Using a different computer I discovered that in order for you to hear the message, you needed to have your Windows Media Player set to play mp3 files. After I set it to do that, it opened it up almost immediately.

Using Quick Player, or whatever it is called, it took a few minutes downloading the mp3 file before the browser window opened up the Quick Player and began playing the message.

I hope this helps those who are still wrestling with this problem.

Actually, He's done that with me. He doesn't change the pressure waves headed toward my eardrums (I still hear the same thing), but somewhere between my ears and my brain, He puts in something better. In fact, that's exactly how I got the inspiration for my sermon on the Incarnation.

Does that qualify as a miracle? I think so. For God to put something good in my brain, there are more obstacles inside my head than in the air between the speaker's mouth and my ear. It will require more of a miracle to change my spirit than to manipulate the amoral laws of physics.

Did God really have to perform a miracle in this situation? It's impossible to say without knowing all the circumstances. But I know of one case where God supernaturally overruled the machinations of men - Balaam.

Arnold, none of what you are saying addresses any of my points. In the situation suggested, there was a translator present. There was no need for God to perform a miracle of the type suggested.

In the case of your brain, God didn't change the words you were hearing, but gave you an insight. This agrees with what I was saying as well. This is exactly what God does. He doesn't supernaturally force us to perceive reality differently than what it really is, but gives us insights to properly perceive reality.

In the example of Balaaam, if Balaam had really just made a donkey noise, and Balaam had heard the sound as something different, that would be analogous to what's being suggested. As it actually happened, it is analogous to the actual gift of tongues.

So are you saying that Balaam's donkey actually spoke words to Balaam, or did God, or an angel, speak through the medium of the donkey in the same way the devil spoke through the medium of the serpent when speaking to Eve?

And I am percieving this from an entierly different vantage point. Not so much the physics of the alleged miracle but the reasons for it. More further down.My point is that at times, God sends word to people and then He confirms it by a miracle. In Moses case, wood becoming snake and back again was the confirmation to the elders of Israel that Moses was bringing something more than too many hours spent under a wasteland sun. The Romans speaking in tounges was confirmation for both them and Peter that the word Peter had preached was true and that Peter had rightly understood the dream preceding. Thus God confirming word with wonder. In this case, my thinking is that a miracle of miraculous understanding might confirm to the people that the preacher wasnt just another charlatan trying to pull them leggs. Thus the purpose here would be a source seal rather than improved translation which seemingly has been your thesis thus far. You might do well to notice that this example was to illustrate your "1/20th worthy of Gods blessings" suggestion rather than adressing the question of signs accompanying preaching. Jesus did plenty of those aswell, though this might not be the best example to be found. Jesus fullfilled the need present in this case with food, just as the staff snake fullfilled the need of counteracting unbelief in the Moses example. I acctually agree with you that it would make litte sence for God to do the translation when a translater was present. Where we appear to disagree is with the question if translation was the purpose of this event.King Herod wanted Jesus to clown for him. Of course Jesus refused.I think a thread to spread some light on Gods blessings and the fruit of the Spirit might be in order.

You mean the donkey was possessed by an angle of God?

I'm suggesting that even if there was a translator present, there might still be a need.

And Thomas makes a good point about God confirming something by a miracle. Acts 10 records the gift of tongues was given to people who were gathered at a meeting. I think it is safe to say that if translators were needed, they would have been there. Otherwise, those people would not have attended.


I agree.


I'm not talking about the donkey. I'm talking about the blessings Balaam spoke (instead of the curses that he preferred).

I wasn't speaking to this. I was saying that the sound which Balaam heard was actually the sound which emerged from the general direction of the donkey. If the donkey had actually made a typical donkey-like sound, and Balaam heard something different from the sound that actually emerged from the general direction of the donkey, then that would be analogous to the idea that a preacher preaches one thing, but people hear something entirely different than the sound that he actually produced. As it was, as it actually happened, it's analogous to the real gift of tongues.

Thus God confirming word with wonder. In this case, my thinking is that a miracle of miraculous understanding might confirm to the people that the preacher wasnt just another charlatan trying to pull them leggs. Thus the purpose here would be a source seal rather than improved translation which seemingly has been your thesis thus far.

This isn't speaking to what was suggested. It was suggested that the preacher preached one thing and the people heard another. Not that the people miraculously understood what the preacher was saying.

I acctually agree with you that it would make litte sence for God to do the translation when a translater was present. Where we appear to disagree is with the question if translation was the purpose of this event.

You are proposing that God did some sort of miracle (which would not be the miracle of tongues; you agree about this, correct?) where people heard something different than what was said, for the purpose of letting the people know that the preacher should be listened to? That seems highly fanciful. He never did this for Jones or Waggoner. Or Ellen White. Or W. W. Prescott. Or anyone else, as far as we know. Wouldn't it be more practical for God to do what He normally does, which is to convict people of truth?

I can see, hypothetically, the need for the type of thing you are suggesting in say a hypothetical case where a missionary goes to some unknown tribe in the Amazon. But here we are talking about people who maybe have 3ABN available, who are aware of the world-wide church, who likely had already seen the preacher on television. And even in this case, it makes sense that the gift would be given to the preacher, not to those hearing the message, just as what happened in Acts.

Let's say hypothetically that God did do some new miracle like this, of which we have no record. How would we know it was God doing it?

I think most of the points I made to Thomas would address your points as well, Arnold. If we assume that the purpose was not to translate, but to confirm something by way of miracle, what would be being confirmed, and how would the gift of hearing confirm it?

Regarding Balaam, even in the case of him speaking blessings instead of curses, I'm not seeing the connection. The Lord spoke through Balaam. He didn't change the sound of the words he was speaking into different sounds.