Praying in Tongues

[posthuman]

You can make the term 'one' to mean anything depending on what you want to accomplish

this is a false statement IMO.
you can of course 'break language' and decide for yourself to redefine any word in any way you like; we can declare that henceforth blue means red. but the moment we do something like that, we are babbling, and words themselves lose meaning
this is not what i have been doing. i've listed actual, legitimate nuances of usage

does any one of these definitions describe God?

which one ((in the combinatorial sense lol)) of them do you think doesn't?

 

[posthuman]

i'm implying His attributes and not a qualitative sense.

yeah. so it's combinatorial; you're saying if you count the number of existing beings who have attribute C, the sum is '1' not '2' or '3' etc.

which means the way you're using this is exactly the same as what you gave as your 'other' definition, a single unit, which is also in your usage, combinatorial, the answer you get when you 'measure by counting' how many 'units' there are

 

[Noose]

this is a false statement IMO.
you can of course 'break language' and decide for yourself to redefine any word in any way you like; we can declare that henceforth blue means red. but the moment we do something like that, we are babbling, and words themselves lose meaning
this is not what i have been doing. i've listed actual, legitimate nuances of usage

Ok let's take one of 'your' definition;

"In a computer science context, in certain contexts of math, and in other logical disciplines, one means 'true' or 'present / existing' and zero conversely means 'false' or 'not present / not existing'

• e.g. binary logic gate, [1, 0] is the machine language equivalent of the programming language [TRUE, FALSE]"

When were computers and computer languages discovered? before that time, this exact definition of the term 'one' didn't exist i guess. So can we say we started babbling from that moment on?

When i say broad definition of 'one', i'm going way back, like in Adam and Eve's time. They wouldn't have a list of 10 meanings of the word one but just two.

 

[Noose]

yeah. so it's combinatorial; you're saying if you count the number of existing beings who have attribute C, the sum is '1' not '2' or '3' etc.

which means the way you're using this is exactly the same as what you gave as your 'other' definition, a single unit, which is also in your usage, combinatorial, the answer you get when you 'measure by counting' how many 'units' there are

Nope, that's not it either.

I'll use an example.
If i live in a big room and have all my sustenance within this room such that i can't go out of this room and all i know is this room. I can't even imagine another room. So to me, this room is 'one' in that sense, it is all my sustenance; it is not one because i counted and compared with another room and got one unit as the result.

This is how i see God.

 

[posthuman]

Ok let's take one of 'your' definition;

"In a computer science context, in certain contexts of math, and in other logical disciplines, one means 'true' or 'present / existing' and zero conversely means 'false' or 'not present / not existing'

• e.g. binary logic gate, [1, 0] is the machine language equivalent of the programming language [TRUE, FALSE]"

When were computers and computer languages discovered? before that time, this exact definition of the term 'one' didn't exist i guess. So can we say we started babbling from that moment on?

When i say broad definition of 'one', i'm going way back, like in Adam and Eve's time. They wouldn't have a list of 10 meanings of the word one but just two.

'e.g.' means 'for example' -- one specific case illustrating the basic definition i was giving. so it's immaterial whether computers existed at some particular time. 'math' as an abstract entity has existed all this time, whether it was in some moment understood and written down or not.

• the definition you point out is that 'one' can mean true, and/or existing.
  • Jesus Christ is The Truth, and He exists eternally - in Him all things hold together and have their own existence.
    • John 14:6, John 1:1, John 8:58, Heb. 13:8 etc; Col. 1:17, Acts 17:28 etc

so is this not true of Him, that He is 'one' in the logical/binary sense? oh yes, it is.

cool, any of the other possible meanings you don't think is true of God?

 

[7seasrekeyed]

I absolutely believe in OUR Triune God!!

But what AMAZES ME the most about your post and obvious beliefs...

YOU BELIEVE GOD CAN BECOME A BIRD, BUT CANNOT BE 3 REPRESENTATIONS OF THE ONE GOD!!

You believe that Jesus is the FIRE in the Burning Bush who said His Name is I AM, just like He said in the Book of John.

So, God can be a FIRE in a Burning Bush, a BIRD, but He cannot be more than one entity at a time?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

You really do limit God!!

another one who cannot comprehend what another person writes

derision and mocking is not of God whether you understand what I wrote or not

take it elsewhere

I don't care for your 'style' or other smart aleck nonsense

God's nature is limited in representation by people who mock and assume and then call themself a Christian

 

[7seasrekeyed]

There's a great deal of misconception around this verse. It doesn't support trinity.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.” 27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Do you even understand what is being said here? i get it, the word our has confused many to think it is more than one person but reading further, it says He created and not 'they created' and still further, it says He created him (male and female) before it says He created them - you need to ask yourself why male and female together are being referred to as 'him'.




Husband and wife are two separate persons/ two beings/ two minds; if this kind of unity describes God then we have three separate Gods/ three minds/ three persons only united in purpose. This violates:

Deut 32:39See now that I am He; there is no God besides Me. I bring death and I give life; I wound and I heal, and there is no one who can deliver from My hand.

do you know what the word agreement means?

5 people can agree and have one decision

it's not confusing at all.

 

[posthuman]

God's nature is limited in representation by people who mock and assume and then call themself a Christian

that may be kinda harsh ((i ain't been keeping up with the thread at all btw -- i mean just as a general thing)) -- sometimes people have a limited view of God out of ignorance, maybe because they've just never thought of Him in some certain way, or just don't know the extent of the truth yet. it's not necc. mocking, at least, not willfully and with full knowledge. ((again, i ain't read the thread so i'm not commenting on specific))

 

[Noose]

'e.g.' means 'for example' -- one specific case illustrating the basic definition i was giving. so it's immaterial whether computers existed at some particular time. 'math' as an abstract entity has existed all this time, whether it was in some moment understood and written down or not.

• the definition you point out is that 'one' can mean true, and/or existing.
  • Jesus Christ is The Truth, and He exists eternally - in Him all things hold together and have their own existence.
    • John 14:6, John 1:1, John 8:58, Heb. 13:8 etc; Col. 1:17, Acts 17:28 etc

so is this not true of Him, that He is 'one' in the logical/binary sense? oh yes, it is.

cool, any of the other possible meanings you don't think is true of God?

You did not get what i meant, take that list of meanings and put yourself in Adam's 'shoes', you'll find out that some are irrelevant.

Nope. God is not all those 'ones' that you suggested.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

that may be kinda harsh ((i ain't been keeping up with the thread at all btw -- i mean just as a general thing)) -- sometimes people have a limited view of God out of ignorance, maybe because they've just never thought of Him in some certain way, or just don't know the extent of the truth yet. it's not necc. mocking, at least, not willfully and with full knowledge. ((again, i ain't read the thread so i'm not commenting on specific))

well then read his posts and decide for yourself

right?

you have it reversed

 

[Noose]

do you know what the word agreement means?

5 people can agree and have one decision

it's not confusing at all.

It was not confusing but you are making it confusing.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.” 27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God Hecreated him; male and female He created them.

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them

If i put 3 persons in agreement to the underlined words it should read:
So God created man in their own image; in the image of God they created him; male and female He created them

 

[7seasrekeyed]

It was not confusing but you are making it confusing.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.” 27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God Hecreated him; male and female He created them.

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them

If i put 3 persons in agreement to the underlined words it should read:
So God created man in their own image; in the image of God they created him; male and female He created them

ummmm

I don't read the Bible that way

I really do try not to assume or add or try to make it say what I want, think it should say or say in a different way that fits my previous understanding

I don't find it confusing

 

[Noose]

ummmm

I don't read the Bible that way

I really do try not to assume or add or try to make it say what I want, think it should say or say in a different way that fits my previous understanding

I don't find it confusing

Ok
He, means one
They, means many (three)
Our, means many (three)
Him, means one
Now, you decided to think three only because of 'our image' part and totally ignore the 'He created' part.
What you don't realize is that '.. created him; male and female' part totally disqualifies the the thought of three persons in the initial 'our'.

The 'him;male and female' implies two authorities in one, the higher and the lower authorities. So God is not a plurality of persons but authority. In Godhead, there's a higher and lower authority and that's the 'our' image being spoken of here.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Ok
He, means one
They, means many (three)
Our, means many (three)
Him, means one
Now, you decided to think three only because of 'our image' part and totally ignore the 'He created' part.
What you don't realize is that '.. created him; male and female' part totally disqualifies the the thought of three persons in the initial 'our'.

The 'him;male and female' implies two authorities in one, the higher and the lower authorities. So God is not a plurality of persons but authority. In Godhead, there's a higher and lower authority and that's the 'our' image being spoken of here.

ummm

you disagreed with my 1st post regarding Jesus' baptism even though you misquoted me

this has evolved into a truly heroic attempt on your part to explain why I am wrong as you see it

others have joined in...some making biblical and wise statements, at least one other not comprehending what I wrote and basically telling me I have no conception of how great God is and here we are at long last standing on the pinnacle of many words equaling sin

When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise. Proverbs 10:19

it does seem the wiser option

 

[Dino246]

I have the Torah (Old Testament), Talmud (which is reference only), the Greek for the (New Testament) from Acts to Revelation's, The Hebrew/Aramaic for the Gospels, plus 3 different Concordances. Plus my English Bibles that are clearly not translated properly.

What is it that you are calling "the Original Translation" given that it's still in English? Further, on what basis do you claim that English Bibles "are clearly not translated properly"?

 

[Tim416]

What is it that you are calling "the Original Translation" given that it's still in English? Further, on what basis do you claim that English Bibles "are clearly not translated properly"?

I tend to think, that those who only read the English translation of the bible, but get down on their knees every time they do so, and ask God to show them spiritual truth through what they read by the Holy Spirit within them, will learn far more truth that really matters, than will those who did not get down on their knees and ask to be shown truth as they read, no matter how much greek, Aramaic or Hebrew versions of the bible they read

 

[garee]

Nope, that's not it either.

I'll use an example.
If i live in a big room and have all my sustenance within this room such that i can't go out of this room and all i know is this room. I can't even imagine another room. So to me, this room is 'one' in that sense, it is all my sustenance; it is not one because i counted and compared with another room and got one unit as the result.

This is how i see God.

Yes as we are informed in Job 23. God who is not a man as us is of one mind and always does whatsoever his own soul desires. For he performs the things that are appointed to us such as a imputed righteousness. that he works in us with us to both will and do His good pleasure

So that, my beloved, as ye always obey, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, with fear and trembling your own salvation work out, for God it is who is working in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure.Philippians 2:12-13

Although he shows himself as a dynamic duel .Father and the Son of God, he declared I and the father were one.

 

[obedienttogod]

What is it that you are calling "the Original Translation" given that it's still in English? Further, on what basis do you claim that English Bibles "are clearly not translated properly"?

Here, read the difference for yourself.

This the King James Version:
This is the 1611 Translation of what they believed this verse actually meant after interpretation:

John 16:
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.


This is the same scripture reference "properly" translated.
John 16:
13 Yet whenever that may be coming - the spirit of truth -it will be guiding you into all the truth, for it will not be speaking from itself, but whatsoever it should be hearing will it be speaking, and of what is coming will it be informing you."

14 That will be glorifying Me, seeing that of Mine will it be getting, and informing you."


***The "translators" in 1611 in charge of writing the King James Bible, interprets the word "זה" which means "it" in English, for the word "שלו" which means "his" in English.

So if you notice, verses 13 and 14 of John 16 in the KJV Bible makes the Holy Spirit appear to be like a person by using the word "his."

But if you use the correct word "זה" like it was originally written, this removes the person status by now calling the Holy Spirit "it."

Which you would not call a person "it." Especially in scripture.






Here is another example that people have mistaken.
The 1611 Translators of the King James Bible interprets the word "Γλώσσες" which means in English "languages" for the word "γλώσσες" which means in English "Tongues."


This is how the KJV Bible reads
1 Corinthians 13:8
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be ((tongues)), they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Preachers have misinterpreted this scripture thinking it means the Holy Spirit Gift of Tongues.

But when you apply the right word and translation, this is how it properly reads in the Greek, which is actually how Paul wrote it.



This is the proper Greek translation
1 Corinthians 13: 8
Love is never lapsing: yet, whether prophecies, they will be discarded, or ((languages, they will cease)
), or knowledge, it will be discarded."


The Translators in the year 1611 writing the KJV Bible, either knew they were mixing words for the different meanings, or, they some how became confused on the obvious.

But nevertheless, you can see there is a BIG difference between the word HIS vs the word IT. And a BIG difference between the word TONGUES vs the word LANGUAGES.

So BIG of a difference, it LITERALLY changes the entire meaning of the verse itself!!

 

[garee]

It was not confusing but you are making it confusing.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.” 27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God Hecreated him; male and female He created them.

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them

If i put 3 persons in agreement to the underlined words it should read:
So God created man in their own image; in the image of God they created him; male and female He created them

I have a question. It would seem that when he said in respect to his own image that that image is mankind (male and female one creation ) unlike the other beast of the field he created them male and female as separate entities. He reminds us that in the end of the matter he is the husband we seek after as his bride

Seeing in the end of the matter the two will becomes one new creation as a chaste virgin bride. Could we say God created his bride in the image of God He created, both again to represent as one?

 

[Dino246]

Here, read the difference for yourself.

Unfortunately you have not answered my questions. Here they are again:

What is it that you are calling "the Original Translation" given that it's still in English? In other words, where is this "Original Translation"? Who published it and when? Who was on the translation committee? Or, is it "your own personal original translation"?

Further, on what basis do you claim that English Bibles "are clearly not translated properly"? That is, what training do you have, or on whose training do you lean, that you make such a grand claim?

This is the same scripture reference "properly" translated.

According to what authority? Your own?

***The "translators" in 1611 in charge of writing the King James Bible, interprets the word "זה" which means "it" in English, for the word "שלו" which means "his" in English.

So if you notice, verses 13 and 14 of John 16 in the KJV Bible makes the Holy Spirit appear to be like a person by using the word "his."

But if you use the correct word "זה" like it was originally written, this removes the person status by now calling the Holy Spirit "it."

Which you would not call a person "it." Especially in scripture.

Those words were written in Greek, not Hebrew. The Greek does not appear to have separate words for "he" and "his" in this passage.

Here is another example that people have mistaken.
The 1611 Translators of the King James Bible interprets the word "Γλώσσες" which means in English "languages" for the word "γλώσσες" which means in English "Tongues."

And? "Tongues" is still used as a synonym for "languages", though perhaps not commonly. "Tongues" isn't wrong here.

This is how the KJV Bible reads
1 Corinthians 13:8
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be ((tongues)), they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Preachers have misinterpreted this scripture thinking it means the Holy Spirit Gift of Tongues. But when you apply the right word and translation, this is how it properly reads in the Greek, which is actually how Paul wrote it.

This is the proper Greek translation
1 Corinthians 13: 8
Love is never lapsing: yet, whether prophecies, they will be discarded, or ((languages, they will cease)), or knowledge, it will be discarded."

The Translators in the year 1611 writing the KJV Bible, either knew they were mixing words for the different meanings, or, they some how became confused on the obvious.

But nevertheless, you can see there is a BIG difference between the word HIS vs the word IT. And a BIG difference between the word TONGUES vs the word LANGUAGES.

So BIG of a difference, it LITERALLY changes the entire meaning of the verse itself!!

Again, what is your authority for all this? Have you studied Greek at length?

The context of 1 Corinthians 13 is chapters 12 and 14, which both speak of gifts given by the Holy Spirit. In 12, both knowledge and prophecy are identified as specific gifts, as is tongues. Now you're claiming (on no established authority) that these three concepts are completely unrelated to their immediate context.

You have a massive amount of convincing to do.