Speaking in Tongues (Privately, Outside of Church)

[peacefulbeliever]

"no man understands" refers to the one speaking in tongues - It is NOT a known language to the one speaking. Not to those in the church meeting. The "him" in the KJV is added. That is why it was so remarkable that the apostles spoke in the languages of the people present when they spoke in tongues . . . that is why the multitude were "confounded" when they heard them speak.

Not sure how one could ever make that conclusion – it does not refer to the one speaking but rather to those listening; there is no other way that can be interpreted/translated. Yes, the ‘him’ is added – it’s more or less understood/inferred from the context of the whole sentence.

People (at Pentecost) were confounded because they were expecting to hear Hebrew; the socially/religiously correct language to use on that occasion. What they heard and what confounded them was that they were hearing their own languages (only two were spoken by all Jews present) – Greek and Aramaic.

NASB - For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak unto men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries (secrets).

The original Greek has: pneumati de, lalei mystêria – “in spirit however, he utters mysteries”. No “his”. Though he’s praying earnestly and from the heart (i.e. in the spirit) he’s speaking ‘mysteries’ to those listening to him as they have no clue what he’s saying; to them his speech/language is a mystery.

The reason that it is the one who speaks in tongues who does not understand is because in a few instances there have been individuals in a meeting who knew the language spoken. So to say that "no one understands" would not be totally correct. In the spirit, i.e. speaking with the spirit, i.e. speaking in tongues, is speaking mysteries to God considering that is who the one speaking in tongues is speaking to - "not unto men but to God".

Tongues are NOT meant to be used to "prove a point" to someone.

Though that may be true, tongues can in fact be studied and analyzed. That they are languages…or not, is a very testable claim.

I have seen one serious study on youtube concerning someone speaking in tongues . . BUT in the sense that people talk about in here - those that speak in tongues do not need to "prove" it to anyone - People only need to believe what God says concerning the matter.

Speaking in tongues is a language.

Language, whether spoken somewhere on this planet, an alien world, or in the spirit realm (heaven, by angles, etc.) are going to consist of certain elements which all language must have to be considered ‘language’; tongues simply does not meet any of these criteria.

Then how is it that some people in meetings have understood the language being spoken? There are many languages that is why there are very few times that the "tongues" (languages) are understood by the people present and why God gives the interpretation when someone speaks in tongues.

And forbid not to speak with tongues (read: languages)

I think this makes perfect sense given that Paul was, after all, in the process of founding a religion (either wittingly or not). In order for it to spread, the more people that had access to its message, the better its success.

What better way to spread the word than to do it in people’s native languages rather than in some prescribed language (e.g. Judaism was originally restricted to Hebrew, Zoroastrianism is still to this day restricted to Avestan, etc.). Not restricting a religion by allowing access to it in only one language was a very novel idea/concept at this time.

In this sense, Paul is spot on; don’t forbid speaking other languages (it’s the best way to spread this new religion called Christianity). A great way to people to discuss it and practice it. In order to spread the word though, you may need to “speak with new tongues”, i.e. you’ll need to learn languages you probably didn’t even know existed in order to spread the message to people.

Speaking in tongues is not used for "missionary" work or to "spread the gospel". There is not one verse of scripture that says that this is what it is for. How can it be used for missionary work when the person speaking does not know what language he is speaking - the language is given by God. The key - tongues is not a learned language, i.e. one did not and was not taught the language they are speaking - it is given by God. In order to do mission work, one would have to learn the specific language for where ever they are being sent.

 

[UnderGrace]

Speaking in tongues is not used for "missionary" work or to "spread the gospel".

So then why did Paul mean when he stated this...

Foreign languages, then, are meant to be a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers, while prophecy is meant, not for unbelievers, but for believers.
NIV 1Cor 14:22

The reason that it is the one who speaks in tongues who does not understand is because in a few instances there have been individuals in a meeting who knew the language spoken. So to say that "no one understands" would not be totally correct. In the spirit, i.e. speaking with the spirit, i.e. speaking in tongues, is speaking mysteries to God considering that is who the one speaking in tongues is speaking to - "not unto men but to God".

I have seen one serious study on youtube concerning someone speaking in tongues . . BUT in the sense that people talk about in here - those that speak in tongues do not need to "prove" it to anyone - People only need to believe what God says concerning the matter.

Then how is it that some people in meetings have understood the language being spoken? There are many languages that is why there are very few times that the "tongues" (languages) are understood by the people present and why God gives the interpretation when someone speaks in tongues.

Speaking in tongues is not used for "missionary" work or to "spread the gospel". There is not one verse of scripture that says that this is what it is for. How can it be used for missionary work when the person speaking does not know what language he is speaking - the language is given by God. The key - tongues is not a learned language, i.e. one did not and was not taught the language they are speaking - it is given by God. In order to do mission work, one would have to learn the specific language for where ever they are being sent.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

So then why did Paul mean when he stated this...

Foreign languages, then, are meant to be a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers, while prophecy is meant, not for unbelievers, but for believers.
NIV 1Cor 14:22

1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not


We all agree that when spoken in the church congregation, the manifestation of kinds of tongues is to be followed with the manifestation of interpretation of tongues.


The speaking in tongues is a sign to those who do not believe. The attention of the unbeliever is drawn to the words spoken. When the manifestation of kinds of tongues is heard, the unbeliever perks up and listens. Then the interpretation follows. The message is designed to edify (build up) the believers present (1 Cor 14:5).

 

[peacefulbeliever]

So then why did Paul mean when he stated this...

Foreign languages, then, are meant to be a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers, while prophecy is meant, not for unbelievers, but for believers.
NIV 1Cor 14:22

First I just want to say that my NIV does not say "foreign languages". Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers . . . All throughout history, the Jews wanted "signs". Moses turned his stick into a snake, Joshua set up rocks, Gideon wanted a sign from the angel that spoke to him, and the Jews constantly asked Jesus for signs. God has given us through the manifestation of tongues, a "sign" attesting the fact that each Christian has the gift of holy spirit within us - each Christian has the spirit of God dwelling in them. It is a "sign", a witness to unbelievers that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and and is now living in the hearts of believers via the gift of holy spirit that Jesus poured out on the day of Pentecost.

 

[Kavik]

The reason that it is the one who speaks in tongues who does not understand is because in a few instances there have been individuals in a meeting who knew the language spoken. So to say that "no one understands" would not be totally correct. In the spirit, i.e. speaking with the spirit, i.e. speaking in tongues, is speaking mysteries to God considering that is who the one speaking in tongues is speaking to - "not unto men but to God".

The above does not hold true for ‘tongues’ referenced in the Bible. There is no mention of some people understanding and some not.

There are, unfortunately, no known documented provable cases of what is known as xenoglossy/xenoglossia; the ability to speak a language one has never had any previous contact with in any way, shape or form. The only evidence offered is anecdotal at best.

Despite the above, the Pentecostal/Charismatic community is rife with examples of ‘tongues’ being heard/understood as real language(s). It is truly unfortunate that no such cases have ever been documented and studied as it would answer a lot of debates and questions. I am not beyond believing that that the divine can speak to a third party through someone. In fact, this is common in a lot of faith traditions around the world and, is more the “correct” (if I can call it that) usage of the tool of glossolalia as it is practiced around the world.

That a person will supposedly hear what is being said in their native language begs a few questions:

1. Is the speaker actually shifting their non-cognitive non-language utterances (NC-NLU’s, a/k/a glossolalia) to a real language?
2. Is the recipient physically hearing the speaker in his/her language?
3. Is the recipient only subconsciously hearing his/her own language?
4. While this person is hearing his/her native language; what are other people hearing?
5. What is the person actually hearing? Is it simply a word or phrase repeated over and over, or is it an actual monologue?
Again, unfortunately, no one seems to have any concrete answers to the above.


People only need to believe what God says concerning the matter.

God seems to be silent in the matter – it’s Paul who is discussing the use of foreign languages (‘tongues’) in the church.

Then how is it that some people in meetings have understood the language being spoken? There are many languages that is why there are very few times that the "tongues" (languages) are understood by the people present and why God gives the interpretation when someone speaks in tongues.

See the above.


Speaking in tongues is not used for "missionary" work or to "spread the gospel". There is not one verse of scripture that says that this is what it is for. How can it be used for missionary work when the person speaking does not know what language he is speaking - the language is given by God. The key - tongues is not a learned language, i.e. one did not and was not taught the language they are speaking - it is given by God. In order to do mission work, one would have to learn the specific language for where ever they are being sent.

The speaking in tongues is a sign to those who do not believe. The attention of the unbeliever is drawn to the words spoken. When the manifestation of kinds of tongues is heard, the unbeliever perks up and listens. Then the interpretation follows. The message is designed to edify (build up) the believers present (1 Cor 14:5).

Of course it is – the person speaking knows exactly what he’s saying. Nowhere is it implied that tongues (i.e. languages) are not a learned language.

Yes, they are a sign to those who do not believe (i.e. those who have never heard of Christianity). To teach them about it, the ‘teacher’ has three choices: learn the language of the person/people he’s teaching, have the people learn his language, or (the more practical alternative) if possible, find an interpreter (a person who not only speaks the language in question, but the teacher’s language as well).

The ‘sign’ is that people are being taught and are talking about and discussing Christianity in their own language as opposed to a specific prescribed language (as was done with many religions of the day). So, you could talk to a Gaul about Christianity in Gaulish (either yourself or via an interpreter).

If it’s the teacher who’s speaking, he’s either speaking through an interpreter, or he’s learned the language the old-fashioned way. There just isn’t anything there to suggest that this was some sort of supernatural process, i.e. he is speaking ‘tongues’ and it’s being heard as say Gaulish to a Gaulish speaking audience, or he’s speaking ‘tongues’ and an interpreter is telling the audience what he’s saying.

Yes, the person teaching may be filled with the Holy Spirit, but that simply suggests/implies the person has a true zeal for teaching about Christianity.

With reference to the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of ‘tongues’; they are not a ‘learned language’ as can be seen in how they are produced. In fact, they are not language at all.

Why aren't they language?

Language at its very basic level, can be described as consisting of two things: (1) discrete units of various sorts, and (2) rules and principles that govern the way these discrete units can be combined and ordered. Glossolalia/modern tongues contains neither one.

To be completely fair, one may argue that tongues do contain at least one discrete unit: a specific phonemic inventory (i.e. a group of specific sounds); however this doesn't quite hold up as inventories will vary from speaker to speaker – no two will ever be quite the same.

 

[Waggles]

Sorry to burst your bubble
but I will continue to pray in tongues. This wonderful spirit language
that God gave me on the day I was baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Praying in the Holy Spirit is wonderful and powerful AND also delivers
great results such as numerous miracles, healings, blessings, provision;
not just for myself but for others as well - yes even unbelievers get blessed
through praying in tongues for them.

Works for me.

 

[Enow]

1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not


We all agree that when spoken in the church congregation, the manifestation of kinds of tongues is to be followed with the manifestation of interpretation of tongues.


The speaking in tongues is a sign to those who do not believe. The attention of the unbeliever is drawn to the words spoken. When the manifestation of kinds of tongues is heard, the unbeliever perks up and listens. Then the interpretation follows. The message is designed to edify (build up) the believers present (1 Cor 14:5).

But that is about using tongues with interpretation in the assembly whereas the OP is about using it privately.

And the ones that use it privately, all claimed they got that tongue by receiving the Holy Spirit apart from salvation; whether they had sought for it by a sign of tongues or it happened when they were not looking for receiving the Holy Spirit after a sign of tongues, but it is preached for other believers to seek to receive the Holy Spirit apart from salvation by the sign of that tongues which they use privately.

You do not see anything wrong with that picture? Believers are using tongues as a sign for when they receive the Holy Spirit apart from salvation. That is why it cannot be of Him at all and that is why that tongue comes with no interpretation but is vain & profane babbling nonsense as found in the world's supernatural tongue.

This is the apostasy spoken of in 1 Timothy 4:1-2 and that tongue as found in Isaiah 8:19.

The real God's gift of tongues will always be of other men's lips to speak unto the people which is why He will manifest the interpretation of that manifested tongue in the assembly.

I have to cry foul when tongue speakers claim they can do both; then I do not believe they have the real God's gift of tongues that comes with interpretation, especially when it was gained by apostasy.

 

[Enow]

Sorry to burst your bubble
but I will continue to pray in tongues. This wonderful spirit language
that God gave me on the day I was baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Praying in the Holy Spirit is wonderful and powerful AND also delivers
great results such as numerous miracles, healings, blessings, provision;
not just for myself but for others as well - yes even unbelievers get blessed
through praying in tongues for them.

Works for me.

Tell me how, what you had just shared, does any good for the body of Christ that do not speak in tongues?

How can you NOT speak of yourself higher than you ought to speak when you brag about having something so wonderful that it has nothing to do with the body of Christ to benefit us at all?

Now that is the sales pitch for you to preach coming to you so you can lay hands on us so that we can receive the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues, and then we can go around bragging to other believers that we have something they don't.

If you still do not see anything wrong with that picture, then maybe you ought to see how you defer from this testimony below.

1 Corinthians 12:[SUP]13 [/SUP]For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

But no. You had another drink and you sought it by a sign of tongues, and yet tongues were never to serve as a sign towards the believers for proof of anything.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

The reason that it is the one who speaks in tongues who does not understand is because in a few instances there have been individuals in a meeting who knew the language spoken. So to say that "no one understands" would not be totally correct. In the spirit, i.e. speaking with the spirit, i.e. speaking in tongues, is speaking mysteries to God considering that is who the one speaking in tongues is speaking to - "not unto men but to God".

The above does not hold true for ‘tongues’ referenced in the Bible. There is no mention of some people understanding and some not.

There are, unfortunately, no known documented provable cases of what is known as xenoglossy/xenoglossia; the ability to speak a language one has never had any previous contact with in any way, shape or form. The only evidence offered is anecdotal at best.

Despite the above, the Pentecostal/Charismatic community is rife with examples of ‘tongues’ being heard/understood as real language(s). It is truly unfortunate that no such cases have ever been documented and studied as it would answer a lot of debates and questions. I am not beyond believing that that the divine can speak to a third party through someone. In fact, this is common in a lot of faith traditions around the world and, is more the “correct” (if I can call it that) usage of the tool of glossolalia as it is practiced around the world.

That a person will supposedly hear what is being said in their native language begs a few questions:

1. Is the speaker actually shifting their non-cognitive non-language utterances (NC-NLU’s, a/k/a glossolalia) to a real language?
2. Is the recipient physically hearing the speaker in his/her language?
3. Is the recipient only subconsciously hearing his/her own language?
4. While this person is hearing his/her native language; what are other people hearing?
5. What is the person actually hearing? Is it simply a word or phrase repeated over and over, or is it an actual monologue?
Again, unfortunately, no one seems to have any concrete answers to the above.


People only need to believe what God says concerning the matter.

God seems to be silent in the matter – it’s Paul who is discussing the use of foreign languages (‘tongues’) in the church.

Then how is it that some people in meetings have understood the language being spoken? There are many languages that is why there are very few times that the "tongues" (languages) are understood by the people present and why God gives the interpretation when someone speaks in tongues.

See the above.


Speaking in tongues is not used for "missionary" work or to "spread the gospel". There is not one verse of scripture that says that this is what it is for. How can it be used for missionary work when the person speaking does not know what language he is speaking - the language is given by God. The key - tongues is not a learned language, i.e. one did not and was not taught the language they are speaking - it is given by God. In order to do mission work, one would have to learn the specific language for where ever they are being sent.

The speaking in tongues is a sign to those who do not believe. The attention of the unbeliever is drawn to the words spoken. When the manifestation of kinds of tongues is heard, the unbeliever perks up and listens. Then the interpretation follows. The message is designed to edify (build up) the believers present (1 Cor 14:5).

Of course it is – the person speaking knows exactly what he’s saying. Nowhere is it implied that tongues (i.e. languages) are not a learned language.

Yes, they are a sign to those who do not believe (i.e. those who have never heard of Christianity). To teach them about it, the ‘teacher’ has three choices: learn the language of the person/people he’s teaching, have the people learn his language, or (the more practical alternative) if possible, find an interpreter (a person who not only speaks the language in question, but the teacher’s language as well).

The ‘sign’ is that people are being taught and are talking about and discussing Christianity in their own language as opposed to a specific prescribed language (as was done with many religions of the day). So, you could talk to a Gaul about Christianity in Gaulish (either yourself or via an interpreter).

If it’s the teacher who’s speaking, he’s either speaking through an interpreter, or he’s learned the language the old-fashioned way. There just isn’t anything there to suggest that this was some sort of supernatural process, i.e. he is speaking ‘tongues’ and it’s being heard as say Gaulish to a Gaulish speaking audience, or he’s speaking ‘tongues’ and an interpreter is telling the audience what he’s saying.

Yes, the person teaching may be filled with the Holy Spirit, but that simply suggests/implies the person has a true zeal for teaching about Christianity.

With reference to the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of ‘tongues’; they are not a ‘learned language’ as can be seen in how they are produced. In fact, they are not language at all.

Why aren't they language?

Language at its very basic level, can be described as consisting of two things: (1) discrete units of various sorts, and (2) rules and principles that govern the way these discrete units can be combined and ordered. Glossolalia/modern tongues contains neither one.

To be completely fair, one may argue that tongues do contain at least one discrete unit: a specific phonemic inventory (i.e. a group of specific sounds); however this doesn't quite hold up as inventories will vary from speaker to speaker – no two will ever be quite the same.

The only evidence I need is the evidence of the outpouring of the holy spirit on the day of Pentecost when the apostles were filled with the gift of holy spirit. There were many there who understood the apostles spoke in their language which they did not previously know being but Gentiles. There must have been some there who did not understand for they thought the apostles were drunk.

I don't need to know anything "scientifically" . . . Paul received direct revelation from Jesus Christ and compiled the letters to the Corinthians, within those letters are lessons for worship within the church.


Apparently you do not understand that these "tongues", this language comes from God . . . whether tongues of men or tongues of angels - that is what scripture says - that is what scripture means.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Kavik,

In your post #225, you appear to be responding to post #221 submitted by peacefulbeliever.

However, in responding to peacefulbeliever, you also include a statement posted by me in post #223.

I will endeavor to reply to your post #225, only to the extent that your post responded to my comment:

The speaking in tongues is a sign to those who do not believe. The attention of the unbeliever is drawn to the words spoken. When the manifestation of kinds of tongues is heard, the unbeliever perks up and listens. Then the interpretation follows. The message is designed to edify (build up) the believers present (1 Cor 14:5).

Of course it is – the person speaking knows exactly what he’s saying. Nowhere is it implied that tongues (i.e. languages) are not a learned language.

1 Corinthians 12:11 But all these [the manifestation enumerated in vss 8, 9, 10] worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit

The "one and the selfsame Spirit" is the One Who "worketh" (energizes) the manifestation. In the case of the utterance manifestation (kinds of tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy), the words are spoken by the believer. However, the words are revealed to the believer by the "one and the selfsame Spirit".

In Acts 2:4, the apostles began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. The apostles spoke as the utterance was given to them by the Spirit.

Yes, they are a sign to those who do not believe (i.e. those who have never heard of Christianity). To teach them about it, the ‘teacher’ has three choices: learn the language of the person/people he’s teaching, have the people learn his language, or (the more practical alternative) if possible, find an interpreter (a person who not only speaks the language in question, but the teacher’s language as well).

The ‘sign’ is that people are being taught and are talking about and discussing Christianity in their own language as opposed to a specific prescribed language (as was done with many religions of the day). So, you could talk to a Gaul about Christianity in Gaulish (either yourself or via an interpreter).

If it’s the teacher who’s speaking, he’s either speaking through an interpreter, or he’s learned the language the old-fashioned way. There just isn’t anything there to suggest that this was some sort of supernatural process, i.e. he is speaking ‘tongues’ and it’s being heard as say Gaulish to a Gaulish speaking audience, or he’s speaking ‘tongues’ and an interpreter is telling the audience what he’s saying.

Yes, the person teaching may be filled with the Holy Spirit, but that simply suggests/implies the person has a true zeal for teaching about Christianity.

In your explanation above, you are confused concerning the purpose of the manifestation of kinds of tongues with interpretation of tongues following. 1 Corinthians 14:5 tells us that the manifestation of tongues with interpretation is designed to edify the body of believers.


As far as teaching and discussing Christianity, the gospel is spread through preaching: it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe (1 Cor 1:21).

With reference to the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of ‘tongues’; they are not a ‘learned language’ as can be seen in how they are produced. In fact, they are not language at all.

Why aren't they language?

Language at its very basic level, can be described as consisting of two things: (1) discrete units of various sorts, and (2) rules and principles that govern the way these discrete units can be combined and ordered. Glossolalia/modern tongues contains neither one.

To be completely fair, one may argue that tongues do contain at least one discrete unit: a specific phonemic inventory (i.e. a group of specific sounds); however this doesn't quite hold up as inventories will vary from speaker to speaker – no two will ever be quite the same.

Spiritual matters will never be understood by carnal means. When God says the Spirit gives the utterance (Acts 2:4), and that the manifestation is energized by the one and the selfsame Spirit (1 Cor 12:11), that is what He means. The manifestation of kinds of tongues does not have to fit your model in order to be the manifestation of kinds of tongues.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not

We all agree that when spoken in the church congregation, the manifestation of kinds of tongues is to be followed with the manifestation of interpretation of tongues.

The speaking in tongues is a sign to those who do not believe. The attention of the unbeliever is drawn to the words spoken. When the manifestation of kinds of tongues is heard, the unbeliever perks up and listens. Then the interpretation follows. The message is designed to edify (build up) the believers present (1 Cor 14:5).

But that is about using tongues with interpretation in the assembly whereas the OP is about using it privately.

If you go back and read through the discussion, you will see that I replied to a specific question. 1 Cor 14:22 discusses the use of the manifestation in the church.

And the ones that use it privately, all claimed they got that tongue by receiving the Holy Spirit apart from salvation; whether they had sought for it by a sign of tongues or it happened when they were not looking for receiving the Holy Spirit after a sign of tongues, but it is preached for other believers to seek to receive the Holy Spirit apart from salvation by the sign of that tongues which they use privately.

You do not see anything wrong with that picture? Believers are using tongues as a sign for when they receive the Holy Spirit apart from salvation.

I do not believe all who speak in tongues privately "all claim they got that tongue by receiving the Holy Spirit apart from salvation". That is something you have projected on to those you disagree with concerning the manifestation of kinds of tongues.

That is why it cannot be of Him at all and that is why that tongue comes with no interpretation but is vain & profane babbling nonsense as found in the world's supernatural tongue.

Any time the manifestation of kinds of tongues is in operation, it is "of Him" as explained in 1 Cor 12:11 all these worketh the one and the selfsame Spirit.

The word "worketh" in 1 Cor 12:11 is the Greek word energei (from energéō), which means to energize.

This is the apostasy spoken of in 1 Timothy 4:1-2 and that tongue as found in Isaiah 8:19.

The real God's gift of tongues will always be of other men's lips to speak unto the people which is why He will manifest the interpretation of that manifested tongue in the assembly.

I have to cry foul when tongue speakers claim they can do both; then I do not believe they have the real God's gift of tongues that comes with interpretation, especially when it was gained by apostasy.

You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the manifestation of the Spirit.

God's instruction to you is found in 1 Cor 14:38 if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant and 1 Cor 14:39 forbid not to speak with tongues.

 

[UnderGrace]

A language from God would have meaning ...if it does not have meaning then is not a language

The only evidence I need is the evidence of the outpouring of the holy spirit on the day of Pentecost when the apostles were filled with the gift of holy spirit. There were many there who understood the apostles spoke in their language which they did not previously know being but Gentiles. There must have been some there who did not understand for they thought the apostles were drunk.

I don't need to know anything "scientifically" . . . Paul received direct revelation from Jesus Christ and compiled the letters to the Corinthians, within those letters are lessons for worship within the church.


Apparently you do not understand that these "tongues", this language comes from God . . . whether tongues of men or tongues of angels - that is what scripture says - that is what scripture means.

 

[UnderGrace]

Holman Christian Standard Bible
It follows that speaking in other languages is intended as a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers. But prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.

International Standard Version
Foreign languages, then, are meant to be a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers, while prophecy is meant, not for unbelievers, but for believers.

NET Bible
So then, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers. Prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers.

New Heart English Bible
Therefore other languages are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to the unbelieving; but prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to those who believe.

1 Corinthians 14:22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers.


It was the ISV, my mistake but it does exist worded that way which is more direct translation of the word glossa as language

First I just want to say that my NIV does not say "foreign languages". Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers . . . All throughout history, the Jews wanted "signs". Moses turned his stick into a snake, Joshua set up rocks, Gideon wanted a sign from the angel that spoke to him, and the Jews constantly asked Jesus for signs. God has given us through the manifestation of tongues, a "sign" attesting the fact that each Christian has the gift of holy spirit within us - each Christian has the spirit of God dwelling in them. It is a "sign", a witness to unbelievers that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and and is now living in the hearts of believers via the gift of holy spirit that Jesus poured out on the day of Pentecost.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

A language from God would have meaning ...if it does not have meaning then is not a language

I don't believe I said the language didn't have to have meaning . . . did I?

 

[carl11]

Scripture, logic and experience all trump your cessationist opinion. If you're going to argue against the continued operation of the Holy Spirit, at least have the intellectual integrity not to misrepresent the views of others.

Once again, please explain why, if every prophecy or word in tongues is equivalent with Scripture, were the prophecies of Philip's daughters and Agabus prior to Acts 11 not recorded as such?

Because God is not giving out any more revelation such as dreams,visions,voices,tongues...etc you find this in Rev. 22:18-19.

God has recorded everything for us in the Bible that he wanted for us to know. For example we read in Jn 21:25 that Christ did many more things which were not recorded, why because God did not deem it necessary to record it, could have he of course.
Now if you want to believe that God is still giving out more revelation that what we already have then I feel very sorry for you.
It’s like saying I believe in the Bible and trust it but I still want more. This can be related to that of Is. 4:1 in that they wanted their own type of gospel and yet they want Christ to save them, but not by his gospel but rather theirs.

 

[shrume]

Because God is not giving out any more revelation such as dreams,visions,voices,tongues...etc you find this in Rev. 22:18-19.

God has recorded everything for us in the Bible that he wanted for us to know. For example we read in Jn 21:25 that Christ did many more things which were not recorded, why because God did not deem it necessary to record it, could have he of course.
Now if you want to believe that God is still giving out more revelation that what we already have then I feel very sorry for you.
It’s like saying I believe in the Bible and trust it but I still want more. This can be related to that of Is. 4:1 in that they wanted their own type of gospel and yet they want Christ to save them, but not by his gospel but rather theirs.

Operating the manifestations of the gift of the Holy Spirit, has nothing to do with adding to the written word of God.

I'm very sorry that you believe God is no longer able to speak to you.

 

[Enow]

If you go back and read through the discussion, you will see that I replied to a specific question. 1 Cor 14:22 discusses the use of the manifestation in the church.

Which goes to show there are no instructions for using tongues privately.

I do not believe all who speak in tongues privately "all claim they got that tongue by receiving the Holy Spirit apart from salvation". That is something you have projected on to those you disagree with concerning the manifestation of kinds of tongues.

It is true that the statement needed clarification. I should have used the majority of tongue speakers here rather than all, but to clarify why I said all is because the brother "shrume" does disagree with tongue speakers that testify to receiving the Holy Spirit apart from salvation by which that tongue he uses privately has come that they have gained that kind of tongue by, but shrume says that he had received the ability to speak in tongues when he got saved and believes that all believers has been giving the ability to speak in tongues just as all believers have been given the ability to manifest any of the gifts of the Spirit at any given time by his or her will and stop by his or her will.

The fact that the majority of tongues speakers say how they had gotten their tongue for private use apart from salvation by what they believe was a receiving the Holy Spirit apart from salvation should concern you about the tongue you are using because God would never use His real gift of tongues which is for speaking unto the people, for private use.

Any time the manifestation of kinds of tongues is in operation, it is "of Him" as explained in 1 Cor 12:11 all these worketh the one and the selfsame Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:7 testifies that the manifestations of the Spirit are to profit withal; the whole body of Christ; and not individually. There is no way to change the precedent set for the use of tongues in the assembly or abroad in the missionary field.

The word "worketh" in 1 Cor 12:11 is the Greek word energei (from energéō), which means to energize.

Still for the profit of the assembly; not for private use. He will manifest tongues in one and manifest in another the interpretation of that tongue.

[QUOTEYou have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the manifestation of the Spirit.

God's instruction to you is found in 1 Cor 14:38 if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant and 1 Cor 14:39 forbid not to speak with tongues.
[/QUOTE]

Which is why if tongues do not come with interpretation, he is to be made silent in the assembly in 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 because a foreigner seeing 2 or 3 tongue speakers speak one by one while another interpret, may stand up and speak ignorantly out of turn. When no interpretation comes, that means the person spoke is a foreigner and is to be made to be silent because he knows what he is saying as God does, and he just doesn't know what was going on.

That is Paul way of saying that His tongues will come with interpretation, but tongue speakers wrest Paul's words around because they want to believe they can use tongues privately.

So there is a forbidding of tongues... when it does not come with interpretation. The Holy Spirit does nothing in half measures as the manifestations of the Spirit are to profit withal the assembly.

 

[Enow]

A language from God would have meaning ...if it does not have meaning then is not a language

And God is not the author of confusion to switch the mode for speaking unto the people to speaking privately to the tongue speaker with no interpretation and yet somehow tongue speakers claim they are benefiting with all different kinds of benefits when they do not know what "mode" that tongue was in when used privately to claim that benefit without interpretation.

Therefore tongues for private use, no matter how real it is manifested supernaturally, is of the world's supernatural tongue, which is vain & profane babbling nonsense; it can never be God's gift of tongues.

There would be no way for sinners to repent from their spirits and idols and from that supernatural tongue that those spirits bring if God mimics that kind of tongue. There would be no way for those kind of sinners being called out of the supernatural, to abstain from all appearances of evil in proving everything if the world's supernatural tongues were the same with God's gift of tongues for even half the time. There can be no partiality with God on this kind of tongue for private use. It is not His.

 

[Dino246]

Because God is not giving out any more revelation such as dreams,visions,voices,tongues...etc you find this in Rev. 22:18-19.

God has recorded everything for us in the Bible that he wanted for us to know. For example we read in Jn 21:25 that Christ did many more things which were not recorded, why because God did not deem it necessary to record it, could have he of course.
Now if you want to believe that God is still giving out more revelation that what we already have then I feel very sorry for you.
It’s like saying I believe in the Bible and trust it but I still want more. This can be related to that of Is. 4:1 in that they wanted their own type of gospel and yet they want Christ to save them, but not by his gospel but rather theirs.

My personal experience trumps your misinterpretation.

 

[Kavik]

Replying to a few comments from different posters:

@ peacefulbeliever

The only evidence I need is the evidence of the outpouring of the holy spirit on the day of Pentecost when the apostles were filled with the gift of holy spirit. There were many there who understood the apostles spoke in their language which they did not previously know being but Gentiles. There must have been some there who did not understand for they thought the apostles were drunk.

Yes, the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit; that’s what gave them the courage to go out and preach to the masses gathered there. These were, as we are told (or at least as was always taught to me), people who were in a building behind locked doors essentially in fear of their lives. Historically speaking, they lived in an occupied country and the occupiers (Romans) recently executed their leader/teacher, Jesus. A sort of “If the Romans could do that to him, perhaps we might be next”, train of thought. One may suspect they were discussing their next move; an “okay, what’s the plan now?” kind of deal.

The H/S gave them the courage to go out and preach to the people, declaring the works of God, spread the message and this new faith/belief, AND (most importantly) do it in the languages of those gathered there, rather than in the proper language to use in this situation (as defined by Jewish tradition, belief, and custom); Hebrew. Essentially, the crowd was expecting to hear Hebrew but instead, they got their native languages.

What you need to understand is that there were only two languages spoken by said masses; Aramaic (the language of those already living in Judea, and the native language of the Jews of the Eastern Diaspora) and Greek (the native language of the Jews from the Western Diaspora and perhaps some of the larger cities in Judea as well). The apostles spoke both - no language miracle was needed. People were astonished and confounded because they expected to be hearing Hebrew, not Aramaic and Greek. Some even thought them drunk for daring to violate this religious precedent (i.e. not using the socially/religiously correct Hebrew).

Another understanding of the accusation of ‘drunk’ is that when those people heard what the apostles had to say, they thought what they were hearing was so far-fetched that the apostles must be drunk (i.e. the ravings of a bunch of drunks, so to speak).

Apparently you do not understand that these "tongues", this language comes from God . . . whether tongues of men or tongues of angels - that is what scripture says - that is what scripture means.

Yes, that’s what it says, but it must be looked at in context of the situation. “Tongues of angels” may be immediately dismissed as Paul was clearly using hyperbole.

Biblical tongues (all references) were simply real (foreign) languages. We still use the word ‘tongue’ today to refer to what is clearly real language (e.g. “What’s your mother tongue?”).

The inspiration to use glossolalia/tongues may come from God, but the ‘tongue’ itself is completely self-created coming the sounds that exist in one’s own native language.


@ reneweddaybyday

In Acts 2:4, the apostles began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. The apostles spoke as the utterance was given to them by the Spirit.

See the first comment above. The H/S may have indeed inspired them as to what to say, but what they were saying was being said in Aramaic and Greek instead of the expected Hebrew.


1 Corinthians 12:11 But all these [the manifestation enumerated in vss 8, 9, 10] worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit

The "one and the selfsame Spirit" is the One Who "worketh" (energizes) the manifestation. In the case of the utterance manifestation (kinds of tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy), the words are spoken by the believer. However, the words are revealed to the believer by the "one and the selfsame Spirit".

No, it’s the actual ability of speaking (foreign) languages and interpreting (translating) that is given by the Spirit; not the actual words/translations themselves.

Spiritual matters will never be understood by carnal means. When God says the Spirit gives the utterance (Acts 2:4), and that the manifestation is energized by the one and the selfsame Spirit (1 Cor 12:11), that is what He means. The manifestation of kinds of tongues does not have to fit your model in order to be the manifestation of kinds of tongues.

Except there isn’t anything spiritual about the production of glossolalia; just listen to several samples.

“Kinds of tongues” - again, the word used for ‘kinds’ here (‘genos’) carries the meaning of “related, belonging to the same family”, i.e. ‘families of languages’ (‘language families’: Semitic, Italic, Celtic, etc.) – a clear reference to real languages. Our word ‘genealogy’ has the same root.

As far as teaching and discussing Christianity, the gospel is spread through preaching: it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe(1 Cor 1:21).

Not sure what you mean here, but it seems the verse must be taken in context with the entire passage from verse 18 all the way to 31.