Praying in Tongues

i think maybe you weren't here long enough ago to remember Sven?

i miss Sven.

Praying in tongues whether in unknown tongue either mans or angelic...is beneficial. Not so much since we in our minds dont understand but for God.

See 1 corinthians 14:2

What is gobbldeygook or mumbo jumbo or mystery to man is completely understandable to God.

what is this woman saying?

Sorry...I do not buy it.....God understands my English just fine there is NO practical application of a man needing to pray in some unknown language when God understands every language known to man, creation and or angels......

did you miss where I pointed out that you deliberately leave out the scripture that shows how you twist what it says?

you cannot respond to the following because it shows which one here is not being truthful


your post 554

The tragic truth......the only church in the N.T. that had an issue with the gifts and like today BOASTED of the ability to speak tongues, was the spiritually immature Corinthian assembly that had some 15 errors.........and it took over three chapters to correct their error.........many of the same errors are found within churches today that make a big deal of speaking in tongues and I am not saying this based upon bias and or a lack of info as I have many family and friends that attend these types of churches. Paul was clear and so is the verbiage found in the Corinthian letter.....if ONE is going to covet a GIFT Paul said to covet the BEST gift and tongues was not it........

I fully expect those that push tongues to argue against the truth..........

Fail, cease and vanish away are clear, so is the word perfect as applied to a 1st Century Greek speaking believer.

Super natural knowledge is no longer needed due to the completed bible
Prophecy is no longer needed due to the completed bible and the last BOOK of Prophecy
And tongues has devolved into some mumbo jumbo that does nothing for the hearer......

When one can stand and speak fluent Mandarin with zero training in an open assembly with another to translate for the sake of a Chinese visitor that does not speak ENGLISH then the true meaning of tongues as applied in the 1st Century will be evident.

Why is it so hard for the truth to be accepted.

another ad hominum attack

you deliver words that are derogatory concerning a gift God gives and then get upset when people disagree with you

it's not your version of the truth that is truth. it's God's word that is truth

I called you on the way you mock tongues and since then, you have called me a liar

you dish it out but you cannot take it

again, you post ad hominum attacks...personal attacks...such as calling me a liar...no scripture...just your own desire to argue and make problems here for people who do not agree with you.

it's really childish

can't answer my question?

what do you think about praying in tongues?

don't believe tongues are still active?

no problem. just say so

I left out nothing and the bolded above is factual and the word cease does not mean continue.........get some honesty or do not address me.......end of story.

What takes place is many so called churches is not biblical, nor from God.......this ecstatic jibberish that takes place is NOT even comparable to the biblical definition of LANGUAGES <---let us use the proper word.....and or how they were employed in the 1st century churches.....

you still cannot explain why you choose to leave out what Paul actually had to say regarding tongues

he did not say do not ask to speak in tongues, in fact he said do not forbid speaking in tongues and he also said he thanked God that he spoke in tongues more than anyone

I have every confidence you will continue on as you are, but it is anything but truthful. you cannot address scripture but continue on with silly personal comments that anyone who can read, knows you have misquoted and been devious about

here is what Paul said about tongues for instance...what you call mumbo jumbo...Paul says those people are speaking to God


eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit,especially prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

it's really pretty devious to keep saying the opposite of what Paul writes and call it the truth

He also said tongues would cease and he would rather speak 5 words of understanding than 10000 in an unknown tongue.......and again you fail to acknowledge that WHAT I am hammering is the modern day ecstatic mumbo jumbo played as LANGUAGES.........

he also said knowledge would cease in the same sentence...obviously he was speaking of a future time when we would know even as we are now known

that is a well known and dismissed argument for those who desire tongues would cease because they do not wish to accept tongues

as has been said multiple times and even several in this thread alone, when knowledge ceases, then tongues will also

as it is, Paul says that the one who speaks in tongues and does not interpret, prays to God and it is a mystery

Paul was correcting the Corinthian use of speaking in tongues without interpretation which is why he says he would rather speak in the understanding ... when tongues is used in proper context, people are following Paul's instructions

I know what you are saying...I don't agree. so if by acknowledge you mean I acknowledge what you say, I have many times...however I do not agree

Just a little add here. The understanding that Paul spoke of that he would rather move out of was prophecy. Not preaching though one can give a message entirely in the Spirit. That is how Smith Wigglesworth moved. He would not speak a word until the anointing came on him.

Supernaturally given knowledge would VANISH AWAY....it has with the completed word of GOD...there is no new revelation....and when Corinthians was written, there was some 35 to 40 years left to complete the N.T........all three ended with the COMPLETED word of God......there is NO need for the signs anymore.....faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God....NOT signs......

Wrong.
We are having one Father, He who is in heaven; the people on earth, whether they want honor or not are never to be called 'spiritual fathers' for that reason- the reason being, we have one Father in heaven. But why do you have 'church fathers', is it because they (church fathers) did not want honor but you have decided to give them honor? or is it because the church originated from them?

You cannot teach me what the term 'father' means, with reference to what Jesus taught in Matt 23, it is either a spiritual father which He said there's one in heaven. There's also the biological father or ancestors; the Israelites would call their elders father because they believed they came from the same ancestry line so had a biological connection.

The Pharisees did not mean to be called biological fathers but spiritual fathers and what Jesus was talking about was not biological connection but spiritual connection. And Jesus never meant that after the Pharisees or after the 1st century then you can have other spiritual fathers other than God.

Satan is also a spiritual father to many. Any spiritual father apart from God is questionable.
Now, on what basis do you have 'church fathers', do you have any biological connection with them?

zv Well, i a living today. Of couse missionaries brought the Gospel into the world, also to Germany and USA.
But the churches today are not full of missionaries, but of members which following a job and family life. They build the base of a church. This I meant with "normal" believer.

I would not have such much difficulties to accept tonguespeaking for today, if I could see this in a christian life without connection to a charismatic ore pentecostal teaching.
But what i find today is a mixing from acts and the letter to the corithians for to build such a teaching.
And as I said before, no one taught this after the apostolic time till the pentecostal movement starts in 1900.

Most true Pentecostal churches have known this phenomena for the past century. It's why we laugh when other denominations confront us concerning if the Tongues we speak is authentic or not. From our point of view, it's comical to see pastors and preachers condemn us, when it's obviously clear they don't even understand the word of God!!

i'm not sure what we're talking about.

the woman singing in this post is the closest thing i can think of to a glossolalia that may actually be genuine. she's pentecostal, though the musical group itself is some kind of broad new-age spiritualist. the song is a prayer. she sings in an unknown language.

is this tongues? who can interpret?

Acts 2 is very clearly natural, identifiable, authentic & well-known languages, not glossolalia


this doesn't seem to me to be the same thing as what modern charismatic churches call tongues. am i being asked about someone fluently speaking Mandarin who has absolutely no natural knowledge of it, or about uttering a kind of structured, ecstatic gibberish which, like an abstract painting, is open to any number of possible private interpretations, all equally valid in meaning?

the former, being genuinely miraculous, if what is said praises Him, is from God. i will not presume to limit Him.
the latter is so easy to fake and so undefined, so indistinguishable from pagan babble, that i find it very difficult to flatly accept. i know of zero documented instances of the former in the last thousand years, which is a strange bit of data in this era where nearly everyone in the western world has a recording device & translator in their pocket. i'd love to see evidence.
the latter is prolific but indefinite and i am suspicious of it for obvious reasons.

if someone can legitimately interpret this song then it would greatly help me to be able to legitimately answer your question, 7seas..

if this is tongues.
& tbh, i'd probably want to hear it being interpreted by more than one person without the two having any communication with each other, to test whether the claim of a gift of interpretation is equally genuine. there are many wolves in the church; many clever, clever wolves, and on this subject, we sheep are profoundly easy to fool. i want to distinguish between emotionalism and truth.

Any nonsensical gibberish is either a deception or infantile acting. Both are bogus, both are useless, both are non-biblical. I really do not see the problem here other than extreme tolerance and a lack of intellectual rigor and outright abandonment of discernment on the part of the observers.

@ Stonesoffire –
“It reminds me of a song. Like a repeating chorus.”

Yes, what your referring to is a feature of glossolalia; namely, the repetition of syllables. The result of this is that much of the glossic string is extremely repetitive (which, by the way, can lend itself to be said to almost have the quality of a ‘song text/lyric’).

“It's source is right in the description Kavik for it is soulish. Nothing of Holy Spirit mentioned nor would it be. It's not from heaven.”

Light Language is one of many non-Christian forms of glossolalia. One of the characteristics of LL is that its speakers believe in the concept of the healing power of musical certain musical tones and as such, it’s common to hear a string of speech ‘interrupted’ or followed by an intonation of a particular note. LL is produced the same way Christian “tongues” are; it draws from the speaker’s native language (or any other language they may have had contact with).

@ CS1 –
nope, not at all. You add words to the context of tongues to fit your understanding modern tongues is not a Theological term it is secular human. FYI God is never confused.

I would have to say that it’s certain Christian groups who are trying to take something which is very tangible, easily explained, self-created, and very much worldly/physical and turn it into something spiritual based on the modern tongues experience which itself is based on a compete redefinition/understanding of the Biblical narratives (again, to fit the modern experience). It’s these groups that are twisting reality and turning modern “tongues” into something it simply is not and never was.

@posthuman –

The singer in the videos is using an idiogloss influenced by the language of various ethnic communities in Melbourne where she lived. An idiogloss is similar to glossolalia. Where glossolalia is random and typically can’t be repeated by the person speaking it, an idiogloss is not random; it’s purposefully ‘constructed’ (for lack of a better way of putting it). An idiogloss can be repeated and even written down; though it doesn’t appear anyone has ever transcribed her song. The fact she can perform the same song with the same ‘lyrics’ each time she sings it is a strong indicator of an idiogloss. So, it’s not glossolalia (“tongues”), but something akin to it.

As Brendan Perry (the other half of “Dead Can Dance”), states: “The lyrics are all influenced by various languages but have no syntactical meaning in any given language”.

She’s a perfect example of how a gifted singer can use the human voice to convey meaning and emotion while the lyrics themselves are completely devoid of meaning. The listener has no clue what she’s saying, but in this case, that’s exactly the point; the lyrics are irrelevant. It’s the singer’s use of her voice that carries the ‘meaning’ and emotion of the song.

I don't expect you to believe anything I and guess what
OK