Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Most assuredly I believe in speaking in tongues. I do it daily. My primary tongue is English and I speak some German and a smattering of Chinese. When I was in China this past April and met with the Christians there I practiced scriptural tongues. I spoke in English and my interpreter translated into Chinese so that my audience could understand what I said.
That's what unknown tongues (foreign languages) is actually about in the bible. This concept that it's this special weird sounding language is not scriptural.
Where exactly does that bible teach that biblical tongues are languages that someone has previously learned?
Context is clear enough on that in most places. The exception would be cases like in Acts where someone spoke but ppl hearing heard it in various languages or in a case where someone does speak a foreign language they never knew previously but I don't see any example of that in scripture.
How can you possibly interpret biblical tongues to mean anything OTHER than a language not previously learned?
Tongues is from the Holy Spirit, and when someone speaks in tongues they are speaking as the Spirit of God gives them the utterance.
If tongues is a language that someone has previously learned and has knowledge of, then they do not need the Spirit of God to empower or enable to be able to do anything.
Please offer any proof that biblical tongues can or should be interpreted to mean a known earthly language.
Because in most cases an interpreter is needed to help the audience understand the message. It's what we call a translator today.
That which comes from the holy Spirit at least in scripture doesn't need an interpreter, see Acts for that.
That's true unless it's a case where God wants the person to speak a language they don't know but never is it a non-human language. All tongues/languages are ones spoken by people somewhere on the Earth.
Almost any example works. This is one example:
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Act 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
Act 2:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
What there is no evidence of is it not being an earthly language.
Interpretation is also a gift of the Holy Spirit.
Regardless, the fact that an interpreter MAY be needed (depending on context and purpose of the tongues) does nothing to show that the actual tongues themselves are native to the speaker.
Because in Acts tongues served a particular purpose, and it is not in the same context in Corinthians. Paul clearly shows one purpose for tongues in Corinthians being to address a particular group of people, and in this instance and interpreter would be needed. These tongues are not known languages to the speaker. Paul even urged that when praying in tongues, we also pray that we may interpret.
Tongues is ALWAYS speaking a language that someone doesn't know perviously.
"1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries."
Please tell me, if a man is speaking in tongues, and no man on Earth can understand him, then what earthly language is he speaking?
Actually, all of these scriptures prove my point. That tongues are languages not known previously to the speaker.
Purely opinion, but also, irrelevant to the what tongues actually are and their intentions. What they are NOT are known earthly languages to the speaker.
Not in Acts where the HS causes men to speak in tongues/languages.
When a person speaks English to a crowd who doesn't understand English, then a translator is needed. That is the situation in most of the examples where unknown tongues are being spoken and an interpreter is needed.
When an interpreter is needed then the speaking always know what they are saying. It's the audience that doesn't
Not in scripture. In scripture either they know the language and the audience does not, or the HS is involvd and the audience is able to understand as if spoken in their own language. That is the only case in scripture where the speaker didn't know the languages it was received in.
One that the audience doesn't know. God understands because he understands any language. In this case the speaker knows the language he is speaking but does not know the language of his audience.
Yet no interpreter is needed as in the case with speaking a language others do not know. When the HS inspires one to speak, no translator is needed.
That's wrong in most cases.
Regardless of if interpretation is present in Acts, it is still a gift that Paul says is given by the Holy Spirit. The reason we do not see interpretation of the tongues in Acts is because in Acts we do not see the GIFT of tongues.
But this is not the gift of tongues or the gift of interpretation. If you speak to a bunch of people who don't speak English and then someone who speaks english and their native language interprets for you, then you are not speaking in biblical tongues and the person is not exercising the biblical gift of interpretation.
This is not the issue in Corinthians when an interpreter is needed, because the tongues that are originally being spoken are not known to the native speaker, nor to the interpreter.
When speaking of the gift of tongues this is most likely true, but the interpreter does not need to necessarily have prior knowledge of the tongues that he is interpreting.
If they know the language previously then they are not speaking in tongues!
You aren't answering the question. The definition of tongues biblically is a language that is foreign to the speaker.v
That's not true. In context it is unknown to the audience.
So if I am praying in tongues and language that no man can understand, how can you say that language that I am speaking is earthly?
Because it is no man in the audience that can understand in context. The person speaking always knows what they are saying.
You have provided no evidence of such, and also have not explained 1 Corinthians 14:2.
I did explain that verse already.
It was a gift in Acts. Anything given is a gift.
None of that is true. Interpreting a human language can be a gift. And this is an example of "biblical tongues"
the language spoke is known by both but unknown to the audience which is why it's call an unknown language.
I know of no scriptural case where that is true.
Any language spoken is tongues being spoken. It's the same word.
Where I would disagree is that all tongues are known earthly languages. I believe Paul makes the case for such a thing as a heavenly language. What that sounds like, its hard telling.
Paul shows the purpose of tongues in Corinthians to be 2 fold.
1. In order to give a message directly from God to a group of people, in which case it is equated with the gift of prophesy.
2. As a way to edify the Spirit of a believer through prayer, in which case the tongues do not need to be interpreted.
Neither of these two scenarios are shown in acts.
No where in acts do we see an interpreter being used, because this was not the purpose of tongues in Acts.
All of it is true. It can be a gift, but it is not a gift if the interpreter of the tongues already knows the language. This is not biblical. If it is, please show it.
Once again, this is not tongues, nor is it why the bible calls them unknown tongues in English or in the Greek. Tongues always refers to the speaker, not the hearer.
If i speak in English, I am not speaking in tongues.
The spirit does not have to give me utterance to speak English.
If the Spirit does not give utterance then it aint tongues. If I speak in english to people who speak English or don't speak english, it aint tongues.
Where we disagree is what tongues actually are. For example, you believe that since you speak English, you could speak to a group of German people that do not speak English, and you would be speaking in tongues. This is not the case. Until we agree on this fundamental problem, then tackling the idea of spiritual gift of interoperation is going to be fruitless.
Tongues is more than simple speaking another language, it is speaking as the Spirit gives the utterance, every time.
Every example of tongues that we have in the bible is the speaker speaking a language that they had known previously. If this is not the case, please show an example of such.
Where exactly does Paul make a case for a heavenly language? The only description of tongues I can see is Acts 2:4-11 and it goes into great detail to describe exactly what it is. It is most definitely earthly human languages. In the absence of any other description of tongues we must conclude that tongues throughout the NT is always human languages.
This is a great list of why it is so important to allow the Holy Spirit to pray through us to the Father, both during times of personal prayer and within the setting of the congregation.Some purposes for tongues are to magnify G_d (Acts 10:10), self edification (I Cor 14:4) church edification ( I Cor 14:27-28); builds up our faith and keep ourselves in the love of God (Jude 1: 20-21); can pray in The Spirit (I Cor 14:14; Ephesians 6:18; Rom 8:26-27; 1 Corinthians 14:4,15) and they're a sign TO unbelievers OF believers (I Cor 14:22 and Mark 16:17)
About the only qualification that I would offer is with 1Cor 14:22 with regard to the sign value of tongues, where Paul is pointing to verse 21 where he is connecting the unknown tongues of the Assyrian invaders who had invaded Jerusalem, where the inhabitants were confused by the commands that they could not understand. Paul is reminding us that the same thing can occur within the setting of a congregation when many within the meeting will simultaneously praise God in the Holy Spirit, as this will only serve to confuse both the unsaved and cessationist visitors as they do not understand the things of the Spirit; where this activity of the Spirit will more often than not unintentionally become a negative sign that can very easily harden them.
So when the passage is talking about the sign value of tongues, it is not that tongues are intended as a sign to either the saved or unsaved, but when we improperly allow all to pray and sing in the Spirit with words of praise to the Father, that it will have an unintended negative effect on both the unsaved and the cessationist visitor which is why we are to only permit three words of praise to the Father in tongues and that each must be interpreted/articulated.
Tongues is indeed miraculous, if that is how you want to word it. It is miraculous because it is, "as the Spirit gives utterance." Where I would disagree is that all tongues are known earthly languages. I believe Paul makes the case for such a thing as a heavenly language. What that sounds like, its hard telling.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?