• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Tongue Speaking not needed today

Rise

Well-Known Member
Quoting from the Bible, or quoting from a Dictionary, bypassing expressing your own opinions directly and therefore taking responsibility for them, is in fact a cop out.

I think the story in Luke is mythological.

I’m not interested your opinion or my opinion. I’m interested in what God says is true

This brings us down to the real issue you have; which is not what the Bible says, but the fact that you choose to reject the Bible as an authoritative measure of truth. Because your point of view is not consistent with the Bible.

Communication also requires common language. If you invent your own personal meaning behind certain words, and aren’t aware of what the commonly accepted definitions for them are, then you can’t expect to be able to communicate effectively with the rest of the world.

They are your opinions whether you want to admit it or not.

Many things about scripture are very plainly written and are not subject to man’s opinion.
I established definitively in the Bible that not every supernatural manifestation comes from the Holy Spirit. If you believe there is a legitimately different way of reading those scriptures, then you are welcome to try to prove why what I stated is not true based on scripture.

You won’t be able to do that in a way that holds up to scrutiny. It is intellectually lazy, and demonstratably untrue, to claim that no factual statements can be said about the Bible’s content, that anything anyone says about it is just opinion, when you are making no effort to actually base your argument on scripture.

When you compare scripture to scripture, there are many things that cannot be true if you take all scripture together in context. The Bible only becomes the realm of opinion if you believe you get to pick and choose which verses are legitimate and which ones aren’t. It’s a cop out that absolves you of having to come to terms with what the Bible actually says, because you choose to set up an idol god in an image of your own crafting; where only the scriptures you agree with are said to be true.


First of all, God's Logos (Word) is Eternal. The Bible is not.
God’s word communicated and recorded on paper is still God’s word.
God will never lie, eternal truth never changes, and His character never changes. So any genuine word of God recorded for us will stand eternal, which is why we judge modern revelations based on that which has already been revealed by God.

Your real problem here is not that my statement is wrong, but that you don’t believe the Bible is God’s word recorded for us.

Daniel 9:2
2 peter 1:19-21

The Bible is fallible. Do you know anything about how it was created, edited, modified, voted upon in committee meetings, and all of the jazz that went into creating the book you mistake as God and shut yourself off from God in so doing?

I have dealt with this topic many times on this forum, and although your statement represents a commonly repeated myth the documentary evidence shows otherwise.

I would be happy to debate this topic with you in detail if you want to go start another thread on it, but I don’t want to derail this thread into becoming a Bible transmission and reliability debate when the basis of this thread started with the assumption that the Bible is true and debating whether or not tongues is a legitimate spiritual gift based on the Bible.

That’s also why I’ve chosen to ignore a lot of your post that is really going off on rabbit trails that don’t deal with the original topic of this thread; Establishing what the scripture says about tongues, and by extension what that means for the Christian.

Besides, who the hell said tongues are "supernatural"? I didn't. Tongues is a human religious phenomenon.

The Bible does.

1 Corinthians 12:7-10
Genuine tongues is explicitly a gift of the Holy Spirit, not man’s manifestation.

This is what happens when we worship our beliefs.

Denying God’s word and elevating your opinion above it would qualify as the very definition of worshipping your beliefs, making an idol out of what you believe over what God says is true.
 
Last edited:

Orbit

I'm a planet
I’m not interested your opinion or my opinion. I’m interested in what God says is true

This brings us down to the real issue you have; which is not what the Bible says, but the fact that you choose to reject the Bible as an authoritative measure of truth. Because your point of view is not consistent with the Bible.

Communication also requires common language. If you invent your own personal meaning behind certain words, and aren’t aware of what the commonly accepted definitions for them are, then you can’t expect to be able to communicate effectively with the rest of the world.



Many things about scripture are very plainly written and are not subject to man’s opinion.
I established definitively in the Bible that not every supernatural manifestation comes from the Holy Spirit. If you believe there is a legitimately different way of reading those scriptures, then you are welcome to try to prove why what I stated is not true based on scripture.

You won’t be able to do that in a way that holds up to scrutiny. It is intellectually lazy, and demonstratably untrue, to claim that no factual statements can be said about the Bible’s content, that anything anyone says about it is just opinion, when you are making no effort to actually base your argument on scripture.

When you compare scripture to scripture, there are many things that cannot be true if you take all scripture together in context. The Bible only becomes the realm of opinion if you believe you get to pick and choose which verses are legitimate and which ones aren’t. It’s a cop out that absolves you of having to come to terms with what the Bible actually says, because you choose to set up an idol god in an image of your own crafting; where only the scriptures you agree with are said to be true.



God’s word communicated and recorded on paper is still God’s word.
God will never lie, eternal truth never changes, and His character never changes. So any genuine word of God recorded for us will stand eternal, which is why we judge modern revelations based on that which has already been revealed by God.

Your real problem here is not that my statement is wrong, but that you don’t believe the Bible is God’s word recorded for us.

Daniel 9:2



I have dealt with this topic many times on this forum, and although your statement represents a commonly repeated myth the documentary evidence shows otherwise.

I would be happy to debate this topic with you in detail if you want to go start another thread on it, but I don’t want to derail this thread into becoming a Bible transmission and reliability debate when the basis of this thread started with the assumption that the Bible is true and debating whether or not tongues is a legitimate spiritual gift based on the Bible.

That’s also why I’ve chosen to ignore a lot of your post that is really going off on rabbit trails that don’t deal with the original topic of this thread; Establishing what the scripture says about tongues, and by extension what that means for the Christian.



The Bible does.

1 Corinthians 12:7-10
Genuine tongues is explicitly a gift of the Holy Spirit, not man’s manifestation.



Denying God’s word and elevating your opinion above it would qualify as the very definition of worshipping your beliefs, making an idol out of what you believe over what God says is true.
My only comment here is to point out that God did not write the Bible. Men did.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I’m not interested your opinion or my opinion. I’m interested in what God says is true
I see everything I said went sailing straight over your head. That's unfortunate. Let's try again. Anyone who says, "It's not my word, it's God's word!" is self-deluded. It is your word. It is your opinion. It is you opinion of what you believe the Bible says. Everyone must interpret everything they see, read, hear, or experience. Zero exceptions on this planet, now in the present, in the past, and in the future. Everyone interprets, and everyone holds an opinion of what their own views are. No interpretation is Absolute, even if you believe the Bible is Absolute. YOU have to interpret it. No exceptions. You are a human being.

Ever wonder why Jesus says, "He that has ears to hear, let him hear"? It's because even though you have ears, even though you have eyes, you have to interpret things. He means, open yourself to understanding beyond what you think you know. Be open. Not closed. It's not just a matter of simply hearing or reading. It's a matter of interpreting and opening your understanding. Even Jesus knew that! :)

This brings us down to the real issue you have; which is not what the Bible says, but the fact that you choose to reject the Bible as an authoritative measure of truth. Because your point of view is not consistent with the Bible.
I reject any human interpretation as Absolute. Especially those who have very limited understanding of much, or complete lack of actual experience. Their interpretations and opinions don't carry much weight for me because they speak from ignorance. Others have more enlightened opinions, but even theirs are not absolute. Anyone who says they don't have an opinion about what the Bible says, that what they tell you they are reading is the only way to understand it, is a self-deceived liar.

Communication also requires common language. If you invent your own personal meaning behind certain words, and aren’t aware of what the commonly accepted definitions for them are, then you can’t expect to be able to communicate effectively with the rest of the world.
Understanding requires education. I am not making up my own meanings. These are the meanings that you begin to see when you open books and read actual thinkers, experts on these topics. Quoting a dictionary instead is just plain lazy. No excuses for it. I pointed you to experts. Did you read them?

Many things about scripture are very plainly written and are not subject to man’s opinion.
That itself is an opinion. Don't you see?

I established definitively in the Bible that not every supernatural manifestation comes from the Holy Spirit.
And I very clearly said I don't believe any of it is supernatural. That's your interpretation of what it is. I don't agree with your interpretation. I find it far too... limited.

If you believe there is a legitimately different way of reading those scriptures, then you are welcome to try to prove why what I stated is not true based on scripture.
I have. I offered my own interpretation of what I read that countered yours, based upon the taking into account a lot more than you are.

You won’t be able to do that in a way that holds up to scrutiny.
You mean up to your particular board of Grand Inquisitors. :) That's right, they won't approve because they are hardly fair, open-minded, or objective. They close themselves off to knowledge when it contradicts their sacred beliefs they've chosen.

It is intellectually lazy, and demonstratably untrue, to claim that no factual statements can be said about the Bible’s content, that anything anyone says about it is just opinion, when you are making no effort to actually base your argument on scripture.
Intellectually lazy? Me? :) Oh my.... that's a first!!! Too funny. :)

I have repeatedly quoted scripture. But unlike you, I don't burn the books that challenge my thinking and limit myself to a very narrow reading of the Bible. I go beyond just that, and as a result when I read the Bible I see thing you cannot because you do not. And that's not very funny. That's sad. :(

When you compare scripture to scripture, there are many things that cannot be true if you take all scripture together in context.
Oh nonsense! That approach to the Bible presupposes there is some consistent theme you must piece together like a puzzle. And when you do that, you very quickly insert all manner of your presupposed beliefs into it, seeing what you want to see, since you are in effect deliberately trying to see patterns in the clouds! "Oh look, there's a bunny rabbit! Do you see it? It's right there... look, look....!" "Oh, I see it now! You were right! It is a bunny rabbit! It was there all along! How could I have not seen that!"

That is exactly what your approach is going to yield. Seeing faces in abstract shapes, projecting images of yourself onto the pages of the Bible and calling it "God's word", not taking any responsibility for your own points of view. That in a nutshell sums it all up.


More later.... ;)
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
Windwalker, I have a question for you:

Suppose the Bible said in three different books "God created the blue sky."
And it can be shown that no where else in the Bible does it state anything that contradicts that.

Is it then possible for us to state factually that the Bible says God created the sky and made it blue?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Windwalker, I have a question for you:

Suppose the Bible said in three different books "God created the blue sky."
And it can be shown that no where else in the Bible does it state anything that contradicts that.

Is it then possible for us to state factually that the Bible says God created the sky and made it blue?
More properly stated we can say that the various writers of the various books included in the Bible repeat the commonly held view that God created the sky. (The Bible itself doesn't say anything as it's a book, not a sentient being. ;) ). If there were contradictory views they didn't get included into the collection because it's not what the redactors wanted it to say for the masses they were compiling it for.

What's the next question?
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
More properly stated we can say that the various writers of the various books included in the Bible repeat the commonly held view that God created the sky. (The Bible itself doesn't say anything as it's a book, not a sentient being. ;) ). If there were contradictory views they didn't get included into the collection because it's not what the redactors wanted it to say for the masses they were compiling it for.

What's the next question?

As simple as I made the question for you, you still managed to not answer it.

I did not ask you to give reasons why you think what the Bible clearly says was probably altered or changed.

I asked you, that if the Bible clearly says "God created the sky and made it blue" multiple times, and that fact is contradicted no where else in the Bible, can we positively state that the Bible factually says "God created the sky and made it blue"?

I'll give you one more try at answering that.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As simple as I made the question for you, you still managed to not answer it.

I did not ask you to give reasons why you think what the Bible clearly says was probably altered or changed.

I asked you, that if the Bible clearly says "God created the sky and made it blue" multiple times, and that fact is contradicted no where else in the Bible, can we positively state that the Bible factually says "God created the sky and made it blue"?

I'll give you one more try at answering that.
I did answer it in the first sentence, "More properly stated we can say that the various writers of the various books included in the Bible repeat the commonly held view that God created the sky". We can state factually that what is included in the Bible from the various writers of it expresses that common view. That is answering the question. Isn't it?

If you want me to word it the way you did, that's misleading. I'm qualifying my answer at the outset to head off the argument you are wanting to lead me to. I'm answering it before it comes. Again "The Bible" does not say anything. It's authors do. In that example, there is a consistency in what they are saying, for whatever the underlying reasons. Yes. Question answered.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
So now, given those circumstances, if I state "The Bible says God created the sky and made it blue", that would be a factual statement drawn from the Bible's content. You could not then come by and claim that's just my opinion of what the Bible says, because that's actually what the Bible factually says.

However, that's exactly what you are trying to do. I said that the Bible clearly differentiates between false and counterfeit supernatural operation versus that which is done by God.
I then established through dozens of scriptures in two posts that this is a factual statement about what we see throughout scripture:

rise said:
John 4:22
John 4:24
Deuteronomy 12:6

Not everyone who thinks they are worshipping the one true God are.
You can't do whatever you want and then claim you're doing it for God.

Acts 2:38
John 15:4
Matthew 7:16
1 John 2:2-4
John 14:23
John 15:16
Matthew 7:22
Deuteronomy 13:2-4
2 Corinthians 11:4
Acts 2:8
Acts 1:4-5
Acts 1:8
Acts 2:3-4

You must be in Jesus, obeying and abiding, to recieve the Holy Spirit.
That is judged by fruit.
Not everyone who appears to be doing supernatural works is in Jesus.

1 Corinthians 12:4
1 Corinthians 12:10

The gifts of the Holy Spirit come only through the Holy Spirit.

Scripturally, no one moves in any genuine gift of the Holy Spirit without the Holy Spirit.
Those who have the Holy Spirit are, by any Biblical definition, Christians.
You either have the Holy Spirit or you are operating in a counterfeit spirit.

-------------------

Satan counterfeits and deceives:
2 Corinthians 11:13-15
Galatians 1:8
1 Timothy 4:1-2
2 Peter 2:1
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
Revelation 12:9

Not everyone who thinks they are worshiping God, are:
John 4:22
John 4:24

Not all who appear to operate in the gift of Knowledge or Prophecy are actually operating in the Holy Spirit.
Deuteronomy 13:1-3
1 Kings 22:23
Jeremiah 14:14
Jeremiah 23:9-11
Jeremiah 23:16-18
Jeremiah 23:21-22
Jeremiah 23:33-36
Jeremiah 5:11-13
Lamentations 2:14
Ezekiel 13:6-7
Matthew 7:13
Matthew 20-23
Matthew 24:3-5
Matthew 10-11
Acts 16:16
As we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by fortune-telling.
Acts 16:18
And this she kept doing for many days. Paul, having become greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour.

Not everyone who appears to operating in a gift of signs and wonders is doing so by the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 24:24
Matthew 25:25
Exodus 7:11, Exodus 8:18
2 Thessalonians 2:9

Although some have been given supernatural strength by the Holy Spirit, not everyone who appears to have supernatural strength does so by the Holy Spirit:
Judges 14:6
Luke 8:29

God draws a distinction between the way pagans worship, and the way His people are to worship. What they were doing was not acceptable.
Deuteronomy 12:4
Matthew 6:7-8

We must spiritually discern the difference by the Holy Spirit.
1 John 2:22-26
1 Corinthians 2:14
1 Thessalonians 5:20-21
1 John 4:1
1 Corinthians 14:29

Ultimately satan, despite appearing to have some power, has no power when it comes to those empowered by God:
1 Kings 18:28-29
Exodus 8:18
Luke 10:19

This theme and pattern is well established all throughout scripture.

You have had no direct attempt to grapple with any of those verses and demonstrate why my statements about the Bible cannot be taken as factual readings of what the Bible says.

Opinion:
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

In order to prove your accusation that my statements about the Bible's content are only an opinion, you have to prove that the things I've stated are not actually based on facts contained within the Bible.
You can try to do that in several ways:
1. Show where I've said something that isn't actually backed up by scripture.
2. Demonstrate why you think I've taken something out of context, using scripture.
3. Find scripture that contradicts anything I've said.
4. Provide your own harmonization of all those scriptures that leads to a different conclusion without contradicting scripture. Only then can you claim that there are equally valid but different ways of reading the same scripture.

If you can't do any of that, then you have no basis for claiming anything I've said in my quoted scripture references is just opinion.

Just repeating "but that's only an opinion" over and over doesn't make it any more true than the first time you said it - You actually need to prove through reason and scriptural facts why my statements about the Bible's content cannot be regarded as factual statements about what the Bible says.


windwalker said:
And I very clearly said I don't believe any of it is supernatural. That's your interpretation of what it is. I don't agree with your interpretation. I find it far too... limited.
You should actually read someone's whole post before popping off line by line responses, because then you would have seen that near the end of my post I already proved your statement wrong:

rise said:
The Bible does.

1 Corinthians 12:7-10
Genuine tongues is explicitly a gift of the Holy Spirit, not man’s manifestation.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So now, given those circumstances, if I state "The Bible says God created the sky and made it blue", that would be a factual statement drawn from the Bible's content. You could not then come by and claim that's just my opinion of what the Bible says, because that's actually what the Bible factually says.
:) You cannot come from an obvious statement of something each and everyone of observe every day, to the degrees of complexity an nuance as to interpreting the teachings of others. That's a ridiculous comparison. To make a statement, "Water is wet", does not require a sophisticated level of interpretation. But to say, "The heart is deceitful above all measure", would require a much higher, far more sophisticated degree of interpretation. "Water is wet" is an obvious statement. But what does that person mean as a teacher When he says "The heart is deceitfully wicked? What subtle truths is he trying to make? What is he comparing it to? What are his points of reference? What is his emotional state in this statement? Is he angry and venting off steam? Is he intending us to ask the questions and see what truths it holds for us in the search of an answer? And so forth.

Do you see the huge, vastly more complexities that go into reading the Bible? Interpretation of some high degree of complexity and sophistication is required. It's not a simple as saying "The sky is blue. Water is wet. Rocks are hard. Cats are cute," and such other simplistic level thoughts. The book would have use only in an infants playroom! :)

Is that Bible that simplistic to you when you read it? Does it never provoke you to wonder and question and look at an examine life and yourself in all it's vast complexities? Does it read to you like "The sky is blue. Cat's are warm."? What would that say? Would you agree it's that simplistic and trite? For your sake, I certainly hope not. And if it does, I may have some suggestions for you to follow, such as taking a retreat, having a wise teacher provoke to look at life's larger questions, etc. So, is it that simple to you? Yes or no?

**Footnote: Even "The sky is blue" does actually require interpretation. Anything we hear or read or experience it does. It's a matter of degree of how much or how little interpretation is required. How simple or how nuanced, and all myriad of degrees in between.

However, that's exactly what you are trying to do.
I certainly am because what we are talking about it enormously more complicated than Paul saying the sky is blue. If he said that, then you and I would have pretty much identical points of view. There would be no reason to question our interpretations. We would interpret it similarly, unless I saw or knew something you did not. Not likely in that case. ;)

I said that the Bible clearly differentiates between false and counterfeit supernatural operation versus that which is done by God.
I then established through dozens of scriptures in two posts that this is a factual statement about what we see throughout scripture:
And how we understand what those verses mean doesn't differ? I know those verses. I've heard them countless times. And from my perspective, it actually applies to those who use it to attack others with who don't agree with their interpretations. My interpretation is very likely drawing from a lot of experience and knowledge that makes the context in which I interpret those verses through outside of what you have to interpret these things through.

Just because you read something you were taught applies to this group or that person and interpret at that way through the filters of that context, does not mean another doesn't hold an interpretation that is better than that. Just because you read it and think it means that, doesn't make it true. I've be explaining why is doesn't make it true.

You have had no direct attempt to grapple with any of those verses and demonstrate why my statements about the Bible cannot be taken as factual readings of what the Bible says.
I have too. I have quoted those verses in support of what I was saying. The Greek analysis of the words does support what I believe was really going on.

Here's the thing you are getting wrong here. You think you can know for a fact what happened back then. I do not believe I can know that. And you are wrong about your belief here. You cannot know for a fact what happen as it was close to 2000 years ago, in a land far, far away, in a language you never spoke, in a culture you never shared, with people you've never met nor ever will, and the list goes on and on. So NO, I will never accept what anyone says that what they say about how they read what the text says is a FACT. Absolutely not, it's not a fact.

Even in the present moment, today, with the person right in front of your face, if they tell you something about their thoughts about some particular issue they see, you cannot even then claim to know as a FACT what they really meant or were trying to say. At best, anyone one of us can do is saying "I think I understanding what you are saying and mean". Again, "the sky is blue," is pretty simple to interpret. But not once you depart those shores! :)

I think you need to revamp your entire understanding about reality here. :)

Opinion:
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Sure, I'll accept that. We all have opinions. Some are better than others.

In order to prove your accusation that my statements about the Bible's content are only an opinion, you have to prove that the things I've stated are not actually based on facts contained within the Bible.
First of all, I can say for sure what you say about the Bible's contents are opinion without having to counter argue any of your wrong points about it. No one can know anything historically as a fact because of how the information has gotten to us. Everything we have to say about it is an opinion of what we think it is saying. Some opinions will be more informed, and hence carry more weight. Other opinions are not as well-informed and worth less value.

You can try to do that in several ways:
1. Show where I've said something that isn't actually backed up by scripture.
You have. Well done. But your interpretation of those verses you are quoting to back up your opinion are not how I interpret them. You do not have infallible interpretations. :) As far as how I interpret those verses differently, I don't care to talk about each and everyone of them due to the amount of time it would require. But I can tell you, the entire context and lens that I read everything in the Bible with is what you don't have, and hence why you will not see what I see, and understand what I do in order to see that those verses fit a far larger picture than you see from your vantage point. I'd have to explain in sweeping volumes to explain how I interpret those. I actually am supposed to be writing my book on this stuff, rather than posting here. :)

2. Demonstrate why you think I've taken something out of context, using scripture.
Why? Why can't I show you using other things outside quoting scripture? What's wrong with that? Do you limit the breadth and scope of your knowledge to the Bible only? How very sad if you do. :( How will you ever hope to understand what you read in it if you don't have any education outside what you read on its pages? That's a pretty limited knowledge of the world you'll be stuck with. Not even back then did they suggest you do that!

3. Find scripture that contradicts anything I've said.
Why?

4. Provide your own harmonization of all those scriptures that leads to a different conclusion without contradicting scripture. Only then can you claim that there are equally valid but different ways of reading the same scripture.
I don't agree that "only then" I can claim a better understanding of these things than you do. I can claim a better understanding of these things because first and foremost, I have actual experience with it whereas you do not. I have knowledge in the area of altered states from research and data, whereas you have none. I have an understanding and experience with other religions and their practices, whereas I doubt you do. Those along with others allows me a perspective which sheds light on what I read that you do not.

It's not so much how one reads the verses, it's understanding the much, much larger context. And that I have been presenting, which you try to ignore by reducing understanding of the Bible (which means within the larger framework of culture and life), to things no more complex to understand than "The sky is blue", "Cat's are furry", and the like.

If you can't do any of that, then you have no basis for claiming anything I've said in my quoted scripture references is just opinion.
Says you! :) I don't believe you actually believe that, as much as you may want to.

Just repeating "but that's only an opinion" over and over doesn't make it any more true than the first time you said it - You actually need to prove through reason and scriptural facts why my statements about the Bible's content cannot be regarded as factual statements about what the Bible says.
Because you don't have all the requisite experience, frameworks, and contexts to understand why. Oh, and why suddenly can we go outside the Bible now and use reason? That's new to your criteria of truth and veracity! That's extrabiblical! You're not supposed to interpret these things! Well... I've been using reason from the first letter I typed! :) Yet you want to throw that out when I don't just limit it to quibbling about letters and words? Reality has a much larger context than just a mere 66 pages of a book called the Bible.

You should actually read someone's whole post before popping off line by line responses, because then you would have seen that near the end of my post I already proved your statement wrong:
You haven't yet. :) I read that, and I know that verse very well. I was a Pentecostal, after all. It is a spiritual "gift", sure, uttered through the moving of Spirit. I agree. But I don't consider that supernatural. Does anything spiritual have to be understood as magical or supernatural? I don't believe that's necessary. That understanding of it as supernatural is.... guess what? An interpretation of it.

Clear now?
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
You know what's still missing from your reply?
A single sentence that demonstrates why any of the statements I made about what scripture says are wrong, backed up by scriptural exegesis.
You're only talking in vague generalities, providing no specific scriptural evidence that my conclusions from scripture are not true.


Scriptural exegesis 101. If someone states a truth from scripture which is contradicted by other scripture, then that person's statement was wrong.
Scriptural truth will be in harmony with the rest of scripture.

This presumption underlies Christianity: 2 Timothy 3:16.

Whether or not you agree with that presumption is irrelevant to the topic; because if you want to claim the scripture does or does not say something, that fact has to be established by actually reading the scripture.

You do not have infallible interpretations.

We've already established that factual conclusions can be stated from the Bible's content.

Therefore, unless you can demonstrate using logical exegesis and facts from the Bible why what I've said is faulty, you have no basis to claim it is.

Just repeatedly claiming there is fault in what I said doesn't make it true. You need to evidence your claim.

Coping out and saying you're too lazy too evidence your assertions doesn't justify your position. At that point you should either admit you don't know what you're talking about, or not make statements you can't back up to begin with.

It is a spiritual "gift", sure, uttered through the moving of Spirit. I agree. But I don't consider that supernatural.

Maybe according to your own personal slippery definition of what "supernatural" is (I'm noticing a pattern here).
But you are the one who took issue with my use of the word "supernatural" without asking me to first clarify what I meant by that term - Which would be the standard commonly accepted use of the term.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You know what's still missing from your reply?
A single sentence that demonstrates why any of the statements I made about what scripture says are wrong, backed up by scriptural exegesis.
I have provided sound and solid reasons (since you have allowed reason into this discussion). Backed up by "scriptural exegesis"? Who made that the criteria? That's a flawed approach, and I've already stated the reasons for why that is. I'll repeat those reasons in the rest of my response in case they escaped your attention the first times through.

You're only talking in vague generalities, providing no specific scriptural evidence that my conclusions from scripture are not true.
They are only vague to you because the concepts of what I am talking about are outside your wheelhouse. I'm am including specific, not vague, criteria such as comparative religious studies, ethnology, anthropology, transpersonal psychology, semiotics, personal experience, etc., into the mix. And since to you those are not factors you are aware of, or choose to not look at despite my offering direct links to the material itself for you to read (not vague, just technical), you keep trying to get me to play the game doing something that is flawed and pointless in order to support a weak conclusion.

I have offered how, taking into account all of the aforementioned things, the scriptures can be understood in the light of what I am saying. That is not vague, but very specific.

Scriptural exegesis 101. If someone states a truth from scripture which is contradicted by other scripture, then that person's statement was wrong.
Scriptural truth will be in harmony with the rest of scripture.
BZZZZZ... Error. No, not at all. This is why I reject this approach. It's flawed. I've explained it before, but will explain it again. First I'll just repost what I said before. From Post #63 above:

Oh nonsense! That approach to the Bible presupposes there is some consistent theme you must piece together like a puzzle. And when you do that, you very quickly insert all manner of your presupposed beliefs into it, seeing what you want to see, since you are in effect deliberately trying to see patterns in the clouds! "Oh look, there's a bunny rabbit! Do you see it? It's right there... look, look....!" "Oh, I see it now! You were right! It is a bunny rabbit! It was there all along! How could I have not seen that!"

That is exactly what your approach is going to yield. Seeing faces in abstract shapes, projecting images of yourself onto the pages of the Bible and calling it "God's word", not taking any responsibility for your own points of view. That in a nutshell sums it all up.
Rather than this erroneous approach trying to "harmonize" scripture, trying to force fit the various, and sometimes contradictory points of view together, I take the approach of understanding it's various parts contextually. Here's a little of what that looks like:

  1. What's the author's personality like?
  2. What's his motivation?
  3. What's his experience with what he's talking about?
  4. How does that compare to what we know today versus what he would have known?
  5. How does it compare to my own experience?
  6. Who is his audience?
  7. What is their experience?
  8. What is their culture?
  9. What were its symbols?
  10. What do linguists have to say of his word choices and what does that say?
  11. What do other authors outside of him say, and who was his audience, culture, motives, etc?
  12. Is the author the book is attributed to actually the author, or is the text pseudepigraphal from another time, for other reasons?
  13. What does scholarship today show us based on the other sciences, such as anthropology, ethnology, linguistics, and so forth?
  14. How does it compare to what we see in other religions, understood through what we understand today?
  15. What is my personal experience with this area and what are my thoughts and understandings read in light of those?
  16. And the list goes on.....
You can see that I do is in fact just not willy nilly, say just "whatever" I want. I am looking at quite a lot, and all of it has actual support. All of this offers a context for understanding you are not engaging with. I've offered you some of the support, and you have done nothing but completely ignore it. Now THAT is intellectual dishonesty on your part.

This presumption underlies Christianity: 2 Timothy 3:16.
No it does not. It contradicts your very flawed interpretation of that verse. Christianity has always relied on other sources of knowledge. Your approach is very modern, and very flawed. It is what happens when uneducated preachers get ahold of the Bible and scream from the pulpit, "It's not my words but God's!". They are dumb, just plain dumb - as well as dangerous.

Whether or not you agree with that presumption is irrelevant to the topic; because if you want to claim the scripture does or does not say something, that fact has to be established by actually reading the scripture.
That I disagree with that approach is 100% relevant to have a reasonable and rational discussion about the topic. You throw out all the weight of evidence I bring to the discussion wanting me instead to take approach of seeing patterns in the clouds and arguing whether I'm seeing a horse or a bunny rabbit in your so-called "scriptural exegesis 101".

I can in fact say that what you read in scripture, in how you understand it, is not the only way to understand it. And that there is in fact better, broader-picture understandings than from what you can get ignoring anything outside the pages of the Bible itself. When you allow in knowledge from all the rest of our thousands of years of research and studies into other areas of life, what you read on the pages creates different images that appear to you.

I'll give you another analogy. Imagine you're displaying a picture on your screen and the resolution of it is only 500 pixels. Now imagine that same image displayed at 200,000,000 pixels. Which do you think provides a clearer picture? The Bible offers a low resolution picture. The rest of your knowledge and experience offers the clarity to the image. The difference between us is I accept allowing a higher resolution image on the screen I'm looking at, and you refuse that, trying to make sense of your low-resolution image without allowing that higher resolution available to you as a possible benefit to help you see it better. Do you fear clarity? Does it threaten your idea of what you think it is you've been looking at?

We've already established that factual conclusions can be stated from the Bible's content.
No we have not. I desomated your argument on that point. I do not want to have to repeat all of that again. You cannot go from a highly simplistic statement like the sky is blue, to complex teachings and expect them to be understood as easily. That is a completely false analogy. I went into detail showing why. You ignored the data. The term for this is willful ignorance.

Therefore, unless you can demonstrate using logical exegesis and facts from the Bible why what I've said is faulty, you have no basis to claim it is.
False criteria. I have demonstrated what I am saying using logic, research and experience. Your saying I have no basis for it is completely false. A lie. You cannot ignore these things. Why are you? Please answer that question. How do you justify ignoring all the things I am presenting? Answer that.

Just repeatedly claiming there is fault in what I said doesn't make it true. You need to evidence your claim.
My posts are laced with evidence from top to bottom. Why are you choosing to ignore that?

Coping out and saying you're too lazy too evidence your assertions doesn't justify your position. At that point you should either admit you don't know what you're talking about, or not make statements you can't back up to begin with.
I clearly know what I'm talking about. I'm talking from experience and research. Can you claim that yourself? If not, then you are speaking from a position of ignorance, not knowledge.

Maybe according to your own personal slippery definition of what "supernatural" is (I'm noticing a pattern here).
How is what I said slippery? Here's what I said, and it's not slippery at all. People who historically did not understand the causes of some extraordinary thing or event or phenomenon, might attribute supernatural causes to it. That does not mean the thing was not real or did not happen, but that attributing it to mythic sources is simply a matter of language. When I say I don't call tongues supernatural, I mean it is a natural, human experience evidenced the world over. You may call it supernatural because to you it appears magical. To me it does not. It's simply how we chose to speak of the same thing.

That's pretty straightforward and clear, isn't it?

But you are the one who took issue with my use of the word "supernatural" without asking me to first clarify what I meant by that term - Which would be the standard commonly accepted use of the term.
I thought I was pretty safe in my assumption of what you meant. And it appears I was, correct?

The reason I took issue with it, and you need to hear this, is because you start with a magical explanation of tongues, and from there you create this model of reality that fits that mythic explanation. You end up with unsupportable storylines of demons and devils imitating the "real thing" because only God loves you and give you real supernatural things, and if others have the same thing, they must be imposters, because your God is not their God!

It reminds me of when I was five years old and I met a girl who had the same birthday as me. When she said the date, my response to her was, "No, it can't be! That's MY birthday!". I did not understand two people could have the same birthday, because I thought mine was completely unique to ME. It was MY birthday, therefore other's could not share it. This is exactly your argument against other religions having "false" tongues because you think Christianity is unique, just like I did as a five year old thinking my birthday was unique to ME in the whole wide world.

That's why I make a deal of it. Your premise and logic following it is highly flawed, and you end up rejecting what is right in front of your face the very selfsame thing. In other words, all spiritual gifts are from God, and in allowing beliefs in your mythic storyline to override seeing other humans doing the same thing as you, you end up rejecting God. And that's not a good thing.

Is there value to speak of imposters? Yes, certainly! But they are those who pose as Christians, who preach the right words, but their meaning produces division and judgement of others, such as calling them "false gifts" when they see them right in front of their faces. These are the imposters. These are those devils posing as angels of light. It is not those of other religions who worship in Spirit and in Truth in their own ways, but those who claim Jesus saying "Lord, Lord," but have no true faith in them which produces the fruits of the Spirit. "By their fruits you shall know them," says Jesus. Those who say they preach the truth but produce divisions and judgements of others are the ones to be careful of. They are wolves in sheep's clothing, religious predators. They are narcissists.
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
Christ has warned us, “Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many”. — Matthew 24:4-5. One of the deception of today, is tongue speaking. The experience which the disciples went through has been perverted by professed Christians. Christ had commissioned the disciples, to preach the gospel to all the world, beginning at Jerusalem. They were to preach, teach, and convert souls, not by their own strength, but through the holy spirit. They were faced with one problem, the language barrier. The disciples only spoke their native language, and were not fluent in other languages or tongues. God knew this, and made provision through the holy spirit. Thus the holy spirit gave them utterance or the ability to speak other languages, so that other may hear the gospel and be saved.


How about today, do we need this gift? Is language a barrier as it was in the time of the disciples? The answer is no. How about those who speak tongue in their churches, is it genuine? Sadly the answer is no. Why is that? Simply because during the experience at Pentecost, every man heard the disciples speaking their native language, and not another man interpreting it for them. Acts 2:6-8. The tongue speaking that's going on in the church today, is what scripture calls vain babblings, which leadest onto ungodliness. 2Timothy 2:16 & 1 Timothy 6:20. This is also an indicator thay you need to leave that church! Those who claim that they speak in tongue, first deceive themselves, and others. They have not the truth, and those who follow them are blind, and are being lead by blind leaders!

I believe you lack evidence. All I see is vain speculation and assumption.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Ooo, another glossolalia zombie thread. This should be entertaining to watch. A Christian internecine grudge match. I'm going to get some popcorn.

Don't worry about what your New Testament says about how disagreements among yourselves should be settled in private. The non-Christians won't think less of the one you profess to serve. Or will they?

Wheeeeeee

I believe that reminds me of the old joke about getting two Jews together means there will be ten opinions.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
windwalker said:
I can in fact say that what you read in scripture, in how you understand it, is not the only way to understand it.

The onus is on you to prove your statement is true.

I’ve already given you dozens of verses which establish that the Bible shows there exists a clear distinction between the Holy Spirit and false or counterfeit supernatural acts (regardless of how you personally want to define "supernatural" is irrelevant to the fact that this distinction between genuine and counterfeit still exists in scripture).

If you can demonstrate an alternative way of reading those scriptures that isn’t contradictory with the rest of the Bible, then you might be able to prove your case - but the truth is you can’t. Just claiming you can, without actually attempting to do so, ad naseum, doesn’t advance your argument.
Rejecting the Bible's authority also doesn't absolve you of the need to prove your statement is true either. Because regardless of whether or not you believe all those books are authentic, you still made a claim about the content contained within the Bible that you have failed to back up with proof.

I’ve tried to help you understand that so that the discussion can move forward, but if you insist on refusing to support your claims about what the Bible says with actual facts from the Bible then you’re just spinning around in circles and have essentially conceded the debate. So unless you are interested in backing up your claims that the Bible does not draw a distinction between true and false miracles, using actual scripture to do so, I see no point in responding further.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The onus is on you to prove your statement is true.
I am not claiming it is "true", I am saying it fits what we know about these things, talking in tongues specifically. Do I believe that is the absolute fact of what he is saying? Hell, no. That's what you do, with your one and only correct way of understanding things.

However, that said what I can do is this: I can support what I think I am hearing Paul say with all the things I have been from the very first posts in this thread. I am supporting my view of what I am hear. I am not just saying it for no reason. I have support, and darned better support than just wilfully ignoring 2000 year worth of knowledge will land you. ;)

I’ve already given you dozens of verses which establish that the Bible shows there exists a clear distinction between the Holy Spirit and false or counterfeit supernatural acts (regardless of how you personally want to define "supernatural" is irrelevant to the fact that this distinction between genuine and counterfeit still exists in scripture).
No, you have quoted verses you THINK supports your biases. I haven't wanted to waste my energies trying to bicker interpretations of each of those. It's a complete waste of time and frankly boring to me. But here, let's take one example of your so-called "proofs" from scripture about counterfeit gifts of the Spirit. Let's look at this one:

"Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby." Mt. 7:13.

Okay, what in the name of Zeus's castrated monkey does this verse have to do with "false gifts" or "counterfeit tongues"??? Nothing whatsoever. You are totally injecting something it is not saying. It has to with how people choose the easier path through life, rather than one of devotion to God and a spiritual life! Why did you just waste my time and call that "proof"? Why not just quote, "Jesus wept", and then inject into it "because counterfeit tongues make Jesus cry"! Seriously? You think this has anything to do with this faking supernatural gifts? What a waste of 30 seconds of my life to argue this point.

If you can demonstrate an alternative way of reading those scriptures that isn’t contradictory with the rest of the Bible
An alternative way to what you claim you are interpreting from that one example I just gave? Pick any! Make it say God love's chicken sandwiches, and it would make just as much sense to use it there as the way you just did. :)

Because regardless of whether or not you believe all those books are authentic, you still made a claim about the content contained within the Bible that you have failed to back up with proof.
I have succeeded quite well in supporting my point of view. I can't prove this, nor can you or anyone else their thoughts about this stuff. I'm not going to try. But all weighed together, I feel quite confident my points of view have better support for what I think was going on than you do for yours. I don't limit my knowledge to a 2000 year old book. I am open to knowledge, and therefore I have more to draw from in understanding these things.

So, why have you ignored the evidence I've shown you? Can you prove why the research isn't valid?
 
Last edited:

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
You're grossly misinterpreting that scripture, which can be proven by looking at the context.
The idea that speaking in tongues and intrepreting is not supernatural, but mundane, is disproven in the very chapter you quoted from.

1 Corinthians 12:
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.


Here we see that the gift of tongues, interpretation, healing, and miracles are all linked together as the same work of the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, you aren't even consistent with your own logic up to this point.
You already said you believe that the apostles spoke in foreign languages they didn't know by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Is that not a supernatural act of God empowered by His Spirit? Why would you try to call that mundane? By the dictionary definition of the word "mundane", you cannot use that to describe a supernatural act of the Holy Spirit.

You're trying to draw a division between the gifts of the Spirit that doesn't exist in the scripture.

Yes they do differentiate between them.

And there is no reason what so ever for the gifts to be supernatural, and even if the gift of knowing FOREIGN Languages was a considered a miracle GIFT - IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GIBBERISH OF TODAY - THAT IS CALLED SPEAKING IN TONGUES.

As stated - the TEXT - separates them. Have you folks read the whole text in context? Without preconceived ideas that you have been told it means?

1Co 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.


1Co 12:22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Doctoring/healing, help, government, and languages, are not included in the miracle list in that verse. They are after miracles - THEN ...

1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

Obviously NOT as they put this verse following a text separating miracles and - OTHER.

1Co 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

The word being translated - gifts - also means - endowed qualifications.

1Co 12:30 Have all the qualifications for healing? ...

Actually something like -

1Co 12:30 Not all have the qualifications or abilities to heal, nor do all tongues/languages speak, nor do all translate.

PS - I don't believe any of it, - so no - I didn't say they spoke by the power of the holy spirit. I am merely speaking of different interpretations of the text.

*

*
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Why do you assume tongues by the Holy Spirit was not around before pentecost?

According to Jewish oral tradition, when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies he spoke in an unknown language that only God could understand.

Malachi 3:6
Hebrews 13:8 ...

This - as it stands - is called misdirection.

Neither quote proves your assertion in the sentence.

Provide real sources so we can read them for ourselves.

*
 
Top