tongues

Following along in the discussion. Just a few things to add. First, the disciples who were asked, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?", in Acts 19, were evidently Apollos' converts (Acts 18:24-28) because they only knew John's baptism (18:25; 19:3). They didn't get "saved" until Paul preached to them "that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." At the point that they received Jesus, they would have been baptised by the Holy Ghost into the body of Christ (see below). Then they were baptised in water. When the Holy Ghost "came on them" in verse 6 to speak with tongues and prophesy, he had to already be "in" them or they would not have been saved.So, there is a difference between being "baptised" by the Holy Spirit and being "filled" with the Spirit.The baptsm by the Holy Ghost into the body of Christ is a spiritual baptism that takes place when a person receives Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit baptises that person into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (Rom. 6:3-6), spiritually circumcises his flesh away from his soul, "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh," (Col. 2:11-12), and puts him into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 5:30-32), all of which takes place at salvation, and without water. :-o Subsequently, this person may go through many "fillings" of the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:31; Eph. 5:18), some of which may be very profound experiences.Second, the tongues in 1 Cor. 14 are unknown to the hearers, not to the speaker. The hearers need an interpreter so that they will know what the "barbarian" is saying (14:11). If the speaker has the "gift" of tongues, then he won't need an interpreter at all (Acts 2) because every man would hear "them speak in his own language," (Acts 2:6). That's why Paul said that these tongues can be learned (14:16, 23) because they are languages. Evidently, what was going on in this seaport is that foreigners were coming in to the congregation with something to say (14:26) but few, if any, could understand them. Their tongues were "unknown" to the congregation. So, Paul laid down some rules (14:27-28, 34) for these guys. 1) Only two people, or at the most three, 2) one at a time, 3) one interpreter, 4) no interpreter, then don't speak, and 5) men only, no women (that's a booger today). :-? These rules make perfect sense in that case.The mysteries, then, of 1 Cor. 14:2 are the result of a fellow speaking spanish, for example, to a totally english-speaking congregation. One fellow would ask, "What's he saying?" To which his friend would reply, "I don't know, it's a mystery to me!" Without an interpreter, no one but the speaker and God would know what he is saying, thus Paul said, "let him speak to himself, and to God," (14:28). :-?

HiThe following comments are gentle provocations to further ponderings of truth. The phrase 'filled with the Spirit' as an event is only used by Luke in his record of the gospel and in the Acts; Paul uses the phrase 'be being filled with the Spirit' in Ephesians but the emphasis is somewhat different. (Present imperative tense and a different verb is used meaning 'fill to the full'.) No other NT writer uses this phrase. 'Filled with the Spirit' is Luke's all-purpose phrase for a crisis event. (in his recording of an event he always uses the Aorist tense, which signifies 'an event, complete in itself at a point of time' - or an a couple of occasions the Aorist participle. Will explan further if anyone wishes.) We have to look at the particular context to understand what Luke meant by the phrase in that context. (I might say 'Be sure you drive on the correct side of the road' but the context in which I said it would be all important. i.e. North America or UK?) In reference to John Baptist's father 'filled with the Spirit' means something somewhat different to what happened to Cornelius and his household, although the same phrase is used by the same writer in both places. The Ephesians reference is to a continuing process rather than a single event.The phrase 'baptism in the Spirit' is one that has split Christians for generations. That doesn't mean we should abandon it but we need to remember that different Christians mean different things by it. Among the audio files contributers there is a wide range of positions. All views are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Have we ever tried putting all the views together rather than setting them as combatants? Campbell Morgan used to use the following pattern of explanation of the New Testament work of the Spirit:"One BaptismAn abiding anointingMany fillings."I think the scripture bears him out.No doubt we shall return to the theme but this is probably long enough for a single posting.His/YoursRon Bailey

Ron wrote:The phrase 'baptism in the Spirit' is one that has split Christians for generations. That doesn't mean we should abandon it but we need to remember that different Christians mean different things by it. Among the audio files contributers there is a wide range of positions. All views are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Have we ever tried putting all the views together rather than setting them as combatants?Ron:The trouble with putting all the views on "baptism by the Holy Spirit" together is that the result is confusion, since different Christians do mean different things when they use the phrase. The Bible doctrine is exact. If an individual uses the phrase to say something other than what the Bible "says", he should say what he means.The Bible says that "baptized with the Holy Ghost" pertains to the operation of God in salvation (Acts 11), spiritual circumcision (Col. 2), putting the believer into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12), and the death of the old man and the newness of life (Rom. 6).All of these are invisible and require no outward manifestation or inward feeling to be true. When a person uses the phrase "baptism of the Holy Ghost" to mean "tongues" or a spiritual "awakening" or "experience", then he is not talking about "baptism" he is talking about another subject.In 1 Cor. 12, all believers are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ, but not all "speak with tongues" or have all of the other spiritual gifts.Why then would a preacher or congregation encourage a Christian to seek the "baptism" that he already has if he's saved?When the Holy Spirit puts a believer into the body of Christ, he has a place for him in the body and he gives him whatever spiritual gifts he needs to accomplish his purpose as a member of the body. No need looking for a "baptism" that he already has.

I am pretty new to this debate so i could use some help here. I just read Acts 11 and the verses that directly apply seem to be 11:13-18."And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, 'Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here: and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' And as I (Peter) began to speak, the HOly Sprit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with (in) the HOly Spirit.' If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way? And when they heard this, they ("those who were circumsized") quieted down, and glorified GOd, saying, 'Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."Let me post some initial concerns. 1. Couldn't this have simply been one case where the baptism of the Holy Spirit came at the same time as salvation? But yet they are two very different things? And Peter also says that they recieved the gift of the Holy Spirit "after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ." 2. If the HOly SPirit fell on them, "just as He did upon [the disciples at Pentecost]" doesn't that mean that it was a very distinct and powerful experience and included tongues and an appearance of drunkeness, etc.? Because how else could Peter have made that claim about them? If it was some "invisible" and had no "outward manifestations" Peter could not have made such a claim. Right? If it was just some theological experience that Peter just understood happened but it wasn't obvious, would he have spoken in such a way? But then it is made clear in Acts 10:45-46:"And all the circumsized believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also."And how did they know this?"For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God...""...Then Peter answered, 'Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"So I haven't checked out the other Scripture references yet, but I figured this is a good place to start.

It seems to me that "one baptism, many fillings" best represents the scriptural teaching with regard to the normative New Covenant experience that all believers should be living out in their experience. I think it is also important to note that no doubt God never intended any of his children to stop progressing in sanctification, growth, and in fulness of the Spirit. (It is hard, if not impossible, to practically distinguish these three aspects of Christian growth, to be sure). As to the whole "tongues" thing, being from a fourth generation Pentecostal background, and as one has experienced speaking in tongues, I do not think it is accurate to represent Pentecostals as thinking they have it all or that they are somehow superior to others who do not speak in tongues. I do find that in my experience many Pentecostals seem to think "once filled, always filled," though, and this is tragic when it happens.In my own life, I am looking for more and more of God's presence, and I don't think I should be satisfied until I reach God's immediate presence in heaven. I am quite certain that there are far deeper and higher things in God than speaking in tongues, and that one does not have to speak in tongues to be truly spiritual.

It's good to ask the Bible questions and then go through it to find the answers. The questions raised about what could have happened in Acts 10 are OK as long as they are not raised to simply "prove" a point. It is foolishness to use the Bible to "prove" what you want to believe or what you have experienced.For instance, I was raised Catholic. In dealing with Catholics that know a little Bible, they use Jn. 6 and Matt. 26 to "prove" the doctrine of transubstantiation. They use Luke 22 and Matt. 18 to "prove" the confessional. They retranslate Mark 6 to "prove" the perpetual virginity of Mary. They call images made contrary to Ex. 20 "aids to worship" to justify statues, etc. That's a very dangerous way to use the Bible but people do it all the time.Likewise, people read things into a text that aren't even there. They read baptism into Jn 3 and water into Rom 6 to prove baptismal regeneration. You can read the appearance of drunkeness in Acts 10 when its not there. And so forth.There are only three places in the entire Bible where you actually "see" people talking in tongues: Acts 2, Acts 10, Acts 19, and that's it. Every time the tongues are an immediate experience. In Acts 2, when the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit (which was wind) showed up, they spoke with tongues. In Acts 10, as soon as Peter preached "belief" in Jesus, the Holy Spirit fell on them and they spoke with tongues. As soon as Paul led the disciples to the Lord in Acts 19 and laid hands on them, they spoke with tongues.So, how can anyone say that baptism with the Holy Ghost is a subsequent experience manifested, at least sometimes, by speaking in tongues, when the three times you find it in the Bible it happens "right then?"And how would you convince anyone how to get it? In Acts 2, he just showed up, no preaching, no laying on of hands, no baptism. In Acts 10, he showed up following the preaching and came on them before their baptism, without the laying on of hands. In Acts 19, he showed up after their water baptism and after the laying on of hands. Totally different each time. No set pattern. But always right away. Never some time later.

Hi Herdman and allEmail is not the easiest place to conduct this kind of dialogue but I thought your comment deserved the courtesy of a reply.I still think that by taking a long cool look at the biblical teaching of Baptism in the Spirit we can accommodate many of the various views. I don't include Baptism in Spirit=speaking in tongues among that; I don't know anyone who holds that view. Evidence for is not the same as equality with.. BTW I don't hold that tongues is the initial evidence myself.Let me suggest some lines of thought. First of all the word 'baptism'. Bible words don't usually have definitions they have histories and the best way of understanding them is to see how God has used them and their associations throughout the Book. The bible expert on Baptism has to be John; it was John who first used the phrase 'Baptised in the Spirit'. What did he mean by that phrase? What did the Baptist have in mind when he used the word 'baptism'. In fact the word is used twice in the Septuagint; the Greek OT which was the KJV of the early church. The word already had a history when John began to use it and the strict term 'Baptism in Spirit' is attributed to John every time is it used in the NT. (4 times in the gospels in the mouth of John, Once when Christ specifically quoted John in Acts 1:5, and once when Peter specifically quotes Christ's quotation of JOhn in Acts 11:16. I'm sure the 1 Cor 12:13 is referring to the same thing but it does not use the same phraseology.) The point I am making is that the Bible never uses the phrase 'baptism in the Spirit' without linking us back to JOhn Baptist.In fact Mark 6:14 refers (in the Greek) to John the Baptiser; John, the baptising one. John 1:33 refers to Jesus in the exact same language; 'the baptising one. The difference of course is that John is characterised as a 'water baptiser', Jesus is characterised as a 'Spirit baptiser'. Ideas about baptism do not begin with John they have a longer history. Peter says Noah's flood was a baptism 1Pet 3:21; Paul says Moses crossing of the Red Sea was a baptism 1Cor 10:2. In the Septuagint Isaiah says God 'baptised him in terror' (Isaiah 21:4). Naaman baptised himself 7 times in Jordan (2Kin 5:14) Jesus called his death a baptism (Luke 12:50) and said his disciples would also experience such a baptism (Mark 10:39)Perhaps before we add the couplet 'in Spirit' we should consider what the Bible has in mind when it uses the word 'baptism'.If you want to take a short cut there are some studies I did on the topic listed on this website under /other speakers/Ron Bailey. There are 4 studies entitled The Baptism.http://www.therevivalweneed.com/xoops/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=137enough for now, kind regardsHis/YoursRon Bailey

To be exact, the phrase "baptism 'in' the Spirit" is not a Bible phrase. "Baptized 'with' the Holy Ghost," or "'by' one Spirit are we all baptized" is the way it's found in the Bible. "In" is not correct because we are baptized into Christ not in or into the Spirit.The baptisms in the Bible all accomplish something or signify something.Moses, 1 Cor. 10:2, because God had just made Israel his firstborn son (Ex. 4:22).John, Matt. 3:11, to manifest Jesus to Israel, Jn. 1:29.Jesus, Lk. 12:50, the literal death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, I Cor. 15:3-4.Peter, Acts 2:38, to give the Holy Ghost to the Jews after crucifying Jesus who was now Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36-37). Interestingly, they had rejected Jesus as their king and yet they had to be baptized "in the name of Jesus" (we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost). They had also stated that he did his miracles by Beelzebub (Mk. 3) and now they were going to be given the Holy Ghost, by whose power Christ had really done his miracles.Spirit, 1 Cor. 12:13, by which all believers are literaly placed into the body of Jesus Christ (Eph. 5:30-32; Eph. 2:6).Believer's, Acts 8:36-37, following salvation (Rom. 10:9-10) to represent outwardly the inward transaction of the Spirit baptism and to fulfill the command of Jesus (Matt. 28:19-20).Fire, Matt. 3:11, to place unsaved sinners in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15, Mk. 9:43-48).Now, you might well realize that this is important doctrine (2 Ti. 3:16, 1 Ti. 4:13). Thus, different translations are going to muddy the waters by removing parts or all of some very important verses.1. The second half of Eph 5:30 is missing. This shows that we literally become part of the flesh and bones of Jesus once we are saved. Indeed, this is accomplished by Spirit baptism (1 Cor. 12:13). To remove the last half of the verse is to leave some doubt about what Spirit baptism is really for.2. All of Acts 8:37 is gone. This shows the need to believe in your heart and confess Jesus with your mouth before water baptism (Rom. 10:9-10). To leave out the verse is to open the way for the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration.3. Mk. 9:46 & 48 are missing. Thus removing two of the times that the Lord described what literally happens to a soul in its baptism with fire.As you can see, Spirit baptism is not an "ify" thing. It is very exact, accomplishes a very specific purpose and happens the moment a sinner receives Jesus Christ.

Yes, I agree that there is a difference between being "baptised" by the Holy Spirit and being "filled" with the Spirit.I also agree that a person may go through many "fillings" of the Holy Spirit. In fact, I think that this is essential if we are to be able to continue in the faith.Yes, Paul uses the phrase 'be being filled with the Spirit' in Ephesians, meaning that it is an ongoing thing required if we want to remain upright before God from day to day.Amen! The Ephesians reference is to a continuing process rather than a single event. We need the Holy Spirit everyday in order to live a victorious Christian life.We need His abiding presence every day. Jesus said that without him we could do nothing, but if we walk in the Spirit, we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.I have witnessed in a few churches cases where the baptism of the Holy Spirit came at the same time as salvation. But most of the time I've seen that they happen seperately.I'm not very familiar with Hebrew and Greek, and even if I were, I don't think it's productive to squabble over every jot and tittle of linguistics just to prove a point.I'm not saying that's what anyone here is doing. In fact, I think when we discuss things like this in a calm and orderly fashion like we do here, we can all learn from one another.I believe also that many of us in pentecostal circles have our eyes set too much on a one-time dramatic experience, and we tend to miss the smaller and quieter, though equally important things that God desires to show us every day.

Hi Herdman.I'm afraid you are mistaken here. The phrase is usually some variant of "o baptizOn en pneumati agiO" John 1:33. Jesus is the one "baptising IN Spirit Holy". You can easily see the value of the preposition 'en' by seeing that in contrast to Jesus, John is the one who was sent "baptizein en udati"; to baptise IN water". The paedobaptists would prefer to translate this 'with' but that is not the most natural sense. 'Baptise' means to immerse and can only be used with the prepostion 'in' or 'into'; never 'with' or 'by'. Try this English phrase "I will immerse...IN/INTO/BY/WITH and you will see what I mean. You can't use the prepositions WITH/BY with the verb 'immerse'. This is the Rotherham Literal Translation of the verse: "And, I, knew him not,—but, he that sent me to immerse IN water, he, unto me, said—Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon him, the same, is he that immerseth IN Holy Spirit." (My emphases)The most natural sense of the Greek preposition 'en' is 'in'. (note not 'into' that would be 'eis' which has a sense of direction and can also be translated 'towards'). There is no doubt 'en' can sometimes be translated 'with/by' in the sense of instrumentality but the primary sense of 'en' has to be 'in'.In the Greek NT the preposition 'ev' is used 2801 times. The KJV translates 'en' as 'in' 1902 times; 'by 163 times; 'with' 140 times, 'among' 117 times; 'on' 62 times, 'through' 39 times, and misc words 265 times. That gives a probability of 68% against 6% for 'in' against 'by' or 5% for 'with'. You will see that the burden of proof must lie with those who want to translate 'en' as 'by/with' for these verses. I have studied their reasonings for more than 40 years and remain unconvinced.The phrase 'baptism OF the Holy Spirit' is certainly not biblical.There is an interesting use of prepositions in 1Cor 12:13. The KJV has "For BY one Spirit are we all baptized INTO one body" but the preposition 'by' is translating 'en' and the preposition 'into' translates 'eis'. The sense is 'we were baptised in one Spirit in order to effect one Body'.If you want a summation of the NT doctrine using all these prepositions accurately it would be something like.. "Jesus baptises IN one Spirit INTO one Body." John's baptism was 'eis' repentance; Jesus' is 'eis' one body. John's baptism was 'en' water; Jesus' is 'en' Spirit.best regardsHis/YoursRon Bailey

Hi TaKayour quote"I'm not very familiar with Hebrew and Greek, and even if I were, I don't think it's productive to squabble over every jot and tittle of linguistics just to prove a point."Just as long as we don't forget that God inspired every 'jot and tittle'. Matt 5:18 ;-)His/YOursRon

What an enlightening discussion. I am especially grateful for the insight of the last couple posts. back a few posts were these comments:"The baptisms in the Bible all accomplish something or signify something...""Fire, Matt. 3:11, to place unsaved sinners in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15, Mk. 9:43-48)."I have never thought about the fire from Matt. 3:11 in this sense. I would definately appreciate more discussion on this topic. In the context it is clear that this is a very reasonable option. In fact, in the context it clearly appears to be the most obvious and correct interpretation Although this is the case, my instinct is to now understand the baptism of fire in 2 ways, "to place unsaved sinners in the lake of fire" being the second. But I think it refers to the first as well. Both the first way I understood it and the first sequentially in God's timeline. The first way I have always understood the fire aspect of Jesus' baptizing men was most clearly expressed at Pentecost. Acts 2:3"And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them."I would appreciate a more thorough exposition of the phrase "tongues as of fire" from a more grammatically inclined person. But as far as I can tell, it simply means fire. But in order for the thought to be clearly expressed the description of the fire needed the adjective "tongues" and the "as of" to express it's not being a regular physical fire. The biblical understanding of the appearance of fire is that it has the appearance of tongues. If you look at any good sized fire, the appearance of it is like a mysterious bunch of living and moving tongues. Isaiah 5:24"Therefore, as a tongue of fire consumes stubble, and dry grass collapses into the flame, so their root will become like rot and their blossom blow away as dust..."Here Isaiah describes fire as "a" tongue and when I read that in the flow of the prophetic passage it becomes clear to me why he expressed it as "a" tongue instead of "tongues" (yes, the little things are often very significant). It seems to me to be expressed as such because it is a referrence to God's judgment which comes about swiftly. "Tongues" in the plural implies the thought of a lingering fire, but a devouring "tongue" of fire is quick. The fire of Pentecost is also of the lingering type. Or at least it can be. This is also very interesting in light of this new aspect of fire baptism (new at least for me). Because the eternal fire will linger... eternally. But in the O.T. God's judgement was swift. When it came, it came quickly and served it's purpose quickly. Yes, the consequences of it lingered with the people, but the actual instance, the climactic event, was quick and then over with. But the eternal judgement will not be so. It will be continually lingering and eternally climactic (I think). Back to Acts 2:3. The fire "rested on" each one of them. Sometimes I see pictures that are supposed to represent the day of Pentcost and a single "tongue" of fire is resting "above" each one of them. It seems to me that it would be more accurate to show "tongues" (plural) of fire resting (or, "sitting") "on" each on them. And it doesn't say "on each of their heads" but "on... them." This is significant because the fire could have simply rested or sat "on" thier heads, but it also could have rested on thier entire bodies. And in order for it to be resting or sitting on them it had to be touching them. Can you rest or sit on something without touching it? Try it and find out! I think that it might have looked like these men were completely swallowed up in flame. As if someone poured gasoline (oil) all over them and then lit them. I wonder who got it first? Someone had to because the tongues of fire were distributing themselves. I wonder why they all didn't just catch at once? Oil is representative of the Holy Spirit, especially prophetically speaking. I think that maybe what happened at Pentecost was that Jesus immersed them into the oil (the Holy Spirit) and then lit the fire Himself. The King James says "cloven tongues like as of fire." The "like" is significant because it was not "tongues of fire" but "tongues like" fire. It looked like actual fire but clearly was not. These men were not being physically burned up. It was a spiritual fire being manifested in the physical so as to be seen. So in conclusion, at this point I feel that Penetecost could have been the first "baptism of fire" while eternal judgement is the second one.

Hey Ron,I have a limited number of modern versions in my library. The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the New American Standard Version, that has Jesus as a begotten God, agree with your translation of "in" the Spirit. The rest say "with." So, I am not alone in my "mistake." As you said, There is no doubt 'en' can SOMETIMES be translated 'with/by' in the sense of INSTRUMENTALITY but the primary sense of 'en' has to be 'in'. (emphasis mine) I believe you said it's translated 'with/by' 140 times. That sometimes is not a few.What are you going to do with Eph. 5:18? Are you going to translate it "in" or "with" since the Greek word is "ev"? We all say "filled with the Spirit." Then, this isn't a matter of "probability." There are clear references to what the Holy Spirit does to put you into Christ's body that can't be ignored.Are you "in" Christ? If so, how did you get there? By water baptism or by Spirit baptism? The Catholics say by water baptism. Certainly you don't believe in "baptismal regeneration."Rom. 6:3 is a good explanation of how you got there. You "were baptized into Jesus Christ." Who did the baptizing? The Holy Spirit did. You were baptized "by" the Spirit into his body (1 Cor. 12:13) or baptized "with" the Spirit into his body (Acts 11:16; Jn. 1:33). Instrumentality.No reason to correct the English with the Greek. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit put you in Christ's body, not that he put you in himself.

Hi HerdmanNow let's keep this sweet and don't try to load me with 'guilt by association'. You never talked to a more staunch Trinitarian than you are now.I can give you a bunch of Trinitarians who all translate it 'in' if you wish; Darby, Rotherham, Young. They don't come much more orthodox.I think you may be aware that many translations have tried to distinguish between the human spirit and the Holy Spirit by the device of a lower case spirit for the human and an uppercase Spirit for the divine. (See I told you I was a good Trinitarian) This produces not so much a translation as an interpretation. Your Eph 5:18 is a case in point. Literally it reads; 'plErousthe en pneumati' - be being filled in spirit. There is no definite article. Many translators have interpreted this as the divine spirit and so have given it the uppercase Spirit, but this is interpretation not translation. I would like to suggest that what we have in view here is the human spirit, which needs a constant IN-filling. If you ask IN-filling with what? The answer is clearly WITH the divine spirit but that is theology not translation. The aim is the same whichever 'spirit' is in view.Can you tell me how you read John's baptism? Does baptise mean immerse and was he immersing IN water or WITH water? The value you put on 'en' here for John's baptism should surely be the same for the parallel idea of Jesus' baptism.Instrumentality is a plain factor of 'en' but it must be determined by the context. As you quote me it is so translated 140 times in the NT, but remember that the natural translation of 'en' is IN, which is why the KJV translates it so in more than 68% of the times it is used, as against 11% for by/with. The burden of proof still lies with those who want to go against the natural translation of 'ev'; I am still unconvinced.This will most likely be my last post on this issue. I think we are gettin to the stage where we are likely to generate more heat than light.my best regardsHis/YoursRon

Hey Ron,It's always good to recognize when we've gone far enough on a topic. As you can see, I won't correct the English text of the KJV with the Greek. Consequently, the word studies run off into areas that deal with matters of "translation" and "interpretation" that have no bearing on what "the Bible says." By "Bible" I mean the KJV, since there is no such thing as a "Bible" containing the "original" autographs. I accept the KJV as God's words and as my final authority. Thus we end this discussion.

Basically, I'm going to do it the way they did it in the Bible. Speaking in tongues is for me, and every gift that was in operation back then, is still operational today. :)God bless you all :)