Speaking in Tongues (Privately, Outside of Church)

[notuptome]

again the 120 speaking did not know what they were saying .

On what basis do you make this statement? What they said is not revealed in the text.

Those who heard did.

This is correct.

Peter still had to preach the word of God did he not?

That is why the Holy Spirit filled the disciples so they would declare Christ to the unsaved souls present.

which the supernatural event drew attention to those so they could hear the gospel.

Three things were going on at this time. A rushing wind. Cloven tongues of fire on their heads. Each speaking as the Spirit gave them utterance.

a sign to those who did not believe as 1cor 12, 13, and 14 speak about. the end result of the gift is what matters not if it was dogmatic practice.

Not certain that it doesn't matter. Certainly requires greater understanding.

they spoke in a language they did not learn by the holy Spirit as the text states those who heard witnessed to what was said then did what ? mocked .

Some mocked and some were amazed. The text does not reveal what they said only that they were heard in their native languages. The Holy Spirits presence was made known to those present.

Then Peter preached which 3000 were saved. the end result legitimizes the ACTION.

God has stated that it by preaching that men will be converted. 1 Cor 1:21 so that is consistent with scripture.

that IS WHAT Paul IS TEACHING in 1cor chapter 12, 13, and 14. that is why HE says gift of the Holy Spirit and not just the gift of tongues.

Well Paul was writing to the church at Corinth to correct them so they are not a good example of what we should do but of what we should not do.

has nothing to do with modern languages , or if they were it has everything to do with the Work of the Holy Spirit . and God confirmed it with 3000 salvations.

Here you lost me. It is true that 3000 were added to the church after Peter preached. God certainly blessed the preaching of His word and the Holy Spirit certainly drew those souls to Christ. The modern languages part confuses me. Perhaps you can break that down so a dummy like me can understand it.

Why would God be required to legitimize His actions?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Kavik]

Nehemiah6 -
Here are these Galileans, who normally speak Aramaic (and probably Greek when required) but they are now speaking in our approximately 15 FOREIGN LANGUAGES fluently and clearly, so that we hear them speak "the wonderful works of God". That could include both God's creative and redemptive works, and we are not told exactly what was said.

There were not 15 foreign languages; only two – see some of the posts further above. The ‘list’ in Acts does not name one language; in fact, nowhere in the entire narrative is even one language mentioned by name, nor does it even remotely suggest that communication was ever a problem to begin with. The list is a list of place names; specifically, the lands of the Jewish Diaspora. Note that two places are ‘missing’; Cyprus and Syria. The list was put there not to demonstrate linguistic diversity; there wasn’t any, but rather for very political reasons. See the following link for an in-depth discussion on the political significance of “the list”:

https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BB...aGeography.pdf

Went back in too late to edit - sorry for the sort of double post.

Another good article on the inclusion of the list in Acts for political reasons may be found here (a much shorter article than the above!): the john 3:30 group: Luke’s List of Nations, Acts 2:9-13

 

[KelbyofGod]

My apologies in that I'm going to answer this in two postings. this first one, the wordier one to show exactly where things get off track. And the next posting.. the short version.

KelbyofGod -
People in the bible could TELL when someone received the Holy Ghost... not because they started living a better life or stopped cussing (those things take a considerable amount of time to manifest).... it was because they started speaking in tongues. And that observable evidence often came right as they were laying their hands on them, praying for them to receive it. Or even while they were still preaching (think Cornelius in Acts 10 and again it was observable to those who stood by).

With respect to Cornelius, ...

In short, they were a multi-lingual group. ...

So, in short, we have some Latin and Greek speaking Romans meeting some Christian Jews (Aramaic and Greek speakers). From the narrative, we know that the incident is reported from the perspective of Peter and his peeps. ...

Up until this sentence, we are in full agreement. (please pardon the cropping for space)

“They heard them speaking in languages (“tongues”) and praising God”.

From this, we can deduce that Peter and his group heard two types of speech here: (1) speech that they understood, and (2) speech they did not understand.

Considering they knew that some of what was said were praises to God, those must have been said in a language they knew. Some of what was said however, they did not understand because it was foreign to them. They did not speak that language. "

This is where the error starts...with the deletion of the word "For" at the beginning of Acts 10:46.

The word "for" means "because" (feel free to verify that in the Greek). Hearing them speak in tongues and magnify God was not just another step in the narrative as your misquote makes it sound. Hearing them speak in tongues and magnify God was the REASON (explanation, justification) for what just happened in verse 45.

If you lose the reason, it's easy overlook the meaning (impact, importance, significance) of what happened in verse 45... which is what you've done. And you carry that loss of reason through the rest of your entire posting.

The likely scenario was that Peter and his friends entered Cornelius’s house and Peter addressed the gathered group, telling them about Jesus, his life, resurrection, etc. Cornelius and his friends responded to what they heard as a reaffirmation of what they already believed. Reacting joyously, some of them addressed the Lord directly in their mother-tongue (i.e. Latin, a language Peter and his friends apparently did not speak), or turned to their friends and discussed these tremendous things with them (again in Latin).

To quote directly again - “Some of them, perhaps for the benefit of Peter and his friends, addressed the Lord, or talked among themselves in their shared language, Aramaic or, more likely, Greek. They were filled with the wonder and joy of having received 'life through repentance' (Acts 11:18). It was very evident to Peter and the others that here were truly converted people. It is so reminiscent of Acts 2; the multilingual situation and the praise of the wonders of God, though in this case it was from newly converted people. Another difference also was that here there were no cultural 'high language/low language' conventions to break (with Acts 2, the high language was Hebrew; the low languages were Aramaic and Greek). These people were simply thrilled that they were saved, and told the Lord so. This is quite sufficient to have prompted Peter's comment, "The Holy Spirit came on them as he came on us at the beginning." “

So, no modern T-speech here, just plain old real languages. In this case here the foreign language (“tongue”) was Latin; a language Peter and his friends apparently did not know. These apostles were among the non-Jews (read, non-Aramaic speaking people) the apostles preached to; thus, any native language these people spoke (with the exception of Greek) would have been considered a “tongue”.

What you present is a very logical and rational explanation of a WHAT (from your perspective).
But your WHAT never replaces or provides the WHY that the bible knew was needed to explain verse 45’s statement that they were “astonished”. (You might want to read the next posting before attempting to clarify the WHY)

A direct quote – “Is praise of God, that is, saying in some way how marvelous God is, evidence for the presence of the Holy Spirit? If backed up by a true understanding of and commitment to God and his work, then I would say it is indeed an indication of the residence in that person of the Holy Spirit. It is to be expected that a new believer will praise the Lord in some way, and these people had just minutes previously become believers in Christ! ”

This just backs up the idea that "praise of God" cannot be used as an immediate indicator...and also that there is nothing astonishing about it, as "it is to be expected".

 

[KelbyofGod]

My answer (Part 2) to your post #536

With respect to Cornelius, ....

Your post suggests that these two common things:

1. Multi-lingual speaking, in a multi-lingual society (Luke_23:38, John 19:20) ..and..
2. Someone getting excited about God.

are somehow clear indicators of these two very amazing outcomes:

1. This would “astonish” jewish believers within that society.
2. This equals clear and immediate proof (to the Jews) that these Gentiles have undoubtedly received the Holy Ghost.

(the outcomes are are mutually supportive...one leading to the other in either direction)

Are you really suggesting that “an emotion-filled outburst potentially interrupting a sermon or teaching” is evidence of a person having received the Holy Ghost?

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[CS1]

CS1 -
I'm saying Modern tongues is not in the Book of Acts The Holy Spirit working in the lives of the believer is. That is the Main theme of Acts unless you think it is about man ? and not God Spirit?

“The H/S working in the lives of the believer is.” – yes, I agree. Again, I’m not suggesting that the H/S was not at work on Pentecost.

Nehemiah6 -
What Kavik has pointed out is correct, and that is how the whole section from chapters 12 through 14 must be interpreted. This was all about Christians speaking a foreign language supernaturally by the power of the Holy Spirit (as in Acts 2).

Well actually, I don’t think any language was spoken supernaturally in Acts 2; there were just two: Greek and Aramaic, both of which the apostles spoke.


Beastslayer1970 –
The disciples at Ephesus in Acts 19 presumably spoke 1 known language and were conversing and understanding Paul and presumably Luke.

Luke says there were 12 men in all and when Paul laid his hands on them they began to prophesy and speak in tongues. So which known language where they talking in and to who?, Paul or Luke, or both?

The passage simply states that while in Ephesus, Paul found “some/certain disciples”. The text does not offer much more about these people nor does it mention their nationality as it’s not relevant to the story. The natural assumption most make is that they were from Ephesus, but…they may not have been. Ephesus contained the Temple of Artemis – considered to be one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Ephesus had served as a crossroads between East and West for centuries. In short, it’s quite possible (and given what happened, quite probable) that these disciples were not native to Ephesus. We are not told what their native language was. It appears however, that both these people and Paul conversed in the ‘common language’ (dare I say “tongue”) of the day: Greek. When Paul baptized them, they may have simply been, out of joy perhaps, expressing themselves in their native language; one that Paul was obviously not familiar with. The fact that this happened and was reported in the narrative further lends to the idea that these disciples were not native Ephesians. I don’t see this incident as an issue with respect to real language.

CS1 -
A linguist doesn't know all languages of the earth.

This is a common argument, i.e. there are “thousands of languages spoken in the world today, how can anyone know that ‘tongues’ are not one of them?” Yes, there are indeed thousands of languages spoken in the world today – unfortunately not one of them is remotely close to what people are producing in their glossolalia/tongues.

As linguist Dr. William Welmers puts it: “Among us (Linguists), we have heard many hundreds of languages. Furthermore, we have heard representative languages in virtually every group of related languages in the world. At worst we may have missed a few small groups in the interior of South America or in New Guinea. I would estimate that the chances are at least even that if a glossolalic utterance is in a known language, one of us would either recognize the language or recognize that it is similar to some language we are acquainted with."

I concur with this completely.

Dr. Welmers further makes this challenge: "Get two recordings, one of a glossolalic utterance and the other in a real language remote from anything I have ever heard. I'm confident that in just a few moments I could tell which is which and why I am sure of it."

As a Linguist, I also completely concur with his challenge - real language is unmistakable, as is glossolalia.

Beastslayer1970 -
Yet Acts 19 does not say known languages it says tongues.

Yes – but keep in mind that “tongue(s)” simply means “(real) language”. Said language is, of course, known to the person speaking it (typically his/her native tongue (sic!)), but it may not be known to someone listening to it.

Nehemiah6 -
Here are these Galileans, who normally speak Aramaic (and probably Greek when required) but they are now speaking in our approximately 15 FOREIGN LANGUAGES fluently and clearly, so that we hear them speak "the wonderful works of God". That could include both God's creative and redemptive works, and we are not told exactly what was said.

There were not 15 foreign languages; only two – see some of the posts further above. The ‘list’ in Acts does not name one language; in fact, nowhere in the entire narrative is even one language mentioned by name, nor does it even remotely suggest that communication was ever a problem to begin with. The list is a list of place names; specifically, the lands of the Jewish Diaspora. Note that two places are ‘missing’; Cyprus and Syria. The list was put there not to demonstrate linguistic diversity; there wasn’t any, but rather for very political reasons. See the following link for an in-depth discussion on the political significance of “the list”:

https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2000_b_01_Hengel_IoudaiaGeography.pdf

You might need to cut and paste the link. If it doesn't work, do a search for "Ioudaia - List in Acts".

the good Doctor does not validate for me the word of God .

 

[garee]

Well actually, I don’t think any language was spoken supernaturally in Acts 2; there were just two: Greek and Aramaic, both of which the apostles spoke.

Men as God moved them to prophecy spoke in their own language God does the interpreting it is not a private interpretation of men where men ask other men what did God say?

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:.

Prophecy is the supernatural interpretation of God. People get the law upside down and confuse what the sign actually does .

It is not evidence a person has the Holy Spirit but just the opposite it shows they are sign seekers or what Christ called an evil generation as in natural unconverted men. Making a noise does not cause a person to be born again from above. Sign seekers stumble over the cross as that which does call a person to become born again. . . Those who seek after prophecy, signs follow them as a observation they do not seek after .

1Co 14:22 Wherefore "tongues are for a sign", not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, (no faith) but for them which believe.(those who do have the faith of Christ which comes from hearing God through prophecy they can believe God )

How that law get turned upside down is a mystery.

Why make a noise to show others the scriptures have no effect?

 

[Kavik]

KelbyofGod –

This is where the error starts...with the deletion of the word "For" at the beginning of Acts 10:46.

The word "for" means "because" (feel free to verify that in the Greek). Hearing them speak in tongues and magnify God was not just another step in the narrative as your misquote makes it sound. Hearing them speak in tongues and magnify God was the REASON (explanation, justification) for what just happened in verse 45.


[SUP]45 [/SUP]and those of the circumcision believing were astonished -- as many as came with Peter -- because also upon the nations the gift of the Holy Spirit hath been poured out,
[SUP]46 [/SUP]for they were hearing them speaking with tongues and magnifying God. (sorry, not sure what ‘version’ this is – a literal translation maybe(?))

Yes, ‘for’ in this sense would better be translated as ‘because’, but it doesn’t change the situation; the end result, regardless of the cause/reason, is that you have people speaking in their native language (‘tongue’), one that Peter and his friends do not speak, i.e. a real language, spoken and understood by those who were speaking it after being baptized by Peter, not the glossolalia of modern T-speech.

If you lose the reason, it's easy overlook the meaning (impact, importance, significance) of what happened in verse 45... which is what you've done. And you carry that loss of reason through the rest of your entire posting.

I’m not suggesting that what happened to those 10-12 people in Ephesus was not important; it just did not involve anything resembling modern T-speech.


What you present is a very logical and rational explanation of a WHAT (from your perspective).

But your WHAT never replaces or provides the WHY that the bible knew was needed to explain verse 45’s statement that they were “astonished”. (You might want to read the next posting before attempting to clarify the WHY)

What I’m arguing here is real language vs. modern tongues (T-speech) – I truly don’t mean this to sound crass or blunt, but for the purpose of the exercise, the ‘why’ here is almost irrelevant - the bottom line /end result is that you have people momentarily speaking in a language which is not understood by those listening to it/hearing it. The argument is whether or not what was spoken by these people was real language or ‘T-speech’.

My position is that it was clearly a real language, one native to that group of 10-12 people Peter met in Ephesus, but apparently not one either Peter or his friends were familiar with.

Your post suggests that these two common things:


1. Multi-lingual speaking, in a multi-lingual society (Luke_23:38, John 19:20) ..and..
2. Someone getting excited about God.

are somehow clear indicators of these two very amazing outcomes:


1. This would “astonish” jewish believers within that society.
2. This equals clear and immediate proof (to the Jews) that these Gentiles have undoubtedly received the Holy Ghost.

Well, not quite. If the native language of a person or group of people is ‘X’, but, due to where they currently live, they need to also communicate in language ‘Y’, a language that is not native to them (but presumably spoken well enough to get by), it is not unreasonable to suggest that in a moment of, for lack of a better way of putting it, emotional excitement (either positive or negative), individuals would naturally slip into their native language of ‘X’ causing speakers of ‘Y’ to remark that they are "speaking a ‘language’ (‘tongue’)".

Keep in mind that Peter was a native speaker of ‘Z’, but also used ‘Y’ to communicate to native speakers of ‘X’ (‘Y’ being their common language). Peter did not speak ‘X’; thus, when he heard it, remarked that they were speaking a ‘language’ (‘tongue’).


I mean, take a look at a modern situation – you got a group of say, 10 Bosnian immigrants who speak enough English to get by here in America. You’re carrying on a conversation with a few of them (in English, as you don’t speak Serbian), something exiting happens, and everyone reacts and starts saying things aloud – I highly doubt in that moment the Bosnians are going to be saying anything in English! They'd be "speaking a language" ('tongue').

The point is, is that people want to read more into some of these narratives than what’s there.

In Ephesus, regardless of the reason that group of people were speaking a ‘tongue’, said ‘tongue’ was nothing more than their native language.

 

[Kavik]

CS1 -
the good Doctor does not validate for me the word of God.

I'm not asking you to agree, but the fact is, if a person today starts speaking a real language, no matter how remote, ancient or modern, a group of linguists would have it identified in minutes. Not once has documented T-speech ever come out as a real language – ancient or modern.

The elements of real language are unmistakable.

 

[KelbyofGod]

KelbyofGod –

This is where the error starts...with the deletion of the word "For" at the beginning of Acts 10:46.

The word "for" means "because" (feel free to verify that in the Greek). Hearing them speak in tongues and magnify God was not just another step in the narrative as your misquote makes it sound. Hearing them speak in tongues and magnify God was the REASON (explanation, justification) for what just happened in verse 45.


[SUP]45 [/SUP]and those of the circumcision believing were astonished -- as many as came with Peter -- because also upon the nations the gift of the Holy Spirit hath been poured out,
[SUP]46 [/SUP]for they were hearing them speaking with tongues and magnifying God. (sorry, not sure what ‘version’ this is – a literal translation maybe(?))

Yes, ‘for’ in this sense would better be translated as ‘because’, but it doesn’t change the situation; the end result, regardless of the cause/reason, is that you have people speaking in their native language (‘tongue’), one that Peter and his friends do not speak, i.e. a real language, spoken and understood by those who were speaking it after being baptized by Peter, not the glossolalia of modern T-speech.

If you lose the reason, it's easy overlook the meaning (impact, importance, significance) of what happened in verse 45... which is what you've done. And you carry that loss of reason through the rest of your entire posting.

I’m not suggesting that what happened to those 10-12 people in Ephesus was not important; it just did not involve anything resembling modern T-speech.


What you present is a very logical and rational explanation of a WHAT (from your perspective).

But your WHAT never replaces or provides the WHY that the bible knew was needed to explain verse 45’s statement that they were “astonished”. (You might want to read the next posting before attempting to clarify the WHY)

What I’m arguing here is real language vs. modern tongues (T-speech) – I truly don’t mean this to sound crass or blunt, but for the purpose of the exercise, the ‘why’ here is almost irrelevant - the bottom line /end result is that you have people momentarily speaking in a language which is not understood by those listening to it/hearing it. The argument is whether or not what was spoken by these people was real language or ‘T-speech’.

My position is that it was clearly a real language, one native to that group of 10-12 people Peter met in Ephesus, but apparently not one either Peter or his friends were familiar with.

Your post suggests that these two common things:


1. Multi-lingual speaking, in a multi-lingual society (Luke_23:38, John 19:20) ..and..
2. Someone getting excited about God.

are somehow clear indicators of these two very amazing outcomes:


1. This would “astonish” jewish believers within that society.
2. This equals clear and immediate proof (to the Jews) that these Gentiles have undoubtedly received the Holy Ghost.

Well, not quite. If the native language of a person or group of people is ‘X’, but, due to where they currently live, they need to also communicate in language ‘Y’, a language that is not native to them (but presumably spoken well enough to get by), it is not unreasonable to suggest that in a moment of, for lack of a better way of putting it, emotional excitement (either positive or negative), individuals would naturally slip into their native language of ‘X’ causing speakers of ‘Y’ to remark that they are "speaking a ‘language’ (‘tongue’)".

Keep in mind that Peter was a native speaker of ‘Z’, but also used ‘Y’ to communicate to native speakers of ‘X’ (‘Y’ being their common language). Peter did not speak ‘X’; thus, when he heard it, remarked that they were speaking a ‘language’ (‘tongue’).


I mean, take a look at a modern situation – you got a group of say, 10 Bosnian immigrants who speak enough English to get by here in America. You’re carrying on a conversation with a few of them (in English, as you don’t speak Serbian), something exiting happens, and everyone reacts and starts saying things aloud – I highly doubt in that moment the Bosnians are going to be saying anything in English! They'd be "speaking a language" ('tongue').

The point is, is that people want to read more into some of these narratives than what’s there.

In Ephesus, regardless of the reason that group of people were speaking a ‘tongue’, said ‘tongue’ was nothing more than their native language.

Again, what you posted is very logical. And again, it is nothing that would produce astonishment in the eyes of the Jewish believers.

But I will say that I appreciate that you explain yourself well.

 

[CS1]

CS1 -
the good Doctor does not validate for me the word of God.

I'm not asking you to agree, but the fact is, if a person today starts speaking a real language, no matter how remote, ancient or modern, a group of linguists would have it identified in minutes. Not once has documented T-speech ever come out as a real language – ancient or modern.

The elements of real language are unmistakable.

That is opinionated not truth.
And the statement” Not once has documented T-speech ever come out as a real language – ancient or modern." Is not true.
For one to say that is very boastful and they would have to be all knowing.

I have seen documentation of those who have studied this gift and have agreed it is a language. However, the linguist who says it is or says it is not; are not the authority on the contextual meaning of scripture.

I have not seen the resurrection of the Lord nor do I need too, to have seen it to believe it happened. I do not need medical examiner to provide to me, what the Word of God states happened. That linguist you speak about cannot even make up a language. I have asked many of them to do so. I have yet to have one do it.

The Context of 1cor chapter 12, 13, AND 14 OUR THE Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Speaking in tongues is nothing without the full context of the gifts in the light of all scripture; it does not matter that well known or renowned universes, doctors etc… say it is so, to be true as University of Pennsylvania , University of Virginia and others. it does not matter on urban legend like the "a women came into a church speaking in tongues and a lady from russia heard her tell about God and she got saved. The same Russian lady in a differnt denomations who does not accept tongues said she was cursing God.


Now , I believe that the linguistic and sociological approaches have distinct limitations, not always recognized by the practitioners. Scientists have sometimes drawn conclusions beyond the bounds of their presuppositions and their methods.

this does not make it so. FYI many of the linguist are atheist lol So I do not look to them for opinon on Gods word.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Hi Kavik --- a delayed reply to your post #435. I was away for the Thanksgiving holiday and did not have time to reply any earlier than now.

The noun 'nous' is also [gasp!] singular (which corresponds perfectly with the singular use of the word my [Greek mou].

Yes, that’s correct – no issue with the grammar of that passage.

Your shifting of the focus from the singular use of nous, mou, akarpos to "whether ‘akarpos’ is used in the active or passive sense" is nothing but obfuscation on your part.


Hardly; you also have to take a look at semantics, not just grammar. The issue doesn’t have anything to do with the grammar; it’s meaning and usage. It may seem like splitting hairs (and in some cases, semantics does seem to do that); but in this case here, the difference of whether used in the active or passive sense, as demonstrated further above, makes a huge difference.

akarpos is an adjective. An adjective modifies a noun. Adjectives agree in gender and number with the noun referred to.

You have stated akarpos relates to "the noun ‘nous’, ".

In 1 Cor 14:14, nous is further defined as nous mou [mind of me]. Additionally, nous is in the singular.

If nous referred to the mind of all in the congregation, both nous and akarpos would be written in the plural, and the word mou would not have been included in the text.

As mentioned, nothing wrong with the grammar; ‘akarpos’, regardless of semantics, refers back to nous mou; it has to be singular. The usage (active or passive) has nothing to do with the grammar used here.

Again, the fact that the verse states nous mou akarpos (mind of me unfruitful) when pneuma mou (spirit of me) prays, it is clear that when a person prays in tongues, his/her mind is unfruitful.

Spirit of me ... mind of me ... not the whole congregation.

Unless it is your understanding that it is the whole congregation praying in tongues??? the whole congregation prays in tongues and, therefore, all the congregation does not understand? is that what you believe?

How does the verse read in the version of the Bible you use?

Most translations, as I’m sure you know, don’t get into semantics, they’re more literal; however, it is interesting to note that, that same passage in Luther’s Bible of 1545 gives the following:

[SUP]14 [/SUP]Denn so ich mit Zungen bete, so betet mein Geist; aber mein Sinn bringt niemand Frucht.

Notice he clearly states here that though his spirit prays (Geist), his mind/understanding (Sinn) brings no one fruit, or “brings fruit to no one” (either translation is acceptable).

This seems to indicate perhaps that the idea of how akarpos is used (actively/passively) is not new. Indeed, Luther, it seems, may have given the passage a translation in which we see akarpos being used actively instead of the usual passive usage.

As I do not read or speak German, I cannot verify your interpretation of the verse from Luther's Bible of 1545.

Furthermore, you do know that Luther translated from the Greek, yes?

Whether active or passive, your understanding of the verse is in error.

I don’t think so – it clearly demonstrates, that real language is what is meant here; not modern T-speech.

Actually, what is demonstrated is that the person who prays in tongues is praying with his/her spirit, but he/she does not understand what he/she is saying:

1 Corinthians 14:14 (NLT) For if I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don't understand what I am saying.

Have you received written permission from the publisher to submit any part of Mr. Maclachlan's book?

His book is readily available on-line (so much for electronic copying!), I have given him, as well as his book, correct reference, and as a matter of fact, yes, I have e-mailed him and spoken to him (via e-mail) about a year ago.

Did he consent to your quoting of his material in an online forum?

He went to all the trouble of copyrighting his material for a reason.

As you (or any of the myriad authors you rely on) were not present on Day of Pentecost, none of you can affirmatively deduce that when the Holy Spirit gives utterance in our day and time, it is not the same as when Holy Spirit gave utterance on Day of Pentecost.

Well, I would say the exact reverse is just as true - neither can you can you deduce that it is the same.

Scripture assures us that the Spirit gave the utterance (Acts 2:4) and the manifestation shown in 1 Cor 12:8-10 is worked in the life of the believer by that one and the selfsame Spirit (1 Cor 12:11).

I have faith that it is the same Spirit Who gives the utterance now and it is the same Spirit Who energizes within the believer now.

As the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles on what to say to the crowd, and perhaps also inspired them to say it using Greek and Aramaic rather than Hebrew, so too may the Holy Spirit inspire people today to engage in glossolalia. The Spirit, however, is not instructing nor inspiring the person on how to produce their particular ‘tongue’; each one is entirely self-created by the speaker; hence why no two will ever be the same.

Your conclusion that "each one is entirely self-created by the speaker" is in direct contradiction with what is written in Acts 2:4 and 1 Cor 12:11.

Scripture clearly states that it is the One and the selfsame Spirit which works within the believer to bring about the manifestation (1 Cor 12:11).

Not sure what the point is here – the Holy Spirit may work to bring about the ability/’knack’ to speak/learn foreign languages easily, but one certainly does not have to be a believer (i.e. ‘born again’) to have the ability bestowed upon them.

Foreign languages can be learned by unbeliever as well as believer.

Not so with speaking in tongues --- that is worked in the life of the believer by way of the One and the selfsame Spirit.

The manifestation originates in the spiritual realm and it is revealed in the earthly realm when the One and the selfsame Spirit works within the believer. The Spirit gives the utterance. The believer speaks the words revealed to him/her by the One and the selfsame Spirit.

That you refuse to acknowledge this truth does not change the manifestation of tongues into your NCNLUs or your shaman's chant for that matter.

That may be the Pentecostal/Charismatic understanding in order to ‘legitimize’ modern T-speech, but the only thing the Spirit is doing is giving the inspiration to engage in glossolalia. It is not guiding or telling the speaker what to say, nor is it saying it for him/her – that’s all on the speaker.

Again, your conclusion does not line up with what is written in Scripture.

If it was the Holy Spirit instructing/guiding/speaking, why would there be need of more than one spiritual ‘tongue’, particularly if it is a heavenly language? It seems to me that everyone would be using the same ‘tongue’, yet no two are alike (there’s a lot of copying of certain ‘phrases’ within congregations though); each speaker has his/her own.

It is of no consequence that you want everyone to use the same 'tongue'. Speaking in tongues is speaking in tongues.

It seems to me that the clay is questioning the wisdom of the Potter concerning this issue.

As to the ‘shaman’s chant’, have you recorded yourself speaking glossolalia and really listened to it yet?

I do not (and I will not) record myself nor do I believe others should be recording themselves and posting to the internet. That is not the purpose of the manifestation. Those who participate in this activity are not utilizing the manifestation properly (imho).

 

[Kavik]

CS1 -
That is opinionated not truth.
And the statement” Not once has documented T-speech ever come out as a real language – ancient or modern." Is not true.
For one to say that is very boastful and they would have to be all knowing.

I’m afraid it is – there have been hundreds of examples of T-speech which have been documented all over the world; not one was ever found to be a real language. To be completely fair, there are examples of clear corruptions of words in the speaker’s native language which have been modified/corrupted to fit the constraints of T-speech (one example for instance (the most common) is the simplification of consonant clusters). As a real example, one I can think of off the top of my head is “SHAN-dah/SHON-dah/SHAHN-dah. (in first word the initial ‘a’ is as in “bat”). A corruption of ‘Sunday’. Oftentimes preceded by “kee-“

It’s not boastful at all – it’s simply stating fact. Hundreds of transcribed examples studied – none ever being a real language.

And yes, world’s languages are like that – any given family/related group of languages is going to have certain common features with every other language in that family/group including what they sound like. If you’re familiar with how one works and sounds like, your familiar with how they all work and sound like within that family/group. I’m not saying that for a bunch of linguists to recognize and identify a language within minutes is a piece of cake by any means, but is not nearly as difficult a task as one might think.

I have seen documentation of those who have studied this gift and have agreed it is a language. However, the linguist who says it is or says it is not; are not the authority on the contextual meaning of scripture.

I would respectfully doubt that the documentation came from a trained linguist. No linguist would ever call glossolalia/T-speech ‘language’ as it fails even the most basic criteria for something to be ‘language’. It certainly mimics language, but is not language itself – ‘tongues’ in the context of scripture on the other hand are real languages, so it becomes a non-issue.

Speaking in tongues is nothing without the full context of the gifts in the light of all scripture.

As mentioned in a post way further up in this thread (I think), modern tongues are a very powerful tool; no argument there, but a tool nonetheless. The speech that is produced however, is very much self-created; there’s just no getting around that fact. It’s been clearly demonstrated as such time and time again.

FYI many of the linguist are atheist lol So I do not look to them for opinon on Gods word.

Perhaps some are – I know quite a few linguists and though they comprise many different beliefs and backgrounds, I can confidently say that not one I have ever met (myself included) is an atheist.

 

[Kavik]

reneweddaybyday -
the fact that the verse states nous mou akarpos (mind of me unfruitful) when pneuma mou (spirit of me) prays, it is clear that when a person prays in tongues, his/her mind is unfruitful.

Spirit of me ... mind of me ... not the whole congregation.

Yes, the grammar is correct and fine; it’s the semantic nuance/meaning of ‘akarpos’ – it can be used two ways; actively of passively. As mentioned above, most assume it’s passive. I can offer only a theory as to why that translation stuck, but it’s just an educated guess based on history of Bible translation. If used actively, in light of real language, the historical context /setting of when and why it was used, supports an active use/interpretation.

As I do not read or speak German, I cannot verify your interpretation of the verse from Luther's Bible of 1545.

Denn so ich mit Zungen bete, so betet mein Geist; aber mein Sinn bringt niemand Frucht.

Literally word for word: “Then so I with tongues pray, so prays my spirit, but my mind/understanding brings no one fruit”

What’s interesting however, is if you stick the phrase in something like google translate, it recognizes it as a passage from the Bible and “translates” the KJV (?) of that passage. i.e., it’s not translating it literally (one of the pitfalls of machine translation).

I have faith that it is the same Spirit Who gives the utterance now and it is the same Spirit Who energizes within the believer now.

Yes, I believe that the H/S can guide, inspire, and ‘energize within’ people now on what to say and/or how to say it, but only with respect to speaking a real language. The H/S can obviously inspire a person to engage in glossolalia (T-speech), but the H/S is certainly not speaking/creating the syllables uttered; the speaker is.

Your conclusion that "each one is entirely self-created by the speaker" is in direct contradiction with what is written in Acts 2:4 and 1 Cor 12:11.

“Tongues” in Acts 2:4 are clearly real languages - no contradiction as it’s clearly not referring to modern T-speech, but real living languages (in this case, Greek and Aramaic). 1 Cor. 12:11 doesn’t speak to the issue – it’s just saying that all the manifestations come from the same source.

If referring to tongues, it’s just saying that the ability to speak foreign languages is given by the same spirit that gives wisdom, healing, etc.

Foreign languages can be learned by unbeliever as well as believer.

Not so with speaking in tongues --- that is worked in the life of the believer by way of the One and the selfsame Spirit.

Yes they can be learnt by both; however, some people just have a “gift”, “ability”, “knack” for learning them quickly and easily, unlike other people. Some would say this gift, ability knack is “a God-given gift”.

T-speech can be “learned” in a matter of minutes, if you’re not afraid to play with your language. Something people are taught not to do from a very early age. That seems to be what makes ‘tongues’ initially difficult for some people – overcoming that hang-up about just playing with language no matter how what comes out may sound like.

Again, your conclusion does not line up with what is written in Scripture.

What is written in scripture refers to real language, not modern T-speech – in that respect, yes, the H/S can inspire and guide you on what to say to a person in his/her language just as the H/S can guide inspire you on what to say to a person in your own native language to a speaker of same. The point is, the inspiration/guidance comes from the H/S, but whatever language the speaker is using, it’s ones/he has learnt at some point in his/her life; it is not modern T-speech.

It is of no consequence that you want everyone to use the same 'tongue'. Speaking in tongues is speaking in tongues.

Yes, speaking in tongues is speaking in tongues. But no two people speak the same ‘tongue’. If there is some sort of ‘spiritual language’, there would be no need of more than one would there? Why wouldn’t all simply understand the one ‘language’. There is zero need for linguistic diversity in the Spirit realm.

I do not (and I will not) record myself nor do I believe others should be recording themselves and posting to the internet. That is not the purpose of the manifestation. Those who participate in this activity are not utilizing the manifestation properly (imho).

Oh, no, I didn’t mean that it should be posted on the internet. It would be something just you would be listening to. I mean just really listen to what you’re producing. As an aside, I seem to sense this a lot; a strong reluctance by speakers to truly listen to what they’re actually producing.

 

[CS1]

CS1 -
That is opinionated not truth.
And the statement” Not once has documented T-speech ever come out as a real language – ancient or modern." Is not true.
For one to say that is very boastful and they would have to be all knowing.

I’m afraid it is – there have been hundreds of examples of T-speech which have been documented all over the world; not one was ever found to be a real language. To be completely fair, there are examples of clear corruptions of words in the speaker’s native language which have been modified/corrupted to fit the constraints of T-speech (one example for instance (the most common) is the simplification of consonant clusters). As a real example, one I can think of off the top of my head is “SHAN-dah/SHON-dah/SHAHN-dah. (in first word the initial ‘a’ is as in “bat”). A corruption of ‘Sunday’. Oftentimes preceded by “kee-“

It’s not boastful at all – it’s simply stating fact. Hundreds of transcribed examples studied – none ever being a real language.

And yes, world’s languages are like that – any given family/related group of languages is going to have certain common features with every other language in that family/group including what they sound like. If you’re familiar with how one works and sounds like, your familiar with how they all work and sound like within that family/group. I’m not saying that for a bunch of linguists to recognize and identify a language within minutes is a piece of cake by any means, but is not nearly as difficult a task as one might think.

I have seen documentation of those who have studied this gift and have agreed it is a language. However, the linguist who says it is or says it is not; are not the authority on the contextual meaning of scripture.

I would respectfully doubt that the documentation came from a trained linguist. No linguist would ever call glossolalia/T-speech ‘language’ as it fails even the most basic criteria for something to be ‘language’. It certainly mimics language, but is not language itself – ‘tongues’ in the context of scripture on the other hand are real languages, so it becomes a non-issue.

Speaking in tongues is nothing without the full context of the gifts in the light of all scripture.

As mentioned in a post way further up in this thread (I think), modern tongues are a very powerful tool; no argument there, but a tool nonetheless. The speech that is produced however, is very much self-created; there’s just no getting around that fact. It’s been clearly demonstrated as such time and time again.

FYI many of the linguist are atheist lol So I do not look to them for opinon on Gods word.

Perhaps some are – I know quite a few linguists and though they comprise many different beliefs and backgrounds, I can confidently say that not one I have ever met (myself included) is an atheist.

Again, you miss the point the documentation you have provided speak nothing to the authoritative word of God. a linguist does not explain all the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Which tongues is one of. You chose to use human reasoning to verify one gift of the Holy Spirit because you do not have enough support to prove tongues today is not a gift of the Holy Spirit. I do not formulate my theology based on Linguist who do not even believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection; the supernatural is not understood by human reasoning, its faith. In addition, your experience with tongues is no more authoritative then my experience. You keep saying no one had found it to be a real language, which is not true. Your opinion is not more correct then those who say it is a real language.


The word of God is clear. “T-speech is nothing but humans trying to explain the supernatural. It is the attempt to say God is not involved. Old story different topic. Example: those same kind of experts try to explain:

Parting of the Red Sea
Surviving a fiery furnace
The walls of Jericho
Mouth of the lions
Water out of rock

Guess what? IT was God, miracle, or the power of the Holy Spirit.

"one I can think of off the top of my head is “SHAN-dah/SHON-dah/SHAHN-dah. (in first word the initial ‘a’ is as in “bat”). A corruption of ‘Sunday’. Oftentimes preceded by “kee-“ "

Hmmm I do not see this in 1cor chapters 12, 13 or 14.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

the fact that the verse states nous mou akarpos (mind of me unfruitful) when pneuma mou (spirit of me) prays, it is clear that when a person prays in tongues, his/her mind is unfruitful.

Spirit of me ... mind of me ... not the whole congregation.

Yes, the grammar is correct and fine; it’s the semantic nuance/meaning of ‘akarpos’ – it can be used two ways; actively of passively. As mentioned above, most assume it’s passive. I can offer only a theory as to why that translation stuck, but it’s just an educated guess based on history of Bible translation. If used actively, in light of real language, the historical context /setting of when and why it was used, supports an active use/interpretation.

I have provided more than sufficient Scriptural proof to confirm my point.

You have failed to provide Scriptural proof to substantiate your claim that "the semantic nuance/meaning of ‘akarpos’ – it can be used two ways; actively of passively".

As I do not read or speak German, I cannot verify your interpretation of the verse from Luther's Bible of 1545.

Denn so ich mit Zungen bete, so betet mein Geist; aber mein Sinn bringt niemand Frucht.

Literally word for word: “Then so I with tongues pray, so prays my spirit, but my mind/understanding brings no one fruit”

If that is "literally word for word", then I disagree with Luther's rendering of the verse.

What’s interesting however, is if you stick the phrase in something like google translate, it recognizes it as a passage from the Bible and “translates” the KJV (?) of that passage. i.e., it’s not translating it literally (one of the pitfalls of machine translation).

Perhaps the rendering of the KJV is correct and you and Luther have it wrong (?)

I have faith that it is the same Spirit Who gives the utterance now and it is the same Spirit Who energizes within the believer now.

Yes, I believe that the H/S can guide, inspire, and ‘energize within’ people now on what to say and/or how to say it, but only with respect to speaking a real language. The H/S can obviously inspire a person to engage in glossolalia (T-speech), but the H/S is certainly not speaking/creating the syllables uttered; the speaker is.

As it is the Spirit Who gives the utterance, the speaker speaks the words the Spirit gives to him/her. Period.

Your conclusion that "each one is entirely self-created by the speaker" is in direct contradiction with what is written in Acts 2:4 and 1 Cor 12:11.

“Tongues” in Acts 2:4 are clearly real languages - no contradiction as it’s clearly not referring to modern T-speech, but real living languages (in this case, Greek and Aramaic). 1 Cor. 12:11 doesn’t speak to the issue – it’s just saying that all the manifestations come from the same source.

If referring to tongues, it’s just saying that the ability to speak foreign languages is given by the same spirit that gives wisdom, healing, etc.

The manifestation of speaking in tongues is not just "the ability to speak foreign languages".

Speaking in tongues originates in the spiritual realm and is then manifested (evidenced, revealed) in the physical realm as the believer submits to the working of the Spirit within him/her.

Foreign languages can be learned by unbeliever as well as believer.

Not so with speaking in tongues --- that is worked in the life of the believer by way of the One and the selfsame Spirit.

Yes they can be learnt by both; however, some people just have a “gift”, “ability”, “knack” for learning them quickly and easily, unlike other people. Some would say this gift, ability knack is “a God-given gift”.

The natural ability within each person is not a manifestation of the Spirit as revealed in 1 Cor 12:8-10.

The natural ability is just that ... a natural ability as opposed to the outward revealing of a working within a born again believer which originates in the spiritual realm.

T-speech can be “learned” in a matter of minutes, if you’re not afraid to play with your language. Something people are taught not to do from a very early age. That seems to be what makes ‘tongues’ initially difficult for some people – overcoming that hang-up about just playing with language no matter how what comes out may sound like.

I do not believe your "T-speech" is the same as the manifestation of speaking in tongues as revealed in Scripture.

Again, your conclusion does not line up with what is written in Scripture.

What is written in scripture refers to real language, not modern T-speech – in that respect, yes, the H/S can inspire and guide you on what to say to a person in his/her language just as the H/S can guide inspire you on what to say to a person in your own native language to a speaker of same. The point is, the inspiration/guidance comes from the H/S, but whatever language the speaker is using, it’s ones/he has learnt at some point in his/her life; it is not modern T-speech.

You are not describing the manifestation of speaking in tongues.

Perhaps you are describing the promise Jesus made to His disciples that they should not worry if/when they are brought before rulers and authorities; that the Holy Spirit would give the words to speak in that case (Matt 10:16-20, Mark 13:9-11, Luke 12:11-12).

The manifestation of speaking in tongues is not the same as what you describe. The manifestation of speaking in tongues is the Spirit giving the words(utterance) to the believer(speaker), but the speaker does not understand the words. The words given by the Spirit are not in a language the speaker understands. The speaker is not familiar with the language.

It is of no consequence that you want everyone to use the same 'tongue'. Speaking in tongues is speaking in tongues.

Yes, speaking in tongues is speaking in tongues. But no two people speak the same ‘tongue’. If there is some sort of ‘spiritual language’, there would be no need of more than one would there? Why wouldn’t all simply understand the one ‘language’. There is zero need for linguistic diversity in the Spirit realm.

Again, the clay is telling the Potter how the Potter must do things in order for the clay to acknowledge that speaking in tongues is speaking in tongues.

I do not (and I will not) record myself nor do I believe others should be recording themselves and posting to the internet. That is not the purpose of the manifestation. Those who participate in this activity are not utilizing the manifestation properly (imho).

Oh, no, I didn’t mean that it should be posted on the internet. It would be something just you would be listening to. I mean just really listen to what you’re producing. As an aside, I seem to sense this a lot; a strong reluctance by speakers to truly listen to what they’re actually producing.

The purpose of the manifestation of speaking in tongues is not for the "speakers to truly listen to what they're actually producing". You keep insisting this is what the believer is to do. Nowhere does Scripture tell us to utilize the manifestation in this manner.

 

[Kavik]

CS1 -
a linguist does not explain all the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Which tongues is one of.

No, not sure anyone can as opinions vary widely. So, like anyone else, I can only offer an opinion.

Yes, ‘tongues’ are a manifestation of the H/S. But let’s look at that for a moment – many people refer to these nine things as gifts; they are not, they are manifestations – the ‘evidence’, if you will, that the H/S is at work.

As you may know, there is actually only one place in the entire NT where the term “spiritual gifts” is used (Romans 1:11). After Paul uses the term, he then goes on to define it in verse 12: “that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith.” Not much there to support some sort of extraordinary meaning for the term. The meaning of “spiritual gift”, as Paul uses it, is pretty straightforward.

The ability to be able to speak in various languages is said to be a manifestation of the H/S.

People associate the term “spiritual gift” with it though, and the connotation/understanding is that it’s some sort of ability which is different from a natural ability/talent, which God gives someone when converted/saved. One didn’t have them prior to being saved, and then once saved, God gave them to him/her. All Charismatics would see them as obviously being supernatural in their manifestation.

Why, however, does any ability that God chooses to give us, particularly given for the intent of being used to better the church, need to be considered extraordinary, miraculous, or almost required to be called supernatural?

Given the ordinary nature of most of these, why shouldn’t the ability in various languages be the bent/knack of some to ease the problem of communication in the church? These manifestations after all were given for the common good, not for some individualistic purpose.

It is better perhaps to see these ‘gifts’ as God-given natural abilities. Given, perhaps, with the intention that they are to be used for spreading or evidencing of His glory among people.

Further, you have to also keep in mind that ‘tongues’ as used in the Bible is nothing more than real human language(s).


You keep saying no one had found it to be a real language, which is not true. Your opinion is not more correct then those who say it is a real language.

I would welcome the opportunity to see some sort of documents, studies, papers, what-have-you demonstrating that modern ‘tongues’ is real language. The thing is, modern tongues are something very tangible; they can be recorded, transcribed, studied and analyzed. And in every case in where that has occurred, the result is always the same – tongues fail the criteria of ‘language’.

Hmmm I do not see this in 1cor chapters 12, 13 or 14.

Yeah, that's sort of the point in a way – the ‘tongues’ in those chapters are real language(s), not something self-created from a person’s subconscious as in the example I gave. Whether produced in conjunction with sheer faith or not, modern ‘tongues’ are simply not what the majority of their speakers want them to be.

As a self-proclaimed “former tongues speaker” rather bluntly put it on his/her (?) blog: “You want this to be real. You’ve convinced yourself it’s real. You’re improvising the sounds, but there’s nothing about what you’re doing that cannot be explained in natural terms. The only reason it sounds like a language is that you want it to sound like a language. But it’s not. It’s meaningless. You’re not producing a language. You’re faking it, just like I was, but you already know that.”

Kind of harsh, but I have to wonder just how accurate it is.

I don't adhere to the idea of faking tongues - what are you going to fake? It's free vocalization; there's no right or wrong result.

 

[Kavik]

Reneweddaybyday –
I have provided more than sufficient Scriptural proof to confirm my point.

You have failed to provide Scriptural proof to substantiate your claim that "the semantic nuance/meaning of ‘akarpos’ – it can be used two ways; actively of passively".


With all due respect, your proof is your understanding of the text which, as a tongues speaker, can only have one interpretation. There’s more than one way to interpret any given text.

Obviously, you’re not going to find the kind of “proof” I suspect you’re looking for – I would submit that the meaning, in the context in which it was written and for the audience and historic timeframe it was written for and in, is self-explanatory.

People tend to automatically look for the supernatural when it comes to interpreting Biblical texts – not saying that’s not there, but sometimes, the text is just describing a very ordinary event/issue, nothing more. Paul’s letter was just that, a letter written by him in response to (presumably) one he had gotten outlining the issues in Corinth, one very real issue being communication within the church. I don’t believe it was ever written with the intention of somehow being supernatural in meaning or conveying some sort of supernatural notion – real issues, real solutions.

Too bad that a copy of the letter Paul initially received wouldn’t somehow come to light – I strongly suspect it would instantly answer the whole “tongues” thing!

As it is the Spirit Who gives the utterance, the speaker speaks the words the Spirit gives to him/her. Period.

Yes – when one is speaking a real language to a specific audience in a church setting; not at all remotely close to what today’s Pentecostals and Charismatics are doing/producing.


The manifestation of speaking in tongues is not just "the ability to speak foreign languages".

The natural ability within each person is not a manifestation of the Spirit as revealed in 1 Cor 12:8-10.

Actually, I believe it is – see above post.

I do not believe your "T-speech" is the same as the manifestation of speaking in tongues as revealed in Scripture.

You’re right - No, it’s not at all – again, that’s kind of the point. Modern ‘tongues’ (what Pentecostals and Charismatics are producing today) is not remotely close to what is referred to in the Bible with respect to “tongues”.

The manifestation of speaking in tongues is not the same as what you describe. The manifestation of speaking in tongues is the Spirit giving the words(utterance) to the believer(speaker),

As far as this part goes, yes, as mentioned above, when one is speaking a real language to a specific audience in a church setting.

but the speaker does not understand the words. The words given by the Spirit are not in a language the speaker understands. The speaker is not familiar with the language.

That’s the Charismatic/Pentecostal understanding of the text – it can only be understood this way so what’s being done and produced today can have some sort of Biblical concordance/precedence. But that’s just not the reality of the situation - absolutely nowhere is it even remotely suggested that the speakers do not understand what they are saying.


The purpose of the manifestation of speaking in tongues is not for the "speakers to truly listen to what they're actually producing". You keep insisting this is what the believer is to do. Nowhere does Scripture tell us to utilize the manifestation in this manner.

No, I’m not insisting a tongues-speaker has to do this; however, if you really want to know precisely what you are producing and be able to really take a look at it and do a bit of analyzing, yes, I would highly recommend it. You kind of lost me in that last bit- not sure why you would need ‘permission’ to listen to yourself speak (?).

I do not mean this offensively in any way, but as mentioned, there seems to be a strong reluctance in people to record themselves speaking tongues (though, judging by what one can find on things like YouTube, this reluctance doesn’t seem to be shared by everyone!). I sometimes have to wonder if the reluctance is because, on some level, many people are aware, or at least suspect, that what they’re producing just isn’t what it’s supposed to be; it’s not what they were told or led to believe it was – actually hearing themselves and listening to what they are producing would just confirm the suspicion.

 

[CS1]

CS1 -
a linguist does not explain all the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Which tongues is one of.

No, not sure anyone can as opinions vary widely. So, like anyone else, I can only offer an opinion.

Yes, ‘tongues’ are a manifestation of the H/S. But let’s look at that for a moment – many people refer to these nine things as gifts; they are not, they are manifestations – the ‘evidence’, if you will, that the H/S is at work.

As you may know, there is actually only one place in the entire NT where the term “spiritual gifts” is used (Romans 1:11). After Paul uses the term, he then goes on to define it in verse 12: “that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith.” Not much there to support some sort of extraordinary meaning for the term. The meaning of “spiritual gift”, as Paul uses it, is pretty straightforward.

The ability to be able to speak in various languages is said to be a manifestation of the H/S.

People associate the term “spiritual gift” with it though, and the connotation/understanding is that it’s some sort of ability which is different from a natural ability/talent, which God gives someone when converted/saved. One didn’t have them prior to being saved, and then once saved, God gave them to him/her. All Charismatics would see them as obviously being supernatural in their manifestation.

Why, however, does any ability that God chooses to give us, particularly given for the intent of being used to better the church, need to be considered extraordinary, miraculous, or almost required to be called supernatural?

Given the ordinary nature of most of these, why shouldn’t the ability in various languages be the bent/knack of some to ease the problem of communication in the church? These manifestations after all were given for the common good, not for some individualistic purpose.

It is better perhaps to see these ‘gifts’ as God-given natural abilities. Given, perhaps, with the intention that they are to be used for spreading or evidencing of His glory among people.

Further, you have to also keep in mind that ‘tongues’ as used in the Bible is nothing more than real human language(s).


You keep saying no one had found it to be a real language, which is not true. Your opinion is not more correct then those who say it is a real language.

I would welcome the opportunity to see some sort of documents, studies, papers, what-have-you demonstrating that modern ‘tongues’ is real language. The thing is, modern tongues are something very tangible; they can be recorded, transcribed, studied and analyzed. And in every case in where that has occurred, the result is always the same – tongues fail the criteria of ‘language’.

Hmmm I do not see this in 1cor chapters 12, 13 or 14.

Yeah, that's sort of the point in a way – the ‘tongues’ in those chapters are real language(s), not something self-created from a person’s subconscious as in the example I gave. Whether produced in conjunction with sheer faith or not, modern ‘tongues’ are simply not what the majority of their speakers want them to be.

As a self-proclaimed “former tongues speaker” rather bluntly put it on his/her (?) blog: “You want this to be real. You’ve convinced yourself it’s real. You’re improvising the sounds, but there’s nothing about what you’re doing that cannot be explained in natural terms. The only reason it sounds like a language is that you want it to sound like a language. But it’s not. It’s meaningless. You’re not producing a language. You’re faking it, just like I was, but you already know that.”

Kind of harsh, but I have to wonder just how accurate it is.

I don't adhere to the idea of faking tongues - what are you going to fake? It's free vocalization; there's no right or wrong result.

so you change the word of God where it says very plainly in chapter 12 of 1cor " Now concerning spiritual gifts".
it does not say manifestations. the word Gift is used 4 times and manifestation used ONE Time.


the Words Spiritual Gifts in the Greek are : spiritual pneumatikos adjective / gifts charisma. noun

manifestation = means manifestation . Of what ? a Spiritual Gift which is the context of 1cor 12, 13 and 14 chapters.

as far as welcome documentation As I said there are .however, those that prove tongues is a real language or those that do not can not change the context of the word of God . Clearly you did not see two of my location which did offer you proof.

tongues do fail anything God intended them to be .

it was not harsh it was rude and an attack on those who do not agree. The context is the word of God and 1cor 1`2, 13, and 14 as it is presented . I do not need you are any other to verify what has been proven real as the Word Of God says it is. Faking tongues may be what you did . That is between you and God not me.

you interject these other side bars because the Word of God you have to reduce to human reasoning to understand or it is not of God LOL.

 

[notuptome]

1Co 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

Ignorant of what?

Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.
9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.
10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;
11 Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;
12 Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer;
13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.
14 Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.
15 Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.
16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.
17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[shrume]

Yes, ‘tongues’ are a manifestation of the H/S. But let’s look at that for a moment – many people refer to these nine things as gifts; they are not, they are manifestations – the ‘evidence’, if you will, that the H/S is at work.

so you change the word of God where it says very plainly in chapter 12 of 1cor " Now concerning spiritual gifts".
it does not say manifestations.

It also does not say "gifts". Look it up. There is no Greek word for "gifts" in 1 Cor 12:1. In the KJV, the word "gifts" is in italics, indicating it was added by the translators. The word translated "spiritual gifts" is pneumatikos, and it means "spiritual things", or "spiritual matters".

the word Gift is used 4 times and manifestation used ONE Time.

the Words Spiritual Gifts in the Greek are : spiritual pneumatikos adjective / gifts charisma. noun

Again, pneumatikos does not means "gifts".

While I completely disagree with kavik's view on speaking in tongues (that it is a language known to the speaker), he is correct in stating that tongues is not a gift, but one of the nine manifestations of the singular gift of the Holy Spirit.

manifestation = means manifestation . Of what ? a Spiritual Gift which is the context of 1cor 12, 13 and 14 chapters.

Speaking in tongues is one of the nine manifestations of the gift of the Holy Spirit. The gift is the Holy spirit, and it can be evidenced, or manifested, in nine different ways.