Speaking in tongues is NOT a gift

[Bible Highlighter]

I agree with you 100% that everything we get from God is a gift, but not all gifts are the same. Last Christmas I got many gifts but they were all quite different.

Let's look at the context. I'm not ignoring it at all. In fact, context is what I believe builds my case. First of all, it must be understood that 1 Corinthians 12 is talking about spiritual matters. I know many translations use the word "gift" in 1 Cor 12:1 but that word is not in any Greek text and it causes misunderstanding about the rest of the chapter. The Greek word used in verse 1 is "pneumaticos" and it simple means spiritual matters.

What are these spiritual matters?

1. Gifts (v 4)
   
2. Administrations (v 5)
3. Operations (v6)
4. Manifestations (v 7)

Now do verses 8-10 (which mention tongues) talk about gifts, administrations, operations, or manifestations? I'll just let it go at that.

There are many benefits of speaking in tongues in the scriptures. All Christians have holy spirit and therefore are capable of not only tongues but of the other 8 as well (more on that in a minute). But when we say that tongues is a gift, it leads us to think that only a select few have that gift but most don't. That means most don't speak in tongues and therefore miss out on the many benefits tongues has for the believer.

Are we not in a spiritual battle? Of course we are. We don't wrestle with flesh and blood but with evil spirits in a world that itself is groaning for redemption (Rom 8:22). Speaking in tongues is the foundation upon which we build the rest of our offensive and defensive weapons. As Paul said, speaking tongues builds us up, edifies us. It builds us up to the point where we can be comfortable operating the other 8 manifestations. While tongues edifies the individual believer, interpretation of tongues and prophecy ediy the entire body of those present in the meeting. Would it not be a blessed thing to build up ourselves and others? Of course it would and God gave us all the ability to do just that.

John 14:12,

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
​

Compare the manifestations in 1 Cor 12:8-10 with the works Jesus did and it becomes apparent that Jesus did 7 of the 9 manifestations. We can either operate the same 7 manifestations or we can say the Bible is mistaken or, worse yet, outright lies to us. I am highly in favor of the former! :)

Jesus did not speak in tongues or interpret simply because those manifestations were not available until the day of Pentecost.

Paul said he was glad he spoke in tongues more than anybody else. He also said that he wishes all would speak in tongues. He correctly observed that not everybody spoke in tongues, but that in no way has to mean those who didn't couldn't. All Christians, having holy spirit, can and should become proficient in all 9 manifestations. The reason is simple; we need them in order to most effectually minister to others in need. I can see someone who is obviously suffering from who knows what. I just see they are suffering. But since I've built up myself by much speaking in tongues, I can ask God what is their problem and He'll give me a "word of knowledge" to let me know what is wrong. He will also give me "word of wisdom" so I know what to do. Maybe I'll then operate the manifestation of gifts of healing or maybe cast out a devil spirit. Or maybe I'll just speak in tongues quietly to myself, lifting that person to God. I don't know what's wrong with them, but my spirit knows spot on exactly what the problem is and it will intercede accordingly.

You correctly mentioned the importance of context. But there is a near context and there is a remote context. The remote context, i.e., the basic message of scripture, tells us God is love and wants all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. If you look honestly at the nine manifestations it becomes apparent that those are precisely the tools God gave us in order to show the world His great love and care for all people. Operating outside of the nine manifestations is guess work at best and has limited value. Work through your spirit via the nine manifestations and perfect results are guaranteed every time.

It's not saying manifestations is a separate alien idea from gifts.

Verse 7 (the manifestation of the Spirit) picks up where verse 4 (diversities of gifts) left off.

Verse 5, and Verse 6 (differences of administrations, diversities of operations,) is describing two quick other examples of similar related things.

Verse 7 does not say “differences of manifestations” as continuing on the point of examples like verses 5-6 (differences of administrations, diversities of operations,).

This is where you are getting tripped up.

 

[Rich R]

It's not saying manifestations is a separate alien idea from gifts.

Verse 7 (the manifestation of the Spirit) picks up where verse 4 (diversities of gifts) left off.

Verse 5, and Verse 6 (differences of administrations, diversities of operations,) is describing two quick other examples of similar related things.

Verse 7 does not say “differences of manifestations” as continuing on the point of examples like verses 5-6 (differences of administrations, diversities of operations,).

This is where you are getting tripped up.

I think you may be getting hung up on the word "gifts" while not seeing the significance of the words "spiritual matters" (Greek pneumaticos) from verse 1. Paul tells us in verse 1 that he is going to speak about spiritual matters, not just gifts. He is also going to talk about administrations, operations, and manifestations. We dare not mix them up.

Notice the word "but" in verse 7. "But" sets that which follows in contrast with that which went before. Verses 5 & 6 begin with the word "and" which has a decidedly different meaning than "but." Whereas not all have a gift (v4), an administration (v5), or an operation (v6), all Christians were given the manifestation of the spirit. That's why the "but" is there. To point out the difference with the things that preceded verse 7.

The main thrust of this section is that it is the same spirit we all have that makes all of these things possible. It is God, the same spirit, that gives us gifts, administrations, operations, and manifestations. Again, everything we have is ultimately a gift from God, but there are different kinds of gifts, one of them being the ability to operate 9 manifestations.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I think you may be getting hung up on the word "gifts" while not seeing the significance of the words "spiritual matters" (Greek pneumaticos) from verse 1. Paul tells us in verse 1 that he is going to speak about spiritual matters, not just gifts. He is also going to talk about administrations, operations, and manifestations. We dare not mix them up.

Notice the word "but" in verse 7. "But" sets that which follows with that which went before. Verses 5 & 6 begin with the word "and" which has a decidedly different meaning than "but." Whereas not all have a gift (v4), an administration (v5), or an operation (v6), all Christians were given the manifestation of the spirit. That's why the "but" is there. To point out the difference with the things that preceded verse 7.

The main thrust of this section is that it is the same spirit we all have that makes all of these things possible. It is God, the same spirit, that gives us gifts, administrations, operations, and manifestations. Again, everything we have is ultimately a gift from God, but there are different kinds of gifts, one of them being the ability to operate 9 manifestations.

I am not an English professor, but I am sure if you talk to one, they will tell you the same thing I did.

Note: This English professor would have to be completely unbiased with him having no self interest in favoring you.

But other Modern Translations do not even have the word “But” in this verse.
I don't see how that word really changes the verse if it is in there or not.

Words like “But” and “Now” is starting a new thought in verse 7. It's continuing a new thought carried on from verse 4.

 

[Rich R]

I am not an English professor, but I am sure if you talk to one, they will tell you the same thing I did.

You're sure you are sure? :)

But other Modern Translations do not even have the word “But” in this verse.
I don't see how that word really changes the verse if it is in there or not.

Words like “But” and “Now” is starting a new thought in verse 7. It's continuing a new thought carried on from verse 4.

Carrying on a "new thought" from verse 7? Then it's not a "new thought" at all. It's either carrying on the same thought as verse 4 or a different thought. It can't be a new thought carrying on from the same thought. It's either the same thought or a new thought. It can't be both.

Perhaps many modern translations do not have the word "bit" in verse 7 but I'm not aware of any Greek text that does not have it.



I don't see any difference between this basic English grammar and what I said about it. What am I missing?

It's worth mentioning that every word in the scriptures has been purified 7 times (Ps 12:6), so although both "but" and "and" are small words, they carry a ton of weight.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You're sure you are sure? :)


Carrying on a "new thought" from verse 7? Then it's not a "new thought" at all. It's either carrying on the same thought as verse 4 or a different thought. It can't be a new thought carrying on from the same thought. It's either the same thought or a new thought. It can't be both.

Perhaps many modern translations do not have the word "bit" in verse 7 but I'm not aware of any Greek text that does not have it.

View attachment 25748

I don't see any difference between this basic English grammar and what I said about it. What am I missing?

It's worth mentioning that every word in the scriptures has been purified 7 times (Ps 12:6), so although both "but" and "and" are small words, they carry a ton of weight.

I am not saying I am not sure. I am sure of what the text says and I am pretty good in the English language. I am just saying that you should check it with an English teacher and he will tell you (to erase any doubts).

But what you fail to understand is that the King James Bible is written with a lot of archaic words and so we cannot always enforce our Modern understanding upon it.

KingJamesBibleDictionary.com (quotes the 1828 Webster Dictionary) for the word “but” as saying this:

BUT, conjunction [Eng.over.]

More; further; noting an addition to supply what is wanting to elucidate, or modify the sense of the preceding part of a sentence, or of a discourse, or to continue the discourse, or to exhibit a contrast.

Source:
King James Bible Dictionary - Reference List - But

So no. You are only focusing the modern understanding on that word. Again, as I pointed out, Modern Translations do not even have the word “but” in this sentence. This is because the word “but” is not being used in the commonly understood way that we know of how it is used.

Again, I believe you are reading the text with a pre-conceived idea going in. That’s never a good idea. We should always just let the text speak to us in what it plainly says.

 

[Rich R]

I am not saying I am not sure. I am sure of what the text says and I am pretty good in the English language. I am just saying that you should check it with an English teacher and he will tell you (to erase any doubts).

But what you fail to understand is that the King James Bible is written with a lot of archaic words and so we cannot always enforce our Modern understanding upon it.

KingJamesBibleDictionary.com (quotes the 1828 Webster Dictionary) for the word “but” as saying this:

BUT, conjunction [Eng.over.]

More; further; noting an addition to supply what is wanting to elucidate, or modify the sense of the preceding part of a sentence, or of a discourse, or to continue the discourse, or to exhibit a contrast.

Source:
King James Bible Dictionary - Reference List - But

So no. You are only focusing the modern understanding on that word. Again, as I pointed out, Modern Translations do not even have the word “but” in this sentence. This is because the word “but” is not being used in the commonly understood way that we know of how it is used.

Again, I believe you are reading the text with a pre-conceived idea going in. That’s never a good idea. We should always just let the text speak to us in what it plainly says.

Well, in a sense suppose you are correct in saying that I am reading these verses from preconceived idea. But where did I get that idea?

1 Cor 12:4-7,

4 διαιρεσεις δε χαρισματων εισιν το δε αυτο πνευμα

5 και (and) διαιρεσεις διακονιων εισιν και ο αυτος κυριος

6 και (and) διαιρεσεις ενεργηματων εισιν ο δε αυτος εστιντσβ θεος ο ενεργων τα παντα εν πασιν

7 εκαστω δε (but) διδοται η φανερωσις του πνευματος προς το συμφερον

~ Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament:​

kai: joining terms which are not mutually exclusive, as the part with the whole:

δε: Adversative, but, on the other hand, prop., answering to a foregoing C (q.v.), and distinguishing a word or clause from one preceding
​

I learned what the words "and" and "but" mean and then I introduced those meanings into the scriptures. If that's what you mean by "preconceived ideas" then I can't deny I have them. In fact, I have a preconceived idea on what every word in the scriptures mean. But don't we all have to know what words mean in order to communicate? We must all agree on what the word "communicate" means in order to communicate! :) But to define the trinity we must abandon the normal usage of many words and make them into something they were never meant to be.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well, in a sense suppose you are correct in saying that I am reading these verses from preconceived idea. But where did I get that idea?

1 Cor 12:4-7,

4 διαιρεσεις δε χαρισματων εισιν το δε αυτο πνευμα

5 και (and) διαιρεσεις διακονιων εισιν και ο αυτος κυριος

6 και (and) διαιρεσεις ενεργηματων εισιν ο δε αυτος εστιντσβ θεος ο ενεργων τα παντα εν πασιν

7 εκαστω δε (but) διδοται η φανερωσις του πνευματος προς το συμφερον

~ Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament:​

kai: joining terms which are not mutually exclusive, as the part with the whole:

δε: Adversative, but, on the other hand, prop., answering to a foregoing C (q.v.), and distinguishing a word or clause from one preceding
​

I learned what the words "and" and "but" mean and then I introduced those meanings into the scriptures. If that's what you mean by "preconceived ideas" then I can't deny I have them. In fact, I have a preconceived idea on what every word in the scriptures mean. But don't we all have to know what words mean in order to communicate? We must all agree on what the word "communicate" means in order to communicate! :) But to define the trinity we must abandon the normal usage of many words and make them into something they were never meant to be.

I am pretty sure you don’t know Biblical Greek better than the translators. I believe God’s Word is preserved for today as Psalms 12:6-7 basically says.

 

[Rich R]

I am pretty sure you don’t know Biblical Greek better than the translators. I believe God’s Word is preserved for today as Psalms 12:6-7 basically says.

How do you account for different English translations of the same Greek word? There are tons of examples of that in the many versions we have today. And yet, Psalm 12:6 says God purified each word seven times.

The fact is we don't have even one document that Moses, Isaiah, John, Paul, or any of the other inspired writers actually wrote. All we have are copies made by fallible human hands. The moment a scribe or translator changed a word or words, we technically no longer have that pure word of God. Sometimes a scribe made an honest mistake because of tired eyes or whatever, but not infrequently a scribe would take it upon themselves to change a word or words so as to agree with "orthodox" doctrine. Any serious scholarly student of the Bible understands this.

But there are many scholarly methods we can employ to at least get as close as possible to the original God breathed word. But we must first recognize all of that before we can have any hope of getting the true message. Of course we all see through a dark glass, myself included, so we're always going to come up short of the entire message. That will change when "that which is perfect" finally comes with the return of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Then we'll all know the real deal! :)

Anyway, how much Greek does one need to know to see that the words "kai" and "de" are different words? They are, and the Greek scholars have done a great job of defining both for us. None of this has anything to do with me. I've not been talking about what I think those words mean but what every Greek scholar in the world throughout all of history says they mean.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

How do you account for different English translations of the same Greek word? There are tons of examples of that in the many versions we have today. And yet, Psalm 12:6 says God purified each word seven times.

I believe the seven purifications are the seven KJB editions (starting with the 1611 KJB, and ending with the 1900 Cambridge KJB Edition).

http://www.bibleprotector.com/LUL04.pdf

The fact is we don't have even one document that Moses, Isaiah, John, Paul, or any of the other inspired writers actually wrote. All we have are copies made by fallible human hands. The moment a scribe or translator changed a word or words, we technically no longer have that pure word of God. Sometimes a scribe made an honest mistake because of tired eyes or whatever, but not infrequently a scribe would take it upon themselves to change a word or words so as to agree with "orthodox" doctrine. Any serious scholarly student of the Bible understands this.

I believe a Christian should have a final Word of authority.
I have discovered that the KJB is the most pure when compared to other English bibles, but yet at the same time I realize that the KJB has extremely difficult archaic words within it and so a Modern Bible is a must to help update what it is saying.

Some facts between the KJB vs. Modern Bibles:

#1. There are doctrinal differences between the KJB vs. Modern Bibles.
#2. There are corruptions in Modern bibles (major blatant mistakes, the devil's name is placed in Modern bibles where they don't belong, and how some Modern bibles make Jesus appear to sin).
#3. The history of Modern bibles has dark origins whereas the KJB has more good & honorable origins.​

#1. See here for Doctrinal Differences Between the KJB vs. Modern Bibles.
Other doctrinal differences is that some Modern bibles teach that Jesus was a created second God in John 1:18 by calling Him the begotten God (instead of begotten Son), and that the Messiah in Micah 5:2 was from the distant past or ancient days instead of from everlasting (as the KJB correctly renders it). Some Modern bibles falsely teach that Jesus had faith (NIV) (CSB) (ISV) in the fact that they say He is the pioneer of our faith. Jesus is GOD and GOD cannot have faith in Himself. That's a contradiction. Our faith is to justify us before God for salvation. Jesus did not need salvation because He is salvation.

#2. For the blatant mistakes in Modern bibles:

See here to learn about how the devil tries to place his name in the Bible where it does not belong (in Modern Translations). See point #24 here for the verses on how Modern bibles make Jesus appear to sin.

#3. To check out the Dark Origins of Modern Bibles, see this documentary here:

Watch Bridge to Babylon | Prime Video

Keep in mind that this is just the tip of the iceberg of the dark origins of Modern Bibles. But again I am not saying you should not use Modern English bibles. I actually encourage you to use them, but be careful of what they say, though. To get a little more on what I am talking about, the Nestle & Aland Critical Text (used today for all Modern English bibles) is supervised (influenced) by the Vatican. You can learn about this in my post #53 within this thread.

Another King James Documentary I would recommend is this one.

Watch Kjb - The Book That Changed The World | Prime Video

The Forbidden Book:

But there are many scholarly methods we can employ to at least get as close as possible to the original God breathed word. But we must first recognize all of that before we can have any hope of getting the true message. Of course we all see through a dark glass, myself included, so we're always going to come up short of the entire message. That will change when "that which is perfect" finally comes with the return of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Then we'll all know the real deal! :)

Anyway, how much Greek does one need to know to see that the words "kai" and "de" are different words? They are, and the Greek scholars have done a great job of defining both for us. None of this has anything to do with me. I've not been talking about what I think those words mean but what every Greek scholar in the world throughout all of history says they mean.

This really is another topic altogether from your thread topic.
I have come up with 101 reasons for why a Christian should use the King James Bible.
But this is a topic that not everyone can see or that they desire to see.

 

[Rich R]

I believe the seven purifications are the seven KJB editions (starting with the 1611 KJB, and ending with the 1900 Cambridge KJB Edition).

http://www.bibleprotector.com/LUL04.pdf



I believe a Christian should have a final Word of authority.
I have discovered that the KJB is the most pure when compared to other English bibles, but yet at the same time I realize that the KJB has extremely difficult archaic words within it and so a Modern Bible is a must to help update what it is saying.

Some facts between the KJB vs. Modern Bibles:

#1. There are doctrinal differences between the KJB vs. Modern Bibles.
#2. There are corruptions in Modern bibles (major blatant mistakes, the devil's name is placed in Modern bibles where they don't belong, and how some Modern bibles make Jesus appear to sin).
#3. The history of Modern bibles has dark origins whereas the KJB has more good & honorable origins.​

#1. See here for Doctrinal Differences Between the KJB vs. Modern Bibles.
Other doctrinal differences is that some Modern bibles teach that Jesus was a created second God in John 1:18 by calling Him the begotten God (instead of begotten Son), and that the Messiah in Micah 5:2 was from the distant past or ancient days instead of from everlasting (as the KJB correctly renders it). Some Modern bibles falsely teach that Jesus had faith (NIV) (CSB) (ISV) in the fact that they say He is the pioneer of our faith. Jesus is GOD and GOD cannot have faith in Himself. That's a contradiction. Our faith is to justify us before God for salvation. Jesus did not need salvation because He is salvation.

#2. For the blatant mistakes in Modern bibles:

See here to learn about how the devil tries to place his name in the Bible where it does not belong (in Modern Translations). See point #24 here for the verses on how Modern bibles make Jesus appear to sin.

#3. To check out the Dark Origins of Modern Bibles, see this documentary here:

Watch Bridge to Babylon | Prime Video

Keep in mind that this is just the tip of the iceberg of the dark origins of Modern Bibles. But again I am not saying you should not use Modern English bibles. I actually encourage you to use them, but be careful of what they say, though. To get a little more on what I am talking about, the Nestle & Aland Critical Text (used today for all Modern English bibles) is supervised (influenced) by the Vatican. You can learn about this in my post #53 within this thread.

Another King James Documentary I would recommend is this one.

Watch Kjb - The Book That Changed The World | Prime Video

The Forbidden Book:

This really is another topic altogether from your thread topic.
I have come up with 101 reasons for why a Christian should use the King James Bible.
But this is a topic that not everyone can see or that they desire to see.

I'm with you on the KJV. If you noticed, that's were 99% of my quotes come from. At least they are honest enough to put the words they added in italics. A good example of that is right in 1 Corinthians 12:1. They let the reader know the the word "gifts" is not really in the original text. Still, I think it gives many readers the wrong idea on what Paul is about to say. Maybe it's a subliminial kind of effect.

I'll check out that video. Looks interesting.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm with you on the KJV. If you noticed, that's were 99% of my quotes come from. At least they are honest enough to put the words they added in italics. A good example of that is right in 1 Corinthians 12:1. They let the reader know the the word "gifts" is not really in the original text. Still, I think it gives many readers the wrong idea on what Paul is about to say. Maybe it's a subliminial kind of effect.

I'll check out that video. Looks interesting.

I hope you like the video.

Blessings be unto you in the Lord.

 

[post]

Out of love for a fellow believer, I don’t want to derail their thread. So I moved the thread discussion here and here (to answer both of your questions) out of courtesy to the poster of the OP. For his thread topic is not about these particular discussions.

what is the value in dividing my post into pieces and removing each from the context of each other & the discussion we were having here?

you had no compunction against replying to the topic earlier - even tho you wouldn't address my questions directly, but in fact wanted to bring up many other topics, even dredging other forums to quote-mine me about unrelated things.

 

[post]

I believe the seven purifications are the seven KJB editions (starting with the 1611 KJB, and ending with the 1900 Cambridge KJB Edition).

http://www.bibleprotector.com/LUL04.pdf

that's more than a bit ridiculous, and totally off-topic for the OP post.
why don't you "out of respect" make a new thread?

but in keeping with your duplicitous feigned "respect" for staying on the topic of speaking in tongues,

there were over 1,000 editions of the kjv printed between 1611 & 1769 alone all with minor revisions.
as Psalm 12:7 clearly attests, the "words" ((plural)) of God in Psalm 12:6 are a direct reference to what He says in Psalm 12:5, not to a false accounting of a translation into an "impure language" ((Nehemiah 13:24, Isaiah 28:11, 33:19, Jeremiah 15:5 etc etc)) - and even were i to grant your untenable position for the sake of argument, by the prophecy of Zephaniah 3:9 there will be an 8th "purification"

i know well enough that a kjv-only-ian will not listen to any reason on the topic however. let me then just join you in mourning over the supposed fact, per your premise, that non-English speakers will never know the word of God. those poor apostles! perhaps that is why they did not understand what Christ told them about how He would be crucified -- they didn't have the kjv! and ah! now it is revealed why the prophets and the angels did not know the mystery hidden for ages of His appearing and His great work of salvation -- they didn't speak English!

XD

if we can't have real conversations together, we can at least laugh