Speaking in tongues

so the gen 11 account was God intervening to divide men with the same understanding to cause confusion and that gen 11 you contextually parallel with Acts 2 even after Peter says this is THAT which was spoken by the Prophet Joel?

You said

"Tongues were a sign on Pentecost. The demonstrated the presence of the Holy Spirit. They were a miracle in the ears of the hearers not in the mouth of the speakers."

No it was not the main reason . Acts 1:8 is the reason as Jesus said " to have power to be a witness to all the world .
there you go with that "You really need to reconsider that you do not take into your doctrine all of the word of God."

You have not shown contextually gen 11 and Acts 2 or 1:8 for that matter So you suggest the issue is my doctrine lol. what a joke. I am not the one trying to nail jello to the wall here you are. gen 11 has nothing to do with Acts 2. how do I know that because the bible does not say that or show that.

1. Jesus did not teach this
2. Peter did not teach this
3. Paul did not teach this

Deu 19:15 [ The Law Concerning Witnesses ] “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.

Matt 18:16

But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’

2cor 13:1 [ Coming with Authority ] This will be the third time I am coming to you. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.”

You cannot show three verse without allegorically using other verse to create a false narrative the Bible does not support; that say what you think of gen chpater 11.

Jesus doesn't provide or teach it. Peter did not, and Paul did not None of the older Prophets can say something different then what Jesus has said if they did it was due to limited revelation. And Jesus was not limited in that.
That is not my "doctrine"

That is how you establish what is authoritative, contextual , and authorial intent . Jesus did not say it teach it and old prophets cannot speak a counter-diction to the Lord. Therefore your understanding in misplaced

Genesis is the first appearance of tongues. All the earth spoke one language prior to Nimrod and the tower of Babel. God confused the language as judgment on mankind because of their arrogance. Without Genesis there would be no tongues in Acts. That is not hard to comprehend.

Joel did not speak to tongues. Joel spoke only of the Holy Spirit being poured out on all flesh. That is what was evidenced at Pentecost. Filling of the Holy Spirit for power to minister the word of God. To testify of Christ.

Subsequent appearances of tongues are related to judgment on apostate Israel. Judgment in the form of captivity by peoples with whom they did not share a common language. At the time of Christ Israel was under the authority of Rome. Rome does not use Hebrew as their language. The people in Israel were speaking Aramaic from the captivity of the Babylonian empire.

Therefore your understanding is misplaced. Tongues were not a blessing in the eyes of the Jews. Tongues were a reminder of captivity. The tongues in Acts were understood by the hearers. None of the tongues in Acts were unknown tongues.

The confusing of the languages in Genesis had absolutely nothing to do with the manifestation of speaking in tongues. Not one single thing.

Yes. And the proof that the apostles had received the gift of the Holy Spirit was that they spoke in tongues.

So every time Paul spoke in tongues (which he did more than the entire Corinthian church) he was rendering judgment against apostate Israel? And God wants all Christians to speak in tongues (1 Cor 14:5) in order to render judgment against apostate Israel?

The tongues being spoken in Acts were unknown to the people who were speaking them.

When a person speaks in tongues, he does not understand what he is saying, his understanding is unfruitful (1 Cor 14:2, 14). When a person speaks in tongues, he is edifying himself (1 Cor 14:4), he is speaking the wonderful works of God (Acts 2:11), magnifying God (Acts 10:46), he is giving thanks well (1 Cor 14:17), he praying in the spirit (1 Cor 14:15), and he is doing what God wants him to do (1 Cor 14:5).

Wrong it is a foundational truth.

Wrong again. It was a sign that the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit. They received the Holy Spirit in John 20 when Christ breathed the Holy Spirit on them.

Paul was not rendering judgment.

Tongues were a sign against the Jews who rejected Christ as their Messiah.

They were provoked to jealousy toward the Gentiles because the Gentiles were being saved instead of them.

Proof? Oh wait there is none.

Tongues in Acts were understood in the ears of the hearers.

We do not know if the speakers understood what they were speaking. It is not given in the texts.

If you want to believe that there is nothing going to change your mind but knowledge that the Holy Spirit can produce if you are willing to allow Him to do it.

Another assertion with no proof.

John 20 does not say the apostles received the HS when Jesus breathed on them. They received in in Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost.

Why did Paul speak in tongues more than the entire Corinthian church?

Tongues should have been a sign that what was taking place was of God.

I absolutely do believe it. One day you will too.

Roger, if you do not want to speak in tongues, nobody can make you, not even God.

But you are dead wrong to speak against it.

Sorry God did not annotate His word for you.

Do some research on systematic theology.

Jesus said it but you say Jesus was wrong?

Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Paul was highly educated. He would have known more than one language.

Shame you were not there to counsel them.

God leads in paths of righteousness.

I have. The confusing of the languages at Babel had nothing to do with the manifestation of speaking in tongues.

Jesus was giving them instruction on what would soon come. They did not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit before the day of Pentecost.

That has nothing to do with Paul's speaking in tongues. When a person speaks in tongues, he does not understand what he is saying (1 Cor 14:2, 14). (I see you conveniently left out that part in your response to me)

I wish something could get through to you, Roger.

The confusing of the languages at Babel had nothing to do with the manifestation of speaking in tongues.

Genesis is the first appearance of tongues. All the earth spoke one language prior to Nimrod and the tower of Babel. God confused the language as judgment on mankind because of their arrogance. Without Genesis there would be no tongues in Acts. That is not hard to comprehend.

Joel did not speak to tongues. Joel spoke only of the Holy Spirit being poured out on all flesh. That is what was evidenced at Pentecost. Filling of the Holy Spirit for power to minister the word of God. To testify of Christ.

Subsequent appearances of tongues are related to judgment on apostate Israel. Judgment in the form of captivity by peoples with whom they did not share a common language. At the time of Christ Israel was under the authority of Rome. Rome does not use Hebrew as their language. The people in Israel were speaking Aramaic from the captivity of the Babylonian empire.

Therefore your understanding is misplaced. Tongues were not a blessing in the eyes of the Jews. Tongues were a reminder of captivity. The tongues in Acts were understood by the hearers. None of the tongues in Acts were unknown tongues.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Wrong it is a foundational truth.

Wrong again. It was a sign that the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit. They received the Holy Spirit in John 20 when Christ breathed the Holy Spirit on them.

Paul was not rendering judgment. Tongues were a sign against the Jews who rejected Christ as their Messiah. They were provoked to jealousy toward the Gentiles because the Gentiles were being saved instead of them.

Proof? Oh wait there is none. Tongues in Acts were understood in the ears of the hearers. We do not know if the speakers understood what they were speaking. It is not given in the texts.

If you want to believe that there is nothing going to change your mind but knowledge that the Holy Spirit can produce if you are willing to allow Him to do it.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Not necessarily. Up until Babel man had a singular language, it was one of the few things he kept after the fall. When Christ returns to physically redeem creation, one of the things that is restored is that singular language. Since Christ has that power to restore in the heavens, and it is our job to be the conduit of His power on earth, could it be that tongues are the ability to tap into that future restored language now thru the Holy Spirit?

nope. not a foundational truth. gen 11 and Acts 2 are two different events which have nothing to do with each other.

the issue is the context of gen 11 with what happen in Acts 2.

Gen 11 thier languages were changed so they could not understand each other.

Acts their languages WERE not changed they were given the ability to speak in another language and were still able to speak in their native tongues or language . That did not happen in Gen 11.

No gen 11 is the not the first the word "tongues is not even used. it Hebrew and the word language is saphah= lips or languages
all the people spoke the same language .

gen 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

the word confound means change from one to another. That is the context .

In Acts The Holy Spirit did not change their languages HE enabled them to speak a NEW one they were not taught or native to.

The word unknown is supplied by the translators to convey an accurate meaning of the text from the Greek.

Now who is attempting to skirt the scripture? I have pointed to an accurate conclusion based on a simple meaning from the text. I can see that you are adjusting how you read this passage to defend your position. It only stands to reason that if Paul prayed in a tongue he knew he would understand he would comprehend his prayer and his mind would be fruitful.

1 Cor 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. KJV not that that makes any difference.


For the cause of Christ
Roger

One of the meanings of tongues is languages. The NT was not written in Hebrew so I'm certain that the same word is not used. Parts of the NT were written in Aramaic and Greek later translated into Latin.

You are chopping but not making any chips.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

One of the meanings of tongues is languages. The NT was not written in Hebrew so I'm certain that the same word is not used. Parts of the NT were written in Aramaic and Greek later translated into Latin.

You are chopping but not making any chips.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Without different languages there is no gift of tongues. You cannot have chickens without eggs.

Serious problem. Jesus said receive the Holy Spirit. You don't believe Jesus?

Wholly false assumption. Tongues are languages. Paul was multi-lingual.

Bad doctrine is screened out. The truth is readily received.

Not necessarily. Up until Babel man had a singular language, it was one of the few things he kept after the fall. When Christ returns to physically redeem creation, one of the things that is restored is that singular language.

Since Christ has that power to restore in the heavens, and it is our job to be the conduit of His power on earth, could it be that tongues are the ability to tap into that future restored language now thru the Holy Spirit?

Without Gen and Babel you cannot have Acts. Pentecost would not have had tongues if they had not first been confused in Genesis.

In Acts their language was not changed what the folks heard was changed. If it were not for the cloven tongues of fire I doubt Peter and the rest even would have known what was being heard.

You must begin to consider that the events in the NT were still in the context of a Jewish society. Salvation is to the Jew first then the Gentile. You do not see what is going on because you are not focused on the setting context.

For the cause of Christ
Roger