Interpretation

[Kutless]

Bump for Mizpeh........Brother I am not trying to change anyones mind about tongues. I too have experienced and no one will ever take that away.

But doesn't God want us to defend our faith? And is that from an experiential standpoint alone?

What was the miracle on the day of Pentecost? Hearing or speaking? Have you ever understood what someone was saying when they spoke in tongues. Is there a documented case out there where anyone has been understood?

I see no support in the word of a heavenly language.

[Kutless]

200 hundred views and only 2 reponses. Just can't debate the fact that Paul was not even talking about speking in tongues. He was merely talking about the use of the native tongue in the synagogue.

Why isn't there talk of it in the other epistles? Could it be that the point was made? Could it be that the trend faded?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Kutless

Bump for Mizpeh........Brother I am not trying to change anyones mind about tongues. I too have experienced and no one will ever take that away.

But doesn't God want us to defend our faith? And is that from an experiential standpoint alone?

What was the miracle on the day of Pentecost? Hearing or speaking? Have you ever understood what someone was saying when they spoke in tongues. Is there a documented case out there where anyone has been understood?

I see no support in the word of a heavenly language.

I've heard David Bernard say he has heard someone speak in English when he was in S Korea. The person speaking in English didn't know the language.

Bro Strange testified on this site in a post of an AOG pastor who listened to a tape of Bishop Magnun when he was pastor of POA, heard the bishop speak in tongues, I the Sioux language. This AOG pastor had been a missionary to the Sioux indians and took the message in tongues as being spoken directly to him. He became a Oneness believer shortly thereafter. If you browse through Bro Strange's posts you will find it there.

but these testimonies won't do anything for someone who wants to argue these things.

I've never understood a message in tongues yet because none have been spoken in English, the only language I know. But I will say that messages in tongues that I've heard do not sound like gibberish. They sound like languages.

What do you mean by a 'heavenly language'?

BTW, I'm a sister.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I've heard David Bernard say he has heard someone speak in English when he was in S Korea. The person speaking in English didn't know the language.

Bro Strange testified on this site in a post of an AOG pastor who listened to a tape of Bishop Magnun when he was pastor of POA, heard the bishop speak in tongues, I the Sioux language. This AOG pastor had been a missionary to the Sioux indians and took the message in tongues as being spoken directly to him. He became a Oneness believer shortly thereafter. If you browse through Bro Strange's posts you will find it there.

but these testimonies won't do anything for someone who wants to argue these things.

I've never understood a message in tongues yet because none have been spoken in English, the only language I know. But I will say that messages in tongues that I've heard do not sound like gibberish. They sound like languages.

What do you mean by a 'heavenly language'?

BTW, I'm a sister.

SOOOOOO Sorry about the gender mishap! Sister.

Some say that the reason you cannot understand the tongue is because its a heavenly language, again which is not supported by scripture.

Now back to the structure of the 1st century synagogue.

Bench of Three, Angel of then Church, meturgeman ring a bell?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Kutless

200 hundred views and only 2 reponses. Just can't debate the fact that Paul was not even talking about speking in tongues. He was merely talking about the use of the native tongue in the synagogue.

Why isn't there talk of it in the other epistles? Could it be that the point was made? Could it be that the trend faded?

What passage are you speaking of in regard to Paul? 1 Corinthians 14? and what point are you trying to make?

Here are two interesting posts with different takes on tongues. The first speaks to the God being just and no respecter of persons.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=131

The second speaks to the case of necessary redundancy that some demand when it comes to why isn't there more about tongues in the NT.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=131

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Kutless

SOOOOOO Sorry about the gender mishap! Sister.

Some say that the reason you cannot understand the tongue is because its a heavenly language, again which is not supported by scripture.

Now back to the structure of the 1st century synagogue.

Bench of Three, Angel of then Church, meturgeman ring a bell?

Not a heavenly language but a language of men and of angels.

I have no idea what a bench of three and a meturgeman bell is!

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Not a heavenly language but a language of men and of angels.

I have no idea what a bench of three and a meturgeman bell is!

I forgot the comma after the meturgeman



As far as what scripture I'm referring to in Corinthians, just like I told you in the pm.....all of them referrring to tongues.

The Bench of Three consisted of 3 men and was the ruling body of the synagogue resolving conflicts that arose amoung the members.

The Angel of the Church was an individual who was responsible for the public reading of scripture and preaching in the assembly. His objective was to maintain the integrity of God's Word, and was always. by nessecity, a learned man in the scripture. The public minister never readfrom the scrolls himself, but would call upon certain of those in the assembly to do so under the guidelines established by oral tradition, and later codified in the Mishnah. IN Luke 4:16 we find Jesus being called to read.

The public minister would stand beside the reader in order to call upon the reader to stop and correct if a mistake was made.

Each assembly also had 3 deacons/pastors who were responsible for the care of the widows and poor.

The interpreter of the syn. was the meturgeman. His responsibility was to interpret what was read from the scrolls in the Hebrew tongue into the mother tongue of the assembly. Throughout the Jewish writings including the Talmud there are references to the meturgeman, or interpreter. Because Hebrew had fallen intodisuse by this period, this interpreter was critical to the syn. Hebrew did not lend itself easily to interpetation into Greek and other dialects. The job of the meturgeman was to give a sense and marrow of the passage rather than a word for word translation

The Talmud reads: And they read in the book, in the Law of God, with an interpretation and they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

*******This is a quote from the Book*********

Now after this he contends that "tongues in Corinthians was nothing more that the interpretation of the readings.

Originally Posted by Kutless

Bump for Mizpeh........Brother I am not trying to change anyones mind about tongues. I too have experienced and no one will ever take that away.

But doesn't God want us to defend our faith? And is that from an experiential standpoint alone?

What was the miracle on the day of Pentecost? Hearing or speaking? Have you ever understood what someone was saying when they spoke in tongues. Is there a documented case out there where anyone has been understood?

I see no support in the word of a heavenly language.

You might not accept it but GA Mangun testified a few weeks ago, I was there, that he had been told by native speakers 3 or 4 times that he was speaking in their language perfectly as he glorified God in tongues!

Kutless,

Do you think there is a difference in an interpreter and a translator?

[Scott Hutchinson]

There is a difference between translation and intrepretation.
One is a word for word meaning and one is a general gist of something.