Speaking in tongues
- Thread starter blessedafrican
- 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.
Another testimony to the truth
http://www.miracles.areonthe.net/TE... answers/Proof of God given to me -Ben R-.pdf
http://www.miracles.areonthe.net/TE... answers/Proof of God given to me -Ben R-.pdf
You have "offered" a couple of verses that do not say what your claim says. I am confident that Scripture does not say anywhere, "If any man say I have seen the Lord, heard audible voice, or had a dream as a personal experience we are to believe not." Given that you made that claim, and have been unable to provide Scripture directly supporting it, I am pointing out that you have "gone above what is written."
I haven't asserted that "it's OK to widen the authority of the 'law of faith'" so I have no need to defend such a statement.
I haven't asserted that "it's OK to widen the authority of the 'law of faith'" so I have no need to defend such a statement.
Hi thanks for the reply, sorry for our misunderstandings .
I did not say you would find those words verbatim. They both indicate something as a future warning or seeing ahead .Why according to that context would it make it impossible to deceive the elect if it is not the end of new revelations as written laws needed to believe God as the same spoken of in 1 Corinthians 13 as ceasing now that it was not in part but the perfect? What's missing?
Sorry was not trying to offend you. But you did say I believe the philosophies as theories of men had the same authority for circular reasoning as does the law of faith. The kind of Circular reasoning that begins with truth ends with the same persons truth . I would offer we compare the things we know are true to the thinks we are hoping are true, as a living hope not seen., All die not receiving the promise of our new incorruptible bodies Both as separate authors, of the philosophies of men seen, and the author of faith, a law of God not seen.
In that way I would suggest Christianity is not one of the philosophies of men as theories that come from the imaginations of ones own heart as the proper circular reasoning. But a law of God revealing His own heart as His reasoning law .In that way His circle cannot be broken into, added to, or subtracted from . Its what we in a hope of rightly dividing the truth as we do seek after His approval..
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
I did not say you would find those words verbatim. They both indicate something as a future warning or seeing ahead .Why according to that context would it make it impossible to deceive the elect if it is not the end of new revelations as written laws needed to believe God as the same spoken of in 1 Corinthians 13 as ceasing now that it was not in part but the perfect? What's missing?
Sorry was not trying to offend you. But you did say I believe the philosophies as theories of men had the same authority for circular reasoning as does the law of faith. The kind of Circular reasoning that begins with truth ends with the same persons truth . I would offer we compare the things we know are true to the thinks we are hoping are true, as a living hope not seen., All die not receiving the promise of our new incorruptible bodies Both as separate authors, of the philosophies of men seen, and the author of faith, a law of God not seen.
In that way I would suggest Christianity is not one of the philosophies of men as theories that come from the imaginations of ones own heart as the proper circular reasoning. But a law of God revealing His own heart as His reasoning law .In that way His circle cannot be broken into, added to, or subtracted from . Its what we in a hope of rightly dividing the truth as we do seek after His approval..
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
How can we know any thought has spiritual truth coming from God not subject to change in any language? God does not except the witness of men as the private interpretations. He moves men according to His will His interpretation as His personal witness. The person putting his new faith in respect the Spirit of Christ, (the Spirit of faith) has the witness of God within himself. God does not accept the witness of men as the final.
1 John 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
His witness is greater than that of man seeing he was working in their affairs that his will might be performed as we are in formed in Philippians 2:12 .in so much that we have the power of God in us but it is never of us. it is God who does work in us to both will and perform his goof pleasure as a imputed righteousness like that given to Abraham and Rehab . God called them friends in the same way he calls us in whom His righteousness is imputed to.
If we go to the foundation of tongues (Isaiah 28) from their we can have a sure footing as to who the sign points to and what it confirms. Get the proper foundation the rest of the doctrine of God will become clearer as to the intent of the sign.
In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are "for a sign", not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. 1 Corinthians 14:21-22
Personally I am no scholar but I wonder how in the world the "sign" clearly gets turned upside down destroying the intent of law(1 Corinthians 14:21-22) as well as the foundation ( Isaiah 28)
Psalm 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
1 John 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
His witness is greater than that of man seeing he was working in their affairs that his will might be performed as we are in formed in Philippians 2:12 .in so much that we have the power of God in us but it is never of us. it is God who does work in us to both will and perform his goof pleasure as a imputed righteousness like that given to Abraham and Rehab . God called them friends in the same way he calls us in whom His righteousness is imputed to.
If we go to the foundation of tongues (Isaiah 28) from their we can have a sure footing as to who the sign points to and what it confirms. Get the proper foundation the rest of the doctrine of God will become clearer as to the intent of the sign.
In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are "for a sign", not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. 1 Corinthians 14:21-22
Personally I am no scholar but I wonder how in the world the "sign" clearly gets turned upside down destroying the intent of law(1 Corinthians 14:21-22) as well as the foundation ( Isaiah 28)
Psalm 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
-
1
- Show all
Thanks for the respectful response. I took no offense.
I don't mean to be disrespectful in reply; rather I am saying this that you might learn. You do not have a right understanding of "circular reasoning". You have made up your own definition and a story around it. Yours is completely unrelated to the actual well-accepted definition, which is this: Circular reasoning is using an assertion as evidence for itself. That's it; that's all. Such is logically invalid no matter what your spiritual condition or belief. Bad logic is bad logic, period.
Circular reasoning has nothing to do with "philosophies of man". It also has nothing to do with 'the circle of the earth'. It has nothing to do with some 'unbreakable circle' of God's law. It has nothing to do with Christianity being some alleged 'proper circular reasoning'.
Please, the next time someone introduces a term that has a specific meaning, kindly find out what that specific meaning is instead of making something up.
I don't mean to be disrespectful in reply; rather I am saying this that you might learn. You do not have a right understanding of "circular reasoning". You have made up your own definition and a story around it. Yours is completely unrelated to the actual well-accepted definition, which is this: Circular reasoning is using an assertion as evidence for itself. That's it; that's all. Such is logically invalid no matter what your spiritual condition or belief. Bad logic is bad logic, period.
Circular reasoning has nothing to do with "philosophies of man". It also has nothing to do with 'the circle of the earth'. It has nothing to do with some 'unbreakable circle' of God's law. It has nothing to do with Christianity being some alleged 'proper circular reasoning'.
Please, the next time someone introduces a term that has a specific meaning, kindly find out what that specific meaning is instead of making something up.
yet another testimony to the truth and power of Pentecostal faith
http://www.miracles.areonthe.net/TE...led - not a single cancer cell -Graham M-.pdf
http://www.miracles.areonthe.net/TE...led - not a single cancer cell -Graham M-.pdf
According to the book of Luke, there was at least one prophetess between Malachi and the time John the Baptist started his ministry in the desert, and we know God gave at least one man a revelation. There could have been others besides Anna and Simeon.
This advice of yours is not in the Bible. The book of Job tells us of how God warns people through dreams. The verse you quote about not going to the desert or the secret places to see if someone says the Messiah is there does not say what you say in the quote above.
Where do you get this revelation of yours? Do you claim to have heard an audible voice or a dream to reveal it to you? What kind of extrabiblical source are you relying on for these teachings of yours?
This advice of yours is not in the Bible. The book of Job tells us of how God warns people through dreams. The verse you quote about not going to the desert or the secret places to see if someone says the Messiah is there does not say what you say in the quote above.
Where do you get this revelation of yours? Do you claim to have heard an audible voice or a dream to reveal it to you? What kind of extrabiblical source are you relying on for these teachings of yours?
@cv5 - Yes, gift, but a “manifestation gift”.
@ Sketch – Ref. post #3,428
Totally serious – the only way modern tongues can “work” in this passage is if the speaker also doesn’t understand what he’s saying. Remove that concept, and there’s really no way to “proof” modern tongues in this passage.
Indeed, the only way not to have the passage work as describing real, rational language is if the speaker himself has no clue what he’s saying – put into cultural and historical context, this is clearly not the case; nowhere in the text does it suggest the speaker doesn’t know what he’s saying – it’s just not there.
The Bible does mean what it says; however, one needs to put a given text into historical/cultural context (something not frequently done). When it comes to ‘tongues’, Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians have read into the texts concepts and things that just not there. Essentially a purposeful re-interpretation of the text and re-definition of certain concepts (“praying in the Spirit, and the word “tongues” itself) to fit the modern experience.
I’m not going into much detail here for brevity’s sake, but…..Interpreting/Translating is being done for the audience, not for/to the speaker. Paul calls for clarity and understanding at a public worship so that all may benefit. Again, if I’m at a public worship in Corinth and start praying aloud in say Pictish; no one’s going to understand me (unless of course they’re from my neck of the woods). As a merchant, I may speak a bit of Greek to conduct my business, but the chances of me speaking it well enough to translate the intricacies and nuances of a prayer is pretty slim to nil. In order for all to benefit, I need to secure the help of a translator. The translation is for the audience, not for me; I know what I’m saying, the audience does not.
The speaker should pray that me may be able to interpret what he’s saying so all may benefit. The passage does not indicate or instruct how said translation must take place or even that the person speaking needs to be the one doing the actual translation. Paul’s essentially saying that If you’re going to pray in a foreign language at a public worship, pray that you can get a translation of what you’re saying (by whatever means you can) so all may benefit, otherwise, it’s better if you not speak at all, but pray silently to God (so as not to create or add to any confusion).
If your boss says something like, “you better pray you come up with a resolution for the Jones’ issue by Monday!”, does that mean you have to come up with it all by yourself, or would you take that to mean, that you need to resolve the issue, but it doesn’t mean you can’t get help from others? i.e. the means by which you resolve the issue are not defined, so long as in the end, you come up with a resolution. Same here, the means by which the speaker secures a translator/translation are not defined (it doesn’t have to necessarily be him doing the actual translation), so long as he’s able to get it translated so all can benefit. Probably not the best analogy or way to put it, but hoping the general idea comes across.
@ Sketch – Ref. post #3,428
Totally serious – the only way modern tongues can “work” in this passage is if the speaker also doesn’t understand what he’s saying. Remove that concept, and there’s really no way to “proof” modern tongues in this passage.
Indeed, the only way not to have the passage work as describing real, rational language is if the speaker himself has no clue what he’s saying – put into cultural and historical context, this is clearly not the case; nowhere in the text does it suggest the speaker doesn’t know what he’s saying – it’s just not there.
The Bible does mean what it says; however, one needs to put a given text into historical/cultural context (something not frequently done). When it comes to ‘tongues’, Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians have read into the texts concepts and things that just not there. Essentially a purposeful re-interpretation of the text and re-definition of certain concepts (“praying in the Spirit, and the word “tongues” itself) to fit the modern experience.
I’m not going into much detail here for brevity’s sake, but…..Interpreting/Translating is being done for the audience, not for/to the speaker. Paul calls for clarity and understanding at a public worship so that all may benefit. Again, if I’m at a public worship in Corinth and start praying aloud in say Pictish; no one’s going to understand me (unless of course they’re from my neck of the woods). As a merchant, I may speak a bit of Greek to conduct my business, but the chances of me speaking it well enough to translate the intricacies and nuances of a prayer is pretty slim to nil. In order for all to benefit, I need to secure the help of a translator. The translation is for the audience, not for me; I know what I’m saying, the audience does not.
The speaker should pray that me may be able to interpret what he’s saying so all may benefit. The passage does not indicate or instruct how said translation must take place or even that the person speaking needs to be the one doing the actual translation. Paul’s essentially saying that If you’re going to pray in a foreign language at a public worship, pray that you can get a translation of what you’re saying (by whatever means you can) so all may benefit, otherwise, it’s better if you not speak at all, but pray silently to God (so as not to create or add to any confusion).
If your boss says something like, “you better pray you come up with a resolution for the Jones’ issue by Monday!”, does that mean you have to come up with it all by yourself, or would you take that to mean, that you need to resolve the issue, but it doesn’t mean you can’t get help from others? i.e. the means by which you resolve the issue are not defined, so long as in the end, you come up with a resolution. Same here, the means by which the speaker secures a translator/translation are not defined (it doesn’t have to necessarily be him doing the actual translation), so long as he’s able to get it translated so all can benefit. Probably not the best analogy or way to put it, but hoping the general idea comes across.
Despite the strident and irrational protestations, they are and were actual spoken languages requiring an interpreter.
Baby talk gibberish is not tongues by the standard of Scripture, it is a farce, and an insult.
Quite frankly it alienates many from believing, exactly the opposite of intended function of true tongues.
Baby talk gibberish is not tongues by the standard of Scripture, it is a farce, and an insult.
Quite frankly it alienates many from believing, exactly the opposite of intended function of true tongues.
-
1
- Show all
(in your response to lukeabers' posts) -
I don’t know why, but Aramaic and Hebrew are the two most common “go to” languages for tongues – many people seem to think they’re speaking Aramaic or Hebrew when speaking in ‘tongues’. Indeed, with respect to Aramaic, one of the most eminent scholars of Aramaic (a Steve Caruso) receives hundreds of correspondences a year from people requesting translations of their ‘Aramaic’ tongues-speech. Needless to say, not one has ever been found to be actual Aramaic.
I have to seriously wonder how many people who claim their tongues as being Hebrew, have actually ever heard the language spoken other than a few common cross-cultural terms (Adonai, Meshiach, hallelujah, Yeshuah, etc.), which, by the way, are commonly injected into t-speech. Listen to a Hebrew language radio station's newscast for about 5 minutes and ask yourself if that sounds anything at all like what your t-speech sounds like. Better yet, record yourself for about a minute or so and compare the two.
On that note, I’ve asked people on numerous occasions to simply pick up their phone and record themselves speaking tongues for about a minute and post it. Haven’t had one person do it yet – always some reason why it can’t be subject to a bit of analysis. I don’t state this as some sort of “challenge” of any sort mind you, nor am I trying to offend, just making a point, but it does kind of beg the question of whether or not deep down, many ‘speakers’ are really not overly convinced of the legitimacy of what they’re producing, nor, at the very least, are they really sure of exactly what it is. All they seem to be convinced of is that they produce sounds that seem to mimic language.
I don’t know why, but Aramaic and Hebrew are the two most common “go to” languages for tongues – many people seem to think they’re speaking Aramaic or Hebrew when speaking in ‘tongues’. Indeed, with respect to Aramaic, one of the most eminent scholars of Aramaic (a Steve Caruso) receives hundreds of correspondences a year from people requesting translations of their ‘Aramaic’ tongues-speech. Needless to say, not one has ever been found to be actual Aramaic.
I have to seriously wonder how many people who claim their tongues as being Hebrew, have actually ever heard the language spoken other than a few common cross-cultural terms (Adonai, Meshiach, hallelujah, Yeshuah, etc.), which, by the way, are commonly injected into t-speech. Listen to a Hebrew language radio station's newscast for about 5 minutes and ask yourself if that sounds anything at all like what your t-speech sounds like. Better yet, record yourself for about a minute or so and compare the two.
On that note, I’ve asked people on numerous occasions to simply pick up their phone and record themselves speaking tongues for about a minute and post it. Haven’t had one person do it yet – always some reason why it can’t be subject to a bit of analysis. I don’t state this as some sort of “challenge” of any sort mind you, nor am I trying to offend, just making a point, but it does kind of beg the question of whether or not deep down, many ‘speakers’ are really not overly convinced of the legitimacy of what they’re producing, nor, at the very least, are they really sure of exactly what it is. All they seem to be convinced of is that they produce sounds that seem to mimic language.
-
2
- Show all
Oh it goes farther than that. By muddying the waters and falsifying counterfeits, satan prevents believers like you from believing as well.
Tongues in an assembly require interpretation.
Tongues spoken in private do not.
https://christianchat.com/blogs/prophecy-and-tongues-differentiated-part-1.174929/
https://christianchat.com/blogs/prophecy-and-tongues-differentiated-part-1.174929/
It's all about time and place. Unfortunately, yes, too many charismatics do not understand this. Which leads non-charismatics to not understand it either.
Tongues in an assembly require interpretation.
Tongues spoken in private do not.
https://christianchat.com/blogs/prophecy-and-tongues-differentiated-part-1.174929/
https://christianchat.com/blogs/prophecy-and-tongues-differentiated-part-1.174929/
It's all about time and place. Unfortunately, yes, too many charismatics do not understand this. Which leads non-charismatics to not understand it either.
-
1
- Show all