Speaking in Tongues (Privately, Outside of Church)
- Thread starter BenFTW
- 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.
Speaking in tongues is one of the nine manifestations of the gift of the Holy Spirit. The gift is the Holy spirit, and it can be evidenced, or manifested, in nine different ways.[/QUOTE]
lol but it's not a gift? but yet you repeat it is a gift that is manifested. lol ahahahhaha
OK I will look it up again so you can tell me it is a gift LOL.
nope no trouble at all you saying so does not make it so lol. I don't really take you serious anyway
I'm saved and Have the Holy Ghost in me as the word of God says in John 14 chapter and 16. why don't you just take out the word Gift then shall you?. that way the word manifested won't have the issue of Gifts said 4 times in chapter 12. not to mention 13 and 14
nope no trouble at all you saying so does not make it so lol. I don't really take you serious anyway
There is no doubt the Holy Spirit is a gift, given when people hear and believe the gospel.
Again, the gift is the gift of the Holy Spirit. Tongues is not a gift. Interpretation is not a gift. The other seven manifestations are not gifts. They are manifestations of the one gift of the Holy Spirit.
A simple analogy might be if I gave you a light bulb. The gift is the light bulb. That light bulb has two manifestations: light and heat. Light and heat are not gifts, they are manifestations of the gift of the light bulb. If you never screw in the light bulb and turn it on, you will never experience the manifestations of the gift of the light bulb. But you will still have the gift of the light bulb.
He was correcting them on the proper usage of the manifestations of tongues, interpretation of tongues, and prophesy.
Concerning endorsement:
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.
Paul was "endorsing" both tongues and prophesy.
The Bible never states they were acting like gentiles carried away unto dumb idols.
You're reading your bias into the scriptures.
It says they WERE gentiles, carried away to dumb idols as they were led. Paul then corrects and instructs them on the proper usage of tongues, interpretation, and prophesy.
Concerning endorsement:
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.
Paul was "endorsing" both tongues and prophesy.
The Bible never states they were acting like gentiles carried away unto dumb idols.
You're reading your bias into the scriptures.
It says they WERE gentiles, carried away to dumb idols as they were led. Paul then corrects and instructs them on the proper usage of tongues, interpretation, and prophesy.
The word "pneumatikos" is not the adjectival form of "charisma". They are two different words meaning two different things.
I disagree.
...as do you.
If you don't mind my saying so, your behavior is ...strange... for a moderator.
you are incorrect in your understanding
but you have the right to be wrong
If you don't mind my saying so, your behavior is ...strange... for a moderator.
lol my behavior in the light of your comments is no concern to you. the context of the Greek is correct . they are two different meaning because they are two different words . the context of the whole chapter and 13 and 14 together that is how they are to be studied. Not cherry picking.
Last edited:
You are incorrect if you believe "there's more than one way to interpret any given text". That understanding of Scripture results from the lie of the wicked one "did God really say?".
Surely you can provide one example in Scripture of an adjective being used actively or passively (other than your unsubstantiated claim of the use of 'akarpos' in 1 Cor 14:14).
And 1 Cor 12:1 tells us Paul is addressing spiritual matters of which Paul does not want the church ignorant. So this section of Scripture is dealing with spiritual issues.
Probably not to your satisfaction as you keep insisting something which is not in the text (controlled, observed settings; NCNLUs; shaman's chant, etc.).
I agree there are some who claim to be speaking in tongues but in reality they are not.
When I refer to speaking in tongues, I am speaking of the genuine manifestation as shown in 1 Cor 12:10.
I know. And I believe you are incorrect in your conclusion ... just as you believe I am incorrect in my conclusion.
Do you agree there are some believers today who do speak in tongues and it is the genuine manifestation of the Spirit as shown in 1 Cor 12?
And what about the audience as shown in 1 Cor 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Please provide the Scriptural reference which indicates the speakers understand what they are saying. Thanks.
Just because I do not listen in the manner you prescribe does not mean I do not listen.
As far as your statement: "You kind of lost me in that last bit- not sure why you would need ‘permission’ to listen to yourself speak (?)"
I believe we are to endeavor to follow Scripture to the best of our ability. When God takes the time to give instruction to us, it is in our best interest to follow His instruction. Where does God tell us to record/analyze the manifestation of tongues? Thanks.
Surely you can provide one example in Scripture of an adjective being used actively or passively (other than your unsubstantiated claim of the use of 'akarpos' in 1 Cor 14:14).
And 1 Cor 12:1 tells us Paul is addressing spiritual matters of which Paul does not want the church ignorant. So this section of Scripture is dealing with spiritual issues.
Probably not to your satisfaction as you keep insisting something which is not in the text (controlled, observed settings; NCNLUs; shaman's chant, etc.).
I agree there are some who claim to be speaking in tongues but in reality they are not.
When I refer to speaking in tongues, I am speaking of the genuine manifestation as shown in 1 Cor 12:10.
I know. And I believe you are incorrect in your conclusion ... just as you believe I am incorrect in my conclusion.
Do you agree there are some believers today who do speak in tongues and it is the genuine manifestation of the Spirit as shown in 1 Cor 12?
And what about the audience as shown in 1 Cor 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Please provide the Scriptural reference which indicates the speakers understand what they are saying. Thanks.
Just because I do not listen in the manner you prescribe does not mean I do not listen.
As far as your statement: "You kind of lost me in that last bit- not sure why you would need ‘permission’ to listen to yourself speak (?)"
I believe we are to endeavor to follow Scripture to the best of our ability. When God takes the time to give instruction to us, it is in our best interest to follow His instruction. Where does God tell us to record/analyze the manifestation of tongues? Thanks.
No sir the authorial intent as the context means it to be. gifts made known to the fellowship in Corinthian church. spiritual matter if you prefer does not change the context that too would meet the authorial intent. but by it's self unclear . Which brings the other point "Gifts which you said Charisma means, which you also said It does not mean LOL. Even if the PASSAGE SAY IT 4 TIMES IN CHAPTER 12. the Normative has been established . proper exegesis would help you see this clearly.
Have a nice day
Have a nice day
CS1 –
so you change the word of God where it says very plainly in chapter 12 of 1cor " Now concerning spiritual gifts".
I have it as “peri de tôn pneumatikôn – “concerning moreover spiritual [things/matters]….”
The word ‘gift’ is not used here, nor is it necessarily implied.
I was going to try and get into some detail, but I think Shrume has summed it up quite nicely. I know we do not agree on some aspects of “tongues”, but the summation and analogy with the lightbulb are spot on.
The word used translates to "spiritual things" - It's hard not to read things into the text, but "gift" just isn't there.
as far as welcome documentation As I said there are .however, those that prove tongues is a real language or those that do not can not change the context of the word of God . Clearly you did not see two of my location which did offer you proof.
If you copied any links, etc., I did not see them.
Faking tongues may be what you did
I’m not Pentecostal nor Charismatic so do not use glossolalia in the Christian sense, though admittedly, I do play a lot with language just to see what I can come up with for sounds, styles of speech and whatnot. I have no doubt that in some circles, what I am doing would be construed as speaking in tongues.
In trying to find any links you posted, I noticed that in one of your posts, you mention that you have asked some linguists or a linguist in particular (?) to make up a language and they could not. Such languages do indeed exist and are called “constructed languages”, or “con-langs” for short. They are actually quite common. Typically their use is relegated to movies (Navi’i in the movie ‘Avatar’, or to go way back, Klingon in the “Star Trek” movies), but some are created with the intent to be artificial languages, replacing normal ones, to be used on an everyday basis where communication is an issue (Esperanto and Interlingua - neither of which really caught on - English is just too powerful and too widely used).
These are all real functioning languages which contain a specific set of sounds, grammar and word order. They are a popular pastime with many linguists, but not everyone can create them; they are, as you might suspect, rather time involved. Here’s a link to quite a number of con-langs that linguists (professional and non-professional alike) have created:
Conlangery - Omniglot forum
Unlike modern tongues, these languages must have a defined set of sounds, rules on how those sounds go together (i.e. what’s allowed for combinations and what’s not allowed), a specific grammar, and a specific syntax (word order). None of which modern tongues have. Many of these con-langs are not intended to be simple to learn; they are rather complex and just as difficult as any real language to learn (oftentimes something like, what if a Bantu language were crossed with a Slavic one? type of deal, but again, unlike tongues, they are real language (though not spoken by “ethnic/native speakers”).
so you change the word of God where it says very plainly in chapter 12 of 1cor " Now concerning spiritual gifts".
I have it as “peri de tôn pneumatikôn – “concerning moreover spiritual [things/matters]….”
The word ‘gift’ is not used here, nor is it necessarily implied.
I was going to try and get into some detail, but I think Shrume has summed it up quite nicely. I know we do not agree on some aspects of “tongues”, but the summation and analogy with the lightbulb are spot on.
The word used translates to "spiritual things" - It's hard not to read things into the text, but "gift" just isn't there.
as far as welcome documentation As I said there are .however, those that prove tongues is a real language or those that do not can not change the context of the word of God . Clearly you did not see two of my location which did offer you proof.
If you copied any links, etc., I did not see them.
Faking tongues may be what you did
I’m not Pentecostal nor Charismatic so do not use glossolalia in the Christian sense, though admittedly, I do play a lot with language just to see what I can come up with for sounds, styles of speech and whatnot. I have no doubt that in some circles, what I am doing would be construed as speaking in tongues.
In trying to find any links you posted, I noticed that in one of your posts, you mention that you have asked some linguists or a linguist in particular (?) to make up a language and they could not. Such languages do indeed exist and are called “constructed languages”, or “con-langs” for short. They are actually quite common. Typically their use is relegated to movies (Navi’i in the movie ‘Avatar’, or to go way back, Klingon in the “Star Trek” movies), but some are created with the intent to be artificial languages, replacing normal ones, to be used on an everyday basis where communication is an issue (Esperanto and Interlingua - neither of which really caught on - English is just too powerful and too widely used).
These are all real functioning languages which contain a specific set of sounds, grammar and word order. They are a popular pastime with many linguists, but not everyone can create them; they are, as you might suspect, rather time involved. Here’s a link to quite a number of con-langs that linguists (professional and non-professional alike) have created:
Conlangery - Omniglot forum
Unlike modern tongues, these languages must have a defined set of sounds, rules on how those sounds go together (i.e. what’s allowed for combinations and what’s not allowed), a specific grammar, and a specific syntax (word order). None of which modern tongues have. Many of these con-langs are not intended to be simple to learn; they are rather complex and just as difficult as any real language to learn (oftentimes something like, what if a Bantu language were crossed with a Slavic one? type of deal, but again, unlike tongues, they are real language (though not spoken by “ethnic/native speakers”).