TONGUES is a precious gift from God

You have determined that the most prominent examples, and I emphasize, literally 10 max television examples of Speaking in Tongues are equal to Sorcery. But the way you have presented it, you claim even in the small congregations this also apparent. So, ultimately, you have determined that the majority examples of Speaking in Tongues across the board are equal to Sorcery.

I take personal offense to this.

Secondly, for those of us who know what happens in smaller Church gatherings are nothing like, not even similar, to these mega-church examples. We also understand that You are equating the Gifts of the Holy Spirit equal to the power of Satan's Sorcery.

So, I tell you what, explain to me how you view modern day Speaking in Tongues without using the megachurch examples in a couple sentences, so I can change my understanding of every post you have made within this Thread.

So, ultimately, you have determined that the majority examples of Speaking in Tongues across the board are equal to Sorcery.

When we bear witness with such determination to prove the hand of God in the preservation of our home and our outbuildings and our live stock - yet we show contempt for our own brethren - How will we escape when we do such things so easily and escape the rod - and so we miss that we will easily do the same thing again - yet boast in God who is the redeemer of men.

You have mistaken what it is that concerns me brother - on two counts.

Firstly, I am not concerned by tongues even when I have been in the midst of an enthusiasm that is impossible to define other than to be gracious and let the matter rest with God in the hope that those many individual speakers in unknown tongues are speaking to God and if not He knows there hearts regardless. It is interpretation that concerns me brother.

If the Apostle Paul tells us that he would rather speak five words that can be comprehended by the mind than ten thousand (in which meaning Paul is implying his own personal prayers in a spiritual gift of speaking and praying ) in an unknown tongue then he is diminishing the gift of tongues for a reason. Yet he is not denying the truth of tongues and neither that men speak to God which is edifying to oneself - but ought to speak to other men when they assemble together for their mutual edification. It is that meaning which produces the need for an interpretation. So the interpretation become more important than the tongue in that meaning.

It is what men say when they interpret a tongue that gives rise to effects that exceed a mere fact of many speaking in tongues simultaneously. The video I posted demonstrates that meaning very clearly. Copeland and Brown play those two roles to a great effect. It not a matter of saying that their tongue is false - but rather that the interpretation is sorceric.

Secondly - addressing Satan directly in any spiritual presence of an unclean spirit - be that demonic or angelic - is a simple matter of humbling oneself to God and resisting the devil directly. There is also a reality of resisting specific unclean strong spirits with a more concerted spiritual attitude in prayer. Yet when I speak of Sorcery I am not speaking about unclean spirit at all - I am speaking about the flesh of men in a foundational meaning as described in Galatians 5:20-21. Fruit does not present on a dead tree - it can only present on a tree that is rooted and watered out of the earth. Yet the fruit of the flesh is always contrary to God.

I won't explain any further because I have already exceeded your request to write only a few sentences.

Yet I must risk being long on my philosophies and say that the Lord spoke to the twelve and told them after the many disciples ceased to follow Him that He had chosen the twelve - yet one of them was a devil. And thus in speaking about Judas as a devil - which in the Greek means an accuser - the Lord gave us a means to understand that the flesh is like a devil when it is in that same meaning as the accuser of the brethren. Judas was not possessed however, until he entered the temple to betray Christ and again at the Super Table. Yet Judas was also in that number who were sent out to preach the gospel of the Kingdom and came back excited that even the demons were subject to the name of Christ. And Christ told the pharisees that Satan cannot cast out Satan when they blasphemed the Holy Spirit by accusing Christ that he was casting our demons by Beelzebub. It doesn't need an an unclean spirit to produce a demonic man - it is entirely in the the realm of the flesh - as is sorcery or witchcraft in the Maning of the fruits of the flesh.

I get the gist!

Basically, it is not that Tongues is wrong and not for today, but it is being misused and over used in many Churches, which is not what Paul hoped for. So, in your View, one on one at home prayer and Speaking in Tongues is not the issue, but how many churches have misused the Scripture and allowed the Gift to be used not according to Paul's Teachings.

I can agree with that.

But, I don't believe that is the Norm among all Churches that believe in modern day Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

I get the gist!

Basically, it is not that Tongues is wrong and not for today, but it is being misused and over used in many Churches, which is not what Paul hoped for. So, in your View, one on one at home prayer and Speaking in Tongues is not the issue, but how many churches have misused the Scripture and allowed the Gift to be used not according to Paul's Teachings.

I can agree with that.

But, I don't believe that is the Norm among all Churches that believe in modern day Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Firstly, I am not concerned by tongues even when I have been in the midst of an enthusiasm that is impossible to define other than to be gracious and let the matter rest with God in the hope that those many individual speakers in unknown tongues are speaking to God and if not He knows there hearts regardless. It is interpretation that concerns me brother.

If the Apostle Paul tells us that he would rather speak five words that can be comprehended by the mind than ten thousand (in which meaning Paul is implying his own personal prayers in a spiritual gift of speaking and praying ) in an unknown tongue then he is diminishing the gift of tongues for a reason. Yet he is not denying the truth of tongues and neither that men speak to God which is edifying to oneself - but ought to speak to other men when they assemble together for their mutual edification. It is that meaning which produces the need for an interpretation. So the interpretation become more important than the tongue in that meaning.

It is what men say when they interpret a tongue that gives rise to effects that exceed a mere fact of many speaking in tongues simultaneously. The video I posted demonstrates that meaning very clearly. Copeland and Brown play those two roles to a great effect. It is not a matter of saying that their tongue is false - but rather that the interpretation is sorceric.

No brother I expressed an entirely different meaning. I said very clearly that my concern was NOT with tongues even when they are used chaotically. I am concerned with the interpretation of tongues. NOT the tongue itself. And in that meaning it is a misuse of tongues as I would define the importance when Pauls admonition is falsified by those who interpret the tongue to inflect a prophetic meaning. The video I posted demonstrated the point very clearly.



The spirit of agitation is palpable in this thread and the demand quiet clear. Obey it brother, else you will be found to be in disobedience to that mind. We made this bed for ourselves and so how can we weep when we find that the sheets are soiled with blood?

Clearly, speaking plainly is something you dislike. Clearly, you like confusion. This is not a difficult discussion, but yet, everyone dealing with you has not understood the majority of what you have posted. Your attempts at being poetic and to appear as being brilliant has led to having to ask you the same question in a multitude of ways. Come on man, how difficult is it for You to say, I think Interpretation is incorrect because of this .......?

You are intentional!

How do you expect others to gain the knowledge you claim to posses by speaking riddles so they are more confused afterwards?

You claim i am pushy, I am mean, I am judgmental, but you make it difficult to hold a conversation with you. And when I finally get you to be plain spoken, you wait forever to answer a simple question concerning the Interpretations are questionable.

You served in Jail, you say!
In my Sinful life prior to my Ministry, I got paid to collect money at any cost from those who could never qualify getting loans from a bank and had to go to the kinds of people that you would wet the bed over.

I am just saying, I don't like your approach to our discussion at all!

You cannot excuse either your own flesh nor the flesh of others...

You are clearly not a linguist albeit you appear to be laying claim to cultural/linguistic anthropological standing - in which case you should have no difficulty in proving that what I post is not a true language - and not because I have already stated that I will be speaking nonsense - but because you say you can devise a formal means of doing so. And given the anthropological claim to culture and linguistics that would NOT be an ability to speak languages - rather to understand the neurological structures that are implicit in the acquisition of first language and the cultural way that any language can be devised - even when a new language is being constructed out of a formal cultural precedent where several languages come together - culturally out of a distinct shared experience within an anthropological meaning. In short Creole.

Is that it - or do I need to go further?

So when I have recorded several examples of garbage - you tell me how you can determine that they are not languages. Agreed?

"...studied and analyzed." I just have to say that is a very sad statement. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb 11:6

I don't think that's going to happen.

2. Or is it something specific about the spoken sounds? That is, the sounds coming out of one person's mouth are genuine while another's aren't.

So the sounds are the same, only one is infused with the Spirt and another isn't.

So @Kavik here is a video of the famed Rodney Howard Brown and Kenneth Copeland speaking in tongues. The discourse would of course fail the acid test for grammatical plausibility - buts let's pretend it is a real heavenly language for the purpose of your claims. I can't think anyone will be too disappointed if you certify it as a deception and as a babble of noise.

From my own point of view, put simply, the video is a clear deception despite any ability or not of knowing that the language is a fraud - and the Scripture would define that very easily. Not least because these two men are neither speaking to God and neither are they interpreting what they are saying to one another. Yet they clearly intend that those who were observing this very sad event in the audience - back in the day - were clearly both amused and impressed. No interpretation and no direction to God - you would think that they would have been more inclined to speak prophetically - at least that could have been more easily tested. But alas they did what they did because they were establishing a false relationship in which Keneth Copeland had to establish that he was the greater between these two men - but both men were great to the church.

I saw the original video back in the 80's and knew then that this presentation was more demonic than many believers are comfortable with my saying - but in any case the exchange ends with Keneth Copeland striking Rodney Howard Brown in the stomach and Brown bowing down to Copeland. That is not in this clip - but it is in the original clip.

Anyways the more interesting part of this short clip is much more real and comes after the two men - where my reference to the acquisition of first language is demonstrated - and hence why the narrator uses the term linguistics in his opening comments. That at least you should connect with. But I still would like you to uphold your claim to myself that there is a universal language trait that can be detected in all languages that have meaning. Start by demonstrating that from this exchange between two grown men and why two sweet babies proves that neurological reality of language. And if you won't acknowledge your own claims then neither will I post the linguistic sample of plausible language structure that is nevertheless just as false as the tongues spoken by two grown men in the video.

I thought about posting a couple videos from actual church services where people don't ask for money, fame, or anything like that and the genuine spirit of God is moving on them, but I am afraid to do that here.

I think maybe you should look at your own "flesh" issues, and not others!