praying in tongues glossolia

[Goatee]

How can the Holy Spirit be a ventriloquist when he resides within the Believer?

As i said, he is not a ventriloquist!

 

[Biblicist]

As i said, he is not a ventriloquist!

Could it be that you are not all that sure what you mean?

 

[Goatee]

Could it be that you are not all that sure what you mean?

Guessing what comes out of those supposedly speaking in tongues i am sure in know more what i mean than they do!!

 

[Biblicist]

Guessing what comes out of those supposedly speaking in tongues i am sure in know more what i mean than they do!!

Okay, that's enough silly talk for one morning, I have much better things to do.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Whenever someone prays in the Spirit we always know that it is the Holy Spirit praying within us. It goes to say that we always know the purpose of our praise or with our supplications; as to the particular wording that the Holy Spirit uses then that's up to him. The Holy Spirit certainly knows more about whatever situation we are asking him to intercede on and as the Holy Spirit will be speaking of things that I probably should not even know about then that is between the Holy Spirit and the Father.

OK, good, if you always know, what is the purpose of the praise or supplication in the video?

 

[2Timothy2:15]

When pray in the Spirt (tongues), as the Holy Spirit always prays in a heavenly tongue then there is no possibility of anyone being able to understand what he is saying unless the Holy Spirit provides an articulation/interpretation.

Well, not entirely true as we read in ACTS they heard the disciples praising God and declaring the gospel in their native tongues.

Acts 2:Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

What more can I possibly say, other than maybe:

1 Cor 2:9 but just as it is written,

“THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD,
AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN,
ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.”​

10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.​

Brother, that part of scripture is in reference to understanding the wisdom of GOD. Take a look at your bible you will notice it is even above the chapter. It is not saying you will understand gibberish.

 

[LinkH]

Now let's consider what is the strange fire

Nadab and Abihu were supposed to be offering an atonement.

But let us suppose that the 'strange fire' analogy applies to having meetings like the Bible says. What passage gives us 'commandments of the Lord' (as Paul calls them) for church meetings? We only have one passage that goes into any depth, besides one passage on how not to conduct the Lord's supper.

What does I Corinthians 14 tell us to do? It says that every one of you has a psalm, doctrine, tongue, revelation, interpretation, and commands 'let all things be done unto edifying.'

So if a church does not allow this and has a liturgy with three songs and one man preaching a sermon, is that 'strange fire'?

The passage gives instructions for speaking and tongues and interpreting, and commands 'let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge'. If the ushers kick someone out of church who speaks in tongues or interprets, or kicks out individuals who prophesy, is that akin to offering 'strange fire'? I am not saying it is, but if church meetings are the equivalent of atonement offerings in the Old Testament, doesn't this idea make more sense than yours?

When you look at the specific commands for church, they allow for and regulate the operating of the gift of the Spirit you are objecting to.

 

[Sammy-San]

One does not need to pray in tongues necessarily. Plain language is perfectly acceptable to God.

Do you think glossolia is the heavenly language?

 

[Biblicist]

Well, not entirely true as we read in ACTS they heard the disciples praising God and declaring the gospel in their native tongues.

Acts 2:Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

As the Day of Pentecost was with the giving of the Holy Spirit to the church (where I tend to wonder how many cessationists would ask why), then this day was certainly a unique event and one that will never be repeated; we are even told beside the 120 being empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak in human tongues, we see two further unrepeatable events (or at least as far as we are told) with the sound of a rushing wind and the tongues of fire.

Even though the manner in which the Holy Spirit spoke through the 120 was a one off event as we have no other such occurrences recoreded, the content of what they spoke is the same as what we hear from Paul within 1Cor 14 in that both are words of praise about the mighty works of God as per 1Cor 14:15

What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.​

When we read serious published hardcore-cessationist material, we will often come across a situation where they will try and tell their readers that the only account description of tongues is found in Acts 2:8 where the Spirit enabled the 120 to speak in known human tongues. There is one thing that I am completely sure of which is that no commentator who has ever published such a view would actually believe what they are saying. It could be that even though the Biblical evidence says otherwise (1Cor 14) they are most likely trying to desperately maintain their worldview or it could even be that they are afraid of upsetting their peers but there is no way any reasonably intelligent person would accept such a faulty notion; it is a viewpoint that is not based on theology but with agenda.

Edit: Inserted 'serious published' before cessationist.

 

[Biblicist]

Brother, that part of scripture is in reference to understanding the wisdom of GOD. Take a look at your bible you will notice it is even above the chapter. It is not saying you will understand gibberish.

It might help if I say that this particular powerful passage was posted for a reason, where 14 is probably the key:
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/2-14.htm

1Cor 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God,​

As we can all be 'natural men and women' in our thinking at times and not only with that of the world, this is the reason why I posted this passage.

 

[Biblicist]

No. Pauls application of Isaiah's prophecy to Corinthian tongues is clear. Isaiah prophesied that when the Assyrian invaders spoke their foreign language amongst the unbelieving Jews it would be a sign of judgement against them. Paul then applies the same prophecy to the tongues speaking in Corinth indicating that it was same thing. When visiting unbeleiving Jews heard foreign languages spoken they would immediately see it as a sign of judgement and repel them away.

I should first point out that Paul’s words were not a prophecy but teaching. Even though Paul is connecting the unknown language (through orders and commands) of the invading Assyrians, where this thoroughly confused the inhabitants of Jerusalem as they could not understand what they were being told, this often resulted in the soldiers putting those who did not obey to the sword (judgement).

Paul certainly connects this with the unknown tongues of those who speak or sing in tongues during times of corporate praise and worship, which is why he instructs us to only allow three words of praise in the Spirit (tongues) where each must be subsequently interpreted before the next proceeds.

If Corinthian tongues was a non-human language the application of Isaiah's prophecy would fail, as the two contexts would be completely different.

I seriously doubt if even you believe what you have just posted. If we were to place 100 completely unchurched atheists in a room, where we asked them to read 1Cor 12, 13 & 14 or even just chapter 14; if we were to first present a non-leading question asking them if the tongues that Paul is speaking of were either to be given in known human languages or in a heavenly language, then I would expect most if not all of them to fully recognise that he is speaking of a non-human language.

The only description of the gift of tongues in Scripture is Acts 2:4-11, foreign human languages. It is hard to believe that we would be given such a thorough description of the gift if this was to be the exception rather than the rule.

Okay, so you are defining “thorough” as maybe being the 19 Greek words of Acts 2:8 in comparison to the 617 words of 1Cor 14 (give or take a few verses depending on context), the 19 words of 13:1 (maybe others as well) along with chapter 14 verses 4,6,7,10,28,30 & 31 (others could also be included) which comprise a further 88 words. So what do we now have, the 19 Greek words of Acts 2:8 (including dialektos and not glossa) compared to the 724 more specific words from First Corinthians.

Who knows, maybe one of us went to a school where words such as “thorough” meant whatever we wanted this or any other word to mean.

Nowhere in scripture is the gift redefined as the language of angels or anything else. In the absence of any such redefinition it must be assumed that other references to tongues are the same thing as Acts 2. Otherwise you are fallaciously imposing your own ideas onto the biblical text. Another principle of bible interpretation is that less clear passages (1 Cor) are interpreted in the light of clearer ones (Acts 2).

Now I can probably excuse the average cessationist who has only looked at First Corinthians through the cessationst filter of their particular denomination; but I certainly struggle to believe that once anyone has spent some time engaging in serious theological reflection outside of their worldview that they would still believe that Paul was trying to connect speaking in tongues with that of known human languages – to the point where I am not even sure if you really believe what you are saying.

It is absolutely impossible to read 1Cor 14 and not realise that Paul is categorically saying that tongues are always spoken by the Holy Spirit within inarticulate non-human tongues.

As Luke, the author of Acts, was a close companion of Paul he would have known whether the tongues of Pentecost and Corinth were two different things. If they were then Luke would have made the distinction clear, rather than causing confusion. Yet he doesn't. Instead when he wrote Acts 2 he uses the exact same terminology as Paul does in 1 Corinthians (glossa, laleo, etc)

You certainly have this one back to front as Luke used the Greek word dialektos for when the crowd said in Acts 2:8,11 “we hear them in our own language”, where our English word language or dialect is an equivalent. In contrast, within 1Cor 14 Paul uses the word glossa where its primary meaning is the tongue, where a tongue can be used to present any audible communication, from language, a cry, a cough, a groan and also it has the ability to provide a word of praise to the Father within a heavenly tongue.

For those who only read 1Cor 14 through an English version, they can very easily miss out on the rich dialogue that Paul uses where most English version for some odd reason tend to incorrectly translate the Greek phone as languages and not sound. The NASB passage below has correctly translated phone on at least two occasions but it has incorrectly utilised language on three occasions, where I have placed the correct word sound in brackets. When we read what Paul intended to say this changes the thrust of Paul’s meaning dramatically. I have also placed in brackets {} the word Assyrian next to barbarian which is something that he connects to in verses 21-34.

(1Co 14:7-11 NASB) Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the [sounds] tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? So also you, unless you utter by the tongue (dialektos) speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of [sounds] languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning. If then I do not know the meaning of the [sounds] language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian {an Assyrian}, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian {an Assyrian} to me.​

The NRSV has provided a far better translation of this passage:

7 It is the same way with lifeless instruments that produce sound, such as the flute or the harp. If they do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is being played?
8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?
9 So with yourselves; if in a tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be speaking into the air.
10 There are doubtless many different kinds of sounds in the world, and nothing is without sound.
11 If then I do not know the meaning of a sound, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.​

As for Luke’s use of dialect and not glossa in Acts 2:8,11 I doubt if he would have consciously tried to differentiate between the known human language (dialektos) of Acts 2 with the Angelic tongues (glossa) of First Corinthians as all should realise that the Day of Pentecost was a unique event, which was further accentuated by his including the account of the tongues of fire along with the sound of a rushing wind.

If the tongues of 1 Corinthians is the language of angels then why is the word tongues mostly in the plural? How many different languages do angels have? Was there a Tower of Babel event in heaven as well as on earth?

So are you suggesting that the text should maybe read “If I speak in the tongue (not tongues) of men and of angels . . .” This would be akin to someone saying that they “Speak in the language of French, German and English” instead of the plural languages. This can be further amplified when we consider that Paul’s use of “languages of men . . .” also includes his ability to speak in Aramaic, Hebrew and undoubtedly Latin and Greek.

Edit: Colour

 

[2Timothy2:15]

It might help if I say that this particular powerful passage was posted for a reason, where 14 is probably the key:

1Cor 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God,​

As we can all be 'natural men and women' in our thinking at times and not only with that of the world, this is the reason why I posted this passage.

Sure I agree, we can all be carnal at times, but that scripture is still not a reference to understanding tongues.

 

[Biblicist]

Sure I agree, we can all be carnal at times, but that scripture is still not a reference to understanding tongues.

Certainly not with tongues alone, but with;

• Salvation
• Redemption
  
• The Baptism in the Holy Spirit
• Wisdom
• Knowledge
• Faith
• Healings
• Powers (aka, miracles)
• Prophecy
• Discerning of spirits
• Tongues
• Articulation/interpretation
• The Lord's Table
• Prayer
• Integrity
  
• etc
• etc
• etc

In all honesty, if someone who has the Holy Spirit residing within them does not understand how we are to pray in the Spirit (tongues) then in this area they are obviously thinking carnally.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Certainly not with tongues alone, but with;

• Salvation
• Redemption
  
• The Baptism in the Holy Spirit
• Wisdom
• Knowledge
• Faith
• Healings
• Powers (aka, miracles)
• Prophecy
• Discerning of spirits
• Tongues
• Articulation/interpretation
• The Lord's Table
• Prayer
• Integrity
  
• etc
• etc
• etc

In all honesty, if someone who has the Holy Spirit residing within them does not understand how we are to pray in the Spirit (tongues) then in this area they are obviously thinking carnally.

But not everyone gets the gift of tongues and they should not be made to feel there is something wrong with them if they don't. Some are given the gift of teaching, others, healing, others tongues. The notion that is taught in many Pentecostal churches that tongues are the evidence of salvation is incorrect and in all reality opens the door to condemnation and gives ground to the enemy which can lead to backsliding.


1 Corinthians 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Based on that scripture it is clear. The Holy Spirit distributes the gifts as the Holy Spirit sees fit, some may get tongues, others may not, this is of God and not for us to determine. Which brings up another doctrine that is spread in Pentecostal circles, impartation of gifts, which is not correct either in the way it is being taught in many churches today.

 

[swordsman1]

If we were to place 100 completely unchurched atheists in a room, where we asked them to read 1Cor 12, 13 & 14 or even just chapter 14; if we were to first present a non-leading question asking them if the tongues that Paul is speaking of were either to be given in known human languages or in a heavenly language, then I would expect most if not all of them to fully recognise that he is speaking of a non-human language.

Unchurched atheists are hardly qualified as serious bible interpreters. But judging by their exegetical quality I'd say Pentecostal teachers are roughly on the same par.

Okay, so you are defining “thorough” as maybe being the 19 Greek words of Acts 2:8 in comparison to the 617 words of 1Cor 14 (give or take a few verses depending on context), the 19 words of 13:1 (maybe others as well) along with chapter 14 verses 4,6,7,10,28,30 & 31 (others could also be included) which comprise a further 88 words. So what do we now have, the 19 Greek words of Acts 2:8 (including dialektos and not glossa) compared to the 724 more specific words from First Corinthians.

As you well know there is not a single verse in 1 Cor 14 that describes what tongues actually is. All it describes is the effect of untranslated tongues on a congregation that is unfamiliar with the language spoken. Only Acts 2:4-11 gives us a description of what the gift actually is.

It is absolutely impossible to read 1Cor 14 and not realise that Paul is categorically saying that tongues are always spoken by the Holy Spirit within inarticulate non-human tongues.

And where exactly in 1 Cor 14 does it say the tongues were “non-human”?

You certainly have this one back to front as Luke used the Greek word dialektos for when the crowd said in Acts 2:8,11 “we hear them in our own language”, where our English word language or dialect is an equivalent.

You clearly haven't studied Acts 2 very well. Luke, like Paul, uses the word glossa to describe human languages.

Acts 2:4 “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues (glossa) as the Spirit enabled them.

Acts 2:11 “we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues (glossa)”

Footnotes:
Acts 2:4 Or languages; also in verse 11​

In contrast, within 1Cor 14 Paul uses the word glossa where its primary meaning is the tongue, where a tongue can be used to present any audible communication, from language, a cry, a cough, a groan and also it has the ability to provide a word of praise to the Father within a heavenly tongue.

No he doesn't. Paul uses glossa in the exact same way as Luke does, to mean languages. Eg.

1 Cor 13:1 “If I speak in the tongues (glossa) of men

1 Cor 14: 21 “With other tongues (glossa) and through the lips of foreigners"

Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 13:1 Or languages
1 Corinthians 14:2 Or in another language; also in verses 4, 13, 14, 19, 26 and 27
1 Corinthians 14:5 Or in other languages; also in verses 6, 18, 22, 23 and 39
​

The same applies throughout 1 Cor 12-14.

For those who only read 1Cor 14 through an English version, they can very easily miss out on the rich dialogue that Paul uses where most English version for some odd reason tend to incorrectly translate the Greek phone as languages and not sound. The NASB passage below has correctly translated phone on at least two occasions but it has incorrectly utilised language on three occasions, where I have placed the correct word sound in brackets. When we read what Paul intended to say this changes the thrust of Paul’s meaning dramatically. I have also placed in brackets {} the word Assyrian next to barbarian which is something that he connects to in verses 21-34.

(1Co 14:7-11 NASB) Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the [sounds] tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? So also you, unless you utter by the tongue (dialektos) speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of [sounds] languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning. If then I do not know the meaning of the [sounds] language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian {an Assyrian}, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian {an Assyrian} to me.
The NRSV has provided a far better translation of this passage:

7 It is the same way with lifeless instruments that produce sound, such as the flute or the harp. If they do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is being played?
8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?
9 So with yourselves; if in a tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be speaking into the air.
10 There are doubtless many different kinds of sounds in the world, and nothing is without sound.
11 If then I do not know the meaning of a sound, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.

So all the major bible translations have got it wrong have they? You must contact the translation committees of the NASB, NKJV, NIV, ESV etc straight away and tell their Greek scholars they are all mistaken and need to update their translations. Until that happens I think I would rather believe them than you.

As for Luke’s use of dialect and not glossa in Acts 2:8,11 I doubt if he would have consciously tried to differentiate between the known human language (dialektos) of Acts 2 with the Angelic tongues (glossa) of First Corinthians as all should realise that the Day of Pentecost was a unique event, which was further accentuated by his including the account of the tongues of fire along with the sound of a rushing wind.

As you have been proved wrong regarding the word glossa we can dismiss this comment.

So are you suggesting that the text should maybe read “If I speak in the tongue (not tongues) of men and of angels . . .” This would be akin to someone saying that they “Speak in the language of French, German and English” instead of the plural languages. This can be further amplified when we consider that Paul’s use of “languages of men . . .” also includes his ability to speak in Aramaic, Hebrew and undoubtedly Latin and Greek.

I was thinking more of verses like 1 Cor 12:10 “to another speaking in different kinds of tongues”.

But thanks for highlighting that verse. You have just proved - using your own logic - that there were multiple 'tongues of men' that Paul spoke when he spoke in tongues (the word is glossa, not dialektos).

I take it then you believe there are multiple languages spoken in heaven, and that there was some Tower of Babel event there?

 

[Biblicist]

But not everyone gets the gift of tongues and they should not be made to feel there is something wrong with them if they don't. Some are given the gift of teaching, others, healing, others tongues. The notion that is taught in many Pentecostal churches that tongues are the evidence of salvation is incorrect and in all reality opens the door to condemnation and gives ground to the enemy which can lead to backsliding.

1 Corinthians 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Based on that scripture it is clear. The Holy Spirit distributes the gifts as the Holy Spirit sees fit, some may get tongues, others may not, this is of God and not for us to determine. Which brings up another doctrine that is spread in Pentecostal circles, impartation of gifts, which is not correct either in the way it is being taught in many churches today.

This is of course a common misconception but it is one where I can understand how it has arisen.

As the Holy Spirit is the one who chooses to work through each individual within one more of the 8 Manifestations of the Spirit (1Cor 12:8-10), this process still requires our involvement, for instance, if for whatever reason someone chooses not to prophesy then this will limit the Holy Spirit where the Spirit will not force someone to prophesy if they choose not to, it is only when we act in faith to prophesy that we will be able to do so. This does not mean that all those who can prophesy will hold an Office of a prophet (1Cor 12:28) but that is another matter. The same goes for especially healings, powers, discerning of spirits and interpretion.

As for tongues this is another matter which was first demonstrated on the Day of Pentecost where the 120 all spoke in tongues. This could be considered to be a one off event but we see this same pattern occuring throughout the book of Acts. The event on the Day of Pentecost has includes a contractual/covenental insertion in that Peter goes as far to say to the crowd that what they are seeing and hearing is for all generations;

17 “‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21 And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.​

And the crowd responsed by asking;

37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
​

When we move over to First Corinthians we find that Paul is speaking to a congregation (and to the rest of the church through proxy) with how he is demanding that they stop the practice where all (or most) pray or sing in the Spirit (tongues) during times of praise and worship (14:23). Paul even goes to say (14:5) that he "wishes that all would speak in tongues" and in 14:31 he appears to be saying that the majority of the Corinthian congregations appear to be prophets (v.31) or at least that the majority are prophesying where back in v.5 he also states that he desires that all would prophesy.

Leaving the praise aspect of tongues aside, our ability to pray in the Spirit is also a vital part of tongues, where Paul says in 1Cor 14:15 15 "What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also"; Paul follows up with this in Eph 6:18 "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints". In Jude 20 we also find “But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.”

The 'praying in the Spirit' of Pauls 1Cor 14 is the same as the 'praying in the Spirit' of Pauls Eph 6:18, as is the admonition of the author of Jude with "and pray in the Holy Spirit.”

As these admonitions/commands are global, in that they apply to all of us, this means that it is up to us to seek to be able to pray in the Spirit (tongues), one and all.

Now 1Cor 12:28,29 certainly does say that "not all will . . ." but this is being applied to the congregational setting, where not all of those who speak in tongues will choose to speak in tongues during our meetings, where they may instead choose to prophesy or do neither.

Biblicist

 

[Biblicist]

Unchurched atheists are hardly qualified as serious bible interpreters. But judging by their exegetical quality I'd say Pentecostal teachers are roughly on the same par.

As you well know there is not a single verse in 1 Cor 14 that describes what tongues actually is. All it describes is the effect of untranslated tongues on a congregation that is unfamiliar with the language spoken. Only Acts 2:4-11 gives us a description of what the gift actually is.
And where exactly in 1 Cor 14 does it say the tongues were “non-human”?

You clearly haven't studied Acts 2 very well. Luke, like Paul, uses the word glossa to describe human languages.

Acts 2:4 “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues (glossa) as the Spirit enabled them.

Acts 2:11 “we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues (glossa)”
Footnotes:
Acts 2:4 Or languages; also in verse 11​

No he doesn't. Paul uses glossa in the exact same way as Luke does, to mean languages. Eg.

1 Cor 13:1 “If I speak in the tongues (glossa) of men

1 Cor 14: 21 “With other tongues (glossa) and through the lips of foreigners"

Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 13:1 Or languages
1 Corinthians 14:2 Or in another language; also in verses 4, 13, 14, 19, 26 and 27
1 Corinthians 14:5 Or in other languages; also in verses 6, 18, 22, 23 and 39
​

The same applies throughout 1 Cor 12-14.

So all the major bible translations have got it wrong have they? You must contact the translation committees of the NASB, NKJV, NIV, ESV etc straight away and tell their Greek scholars they are all mistaken and need to update their translations. Until that happens I think I would rather believe them than you.

As you have been proved wrong regarding the word glossa we can dismiss this comment.

I was thinking more of verses like 1 Cor 12:10 “to another speaking in different kinds of tongues”.

But thanks for highlighting that verse. You have just proved - using your own logic - that there were multiple 'tongues of men' that Paul spoke when he spoke in tongues (the word is glossa, not dialektos).

I take it then you believe there are multiple languages spoken in heaven, and that there was some Tower of Babel event there?

Oki doki!

 

[YouAreAwesome]

1 Cor 14:4 (NIV) Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church.
So anyone who miraculously speaks in a foreign language they haven't learned would no doubt gain some personal benefit in practising such a miraculous gift (not that it does the church any good as spiritual gifts ought).

So your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:4 is: a person who speaks in tongues will always speak in a known earthly language and in doing so edifies themselves (even if no one is listening to benefit from the miracle)?

But isn't your argument that this is the same gift that occurred in Acts 2? in Acts 2 there were people benefiting from the change of language. It wasn't a personal miracle of self edification. Why does Paul even say "edifies themselves" if it's a change of language? I don't think your interpretation is as reasonable as the other.

Out of these two options:
a. Anyone who speaks in another language, unknown to themselves, is personally edified.
b. Anyone who speaks in a tongue, spirit to Spirit, alone, is edified personally by God.

In my opinion option b. is strong and option a. is weak because there is no need for a change in language if we are speaking for our own edification.

1 Cor 14:28 (NIV) “If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.”
If there is no interpreter the tongues speaker should be quiet and pray a silent prayer.

Again, I think you're really pushing the interpretation here. Paul says, if there is no interpreter the speaker should keep quiet in church, and only speak to himself and God. It is the same speaking whether publicly or privately. And this speaking needs interpreting. So it's not just regular prayer.

This is totally unbiblical and the Holy Spirit does not contradict the word. So the only conclusion you can come to is that they are not doing it under the Holy Spirit at all and are operating in another spirit

If everyone who are doing things "unbiblically" are operating in "another spirit" then every single person and church organisation are operating in "another spirit". Tell me the church group operating "biblically" and I will tell you 1000 who operate in a different way. Are they all operating in "another spirit"? I suppose you and your church are the only biblical church in the world? Everyone else is operating in another spirit?

Another option: you don't always know what is biblical.

Plus, they have no clue what they are uttering. Where it is coming from. Who it is going to.

I know I am worshiping and thanking God. It is coming from my spirit. It is going to God. Who is this "they" you speak of? Am I not included in the group?

Unchurched atheists are hardly qualified as serious bible interpreters. But judging by their exegetical quality I'd say Pentecostal teachers are roughly on the same par.

Be gentle.

 

[swordsman1]

But isn't your argument that this is the same gift that occurred in Acts 2? in Acts 2 there were people benefiting from the change of language. It wasn't a personal miracle of self edification. Why does Paul even say "edifies themselves" if it's a change of language? I don't think your interpretation is as reasonable as the other.

Out of these two options:
a. Anyone who speaks in another language, unknown to themselves, is personally edified.
b. Anyone who speaks in a tongue, spirit to Spirit, alone, is edified personally by God.

In my opinion option b. is strong and option a. is weak because there is no need for a change in language if we are speaking for our own edification.

As far as edification goes there is no difference between miraculously speaking a foreign language you have never learned and supposedly speaking the language of angels. If anything I would say the former is likely to be far more edifying. The speaker would get quite some satisfaction in being enabled by the Spirit to do something that is clearly miraculous, whereas anyone can discover the linguistic technique of glossolalia whereby the tongue goes into autopilot and produces strings of random syllables.

Again, I think you're really pushing the interpretation here. Paul says, if there is no interpreter the speaker should keep quiet in church, and only speak to himself and God. It is the same speaking whether publicly or privately. And this speaking needs interpreting. So it's not just regular prayer.

1 Cor 14:28 says the tongues speaker should keep silent. The Greek word is sigaō.

Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament
σιγάω (sigaō)
Strong: G4601
GK: G4967
to be silent, keep silence, Lk. 9:36; 20:26; Acts 15:12f.; 1 Cor. 14:28, 30, 34; Lk. 18:39; trans. to keep in silence, not to reveal, to conceal; pass. to be concealed, not to be revealed, Rom. 16:25​

At best I suppose that wouldn't preclude mouthing the foreign words silently, but Paul's instruction is there must be no audible speaking at all if there is no interpreter present.

Scripture says nothing at all about speaking in tongues in private (eg in your own home). The context of 1 Cor 14 is solely "in the church". But seeing as spiritual gifts are only meant to be for the benefit of others (1 Peter 4:10, 1 Cor 12:7) then speaking in tongues alone would seem to be a misuse of the gift.