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.

Absolutely

Well-known member
Jul 23, 2018
1,503
275
83
First off the "tongues was not taught LOL it was and is a supernatural gift of the Holy Spirit. That is your argument against the “gifts of the Holy Spirit those who do speak in tongues were taught to do so or making it up or it is fake or it is a pagan practice.


You were shown, but pride has blinded you from seeing the gifts of the Holy Spirit which 1cor chapter 12 calls them.
They preach and taught salvation in no other but Christ to that I say amen.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit were given to those as the Holy Spirit willed, as 1corthians says starting at verse 3 -6

I posted this weeks ago clearly you did not see it. Read you will see the INSTRUCTION concerning Gifts of the Holy Spirit,

:3 the introduction: "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

verse : 7 "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

verses 8 to 10 List the gifts :
:8 "For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
:9 "To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;"
:10 " To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

verse 11 "But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

They were not taught they were given, in chapter 13 and 14 Paul teaches how they ARE TO BE USED. You have the gift or you don't
The Holy Spirit gives as HE sees, they are used for the betterment of all, and we are told to use them in love , seek and desire them and then we are told not to forbid to use them.
The Book of acts the term " they taught them how to speak in tongues is not used nor said Because it is a gift even in and BY the Holy Spirit.

This is not even about Pentecostals or charismatics you have bias twisted dislike for them oh well that is you.

I hang my understanding on what is seen and said BY Jesus in Mark 16 John 14 to 16, the Book of Acts 1cor chapters 12 to 14 in context to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. You have for the 1000 times the answer you will not accept.
Cessationists are taught. They have their "starting place" there.
Other cessationists taught them cessationism.
IOW,because their experience is "JESUS QUIT" they have no need or responsibility,or hunger for more.
In their starting place they align the word ABOVE the spirit.
Jesus and the Holy Spirit are limited to the cessationists knowledge.
That is WHY they are paranoid of the gifts.
They can muster a tiny bit of spirit in salvation. But teachers teach them Jesus just saves to position for salvation. They don't need or want the spirit realm. No hunger.
From that platform they reason God wants certain people sick,and since ther leaders don't believe in the baptism in the Holy Spirit it must have somehow ceased.

I can not imagine operating without the gifts. I am so thankful i have none of that cessationism to unlearn.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
8,550
3,359
113
There's no such thing as Paul's gospel, there's one gospel which the Lord preached through his words and actions and then later preached through the tongues of His appointed servants.
Still you willfully misinterpret my words.

No. I hold no position as such but i know what i'm talking about.
There's a non-answer.

"From now on"/ "from this moment on" is one and the same thing, doesn't really matter, we all know what it means. Considering that John was writing the revelation promptly, from the moment he penned those words as the revelation came, he ratified the new covenant because as it says, from that time onward, blessed are they that die in the Lord- simply means that the apostles and the 1st century church had already completed their mission of preaching the gospel to all the nations as a witness and now the 'end' had officially started from that point onward too.
Ah... so you're comfortable making up your own meanings for passages to suit your belief.

I don't rely on history so much but the scripture.
History is important. If you can't affirm that Scripture was completed before the end of the first century, we aren't on the same page anyway.

It is not a matter of seeing it in a certain way, it is what it is.
1 Cor 13 is about love/ 1 John 4 is also about love. There's only one Love and so they MUST be talking about this one love. It is love that makes perfect in both passages, there isn't any other way to look at it.
It seems to me that you are content to throw your version of things at others and simply misinterpret or dismiss anything that doesn't agree with it. I see little point in continuing this conversation with you.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
2,800
419
83
History is important. If you can't affirm that Scripture was completed before the end of the first century, we aren't on the same page anyway.
I have no problem with that.

It seems to me that you are content to throw your version of things at others and simply misinterpret or dismiss anything that doesn't agree with it. I see little point in continuing this conversation with you.
Reality is not 'my version of things', it's universal.
There aren't varied versions of love, the love being spoken of in 1 Cor 13 is the same love being spoken of in 1 John 4 and the 'perfect' that is being spoken of in 1 Cor 13 is the same 'perfect' being spoken of in 1 John 4, the knowing God being spoken of in 1 Cor 13 is the same knowing being spoken of in 1 John 4. Stop pretending you know of something else and even if you had something in mind, a different interpretation, you'd have already let it known, but there isn't.

I also see little point continuing with this.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
8,550
3,359
113
I have no problem with that.



Reality is not 'my version of things', it's universal.
There aren't varied versions of love, the love being spoken of in 1 Cor 13 is the same love being spoken of in 1 John 4 and the 'perfect' that is being spoken of in 1 Cor 13 is the same 'perfect' being spoken of in 1 John 4, the knowing God being spoken of in 1 Cor 13 is the same knowing being spoken of in 1 John 4. Stop pretending you know of something else and even if you had something in mind, a different interpretation, you'd have already let it known, but there isn't.

I also see little point continuing with this.
Ah... finally we agree. May the Lord bless you.
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
471
77
28
@CS1 (post #4,259) –

Essentially, you’re saying what a lot of people tell me – namely, that I’m trying to explain/understand something ‘supernatural’ in non-supernatural/human terms; trying to understand the ‘spiritual’ in ‘carnal’ terms.

If you’re doing something and I can show you exactly what you’re doing, how you’re doing it, and the entire process behind what you’re doing can all be explained in relatively simple terms, is it something supernatural, or just something natural being used in a supernatural (religious) context?

As the old saying goes, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks likes a duck……

The gift of languages is the ability to easily and quickly learn languages in order to spread the word of God to different nations and peoples (an oversimplification – see some of my posts above in this thread for further detail). In short, when this ability is used to further the glory of God, it can be termed a “spiritual gift”.

When Paul’s letter was written, he wasn’t addressing it to modern day Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians; he was addressing it to a church in a major seaport city rife with cultural and linguistic diversity, where everyday communication could be challenging at best. There just isn’t anything in Paul’s letter (or any other place ‘tongues’ are referenced) that does not describe real, rational; language(s) situations.

Can anyone have the God-given ability to learn languages quickly? Yup. But, as mentioned above, when said gift/ability is used to further the glory of God, that gift can be said to be ‘spiritual’. I might suggest that this is why “tongues” (read ‘languages’) is regarded as the least of the gifts Paul mentions. Considering he mentions gifts in three different places and the list is not quite the same in all three, this seems to suggest that just about any God-given gift/ability/talent, call it what you will, can be considered a “spiritual gift” if used in a ‘spiritual manner’ (using it for the further glory of God).

Why don’t people have similar explanations for the other gifts – I would have to argue that it’s because there is no ambiguity as to what they are. “Tongues” on the other hand, seem to be something grossly misunderstood, problematic, in most cases taken completely out of context, and in modern times, completely redefined to fit a very modern experience by a particular group of Christians.

Mind you, I’m completely differentiating “tongues” here from the “tongues experience” – they are two different things entirely. ‘Tongues’ as the tool they are (as described in some of my earlier posts) are a very powerful tool which can produce some pretty miraculous results (the "tongues experience"). But the tool itself, i.e. the “tongues” produced, is entirely self-created.

To reiterate what I’ve said in previous posts – the fact that what people are doing today is not to be found in the Biblical narratives does not in any way make it somehow wrong; but what you’re doing today is not at all what Paul is talking about, nor is it anything to be found in the Biblical narratives.

Yeah, translate/interpret - a bit of syntactical splitting of hairs. When something is written, it’s typically said to be “translated”, when spoken, it’s “interpreted”. In theory the same thing, but ‘interpretation’ opens itself to some leeway on the part of the interpreter; it’s not always as literal as a 'translation'.

The interpretation of tongues may also be said to be a self-created phenomenon. Interpretation is ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs.

There is absolutely nothing that correlates a glossic utterance with an interpretation.

Why is that? Interpretations are characterized by typically being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance (e.g. a 30 second utterance equating to twenty minutes of interpretation), rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’. In other words, have ten interpreters listen to a glossic string and you’ll get ten different (typically unrelated) “interpretations”. In short, when it comes to “tongues”, ‘The big brown dog is slow’, can also be interpreted as ‘The small white cat is quick’. These latter two characteristics do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. It fails even the most basic tests and criteria that define ‘communication’ itself.

The common come-back to the multiple interpretation issue is that God/the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to different people. As someone once put it, “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for ‘tongues’ in the first place.”

As I’ve mentioned I am neither a so-called cessationist or continuationist; I don’t identify with either term. Since Biblical tongues refer to real, rational language, and since people still speak, and many still have the ability to learn languages incredibly fast, ‘tongues’ (read 'languages') have not ceased.

A few quick asides, and to some of your points –
There is no such thing as “fake tongues” or “demonic tongues” – they are all produced in the exact same way. What would make you think they are somehow demonic? Is it the sounds that the glossic string contains? Tone, pitch – what? To use an analogy, is it because it sounds more like Tolkien’s “Black Speech” than his “Sindarin/Quenya Elvish” (i.e. it just “sounds evil”; God wouldn’t talk like that!)?

As far as ‘fake’ goes, what is there to fake? Random free vocalization is random free vocalization. That said, I actually do differentiate between “fake” and “real” glossolalia – ‘faking it’, for me, would mean that it’s something that looks and sounds like it’s being produced using an obvious conscious effort (kind of like watching and listening to someone speaking a fluent Pig Latin – you can almost see them transforming the words right before they say them), while ‘not faking it’, to me, would mean that the speaker is producing it on a subconscious level; just letting the sounds flow as they come. Virtually no effort involved.

BTW – speaking for myself, there’s no intellectual desire to ‘know all’; there is however, a curiosity in studying and understanding an interesting, very tangible, linguistic phenomenon which also just happens to lend itself rather well to study.

Using Scripturam ex Scriptura exclusively, to put it somewhat bluntly, is a concept that is severely limiting, enforces a type of strict (religious) control over people, and tends to keep them from daring to think too far out of the box. The concept is fine, so long as it’s used in conjunction with allowing people to think and question. For some groups of Christians, however, not exclusively adhering to Scripturam ex Scriptura seems to be somewhat frowned upon.
 

stonesoffire

Poetic Member
Nov 24, 2013
9,103
1,067
113
@CS1 (post #4,259) –

Essentially, you’re saying what a lot of people tell me – namely, that I’m trying to explain/understand something ‘supernatural’ in non-supernatural/human terms; trying to understand the ‘spiritual’ in ‘carnal’ terms.

If you’re doing something and I can show you exactly what you’re doing, how you’re doing it, and the entire process behind what you’re doing can all be explained in relatively simple terms, is it something supernatural, or just something natural being used in a supernatural (religious) context?

As the old saying goes, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks likes a duck……

The gift of languages is the ability to easily and quickly learn languages in order to spread the word of God to different nations and peoples (an oversimplification – see some of my posts above in this thread for further detail). In short, when this ability is used to further the glory of God, it can be termed a “spiritual gift”.

When Paul’s letter was written, he wasn’t addressing it to modern day Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians; he was addressing it to a church in a major seaport city rife with cultural and linguistic diversity, where everyday communication could be challenging at best. There just isn’t anything in Paul’s letter (or any other place ‘tongues’ are referenced) that does not describe real, rational; language(s) situations.

Can anyone have the God-given ability to learn languages quickly? Yup. But, as mentioned above, when said gift/ability is used to further the glory of God, that gift can be said to be ‘spiritual’. I might suggest that this is why “tongues” (read ‘languages’) is regarded as the least of the gifts Paul mentions. Considering he mentions gifts in three different places and the list is not quite the same in all three, this seems to suggest that just about any God-given gift/ability/talent, call it what you will, can be considered a “spiritual gift” if used in a ‘spiritual manner’ (using it for the further glory of God).

Why don’t people have similar explanations for the other gifts – I would have to argue that it’s because there is no ambiguity as to what they are. “Tongues” on the other hand, seem to be something grossly misunderstood, problematic, in most cases taken completely out of context, and in modern times, completely redefined to fit a very modern experience by a particular group of Christians.

Mind you, I’m completely differentiating “tongues” here from the “tongues experience” – they are two different things entirely. ‘Tongues’ as the tool they are (as described in some of my earlier posts) are a very powerful tool which can produce some pretty miraculous results (the "tongues experience"). But the tool itself, i.e. the “tongues” produced, is entirely self-created.

To reiterate what I’ve said in previous posts – the fact that what people are doing today is not to be found in the Biblical narratives does not in any way make it somehow wrong; but what you’re doing today is not at all what Paul is talking about, nor is it anything to be found in the Biblical narratives.

Yeah, translate/interpret - a bit of syntactical splitting of hairs. When something is written, it’s typically said to be “translated”, when spoken, it’s “interpreted”. In theory the same thing, but ‘interpretation’ opens itself to some leeway on the part of the interpreter; it’s not always as literal as a 'translation'.

The interpretation of tongues may also be said to be a self-created phenomenon. Interpretation is ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs.

There is absolutely nothing that correlates a glossic utterance with an interpretation.

Why is that? Interpretations are characterized by typically being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance (e.g. a 30 second utterance equating to twenty minutes of interpretation), rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’. In other words, have ten interpreters listen to a glossic string and you’ll get ten different (typically unrelated) “interpretations”. In short, when it comes to “tongues”, ‘The big brown dog is slow’, can also be interpreted as ‘The small white cat is quick’. These latter two characteristics do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. It fails even the most basic tests and criteria that define ‘communication’ itself.

The common come-back to the multiple interpretation issue is that God/the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to different people. As someone once put it, “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for ‘tongues’ in the first place.”

As I’ve mentioned I am neither a so-called cessationist or continuationist; I don’t identify with either term. Since Biblical tongues refer to real, rational language, and since people still speak, and many still have the ability to learn languages incredibly fast, ‘tongues’ (read 'languages') have not ceased.

A few quick asides, and to some of your points –
There is no such thing as “fake tongues” or “demonic tongues” – they are all produced in the exact same way. What would make you think they are somehow demonic? Is it the sounds that the glossic string contains? Tone, pitch – what? To use an analogy, is it because it sounds more like Tolkien’s “Black Speech” than his “Sindarin/Quenya Elvish” (i.e. it just “sounds evil”; God wouldn’t talk like that!)?

As far as ‘fake’ goes, what is there to fake? Random free vocalization is random free vocalization. That said, I actually do differentiate between “fake” and “real” glossolalia – ‘faking it’, for me, would mean that it’s something that looks and sounds like it’s being produced using an obvious conscious effort (kind of like watching and listening to someone speaking a fluent Pig Latin – you can almost see them transforming the words right before they say them), while ‘not faking it’, to me, would mean that the speaker is producing it on a subconscious level; just letting the sounds flow as they come. Virtually no effort involved.

BTW – speaking for myself, there’s no intellectual desire to ‘know all’; there is however, a curiosity in studying and understanding an interesting, very tangible, linguistic phenomenon which also just happens to lend itself rather well to study.

Using Scripturam ex Scriptura exclusively, to put it somewhat bluntly, is a concept that is severely limiting, enforces a type of strict (religious) control over people, and tends to keep them from daring to think too far out of the box. The concept is fine, so long as it’s used in conjunction with allowing people to think and question. For some groups of Christians, however, not exclusively adhering to Scripturam ex Scriptura seems to be somewhat frowned upon.
ok, question for you.

The gift of knowledge/ wisdom. How can one answer a question, not knowing the answer....yet by Holy Spirit your mouth opens...and you are being taught as well as the one asking?

God said in His Word....open your mouth and I will fill it.
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
3,627
681
113
Cessationists are taught. They have their "starting place" there.
Other cessationists taught them cessationism.
IOW,because their experience is "JESUS QUIT" they have no need or responsibility,or hunger for more.
In their starting place they align the word ABOVE the spirit.
Jesus and the Holy Spirit are limited to the cessationists knowledge.
That is WHY they are paranoid of the gifts.
They can muster a tiny bit of spirit in salvation. But teachers teach them Jesus just saves to position for salvation. They don't need or want the spirit realm. No hunger.
From that platform they reason God wants certain people sick,and since ther leaders don't believe in the baptism in the Holy Spirit it must have somehow ceased.

I can not imagine operating without the gifts. I am so thankful i have none of that cessationism to unlearn.
cessationists is a term not mentioned in 1cor chapters 12 to 14 . Nor is it in the Bible anywhere.
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
3,627
681
113
@CS1 (post #4,259) –

Essentially, you’re saying what a lot of people tell me – namely, that I’m trying to explain/understand something ‘supernatural’ in non-supernatural/human terms; trying to understand the ‘spiritual’ in ‘carnal’ terms.

you are telling me that the terms “ Free Vocalization “ is a biblical term ? The very term is from secular humanism FYI "
Baboons Vocalizations Hint at Origins of Human Speech


If you’re doing something and I can show you exactly what you’re doing, how you’re doing it, and the entire process behind what you’re doing can all be explained in relatively simple terms, is it something supernatural, or just something natural being used in a supernatural (religious) context?

Oh you are the authority on what one is doing not the word of God so 1cor chapter 12 starting at verse 1 is meaningless. because you want to explain away what is supernatural as the Word Of God shows it is.

As the old saying goes, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks likes a duck……

God is not a duck. God created the Duck to quack, God made man’s mouth to speak

God is not limited to human understanding as we are.

The gift of languages is the ability to easily and quickly learn languages in order to spread the word of God to different nations and peoples (an oversimplification – see some of my posts above in this thread for further detail). In short, when this ability is used to further the glory of God, it can be termed a “spiritual gift”.

I speak five languages learned them at the counties I visited and lived at. seven years in japan for one place. I speak in tongues every day in prayer. No where does it say in 1cor 12 to 14 that tongues is an ability to learn a language with easily. what 1cor 12 does say which you did not even post. 1cor 12: 11 "1 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. ". 1cor 14:2 " 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. "


When Paul’s letter was written, he wasn’t addressing it to modern day Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians; he was addressing it to a church in a major seaport city rife with cultural and linguistic diversity, where everyday communication could be challenging at best. There just isn’t anything in Paul’s letter (or any other place ‘tongues’ are referenced) that does not describe real, rational; language(s) situations.

Paul wrote as the Holy Spirit inspired him to do so. no he is not saing anything about the coined term created by those today of " modern day Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians". They spoke in tongues then as they do today. as the Holy Spirit enable them then, as The Holy Spirit enables us today. Tongues is not real rational languages is your opinion.

Can anyone have the God-given ability to learn languages quickly? Yup. But, as mentioned above, when said gift/ability is used to further the glory of God, that gift can be said to be ‘spiritual’. I might suggest that this is why “tongues” (read ‘languages’) is regarded as the least of the gifts Paul mentions. Considering he mentions gifts in three different places and the list is not quite the same in all three, this seems to suggest that just about any God-given gift/ability/talent, call it what you will, can be considered a “spiritual gift” if used in a ‘spiritual manner’ (using it for the further glory of God).

can anyone ? then why not you? can God give the ability to learn a language quickly ? then why not you?

Why don’t people have similar explanations for the other gifts – I would have to argue that it’s because there is no ambiguity as to what they are. “Tongues” on the other hand, seem to be something grossly misunderstood, problematic, in most cases taken completely out of context, and in modern times, completely redefined to fit a very modern experience by a particular group of Christians.


it sounds to me that you do not see God using anymore the gifts in 1cor 12 because we are more sophisticated Modern in our “Christianity “.


Mind you, I’m completely differentiating “tongues” here from the “tongues experience” – they are two different things entirely. ‘Tongues’ as the tool they are (as described in some of my earlier posts) are a very powerful tool which can produce some pretty miraculous results (the "tongues experience"). But the tool itself, i.e. the “tongues” produced, is entirely self-created.

No you are changing it to be more acceptable to human reasoning . Thus Placing God in a Box and using the term ideology Modernism and post modernism.

To reiterate what I’ve said in previous posts – the fact that what people are doing today is not to be found in the Biblical narratives does not in any way make it somehow wrong; but what you’re doing today is not at all what Paul is talking about, nor is it anything to be found in the Biblical narratives.

that is your opinion you would be right If the Holy Spirit was not the one empowering one to do the gift in the first place.

Yeah, translate/interpret - a bit of syntactical splitting of hairs. When something is written, it’s typically said to be “translated”, when spoken, it’s “interpreted”. In theory the same thing, but ‘interpretation’ opens itself to some leeway on the part of the interpreter; it’s not always as literal as a 'translation'.

No you do not understand speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which prophesying and tongues and interpreting of tongues are synonymous when used for the Benefit of all. As 1cor 12 states.

The interpretation of tongues may also be said to be a self-created phenomenon. Interpretation is ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs.

There is absolutely nothing that correlates a glossic utterance with an interpretation.

Wrong you are using one word interpretation of glossic (incorrectly) out of context to 1cor 12 through 14 chapters.

Why is that? Interpretations are characterized by typically being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance (e.g. a 30 second utterance equating to twenty minutes of interpretation), rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’. In other words, have ten interpreters listen to a glossic string and you’ll get ten different (typically unrelated) “interpretations”. In short, when it comes to “tongues”, ‘The big brown dog is slow’, can also be interpreted as ‘The small white cat is quick’. These latter two characteristics do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. It fails even the most basic tests and criteria that define ‘communication’ itself.

No Biblical support for this assertion

The common come-back to the multiple interpretation issue is that God/the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to different people. As someone once put it, “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for ‘tongues’ in the first place.”

wrong

As I’ve mentioned I am neither a so-called cessationist or continuationist; I don’t identify with either term. Since Biblical tongues refer to real, rational language, and since people still speak, and many still have the ability to learn languages incredibly fast, ‘tongues’ (read 'languages') have not ceased.

human reasoning limtiing the power of God

A few quick asides, and to some of your points –
There is no such thing as “fake tongues” or “demonic tongues” – they are all produced in the exact same way. What would make you think they are somehow demonic? Is it the sounds that the glossic string contains? Tone, pitch – what? To use an analogy, is it because it sounds more like Tolkien’s “Black Speech” than his “Sindarin/Quenya Elvish” (i.e. it just “sounds evil”; God wouldn’t talk like that!)?
That is your opinion, and now you know how God talks ? Wow I guess you have heard HIS audible voice now. And you have an issue with me speaking in a language you do not understand that is a gift of the Holy Spirit which when I do I am speaking to God as 1cor 14 says.



As far as ‘fake’ goes, what is there to fake? Random free vocalization is random free vocalization. That said, I actually do differentiate between “fake” and “real” glossolalia – ‘faking it’, for me, would mean that it’s something that looks and sounds like it’s being produced using an obvious conscious effort (kind of like watching and listening to someone speaking a fluent Pig Latin – you can almost see them transforming the words right before they say them), while ‘not faking it’, to me, would mean that the speaker is producing it on a subconscious level; just letting the sounds flow as they come. Virtually no effort involved.

BTW – speaking for myself, there’s no intellectual desire to ‘know all’; there is however, a curiosity in studying and understanding an interesting, very tangible, linguistic phenomenon which also just happens to lend itself rather well to study.

Clealy you all ready know all You know how God would speak.

Using Scripturam ex Scriptura exclusively, to put it somewhat bluntly, is a concept that is severely limiting, enforces a type of strict (religious) control over people, and tends to keep them from daring to think too far out of the box. The concept is fine, so long as it’s used in conjunction with allowing people to think and question. For some groups of Christians, however, not exclusively adhering to Scripturam ex Scriptura seems to be somewhat frowned upon.
CS1 in BOLD
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
3,627
681
113
here is what I said in post #4259

Interjecting medical terms and or opinions to explain the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit through HIS gifts found in 1cor 12 to 14 chapters; is not going to be contextual. The “linguistic sense” is not a biblical one. That is a humanistic approach to Biblical interpretation. Which is extreme error for a Christian to use when interpreting the word of God. " free vocalization" is too a term coined by those who have progressed from outright calling it of the devil, because after studying the gift have found it to have benefit and not fake. So now they have created “free vocalization” because they cannot answer the context of the following:

  • Gifts of The Holy Spirit
  • Why is only “free vocalization” the only explanation for the gift of tongues? yet they have none for the other gifts.
  • If the gifts have stopped, the topic is over, why waste time on what is not real.
They now call it “Modern Tongues” to yet again to appease their intellectual desire to know all.


The humanistic doctrine of Biblical explanation:



The terms are very much unbiblical yet surprisingly not many have called them on it.


Yet they try to hide with Greek strong concordance words like “glossolalia” yet this term is nothing unless you place it in the context where it is used.


charisma + pneumatikos come from Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit gives them. As 1cor 12:3-4 states. You cannot take what is from the Holy Spirit as a gift, which is recorded in 1cor chapter 12, and use humanistic terms to explain the Supernatural. That is error.


The gifts as stated in 1cor 12 from verses 4 to 7 we see that giving only one operation to the “Gifts of the Holy Spirit like tongues and calling it “ glossolalia from one Greek word in the languages, is not proper Biblical interpretation. WHY? Because you had to remove what was said in 1cor 12: 4-7 in context to what the gifts do and they have more than one application.


Read:



1cor 12:4-7 you will see: diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.


there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.


there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.


the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.


As you read on in 1cor 12 everything that is given is by the Holy Spirit verse 8-11 says :


For to one is given by the Spirit(S) the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;



Glōssa is the word for tongues here, which the Holy Spirit helps with an interpretation. Why not




a translation? Because it is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit This is not something human are able to understand intellectually they are spiritual “charismata and pneumatikos not carnal. So one cannot explain the Gifts of the Holy Spirit using humanistic terms.


They do not seek the authorial intent, they do not apply proper context, and they do not use the word of God to explain the word of God. Humanistic biblical interpretation creates terms to explain away the work of God.


“Free vocalization”, modern tongues, linguistic studies, all come from Secular humanistic approach to biblical understanding
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
471
77
28
ok, question for you.

The gift of knowledge/ wisdom. How can one answer a question, not knowing the answer....yet by Holy Spirit your mouth opens...and you are being taught as well as the one asking?

God said in His Word....open your mouth and I will fill it.
Why do you think the gift of knowledge/wisdom would encompass answering a question unknown to the person answering it?

I read the gift of knowledge/wisdom as more great knowledge/wisdom with respect to insight. Someone with those gifts would be able to offer great insight and wisdom to a given subject; I don’t see it as an ability to answer any question thrown at them.

The verse from Psalms has to be put into perspective of the rest of the Psalm. I think you’re taking it a bit out of context. It doesn’t really seem to have to do with God filling one’s mouth with answers; more of a metaphor for God answering the pleas of a people/person.
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
3,627
681
113
Why do you think the gift of knowledge/wisdom would encompass answering a question unknown to the person answering it?

I read the gift of knowledge/wisdom as more great knowledge/wisdom with respect to insight. Someone with those gifts would be able to offer great insight and wisdom to a given subject; I don’t see it as an ability to answer any question thrown at them.

The verse from Psalms has to be put into perspective of the rest of the Psalm. I think you’re taking it a bit out of context. It doesn’t really seem to have to do with God filling one’s mouth with answers; more of a metaphor for God answering the pleas of a people/person.
Matthew 10:19-10
"But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, " "for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. "




Was this only to the disciples? In addition, is there an application for us today? or was it also metaphorical
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
9,024
681
113
@CS1 (post #4,259) –

Essentially, you’re saying what a lot of people tell me – namely, that I’m trying to explain/understand something ‘supernatural’ in non-supernatural/human terms; trying to understand the ‘spiritual’ in ‘carnal’ terms.

If you’re doing something and I can show you exactly what you’re doing, how you’re doing it, and the entire process behind what you’re doing can all be explained in relatively simple terms, is it something supernatural, or just something natural being used in a supernatural (religious) context?

As the old saying goes, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks likes a duck……

The gift of languages is the ability to easily and quickly learn languages in order to spread the word of God to different nations and peoples (an oversimplification – see some of my posts above in this thread for further detail). In short, when this ability is used to further the glory of God, it can be termed a “spiritual gift”.

When Paul’s letter was written, he wasn’t addressing it to modern day Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians; he was addressing it to a church in a major seaport city rife with cultural and linguistic diversity, where everyday communication could be challenging at best. There just isn’t anything in Paul’s letter (or any other place ‘tongues’ are referenced) that does not describe real, rational; language(s) situations.

Can anyone have the God-given ability to learn languages quickly? Yup. But, as mentioned above, when said gift/ability is used to further the glory of God, that gift can be said to be ‘spiritual’. I might suggest that this is why “tongues” (read ‘languages’) is regarded as the least of the gifts Paul mentions. Considering he mentions gifts in three different places and the list is not quite the same in all three, this seems to suggest that just about any God-given gift/ability/talent, call it what you will, can be considered a “spiritual gift” if used in a ‘spiritual manner’ (using it for the further glory of God).

Why don’t people have similar explanations for the other gifts – I would have to argue that it’s because there is no ambiguity as to what they are. “Tongues” on the other hand, seem to be something grossly misunderstood, problematic, in most cases taken completely out of context, and in modern times, completely redefined to fit a very modern experience by a particular group of Christians.

Mind you, I’m completely differentiating “tongues” here from the “tongues experience” – they are two different things entirely. ‘Tongues’ as the tool they are (as described in some of my earlier posts) are a very powerful tool which can produce some pretty miraculous results (the "tongues experience"). But the tool itself, i.e. the “tongues” produced, is entirely self-created.

To reiterate what I’ve said in previous posts – the fact that what people are doing today is not to be found in the Biblical narratives does not in any way make it somehow wrong; but what you’re doing today is not at all what Paul is talking about, nor is it anything to be found in the Biblical narratives.

Yeah, translate/interpret - a bit of syntactical splitting of hairs. When something is written, it’s typically said to be “translated”, when spoken, it’s “interpreted”. In theory the same thing, but ‘interpretation’ opens itself to some leeway on the part of the interpreter; it’s not always as literal as a 'translation'.

The interpretation of tongues may also be said to be a self-created phenomenon. Interpretation is ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs.

There is absolutely nothing that correlates a glossic utterance with an interpretation.

Why is that? Interpretations are characterized by typically being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance (e.g. a 30 second utterance equating to twenty minutes of interpretation), rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’. In other words, have ten interpreters listen to a glossic string and you’ll get ten different (typically unrelated) “interpretations”. In short, when it comes to “tongues”, ‘The big brown dog is slow’, can also be interpreted as ‘The small white cat is quick’. These latter two characteristics do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. It fails even the most basic tests and criteria that define ‘communication’ itself.

The common come-back to the multiple interpretation issue is that God/the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to different people. As someone once put it, “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for ‘tongues’ in the first place.”

As I’ve mentioned I am neither a so-called cessationist or continuationist; I don’t identify with either term. Since Biblical tongues refer to real, rational language, and since people still speak, and many still have the ability to learn languages incredibly fast, ‘tongues’ (read 'languages') have not ceased.

A few quick asides, and to some of your points –
There is no such thing as “fake tongues” or “demonic tongues” – they are all produced in the exact same way. What would make you think they are somehow demonic? Is it the sounds that the glossic string contains? Tone, pitch – what? To use an analogy, is it because it sounds more like Tolkien’s “Black Speech” than his “Sindarin/Quenya Elvish” (i.e. it just “sounds evil”; God wouldn’t talk like that!)?

As far as ‘fake’ goes, what is there to fake? Random free vocalization is random free vocalization. That said, I actually do differentiate between “fake” and “real” glossolalia – ‘faking it’, for me, would mean that it’s something that looks and sounds like it’s being produced using an obvious conscious effort (kind of like watching and listening to someone speaking a fluent Pig Latin – you can almost see them transforming the words right before they say them), while ‘not faking it’, to me, would mean that the speaker is producing it on a subconscious level; just letting the sounds flow as they come. Virtually no effort involved.

BTW – speaking for myself, there’s no intellectual desire to ‘know all’; there is however, a curiosity in studying and understanding an interesting, very tangible, linguistic phenomenon which also just happens to lend itself rather well to study.

Using Scripturam ex Scriptura exclusively, to put it somewhat bluntly, is a concept that is severely limiting, enforces a type of strict (religious) control over people, and tends to keep them from daring to think too far out of the box. The concept is fine, so long as it’s used in conjunction with allowing people to think and question. For some groups of Christians, however, not exclusively adhering to Scripturam ex Scriptura seems to be somewhat frowned upon.
I would agree. But what does Scripturam ex Scriptura mean?
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
471
77
28
Part 1 -

Essentially, you’re saying what a lot of people tell me – namely, that I’m trying to explain/understand something ‘supernatural’ in non-supernatural/human terms; trying to understand the ‘spiritual’ in ‘carnal’ terms.

you are telling me that the terms “ Free Vocalization “ is a biblical term ? The very term is from secular humanism FYI "
Baboons Vocalizations Hint at Origins of Human Speech


No, I’m telling you that free vocalization is what tongues-speakers are doing today. Speaking real language(s) is what people were doing in the Bible.

If you’re doing something and I can show you exactly what you’re doing, how you’re doing it, and the entire process behind what you’re doing can all be explained in relatively simple terms, is it something supernatural, or just something natural being used in a supernatural (religious) context?

Oh you are the authority on what one is doing not the word of God so 1cor chapter 12 starting at verse 1 is meaningless. because you want to explain away what is supernatural as the Word Of God shows it is.

You’re kind of missing the point here – what you’re doing is not described anywhere in the Bible, no matter how much you’d like/need it to be there. What people are producing today is what it is, and it isn’t anything supernatural. If it was, I don’t think it would/could be explained as (relatively) easily as it can.

As the old saying goes, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks likes a duck……

God is not a duck. God created the Duck to quack, God made man’s mouth to speak
God is not limited to human understanding as we are.

Yes, God may have made man’s mouth to speak, but ‘speech’ comes in many forms doesn’t it; from babbling, to real language to random free vocalization. It’s all speech, some of it real, some of it self-created.
Agreed; He certainly is not.


The gift of languages is the ability to easily and quickly learn languages in order to spread the word of God to different nations and peoples (an oversimplification – see some of my posts above in this thread for further detail). In short, when this ability is used to further the glory of God, it can be termed a “spiritual gift”.

I speak five languages learned them at the counties I visited and lived at. seven years in japan for one place. I speak in tongues every day in prayer. No where does it say in 1cor 12 to 14 that tongues is an ability to learn a language with easily. what 1cor 12 does say which you did not even post. 1cor 12: 11 "1 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. ". 1cor 14:2 " 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. "

“All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.” All this is saying is that all of the gifts come from the H/S and it can portion them out however it sees fit. Not everyone is going to get the same thing and some may not, for whatever reason, get any at all.

1 Cor. 14 – I’ve explained this passage ad nauseum. See the previous posts. Again, it’s referring to nothing more than real language.
When Paul’s letter was written, he wasn’t addressing it to modern day Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians; he was addressing it to a church in a major seaport city rife with cultural and linguistic diversity, where everyday communication could be challenging at best. There just isn’t anything in Paul’s letter (or any other place ‘tongues’ are referenced) that does not describe real, rational; language(s) situations.

Paul wrote as the Holy Spirit inspired him to do so. no he is not saing anything about the coined term created by those today of " modern day Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians". They spoke in tongues then as they do today. as the Holy Spirit enable them then, as The Holy Spirit enables us today. Tongues is not real rational languages is your opinion.

“They spoke in tongues then as they do today” – No, sorry, but that’s not at all correct if you’re referring to what Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are producing today. That’s nowhere to be found in the Biblical narrative. If, however, you take “tongues” for what they are; real, rational language(s), then yes, people still speak today as they did back then.

What specifically makes you think ‘tongues’ are language? Record yourself speaking for about a minute or so and then play it back and really listen to it. Why do you think what you’re listening to is real language? What makes it language; something tangible, or just your assumption that that’s what it is?
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
471
77
28
Part II -

Can anyone have the God-given ability to learn languages quickly? Yup. But, as mentioned above, when said gift/ability is used to further the glory of God, that gift can be said to be ‘spiritual’. I might suggest that this is why “tongues” (read ‘languages’) is regarded as the least of the gifts Paul mentions. Considering he mentions gifts in three different places and the list is not quite the same in all three, this seems to suggest that just about any God-given gift/ability/talent, call it what you will, can be considered a “spiritual gift” if used in a ‘spiritual manner’ (using it for the further glory of God).

can anyone ? then why not you? can God give the ability to learn a language quickly ? then why not you?

I should have probably stated that differently – “Can anyone be given the God-given ability to learn languages quickly and with ease? Yes; they don’t have to be of a particular faith to be granted this ability/gift.

As for me, well, I do happen to be able to learn languages rather quickly. It’s a ‘gift’ I’ve always had. Is it simply a knack, a natural ability, or is it a God-given gift?? Or is it all just one in the same thing? Not saying this to ‘toot my own horn’ or create debate, but where many people have great difficulty with language learning, I don’t; I find learning languages comes fairly easy and quickly.

Does everybody have this ability/gift? No. Can it however, be granted to anyone? Yes. The H/S disburses gifts/ability (call them whatever you want) however it pleases.

How do I regard it? It’s hard to say, I’ve never really thought about it. I’ve always looked at it as being a ‘gift’. One of which I consider myself to be fortunate to have, but I really don’t use it in a religious setting; only occasionally. I’m sure that some would consider it as a gift from God, some would probably not. – I’m not one of them.


Why don’t people have similar explanations for the other gifts – I would have to argue that it’s because there is no ambiguity as to what they are. “Tongues” on the other hand, seem to be something grossly misunderstood, problematic, in most cases taken completely out of context, and in modern times, completely redefined to fit a very modern experience by a particular group of Christians.

it sounds to me that you do not see God using anymore the gifts in 1cor 12 because we are more sophisticated Modern in our “Christianity “.

No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. There are none of those gifts that are not around today, but are they used in the same context as they were back in Paul’s time? That’s debatable. Some people do, but I think far more probably do not. Does that make them any less a ‘gift’? I’d say, no.

Mind you, I’m completely differentiating “tongues” here from the “tongues experience” – they are two different things entirely. ‘Tongues’ as the tool they are (as described in some of my earlier posts) are a very powerful tool which can produce some pretty miraculous results (the "tongues experience"). But the tool itself, i.e. the “tongues” produced, is entirely self-created.

No you are changing it to be more acceptable to human reasoning . Thus Placing God in a Box and using the term ideology Modernism and post modernism.

No. what people are doing today is simply a self-created tool by which one connects to the divine and establishes a closer relationship and strengthens one’s own spiritual path. The ‘experience’, or the results, if you will, of using this tool are very real and can be very meaningful and powerful. What you’re doing is no different than any other culture or religious path that practices glossolalia as part of their beliefs.

To reiterate what I’ve said in previous posts – the fact that what people are doing today is not to be found in the Biblical narratives does not in any way make it somehow wrong; but what you’re doing today is not at all what Paul is talking about, nor is it anything to be found in the Biblical narratives.

that is your opinion you would be right If the Holy Spirit was not the one empowering one to do the gift in the first place.

I believe that that’s what you believe, i.e. that the H/S is empowering you to utter what you utter or is uttering it through you. I think rather perhaps it’s the H/S that is inspiring you to use the tool of glossolalia. The H/S is not putting the syllables of random free vocalization in your mouth, you’re doing that just fine all by yourself. The H/S is there to just make sure the tool is plugged in and working and then pushes the button.

Interpretations are characterized by typically being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance (e.g. a 30 second utterance equating to twenty minutes of interpretation), rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’. In other words, have ten interpreters listen to a glossic string and you’ll get ten different (typically unrelated) “interpretations”. In short, when it comes to “tongues”, ‘The big brown dog is slow’, can also be interpreted as ‘The small white cat is quick’. These latter two characteristics do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. It fails even the most basic tests and criteria that define ‘communication’ itself.


No Biblical support for this assertion

Well, no, because what’s happening is not in the Bible. The Bible is referring to the translation/interpretation of real language, not the interpretation of non-cognitive non-language utterance.

The common come-back to the multiple interpretation issue is that God/the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to different people. As someone once put it, “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for ‘tongues’ in the first place.”

wrong

How do you account for multiple interpretations for the same glossic string?

There is no such thing as “fake tongues” or “demonic tongues” – they are all produced in the exact same way. What would make you think they are somehow demonic? Is it the sounds that the glossic string contains? Tone, pitch – what? To use an analogy, is it because it sounds more like Tolkien’s “Black Speech” than his “Sindarin/Quenya Elvish” (i.e. it just “sounds evil”; God wouldn’t talk like that!)?
That is your opinion, and now you know how God talks ? Wow I guess you have heard HIS audible voice now. And you have an issue with me speaking in a language you do not understand that is a gift of the Holy Spirit which when I do I am speaking to God as 1cor 14 says.

I might ask the same question with respect to how one determines whether or not a ‘tongue’ is “Satanic”. Again, what determines classifying it as such?

First, no, no one understands non-cognitive non-language utterance; it’s just that – non-language. Second, you may be speaking to God in your own way, but it sure isn’t the same as in 1 Cor. 14. That passage describes a real rational language; yours is something else entirely.

If what people were speaking WAS a real language of some sort, that would be absolutely fantastic – in fact, when I first started studying the phenomenon of glossolalia, that’s what I was really hoping to find – some fantastical language that was just begging to be further studied. Honestly, in some respects, I was a bit disappointed in what I found, but ultimately, not surprised.

As far as ‘fake’ goes, what is there to fake? Random free vocalization is random free vocalization. That said, I actually do differentiate between “fake” and “real” glossolalia – ‘faking it’, for me, would mean that it’s something that looks and sounds like it’s being produced using an obvious conscious effort (kind of like watching and listening to someone speaking a fluent Pig Latin – you can almost see them transforming the words right before they say them), while ‘not faking it’, to me, would mean that the speaker is producing it on a subconscious level; just letting the sounds flow as they come. Virtually no effort involved.

BTW – speaking for myself, there’s no intellectual desire to ‘know all’; there is however, a curiosity in studying and understanding an interesting, very tangible, linguistic phenomenon which also just happens to lend itself rather well to study.

Clealy you all ready know all You know how God would speak.

I have no idea how God would speak, but I’m pretty sure it would be in something I’d easily understand.
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
3,627
681
113
I would agree. But what does Scripturam ex Scriptura mean?
what is meaning is the poster is saying those who hold to tongues and the Gifts of the holy are for today do so from a sole infallible rule of faith and practice. That is not true The gifts of the Holy Spirit are infallible but the men who are used by them are. Tongues is not the most important thing in the word of God Salvation and the Cross preached of Christ is the Gospel message is.

there a pentacostel said tongues is not essential .
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
471
77
28
Matthew 10:19-10
"But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, " "for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. "




Was this only to the disciples? In addition, is there an application for us today? or was it also metaphorical
No, not metaphorical - but likely just to those disciples. People like to take a look at virtually every passage and try and apply it today. There isn't always an application. In this case here, I'd say it's trusting the H/S to inspire you on what to say in a tough situation where you're clearly not sure. Said speaking in this example, BTW, is in real language.
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
3,627
681
113
Part II -

Can anyone have the God-given ability to learn languages quickly? Yup. But, as mentioned above, when said gift/ability is used to further the glory of God, that gift can be said to be ‘spiritual’. I might suggest that this is why “tongues” (read ‘languages’) is regarded as the least of the gifts Paul mentions. Considering he mentions gifts in three different places and the list is not quite the same in all three, this seems to suggest that just about any God-given gift/ability/talent, call it what you will, can be considered a “spiritual gift” if used in a ‘spiritual manner’ (using it for the further glory of God).

can anyone ? then why not you? can God give the ability to learn a language quickly ? then why not you?

I should have probably stated that differently – “Can anyone be given the God-given ability to learn languages quickly and with ease? Yes; they don’t have to be of a particular faith to be granted this ability/gift.

As for me, well, I do happen to be able to learn languages rather quickly. It’s a ‘gift’ I’ve always had. Is it simply a knack, a natural ability, or is it a God-given gift?? Or is it all just one in the same thing? Not saying this to ‘toot my own horn’ or create debate, but where many people have great difficulty with language learning, I don’t; I find learning languages comes fairly easy and quickly.

Does everybody have this ability/gift? No. Can it however, be granted to anyone? Yes. The H/S disburses gifts/ability (call them whatever you want) however it pleases.

How do I regard it? It’s hard to say, I’ve never really thought about it. I’ve always looked at it as being a ‘gift’. One of which I consider myself to be fortunate to have, but I really don’t use it in a religious setting; only occasionally. I’m sure that some would consider it as a gift from God, some would probably not. – I’m not one of them.

Why don’t people have similar explanations for the other gifts – I would have to argue that it’s because there is no ambiguity as to what they are. “Tongues” on the other hand, seem to be something grossly misunderstood, problematic, in most cases taken completely out of context, and in modern times, completely redefined to fit a very modern experience by a particular group of Christians.

it sounds to me that you do not see God using anymore the gifts in 1cor 12 because we are more sophisticated Modern in our “Christianity “.

No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. There are none of those gifts that are not around today, but are they used in the same context as they were back in Paul’s time? That’s debatable. Some people do, but I think far more probably do not. Does that make them any less a ‘gift’? I’d say, no.

Mind you, I’m completely differentiating “tongues” here from the “tongues experience” – they are two different things entirely. ‘Tongues’ as the tool they are (as described in some of my earlier posts) are a very powerful tool which can produce some pretty miraculous results (the "tongues experience"). But the tool itself, i.e. the “tongues” produced, is entirely self-created.

No you are changing it to be more acceptable to human reasoning . Thus Placing God in a Box and using the term ideology Modernism and post modernism.

No. what people are doing today is simply a self-created tool by which one connects to the divine and establishes a closer relationship and strengthens one’s own spiritual path. The ‘experience’, or the results, if you will, of using this tool are very real and can be very meaningful and powerful. What you’re doing is no different than any other culture or religious path that practices glossolalia as part of their beliefs.

To reiterate what I’ve said in previous posts – the fact that what people are doing today is not to be found in the Biblical narratives does not in any way make it somehow wrong; but what you’re doing today is not at all what Paul is talking about, nor is it anything to be found in the Biblical narratives.

that is your opinion you would be right If the Holy Spirit was not the one empowering one to do the gift in the first place.

I believe that that’s what you believe, i.e. that the H/S is empowering you to utter what you utter or is uttering it through you. I think rather perhaps it’s the H/S that is inspiring you to use the tool of glossolalia. The H/S is not putting the syllables of random free vocalization in your mouth, you’re doing that just fine all by yourself. The H/S is there to just make sure the tool is plugged in and working and then pushes the button.

Interpretations are characterized by typically being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance (e.g. a 30 second utterance equating to twenty minutes of interpretation), rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’. In other words, have ten interpreters listen to a glossic string and you’ll get ten different (typically unrelated) “interpretations”. In short, when it comes to “tongues”, ‘The big brown dog is slow’, can also be interpreted as ‘The small white cat is quick’. These latter two characteristics do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. It fails even the most basic tests and criteria that define ‘communication’ itself.

No Biblical support for this assertion

Well, no, because what’s happening is not in the Bible. The Bible is referring to the translation/interpretation of real language, not the interpretation of non-cognitive non-language utterance.

The common come-back to the multiple interpretation issue is that God/the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to different people. As someone once put it, “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for ‘tongues’ in the first place.”

wrong

How do you account for multiple interpretations for the same glossic string?

There is no such thing as “fake tongues” or “demonic tongues” – they are all produced in the exact same way. What would make you think they are somehow demonic? Is it the sounds that the glossic string contains? Tone, pitch – what? To use an analogy, is it because it sounds more like Tolkien’s “Black Speech” than his “Sindarin/Quenya Elvish” (i.e. it just “sounds evil”; God wouldn’t talk like that!)?
That is your opinion, and now you know how God talks ? Wow I guess you have heard HIS audible voice now. And you have an issue with me speaking in a language you do not understand that is a gift of the Holy Spirit which when I do I am speaking to God as 1cor 14 says.

I might ask the same question with respect to how one determines whether or not a ‘tongue’ is “Satanic”. Again, what determines classifying it as such?

First, no, no one understands non-cognitive non-language utterance; it’s just that – non-language. Second, you may be speaking to God in your own way, but it sure isn’t the same as in 1 Cor. 14. That passage describes a real rational language; yours is something else entirely.

If what people were speaking WAS a real language of some sort, that would be absolutely fantastic – in fact, when I first started studying the phenomenon of glossolalia, that’s what I was really hoping to find – some fantastical language that was just begging to be further studied. Honestly, in some respects, I was a bit disappointed in what I found, but ultimately, not surprised.

As far as ‘fake’ goes, what is there to fake? Random free vocalization is random free vocalization. That said, I actually do differentiate between “fake” and “real” glossolalia – ‘faking it’, for me, would mean that it’s something that looks and sounds like it’s being produced using an obvious conscious effort (kind of like watching and listening to someone speaking a fluent Pig Latin – you can almost see them transforming the words right before they say them), while ‘not faking it’, to me, would mean that the speaker is producing it on a subconscious level; just letting the sounds flow as they come. Virtually no effort involved.

BTW – speaking for myself, there’s no intellectual desire to ‘know all’; there is however, a curiosity in studying and understanding an interesting, very tangible, linguistic phenomenon which also just happens to lend itself rather well to study.

Clealy you all ready know all You know how God would speak.

I have no idea how God would speak, but I’m pretty sure it would be in something I’d easily understand.
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
3,627
681
113
"tool of glossolalia"

Where did that term come from? When has the term “tool" ever been applied in context to the Gifts of the Holy Spirit? Never. Tool is a term interjected by those who do not hold to the context of what is known as the “Chiasmata” and “pneumatika.”

I will say the word “glossolalia” does not address the cause and effect without showing where it is used in the word of God. Therefore without 1cor 12 to 14 chapters, the word glossolalia can mean whatever one wants IF you do not keep it on context to the word of God. The focus is not on glossolalia in 1cor 12 to 14.

The focus is on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit which we were not to be unlearned in them. You can say glossolalia all you want but when you say it in context to the Gifts of the holy Spirit they are not nature but supernatural because it is God who is giving them.
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
3,627
681
113
No, not metaphorical - but likely just to those disciples. People like to take a look at virtually every passage and try and apply it today. There isn't always an application. In this case here, I'd say it's trusting the H/S to inspire you on what to say in a tough situation where you're clearly not sure. Said speaking in this example, BTW, is in real language.
you miss the point nor did you answer my question.

Matthew 10:19-10

  • Was this only to the disciples?
  • In addition, is there an application for us today?
  • or was it also metaphorical
you said it was not metaphorical

and it was likely to only the Disciples

then you went on what people like to take every passage and try to apply it today .

But you think it is to be applied as "trusting the H/S to inspire you on what to say in a tough situation where you're clearly not sure."

Your application of this verse is a good one, but not the only one. yes I know they were speaking is a real language the point is the Holy Spirit is involved in it. and the Holy enable them to do so. is there any other parell verses that speak to the very samething yet not to be taken as to the Disciples only?