Speaking in tongues
- Thread starter blessedafrican
- Start date
-
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.
7
Actually, this is a false dichotomy, for there is a third option: error. 
Mind you, I use "lies" to mean only "intentional misrepresentations". I draw a sharp distinction between that and error that occurs from ignorance. The person doing the deceiving is telling lies; the person repeating them is only guilty of not fact-checking.
Mind you, I use "lies" to mean only "intentional misrepresentations". I draw a sharp distinction between that and error that occurs from ignorance. The person doing the deceiving is telling lies; the person repeating them is only guilty of not fact-checking.
you just said there was a difference and yes, there is
I basically dropped in to say what I said. that's all. some people come here just to argue against tongues and would not be anywhere else
I've had my fill of this type of thing
-
1
- Show all
The KJV says, 'no man understandeth him.' How does this fit with your own intepretation of the passage?
First, the “him” here is a later addition. As explained earlier in this thread, no one at that specific gathering understands, or better from the Greek – “hears with understanding”. They don’t understand him simply because they don’t speak his language.
Why would 'in the Spirit' or 'in the spirit' designate a foreign language?
I think you misunderstood – it doesn’t refer to speaking a specific language at all. “(Praying) in the Spirit” means as I have described it earlier - Praying in the Spirit does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 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.
If Paul knew Aramaic, and praying in Aramaic were 'speaking with tongues' in verse 18, since he knew the language, he would be using his 'understanding' to pray in it. But in verse 19, he contrasts praying with his understanding with speaking in tongues. The implication is that when he prays in tongues, he is not using his understanding, his 'noi'-- his mind, understanding, reason. If he spoke in tongues, he would not be using his reason or mind. What language would Paul speak in that he did not know? If he were to use a Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek liturgy, it is highly unlikely that there was one of those languages that he did not know. How would he be able to speak in a language he did not know?
That is the question. When Paul spoke in tongues, how was it possible for him to do so without knowing it, without using his mind to do so?
Paul is thankful that he is able to converse with people in their native languages. As an apostle, it stands to reason he would be conversing with foreigners and using his knowledge of languages more than the average person. Where he lived and looking at where he traveled, said languages really needed not be more than three: Greek, Latin and Aramaic, but it’s certainly possible he knew others, or at least could get by in others. The point is that he spoke them more frequently than the average person might.
He states that, despite his knowledge of languages, in a church setting, he’d rather speak a few words in a language he knows intimately, rather than a ton of words in a language that, although he may be familiar with, doesn’t quite speak it well enough to accurately convey the subtleties and nuances, particularly with such a philosophical subject as religion. Translation from one language to another isn’t as simple as it seems. I can certainly relate to his concern of wanting to “get it right”.
I don’t see this as referring to anything but real, rational language.
Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are reading something into this passage that simply is not there. It’s a reworking/reinterpretation of the passage to fit the modern tongues phenomenon. Keep in mind here that in the phrase “unknown tongue”, ‘unknown’ is a later addition and ‘tongue’ is simply ‘language. “Ten thousand words in a language”; If I were to add anything, I would probably insert “some” in place of ‘a’; “ten thousand words in some language”.
He does indeed use his mind to speak these languages; it’s just that, given the seriousness of the situation, there is a concern that he may not be able to adequately convey what he wants to. Something any translator can relate to!
For those who have experienced the phenomenon of praying in the Spirit, this is a good explanation of how it works. Those who are trying to understand the explanation, or are trying to refute it, get hung up on the term "wordless groans" and miss the rest of the verse.
Romans 8:26
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.
Romans 8 has nothing to do with ‘tongues’ at all – people take and interpret the passage out of context with the rest of the narrative.
First, the “him” here is a later addition. As explained earlier in this thread, no one at that specific gathering understands, or better from the Greek – “hears with understanding”. They don’t understand him simply because they don’t speak his language.
Why would 'in the Spirit' or 'in the spirit' designate a foreign language?
I think you misunderstood – it doesn’t refer to speaking a specific language at all. “(Praying) in the Spirit” means as I have described it earlier - Praying in the Spirit does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 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.
If Paul knew Aramaic, and praying in Aramaic were 'speaking with tongues' in verse 18, since he knew the language, he would be using his 'understanding' to pray in it. But in verse 19, he contrasts praying with his understanding with speaking in tongues. The implication is that when he prays in tongues, he is not using his understanding, his 'noi'-- his mind, understanding, reason. If he spoke in tongues, he would not be using his reason or mind. What language would Paul speak in that he did not know? If he were to use a Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek liturgy, it is highly unlikely that there was one of those languages that he did not know. How would he be able to speak in a language he did not know?
That is the question. When Paul spoke in tongues, how was it possible for him to do so without knowing it, without using his mind to do so?
Paul is thankful that he is able to converse with people in their native languages. As an apostle, it stands to reason he would be conversing with foreigners and using his knowledge of languages more than the average person. Where he lived and looking at where he traveled, said languages really needed not be more than three: Greek, Latin and Aramaic, but it’s certainly possible he knew others, or at least could get by in others. The point is that he spoke them more frequently than the average person might.
He states that, despite his knowledge of languages, in a church setting, he’d rather speak a few words in a language he knows intimately, rather than a ton of words in a language that, although he may be familiar with, doesn’t quite speak it well enough to accurately convey the subtleties and nuances, particularly with such a philosophical subject as religion. Translation from one language to another isn’t as simple as it seems. I can certainly relate to his concern of wanting to “get it right”.
I don’t see this as referring to anything but real, rational language.
Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are reading something into this passage that simply is not there. It’s a reworking/reinterpretation of the passage to fit the modern tongues phenomenon. Keep in mind here that in the phrase “unknown tongue”, ‘unknown’ is a later addition and ‘tongue’ is simply ‘language. “Ten thousand words in a language”; If I were to add anything, I would probably insert “some” in place of ‘a’; “ten thousand words in some language”.
He does indeed use his mind to speak these languages; it’s just that, given the seriousness of the situation, there is a concern that he may not be able to adequately convey what he wants to. Something any translator can relate to!
For those who have experienced the phenomenon of praying in the Spirit, this is a good explanation of how it works. Those who are trying to understand the explanation, or are trying to refute it, get hung up on the term "wordless groans" and miss the rest of the verse.
Romans 8:26
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.
Romans 8 has nothing to do with ‘tongues’ at all – people take and interpret the passage out of context with the rest of the narrative.
-
2
- Show all
You offered...False. This has been refuted? Wheres the meat whose got the beef. LOL.
Thanks for the reply
OK... He is not limited to prophecy the manner I describe? What's the limit of His perfect law if not as it is written? The oral traditions of men as in the skies the limit, just believe?
What are the prophecies of Philip's daughters? Were they new ones or those that existed ?
To prophesy is to declare prophecy (God's word). In that way every believe is a prophet, priest when they declare the will of God prophecy, the gospel of our salvation . Prophets plant the seed of prophecy he cause the growth if any.
Many prophesied like Peter in John 21. That portion of scripture the Catholics use to justify what they call private revelations as interpretation as that which as adds daily believing the kingdom of God is of this world . The scriptures shows us as just the opposite . Jesus said that if every time man says thus says the Lord, I had a dream, an out of the body experience etc. And the Lord has not spoken .
Or like the father of lies in the garden bringing his false prophecy .
Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
According to John 21 We would have to ship some of the books to the Moon for lack of storage area on ear5th as that which could be written to expose the lies of those who go above that which is written, God perfect law of faith. Hopefully one example would be enough for a believer.
Questions I would ask myself when trying the spirits to see if they are of men seen or God not seen. Do we need more of the living abiding words working in our hearts then he has revealed? He promises us they will not return void but will accomplish the good purpose of His will.? (Philippians 2:12 )…... Interestingly he in adds in the following verse 13, "no murmuring".
Why go above that which is written .What's the living hope?
Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. John 21:
I would suggest just as the Son of man Jesus was tempted for 40 day. By the father of false prophecy(lies) every time he was show the fallen glory of this word as the kingdoms or denominations ,he would say as it is written .three times and he was out. With the word it in the phrase as it is written representing the final authority in matters of faith the unseen, eternal .
Note..... (Purple in parenthesis's) by offering
1 Corinthians 14:2 King James Version (KJV) For he ( Christ) that speaketh in an unknown (unheard) tongue (prophecy )speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him(Christ) ; howbeit in the spirit he ( Christ) speaketh mysteries.
I would first suggest the word tongue is simply prophecy the word of God spoken by God as His interpretation to us .Without it no man could understand God. There would be no way to seek after Him who reveals His mysteries to us from His Holy unseen place for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.Roman3:10 11
Look to the law in 1 Corinthian 14 when looking to the foundation in Isaiah 28. It informs us of why God is brining new prophecy in other languages other than Hebrew alone. It confirms as a sign those who refuse to hear prophecy in any language as those who seek after signs and wonders (walking by sight) natural unconverted man. Jesus called them an evil generation and no signs will be given .Having fulfilled the last sign as a wonder (faith issue) the sign of Jonas .
1 Corinthians 14:2 King James Version (KJV) For he ( Christ) that speaketh in an unknown (unheard) tongue (prophecy )speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him(Christ) ; howbeit in the spirit he ( Christ) speaketh mysteries.
I would first suggest the word tongue is simply prophecy the word of God spoken by God as His interpretation to us .Without it no man could understand God. There would be no way to seek after Him who reveals His mysteries to us from His Holy unseen place for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.Roman3:10 11
Look to the law in 1 Corinthian 14 when looking to the foundation in Isaiah 28. It informs us of why God is brining new prophecy in other languages other than Hebrew alone. It confirms as a sign those who refuse to hear prophecy in any language as those who seek after signs and wonders (walking by sight) natural unconverted man. Jesus called them an evil generation and no signs will be given .Having fulfilled the last sign as a wonder (faith issue) the sign of Jonas .
The Bible teaches that the Spirit gifts members of the body of Christ to prophesy as He wills. I see no reason to believe your theories. If I followed them, I would have to stop believing certain teachings of the scriptures.
I Corinthians 1:7
So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Jesus hasn't come back yet, and th Spirit still gives the gifts as He wills.
When the perfect comes, Paul's understanding which he had when he wrote the scriptures will be childish by comparison. If you tell me your understanding of spiritual things is so great that Paul's understanding in the first century was childish by comparison, I would not believe you.
I Corinthians 1:7
So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Jesus hasn't come back yet, and th Spirit still gives the gifts as He wills.
When the perfect comes, Paul's understanding which he had when he wrote the scriptures will be childish by comparison. If you tell me your understanding of spiritual things is so great that Paul's understanding in the first century was childish by comparison, I would not believe you.
Why do you go beyond what is written? The Bible does not teach this doctrine you are teaching, and you contradict the Bible.
Job 33
14 For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not.
15 In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed;
16 Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction,
17 That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man.
Acts 2:17, quoting from Joel
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Job 33
14 For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not.
15 In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed;
16 Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction,
17 That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man.
Acts 2:17, quoting from Joel
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
I think we are in general agreement about this, except I see the language as something supernatural the speaker would not generally understand.
I was specifically referring to the passage when I said this. I would agree that many Pentecostals and Charismatics take references to praying in the Spirit in too specific of a sense to refer to praying in tongues. What I don't get is why you would think that Paul would characterize praying in a foreign language as the spirit of the individual praying as opposed to the understanding praying.
If I were to pray in an American church full of Anglos, Blacks, and Hispanics in Malaysian, I would be praying 'with my understanding.' Why would my spirit be praying any more any more than if I were praying English. Why would my praying in Malaysian be described as speaking mysteries with my spirit? It might be a 'mystery' in a rather mundane sense if no one present understands my prayer. But it would be no more likely to be praying 'with my spirit' than if I did so in English.
Your interpretation would have us label praying in a foreign language as the spirit praying. It's just odd and doesn't really make much sense.
And there are a lot of non-mundane sounding gifts there in I Corinthians 12. Paul does call serving and leading 'gits' in Romans 12, but I Corinthians 12 is about puematikos, manifestations of the Spirit. Doesn't the natural ability to speak in languages and interpret them seem to be a poor fit for this list of gifts?
19 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.
I am not sure what languages you think Paul knew only faintly. I thought with the diglossia theory you were of the opinion that there were rather few languages in the Grecco-Roman world, and all the Jews in the east would have spoken Greek rather than local languages.
But let's say he spoke just a bit of Lyaconian. He would still be speaking with his 'understanding' in Lyaconian, even if he had an accent and had to circumlocute a bit to get his point across. You can't speak a language without some understanding of it, unless you are just repeat someone talking, reading words you do not understand....or something supernatural is going on.
In this passage, Paul is writing about a spiritual gift referenced in a list of supernatural spiritual gifts in chapter 12. He is referring to speaking in tongues as contrasted with speaking with the understanding.
I find your interpretations as rather loose? It's basically eisegesis, especially the diglossia idea.
The language may have been 'rational' to someone, but Paul did not understand what he was saying. He was not using his 'understanding' to speak in tongues. Basically, I showed you where Paul indicated when he prayed in tongues he did not use his mind/reasoning/understanding, and you are saying, no it doesn't mean that. It is in the passage, whether or not you want to explain it away with loose reasoning. It is not something Paul really emphasizes, but there is enough in the passage for us to surmise the speaker does not understand the language. And those the original epistle would not have needed a detailed explanation because they would have been familiar with the practice.
I think I may have read a late 1800's theological treatment of speaking in tongues that basically understood the phenomenon in I Corinthians 14 to be speakers speaking languages they did not understand. At the very least, this understanding did not start with the Pentecostal movement.
And I did show you where the passage indicates the speaker cannot understand the language. If that is what you are focusing on, no Pentecostals did not rework the interpretation of the passage. If you want to talk about reworking and reinterpreting a passage. we should consider this innovative diglossia interpretation of Acts 2 you embrace.
Pentecostals in the US used to use the KJV like most other evangelical type churches did, and they could see the italics on 'unknown.' I don't think I've ever heard a Pentecostal make a theological argument off of the word 'unknown' there in that verse, though I have encountered straw man arguments that imply that the use of 'unknown' was somehow the basis of other doctrinal positions on the passage.
It seems you are saying to forget what he said and say he really means something else he did not quite say.
I am pretty sure the red part was not from me. I do not consider the groanings which cannot be utterred in Romans 8:26 to refer to speaking in tongues which is spoken as the Spirit gives utterance.
I was specifically referring to the passage when I said this. I would agree that many Pentecostals and Charismatics take references to praying in the Spirit in too specific of a sense to refer to praying in tongues. What I don't get is why you would think that Paul would characterize praying in a foreign language as the spirit of the individual praying as opposed to the understanding praying.
If I were to pray in an American church full of Anglos, Blacks, and Hispanics in Malaysian, I would be praying 'with my understanding.' Why would my spirit be praying any more any more than if I were praying English. Why would my praying in Malaysian be described as speaking mysteries with my spirit? It might be a 'mystery' in a rather mundane sense if no one present understands my prayer. But it would be no more likely to be praying 'with my spirit' than if I did so in English.
Your interpretation would have us label praying in a foreign language as the spirit praying. It's just odd and doesn't really make much sense.
And there are a lot of non-mundane sounding gifts there in I Corinthians 12. Paul does call serving and leading 'gits' in Romans 12, but I Corinthians 12 is about puematikos, manifestations of the Spirit. Doesn't the natural ability to speak in languages and interpret them seem to be a poor fit for this list of gifts?
19 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.
I am not sure what languages you think Paul knew only faintly. I thought with the diglossia theory you were of the opinion that there were rather few languages in the Grecco-Roman world, and all the Jews in the east would have spoken Greek rather than local languages.
But let's say he spoke just a bit of Lyaconian. He would still be speaking with his 'understanding' in Lyaconian, even if he had an accent and had to circumlocute a bit to get his point across. You can't speak a language without some understanding of it, unless you are just repeat someone talking, reading words you do not understand....or something supernatural is going on.
In this passage, Paul is writing about a spiritual gift referenced in a list of supernatural spiritual gifts in chapter 12. He is referring to speaking in tongues as contrasted with speaking with the understanding.
I find your interpretations as rather loose? It's basically eisegesis, especially the diglossia idea.
The language may have been 'rational' to someone, but Paul did not understand what he was saying. He was not using his 'understanding' to speak in tongues. Basically, I showed you where Paul indicated when he prayed in tongues he did not use his mind/reasoning/understanding, and you are saying, no it doesn't mean that. It is in the passage, whether or not you want to explain it away with loose reasoning. It is not something Paul really emphasizes, but there is enough in the passage for us to surmise the speaker does not understand the language. And those the original epistle would not have needed a detailed explanation because they would have been familiar with the practice.
I think I may have read a late 1800's theological treatment of speaking in tongues that basically understood the phenomenon in I Corinthians 14 to be speakers speaking languages they did not understand. At the very least, this understanding did not start with the Pentecostal movement.
And I did show you where the passage indicates the speaker cannot understand the language. If that is what you are focusing on, no Pentecostals did not rework the interpretation of the passage. If you want to talk about reworking and reinterpreting a passage. we should consider this innovative diglossia interpretation of Acts 2 you embrace.
Pentecostals in the US used to use the KJV like most other evangelical type churches did, and they could see the italics on 'unknown.' I don't think I've ever heard a Pentecostal make a theological argument off of the word 'unknown' there in that verse, though I have encountered straw man arguments that imply that the use of 'unknown' was somehow the basis of other doctrinal positions on the passage.
It seems you are saying to forget what he said and say he really means something else he did not quite say.
I am pretty sure the red part was not from me. I do not consider the groanings which cannot be utterred in Romans 8:26 to refer to speaking in tongues which is spoken as the Spirit gives utterance.
1 Cor 14: 13Therefore, the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret.
When I first spoke in my tongue, privately, I didn't know what I was praying about. So I asked God, would He tell me. And soon I began to receive images of things while I was praying, privately. It's not like I understood the words the Spirit was speaking, but I had a good idea what the subject was. I didn't know what the danger was for my acquaintance, I just knew there was danger and allowed the Spirit to physically speak to it, privately. It wasn't until some time later that I heard about what happened on the other end. But you know, the Bible says speak, seek understanding, and people will be edified. I spoke, I sought understanding, and people were edified. How are these two things not related, CV? Garee?
Take your eyes off the circus act, yes it is a falsehood garnered to among other things take your attention away from the real deal. Private tongues are not about the megachurch babbling incoherently in a mass of clanging cymbals. It's about the 1, 2, or 3 who gather PRIVATELY to speak in prayer, mysteries they know nothing about - but God does.
When I first spoke in my tongue, privately, I didn't know what I was praying about. So I asked God, would He tell me. And soon I began to receive images of things while I was praying, privately. It's not like I understood the words the Spirit was speaking, but I had a good idea what the subject was. I didn't know what the danger was for my acquaintance, I just knew there was danger and allowed the Spirit to physically speak to it, privately. It wasn't until some time later that I heard about what happened on the other end. But you know, the Bible says speak, seek understanding, and people will be edified. I spoke, I sought understanding, and people were edified. How are these two things not related, CV? Garee?
Take your eyes off the circus act, yes it is a falsehood garnered to among other things take your attention away from the real deal. Private tongues are not about the megachurch babbling incoherently in a mass of clanging cymbals. It's about the 1, 2, or 3 who gather PRIVATELY to speak in prayer, mysteries they know nothing about - but God does.
And this is really what it boils down to for many... what are tongues for? Are they to legitimize a book, or the restoration of creation? If your perfect is the completion of the Bible, then yes it has ceased for you. If your perfect is the restoration of creation when Christ returns, then the perfect is yet to come.
Since neither side is going to budge, I guess we have to ask - are the two positions mutually exclusive?
Since neither side is going to budge, I guess we have to ask - are the two positions mutually exclusive?
That's an interesting take, and one I'll ponder, but given the context of the letter I think it's a bit of a stretch.
Or maybe not... the Bible says we are to be like Christ, if that is the way Christ was/is, should we then not strive to be that way too? You know, like when it says to seek them and do not forbid them?
Or maybe not... the Bible says we are to be like Christ, if that is the way Christ was/is, should we then not strive to be that way too? You know, like when it says to seek them and do not forbid them?
-
1
- Show all
There is a difference between "the Word of God" (scriptures) and "a word from God".
Someone mentioned logos and rhema earlier. That sort of difference.
Scripture is a universal revelation for all believers.
Prophecy is typically for an individual or small group of individuals.
And tends to be just a puzzles piece for the individual receiving it.
The one receiving the prophecy needs to decide if it fits their situation or not.
The person giving the prophecy typically has no idea what it means.
They are only being obedient in delivering the message.
Someone mentioned logos and rhema earlier. That sort of difference.
Scripture is a universal revelation for all believers.
Prophecy is typically for an individual or small group of individuals.
And tends to be just a puzzles piece for the individual receiving it.
The one receiving the prophecy needs to decide if it fits their situation or not.
The person giving the prophecy typically has no idea what it means.
They are only being obedient in delivering the message.
I have heard some theories of the canonization.
Its a collection of chapters "main division of a book" some call books. Together they make one cohesive book of the law or book of prophecy . Remove a section from Mathew remove it from the whole. The warning is not for one chapter.
Why go above that which is written ? What's missing? A law?
The last warning in the chapter of Revelation is used to protect the integrity of the whole word of God (no new revelations) Knowing God is no longer bringing new revelations in any manner . The perfect has come.It is the litmus test for trying the spirits to see if they are of men seen of God not seen
The other place in Deuteronomy 4 it is used to protect the authors integrity in respect to one word . Change the meaning of one word change the intent of that passage . Remove a whole chapter or add another change passage change the whole perfect law.
One warning for a one (word) another for one book .
Its a collection of chapters "main division of a book" some call books. Together they make one cohesive book of the law or book of prophecy . Remove a section from Mathew remove it from the whole. The warning is not for one chapter.
Why go above that which is written ? What's missing? A law?
The last warning in the chapter of Revelation is used to protect the integrity of the whole word of God (no new revelations) Knowing God is no longer bringing new revelations in any manner . The perfect has come.It is the litmus test for trying the spirits to see if they are of men seen of God not seen
The other place in Deuteronomy 4 it is used to protect the authors integrity in respect to one word . Change the meaning of one word change the intent of that passage . Remove a whole chapter or add another change passage change the whole perfect law.
One warning for a one (word) another for one book .