SPEAKING IN TONGUES: Help make this the DEFINITIVE learning thread

boswd · Apr 27, 2010

KingZzub said:
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.

40 seems to be ignored. Most Pentacostal church's everyone is off in every other direction and it more chaos than anything else.

Servant of Jesus · Apr 27, 2010

I certainly believe in the Gifts of the Spirit- in healing miracles, prophecy, and, yes, the speaking of words of praise to God in a different language (tongue) by someone who knows nothing about that language. They certainly happened in Jesus's time, and I have seen no convincing scriptural references that suggest they can't happen today.

But I would like to ask those who are more charismatic in their beliefs: how do you distinguish between the Biblical references where the word "tongue" can be interpreted as referring to a different language from the "speaking in tongues" that refers to a form of glossolalia in which a person utters sounds, incomprehensible to others, that the speaker believes are a language spoken through him or her by a gift of the Holy Spirit?

In the quotes I gave above, most of the references to "tongues" could, according to the authors of the NIV Bible, also be interpreted to mean "languages". But could those of you who are more charismatic give me the verse in the Bible that you believe is the best example of the religious form of glossolalia, and does not therefore refer to simply speaking in a different language.

Servant of Jesus · Apr 27, 2010

If you haven't already done so, it is really worth reading the well-written article (with many additional references) in Wikipedia on the subject of glossolalia.

Servant of Jesus · Apr 27, 2010

boswd said:
40 seems to be ignored. Most Pentacostal church's everyone is off in every other direction and it more chaos than anything else.

I would suggest that this might be your opinion- but it is a fairly sweeping generalization that members of many Pentacostal churches might disagree with.

Don't get me wrong though- you are perfectly entitled to share your opinion!

Servant of Jesus · Apr 28, 2010

KingZzub said:
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.

Obviously, you took exception to the use of the phrase "ecstatic utterance" as used by zeke37 in reference to speaking in tongues or glossolalia.

I can see your point in that the authoritative Oxford dictionary does not include any mention of "ecstasy" or other exuberant expression in their definition of glossolalia:

"The phenomenon of apparently speaking in an unknown language during religious worship, regarded as a gift of the Holy Spirit."

However, in my admittedly limited experiences in being in a situation where people were apparently speaking in tongues, there was certainly a lot of emotion, or, as the Oxford dictionary describes ecstasy:

"1 an overwhelming feeling of great happiness or joyful excitement. 2 an emotional or religious frenzy or trancelike state."

I don't know if I agree with the use of the word "frenzy" or "trancelike", but I won't quibble with the Oxford dictionary.

Anyway, I wanted to point that out and would suggest that, despite the difference in opinion, neither you are zeke37 should take offence at the comments that each of you respectively made; I think they were offered sincerely in an attempt to foster discussion.

.

zeke37 · Apr 28, 2010

KingZzub said:
Originally Posted by zeke37
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.

no offence was meant Brother...
I was trying to use a term that is accepted and not considered flaming...
I thought that was one...would you prefer charismatic ?

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?

the word "prophesy" can mean receiving prophetic messages from God...
and it can also mean, to speak the already prophesied words found in the scriptures and psalms, to the people in attendance...

if they come to understand and accept the words spoken by the preacher, then that is prophesy to them.

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

no it is not...that is a point that we differ on...

praying in the Spirit has nothing to do with the charismatic tongue seen in some of todays churches

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.

in ACTS2 everyone listening understood, regardless of what tongue they understood...
it was a miracle
surely you do not call your experience the same do you?
you see, no man could ever fake that miracle cloven tongues of fire...

but your practise is easily forged,

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

no, Paul is saying that the spreading of the Word in foreign tongues must not be forbidden...allow the Gospel into all tongues, even English...

do so with clarity, not confusion,
make sure the people understand your words so it becomes prophesy to them...
if you need atranslater, then use one...otherwise you would sound like a barbarian to them....
otherwise you'd be speaking to the air/wind....
otherwise, even tho you were suppoed to be edifying people in the audience, you'd be only speaking to God...
a very bad thing when your job was to edify them in attendance.

the chapter repeats itself over and over again. how do wwe share our psalms/songs/scriptures with others, regardless of their tongue/language

negative/positive, negative/positive, negative/positive

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?

because some churches realize that the charismatic tongue is not even the subject of 1Cor12-14 at all...it is a mistranslation...a tradition of man that many now wrongly base their faith on....

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.

you are confusing the clovens tongue of fire which was a miracle and was understood in all languages,
which kickstarted the spread of the Gospel.
with
the gift of tongues of 1Cor12-14...which is being a gifted believing linguist and using those skills to likewise spread the Word of God across langauge barriers, into all the World.
Paul and our great commission...

by God's plan, someone/someones followed these rules in 1Cor14,
and we have the Word of God in English for us to discuss....
the gift of tongues is never about any charismatic/ecstatic non earthly language, and the gift of tongues is not what is seen in ACTS2

zeke37 · Apr 28, 2010

Mathetes the kerux said:
Here I cleaned it up some:

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

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'][/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.

I don't think that this is relevant.
I believe that the chapters in question confirm my understanding and disprove yours.

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.

some would argue that the ones who called them drunk,
did so because they just did not agree with what was said....
not that they didn't also understand it in their own language aswell...the fact is that they were very intelligable...so much so that possibly every person there heard it in their own language....possibly only some, but possibly all. some obviously did not agree, hence the drunk comment, IMO.

[/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

__________________

as stated, the scripture Itself is the proof.
IOW I beleve that many who think ecstatical/charismatic tounges are even mentioned in ACTS2, 1COR12-14,
are not dividing the Word properly...
and are taking aline here or there, while omitting the surrounding text which shows context.

Mathetes the kerux · Apr 28, 2010

zeke37 said:
I don't think that this is relevant.
I believe that the chapters in question confirm my understanding and disprove yours.

some would argue that the ones who called them drunk,
did so because they just did not agree with what was said....
not that they didn't also understand it in their own language aswell...the fact is that they were very intelligable...so much so that possibly every person there heard it in their own language....possibly only some, but possibly all. some obviously did not agree, hence the drunk comment, IMO.

as stated, the scripture Itself is the proof.
IOW I beleve that many who think ecstatical/charismatic tounges are even mentioned in ACTS2, 1COR12-14,
are not dividing the Word properly...
and are taking aline here or there, while omitting the surrounding text which shows context.

I don't think that this is relevant.

It is absolutely relevant . . . drives at the historic usage . . . but u have never been one to take historic usage as proof.

I believe that the chapters in question confirm my understanding and disprove yours.

Shocker

some would argue that the ones who called them drunk,
did so because they just did not agree with what was said....

I would hardly agree . . . they would have called them heretics.

regardless Zeke, the plural and singular noun usage of Acts 2 is what it is . . . there is no getting around it . . . to see the usage and say "nope sorry that is not what it says" is tantamount to saying 2+2 does not equal 4. Regardless of interpretation of other passages, here, in Acts 2, the plural and singular use of pronouns and the ioudian cannot be contested. One person heard the whole group in Persian while the person next to him heard the SAME GROUP AT THE EXACT SAME TIME SPEAKING IN Mede . . . that is not foreign languages . . . it is one speech coming from the person and multiple people hearing the same man in different dialects . . . unless he can speak in chinese and with a second mouth speak in russian AT THE SAME TIME.

KingZzub · Apr 28, 2010

boswd said:
40 seems to be ignored. Most Pentacostal church's everyone is off in every other direction and it more chaos than anything else.

What Pentecostal churches do you go to? Here, v 40 is kept to as we give messages in tongues, prophecy, have words of knowledge and so on and so forth.

boswd · Apr 28, 2010

KingZzub said:
What Pentecostal churches do you go to? Here, v 40 is kept to as we give messages in tongues, prophecy, have words of knowledge and so on and so forth.

sadly that's not the case here in America, Alot of the 'hardcore" pentacostals..... it's just a zoo. People running around, people off in other areas hootin and hollerin. It's a madhouse.

go to youtube and punch in speaking in tongues and what you see, tell me if you think that is what Paul was talking about.
I would say in most cases it's a huge NO.

No interpretation, no edifying just abusing of the gifts, or self induced frenzies.

I do believe the gift is still with us today, but not in most cases you see what going on in these zoo's.

It more of a "Look at ME" "I" have the Holy Spirit. "I" MUST BE SAVED.

zeke37 · Apr 28, 2010

Mathetes the kerux said:
It is absolutely relevant . . . drives at the historic usage . . . but u have never been one to take historic usage as proof.

I don't mind history....it is just that your understanding of history differs from others opinions...
yours is still opinion....and it has no bareing on what we are discussing

if you simply read the entire chapter and follow the running thought through out it,
then the explanaition become apparrent I believe.
you and others who practise "tongues" fail to do this IMO

Shocker

well, I really don't think that you follow the subject through....

I would hardly agree . . . they would have called them heretics.

says you...I'd say they called them drunk...
surely God's Power was not limited that day?
surely all people heard the message in their own dialect
accepted/agreed....or not...that is the question

regardless Zeke, the plural and singular noun usage of Acts 2 is what it is . . . there is no getting around it . . . to see the usage and say "nope sorry that is not what it says" is tantamount to saying 2+2 does not equal 4. Regardless of interpretation of other passages, here, in Acts 2, the plural and singular use of pronouns and the ioudian cannot be contested.

since I do not think that ithe tongue in ACTS2 was the same tongue that you speak, i'm not toworried about your exaplanation of the script

One person heard the whole group in Persian while the person next to him heard the SAME GROUP AT THE EXACT SAME TIME SPEAKING IN Mede . . . that is not foreign languages . . . it is one speech coming from the person and multiple people hearing the same man in different dialects . . . unless he can speak in chinese and with a second mouth speak in russian AT THE SAME TIME.
again, ACTS2's cloven tongues of fire and your experience are not the same right?

I'm more intrerested in1Cor12-14, rather than ACTS2

Mathetes the kerux · Apr 28, 2010

zeke37 said:
Mathetes the kerux said:

It is absolutely relevant . . . drives at the historic usage . . . but u have never been one to take historic usage as proof.

I don't mind history....it is just that your understanding of history differs from others opinions...
yours is still opinion....and it has no bareing on what we are discussing

if you simply read the entire chapter and follow the running thought through out it,
then the explanaition become apparrent I believe.
you and others who practise "tongues" fail to do this IMO

Shocker

well, I really don't think that you follow the subject through....

I would hardly agree . . . they would have called them heretics.

says you...I'd say they called them drunk...
surely God's Power was not limited that day?
surely all people heard the message in their own dialect
accepted/agreed....or not...that is the question

regardless Zeke, the plural and singular noun usage of Acts 2 is what it is . . . there is no getting around it . . . to see the usage and say "nope sorry that is not what it says" is tantamount to saying 2+2 does not equal 4. Regardless of interpretation of other passages, here, in Acts 2, the plural and singular use of pronouns and the ioudian cannot be contested.

since I do not think that ithe tongue in ACTS2 was the same tongue that you speak, i'm not toworried about your exaplanation of the script

One person heard the whole group in Persian while the person next to him heard the SAME GROUP AT THE EXACT SAME TIME SPEAKING IN Mede . . . that is not foreign languages . . . it is one speech coming from the person and multiple people hearing the same man in different dialects . . . unless he can speak in chinese and with a second mouth speak in russian AT THE SAME TIME.
again, ACTS2's cloven tongues of fire and your experience are not the same right?

I'm more intrerested in1Cor12-14, rather than ACTS2

Click to expand...

I don't mind history....it is just that your understanding of history differs from others opinions...
yours is still opinion....and it has no bareing on what we are discussing

Click to expand...

Actually phones as singular has alot to do with it . . . it means that what was percieved was not a marketplace cacauphony that would be associated with the foreign language exchange . . . my point stands.

As for history . . . I have showed you how, in the normal meaning of glossa, ecstatic speech is one of the understood usages . . . I showed you the delphic and pythian oracles . . . I even showed you the Testament of Job where there are ANGELIC TONGUES AND DIALECTS referred to in the Judeo/Christian era in question . . . AND YET IN LIGHT OF FACTS OF HISTORY YOU SAY "no glossa only means language" . . . so I dont know what to say . . . facts are facts and you dont take historic usage unless you think in agrees with your position. At least be humble enough to say "OK it is in the broad meaning of glossa . . . i just dont agree that this is what glossa refers to HERE" . . . but you cant even say this!

says you...I'd say they called them drunk...
surely God's Power was not limited that day?
surely all people heard the message in their own dialect

Click to expand...

No I dont think that they all heard it. I think everyone heard a sound, something like they had never heard before, gathered, some who would be those who would respond to the Gospel, heard the tongues in their languages and were astonished at how the sound that they just heard could now be heard individually by each of them in their own dialect (notice NOT GLOSSA but DIALECTOS) ascribing greatness to God, and the others who would not respond to the Gospel continued to hear what sounded like drunk men to them . . . babbling, incoherance, disjointed unconnected UNINTELLIGBLE SPEECH. Gods power did exactly what it set out to do . . . save those who would respond to the Gospel.

since I do not think that ithe tongue in ACTS2 was the same tongue that you speak, i'm not toworried about your exaplanation of the script

Click to expand...

AH HA! And herein lies the problem . . . it is what we call PRESUPPOSITION. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT THINK THAT ACTS 2 IS ECSTATIC SPEECH . . . YOU THEREFORE WILL NOT EVEN OBJECTIVELY INVESTIGATE THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT BIAS. Sorry brother, that is because of PRESUPPOSITION, NOT because of hermeneutic. Thanks for admitting tho that your reasons have nothing to do with objectivity.

again, ACTS2's cloven tongues of fire and your experience are not the same right?

I'm more intrerested in1Cor12-14, rather than ACTS2

Click to expand...

Oh contrare . . . I think that they are the same thing . . . the Spirit just used them differently. Tongues being a communication of the soul to God is used to bless those in the church in 1 Cor 12-14 and tongues as a communication of the soul to God is used to arouse the curiousity of the 3000 on Pentecost and impress them with what it is BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT IS NOT NORMAL FOREIGN LANGUAGES and grab their attention for the presentation of the Gospel by Peter's sermon.

Skilletdude · Apr 28, 2010

Tongues seems like the most useless gift ever... All the other gifts at least hold a purpose. What does the gift of tongues do? It's a rather selfish gift from the way I see it... all the other gifts had a purpose and I can see why God would give them to people. The gift of tongues as we know it today is completely useless as far as spreading the Gospel etc. It seems like it's just a piece of heaven on earth for the person doing it which I don't see the point for.

Not to mention I think it scares off more non-Christians than it's gonna reach out to anyone.

Can someone tell me how "speaking in tongues" (as seen on TBN or something) is useful and actually benefits anything? Just curious... Never seen anyone do it outside the TV so I'm willing to change my opinion cause I realize most what you see on tv TBN or otherwise, is a bunch of horse pucky and maybe it's a misrepresentation?

zeke37 · Apr 28, 2010

Skilletdude said:
Tongues seems like the most useless gift ever... All the other gifts at least hold a purpose. What does the gift of tongues do? It's a rather selfish gift from the way I see it... all the other gifts had a purpose and I can see why God would give them to people. The gift of tongues as we know it today is completely useless as far as spreading the Gospel etc. It seems like it's just a piece of heaven on earth for the person doing it which I don't see the point for.

Not to mention I think it scares off more non-Christians than it's gonna reach out to anyone.

Can someone tell me how "speaking in tongues" (as seen on TBN or something) is useful and actually benefits anything? Just curious... Never seen anyone do it outside the TV so I'm willing to change my opinion cause I realize most what you see on tv TBN or otherwise, is a bunch of horse pucky and maybe it's a misrepresentation?

I beg you don't change your opinion...

what they do is not the biblical "tongues"
biblical "tongues" is specific to spreading the Gospel..
and is a wonderful gift..
whole nations can receive the Word in their own tongue and come to God

1Cor14 are rules for doing just that....
getting the Word from one language to another

it has nothing to do with gibberish that we hear some call the gift of tongues...

they might call it the gift of tongues and swear that they are praying in the Spirit...
but iti s just gibberish and is not a special prayer langauge to, or message from, God.

it has everything to do with spreading the Word across all language barriers,
with the tongues/languages of men...
using other men, gifted in translation, and interpretation to help if needed.
tongues = languages...
either known ones(local) or not known ones(foreign)

their form of tongues actually takes away their prayer life, and replaces it with gibberish...
when they think they are getting closer to God with perfect prayer. ironic

zeke37 · Apr 28, 2010

Mathetes the kerux said:
zeke37 said:

Actually phones as singular has alot to do with it . . . it means that what was percieved was not a marketplace cacauphony that would be associated with the foreign language exchange . . . my point stands.

personally, your point means little to me....right or wrong
as it is not relevant to the meaning of tongues in 1Cor14

As for history . . . I have showed you how, in the normal meaning of glossa, ecstatic speech is one of the understood usages . . .

no, you shared your opinion, one that I do not agree with

I showed you the delphic and pythian oracles . . .

must have missed that one, not that it matters

I even showed you the Testament of Job where there are ANGELIC TONGUES AND DIALECTS referred to in the Judeo/Christian era in question . . .

you did? where was I?

AND YET IN LIGHT OF FACTS OF HISTORY YOU SAY "no glossa only means language" . . .

well...it does...sorry

so I dont know what to say . . .

either do I but copy/paste the scripture..
the whole thought, instead of a line here or there

facts are facts and you dont take historic usage unless you think in agrees with your position.

either do you

At least be humble enough to say "OK it is in the broad meaning of glossa . . . i just dont agree that this is what glossa refers to HERE" . . . but you cant even say this!

because I do not agree with that...it wouldn't matter anyway, asthe text point out what "tongues" means, in the very context...but you take a line here or there and make it mean what you want it to mean, instead of sticking with the thought that Paul is placing there

No I dont think that they all heard it. I think everyone heard a sound, something like they had never heard before,

the sound that they heard sounded like their own home dialect,
so they had heard that dialect before...lol

gathered, some who would be those who would respond to the Gospel, heard the tongues in their languages and were astonished at how the sound that they just heard could now be heard individually by each of them in their own dialect (notice NOT GLOSSA but DIALECTOS) ascribing greatness to God, and the others who would not respond to the Gospel continued to hear what sounded like drunk men to them . . . babbling, incoherance, disjointed unconnected UNINTELLIGBLE SPEECH. Gods power did exactly what it set out to do . . . save those who would respond to the Gospel.

I do not agree with your analogy

AH HA! And herein lies the problem . . . it is what we call PRESUPPOSITION. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT THINK THAT ACTS 2 IS ECSTATIC SPEECH . . . YOU THEREFORE WILL NOT EVEN OBJECTIVELY INVESTIGATE THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT BIAS. Sorry brother, that is because of PRESUPPOSITION, NOT because of hermeneutic. Thanks for admitting tho that your reasons have nothing to do with objectivity.

doesn't matter...it was not what you do, else all of you who are "in it" would likewise hear the Wonderful works of God magnified in his/her own langauge...and all you guys hear is babyl.

you certainly do not use that tongue to spread the Word, do ya?

so, is what you do, the same as seen in ACTS2?
the answer is no...so your point is moot.
argue for your practise, not for theirs.
I do not doubt their experience at all...
I know it was a miracle and I know that it had a distinct purpose....
and that is something that I cannot say for your "tongues"

and remember that I've been there....

Oh contrare . . . I think that they are the same thing . . . the Spirit just used them differently.

lol...we are at an impass.

Tongues being a communication of the soul to God is used to bless those in the church in 1 Cor 12-14 and tongues as a communication of the soul to God is used to arouse the curiousity of the 3000 on Pentecost and impress them with what it is BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT IS NOT NORMAL FOREIGN LANGUAGES and grab their attention for the presentation of the Gospel by Peter's sermon.

as said, weare at an impass...

Click to expand...

Servant of Jesus · Apr 28, 2010

Skilletdude said:
Tongues seems like the most useless gift ever... All the other gifts at least hold a purpose. What does the gift of tongues do? It's a rather selfish gift from the way I see it... all the other gifts had a purpose and I can see why God would give them to people. The gift of tongues as we know it today is completely useless as far as spreading the Gospel etc. It seems like it's just a piece of heaven on earth for the person doing it which I don't see the point for.

Not to mention I think it scares off more non-Christians than it's gonna reach out to anyone.

Can someone tell me how "speaking in tongues" (as seen on TBN or something) is useful and actually benefits anything? Just curious... Never seen anyone do it outside the TV so I'm willing to change my opinion cause I realize most what you see on tv TBN or otherwise, is a bunch of horse pucky and maybe it's a misrepresentation?

If we interpret the gift of speaking in tongues to be strictly the ability of someone to preach the word of God in a language they do not know, but which the listener does understand, then it makes complete sense to me; I can accept that, just as I believe that God hears even our silent prayers.

But beyond that ....... well, at the very least I am open-minded enough to be willing to listen, learn, and adopt new ideas- as long as they are consistent with Biblical teachings and the urgings of the Holy Spirit.

Mathetes the kerux · Apr 28, 2010

Skilletdude said:
Tongues seems like the most useless gift ever... All the other gifts at least hold a purpose. What does the gift of tongues do? It's a rather selfish gift from the way I see it... all the other gifts had a purpose and I can see why God would give them to people. The gift of tongues as we know it today is completely useless as far as spreading the Gospel etc. It seems like it's just a piece of heaven on earth for the person doing it which I don't see the point for.

Not to mention I think it scares off more non-Christians than it's gonna reach out to anyone.

Can someone tell me how "speaking in tongues" (as seen on TBN or something) is useful and actually benefits anything? Just curious... Never seen anyone do it outside the TV so I'm willing to change my opinion cause I realize most what you see on tv TBN or otherwise, is a bunch of horse pucky and maybe it's a misrepresentation?

Tongues seems like the most useless gift ever... All the other gifts at least hold a purpose.

Tongues, as all the gifts, are given for edification.

What does the gift of tongues do?

Tongues, according to 1 Cor 14 are a semi ecstatic from of praise/prayer that the soul communicates to God, and occaisionally a message from God to His people.

Private edification is obvious . . . corporate edification comes with the sharing of this prayer/message in an equally important manifestation of the Spirit in the gift of interpretation.

The gift of tongues as we know it today is completely useless as far as spreading the Gospel etc.

A common misunderstanding. Tongues are primarily for edifcation to the Body as all the gifts. Never has tongues been primarily for the spread of the Gospel. Linguistically that is the job of the KERUX (preacher) and the evangelist (of which we all are in some degree). Even in Acts the tongues spoken are not said to be the presentation of the Gospel but simply the great and glorious deeds of God (much akin to praise) . . . the presentation of the Gospel came with Peter's sermon.

It seems like it's just a piece of heaven on earth for the person doing it which I don't see the point for.

Well my brother you are half right . . . it is a piece of heaven on earth . . . and when interpreted that love and devotion and exaltation of the Lord is shared . . . much like a worship song. When it happens to you . . . you will see the point of it.

Not to mention I think it scares off more non-Christians than it's gonna reach out to anyone.

Which is the exact reason why it is to be interpreted . . . hence Paul says w/out interpretation people will call you all mad (or drunk as Acts 2).

Can someone tell me how "speaking in tongues" (as seen on TBN or something) is useful and actually benefits anything? Just curious... Never seen anyone do it outside the TV so I'm willing to change my opinion cause I realize most what you see on tv TBN or otherwise, is a bunch of horse pucky and maybe it's a misrepresentation

IMO, TBN is a BAD place to derive much of anything from. I will watch my words as we have a WoF gentleman who is partaking, and I think I have given you a good explanation of what what you see is good for.

Just be cautious not to fall into the error of characterizing abuse as the norm . . . it is not.

boswd · Apr 28, 2010

So who is going to interprate all of this? That person must be working overtime

YouTube - 160,000 Received the Holy Ghost Ethiopia Crusade Spirit

I'm sorry, again THIS IS NOT what Paul was speaking of.

This is not edification of the Church.

boswd · Apr 28, 2010

JamesAH · Apr 29, 2010

I wouldn't call any gift useless :doh:

SPEAKING IN TONGUES: Help make this the DEFINITIVE learning thread

Well-Known Member

Servant of Jesus

Guest

Servant of Jesus

Guest

Servant of Jesus

Guest

Servant of Jesus

Guest

IMO...

IMO...

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Blessed to Be A Blessing

Well-Known Member

IMO...

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Newbie

IMO...

IMO...

Servant of Jesus

Guest

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads