The bible says that what happened in Jerusalem at the first christian pentecost and also in the church of Corinth was the gift of speaking unknown tounges. Does this limmit God in such a way that He could not provide a gift of hearing for other circumstances when that would be more appropriate?

As to Ellen and a bible commentary, I would think it depends on what purpose bible-commentary we are talking about. If we are talking about the kind of bible-commentary which purpose is to teach us conserning the background of words and common phrases and practises in order to better understand what the text says in its original language, such a bible-commentary I think would trump Ellen. On the other hand, if we are talking about the kind of bible-commentary which aim is to make application of bible texts to practise or theology for us today, then I think there are books by Ellen which would trump the bible-commentary.Unless of course the gift was indeed on the ones listening. Jesus healed people who had enough faith in Him to seek Him. People who come to a meeting which purpose is the preaching of the gospel have generally shown simmilar faith. Jesus had the power of healing, wether in Himself or through the Spirit. The ones being healed had faith. Jesus is often recorded as asking those who went seeking for Him about their faith. I think one could say that anyone who turns his or her feet and heart to seek the Lord is indeed having the gift of being healable. And of course someone preaching the gospel is in need of the power of the Spirit aswell. Thats the thing with God, He is not limmited to endowing either the speaker or the listeners but has his full freedom to help both.And what, pray tell, can be accomplished by human power? When God gives a mission and calls people to perform a task, He still says:

Zec 4:6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of Jehovah unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith Jehovah of hosts.

Thomas

If this theory were correct, then at Pentecost, the one who had faith would hear the word being preached in their language, whereas those who didn't have faith would hear the word in some unintelligible language. Also there's the possibility that the person would know the language the speaker was speaking in. So in this case what language would he hear it in?

You wouldn't need more than one speaker. The speaker would speak, and everyone would hear it in their own language. But what if a person knows more than one language? What language would they hear it in?

This is aside from the fact that we are told that the apostles were able to speak the languages accurately. It's also aside from the fact that the gift is called the gift of "tongues".

Back to the meeting where the evangelist supposedly was heard in the native language even though he was speaking his own. Presumably not everyone at the meeting would be converted. Ellen White says not 1 in 20 are; so let's say that they are 10 times better than this, and half are. What would have happened is that half would have heard the message in English, which they don't understand, and the other half in their own language. Presumably the translator was converted, and had the gift (we're assuming this too, but in reality not everyone that is converted has a given spiritual gift) so he heard the sermon in his own language (which of itself is strange; why would God have translated the language on the fly, since the interpreter understood English?).

But what of the ones without the gift? Wouldn't they have complained? They would have been hearing the sermon in English, without understanding it. Wouldn't they have said, "We can't understand the sermon. It's in English. Why aren't you translating?"

Then the translator would have said, "I'm hearing it in our language, not English". In which case they could have said, "Well you could repeat what you're hearing, so we can understand it too?"

Not to mention the fact that this suggestion is contrary to the laws of physics. Sound is propagated by waves. The same waves propagate the same sound to different ears. What you're suggesting would have the same sound somehow propagated differently to different ears. Doesn't it make a lot more sense that God conferred a gift of knowledge to the speaker, and the speaker accurately spoke a language he hadn't studied?

Regarding your question about human power, we can do things like study, pray, think, and so forth. As we do these things, God gives us understanding. We cannot understand spiritual things without the Spirit of God. However, if we put the Bible under our pillow, and sleep, and do not read it, or think about it, or pray about it, but just sleep on it, we will be disappointed if we think God will perform a miracle for us, so that we can understand it without expending any effort. Don't you agree?

By the way, the idea I'm sharing about human power is not my own, but one which the Spirit of Prophecy espouses. However, aside from that, it's common sense, isn't it? Doesn't it also agree with what we see from the life of Christ? He never performed a miracle where there was no actual need being met, did He?

Good questions Thomas! I appreciate the dialog.

My father owned a restaurant that was open on Sabbath. I used to go there for lunch after church so that I don't pay on the Sabbath. Where is that on the scale?

It's possible that the translator chosen would have done a poor job, and God supernaturally fixed the situation. I have been part of evangelistic crusades where participants were chosen by criteria other than competence.

3.

A lot of pastors preach lousy sermons. Why doesn't God just cause us to hear something better. Isn't that the same idea? The preacher preaches something lousy, but God supernaturally transforms the words into something mellifluous.

You are not paying attention here Tom. Read my post again.So the general idea is that God only does miracles for elite christians? Is that what you are trying to say?Moot point as the interpretation of said sound waves is happening in the minds and brains of people.Sertainly, but in this particular case we are not talking about someone just sleaping on a book. We are talking about a group of people who have made an effort to attend a meeting where the Word is presumably preached. We are also talking about the achievement of the preacher to accurately and relevantly bring this Word accross to the people who are listening. To be there at the right time is as far as human power extends. That the preacher/interpreter says the words that the people need to hear, that the words that are preached are understood and that they produce a change of heart in the listener are all Gods work. That last point is where I am getting at. How can you be so sure such a miracle as is being proposed here had no need to meet? If only such miracles that you and I can understand and explain rationally would be allowed to happen, God would be quite limmited in His actions. Don't you agree?Let the dialog go on, may it bring good fruit.

If there is a translator present, then the need is being met. The idea that the translator isn't good enough, so God supernatural supercedes it just seems preposterous to me.

Ellen White wrote many books which have been translated to many languages. Not always is the translation done well. There is a need here that needs to be met, but it's not being met by the translator. So why doesn't God "fix" the translation, so that it accurately reflects what the prophet actually said?

I'm not sure how you god "elite" Christians from what I wrote. Let's start with a couple of assumptions, and see how this goes.

a)In order to have the gift of hearing, one would need to be converted.
b)Not everyone has all the spiritual gifts.

(I'm refering to the proposed suggestion as to the gift of tongues working on the hearer as opposed to the speaker as the gift of "hearing" to distinguish it from the other interpetation.)

What I said was that Ellen White wrote that not 1 in 20 are converted. Now if you're not converted, you can't have the spiritural gift. If not 1 in 20 is converted, then there would be a whole lot of people in the congretation not understanding what the speaker was saying. You don't have to be an "elite" Christian, but you have to be a Christian of some sort! (i.e. converted). I also pointed out that not everyone has a spiritual gift. Some had the gift of tongues, some had other spiritual gifts. The suggestion that everyone heard what was being said in their own language doesn't fit the facts of what we know about spiritual gifts.

This theory presumes that everyone would have heard that sermon in their own language. This would mean everyone:
a)Was converted.
b)Had the spiritual gift.

In addition to this, it goes against the principle that God does not employ supernatural means to accomplish what can be accomplished by human effort.

Let's say I'm a computer programmer, writing programs for the Lord, without which messages that are needed in foreign lands can't be sent. But I'm not a very good programmer, so I make mistakes. Will the Lord supernaturally fix my program, so my buggy code will work differently than what I wrote?

Say I'm a pastor, who preaches the truth, but doesn't practise the health message. Will God supernaturally heal me, while I continue living unhealthfully, so that I continue preaching?

There's many similar examples that could be given here. James White comes to mind, who died prematurely because of over-working.

Anyway, what's being proposed seems to me to be very contrary to how God works, to the principles of freedom. We are free to translate poorly. If a given translator doesn't do a good job, we are free to find a better translator.

Can you present any example which would exemplify the principles you are suggesting?

Finally, regarding sound waves, my point is not moot. Your point that much of what happens to understand sound happens in the brain misses the point. I've give an analogy to make this clear.

Let's say the preacher was a deaf preacher, preaching to a deaf audience, using sign language. Sign languages are different in each country, so there's an interpreter. The interpreter quits interpreting. The preacher asks why. The interpreter says, "Each of us are seeing you sign in our language."

In order for this to happen, God would have to change the perception of reality. No one watching would be seeing what was really happening, the visual laws of physics would be violated; the light hitting the retina and transfering images to the brain of the images, all of this would be being overridden. The point is, that there is a physical reality where certain signs are actually being made, and this information is processed by the brain through visual senses, which convey the physical reality.

What's being proposed here is akin to being on LSD, where your perception of reality is completely different from reality. This would have God supernaturally working in our brain, to cause us, without any ability on our part to discern the difference, to perceive reality different than what it actually is.

Now if God will do this, how can we possibly know that any reality that we perceive corresponds to what is really happening?

And what if geting the sermon translated is not the only need around?One day when Jesus was preaching in a remote place, there where 5000 men and possibly their families aswell present. They all got hungry. Jesus performed a miracle of multiplying food. How many of the people present where recieving the blessing of the multiplied food? The 1/20th part who presumably where believers in Jesus? Or all and everyone who was in that crowd? What was the requirement for taking part in that meal? Was it not simply to be on that mountain listening to what Jesus had to say?It is said that God is reaching a people for Himself in islamic theocracies like Iran by dreams and visions. Why does God do that when He could send you or me to preach it?In Exodus, God calls Moses. Moses however is most reluctant to answer Gods call and makes excuses of why God should choose someone else. God then proceeds to show Moses He means buisness by first making Moses herdsstaff into a snake and back and then causing a skin disease to appear on Moses arm and then disapear again. Moses is then called to use the same signs to show the leaders of Israel that God means buisness.

One day Elijah was sent by God to parley with king Ahab. They organised a meeting and a duel on mount Carmel by the sea where Elijah was to meet the priests of Baal. There was a huge crowd present, at the very least representatives from all families in the country. That day God made a miracle to support and establish in fire the words wich Elijah had preached and was to preach. Elijah sacraficed and God accepted the sacrafice and took the altar aswell with Him.

A while after Jesus had risen from the death and had appeared to many of his diciples and most of the 12, there still was one who would not accept the testimony of the others. They had told Tomas, "when we where here in this hidden room praying, locked doors and the servants of the house guarding the outer door, see, Jesus appeared in our midst, He was here. And that is as ture as I am sitting here myself." But Tomas would not believe their telling of the good news. So the next evening when they where again praying in the same upper room with door and windows closed, and this time all 12 where present, Jesus was once again among them. And He approached Tomas and let him touch his wounds in hands, feet and side. Jesus confirmed the apostles preaching in this miraculous way.

Still some time in the future, another apostle was out on a mission for God. Peter this time was called to vissit an unclean Roman. He had been reassured to go through with it just before getting the call so there he was on the way. Reaching the Romans house, he was asked to preach. And preach he did, though still in doubt what good it would do. The Roman and all of his household people heard and believed but Peter was still in doubt of their sincerity. After all, a Roman! Then suddenly, the Holy Spirit was all over the Roman and his people. They spoke in tounges they had never learned, perhaps the "hillbilly gallilean" that had once put Peter in a rough spot at the high preast house. Once again, God confirmed His action with a miracle.You are making this so unnessessarily difficult Tom. Why would it be more difficult for God to temporarily grant a group of people understanding in a new language, be it sign language or spoken language or written language, that it is for God to temporarily grant a group of people speech in a new language? If John or James on pentecost suddenly found themselves preaching in Latin or Farsi or Arabic, would you compare this too with LSD? Some of the audience that was there did as we can read in scripture. If you in a situation comparable with pentecost suddenly found yourself able to understand Latin or Farsi or Arabic, would you praise God and do your best to follow where God where leading, or would you start thinking through your day and try and figgure out where you ate or drank spiked food/drink?

Thomas

The suggestion is not that God gave the people understanding of a language they didn't know. That would actually make some sense. The suggestion is that the speaker spoke one language, and the hearers heard another. This would have the problems I mentioned. I'm not being unnecessarily difficult. I am perceiving problems which I would think would be easy to see.

You'd have to develop your examples more in order for me to understand the connection you're making. They all seem to me to be establishing my point, not yours. That is, they all seem to me to be similar to the actual miracle of tongues that was conferred by the Holy Spirit, not the suggested gift of hearing.

I won't go through all of them, but I will mention one. In the gift of feeding the 5,000, Christ performed this miracle for a specific purpose. Specifically, there were people who were hungry, without the means to eat. Now if there had been a cafeteria near by, and the people could have just eaten there, and Jesus chose to bypass that to perform a miracle instead, *that* would support the idea of a gift of hearing. God would have been bypassing what a human being could do. But in each case you gave, God did something a human being could not do.

Also, when Jesus was pressed to do the miracle again, when the need was no longer present, He steadfastly refused to do so.

In the case of the preacher, there was a translator present who was translating. For God to bypass this translator would be to bypass a whole host of principles that God has worked by, which I've already pointed out.

Also in your response about the crowd present, where the only requirement was to be there, this is making my point to. If the gift of tongues were given to the one speaking, then the only requirement would be present to hear the word of God, similar to the crowd present to eat. However, if the crowd present had to have the spiritual gift of hearing, that's not at all analogous to the crowd being present to receive the food Jesus was providing. To be analogous, they would have had to have had some sort of spiritual gift in order to be able to see the food, or something like that.