The truth about tongues: a DIVISIVE force in Christianity today
- Thread starter Nehemiah6
- 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.
LOL One was often, the other very rarely . What percentage were very rarely, and the other, often? 37% to 63 % ? Can't divide unbelief from unbelief. 7 more will enter .
No birth certificate or DNA is needed. All continue to fall short of the unseen glory all the days of their temporal life .
Abraham whose descendants were the Amorites and Hittites? Who descendants were Abel's the first prophet, apostle and martyr? A member of the bride of Christ.
Jesus was sent to born again Israel. The father changed her name to Christian in Acts. That's plain in the gospels
I think you meant He hid the meaning because they did not have Christ faith working to show the outcome of the good pleasure of the Holy Spirit. .
Finally you admit that the KJV English in unknown! And therefore nearly impossible to read!
While I do not agree with you at all, that the KJV is written in the tongues of angels, (the Bible is clearly stating that any language on heaven or earth is useless without love (philos),) this wild statement that the KJV is written in the tongue of angels, which is unknown, truly has to be the weirdest thing you have ever written to support your cult-like fanaticism towards the KJV.
If the KJV is written in an unknown tongue, or the tongue of angels, then no one but an angel could read it!
-
1
- Show all
S
I discovered that F.F. Bruce does interpret "that which is perfect is come" as that state of perfection and knowledge we will have after we are glorified. I knew he would. But I still want to read his commentary on chapters 12-14.
I found this paper on 1 Cor 13. http://ntresources.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/perfectpaper94.pdf
It is a very thorough work on the history of interpretations on "that which is perfect" F.F. Bruce view is mentioned and resource cited.
I found this paper on 1 Cor 13. http://ntresources.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/perfectpaper94.pdf
It is a very thorough work on the history of interpretations on "that which is perfect" F.F. Bruce view is mentioned and resource cited.
@Scribe
Why do you put a dislike on anyone who cites real research which shows that tongues are gibberish?
If you disagree with these scholars, your job is to present the findings of other scholars who have shown linguistically that glossalia do fit the standards for a spoken, but unknown language.
Just because these scholars do not agree with your opinions on the subject, is no grounds to dislike what the are saying. Support your opinions with the work of people that are qualified, as these researchers are, who say that all these phenomena are not real languages, as used by people to communicate, but instead are just made up babbling.
As I said before, God can give people a real language, and use it for his glory to share the gospel, but that is rare. I speak quite a few languages, and the babbling that goes on in Pentecostal/charismatic churches does not compare to real languages. I am sure all the scholars mentioned are quite right in asserting that babbling, whether from believers or non-believers, are simply not real languages.
But perhaps there is no research supporting the hypothesis that what goes on in modern charismatic churches (babbling) are languages? I think that is the real problem!
Why do you put a dislike on anyone who cites real research which shows that tongues are gibberish?
If you disagree with these scholars, your job is to present the findings of other scholars who have shown linguistically that glossalia do fit the standards for a spoken, but unknown language.
Just because these scholars do not agree with your opinions on the subject, is no grounds to dislike what the are saying. Support your opinions with the work of people that are qualified, as these researchers are, who say that all these phenomena are not real languages, as used by people to communicate, but instead are just made up babbling.
As I said before, God can give people a real language, and use it for his glory to share the gospel, but that is rare. I speak quite a few languages, and the babbling that goes on in Pentecostal/charismatic churches does not compare to real languages. I am sure all the scholars mentioned are quite right in asserting that babbling, whether from believers or non-believers, are simply not real languages.
But perhaps there is no research supporting the hypothesis that what goes on in modern charismatic churches (babbling) are languages? I think that is the real problem!
-
1
- Show all
Incoherent blather.
No; ethnic Jews. Period. No qualifiers.
My goodness, you are stubborn. Read Jesus' words in Matthew 15:24...
But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
"Lost sheep" are NOT "born again"!
Do you see your obvious contradiction? As for your assertion, it's rank eisegesis.
I know what I meant, and I wrote what I meant. Don't try to reinterpret my words to justify your confusion.
No; ethnic Jews. Period. No qualifiers.
My goodness, you are stubborn. Read Jesus' words in Matthew 15:24...
But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
"Lost sheep" are NOT "born again"!
Do you see your obvious contradiction? As for your assertion, it's rank eisegesis.
I know what I meant, and I wrote what I meant. Don't try to reinterpret my words to justify your confusion.
S
It is an argument no one who speaks in tongues agrees with. They are wasting there time trying to prove that tongues is not a known language. Paul was converted in 36AD and wrote 1 Cor 14:14 around 56AD For 20 years he prayed in tongues that he did not understand. If it was a known language most likely it would have been identified in all that time. He still had no understanding after 20 years of praying in a known language? Not likely.
Others mocking said they were drunk. People who can suddenly speak Russian without learning it are not going to be considered drunk. These OTHERS were not of those who heard in their own tongue, they heard what sounded like gibberish to them.
All those who speak in tongues are fine with the fact that their tongue is not a known language. It is annoying to hear a long winded argument trying to prove something based on an foundational error of interpretation.
I have just presented two short and simple reasons why it cannot be proven that all tongues are a known language just because some heard in their own language, OTHERS did not, and Paul did not understand his tongue after 20 years of praying more than all the Corinthians who were known for going overboard in the public assembly. A third reason is that he did not say to have a TRANSLATOR present, (one who knows that language) but one who has the Holy Spirit Gift of Interpretation which does not work the same as Translating and makes the argument about being able to record a tongue and have it interpreted by others consistently a stupid argument. It does not work that way. I have presented all this before and more verbose.
These linguistic research rebuttals are useless to those who speak in tongues. It only makes sense to people who do not understand how the Holy Spirit Gift of tongues works. They are stuck in the world of languages and translations not the gift of the Spirit. So they are wasting their time and preaching only to their fellow skeptics who are also confused on the topic.
Others mocking said they were drunk. People who can suddenly speak Russian without learning it are not going to be considered drunk. These OTHERS were not of those who heard in their own tongue, they heard what sounded like gibberish to them.
All those who speak in tongues are fine with the fact that their tongue is not a known language. It is annoying to hear a long winded argument trying to prove something based on an foundational error of interpretation.
I have just presented two short and simple reasons why it cannot be proven that all tongues are a known language just because some heard in their own language, OTHERS did not, and Paul did not understand his tongue after 20 years of praying more than all the Corinthians who were known for going overboard in the public assembly. A third reason is that he did not say to have a TRANSLATOR present, (one who knows that language) but one who has the Holy Spirit Gift of Interpretation which does not work the same as Translating and makes the argument about being able to record a tongue and have it interpreted by others consistently a stupid argument. It does not work that way. I have presented all this before and more verbose.
These linguistic research rebuttals are useless to those who speak in tongues. It only makes sense to people who do not understand how the Holy Spirit Gift of tongues works. They are stuck in the world of languages and translations not the gift of the Spirit. So they are wasting their time and preaching only to their fellow skeptics who are also confused on the topic.
Just because I uphold the King James Bible does not make me a King James cultist. Perhaps you are among the modern version cultists.
It should be obvious to anyone with the least bit of discernment that Paul was simply using hyperbole to teach the tongues-cultists that they had some absurd ideas about the value of tongues. As we know from Scripture, there is no language of angels, but Paul says that even if there was such an exalted language and someone used with, but did not have agape love in his heart, it meant absolutely nothing.
Those instructions were given to an apostolic church in the first century, where actual supernatural human languages were being spoken, and therefore needed an interpreter (and Paul insisted that there be an interpreter, otherwise the tongue-speaker must cease and desist).
TOTALLY FALSE.
Acts 2 shows that at least fifteen human lnaguages and dialects were being spoken, and there is no change when it comes to the Corinthian church. The same Greek words with the same meaning are used throughout. And here is the evidence.
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues [Greek glossais* = languages], as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:4)
Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues [Greek glossais* = languages] , what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? (1 Cor 14:6)
STRONG'S
*the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations
It should be obvious to anyone with the least bit of discernment that Paul was simply using hyperbole to teach the tongues-cultists that they had some absurd ideas about the value of tongues. As we know from Scripture, there is no language of angels, but Paul says that even if there was such an exalted language and someone used with, but did not have agape love in his heart, it meant absolutely nothing.
Those instructions were given to an apostolic church in the first century, where actual supernatural human languages were being spoken, and therefore needed an interpreter (and Paul insisted that there be an interpreter, otherwise the tongue-speaker must cease and desist).
TOTALLY FALSE.
Acts 2 shows that at least fifteen human lnaguages and dialects were being spoken, and there is no change when it comes to the Corinthian church. The same Greek words with the same meaning are used throughout. And here is the evidence.
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues [Greek glossais* = languages], as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:4)
Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues [Greek glossais* = languages] , what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? (1 Cor 14:6)
STRONG'S
*the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations
To add a bit - modern tongues-speech, non-cognitive non-language utterance, is actually not gibberish. Gibberish by its nature does not seek to mimic language; tongues-speech does.
I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate (linguistically) that the modern phenomenon is language. In order for something uttered to be language, regardless of where spoken (the US, some remote island in the middle of nowhere, some alien planet, the spiritual/heavenly realm), or by whom spoken (human, alien, spiritual being), it must contain at minimum two distinct features; modern tongues-speech contains neither.
I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate (linguistically) that the modern phenomenon is language. In order for something uttered to be language, regardless of where spoken (the US, some remote island in the middle of nowhere, some alien planet, the spiritual/heavenly realm), or by whom spoken (human, alien, spiritual being), it must contain at minimum two distinct features; modern tongues-speech contains neither.
-
1
- Show all
How do you reconcile the Pentecostal redefinition of its tongues doctrine between 1906 and 1907?? Are you even aware that the entire doctrine and understanding was redefined?? "Tongues" for Pentecostals were xenoglossy one day (and when that was self-proven not to be the case), 'prayer language' the next.
-
1
- Show all
Unnecessary and inflammatory. You're welcome to make assertions about yourself; there is no need to slander others.
You make the claim, so you can back it up, right? Wrong. Nothing in Scripture says or even hints that "there is no language of angels". It's a fallacious argument from silence.
Wrong again. Paul's instruction was that, in the absence of an interpreter, the tongue-speaker speak to himself and to God (v.28).
You're assuming that Acts 2 is restrictively exemplary. Nothing in Scripture supports that theory. When Cornelius spoke in tongues, there was no record of anyone hearing him in their own language. When Paul talks about speaking in tongues, there is no mention of others hearing him in their own language. Same thing in Acts 19.
You make the claim, so you can back it up, right? Wrong. Nothing in Scripture says or even hints that "there is no language of angels". It's a fallacious argument from silence.
Wrong again. Paul's instruction was that, in the absence of an interpreter, the tongue-speaker speak to himself and to God (v.28).
You're assuming that Acts 2 is restrictively exemplary. Nothing in Scripture supports that theory. When Cornelius spoke in tongues, there was no record of anyone hearing him in their own language. When Paul talks about speaking in tongues, there is no mention of others hearing him in their own language. Same thing in Acts 19.
Not to mention, "tongues" is a purely oral phenomenon; I have only heard of one person who ever 'wrote in tongues'; Agnes Ozman whose "Chinese" was anything but.
It is interesting to note that a phenomenon closely related to modern tongues (sort of its 'sister' phenomenon), so-called "Light Language", is both a spoken and written phenomenon. The writing systems used for light language are purely interpretational and artistic in nature. Like the spoken form - they have no meaning in and of themselves, but many of them are quite beautiful as scripts go.
It is interesting to note that a phenomenon closely related to modern tongues (sort of its 'sister' phenomenon), so-called "Light Language", is both a spoken and written phenomenon. The writing systems used for light language are purely interpretational and artistic in nature. Like the spoken form - they have no meaning in and of themselves, but many of them are quite beautiful as scripts go.
-
1
- Show all
S
that is a weak argument to base simply on the word tongues. Others did not hear them in their own language and thought they were babeling so they accused them of being drunk. There is no way you can proove the greek means KNOWN, it simply means a tongue. This has been widely discussed by scholars and most agree that there is no way to proove tongue is a known language, it could apply to known or unknown there is nothing in the word that enforces that it be known. You are assuming it is known because of Acts 2 but you conveniently leave out the fact that some did not hear in their known tongue and thought they were drunk. Unless you addressed that and I have not read your post yet.
S
Just look up a time line for Paul. It was believed he was converted around 36 AD. We know he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians and when did he start? If we take all the other examples it would have been when Ananais laid hands on him to receive the Holy Ghost. It is believed he wrote 1 Cor about 56AD He had been praying in tongues (1 Cor 14:14) for 20 years.
S
It does not work that way. The Holy Spirit does not play along with skeptics attempt to test Him. I would never speak in tongues for skeptic, nor would I submit to some kind of test or recording. Nor would I attempt to interpret tongues from a recording someone submitted. I have interpreted as the Spirit gave me the ability in a church service and I have spoken in tongues and someone else has interpreted. When the Holy Spirit moves in the moment it will be a manifestation that brings glory to Jesus Christ and all will be edified.
If you were to record someone in a church service operating in the gift, decently and in order, there would be an interpreter. If you were to take that recording and leave the interpretation off and submit it to people who claim that they have the gift of interpretation and can interpret your recorded message for you, what you would get is different results because the person who says they can do that for you is not operating in the gift of interpretation. They are in their own fleshly reasoning and speaking their own mind because anyone lead of the Holy Spirit would tell you No, they will not attempt to interpret your recorded message. The Holy Spirit will not give them an interpretation. Those who are operating in the gifts of the Spirit would know to tell you it does not work that way. The Holy Spirit will not play along and give you an interpretation. Your test would only expose the nut cases that are willing to submit to your testing methods.
If you were to record someone in a church service operating in the gift, decently and in order, there would be an interpreter. If you were to take that recording and leave the interpretation off and submit it to people who claim that they have the gift of interpretation and can interpret your recorded message for you, what you would get is different results because the person who says they can do that for you is not operating in the gift of interpretation. They are in their own fleshly reasoning and speaking their own mind because anyone lead of the Holy Spirit would tell you No, they will not attempt to interpret your recorded message. The Holy Spirit will not give them an interpretation. Those who are operating in the gifts of the Spirit would know to tell you it does not work that way. The Holy Spirit will not play along and give you an interpretation. Your test would only expose the nut cases that are willing to submit to your testing methods.