Deep Apostolic Teachers?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Nice to talk to you Bro. Epley. It's always a pleasure and very engaging. However, I want to point something out to you... the utterance reads... "words are written in red". That's present tense. And in our Bibles today those words are written in red. And even if the statement was past tense, "were written in red", Christ's words have been written in red for a couple generations now. So neither would disqualify the utterance from being authentic. Now, if it said, "Yeah, I say, this is He whose words were originally written in red", you'd have a point.

So this phrase doesn't disqualify the utterance. If it had biblical substance... you might do well to heed it before criticizing the Spirit.

Another point to be made is that while the Spirit speaks through us, He is speaking through human beings. Often the interpretation is limited by the interpreter's vocabulary. There have been times when I interpreted an utterance and later that night realized that I could have used better words to express the meaning of the message contained in the utterance. This inherent limitation within interpreting an utterance prevents us from declaring any prophetic utterance infallible, writing them down, and creating another volume of infallible Scriptures. Therefore, even if an interpreter clearly botches up the interpretation... we do well to consider its validity and the limitations of the interpreter while seeking to understand it.

This forum is really starting to scare me.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

This forum is really starting to scare me.

Perhaps it might help if I explained that interpreting tongues is "interpretation" not "translation". It's not like being a translator at the UN. Maybe that will clarify what I'm saying and will help resolve your fears.

[houston]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Perhaps it might help if I explained that interpreting tongues is "interpretation" not "translation". It's not like being a translator at the UN. Maybe that will clarify what I'm saying and will help resolve your fears.

WTH does that even mean?

Main Entry: in·ter·pret·er
Pronunciation: \in-'t?r-pr?-t?r, -p?-\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : one that interprets: as a : one who translates orally for parties conversing in different languages

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by houston

WTH does that even mean?

You first. What does the underlined in red mean?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by houston

WTH does that even mean?

Main Entry: in·ter·pret·er
Pronunciation: \in-'t?r-pr?-t?r, -p?-\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : one that interprets: as a : one who translates orally for parties conversing in different languages

A "translation" is a word for word presentation of what is said in another language.

Let's talk about, "interpretation".

Interpretation is a more fluid and dynamic manner of presenting the meaning of an unintelligible utterance.

For example, when a baby cries, a mother or father can often tell the difference between their baby being hungry, uncomfortable, sick, or in pain. They are "interpreting" the child's cry. However, nothing in the child's cry can present a word for word translation saying, "I'm hungry." or "I'm in pain." The "sound" or "feel" of the cry is all that is necessary. When the parent hears it he or she might say, "Awww... baby is hungry." Or a playful parent might bounce the child on their knee and playfully say, "Baby is saying, 'I want food mommy. Hurry up and put those dishes away and feed me.'" They are essentially imposing English words upon the meaning of the cry and the perceived intent of the child.

Now, as it relates to the Spirit... Let's consider the example of a simple four second utterance saying something like,

"Lalalala layHORAY viza loo...lala!"

The "interpretation" of this utterance might render a 10 minute message. The "meaning" of the utterance is essentially impressed upon the spirit of the interpreter through the Holy Spirit. It might come in waves or a steady stream of feelings/emotions, pictures, or phrases. The general sense of the utterance impressed upon the interpreter might be a singular theme such as one of warning, admonishment, encouragement, healing, or a call to repentance. The interpreter then seeks to openly receive or use the best words with which to bring the interpretation of the utterance as the Spirit guides them in that moment. Being a human conduit who is receiving the interpretive impression from the Spirit, the interpreter is often limited by their experience, confidence, and vocabulary. Therefore an interpretation might often be "off" or "incomplete" as given by an interpreter. The Spirit may tarry and seek another interpretation from the same individual or impress the interpretation upon another individual entirely.

Interpretations may also come in first person or second person depending upon the interpreter. Some interpreters are not comfortable or confident enough with belting out, "Thus saith the LORD..." They might stand quietly for a moment and say, "I sense that what the LORD is trying to tell us is...." In most cases the majority of the wording used by the interpreter is chosen by the interpreter as they feel the Spirit guiding them. As said above, this can cause the interpretation to be "off" if the interpreter isn't entirely open, has limited vocabulary, or is lacking confidence. Therefore, an interpreted utterance should never be considered infallible or worthy of being holy writ.

Is this clarification clear enough? Is it "deep" enough to be given at least some sincere consideration?

Jees... you guys act like you've never interpreted tongues. C'mon now, we're Pentecostals!

[Esaias]

No wonder lots of people think we are crazy heretics. This is a far cry from what our forbears believed and acted upon. It's almost like we have the name Pentecostal but don't have the sanctifying grace of Pentecost.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Perhaps it might help if I explained that interpreting tongues is "interpretation" not "translation". It's not like being a translator at the UN. Maybe that will clarify what I'm saying and will help resolve your fears.

Good God from Zion!!!!


"Yea I say this is he who words are written in red"

You are trying to debate that the above was some how legit?

That Elder Epley shouldn't judge message in tongues?

Do you know not all New Testaments have red letter editions? So who was the prophecy for? Only the people who have red letter editions? Or since the person was "theeing, thussing, and yeaing" then the message in tongues was only for those who had red letter edition KJVs? Also what about people who don't like red letter editions because they are hard to see the words, was the message also not for them?

Since a Bible printer places the words in red then was the person really giving a message in tongues about Zondervan, or Kirkbride Bible co? because after all they are the ones who placed the letters in red. This argument is ridiculous.

No, you have not resolved my fears, you compounded them.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Good God from Zion!!!!


"Yea I say this is he who words are written in red"

You are trying to debate that the above was some how legit?

That Elder Epley shouldn't judge message in tongues?

Do you know not all New Testaments have red letter editions? So who was the prophecy for? Only the people who have red letter editions? Or since the person was "theeing, thussing, and yeaing" then the message in tongues was only for those who had red letter edition KJVs? Also what about people who don't like red letter editions because they are hard to see the words, was the message also not for them?

Since a Bible printer places the words in red then was the person really giving a message in tongues about Zondervan, or Kirkbride Bible co? because after all they are the ones who placed the letters in red. This argument is ridiculous.

No, you have not resolved my fears, you compounded them.

Brother, I'm not saying that that Bro. Epley shouldn't judge the message. However, since it concerns (or could concern) the Holy Spirit... I'm not going to judge too harshly seeing that I wasn't there.

My point was that based on the statement given, I wouldn't immediately discount a message in tongues. It would take some radical content in the rest of the message that was Scripturally or morally questionable. But the mere phrase, "Yea I say this is he whose words are written in red", isn't enough for me. We all know that within our church culture today the "red words" are used to denote the words of Jesus in our Bibles. Therefore, God could very well claim to be He who spoke the words written in red. In fact, if theologically examined, making such a statement is inherently Oneness. Because Trinitarians would regard the Holy Spirit to be a distinct person from the one who spoke the words written in red, Jesus. However, in this utterance the Spirit clearly professes to be Christ Himself through such an association. Therefore, be it legit or not... the statement is culturally relevant to our modern churches and theologically Oneness in its Christological implication. If spoken by a Trinitarian, I'd get a REAL kick out of it. God can have a rather unique sense of humor. It wouldn't be the first time I'd have heard the Spirit speak through a Trinitarian and use distinctly Oneness self descriptions and affirmations. lol

Chide me if you like... But if you truly look at it objectively... I'm telling the truth. The utterance could have said, "Yea I say this is He whose words are written in the Good Book!" We'd know that the Spirit meant. It isn't uncommon for God to condescend to our level and speak in our vernacular to clarify what He desires to say.

I don't know... maybe what I'm trying to say is too deep for you to understand and give me credit on. Perhaps we should let it go and vote that the Spirit should only be believed if it speaks in the King James English using a 1611 vernacular and lots of vibrato.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Chide me if you like... But if you truly look at it objectively... I'm telling the truth.

I can't take this conversation seriously, let alone be objective to its weird content.

Originally Posted by Aquila

The utterance could have said, "Yea I say this is He whose words are written in the Good Book!"

Or the utterance could have said, "yea I say this is he who is sick and tired of people claiming I'm the one making the ridiculous statements when they have a message in tongues."

Originally Posted by Aquila

We'd know that the Spirit meant.

Good grief man.

Originally Posted by Aquila

It isn't uncommon for God to condescend to our level and speak in our vernacular to clarify what He desires to say.

Really? Oh, so I guess when a sister stood up and said "thus saith the Lord, my people my people I love your worship, and Bubba happy birthday."

Or how about "thus saith the Lord, my people my people I love your worship, and merry Xmas."

Come on already, are we going to debate this sort of foolishness?

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't know... maybe what I'm trying to say is too deep for you to understand and give me credit on.

Yeah, so very deep, that a good set of waders should be employed.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Perhaps we should let it go and vote that the Spirit should only be believed if it speaks in the King James English using a 1611 vernacular and lots of vibrato.

Once had a woman brought forth a message in a high screeching voice, it scared the children, caused the saints to raise an eyebrow, and sent the visitors walking towards the sanctuary exit.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I can't take this conversation seriously, let alone be objective to its weird content.

It's kinda weird, I give you that. But I'm partly serious. lol

Or the utterance could have said, "yea I say this is he who is sick and tired of people claiming I'm the one making the ridiculous statements when they have a message in tongues."

LOL! That would be hilarious. I actually heard of a man giving an interpretation that was something like this...

"Thus saith the Lord, times are hard, I know. Sometimes I don't know if I'm going to make it myself. But if you just hold on..."

When I heard this, I about lost it! When these kinds of things happen, I have to reign myself in and try to glean and find what might be of value in the interpretation. We are but flesh. No interpretation is absolutely perfect.

Good grief man.

Really? Oh, so I guess when a sister stood up and said "thus saith the Lord, my people my people I love your worship, and Bubba happy birthday."

Or how about "thus saith the Lord, my people my people I love your worship, and merry Xmas."

Come on already, are we going to debate this sort of foolishness?

LOL! Excellent points! I do agree there is a limit to what can be accepted in an interpretation. However, what if God did want to wish Bubba a happy birthday just to test your faith? (jk) lol

No, seriously. You give some excellent examples. My only point was that the reference to letters written in red isn't enough to throw out an interpretation. And take into consideration, I'm only saying this based on the single phrase given to me. I do know that God can personalize a message, condescend and use our vernacular, and can even use terms of endearment that move us to tears and worship. When I read it... I felt it wasn't enough to discard an utterance of the Spirit over. That's all. You're examples given above are far better examples of elements to be discarded as it relates to an interpretation.

Yeah, so very deep, that a good set of waders should be employed.

C'mon, please try to understand what I'm trying to say. Give me a little credit here? Please?

Once had a woman brought forth a message in a high screeching voice, it scared the children, caused the saints to raise an eyebrow, and sent the visitors walking towards the sanctuary exit.

Hmmm... if it brought fear and concern to the body... I'd be leery of it. Could be a lying spirit or a carnal saint looking for attention.