wrote: > In article <>,

> Chris Ho-Stuart <> wrote:

>> [ newsgroups pruned ]

>>

>> In aus.religion.christian wrote:

>> > In article <>,

>> > (Nigel B. Mitchell) wrote:

>> >> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:55:33 GMT, wrote:

>> >>

>> >> > 1 Cor 14 says all

>> >> >Christians CAN prophecy, speak in tongues & interpret.

>> >>

>> >> No, it doesn’t, but you are not going to let what the Bible says

>> >> get in the way of your rhetoric, are you?

>> >

>> > I seem to recall this sort of accusation flying around the last

>> > time we argued about the interpretation of plain statements like

>> > ‘every one of you has a tongue, has an interpretation’, and ‘you

>> > can all prophesy’.

>> > Forgive me if I don’t leap headlong into English101 again.

>>

>> But, no offense intended, you are demonstrating Nigel’s point.

>

> None taken, fire away. :~)

Thanks!

>> Your first quote is a fragment of 1 Cor 14:26. This is a list, and

>> is the implicit connective is “or” rather than “and”, because we

>> can see in context that the very next verse LIMITS the number of

>> tongues speakers to 2 or 3 at most, and the verse after that deals

>> with the case when there is no interpreter.

>

> Yes indeed. Paul tells them NOT to all SIT at once, and tells them to

> limit use of the gift to 2-3. If you’re claiming this limit is self

> evident in the few who can do it, why does he spell it out ? As for

> interpretation, he also says each of us has that ability, but it needs

> to be sought. Every Christian can SIT in a meeting, they all have done

> so before by default.

I know what you believe; all I am trying to do here is look at the words which you cited from the bible to see what they have to say on the matter. I am not here making an exhaustive search of the bible. I am considering simply the verses which you cited, and looking at what message is intended by Paul in those verses, by considering their context.

You cited a fragment of 1 Cor 14:26.

In context, the passage is as follows (NKJV, 1 Cor 14:26-31)

How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Your original quote, visible above, was misleading, because you made it appear as if Paul was listing gifts given to all Christians, when in context he is plainly speaking of gifts exercised in a worship service.

Paul gives a list at the start, and you quoted a portion of this list. In context, Paul says that this list applies “whenever you come together”. You commonly draw a distinction between what gifts a Christian actually has, as opposed to what gifts are actually exercised in a worship service. Here, plainly, Paul is here speaking of what is exercised in a worship service. Therefore you quoted out of context, and in conflict with the intent, to suggest that the list in 1 Cor 14:26 was a list of gifts actually possessed by the Christians.

The connective intended in the verse is “or”, not “and”. This is clear from context, because in what follows Paul speaks of the case when there may be no interpreter present.

>> Thus “everyone one of you has a tongue, has an interpretation” cannot

>> possibly mean you all have a tongue and you all have an

>> interpretation.

>> It means you all have some contribution to the worship service.

>

> I reject the concept that the word ‘or’ is implied except by assumption.

Of course; but this merely shows that you are in conflict with the plain sense of the bible.

Paul says “Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation.”

This is immediately following with instructions for a case in which there is no interpreter present. Thus of course the plain meaning of “or”. You, however, reject this, as you must, because on this point your church is in conflict with Paul’s teaching.

I’m not pulling punches here, and I realize I am saying things that are totally unacceptable to you. But I think it worthwhile to be frank.

>> Similarly, your second quote is a fragment of 1 Cor 14:31, and the

>> full phrase is “you can all prophesy one by one”. You always omit

>> that portion of the phrase, and by doing so change the plain

>> meaning.

>

> Not at all – how does ‘one by one’ change the fact that ‘you can all

> prophecy’ ?

There is no statement “you can all prophesy”. That is a fragment of a phrase, and it is not an implication of the instruction “you can all prophesy one by one”. The phrase is not a conjunction you can break into parts in that way; doing so changes the plain meaning.

In context, quoted above, Paul suggests only that 2 or 3 speak. The instruction requires this to be one by one. The word “all” here means that one by one is not intended to be exclude anyone; plainly it is possible for all to proceed one by one. But in context Paul is certainly not speaking of all having an ability, but of how the service is ordered.

>> In context, Paul is speaking here of order in the service; not

>> about who has which gifts. English101 is sufficient to show that

>> Paul is saying all should speak one by one, not and not that

>> all are actually given a prophesy in the service.

>

> What does ‘you can all’ mean, except ‘you can all’ ?

“You can all… one by one” means that one by one is sufficient to cover everybody. “you can all” by itself is a coment on abilities. Paul, of course, is using the latter phrase, not the former. You generally omit the portions of the bible which conflict with your preferred doctrinal view.

English 101 should be sufficient to tell you that the phrase is not sensibly split up in this way; your question merely persists in this confusion.

Cheers — Chris