SPEAKING IN TONGUES: Help make this the DEFINITIVE learning thread

[Servant of Jesus]

There are many organizations, such as Wycliffe Bible Translators, who are able to take even the most difficult of languages in the world, and translate them into written text, and therefore produce a new translation of the Bible. When such a new translation of the Bible is then read out to the people who use that language, they must all get the same message- otherwise the translation is not accurate and cannot be trusted.

So if someone records a message spoken in tongues, translates it, and produces a written account of what was spoken- and then reads the translated word back to those who spoke it, they should all get the same message. If this is not the case, then, as in the example above, the translation will be shown to be inaccurate, and cannot be trusted.

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

What bothers me is not just that, in my opinion, speaking in tongues, as it is described in the Bible, is being misinterpreted- but it is also being misused.

In another thread, I related my experience of coming across a very large Christian school (Pacific Academy) in Canada that bases the admission of an applicant on whether his or her parents are able to speak in tongues.

So not only is an applicant judged on the actions of his or her parents, but the school is suggesting that parents who speak in tongues are superior Christians to those who don't.

Personally, I find this very disturbing and contrary to the basic tenements of our Christian faith.

.

 

[Lulav]

There are many threads that have discussed Speaking in Tongues before- but none have attempted to bring all the passages in the Bible that refer to speaking in tongues into one thread; so here goes.

This can be a controversial subject, so be especially careful about following the CF Rules, and being respectful of what you say. A good rule: imagine that you are making your comment face to face....... to your best friend! And don't be afraid to go back and edit a comment that, upon reflection, you think could have been better worded (that's why I have the iEDIT under my name as a reminder and promise to others).


Mark 16

16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." Note: these are words spoken by Jesus which the NIV claims the oldest and most reliable Biblical manuscripts do not have.

Acts 2
4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
Note: the NIV states that "tongues" in this verse may also be interpreted as "languages".

The passage then goes on to say:

5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does this mean?"

Not only 'may be' interpreted but reading that in context shows it cannot be otherwise


Acts 10
45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Note: the NIV again states that "tongues" in this verse may also be interpreted as "languages".

Acts 19
4 Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Note: the NIV again states that "tongues" in this verse may also be interpreted as "languages".

1 Corinthians 12
8 To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. Note: the NIV again states that both references to "tongues" in this verse may also be interpreted as "languages".

This passage has always stymied me, how is Faith a gift? If it is only given to some believers that makes no sense.

1 Corinthians 12
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Note: the NIV states that the last reference to "tongues" in these verses may also be interpreted as "languages".

This passage makes it sound as if these are for different people. Yet it is obvious from certain gospel passages that the apostles were of course apostles, and some were also prophets if not all, they were teachers of the gospel, workers of miracles, healed people and of course that helped others, and they spoke in tongues so others could received the gospel in their own language that they could understand. Paul is not coming up with anything new here, but may be trying to introduce something different than what was already done, especially on Pentecost, which he was not part of but I'm sure had heard about.

1 Corinthians 13
1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

Note: the NIV translation suggests that the word "language" can be substituted for tongues in this passage.


I'm mainly concerned with this tongues of angels. NO where else in the Bible do I read such a thing. Every time there is an angelic messenger sent it never says that they speak in another language, they speak in the language of the one they are sent to. It would be in Hebrew from all visitations I can recall.

1 Corinthians 14
1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 3 But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to 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.
6 Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church. Note: the NIV again states that all the references to "tongues" in these verses may also be interpreted as "languages".

Now with this one I do not know how that can be interpreted as languages. Paul here is clearly speaking of something else. He says:

anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God

so this is not the same as used when the disciples were sent out nor on Pentecost, those were men speaking to men.


1 Corinthians 14
18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.


This plainly makes this phenomenon something that he is bragging about. That is what bothers me. He softens it by his next words but if you read what he is saying, you have to ask yourself, if this is a personal thing between man and G-d, then how would Paul know who speaks in tongues more, or how does he know he does it more than anyone else?



20 Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. 21 In the Law it is written:
"Through men of strange tongues
and through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.

This is written in Isaiah 28, and the word in Hebrew either means the actual member, the tongue, or a language, of man.

22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, 25 and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"

26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.


Basically if you read this whole passage together, you will see he is actually contradicting himself. in 26 he says it is done for the strengthening of the Church but just above in verse 22 he says they are not for believers (the church) but unbelievers. There are other inconsistencies here as well.


1 Corinthians 14
39 Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

If these are really to help unbelievers, why would they be forbidden. I should think that those that were forbidding them did so because they did not believe they came from G-d.


O.K. fellow believers- comment away so that we may all learn! Make a general comment, or address one of the passages above, or pick them all; all I ask is that you do this in a gentle and uplifting manner!

.

Thank you for composing this list, it has been very helpful to me to see them all written out together. From what I've been able to conclude ( I put notes in the rust color within your post and highlighted in red the things that concerned me) is that either, the word translated 'tongues' should have been more than likely translated as language. Or the part in the passage contained about tongues is suspect Or they are all written by the same person, Paul.

I've been asking on another thread for some corroboration of this from any of the original apostles and have not received any answer and now I can see why.

This one I think is the most disturbing to me, taken with the definition Paul himself gives for what this is, for UNbelievers.

If I speak in the tongues of menand of angels

 

[Servant of Jesus]

What an eloquent and thoughtful commentary, Lulav; thank you so much!
----------------------------

zeke37 made a very good point in another thread that bears repeating here:

no one spoke charismatic/ecstatic utterances as recorded in the NT...let alone Mary/Joseph...
in fact, Christ actually TAUGHT us how to pray...
and, as you know, it did not include ecstatic/charismatic utterances.

So here is the The Lord's Prayer spoken in Aramaic, the original language used by Jesus.

Here is a written translation of the same Aramaic prayer:

Abwûn O cosmic Birther, from whom the breath of life comes,
d'bwaschmâja who fills all realms of sound, light and vibration.
Nethkâdasch schmach May Your light be experienced in my utmost holiest.
Têtê malkuthach. Your Heavenly Domain approaches.
Nehwê tzevjânach aikâna d'bwaschmâja af b'arha. Let Your will come true in the universe (all that vibrates) just as on earth (that is material and dense).
Hawvlân lachma d'sûnkanân jaomâna. Give us wisdom (understanding, assistance) for our daily need,
Waschboklân chaubên wachtahên aikâna daf chnân schwoken l'chaijabên. detach the fetters of faults that bind us, (karma) like we let go the guilt of others.
Wela tachlân l'nesjuna Let us not be lost in superficial things (materialism, common temptations),
ela patzân min bischa. but let us be freed from that what keeps us off from our true purpose.
Metol dilachie malkutha wahaila wateschbuchta l'ahlâm almîn. From You comes the all-working will, the lively strength to act, the song that beautifies all and renews itself from age to age.
Amên. Sealed in trust, faith and truth. (I confirm with my entire being)

If this is how Jesus taught us to pray, then why do we need anything else?

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

If you haven't already done so, check out the following speaking in tongues poll.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

that would be the LOVE of CHRIST that surpasses knowledge
not prayer


it is the PEACE of GOD that surpasses all comprehension,
not prayer.


you are unknowingly/unwittingly mis-representing Paul's WORDS.
we should read the entire chapter before deciding what "tongues" means

Paul says that if you pray/sing/share Psalms/doctrine (in/to the congregation) in a langauge that they cannot naturally understand,
that what you are saying will not be understood by them that listen.
pretty obvious...and said for a reason....
to allow the SPREAD of the WORD of GOD into ALL TONGUES/LANGUAGES

IOW, Paul says that What is in your mind is a mystery to them...
your thoughts (about God) would not bear fruit (they won't be able to come to Him if they cannot understand His Word)

Paul says that we are to allow the Words of God to be spread in ALL languages,

and that it would be a lot easier if they all spoke many languages, as Paul himself did.

then there would be no need for interpreters....
but there is a need....
and these are the rules for spreading the Word of God into all languages of men.

ummm dude(I like that word too!)..
then what would be the POINT of unintelligible prayer?
and I already adresses that...
we do not know God's FULL plan..we don't know His very Will prefectly...
but we have a direction right?
we pray for direction right?

well, when we pray in His Will, because He knows best,
then the Spirit understands this....

Father, I pray in your Will, in the name of Jesus Christ, that all who you will allow to see/hear the truth about biblical tongues, will come to that light!
the Spirit of God Almighty knows our hearts and our true intentions...

this has nothing to do with ecstatic/charismatic utterances.





explained above...pray in His Will......

Huh again? they why did Christ TEACH us HOW to PRAY?
then why all the examples of the prophets/patriarchs/prominent positive biblical figures praying to God in a language/tongue that weare able to read?
then why all the Psalms?


Huh again? dude...
I really wonder how some even try to communicate with God after a statement like that....
we were taught how to pray...and it is not ecstatic/charismatic utterances, so saith Jesus Christ.



1And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
2And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
3Give us day by day our daily bread.
4And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

no ecstatic/charismatic expression there.

I have a great case...it is based on the entire chapter...
yours is based on one word...
and you do not understand the context of the verse.
the context of the becomes apparent
as we continue to read the entire chapter

no one understanding his langauge, would obviously not include the speaker...
he (the speaker) is speaknig a language(ie Greek/Hebrew), not a charismatic/ecstatic utterance.

it is said by Paul in other ways aswell, in the same chapter.
over and over again...
but you refuse to accept this...

as with Jesus, who taught the same subject through multiple parables...often one after another...Paul does the same here in 1Cor14.

over and over again...languages of men

9So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

11Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.



15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? 17For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

if he does not do both at the very same time...
then "ELSE" they listening (in the room) won't get it...
that is why tongues is to be done with understanding...
tongues=langauges of men...and the foreign (unknown) ones need to be interpreted for them who occupy the room...so they can come to God..
and say AMEN

over and over again......languages of men....


19Yet 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.

20Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 21In the law 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.

as I said, over and over again...same thought....languages of men.../translated into other langauges of men



no it does not...


both speaking of langauges of men, as explained to you already
praying in the Spirit is indeed in an easy to understand language, especially one that you yourself understand...lol.
you take these verses out of conteaxt completely...

just follow the entire chapter Bro.


ummm...well one of us is practising something that is completely opposite of what the verse says...and how Christ taught us to pray
but you know who I think that person is, right?

​

​

Brother, I don't doubt your faith or belief...let's get that clear...

but you fail to follow th entire chapter....
that first thought is repeated many times, in different ways...
it just does not say what you think it implies

​

​

​

believe it or not, I looked at all your "research" the first time we went through this...years ago....it did not compell me then...

and regardless, the chapter itself defines the meaning...
without going outside of it at all...
for any extra-biblical study material...
(excluding concordance for LANGUAGE/TONGUE translation...ie...Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek, into English)
and even aconcordance is not neccissary in this case



speaking in tongues is defined as diverse languages of men..
not charismatic ecstatic utterances.

the gift of tongues is for diverse languages...spreading the Word to all who will....

now, I ask you..... how important is that in the grand scheme of things when compared to charismatic/ecstatic utterances ?
rather, I'd say.
​

​

​

believe it or not, I looked at all your "research" the first time we went through this...years ago....it did not compell me then...

Not my research buddy, the articles of non charismatic linguists/scholars of Greek and Hebrew in the TDNT. Did u read THOSE articles . . . I dont think you did cause if u did, u may not agree with my take, but you would at least concede that it is possible and that plenty scholars come to the same conclusions.

Boil it down to this Zeke,

1. Deal with oudeis (in more than a chalked "read the rest of the passage . . ." reply . . . cause the whole passage starts here

2. Deal with the ioudaian

3. Deal with the "tongues of angels" (and the connected "Testament of Job" describing these as commonly known 1st Cent Palestinian Christian/Jew NON HUMAN SPEECH)

if you can seriously deal with these . . . do some work, as I have, digging into history and usage, and come back with some meaty stuff, other than

"glossa ='s languages" (cuz it doesnt all the time)

or your break down of the passage w/ no other meaty study

then you can have a better case . . .

Cause I got all this . . . studied and researched . . .

and then maybe after the hard work and some meat that you can show you can try to sway me.​

​

​

 

[zeke37]

Not my research buddy, the articles of non charismatic linguists/scholars of Greek and Hebrew in the TDNT. Did u read THOSE articles . . . I dont think you did cause if u did, u may not agree with my take, but you would at least concede that it is possible and that plenty scholars come to the same conclusions.

my friend....I do not have to concede it's possibility, if I do not believe that it is pssible, regardless of other scholars works...

plenty of scholars today, and in history, have come to the conclusions that you do...
I disagree with them aswell..with regards to biblical tongues

any other chanting in unintelligible utterances that other religious groups did, is not my concern...
if some scholars want to call that uttering a tongue/language...then let em I guess....
it still does not give credance to biblical tongues being charismatic/ecstatic utterances.

I would as you if you have ever read the entire chapter,
and kept in mind the points that I have made about the repetition...

Boil it down to this Zeke,

1. Deal with oudeis (in more than a chalked "read the rest of the passage . . ." reply . . . cause the whole passage starts here

I already have...the SPEAKER is SPEAKING..
the implied speaker obviously understands what he is saying...
if you would continue to read the rest of the chapter in the same context, you'd possibly see it to.
over and over again...repeated....for u and i.

2. Deal with the ioudaian

regarding Acts2, there were many people there, gathered from all over...for the festival
there were many different dialects present
they all heard it in their own specific dialect...
IMO there was probably a different dialect every 20 miles for all we know...
it is not like today

but they were in Jerusalem....gathred from all over..even as far as Rome and Egypt...

7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

so.....many different languges present...there is nothing to deal with.
the Galileans tongue/language was heard by the Judaians in their Judaian tongue/language...
we are speaking of actual regional DIALECTS here, not just languages...

3. Deal with the "tongues of angels" (and the connected "Testament of Job" describing these as commonly known 1st Cent Palestinian Christian/Jew NON HUMAN SPEECH)

tongues of angels is a symbolic figure of speech
each and every time we read of conversation between angels and men,
it is in an intelligent language, that of the human involved.

again, nothing to deal with.

if you can seriously deal with these . . . do some work, as I have, digging into history and usage, and come back with some meaty stuff, other than

"glossa ='s languages" (cuz it doesnt all the time)

or your break down of the passage w/ no other meaty study

then you can have a better case . . .

Cause I got all this . . . studied and researched . . .

and then maybe after the hard work and some meat that you can show you can try to sway me.

listen...the passage explains itself,...
there is no need to go outside...

if you cannot follow the subject matter all the way through the chapter,
then I guess I can not help you.
I doubt anyone can.

and again brother, I do not speak just to you...

I really doubt anything I could say, would change your mind

BUT.....too many Christians are willing to allow the possibility of tongues = charismatic/ecstatic utterances,
and that is what I am against
you are already indoctrinated Bro.

I cannot change that...
but I can certainly offer otehrs an alternative to your understanding,
which I find (spiritually) fatally flawed.


there are repentant others here who have faked it,
and others who honestly tried and thought they were actually experiencing a gift of God,
but later realized that it was just their emotions...
perhaps they are the ones that should help you get out of your cultic practice(s).

tongues does not = Spirit filled

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

my friend....I do not have to concede it's possibility, if I do not believe that it is pssible, regardless of other scholars works...

plenty of scholars today, and in history, have come to the conclusions that you do...
I disagree with them aswell..with regards to biblical tongues

any other chanting in unintelligible utterances that other religious groups did, is not my concern...
if some scholars want to call that uttering a tongue/language...then let em I guess....
it still does not give credance to biblical tongues being charismatic/ecstatic utterances.

I would as you if you have ever read the entire chapter,
and kept in mind the points that I have made about the repetition...


I already have...the SPEAKER is SPEAKING..
the implied speaker obviously understands what he is saying...
if you would continue to read the rest of the chapter in the same context, you'd possibly see it to.
over and over again...repeated....for u and i.


regarding Acts2, there were many people there, gathered from all over...for the festival
there were many different dialects present
they all heard it in their own specific dialect...
IMO there was probably a different dialect every 20 miles for all we know...
it is not like today

but they were in Jerusalem....gathred from all over..even as far as Rome and Egypt...

7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

so.....many different languges present...there is nothing to deal with.
the Galileans tongue/language was heard by the Judaians in their Judaian tongue/language...
we are speaking of actual regional DIALECTS here, not just languages...


tongues of angels is a symbolic figure of speech
each and every time we read of conversation between angels and men,
it is in an intelligent language, that of the human involved.

again, nothing to deal with.


listen...the passage explains itself,...
there is no need to go outside...

if you cannot follow the subject matter all the way through the chapter,
then I guess I can not help you.
I doubt anyone can.

and again brother, I do not speak just to you...

I really doubt anything I could say, would change your mind

BUT.....too many Christians are willing to allow the possibility of tongues = charismatic/ecstatic utterances,
and that is what I am against
you are already indoctrinated Bro.

I cannot change that...
but I can certainly offer otehrs an alternative to your understanding,
which I find (spiritually) fatally flawed.


there are repentant others here who have faked it,
and others who honestly tried and thought they were actually experiencing a gift of God,
but later realized that it was just their emotions...
perhaps they are the ones that should help you get out of your cultic practice(s).

tongues does not = Spirit filled

I already have...the SPEAKER is SPEAKING..
the implied speaker obviously understands what he is saying...

Sorry . . .
oudeis means NO ONE . . . there is no exception . . . the word is the word is the word. There is no "understood implication that the speaker understands what he is saying" because otherwise the mind is fruitful, and it is NOT. Further, there is not mystery in his spirit if he knows what he is saying.

Sorry, but your "dealing" with oudies is insufficient. No one mean no one . . . ALL INCLUDED . .. NO MAN.

Unless you can show oudeis meaning something different . . . no dice.

regarding Acts2, there were many people there, gathered from all over...for the festival
there were many different dialects present
they all heard it in their own specific dialect...
IMO there was probably a different dialect every 20 miles for all we know...
it is not like today

Not one bit of this has anything to do with the linguistic anomaly of Judeans SURPRISED to hear Judeans SPEAK IN JUDEAN. Again, you have to deal with it and you have not.

tongues of angels is a symbolic figure of speech
each and every time we read of conversation between angels and men,
it is in an intelligent language, that of the human involved.

again, nothing to deal with.

If the "Testament of Job" was not around to supply evidence that this concept of angelic speech, THAT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD BY HUMANS, to show that this is a legit concept to the text, then your case would be tight. Unfortunately tho, this is not the case . . . because we DO have evidence that part of the 1st cent. Jewish/Christian Palestinian culture was a concept of angelic languages that were UNINTELLIGIBLE TO HUMANS and required a item for the humans to understand it . . . granted that the tale is probably myth . . . but the tale being myth doesn't matter . . . all it needs to do is prove that this THOUGHT WAS COMMON in the theology and religious culture of the time in question . . . and it does. Which affords us the evidence that Paul is NOT JUST SPEAKING HYPERBOLE . . . but is also referring to a real concept that was prevalent during his day.

Again, no dice brother

listen...the passage explains itself,...
there is no need to go outside...

Actually the good interpreter FIRST goes to context AND then goes to historical context, linguistic usage, etymology, etc. So, the text itself is ONLY THE STARTING POINT.

Take for example the parable of the 10 virgins awaiting the wedding procession in Matthew 25. If you do not know the cultural context of the statement the fulness of the parable does not hit you . . . U see the wedding procession started at one end of the city and traversed along an established route and as it got closer and closer to its destination the procession would pick up more and more friends and family of the bride and bridegroom until they finally arrived at where the "party" was to be held and would LOCK THE DOOR and no one else was allowed in. U see the force of the parable is that the virgins KNEW HE WAS COMING AND WERENT PREPARED ANYWAY cause they did not gather until the procession started . . . there was no ambiguous waiting . . . it was expectation because the time had come . . . and tho they did not know the exact moment when he would arrive . . . they knew THAT he was coming, and therefore when they were not prepared showed themselves as not really friends or family at all . . . so he says "I DONT KNOW YOU".

Just the text is where you start dear brother . . . but it is not where you end. That is hermeneutics 101.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Mathetes the kerux and others who support speaking in tongues:

Could you take a moment to comment on the issue of the private Christian school in Surrey, British Columbia Canada (Pacific Academy), that bases admission on whether the parent's (not the student him or herself!) of an applicant profess to speak in tongues.

Here is the thread.

By this policy, Pacific Academy is suggesting that Christians who profess to speak in tongues are superior to other Christians; that their brand of Christianity is "better".

Do you agree with this? Do you think the same applies here on Christian Forums?

Do you think it's fair that prospective students are being judged on the basis of the "sins" committed by their parents?

.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Mathetes the kerux and others who support speaking in tongues:

Could you take a moment to comment on the issue of the private Christian school in Surrey, British Columbia Canada (Pacific Academy), that bases admission on whether the parent's (not the student him or herself!) of an applicant profess to speak in tongues.

Here is the thread.

By this policy, Pacific Academy is suggesting that Christians who profess to speak in tongues are superior to other Christians; that their brand of Christianity is "better".

Do you agree with this? Do you think the same applies here on Christian Forums?

Do you think it's fair that prospective students are being judged on the basis of the "sins" committed by their parents?

.

This is actually common in Pentecostal circles.

I dont agree with it.

The quesiton becomes about Spirit Baptism (which is another issue related intimately to tongues) . . . unfortunately tho if not articulated correctly and policed correctly it creates the perceived dichotomy that you are keying into. It can create a "us over them" kind of fracturing in the church.

I try to steer clear of these forms of eliteism.

 

[zeke37]

Sorry . . .
oudeis means NO ONE . . . there is no exception . . . the word is the word is the word. There is no "understood implication that the speaker understands what he is saying" because otherwise the mind is fruitful, and it is NOT.

Sorry, but your "dealing" with oudies is insufficient. No one mean no one . . . ALL INCLUDED . .. NO MAN.

Unless you can show oudeis meaning something different . . . no dice.

what is in the speakers mind (his understanding) would not bare fruit....
if
he spoke it in a foreign/unknown (to them) language/tongue.

you still refuse the setting...the church assembly...including foreigners...diverse tongues/languages present...

no one does not include the speaker...
because he (the speaker) is the one that is gonig there (to the assembly/church)
to share a Psalm/scripture with others...

if I speak english to a Chinese audience, no one would understand me...only God would.
As Paul continues to say...you'd be speaking to the air...
and, you'd be as barbarians to them...
and, how'd they even know when to say AMEN ?
etc, etc, etc...

that is why we need interpreters...
so they can (in this case) turn our not understood english words,
into easily understood chinese words,
thus making what we said PROPHESY to them listening/in attendance
they could get it and come to God...

think of Missionaries...english speaking missionaries, working in Africa or where ever...

using translaters to help them spread the Word and save souls.
whole nations...all tongues/languages allowed...that is our commission.

Further, there is not mystery in his spirit if he knows what he is saying.

even if the preacher is speaking words of God, but is doing so in his own tongue, which is (in this case) foreign to them
saying "BLESS YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS",
if the people cannot understand his tongue/language, then it is in vain....

they have to understand so they can come to God.

regarding Acts2, there were many people there, gathered from all over...for the festival
there were many different dialects present
they all heard it in their own specific dialect...
IMO there was probably a different dialect every 20 miles for all we know...
it is not like today
​

Not one bit of this has anything to do with the linguistic anomaly of Judeans SURPRISED to hear Judeans SPEAK IN JUDEAN. Again, you have to deal with it and you have not.

​

well, I respectfully disagree with you
because the meaning of the word suggests dialect, not mere language...
which is diverse, even in Judah...many dialects in Judah.


no anomaly to deal with...

think of it like this if you will....
the Judeans made the statement.....
but there were Jews from all over gathered there

so, Judah is included in the telling of all the regions/tongues present..

that it not an anomaly to us who believe in Miracles of God,
but is to those who don't understand that it is a Miracle from God.

tongues of angels is a symbolic figure of speech
each and every time we read of conversation between angels and men,
it is in an intelligent language, that of the human involved.

again, nothing to deal with.
​

If the "Testament of Job" was not around to supply evidence that this concept of angelic speech, THAT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD BY HUMANS, to show that this is a legit concept to the text, then your case would be tight. Unfortunately tho, this is not the case . . . because we DO have evidence that part of the 1st cent. Jewish/Christian Palestinian culture was a concept of angelic languages that were UNINTELLIGIBLE TO HUMANS and required a item for the humans to understand it . . . granted that the tale is probably myth . . . but the tale being myth doesn't matter . . . all it needs to do is prove that this THOUGHT WAS COMMON in the theology and religious culture of the time in question . . . and it does. Which affords us the evidence that Paul is NOT JUST SPEAKING HYPERBOLE . . . but is also referring to a real concept that was prevalent during his day.

Again, no dice brother

​

Brother,

the angelic tongues spoken of in the Testimony of Job were understood,
and was said to even be written in Kassia's hymns and in the Prayers of Amalthea’s Horn, for anyone who wisehd tor ead about them
and we, the reader are told what the prayers even consist of in the tesimony of Job...
so obviously they were understood...
I can read the word ecstatic there, but I have not researched the actual edimology of it..

but I see where you are coming from...really. I just do not agree...

what they spoke could have been like Acts2, or something different,
but it is not written that is was NOT UNDERSTOOD by humans, etc.

Heavenly tablets: interpretation ... - Google Books

listen...the passage explains itself,...
there is no need to go outside...
​

Actually the good interpreter FIRST goes to context AND then goes to historical context, linguistic usage, etymology, etc. So, the text itself is ONLY THE STARTING POINT.

​

I know you think me bias,
but it seems that you refuse to follow the entire chapter right through...
as it is very repeditive, and stays on the same subject through out...

I mean, over and over and over again...

Take for example the parable of the 10 virgins awaiting the wedding procession in Matthew 25. If you do not know the cultural context of the statement the fulness of the parable does not hit you . . . U see the wedding procession started at one end of the city and traversed along an established route and as it got closer and closer to its destination the procession would pick up more and more friends and family of the bride and bridegroom until they finally arrived at where the "party" was to be held and would LOCK THE DOOR and no one else was allowed in. U see the force of the parable is that the virgins KNEW HE WAS COMING AND WERENT PREPARED ANYWAY cause they did not gather until the procession started . . . there was no ambiguous waiting . . . it was expectation because the time had come . . . and tho they did not know the exact moment when he would arrive . . . they knew THAT he was coming, and therefore when they were not prepared showed themselves as not really friends or family at all . . . so he says "I DONT KNOW YOU".

ok, I agree...I'm not saying that historical research is incorrect at all...
what I know we can agree on, even before historical investigation,
is biblical investigation...finding like patterns in the Word.
prayer is a large study, and I just cannot find your form mentioned.

but I think the important part is the virgin part...
Paul addresses this too, in 2Cor5
and if your not a virgin for Christ,
that means that you are a beguiled/seduced harlot for Satan.

Just the text is where you start dear brother . . . but it is not where you end. That is hermeneutics 101.

if the place you end up
is so far from truth
that it makes the Word of God, void,
then that is a huge problem..
and that is what has happened in your practices case.

your charismatic ecstatic tongue
has replaced God's rules, through Paul,
for spreading the Word of Christ into all languages...

and that is a sin in my eyes. (says the big sinner )

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

what is in the speakers mind (his understanding) would not bare fruit....
if
he spoke it in a foreign/unknown (to them) language/tongue.

you still refuse the setting...the church assembly...including foreigners...diverse tongues/languages present...

no one does not include the speaker...
because he (the speaker) is the one that is gonig there (to the assembly/church)
to share a Psalm/scripture with others...

if I speak english to a Chinese audience, no one would understand me...only God would.
As Paul continues to say...you'd be speaking to the air...
and, you'd be as barbarians to them...
and, how'd they even know when to say AMEN ?
etc, etc, etc...

that is why we need interpreters...
so they can (in this case) turn our not understood english words,
into easily understood chinese words,
thus making what we said PROPHESY to them listening/in attendance
they could get it and come to God...

think of Missionaries...english speaking missionaries, working in Africa or where ever...

using translaters to help them spread the Word and save souls.
whole nations...all tongues/languages allowed...that is our commission.


even if the preacher is speaking words of God, but is doing so in his own tongue, which is (in this case) foreign to them
saying "BLESS YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS",
if the people cannot understand his tongue/language, then it is in vain....

they have to understand so they can come to God.

​

well, I respectfully disagree with you
because the meaning of the word suggests dialect, not mere language...
which is diverse, even in Judah...many dialects in Judah.


no anomaly to deal with...

think of it like this if you will....
the Judeans made the statement.....
but there were Jews from all over gathered there

so, Judah is included in the telling of all the regions/tongues present..

that it not an anomaly to us who believe in Miracles of God,
but is to those who don't understand that it is a Miracle from God.

​

Brother,

the angelic tongues spoken of in the Testimony of Job were understood,
and was said to even be written in Kassia's hymns and in the Prayers of Amalthea’s Horn, for anyone who wisehd tor ead about them
and we, the reader are told what the prayers even consist of in the tesimony of Job...
so obviously they were understood...
I can read the word ecstatic there, but I have not researched the actual edimology of it..

but I see where you are coming from...really. I just do not agree...

what they spoke could have been like Acts2, or something different,
but it is not written that is was NOT UNDERSTOOD by humans, etc.

Heavenly tablets: interpretation ... - Google Books

​

I know you think me bias,
but it seems that you refuse to follow the entire chapter right through...
as it is very repeditive, and stays on the same subject through out...

I mean, over and over and over again...

ok, I agree...I'm not saying that historical research is incorrect at all...
what I know we can agree on, even before historical investigation,
is biblical investigation...finding like patterns in the Word.
prayer is a large study, and I just cannot find your form mentioned.

but I think the important part is the virgin part...
Paul addresses this too, in 2Cor5
and if your not a virgin for Christ,
that means that you are a beguiled/seduced harlot for Satan.
if the place you end up
is so far from truth
that it makes the Word of God, void,
then that is a huge problem..
and that is what has happened in your practices case.

your charismatic ecstatic tongue
has replaced God's rules, through Paul,
for spreading the Word of Christ into all languages...

and that is a sin in my eyes. (says the big sinner )

Just real quick, the rest I will get to later

the angelic tongues spoken of in the Testimony of Job were understood,
and was said to even be written in Kassia's hymns and in the Prayers of Amalthea’s Horn, for anyone who wisehd tor ead about them
and we, the reader are told what the prayers even consist of in the tesimony of Job...

The ability to both speak in the angelic tongue and UNDERSTAND the angelic tongue were MAGICAL IMPARTATIONS OF THE GIRDLES. The ability to speak and understand the tongues are attributed DIRECTLY to the change of the heart that the girdles brought.

They were ONLY understood because of the girdles . . . sorry, the text is QUITE clear that these are impartations of ability, not angels speaking in known human tongues, see specifically that the 2nd daughter spoke the dialect of the Archonts (a caste of Angels) and the 3rd the dialect of the Cherubim . . . which not only do the dialects differ FROM EACH OTHER (as in the angels speak in different languages per their caste) but it is also DICHOTOMISED AS BEING ITS OWN HEAVENLY LANGUAGE. Even if they translate the prayers and hymns later, IT IS A TRANSLATION AND THIS ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES ARE

NON HUMAN TONGUES

Further, the author himself states that he did not write down all that the daughters relayed to him as from the heavens, AND the languages are referred to as HOLY (which means set apart and unique) dialects . . . there is NOTHING LIKE THEM.

Job assured them the garments would act as amulets, protecting them from external dangers and transforming their hearts. When the daughters secured the golden girdles across their chests (over their hearts?), the women knew the language of angels and sang praises in celestial tongues. So girded, they were also relieved of all worldly fears (Testament of Job, Chapters 46-53).

from

Jewish Myth, Magic, and Mysticism: The Girdles of Job: Power Cords

23 Then rose the one whose name was Day (Yemima) and girt herself; and immediately she departed her body, as her father had said, and she put on another heart, as if she never cared for earthly things. 24 And she sang angelic hymns in the voice of angels, and she chanted forth the angelic praise of God while dancing.
25 Then the other daughter, Kassia by name, put on the girdle, and her heart was transformed, so that she no longer wished for worldly things. 26 And her mouth assumed the dialect of the heavenly rulers (Archonts) and she sang the donology of the work of the High Place and if any one wishes to know the work of the heavens he may take an insight into the hymns of Kassia.
27 Then did the other daughter by the name of Amalthea’s Horn (Keren Happukh) gird herself and her mouth spoke in the language of those on high; for her heart was transformed, being lifted above the worldly things. 28 She spoke in the dialect of the Cherubim, singing the praise of the Ruler of the cosmic powers (virtues) and extolling their (His?) glory.

3 And I wrote down this book containing the hymns except the hymns and signs of the [holy] Word, for these were the great things of God


7 And they took these, and sang, and played on the psaltery and praised and glorified God in the holy dialect.

from

Testament of Job

 

[laconicstudent]

The ability to both speak in the angelic tongue and UNDERSTAND the angelic tongue were MAGICAL IMPARTATIONS OF THE GIRDLES.

They were ONLY understood because of the girdles . . . sorry, the text is QUITE clear that these are impartations of ability, not angels speaking in known human tongues, see specifically that the 2nd daughter spoke the dialect of the Archonts (a caste of Angels) and the 3rd the dialect of the Cherubim . . . which not only do the dialects differ FROM EACH OTHER (as in the angels speak in different languages per their caste) but it is also DICHOTOMISED AS BEING ITS OWN HEAVENLY LANGUAGE. Even if they translate the prayers and hymns later, IT IS A TRANSLATION AND THIS ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES ARE

NON HUMAN TONGUES

Further, the author himself states that he did not write down all that the daughters relayed to him as from the heavens, AND the languages are referred to as HOLY (which means set apart and unique) dialects . . . there is NOTHING LIKE THEM.



from

Jewish Myth, Magic, and Mysticism: The Girdles of Job: Power Cords




from

Testament of Job

Jewish occultism and an Apocryphal book.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Jewish occultism and an Apocryphal book.

Whats your point?

Perhaps if u read the previous posts you would understand that citing this has nothing to do with authoritative meaning . . . but rather with historical and cultural usage of the term glossa (which is used in the canon) and the concept of angelic tongues (which is also mentioned in the canon) and how this evidence provides the understanding that:

1. The concept of ecstatic unintelligible speech is connected with the concept of TONGUES OF ANGELS (1 cor 13:1), thereby showing that Paul is not MERELY using hyperbole, but is also referring to a COMMON and well known concept prevalent in his day, BOTH culturally and historically.

2. That the words glossa and dialektos (the word grouping used to convey the concept of language) have within their normal range of meaning, not only human languages, BUT ALSO UNINTELLIGIBLE NON HUMAN SPEECH (what is being referred to on this thread by many as gibberish or babble) or ecstatic utterances. So to point to the word glossa and say "glossa means human language, therefore the usage of glossa here also means human language" is fundamentally flawed because such a position does not take into account the full range of evidence that is relevant to usage, both historically and culturally (btw, glossa also means tongue as in the physical member of the mouth, so glossa does not always mean "human language" anyway).

So, now that you have the reason for the post . . . do you have something else to say?



MTK

 

[laconicstudent]

Whats your point?

Perhaps if u read the previous posts

I tried.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I tried.

Well I hope that my explanation was sufficient enough for you to understand why, hermeneutically, a non canonical intertestamental text was being referred to.

 

[zeke37]

Just real quick, the rest I will get to later




The ability to both speak in the angelic tongue and UNDERSTAND the angelic tongue were MAGICAL IMPARTATIONS OF THE GIRDLES. The ability to speak and understand the tongues are attributed DIRECTLY to the change of the heart that the girdles brought.

is that what you consider the gift of tongues, angelic langauges?
ie. the ecstatic/charismatic tongue that you practise ?

They were ONLY understood because of the girdles . . . sorry, the text is QUITE clear that these are impartations of ability, not angels speaking in known human tongues, see specifically that the 2nd daughter spoke the dialect of the Archonts (a caste of Angels) and the 3rd the dialect of the Cherubim . . . which not only do the dialects differ FROM EACH OTHER (as in the angels speak in different languages per their caste) but it is also DICHOTOMISED AS BEING ITS OWN HEAVENLY LANGUAGE. Even if they translate the prayers and hymns later, IT IS A TRANSLATION AND THIS ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES ARE

NON HUMAN TONGUES

OK....

not that I have studied the book....only paroused it online.
what I did parouse said that the words are written for us to read...perhaps I did not read far enough in the story...I'll check today maybe.

Further, the author himself states that he did not write down all that the daughters relayed to him as from the heavens, AND the languages are referred to as HOLY (which means set apart and unique) dialects . . . there is NOTHING LIKE THEM.

OK....

yet still they were not babbling/non-language tongues that we can hear today in charismatic churches.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

is that what you consider the gift of tongues, angelic langauges?
ie. the ecstatic/charismatic tongue that you practise ?


OK....

not that I have studied the book....only paroused it online.
what I did parouse said that the words are written for us to read...perhaps I did not read far enough in the story...I'll check today maybe.



OK....

yet still they were not babbling/non-language tongues that we can hear today in charismatic churches.

is that what you consider the gift of tongues, angelic langauges?
ie. the ecstatic/charismatic tongue that you practise ?

No not at all. I am simply proofing that unintelligible speech is within the concepts of tongues . . . it does not mean simply "language" . . . IT CAN MEAN THAT . . . but it CAN ALSO MEAN ECSTATIC UNINTELLIGBLE SPEECH.

Further, I dont think Paul thought that tongues were angelic speech either . . . I think that angelic speech was probably part of the pagan corinthian practices, and that angelic speech, as it is unknown to humans, sounds, phonetically the same as tongues.

But the fact that he links glossa to the concept of unintelligble speech speaks volumes. Also the fact that he includes it in the gamut in his dichotomy over and against love, along with gifts and tongues, also speaks volumes.

This only proves that tongues CAN MEAN ECSTATIC SPEECH.

(thanks for actually looking tho )

yet still they were not babbling/non-language tongues that we can hear today in charismatic churches

But that is what it would sound like . . . notice the parallels . . . no longer of this world . . . dancing . . . enraptured in joy . . . departing the body . . . chanting . . . praise and prayer and exaltation . . . and ALL of it UNINTELLIGIBLE. The only reason why they knew what it was is because the sisters shared it.

1 After these three had finished singing hymns. did I Nahor (Neros) brother of Job sit down next to him, as he lay down. 2 And I heard the marvelous (great) things of the three daughters of my brother, one always succeeding the other amidst awful silence. 3 And I wrote down this book containing the hymns except the hymns and signs of the [holy] Word, for these were the great things of God.

You have the event taking place, and after the man sits . . . and each girl, in succession, shares the wonders of their experience while everyone else sits listening in silence. He then records the content ONLY AFTER THE GIRLS SHARE IT . . . not because he understood what they were saying PRIOR to them all sitting down.

Imagine what Nahor saw? Girls spinning, singing, joyously speaking in a language that NO ONE THERE UNDERSTOOD . . . sounds like what we see today brother.

But it is not the Bible (so its authority is secondary) . . . but it is the religious culture of the day and the well known usage of what was called glossa lalien, and even glossa aggelos.

 

[zeke37]

I might have reason to believe you if those who do it today, understood themselves...
but that is not the case..
unintelligible languages, without learning, serves no purpose

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I might have reason to believe you if those who do it today, understood themselves...
but that is not the case..
unintelligible languages, without learning, serves no purpose

But Zeke, bro, that is the point of 14:2, not even the speaker understands himself because OUDEIS MEANS NO ONE. There is no allowance for "the speaker is excluded from none understanding" because Paul states that his understanding is unfruitful, and Paul could not say "no one understands" if the speaker understood, plus, and even MORE TO THE POINT, is that the SPEAKER MUST ALSO PRAY FOR AN INTERPRETATION. If the speaker understood what he himself was saying he would not need to pray for the impartation of the Gift of Interpretation.

AND, unintelligble speech, WHEN INTERPRETED does serve a purpose in the church.

Outside of the church, I can testify, as well as the others here who do speak in tongues, that my level of intimacy with the Lord is bolstered and deepened by the time I spend with HIM in BOTH intelligible prayer AND in unintelliglbe prayer . . . and often unintelligble SINGING. Hence, one who prays in tongues edifies himself.

And Jude usese the same linguisitic expression "praying in the spirit" to state that it builds up faith.


So it does serve purpose.