Speak in Tongues - essential :

[swordsman1]

What you described is not scriptural and not what speaking in tongues was for. 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

That verse is not proof that tongues is an unknown language. As is common in charismatic/Pentecostal theology you are taking the verse out of the context - which is people speaking unrecognized tongues in the congregation. If someone spoke in Swahili or some other unrecognized language in your church then no one would understand that either. It is not a blanket statement about tongues. If it was then Paul would by lying because people did understand the tongues spoken in Acts.

 

[swordsman1]

The tongues spoken are languages of men and of angels.

Paul never said that tongues was the language of angels. I suggest you read that verse in context and note the repeated hyperbole throughout the whole of 1 Cor 13:1-3.

 

[swordsman1]

And apparently YOU were "making an assertion" saying Acts 2 and Acts 10 were definitely

"THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT" and nothing else was...

When in fact, neither in Acts 2, Acts 10 or Acts 19
does it ever SAY IN SO MANY WORDS

"this was the baptism of the Holy Spirit"

------------------------
Act 10:44
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
10:46
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
10:47
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
10:48
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Act 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
--------------------------

What I called "elements of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit" --
(being baptized in the name of Jesus, Holy Ghost falling, speaking in tongues, receiving the GIFT of the Holy Ghost) -- these 'elements' for lack of a better word, are all in Acts 2 - Acts 10 - and Acts 19

The first two chapters mentioned have no VERBATIM CLAIM to "BE" the Baptism of the Holy Spirit any more (or less) than the account in Acts 19

So your 'assertion' that the two earlier accounts (Pentecost and Cornelius) stand in a unique way apart from accounts like Acts 19 -- is just that -- an assertion

So we both have made assertions, my assertion is that all 3 chapters of Acts mentioned describe elements of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, although none of the 3 use the exact phrase "baptism of the Holy Spirit" anywhere

So hopefully the Bereans will look at a preponderance of the evidence, and if it
walks like a "baptism of the Holy Spirit",
quacks like a "baptism of the Holy Spirit",
and water goes off its back like a "baptism of the Holy Spirit"
maybe it IS a "baptism of the Holy Spirit"
in all three chapters.

All believers are baptized in the Holy Spirit at their conversion.

1 Cor 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.​

If you are not baptized in the Spirit you are not part of the body of Christ.

 

[swordsman1]

Then why would there be any need for an interpretation of tongues spoken to God out of the spirit of the person - if they were meant only for God and not for anyone present in the congregation?

Interpretation is necessary for the edification of the church. 1 Cor 14:17 "For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified." Are you not edified when you hear someone praising God?

It makes no sense to require interpretation of human languages prayed to God when God is the one providing the ability to pray in those foreign languages.

You can say exactly the same thing about your version of tongues: It makes no sense to require interpretation of a heavenly language prayed to God when God is the one providing the ability to pray in that heavenly language.

 

[swordsman1]

They are languages created by God.

Indeed they are. Tongues are languages. The definition of a language is that is a method of communication whereby each word is noun, verb, adjective, etc that when spoken again has the same meaning. Otherwise it is not a language. So when someone speaks in tongues and someone provides an interpretation you can easily pinpoint what each word means and eventually form a lexicon of the language. Yet when linguists have studied tongues they have found there is no linguistic structure there whatsoever, it is just random syllables with no meaning.

 

[Ron Gurley]

Q1: "..And if it (tongues/"glossa") is a "language" then by definition it is a method of communication where the same words will have the same meanings..."

A1: False. The sign gifts of "tongues" and "interpretation of tongues" in the Bible were NEVER a "method of communication" between man to man. They were temporary authenticating sign gifts to show that the ~12 chosen apostles/messengers were "men of God". When they died, those 2 sign gifts CEASED!

1 Corinthians 14:22-23 (NASB)
So then tongues are for a SIGN,
not to those who believe but to unbelievers;
but prophecy is for a SIGN, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.
Therefore if the whole 'CHURCH" assembles together and all speak in tongues,
and ungifted men or unbelievers enter,
will they not say that you are mad?

 

[Waggles]

Yet when linguists have studied tongues they have found there is no linguistic structure there whatsoever, it is just random syllables with no meaning.

Thus proving yet again that praying in tongues is outside and above human ability and is indeed
truly the spiritual language of God and the angels.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Absolutely !!!

Receive the Holy Ghost and the immediate outward evidence speaking in tongues as the spirit gives direct undefileable contact with GOD !

Just as in the beginning ..Acts 2v4.. included Mary the mother of Jesus....

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (MUST)

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth....according to the word, to pray in the Spirit :

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

1Co 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.

Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


the first 2 is your part...the third is Gods seal of approval !

Holy Ghost + speaking in tongues .. no tongues no Spirit..

Ro 8:9 .............Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Not to be confused with the demonstration IN THE CHURCH (max 3) to show you are who you say you are !!
when you pray..go to your closet, private place and pray...


confess Jesus Christ..his way...

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

package deal

obtain the Grace,Mercy and Faith that Jesus Christ has made avaliable to whomsoever will..

or have the adversaries religious confusion..just words no power !

What do you define as "speaking in tongues"? Speaking gibberish that seems to be from the Holy Spirit? In the Bible speaking in tongues was just when the Apostles communicated with people in their own language so all could understand each other. The other variety of "speaking in tongues" is a psychological phenomenon that is born from erroneously assuming things.

 

[swordsman1]

Thus proving yet again that praying in tongues is outside and above human ability and is indeed
truly the spiritual language of God and the angels.

No, it proves that modern tongues is not a language - by definition of the word.

 

[Righttruth]

That's the point. It is NOT GIBBERISH, it is language. Using the word, gibberish, to a Pentecostal, is the equivalent of using the "N" word! It is a slur to a gift of God and blasphemous, and provoking your brethren. Shame on you!

They are languages created by God.

1 Corinthians 14:38

Paul never listed gibberish talk prompted by an emotional person's spirit as a spiritual gift. That is delusion otherwise. Please read carefully. No point in twisting his words with twisted acrobatics inside a church!

 

[1stcenturylady]

Paul never listed gibberish talk prompted by an emotional person's spirit as a spiritual gift. That is delusion otherwise. Please read carefully. No point in twisting his words with twisted acrobatics inside a church!

I agree. But you are still describing false claims, and provoking. No Pentecostal speaks the "G" word! That is YOUR evil spirited opinion. Now just stop it!

 

[ViaCrucis]

And apparently YOU were "making an assertion" saying Acts 2 and Acts 10 were definitely

"THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT" and nothing else was...

When in fact, neither in Acts 2, Acts 10 or Acts 19
does it ever SAY IN SO MANY WORDS

"this was the baptism of the Holy Spirit"

"While staying with them, he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait there for the promise of the Father. 'This,' he said, 'is what you have heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now'" - Acts 1:4-5

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?" - Acts 11:15-17

Scripture specifically and explicitly connects baptism with the Holy Spirit with these two things. So, no, it's not me simply making an assertion, it's what Scripture says explicitly.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[1stcenturylady]

Indeed they are. Tongues are languages. The definition of a language is that is a method of communication whereby each word is noun, verb, adjective, etc that when spoken again has the same meaning. Otherwise it is not a language. So when someone speaks in tongues and someone provides an interpretation you can easily pinpoint what each word means and eventually form a lexicon of the language. Yet when linguists have studied tongues they have found there is no linguistic structure there whatsoever, it is just random syllables with no meaning.

Interpretation of tongues is not translation, but interpretation of thought.

 

[1stcenturylady]

That verse is not proof that tongues is an unknown language. As is common in charismatic/Pentecostal theology you are taking the verse out of the context - which is people speaking unrecognized tongues in the congregation. If someone spoke in Swahili or some other unrecognized language in your church then no one would understand that either. It is not a blanket statement about tongues. If it was then Paul would by lying because people did understand the tongues spoken in Acts.

They are recognized by God to whom it is being spoken. Do you know every language ever spoken? He does.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Interpretation of tongues is not translation, but interpretation of thought.

The words translated as "interpret", "interpretation", etc mean "to expound" or "to explain thoroughly", also "to translate" or "to interpret". For example,

"Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did." (Acts 9:36 KJV)

"Now there was in Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which, translated, means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity." (ESV)

Tabitha (טביתא), when translated from Aramaic to Greek becomes Dorcas (Δορκάς). The Aramaic name Tabita (Hellenized as Tabitha) means "gazelle", that's what "dorkas" means in Greek, it means "gazelle".

The word in question is διερμηνεύω (diermeneuo), it means "to expound" "to explain" "to translate" etc.

1 Corinthians 14:5 - θέλω δὲ πάντας ὑμᾶς λαλεῖν γλώσσαις μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε μείζων γὰρ ὁ προφητεύων ἢ ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσαις ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ ἵνα ἡ ἐκκλησία οἰκοδομὴν λάβῃ

The Apostle uses a different word when speaking about the gift of interpretations in chapter 12,

1 Corinthians 12:10 - ἄλλῳ δὲ ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων ἄλλῳ δὲ προφητεία ἄλλῳ δὲ διακρίσεις πνευμάτων ἑτέρῳ δὲ γένη γλωσσῶν ἄλλῳ δὲ ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν

This word ἑρμηνεία (hermeneia) means "to explain by words" or "to translate" as well. Both mean "to explain" or "to translate" or "to interpret"; that is to explain the meaning of or to carry the meaning over from one language to another, etc.

In either case "translate" "translation" is a fair rendering of the meaning of the word.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[swordsman1]

Interpretation of tongues is not translation, but interpretation of thought.

Hang on. You just said tongues was a language, not a thought. If it is a language it can be translated to another language by an interpreter.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The words translated as "interpret", "interpretation", etc mean "to expound" or "to explain thoroughly", also "to translate" or "to interpret". For example,

"Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did." (Acts 9:36 KJV)

"Now there was in Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which, translated, means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity." (ESV)

Tabitha (טביתא), when translated from Aramaic to Greek becomes Dorcas (Δορκάς). The Aramaic name Tabita (Hellenized as Tabitha) means "gazelle", that's what "dorkas" means in Greek, it means "gazelle".

The word in question is διερμηνεύω (diermeneuo), it means "to expound" "to explain" "to translate" etc.

1 Corinthians 14:5 - θέλω δὲ πάντας ὑμᾶς λαλεῖν γλώσσαις μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε μείζων γὰρ ὁ προφητεύων ἢ ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσαις ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ ἵνα ἡ ἐκκλησία οἰκοδομὴν λάβῃ

The Apostle uses a different word when speaking about the gift of interpretations in chapter 12,

1 Corinthians 12:10 - ἄλλῳ δὲ ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων ἄλλῳ δὲ προφητεία ἄλλῳ δὲ διακρίσεις πνευμάτων ἑτέρῳ δὲ γένη γλωσσῶν ἄλλῳ δὲ ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν

This word ἑρμηνεία (hermeneia) means "to explain by words" or "to translate" as well. Both mean "to explain" or "to translate" or "to interpret"; that is to explain the meaning of or to carry the meaning over from one language to another, etc.

In either case "translate" "translation" is a fair rendering of the meaning of the word.

-CryptoLutheran

Translation means word for word. Interpretation means expound on.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Hang on. You just said tongues was a language, not a thought. If it is a language it can be translated to another language by an interpreter.

It is a language. And can only be interpreted by the gift of interpretation of tongues.

 

[swordsman1]

It is a language. And can only be interpreted by the gift of interpretation of tongues.

Yes, so when someone speaks in modern tongues and says for example "shundra mi talala" and someone interprets it as "God is good", then one of those words is 'God' and another is 'good'. If that is not the case then it is not a language.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Translation means word for word.

No. That's not what translation means. Sometimes translation can be achieved by word-for-word; but frequently that isn't the case, because frequently that's simply not possible. There aren't always direct equivalents when translating something from one language to another. We can directly translate the Latin lupus as "wolf", but we can't directly translate the Bantu word ubuntu, there is no English equivalent and so we have to try and convey the sense. Translation is always interpretation.

-CryptoLutheran