Course they are, grammatical rules are pretty much the same in any language. They to be identified has to read in accordance with who the last subject was referred to which in this case was the 11 and Matthias. Here are a few quotes for you;
Yes, like I said, this is possible, but the pronouns do not always refer to the most immediate antecedent. Consider the following verse...
“Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. And a man lame from birth was being carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple that is called the Beautiful Gate to ask alms of those entering the temple.” (Acts 3:1–2, ESV)
According to you, grammar demands that "they" refers to "Peter and John" since this is the nearest possible antecedent, but clearly this makes no sense. Context has to define much of this for us. I think, when you look at the passage in question, then it is very probable that "they" refers to the 120 in Acts 2. “And
they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. When the day of Pentecost arrived,
they were all together in one place.” (Acts 1:26–2:1, ESV)
In my opinion, the "eleven apostles" is part of a secondary clause. The main focus of the sentence is the casting of lots and it falling on Matthias. If I were to diagram the sentence, it would look something like:
They| cast| lots
\
for them
and
the lot| fell
\
on Matthias
\
and - he|was numbered
\
among the twelve
So, "the twelve" is a parenthetical phrase describing the "numbered" whereas "They" is the primary subject which refers back to the 120. That is just my opinion and there are numerous commentators that see it the same way, but again, it is debatable.
Well apparently you don't remember at all because I gave you the meaning of 'new' in Greek. It's not much different in English, in that it refers to something that didn't exist before. καινός (kainos) connotes;
Yes, I remember, and I quoted about a dozen verses where kainos is used interchangeably with neos (such as "new covenant"). Moreover, I think the word kainos is used because it can refer to something novel, fresh, interesting or unusual. neos refers to something which did not previously exist.
3501. νέος néos; fem. néa, neut. néon, adj. New, recent. New in relation to time, that which has recently come into existence or become present.
Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000).
Either way, I dont think we want to hash this out again.
I'm really not sure what you're talking to here as you provide no context or quotation from me?
You had asked how I understood this gift to have worked in the real world. I was explaining that it was a supernatural gift that was used as a sign, rather than a personal gift used primarily for prayer.
You're missing the point that in First Corinthians 14 Paul wasn't talking about exceptions he was talking about a rule. The rule would be that speaking in tongues was not to be understood by the majority of unbelievers that were there but it had to be interpreted and would be interpreted into probably Hebrew or Greek. That would represent the majority of people that were there. So obviously they weren't speaking in Hebrew and Greek if they had to interpret it into Hebrew or Greek. Your use of Japanese was really nothing more than a red herring which I knew, but tried to deal with you by Common Sense, which obviously didn't work.
I do not follow you Stan. Please, in very simple terms explain to me how this prayer language could be a "sign" to unbelievers. If it is an unintelligible language that has to be interpreted via a supernatural gift...how is that a sign? I am just asking the question for understanding of your view, I am not trying to throw out red herrings.
He's describing tongues, both as a gift that requires interpretation and as a personal prayer language. I'm pretty sure I made that clear so I don't understand why it doesn't make any sense for you unless of course you are so inculcated by your POV that you just can't accept it? Again please reread Paul here because you apparently are not understanding what he saying about tongues and interpretation. Tongues is not prophecy. Tongues is as Paul said it was an expression of praising and worshiping God. Yes it does need to be interpreted because the people coming in need to understand what is going on and by interpreting it they are understanding what the people are doing that are speaking in tongues. It sounds to me like you have never been in a service where these kind of gifts have been exercised? Is that right?
Okay, here you try to describe it. Understand that it is not that I do not understand Paul (I think I do), I just do not understand how you understand Paul. That is what I am trying to uncover.
I have been in charismatic services, many of them actually. My wife belonged to a Vineyard church for many years and I attended with her often, both to church and to conferences. I have spoken at length with leaders in these movements about this issue. I know how they practice it and how they explain away Paul's prohibition from tongues being spoken in the public assembly without an interpreter. I just am not convinced by any of their arguments.
1. The Bible never speaks of more than one gift of tongues. It just doesnt.
2. The Bible never gives rationale for people speaking in tongues in the public assembly as we see in most charismatic circles. Rather, it condemns it.
3. Tongues is only to be used in the assembly if there is interpretation. The focus of the gift was to be a sign to unbelievers, but if used in the assembly it must be interpreted.
4. If tongues was prophetic when interpreted by an interpreter, then why would Paul tell people to seek prophecy rather than seek the gift of tongues interpretation? That is because tongues are not prophetic. They are praises to God in human languages, just as we see in Acts 2.
5. Someone babbling in an unintelligible, non-human language and having another person stand up and say they can interpret it would not be a "sign" to an unbeliever. If anything, the unbeliever would think to himself, "These people are crazy. That guy babbled jibberish and the other guy thinks its a spirit language he can interpret. Im outta here." I know, I have had unbelievers tell me this very thing!
6. Someone speaking in a unique native dialect of a foreigner in a supernatural way would be a sign. This is how Paul describes the gift of tongues in 1 Cor. 14 and exactly what we see in Acts 2. There is no need or rationale for arguing these are two different gifts with two different purposes.
