TONGUES false teaching.

  • 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.

SophieT

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2020
1,008
582
113
I have no rage at all and I challenge you publicly right now to post the number where I have shown RAGE and any discourtesy toward others.

I also challenge you to speak to the Scriptures where I have been faulty.

Now speaking to Chapter 12 that you just used.....The accepted and I believe correct understanding is that the implication clearly is this: those who possess these gifts must not act in an individualistic, adversarial fashion; rather, unity within the body of Christ must prevail (vv. 12ff).

Based upon the foundation laid in Chapter 12, Chapter 13 argues that spiritual gifts must be exercised in love. A gift recklessly invoked, with no consideration for others, is selfish and is nothing more than an irritating noise (vv. 1-3).

Chapter 14 then reveals the sort of contentious disposition that marred the Corinthian church.The apostolic instruction sought to correct those evils by regulating the use of the spiritual gifts, particularly the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and the interpretation (translation) of tongues.

This provides an abbreviated background of the difficulties with which Paul was forced to deal in Chapter 14.How, then, does this relate to the prohibition, “forbid not to speak in tongues”?There appears to have been two principal problems related to the gift of “tongues” and the gift of “prophecy.”Let us consider each of these matters.

Some of those who possessed the gift of speaking in tongues were abusing their blessing.For example, a brother might have the “gift” of speaking in a particular dialect—let us say, as an example, Persian.What was he to do if, in a certain church assembly, only Greek-speaking folks were present?If there was no one who possessed the gift of translation, he was to remain silent (vv. 2,6ff).

While one person was delivering a message in a “tongue,” another was not to interrupt. Rather, those endowed with such gifts were to communicate “in turn” (v. 27).The use of their individual gift was under their personal control (v. 32), and they must exercise self-control in order that confusion not disrupt the meeting (v. 33).

Another prevailing factor was the reality that “prophecy” was deemed to be a “greater” gift than that of tongues.And why was this the case? Because prophecy was the more versatile gift; it involved the divine ability to teach the congregation in the native language (in this case Greek) so that each Christian could be edified (v. 3).On the other hand, the gift of tongues frequently was curtailed by the need for a translator, in the absence of which, the brother with the language gift was required to remain mute.

On account of this difference, prophecy was considered to be the “greater” (v. 5) gift.Because of its utilitarian nature, the gift of “prophecy” is viewed as superior, from a practical vantage point, to that of “tongues” (vv. 1-5; 12; 22-25).
Another prevailing factor was the reality that “prophecy” was deemed to be a “greater” gift than that of tongues.And why was this the case?Because prophecy was the more versatile gift; it involved the divine ability to teach the congregation in the native language (in this case Greek) so that each Christian could be edified (v. 3).On the other hand, the gift of tongues frequently was curtailed by the need for a translator, in the absence of which, the brother with the language gift was required to remain mute.

Source: Didn't Paul Command, "Forbid not to speak in tongues"? : Christian Courier

What do you have to say about the scripture I posted? I'm not interested in your copy/pastes from what other people wrote

You want to discuss scripture? Well please then. Discuss what Paul wrote without the pretentious copy/pastes. I'm only talking to you. If you cannot say what you think Paul is saying from the scripture I posted without the mumbo jumbo, then it confirms the fact you are eager to display the renderings of others while forgetting your own.
 
Mar 21, 2009
3,813
1,471
113
New York
If you want to do a Bible study with me then praise God lets do just that my friend.

When We read that the apostles returned to Jerusalem and went to the upper room where the apostles dwelt (verses Acts 1: 12-13). In that room, they apparently met with the other disciples, including the women, and prayed (verse 14). Nothing says that the women prayed aloud.

Verse 15 tells us that the number of the disciples was 120. It also begins to tell us that in one of those meetings, Peter stood up and spoke concerning the need to replace Judas Iscariot with a disciple who had the qualifications to be one of the twelve. An interesting point is that in verse 16, Peter addresses his speech to “Men and brethren.” The Greek says andres adelphoi. Andres is not the generic word for man or mankind, which is anthrōpos. It is the word for “males.”

Also, the “and” in the King James Version is inserted. Thus, verse #16 is literally saying, “Men-brothers” or “Males-brothers.”

Although the women may have been present, Peter is addressing this business of replacing an apostle to the men. We then read how “the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (verse 26). So, chapter one ends speaking of the now twelve apostles.

Acts 2 then begins by saying, “And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.”

Many have assumed the “they” here to mean the 120. But, as we have just seen, the context is the twelve. And we must not forget that Jesus’ command in chapter one concerning this very event was to the apostles, not to the 120. But that’s not all.

In Acts 2:7, those hearing the speaking in tongues say, “Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?”

We know that the eleven apostles were from Galilee, and we may assume this for Matthias. But can we assume that all 120 were Galilaeans? Not at all.

Simon the leper was from Bethany (Matthew 26:6), a village at the Mount of Olives. The woman who anointed Jesus was also probably from Bethany (verse 7). And Lazarus, Mary, and Martha were also from Bethany (John 11:1). Bartimaeus was from Jericho (Mark 10:46).

I found these people in just a couple of minutes, and with more careful study perhaps more could be found who were definitely not from Galilee. I think we can assume that these people, or at least some of them, were among the 120. But, according to those who heard the speaking of tongues on Pentecost, these people could not have been among those speaking because they were not Galilaeans.

Want more???????

When they were thought to be drunk, we read of “Peter, standing up with the eleven” (verse 14). In other words, those who spoke in tongues were accused of being drunk and those who were accused stood up to respond to the charge. The number was twelve, not 120.

Then, after Peter’s speech, we read of the reaction of those who were pricked in the heart: “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (verse 37). Notice that they speak to “Peter and to the rest of the apostles” and they address them as andres adelphoi, “Males-brothers.”

All of this is weighty, and, to me, conclusive evidence that the only people who spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost were the twelve apostles. The 120 did not speak; no women spoke.

But of course.....you believe what you have been told.

We all at times have assumed something about the Bible–often because we have heard it from someone else–and then we may even make another assumption on top of that, and before you know it we have built a structure of wood, hay, and stubble. But if, instead, when we are tempted to make an assumption, we dig into the Bible to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11), we will find that the Bible yields much more wealth than a cursory reading will reveal. And what I did to answer this question is not very difficult. It can be done by anyone with some basic Bible tools or Bible software such as e-Sword. So, happy treasure hunting!
Q. You say that women are to be silent in the assembly. But weren't women among the 120 who spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2? | Word of His Grace
Your arguments are weak, women are assumed included in the word "brethren" throughout the bible.

All 120 spoke the women included. One of the reasons that we can be sure that the women were included was when Peter said that this was the fulfillment of the prophesy of Joel that "your sons and your DAUGHTERS shall prophesy, and that he would pour out his Spirit on your HANDMAIDENS" Peter is in effect pointing to these very women who were among those prophesying and speaking in tongues before all these witnesses.
Case Closed. Bible Study over.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
6,030
792
113
Paul did not pray in tongues. You are reading into the passage something that is not there. Without knowledge there is no edification. Jesus did not make bread from the rocks when tempted by satan. It would have been for His own benefit and not a benefit for the body of believers.
It is very straightforward and reasonable to assume that Paul did pray in tongues.

1 Corinthians 14
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Paul contrasts his speaking with tongues with what he would prefer to do in the church.

Jesus' objection to Satan's demand that he turn stones into bread was that it is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
6,030
792
113
If you want to do a Bible study with me then praise God lets do just that my friend.

When We read that the apostles returned to Jerusalem and went to the upper room where the apostles dwelt (verses Acts 1: 12-13). In that room, they apparently met with the other disciples, including the women, and prayed (verse 14). Nothing says that the women prayed aloud.

Verse 15 tells us that the number of the disciples was 120. It also begins to tell us that in one of those meetings, Peter stood up and spoke concerning the need to replace Judas Iscariot with a disciple who had the qualifications to be one of the twelve. An interesting point is that in verse 16, Peter addresses his speech to “Men and brethren.” The Greek says andres adelphoi. Andres is not the generic word for man or mankind, which is anthrōpos. It is the word for “males.”

Also, the “and” in the King James Version is inserted. Thus, verse #16 is literally saying, “Men-brothers” or “Males-brothers.”

Although the women may have been present, Peter is addressing this business of replacing an apostle to the men. We then read how “the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (verse 26). So, chapter one ends speaking of the now twelve apostles.
This is a weak argument. Those of us who have studied certain foreign languages may know that male plurals are ambiguous as to whether the audience is all male or includes males or females. Paul addressed the men Ἄνδρες 'andres' of Athens, but there was at least one woman in the crowd.

Acts 17
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

and

34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

Notice a woman was among the 'men' (andres) who believed in him in verse 34. The word can include women in a mixed gender proof, according to scripture.
 
Mar 23, 2016
4,021
1,177
113
Interesting that you won't acknowledge that you do not know.............

"So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind" 1 Corth. 14:23).
Why do you presume I do not know what is stated 1 Cor 14:23?

So you do agree that 1 Cor 14:2 states the believer who speaks in tongues speaks to God?

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God



 
Mar 23, 2016
4,021
1,177
113
If there was no one who possessed the gift of translation, he was to remain silent (vv. 2,6ff).
Scripture states that if there is no interpreter in the church, the believer is to speak in tongues silently to God.

1 Corinthians 14:27-28 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.





 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
16,577
9,043
113
For the 3rd time..........PLEASE use the :IGNORE: option for me.

You have not shown any Christian attitude or courtesy and very little Bible understanding. We have nothing else to discuss.
You have made unwarranted assumptions about me, supported those who have insulted me, and ignored me when I have corrected you with Scripture. Since you have the problem, you can own it.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
14,825
2,431
113
It is very straightforward and reasonable to assume that Paul did pray in tongues.

1 Corinthians 14
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Paul contrasts his speaking with tongues with what he would prefer to do in the church.
You are imputing to the verse things that are not written. Unknown is supplied by the translators and is not in the original text. Paul further points out the essential nature of understanding what he is saying. You are endeavoring to create what you want the verses to say not what is written.
Jesus' objection to Satan's demand that he turn stones into bread was that it is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
Jesus answered the tempter by quoting the word of God. Jesus did not make bread to edify Himself yet He fed thousands in the house of Israel with bread and fishes. To edify the folks that were present.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
6,030
792
113
I also challenge you to speak to the Scriptures where I have been faulty.
I'll accept the challenge. I have posted a number of posts showing that your assertion that 'them' in 'them that believe' refers back to the 'apostles' verses before does not conform with the rules of Greek grammar and would result in ridiculous interpretations if your own rule were applied to other passages-- for example, Jesus referring only to Himself when He said 'He that believeth in me.' Tois modifies the participle that follows. It is also not a genitive absolute that refers to an antecedent in a previous sentence.

I just posted an example of where 'andres' can include women in a previous post.

I agree with most of the following, at least the gist of it, in interpreting I Corinthians 14.

Now speaking to Chapter 12 that you just used.....The accepted and I believe correct understanding is that the implication clearly is this: those who possess these gifts must not act in an individualistic, adversarial fashion; rather, unity within the body of Christ must prevail (vv. 12ff).

Based upon the foundation laid in Chapter 12, Chapter 13 argues that spiritual gifts must be exercised in love. A gift recklessly invoked, with no consideration for others, is selfish and is nothing more than an irritating noise (vv. 1-3).
These are all reasonable inferences, at the very least, from the verses cited. I would ask, though, if you believe this. Do you believe that 'spiritual gifts must be exercised'? If they are to be exercised in love, they must be exercised to be exercised in love. The main point of difference I can see between what you write here and my own understanding of the passage is that you seem to think the passages no longer apply, and I do see that they apply.

You would render some of these teachings of scriptural as inaccurate for the church today without so much as a proof text. How could you even create a case from scripture for doing away with the gifts of miracles or healings? There is no case to be made. You have a certain cessationist interpretation of I Corinthians 13 that you hold to, but that chapter doesn't mention miracles or healing.

Chapter 14 then reveals the sort of contentious disposition that marred the Corinthian church.The apostolic instruction sought to correct those evils by regulating the use of the spiritual gifts, particularly the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and the interpretation (translation) of tongues.
Here is an area of disagreement. While Paul corrected the Corinthians for division over certain leaders, he does not say that they had a 'contentius disposition' about spiritual gifts. Paul implies their misuse of spiritual gifts was based on being 'children in understanding', not on a contentius disposition. He does not call them 'evils' either, and his tone is not harsh.

This provides an abbreviated background of the difficulties with which Paul was forced to deal in Chapter 14.How, then, does this relate to the prohibition, “forbid not to speak in tongues”?There appears to have been two principal problems related to the gift of “tongues” and the gift of “prophecy.”Let us consider each of these matters.

Some of those who possessed the gift of speaking in tongues were abusing their blessing.For example, a brother might have the “gift” of speaking in a particular dialect—let us say, as an example, Persian.What was he to do if, in a certain church assembly, only Greek-speaking folks were present?If there was no one who possessed the gift of translation, he was to remain silent (vv. 2,6ff).

While one person was delivering a message in a “tongue,” another was not to interrupt. Rather, those endowed with such gifts were to communicate “in turn” (v. 27).The use of their individual gift was under their personal control (v. 32), and they must exercise self-control in order that confusion not disrupt the meeting (v. 33).
I agree with the general gist of this, though I would want to clarify that in I Corinthians 14:19, Paul contrasts speaking in tongues with speaking with his mind. So this is not a mere human ability to speak in a foreign language. The idea of someone present who would understand the language by natural means does not enter into the discussion in this particular passage where, 'no man understandeth him', but it does show up in Acts 2.

Another prevailing factor was the reality that “prophecy” was deemed to be a “greater” gift than that of tongues.And why was this the case? Because prophecy was the more versatile gift; it involved the divine ability to teach the congregation in the native language (in this case Greek) so that each Christian could be edified (v. 3).On the other hand, the gift of tongues frequently was curtailed by the need for a translator, in the absence of which, the brother with the language gift was required to remain mute.
Verisility? Why not stick with Paul's reason why the one who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues? It is because he edifies the church. Paul does not comment on whether prophecy or tongues + interpretation is greater. He says greater is he who prophesies than he who speaks in tongues, that the church may be edified. Some infer that tongues + interpretation is equal to prophesying.

Also, calling prophecy 'the divine ability to teach the congregation' is a rather loose definition. The passage illustrates that the content of a prophecy could be the contents of an unbeliever's heart. Paul treats prophets and teachers as different ministries in I Corinthians 12 and in Romans 12, prophesying and teaching are two different gifts.

You didn't mark the post to let us know if these are quotes are paraphrases.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
6,030
792
113
You are imputing to the verse things that are not written. Unknown is supplied by the translators and is not in the original text.
That's a total straw man. I just happened to pull up the KJV. The addition of 'unknown' in the KJV text has nothing to do with the point I was making. I could have chosen any number of translations and made the same point.

Paul further points out the essential nature of understanding what he is saying. You are endeavoring to create what you want the verses to say not what is written.
You'll notice I made my point by quoting scripture (the KJV translation in this case) and putting certain words in bold.

Jesus answered the tempter by quoting the word of God. Jesus did not make bread to edify Himself yet He fed thousands in the house of Israel with bread and fishes. To edify the folks that were present.
Yet he did not make your point either.

I Corinthians 14 is clear that edifying oneself through speaking in tongues is permissible and desirable because, after pointing out that he who speaks in tongues edifies himself, Paul writes, I would that ye all spake with tongues. He is also clear that edifying the church is superior to edifying oneself. Do you think Paul disagrees with your interpretation of the passage about Christ's temptation in the wilderness?
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
6,462
1,800
113
Paul did not pray in tongues. You are reading into the passage something that is not there. Without knowledge there is no edification. Jesus did not make bread from the rocks when tempted by satan. It would have been for His own benefit and not a benefit for the body of believers.

Meaningless attempt to justify an activity that does not support your contentions.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
LOL hahaha " Paul did not pray in Tongues" Paul said in 1cor 14: 18

Paul said " I (Paul) thank my God I (Paul) in speak with tongues more than you all;

That was a literal. Jesus of course did not make bread out of rocks we responded to the devil's temptation with the word of God. The context has nothing to do with 1cor chapters 12 through 14. You are being foolish. You're hatred for those who have the empowering of the Holy Spirit is very telling. You will pull stupidity out of thin air. lol.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
6,462
1,800
113
You just said............
"Do you test to see if you are saved ? As a card carrying member of a pentecostal church saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in an unknown tongues."

You just said what the Bible condemns my brother.

"With the evidence of speaking in a UNKNOWN tongue".

First of all the word "UNKNOWN" is not IN THE BIBLE at all. It was ADDED later by translators. Look at the word in the Bible and it is "ITIALCIZED". = ADDED.

Second.....to say that speaking in tongues is evidence of your salvation is also not Biblical. It may be a denominational dogma but it is not Biblical.

Speaking in tongues does not make you a better Christian than those of us who do not speak in such utterances. Tongues does not make anyone a Christian or prove that you are one.

Tongues were spoken in "Pagan" worship services thousands of years before Christianity came upon the scene my friend.

The Bible teaches in Romans 8:16.......
“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”


It is the Holy Spirit which comes to indwell (live) within every believer at the moment of salvation, that bears witness with our spirit that we are saved.

There is only one way to know if we are really saved. Just as the Philippian Jailer asked Paul and Silas in Acts 16:30,31,
...Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved...”
There is only one thing we must do to have eternal life; that is, believe that Jesus Christ died to pay for our sins. Ephesians 1:13 tell us,
“In whom (Christ) ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise.”
No I did not LOl read what i said in context don't cherry pick I can't take you seriously if you do that.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
6,462
1,800
113
I want to do what the Bible says about it.

What DOES the Bible say about it?

1 Cor 14:5) I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

1 Cor 14:39) Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

1 Cor 14:37) If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
you can't cherry pick . you jump from verse 5 to 39 then back to 37 LOL the text doesn't read that way.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
6,462
1,800
113
1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God ...
that is not the full context do you even read the whole chapter or just cherry pick what you agree with?

2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

Very important " Unless indeed he interprets" changes the context of verse 2. IF you only read to verse to one could as many do that those who speak inane unknown tongue speak ONLY to God. That would be correct IF you rip out verses 3-5.
 

SophieT

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2020
1,008
582
113
Obviousely there were women there. But the Scriptures DO NOT SAY THAT WOMEN were speaking in tongues.

That is what YOU want it to say!!!
The opposite is true. You have decided that women cannot even pray, let alone speak in tongues. You either add or subtract from scripture to try to change what is being said, to what you want it to say, which, is some weak watered down man made concept of the Eternal God.
 

SophieT

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2020
1,008
582
113
Obviousely there were women there. But the Scriptures DO NOT SAY THAT WOMEN were speaking in tongues.

That is what YOU want it to say!!!
The Holy Spirit fell on all those gathered in the upper room. No worries though. We have come to understand that you do not see women on equal footing with God.

You are in denial of what is revealed in the Bible.

2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

So unless you believe no women were present in that room on that day, then you must agree that women also received the gift of the Holy Spirit AND spoke in tongues.
 
Mar 23, 2016
4,021
1,177
113
that is not the full context do you even read the whole chapter or just cherry pick what you agree with?

2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

Very important " Unless indeed he interprets" changes the context of verse 2. IF you only read to verse to one could as many do that those who speak inane unknown tongue speak ONLY to God. That would be correct IF you rip out verses 3-5.
yes, I understand that.

I merely replied to Major who indicated that speaking in tongues was gibberish (see his post #546).

While speaking in tongues may sound like gibberish to some, speaking in tongues is not speaking gibberish to God. 1 Cor 14:2 indicates the believer speaks to God and, indeed, in the spirit the believer speaks mysteries. You know this and I know this.

And, yes, I also understand that when the congregation comes together in the church, and speaking in tongues is proper, decent and in order, then interpretation of tongues is to follow.

Thanks for bringing clarification to that aspect where speaking in tongues in the church congregation is to be followed by interpretation of tongues.
 
Dec 21, 2020
61
18
8
you can't cherry pick . you jump from verse 5 to 39 then back to 37 LOL the text doesn't read that way.
1 Cor 14:5) I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

1 Cor 14:37) If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

1 Cor 14:39) Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

Happy now? ;-) You do understand that I am not a cessationist, right?