1. 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!

Featured Speaking in tongues! Whats the argument for and against?

Discussion in 'Comparative Religion' started by firedragon, Jan 22, 2021.

  1. firedragon

    firedragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    9,146
    Ratings:
    +2,486
    1. So you think the 4th century Bibles were missing this out because there was a conspiracy at that time?
    2. And you claim that the textus receptus is more authoritative than 4th century manuscripts right? Thats obvious. Thus, it miraculously disappeared in the earliest manuscripts, and miraculously reappeared in manuscripts many centuries later?

    Great.
     
  2. firedragon

    firedragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    9,146
    Ratings:
    +2,486
    He is directly referring to the miracle verses in Mark which are forgeries which he didnt know were forgeries. Of course he has his own interpretation of it, but he is still interpreting a forged verse. He should have known that it was not an authentic verse if he had any divine inspiration.

    His explanation of "tongues" is more rational than how the Christians traditionally interpreted it, and many many people have said the same thing plenty of times, even in this same thread, yet it is still a miracle of the apostles that he is talking about, and I do believe he should have known better.
     
  3. Redemptionsong

    Redemptionsong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    Messages:
    2,202
    Ratings:
    +288
    The complete text 'reappeared' because it was part of the original text, left out by those authorities who thought they knew better.

    We can see from the words of Mark 16 that it fits comfortably with the message of the New Testament as a whole.

    The people who refuse to accept Mark 16 are also those who claim that the powers of the Holy Spirit are no longer active. The same people who believe that 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 is a reference to the Holy Spirit becoming inoperative after the initial work of the early church.

    1 Corinthians 13:10. 'But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.'

    What do you think the 'perfect' refers to? By answering that question you'll solve the problem of Mark (16:18).
     
  4. cOLTER

    cOLTER Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2020
    Messages:
    738
    Ratings:
    +173
    Religion:
    Disciple
    Speaking in tongues meant different languages. It was Pentecost when the spirit of truth poorer out upon all flesh. There were many pilgrims in Jerusalem on that day when the apostles began the bold public proclamation of the risen Christ.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    25,885
    Ratings:
    +12,640
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    Yet the utterances are not a language.
     
  6. Jainarayan

    Jainarayan ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    20,828
    Ratings:
    +8,931
    Religion:
    śrī kṛṣṇasya sevāyām - “In Lord Krishna’s service”
    Yes, the pilgrims and travelers were from all over the known world, all speaking different languages, and hearing and understanding the apostles in their own languages. Something that was a one time miracle has been turned into silliness and nonsense that makes them a laughing stock.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. firedragon

    firedragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    9,146
    Ratings:
    +2,486
    Evidence?
     
  8. Redemptionsong

    Redemptionsong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    Messages:
    2,202
    Ratings:
    +288
    If you take a look at the site: www.tbsbibles.org, 'The Received Text', you'll find a well rounded argument for the decision to include the Greek Textus Receptus in the AV.
     
  9. firedragon

    firedragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    9,146
    Ratings:
    +2,486
    That’s not evidence. State your evidence. Not point to a website.
     
  10. cOLTER

    cOLTER Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2020
    Messages:
    738
    Ratings:
    +173
    Religion:
    Disciple
    True, today speaking in tongues is emotionally produced nonsense! At Pentecost it was just preaching in different languages. Shamans, medicine men and snake oil salesman have often resorted to supposedly mysterious devices to dazzle the audience. Israel was the crossroads of the world at that time. It would be common for the average Jew to have an acquaintance with different languages. Hebrew, Aramaic, Italian, Greek etc.
     
  11. Redemptionsong

    Redemptionsong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    Messages:
    2,202
    Ratings:
    +288
    Pointing to a good summary of the argument saves me a lot of writing!

    The argument is clearly stated. The Textus Receptus has a trail of acceptance that takes us back to the early Byzantine (traditional) Church. The reason the complete (approx. 98%) Greek Received Text was included in the later English versions (including AV) was to give the broadest reading, without theological prejudices depleting the text.

    Your claim that sections of Mark 16 are not of ancient origin is clearly wrong. They were only taken out, or questioned, by later theologians and textual scholars who doubted their reliability. The revisers of 1881 (including Wescott and Hort) were largely responsible for this change in attitude. Yet, if you follow Scrivener's translation and scholarship, you will see the reasons for accepting the traditional textform.
     
  12. Redemptionsong

    Redemptionsong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    Messages:
    2,202
    Ratings:
    +288
    I cannot agree with this distortion of the scriptures.

    Paul states very clearly in 1 Corinthians 14:18. 'I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
    Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.'

    Tongues was unusual on the day of Pentecost. The people heard the tongues in their own native language. This was not to be the case thereafter, as Paul makes clear from his letter to the Corinthians. Tongues is a spiritual language and is very rarely understood as a recognisable language. Why else would Paul have said that in church people would not understand it? It is better in a church setting for people to hear and understand in their own language.

    Speaking in tongues is a power derived from the Spirit but controlled by the believer. It is not possession. The Holy Spirit always directs praise heavenward. Tongues is a true expression of the heart of the believer, in the language of the Spirit.
     
  13. Jainarayan

    Jainarayan ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    20,828
    Ratings:
    +8,931
    Religion:
    śrī kṛṣṇasya sevāyām - “In Lord Krishna’s service”
    Talk about "distortion of the scriptures"! Does he say what "tongues" he speaks with? Paul was a Jew who was a Roman citizen. He was educated, traveled the Roman Empire widely and most likely spoke Latin, Greek, Aramaic and as an observant Jew, probably Hebrew. That's four languages, the primary languages of his time. A man who spoke three classical and literary languages, and a vernacular language hardly needed to speak gibberish when his audience spoke those languages.
     
  14. firedragon

    firedragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    9,146
    Ratings:
    +2,486
    Nope. It is not.

    If it is wrong, then please do show me a manuscript that has it from the 5th century.

    You will not be able to because there are none.
     
  15. cOLTER

    cOLTER Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2020
    Messages:
    738
    Ratings:
    +173
    Religion:
    Disciple
    Paul is referring to the language of the heart, spiritual truth, such as can be gleaned from the parables of Jesus. Paul didn't speak in the incoherent babblings of todays so called "tongues"
     
  16. Redemptionsong

    Redemptionsong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    Messages:
    2,202
    Ratings:
    +288
    That's exactly why he tells the Corinthians that it is best to keep tongues to private use if they are not interpreted.

    You should read 1 Corinthians 14 and understand what Paul says in context. He is clearly not talking about known languages.

    1 Corinthians 14:26-28. 'How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
    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.
    But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.'

    The Church of Corinth was made up of Greeks, from the north Peloponnese. When they came together to share in a common faith, they did not come to share foreign languages!! 'Hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation' refers to teaching and messages from God!
     
    #56 Redemptionsong, Jan 24, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2021
  17. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    30,534
    Ratings:
    +11,422
    Religion:
    liber-scripta grim Christian
    While I tend to agree with cOLTER and Nakosis on this, I can put forward some arguments for and against. I'll just do the for points to save time.

    For:
    It hangs on, like a permanent gift. Once you start this practice it can become self-starting even to the point of embarrassment. Stopping yourself is like learning not to swear. It supports the argument made by those who teach it. They quote Jesus who claims that if you ask then your heavenly Father will of course grant the gift, and the teachers claim that speaking in tongues is a gift that you ask for and receive in that way. Lots of people who no longer believe in speaking-in-tongues occasionally speak in tongues absentmindely without trying to. It may be for psychological reasons similar to swearing, but I don't know. I count it as an argument in favor.

    For:
    Literal Bible. The writing on the wall in the book Daniel is "Mene Mene Tekel Parsin" (Daniel 5:25) which actually is untranslatable but it represents a longer expression. The translation is not translation but rather expansion. It is, like most glossolalia, repetitive sounding and cryptic. "Mene mene tekel parsin" is cryptic like something you'd hear from someone practicing glossolalia. Nobody can tell that its an actual phrase except for the person who writes it. Depending upon how literally a person takes the story, it can be evidence in favor of glossolalia as practiced. Supporting this is an NT writer who says that a person speaking in tongues "Speaks mysteries to God." (I Corinthians 14:2) It is understandable that when taken literally this supports the common practice of glossolalia.

    For:
    General paranormal experiences are documented. Its possible that the paranormal is real, and sometimes people speaking in tongues say translatable things. While the legitimacy of this is unproven, there are paranormal experiences that have been documented such as Edgar Cayce's ramblings. This doesn't verify that glossolalia is truly Christian, however it demonstrates that it could be a paranormal experience dipping into knowledge that is either subliminal or other worldly. It could be real and non-Christian or real and Christian. Of course lots of people, myself included, question the paranormal. We don't take it seriously, but that doesn't eliminate it as possible evidence.
     
  18. Redemptionsong

    Redemptionsong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    Messages:
    2,202
    Ratings:
    +288
    Have you ever asked which Hebrew manuscripts are still extant? Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 the earliest copies of the Tanakh were dated to the 9th and 10th centuries CE. The simply reason for this was that they decayed and were recopied by hand. I hope, however, that you are not going to argue that simply because there are no earlier manuscripts of the Tanakh that these prophetic books did not exist.

    Not having a complete copy of Mark's Gospel from the first century does nothing to undermine the documentary evidence for the Gospels, or the New Testament as a whole. In the same way that the Tanakh was copied, so too was the New Testament in Greek. The earliest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel date to the late second century, but this doesn't mean that John Mark didn't record his Gospel before this! John Mark was long dead by the late second century.

    One of the great difficulties for modern textual critics is to determine which readings, from the thousands of manuscripts that exist (and which continue to emerge) are the most reliable. Thankfully, the traditional readings, held dear by the Church, have been carefully transcribed and passed on, whilst some of the more questionable have been cast aside.

    This leads us to a further consideration, which must be placed alongside that of textual criticism. What does the Church, in its experience and revelation, see to be the most trustworthy of the texts? If the Holy Spirit is a reality, something the Church bases its whole existence upon, then the Church itself should be able to compare the narrative with the practice.

    When King James authorised that a new version of the Bible be published (1611), he asked that it be prepared by churchmen from every major denomination represented in Britain, from the Anglo-Catholics to the Puritans. Between them, they agreed to the mainstream traditions, including the Hebrew (Masoretic) Received Text, and the Greek Received Text. In the case of the Greek text, they followed the tradition that could be traced back to Erasmus, and thence back through Church history to the Byzantine Church.

    So, this is not just an argument about textual criticism, or lost manuscripts. It's an argument about the reality of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The first Christians did not have a New Testament to turn to for doctrinal guidance. They had the apostles, and the Church elders to learn from, and ultimately their own experience of walking by the Holy Spirit.
     
  19. firedragon

    firedragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    9,146
    Ratings:
    +2,486
    Hebrew manuscripts are not relevant.

    Also, it is not about having complete manuscripts of Mark, it is about having complete manuscripts, and not having the long ending. If you have fragments, or incomplete manuscripts, no scholar would make the argument that the long ending is not authentic. No scholar. Scholars make this argument about the long ending of Mark because "there are complete manuscripts, and they lack the long ending".

    Try and provide a single early manuscript that has the long ending. That would be an argument.
     
  20. Redemptionsong

    Redemptionsong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    Messages:
    2,202
    Ratings:
    +288
    The Holy Spirit is the same today as it was two thousand years ago.

    1 Corinthians 14:23. 'If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?'
     
Loading...