Is Speaking in Tongues still available today?

To respond to this let me say:
1. You will notice in the King James Bible that the word "unknown" is in italics. Which means that the translators believed they were helping the reader, whereas it has led to a lot of confusion. Had they simply written language or languages all this controversy would not have come about.

2. In Scripture the Greek words are either glossa or glossais. A strict translation would be "language", and as we know from Acts 2 there were about 15 human languages spoken
on the day of Pentecost SUPERNATURALLY.

3. In the 17th century the words "tongue" or "tongues" were also being used commonly for human languages. But today (and in some modern translations) that word should simply be "language".

4. In 1 Corinthians 12-14, all references to "tongues" are to languages. Not "lost languages", since Paul expected a translator to translate what what spoken within the church gatherings.

5. It is obvious that Paul said "tongues of angels" hyperbolically, to make a point. In the Bible you will not find angels speaking in any other languages than actual human languages -- either Hebrew or Aramaic. Greek is the language of the NT, but the people recorded as being spoken to by angels were all Hebrews.

6. When Paul says that tongues are for "a sign" to unbelieving Jews, he is quoting Isaiah 28:11,12: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people [Israel]. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. [Notice what is said at the end "Yet they would not hear]. So on the day of Pentecost, when Jews from all over the Roman empire had gathered in Jerusalem, every Jew (and there were probably 20,000) should have repented and been converted after seeing and hearing this "sign'. But only 3,000 souls were saved that day. Why? Because many "would not hear" the Gospel of Christ. Some mocked, and as we know the religious leaders in Jerusalem persecuted the Hebrew Christians.

7. Paul explains the significance of supernaturally spoken languages 1 Cor 14:21,22: In the law [the Tanakh or OT] 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. So believers do not need such a sign. They believe on Christ even though they have not seen Him. Neither do Gentiles need this sign.

8. At the same time Paul makes it clear (in I Cor 12-14) that the spiritual gift of "tongues" is for all Christians during the apostolic period. He also insists that there must be an interpreter to interpret what was spoken. Yet he compares tongues to prophesy and states that prophesying is far, far better than tongues.

9. Paul went on to say that three of those spiritual gifts described would CEASE or be done away with (1 Cor 13:8-10). They were not to continue indefinitely. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. "That which is perfect" is not stated as "He who is perfect " (Christ). "That which is perfect" also means "that which is complete" and Paul prophetically anticipated a complete Bible.

10, Modern tongues are called "glossolalia" or ecstatic utterances. You will not find that word in the Greek NT, since biblical tongues were not ecstatic utterances. And even pagans were practicing such utterances. "Glossolalia occurred among adherents of various ancient religions, including some of the ancient Greek religions." -- Britannica.

I definitely agree with that.....and I think the biggest reason so many reject tongues and prophesy is because they have only seen them demonstrated contrary to the guidelines in 1 Cor. 12, 13, &14.

Or they have only seen "tongues" demonstrated by those who were faking it or even posessed by an unclean spirit. So they see that and their discernment properly registers it as "wrong". But true tongues used in the proper context is uplifting and beautiful.

In my personal experience (which I realize doesn't count for anything but I'm going to testify it anyway), I have never seen tongues demonstrated in a church service. But I did once feel a deep overwhelming conviction to pray....so I tried to pray but realized I had no idea what to pray about. Like, my mind was completely blank (which literally NEVER happens for me...it was really weird). I was kind of freaking out about it, but then I remember that some people mention tongues as a prayer language.....so I quieted myself to see if any words/syllables came to mind. They did...I prayed them quietly in my spirit. It felt peaceful and uplifting. After a few minutes of that I felt like the prayer was over, and the words stopped. To this day I have no idea who or what I was praying for. But it was a good experience.

Please watch. Listen carefully true honest Holy Ghost. Notice the words of the interpretation proving that interpretation is also speaking in Tongues, because phrase "my people" if you just want to hear interpretation goto :54

Well, I have to say they seem to have their act together a lot better than some. But I'm curious, do you know what language the first person was speaking?

The unknown tongues are language unknown to the one giving the utterance, which today are dead/lost languages.

No and most probably wouldn't. But it is definitely a language known today, or sometime in the past or even angelic according to Paul in 1 Cor. 13

Please watch. Listen carefully true honest Holy Ghost. Notice the words of the interpretation proving that interpretation is also speaking in Tongues, because phrase "my people" if you just want to hear interpretation goto :54

There are NO UNKNOWN tongues in the Bible. I already pointed this out. Please note the word "unknown" -- which is NOT in the Greek text -- is in italics and bracketed below:

For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.

For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruit

Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.

If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

The KJV translators could have (and should have) translated strictly according to what is in the Greek text. By inserting "unknown" they caused confusion. Let's take verse 2 as an example:
ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ [glosse = tongue] οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ τῶ θεῷ· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια·
Literal interlinear: The'[one] speaking in a tongue not to men speaks, but to God; no one for hears; in the Spirit, however, he utters mysteries.

Thank you for posting this! It did strike me as legit and nothing about it disagreed with scripture, interpretation included. The language sounded vaguely familiar but I don't know which one it was (North African is my closest guess). But Paul said that he spoke in the tongues of men AND angels, so I don't think it would HAVE to be a recognized earthly language.

For the record, I have always believed tongues can be used properly in a church service, I just couldn't testify of it from first-hand experience. I hope I can one day though! 🙂

That seems like a bit of a problem, to me anyway. Someone gets up and says something and no one has a clue if it's a know language, an angelic language, or just gibberish. I think that's the problem a lot of people have with tongues.

Just because a group of people follows the "correct" protocol and seem to know what they're doing, that doesn't change the fact they're doing something that could as easily be faked as not. It has to be taken on faith; but a lot of things people put their faith in aren't necessarily on the up-and-up. I've been in church meetings where something very similar happened and it never impressed me as anything extraordinary or miraculous.

...a problem [ gr 'telios' = completeness ], is in the 'neuter' gender { The Written Word }. Do you believe we should 'place Christ' in that same neuter gender, or should He not
Be In The 'Masculine' gender?

Jesus Christ is the Word robed in flesh if that's what you're asking me.

Precious friend, appreciate your continued kind and humble discussion about
this controversial doctrine Of God.

The point was about "That Which Is Perfect [ telios = 'neuter' ] would
be the "Written Word, Paul Completing Scripture," and thus, "All Three
gifts ceasing", not:


Another related question would be: where is the discussion about the
other Two 'gifts' In God's "Trio gift" Passage?:

Seems to me the emphasis [ if they are "still active" ] is on the wrong 'gift',
which is at the bottom of God's List (1 Corinthians 12:8-10), and, is Not 'for
all' (1 Corinthians 12:28-30), as some teach, since God Told Paul to rebuke
[ correct ] the carnal Corinthians with:


Of course, we all should know by now that every so-called 'prophet' today,
who predict/calculate/speculate/guess about "the dates" of the end times,
have all had a horrible failure rate of 100%.

How then can that 'gift' still be active? Is it not because God's Scriptures Are
Complete, With all we need for our "faith and practice," today, Under Grace?

And, further, as far as I can tell, I have Never "heard anyone claim" they
had the 'gift' of the "word of knowledge" as Peter had in Acts 5:3-4,
have you?:

+
God's Judgment?:

Thus, if we are going to "say all these gifts are still active", then should we
not "take all that goes with them," or just ignore all related Scriptures?
How will that "work" out on Judgment Day?

Also, If they are all "still active" as you believe, then are you not
emphasizing and "coveting earnestly the worst gift", When
God Inspired Paul to pen This?:

Thus, it seems to me, that all three of these 'gifts' have ceased, as God
Teaches, From "His Completed Word Of Truth" [ neuter ] 'That' Which Is
Perfect Has Come. Three Ceased, While These Three [ below ], are Very
Clear, Correct?

"...and yet shew I unto you A More Excellent Way." (1 Corinthians 12:31 AV):


Humbly praying for your prayerful and Careful consideration of God's
Important Words Of Truth. Amen.

To respond to this let me say:
1. You will notice in the King James Bible that the word "unknown" is in italics. Which means that the translators believed they were helping the reader, whereas it has led to a lot of confusion. Had they simply written language or languages all this controversy would not have come about.

2. In Scripture the Greek words are either glossa or glossais. A strict translation would be "language", and as we know from Acts 2 there were about 15 human languages spoken
on the day of Pentecost SUPERNATURALLY.

3. In the 17th century the words "tongue" or "tongues" were also being used commonly for human languages. But today (and in some modern translations) that word should simply be "language".

4. In 1 Corinthians 12-14, all references to "tongues" are to languages. Not "lost languages", since Paul expected a translator to translate what what spoken within the church gatherings.

5. It is obvious that Paul said "tongues of angels" hyperbolically, to make a point. In the Bible you will not find angels speaking in any other languages than actual human languages -- either Hebrew or Aramaic. Greek is the language of the NT, but the people recorded as being spoken to by angels were all Hebrews.

6. When Paul says that tongues are for "a sign" to unbelieving Jews, he is quoting Isaiah 28:11,12: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people [Israel]. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. [Notice what is said at the end "Yet they would not hear]. So on the day of Pentecost, when Jews from all over the Roman empire had gathered in Jerusalem, every Jew (and there were probably 20,000) should have repented and been converted after seeing and hearing this "sign'. But only 3,000 souls were saved that day. Why? Because many "would not hear" the Gospel of Christ. Some mocked, and as we know the religious leaders in Jerusalem persecuted the Hebrew Christians.

7. Paul explains the significance of supernaturally spoken languages 1 Cor 14:21,22: In the law [the Tanakh or OT] 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. So believers do not need such a sign. They believe on Christ even though they have not seen Him. Neither do Gentiles need this sign.

8. At the same time Paul makes it clear (in I Cor 12-14) that the spiritual gift of "tongues" is for all Christians during the apostolic period. He also insists that there must be an interpreter to interpret what was spoken. Yet he compares tongues to prophesy and states that prophesying is far, far better than tongues.

9. Paul went on to say that three of those spiritual gifts described would CEASE or be done away with (1 Cor 13:8-10). They were not to continue indefinitely. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. "That which is perfect" is not stated as "He who is perfect " (Christ). "That which is perfect" also means "that which is complete" and Paul prophetically anticipated a complete Bible.

10, Modern tongues are called "glossolalia" or ecstatic utterances. You will not find that word in the Greek NT, since biblical tongues were not ecstatic utterances. And even pagans were practicing such utterances. "Glossolalia occurred among adherents of various ancient religions, including some of the ancient Greek religions." -- Britannica.

...We are too busy with our lives and our stuff, than to focus on the hurting and dying and lost world needing Salvation.

We will agree to disagree on this we are at an impasse...

Let's just say that there are two camps on this subject and leave it at that.

I didn't realize how harshly I worded my fist comment here was until I just reread it, and I wish I would have approached it with a little more understanding. I would like to apologize for being unnecessarily offensive and not clear fully because of the way I presented my argument, I honestly didn't feel like I was being rude nor was I writing it in anger or offence, but looking at it again today I see how some may have been offended and misunderstood what I was trying to say.

I do not believe this at all negates that there are some that I think may be lifting up the gift of tongues up WAY too high, I can talk about it better.

Since I came across so harsh that first time I hope this time I word it with more respect so we can honestly discuss it.
Also I read the same bible, so throwing walls of "proof text" at me is not engaging honestly. I know and understand the few verses that would allow for a personal prayer, possibly in an angelic language that we can pray to God in. That was why I specifically said that the first time too. This "angelic language" can even have a place in the church house, if there is someone interpreting it. I believe there is plenty of room for tongues even today, but we have to be careful and not take it too far, nor raise it too high.
Of course if I'm dead wrong on something then please show me where, but let's not try to built soundproof scripture forts around each other.

I do NOT believe the practice of everyone in the church speaking in tongues at the same time without understanding what's being said, is biblical at all. I think speaking tongues in church without it being one or two at a time and interpreted, is unbiblical. What's the point? I am very against the teaching that says you WILL speak in tongues if you're save, that tongues is THE evidence you're saved. I honestly don't think it should even be taught as "proof" you are saved, although I understand where that comes from and there's a lot more nuance I'd want to add to this to clarify what I mean more precisely. Also I'm not accusing anyone here of teaching any of this, I'm just using teachings I have heard about tongues.

Anytime we see tongues happen in the bible we are told exactly what it is, it's believers speaking in languages they'd never learned for the purpose of spreading the Good News. Honestly I couldn't tell you if the miracle took place in the speakers mouth, or in the hearers ear. There is one verse in Acts that makes it seem like when they were speaking that each person heard him in there own tongue, so I don't want to try to act like I know either, I just think it should be approached rationally.

The point I was making about other groups and people speaking in tongues was not that it's ONLY an occultist practice, or that I don't believe God uses it today, or that no believer should do it. I wish I would have made this point better last time, but my point is that BECAUSE it can be counterfeited and copied so easily, we need to be very careful how much importance we put on it, in my opinion.
As a personal thing between you and God, something that brings you closer to Him in truth, how could any believer be against this? That was my point, not at all that everyone that does it is pagan, or that I think it can't be used to move the believer closer to God, I just believe it's our duty to read His word and get to know it well enough to only do these things as He wills and to see through any deceptions that come along.

I hope this one reads a little better and explains what I mean without sounding like I'm calling the whole thing bad.

I just want your views backed by Scriptural references on the subject and what it means to you.

And, further, as far as I can tell, I have Never "heard anyone claim" they
had the 'gift' of the "word of knowledge" as Peter had in Acts 5:3-4, have you?