SPEAKING IN TONGUES: Help make this the DEFINITIVE learning thread

S

Servant of Jesus

Guest
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?"


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".

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".

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.


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".


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.

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.

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
.

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.

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!

.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nephilimiyr

KingZzub

Blessed to Be A Blessing
Dec 23, 2005
14,749
892
47
Dagenham
Visit site
✟19,473.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
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.

I think this is an important starting point as many churches do forbid speaking in tongues either explicitly through their stated doctrine and practices or implicitly through their ethos and culture. This is a Biblical command to not forbid people from speaking in tongues and therefore must be honoured.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nephilimiyr
Upvote 0

zeke37

IMO...
May 24, 2007
11,706
225
✟20,694.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
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.

I think this is an important starting point as many churches do forbid speaking in tongues either explicitly through their stated doctrine and practices or implicitly through their ethos and culture. This is a Biblical command to not forbid people from speaking in tongues and therefore must be honoured.
Paul was not refering to the ecstatic utterance tongues seen in many of our churches today

to prophesy is to speak the already prophetic Word of God to an audience and have them understand it...it is not prophesy to them until they understand what is said

So, Paul teaches that it is ok to allow the Word of God/Gospel of Christ into all other langauges.....It does not have to be kept in Hebrerw or Greek......it can be shared in all languages
tongues means languages, either understood or foreign...depending on the context




this is exactly what happened later on, with Latin, for centuries, to their shame






but it never, ever means ecstatic utterances.
 
Upvote 0

KingZzub

Blessed to Be A Blessing
Dec 23, 2005
14,749
892
47
Dagenham
Visit site
✟19,473.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
Paul was not refering to the ecstatic utterance tongues seen in many of our churches today


Why introduce the word ecstatic to this discussion? It is not found in the Biblical text and it is not a general dimension to a tongues message in most churches today. Everyone I know who speaks in tongues and gives messages in tongues is in control of what they are doing - it is not some sort of ecstatic utterance.

Let's use Biblical terminology rather than loaded terminology in this discussion, it will help us reach a point of understanding a lot quicker.

to prophesy is to speak the already prophetic Word of God to an audience and have them understand it...it is not prophesy to them until they understand what is said


I am not sure what you are trying to say here, apologies. Are you saying that the gift of prophecy, which in the book of Acts involves giving specific words to individuals about God's will for them, has somehow become the gift of preaching in the last 2000 years?

So, Paul teaches that it is ok to allow the Word of God/Gospel of Christ into all other langauges.....It does not have to be kept in Hebrerw or Greek......it can be shared in all languages
tongues means languages, either understood or foreign...depending on the context

I appreciate that the gospel should be translated into every tongue, but tongues is also called praying in the spirit and it is very clear from Acts that tongues is a language unknown to the hearer, supernaturally given from the Holy Spirit. Read Acts 2.4 - they spoke in tongues as the SPIRIT (not their logic and learning and experience and revision) gave them utterance.

This supernatural speaking an unknown language (to your mind) as the Spirit gives you utterance is what Paul is saying MUST NOT BE FORBIDDEN.

Yet, we do have many churches where it is forbidden. This should be the starting point of any discussion on tongues - why do so many churches forbid it against the expression wishes of Paul as he writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?


this is exactly what happened later on, with Latin, for centuries, to their shame






but it never, ever means ecstatic utterances.

As I have said, the Bible shows that tongues is a language given supernaturally by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.4) and that ecstatic is a polemic word that is unnecessary in this debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IndigoSkai
Upvote 0
S

Servant of Jesus

Guest
Please don't hesitate to bring contributions from other threads into this discussion.

At the risk of inhibiting needed discussion, though, I would ask that everyone be cautious about bringing in items that are guaranteed to be inflammatory and risk being overly divisive.

And again, don't hesitate to edit your post if, upon reflection or receipt of a private message, etc. it would appear that a re-wording may be in order to preserve Christian unity.
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
45
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[/color]

Why introduce the word ecstatic to this discussion? It is not found in the Biblical text and it is not a general dimension to a tongues message in most churches today. Everyone I know who speaks in tongues and gives messages in tongues is in control of what they are doing - it is not some sort of ecstatic utterance.

Let's use Biblical terminology rather than loaded terminology in this discussion, it will help us reach a point of understanding a lot quicker.



I am not sure what you are trying to say here, apologies. Are you saying that the gift of prophecy, which in the book of Acts involves giving specific words to individuals about God's will for them, has somehow become the gift of preaching in the last 2000 years?



I appreciate that the gospel should be translated into every tongue, but tongues is also called praying in the spirit and it is very clear from Acts that tongues is a language unknown to the hearer, supernaturally given from the Holy Spirit. Read Acts 2.4 - they spoke in tongues as the SPIRIT (not their logic and learning and experience and revision) gave them utterance.

This supernatural speaking an unknown language (to your mind) as the Spirit gives you utterance is what Paul is saying MUST NOT BE FORBIDDEN.

Yet, we do have many churches where it is forbidden. This should be the starting point of any discussion on tongues - why do so many churches forbid it against the expression wishes of Paul as he writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?




As I have said, the Bible shows that tongues is a language given supernaturally by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.4) and that ecstatic is a polemic word that is unnecessary in this debate.


Actually ecstatic works quite well given a biblical definition. NOT the commonly used expression today (frothing at the mouth, bumping into walls, etc) but ek stasis . . . which is used of Peter's vision in Acts 10, and simply means "away/out of normal standing" which would define tongues as irregular speech . . . something done apart from the normal order of things.
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
45
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Here I cleaned it up some:

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Tongues in Acts 2 . . .[/font][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']


[/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']The first thing to consider is the usage of glwssaiV lalien(speaking in tongues) in historical context. It is widely known that the ecstatic usage of tongues was widely practiced during the time of New Testament (NT) Palestine in the whole Mediterranian due to the so-called mystery religions/cults.

The Pythian and Delphic oracles were known to spout unintelligible prophecies that needed an interpreter when the women were said to be under the influence of a supernatural entity (pagan gods). This provides the usage of profhthV and glwssaiV lalien in Koine history in association with non-human unintelligible speech.

The phrase speaking in tongues, while not necessarily connoting ecstaic speech, does certainly INCLUDE this dimension of usage. Most limited lexicons give very brief and simplisitc overviews of the Koine Greek . . . the best, recognised universally, is G. Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). I would suggest a view of the article on glwssa.

The historical concept of the profhthV and their speech and the contrast of the mystical concept of the pnuema verses the nouV pretty much seals the deal that the speech was not of the understanding . . . but from the place within that connected with what extends beyond the understanding. This can be defined as ecstatic.

So lets define ecstatic. A compound verb from ek (out of) and estemi (to stand) making ekstasiV, or literally out of stance . . . it has the connotation of out of NORMAL stance. Hence it has been used in reference to a vision (Acts 10:10) and amazement (Mark 5:42).

Our common conception of ecstatic, someone running around bumping into walls and frothing at the mouth is NOT what is in view . . . hence to read our current colloquial usage is folly. Truly, any gifting or move of the Spirit can be ecstatic if demonstrative enough to cause amazement . . . or even the specially edowed prophetic utterances whose source is not from "normalcy" but the supernatural working of the Spirit. This usage is in view when I say "ecstatic" . . . it is thoroughly biblical and wholesome.

To the text of Acts 2:

We have already established that there is an understanding of ecstatic NON-human language in the usage of the Konie glwssaiV lalien, although not a necessary understanding. The context will have to determine our understanding.

The first concept of import is in the word eterais (other) . . . the clear concept of the word includes something that was different than their normal tongue and something that was altogether new to them. Hence, whatever it was that they spoke . . . it was NOT something that they were familiar with . . . not something that was in their history of personal usage.

The second concept is that the speech was inspired by the pnuema (Spirit). Many studies have overlooked this vital concept. The history of the word is one of mystical and other-worldy usage. It is derrived from the pn a linguistic construct that pointed to the unknown and supernatural representing the rough breath and mystery the ancients associated with breathing and air. Hence, pnuema, connotes a supernatural unknown mysterious feeling.

The connection with pnuema and speech (laleo or cognates) cannot be overemphasized . . . the history of association from Plato and others in Ancient Greek of the mystery of speech inspired by the pnuema carries into the NT with the concept of the Holy Spirit of God. This connection wasn't unqiue to the Greeks . . . Hebrews associated the same mystery as did most ancient cultures.

This background lays the foundation for a type of speech which is obviously supernatural and patently *other* worldy. At this point it may still be known foreign languages supernaturally imparted, however.

The next touchpoint is the use of fonhV (sound). It is singular . . . not plural. That means that when the masses heard what it was that they heard . . . it was ONE loud sound . . . not many variable sounds. The sound of a group not individuals. This leads to the conclusion that what they gathered to was NOT a speech, per se, procession . . . but something much more awkward . . . obtruse.

Here is where the arguement begins to take more form, and from the Greek becomes quite clear. The text will be helpful:

Acts 2:6-8
6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. Acts
7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, " Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?
NASU

NASU

The key is the singular and plural usage. "each one" ekstatoV eiV (each man singular) is the men hearing. Each individual heard them (autwn first [v. 6] plural and ekstatoV second [v. 8] SINGULAR) . . . AS A GROUP. The picture is of each man hearing them (plural) as a GROUP (singular). One hears ALL of them speaking in Parthian, while the man next to him hears THE SAME MEN (AS A GROUP) speaking in Mede AT THE SAME TIME . . . and it continues down the line.

Illustration: I am speaking in (whatever) and I have a Mexican, Russian and African all in front of me . . . the Mexican man is hearing me in Spanish, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME the Russian is hearing me in Russian WHILE AT THE SAME TIME the African is hearing me in African.

TDNT sees the sealing issue the Ioudaian (Judean's) as original (meaning it is in the original autographa). As such . . . this means that you have Judeans (local Jews) suprised to hear Judean's (the disciples) speaking Judean! BIG PROBLEMS. The resolution is that they are mystified because everyone is hearing their own dialects coming from the same men at the same time . . . which is physiologically impossible.

The case then becomes more of a miracle of hearing . . . than a miracle of speaking. The miracle is that the men gather at a strange sound, something uncommon (foreign languages are hardly uncommon) and are further dismayed as they are each able miraculously to understand this formerly strange sound in their own dialects AT THE SAME TIME AS THE MAN NEXT TO THEM from the WHOLE GROUP OF DISCIPLES.

Add to this that those who gathered and heard the noise and DID NOT understand accused the disciples of being DRUNK (ever heard a drunk man speak unintelligibly? I have) and you have a pretty solid case that the tongues of Acts 2 were ecstatic unintelligible languages who the Holy Spirit imparted understanding of to the men who would be converted.

[/font]

So the case is pretty clear. I have laid out history, usage, the text, linguisitcs . . . if u can refute these . . . then have at it. I have yet to have anyone really sink their teeth in to refute it. The logic and hermeneutic is sound . . . have fun
smile.gif


__________________
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
45
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
BTW, Mark 16 should not be used for authoritative conclusions as it is a spurious text.

Tho, it CAN be used to see AT LEAST what the common age THOUGHT about what tongues were. They saw the tongues as NEW (kainias/kainos) which means either
1. New to the practitioner . . . something UNLEARNED and UNKNOWN to them (which could still be a foreign language tho supernaturally learned)
or
2. Completely new, never having existed before

But again, being a spurious text, I do not see it as authoritative for doctrine, but I do see it as helpful for what the people at the time understood tongues to be.
 
Upvote 0

KingZzub

Blessed to Be A Blessing
Dec 23, 2005
14,749
892
47
Dagenham
Visit site
✟19,473.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
Your essay on tongues can be refuted easily. I however am off to bed it being midnight in the UK. Will reply soon.

As for Mark 16, it isn't disputed by me and I consider it to be the word of God penned by Mark with a huge amount of manuscript evidence. So for me, it stays on the table for the discussion.
 
Upvote 0

Frogster

Galatians is the best!
Sep 7, 2009
44,343
3,067
✟74,317.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
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.

I think this is an important starting point as many churches do forbid speaking in tongues either explicitly through their stated doctrine and practices or implicitly through their ethos and culture. This is a Biblical command to not forbid people from speaking in tongues and therefore must be honoured.

:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Seeking Him

Regular Member
May 19, 2008
1,561
245
USA
✟10,287.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
John Sherril's classic book "They Speak With Other Tongues" is very informative about the whole experience. He tells about many people who heard people praying in tongues and the listeners knew the languages they were praying in. Sometimes the people speaking in tongues gave personal messages to the listeners, even giving personal information , such as their names and their situations. Then there would be a mesage of counsel or consolation. The person to whom the message was given would be shocked saying "How did you know this information about me?"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

nephilimiyr

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open
Jan 21, 2003
23,432
1,799
60
Wausau Wisconsin
Visit site
✟40,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Subscribing

I've spoken in tongues several times but it isn't something I practice and the subject isn't anything I could write an essay one although I odviously have my opinions and beliefs on it. I wont cloud the discussion here with them though and I'm looking forward to maybe learning something here.

Thanks for the thread Servant of Jesus :)

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
45
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Your essay on tongues can be refuted easily. I however am off to bed it being midnight in the UK. Will reply soon.

As for Mark 16, it isn't disputed by me and I consider it to be the word of God penned by Mark with a huge amount of manuscript evidence. So for me, it stays on the table for the discussion.

Your essay on tongues can be refuted easily.

Seeing as ur Charismatic (WoF being a sub section of the charismatic arm) . . . and I am Pentecostal . . . I dont see what there is to refute . . . I would assume we hold to the same thing on the ontology of tongues.

But I look forward to what u have . . . I have yet to see anyone with an exegesis to sufficiently refute my position . . . looking forward to a healthy discussion!

:hug:
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
45
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't think we should go so far as to claim that Mark 16 is a spurious text; it is, after all, included in virtually every translation of the Bible; even the King James version.

By spurious I do not mean that it is NOT a true part of the canon . . . I simply mean that it is contested and there is enough legitimacy to contest it. I believe that it is part of the canon . . . but because of the issues surrounding it, any doctrinal conclusions should not be held dogmatically . . . primarily, because I am a tongues practitioner, I do this so that those who do not feel that the gifts are for today cannot use the whole "it is a spurious text and therefore we wont take authoritative conclusions from the passage" arguement against my position . . . I just remove the passage from the table so as not to have the issue at all . . . cause they will say such things. :pray:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Frogster

Galatians is the best!
Sep 7, 2009
44,343
3,067
✟74,317.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
John Sherril's classic book "They Speak With Other Tongues" is very informative about the whole experience. He tells about many people who heard people praying in tongues and the listeners knew the languages they were praying in. Sometimes the people speaking in tongues gave personal messages to the listeners, even giving personal information , such as their names and their situations. Then there would be a mesage of counsel or consolation. The person to whom the message was given would be shocked saying "How did you know this information about me?"

I read it..great book!:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0