Quote:
Originally Posted by mizpeh
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself;
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Here are the verses I was referring to. Paul told the man who spoke in an unknown tongue if there is no interpreter to speak to himself and to God [in an unknown tongue]. My point is if this unknown tongue is, as you as saying, known to the one who speaks it, then how is this man edified by speaking in an unknown tongue to himself? He already knows the language. He would therefore be speaking to himself words he understands.
This would contradict what Paul said in vs 14.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
|
Paul was making a point. He was speaking rhetorically. He couldn't make the point if he said "I speak Hebrew therefore I understand the Torah readings. He makes the point with a hypothetical when he says, "If I don't speak Hebrew how will it edify me to hear the Torah read in Hebrew."
He wanted them to discontinue the traditional use of Hebrew unless there was an interpreter present to make sense of the reading to everyone so they would be edified.
Can you counter the fact that it seems Paul was against the use of tongues in the synagogue?
Threaded Mode
