examples of speaking in tongues - need verification and explanations, please
- Thread starter zone
- 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.
No, I am not an attorney, and no, I am not an enrolled member of a Tribe - my First Nations ancestry is too far back.
I'm active in a lot of groups with respect to promoting and teaching the languages and culture (mainly Abenaki and Lënape).
Honestly, I'm not sure how re-recognition works for a Tribe/Nation that, for whatever reason, has lost its official recognition.
I'm active in a lot of groups with respect to promoting and teaching the languages and culture (mainly Abenaki and Lënape).
Honestly, I'm not sure how re-recognition works for a Tribe/Nation that, for whatever reason, has lost its official recognition.
I asked about those just in case you were directly involved in re-recognition of tribes, because tribes were terminated twice, and had to regain their lost status in supreme court. I was too young to be involved in an adult capacity, but have seen the legal documents, and have conversed with the adults of my tribe that were. And, though you are correct in that language wasn't an absolute requirement for recognition on paper, in actual reality(that is, in court), the government very much made it and the other requirements mandatory for is and other tribes to regain legal status. If it wasn't so for the Eastern tribes you mentioned, I can only surmise that's because they weren't perceived as a threat because of the more thorough decimation of their numbers. So, as I respect your knowledge on this matter, I'll gladly concede this is one of those rare instances in which both sides can be, mostly, correct. I still disagree that the 16 areas I mentioned spoke only Greek, basing my opinion on how the people's of this country, for the most part, kept their languages-even though most of them(the children), were forced to go to boarding schools and learn English. To be fair, sir, my disagreement is not so much with you, as it is with historical accounts in general. I trust only the Bible to be historically accurate- as I've learned from this country(in which I have dual citizenship), that history in general is something that never happened told by someone who wasn't there. Also, I respect you and your opinion-even if I don't agree with it.
Last edited:
Biblically when speaking in tongues happened, all those listening clearly heard and most importantly understood what was being said. They did not hear anything but their own native tongue and did not have or require someone to translate or interpretate it for them.
What was heard also did not add to or alter what was already being preached. Once the bible existed his gift was no longer needed.
In prayer we use words to express and communicate with god and here in prayer sometimes, meaningless verbal expressions or noises can be the only real and true expression we have.
What was heard also did not add to or alter what was already being preached. Once the bible existed his gift was no longer needed.
In prayer we use words to express and communicate with god and here in prayer sometimes, meaningless verbal expressions or noises can be the only real and true expression we have.
that is not true , your point " all those listening clearly heard and most importantly understood what was being said"
If this is true then only one language would have been spoken or everyone who heard it had to know every language that was spoken. This is not the case. there had to be languages those there who heard them speaking also heard languages they did not know too.
This is why The mocked them saying " they are Drunk". The record of Acts 2:5-12 tell us there were many differnt languages spoken. Remember 3000 were saved.
If this is true then only one language would have been spoken or everyone who heard it had to know every language that was spoken. This is not the case. there had to be languages those there who heard them speaking also heard languages they did not know too.
This is why The mocked them saying " they are Drunk". The record of Acts 2:5-12 tell us there were many differnt languages spoken. Remember 3000 were saved.
We don't really know what was spoken or heard. 2 possibilities.
A. Each person in the crowd heard ALL the disciples speaking his language and no other languages (which is how the scripture reads, "...every man heard them speaking in his own language." (KJV))
B. Each person in the crowd heard at least one disciple speaking in his language, and all the other disciples speaking in other languages, which makes more sense when one considers they sounded drunk.
Either way, it's what the crowd heard that's described, which leads me to think the Holy Spirit affected listener's ears rather than the disciples vocal cords.
A. Each person in the crowd heard ALL the disciples speaking his language and no other languages (which is how the scripture reads, "...every man heard them speaking in his own language." (KJV))
B. Each person in the crowd heard at least one disciple speaking in his language, and all the other disciples speaking in other languages, which makes more sense when one considers they sounded drunk.
Either way, it's what the crowd heard that's described, which leads me to think the Holy Spirit affected listener's ears rather than the disciples vocal cords.
I have been in the presence of tongues given of the Spirit.
What I note is that when the Holy Ghost is about to speak everyone present knows it and it is evidenced as a “holy hush” enforced on all present. Apprising all that the King is present, or his herald about to announce a proclamation.
That is, the one speaking in unknown tongues spoke what no one understood, but you are aware that the interpretation will follow.
Authority is present.
What I note is that when the Holy Ghost is about to speak everyone present knows it and it is evidenced as a “holy hush” enforced on all present. Apprising all that the King is present, or his herald about to announce a proclamation.
That is, the one speaking in unknown tongues spoke what no one understood, but you are aware that the interpretation will follow.
Authority is present.
Last edited:
"We don't really know what was spoken or heard. 2 possibilities.
actually we do , because the book of Acts tells us in Chapter 2. You did not post the biblical context to your A. B.
2:5
"[FONT="]And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.:6 "[/FONT][FONT="]Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude( this was alot of people) came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
:7 "[/FONT][FONT="]And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
[/FONT][FONT="]9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,[/FONT]
[FONT="]10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,[/FONT]
[FONT="]11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
:8 "[/FONT][FONT="]And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Your A & B is not what it says in Chapter 2 of Acts. [/FONT]
actually we do , because the book of Acts tells us in Chapter 2. You did not post the biblical context to your A. B.
2:5
"[FONT="]And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.:6 "[/FONT][FONT="]Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude( this was alot of people) came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
:7 "[/FONT][FONT="]And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
[/FONT][FONT="]9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,[/FONT]
[FONT="]10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,[/FONT]
[FONT="]11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
:8 "[/FONT][FONT="]And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Your A & B is not what it says in Chapter 2 of Acts. [/FONT]
I have witnessed exactly this many times during worship at 2 different churches I have belonged to, and each time it was immediately followed by the interpretation, always from a different person. The messages were sometimes prophetic, telling us of something to come, like confirmation of our corporate prayers, or regarding something we needed to do or change as a congregation, but were always for the edification of all there, which is how Paul said it should work.
One church I attended had a rule ... if you felt you were being led to give a prophetic tongue, you were to approach the leadership. If you felt you were being led to give an interpretation, you also approached leadership. If the two were present then they would allow the speakers to speak.
I can't really find a Biblical template for this, but it does fall under the 1 Cor 14 charge to keep things in an orderly way.
I can't really find a Biblical template for this, but it does fall under the 1 Cor 14 charge to keep things in an orderly way.
I did quote 2:6, in A., just didn't label it. I boldfaced the word them, and wrote that this is how the scripture reads. So A. would seem to be the correct interpretation, but it doesn't really explain how it could have sounded as if they were drunk this way, which is why I put a B., which is not really how it reads, but would explain this aspect.
The other thing I’d like to point out is that when the Holy Ghost manifests via gifts of the Spirit, there is a almost palpable manifestation in the assembly of saints of the church as a body.
Once you experience this unity of the Spirit in an assembly you can’t help but desire it as the norm for your church. However, I have not seen this unity of the Spirit as the norm. In my opinion this is because the scriptures are not being adhered to faithfully.
For example, one thing that can occur to prevent the local church from unity, which thing creeps in but ought never exist in the assembly, is “ sensuality.”
This can occur when music has a subtle but sensual feel. A big problem because by “ sensual” I don’t only refer to a sexual innuendo, but perhaps a feeling of pride, or perhaps a rebellious feeling such as the sons of Zebedee manifested as supposed righteous judgment.
Another example is prophets speaking without judgment upon them as by other discerning prophets.
But, the most needful thing for unity is the authority of the office of a teacher.
This being the hardest thing to find since many are fond of false doctrines being allowed to remain.
I think tongues with interpretation by another is one way the Spirit insures the word of God can intrude into a assembly for the benefit of the saints even though hindrances to God’s word exist among the attendees. For the unknown tongue with interpretation by another is a spiritually coordinated speech.
Nevertheless, a close and severe adherence to true doctrine of scripture is the best assurance of no hindrance to unity that manifests as the body of Christ, rather than as but one saint’s personal faithful use of a gift.
It seems to me that God forces the church to depend on one another as many members of one body. But the Devil strives to prevent the unity of the body of Christ being manifest. I have never seen the body well imitated by devils because the sensual nature of worldly unity is quite obvious and so, only a advanced deception can allow it. However, it seems that we are seeing such false unity approaching. One thing you’ll note is that Satan must establish a false headship that is essentially beyond correction. Which means, again, that the best protection is adherence to scripture by all high and low.
Once you experience this unity of the Spirit in an assembly you can’t help but desire it as the norm for your church. However, I have not seen this unity of the Spirit as the norm. In my opinion this is because the scriptures are not being adhered to faithfully.
For example, one thing that can occur to prevent the local church from unity, which thing creeps in but ought never exist in the assembly, is “ sensuality.”
This can occur when music has a subtle but sensual feel. A big problem because by “ sensual” I don’t only refer to a sexual innuendo, but perhaps a feeling of pride, or perhaps a rebellious feeling such as the sons of Zebedee manifested as supposed righteous judgment.
Another example is prophets speaking without judgment upon them as by other discerning prophets.
But, the most needful thing for unity is the authority of the office of a teacher.
This being the hardest thing to find since many are fond of false doctrines being allowed to remain.
I think tongues with interpretation by another is one way the Spirit insures the word of God can intrude into a assembly for the benefit of the saints even though hindrances to God’s word exist among the attendees. For the unknown tongue with interpretation by another is a spiritually coordinated speech.
Nevertheless, a close and severe adherence to true doctrine of scripture is the best assurance of no hindrance to unity that manifests as the body of Christ, rather than as but one saint’s personal faithful use of a gift.
It seems to me that God forces the church to depend on one another as many members of one body. But the Devil strives to prevent the unity of the body of Christ being manifest. I have never seen the body well imitated by devils because the sensual nature of worldly unity is quite obvious and so, only a advanced deception can allow it. However, it seems that we are seeing such false unity approaching. One thing you’ll note is that Satan must establish a false headship that is essentially beyond correction. Which means, again, that the best protection is adherence to scripture by all high and low.
If I'm recalling correctly, at least at the first church I attended (an Assembly of God), it (prophecy) was brought to the leadership in advance, yes, because of the need for the interpretation, to make sure that person was also present. But not always. There were a few times where the church leaders were left with their collective jaw hanging. I would have to check back with the other church if this was the case. I don't recall any 'surprise' revelations or prophecies meant for all present without interpreters. What good would that do?
1 Cor 14:26-28 (NIV) 26What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.
1 Cor 14:26-28 (NIV) 26What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.
actually you did not provided the verses need to support your claim you made when you said
""We don't really know what was spoken or heard. 2 possibilities. "
That is not the context of Acts 2:6 .
6 [FONT="]And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.
we know that everyone heard them speak in his own language. Who is the everyone?
verses 8 to 11 tell us
and more than two this we do know Because Acts tell's us.
[/FONT][FONT="]8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT][FONT="]9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT][FONT="]10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT][FONT="]11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.” [/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT]
""We don't really know what was spoken or heard. 2 possibilities. "
That is not the context of Acts 2:6 .
6 [FONT="]And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.
we know that everyone heard them speak in his own language. Who is the everyone?
verses 8 to 11 tell us
and more than two this we do know Because Acts tell's us.
[/FONT][FONT="]8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT][FONT="]9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT][FONT="]10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT][FONT="]11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.” [/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT]