Speaking in tongues

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
5,405
2,648
113
The statement above pretty much says that this statement is false:



Because it says your mind is made up that ALL private tongues are false. Therefore you would never be able to confirm a genuine use, because you are determined that among the babble and baby talk there can't be a legitimate use.

I have received many, many revelations (current applications of existing scripture) and words of knowledge that glorified God while speaking in tongues. It's funny how doing something false could result in the very things God said they would result in.

I'm not trying to talk you into accepting tongues. I'm just hoping you will open your mind enough to consider why would satan bother to falsify something that is already apparently false... unless it actually isn't.
among the babble and baby talk there can't be a legitimate use.

I will consider that statement as an admission that those type of tongues are some kind of incoherent babble.
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
609
128
43
To be biblical tongues they must be the tongues described in the bible. The problem arises in the interpretation of the word tongue and it's multiple meanings as translated into English. Cloven tongues of fire is illustrating the glory of God resting upon the speakers not the tongues being spoken. Fire is described as having tongues referring to the flames themselves. Tongues are languages among men. Tongues are organs of speech in the mouths of men and animals. Even my shoes have tongues. My shoes do not utter any audible sounds.

Context is essential in understanding which interpretation of the word for tongues is intended in the passages.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Yes, context is essential; the word "tongue" itself has multiple meanings in English, however, when describing something spoken, the term "tongues" refers to (real, rational) language. "Comb" has multiple meanings in English too, but as a devise to 'adjust' one's hair, it can only refer to one thing.

It sort of baffles me why the term is even kept in modern translations of the Bible; it's simply a more archaic English word for "language". It's almost as if using the more archaic term lends something of an air of mystery.
 

PS

Senior Member
Jan 11, 2013
5,399
691
113
To be biblical tongues they must be the tongues described in the bible. The problem arises in the interpretation of the word tongue and it's multiple meanings as translated into English. Cloven tongues of fire is illustrating the glory of God resting upon the speakers not the tongues being spoken. Fire is described as having tongues referring to the flames themselves. Tongues are languages among men. Tongues are organs of speech in the mouths of men and animals. Even my shoes have tongues. My shoes do not utter any audible sounds.

Context is essential in understanding which interpretation of the word for tongues is intended in the passages.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Tongue.
G1100
γλῶσσα
glōssa
gloce'-sah
Of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired): - tongue.
Total KJV occurrences: 50

Not tongues of fire. Not shoe leather. Not human language, but a spiritual gift from the Comforter (the Holy Spirit i.e. God) who was promised by Jesus to be with us for the edification of the church through an interpreter .

Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. (1Co 14:12-13 KJV)

God is speaking to us through the Holy Spirit for those with ears to hear, and people need to seek this closer walk with God.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
5,739
728
113
Its seems simple to me. Find out by going to the foundation of doctrine of tongues in the Old testemtment Isaiah 28 and look to the law of it in 1 Coriorinthians 14 which confirm it. Then determine which group the "sign" is in reference to and what it actually does confirm.

Its like David said in the Psalms. If the unbeliever destroys the foundation of the doctrines of God how will we ever come to the truth of the matter? The doctrine is not a new testament foundation as most here seem to try and make it into. .( make a sound.. build your self up as evidence to everyone a person is a believer). Where in the end of the matter someone came up with a new lying wonder as a new innovation .
Isaiah 28 should not be interpreted in a way that contradicts the other things Paul says about speaking in tongues:
- 'Divers tongues' is among the gifts of the Spirit given to members of the body of Christ to benefit the whole.
- Speaking in tongues edifies the one who speaks.
- If one prays in tongues, he gives thanks well.
- The interpretation of a tongue edifies the assembly.

There are unbelievers and the unlearned who hear speaking in tongues and respond with unbelief. As Isaiah said, 'and yet for all that, they will not hear Me.'

Paul's quote from Isaiah 28 does not contradict or cancel anything else he taught in the passage.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
5,739
728
113
Kavik,

The evidence for the speaker not being able to understand speaking in tongues-- mysteries with his spirit, the implication that tongues are something other than speaking with 'the understanding', etc. is 10,000 stronger than the diglossia interpretation you have promoted on the forum in the past. From what I have read of the time period, it does not fit the historical picture. The high priestly family may have been somewhat Hellenistic. I've read some of the priests had Pharisees teaching them Hebrew. Where is the evidence that other languagues besides Hebrew were outlawed in the temple, which had a 'court of the Gentiles'? It makes sense that they would have done the rituals, especially the ones described in the Torah, using Hebrew. But to forbid non-priests from using Hebrew does not make sense considering the huge number of Greek-speakers. It's an elebaroate theory that does not fit the cultural context well, for which there is no support. It is also one that native Greek speakers who wrote on the subject did not hold to.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,958
1,521
113
Isaiah 28 should not be interpreted in a way that contradicts the other things Paul says about speaking in tongues:
- 'Divers tongues' is among the gifts of the Spirit given to members of the body of Christ to benefit the whole.
- Speaking in tongues edifies the one who speaks.
- If one prays in tongues, he gives thanks well.
- The interpretation of a tongue edifies the assembly.

There are unbelievers and the unlearned who hear speaking in tongues and respond with unbelief. As Isaiah said, 'and yet for all that, they will not hear Me.'

Paul's quote from Isaiah 28 does not contradict or cancel anything else he taught in the passage.
Its not interpreted in a way that contradicts the other things. Its all one law. No theories as oral traditions of men.

- 'Divers tongues' is among the gifts of the Spirit given to members of the body of Christ to benefit the whole. When God gave Peter a spiritual gift putting His interpretation on the lips of Peter just as he did on Balaam's donkey .God brought his gift of prophecy as those who clearly heard the gospel and believe the voice of God. 3000 were added in the twinkling of the eye. Not one ran around looking for a private interpretation saying what was God truly saying to me, or was he just making a noise . And the other person not knowing his language would make a noise to make sure the other acknowledged they were having a conversation with no understanding.

The unbelieving Jews spoken of in Isaiah 28 the foundation of the doctrine of tongues . They with stammering deriding lips mocked the prophecy of God according to Jerimiah 44. They would have nothing to do with God not seen .They were as a froward nation who spoke Hebrew (no faith, or reckoned as a atheist.)

Jerimiah 44:16-17 `The word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of Jehovah -- we are not hearkening unto thee;
for we certainly do everything that hath gone out of our mouth, to make perfume to the queen of the heavens, and to pour out to her libations, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our heads, in cities of Judah, and in streets of Jerusalem, and -- we are satisfied with bread, and we are well, and evil we have not seen.

God simply mocking those who mocked Him bring his interptation in respect to all the nations of the word and not those who only spoke in the Hebrew . The sign confirms un belif no faith .and not belif in respect to His faith that worked in the 3000 that day

To the law Isiah 28 and the testimony 1 Corinthians 14 if they speak not according to the two witnessed its easy to see who the sign points to and what it does confirm .


The law....Isaiah 28:11-15 For by scorned lip, and by another tongue, Doth He speak unto this people.Unto whom He hath said, `This [is] the rest, give ye rest to the weary, And this -- the refreshing:' And they have not been willing to hear, And to whom a word of Jehovah hath been, Rule on rule, rule on rule, line on line, line on line, A little here, a little there, So that they go and have stumbled backward, And been broken, and snared, and captured.Therefore, hear a word of Jehovah, ye men of scorning, Ruling this people that [is] in Jerusalem.Because ye have said: `We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we have made a provision, An overflowing scourge, when it passeth over, Doth not meet us, Though we have made a lie our refuge, And in falsehood have been hidden.'

The testimony….1 Corinthians 14:21-22 in the law it hath been written, that, `With other tongues and with other lips I will speak to this people, and not even so will they hear Me, saith the Lord;' so that the tongues are for a sign, "not to the believing", but to the unbelieving; and the prophesy (hearing God) is not for the unbelieving (no faith) , but for the believing,

The sign of mocking lips is still I effect. No such thing as sign gifts, sign as a curse, never as a blessing. .Sign serve for those who rebel throughout the scriptures. This does not include a sign and wonder like that of Jonas in respect to the living sacrifices of Christ on the cross . Signs and wonders or signs with a wonders as a source of unseen faith was that to looked ahead . They have no place today.

Its natural man that walks after the things seen, the temporal and not the thing not seen the eternal that does seek after them .

Turning tongues up side down as to what it does confirm and making the sign a gift rather than a curse is not a biblical principle . but rather takes away His understanding

Luke 11:29 And the multitudes crowding together upon him, he began to say, `This generation is evil, a sign it doth seek after, and a sign shall not be given to it, except the sign of Jonah the prophet,
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
5,405
2,648
113
Tongue.
G1100
γλῶσσα
glōssa
gloce'-sah
Of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired): - tongue.
Total KJV occurrences: 50

Not tongues of fire. Not shoe leather. Not human language, but a spiritual gift from the Comforter (the Holy Spirit i.e. God) who was promised by Jesus to be with us for the edification of the church through an interpreter .

Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. (1Co 14:12-13 KJV)

God is speaking to us through the Holy Spirit for those with ears to hear, and people need to seek this closer walk with God.
Not human language

I think you need to review Acts Ch 2 again.

“Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.

Language linked to tongues
dialektō linked to glōssais
A real, known and commonly spoken language.
If it were babbling gibberish it would have been useless.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,958
1,521
113
Isaiah 28 should not be interpreted in a way that contradicts the other things Paul says about speaking in tongues:
- 'Divers tongues' is among the gifts of the Spirit given to members of the body of Christ to benefit the whole.
- Speaking in tongues edifies the one who speaks.
- If one prays in tongues, he gives thanks well.
- The interpretation of a tongue edifies the assembly.

There are unbelievers and the unlearned who hear speaking in tongues and respond with unbelief. As Isaiah said, 'and yet for all that, they will not hear Me.'

Paul's quote from Isaiah 28 does not contradict or cancel anything else he taught in the passage.
Thanks for the reply and opportunity to offer my opinion. Sorry for the rambling in advance.

You referenced; " yet for all that, they will not hear Me." I would question. 'Yet for all what they will not hear Me.? They refused to believe the word of God in the Hebrew language. The yet for all of that is understood more like; "And they have not been willing to hear "according the Youngs literal translation . It was a "offensive saying" or called "hard saying" as used in John6:60. They had no faith in God not seen or what the bible calls fools... those not believing prophecy but rather doing whatsoever their own mouths said as oral traditions of men (Jerimiah 44). Tongues and therefore the sign that confirms un belief (no faith) was not put into effect until the time of reformation. The law was prophesied beforehand in Isaiah 28. Fulfilled accordioning to Acts 2. Witnessed by 1 Corinthians 14:22-23.

Its not interpreted in a way that contradicts the other things. Its all one cohesive law. No theories as oral traditions of men.

Divers tongues as interpretations from God is among the gifts of the Spirit given to members of the body of Christ to benefit the whole. When God gave Peter a spiritual gift putting His interpretation on the lips of Peter just as he did on Balaam's donkey it as a work of faith stopped the madness of the false prophet Balaam.

God brings his gift of prophecy to those who clearly heard the gospel and believed the voice of God not seen.. 3000 were added in the twinkling of the eye. Not one person ran around looking for a private interpretation saying..... what was God truly saying to me I heard a noise.? Or was he just making a noise? And the other person not knowing his language would make a noise to make sure the other acknowledged they were having a conversation with no understanding.

Tongues is simply a interpterion of God called prophecy spoken of in all the languages of the world and not just the Hebrew language , They mocked God as those with no faith in God, not seen .He simply shows he will not be mocked by the things of men seen reaping what they did sow
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
609
128
43
The evidence for the speaker not being able to understand speaking in tongues-- mysteries with his spirit, the implication that tongues are something other than speaking with 'the understanding', etc. is 10,000 stronger........
A quick response...

How do you arrive at “mysteries within his spirit” from “howbeit in the Spirit he utters mysteries”??

From the Greek - literally “the one indeed speaking with a language, not to men speaks, but to God; no one indeed hears; in spirit however, he utters mysteries.”

The interesting thing is that the word ‘hears’ is used in the sense of ‘understand’, or better yet, ‘hear with understanding’.

I don’t think it changes the meaning or inference though – to add the context: if someone is speaking a (foreign) language, he’s really not speaking to men (read, “other people at the worship service”), but to God (who understands all languages); no one understands (or it could be argued – no one is paying attention to him/no one is really listening to him/no one ‘hears’ him with any degree of understanding). Though he may be praying as the spirit leads/inspires him; (as far as the audience/hearers are concerned) he’s uttering ‘mysteries’ (as no one understands his language), an idiomatic way of saying “it’s all Greek to us” (well, obviously if it was Greek in this case, there’d be no issue, but trust you get the idea).

An issue here is the Pentecostal/Charismatic redefinition of “praying in the spirit” – it does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.

No modern tongues-speech, no question of whether or not the speaker understands himself, just an ordinary language situation in a multi-lingual environment such as Corinth.

Where are you getting “the implication that tongues are something other than speaking with ‘the understanding’ ..“?? Are you referring back to 1 Cor 15 or 19? With respect to the above, the only ones who are not ‘understanding’ are those in the audience as they do not know the speaker’s language.

To touch a bit on your other points –

I think you have misunderstood. ecclesiastical diglossia does not forbid non-priests from using Hebrew in the Temple. Not sure where you got that from. It has nothing to do with non-priests; other languages were not ‘outlawed’.

The Jewish tradition of ecclesiastical diglossia was for the teacher (typically the rabbi) to use Hebrew first as the language of ‘instruction’, then translate into the vernacular (whatever it may be – usually Greek or Aramaic). The teacher could translate it himself if he was able or have someone translate for him. As I’ve mentioned in other posts, because of the Hellenization of that area of the world (essentially the lands of the Western Diaspora), and of course in Greece itself, Greek was essentially replacing Hebrew as an acceptable alternative as a sacerdotal language for Judaism in the Western Diaspora.

In the Pentecost narrative, if analyzed with respect to languages, without getting into detail, we have Jews from all over the Eastern and Western Diaspora as well as Judea itself. A lot of places, but only two languages and the apostles would have spoken both. The reason for astonishment, questioning, accusations, etc. among the ‘crowd’ of attendees was because by breaking with tradition and bypassing the “Hebrew first” concept, the apostles effectively publicly made the Jewish God available to all people any language completely dispensing with Jewish tradition. To many people this was unthinkable. Many there would have expected to have heard the apostles addressing the crowd in Hebrew first, then the vernaculars (Aramaic and Greek). Was there perhaps a bit of “poetic license” on the part of the author describing the crowd’s reaction – I think, for dramatic effect, perhaps just a bit.

Native Greek speakers who wrote on the subject would have been proponents of promoting the idea of the usage of Greek over any other language, so it’s not really surprising to find they didn’t hold to the idea of teachers in the temple using “Hebrew first”.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
5,405
2,648
113
A quick response...

How do you arrive at “mysteries within his spirit” from “howbeit in the Spirit he utters mysteries”??

From the Greek - literally “the one indeed speaking with a language, not to men speaks, but to God; no one indeed hears; in spirit however, he utters mysteries.”

The interesting thing is that the word ‘hears’ is used in the sense of ‘understand’, or better yet, ‘hear with understanding’.

I don’t think it changes the meaning or inference though – to add the context: if someone is speaking a (foreign) language, he’s really not speaking to men (read, “other people at the worship service”), but to God (who understands all languages); no one understands (or it could be argued – no one is paying attention to him/no one is really listening to him/no one ‘hears’ him with any degree of understanding). Though he may be praying as the spirit leads/inspires him; (as far as the audience/hearers are concerned) he’s uttering ‘mysteries’ (as no one understands his language), an idiomatic way of saying “it’s all Greek to us” (well, obviously if it was Greek in this case, there’d be no issue, but trust you get the idea).

An issue here is the Pentecostal/Charismatic redefinition of “praying in the spirit” – it does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.

No modern tongues-speech, no question of whether or not the speaker understands himself, just an ordinary language situation in a multi-lingual environment such as Corinth.

Where are you getting “the implication that tongues are something other than speaking with ‘the understanding’ ..“?? Are you referring back to 1 Cor 15 or 19? With respect to the above, the only ones who are not ‘understanding’ are those in the audience as they do not know the speaker’s language.

To touch a bit on your other points –

I think you have misunderstood. ecclesiastical diglossia does not forbid non-priests from using Hebrew in the Temple. Not sure where you got that from. It has nothing to do with non-priests; other languages were not ‘outlawed’.

The Jewish tradition of ecclesiastical diglossia was for the teacher (typically the rabbi) to use Hebrew first as the language of ‘instruction’, then translate into the vernacular (whatever it may be – usually Greek or Aramaic). The teacher could translate it himself if he was able or have someone translate for him. As I’ve mentioned in other posts, because of the Hellenization of that area of the world (essentially the lands of the Western Diaspora), and of course in Greece itself, Greek was essentially replacing Hebrew as an acceptable alternative as a sacerdotal language for Judaism in the Western Diaspora.

In the Pentecost narrative, if analyzed with respect to languages, without getting into detail, we have Jews from all over the Eastern and Western Diaspora as well as Judea itself. A lot of places, but only two languages and the apostles would have spoken both. The reason for astonishment, questioning, accusations, etc. among the ‘crowd’ of attendees was because by breaking with tradition and bypassing the “Hebrew first” concept, the apostles effectively publicly made the Jewish God available to all people any language completely dispensing with Jewish tradition. To many people this was unthinkable. Many there would have expected to have heard the apostles addressing the crowd in Hebrew first, then the vernaculars (Aramaic and Greek). Was there perhaps a bit of “poetic license” on the part of the author describing the crowd’s reaction – I think, for dramatic effect, perhaps just a bit.

Native Greek speakers who wrote on the subject would have been proponents of promoting the idea of the usage of Greek over any other language, so it’s not really surprising to find they didn’t hold to the idea of teachers in the temple using “Hebrew first”.
“Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will.

That's the way I see it.
 

RickyZ

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2012
9,635
785
113
among the babble and baby talk there can't be a legitimate use.

I will consider that statement as an admission that those type of tongues are some kind of incoherent babble.
No, I will admit that satan falsifies the true tongue with baby talk and babble. But just because someone counterfeits a genuine article does not mean the genuine article no longer exists.

The Charismatic and Pentecostal groups you focus on are precisely why Paul wrote 1 Cor 14. They are out of line, yes.

But again, doing something wrong does not mean the right way does not exist.

How about I consider your statements here as an admission that "Should I encounter genuine tongues, I there is a good chance that I will be able to confirm the incident" is itself a lie because of a closed mind? You have to be open to the reality in order to discern between fake and real. To you, it is 100% fake and thus there is no discernment to be had.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,958
1,521
113
A quick response...

How do you arrive at “mysteries within his spirit” from “howbeit in the Spirit he utters mysteries”??

From the Greek - literally “the one indeed speaking with a language, not to men speaks, but to God; no one indeed hears; in spirit however, he utters mysteries.”

The interesting thing is that the word ‘hears’ is used in the sense of ‘understand’, or better yet, ‘hear with understanding’.
I would agree when Christ spoke in Acts 2 he gave a hearing with understanding. 3000 heard the mystery of the gospel and in the twinkling of the eye joined the family of God.

Prophecy is the mystery of God made know by the spiritual understanding hid in the parables. Likened as Hidden mana . with the word manna meaning with no other meaning "what is it"" as in no familiarity .

God is not a man as us . The peace of God surpasses all human understanding . It is to the glory of God not seen to conceal a matter but a privilege to a j kingdom of kings which he does call us kings to search out the spiritual understanding hid from the lost.

Without parables like the one I am offering below the mysteries were not made known


Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings (believers) is to "search" out a matter
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,958
1,521
113
No, I will admit that satan falsifies the true tongue with baby talk and babble. But just because someone counterfeits a genuine article does not mean the genuine article no longer exists.
It exists in the perfect now that we no longer have it in part. We are warned not to ad to it or substract from it now that we have the whole . God not longer bringing any new prophecy in any manner to include prophecy in many languages (tongues) and not Hebrew alone.
 

Waggles

Senior Member
Sep 21, 2017
3,338
1,248
113
South
adelaiderevival.com
Pentecostalism and the modern charismatic movement have their genesis in a private interpretation of 1 Cor 12-14. The appearance of tongues in Acts 2 is a specific account of what happened that day. There is no evidence that the Acts 2 tongues are the tongues claimed in the modern charismatic or Pentecostal church.
Your ignorance is sad …
also there is no evidence that the Acts 2 tongues are not the same as what is spoken as prayer language today in Pentecost.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
5,405
2,648
113
Your ignorance is sad …
also there is no evidence that the Acts 2 tongues are not the same as what is spoken as prayer language today in Pentecost.
2Tim 4:2-4
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables."

"The emphasis concerning things which are largely speculative is to avoid them. Focus on what is known for certain."
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,958
1,521
113
Your ignorance is sad …
also there is no evidence that the Acts 2 tongues are not the same as what is spoken as prayer language today in Pentecost.

Prayer language what's that? Is it different then back then? The good ole days.

What is prayer language other than a request made that the person is aware of? Do you have to be Pentecostal to understand? Does God speak the Pentecostal language ?

Prayer language that is requesting what specifically? The prayer language we all know .Think of a need and ask for it? Or make a noise and hope someone hears it to confirm a person has vocal cords? And call that self edification.

Where is this language found as a doctrine?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
15,346
8,345
113
Prayer language what's that? Is it different then back then? The good ole days.

What is prayer language other than a request made that the person is aware of? Do you have to be Pentecostal to understand? Does God speak the Pentecostal language ?

Prayer language that is requesting what specifically? The prayer language we all know .Think of a need and ask for it? Or make a noise and hope someone hears it to confirm a person has vocal cords? And call that self edification.

Where is this language found as a doctrine?
Garee, that's simply ridiculous. It's a classic straw man argument, and a misunderstanding of the text, and a misrepresentation of the position with which you disagree.

And frankly, it's beneath you.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,958
1,521
113
Garee, that's simply ridiculous. It's a classic straw man argument, and a misunderstanding of the text, and a misrepresentation of the position with which you disagree.

And frankly, it's beneath you.
Sorry, I could of handled that differently . But really where did the idea of "prayer language" come from? Is it a doctrine? How is it different than any other language? I would thing to request something is the same in any language . Why make it as if there was a difference.