Prayer Language
- Thread starter 4ndr3w
- Start date
- Status
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
Yep.
They base it on this verse:
Romans 8
25But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.
26Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us[1] with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
They base it on this verse:
Romans 8
25But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.
26Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us[1] with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
Scot
Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't think it matters what they want to call it, if they believe the Holy Spirit is speaking through them then it would be of equal authority with scripture. Whether they'll admit it or not, they're adding to the Bible which Rev. 22:18 forbids. It not only forbids further revelation but says of those who add that "God shall add to him the plagues written in this book." Pretty serious language.
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
Good point Scott!
The verse they use to defend this practice is actually a refrence to Jesus work of intercession for believers.
The verse they use to defend this practice is actually a refrence to Jesus work of intercession for believers.
Adam, In addition and this person's focus she used:
1Cor 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
Scot, You make a good point; however, I am still trying to understand the logic she gives. :blah1:
1Cor 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
Scot, You make a good point; however, I am still trying to understand the logic she gives. :blah1:
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
A better translation for "to God" in that passage is "to a god" This passage is talking about gibberish pagans spoke to their false gods! There is NO recorded incedent in the ENTIRE bible of any believer speaking some "other" language to God besides known human languages.
[quote:f12c3204c5="houseparent"]A better translation for "to God" in that passage is "to a god" This passage is talking about gibberish pagans spoke to their false gods! There is NO recorded incedent in the ENTIRE bible of any believer speaking some "other" language to God besides known human languages.[/quote:f12c3204c5]
Thanks Adam. I was aware of that and I agree. I guess I can't get over why people think God needs a translation into "His language". :bs2:
Thanks Adam. I was aware of that and I agree. I guess I can't get over why people think God needs a translation into "His language". :bs2:
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Listen up Bloke's,
Romans 8:26 "but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings [b:35e6e9c84f]which cannot be uttered. [/b:35e6e9c84f]"
Notice this prayer language is refuted with her own verse. The Spirit's groaning is not "uttered." That rules out any special prayer language there.
1Cor 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
It is not necessary to say "to a god." The context is clear. Paul is talking about God. But he explains what he meant by speaking "to God" in the very next portion of the sentence, "for no one understands him." Only God can understand this guys prayer in a foriegn tongue. The problem was that none else in the vicinity knew the language. Hence the prayer, song, or Word did not edify those who heard because they could not participate in understanding.
Either way, there is no grounds to read a special "prayer language" into these texts.
Romans 8:26 "but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings [b:35e6e9c84f]which cannot be uttered. [/b:35e6e9c84f]"
Notice this prayer language is refuted with her own verse. The Spirit's groaning is not "uttered." That rules out any special prayer language there.
1Cor 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
It is not necessary to say "to a god." The context is clear. Paul is talking about God. But he explains what he meant by speaking "to God" in the very next portion of the sentence, "for no one understands him." Only God can understand this guys prayer in a foriegn tongue. The problem was that none else in the vicinity knew the language. Hence the prayer, song, or Word did not edify those who heard because they could not participate in understanding.
Either way, there is no grounds to read a special "prayer language" into these texts.
Irishcat922
Puritan Board Sophomore
My sister in law is Welsh Calvinistic Methodist in her background and She says God only understands Welsh when you pray. Have you ever seen Welsh? It reads like what the charismatics call tongues. Weird Huh!
puritanpilgrim
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:171dc57525]God shall add to him the plagues written in this book." Pretty serious language.[/quote:171dc57525]
that is a stretch on that text.
that is a stretch on that text.
SmokingFlax
Puritan Board Sophomore
The thing that has always bugged me about the whole "prayer language" thing is that if you asked someone who practices such a thing they would be completely unable to tell you what it is that they are communicating. They couldn't tell you if they were blaspheming in Swahili but they would insist it not to be possible because either it "feels so good" or "my intentions are good"...as if either of those are any kind of a true guide.
Then they would go on to try and explain that it doesn't matter because "the spirit" by-passes the mind to communicate directly to "God" and (you) end up being edified by the experience...or somesuch of a subjective explanation which, more often than not, is entirely devoid of both logic and Scripture.
Also, it seems to me that this whole phenomenon feeds right into the whole anti-intellectual/anti-rationalism that (I think) is destroying the Church.
Then they would go on to try and explain that it doesn't matter because "the spirit" by-passes the mind to communicate directly to "God" and (you) end up being edified by the experience...or somesuch of a subjective explanation which, more often than not, is entirely devoid of both logic and Scripture.
Also, it seems to me that this whole phenomenon feeds right into the whole anti-intellectual/anti-rationalism that (I think) is destroying the Church.
puritanpilgrim
Puritan Board Junior
[list:51204645a6][quote:51204645a6]How so?[/quote:51204645a6]
Because the context of the verse is in a letter written to seven churches, not a statement that all prophecy has ceased, therefore anyone who claims to have a prophetic word from God shall have plagues put of upon them. You shouldn't read into the text that which is not there. The point is not, "God from here on out, no longer speaks prophetically; and anyone who claims is a heretic and shall have plagues." But rather: Anyone who adds to this revelation shall have plagues. [/list:u:51204645a6]
Because the context of the verse is in a letter written to seven churches, not a statement that all prophecy has ceased, therefore anyone who claims to have a prophetic word from God shall have plagues put of upon them. You shouldn't read into the text that which is not there. The point is not, "God from here on out, no longer speaks prophetically; and anyone who claims is a heretic and shall have plagues." But rather: Anyone who adds to this revelation shall have plagues. [/list:u:51204645a6]
Abd_Yesua_alMasih
Puritan Board Junior
I have to be careful what I say here as I do not want to be kicked out as a heretic but I differ from most/maybe all of you on this issue. I do not read the last part of Revelation the same as you all obviously do.
The way I see it overall
- We are not to add any words to [b:2ea0c033f5]'the prophecy of this book'[/b:2ea0c033f5] (Revelation - ie. the book John just wrote down...) - which ever way that is interpreted.
- Scripture tells us all we need to know about God and his commandments... etc... and his very nature. Because of this a Christian should not say 'I believe Homosexuality is wrong because God told me in a vision' - the right way is to say 'I believe homosexuality is wrong because it is said so in the scriptures.' You could argue because of this that there is no new revelation into Gods nature.
- I believe the charasmatics (how ever it is spelt) have taken some things too far. They say that you should trust a 'word' if it agrees with scripture but I believe that is only partly true. To know if a 'prophecy' is in line with scripture then the person must have a deep understanding in the word of God. Without it they are lost. A charismatic person should be into their bibles more, not less... unfortunatly that does not happen...
They forget the other things laid down in scripture, ie. that the mark of a prophet is that their words come true. So if they say in the name of the Lord the sun will rise late tommorow, and indeed does rise late, then they have passed ONE of the tests. (obviously that is just an example)
The third thing we find in scripture is that others have to be in agreement. There has to be other 'prophets' who recieve the same things and are in agreement with that message. Otherwise it places too much power into the hands of one man (although that is a human argument - I just cant remember where the verse is in scripture at this moment)
- Modern prophecy as described in the New Testament is designed to encourage etc... not teach a new aspect of God. If someone wants to learn about God then the scriptures are the place to go....
On the matter of the prayer language/tongues, I have not made my mind up about it. I with all my earthly logic cant work out why it might exist but that doesnt mean God doesnt have a reason.
The way I see it overall
- We are not to add any words to [b:2ea0c033f5]'the prophecy of this book'[/b:2ea0c033f5] (Revelation - ie. the book John just wrote down...) - which ever way that is interpreted.
- Scripture tells us all we need to know about God and his commandments... etc... and his very nature. Because of this a Christian should not say 'I believe Homosexuality is wrong because God told me in a vision' - the right way is to say 'I believe homosexuality is wrong because it is said so in the scriptures.' You could argue because of this that there is no new revelation into Gods nature.
- I believe the charasmatics (how ever it is spelt) have taken some things too far. They say that you should trust a 'word' if it agrees with scripture but I believe that is only partly true. To know if a 'prophecy' is in line with scripture then the person must have a deep understanding in the word of God. Without it they are lost. A charismatic person should be into their bibles more, not less... unfortunatly that does not happen...
They forget the other things laid down in scripture, ie. that the mark of a prophet is that their words come true. So if they say in the name of the Lord the sun will rise late tommorow, and indeed does rise late, then they have passed ONE of the tests. (obviously that is just an example)
The third thing we find in scripture is that others have to be in agreement. There has to be other 'prophets' who recieve the same things and are in agreement with that message. Otherwise it places too much power into the hands of one man (although that is a human argument - I just cant remember where the verse is in scripture at this moment)
- Modern prophecy as described in the New Testament is designed to encourage etc... not teach a new aspect of God. If someone wants to learn about God then the scriptures are the place to go....
On the matter of the prayer language/tongues, I have not made my mind up about it. I with all my earthly logic cant work out why it might exist but that doesnt mean God doesnt have a reason.
Since the Scriptures contain [b:eae5783b9a]everything[/b:eae5783b9a] necessary for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:2-4), what is missing?
With [i:eae5783b9a]all[/i:eae5783b9a] Scripture, making the man of God [i:eae5783b9a]complete,[/i:eae5783b9a] and [i:eae5783b9a]thoroughly[/i:eae5783b9a] equipped unto [i:eae5783b9a]every[/i:eae5783b9a] good work (2 Tim 3:16-17), what particle is lacking to the furnishment, or the encouragement, or anything else the Christian needs?
Another important question to study out is an answer to is the [i:eae5783b9a]purpose[/i:eae5783b9a] God gave the early church prophecy, tongues (languages) and other bestowed "knowledge" that people didn't have to study to achieve. And why did the Spirit inspire Paul to write expressly that these extraordinary manifestations would expire (pass/vanish away)? See 1 Cor 13:8.
With [i:eae5783b9a]all[/i:eae5783b9a] Scripture, making the man of God [i:eae5783b9a]complete,[/i:eae5783b9a] and [i:eae5783b9a]thoroughly[/i:eae5783b9a] equipped unto [i:eae5783b9a]every[/i:eae5783b9a] good work (2 Tim 3:16-17), what particle is lacking to the furnishment, or the encouragement, or anything else the Christian needs?
Another important question to study out is an answer to is the [i:eae5783b9a]purpose[/i:eae5783b9a] God gave the early church prophecy, tongues (languages) and other bestowed "knowledge" that people didn't have to study to achieve. And why did the Spirit inspire Paul to write expressly that these extraordinary manifestations would expire (pass/vanish away)? See 1 Cor 13:8.
puritanpilgrim
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:64ee6862b9]Since the Scriptures contain everything necessary for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:2-4), what is missing?
[/quote:64ee6862b9]
Aparently more since 2 Tim and revelation were written after 2 Peter.
[/quote:64ee6862b9]
Aparently more since 2 Tim and revelation were written after 2 Peter.
PuritanPilgrim,
That's not the answer to the question I asked.
Moses could have said the same thing as Paul and the facts remain unchanged.
The issue isn't when something was written, but whether or not [i:7cc8952e88][b:7cc8952e88]what[/b:7cc8952e88][/i:7cc8952e88] was written is Scripture.
And if Scripture is all we need, then to seek for additional revelation beyond it is a tacit denial of the sufficiency it claims for itself.
Scripture has always been as adequate and full as it needed to be, at the size of its contents, for the age in which it was present, whether the days of Moses, David, Jeremiah, or the NT church today.
The presence of extraordinary gifts (prophecy, lauguages, knowledge, miracles) at various times in no way invalidates this observation. Throughout the biblical record we find these kinds of gifts present in anticipation and conjunction with God's revelatory/redemptive acts. And along with the writing of the Word they explained those revealing and saving acts for God's people.
Once the entire church has the permanent written Word of revelation, as Paul indicates in 1 Cor 13:8, the need for direct revelation as explanation/authentication evaporates. "If they don't believe Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, though someone should rise from the dead."
That's not the answer to the question I asked.
Moses could have said the same thing as Paul and the facts remain unchanged.
The issue isn't when something was written, but whether or not [i:7cc8952e88][b:7cc8952e88]what[/b:7cc8952e88][/i:7cc8952e88] was written is Scripture.
And if Scripture is all we need, then to seek for additional revelation beyond it is a tacit denial of the sufficiency it claims for itself.
Scripture has always been as adequate and full as it needed to be, at the size of its contents, for the age in which it was present, whether the days of Moses, David, Jeremiah, or the NT church today.
The presence of extraordinary gifts (prophecy, lauguages, knowledge, miracles) at various times in no way invalidates this observation. Throughout the biblical record we find these kinds of gifts present in anticipation and conjunction with God's revelatory/redemptive acts. And along with the writing of the Word they explained those revealing and saving acts for God's people.
Once the entire church has the permanent written Word of revelation, as Paul indicates in 1 Cor 13:8, the need for direct revelation as explanation/authentication evaporates. "If they don't believe Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, though someone should rise from the dead."
Abd_Yesua_alMasih
Puritan Board Junior
You are right, scripture contains [b:1708a65fb8]everything[/b:1708a65fb8]. Scripture tells us about prophecy etc... and it allows it. (1 Corinthians 12:1-11, 1 Corinthians 14:6 etc...) Hence scripture, while telling us everything has talked of prophecy and has 'given it to us' (except it wasnt scripture but God)
As for 1 Cor 13:8 I believe it but it gives no time frame. Maybe it has gone and come back, I do not know. The point is we are now seeing the works of the spirit in complete accordance with scripture and so we can logicly only assume that they are still alive and well.
Also, as one last note, as I said before - [b:1708a65fb8]Charismatics should be reading the scriptures more and more instead of less and less[/b:1708a65fb8] as they are the ones playing with fire and should know the scriptures well...
As for 1 Cor 13:8 I believe it but it gives no time frame. Maybe it has gone and come back, I do not know. The point is we are now seeing the works of the spirit in complete accordance with scripture and so we can logicly only assume that they are still alive and well.
Also, as one last note, as I said before - [b:1708a65fb8]Charismatics should be reading the scriptures more and more instead of less and less[/b:1708a65fb8] as they are the ones playing with fire and should know the scriptures well...
Fraser,
(It's nice to have you with us, by the way. Welcome.)[quote:871edd2db5]The point is we are now seeing the works of the spirit in complete accordance with scripture and so we can logicly only assume that they are still alive and well.[/quote:871edd2db5]Could you explain where this is happening? The only revelation we know about with confidence the Bible informs us of; which logically leads to the conclusion that all God's revelation to mankind is the common property of the church. Therefore, to limit it or hide it off in a corner somewhere is contrary to Scripture. If God is speaking today outside the Scripture, surely someone must be preserving the content of that revelation for universal dissemination. Is that happening?
Paul forbids the use of the gift of languages without accompanying interpretation. How much interpretation accompanies the modern charismatic practice today? Any? Have there been any recorded conversions of people (outside of the Scripture testimony) who heard the gospel in their own tongue proclaimed by speakers utilizing a language they never studied to learn?
Few people question the observation that the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit faded from the church after the apostolic age. Their revival in the 20th century did not occur within the core of the faithful church battling for the truth, but at the fringe--where the church as an institution was belittled, leadership was made a function of personality rather than strict qualification by biblical standards (including the prominence of women--a thing flatly denied by Paul), doctrine was downplayed, and Scripture knowledge and comprehension was made secondary to "religous experience." None of these facts give me much confidence in the general integrity of the modern charismatic movement that developed out of this beginning.
There were some fruits (not Reformed, but some), but they were the result of a portion of that movement repudiating the direction that most were heading, while retaining distinctives that defined them as separatists (like the claim to tongues-speaking). So yes, there are some generally evangelical churches today that are nevertheless defined charismatically.
And I agree that much of Pentacostalism/Charismatics are "playing with fire," and need to read more of the Bible, [i:871edd2db5]as do we all.[/i:871edd2db5] In Ephesians 5:18-19, Paul commands the Christians to[quote:871edd2db5]be filled with the Spirit;
speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.[/quote:871edd2db5]In Colossians 3:16, the parallel passage, he commands the Christians to[quote:871edd2db5]"let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly;
in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.[/quote:871edd2db5]The parallelism is instructive.
How are we to be filled with the Spirit?
By letting the Word of Christ dwell richly in us.
(It's nice to have you with us, by the way. Welcome.)[quote:871edd2db5]The point is we are now seeing the works of the spirit in complete accordance with scripture and so we can logicly only assume that they are still alive and well.[/quote:871edd2db5]Could you explain where this is happening? The only revelation we know about with confidence the Bible informs us of; which logically leads to the conclusion that all God's revelation to mankind is the common property of the church. Therefore, to limit it or hide it off in a corner somewhere is contrary to Scripture. If God is speaking today outside the Scripture, surely someone must be preserving the content of that revelation for universal dissemination. Is that happening?
Paul forbids the use of the gift of languages without accompanying interpretation. How much interpretation accompanies the modern charismatic practice today? Any? Have there been any recorded conversions of people (outside of the Scripture testimony) who heard the gospel in their own tongue proclaimed by speakers utilizing a language they never studied to learn?
Few people question the observation that the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit faded from the church after the apostolic age. Their revival in the 20th century did not occur within the core of the faithful church battling for the truth, but at the fringe--where the church as an institution was belittled, leadership was made a function of personality rather than strict qualification by biblical standards (including the prominence of women--a thing flatly denied by Paul), doctrine was downplayed, and Scripture knowledge and comprehension was made secondary to "religous experience." None of these facts give me much confidence in the general integrity of the modern charismatic movement that developed out of this beginning.
There were some fruits (not Reformed, but some), but they were the result of a portion of that movement repudiating the direction that most were heading, while retaining distinctives that defined them as separatists (like the claim to tongues-speaking). So yes, there are some generally evangelical churches today that are nevertheless defined charismatically.
And I agree that much of Pentacostalism/Charismatics are "playing with fire," and need to read more of the Bible, [i:871edd2db5]as do we all.[/i:871edd2db5] In Ephesians 5:18-19, Paul commands the Christians to[quote:871edd2db5]be filled with the Spirit;
speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.[/quote:871edd2db5]In Colossians 3:16, the parallel passage, he commands the Christians to[quote:871edd2db5]"let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly;
in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.[/quote:871edd2db5]The parallelism is instructive.
How are we to be filled with the Spirit?
By letting the Word of Christ dwell richly in us.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
[quote:aaef13d256="Abd_Yesua_alMasih"]You are right, scripture contains [b:aaef13d256]everything[/b:aaef13d256]. Scripture tells us about prophecy etc... and it allows it. (1 Corinthians 12:1-11, 1 Corinthians 14:6 etc...) Hence scripture, while telling us everything has talked of prophecy and has 'given it to us' (except it wasnt scripture but God)
As for 1 Cor 13:8 I believe it but it gives no time frame. Maybe it has gone and come back, I do not know. The point is we are now seeing the works of the spirit in complete accordance with scripture and so we can logicly only assume that they are still alive and well.
[/quote:aaef13d256]
In all my charasmatic background, and all the assemblies I visited, I've never seen any of them obey the commands of Paul in the exercise of those "tongues" and "prophecy." The Spirit does not contridict . If these gifts exist today then they must be exercised the way Paul commanded. Everything must be done decently and in good order, and the prophets are suppose to be subject to the spirit of the prophets. Everything must be governed by the office bearers of the church. I see none of this in charasmatic circles. They fall short of Paul's directive which discredits their claim to these gifts, along with the historical proofs which Bruce brought up.
As for 1 Cor 13:8 I believe it but it gives no time frame. Maybe it has gone and come back, I do not know. The point is we are now seeing the works of the spirit in complete accordance with scripture and so we can logicly only assume that they are still alive and well.
[/quote:aaef13d256]
In all my charasmatic background, and all the assemblies I visited, I've never seen any of them obey the commands of Paul in the exercise of those "tongues" and "prophecy." The Spirit does not contridict . If these gifts exist today then they must be exercised the way Paul commanded. Everything must be done decently and in good order, and the prophets are suppose to be subject to the spirit of the prophets. Everything must be governed by the office bearers of the church. I see none of this in charasmatic circles. They fall short of Paul's directive which discredits their claim to these gifts, along with the historical proofs which Bruce brought up.
Abd_Yesua_alMasih
Puritan Board Junior
I am not supporting the mainstream charismatic movement that has fallen far from scripture but there are some places in which they are more balanced. I believe the charismatic movement should be reformed back towards a more biblical line but I do not believe they should be shouted down as heretics and cast from the church.
Also, the reason these things are not cast around the world is because they are not important for the world to know as such. Take the example of Augustine. His mother recieved a vision telling her she would reach Rome safely. - That is not the kind of thing the whole Church needs to know. Or what about a person who recieves through some prophecy the command to become a preacher... or the person who while walking down the street heard a voice telling him to cross the road and talk to a big tatooed guy who looked like a gang member - he did and the guy burst out crying and believed in the gospel of Christ. I know the man and he is honest - this is not an urban legend.
As you see and I said before, God, I do not believe, will reveal any more commands or any more of his person... (I am not sure how to put it into words so if that sounds stupid please forgive me) The purpose of charismatic prophecy is to edify and encourage, not command and bring new knowledge of God.
Also, the reason these things are not cast around the world is because they are not important for the world to know as such. Take the example of Augustine. His mother recieved a vision telling her she would reach Rome safely. - That is not the kind of thing the whole Church needs to know. Or what about a person who recieves through some prophecy the command to become a preacher... or the person who while walking down the street heard a voice telling him to cross the road and talk to a big tatooed guy who looked like a gang member - he did and the guy burst out crying and believed in the gospel of Christ. I know the man and he is honest - this is not an urban legend.
As you see and I said before, God, I do not believe, will reveal any more commands or any more of his person... (I am not sure how to put it into words so if that sounds stupid please forgive me) The purpose of charismatic prophecy is to edify and encourage, not command and bring new knowledge of God.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:adf79936ba="Abd_Yesua_alMasih"]As you see and I said before, God, I do not believe, will reveal any more commands or any more of his person... (I am not sure how to put it into words so if that sounds stupid please forgive me) The purpose of charismatic prophecy is to edify and encourage, not command and bring new knowledge of God.[/quote:adf79936ba]
But prophetic edification and encouragement is still revelation. "Don't worry, just trust me, you have nothing to fear in this experience" is God [i:adf79936ba]revealing[/i:adf79936ba] to someone that the experience in question will not trouble them. Edifying or encouraging "words from the Lord" are specific revelation just as much as new principles being revealed would be...and once we draw a line between those two types of revelation, we have a man-made distinction that is nowhere to be found in Scripture.
But prophetic edification and encouragement is still revelation. "Don't worry, just trust me, you have nothing to fear in this experience" is God [i:adf79936ba]revealing[/i:adf79936ba] to someone that the experience in question will not trouble them. Edifying or encouraging "words from the Lord" are specific revelation just as much as new principles being revealed would be...and once we draw a line between those two types of revelation, we have a man-made distinction that is nowhere to be found in Scripture.
Abd_Yesua_alMasih
Puritan Board Junior
What about the prophets mentioned in the Bible which do not have recorded words? Not every prophecy in history has been recorded on paper. Remember Saul and the band of prophets? We dont have everything Nathan said either... that is to name just a bit.
- Status
