Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

You don't know what you're talking about, it means silent. The only version that translates it "quiet" is the NIV. Besides, if it means quiet and not silent why did you conveniently leave it out?

I did not leave it out. I explained it as it would have been understood to the original readers. Being quiet and speaking to your self and to God meant quietly as though it were obvious that you were speaking to God and yourself not giving a public utterance to be interpreted.

How does one speak to himself and to God in tongues and be silent at the same time? By understanding that the Greek word used was not the English word Silent.

When the Greek word is analyzed then it makes sense that one can be quiet and speak to themselves and to God and still be SPEAKING ,though in a quiet manner not the English definition of literal silence which NO ONE PRAYED like that back then.

If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God. NIV

The NIV is an excellent translation in attempting to retain the meaning that the original Greek reader would understand. There is a reason that the NIV is the most quoted translation in modern evangelical commentaries. But that requires a separate thread.

I can't explain all the reasons as a Greek Scholar could but I have read about this in various scholarly commentaries such as Gordon Fee and I have been fully persuaded especially considering the fact that they did not do silent praying though they did quiet praying.

If I don't know what I am talking about, then do a Google Search "Does 1 Cor 14:28 mean silent or quiet?" and see what you find.

I never say things that people can't easily verify with a simple Google search.

I believe it will be easy to discover that there are scholarly discussions about it and most agree that quiet is better for our current cultural understanding of the word silent.

I just checked.. There are plenty of articles and links.

This is actually something that anyone who has seriously attempted to read and understand all of the scriptures on speaking in tongues would already have read about. Even if they decided that they believe silent means no sound, they would have known that there was a great body of discussion from Greek scholars that it did not mean literally no audible sound. The fact that someone thinks I just made this up on a CC thread means that they have not actually studied all of the texts on speaking in tongues and have formed an opinion without doing the due diligence to become familiar with the texts. It is pretty much impossible to not know about the silent/quiet discussion if one has attempted to read some commentaries on this verse. If I did not know about it "then" it could be said that I do not know what I am talking about. But because I did know about it and you did not, suggest that you are the one that has not done a proper intellectually honest study of the texts about speaking in tongues or you would be familiar with the silent/quiet discussion.

But it's ok, one can humble themselves and go back over the material and learn. May God bless you in your future study on the subject.

Silent is not a bad word if one does not use a literal "no sound at all" definition of silent. However in modern culture the English word silent is taken more literally as no sound at all which is not really what Paul was trying to say. He simply meant "speak to himself and to God" and not to the Church.

Whatever, I don't read long rambling posts anyway. If it can't be said succinctly it's not worth saying, and not worth my time reading. But a lot of people here are only talking to themselves.

In other words, you now concede that there is a silent/quiet discussion in print and in academia on this verse and has been for a long time?

I concede you're a longwinded bore, that's about it.

I am sorry that you feel that way. I will pray for you to be able to discuss differences in interpretation of scriptures with civility and kindness and a desire to edify one another. This site can help people learn how to do that, or it can cause them to sin with a spirit of striving. I am always seeking to edify. If I don't come across that way, I will work on it. Being reasonable and kind in my writing is one of my goals.

I will pray he come to walk in Galatians c5 v22-23 attributes and not the other.

Yeah, that sure sounds like Holy Spirit inspired thought right there

A tree is known by it's fruit......

I understand the context only too well. I didn't pose the question to yourself, but to M. Please give him the chance to reply, and don't rudely butt in!

so much for your walk

I say this in a friendly tone. This is a PUBLIC format, where people are used to responding to any post, and it is not considered rude to reply to any post even if they are responding to a post you addressed to someone else. It is considered an open dialogue that anyone can join or "butt into" at any time. My reply does not keep anyone from replying to you. No one has to wait for anyone to respond to you first. It does not work that way. I say this not to argue, I am just explaining in case you thought there were such rules. No such rules exist here.

To ask "did someone translate into English" suggests that you did not understand the subject and prompted my response.

It was begging for a response. LOL I couldn't resist. There is no such thing as translating tongues into English. Not even in the church assembly when giving a tongue. It is the gift of interpretation that is called for which is not a linguistic translation.

Also when anyone received the initial gift upon the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts there was no one who understood them except for the day of Pentecost. All other accounts they just spoke in tongues and no one understood nor was there a need for anyone with the gift of interpretation.

Therefore asking someone who just gave a testimony of how they initially received the gift of tongues if there was anyone to translate into English was begging for a response of "Hunh? What are you Talking About?!" As it will whenever you ask such a thing.

If not from me, from someone else. And it won't be considered rude for them to respond as to the rules of the platform. As long as they are not rude in tone of course.

If you don't wish to discuss the subject that is fine. I am open to discuss or not too. May God bless you as you seek Him and learn His Word every day.

.

By all means have your say, but in order...'waiting your turn in a conversation' seems to be a proper etiquette, at least that is what I was taught!

What ever you were "taught" was before the internet format of forums.

Paul would disagree with you.
Philippians 1:
15It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16The latter do so in love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel.c 17The former, however, preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can add to the distress of my chains. 18What then is the issue?d Just this: that in every way, whether by false motives or true, Christ is preached. And in this I rejoice.

I think Pentecostalism's origin was the Azusa Street Revival:

"The Azusa Street Revival was a historic series of revival meetings that took place in Los Angeles, California.[1] It was led by William J. Seymour, an African-American preacher. The revival began on April 9, 1906, and continued until roughly 1915. On the night of April 9, 1906, Seymour and seven men were waiting on God on Bonnie Brae Street, "when suddenly, as though hit by a bolt of lightning, they were knocked from their chairs to the floor," and the other seven men began to speak in tongues and shout out loud praising God. The news quickly spread; the city was stirred; crowds gathered; and a few days later Seymour himself received the Holy Spirit; services were moved outside to accommodate the crowds who came from all around; people fell down under the power of God as they approached; people were baptized in the Holy Spirit and the sick were healed and sinners received salvation.[2] The testimony of those who attended the Azusa Street Revival was "I am saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost" in reference to the three works of grace of Holiness Pentecostals, the original branch of Pentecostalism.[3]

To further accommodate the crowds, an old dilapidated, two-story frame building at 312 Azusa Street in the industrial section of the city was secured. This building, originally built for an African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church, had more recently been used as a livery stable, storage building and tenement house. In this humble Azusa Street mission, a continuous three-year revival occurred and became known around the world. Stanley H. Frodsham, in his book, With Signs Following, quotes an eye-witness description of the scene: The revival was characterized by spiritual experiences accompanied with testimonies of physical healing miracles,[4] worship services, and speaking in tongues. The participants were criticized by some secular media and Christian theologians for behaviors considered to be outrageous and unorthodox, especially at the time. Today, the revival is considered by historians to be the primary catalyst for the spread of Pentecostalism in the 20th century."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azusa_Street_Revival

The Day of Pentecost was the first where Holy Spirit came to be available to all.

Good morning Kaylagrl!

RA still making friends with his bloviated opinions I see...

Good Morning! How are you this passion week?