The truth about tongues: a DIVISIVE force in Christianity today
- Thread starter Nehemiah6
- 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.
L
I can appreciate your opinion, we all are entitled to have our own opinions.
I’m not saying that I’m speaking in tongues I’m saying the Bible is written in tongues. Tongues is the language of the angels, it’s being spoken all around you especially within the CV19 narrative and the “social justice” riots narrative. It was put right in front of your face on 9-11 And you can’t even see it.
Im not gonna sit here silent and act like I don’t know what’s going just because it’s not popular with the charasmanic tongues babblers. The Bible tells us that tongues babbling, the CONFUSION OF SPEECH is a CURSE from God.
Think about it, ONLY the tongues babbling cult speaks in babbling incoherent FAKE gibberish nonsensical words that nobody has a clue what it means because it DOES NOT mean anything. You guys are deceived beyond belief.
I’m not saying that I’m speaking in tongues I’m saying the Bible is written in tongues. Tongues is the language of the angels, it’s being spoken all around you especially within the CV19 narrative and the “social justice” riots narrative. It was put right in front of your face on 9-11 And you can’t even see it.
Im not gonna sit here silent and act like I don’t know what’s going just because it’s not popular with the charasmanic tongues babblers. The Bible tells us that tongues babbling, the CONFUSION OF SPEECH is a CURSE from God.
Think about it, ONLY the tongues babbling cult speaks in babbling incoherent FAKE gibberish nonsensical words that nobody has a clue what it means because it DOES NOT mean anything. You guys are deceived beyond belief.
If its a unknown wonderment. How would you know anyone else ? Reveal the unheard understanding of senseless sounds? Nothing proves nothing. Proof is in the substance .
But you support those who do seek after signs and wonders? It would seem rather than prophecy the tongue of God's understanding ? Why seek wonders rather than understanding?
Why would Jesus tell John in regard to the greatest miracle of being filled with the Spirit, born again, to marvel not . That time period was full of lying wonders.
Which teaching master will you serve after today. The temporal things as rudiments of this corrupted world, the philosophies of faithless men. Or the work of faith as a labor of love that comes from hearing God as he gives us His understanding . The kind that woks in us to both will and perform His good pleasure. Don't be a murmuring but rather believe by the same power Jesus believed. .
2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
But you support those who do seek after signs and wonders? It would seem rather than prophecy the tongue of God's understanding ? Why seek wonders rather than understanding?
Why would Jesus tell John in regard to the greatest miracle of being filled with the Spirit, born again, to marvel not . That time period was full of lying wonders.
Which teaching master will you serve after today. The temporal things as rudiments of this corrupted world, the philosophies of faithless men. Or the work of faith as a labor of love that comes from hearing God as he gives us His understanding . The kind that woks in us to both will and perform His good pleasure. Don't be a murmuring but rather believe by the same power Jesus believed. .
2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
In response to several posts –
“I would never speak in tongues for skeptic, nor would I submit to some kind of test or recording.
If you were to take that recording and leave the interpretation off and submit it to people who claim that they have the gift of interpretation and can interpret your recorded message for you, what you would get is different results because the person who says they can do that for you is not operating in the gift of interpretation.”
And there’s the issue – when modern tongues-speakers are asked to submit a sample of what they’re producing for tongues-speech for a linguistic analysis, for some, there always seems to be a reason why it can’t be done.
There just isn’t anything you’re producing that cannot be explained in relatively simple linguistic terms.
Yes, you would get ten different results – in tongues-speech “the big brown dog is slow” can also be “the small white cat is quick”.
There’s no reason to doubt anyone who sincerely claims to have the ability to interpret. No one interpreter is any better than any other. If tongues were a real language, the interpretations should all be relatively the same, but that just isn’t the case.
Modern interpretation of tongues is nothing more than spiritual improv based on one’s deep faith. Interpretations are typically characterized by being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance, rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’. 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.
"From the beginning of the modern pentecostal movement there were those who thought that tongues could be used to go on the mission field and preach to the lost."
If the history of the Pentecost movement is examined, one fact is very clear: at some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief in tongues as xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing.
This forced a serious theological dilemma — As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined. It seems the latter option was chosen.
One would think it impossible to study the history of Pentecostalism without, at the very least, a cursory look at this ‘tongues issue’. Because the Pentecostal doctrine and understanding on tongues was completely redefined, this would seem to present a problem – how can something like this be taught by Pentecostals to Pentecostals, or other denominations that adhere to ‘tongues’? The answer is not overly surprising. The entire issue seems to have been conveniently ‘forgotten about’, and for all intents and purposes, swept under the rug. Very few, indeed if any, Pentecostals are taught about this issue, and in my experience, most aren’t even aware that it ever existed in the first place.
In redefining “tongues”, Pentecostals looked to primary and secondary source works for an alternative explanation. It is during this time that, that (mainly) five German scholars promoted a fresh new approach to Biblical interpretation that purposely tried to avoid the trappings of traditional and enforced interpretations of Biblical texts, collectively known as “Higher Criticism”. Part of this tradition was examining “tongues” as ecstatic utterance, rather than the supposed xenoglossy as understood by mainstream Christianity for centuries.
As a quick aside, an important thing to note is that, prior to 1879, the term ‘glossolalia’ did not exist – it is a word coined by English theologian, Frederick Farrar (Dean of Canterbury) in 1879 in one of his publications.
The Pentecostal solution to the issue was an adaptation from the works of Farrar, Schaff and a few others. These ideas were further ‘tweaked’ to more adequately fit their new notion of tongues. From this, the concept of “prayer language” as an explanation for the modern phenomenon of tongues-speech was formed.
Over a short period of time, a Pentecostal apologetic was built. The emergence of the term “utterance” was strongly emphasized - it kept the definition ambiguous as it allowed for a variety of definitions beyond real, rational language, it was something sort of related to language, and could be defended more easily. “Utterance” fit much better in the Pentecostal paradigm and did not require empirical evidence. ‘Natural Praise’ and ‘adoration’ became a feature of ‘tongues’, and then ‘heavenly’ or ‘prayer language’ further broadened the definition. The term ‘glossolalia’ was transferred in from academia and was given a Pentecostal definition. In short, the tongues doctrine simply shifted into new semantics without any explanation. Xenoglossy one day, “prayer language” the next.
The resulting implicit theology however was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy, but rather a synthesis of trying to make sense of the modern “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture. A way to legitimize and justify the modern phenomenon by ‘proofing’ it in the Bible. The problem with this however, was an obvious overwhelming absence therein of anything resembling modern tongues. Call it what you will, but for this group of Christians, the result was a virtual re-definition of scripture with respect to the understanding and justification of modern “tongues”; a re-interpretation of select Biblical texts to fit the modern practice/connotation of what ”tongues” was/is perceived to be.
What is amazing to me is how absolutely none of this is taught. It’s a topic that today is completely glossed over and conveniently forgotten about in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles.
Whether one is interested in this part of Pentecostal history or not, this redefinition has heavily influenced many other Christian denominations that adhere to the modern tongues phenomenon; specifically, it is from this historical doctrinal change that various modern Christian denominations’ belief in tongues, ultimately originated.
“I don't think any scholar worth his credentials would agree with you that Paul was not referring to the supernatural Holy Spirit gift of tongues when he said he spoke in tongues more than them all.”
I’m pretty sure you have the other way around – I don’t know of any scholar who would argue for modern tongues-speech here. Paul was referring to his knowledge of the real, rational languages of the Gentiles.
Verse 14 has already been commented on in this thread, so O won’t duplicate it here, but it has to do with the use of the Greek “akarpos” – it can be used both in the active sense as well as the passive. Most people use it in the passive sense. The active sense however fit’s better with Paul’s call for clarity and understanding at a public worship. The use ‘akarpos’ in the active sense may be found in Luther’s Bible od 1534.
“Another possibility is that the miracle was on the ears of the hearers.”
The phrase “in their native language” modifies the verb “speaking” in verse 6, not the verb “hearing.” So, it was not a miracle of hearing.
In addition, as previously addressed in a previous post, the apostles weren’t speaking any language they didn’t already know. Xenoglossy was not the miracle of language at Pentecost.
"They heard them speaking in tongues the wonderful works of God were amazed that they could all understand in their own tongue and then Peter addressed them without speaking in tongues."
And how did this crowd from ‘every nation under heaven’, speaking a slew of different languages understand a word he was saying??? Or was his message solely for the Aramaic speaking peeps?
There is nothing in the narrative two suggest that Peter "switched languages" somewhere along the way.
“I would never speak in tongues for skeptic, nor would I submit to some kind of test or recording.
If you were to take that recording and leave the interpretation off and submit it to people who claim that they have the gift of interpretation and can interpret your recorded message for you, what you would get is different results because the person who says they can do that for you is not operating in the gift of interpretation.”
And there’s the issue – when modern tongues-speakers are asked to submit a sample of what they’re producing for tongues-speech for a linguistic analysis, for some, there always seems to be a reason why it can’t be done.
There just isn’t anything you’re producing that cannot be explained in relatively simple linguistic terms.
Yes, you would get ten different results – in tongues-speech “the big brown dog is slow” can also be “the small white cat is quick”.
There’s no reason to doubt anyone who sincerely claims to have the ability to interpret. No one interpreter is any better than any other. If tongues were a real language, the interpretations should all be relatively the same, but that just isn’t the case.
Modern interpretation of tongues is nothing more than spiritual improv based on one’s deep faith. Interpretations are typically characterized by being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance, rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’. 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.
"From the beginning of the modern pentecostal movement there were those who thought that tongues could be used to go on the mission field and preach to the lost."
If the history of the Pentecost movement is examined, one fact is very clear: at some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief in tongues as xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing.
This forced a serious theological dilemma — As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined. It seems the latter option was chosen.
One would think it impossible to study the history of Pentecostalism without, at the very least, a cursory look at this ‘tongues issue’. Because the Pentecostal doctrine and understanding on tongues was completely redefined, this would seem to present a problem – how can something like this be taught by Pentecostals to Pentecostals, or other denominations that adhere to ‘tongues’? The answer is not overly surprising. The entire issue seems to have been conveniently ‘forgotten about’, and for all intents and purposes, swept under the rug. Very few, indeed if any, Pentecostals are taught about this issue, and in my experience, most aren’t even aware that it ever existed in the first place.
In redefining “tongues”, Pentecostals looked to primary and secondary source works for an alternative explanation. It is during this time that, that (mainly) five German scholars promoted a fresh new approach to Biblical interpretation that purposely tried to avoid the trappings of traditional and enforced interpretations of Biblical texts, collectively known as “Higher Criticism”. Part of this tradition was examining “tongues” as ecstatic utterance, rather than the supposed xenoglossy as understood by mainstream Christianity for centuries.
As a quick aside, an important thing to note is that, prior to 1879, the term ‘glossolalia’ did not exist – it is a word coined by English theologian, Frederick Farrar (Dean of Canterbury) in 1879 in one of his publications.
The Pentecostal solution to the issue was an adaptation from the works of Farrar, Schaff and a few others. These ideas were further ‘tweaked’ to more adequately fit their new notion of tongues. From this, the concept of “prayer language” as an explanation for the modern phenomenon of tongues-speech was formed.
Over a short period of time, a Pentecostal apologetic was built. The emergence of the term “utterance” was strongly emphasized - it kept the definition ambiguous as it allowed for a variety of definitions beyond real, rational language, it was something sort of related to language, and could be defended more easily. “Utterance” fit much better in the Pentecostal paradigm and did not require empirical evidence. ‘Natural Praise’ and ‘adoration’ became a feature of ‘tongues’, and then ‘heavenly’ or ‘prayer language’ further broadened the definition. The term ‘glossolalia’ was transferred in from academia and was given a Pentecostal definition. In short, the tongues doctrine simply shifted into new semantics without any explanation. Xenoglossy one day, “prayer language” the next.
The resulting implicit theology however was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy, but rather a synthesis of trying to make sense of the modern “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture. A way to legitimize and justify the modern phenomenon by ‘proofing’ it in the Bible. The problem with this however, was an obvious overwhelming absence therein of anything resembling modern tongues. Call it what you will, but for this group of Christians, the result was a virtual re-definition of scripture with respect to the understanding and justification of modern “tongues”; a re-interpretation of select Biblical texts to fit the modern practice/connotation of what ”tongues” was/is perceived to be.
What is amazing to me is how absolutely none of this is taught. It’s a topic that today is completely glossed over and conveniently forgotten about in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles.
Whether one is interested in this part of Pentecostal history or not, this redefinition has heavily influenced many other Christian denominations that adhere to the modern tongues phenomenon; specifically, it is from this historical doctrinal change that various modern Christian denominations’ belief in tongues, ultimately originated.
“I don't think any scholar worth his credentials would agree with you that Paul was not referring to the supernatural Holy Spirit gift of tongues when he said he spoke in tongues more than them all.”
I’m pretty sure you have the other way around – I don’t know of any scholar who would argue for modern tongues-speech here. Paul was referring to his knowledge of the real, rational languages of the Gentiles.
Verse 14 has already been commented on in this thread, so O won’t duplicate it here, but it has to do with the use of the Greek “akarpos” – it can be used both in the active sense as well as the passive. Most people use it in the passive sense. The active sense however fit’s better with Paul’s call for clarity and understanding at a public worship. The use ‘akarpos’ in the active sense may be found in Luther’s Bible od 1534.
“Another possibility is that the miracle was on the ears of the hearers.”
The phrase “in their native language” modifies the verb “speaking” in verse 6, not the verb “hearing.” So, it was not a miracle of hearing.
In addition, as previously addressed in a previous post, the apostles weren’t speaking any language they didn’t already know. Xenoglossy was not the miracle of language at Pentecost.
"They heard them speaking in tongues the wonderful works of God were amazed that they could all understand in their own tongue and then Peter addressed them without speaking in tongues."
And how did this crowd from ‘every nation under heaven’, speaking a slew of different languages understand a word he was saying??? Or was his message solely for the Aramaic speaking peeps?
There is nothing in the narrative two suggest that Peter "switched languages" somewhere along the way.
L
The Bible says nothing about the tongues in the NT being a curse.
You take one verse from Isaiah, dress it up with Preterist babble and try to recreate the New Testament. There is no tongues cult but I guess if you can label something with the disdain you apparently feel, you imagine yourself to be secure in your bizarre renderings, if not superior to those you pass off as deceived.
I am left with the impression you cannot discourse without degrading and mocking and that is not a sign of someone who is actually secure in what they say they believe.
You take one verse from Isaiah, dress it up with Preterist babble and try to recreate the New Testament. There is no tongues cult but I guess if you can label something with the disdain you apparently feel, you imagine yourself to be secure in your bizarre renderings, if not superior to those you pass off as deceived.
I am left with the impression you cannot discourse without degrading and mocking and that is not a sign of someone who is actually secure in what they say they believe.
Some insight into the concept of the KJV written in "tongues" -
The committee that King James assigned to translate the Bible into English thought that the Greek texts were written in Classical Greek. As a result., several Greek words gave the translators of the King James Bible trouble because they didn't know Koine Greek. The committee was made up of specialists in Classical Greek. They believed that strange phrasing in the Greek New Testament was proof that it had been written in the “language of the Holy Spirit.”
It wasn't until the 19th century that scholars realized the Greek New Testament was written in a completely different dialect; Koine Greek.
The committee that King James assigned to translate the Bible into English thought that the Greek texts were written in Classical Greek. As a result., several Greek words gave the translators of the King James Bible trouble because they didn't know Koine Greek. The committee was made up of specialists in Classical Greek. They believed that strange phrasing in the Greek New Testament was proof that it had been written in the “language of the Holy Spirit.”
It wasn't until the 19th century that scholars realized the Greek New Testament was written in a completely different dialect; Koine Greek.
-
1
- Show all
Exactly no understanding coming from noises without understanding proves nothing. Nothing proves nothing .
Self edifying nothing can make a person wonder and fall backwards slain in the spirit. .That would seem to prove something?
What percentage of sign and wonder seekers make sounds without meaning and also have the falling back slain in the spirit ceremony (90% ?)
Self edifying nothing can make a person wonder and fall backwards slain in the spirit. .That would seem to prove something?
What percentage of sign and wonder seekers make sounds without meaning and also have the falling back slain in the spirit ceremony (90% ?)
