God Has No Grandchildren; Either You Know Him Firsthand Or You Do Not Know Him At All
Sorry for the lateness of my reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
It is interesting, and the tone of the discussion I really appreciate.
I said "should learn English", not "must learn English", though I am implying that at some stage it would be must.
|
I did not intend to imply that you were claiming the same exact thing as Samuel Gipp; only that the prevalent tone was pointed in that general direction. But, you are not saying that they must learn English, fair enough!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
"Signification" does not mean so much "important" as it means "to convey signals by".
|
Good thing I never said that the word “Signification” meant “important”. The way I was using it was with regard to meaning. Not one voice (i.e. language) is without meaning. Every one has distinct sounds each with some connotation attached to it. Therefore, all languages have the capacity to convey a message. The context tells us so, for in (1 Cor. 14:8) it tells us, “ For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” I should know this because I served in the Military. Each bugle sound has a different meaning, some mean charge and others commemorate fallen comrades. Each is a valid means of communication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
It is teaching about speaking in tongues: speaking in tongues alone is going to convert the Jews or the world today. So, the preaching of the Gospel by them who speak English who also have the "stammering lips" must be acceptable.
|
I am not saying that English is not an acceptable means of communication or that it cannot be used by God. My argument is simply this, that English is no greater than the Greek or Hebrew in every way and that there is no Scripture suggesting that one language MUST be used to convey God’s word. Now, as far as the Jews being converted by other tongues, I am not sure of this understanding. Particularly the verse in Isaiah 28:11.
This verse in Isaiah is not in reference to the gospel at all, let alone it being presented in the English dialect. Immediately, this verse is dealing with the Assyrians and their tongue. The people had erred through strong drink and both the priest and prophet had shared in the debauchery (v.7). The nation as a whole was so sinful, that they were living in there own filthiness and the vomit of their own corruption (v. 8). Some believe that (v. 9) is what the harden leaders spoke and others say that Isaiah was inquiring here. Whatever the case, the people were apparently sick of hearing Isaiah’s prophecies and grumbling about their echoic message (v. 10). Therefore, God is going to cause them to fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken (v. 13) by using stammering lips and another tongue (v.11). That is to say, that the word of God would discipline in the form of strangers with stammering lips to teach that which should have been learned from God in their own tongue. In this case it would immediately be the Assyrians and their tongue that took place when they invaded in 721 B.C.. This strange language would be the sign of God’s judgment not deliverance. So, to insert English here is nothing but conjecture. Moreover, to say this speaks of the conversation of the Jews is unfounded. It certainly is more akin to stumbling and blindness.
Paul the apostle make a clear reference to this verse in (1 Cor. 14:21). The point is that they are a sign to those that believe not (v. 22). Why, to ratify them in their noncompliance and unbelief so that they will continue all the more in unbelief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
Actually this does not imply that each nation should have the Scripture in their own languages, though the Scripture has gone forth in many languages. In fact, this verse more clearly fits in with the idea that in the future, all nations would have the same Scripture at the same time.
|
Why Not? It specifically says, “…made known to all nations”, now is this relating to all nations in their mother tongue or to all nations in a universal tongue. Mother tongue is a more natural and befitting understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
If you believe that speaking in tongues have passed away, I could say that the implication that preaching in other languages has passed away.
|
I believe you missed my point. Whether or not tongues are for today is a non-issue here. The point I was making was this, that here we have an example where God used some 12 different languages to communicate to men in their own language. This clearly suggest that we should convey God’s word to men in their mother tongue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
If you notice that the event of Acts 2 is different to the normal practice of tongues in 1 Corinthians, where Paul continually lays out the need for orderly public practice and INTERPRETATION of outspoken tongues.
|
I am not saying that they are the same. This also is a non-issue here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
Actually, it says "tongue", which along with "knee" must be both literal and symbolic.
|
I do see where you are partially going with this. But I must disagree! Yes, the word “tongue” is being used with the word “knee”, thus, suggesting in one sense that it means a body part. Yet, it is within the context of confession and is proceeded by the word “every”. Therefore, if every tongue will confess, then every language must also be confessing. Otherwise, you have folk that have passed on already that did not have the privilege of experiencing some universal language and will not be confessing. See also (Phil. 2:11). The word “tongue” is being used as a synecdoche, where a part is used to represent the whole. In this case, the tongue represents the speech or language produced by the tongue. Does this not bring more glory to God, that each and every dialect to ever exit would bow and confess to the one and only true God?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
As for all tongues confessing, this verse is not saying that everyone is going to be saved…
|
This is not what our discussion is about. However, just for the record, I do not believe in universalism. Every person one day will confess the truth, but not all will confess to salvation. Many in this life that deny that Jesus is Lord, will after they die know the truth of Christ. Howbeit, too late! (Heb. 9:27) “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:”
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
While it is true that people have been saved of very many nations, and that God is by implication generally no respecter of what language people have spoken (since this verse may be interpreted to apply to all Church history), yet there is an indication that while people come OUT OF various nations, etc., they also come OUT OF various tongues. This could imply an abandoning of various languages for a heaven standard language.
|
The text does not say that English is the heavenly language. I know people that would claim that Hebrew is going to be the heavenly language. But, if you want my opinion, there may be no heavenly language. All people will probably speak what ever language they spoke here on earth, although, we all will understand each language (see 1Cor. 13:8-12). Now this does not prohibit the possibility of a unified language existing in the millennial kingdom. I could be wrong here and will stand corrected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
Actually, this is proof that while the Gospel may come forth in various languages, and the Scripture likewise, that there is ONE GOSPEL, namely, the everlasting one, which symbolised by it being borne of the angel, is singular and universal, and that it would go to all nations and languages. (Notice the word "having" which obviously is a singular possessive.) By this I mean that the strongest indication is that in the future, according to a Restitutional view, a consistent Gospel is preached by the one King James Bible to all nations in English, aided by future developments in communication technology.
|
I agree that there is one Gospel! But there are many languages. Notice that it is “…preach…to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” how much clearer do you need it to be spelled out? Furthermore, how does dialect change the Gospel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
Actually, it was good that the earth was as one language, what was not good was that man was sinning. Fast forward to out time: people might think that Satan is setting up a one language system for the Antichrist (which is true), BUT GOD IS IN CONTROL OF LANGUAGE. The fact is that today, English is the world's common language. God created all the different languages for a purpose (e.g. to keep nations in their bounds), but He has also set up for one language, namely English, for OUR GOSPEL, that is, for us.
|
My point was that God created the languages, therefore all languages are from God and are good. So, all languages are valid, one is neither grater or lesser in every way. In a fallen world, one unified language will do nothing more than unite men in sin. Not saying that any good cannot come out of it, but simply more harm than good will be done. In a perfect environment such as the millennial kingdom, a unified dialect would benefit.
Besides, are we to assume that God, who created all languages, does not understand them all or that He could not use them all to His glory? Can God only use effectively only a certain language? God used Hebrew and Greek very effectively. Are we to ASSUME that a non-English speaking person cannot receive or have access to the fullness of God in Christ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
So, while he never banned speaking in tongues, we should see that if we have the perfect Word in English, and the world is learning it as the global language, put those two things together and the true Church can reach the world.
|
I do agree with you that Paul never banned the speaking in tongues. Again, my point was this, that we communicate in the language that a person understands. Speaking in an unknown tongue (like English is to many) is to be avoided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
To argue that "unknown languages [are] no better than a [sic] barbarian" is actually a reason why using English, and the Bible which is exactly true, should be used to bring the Gospel to foreigners.
|
I must not be following. If speaking English to a non-English speaking person makes us a barbarian to them and them to us then we should not speak or use English with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
And if the barbarians are they who were ignorant of Greek, by the same application today, those who are ignorant of English are disadvantaged, both naturally and spiritually (notwithstanding how the Holy Ghost has worked and helped all Christians, including English speaking ones who do or did not use the King James Bible).
|
I did not mean that none-Greek speaking people were barbarians in an inferior sense. Paul uses the term “barbarian” of himself and the one in whom he is conversing with (1Cor. 14:19).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
This has nothing to do with the issue at hand, except to, at some stretch, imply that the Word of God in the unknown tongues (e.g. Hebrew, Greek and other languages) should be in the known language. Since the world has English as the global language, this would actually imply that other tongues should keep the silence, for their want of interpretation.
|
Once again, you missed my point. The key word here in these verses is “interpreter”. In practically ever case this word is used in the New Testament it means “translation”. So, if we do not have a translator we are to keep silent. Therefore, if you go on a mission trip and are in the presents of non-English speaking people with out an interpreter then you should keep silent!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
Again, this verse shows nothing on the issue, but perhaps that the Word of God should go forth in the known, global language of English, for fruitful understanding.
|
How will English bring fruitful understanding to a non-English speaking person? The point I was making is that an un-interpreted (i.e. un-translated) tongue is not edifying and will not edify a person whom speaks no English. We must according to chapter 14 of first Corinthians TRANSLATE a tongue into the language of the person we want to edify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
Yet prophecy indicates that the Gospel would come in "another tongue", and that the world would hear what Christ called "this Gospel", and that believers should speak with one mouth, and should be perfectly joined together speaking the same thing. Surely, the abundance of Scripture evidence implies that God's Word in the future should be made known to the world and throughout the Church in one language, the Bible English of the King James Bible, and that since God is to turn people to that pure language, surely it is for the unity of the faith, so that people may call upon the true name of God with one consent. Thus, God providentially outworks to bring one common world language for the Gospel, so that there may be an advance in perfection.
|
Speaking the same thing or presenting the same Gospel is not the same as speaking or presenting it in one language. I have explained the need for one Bible and what I mean here. See A Man With One Watch Knows What Time It Is; A Man With Two Is Never Quite Sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
"For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent." (Zephaniah 3:9).
|
This is an intriguing verse indeed. I cannot say I fully understand this verse, yet I can tell you what I do understand. The question here is this: Is this verse speaking (no pun intended) of a future universal language that all will speak or is it concerning the cleansing of the unclean lips of the people? If it is the former, then many commentators believe that it will probably take place in the millennium and that it most likely will be the Hebrew tongue. In fact, I read somewhere that there are no swear words in Hebrew and have not come across any as of yet (please correct me if I am wrong). If the latter, then it is not dealing with any one language other than Hebrew and the idea that God will clean up the unclean lips of (Isaiah 6:5). Either way, you are the first I have heard apply this verse to the English language. Just because the English language is predominate does not mean that it is the language referenced in this verse. Otherwise, the Greek language would have been the language of this verse. Of course, you might retort that it fell from predominate use thus showing that it was not the language referenced. However, how do we know for sure that English will never fall from predominate used? What bible verse tells us this? To insert English into the text here is pure speculation. Even to say that English is one stage or step toward this pure dialect is speculative. You have the right to speculate and I have the right to disagree with your speculations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
This is illogical for three reasons:
1. If no language is greater, then how can Greek take precedence, that is saying that Greek, which is a language, is greater.
|
I said that no language is greater IN EVERY WAY! There are ways in which a language can be greater than another. One deals with the audience’s mother tongue. The mother tongue of any people, always trumps any other language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
3. If Greek is superior to English in regards to Scripture, this implies that the full truth of the Scripture is actually in the Greek…
|
Amen! That is right! The God sanctioned Greek and Hebrew Text do contain the FULL truth of the Scripture. Although, so does the English!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
…in order to know the full truth, Christians should learn Greek (though they may be saved by the derivative translations), and if God is all powerful and has control of language, He would providentially outwork to turn all nations to the Greek language so that they may receive and know the full and utter truth.
|
Pure exaggeration! No English speaking person need learn Greek or Hebrew just as no non-English speaking person needs to know English in order to have the full and utter truth. So why should we go to Greek and Hebrew? To magnify the English? Yes! To gain word pictures? Yes! To demonstrate that the King James Authorized Bible is right? Yes! No to mention that it does make sense that those in battle for the King James Authorized Bible should know something about the Greek and Hebrew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
4. The Greek language the Bible was written in was never spoken. And the Greek of today is different to Greek at the time of Christ.
|
The Greek language the Bible was written in was never spoken ay? So no first century Christian spoke New Testament Greek? What about those that read the New Testament letters out loud (see Rev. 1:3). You do know that the first century was plagued by illiteracy. Many in and out of the Church could not read, consequently, one person would read the New Testament letters while the others listened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
5. Which Greek Bible is perfect? There is not one settled final TR in Greek.
|
Yes, there are different editions of the TR, but over 90% (I would say some 99%) is without dispute and is perfect. In fact, most of the variations in the editions of the TR are no different from the variations in the editions of the King James Authorized Bible (i.e. punctuation & spelling). Which edition is the settled one? Fredrick Scriveners Text is just fine! Remember that it was his job to determine the exact text used by the King James Translator’s. I would say his text is prefect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
Quite true, but then, if the true Gospel is understood by English speaking Christians who know they have the perfect English Bible, and the world is learning English, and their nations are prospering, and the communication technology is in place, would not the signs and the harvest be with the Word of God in English in the future?
|
Yes, for English speaking people. Obviously, if they are speaking English, they are English speaking people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
If, according to this Restitutional view, the Gospel comes forth in power to the world in English, what should be done now? What should be done is to set everything up, and move in line with the Scripture, and see the signal providences of God, that the future of the Gospel is in English. If English then, what must be the seed to it, but people believing and doing it now.
|
The operative word here is “IF”. Again you are entitled to your speculations just as I am mine--see The Garden (Paradise) Restored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
There is no need to translate the Word of God if the world speaks English.
|
Yes, “IF” the whole world spoke English. The problem is that the WHOLE world does not speak English. In general, I would agree, but in particular I do not. I know several people that have been over seas (including myself in Iraq serving my country, and my wife in Jamaica on a mission trip) and many in these countries do not speak English. For example, when I was in Iraq I HAD TO LEARN (not them) some Arabic just to communicate with many of them. There are some 6 billion people in the world and G. A. Riplinger says (in Awe Of Thy Word that the English of our King James Authorized Bible can reach some 2 billion. That means that some 4 billion do not know or speak English.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
Moreover, the Word of God should NOT be translated now, for deficiency in learning, in understanding the correct form of the Textus Receptus, in learning of the sense of the Scripture, in understanding the full breadth of the English, in other words, it is to doubt that God set up the right men with the right learning using the right language at the right time in history to make the right text and translation of the Scripture that it may rightfully used by us, as is our heritage and destiny.
|
Yes, it should not be translated into English, for we have enough English Bibles and more importantly we have the best & most accurate English bible there is or possibly will be. In the words of M.R. Dehaan, a physician who later became a pastor and original head of RBC Ministries:
Quote:
|
Why is all this confusion of tongues limited almost wholly to the English Bible? Other translations in other languages have evidently not needed countless revisions, versions and perversions, translations and dislocations which we poor, ignorant, stupid, English-speaking morons need. It is quite an insult to our meager intelligence that after several hundred attempts to simplify the translation of the Bible we have not yet been able to produce one simple enough for our infantile, English-trained minds to grasp. (Bible Versions and Perversions, Radio Bible Class. Grand Rapids: MI, 1962 p. 12)
|
Please, if you could, OUTLINE, what criteria is to be used to determine what language will be the unified language that the Gospel or for that matter any part of the word of God will go forth into and unto the World as a whole.
__________________________________
- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”
- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)
- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)
|