When someone speaks in tongues in church, is it mandatory for it to be translated?
- Thread starter Socreta93
- 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.
That last sentence is 'word salad' so it's hard to get what you mean. Are you a non-native speaker of English. It's okay if you are. It's just hard to get your point with your wording sometimes. Maybe you just aren't editing. I do that sometimes to.
Anyway, one apostle once said, "The Lord Jesus heals you." But the Bible also says that Paul healed people. I don't think God gets as hung up on the terminology as some people do. I do know that there have been evangelists involved in healing ministry have been insistant on using wording about Jesus healing people, instead of them. That's fine if that helps keep them from getting proud and helps direct attent to the Lord and not to themselves.
But be that as it may, the Bible has given us lots of good examples to follow. Paul said, "Follow me as I follow Christ." Paul was a miracle-worker. So it is okay for Christians to be miracle-workers, or prophets, or speakers in tongues or interpreters. It doesn't mean we are walking by sight instead of walking by faith. Since Jesus has worked so many miracles, it is a bad thing to imply that those who believe in or exercise these gifts are somehow lacking in faith.
Galatians 3:5
He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
That doesn't fit with the idea that believing, performing, or even earnestly desiring the working of miracles is somehow contrary to walking by faith. You've got to stop with the weird dichotomies that contradict scripture, and trying to justify yourself with pseudo-spiritual explanations.
The idea that the 'miracle' was in the ear, rather than the mouth, has been debated since the fourth century. Most of us read the text in a straightforward way and believe it was in the mouth. Why?
Because the text says "they heard them speak with tongues".
It does NOT say
"They saw their mouths moving, but heard some tongue that wasn't really coming out of their mouths like a dubbed Chinese Kung Fu movie."
" God is no longer bringing any new prophecy in any manner, to include a tongue."
See that's the problem. The Bible doesn't teach that. Jude said to 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.' This doctrine you are teaching was not an apostolic teaching. Paul said that that which is in part WILL be done away. But this was in an epistle that, in the first chapter as Paul was preparing to address the issues related to these gifts, Paul wrote, 'so that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.'
And he also would write later about the resurrection at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and 'then cometh the end.' The word translated 'end' is the Greek 'telos'.
There is no new doctrine added to the faith. But the Spirit does continue to speak. That is why second century Christians believed in the gift of prophecy. We read about apostles and prophets in the Didache. Justin Martyr argued with the unbelieving Jew Trypho that the church had prophets, rather than his people. Hermas mentions prophesying occuring in churches of his day. Ireneaus, in 'Against Heresies' around the late second or early third century wrote of people who had foreknowledge, prophesied, healed, raised the dead, and cast out devils.
Ireneaus, in another work, said that not believing in the gift of prophecy was one of the characteristics of the heresies.
That would puzzle me too. But something else that bothers me is why people would not believe what He has revealed, for example, about spiritual gifts. We are in the last days, aren't we? Jesus hasn't returned yet, so why would prophesying as a gift have ceased yet?
Maybe if you consider everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of I Corinthians 13 or any other scripture to be damned, you could hold to your interpretation of I Corinthians 13. Otherwise, it doesn't hold water.
Muslims who are considered 'orthodox' don't believe that prophecy is an ongoing thing, so you hold to a belief in common with Muslims.
Since they all spoke in tongues, Peter did, too. We don't know if Peter spoke one of the 16 or so languages that were listed that were understood or not. It doesn't make sense to think that he preached in tongues or that the preaching was miraculously interpreted in the people's minds. The text doesn't state or hint at that idea.
I think you are a bit too brazen with saying God sent a strong delusion to Muhammad. If you believe he was deceived, then why say God sent a strong delusion it rather than blaming it on Satan. Do you really believe the 'strong delusion' is specificall about Islam. And how do you know that the book attributed to him is the original after Uthman had other variants burned? For me personally, I am careful about saying God did this or God did that. Paul implies that being a false witness of God is bad thing.
It is still strange to me that people will be against people prophesying this day and age-- saying God said this or that-- but will liberally say God did this or that.
Anyway, one apostle once said, "The Lord Jesus heals you." But the Bible also says that Paul healed people. I don't think God gets as hung up on the terminology as some people do. I do know that there have been evangelists involved in healing ministry have been insistant on using wording about Jesus healing people, instead of them. That's fine if that helps keep them from getting proud and helps direct attent to the Lord and not to themselves.
But be that as it may, the Bible has given us lots of good examples to follow. Paul said, "Follow me as I follow Christ." Paul was a miracle-worker. So it is okay for Christians to be miracle-workers, or prophets, or speakers in tongues or interpreters. It doesn't mean we are walking by sight instead of walking by faith. Since Jesus has worked so many miracles, it is a bad thing to imply that those who believe in or exercise these gifts are somehow lacking in faith.
Galatians 3:5
He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
That doesn't fit with the idea that believing, performing, or even earnestly desiring the working of miracles is somehow contrary to walking by faith. You've got to stop with the weird dichotomies that contradict scripture, and trying to justify yourself with pseudo-spiritual explanations.
The idea that the 'miracle' was in the ear, rather than the mouth, has been debated since the fourth century. Most of us read the text in a straightforward way and believe it was in the mouth. Why?
Because the text says "they heard them speak with tongues".
It does NOT say
"They saw their mouths moving, but heard some tongue that wasn't really coming out of their mouths like a dubbed Chinese Kung Fu movie."
" God is no longer bringing any new prophecy in any manner, to include a tongue."
See that's the problem. The Bible doesn't teach that. Jude said to 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.' This doctrine you are teaching was not an apostolic teaching. Paul said that that which is in part WILL be done away. But this was in an epistle that, in the first chapter as Paul was preparing to address the issues related to these gifts, Paul wrote, 'so that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.'
And he also would write later about the resurrection at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and 'then cometh the end.' The word translated 'end' is the Greek 'telos'.
There is no new doctrine added to the faith. But the Spirit does continue to speak. That is why second century Christians believed in the gift of prophecy. We read about apostles and prophets in the Didache. Justin Martyr argued with the unbelieving Jew Trypho that the church had prophets, rather than his people. Hermas mentions prophesying occuring in churches of his day. Ireneaus, in 'Against Heresies' around the late second or early third century wrote of people who had foreknowledge, prophesied, healed, raised the dead, and cast out devils.
Ireneaus, in another work, said that not believing in the gift of prophecy was one of the characteristics of the heresies.
That would puzzle me too. But something else that bothers me is why people would not believe what He has revealed, for example, about spiritual gifts. We are in the last days, aren't we? Jesus hasn't returned yet, so why would prophesying as a gift have ceased yet?
Maybe if you consider everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of I Corinthians 13 or any other scripture to be damned, you could hold to your interpretation of I Corinthians 13. Otherwise, it doesn't hold water.
Muslims who are considered 'orthodox' don't believe that prophecy is an ongoing thing, so you hold to a belief in common with Muslims.
Since they all spoke in tongues, Peter did, too. We don't know if Peter spoke one of the 16 or so languages that were listed that were understood or not. It doesn't make sense to think that he preached in tongues or that the preaching was miraculously interpreted in the people's minds. The text doesn't state or hint at that idea.
I think you are a bit too brazen with saying God sent a strong delusion to Muhammad. If you believe he was deceived, then why say God sent a strong delusion it rather than blaming it on Satan. Do you really believe the 'strong delusion' is specificall about Islam. And how do you know that the book attributed to him is the original after Uthman had other variants burned? For me personally, I am careful about saying God did this or God did that. Paul implies that being a false witness of God is bad thing.
It is still strange to me that people will be against people prophesying this day and age-- saying God said this or that-- but will liberally say God did this or that.
Maybe a lucky guess or a knowledge of the Greek language?
I was on a list with a Greek and Latin scholar who believed two or at the most three referred to utterances since the passage is about 'one' (tis) who speaks in tongues, and one person doesn't transform into two or three people when he speaks in tongues. There were others who spoke Greek who didn't necessarily agree with him, apparently including many Bible translators.
I wonder, though, if most Bible translators are that rigorously trained. The ones translating for unreached people groups aren't always Greek and Hebrew scholars, not at that level, it seems, from talking with them.
I was on a list with a Greek and Latin scholar who believed two or at the most three referred to utterances since the passage is about 'one' (tis) who speaks in tongues, and one person doesn't transform into two or three people when he speaks in tongues. There were others who spoke Greek who didn't necessarily agree with him, apparently including many Bible translators.
I wonder, though, if most Bible translators are that rigorously trained. The ones translating for unreached people groups aren't always Greek and Hebrew scholars, not at that level, it seems, from talking with them.
The verse is talking about 1 man speaking in two or three unknown tongues. The unknown tongues are Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, these are the languages the bible was written in. This verse is talking about God tanslating the word of God into other languages. The one interpreter is God.
1 Corinthians 14:27 KJV
If any man (1 man) speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two (2 unknown tongues), or at the most by three (3 unknown tongues), and that by course; and let one (God) interpret.
1 Corinthians 14:27 KJV
If any man (1 man) speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two (2 unknown tongues), or at the most by three (3 unknown tongues), and that by course; and let one (God) interpret.
Have you studied the phrase "two or three" in the King James bible? The phrase is symbolic of the word of God throughout scripture. But regardless of that, the point is that one man speaks and he's limited to 2 or 3 languages.
Acts 2 is the word of God also. They were speaking "the wonderful works of God" (the bible) in all the listeners language. This proves God can translate his word into other languages. They weren't speaking unknown tongues they were speaking the native languages of the listeners. Acts 2 is not the same as 1 Corinthians 14.
Acts 2 is the word of God also. They were speaking "the wonderful works of God" (the bible) in all the listeners language. This proves God can translate his word into other languages. They weren't speaking unknown tongues they were speaking the native languages of the listeners. Acts 2 is not the same as 1 Corinthians 14.
How the KJV worded it is not that relevant to what the passage means. The Bible says to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. The faith was delivered and the Bible written before King James commissioned a translation (which copies in parts from the Geneva Bible). I don't see where you get your point about two or three symbolizing the word of God, since it is used in reference to two or three witnesses.
The Greek scholar on the forum, in my own words, believed 'two or at the most three' referred to what was spoken in tongues, rather than the languages. Something about the fact that Greek can omit logoi. He was inclined to believe 'let the prophets speak two or three' should be interpreted the same way based on a parallel interpretation to verse 27, though grammatically, it could refer to the number of prophets as well.
The KJV translators added 'unknown' in I Corinthians 14.
The Greek scholar on the forum, in my own words, believed 'two or at the most three' referred to what was spoken in tongues, rather than the languages. Something about the fact that Greek can omit logoi. He was inclined to believe 'let the prophets speak two or three' should be interpreted the same way based on a parallel interpretation to verse 27, though grammatically, it could refer to the number of prophets as well.
The KJV translators added 'unknown' in I Corinthians 14.