Question About 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.
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#41
If you read down through verse 28 the context remains singular as in ONE man speaking...it seems it is indicative of a singular man speaking one to three languages with ONE interpreting and if no interpreters let him SPEAK to himself........just off the cuff...
That's the way I see it also and I'm pretty sure it's right. This is another reason I think the tongues speakers are bogus. They claim the bible says that tongues should be spoken by two or three people at the most.... and the verse has absolutely nothing to do with how many people can speak, it's all about how many different unknown languages they are allowed to speak in.
 
G

Gr8grace

Guest
#42
Any Greek experts able to explain this verse from the Greek perspective?

1Co_14:27 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.
The "two" or "three" are in the accusative case........accusative of respect to or specification.

The "two" or "three" are in respect to or specifies what the man says in the unknown language.

The man says two or three phrases or sentences, in respect to his foreign language gift, in their proper coarse ,STOPS and then has those phrases or sentences interpreted.

I am no expert, but have been studying for a while. Angela or Marc may chime in. They are well informed.
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,401
113
#43
The "two" or "three" are in the accusative case........accusative of respect to or specification.

The "two" or "three" are in respect to or specifies what the man says in the unknown language.

The man says two or three phrases or sentences, in respect to his foreign language gift, in their proper coarse ,STOPS and then has those phrases or sentences interpreted.

I am no expert, but have been studying for a while. Angela or Marc may chime in. They are well informed.

I like this as well......and makes sense too....
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#44
The "two" or "three" are in the accusative case........accusative of respect to or specification.

The "two" or "three" are in respect to or specifies what the man says in the unknown language.

The man says two or three phrases or sentences, in respect to his foreign language gift, in their proper coarse ,STOPS and then has those phrases or sentences interpreted.

I am no expert, but have been studying for a while. Angela or Marc may chime in. They are well informed.
Thank you Gr8grace!
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#45
Does this make sense to you guys who say the verse is talking about two or three people getting up and speak.
Do you agree?
 
Feb 21, 2012
3,794
199
63
#46
I know that's what most people believe, but that's what most people have been taught to believe. I like to read and understand the bible by allowing God to show me the meaning. When I read the verse below, I see that two or three could mean either two or three men or two or three unknown tongues. My question is how do we know which is intended, is there a grammatical rule that would let us know? I believe the subject of the sentence is the unknown tongue which would mean the rest of the sentence is referring to the unknown tongue.

1Co_14:27 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.
What is the subject of this sentence? Man. . . . The verb? speak. . . . then how is it to be done? (let it be has been added) by two or at the most by three - two or at most by three, what? - What is the subject again? MAN . . . .
in a tongue is a prepositional phrase - not the subject

 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#47
What is the subject of this sentence? Man. . . . The verb? speak. . . . then how is it to be done? (let it be has been added) by two or at the most by three - two or at most by three, what? - What is the subject again? MAN . . . .
in a tongue is a prepositional phrase - not the subject

If that were true then verse 28 would say let them keep silence in the church wouldn't it?

1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
 

Budman

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2014
4,153
1,999
113
#48
Seriously, what can anyone speaking in tongues add to what is already in Scripture?
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,401
113
#49
If that were true then verse 28 would say let them keep silence in the church wouldn't it?

1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Amen...verse 28 makes it clear that a man (singular) is what is in view.....not men, they or them, but HIM as in singular!
 
Feb 21, 2012
3,794
199
63
#50
If that were true then verse 28 would say let them keep silence in the church wouldn't it?

1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
No . . . because it is still speaking of the individual "man" in verse 27 - regardless if there are two or three - these speak individually not simultaneously (by course, i.e. in order) . . . but individually so "let him keep silence and let him speak to himself" is correct and in line with the individual "man" in verse 27.

This doesn't have a detrimental effect on our salvation - so believe how you want. Personally, I believe it is important to understand spiritual matters and I believe it helps in our spiritual growth to understand the manifestation of the Spirit . . . but hey, some don't believe it in at all . . . sooooooo. . . .


[h=2][/h]
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#51
Seriously, what can anyone speaking in tongues add to what is already in Scripture?
I believe that it can't add anything to scripture because tongues is scripture. The bible was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. I believe that's why those verses only allow three unknown tongues and One (God) has to interpret them. Tongues has nothing to do with speaking gibberish, it is telling the believer that God will translate the unknown tongues the bible was written in into our own language... the same as Pentecost was a prophecy that God would translate his word into all languages. Each one of those guys at Pentecost heard the word of God in their own language. Just my opinion... check out all the places in the bible where "two or three" is used... very interesting!
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#52
No . . . because it is still speaking of the individual "man" in verse 27 - regardless if there are two or three - these speak individually not simultaneously (by course, i.e. in order) . . . but individually so "let him keep silence and let him speak to himself" is correct and in line with the individual "man" in verse 27.

This doesn't have a detrimental effect on our salvation - so believe how you want. Personally, I believe it is important to understand spiritual matters and I believe it helps in our spiritual growth to understand the manifestation of the Spirit . . . but hey, some don't believe it in at all . . . sooooooo. . . .

In your opinion why is it that almost exclusively, only Pentecostals speak in tongues. I was brought up baptist and never heard a single person speak in tongues in a baptist church. I've been to Pentecostal churches and saw it happen several times in one service.
 

Budman

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2014
4,153
1,999
113
#53
I believe that it can't add anything to scripture because tongues is scripture. The bible was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. I believe that's why those verses only allow three unknown tongues and One (God) has to interpret them. Tongues has nothing to do with speaking gibberish, it is telling the believer that God will translate the unknown tongues the bible was written in into our own language... the same as Pentecost was a prophecy that God would translate his word into all languages. Each one of those guys at Pentecost heard the word of God in their own language. Just my opinion... check out all the places in the bible where "two or three" is used... very interesting!
What I meant was, what pertinent information can tongues provide that the Bible doesn't?
 
Feb 21, 2012
3,794
199
63
#54
In your opinion why is it that almost exclusively, only Pentecostals speak in tongues. I was brought up baptist and never heard a single person speak in tongues in a baptist church. I've been to Pentecostal churches and saw it happen several times in one service.
I was raised a Baptist - as you, I did not hear or even KNOW of speaking in tongues. I don't think I had even read 1 Corinthians 12-14!!!! I have also attended Pentecostal churches wherein they spoke in tongues BUT everyone spoke all at one time, usually without interpreting and also mixed up with other things. I then started going to home groups where church was being held in the home. I really enjoyed it because of the more intimate setting and the close knit "family" of believers. That is where I first heard 1 Cor. 12 - 14 taught where it made absolute sense and when I first heard tongues with interpretation - by two or at the most by three. It was done decently and in order . . and it was very edifying.

I'm sorry none of that answered your question! LOL! But why is it most exclusively in Pentecostal churches - I really can't say I know the answer to that . . . .
 
S

shotgunner

Guest
#55
I believe that it can't add anything to scripture because tongues is scripture. The bible was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. I believe that's why those verses only allow three unknown tongues and One (God) has to interpret them. Tongues has nothing to do with speaking gibberish, it is telling the believer that God will translate the unknown tongues the bible was written in into our own language... the same as Pentecost was a prophecy that God would translate his word into all languages. Each one of those guys at Pentecost heard the word of God in their own language. Just my opinion... check out all the places in the bible where "two or three" is used... very interesting!
Based on these scriptures I can't see all tongues as a language known by men.
1 Corinthians 14:2King James Version (KJV)[SUP]2 [/SUP]For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

1 Corinthians 14:14King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]14 [/SUP]For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#56
Based on these scriptures I can't see all tongues as a language known by men.
1 Corinthians 14:2King James Version (KJV)[SUP]2 [/SUP]For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

1 Corinthians 14:14King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]14 [/SUP]For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
I agree with that... I think that leads to a lot of confusion on the subject also. I don't think 1 Corinthians 14:2&14 is talking about the same thing as verse 27. That's why I love my bible man, we could study that book forever and keep learning new things.
 
Mar 4, 2013
7,761
107
0
#57
Does this mean that if a man speaks in an unknown tongue then he has to speak with at least one other man and at the most two other men?

-or-

Does it mean that if a man speaks in an unknown tongue then the unknown tongue is limited to one of three unknown tongues?
One at a time, and no more than three during the assembling together for that time period given.
 
S

shotgunner

Guest
#58
I agree with that... I think that leads to a lot of confusion on the subject also. I don't think 1 Corinthians 14:2&14 is talking about the same thing as verse 27. That's why I love my bible man, we could study that book forever and keep learning new things.
I can say that I believe there are at least 3 different kinds of tongues. One is a prayer language meant only for God. One is a message given for interpretation, and one is when a speaker speaks a foreign language unknown to him, but meant to edify another who understands.
 

RickyZ

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2012
9,635
787
113
#59
I find it amazing at the number of people who think the purpose of the Messiah was to write a book, and not to restore what man lost in the fall.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#60
I find it amazing at the number of people who think the purpose of the Messiah was to write a book, and not to restore what man lost in the fall.
Man didn't lose anything, it was all by design. The first man Adam was made a living soul, the second Adam a quickening spirit. The flesh was never going to inherit eternal life or any of the promises made to Abraham and Jesus Christ.

When Jesus said Lo I'm with you always even unto the end of the world... he's talking about the pages of the bible. Jesus is the Word, he speaks to me almost daily through the pages of the bible.