SPEAKING IN TONGUES: Help make this the DEFINITIVE learning thread

[Servant of Jesus]

.....does not "speaking in tongues" refer to someone who is communicating in an unknown language to another person, or group of people? In other words, speaking in tongues just to yourself doesn't count- you may vocalize something, but if it can't be interpreted and it doesn't communicate, it's not speaking in tongues. Besides, when you're by yourself, then it is what is on your mind, not what is on your lips, that is important.

No, it is often referred to as a "prayer" in 1 Cor 14. IT CAN BE what is above, but according to the gist of 1 Cor 14, is most commonly a prayer or praise to God.

And therein lies a fundamental point of misunderstanding in this and related threads on this topic: we need to be very clear of the difference between prayer and speaking in tongues.

In the Bible, there are hundreds and hundreds of examples and references to prayer- but it is clear that this is NOT the same as speaking in tongues! When reading the Bible, we can pretty easily distinguish references to prayer from references to speaking in tongues.

Prayer is communicating with God- and it can be offered corporately, or in private. And if offered privately, it can be spoken out loud, given in silence, or something inbetween (as a whisper, partially audible speech, etc.)

The Bible verses I cited in the opening post that list verses that describe speaking in tongues refer to something different than prayer. To be sure, when speaking in tongues, prayer may be offered- but there is an important additional requirement: interpretation.

So in 1 Corinthians 14:2-5, it is true that Paul is suggesting that speaking in tongues can be a form of prayer or praise to God, BUT in addition, in a language that the speaker does not understand.

HOWEVER, in 1 Corinthians 14:6-11, Paul makes it very clear that the prayer so offered (in a language that the speaker does not understand) MUST BE INTERPRETED so that it can in fact be understood as being a prayer.

And something that is INTERPRETED, must be COMMUNICATED to one or more people- and everyone must hear the same message, otherwise it isn't an accurate interpretation.

I will address your other comment separately.

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Not at all, Paul gives the provision for continuing to speak in tongues even w/o an interpreter SILENTLY between the practioner and God

1 Cor 14:27-29
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
NASU

I interpret this quite differently:

Paul is saying that when someone speaks in tongues; that is, in a different language they cannot understand, it is speech addressed to others which must be interpreted so that it in fact communicates and is understood.

He then goes on to say that if this is NOT the case; that is, if someone is NOT legitimately speaking in tongues, then they should stay silent in church and just speak to themselves and to God- in other words, THEY SHOULD JUST PRAY!

And again, since God understands everything you say or even think, private prayer does NOT require interpretation and therefore cannot be regarded as speaking in tongues.

BTW- thank you so much for taking the time in this and the related threads to think about this and offer your comments and opinions; they are much appreciated!

.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

And therein lies a fundamental point of misunderstanding in this and related threads on this topic: we need to be very clear of the difference between prayer and speaking in tongues.

In the Bible, there are hundreds and hundreds of examples and references to prayer- but it is clear that this is NOT the same as speaking in tongues! When reading the Bible, we can pretty easily distinguish references to prayer from references to speaking in tongues.

Prayer is communicating with God- and it can be offered corporately, or in private. And if offered privately, it can be spoken out loud, given in silence, or something inbetween (as a whisper, partially audible speech, etc.)

The Bible verses I cited in the opening post that list verses that describe speaking in tongues refer to something different than prayer. To be sure, when speaking in tongues, prayer may be offered- but there is an important additional requirement: interpretation.

So in 1 Corinthians 14:2-5, it is true that Paul is suggesting that speaking in tongues can be a form of prayer or praise to God, BUT in addition, in a language that the speaker does not understand.

HOWEVER, in 1 Corinthians 14:6-11, Paul makes it very clear that the prayer so offered (in a language that the speaker does not understand) MUST BE INTERPRETED so that it can in fact be understood as being a prayer.

And something that is INTERPRETED, must be COMMUNICATED to one or more people- and everyone must hear the same message, otherwise it isn't an accurate interpretation.

I will address your other comment separately.

.

speaking in tongues refer to something different than prayer

Prayer is communicating with God

Hmm, then

1 Cor 14:2
one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God;
NASU


Is Paul lying? Cause this verse quite clearly says that speaking in tongues is speaking to God.

be understood as being a prayer.

So, it is not speaking in tongues when not interpreted . . . but the same action, when interpreted, becomes speaking in tongues? How does interpretation change the ontology of the speech?

thnx

MTK

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I interpret this quite differently:

Paul is saying that when someone speaks in tongues; that is, in a different language they cannot understand, it is speech addressed to others which must be interpreted so that it in fact communicates and is understood.

He then goes on to say that if this is NOT the case; that is, if someone is NOT legitimately speaking in tongues, then they should stay silent in church and just speak to themselves and to God- in other words, THEY SHOULD JUST PRAY!

And again, since God understands everything you say or even think, private prayer does NOT require interpretation and therefore cannot be regarded as speaking in tongues.

BTW- thank you so much for taking the time in this and the related threads to think about this and offer your comments and opinions; they are much appreciated!

.

that is, if someone is NOT legitimately speaking in tongues, then they should stay silent in church ,

The legitimacy of the tongues is not what is in view. It IS

1 Cor 14:28
if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church;
NASU

whether or not an INTERPRETER IS PRESENT . . . not whether the tongue is real.

just speak to themselves and to God- in other words, THEY SHOULD JUST PRAY!

No, it is speak in tongues silently. The context is whether to speak or not to speak . . . and the Greek is:

28εαν δε μη η διερμηνευτης σιγατω εν εκκλησια εαυτω δε λαλειτω και τω θεω


and vs 2 (which is what vs 28 antecedes in which the context is not mere prayer but SPEAKING IN TONGUES) is:

2ο γαρ λαλων γλωσση ουκ ανθρωποις λαλει αλλα θεω ουδεις γαρ ακουει πνευματι δε λαλει μυστηρια

WHICH IS THE SAME WORDS laleo "speak" and theo "God" . . . the linguistic construction is unmistakable . . . one antecedes the other.

If there is no interpreter in the church, keep the tongues quite between you and God.

private prayer does NOT require interpretation and therefore cannot be regarded as speaking in tongues.

Here is the problem tho brother, BEFORE PAUL EVEN LAYS OUT THE ISSUE OF INTERPRETATION HE TELLS US WHAT TONGUES IS ONTOLOGICALLY:

1 Cor 14:2
one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God
for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
NASU

BEFORE HE EVEN ADDRESSES THE INTERPRETATION ISSUE.

The way that Greek works it that the logic and structure of what comes first effects what follows . . . tongues do not become tongues when they are interpreted because they ARE tongues whether they have been interpreted or not . . . this verse tells us exactly what tongues are. This concept governs the whole passage and is the foundation upon which Paul builds his entire line of reasoning. The tongue IS unintelligible PRECISELY because it is between the person and God and the CONTENT IS MYSTERY AND NO BODY UNDERSTANDS IT. Tongues IS this before he even MENTIONS interpretation. Tongues will ALWAYS be this regardless of whether an interpreter is near or not, private or public.

BTW, here

Acts 10:44-46
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.
NASU

There is NO interpretation and it is called SPEAKING in tongues

and here

Acts 19:6
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
NASU

AGAIN there is no interpretation and it is still called SPEAKING IN TONGUES

Cheers

MTK

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Hmm, then

1 Cor 14:2
one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God;
NASU


Is Paul lying? Cause this verse quite clearly says that speaking in tongues is speaking to God.

Well, first, again- "tongue" in this context can be interpreted as "language"- as in speaking a different language.

Second, Paul is just stating what speaking in tongues ought to be all about: offering prayers to God. But if you go on in 1 Corinthians 14, you see that he once again makes it clear that if that prayer, spoken in a different language, is offered audibly to others, then it must be interpreted!

Third, even if you don't interpret that specific verse (1 Corinthians 14:2) as I do, you still need to put the entire subject of speaking in tongues in the context of the Bible as a whole- in other words, look at all the passages that refer to speaking in tongues, and then decide, with the help of the Holy Spirit and of learned Christians, what it means.

So, it is not speaking in tongues when not interpreted . . . but the same action, when interpreted, becomes speaking in tongues? How does interpretation change the ontology of the speech?

Correct- that is one of the key attributes of "speaking in tongues". And when you add a valid interpretation, then you certainly do change the context of what is being said- for example, from something that is just an emotional expression of sound, to one that is a proper and dignified communication with God.

And I would add that I am confident that the same God who made the infinitely complex but ordered Universe would ensure that speaking in tongues is also logical; that is, would have the following attributes:

1. will bring glory to God.

2. will ensure that what the speaker says in a given language will be understood the same by all those present who understand that language, and they in turn will all be able to repeat the same message to others.

3. two independent interpreters listening to the speaker will provide the same translation of a given dialogue.

4. will involve a group of people, and not just one person.

I would suggest that anyone that claims to be speaking in tongues, but isn't able to meet these criteria, is involved in something else that may not be bringing glory to God.

And finally, don't get me wrong- I am convinced that the Gifts of the Spirit, including healing miracles and speaking in tongues, are very much present today- but appear to be relatively rare events that don't happen everywhere, or all the time, and so are mysteries that we can't fully explain.


.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

No, it is speak in tongues silently. The context is whether to speak or not to speak . . . and the Greek is:

28εαν δε μη η διερμηνευτης σιγατω εν εκκλησια εαυτω δε λαλειτω και τω θεω


and vs 2 (which is what vs 28 antecedes in which the context is not mere prayer but SPEAKING IN TONGUES) is:

2ο γαρ λαλων γλωσση ουκ ανθρωποις λαλει αλλα θεω ουδεις γαρ ακουει πνευματι δε λαλει μυστηρια

WHICH IS THE SAME WORDS laleo "speak" and theo "God" . . . the linguistic construction is unmistakable . . . one antecedes the other.

Sorry- I can't respond to this because I don't understand Greek and I don't have an interpreter present.

Here is the problem tho brother, BEFORE PAUL EVEN LAYS OUT THE ISSUE OF INTERPRETATION HE TELLS US WHAT TONGUES IS ONTOLOGICALLY:

1 Cor 14:2
one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God
for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
NASU

BEFORE HE EVEN ADDRESSES THE INTERPRETATION ISSUE.

The way that Greek works it that the logic and structure of what comes first effects what follows . . . tongues do not become tongues when they are interpreted because they ARE tongues whether they have been interpreted or not . . . this verse tells us exactly what tongues are. This concept governs the whole passage and is the foundation upon which Paul builds his entire line of reasoning. The tongue IS unintelligible PRECISELY because it is between the person and God and the CONTENT IS MYSTERY AND NO BODY UNDERSTANDS IT. Tongues IS this before he even MENTIONS interpretation. Tongues will ALWAYS be this regardless of whether an interpreter is near or not, private or public.

BTW, here

Acts 10:44-46
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.
NASU

There is NO interpretation and it is called SPEAKING in tongues

and here

Acts 19:6
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
NASU

AGAIN there is no interpretation and it is still called SPEAKING IN TONGUES

Cheers

MTK

I think the Bible makes it abundantly clear that a message spoken in tongues must be understood. For something that is said to be understood, there must be one or more people listening, and they must know that language- or it must be interpreted for them.

 

[zeke37]

It is difficult to comment and maintain an easy discussion when so many points are made in one post.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, your main message is that:

1. Biblical references to speaking in tongues refers to speaking in a different language. All the passages in the Bible that refer to speaking in tongues can be interpreted as referring to speaking in a different language.

2. When the Bible refers to speaking in tongues, they are describing the supernatural ability of the apostles to communicate in a language unknown to them- for the purpose of presenting the Gospel in an intelligible fashion.

3. Speaking in tongues, in other words, speaking in a different language, must be done in an orderly fashion, just like any other form of verbal interaction.

4. Any words spoken in tongues must be either understood by the listener, or must be interpreted so the listener can understand. And I would add that this is just like an interpreter at the United Nations who is translating one language into another. That interpreter must provide an accurate translation- so that a second interpreter is able to provide the same, consistent translation.


.

I think we are pretty much on the same page

if you are speaking to an audience,
to edify them
but instead only God understands you,
it is a bad thing.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

I think we are pretty much on the same page

if you are speaking to an audience,
to edify them
but instead only God understands you,
it is a bad thing.

It may not be a bad thing, but it is certainly not speaking in tongues.

And God certainly knows when someone voices gibberish and is therefore not honestly presenting prayers or petitions to Him.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Well, first, again- "tongue" in this context can be interpreted as "language"- as in speaking a different language.

Second, Paul is just stating what speaking in tongues ought to be all about: offering prayers to God. But if you go on in 1 Corinthians 14, you see that he once again makes it clear that if that prayer, spoken in a different language, is offered audibly to others, then it must be interpreted!

Third, even if you don't interpret that specific verse (1 Corinthians 14:2) as I do, you still need to put the entire subject of speaking in tongues in the context of the Bible as a whole- in other words, look at all the passages that refer to speaking in tongues, and then decide, with the help of the Holy Spirit and of learned Christians, what it means.




Correct- that is one of the key attributes of "speaking in tongues". And when you add a valid interpretation, then you certainly do change the context of what is being said- for example, from something that is just an emotional expression of sound, to one that is a proper and dignified communication with God.

And I would add that I am confident that the same God who made the infinitely complex but ordered Universe would ensure that speaking in tongues is also logical; that is, would have the following attributes:

1. will bring glory to God.

2. will ensure that what the speaker says in a given language will be understood the same by all those present who understand that language, and they in turn will all be able to repeat the same message to others.

3. two independent interpreters listening to the speaker will provide the same translation of a given dialogue.

4. will involve a group of people, and not just one person.

I would suggest that anyone that claims to be speaking in tongues, but isn't able to meet these criteria, is involved in something else that may not be bringing glory to God.

And finally, don't get me wrong- I am convinced that the Gifts of the Spirit, including healing miracles and speaking in tongues, are very much present today- but appear to be relatively rare events that don't happen everywhere, or all the time, and so are mysteries that we can't fully explain.


.

Well, first, again- "tongue" in this context can be interpreted as "language"- as in speaking a different language.

No it cant, if it were, then the "no one" makes no sense. Oudeis means NO BODY . . . hence there is NO ONE who understands . . . it is not a mere foreign language . . . otherwise there would be someone somewhere that understood it . . . oudeis makes this impossible.

Second, Paul is just stating what speaking in tongues ought to be all about: offering prayers to God. But if you go on in 1 Corinthians 14, you see that he once again makes it clear that if that prayer, spoken in a different language, is offered audibly to others, then it must be interpreted!

I am not sure if I am not communicating it clearly or if u are not getting it. Verse 2 is the foundation for what tongues IS . . . ontologically, whether it is interpreted or not, laleo (or any cognates) "to speak," in tongues is speaking in tongues whether it is interpreted or NOT, because HE CALLS IT SPEAKING IN TONGUES WHETHER THERE ARE OTHERS PRESENT OR NOT. Before he even goes into corporate worship, he calls the act SPEAKING IN TONGUES, which means that it is tongues, whether quitely at home, driving in the car, or in church, whether it is interpreted or not or whether others are around to hear or not.

you still need to put the entire subject of speaking in tongues in the context of the Bible as a whole- in other words, look at all the passages that refer to speaking in tongues, and then decide, with the help of the Holy Spirit and of learned Christians, what it means.

I have, and I have been doing it for 10 years, and I have written thesises and exit papers on the subject. I kno the extrabiblical evidence, I know the non-christian evidence, and I kno the scientific studies . . . and most of all, I can point you to all the texts in the scriptures that speak of the gifts and the age of the Spirit inducted at Pentecost, including passages not included in the opening post.

Correct- that is one of the key attributes of "speaking in tongues". And when you add a valid interpretation, then you certainly do change the context of what is being said-

No, no, no, interpretation does not change the ontology of something, it only changes the APPLICATION . . . but whatever it is IS STILL WHAT IT IS whether it is is interpreted or not. Truly, if interpretation changes the NATURE of what it IS . . . then Paul cannot say in verse 2 that TONGUES ARE A COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ONE PERSON AND GOD THAT IS MADE UP OF A CONTENT OF MYSTERY when according to you they only BECOME SPEAKING IN TONGUES when this is interpreted . . . that is NOT what Paul says, before he even BROACHES the concept of interpreting the tongue speak, he tells us IT IS TONGUES . . . BEFORE it is interpreted.

2. will ensure that what the speaker says in a given language will be understood the same by all those present who understand that language, and they in turn will all be able to repeat the same message to others.

Ok, again, THIS CANNOT BE. If NO ONE UNDERSTANDS that means that THERE ARE NONE PRESENT WHO CAN UNDERSTAND . . . that is the entire reason why interpretation is ALSO A GIFT OF THE SPIRIT (for the Spirit does not supernaturally gift what one already has) and the reason WHY AN INTERPRETATION MUST ALSO BE PRAYED FOR. One does not pray for the understanding of a language one already understands . . . and Paul says NO ONE UNDERSTANDS. This is the EXACT reason why tongues are NOT foreign langauges. NO BODY UNDERSTANDS THE TONGUE . . . EVER. The only time comprehension of a tongue is given IS BY A GIFT OF THE SPIRIT.

3. two independent interpreters listening to the speaker will provide the same translation of a given dialogue.

I suppose if the Spirit reveals it to 2 people . . .

4. will involve a group of people, and not just one person.

ONLY in the public ministry of tongues . . . again, speaking (laleo) in tongues (glossa) refers to the ENTIRE gamut of tongues speak which includes:
Prayer, singing, blessing, and sometimes a message FROM God to His people (commonly called prophetic tongues) FOR EACH ONE OF THESE INCLUDES BOTH speaking from the mouth and usage of the tongue, and each of these are given witness to from the Scripture as within the category of SPEAKING IN TONGUES.

It is ONLY the PUBLIC ministry of tongues that requires interpretation . . . and when I am speaking the same tongues that I always speak in my prayer time with God by myself, it is STILL

1 Cor 14:2
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.
NKJV

Speaking in a tongue to God mysteries from my spirit . . . for it IS this whether it is interpreted or not.

but appear to be relatively rare events that don't happen everywhere, or all the time, and so are mysteries that we can't fully explain.

The problem tho is this:

Acts 2:15-18
16 But this is (the manifestation of tongues) what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.
NKJV
Acts 2:38-39
38 Then Peter said to them,"Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
NKJV

U see, the 1st Cent Jew (as per the documents found in the DSS's) EXPECTED THE AGE OF THE MESSIAH to INDUCT an age MARKED by the EXPRESSIONS OF THE SPIRIT AS COMMON TO ALL OF GOD'S PEOPLE. It is ALL my servants, on ALL flesh and THEY WILL (experience the SPirit in these ways) prophesy (which includes tongues in this passage as the "this" has as its antecedant the tongues manifestation), see visions, dream dreams.

These events are not supposed to be rare brother . . . and they are supposed to be WIDELY experienced by the people of God.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Sorry- I can't respond to this because I don't understand Greek and I don't have an interpreter present.




I think the Bible makes it abundantly clear that a message spoken in tongues must be understood. For something that is said to be understood, there must be one or more people listening, and they must know that language- or it must be interpreted for them.

Sorry- I can't respond to this because I don't understand Greek and I don't have an interpreter present.

guess u need an interpreter! Would that mean that when one does interpret it for you that I WROTE in tongues! LOL

Anyways, u not knowing Greek does not keep u from seeing the same letters used in the same way . . . markings are recognizable.

I think the Bible makes it abundantly clear that a message spoken in tongues must be understood.

Only in a corporate context. One who sings in the language of the spirit in their room is still speaking in tongues.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

I have a question from another thread:

Could a student at a charismatic Christian school be allowed to speak in tongues during an oral exam- and have the teacher or adjudicator interpret?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I have a question from another thread:

Could a student at a charismatic Christian school be allowed to speak in tongues during an oral exam- and have the teacher or adjudicator interpret?

I answered in the other thread . . .

 

[Servant of Jesus]

I went to a most inspirational church service today- not at my home church, but one that had a guest speaker- a native Cambodian pastor. I had no idea of what the sermon was going to be about- and it was just by chance that I happened to go to that church today- but God obviously had it planned all along!

Anyway, after a nice introductory English video of his work in Cambodia, the Cambodian pastor came up- and it was only after he started to talk that we all realized he was going to give the sermon in his native Kymer language.

But there was a translator present- a women who really had to focus on keeping up with the translation- not an easy task, considering how fast and dynamic the sermon was.

But that sermon was truly awe-inspiring; the church body was just spellbound and overwhelmed with emotion as the sermon proceeded. At one point during the sermon, I felt so close to God that I thought for sure He would give me the ability to understand the Kymer language even before it was translated- but it was not to be. Nevertheless, it still was one of best church services I have recently attended.

So was this an example of speaking in tongues? I guess some would say "no" because the pastor was not speaking a language he did not know. But other than that, it was entirely consistent with how the New Testament describes how speaking in tongues should proceed- with grace, with interpretation- and with total glory to God!

.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I went to a most inspirational church service today- not at my home church, but one that had a guest speaker- a native Cambodian pastor. I had no idea of what the sermon was going to be about- and it was just by chance that I happened to go to that church today- but God obviously had it planned all along!

Anyway, after a nice introductory English video of his work in Cambodia, the Cambodian pastor came up- and it was only after he started to talk that we all realized he was going to give the sermon in his native Kymer language.

But there was a translator present- a women who really had to focus on keeping up with the translation- not an easy task, considering how fast and dynamic the sermon was.

But that sermon was truly awe-inspiring; the church body was just spellbound and overwhelmed with emotion as the sermon proceeded. At one point during the sermon, I felt so close to God that I thought for sure He would give me the ability to understand the Kymer language even before it was translated- but it was not to be. Nevertheless, it still was one of best church services I have recently attended.

So was this an example of speaking in tongues? I guess some would say "no" because the pastor was not speaking a language he did not know. But other than that, it was entirely consistent with how the New Testament describes how speaking in tongues should proceed- with grace, with interpretation- and with total glory to God!

.

I would call it a prophetic sermon . . . but not tongues. Garaunteed the interpreter was trained to interpret . . . it did not take a gift of interpretation to give.

Likewise, the message is aimed at people . . . the only hint of this in the 1 Cor passage is where God speaks directly to His people

1 Cor 14:21
BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE,
NASU

So unless the Pastor was directly adressing the people in the first person as God, or a "thus says the Lord" kind of speaking . . . it is the rather mundane and common practice of a foreign language service . . .

not to mention that the content was not a mystery to the speaker (1 cor 14:2) and I doubt that the entire sermon was a praise/prayer to God.

So no, exegetically it does not meet the criteria . . . but praise God for blessing anyhow! I hope you were encouraged and empowered for our Great God and Savior!

 

[zeke37]

I went to a most inspirational church service today- not at my home church, but one that had a guest speaker- a native Cambodian pastor. I had no idea of what the sermon was going to be about- and it was just by chance that I happened to go to that church today- but God obviously had it planned all along!

Anyway, after a nice introductory English video of his work in Cambodia, the Cambodian pastor came up- and it was only after he started to talk that we all realized he was going to give the sermon in his native Kymer language.

But there was a translator present- a women who really had to focus on keeping up with the translation- not an easy task, considering how fast and dynamic the sermon was.

But that sermon was truly awe-inspiring; the church body was just spellbound and overwhelmed with emotion as the sermon proceeded. At one point during the sermon, I felt so close to God that I thought for sure He would give me the ability to understand the Kymer language even before it was translated- but it was not to be. Nevertheless, it still was one of best church services I have recently attended.

So was this an example of speaking in tongues? I guess some would say "no" because the pastor was not speaking a language he did not know. But other than that, it was entirely consistent with how the New Testament describes how speaking in tongues should proceed- with grace, with interpretation- and with total glory to God!

.

I would say that is the EXACT meaning of 1Cor14...a perfect example.

I would call it a prophetic sermon . . . but not tongues. Garaunteed the interpreter was trained to interpret . . . it did not take a gift of interpretation to give.

I don't think that you understand that their is a difference in a gifted believer, translating/interpreting, with that of ungifted translation/interpretation...

only a gifted translaster/interpreter could turn the preachers sermon (in the preachers tongue/language)
into prophesy for us listening who don't speak the p[reachers tongue
(meaning that his words are NOW understood in our langauge) understanding so as to be edified, and even come to God,
without a translater/interpreter of languages, the preacher would just be preaching to the air or just preaching only to God when you are suposed to edify the assembly

the gifted translater/interpreter will including expression and feeling and Christian Spirit)
for them in attendance...a true desire to help spread the Word of God
1Cor14 is about understanding languages,
preaching and translating for the greater good
not about charismatic prayer to God.

Likewise, the message is aimed at people . . . the only hint of this in the 1 Cor passage is where God speaks directly to His people

1 Cor 14:21
BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE,
NASU

you sir, are incorrect.


5I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
6Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?


9So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

I really don't know how you get around this one Bro...or the next one.

11Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

now, I really hope you understand that the above verse is supposed to be done at the same time...
understanding while in the Spirit..not one or the other...but both at the same time.

all these verses deal with preaching to the audience..not to God...
ps. by the way, we can do both...preach to them and praise God at the same time...
sing with them, share psalms with them,....
that would be both praying/singing and edifying...and since it is to/about God, it is prayer to Him..any worship is right?

So unless the Pastor was directly adressing the people in the first person as God, or a "thus says the Lord" kind of speaking . . . it is the rather mundane and common practice of a foreign language service . . .

huh again? I can't fathom how you ever came to that conclusion.

not to mention that the content was not a mystery to the speaker (1 cor 14:2) and I doubt that the entire sermon was a praise/prayer to God.

the content was NOT mysterious to the speaker as you now say, so why argue the point?
Glad you see it that way.

the sermon was to the people in the audience.

So no, exegetically it does not meet the criteria . . . but praise God for blessing anyhow! I hope you were encouraged and empowered for our Great God and Savior!

I can't see how you come to your conclusions at all...except by emotionalism/indoctrinization...especially after even your own words...

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I would say that is the EXACT meaning of 1Cor14...a perfect example.


only a gifted translaster/interpreter could turn the preachers sermon (in the preachers tongue/language)
into prophesy for us listening who don't speak the p[reachers tongue
(meaning that his words are NOW understood in our langauge) understanding so as to be edified, and even come to God,
without a translater/interpreter of languages, the preacher would just be preaching to the air or just preaching only to God when you are suposed to edify the assembly

the gifted translater/interpreter will including expression and feeling and Christian Spirit)
for them in attendance...a true desire to help spread the Word of God
1Cor14 is about understanding languages,
preaching and translating for the greater good
not about charismatic prayer to God.


you sir, are incorrect.


5I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
6Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?


9So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

I really don't know how you get around this one Bro...or the next one.

11Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

now, I really hope you understand that the above verse is supposed to be done at the same time...
understanding while in the Spirit..not one or the other...but both at the same time.

all these verses deal with preaching to the audience..not to God...
ps. by the way, we can do both...preach to them and praise God at the same time...
sing with them, share psalms with them,....
that would be both praying/singing and edifying...and since it is to/about God, it is prayer to Him..any worship is right?


huh again? I can't fathom how you ever came to that conclusion.


the content was NOT mysterious to the speaker as you now say, so why argue the point?
Glad you see it that way.

the sermon was to the people in the audience.


I can't see how you come to your conclusions at all...except by emotionalism/indoctrinization...especially after even your own words...

I really don't know how you get around this one Bro...or the next one.

Pretty easy, tongues CAN be a message from God . . . if Paul says HE speaks AND God says that HE speaks to the people . . . then by my understanding, 2+2=4, tongues COULD be from the person and it could be from God.

now, I really hope you understand that the above verse is supposed to be done at the same time...
understanding while in the Spirit..not one or the other...but both at the same time.

Cant be because he dichotomizes between the two. When he prays in the spirit his mind is unfruitful . . . so he will pray in the spirit AND he will pray with the mind at the same time is impossible cause he only has one mouth. He does not speak in tongues and speak in understandable speech at the same time . . . sorry. AND, if you mean he speaks in tongues WHICH IS CLEAR SPEECH TO SOMEONE, you again are wrong because the "oudeis" of verse 2 does not allow this concept . . . which is what I have been trying to get through to you. The first concept that Paul ever mentions is the NON understandability of tongues BY ANYONE PRESENT (hence why it needs a GIFT of interpretation BY THE SUPERNATURAL MOVE OF THE SPIRIT) and is thereby NOT DONE WITH THE MIND BUT BY THE spirit. That is the meaning of the dichotomy . . . speaking in tongues is NOT done with the MIND and therefore is UNFRUITFUL TO THE MIND.

all these verses deal with preaching to the audience..not to God...

Really? So we pray to the audience? Not in my theology brother.

huh again? I can't fathom how you ever came to that conclusion.

Seriously?

OK . . . what is the direction of the speaking here?

1 Cor 14:21
BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE,
NASU

Looks like it is GOD speaking TO THIS PEOPLE . . . I can fathom that pretty easy

and what is the MODE of this speech?

STRANGE TONGUES . . . which happens to be the concept of the passage right? So God speaks to people through WHO in this? MEN . . . so GOD speaks to people through men by strange tongues . . . I can fathom that pretty easy . . . simple logic in critical reading . . .

especially after even your own words

The sheer fact that u cannot follow what I am saying as per the text, and every single post I have made speaks volumes Zeke.

Blessings to you

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Here is a Poll regarding Speaking in Tongues that requests your opinion on this topic.

Here are the poll questions- with some additional information added.

Do you believe Speaking in Tongues:

1. can still happen today?
Or is it something that only happened during the time of apostles?

2. requires interpretation?
That something spoken in tongues must be interpreted by a translator.

3. should be independently verified by 2 or more interpreters?
If something is "spoken in tongues", two independent interpreters should be able to come up with the same translation.

4. can only occur in a group setting, and not to individuals?
That speaking in tongues requires communication involving a speaker, interpreter, and two or more individuals who hear the message. Since God does not require interpretation, "speaking in tongues" by yourself is simply prayer.

5. refers to the miracle of someone speaking in a language not known to them?
That speaking in tongues refers only to the miracle of someone speaking in a language they do not know, and not to someone who speaks in a foreign language that is then translated by an interpreter.

6. is being misused by many today?
Do you think that some today who appear or claim to be speaking in tongues are just engaging in an emotional expression that has nothing to do with the Biblical-described miracle of speaking in tongues?

7. is NOT a salvation issue?
Does not affect your status of being accepted by Jesus Christ as a Christian.

 

[zeke37]

Pretty easy, tongues CAN be a message from God . . . if Paul says HE speaks AND God says that HE speaks to the people . . . then by my understanding, 2+2=4, tongues COULD be from the person and it could be from God.

tongues = languages...
so ya, they could be from men or God...both men and God use langauge

but they are all done with intelligence and understanding...

if you cannot understand your own tongue, or God's tongue,
then I submit that it is not God speaking, or even a language at all...
and I find nothing in the scriptures that suggest otherwise...
unless taken out of context, as I believe you do so.

Cant be

lol

because he dichotomizes between the two.

and? When he prays in the spirit his mind is unfruitful . . .

no..
hypothetically, in Paul's letter, he teaches about.......

a preacher, preaching to the audience/assembly....
if his words are not understood by the audience
because of language barriers, then have it translated into their tongue
else...even though the speaker is in the Spirit, speaking wonders about God, his ex. Hebrew tongue is just not udnerstood by the Greeks...
so
what is in his mind does not bare fruit...
what is in his mind is still a mystery to them in the audience...
the preacher would just be speaking to the air...or just speaking to God, instead of edifying them....
if only the speaker is edified, and the point was to edify the church, then it is a very bad thing...

and that is the point that you miss...
even though it is repeated over and over and over again...

so he will pray in the spirit AND he will pray with the mind at the same time is impossible cause he only has one mouth.

huh????

Praying in the Spirit, is not praying in charismatic/ecstatic tongues,
no matter how bad you want it to be.
untold Millions of Christians pray in the Spirit,
and do not utter ecstatic charismatic utterances...

when we pay to God, or when we attempt to edify others in the assembly, it is to be done with intelligence/understanding/non-confusion.
we sing to God, or share psalms and scriptures intelligently, with words of understanding...not charismatic tongues (that is exactly opposite)

He does not speak in tongues and speak in understandable speech at the same time . . . sorry.

sure he does,....
tongues does not = charismatic ecstatic utterances...
sorry...you are just wrong.

AND, if you mean he speaks in tongues WHICH IS CLEAR SPEECH TO SOMEONE, you again are wrong because the "oudeis" of verse 2 does not allow this concept . . . which is what I have been trying to get through to you.

sure it does....you are just indoctrinated
and using flawed research material...obviously.
the point is repeated so many times, that I am suprised
that intelligent people such as you, miss it.

-speak to them intelligently, with understanding...
so they can learn, and understand,
and make an informed decision to follow God.

THAT IS WHAT THE CHAPTER IS ABOUT

if they(listening to your words) cannot understand your tongue=langauge,
-then you'd be speaking only to God,
-you'd be speaking only to the air.
-no man would understand you...
-what is in your mind (your ubnderstanding) will not bare fruit...they would not get it, and it would stay a mystery to them
-you'd only edify yourself, instead of them listening
-how would it be known what is being said, unless it is spoken with easy to understand words...
-if you cannot understand each others words, then you'd be barbarians to each other...
-that's why we do both at the same time...in the Spirit and with understanding...both together..always...else it is in vain.
-otherwise, (if you spoke Hebrew to a Greek audience) how would the unlearned even know when to say AMEN...
-for YOU might give thanks well...God will understand your words in your language(tongue) but the others won't be edified...

any amount, even 5, of intelligent words that we can all understand are better than 10000 that are not understood...

Paul is not speaking of ecstatic charismatic utterances...never.

..........
I pray/share psalms/scriptures....
but if I do so in a langauge that the assembly does not understand,
then, while I am praying in the Spirit to God, or about God
the assdembly will not understand me, obviously
and therefore they will not be edified.

and that would be bad.



what?

The first concept that Paul ever mentions is the NON understandability of tongues BY ANYONE PRESENT (hence why it needs a GIFT of interpretation BY THE SUPERNATURAL MOVE OF THE SPIRIT) and is thereby NOT DONE WITH THE MIND BUT BY THE spirit. That is the meaning of the dichotomy . . . speaking in tongues is NOT done with the MIND and therefore is UNFRUITFUL TO THE MIND.

that may be what you understand...
but it is not what Paul taught about or even alludes to at all...

explained to you, over and over again,
is the repetition of the chapter...
it is all about speakin/prayin/singing to God...with an assembly...
how to do so to by pass all language barriers

that is the point....language barriers, not ecstatic charismatic utterances.

Really? So we pray to the audience? Not in my theology brother.

when we get together and pray TOGETHER...

are you saying that you don't do this????
then what are you in the assembly for?
do you even go to church?

Seriously?

of course seriously...

OK . . . what is the direction of the speaking here?

1 Cor 14:21
BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE,
NASU

Looks like it is GOD speaking TO THIS PEOPLE . . . I can fathom that pretty easy

is He speaking with intelligent languages to us....
like english or french or latin, or chinese...etc....

or with mumbo jumbo ecstatic utterances?? Which would serve His purposes better??

the great Commission, so billions in all languages can have the oppertunity for salvation

or some feel good non intelligent prayer langauge

21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

some do not hear His Word today,
and turn the rules in 1Cor14, for breaking langauge barriers,
into ecstatic/charismatic utterances.

IMAGINE that sdomeone(s) followed these rules perfectly, so we can even converse today in English about the Lord...other tongues and lips...not just Israel...not just Judah....but gentiles too....

they are considered "strangers" to them,
implies a foreign tongue, not ecstatic/charismatic utterances.

go into all the world and preach...

and what is the MODE of this speech?

STRANGE TONGUES . . . which happens to be the concept of the passage right? So God speaks to people through WHO in this? MEN . . . so GOD speaks to people through men by strange tongues . . . I can fathom that pretty easy . . . simple logic in critical reading . . .

no...langauges and lips of other men...
like english...mexican....danish......russian....etc...
not ecstatic/charismatic utterances...
remember all the warnings and rules....
must be understood by those listening...
must be edifying to those listening..
those listening must be able to say AMEN..
etc.
etc.
etc.

The sheer fact that u cannot follow what I am saying as per the text, and every single post I have made speaks volumes Zeke.

Blessings to you

I know...one of us is totally blind when it comes to this subject...
one of us can pray to God and God can hear that persons prayers...

while the other..who knows...
IMO speak babyl to God and God hears babyl...

it seems Satan has effectively taken away many peoples prayer life...by this charismatic/ecstatic utterance misteaching of 1Cor14
shame, shame, shame...

turing our prayers from effective communication between God and us,
into an unintelligible fairytale
where one does not even have to know what to pray for..
or even fathom it...
lol..
talk about the easy way out...

not that we know what to pray for 100%
we might not know His whole plan...or His entire will....
but we certainly are supposed to make petitions and blessings to and about the Lord...in His Will...

but your prayer is a mystery even to you who prays...
is that not counter productive?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

tongues = languages...
so ya, they could be from men or God...both men and God use langauge

but they are all done with intelligence and understanding...

if you cannot understand your own tongue, or God's tongue,
then I submit that it is not God speaking, or even a language at all...
and I find nothing in the scriptures that suggest otherwise...
unless taken out of context, as I believe you do so.



lol


no..
hypothetically, in Paul's letter, he teaches about.......

a preacher, preaching to the audience/assembly....
if his words are not understood by the audience
because of language barriers, then have it translated into their tongue
else...even though the speaker is in the Spirit, speaking wonders about God, his ex. Hebrew tongue is just not udnerstood by the Greeks...
so
what is in his mind does not bare fruit...
what is in his mind is still a mystery to them in the audience...
the preacher would just be speaking to the air...or just speaking to God, instead of edifying them....
if only the speaker is edified, and the point was to edify the church, then it is a very bad thing...

and that is the point that you miss...
even though it is repeated over and over and over again...



huh????

Praying in the Spirit, is not praying in charismatic/ecstatic tongues,
no matter how bad you want it to be.
untold Millions of Christians pray in the Spirit,
and do not utter ecstatic charismatic utterances...

when we pay to God, or when we attempt to edify others in the assembly, it is to be done with intelligence/understanding/non-confusion.
we sing to God, or share psalms and scriptures intelligently, with words of understanding...not charismatic tongues (that is exactly opposite)


sure he does,....
tongues does not = charismatic ecstatic utterances...
sorry...you are just wrong.


sure it does....you are just indoctrinated
and using flawed research material...obviously.
the point is repeated so many times, that I am suprised
that intelligent people such as you, miss it.

-speak to them intelligently, with understanding...
so they can learn, and understand,
and make an informed decision to follow God.

THAT IS WHAT THE CHAPTER IS ABOUT

if they(listening to your words) cannot understand your tongue=langauge,
-then you'd be speaking only to God,
-you'd be speaking only to the air.
-no man would understand you...
-what is in your mind (your ubnderstanding) will not bare fruit...they would not get it, and it would stay a mystery to them
-you'd only edify yourself, instead of them listening
-how would it be known what is being said, unless it is spoken with easy to understand words...
-if you cannot understand each others words, then you'd be barbarians to each other...
-that's why we do both at the same time...in the Spirit and with understanding...both together..always...else it is in vain.
-otherwise, (if you spoke Hebrew to a Greek audience) how would the unlearned even know when to say AMEN...
-for YOU might give thanks well...God will understand your words in your language(tongue) but the others won't be edified...

any amount, even 5, of intelligent words that we can all understand are better than 10000 that are not understood...

Paul is not speaking of ecstatic charismatic utterances...never.

..........
I pray/share psalms/scriptures....
but if I do so in a langauge that the assembly does not understand,
then, while I am praying in the Spirit to God, or about God
the assdembly will not understand me, obviously
and therefore they will not be edified.

and that would be bad.



what?




that may be what you understand...
but it is not what Paul taught about or even alludes to at all...

explained to you, over and over again,
is the repetition of the chapter...
it is all about speakin/prayin/singing to God...with an assembly...
how to do so to by pass all language barriers

that is the point....language barriers, not ecstatic charismatic utterances.



when we get together and pray TOGETHER...

are you saying that you don't do this????
then what are you in the assembly for?
do you even go to church?


of course seriously...


is He speaking with intelligent languages to us....
like english or french or latin, or chinese...etc....

or with mumbo jumbo ecstatic utterances?? Which would serve His purposes better??

the great Commission, so billions in all languages can have the oppertunity for salvation

or some feel good non intelligent prayer langauge


some do not hear His Word today,
and turn the rules in 1Cor14, for breaking langauge barriers,
into ecstatic/charismatic utterances.

IMAGINE that sdomeone(s) followed these rules perfectly, so we can even converse today in English about the Lord...other tongues and lips...not just Israel...not just Judah....but gentiles too....

they are considered "strangers" to them,
implies a foreign tongue, not ecstatic/charismatic utterances.

go into all the world and preach...


no...langauges and lips of other men...
like english...mexican....danish......russian....etc...
not ecstatic/charismatic utterances...
remember all the warnings and rules....
must be understood by those listening...
must be edifying to those listening..
those listening must be able to say AMEN..
etc.
etc.
etc.


I know...one of us is totally blind when it comes to this subject...
one of us can pray to God and God can hear that persons prayers...

while the other..who knows...
IMO speak babyl to God and God hears babyl...

it seems Satan has effectively taken away many peoples prayer life...by this charismatic/ecstatic utterance misteaching of 1Cor14
shame, shame, shame...

turing our prayers from effective communication between God and us,
into an unintelligible fairytale
where one does not even have to know what to pray for..
or even fathom it...
lol..
talk about the easy way out...

not that we know what to pray for 100%
we might not know His whole plan...or His entire will....
but we certainly are supposed to make petitions and blessings to and about the Lord...in His Will...

but your prayer is a mystery even to you who prays...
is that not counter productive?

Just a couple of things

but your prayer is a mystery even to you who prays...
is that not counter productive?

Nope. In line with this:

Eph 3:17-19
17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.
NASU
Phil 4:6-7
7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
NASU

The mysteries which bypass the limits of the mind are not always bad. I agree that they can be, and that "turning off the mind" is dangerous . . . but when Paul says that the content is mystery and that the praying in tongues is unfruitful for the mind . . . then says to do it . . . and thanks God that he does and wishes that they all did . . . I will side with Paul.

turing our prayers from effective communication between God and us,
into an unintelligible fairytale
where one does not even have to know what to pray for..
or even fathom it...

Uh dude . . . the bible assumes that even OUR INTELIGIBLE PRAYERS ARE THAT WE DONT KNOW WHAT TO PRAY FOR!

Rom 8:26
for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words
NASU

The bible assumes the limits of our minds in cognizant prayer as NOT KNOWING HOW TO PRAY OR WHAT TO PRAY FOR . . . why does the Spirit intercede in this passage? Precisely because this:

effective communication between God and us

Is WRONG even when we do pray with our understanding!

Sorry man . . . even if you dont see tongues as ecstatic speech . . . even the fundamental base of your assumptions is not biblical . . . even for understandable prayer.

if his words are not understood by the audience
because of language barriers, then have it translated into their tongue
else...even though the speaker is in the Spirit, speaking wonders about God, his ex. Hebrew tongue is just not udnerstood by the Greeks...

Again brother, oudeis makes this impossible . . . and until you deal with oudeis . . . then you have no case. Sorry.

what is in his mind does not bare fruit...
what is in his mind is still a mystery to them in the audience...

And again, TONGUES IS NOT IN HIS MIND. It is WHAT IS IN THE SPIRIT that does not bear fruit . . . what is in the SPIRIT that is MYSTERY . . . which IS IN TONGUES because speaking/praying IN THE SPIRIT IS NOT SPEAKING NOR PRAYING WITH THE MIND. That is what the text says.

1 Cor 14:2
ne who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
NASU
1 Cor 14:14-15
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
NASU


so unless you mistyped, these verses say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are asserting

if they(listening to your words) cannot understand your tongue=langauge,
-then you'd be speaking only to God,

No brother, this is the FIRST concept laid out . . . not the second. The first concept is that tongues are speaking to God because no one understands . . . the concept of an audience and the NEED for their understanding is SUBSEQUENT to the first concept. You have inverted it. Like you start from the last verse and work your way backwards . . . unfortunately that is not how Greek is read.

Praying in the Spirit, is not praying in charismatic/ecstatic tongues

Well if u read what I referred you to read about the dichotomy in historical usage between pnuema (spirit) and nous (mind) you would see that linguistically the contrast between spirit and mind actually supports this. But I dont think you ever took the time to research Kittles TDNT and the appropriate articles.

Hence I said that you wont look at facts of linguistic usage.

sure he does,....

Not according to his own pen:

1 Cor 14:14-15
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
NASU


sorry man, speaking in tongues is DEFINED AS NOT SPEAKING WITH UNDERSTANDING. Praying in tongues is praying in the spirit and is NOT WITH UNDERSTANDING HENCE THE MIND IS UNFRUITFUL.

oops . . . I am getting into too much with you again . . .

sorry

 

[zeke37]

Just a couple of things

but your prayer is a mystery even to you who prays...
is that not counter productive?
​

Nope. In line with this:

Eph 3:17-19
17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.
NASU

that would be the LOVE of CHRIST that surpasses knowledge
not prayer

Phil 4:6-7
7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
NASU

it is the PEACE of GOD that surpasses all comprehension,
not prayer.

The mysteries which bypass the limits of the mind are not always bad. I agree that they can be, and that "turning off the mind" is dangerous . . . but when Paul says that the content is mystery and that the praying in tongues is unfruitful for the mind . . . then says to do it . . . and thanks God that he does and wishes that they all did . . . I will side with Paul.

you are unknowingly/unwittingly mis-representing Paul's WORDS.
we should read the entire chapter before deciding what "tongues" means

Paul says that if you pray/sing/share Psalms/doctrine (in/to the congregation) in a langauge that they cannot naturally understand,
that what you are saying will not be understood by them that listen.
pretty obvious...and said for a reason....
to allow the SPREAD of the WORD of GOD into ALL TONGUES/LANGUAGES

IOW, Paul says that What is in your mind is a mystery to them...
your thoughts (about God) would not bear fruit (they won't be able to come to Him if they cannot understand His Word)

Paul says that we are to allow the Words of God to be spread in ALL languages,

and that it would be a lot easier if they all spoke many languages, as Paul himself did.

then there would be no need for interpreters....
but there is a need....
and these are the rules for spreading the Word of God into all languages of men.

turing our prayers from effective communication between God and us,
into an unintelligible fairytale
where one does not even have to know what to pray for..
or even fathom it...
​

​

Uh dude . . . the bible assumes that even OUR INTELIGIBLE PRAYERS ARE THAT WE DONT KNOW WHAT TO PRAY FOR!

Rom 8:26
for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words
NASU

ummm dude(I like that word too!)..
then what would be the POINT of unintelligible prayer?
and I already adresses that...
we do not know God's FULL plan..we don't know His very Will prefectly...
but we have a direction right?
we pray for direction right?

well, when we pray in His Will, because He knows best,
then the Spirit understands this....

Father, I pray in your Will, in the name of Jesus Christ, that all who you will allow to see/hear the truth about biblical tongues, will come to that light!
the Spirit of God Almighty knows our hearts and our true intentions...

this has nothing to do with ecstatic/charismatic utterances.

The bible assumes the limits of our minds in cognizant prayer as NOT KNOWING HOW TO PRAY OR WHAT TO PRAY FOR . . . why does the Spirit intercede in this passage? Precisely because this:

explained above...pray in His Will......

effective communication between God and us
​

​

Is WRONG even when we do pray with our understanding!

Huh again? they why did Christ TEACH us HOW to PRAY?
then why all the examples of the prophets/patriarchs/prominent positive biblical figures praying to God in a language/tongue that weare able to read?
then why all the Psalms?

Sorry man . . . even if you dont see tongues as ecstatic speech . . . even the fundamental base of your assumptions is not biblical . . . even for understandable prayer.

Huh again? dude...
I really wonder how some even try to communicate with God after a statement like that....
we were taught how to pray...and it is not ecstatic/charismatic utterances, so saith Jesus Christ.



1And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
2And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
3Give us day by day our daily bread.
4And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

no ecstatic/charismatic expression there.

if

his words are not understood by the audience
because of language barriers, then have it translated into their tongue

else...even though the speaker is in the Spirit, speaking wonders about God, his ex. Hebrew tongue is just not udnerstood by the Greeks...

Again brother, oudeis makes this impossible . . . and until you deal with oudeis . . . then you have no case. Sorry.

I have a great case...it is based on the entire chapter...
yours is based on one word...
and you do not understand the context of the verse.
the context of the becomes apparent
as we continue to read the entire chapter

no one understanding his langauge, would obviously not include the speaker...
he (the speaker) is speaknig a language(ie Greek/Hebrew), not a charismatic/ecstatic utterance.

it is said by Paul in other ways aswell, in the same chapter.
over and over again...
but you refuse to accept this...

as with Jesus, who taught the same subject through multiple parables...often one after another...Paul does the same here in 1Cor14.

over and over again...languages of men

9So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

11Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.



15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? 17For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

if he does not do both at the very same time...
then "ELSE" they listening (in the room) won't get it...
that is why tongues is to be done with understanding...
tongues=langauges of men...and the foreign (unknown) ones need to be interpreted for them who occupy the room...so they can come to God..
and say AMEN

over and over again......languages of men....


19Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

20Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

as I said, over and over again...same thought....languages of men.../translated into other langauges of men

what is in his mind does not bare fruit...
what is in his mind is still a mystery to them in the audience...

And again, TONGUES IS NOT IN HIS MIND. It is WHAT IS IN THE SPIRIT that does not bear fruit . . . what is in the SPIRIT that is MYSTERY . . . which IS IN TONGUES because speaking/praying IN THE SPIRIT IS NOT SPEAKING NOR PRAYING WITH THE MIND. That is what the text says.

no it does not...

1 Cor 14:2
ne who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
NASU
1 Cor 14:14-15
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
NASU

both speaking of langauges of men, as explained to you already
praying in the Spirit is indeed in an easy to understand language, especially one that you yourself understand...lol.
you take these verses out of conteaxt completely...

just follow the entire chapter Bro.

so unless you mistyped, these verses say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are asserting

ummm...well one of us is practising something that is completely opposite of what the verse says...and how Christ taught us to pray
but you know who I think that person is, right?

if they(listening to your words) cannot understand your tongue=langauge,
-then you'd be speaking only to God,

​

No brother, this is the FIRST concept laid out . . . not the second. The first concept is that tongues are speaking to God because no one understands . . . the concept of an audience and the NEED for their understanding is SUBSEQUENT to the first concept. You have inverted it. Like you start from the last verse and work your way backwards . . . unfortunately that is not how Greek is read.

Brother, I don't doubt your faith or belief...let's get that clear...

but you fail to follow th entire chapter....
that first thought is repeated many times, in different ways...
it just does not say what you think it implies

Praying in the Spirit, is not praying in charismatic/ecstatic tongues
​

​

Well if u read what I referred you to read about the dichotomy in historical usage between pnuema (spirit) and nous (mind) you would see that linguistically the contrast between spirit and mind actually supports this. But I dont think you ever took the time to research Kittles TDNT and the appropriate articles.

Hence I said that you wont look at facts of linguistic usage.

believe it or not, I looked at all your "research" the first time we went through this...years ago....it did not compell me then...

and regardless, the chapter itself defines the meaning...
without going outside of it at all...
for any extra-biblical study material...
(excluding concordance for LANGUAGE/TONGUE translation...ie...Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek, into English)
and even aconcordance is not neccissary in this case

sorry man, speaking in tongues is DEFINED AS NOT SPEAKING WITH UNDERSTANDING. Praying in tongues is praying in the spirit and is NOT WITH UNDERSTANDING HENCE THE MIND IS UNFRUITFUL.

oops . . . I am getting into too much with you again . . .

sorry

speaking in tongues is defined as diverse languages of men..
not charismatic ecstatic utterances.

the gift of tongues is for diverse languages...spreading the Word to all who will....

now, I ask you..... how important is that in the grand scheme of things when compared to charismatic/ecstatic utterances ?
rather, I'd say.