Assyrian Forums
 Home  |  Ads  |  Partners  |  Sponsors  |  Contact  |  FAQs  |  About  
 
   Holocaust  |  History  |  Library  |  People  |  TV-Radio  |  Forums  |  Community  |  Directory
  
   General  |  Activism  |  Arts  |  Education  |  Family  |  Financial  |  Government  |  Health  |  History  |  News  |  Religion  |  Science  |  Sports
   Greetings · Shläma · Bärev Dzez · Säludos · Grüße · Shälom · Χαιρετισμοί · Приветствия · 问候 · Bonjour · 挨拶 · تبریکات  · Selamlar · अभिवादन · Groete · التّحيّات

More on Acts 2

Archived: Read only    Previous Topic Next Topic
Home Forums Peshitta Topic #872
Help Print Share

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

More on Acts 2

Feb-08-2002 at 10:36 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

Shlama Akhay,

The subject of the "sound like a groaning spirit" was brought up a couple of days ago - I wanted to expand a little further on the events recorded.

In Verse 4 of the Aramaic - we are told that they were "filled with the Holy Spirit." That much the Aramaic and the Greek have in common.

Where they differ, though, is in the following:

The Aramaic tells us that:

wwh wqp0w to speak in different tongues - just as the Holy Spirit had given them to speak.

The traditional translation of wwh wqp0w has been - "and they began" - but that is a very incomplete translation.

The Aramaic verbal root Qpn - from which wqp0w is derived - means "to drive out, expel, force out.'

It is, in fact, very frequently used - especially when speaking of Christ expelling demons. In fact, the very same word - wqp0 was used by Meshikha Himself when He commanded the disciples to "heal the sick and drive out demons." (Matthew 10:8 and many other places)

Acts 2 in the Aramaic tells a story which only further reinforces what we have known about this fascinating Gift.

Not only did the entire house gradually fill with an eerie noise, a "groaning spirit" - and not only did "tongues like divided fire" appear out of nowhere and descend on them - but the words that came out of their mouths when they spoke in tongues were involuntary. The Aramaic tells us that they were driven to to do so - that they were forced to speak in tongues - "as the Holy Spirit had given to them to speak."

Not that they simply - "began to speak".

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

 
Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic
ValiantForTruth
 
Send email to ValiantForTruthSend private message to ValiantForTruthAdd ValiantForTruth to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

1. RE: More on Acts 2

Feb-10-2002 at 09:40 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
>...the words that came out of
>their mouths when they spoke
>in tongues were involuntary.

Wouldn't this then imply that they were "possessed by" the spirit, rather than "filled with" the spirit? Isn't that how devil spirits operate - they "take over"? God does not "possess". But, if God did "take control of" their mouths, then why does 1Cor.14 go into so much detail as to how and when "WE" should speak in tongues? If it is "involuntary", then this information would seem misdirected - ie. Why give "US" instructions if WE have no control over when WE speak in tongues?

>The Aramaic tells us that
>they were driven to
>do so - that they
>were forced to speak in
>tongues - "as the Holy
>Spirit had given to them
>to speak."

The question here seems to be "Who is initiating the speaking - the individual, or some other force, ie. God?" Wouldn't the emphasis be more properly placed on the VOLUNTARY actions of the individuals - ie. THEY did the speaking? In other words, THEY forced their mouths to move, and THEY forced out the sounds, not God. WHAT came out was what the spirit was GIVING THEM. The sounds THEY were making were being forced out of them by THEIR choice to do so. And these sounds from the inspiration of the spirit within, were "unknown languages" to the ones doing the speaking.

>Not that they simply - "began
>to speak
".

But it says that THEY began to speak, not that the spirit began to speak, Correct? The spirit gave THEM, and then THEY (by the freedom of their will, chose to act, and..) spoke. Any thoughts? Why would this be incorrect, if it is?

Agape,
Don

Print Top
discipledaniel
 
Send email to discipledanielSend private message to discipledanielAdd discipledaniel to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

2. RE: More on Acts 2

Feb-10-2002 at 02:23 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Greetings Don,

I'm not sure of your background, but mine is charismatic/third wave. My experiences with tongues have shown me that the words themselves are pretty involuntary, but I am still in control of my body. I can choose to keep my mouth shut and just have the tongues in my head. But I have also had times where I was very prompted to speak out. It might be this sense that the author of Acts is trying to show. The words being given, and them be prompted/urged to speak out loud. At least that is what I pictured in my head.

Tongues are such a divisive issue, so let us strive for unity, not in exact theology, but unity in love.

God Bless,

Daniel

Print Top
ValiantForTruth
 
Send email to ValiantForTruthSend private message to ValiantForTruthAdd ValiantForTruth to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

3. RE: More on Acts 2

Feb-10-2002 at 08:25 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #2
 
Greetings Daniel,

I grew up in a protestant American home. I speak in tongues - have for years. And I too am in control of my body when I speak in tongues. I am not rolling on the floor uncontrollably, or running and jumping around. I am decent and orderly (in control) in a manner similar to that of a person praying silently or out loud. No one present has to worry about getting in my way and being knocked down. I determine if I speak out loud, or silently in my mind, when I begin, and when I finish or stop.

If I feel inspired to speak in tongues out loud in a meeting, I am still in control to the end that I manifest in a timely manner (for example, in sequence if more than one person speaks) that blesses everyone present.

This situation in Acts is a unique one in that it was the very first time this ever happened. Therefore the meanings of the words involved and how they are used become of great interest.

The prompt or signal for them to begin was the cloven tongues like as of fire that they (they who spoke in tongues) saw. Then THEY began to speak. The force that akhi Paul described, just seemed to apply more accurately to the effort required by each individual to initiate the speaking, rather than an "involuntary" action on their part. "Involuntary" is a strong word, and implies a lack of choice - ie. you speak in tongues whether you choose to or not. This would contradict the remote context of 1Cor.14 which discusses how and when speaking in tongues should be done.

Much is often lost in the meanings of the English words, that is why I responded the way I did. I do not wish to be defivisive, only as accurate as possible in the application of the knowledge that is available to us in the scriptures.

Agape,
Don

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

4. RE: More on Acts 2

Feb-10-2002 at 09:33 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #3
 
Last edited by Paul Younan on Feb-10-2002 at 09:37 PM (CT)

Shlama Akhi Don,

Thanks for your experiential insight here. Incidentally - I've never spoken in any tongues except for Aramaic and English.

The English "Involuntary" does evoke shades of meaning different from what I intended to convey.
There is "Involuntary" in the sense of "Against one's will" and then again there's "Involuntary" as in the blinking of our eyes or our heartbeat - although these things happen "Involuntarily" they are by no means happening "against our will."

It was not at all my intent to liken the gift of speaking in tongues to demon-possession.

The Aramaic here is very clear - it does not say that "they began to" but that "they were driven to."

Perhaps this very-first-ever occurence, as you said, may have been a special case. In fact - many details about it have never been replicated to my knowledge. The tongues of fire don't appear out of nowhere and descend upon you when you speak in tongues - correct?

Like I said - I have not experienced this gift - and I'm sure as time went on people began to anticipate and hence the need for God, through Paul, to instruct them on how to do it in an orderly fashion.

I can hardly imagine an orderly proceeding occuring the very first time it happened - in fact we are told that they all appeared to be drunk in front of critics.

I also can't imagine any anticipation by the participants that this would happen. So I don't think the Aramaic text is wrong here - they may well have been "driven" (to translate ultra-literally) to speak in tongues this very first time as a sign to the people of the arrival of the Holy Spirit.

Take it for what it's worth - but that's what the Aramaic says here.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
ValiantForTruth
 
Send email to ValiantForTruthSend private message to ValiantForTruthAdd ValiantForTruth to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

5. RE: More on Acts 2

Feb-14-2002 at 08:38 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #4
 
Akhi Paul,

>Thanks for your experiential insight here.
>Incidentally - I've never
>spoken in any tongues except
>for Aramaic and English.

You are bilingual - you speak two "known" languages. Speaking in tongues is an "unknown" language to the one doing the speaking.

>The English "Involuntary" does evoke shades
>of meaning different from what
>I intended to convey.
>There is "Involuntary" in the sense
>of "Against one's will" and
>then again there's "Involuntary" as
>in the blinking of our
>eyes or our heartbeat -
>although these things happen "Involuntarily"
>they are by no means
>happening "against our will."

Excellent point. However, they are not "forced" to occur either.

We do not have to "think" about breathing, we just do it "involuntarily". Neither do we think about blinking our eyes, or making sure that our heart continues to beat - these things occur as if no effort or force is required at all on our part.

However, when we speak, we must "think" about what we are about to say. Then, we force the words out by taking action - we move our lips, our throat, our tongue, we breathe, we make the sounds - voluntarily by choice.

The only difference between speaking a known language and speaking in tongues (an unknown language) is that we inspire the known language, God inspires the unknown language. But, neither occurs if WE do not act.

>It was not at all my
>intent to liken the gift
>of speaking in tongues to
>demon-possession.

Bless your heart

>The Aramaic here is very clear
>- it does not say
>that "they began to" but
>that "they were driven to."

"they were driven (compelled, forced) to speak with other tongues..." What compelled or forced them? I believe that when they saw the sign - the cloven tongues like as of fire - they knew that this was it, this was when they were to apply the instructions that Jesus had given them earlier (John 20:22).

>Perhaps this very-first-ever occurence, as you
>said, may have been a
>special case. In fact
>many details about it
>have never been replicated to
>my knowledge. The tongues (like as)
>of fire don't appear out
>of nowhere and descend upon
>you when you speak in
>tongues - correct?

Correct. The Bible does not say that when you speak in tongues you will see tongues like as of fire. This I believe falls into the category of "phenomena" - acts of God that are not guaranteed or promised in His Word, and yet are not at odds with the scriptures. For example, The Bible does not say that you will "feel" something when you are born-again. And yet many people DO - why? ...phenomena.

>Like I said - I have
>not experienced this gift -
>and I'm sure as time
>went on people began to
>anticipate and hence the need
>for God, through Paul, to
>instruct them on how to
>do it in an orderly
>fashion.
>
>I can hardly imagine an orderly
>proceeding occuring the very first
>time it happened - in
>fact we are told that
>they all appeared to be
>drunk in front of critics.

With mankind, I would totally agree. However, with God, I do not believe that is so hard to believe. There are many examples of how God did things right the first time - creation; Noah's building of the Ark; the creation of Man; the resurrection; Pentecost...

WHO was it that said that they were drunk? ...only those who were "mockers". All the others said they heard them speak "the wonderful works of God".

Peter said they were not drunk, that it was only 9am. To a "mocker" who heard someone speaking in tongues in someone elses language (not their own) one could try and conclude that their actions were because of being drunk - people slur their words when they are drunk, do they not?

>I also can't imagine any anticipation
>by the participants that this
>would happen.

I agree. This was totally unexpected ...except by the apostles who went to Jerusalem (Jesus' last instruction) and waited to receive the comforter. Verses 7 & 8 does say that those present that heard them speak in their own languages, where they were born, "were all amazed and marvelled".

>So I don't think the Aramaic text
>is wrong here...

And neither do I!! I am not questioning the Aramaic. I was only questioning the "understanding" of what it says.

>they may well have been "driven"
>(to translate ultra-literally) to speak
>in tongues this very first
>time as a sign to
>the people of the arrival
>of the Holy Spirit.

I agree that THAT was what was being done. Except that those speaking in tongues were NOT speaking languages that were KNOWN to them. You recognize English and Aramaic, but not necessarily Italian. But if you were to speak in tongues, it could be Italian, but would never be English or Aramaic.

>Take it for what it's worth
>- but that's what the
>Aramaic says here.

I am very appreciative of your work!!!
It is refreshing to see someone with a heart like yours where TRUTH is the priority. Keep up the good work.

Agape,
Don

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

6. RE: More on Acts 2

Feb-14-2002 at 08:54 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #5
 
Shlama Akhi Don,

>You are bilingual - you speak
>two "known" languages. Speaking
>in tongues is an "unknown"
>language to the one doing
>the speaking.

I know - 'twas a joke - didn't you notice my winking-smiley-face?

>
>>The English "Involuntary" does evoke shades
>>of meaning different from what
>>I intended to convey.
>>There is "Involuntary" in the sense
>>of "Against one's will" and
>>then again there's "Involuntary" as
>>in the blinking of our
>>eyes or our heartbeat -
>>although these things happen "Involuntarily"
>>they are by no means
>>happening "against our will."
>
>Excellent point. However, they are
>not "forced" to occur either.
>
>
>We do not have to "think"
>about breathing, we just do
>it "involuntarily". Neither do
>we think about blinking our
>eyes, or making sure that
>our heart continues to beat
>- these things occur as
>if no effort or force
>is required at all on
>our part.

As I have a tendency to choose bad English words like "involuntary" - so I chose another one (force) with multiple shades of meaning - most of which I did not intend.

If you are forced to do something - it is not necessarily against your will. For instance, using my same analogies of breathing and blinking - we are indeed forced to breathe, to blink - to sneeze even. It would, of couse, take a superhuman effort not to do any of these things.

Although involuntary and forced - these things are not happening against our will.

Boy - those two words were horrible choices on my part. I now understand the wonderfully strong response it elicited from you. And you guys trust me to translate ?

God bless you, brother.


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
jdrywood
 
Send email to jdrywoodSend private message to jdrywoodAdd jdrywood to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

7. RE: More on Acts 2

Feb-16-2002 at 01:09 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #6
 

Ahki all, having read this post I think the gift of tongues was only unique to first century and the speaking of tongues was for edifying those nearby in their own language or dialect. Lamsa translates Acts 2:4 "began to speack in various languages". Those assembled were from all parts of the empire and would have heard the gospel in their own tongue not "an unknown tongue". I believe all these special gifts died out after the apostles passed on, even the unction to bishops. The proof of this is all around us in not having the correct translation or original autographs before us or anyone how can say "yes, the spirit saith such and such. So much muddle fuddle between what is primacy or correct. Hope I haven't raddled to many bones on this view. Jdrywood

Print Top
Iakov
 
Send email to IakovSend private message to IakovAdd Iakov to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

8. RE: More on Acts 2

Feb-16-2002 at 04:57 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #7
 
Shlama Akhi JDrywood,


>Ahki all, having read this post
>I think the gift of
>tongues was only unique to
>first century and the speaking
>of tongues was for edifying
>those nearby in their own
>language or dialect. Lamsa translates
>Acts 2:4 "began to speack
>in various languages".

I have read instances where someone praying in a language not known to them -hence 'unkown', in vernacular, fell on the ears of someone close who understood the tongue and repented giving their life to M'shiykha. One in fact was to a buhdist, (Did I spell that wrong?) and the language was in the "temple" language. The buhdist was gripped with conviction and repented.

>Hope I haven't raddled to
>many bones on this view.
>Jdrywood

Imangine how they felt at Sh'vuot when languages began to creep into their mouths. It was certainly "unknown" to them. It makes sense also akhi because only then is the rationalizing mind of human's not interfering. The renewed mind proves God's will but the unrenewed is God's enemy.Rom 12:3 and Rom 8:7.
For what its worth akhi. That's just my experience.

Shlama w'Burkate,
Yaqub

Print Top
jdrywood
 
Send email to jdrywoodSend private message to jdrywoodAdd jdrywood to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

9. RE: More on Acts 2

Feb-16-2002 at 09:32 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #8
 

Thanks ahki Iakov,
Yes by unknown is meant not formerly known to them. As for your experience with seeing the work of tongues I will not question though I have seen many fakes in Canada. There is phenomena we do not understand. I asked a French speaking sister in our meeting if 'holy spirit' was feminie in her known tongue and she says it is masculine yet I was told by some it was feminine. So those close to you who you can trust have a greater weight of authority from those at a distance. I met some messanic Jews at a Florida bible school and they were startled by my Hebrew tongue. I don't speak Hebrew but they said they understood me. I still don't believe I actually spoke Hebrew and I think they were just kind to me being a kite. jdrywood

Print Top

Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic


Assyria \ã-'sir-é-ä\ n (1998)   1:  an ancient empire of Ashur   2:  a democratic state in Bet-Nahren, Assyria (northern Iraq, northwestern Iran, southeastern Turkey and eastern Syria.)   3:  a democratic state that fosters the social and political rights to all of its inhabitants irrespective of their religion, race, or gender   4:  a democratic state that believes in the freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture in faithfulness to the principles of the United Nations Charter — Atour synonym

Ethnicity, Religion, Language
» Israeli, Jewish, Hebrew
» Assyrian, Christian, Aramaic
» Saudi Arabian, Muslim, Arabic
Assyrian \ã-'sir-é-an\ adj or n (1998)   1:  descendants of the ancient empire of Ashur   2:  the Assyrians, although representing but one single nation as the direct heirs of the ancient Assyrian Empire, are now doctrinally divided, inter sese, into five principle ecclesiastically designated religious sects with their corresponding hierarchies and distinct church governments, namely, Church of the East, Chaldean, Maronite, Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic.  These formal divisions had their origin in the 5th century of the Christian Era.  No one can coherently understand the Assyrians as a whole until he can distinguish that which is religion or church from that which is nation -- a matter which is particularly difficult for the people from the western world to understand; for in the East, by force of circumstances beyond their control, religion has been made, from time immemorial, virtually into a criterion of nationality.   3:  the Assyrians have been referred to as Aramaean, Aramaye, Ashuraya, Ashureen, Ashuri, Ashuroyo, Assyrio-Chaldean, Aturaya, Chaldean, Chaldo, ChaldoAssyrian, ChaldoAssyrio, Jacobite, Kaldany, Kaldu, Kasdu, Malabar, Maronite, Maronaya, Nestorian, Nestornaye, Oromoye, Suraya, Syriac, Syrian, Syriani, Suryoye, Suryoyo and Telkeffee. — Assyrianism verb

Aramaic \ar-é-'máik\ n (1998)   1:  a Semitic language which became the lingua franca of the Middle East during the ancient Assyrian empire.   2:  has been referred to as Neo-Aramaic, Neo-Syriac, Classical Syriac, Syriac, Suryoyo, Swadaya and Turoyo.

Please consider the environment when disposing of this material — read, reuse, recycle. ♻
AIM | Atour: The State of Assyria | Terms of Service