A Look at Tongues in the Word of God

[Vanellus]

Job8,
Well it's not right to subtract words from the Bible either.

1If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels

You're trying to subtract "of angels" here. It's not affected by any textual variants afaik. It will stay there forever whether you like it or not.

the word of our God stands forever. Is 40:8

not gibberish and not babbling

Why did the Greeks call non Greeks "barbarians". Because to them their speaking (human not angelic languages) sounded like "barbarbarbar" i.e. babbling - as does any foreign unfamiliar language - whether of men or angels.

mock someone by saying you are adding words to Scripture is plainly immature

This is not mockery. It's far more serious than that. You are changing the content of scripture to suit your own theology.

The verbs about the ending of prophecy, knowledge (one word gnosis) and tongues are all future tense. There's no time limit specified by this tense, but you are implying there is. That is distorting the word of God.

So if you are such a strong proponent of tongues

I go to a cessationist church. The teaching is good and I like and respect the minister. Don't jump to false conclusions. I'm a strong proponent of not distorting God's word.

reasoned, scriptural and logical

You've provided none of these.

And having women speaking in "tongues" publicly is simply a gross violation of scriptural commands. That in itself indicates that something unscriptural is occurring. Furthermore, coaching people to babble is utterly against the principle of supernatural gifts.

Now you're adding words to what I've written here. Less serious of course but still dishonest. No one coached me and I've coached no one to speak in tongues.

 

[Job8]

Now you're adding words to what I've written here. Less serious of course but still dishonest. No one coached me and I've coached no one to speak in tongues.

The dishonest one is the one who does not believe that some gifts have ceased, yet goes to a cessationist church. What are you doing there? Trying to undermine their doctrines? Or just pretending to accept them all?

I don't need to defend what I have stated. Any objective reader will see that Vanellus is the one who needs to take heed to himself and his doctrine. And tongue-speaking churches do coach. That was not necessarily for you as an individual but for all those who believe that tongues are still valid. And we all are still waiting for objective evidence that you can truly speak foreign languages supernaturally. You have avoided answering that.

 

[DeaconDean]

Deacon Dean,

1. You will notice that the Holy Spirit (through Paul) was careful to say "That which is perfect" NOT "He who is perfect".

Here again, I fall back on what Fundamentalists said in 1878.

We do not have the original autographs. All we have are copies of copies of copies.

And until the scriptures are 100% perfect, they are not perfect. 98.7% is not 100% no matter how you slice it or want it to be.

2. Had the KJV translators said ".That which is COMPLETE" it would have matched the Greek word teleios exactly. They chose "perfect" and it is up to us to always go back and examine the Greek text.
3. "Complete" fits the context, as well as the necessity for the completion of the written NT.

Are you sure not a member of the Church of Christ? This is the exact same doctrine they teach.

4. We always hear from Pentecostal circles that "perfect" applies to Christ. But God is always clear and direct, and if this verse applied to Christ, why would it not say "He who is perfect"? Nowhere in the NT is Christ described as "that". He is always "He" -- "For this is He that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias..." (Mt 3:3).

Correct. But Christ was and is the only "perfect" thing ever to set foot here on earth, scriptures included.

And in fact, are we not told in Hebrews that there was a "fault" in the OT?

While the canon was not entirely "fixed", the OT was definitely fixed and a portion of the NT was also fixed. Thus we read from around 66 AD (2 Tim 4:13) "The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments". There is no doubt that the books and parchments refers to Scripture. By c. 100 AD the canon was definitely fixed (see the Muratori Canon).

The Maseortic text, that you so say was "fixed" wasn't even written as we know it until AD 600-900.

Care to try again?

Correct. And what Paul is saying to the Corinthians is that in the very near future (which I am sure Paul saw prophetically, just as he saw his own death prophetically), which would be around 90 AD, the Scriptures would be teleios (complete) and therefore for the whole Church of God the message was that those spiritual gifts connected with direct revelations (prophecy, tongues, supernatural knowledge) would cease.

I disagree.

The gifts of God are without repentance. To cut them off means God repented of giving them.

There is no need to explain away Joel 2:28 at all. Between 32 AD and 90 AD (about 60 years) there were churches flourishing throughout the Roman Empire, and those gifts of prophecy, dreams, and visions were being exercised by the apostles as well as other Christians. As you will note in 1 Cor 14:26-32, there were prophets, tongues speakers, interpreters, etc. in that church, and no doubt in all the churches. Once the canon was complete, those gifts were no longer necessary.

Here again, the canon was not set until the council of Nicea in AD 325. And even then, it was not the canon of scripture we have now.

Care to try again?

Well, take a close look at Rev 22:18,19 and see that God specifically forbade any further "prophecies" after John concluded his prophecy:
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK, IF ANY MAN SHALL ADD UNTO THESE THINGS, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book..."

Can you say of a 100% certainty that those words applies to the entire txt of the scriptures or to Revelation alone.

If you say the entire bible, them you have made a statement that most commentators and theologians haven't been willing to commit to.

Notice carefully that the Holy Spirit says "add unto THESE THINGS", not "this book". This means that any other prophecies (such as those of Nostradamus) would be additons to the things revealed in Revelation, therefore unacceptable to God. Hence modern prophets (including Joseph Smith of the LDS) are fraudulent.

You should go back to the old testament and read the dire warnings given to prophets that "prophesized" and their prophesies didn't happen.

I'm sorry, but there are holes in your line of thought.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Job8]

We do not have the original autographs. All we have are copies of copies of copies.

So what? Are you telling me that God has not preserved His true Word in a multitude of copies and that the Traditional Hebrew and Greek Texts do not represent the original autographs? That we really don't have a complete Bible???? That you're still waiting for some more books to be added, a la the Book of Mormon?

I showed you that 1 Cor 13:8-10 is dealing with completeness and completing of Scripture, not perfection. You ignored that. We do have a complete Bible and every fundamentalist Christian would agree.

Are you sure not a member of the Church of Christ? This is the exact same doctrine they teach.

No, I am definitely not a member, and it is really immaterial. We are dealing with Scripture, not church dogma.

Correct. But Christ was and is the only "perfect" thing ever to set foot here on earth, scriptures included.

Again, you have avoided the text and the context, and gone back to the perfection of Christ (which is not even in view unless you really want to twist the Scriptures). You have decided that the completeness of the Bible is irrelevant, when that is exactly what prophecy, tongues, and knowledge is all about, and what this whole discussion is about.

And in fact, are we not told in Hebrews that there was a "fault" in the OT?

The "fault" was in the fact that there were animals sacrifices which only "covered" sin. That fault was remedied by the Lamb of God, who took away the sin of the world. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a faulty Hebrew Bible (Tanach). Indeed, the Lord Jesus Christ wielded the OT Scriptures as a sword, and there was no dispute between Him and the Pharisees that they both had the Word of God in the Hebrew Tanach.

The Maseortic text, that you so say was "fixed" wasn't even written as we know it until AD 600-900.

While the Masoretic Text as we know it was produced around 900 AD, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed that it was the very same text as in existence around 250 BC. Christ had the same Hebrew Bible from the time that Malachi was incorporated into it, and the text was already fixed in His time and in His view. He constantly referred to the Scriptures (Tanach) without any hesitation because it had been meticulously copied and recopied by the Hebrew scribes and maintained as without fault or error. The apostles also referred to the Tanach and quoted it. That eventually became the Masoretic Text in printed form.

The gifts of God are without repentance. To cut them off means God repented of giving them.

And what do you say to God if He were to tell you that He is withdrawing specific spiritual gifts since they have served their purpose? That's exactly what He tells us in 1 Cor 13:8-10, but you are avoiding the plain statements made there. If God said they shall cease, who are we to argue?

Here again, the canon was not set until the council of Nicea in AD 325. And even then, it was not the canon of scripture we have now.

Did you read through the Muratori Canon? And are you aware that there were thousands of Christians outside the RCC fold who also had copies of the Scriptures and the canon from around 100 AD? The Council of Nicea ratified in 325 what was already true in 90 AD, with the Scriptures being circulated and reproduced throughout the Roman Empire and beyond.

Can you say of a 100% certainty that those words applies to the entire txt of the scriptures or to Revelation alone.

If that Scripture applies to Revelation, and Revelation closes the canon of Scripture, why should it be thought unreasonable that it applies to the whole Bible also? If nothing more can or should be added to what is clearly the last book of the Bible (chronologically and spiritually), then Christians should reject any and all extraneous prophecies.

You should go back to the old testament and read the dire warnings given to prophets that "prophesized" and their prophesies didn't happen.

What exactly is the relevance of this statement? You can point that out to Nostradamus or Joseph Smith.

We have established from Scripture and Church history that the genuine gift of tongues has ceased. But you have not provided a shred of objective evidence that they are still in existence. How many missionaries do you know who supernaturally speak distinct foreign languages fluently?

And how many Christians do you know who have spoken specific known foreign languages which interpreters have confirmed to be so? Do you have documentary evidence since the early 20th century that this has been happening all along? If not, I would say that your position is "full of holes".

 

[Vanellus]

What are you doing there? Trying to undermine their doctrines? Or just pretending to accept them all?

No to the first question obvs. The minister knows my views because I've told him. He hasn't rejected me. But as has been said before there are many who don't speak in tongues etc. who believe that the gifts are still valid today.

And what do you say to God if He were to tell you that He is withdrawing specific spiritual gifts since they have served their purpose? That's exactly what He tells us in 1 Cor 13:8-10, but you are avoiding the plain statements made there

This statement is untrue. It depends on a strained, prejudiced and invented interpretation which does not follow from proper exegesis - it's eisegesis.

We have established from Scripture and Church history that the genuine gift of tongues has ceased

Another obviously false statement.

 

[Job8]

But as has been said before there are many who don't speak in tongues etc. who believe that the gifts are still valid today.

Does that make sense? The gifts are valid, but you don't see any evidence and you don't see it operating in yourself? Since Pentecostals/Charismatics believe that ALL who are "filled with the Holy Ghost" will speak in tongues, then you should be doing the same. If not, then you should abandon this false teaching.

This statement is untrue. It depends on a strained, prejudiced and invented interpretation which does not follow from proper exegesis - it's eisegesis.

And yet we do not have the "proper exegesis" from either you or Deacon Dean? Explain 1 Cor 13:8-10 without bringing in "the perfection of Christ" into this passage, which is the real eisegesis. The context simply does not allow the perfection of Christ into this discussion. And the Greek word means COMPLETE, and only by extension "perfect", just like in 2 Tim 3:17 the Greek means "complete" but is translated "perfect". And in both Acts and 1 Corinthians the Greek word is always glossais (occasionally dialektos), which always means language, and is generally translated as "tongues" in the KJV.

Another obviously false statement.

Like I said, show us objective, honest documentary/audio evidence that genuine foreign languages are being spoken supernaturally by your missionaries and yourselves. We all would love to speak foreign languages fluently without going through the tedious process of learning them. There must be real proof of this supernatural gift operating today if Christians are to claim the validity of this gift.

 

[Vanellus]

Job8,

but you don't see any evidence and you don't see it operating in yourself

These are two different things. You may not speak in tongues but still see evidence of it happening today. It's odd that you are denigrating the word of God here. The main reason to believe that charismatic gifts are valid is that this is what the Bible attests. I also find it disappointing that you attempt to muddy the waters by conflating two different things above - this is the behaviour of modern politicians who have little respect for truth. Christians should not emulate them

Explain 1 Cor 13:8-10 without bringing in "the perfection of Christ" into this passage,

The "perfection of Christ" is not my phrase. We see the same word for perfect/complete used in Heb 9:11:

11But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation.
Would you then say this heavenly tabernacle is less than perfect?!
(The comparative is used here because of comparison with the earthly tabernacle)

the Greek word is always glossais (occasionally dialektos), which always means language, and is generally translated as "tongues" in the KJV.

Yet another patently incorrect statement as the word is also used for the part of the body (e.g. Mk 7:33-35)
From BibleHub on Strong 1100:

1100 glṓssa – tongue, used of flowing speech; (figuratively) speaking, inspired by God, like the evidence of tongues-speaking supplied by the Lord in the book of Acts to demonstrate the arrival of the new age of the covenant (i.e. NT times).

 

[Vanellus]

Hi Deacon Dean,

I like your avatar! Though my favourite dollars character is Lee Van Cleef in a Few Dollars More. (He's got a big Bible as well)

"this train will stop at Tucumcari". I'd love to be able to do that for real (it's a real place in New Mexico.)

 

[Jack Koons]

What I am about to say may be offensive to some, but I believe that what I am saying is the truth.

I believe (partially because of my own experience) that like the regular language we learn to communicate with (such as English), “tongues” in the Charismatic churches is a language that is taught.

Right about now you might me saying, hold on for just a minute!

Author’s Note: since writing this work, the following websites (both Part One, and Part Two), are no longer in existence. I am leaving the information here. You, as the reader, may choose to read and consider it, or simply pass on by it.

I went to a website called, “The Spontaneous Song of our Lord in Worship: The Gift of Tongues-Part One”. The following excerpt is from that website:

“Sharing? Why do I often repeat words when I do pray in tongues?" Repeating words while you pray in tongues is common. However, when we do so the "Holy Spirit is wanting us to stop and listen, for revelation." For example, If you are a new born baby and you are learning to say your words for the first time, often a baby will repeat a word in their short language they know to make a point, or express what they are trying to say. The same is true with the principle of singing, or praying in tongues. Stop and mediitate upon our Lord and wait for our Lord to bring revelation. As you do, it is a most blessed place to be because your prayer language, or prophetic song, will expand in the realm of Glory and you increase in God's will for you at that time in His presence.”

I believe that what happens in Charismatic churches concerning tongues, is what happens with children learning to speak. As people new to the Charismatic church hear others speak in “tongues”, they “learn the language” of their teachers. On the second part of the above website I found the following:
“Bah-Bah Blah Blah
Out of your bellies shall flow rivers of living waters.
While we are speaking about the gift of tongues, we often hear people pray in tongues and all they say is "Bah bah bah, baa, baa, baa--shanda, shanda." Perhaps the reason can be explained this way as to why we hear this so very often. I am not a mother, nor have I had children in my life. However, I have been around children who are just learning to talk. It is hard for them to speak a full word much less than a full sentence. Their first words spoken are usually ''Dah Dah" for Daddy, or "Ma Ma' for Mother.
When it comes to tongues and people calling this tongues this is not a credible language of the Holy Spirit. In the Book of Acts, the Holy Spirit was given like tongues of fire. These folks spake in tongues and these tongues were credible languages in which thirteen nations heard these tongues and they understood these tongues to be "people praising and worshiping God."”

The person who wrote the above, speaks in “tongues”!

May I remind you again that when the Holy Spirit allowed the Apostles to speak in “tongues” in Acts 2 there was no “learning of other tongues”. Rather, the Apostles spoke these “other” tongues with such clarity, that all who heard them speak were amazed.

I believe the phenomenon known as “tongues” seen in today’s “Charismatic” churches is a ‘phenomenon’ that is ‘mastered by the learned’, and is then ‘taught and learned by the students’.

All that is learned about the practice of “tongues” is taught through those who have a misconception of both what happened on the Day of Pentecost in Acts, and the teachings of “unknown tongues” in 1 Corinthians. In closing, think about the following:

1 Corinthians 14:27 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.

I challenge any reader of this booklet to find me a “Charismatic” church that DOES NOT violate the above verse in its practice of “tongues”.

My point in closing is very simple. All that we do in our churches must be scriptural. “Tongues” as taught by Charismatic churches is not scriptural.

To be scriptural, or not to be scriptural, that is the question.

 

[Job8]

Job8,The main reason to believe that charismatic gifts are valid is that this is what the Bible attests.

I'll ignore the personal attacks and stick with the facts:
1. The Bible reveals that the apostolic churches received the spiritual gift of speaking foreign languages supernaturally (Acts 2:1-12) "...we do hear them speaking in our tongues [languages] the wonderful works of God".
2. Scripture plainly tells us that tongues would cease (1 Cor 13:8-10).
3. Church history tells us that tongues did cease.
4. Pentecostals/Charismatics admit that modern tongues are not Bible tongues.

The "perfection of Christ" is not my phrase. We see the same word for perfect/complete used in Heb 9:11:

While that is not your phrase, that is the rationale used by Pentecostals to dodge the fact that "when that [not He] which is COMPLETE [Gk teleios] is come then that which is in part shall be done away". Just because the KJV uses "perfect" is not an excuse to dodge the actual meaning of the Greek. Check your Strong's Concordance. We all use "perfect" to mean complete. It does not have to mean Divine perfection (see 2 Tim 3:17).

Yet another patently incorrect statement as the word is also used for the part of the body (e.g. Mk 7:33-35)

This is utterly immature. We all know that the tongue is a part of the body, and that it is not a part of this discussion. And then to call it "patently incorrect" indicates that you really have no defensible position.
If you're going to respond, please leave out the insults and the irrelevancies. The admirable thing would be to say "You are correct. We don't have a case".

 

[DeaconDean]

While the canon was not entirely "fixed", the OT was definitely fixed and a portion of the NT was also fixed. Thus we read from around 66 AD (2 Tim 4:13) "The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments". There is no doubt that the books and parchments refers to Scripture. By c. 100 AD the canon was definitely fixed (see the Muratori Canon).

You meant this:

The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of New Testament books. It was discovered by Ludovico Antonio Muratori in a manuscript in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and published by him in 1740. * It is called a fragment because the beginning of it is missing. Although the manuscript in which it appears was copied during the seventh century, the list itself is dated to about 170 because its author refers to the episcopate of Pius I of Rome (died 157) as recent. He mentions only two epistles of John, without describing them. The Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned as a book which "some of us will not allow to be read in church." A very helpful and detailed discussion of this document is to be found in Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 191-201. Below is Metzger's English translation of a critically amended text of the Fragment, from Appendix IV of the same book (pp. 305-7). I include Metzger's footnotes, with their original enumeration, and add some supplementary footnotes of my own. —M.D.M.

* Ludovico Antonio Muratori, ed., Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi, v. 3 (ex typographia Societatis palatinæ, Mediolani, 1740). Reprinted in Bologna, 1965.

The Muratorian Fragment

I can counter with:

So far as we can tell, all of these groups appealed to written authorities for their views, texts that were allegedly penned by apostles. Some groups subscribed to Gospel accounts written in the names of Thomas or Philip or Peter, or attributed to Matthew or John or Mark. We know of Christians in the TransJordan who adopted a Hebrew Gospel similar to our own Gospel according to Matthew, of Christians in Egypt who used the Gospel of the Egyptians, of others there who accepted the Gospel of the Hebrews, of yet others who subscribed to the Gospel according to Thomas; there were
Christians in Rhossus who revered the Gospel of Peter, Christians in Rome who read a synopsis of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Christians in Syria who read an expanded version of this that included John, Christians in Alexandria who read only John, and Christians in Asia Minor who read only Luke, and that in a somewhat truncated form.3 Some of these groups used only one Gospel as their text of Scripture; others appealed to a wide range of available texts as authoritative.

3 The historian who looks at this wide-ranging diversity should probably think
of the various perspectives held by a group and the religious authorities used to back them up as standing in a kind of symbiotic relationship. Certain documents were conducive to particular points of view; these documents were both produced in light of these views and accepted as authoritative because of them. Apostolic authorship proved to be a convenient resource in this question of authorization, and so far as we can tell was appealed to by all of the groups in question.

Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Bart Ehrman, Edited by Bruce Metzger, Volume 33, Brill, Leiden, Boston, Copyright 2006, Chapter V, The Text of the Gospels at the end of the Second Century, Introduction, Diversity in Second-Century Christianity, p. 72, n.3.

Set canon on AD 90, ha!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I used to believe the Masoretic Text was a perfect copy of the original Old Testament. I used to believe that the Masoretic Text was how God divinely preserved the Hebrew Scriptures throughout the ages.

I was wrong.

The oldest copies of the Masoretic Text only date back to the 10th century, nearly 1000 years after the time of Christ. And these texts differ from the originals in many specific ways. The Masoretic text is named after the Masoretes, who were scribes and Torah scholars who worked in the middle-east between the 7th and 11th centuries. The texts they received, and the edits they provided, ensured that the modern Jewish texts would manifest a notable departure from the original Hebrew Scriptures.

Historical research reveals five significant ways in which the Masoretic Text is different from the original Old Testament:
1.The Masoretes admitted that they received corrupted texts to begin with.
2.The Masoretic Text is written with a radically different alphabet than the original.
3.The Masoretes added vowel points which did not exist in the original.
4.The Masoretic Text excluded several books from the Old Testament scriptures.
5.The Masoretic Text includes changes to prophecy and doctrine.

Adam Clarke, an 18th Century Protestant scholar, demonstrates that the vowel-point system is actually a running commentary which was incorporated into the text itself.

In the General Preface of his biblical commentary published in 1810, Clarke writes:


“The Masorets were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence.”

Another early scholar who investigated this matter was Louis Cappel, who wrote during the early 17th century. An article in the 1948 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica includes the following information regarding his research of the Masoretic Text:


“As a Hebrew scholar, he concluded that the vowel points and accents were not an original part of Hebrew, but were inserted by the Masorete Jews of Tiberias, not earlier then the 5th Century AD, and that the primitive Hebrew characters are Aramaic and were substituted for the more ancient at the time of the captivity. . . The various readings in the Old Testament Text and the differences between the ancient versions and the Masoretic Text convinced him that the integrity of the Hebrew text as held by Protestants, was untenable.”

Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew

Bottom line, the MT only dates to as late as AD 600 -AD 1000.

The Septuigint dates to as early as 300-BC a fact revealed in that the Dead Sea Scrolls confirms the LXX follows a much older Hebrew tradition than the MT.

Sorry folks.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Vanellus]

Jack,

“Tongues” as taught by Charismatic churches is not scriptural.

The problem with this statement is that it's too broad a generalisation - as if all churches who label themselves as "charismatic" teach and practice the exact same things. Not all Baptist churches (for instance) agree on church practice e.g. female ministry.

I agree that "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." should be adhered to and spelled out to the congregation.

However, in practice I've found that churches that call themselves charismatic rarely have tongues or prophecy in their services. This can be because of suppression by the leadership who fear they may be undermined.

 

[Vanellus]

Job8,
Compare

We all know that the tongue is a part of the body

with

the Greek word is always glossais (occasionally dialektos), which always means language, and is generally translated as "tongues" in the KJV.

where you are saying the Greek word (glossais) always means language. So if it always means language it can't mean the tongue as a part of a body (according to you). You made a mistake but are too proud to admit it.

2. Scripture plainly tells us that tongues would cease (1 Cor 13:8-10).
3. Church history tells us that tongues did cease.

Argument by empty assertion with no evidence - hence of no value to anyone.

Why are you ignoring the use of teleios for the heavenly tabernacle in Heb 9:11? Would you prefer that it wasn't in the Bible?

The admirable thing would be to say "You are correct. We don't have a case".

What a statement to make! Do you think that you're incapable of error - this indicates that's what you think of yourself. I assure you, you are wrong to think so. The only truly perfect complete man was the man (who is God) who came down from heaven whose birth we will shortly celebrate. Do you also realise that not everyone in this world has to agree with everything you say or think. If you haven't worked that out yet then what have you been doing so far in your life!

 

[Righttruth]

For all doctrinal questions, Jesus is our only One Teacher. He did not speak in unknown tongues nor used an interpreter.

Paul's 1 Corinthians chapters 12 to 14 were written from a far away place based on the reports for and against the nuisance of gibberish speaking observed in notorious Corinthian church after Paul left after about one and a half years stay there.

He advised the congregation to grow from being babes to mature people (from drinking milk to eating meat) and desire better gifts. Eventually, this speaking unknown tongue vanished for more than a thousand year. It only got relapsed about a hundred years ago in USA with disillusioned promptings!

 

[Vanellus]

Righttruth,

He did not speak in unknown tongues nor used an interpreter.

It's not recorded in the gospels that Jesus spoke in tongues. This is not the same as saying he didn't speak in tongues.

Paul's 1 Corinthians chapters 12 to 14 were written from a far away place

This is close to the red letter fallacy:

The red letter fallacy, simply said, is this: suppose according to the gospel of X, Jesus said Y.•Now, if X is not reliable, we cannot know whether Jesus really said Y.
•But if X is reliable, we should believe his whole gospel

Since all the NT is treated as inspired by God this principle can be extended beyond the gospels to the whole NT

this speaking unknown tongue vanished for more than a thousand year.

This statement is inaccurate. You could check out Tongues: A Theological History of Christian Glossolalia by Richard Hogue

 

[Righttruth]

Righttruth,


It's not recorded in the gospels that Jesus spoke in tongues. This is not the same as saying he didn't speak in tongues.

That is a convenient presumption!

This is close to the red letter fallacy:

The red letter fallacy, simply said, is this: suppose according to the gospel of X, Jesus said Y.•Now, if X is not reliable, we cannot know whether Jesus really said Y.
•But if X is reliable, we should believe his whole gospel

Since all the NT is treated as inspired by God this principle can be extended beyond the gospels to the whole NT

Deciding on the canon has a dubious record. What was specifically written to certain persons under certain conditions cannot be generalized!

This statement is inaccurate. You could check out Tongues: A Theological History of Christian Glossolalia by Richard Hogue

A biased history is just bunk!

 

[Vanellus]

That is a convenient presumption!

The presumption was yours Righttruth. In truth we don't know whether or not Jesus spoke in tongues since the gospels do not record everything Jesus said and did.

What was specifically written to certain persons under certain conditions cannot be generalized!

This can lead to the danger of denigrating God's word. Stuart and Fee's book would help you understand this issue better

The book you've described as "bunk" quotes historical sources.

 

[Righttruth]

The presumption was yours Righttruth. In truth we don't know whether or not Jesus spoke in tongues since the gospels do not record everything Jesus said and did.

In that case, Bible doesn't record Peter as cannibal! Can we presume according to your logic?

This can lead to the danger of denigrating God's word. Stuart and Fee's book would help you understand this issue better

The book you've described as "bunk" quotes historical sources.

Normally, historical books could be biased depending on the historian, his background and understanding. I can imagine history on tongue speaking!

 

[Vanellus]

Righttruth,

You said Jesus never spoke in tongues.
I say we don't know since the gospels do not record everything.
The presumption is yours not mine.