gift of prophecy over all spiritual gifts and the reason for the comparison between tongues & prophecy was to explain why prophecy over all spiritual gifts and that was because tongues is not a stand alone gift that they would need an interpreter to understand the tongue for that tongue to be fruitful to the tongue speaker.
As much as tongue speakers want to insist that the tongue edifies self, tongue speakers forget the other side of their argument is that it is unknown to them; therefore tongues can edify when it is interpreted for the tongue speaker which is the point Paul was making as tongues is not a stand alone gift for why prophesy is better... because it immediately edifies.
The noun 'nous' is also [gasp!] singular (which corresponds perfectly with the singular use of the word my [Greek mou].
Your shifting of the focus from the singular use of nous, mou, akarpos to "whether ‘akarpos’ is used in the active or passive sense" is nothing but obfuscation on your part.Karvik said:
akarpos is an adjective. An adjective modifies a noun. Adjectives agree in gender and number with the noun referred to.
You have stated akarpos relates to "the noun ‘nous’, ".
In 1 Cor 14:14, nous is further defined as nous mou [mind of me]. Additionally, nous is in the singular.
If nous referred to the mind of all in the congregation, both nous and akarpos would be written in the plural, and the word mou would not have been included in the text.
NLT is not the only version to render the verse in this manner.Kavik said:
NIV, ESV, Berean Study Bible, Berean Literal Bible, NASB, KJV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, ISV, NET bible, Aramaic Bible ...
How does the verse read in the version of the Bible you use?
Whether active or passive, your understanding of the verse is in error.Kavik said:
Have you received written permission from the publisher to submit any part of Mr. Maclachlan's book?Kavik said:
As you (or any of the myriad authors you rely on) were not present on Day of Pentecost, none of you can affirmatively deduce that when the Holy Spirit gives utterance in our day and time, it is not the same as when Holy Spirit gave utterance on Day of Pentecost.Kavik said:
Scripture clearly states that it is the One and the selfsame Spirit which works within the believer to bring about the manifestation (1 Cor 12:11). Your denial of Scriptural truth does not negate the One and the selfsame Spirit working in our day and time, same as He did when Paul wrote 1 Cor 12 – 14, and on day of Pentecost.Kavik said:
Your "controlled, observed settingKavik said:
The manifestation originates in the spiritual realm and it is revealed in the earthly realm when the One and the selfsame Spirit works within the believer. The Spirit gives the utterance. The believer speaks the words revealed to him/her by the One and the selfsame Spirit.
That you refuse to acknowledge this truth does not change the manifestation of tongues into your NCNLUs or your shaman's chant for that matter.
The noun 'nous' is also [gasp!] singular (which corresponds perfectly with the singular use of the word my [Greek mou].
Yes, that’s correct – no issue with the grammar of that passage.
Your shifting of the focus from the singular use of nous, mou, akarpos to "whether ‘akarpos’ is used in the active or passive sense" is nothing but obfuscation on your part.
Hardly; you also have to take a look at semantics, not just grammar. The issue doesn’t have anything to do with the grammar; it’s meaning and usage. It may seem like splitting hairs (and in some cases, semantics does seem to do that); but in this case here, the difference of whether used in the active or passive sense, as demonstrated further above, makes a huge difference.
akarpos is an adjective. An adjective modifies a noun. Adjectives agree in gender and number with the noun referred to.
You have stated akarpos relates to "the noun ‘nous’, ".
In 1 Cor 14:14, nous is further defined as nous mou [mind of me]. Additionally, nousis in the singular.
If nous referred to the mind of all in the congregation, both nous and akarpos would be written in the plural, and the word mou would not have been included in the text.
As mentioned, nothing wrong with the grammar; ‘akarpos’, regardless of semantics, refers back to nous mou; it has to be singular. The usage (active or passive) has nothing to do with the grammar used here.
How does the verse read in the version of the Bible you use?
Most translations, as I’m sure you know, don’t get into semantics, they’re more literal; however, it is interesting to note that, that same passage in Luther’s Bible of 1545 gives the following:
[SUP]14 [/SUP]Denn so ich mit Zungen bete, so betet mein Geist; aber mein Sinn bringt niemand Frucht.
Notice he clearly states here that though his spirit prays (Geist), his mind/understanding (Sinn) brings no one fruit, or “brings fruit to no one” (either translation is acceptable).
This seems to indicate perhaps that the idea of how akarpos is used (actively/passively) is not new. Indeed, Luther, it seems, may have given the passage a translation in which we see akarpos being used actively instead of the usual passive usage.
Whether active or passive, your understanding of the verse is in error.
I don’t think so – it clearly demonstrates, that real language is what is meant here; not modern T-speech.
Have you received written permission from the publisher to submit any part of Mr. Maclachlan's book?
His book is readily available on-line (so much for electronic copying!), I have given him, as well as his book, correct reference, and as a matter of fact, yes, I have e-mailed him and spoken to him (via e-mail) about a year ago.
As you (or any of the myriad authors you rely on) were not present on Day of Pentecost, none of you can affirmatively deduce that when the Holy Spirit gives utterance in our day and time, it is not the same as when Holy Spirit gave utterance on Day of Pentecost.
Well, I would say the exact reverse is just as true - neither can you can you deduce that it is the same.
As the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles on what to say to the crowd, and perhaps also inspired them to say it using Greek and Aramaic rather than Hebrew, so too may the Holy Spirit inspire people today to engage in glossolalia. The Spirit, however, is not instructing nor inspiring the person on how to produce their particular ‘tongue’; each one is entirely self-created by the speaker; hence why no two will ever be the same.
Scripture clearly states that it is the One and the selfsame Spirit which works within the believer to bring about the manifestation (1 Cor 12:11).
Not sure what the point is here – the Holy Spirit may work to bring about the ability/’knack’ to speak/learn foreign languages easily, but one certainly does not have to be a believer (i.e. ‘born again’) to have the ability bestowed upon them.
The manifestation originates in the spiritual realm and it is revealed in the earthly realm when the One and the selfsame Spirit works within the believer. The Spirit gives the utterance. The believer speaks the words revealed to him/her by the One and the selfsame Spirit.
That you refuse to acknowledge this truth does not change the manifestation of tongues into your NCNLUs or your shaman's chant for that matter.
That may be the Pentecostal/Charismatic understanding in order to ‘legitimize’ modern T-speech, but the only thing the Spirit is doing is giving the inspiration to engage in glossolalia. It is not guiding or telling the speaker what to say, nor is it saying it for him/her – that’s all on the speaker.
If it was the Holy Spirit instructing/guiding/speaking, why would there be need of more than one spiritual ‘tongue’, particularly if it is a heavenly language? It seems to me that everyone would be using the same ‘tongue’, yet no two are alike (there’s a lot of copying of certain ‘phrases’ within congregations though); each speaker has his/her own.
As to the ‘shaman’s chant’, have you recorded yourself speaking glossolalia and really listened to it yet?
Yes, that’s correct – no issue with the grammar of that passage.
Your shifting of the focus from the singular use of nous, mou, akarpos to "whether ‘akarpos’ is used in the active or passive sense" is nothing but obfuscation on your part.
Hardly; you also have to take a look at semantics, not just grammar. The issue doesn’t have anything to do with the grammar; it’s meaning and usage. It may seem like splitting hairs (and in some cases, semantics does seem to do that); but in this case here, the difference of whether used in the active or passive sense, as demonstrated further above, makes a huge difference.
akarpos is an adjective. An adjective modifies a noun. Adjectives agree in gender and number with the noun referred to.
You have stated akarpos relates to "the noun ‘nous’, ".
In 1 Cor 14:14, nous is further defined as nous mou [mind of me]. Additionally, nousis in the singular.
If nous referred to the mind of all in the congregation, both nous and akarpos would be written in the plural, and the word mou would not have been included in the text.
As mentioned, nothing wrong with the grammar; ‘akarpos’, regardless of semantics, refers back to nous mou; it has to be singular. The usage (active or passive) has nothing to do with the grammar used here.
How does the verse read in the version of the Bible you use?
Most translations, as I’m sure you know, don’t get into semantics, they’re more literal; however, it is interesting to note that, that same passage in Luther’s Bible of 1545 gives the following:
[SUP]14 [/SUP]Denn so ich mit Zungen bete, so betet mein Geist; aber mein Sinn bringt niemand Frucht.
Notice he clearly states here that though his spirit prays (Geist), his mind/understanding (Sinn) brings no one fruit, or “brings fruit to no one” (either translation is acceptable).
This seems to indicate perhaps that the idea of how akarpos is used (actively/passively) is not new. Indeed, Luther, it seems, may have given the passage a translation in which we see akarpos being used actively instead of the usual passive usage.
Whether active or passive, your understanding of the verse is in error.
I don’t think so – it clearly demonstrates, that real language is what is meant here; not modern T-speech.
Have you received written permission from the publisher to submit any part of Mr. Maclachlan's book?
His book is readily available on-line (so much for electronic copying!), I have given him, as well as his book, correct reference, and as a matter of fact, yes, I have e-mailed him and spoken to him (via e-mail) about a year ago.
As you (or any of the myriad authors you rely on) were not present on Day of Pentecost, none of you can affirmatively deduce that when the Holy Spirit gives utterance in our day and time, it is not the same as when Holy Spirit gave utterance on Day of Pentecost.
Well, I would say the exact reverse is just as true - neither can you can you deduce that it is the same.
As the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles on what to say to the crowd, and perhaps also inspired them to say it using Greek and Aramaic rather than Hebrew, so too may the Holy Spirit inspire people today to engage in glossolalia. The Spirit, however, is not instructing nor inspiring the person on how to produce their particular ‘tongue’; each one is entirely self-created by the speaker; hence why no two will ever be the same.
Scripture clearly states that it is the One and the selfsame Spirit which works within the believer to bring about the manifestation (1 Cor 12:11).
Not sure what the point is here – the Holy Spirit may work to bring about the ability/’knack’ to speak/learn foreign languages easily, but one certainly does not have to be a believer (i.e. ‘born again’) to have the ability bestowed upon them.
The manifestation originates in the spiritual realm and it is revealed in the earthly realm when the One and the selfsame Spirit works within the believer. The Spirit gives the utterance. The believer speaks the words revealed to him/her by the One and the selfsame Spirit.
That you refuse to acknowledge this truth does not change the manifestation of tongues into your NCNLUs or your shaman's chant for that matter.
That may be the Pentecostal/Charismatic understanding in order to ‘legitimize’ modern T-speech, but the only thing the Spirit is doing is giving the inspiration to engage in glossolalia. It is not guiding or telling the speaker what to say, nor is it saying it for him/her – that’s all on the speaker.
If it was the Holy Spirit instructing/guiding/speaking, why would there be need of more than one spiritual ‘tongue’, particularly if it is a heavenly language? It seems to me that everyone would be using the same ‘tongue’, yet no two are alike (there’s a lot of copying of certain ‘phrases’ within congregations though); each speaker has his/her own.
As to the ‘shaman’s chant’, have you recorded yourself speaking glossolalia and really listened to it yet?
1 Samuel 30:10
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Moreover David was greatly distressed because the people spoke of stoning him, for all the people were embittered, each one because of his sons and his daughters. But David strengthened himself in the Lord his God.
Imagine that, David did it without a completed KJB in his hand.
Matters not which version of the bible you use if you only use it to criticize the word of God. Did it ever enter into your thinking that David recalled the promises of God he received from the prophet when he was anointed to be king in Israel? David had to rely on the promise of Jehovah that he David was purposed for special things in Israel.
Why even read your bible if you at are not going to believe it?
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Yeah David remembered what God said to him through the Prophet. I have preached this message many times when God needs me to. Lay off and act like gentleman and not a jerk.
The other lesson for us today is to pursue, overtake and recover it all. While I preach and teach that portion something tells me you cower at such truth.
U
UnderGrace
Guest
I agree with much of what you say.
However, I really do not believe the Holy Spirit would inspire glossolalia, God and angels in scripture spoke to people in intelligible language. The Holy Spirit leads the believer into truth.
Not once has anyone here been able to describe or tell me how they were edified by modern day tongues, aka glossolalia.
Still waiting
However, I really do not believe the Holy Spirit would inspire glossolalia, God and angels in scripture spoke to people in intelligible language. The Holy Spirit leads the believer into truth.
Not once has anyone here been able to describe or tell me how they were edified by modern day tongues, aka glossolalia.
Still waiting
You are the guy who had to put the unnecessary dig in about the KJB whatever that is. God edifies His people through His word. You do not seem to have an appetite for Gods truth.
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
For the cause of Christ
Roger