Speaking in tongues
- Thread starter blessedafrican
- Start date
-
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.
Rational from whose perspective? If someone were to speak in tongues in Hottentot, the speaker does not know the language and no one in the audience does not know that, is that 'rationale.'
Again, I am referring to how Paul contrasts speaking in tongues with speaking with 'the understanding' in the passage.
I Corinthians 14
18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. (NKJV)
Please read those verses carefully and not that the implication is that if he speaks in tongues it is not 'with my understanding.' If he understood the languages he spoke in tongues, he would be speaking 'with his understanding.' In verse 18-19 above, he treats speaking in tongues and speaking with the understanding as two different categories, treating speaking in tongues as if it is not something done with his mind/understanding.
There may not be evidence in archeology for all the languages spoken, especially the ones that were not written. But the Bible leaves us some evidence. There was apparently a language of the Lyaconians in Acts 14. Acts 2 indicates that there were languages spoken throughout the various regions the visitors in Jerusalem came from.
That may have been true of the cities. It is less likely to be true of villages in rural areas, IMO. Even in the holy land, Hebrew langauges apparently continued on. There was a Jewish scholar who could not remember a Hebrew word, so he asked his maid. The people of the land did not all go into captivity.
So basically, you take speaking in tongues to mean speaking with the understanding. But Paul treats them as two different categories.
Again, I am referring to how Paul contrasts speaking in tongues with speaking with 'the understanding' in the passage.
I Corinthians 14
18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. (NKJV)
Please read those verses carefully and not that the implication is that if he speaks in tongues it is not 'with my understanding.' If he understood the languages he spoke in tongues, he would be speaking 'with his understanding.' In verse 18-19 above, he treats speaking in tongues and speaking with the understanding as two different categories, treating speaking in tongues as if it is not something done with his mind/understanding.
There may not be evidence in archeology for all the languages spoken, especially the ones that were not written. But the Bible leaves us some evidence. There was apparently a language of the Lyaconians in Acts 14. Acts 2 indicates that there were languages spoken throughout the various regions the visitors in Jerusalem came from.
That may have been true of the cities. It is less likely to be true of villages in rural areas, IMO. Even in the holy land, Hebrew langauges apparently continued on. There was a Jewish scholar who could not remember a Hebrew word, so he asked his maid. The people of the land did not all go into captivity.
So basically, you take speaking in tongues to mean speaking with the understanding. But Paul treats them as two different categories.
-
1
- Show all
Paul had an infirmity that caused him to minister to the Galatians early in his apostolic ministry, probably in Acts 14, and at least by the time he delivered the council of Jerusalem in Acts 16.
Does this early illmess prove that healing was no more and that he did not do the mighty miracles in Ephesus recorded in Acts, or heal all the sick brought to him on an island toward the end of the book of Acts?
I would say that the argument that Paul left Trophimus sick on Miletus is some sort of evidence for cessation of the gifts of healing is a classic case of eisegesis.
Does this early illmess prove that healing was no more and that he did not do the mighty miracles in Ephesus recorded in Acts, or heal all the sick brought to him on an island toward the end of the book of Acts?
I would say that the argument that Paul left Trophimus sick on Miletus is some sort of evidence for cessation of the gifts of healing is a classic case of eisegesis.
What do you mean their is not a GROAN or utterance that God does not know. What language is that seeing unless a clear message is heard. How could on perform the request of the sound? The whole creation groan in expectation of the coming of the Sons of God
God understanding our thoughts and intents of our heart. (no sound)
Tongues is simply God( not man ) brining his pronecy in other langugaes other than Hebrew alobe . They mock god by not believing prophecy but rather whatsoever comes form their own mouths . Just like this newer oral tradition of men theay they call tonguseges.
If the law is read in 1 Corinthians 14 it becomes clear to what the dign confirms and who it points to . In that was when we lok to the foundation in Isiah 28 it clear That God is simply mocking those wheo theing the vac mock him.
Do the homework rightly disivide God prophecy as His interprestation to us .
God understanding our thoughts and intents of our heart. (no sound)
Tongues is simply God( not man ) brining his pronecy in other langugaes other than Hebrew alobe . They mock god by not believing prophecy but rather whatsoever comes form their own mouths . Just like this newer oral tradition of men theay they call tonguseges.
If the law is read in 1 Corinthians 14 it becomes clear to what the dign confirms and who it points to . In that was when we lok to the foundation in Isiah 28 it clear That God is simply mocking those wheo theing the vac mock him.
Do the homework rightly disivide God prophecy as His interprestation to us .
@bygrace (response to post 3,707)
I am very familiar with the Univ. of PA study using SPECT imaging. The results are rather inconclusive as they can be presented to support either view.
I would argue that the results are exactly as one would expect. The language producing centers of the brain are not overly engaged in the production of glossolalia simply because glossolalia is not language; it’s non-cognitive, non-language utterance. Parts of the brain that control things like pleasure, relaxation, the feeling of euphoria, etc. are heightened which, seems to account for the positive “tongues experience” as previously described. One could also reasonably argue that the latter effects are produced because that’s what the ‘speakers’ expect to happen – another argument for a self- produced/created phenomenon.
I am by no means mocking or attacking. Just stating fact. As I’ve previously stated, tongues/glossolalia is indeed a powerful spiritual tool (but a self-created tool nonetheless).
@Waggles (post 3,711) –
Sorry – nothing in that passage addresses modern tongues-speech. Praying in the Spirit is as how I have described it above. Equating ‘praying in the Spirit’ to “speaking tongues-speech” comes from the reworking and redefinition of these passages by the early Pentecostal/Charismatic churches. Praying in the Spirit describes how you’re praying, not what language you’re doing it in.
Again, let me remind you that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ – I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. Cessationist vs, non-cessationist is a bit of a false dichotomy; gifts ceasing is mentioned only once in one short sentence and the remainder of the Bible is totally silent on the matter. The one place it is mentioned is rarely taken into context of the entire passage. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”; people still speak.
@ Presidente (post 3,722) –
Rational from whose perspective? If someone were to speak in tongues in Hottentot, the speaker does not know the language and no one in the audience does not know that, is that 'rationale.'
No, that would be xenoglossy, of which no legitimate true cases have ever been found/documented.
18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. (NKJV)
You’re making these passages to fit the modern tongues experience. What you’re suggesting just isn’t there. “tongues” = real language. Paul puts it this way to illustrate a point (see original post and further below).
There are two schools of thought on Lyaconian – possibly an Anatolian language related to Hittite (making it also an Indo-European language), or just a dialect of Greek. The evidence in Acts seems to strongly support the Greek view.
So basically, you take speaking in tongues to mean speaking with the understanding. But Paul treats them as two different categories.
No. For the speaker it is just speaking a foreign language regardless of the level of fluency. Paul seems to treat them separately for the reason I described in the original post. He’s trying to make a point.
I am very familiar with the Univ. of PA study using SPECT imaging. The results are rather inconclusive as they can be presented to support either view.
I would argue that the results are exactly as one would expect. The language producing centers of the brain are not overly engaged in the production of glossolalia simply because glossolalia is not language; it’s non-cognitive, non-language utterance. Parts of the brain that control things like pleasure, relaxation, the feeling of euphoria, etc. are heightened which, seems to account for the positive “tongues experience” as previously described. One could also reasonably argue that the latter effects are produced because that’s what the ‘speakers’ expect to happen – another argument for a self- produced/created phenomenon.
I am by no means mocking or attacking. Just stating fact. As I’ve previously stated, tongues/glossolalia is indeed a powerful spiritual tool (but a self-created tool nonetheless).
@Waggles (post 3,711) –
Sorry – nothing in that passage addresses modern tongues-speech. Praying in the Spirit is as how I have described it above. Equating ‘praying in the Spirit’ to “speaking tongues-speech” comes from the reworking and redefinition of these passages by the early Pentecostal/Charismatic churches. Praying in the Spirit describes how you’re praying, not what language you’re doing it in.
Again, let me remind you that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ – I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. Cessationist vs, non-cessationist is a bit of a false dichotomy; gifts ceasing is mentioned only once in one short sentence and the remainder of the Bible is totally silent on the matter. The one place it is mentioned is rarely taken into context of the entire passage. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”; people still speak.
@ Presidente (post 3,722) –
Rational from whose perspective? If someone were to speak in tongues in Hottentot, the speaker does not know the language and no one in the audience does not know that, is that 'rationale.'
No, that would be xenoglossy, of which no legitimate true cases have ever been found/documented.
18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. (NKJV)
You’re making these passages to fit the modern tongues experience. What you’re suggesting just isn’t there. “tongues” = real language. Paul puts it this way to illustrate a point (see original post and further below).
There are two schools of thought on Lyaconian – possibly an Anatolian language related to Hittite (making it also an Indo-European language), or just a dialect of Greek. The evidence in Acts seems to strongly support the Greek view.
So basically, you take speaking in tongues to mean speaking with the understanding. But Paul treats them as two different categories.
No. For the speaker it is just speaking a foreign language regardless of the level of fluency. Paul seems to treat them separately for the reason I described in the original post. He’s trying to make a point.
Mine also.
What comes after the last chapter (Revelation) in the book of prophecy ?
Really? We hug those for God moving them to both will and do His good pleasure? sounds like a plan to venerate the things seen.
I would think hugging the one who performs the labor of love or work of faith would be more appropriate.
The canonization of our Bible is a spiritual fact. He has placed a seal of His approval on it .
Fact is they have more than 66 books. And are still adding secretly or privately because their Holy Mother asked it. That can be seen in the "law of the fathers" that they must call apostolic succession below .
Pope Urban VIII on Private Revelation
His Holiness, Pope Urban VIII stated: "In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother asked it. If you believe, and it should be proven false, you will receive all blessings "as if" it had been true, because you believed it to be true."(Pope Urban VIII, 1623-44)
Its how the oral traditions of men make the word of God without effect . Seeing no man can serve two masters . the things of men seen and those of God not seen. the eternal .
I would think we have enough words? if its the holy mother that asks a Catholic, who is asking others that seek after the things seen before they will believe?
What comes after the last chapter (Revelation) in the book of prophecy ?
Really? We hug those for God moving them to both will and do His good pleasure? sounds like a plan to venerate the things seen.
I would think hugging the one who performs the labor of love or work of faith would be more appropriate.
The canonization of our Bible is a spiritual fact. He has placed a seal of His approval on it .
Fact is they have more than 66 books. And are still adding secretly or privately because their Holy Mother asked it. That can be seen in the "law of the fathers" that they must call apostolic succession below .
Pope Urban VIII on Private Revelation
His Holiness, Pope Urban VIII stated: "In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother asked it. If you believe, and it should be proven false, you will receive all blessings "as if" it had been true, because you believed it to be true."(Pope Urban VIII, 1623-44)
Its how the oral traditions of men make the word of God without effect . Seeing no man can serve two masters . the things of men seen and those of God not seen. the eternal .
I would think we have enough words? if its the holy mother that asks a Catholic, who is asking others that seek after the things seen before they will believe?
Speaking of the Pope of Rome.....
https://tinyurl.com/ybkko32h
Just thought everyone should know.....
https://tinyurl.com/ybkko32h
Just thought everyone should know.....
There does seem to be a pre-warning in Mark 13 ( I have foretold you all things in respect to if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not) as to new prophecy which include any manner . People still speak existing prophecy what I call the perfect. It would seem to aid the 1 Corinthians 13 warning. and the lack of a addition to the word to the whole or perfect for over two thousands years .
Mark 13:19 -26 King James Version (KJV) And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.But take ye heed: behold, "I have foretold you all things". But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
If we would make the perfect spoken of in 1 Corinthians 13 in respect to our new incorruptible bodies in the new heavens and earth remembering the former things will not come to mind. Then it would not make sense.
My pet peeve is when discussing speaking of tongues most do not look to the foundation for the reasoning of it .(Isaiah 28) Find out what the sign confirms and who is points too makes it easier to come to a conclusion .
Mark 13:19 -26 King James Version (KJV) And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.But take ye heed: behold, "I have foretold you all things". But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
If we would make the perfect spoken of in 1 Corinthians 13 in respect to our new incorruptible bodies in the new heavens and earth remembering the former things will not come to mind. Then it would not make sense.
My pet peeve is when discussing speaking of tongues most do not look to the foundation for the reasoning of it .(Isaiah 28) Find out what the sign confirms and who is points too makes it easier to come to a conclusion .
Some one mentioned I should be thankful to the Pope the King of Catholicism for telling me what the word of God is .He is the poster child of those who do add to the perfect with secret language or private interpretations.
Can you think of another that could represent what the scripture calls a daysman?
What comes after the last chapter (Revelation) in the book of prophecy ?
Can you think of another that could represent what the scripture calls a daysman?
What comes after the last chapter (Revelation) in the book of prophecy ?
The Bible says if one speaks in a tongue CORRECTLY, they will be edified.
There are many, many of us here who have spoken in tongues correctly, and have been edified.
So tongues fail your human test, but when done correctly they pass the Biblical test.
Perhaps the failure is not in the tongue but in the test.
There are many, many of us here who have spoken in tongues correctly, and have been edified.
So tongues fail your human test, but when done correctly they pass the Biblical test.
Perhaps the failure is not in the tongue but in the test.
-
1
- Show all
But again, and with all due respect, you're describing the experience, not the actual production of tongues-speech. My take is that the author of that quote's intention was on the actual "tongues" themselves, not the experience.
What would be the 'wrong/incorrect' way to speak a language (other than limiting the number of speakers in a public setting)?
What would be the 'wrong/incorrect' way to speak a language (other than limiting the number of speakers in a public setting)?
-
1
- Show all
Some general questions on 'tongues' …..
With respect to ‘modern tongues’, why do you think they are some sort of language?? Again, you can quote Biblical passages if you want, but I’d be more interested in why you think tongues are language(s).
Why would you think that the glossolalia/tongues of say a shaman in some remote part of the world is any different or any less divine than your tongue(s)?? Perhaps better stated, do you view only the Christian form of tongues as “legitimate”? If so, why? What makes the others less real/legitimate than yours?
If you hear tongues-speech and think it is somehow ‘demonic’ – what makes you think that?? The speaker, the tone, intonation, the actual sounds themselves, what?
On that same note, if you hear tongue-speech and think it is “being faked” – what exactly do you think the speaker is faking?
Have you ever recorded yourself speaking in tongues and then played it back and really listened to what you were producing?? If so, did you notice anything/what did you notice? If not, why not?
How do you account for multiple, unrelated, interpretations of the same utterance; i.e. play the same utterance to ten different people who can interpret and get ten completely different answers??
With respect to tongues supposedly coming out as real language the speaker does not know (xenoglossy), here are a few additional questions specific to this reported phenomenon:
Is the speaker actually shifting their ‘tongues’ to a real language?
What is being heard (or would be heard) by a third party bystander – tongues or real language? In other words, would everyone hear the target language, or just the recipient?
Is the 'recipient' physically hearing the speaker in his/her language? This is related to the first question.
Is the 'recipient' only subconsciously hearing his/her own language? Also related to the first question.
With respect to the 'recipient', what is s/he actually hearing; a word or two or a phrase repeated over and over, or an actual short monologue?
With respect to ‘modern tongues’, why do you think they are some sort of language?? Again, you can quote Biblical passages if you want, but I’d be more interested in why you think tongues are language(s).
Why would you think that the glossolalia/tongues of say a shaman in some remote part of the world is any different or any less divine than your tongue(s)?? Perhaps better stated, do you view only the Christian form of tongues as “legitimate”? If so, why? What makes the others less real/legitimate than yours?
If you hear tongues-speech and think it is somehow ‘demonic’ – what makes you think that?? The speaker, the tone, intonation, the actual sounds themselves, what?
On that same note, if you hear tongue-speech and think it is “being faked” – what exactly do you think the speaker is faking?
Have you ever recorded yourself speaking in tongues and then played it back and really listened to what you were producing?? If so, did you notice anything/what did you notice? If not, why not?
How do you account for multiple, unrelated, interpretations of the same utterance; i.e. play the same utterance to ten different people who can interpret and get ten completely different answers??
With respect to tongues supposedly coming out as real language the speaker does not know (xenoglossy), here are a few additional questions specific to this reported phenomenon:
Is the speaker actually shifting their ‘tongues’ to a real language?
What is being heard (or would be heard) by a third party bystander – tongues or real language? In other words, would everyone hear the target language, or just the recipient?
Is the 'recipient' physically hearing the speaker in his/her language? This is related to the first question.
Is the 'recipient' only subconsciously hearing his/her own language? Also related to the first question.
With respect to the 'recipient', what is s/he actually hearing; a word or two or a phrase repeated over and over, or an actual short monologue?
-
1
- Show all
your humanistic approach to understanding spiritual things in context to the word of God is the issue. can one make up a language? that is what you're saying, after stressing that it is an incoherent non-language after calling it a made up one. You can't have it both ways. The study conducted by UPA was not to provide anything to you, as I stated you would not accept it. You have a bias and that is why I said the final authority is the word of God which you have not shown the ending of any of the gifts of the Holy Spirit found in 1corinthians chapters 12 to 14.... none. Are those who misuse the gifts? Absolutely, yet that does not mean they are not in operation. Nor are you or people like you, the final authority on the Charismata and the Phumetekia. The word of God is. Your approval is not needed.
if one's assessment is out of a bais it is not a real assessment. Antone who seek to conduct a " Acts 2 test" is the most foolish thing I have heard said yet. Human reasoning conducting a test about spiritual things only received by faith. So now you are the sole authenticator of the word of God now? What a prideful, perverted statement to be said.
What's the biblical test . The law in 1 Corinthians 14 21-22?
If one speaks in a language that informs CORRECTLY, they will be edified.
The word tongue must be defined according to its foundation (Isaiah 28) .
Seeing no one can see two masters . What does the sign according to the law in 1 Corinthians point to and what does it confirm?
If one speaks in a language that informs CORRECTLY, they will be edified.
The word tongue must be defined according to its foundation (Isaiah 28) .
Seeing no one can see two masters . What does the sign according to the law in 1 Corinthians point to and what does it confirm?