Challenging the theory of interpretive hearing in Acts chapter two

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#61
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,402
113
#61
Sketch said:
They didn't know what speaking in tongues was. This was a whole new thing.
They were amazed at what they heard and wanted to know what it was.

The reaction could not have been, "Oh, they are speaking in tongues." (as if they knew what it was)
It was more like, "What is this that we are hearing?" (it doesn't make sense that we should hear this)

Furthermore, verse four says they were speaking in tongues. (what you call babbling)
Why would ignore this in favor of the other?

Acts 2:4
All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
Click to expand...

Hear is a question for all to answer.....

Is it possible for a man to speak in one language and 17 different nationalities have the ability to understand in their own language?

Can God do this or NOT?

WHEN PETER stands UP and SPEAKS to the WHOLE CROWD to correct the error of assuming they were DRUNK was PETER speaking in 17 different languages at ONCE so the WHOLE CROWD could understand or DID PETER speak in ONE TONGUE and they ALL understood in their OWN LANGUAGE.....

EXPLAIN please!!
 
Sketch

Sketch

Well-known member
#62
Nov 1, 2018
1,278
300
83
#62
dcontroversal said:
Hear is a question for all to answer.....

Is it possible for a man to speak in one language and 17 different nationalities have the ability to understand in their own language?

Can God do this or NOT?

WHEN PETER stands UP and SPEAKS to the WHOLE CROWD to correct the error of assuming they were DRUNK was PETER speaking in 17 different languages at ONCE so the WHOLE CROWD could understand or DID PETER speak in ONE TONGUE and they ALL understood in their OWN LANGUAGE.....

EXPLAIN please!!
Click to expand...
Why do you assume that they didn't all speak the Galilean language?
Not like us one-language Americans.
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#63
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,402
113
#63
Sketch said:
Why do you assume that they didn't all speak the Galilean language?
Not like us one-language Americans.
Click to expand...
Did you see the list of nationalities given.......and the statement IN THE DIALECT WE WERE BORN WITH.........and IF they ALL spoke the same language WHY the use of "LANGUAGES"
 
Sketch

Sketch

Well-known member
#64
Nov 1, 2018
1,278
300
83
#64
Locoponydirtman said:
So if I am in India and I hear someone speaking English, and I say I hear them speaking in my language, it's not a miracle of hearing it's that they are indeed speaking my language.
Click to expand...
Right. That is the obvious answer. Not that you need to have your hearing checked.
 
Sketch

Sketch

Well-known member
#65
Nov 1, 2018
1,278
300
83
#65
dcontroversal said:
Did you see the list of nationalities given.......and the statement IN THE DIALECT WE WERE BORN WITH.........and IF they ALL spoke the same language WHY the use of "LANGUAGES"
Click to expand...
They probably spoke many languages.
Why was the New Testament written in Greek? (common trade language)
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#66
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
#66
dcontroversal said:
Hear is a question for all to answer.....

Is it possible for a man to speak in one language and 17 different nationalities have the ability to understand in their own language?

Can God do this or NOT?

WHEN PETER stands UP and SPEAKS to the WHOLE CROWD to correct the error of assuming they were DRUNK was PETER speaking in 17 different languages at ONCE so the WHOLE CROWD could understand or DID PETER speak in ONE TONGUE and they ALL understood in their OWN LANGUAGE.....

EXPLAIN please!!
Click to expand...
The explanation is simple: you're assuming that the hearing referred to Peter's words only. That is incorrect, because the hearing is discussed in verse 8 and refers back to verse 4, while Peter only begins speaking in verse 14. What God "can" do is not the issue; the text clearly tells us what God "did".
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#67
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,402
113
#67
Dino246 said:
The explanation is simple: you're assuming that the hearing referred to Peter's words only. That is incorrect, because the hearing is discussed in verse 8 and refers back to verse 4, while Peter only begins speaking in verse 14. What God "can" do is not the issue; the text clearly tells us what God "did".
Click to expand...
I am not assuming anything....he beckoned them to be quiet and then ADDRESSED all of them......THESE MEN ARE NOT DRUNK....
 
Sketch

Sketch

Well-known member
#68
Nov 1, 2018
1,278
300
83
#68
Dino246 said:
The explanation is simple: you're assuming that the hearing referred to Peter's words only. That is incorrect, because the hearing is discussed in verse 8 and refers back to verse 4, while Peter only begins speaking in verse 14. What God "can" do is not the issue; the text clearly tells us what God "did".
Click to expand...
Right. And there's no reason to assume that Peter's sermon was delivered in tongues, or heard through interpretative hearing.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#69
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
#69
dcontroversal said:
I am not assuming anything....he beckoned them to be quiet and then ADDRESSED all of them......THESE MEN ARE NOT DRUNK....
Click to expand...
If the discussion of the different nationalities took place after Peter (specifically) had said something, your view might bear consideration. As it is, you are forcing a change of order of the events. That won't fly.
 
Sketch

Sketch

Well-known member
#70
Nov 1, 2018
1,278
300
83
#70
dcontroversal said:
I am not assuming anything....
Click to expand...
You are assuming interpretive hearing, for which there is no biblical precedent.

Where is interpretive hearing in any list of spiritual gifts? No such thing.
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#71
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,402
113
#71
Dino246 said:
If the discussion of the different nationalities took place after Peter (specifically) had said something, your view might bear consideration. As it is, you are forcing a change of order of the events. That won't fly.
Click to expand...
Not hardly and the context ties both events together....and the reason you reject it is because it destroys the whole premise of this argument.....such is the case with many who carry a losing argument......

Whatevezzzz.....!!
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#72
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,402
113
#72
Sketch said:
You are assuming interpretive hearing, for which there is no biblical precedent.

Where is interpretive hearing in any list of spiritual gifts? No such thing.
Click to expand...
Take it up with God and the verbiage he inspired..........especially hearing in their OWN dialect that they were born with.....no sweat off my back!
 
Sketch

Sketch

Well-known member
#73
Nov 1, 2018
1,278
300
83
#73
Dino246 said:
If the discussion of the different nationalities took place after Peter (specifically) had said something, your view might bear consideration. As it is, you are forcing a change of order of the events. That won't fly.
Click to expand...
That's another great point.
 
Sketch

Sketch

Well-known member
#74
Nov 1, 2018
1,278
300
83
#74
dcontroversal said:
Take it up with God and the verbiage he inspired..........especially hearing in their OWN dialect that they were born with.....no sweat off my back!
Click to expand...
Translation: You are unable to answer.

Was that interpretive hearing on my part? lol
 
Sketch

Sketch

Well-known member
#75
Nov 1, 2018
1,278
300
83
#75
dcontroversal said:
Not hardly and the context ties both events together....and the reason you reject it is because it destroys the whole premise of this argument.....such is the case with many who carry a losing argument......

Whatevezzzz.....!!
Click to expand...
A losing argument? You guys couldn't even get your plane off the ground.

However, I do appreciate the effort to argue for the other side. Thanks.
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#76
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,402
113
#76
Sketch said:
Translation: You are unable to answer.

Was that interpretive hearing on my part? lol
Click to expand...
Not hardly....what you both are missing is the simple truth that each man that spoke, spoke in a foreign tongue and yet they ALL heard in their own language....it is not that difficult to understand and it seems that both of you would rather go to seed on something that is not supported by the text while rejecting that which is.........
 
Sketch

Sketch

Well-known member
#77
Nov 1, 2018
1,278
300
83
#77
dcontroversal said:
Not hardly....what you both are missing is the simple truth that each man that spoke, spoke in a foreign tongue and yet they ALL heard in their own language....it is not that difficult to understand and it seems that both of you would rather go to seed on something that is not supported by the text while rejecting that which is.........
Click to expand...
What you are missing is that interpretive hearing is not a biblically recognized gift of the Holy Spirit.
Why would the outpouring at Penetcost be built around that?

Tongues on the other hand...

Furthermore, where is the historic precedent for this theory?
I had never even heard of it until this year.
 
Sketch

Sketch

Well-known member
#78
Nov 1, 2018
1,278
300
83
#78
Here is another point.
Interpretive hearing negates the gift of the interpretation of tongues.
No need for an interpretation.

In the instruction about tongues and interpretation, the Apostle would have brought this up.
When a message in tongues is given to the church, there should be interpretation...
unless there is an operation of interpretive hearing. No such instructions. How come?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.