Tongues???

[The_Bible]

There are many denominations of Christian protestants like the pentecostals and charismatics that are based on works by the holy spirit. I being raised pentecostal have witnessed miracles, prophecies, and testimony of visions. Even heard prophecies that the person would later then take back what he said bc it wasn't meant to be or admis to be wrong. I believe we should not depend on these things bc they are not for meant for today, but back then siding more with the baptists beliefs, and ill explain why.

Acts 2:4 - And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts (2:6-8) - Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

The main example people are able to show that they have the holy spirit is when they start to speak in tongues but ALL the verses in the Bible that refer to this are ALL EARTHLY LANGUAGES not the ones we see of today where they say some incomprehensible babble.

Acts 10:44 - While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Acts 10:46 - For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

If what they spoke was NOT a Earthly language then how could they have known that they were magnifying God? For all we know, if its what we hear today then they could've been cursing God. It is verified that the verse in Acts 2 & 10 are the same in Acts 11.

Acts 11:15 - And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Acts 11:17 - Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

Even the Apostle Paul had put some rules for the people who spoke in tongues something that some do not keep today.

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.

Mark (16:17-18) - And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Therefore, all these verses prove they spoke a earthly language, so if they were for today it'll be exactly that not some yibber yabber, and they were indeed a miracle bc they miraclously spoke a language that they had not practiced in a instant. Now the other thing being credited as used by the holy spirit are signs of healings and casting out demons. Always remember the person who is being performed the miracle on, are not in charge of maintaing faith, (unless God has a certain purpose bc of it) for the miracle to work, but rather the person PERFORMING the miracle as shown by the verse below.

Acts (3:4-7) - And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us. And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.

The lame man was expecting money having no faith based on miracles, but Peter still managed to heal him, so it is almost never the person recieving the miracle fault due to faith. The Bible details THE JOB OF THE HOLY SPIRIT is that it would CAUSE YOU TO WITNESS TO PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE EARTH. I believe God CAN still do any miracle he pleases to do, but it shouldn't be the thing primarily based on unless is a special prayer or something, and it would be for specific kinds of people based on those gifts, not for everybody. I also believe the bible when it states, that which is perfect ( the bible/NT) is completed, these things are done away.

Acts 1:8 - But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Romans (12:5-6) - So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

1 Corinthians (13:8-10) - Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

 

[presidente]

If it is genuinely validated via tape recordings that it was a known language and that unbelievers heard the mighty works of GOD in their native language, you may have an example of GOD choosing to make an exception. If not, it was just another example of pagan style ecstatic utterances. Those ecstatic utterances continue today in non-Christian religions that include Hinduism, Muslims, and even Mormons, as well as several others. Here is an online article about the Pagan Origin of Charismatic Tongues. The Pagan Origins of Modern “Speaking in Tongues” | Doctrine Unites!

There is nothing convincing about your article. I Corinthians 14 shows us that the speaking in tongues, a genuine gift, that they practiced, would be to someone who did not understand it as a 'barbarian.' The Greeks called those who did not speak Greek barbarians. It is believed this comes from imitating the sound foreigners made when they spoke, "bar bar bar." But that doesn't make the speaking in tongues in the Bible demonic.

Atheistic types can look at Biblical prophecy and compare it to pagan prophecy. They can lump it all in as the same thing. I've seen this done before, calling it all 'divination' based on some anthropological definition. I find calling what Biblical prophets did 'divination' offensive. There was a certain approach to comparative religion in the Greek-speaking world way back when where they would interpret other religions through the lens of their own pantheon. There were temples to Zeus/Baal as the same thing. And one author described the temple rituals of the Hebrews as being to one of their pagan gods.

An individual not having the ability to differentiate what is of God and what is pagan doesn't prove that a given manifestation or gift is not from God.

How would I handle that situation. I actually had to in one of my Chapel Services in a California Super Max Prison. First of all, I think it is wise not to draw any more attention to it than necessary, but it cannot be totally ignored either, especially in Prison where what is a minor disagreement here, can in irrupt into into a full blown inmate on inmate fight with weapons, in an instant. One Sunday, I had a Pentecostal on the back row with no warning, stand and speak in his ecstatic tongues, followed by his own supposed interpreting of what he said. As soon as he finished, I stated, "That was an example of what the Pentecostals call tongues. However, most of the mainline Churches do not believe they are the Genuine Gift of Tongues. We will not be doing that here anymore, because Prison Staff has given me strict instructions about staying away from denominational barriers; and that is a major denominational barrier. If anyone wants to know more about the Pentecostal Tongues, talk to him; and if anyone wants to know more about why most Churches do not believe in it, make an appointment and come talk to me in my Office."

The way to avoid denominational barriers is to stick with the word of God, not man-made rules. The Bible says, 'Forbid not to speak with tongues.' Also, interpreting one's own tongue is permitted because Paul writes in I Corinthians 14:13 for the man who speaks in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret.

You should have considered whether his interpretation was edifying. The Bible never says to have one man at the front every week giving a sermon. Rather it says, "...when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying." The command there is to allow these things to be done unto edifying. That means regular people in church are supposed to be allowed to speak. You may feel like someone just speaking up in church, instead of everything coming from behind a pulpit, is a shocking and disrespectful thing. But the Bible does not teach that. In the Bible 'every one of you' are the speakers in church.

Paul is rather forceful about the fact that the instructions for what to do in church are the 'commandments of the Lord.' The passage says to let everything be done decently and in order. But it is the Lord's order, the order laid down in the passage, not the order of Protestant or Roman Catholic tradition. The Lord's order allows for 'every one of you' to sing, teach, share revelations, etc. 'unto edifying.' The Lord's order allows for tongues and interpretation. It allows for prophets to prophesy, and for 'ye...all' to prophesy.

The one passage that preachers use to tell us to 'go to church' (which actually says not to forsake assembling) is in the context of provoking one another to love and to good works. The command there is to 'exhort one another.'

He came up to me after the Service and asked, "I still do not know what is wrong with my speaking in tongues, after all it is in the Bible?"

Isn't it wonderful when people just want to follow what the Lord commands without being weighed down by denominational traditions that contradict it?

I said, "Well for one thing, it says in the bible not to do it when the interpreter is not present."

Maybe if you had read your Bible a bit more carefully, and meditated on it a bit more, you might have realized that.

And he popped back, "But I have the gift of interpretations too, and I interpreted it." So I said, "Oh, so you have the gift of Interpretations?" AND THEN I immediately said to him in TURKISH, "Hello, how are you?" His only reply was "HUH?"

So, do you think if you assume something, the Holy Spirit has to be subject to your assumptions? Even with natural language, someone who can interpret one language may not be able to interpret another. I could interpret a sermon into Indonesian or from Indonesian into English. But I couldn't translate to or from Turkish. Why would you assume that if someone has the gift of interpretation, that he can interpret every language. And then you assume the gift enables people to interpret natural languages, rather than the supernatural type of speaking in tongues we see it paired with in the context of scripture? Your response to him comes off as rather foolish. If I were you, I wouldn't repeat that story. Do you have some stories about ripping your pants in public or other embarrassing moments you are going to tell us now?

 

[presidente]

There are many denominations of Christian protestants like the pentecostals and charismatics that are based on works by the holy spirit. I being raised pentecostal have witnessed miracles, prophecies, and testimony of visions.

If you have witnessed miracles, why don't you believe in them? How do you explain miracles? Can you show me one verse about the gift of the working of miracles or gifts of healing ceasing? I can't find where the Bible says that they will cease.

The main example people are able to show that they have the holy spirit is when they start to speak in tongues but ALL the verses in the Bible that refer to this are ALL EARTHLY LANGUAGES not the ones we see of today where they say some incomprehensible babble.

Paul suggested the possibility that he might pray in the 'tongues of men and of angels.' Historically, though, Pentecostals did not emphasize 'tongues of angels' as a possibility. Nowadays, when cessationists, without any solid basis for doing so, insist that 'tongues of angels' MUST be hyperbole (but that tongues of men is not for some reason?) reasonable Pentecostals and Charismatics argument back. Some people treat assumptions they make while reading the Bible as if they are the teaching of the Bible. It's not just cessationists (those who believe certain gifts ceased) who do that, of course. But most versions cessationism rests on doing that.

Acts 10:44 - While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.


Acts 10:46 - For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,


If what they spoke was NOT a Earthly language then how could they have known that they were magnifying God?

And who is saying that they were not actually speaking earthly languages? I realize there are some people, and I even came across one Pentecostal pastor who believed this, who think that the miracle was in the ear of the hearers, who only percieved the words in their own language. I don't think that is consistent with the wording of the text. But that view was held by a certain St. Gregory in the 400's. Another St. Gregory in the 400's held to a more standard straightforward interpretation that the disciples were speaking in the tongues of the people.


But who disputes this? Other than the 'miracle in the ear' view, I've never heard a Pentecostal argue against the idea that they were speaking human languages on the day of Pentecostal. Calling them 'earthly languages', though, sounds derrogatory.

For all we know, if its what we hear today then they could've been cursing God.

Look at I Corinthians 14. Paul said that when any man speaks in tongues 'no man understandeth him.' The same situation wasn't going on in church as was going on in Jerusalem at Pentecost in Acts 2, because God did not have people present to understand the languages. Rather, the Spirit of God gifted some believers to interpret the language. Notice that in the passage, we see that the speaker's understanding is 'unfruitful.' He doesn't know what he's saying, not without the gift of interpretation. That's supernatural, and he can pray for that (see verse 13.) And other people who hear tongues without interpretation interpret it to be like a barbarian talking. It is believed that barbarian is a word derived from the fact that to the Greeks, foreigners sounded like they were saying 'bar bar bar', so they called them bar-bar-ians.


In spite of all this, Paul does not warn the Corinthians that if they spoke in tongues, they might be cursing God. Notice that Jesus asked if ye then being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father in heaven give good things to them that ask him. In the book of Luke, He asks how much more shall he give the Holy Ghost to them that ask Him.


So we don't need to be scared that these gifts will end up with us secretly cursing the Lord without knowing it. Paul was very careful not to crush his reader's enthusiasm for the spiritual gifts, and also to flan the flames of enthusiasm, while he corrected them about misuse. This fear-mongering of trying to scare people into thinking that they might be secretly cursing Christ while exercising gifts is not the messag we see on this topic in the Bible.

Even the Apostle Paul had put some rules for the people who spoke in tongues something that some do not keep today.


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.

I was raised in Pentecostal churches that tried to keep this scripture. I'll tell you some churches that really don't keep it, churches that forbid speaking in tongues and interpretation. We had a post from a man who said there wasn't going to be any tongues and interpretation anymore after a man spoke in tongues and interpreted in a prison meeting.

Therefore, all these verses prove they spoke a earthly language, so if they were for today it'll be exactly that not some yibber yabber,

The Japanese speak jibber jabber. Germans speak jibber jabber. Russians speak jibber jabber. Spanish isn't complete jibber jabber because I understand a little of that, but a lot of it is jibber jabber. Indonesian isn't jibber jabber, but Malaysian is about 40 percent jibber jabber and the rest comprehensible. It's all a matter of perspective.

Always remember the person who is being performed the miracle on, are not in charge of maintaing faith, (unless God has a certain purpose bc of it) for the miracle to work, but rather the person PERFORMING the miracle as shown by the verse below.

I know there are some people who blame those who are not healed for not having faith. I know some of the WOFers do that, probably the same type of people who have about 40 to 80 verses they hear preached on over and over again as prooftexts.


But let's keep in mind that sometimes faith for healing comes from the person receiving. Jesus did say, 'according to your faith be it unto you.' Paul saw a man in Lystra who had the faith to be healed while he was preaching, and the man was healed through Paul. So the faith could come from the person receiving, too.

The Bible details THE JOB OF THE HOLY SPIRIT is that it would CAUSE YOU TO WITNESS TO PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE EARTH. I believe God CAN still do any miracle he pleases to do, but it shouldn't be the thing primarily based on unless is a special prayer or something, and it would be for specific kinds of people based on those gifts, not for everybody.

I'm looking at that last sentence, and I would encourage you to sit down and read I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12. In I Corinthians 12, for to one is given this gift, and to another this gift. Then, different gifted members are compared to different parts of their body, each with its own function. Romans 12 says we have gifts differing according to the grace given unto us.

I also believe the bible when it states, that which is perfect ( the bible/NT) is completed, these things are done away.

The Bible doesn't say that 'that which is perfect' in that passage is the Bible. In fact, the Bible does not make sense in that context. When the perfect comes, Paul's speech, knowledge, and understanding will be like an adults. When he wrote the epistle, it will be like a child's. Paul died before the canon was complete, so why would the coming of the Bible change his understanding? People who read that think the part about being like a man refers to themselves. The interpretation would then be that Paul's understanding when he wrote so much of the New Testament was like a child's, while their own is like an adults. That exalts the reader over the apostles who wrote the scriptures. And if we really did have such complete understanding, we wouldn't be disagreeing about these things. Having a copy of the New Testament does not guarantee that one understands the doctrine in it like the apostles through whom it was revealed understood it.


As Paul started off writing this epistle in which he would address tongues, prophecy, and the I Corinthians 12 gifts, he wrote,


"So that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."


So apparently, he wasn't expecting these spiritual gifts to cease before Jesus comes back.

 

[followjesus]

Thank you! I hope you receive them!!! I wanted them but didn't understand either. I had obstacles to overcome and fears about Tongues but once I learned about them I felt more assured and confident.. Wasn't too long after that I received them.. The Holy Spirit guides us in all truth, I pray He start your journey with Tongues..

Thank you I will accept whatever Gods will is and whatever Gifts He offers in my Life all things being spiritual ! God bless

 

[followjesus]

Man...so many opinions.

The reason for tongues is its the language of the Spiritual man. The environment is worship. The natural man has a natural language and the mind is hostile to the things of God. Is what the scripture says.

All things are new for the new creation; its a new genesis. Of course a spiritual person will speak out of what we are now.

The gift of tongues is not the prayer language. The gift is when a message to the fellowship of believers from
God is given, and they speak in the spiritual language with power. Then one who has the gift of interpretation, interprets.

Timidity is a big influence on some and is probably the reason why interpretations aren't given.

So prophecy which again is a message of Spirit to the fellowships from God, is given in power out of their natural language.

You can tell when one is praying in power and spirit. Or prophesying for that matter.

I don't think there is false tongues in any believer but one can speak at any time without it being anointed. Its the anointing that is Spirit and power. When its touched so to speak by Holy Spirit.

Those in the occult may speak of demonic influence I guess. Ive never seen this but Ive heard they do.

Isnt this also an opinion?

 

[stonesoffire]

Isnt this also an opinion?

Out of a long time of experience and study.

 

[The_Bible]

If you have witnessed miracles, why don't you believe in them? How do you explain miracles? Can you show me one verse about the gift of the working of miracles or gifts of healing ceasing? I can't find where the Bible says that they will cease.

Paul suggested the possibility that he might pray in the 'tongues of men and of angels.' Historically, though, Pentecostals did not emphasize 'tongues of angels' as a possibility. Nowadays, when cessationists, without any solid basis for doing so, insist that 'tongues of angels' MUST be hyperbole (but that tongues of men is not for some reason?) reasonable Pentecostals and Charismatics argument back. Some people treat assumptions they make while reading the Bible as if they are the teaching of the Bible. It's not just cessationists (those who believe certain gifts ceased) who do that, of course. But most versions cessationism rests on doing that.

And who is saying that they were not actually speaking earthly languages? I realize there are some people, and I even came across one Pentecostal pastor who believed this, who think that the miracle was in the ear of the hearers, who only percieved the words in their own language. I don't think that is consistent with the wording of the text. But that view was held by a certain St. Gregory in the 400's. Another St. Gregory in the 400's held to a more standard straightforward interpretation that the disciples were speaking in the tongues of the people.

But who disputes this? Other than the 'miracle in the ear' view, I've never heard a Pentecostal argue against the idea that they were speaking human languages on the day of Pentecostal. Calling them 'earthly languages', though, sounds derrogatory.


Look at I Corinthians 14. Paul said that when any man speaks in tongues 'no man understandeth him.' The same situation wasn't going on in church as was going on in Jerusalem at Pentecost in Acts 2, because God did not have people present to understand the languages. Rather, the Spirit of God gifted some believers to interpret the language. Notice that in the passage, we see that the speaker's understanding is 'unfruitful.' He doesn't know what he's saying, not without the gift of interpretation. That's supernatural, and he can pray for that (see verse 13.) And other people who hear tongues without interpretation interpret it to be like a barbarian talking. It is believed that barbarian is a word derived from the fact that to the Greeks, foreigners sounded like they were saying 'bar bar bar', so they called them bar-bar-ians.


In spite of all this, Paul does not warn the Corinthians that if they spoke in tongues, they might be cursing God. Notice that Jesus asked if ye then being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father in heaven give good things to them that ask him. In the book of Luke, He asks how much more shall he give the Holy Ghost to them that ask Him.

So we don't need to be scared that these gifts will end up with us secretly cursing the Lord without knowing it. Paul was very careful not to crush his reader's enthusiasm for the spiritual gifts, and also to flan the flames of enthusiasm, while he corrected them about misuse. This fear-mongering of trying to scare people into thinking that they might be secretly cursing Christ while exercising gifts is not the messag we see on this topic in the Bible.

I was raised in Pentecostal churches that tried to keep this scripture. I'll tell you some churches that really don't keep it, churches that forbid speaking in tongues and interpretation. We had a post from a man who said there wasn't going to be any tongues and interpretation anymore after a man spoke in tongues and interpreted in a prison meeting.

The Japanese speak jibber jabber. Germans speak jibber jabber. Russians speak jibber jabber. Spanish isn't complete jibber jabber because I understand a little of that, but a lot of it is jibber jabber. Indonesian isn't jibber jabber, but Malaysian is about 40 percent jibber jabber and the rest comprehensible. It's all a matter of perspective.

I know there are some people who blame those who are not healed for not having faith. I know some of the WOFers do that, probably the same type of people who have about 40 to 80 verses they hear preached on over and over again as prooftexts.


But let's keep in mind that sometimes faith for healing comes from the person receiving. Jesus did say, 'according to your faith be it unto you.' Paul saw a man in Lystra who had the faith to be healed while he was preaching, and the man was healed through Paul. So the faith could come from the person receiving, too.

I'm looking at that last sentence, and I would encourage you to sit down and read I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12. In I Corinthians 12, for to one is given this gift, and to another this gift. Then, different gifted members are compared to different parts of their body, each with its own function. Romans 12 says we have gifts differing according to the grace given unto us.

The Bible doesn't say that 'that which is perfect' in that passage is the Bible. In fact, the Bible does not make sense in that context. When the perfect comes, Paul's speech, knowledge, and understanding will be like an adults. When he wrote the epistle, it will be like a child's. Paul died before the canon was complete, so why would the coming of the Bible change his understanding? People who read that think the part about being like a man refers to themselves. The interpretation would then be that Paul's understanding when he wrote so much of the New Testament was like a child's, while their own is like an adults. That exalts the reader over the apostles who wrote the scriptures. And if we really did have such complete understanding, we wouldn't be disagreeing about these things. Having a copy of the New Testament does not guarantee that one understands the doctrine in it like the apostles through whom it was revealed understood it.

As Paul started off writing this epistle in which he would address tongues, prophecy, and the I Corinthians 12 gifts, he wrote,

"So that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

So apparently, he wasn't expecting these spiritual gifts to cease before Jesus comes back.

1 Corinthians (13:8-10) - Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.


I do believe in miracles, I just believe they aren't as effective as they were back then, meaning one cannot just go and raise the dead as easily. If so then hospitals would be clearing out by now. Not saying miracles dont happen but is not as common. What im saying is that speaking in tongues is not what people believe it is, which is speaking in a unknown heavenly language. The things i underlined is the reason why i dont believe in these things. I take it as the BIBLE is what was perfect not Jesus Christ himself bc when he died he said "It is finished". When the Bible was finished then that when it all began to cease.

Angels speak languages that are understandable to humans. Or shall you say that angels speak another language amongst themselves? The "speaking in a language of angels" is a good point, but I find it hard to believe angels have their own language that they speak aside from that, that humans do. This is the ONLY one not to clear about, but ofc to state that angels may have another language NOT from Earth is certainly not confirmable. Lol where would it say angels have they own language?

1 corinthians 2:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:


Well that is what I am saying, speaking in tongues ONLY refers to those who can speak in a foreign language spontaneously, that would be considered speaking in tongues.. For example, im preaching to a certain audience and foreigners would be in the crowd ill start to preach in german, russian, etc etc.. That does not the random outbursts preachers have of today where they babble something that one cannot understand. And the interpretor would still be needed for others to understand. It is believed that babble or babblin comes from the tower of Babel where God changed the languages of the people to confusion. (My own theory).

I used the cursing God as a example to prove that the bible said they were magnifying him. As in, they knew they spoke of praise and worship not out of cussing. That means that one HAD to understand the languages that these people spoke. If its what we hear today, does ANYBODY know what the person is saying? Can anybody be able to TRANSLATE what they just said? I believe if Paul were speaking about Christ it would say something like the "return" or something. The only perfect thing would be the word of God, and in a sense,that would indeed be Christ. Just look at my signature.


1 Corinthians 14:2 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 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

1 Corinthians 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

The first verse hes making it clear that those who speak in unknown tongue are speaking to God, only bc he understands, NOT bc it is a "heavenly language", but a foreign language. Second verse clears that up. Last verse tells them if your going to do that, pray to God so you can interpret what you have spoken.

1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

1 Corinthians 14:16 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?

 

[VCO]

There is nothing convincing about your article. I Corinthians 14 shows us that the speaking in tongues, a genuine gift, that they practiced, would be to someone who did not understand it as a 'barbarian.' The Greeks called those who did not speak Greek barbarians. It is believed this comes from imitating the sound foreigners made when they spoke, "bar bar bar." But that doesn't make the speaking in tongues in the Bible demonic.

Atheistic types can look at Biblical prophecy and compare it to pagan prophecy. They can lump it all in as the same thing. I've seen this done before, calling it all 'divination' based on some anthropological definition. I find calling what Biblical prophets did 'divination' offensive. There was a certain approach to comparative religion in the Greek-speaking world way back when where they would interpret other religions through the lens of their own pantheon. There were temples to Zeus/Baal as the same thing. And one author described the temple rituals of the Hebrews as being to one of their pagan gods.

An individual not having the ability to differentiate what is of God and what is pagan doesn't prove that a given manifestation or gift is not from God.



The way to avoid denominational barriers is to stick with the word of God, not man-made rules. The Bible says, 'Forbid not to speak with tongues.' Also, interpreting one's own tongue is permitted because Paul writes in I Corinthians 14:13 for the man who speaks in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret.

You should have considered whether his interpretation was edifying. The Bible never says to have one man at the front every week giving a sermon. Rather it says, "...when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying." The command there is to allow these things to be done unto edifying. That means regular people in church are supposed to be allowed to speak. You may feel like someone just speaking up in church, instead of everything coming from behind a pulpit, is a shocking and disrespectful thing. But the Bible does not teach that. In the Bible 'every one of you' are the speakers in church.

Paul is rather forceful about the fact that the instructions for what to do in church are the 'commandments of the Lord.' The passage says to let everything be done decently and in order. But it is the Lord's order, the order laid down in the passage, not the order of Protestant or Roman Catholic tradition. The Lord's order allows for 'every one of you' to sing, teach, share revelations, etc. 'unto edifying.' The Lord's order allows for tongues and interpretation. It allows for prophets to prophesy, and for 'ye...all' to prophesy.

The one passage that preachers use to tell us to 'go to church' (which actually says not to forsake assembling) is in the context of provoking one another to love and to good works. The command there is to 'exhort one another.'

He came up to me after the Service and asked, "I still do not know what is wrong with my speaking in tongues, after all it is in the Bible?"

Isn't it wonderful when people just want to follow what the Lord commands without being weighed down by denominational traditions that contradict it?



Maybe if you had read your Bible a bit more carefully, and meditated on it a bit more, you might have realized that.



So, do you think if you assume something, the Holy Spirit has to be subject to your assumptions? Even with natural language, someone who can interpret one language may not be able to interpret another. I could interpret a sermon into Indonesian or from Indonesian into English. But I couldn't translate to or from Turkish. Why would you assume that if someone has the gift of interpretation, that he can interpret every language. And then you assume the gift enables people to interpret natural languages, rather than the supernatural type of speaking in tongues we see it paired with in the context of scripture? Your response to him comes off as rather foolish. If I were you, I wouldn't repeat that story. Do you have some stories about ripping your pants in public or other embarrassing moments you are going to tell us now?

I did not write it for you. I wrote it to encourage Non-Charismatics that our position on this subject is certainly biblical. I believe the genuine TONGUES were heard by Jews present in Jerusalem from all over the known world for Passover and Pentecost, and they ALL heard in their their own dialectos, what what the Apostles said; making the genuine Miracle of TONGUES as much a MIRACLE of their HEARING as it was of the Apostles Speaking. HENCE, I also believe the Genuine gift of Interpretations, Empowered by the HOLY SPIRIT, gave the Interpreter the ability to miraculously translate PERFECTLY any language ever spoken in the Church. You seem to believe those gifts were MUCH LESS MIRACULOUS.

I do not care that you totally disagree, and NO I DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE YOU. I have been down that path several hundred times in the past and there is definitely "Nothing new under the sun." You are convinced that your experience and the feelings they generate are from GOD, and I am convinced that the Scriptures expose them as imitations of the real APOSTOLIC GIFT OF TONGUES and GIFT OF INTERPRETATIONS.

That makes any discussion an absolute STALEMATE !

 

[presidente]

I did not write it for you. I wrote it to encourage Non-Charismatics that our position on this subject is certainly biblical.

I have an interest in seeing all believers not be mislead by poor eisegesis that reads ideas that are not there into the text of scritpure. You started with your conclusion and looked for arguments to support it. You read ideas into I Corinthians 12 that aren't there. (It makes no sense to assume that the statement that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed refers to speaking in tongues, since no one would understand it if that happened anyway.)

I believe the genuine TONGUES were heard by Jews present in Jerusalem from all over the known world for Passover and Pentecost, and they ALL heard in their their own dialectos, what what the Apostles said; making the genuine Miracle of TONGUES as much a MIRACLE of their HEARING as it was of the Apostles Speaking.

If you believe the miracle was in the ear, you wouldn't have any reason for insisting that the speaking in tongues that comes out of someone's mouth when 'no man understandeth him' has to be an actual language that people speak.


I believe the disciples referred to in Acts 2 actually spoke in tongues, since that is what the passage says. The people heard them speak in tongues. It does say they didn't hear them speak in something other than what they were saying. It doesn't say they saw their lips moving one way, but saying something else, like a dubbed Chinese Kung Fu movie.

HENCE, I also believe the Genuine gift of Interpretations, Empowered by the HOLY SPIRIT, gave the Interpreter the ability to miraculously translate PERFECTLY any language ever spoken in the Church.

Hence? I'm not seeing why you used that word to connect the ideas.

You seem to believe those gifts were MUCH LESS MIRACULOUS.

Why would you say that? Supernaturally speaking in a language you don't know is a pretty amazing thing.

I do not care that you totally disagree, and NO I DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE YOU. I have been down that path several hundred times in the past and there is definitely "Nothing new under the sun." You are convinced that your experience and the feelings they generate are from GOD, and I am convinced that the Scriptures expose them as imitations of the real APOSTOLIC GIFT OF TONGUES and GIFT OF INTERPRETATIONS.

The Bible doesn't say anything about your opinions regarding different pagan groups. Also, your approach to the evidence is wrong. You should look at accounts of people understanding speaking in tongues as languages they know. Even if there are some fake manifestations, that doesn't disprove genuine manifestations. I think we could all agree that there may be acses where individuals could fake speaking in tongues. Demonized people might be able to speak foreign languages as well. But the Bible does not teach saints of God to be afraid that they will get a snake if they ask God for something good.

That makes any discussion an absolute STALEMATE !

Is a 'stalemate' what you call it when someone puts his hands over his hears and says "I don't hear you." To have a stalemate, two people have to play the game. You should be open to correction, as should everyone else. I pointed out how your article had some bad eisegesis in it. It is worth pointing it out so that others on the forum not be deceived or confused.

 

[notuptome]

I have an interest in seeing all believers not be mislead by poor eisegesis that reads ideas that are not there into the text of scritpure. You started with your conclusion and looked for arguments to support it. You read ideas into I Corinthians 12 that aren't there. (It makes no sense to assume that the statement that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed refers to speaking in tongues, since no one would understand it if that happened anyway.)

well I might question your veracity on that statement. You have a self interest in the subject and have continuously rejected any biblical teaching and there is tons of it to the contrary.

Is a 'stalemate' what you call it when someone puts his hands over his hears and says "I don't hear you." To have a stalemate, two people have to play the game. You should be open to correction, as should everyone else. I pointed out how your article had some bad eisegesis in it. It is worth pointing it out so that others on the forum not be deceived or confused.

Some might consider that many who hold to the doctrine of tongues in the modern church be they charismatic or Pentecostal have done just that to God.

The word of God is true and by comparison every man a liar.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[hornetguy]

I could interpret a sermon into Indonesian or from Indonesian into English. But I couldn't translate to or from Turkish.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but your ability to interpret Indonesian is not a spiritual "gift".

The man in question told him that he had the "gift of interpretation"..... we are to test the spirits to see if they are of God, and apparently this guy failed the test. Just as if he had said he had the "gift of prophecy" and proceeded to "prophesy" about future events. If they did not come true, that would be his failing of the test of his "gift"...

 

[hornetguy]

Maybe if you had read your Bible a bit more carefully, and meditated on it a bit more, you might have realized that.

What an arrogant statement... you should be ashamed...

What makes you think he has NOT read that passage VERY carefully, and prayerfully meditated on it? The simple fact that he does not agree with YOU????

Your arrogance is shameful.

 

[hornetguy]

Calling them 'earthly languages', though, sounds derrogatory.

HUH?? Calling Spanish, French, Amharic, whatever, earthly languages is "derogatory" ?

Good grief...

 

[Demi777]

lol some people on here are more childish in their attacks than most elementary school pupils. So much arrogance and no tolerance for opinion and revelation.. good grief

 

[hornetguy]

Out of a long time of experience and study.

Again, the arrogant assumption that you "tongue-speakers" are the only ones that have years of study under your belts.. or, any actual "experience"....

"well, if you were a TRUE student/believer, you'd see things MY way.... the fact that you disagree with me shows me your lack of knowledge/faith"....

 

[hornetguy]

Is a 'stalemate' what you call it when someone puts his hands over his hears and says "I don't hear you." To have a stalemate, two people have to play the game. You should be open to correction, as should everyone else. I pointed out how your article had some bad eisegesis in it. It is worth pointing it out so that others on the forum not be deceived or confused.

I don't see that he's unwilling to listen to reasonable discussion.... what I hear him saying is that he's already DONE that, with better "discussers" than you.... MANY times, and that your presenting the same old arguments, is not something he's going to do. You say this, I say that..... stalemate.

If you want to look at eisegesis, you should inspect your own assumptions about what role tongues have/had in the lives of believers. Perhaps you simply WANT scripture to back you up in your opinions about Spiritual gifts.. and you've read scripture through that lens...

Your opinion is worth no more than anyone else's here.

 

[presidente]

What an arrogant statement... you should be ashamed...

What makes you think he has NOT read that passage VERY carefully, and prayerfully meditated on it? The simple fact that he does not agree with YOU????

I realize my response was a bit sharp, in response to his story about being rude to an inmate in prison for following scripture. It is not about whether he agrees with me. There is nothing in I Corinthians 12-14 or any other scripture that would lead to the conclusion that if you come up to someone who has ever operated in the gift of interpreting tongues, and spoke to him in Turkish, that he would be able to understand what you said. That's just an assumption. I was also responding to a post in which he expressed how he opposed following what Paul called 'the commandments of the Lord' for church meetings in a prison.

If you have something specific in my posts about speaking in tongues or other topics that you can show do not line up with the Bible, feel free to show it.

 

[hornetguy]

I realize my response was a bit sharp, in response to his story about being rude to an inmate in prison for following scripture. It is not about whether he agrees with me. There is nothing in I Corinthians 12-14 or any other scripture that would lead to the conclusion that if you come up to someone who has ever operated in the gift of interpreting tongues, and spoke to him in Turkish, that he would be able to understand what you said. That's just an assumption. I was also responding to a post in which he expressed how he opposed following what Paul called 'the commandments of the Lord' for church meetings in a prison.

If you have something specific in my posts about speaking in tongues or other topics that you can show do not line up with the Bible, feel free to show it.

I disagree with your assessment of how he responded to the inmate.... he told him that the people that run the prison TOLD him that he couldn't do anything "denominational".... and MOST of Christianity looks at angelic tongue speaking as belonging to the Pentecostal, or charismatic denomination. Telling an inmate why he cannot allow that is NOT rude, it's simply an explanation of why it cannot be done. Would you rather he kept allowing it, then got banned from doing any more prison devotionals because he couldn't follow the rules?

 

[hornetguy]

(It makes no sense to assume that the statement that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed refers to speaking in tongues, since no one would understand it if that happened anyway.)

Of COURSE it makes sense to think that.. if you are reading that whole passage in context... how does Paul start it... "now, concerning spiritual gifts..." then goes on to talk about someone calling Jesus accursed not being of the spirit.... what else would he be referring to? What other spiritual gift would have someone cursing or praising Jesus?

He is saying that is one way to "test" the spiritual gift.... if someone speaks in an unknown language, then when it is translated (as Paul said it MUST be, to be used in the assembly) if the spoken word violated what Jesus had told them, then it was NOT from the Spirit....

I mean, this is simple stuff.... even I can understand it.

 

[presidente]

Of COURSE it makes sense to think that.. if you are reading that whole passage in context... how does Paul start it... "now, concerning spiritual gifts..." then goes on to talk about someone calling Jesus accursed not being of the spirit.... what else would he be referring to? What other spiritual gift would have someone cursing or praising Jesus?

Assuming that one of the Christians was actually cursing Christ while in church is a HUGE assumption. If that had actually happened, why did Paul not address it in I Corinthians 5 and say to not keep company with such a man? Paul had just mentioned idolatry there in I Corinthians 12. If someone were cursing Christ, it makes more sense that the pagans were doing it.

Something I find ironic is that there are people who will insist that 'though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels' is hyperbole and could never happen... well half of it, the part about the angels. But then they look at something similar Paul does in chapter 12 and insist that when Paul suggests two 'extremes' of cursing Christ on the one hand and calling Christ Lord on the other, that someone must have been cursing Christ. Paul is presenting two extremes here on what a manifestation of the Spirit looks like and what it doesn't.

Is it reasonable to tie this statement of Paul's that no man speaking by the Spirit of God says that Jesus is accursed to speaking in tongues, to insist that someone must have been cursing Christ in tongues? Absolutely not. For one thing, it just doesn't make sense. Paul says when someone speaks in tongues, no one understands him. So if someone stood up and cursed Jesus in tongues, the people would not understand. There is another gift of the Spirit called interpretation of tongues. Does it make sense that if someone had a demonic false tongue and cursed Christ, that someone else would use a genuine gift of the Spirit to interpret that, and to curse Christ in church? Someone speaking by the Spirit is not going to curse Christ.

So if someone were cursing Christ in tongues, no one would have known it. The comment would have been lost on the Corinthians. It's not a reasonable assertion.

And why is it that some who want to oppose speaking in tongues insist that the cursing of Jesus must have been done in false tongues? There are 9 gifts listed there in that passage. Prophecy is among the gifts listed. Why would that verse at the beginning of the chapter be a reference to 'divers tongues' which is one of the last two gifts in the list, way down there several verses away? It just makes no sense at all.

And it is not even reasonable to assume that Paul had to have been addressing a specific situation of someone cursing Christ to make the comment that he did. It is unlikely that Paul would have known about Corinthians cursing Jesus without dealing with it more directly in the epistle. He addresses the man living in fornication with his father's wife. He addresses the error of those who taught that there was no resurrection. Why not directly address cursing Jesus if some of them were doig it?

He is saying that is one way to "test" the spiritual gift.... if someone speaks in an unknown language, then when it is translated (as Paul said it MUST be, to be used in the assembly) if the spoken word violated what Jesus had told them, then it was NOT from the Spirit....

If someone speaks in tongues, and the interpretation comes back as cursing Jesus, would the fault be laid at the feet of someone who spoke in tongues? That doesn't make sense to me. If the interpreter were speaking by the Spirit, he would not curse Jesus. I've never heard of someone interpreting a tongue as cursing Jesus, either.

We need to keep in mind that Paul never raises the idea that speakers in tongues might secretly be saying something bad without knowing it. He says to the reader if thou bless with the spirit (in context referring to praying in tongues), thou verily giveth thanks well, but the other is not edified.

So, in addressing the reader who might want to pray in tongues in church and argues that speaking in tongues is good, Paul would agree that if you give thanks in tongues, you give thanks well. But he argues that the other is not edified. Paul's argument against praying in uninterpreted tongues is about edification. There is no hint that Paul believed that Christians are going to be given false gifts and say evil things while spekaing in tongues.

Btw, I will be flying overseas for a couple of days and may be late in responding.