Tongues Without Interpretation
Originally Posted by Adelphos
Quote:
In order for me to really understand what your contention consists of, please answer me these questions:
Why did the Apostles allow tongues without interpretation take place in other p***ages?
tdidymas said
Acts 10 and 19
Individual Prayer in Tongues
Adelphos:
Quote:
Is it possible that Paul's declaration is dealing with something very specific as opposed to congregational speaking in tongues?
Quote:
To be sure, it was specific, and it was congregational (both, not one or the other). This is the sense of the context of the p***age. If you think that "very specific" needs additional data than what is stated clearly in the context, then say what it is.
Actually, one cannot prove it was congregational (that is, everyone speaking in tongues at once). The context was specifically about individual prayer in tongues (which I demonstrated already in my post about prayer in tongues), not about corporate worship in tongues (which you have not proven the text is dealing with at all, but have merely DECLARED it so - which is not sound exegesis, btw).
Speaking in tongues has multiple purposes
Adelphos:
Quote:
Is it possible that when Paul explicitly states that tongues are for unbelievers that this doesn't limit it to that purpose?
tdidymas:
Quote:
Not possible, since he clearly delineates - "not for believers."
There are a few fallacies that are committed by this view point:
1. This is an example of a false disjunction: an improper appeal to the law of the excluded middle.
2. An appeal to selective evidence.
3. Unwarranted confusion of truth and precision.
Scripture does show speaking in tongues being used for multiple reasons. Allow me to demonstrate just one of these:
Acts 10:46: “FOR they heard them speak with tongues”
“FOR” should be translated “BECAUSE”:
1) The Greek word translated “for” (Gr: “gar”) is not merely a preposition. It is a conjunction “…which is virtually equivalent to ‘because’…” and must be “…distinguished from the preposition ‘for’… (J.W. Wenham, Elements of N.T. Greek, p. 200).
2) In fact, “Gar” is “…a conjunction, which acc. (accusative) to its composition ‘ge’ and ‘ara’, is properly a particle of affirmation and conclusion, denoting truly therefore, verily as the case stands, ‘the thing is first affirmed by the particle ‘ge’, and then is referred to what precedes by the force of the particle ‘ara’ (J.H. thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 109). In other words, “gar” comes from two particles, one affirming the previous thought or word, and one referring back to the previous thought or word, making this conjunction a strong “because”.
3) The fact that “gar” is used in the “accusative” case reinforces the truth of the previous verse (Acts 10:45) and its connection with Acts 10:46, for the accusative case shows the direction, extent, or end of an action. This is the case of the direct object. So then, Acts 10:46 demonstrates that “because (double affirmation – i.e. ‘absolutely because)” those who heard the speaking in tongues, they (they, by their hearing were directed to the end of action) understood “…that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:45).
4) Further proof that this word is a very strong “because” is the following three-fold basic definitions of “gar” (J.H. Thayer, Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament, pp. 109, 111)
*Its primary and original Conclusive force is seen in questions and answers expressed with emotion. (Notice the term “Conclusive force”)
*It adduces the Cause or gives the Reason of a preceding statement or opinion. (Notice the term “Reason of a preceding statement”)
*It serves to explain, make clear, illustrate, a preceding thought or word.
(For further study, one may note the following words translated “FOR” in the New Testament: anti, apo, achri, dia, eis, ek, en, eneka, epi, kata, peri, pros, huper. These provide interesting insights for comparison studies.)
Therefore, a better translation of Acts 10:45, 46 is presented:
v. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
v. 46 BECAUSE they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.
Correct Objective Hermeneutical Conclusion:
Believers who were with Apostle Peter understood clearly that Speaking in Tongues was the direct result of the preceding thought, mainly, that the GIFT of the HOLY SPIRIT was “poured out”.
Therefore, one purpose, at least from this text, is that speaking in tongues demonstrates that one has received the Gift of the Holy Spirit.
Respectfully
Adelphos
Reading into texts causes interpretation problems
Adelphos:
Quote:
There is no hermeneutical reason that makes it necessary to teach that tongues were totally understood in all p***ages where they were spoken. That would be an argument from silence unless there was compelling supporting evidence that would suggest otherwise.
tdidymas:
Quote:
I agree with you, and my supporting evidence is Acts 2. If the tongues in subsequent p***ages was essentially the same as Acts 2, then there would not be any need for them to repeat the fact that other people understood (and were able to interpret the language).
Tongues being essentially the same is not the same as ***uming something is in a text without any proof. This is "reading into the text," which btw, is part of the dictionary definition for Eisegesis.
Respectfully
Adelphos