TONGUES false teaching.

[CS1]

I am speaking of the translator not the speaker of the "tongues" which the translator is translating.



There is no eisegesis in my post except what I am replying to.

there is no translation of the speaking of tongues it is and interpretation. the speaking is done in the empowerment of the Holy Spirit the interpretation is given by inspiration of what was said tongues and interpretation = prophesying which is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as the Greek show us from 1cor 12 through 14. Translation is not the same as interpretation.

 

[Sipsey]

there is no translation of the speaking of tongues it is and interpretation. the speaking is done in the empowerment of the Holy Spirit the interpretation is given by inspiration of what was said tongues and interpretation = prophesying which is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as the Greek show us from 1cor 12 through 14. Translation is not the same as interpretation.

Translating and interpreting are the same thing. Someone speaks a language others do not understand and another person tells the people what was said.

On the surface, the difference between interpreting and translation is only the difference in the medium: the interpreter translates orally, while a translator interprets written text.

 

[SophieT]

Ok, cos maybe with a microphone she may seek attention or wanting to look good.

Judge much? You don't know her, you can hardly judge anyone's motives because you are not God and here you are on a forum doing those very things.

I suppose next you will tell us you have the gift of discernment

 

[SophieT]

Like I said..her husband took all the attention..I thought maybe she did it to attract attention to herself..no one really knew what she was saying..or if they did they didn’t say anything. I at first thought it was kinda neat..but then thought that someone should have known what she said.
We all also spoke english..so why would tongues be needed?

There are several ways tongues are used. Praying in tongues is probably the most common usage. Sounds like that is what the Pastor's wife was doing whether or not the Pastor, according to you, was seeking attention.

God has given us that gift for reasons beyond the criticism of those who do not believe. Paul states that those who speak in an unknown tongue are speaking to God. Actually he says a whole lot more but it seems some refuse to acknowledge all he actually said and create fictitious reasons why they believe people do not actually have this particular gift

Have you spoken to the Pastor and asked him the things you seem concerned about?

If not, you should not be on here discussing him when he is not here to say yay or nay.

 

[SophieT]

On the gift of tongues, those who claim it continues in it's modern form have misinterpreted 1 Corinthians 12:10:

"and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues,"

Many translations insert the words: various, or divers (diverse), or different, etc. But this isn't found in the Greek text: it simply says gene glosson, "kinds of tongues." Gene is from genos, meaning family, race, people, nation or offspring. Paul is talking about language families (human languages), not all kinds of spiritual languages.

In 1 Corinthians 14:10 Paul again uses gene. This time referring to human languages:

"There are, perhaps, a great many kinds (gene) of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning."

My problem isn't so much with the gift of tongues but with the sloppy interpretation used to justify it and the way it's put into practice.

Example:

1 Corinthians 14:27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.

That verse is describing this type of situation:

A group of Christians have arrived in Texas from a distant country and do not speak English. If they wish to give testimonies or preach, no more than 3 should be speaking and only if there is an interpreter. Why? One person interpreting what 3 other people are saying is hard! 4 or more would be too much. Paul also says if there is no interpreter these people should not be speaking to the congregation. Why? There is no one to interpret (which means to translation) from their language to English. They should simply speak to God quietly to themselves in their minds etc.

There is no magical or miracle subject here. Tongues simply is a VERY OLD English word for "languages". All Paul is talking about is speaking and translating foreign languages so other people can know what's being said. Most of what Paul talks about in regards to "tongues" is this. The odd sounding "language" found in some churches is simply not something the bible promotes.[/QUOTE]

smh

 

[SophieT]

maybe using a microphone would be a change in mindset. Without a microphone people are nobody's.

I hope you have a microphone then. Don't leave home without one.

Do you give consideration to the things you are posting here? I ask, because the quote above from you, is utter nonsense.

Do we need a microphone when we pray? Does God not hear us when we pray without a microphone?

Did any OT prophet have a microphone?

Does everyone in Australia carry a mic so they can be somebody?

 

[SophieT]

The speakers aren't the translators. Someone speaks in a foreign language and other person who knows that language is the one who translates it. The HS helps them translate more accurately than just someone who knows both languages. This is especially important when the translating is regarding biblical and spiritual matters.

Yeah that is not what transpired in Acts. It states plainly that people HEARD what was being said in their own language

Just keep on making things up and pretty soon they can name a Bible after you

Says tongues does not exist any longer, yet presents himself as an expert on the subject.

 

[SophieT]

That verse is describing this type of situation:

A group of Christians have arrived in Texas from a distant country and do not speak English. If they wish to give testimonies or preach, no more than 3 should be speaking and only if there is an interpreter. Why? One person interpreting what 3 other people are saying is hard! 4 or more would be too much. Paul also says if there is no interpreter these people should not be speaking to the congregation. Why? There is no one to interpret (which means to translation) from their language to English. They should simply speak to God quietly to themselves in their minds etc.

There is no magical or miracle subject here. Tongues simply is a VERY OLD English word for "languages". All Paul is talking about is speaking and translating foreign languages so other people can know what's being said. Most of what Paul talks about in regards to "tongues" is this. The odd sounding "language" found in some churches is simply not something the bible promotes.

this is not my post

I only added the smh at the bottom.

smh

 

[CS1]

On the surface, the difference between interpreting and translation is only the difference in the medium: the interpreter translates orally, while a translator interprets written text.

No, it is not speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as HE enables one to do so is the foundational difference anyone can translate if they learn to. Only the Holy Spirit can enable one to interpret those who hear must judge it by the word of God as 1xcor 14 instructs. one is done by the carnal understanding the other is done by the Spirit enablement

 

[Sipsey]

No, it is not speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as HE enables one to do so is the foundational difference anyone can translate if they learn to. Only the Holy Spirit can enable one to interpret those who hear must judge it by the word of God as 1xcor 14 instructs. one is done by the carnal understanding the other is done by the Spirit enablement

I’m afraid you’re reading into my answer something that is not there. If, one is a follower of Jesus the Christ, then they should be prayerful and filled with the H.S. when accomplishing either task.

 

[Scribe]

It still says to keep silent in church...and if you don’t have an interpreter than that’s the right way to do it.

I agree with what @ewq1938 says..that one should not speak using their mouth if they are to pray and be silent at the same time.

But we cannot ignore that it means SPEAK IN TONGUES to yourself and God which would make Silent be a subdued personal Speaking and not literal. I would remind you that the Greek analysis is necessary. I don't think it would be intellectually honest to contend for the literal english definition of silent here and ignore the greek syntactical reference to SPEAKING in tongues to oneself which cannot possibly be done in the mind but only with the tongue. Therefore one must conclude silent here means in the context of not publicly addressing. It is more likely that silent is not to be taken literally than it is to imagine a person speaking in tongues to themselves and God without literally speaking in tongues. If the speaking of tongues literally here must be abandoned in order to contend for the literalness of the word silent you would be redefining Paul's instruction to be "be silent and don't speak in tongues to yourself and to God because if you do you won't be silent"

 

[Lisamn]

There are several ways tongues are used. Praying in tongues is probably the most common usage. Sounds like that is what the Pastor's wife was doing whether or not the Pastor, according to you, was seeking attention.

God has given us that gift for reasons beyond the criticism of those who do not believe. Paul states that those who speak in an unknown tongue are speaking to God. Actually he says a whole lot more but it seems some refuse to acknowledge all he actually said and create fictitious reasons why they believe people do not actually have this particular gift

Have you spoken to the Pastor and asked him the things you seem concerned about?

If not, you should not be on here discussing him when he is not here to say yay or nay.

I just brought it up because of something someone said about women saying they have the gift. I’m not currently at that church so I can’t really bring it up. Its just something I have thought about often after the fact.

 

[Lisamn]

But we cannot ignore that it means SPEAK IN TONGUES to yourself and God which would make Silent be a subdued personal Speaking and not literal. I would remind you that the Greek analysis is necessary. I don't think it would be intellectually honest to contend for the literal english definition of silent here and ignore the greek syntactical reference to SPEAKING in tongues to oneself which cannot possibly be done in the mind but only with the tongue. Therefore one must conclude silent here means in the context of not publicly addressing. It is more likely that silent is not to be taken literally than it is to imagine a person speaking in tongues to themselves and God without literally speaking in tongues. If the speaking of tongues literally here must be abandoned in order to contend for the literalness of the word silent you would be redefining Paul's instruction to be "be silent and don't speak in tongues to yourself and to God because if you do you won't be silent"

I think it rests on the silent part. If you are to be silent..why then would you not be in prayer?

I can see speaking in tongues to help others who don’t speak your language to understand the Word..but if everyone in the congregation speaks the same language...why is there a need for tongues?

I don’t think speaking in tongues is very prevalent honestly if practiced in reality at all. I think the people who think they speak in tongues do use at as a look at me kind of thing not because they really are doing it. But that’s only my opinion and upon proof otherwise..I would be open to changing my opinion. From what I saw of that pastors wife...that’s what it seems like to me.

 

[CS1]

I’m afraid you’re reading into my answer something that is not there. If, one is a follower of Jesus the Christ, then they should be prayerful and filled with the H.S. when accomplishing either task.

the empowerment and gifts of the Holy Spirit are for 1. powerful witnessing acts 1:8 Jesus speaking 2. edification of the body of Christ 1cor chapters 12 through 14. The HS is in you and will come upon you John chapters 14 & 15 tell us that very clearly again Jesus is speaking.

 

[Sipsey]

the empowerment and gifts of the Holy Spirit are for 1. powerful witnessing acts 1:8 Jesus speaking 2. edification of the body of Christ 1cor chapters 12 through 14. The HS is in you and will come upon you John chapters 14 & 15 tell us that very clearly again Jesus is speaking.

I think you limit the Spirit, by nameing just a few examples. We are to be Spirit led whether there is anyone around to speak to, or not.

 

[CS1]

I think you limit the Spirit, by nameing just a few examples. We are to be Spirit led whether there is anyone around to speak to, or not.

I can't limit the Spirit that is your opinion address th word of God I provided not an opinion on what I said please.
Jesus said in John 14 to 16 chapter what the Holy Spirit would do, not me. IF you see what Jesus said as limiting the HS then I think you might be underestimating the powerful work of the HS. Led by the Spirit I would love to hear what your idea of that is ? Also please remember there is personal devotion

 

[SophieT]

I think it rests on the silent part. If you are to be silent..why then would you not be in prayer?

I can see speaking in tongues to help others who don’t speak your language to understand the Word..but if everyone in the congregation speaks the same language...why is there a need for tongues?

I don’t think speaking in tongues is very prevalent honestly if practiced in reality at all. I think the people who think they speak in tongues do use at as a look at me kind of thing not because they really are doing it. But that’s only my opinion and upon proof otherwise..I would be open to changing my opinion. From what I saw of that pastors wife...that’s what it seems like to me.

What you are doing, is confusing the types of tongues and how they are used., along with 'being silent'. Acts is the first outpouring of tongues ~ actually it was the first outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and tongues being the sign they were filled with the Holy Spirit. The visual aspect was the appearance of 'tongues of fire' resting upon them.

If Paul says he wishes all would speak in tongues, which he does (I wish that all of you could speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be edified. I Corinthians 15:5), then does how we perceive it override the scripture ? Yet that is what many are doing.

Please note I am not trying to convince you that you need to speak in tongues. If you have no teaching it may be better if you do not because we already have gangs of people who may speak in tongues, but that does not mean you are somehow made perfect or better. The only thing I am doing in this thread, is refuting the false claims that tongues have ceased. They have not.

I think the people who think they speak in tongues do use at as a look at me kind of thing not because they really are doing it

Well that is hardly fair of you to say. How do you know what millions of other people are thinking? The term 'speaking in tongues' is unfortunately used rather loosely to describe more than one thing. That does not help to clarify the confusion but adds to it. You cannot possibly know the reasons, hearts, intentions, whatever you want to call it, and determine we are all showing off.

 

[Sipsey]

I can't limit the Spirit that is your opinion address th word of God I provided not an opinion on what I said please.
Jesus said in John 14 to 16 chapter what the Holy Spirit would do, not me. IF you see what Jesus said as limiting the HS then I think you might be underestimating the powerful work of the HS. Led by the Spirit I would love to hear what your idea of that is ? Also please remember there is personal devotion

Im afraid you might have me confused with another poster, we are not on the same page at all.

 

[SophieT]

That isn't being silent. One should not speak using their mouth if they wish to pray and be silent at the same time.

I seem to have missed this gem.

Define not speak using their mouth. How else should a person speak if they are not use their mouth? You can pray silently or out loud and God is not offended by either so why are you?

You seem to have reached conclusions that are nowhere to be found in the Bible. That, would be defined as false teaching.

 

[Lisamn]

Well that is hardly fair of you to say. How do you know what millions of other people are thinking? The term 'speaking in tongues' is unfortunately used rather loosely to describe more than one thing. That does not help to clarify the confusion but adds to it. You cannot possibly know the reasons, hearts, intentions, whatever you want to call it, and determine we are all showing off.

Isn’t it human nature to want to have something that is uniquely your own and show it off? Or in the case of the pastors wife I mentioned...she feels ignored by the husband being the church and draws attention to herself quietly by ‘speaking’ in tongues. Which is what I was getting at. I can’t know everyone’s reason for speaking in tongues..but I would argue if everyone speaks the same language at church..then is there ever a reason to speak in tongues?