TONGUES false teaching.

[climbthehill]

One thing I know,43 years ago in my prayer, I asked for the gift of speaking in other tongues and it was given, the same today as it was then

Many claim the gift of tongues dosent exist today?

Telling me that, is like telling the blind man that was healed by Jesus, that he really couldn't see, Smiles

Amen! 💯

 

[ewq1938]

Where is that in Scripture?

In Acts at Pentecost.

Instead of giving just a few words in response, perhaps you could explain in clear, plain language what, according to you, constitutes the manifestation of the Holy Spirit that Paul called "speaking in unknown tongues", and separately, what constitutes the manifestation of the Holy Spirit that Paul called "interpretation of tongues". Don't conflate them, because Paul didn't.

Any time Paul writes about unknown tongues he is speaking of foreign languages and anytime he speaks of interpreters, that is what we call translators. He isn't speaking of some weird sounding non-language that is divinely inspired where the person speaking doesn't know what they are saying. That's pure imaginary fiction based on the archaic English in the KJV and people misunderstanding it.


1. Someone speaking gibberish that they cannot understand.

2. Someone speaking and everyone who hears them understands what they are saying perfectly no matter what language the hearer understands? Not only do they understand it, they hear it in their native accent. That's how perfectly the message is understood.

What really would be considered a miracle from the Holy Spirit?

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

In Acts at Pentecost.



Any time Paul writes about unknown tongues he is speaking of foreign languages and anytime he speaks of interpreters, that is what we call translators. He isn't speaking of some weird sounding non-language that is divinely inspired where the person speaking doesn't know what they are saying. That's pure imaginary fiction based on the archaic English in the KJV and people misunderstanding it.


1. Someone speaking gibberish that they cannot understand.

2. Someone speaking and everyone who hears them understands what they are saying perfectly no matter what language the hearer understands? Not only do they understand it, they hear it in their native accent. That's how perfectly the message is understood.

What really would be considered a miracle from the Holy Spirit?

Nice point made!

God scrambled the languages in Genesis after the tower of babel to disperse the people... and speaking in tongues in Book of Acts were miracles and were examples provided to demonstrate that God is bringing his people back together and to Him.

But tongues spoken today is babel (not understandable) and points to how the peoples are still dispersed in the world - and apart from God - ever since the tower of babel.

 

[ewq1938]

But tongues spoken today is babel (not understandable) and points to how the peoples are still dispersed in the world - and apart from God - ever since the tower of babel.

Yep!

Gen 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Babel:
H894
בָּבֶל
bâbel
baw-bel'
From H1101; confusion; Babel (that is, Babylon), including Babylonia and the Babylonian empire: - Babel, Babylon.
Total KJV occurrences: 262

To speak Babel is to speak confusion. Babel and Babylon is the same exact word.

 

[Dino246]

In Acts at Pentecost.

That's not what happened. You are completely ignoring Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance." They spoke in other languages. They spoke in the languages of the Jews who had travelled to Jerusalem for the Feast of Weeks and who had grown up learning languages other than Greek or Aramaic, and they heard the disciples speaking in their languages (plural). There was no miracle of understanding mentioned; it was a miracle of Spirit-empowered speech.

Any time Paul writes about unknown tongues he is speaking of foreign languages and anytime he speaks of interpreters, that is what we call translators.

So you are saying that what Paul calls "manifestations of the Holy Spirit" are actually just skills any unsaved human can develop.

You still have failed to address my comments on 1 Corinthians 14:13-19. You have not made any defense against my assertion that people who speak in languages other than that of the local congregation are using their minds just as much as those speaking the local language. I don't think you have any defense.

He isn't speaking of some weird sounding non-language that is divinely inspired where the person speaking doesn't know what they are saying. That's pure imaginary fiction based on the archaic English in the KJV and people misunderstanding it.

You claimed earlier that the KJV was a superior translation to the NASB; now you're calling it "archaic". Do you even pay attention to yourself?

1. Someone speaking gibberish that they cannot understand.

You have just called the manifestation of the Holy Spirit "gibberish". I wonder what He thinks of that.

2. Someone speaking and everyone who hears them understands what they are saying perfectly no matter what language the hearer understands? Not only do they understand it, they hear it in their native accent. That's how perfectly the message is understood.

Native accent? That's unvarnished eisegesis. Nothing in Scripture suggests that is what happened at Pentecost. Nothing in Scripture suggests that the situation was one of interpretation of tongues. Nothing in 1 Corinthians supports such a view.

What really would be considered a miracle from the Holy Spirit?

Apparently, you allowing the Scripture to correct you, for starters.

Your version is entirely invented to support the conclusion with which you began. I hope that isn't your standard method for interpreting Scripture.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

So I came across this video.

 

[ewq1938]

There was no miracle of understanding mentioned

It's called the cloven tongues because it started with one language but was heard in many different languages. Naturally the speaking was the miracle not the hearing. They didn't give the same speech 50 times in different languages. A person spoke and the Holy Spirit made that one speech understandable no matter what language the person knew that was listening.

 

[ewq1938]

Native accent? That's unvarnished eisegesis.

Hardly. You just haven't read the passage carefully enough.

Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

It's not just that they heard their own language, but the language that was spoken where they were born. A person born in New York would hear the speaking with a NY accent etc. Using English as an example since that's what we are speaking, there is a vast different in pronunciation between English on the west coast of America, various areas of the south of America, NY, Chicago, Canada and the UK and in Ireland.

 

[1ofthem]

Hardly. You just haven't read the passage carefully enough.

Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

It's not just that they heard their own language, but the language that was spoken where they were born. A person born in New York would hear the speaking with a NY accent etc. Using English as an example since that's what we are speaking, there is a vast different in pronunciation between English on the west coast of America, various areas of the south of America, NY, Chicago, Canada and the UK and in Ireland.

Ok so what do you think about this verse then: Especially the phrase unknown tongue...

Corinthians 14:4

King James Version



4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

 

[ewq1938]

Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language/dialektos.
Act 2:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue/dialektos, wherein we were born?
Act 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Act 2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Act 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues/glōssa the wonderful works of God.

Also, the word used is dialektos from which we have the word "dialect". This differs from the word" TONGUES" where the word used is glōssa.

So, they not only heard their own language/glōssa being spoken, they heard it spoken in the dialektos/dialect from where they were born.

 

[ewq1938]

Ok so what do you think about this verse then: Especially the phrase unknown tongue...

Corinthians 14:4

King James Version



4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

To use modern English, this is what he is saying:

He that speaks in an foreign language no one else understands edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth (using the language everyone understands) edifieth the church.

 

[1ofthem]

To use modern English, this is what he is saying:

He that speaks in an foreign language no one else understands edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth (using the language everyone understands) edifieth the church.

I'm not sure about these new translations. I'm pretty fond of the KJV, but I'm not a KJV only ( that is another thread entirely..lol) Just seems the more I read other/newer translations things seem to get watered down or totally changed with their translations. I've read somethings in the NIV and wouldn't have even gotten the message out of it unless I had first read the KJV.

But here is another one... Tongues of Angels...surely this doesn't mean just a mankind foreign language.

1 Corinthians 13

King James Version



13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

 

[ewq1938]

But here is another one... Tongues of Angels...surely this doesn't mean just a mankind foreign language.

Actually men are called angels when they are messengers and wouldn't messengers often come from lands that speak a different language? It also is speaking of language plural. If speaking of literal heavenly angels, why would they have multiple languages? It only makes sense that he is talking about human angels/messengers not heavenly angels.

 

[Dino246]

It's called the cloven tongues because it started with one language but was heard in many different languages.

No, it's called "cloven tongues" because tongues of fire appeared and rested on each of them.

Naturally the speaking was the miracle not the hearing. They didn't give the same speech 50 times in different languages.

They didn't give "a speech". They spoke of the mighty deeds of God.

A person spoke and the Holy Spirit made that one speech understandable no matter what language the person knew that was listening.

Wrong. "The disciples"--plural--"began to speak with other tongues"--plural--"as the Spirit gave them"--plural--"utterance." The people hearing were "bewildered because each one of them was hearing them"--plural--"speak in his own language." 120 people speaking, fifteen nationalities identified. There could have been eight disciples speaking each language.

 

[Dino246]

Hardly. You just haven't read the passage carefully enough.

Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

It's not just that they heard their own language, but the language that was spoken where they were born. A person born in New York would hear the speaking with a NY accent etc. Using English as an example since that's what we are speaking, there is a vast different in pronunciation between English on the west coast of America, various areas of the south of America, NY, Chicago, Canada and the UK and in Ireland.

You were arguing previously that "tongues" means "languages". Now you're arguing that it means "accents". Ridiculous!

 

[Dino246]

To use modern English, this is what he is saying:

He that speaks in an foreign language no one else understands edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth (using the language everyone understands) edifieth the church.

That is not what it means at all. Remember the context: manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Someone who happens to be speaking in the language of the people is not "prophesying". You are reducing the gifts of the Spirit to mere human abilities.

 

[ewq1938]

I disagree with pretty much everything you stated but it's not worth the time to keep correcting your errors. The point is the HS inspires tongues that can be understood, not tongues of nonsense and confusion (Babel and Babylon in the Hebrew tongue.

No, it's called "cloven tongues" because tongues of fire appeared and rested on each of them.


They didn't give "a speech". They spoke of the mighty deeds of God.


Wrong. "The disciples"--plural--"began to speak with other tongues"--plural--"as the Spirit gave them"--plural--"utterance." The people hearing were "bewildered because each one of them was hearing them"--plural--"speak in his own language." 120 people speaking, fifteen nationalities identified. There could have been eight disciples speaking each language.

 

[ewq1938]

You were arguing previously that "tongues" means "languages". Now you're arguing that it means "accents". Ridiculous!

You haven't understood what I posted or you wouldn't have posted this.

 

[Dino246]

I disagree with pretty much everything you stated but it's not worth the time to keep correcting your errors. The point is the HS inspires tongues that can be understood, not tongues of nonsense and confusion (Babel and Babylon in the Hebrew tongue.

You keep repeating your blather and cannot account for what the Scripture actually says. Instead you make up ridiculous stories that conflict with Scripture.

 

[Dino246]

You haven't understood what I posted or you wouldn't have posted this.

Yawn: false dichotomy.