The two types of tongues in the bible, please help.

[pauluk3]

Please could you help me and answer these questions, I want to learn but to be honest I have a lot of questions -

Firstly I totally agree in an earthly language called tongues that you speak , say for example you understood English but supernaturally spoke in Spanish (like at Pentecost ) this was used to spread the word of God at that time in history.

But some churches teaches there is another type of tongues, a type of gibberish or ecstatic speech.

1. If tongues are so important, why does the bible not clearly explain the difference between the two supposedly types of tongues?

2. Why should there be two types of tongues, there are no other two types of any other gifts of the holy spirit, it just seems tongues is the odd one out and it turns christian and unbelievers away from God.

3. Why did Jesus not speak in tongues when he was baptized ( or ever) ?
4. Why do none of the disciples teach about tongues ?
5. Why does Paul only speak to the church of Corinthians about tongues and no other church, was it cause there were so many people speaking in different languages ?

6. Why were there no tongues (ecstatic speech) for over a thousand years until the Pentecostal movement ?

In 1900, Charles Parham, an American evangelist and faith healer, began teaching that speaking in tongues was the Bible evidence of Spirit baptism. The three-year-long Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, California, resulted in the spread of Pentecostalism throughout the United

Is it possible tongues are from satan as they are practiced many pagan religions ?

 

[jiminpa]

"If I speak in the tongues of men and angels..."

1 Corinthians 14:2
For one who speaks in an [unknown] tongue speaks not to men but to God, for no one understands or catches his meaning, because in the [Holy] Spirit he utters secret truths and hidden things [not obvious to the understanding].

I don't see anywhere in Acts 2 that it says that the disciples spoke in known tongues, but it does say that every nation under the sun was represented there and that each person heard what was spoken in his own dialect, not even just language, but each dialect. I live in a area that has it's own dialect in the United States. I had to learn to speak the same English that the rest of the country understands when I left the area. So if I was there, I would have heard not only my language, but my dialect. That would be a serious cacophony if every dialect was spoken.

What we see in the Bible is superhuman languages. We have testimonies since then of human languages also being spoken as a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Paul did not correct the Corinthians of speaking in unknown languages; he corrected them for doing so in an unedifying way. That's what 1 Corinthians 12-14 says if you just read the text. As Andrew Wommack likes to quote, "It's so simple you have to have help to misunderstand it."

 

[pauluk3]

"If I speak in the tongues of men and angels..."

I don't see anywhere in Acts 2 that it says that the disciples spoke in known tongues, but it does say that every nation under the sun was represented there and that each person heard what was spoken in his own dialect, not even just language, but each dialect. I live in a area that has it's own dialect in the United States. I had to learn to speak the same English that the rest of the country understands when I left the area. So if I was there, I would have heard not only my language, but my dialect. That would be a serious cacophony if every dialect was spoken.

What we see in the Bible is superhuman languages. We have testimonies since then of human languages also being spoken as a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Paul did not correct the Corinthians of speaking in unknown languages; he corrected them for doing so in an unedifying way. That's what 1 Corinthians 12-14 says if you just read the text. As Andrew Wommack likes to quote, "It's so simple you have to have help to misunderstand it."

Sorry let me clarify I have learnt there are two types of tongues - first a human earthly langue spoken at Pentecost - so i speak English but God can give give me the power to speak in french so a french person would understand. I totally believe in this tounge as taught in the bible.

Then you get another new tongue(ecsatic speech) which came about as auzuz street under Charles Parnham - it is not an earthly language at all, it is gibberish claimed to be a heavenly language, you also find it in many pagan religions around the world.

I want to know about this second type of tongues (gibberish) is it possible it is not from God ?


Charles Fox Parham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jiminpa]

I think what you learned is wrong.

The tongues that the Bible specifically describes are not the existing languages of men. There is definitely room for the languages of man, but there is more evidence of languages that no one knows.

Read the scriptures, even just the ones I posted above.

Is it possible that non-human tongues is not of God if the Bible is wrong. I believe the Bible over man.

 

[pauluk3]

I think what you learned is wrong.

The tongues that the Bible specifically describes are not the existing languages of men. There is definitely room for the languages of man, but there is more evidence of languages that no one knows.

Read the scriptures, even just the ones I posted above.

Is it possible that non-human tongues is not of God if the Bible is wrong. I believe the Bible over man.

Sorry what do you mean ? , acts clearly teaches that the tongues spoken at Pentecost were earthly langues - it states other Jews who had come from around the world heard them speaking in there own mother tongue (by the power of the Holy Spirit) - even thought the apostles, who were uneducated could not understand, others did.

5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”

arthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene - are all earthly languages - so the bible does teach taht tongues are existing languages of men.

In regards to 1 Corinthians 14:2
For one who speaks in an [unknown] tongue speaks not to men but to God, for no one understands or catches his meaning, because in the [Holy] Spirit he utters secret truths and hidden things [not obvious to the understanding].

hat paul is saying is if you speak in a earthly language that others dont understand, say Hebrew to greek then you speak to God, but man cant understand it, cause they dont speak that earthly language and he utters secretes and mysteries of God, yes of course he does, but nobody can understand it, do you see what I mean, serious go do some research. Ecstatic speech only came about under Charles Parnham over a thousand years after Pentecost.

 

[jiminpa]

What you are saying those verses say is not in the text.

It specifically says in 1 Corinthians 14:2 that no one understands what that man is saying because God's Spirit is giving him secret truths.

You said correctly that all heard in their own dialects, but your claim that it says that all of those languages were spoken is not in the text. You are assuming. Yes, it is a reasonable assumption, but not necessarily the correct assumption.

 

[pauluk3]

What you are saying those verses say is not in the text.

It specifically says in 1 Corinthians 14:2 that no one understands what that man is saying because God's Spirit is giving him secret truths.

You said correctly that all heard in their own dialects, but your claim that it says that all of those languages were spoken is not in the text. You are assuming. Yes, it is a reasonable assumption, but not necessarily the correct assumption.

What you are saying those verses say is not in the text.
What do you mean, sorry I misunderstood the above statement.

It specifically says in 1 Corinthians 14:2 that no one understands what that man is saying because God's Spirit is giving him secret truths.

Yes so right Paul was speaking to a church with many different languages, no one understands cause the guy is speaking in a different earthly language that they do not now. So if i spoke in Spanish no English person would understand only God would.

You said correctly that all heard in their own dialects, but your claim that it says that all of those languages were spoken is not in the text. You are assuming. Yes, it is a reasonable assumption, but not necessarily the correct assumption.[/QUOTE]

But it is in the text I copied that straight out the bible, go read in acts 2 its all there.It also does not use the word dialects its says languages and then lists them, am I missing something ?

 

[pauluk3]

What you are saying those verses say is not in the text.

It specifically says in 1 Corinthians 14:2 that no one understands what that man is saying because God's Spirit is giving him secret truths.

You said correctly that all heard in their own dialects, but your claim that it says that all of those languages were spoken is not in the text. You are assuming. Yes, it is a reasonable assumption, but not necessarily the correct assumption.

just to clarify are you saying the gibberish apparently heavenly language spoken in church today is the same as the one spoken in acts 2 ?

 

[jiminpa]

What you are saying those verses say is not in the text.
What do you mean, sorry I misunderstood the above statement.

Yes so right Paul was speaking to a church with many different languages, no one understands cause the guy is speaking in a different earthly language that they do not now. So if i spoke in Spanish no English person would understand only God would.

That is not in the text, and in fact is opposed to what the text says.

But it is in the text I copied that straight out the bible, go read in acts 2 its all there.It also does not use the word dialects its says languages and then lists them, am I missing something ?

Where does the text say that the disciples spoke those languages? It says that the disciples spoke in tongues, but did not describe the tongues that they spoke. Then it says that each person heard in his own language, (some translations specify dialect). You are assuming that there was no supernatural interpretation, and are inserting your assumption into the text as if it is actually there.

 

[pauluk3]

That is not in the text, and in fact is opposed to what the text says.
Where does the text say that the disciples spoke those languages? It says that the disciples spoke in tongues, but did not describe the tongues that they spoke. Then it says that each person heard in his own language, (some translations specify dialect). You are assuming that there was no supernatural interpretation, and are inserting your assumption into the text as if it is actually there.

I think you misunderstand what the bible says when it refers to tongues, it always refers to this as a human language. If you go read in the Greek and look at the below information, you will see this is true, it is explained extensively.

glóssa: the tongue, a language
Original Word: γλῶσσα, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: glóssa
Phonetic Spelling: (gloce-sah')
Short Definition: the tongue, a language, nation
Definition: the tongue, a language, a nation (usually distinguished by their speech).
HELPS Word-studies
1100 glṓssa – tongue, used of flowing speech; (figuratively) speaking, inspired by God, like the evidence of tongues-speaking supplied by the Lord in the book of Acts to demonstrate the arrival of the new age of the covenant (i.e. NT times).

[The normative experience of the 120 believers received "tongues (1100 /glṓssa) as of fire" (Ac 2:3) and miraculously spoke in other actual languages, i.e. that they could not speak before (Ac 2:4f). This sign was repeated in Ac 10:46, 19:6 – furnishing ample proof (three attestations) that the Lord had incorporated all believers into Christ's (mystical) body (1 Cor 12:13).]

Strong's Greek: 1100. ?????? (glóssa) -- the tongue, a language

 

[jiminpa]

I think you misunderstand what the bible says when it refers to tongues, it always refers to this as a human language. If you go read in the Greek and look at the below information, you will see this is true, it is explained extensively.

glóssa: the tongue, a language
Original Word: γλῶσσα, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: glóssa
Phonetic Spelling: (gloce-sah')
Short Definition: the tongue, a language, nation
Definition: the tongue, a language, a nation (usually distinguished by their speech).
HELPS Word-studies
1100 glṓssa – tongue, used of flowing speech; (figuratively) speaking, inspired by God, like the evidence of tongues-speaking supplied by the Lord in the book of Acts to demonstrate the arrival of the new age of the covenant (i.e. NT times).

[The normative experience of the 120 believers received "tongues (1100 /glṓssa) as of fire" (Ac 2:3) and miraculously spoke in other actual languages, i.e. that they could not speak before (Ac 2:4f). This sign was repeated in Ac 10:46, 19:6 – furnishing ample proof (three attestations) that the Lord had incorporated all believers into Christ's (mystical) body (1 Cor 12:13).]

Strong's Greek: 1100. ?????? (glóssa) -- the tongue, a language

The Strong's definition simply says that the word translated "tongue" refers to a language or nation. Okay. That does not dismiss it being a Heavenly language. The rest of that link is opinion and not does not line up with scripture. If you think that some website is more authoritative than scripture then there really isn't much I can say to you.

 

[jiminpa]

just to clarify are you saying the gibberish apparently heavenly language spoken in church today is the same as the one spoken in acts 2 ?

I am saying that the Bible doesn't specify if they were all speaking in human languages or in a language with no Earthly equivalent. To impose an assumption and create a doctrine out of the assumption is problematic, and God is not bound to that assumption and doctrine.

We can then go to the other texts that specifically indicate Spiritual languages to learn that there is such a thing as a language that no man knows and is given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

It's the Bible that speaks of languages not understood by any man and given by the Holy Spirit. I'm sorry if your doctrine won't allow for that, but it is the doctrine and not the Bible that is wrong.

 

[pauluk3]

The Strong's definition simply says that the word translated "tongue" refers to a language or nation. Okay. That does not dismiss it being a Heavenly language. The rest of that link is opinion and not does not line up with scripture. If you think that some website is more authoritative than scripture then there really isn't much I can say to you.

Thats not what I am saying at all, I am just saying when the bible refers to tongues it refers not to ecstatic gibberish speech, you just assume it does, I am wrong in saying that ?

When the bible says tongues it refers to it as an earthly language, of course I believe the bible first. It actually says the tongue, a language, a nation (usually distinguished by their speech). Does that sound like it is referring to a heavenly language ?

 

[pauluk3]

I am saying that the Bible doesn't specify if they were all speaking in human languages or in a language with no Earthly equivalent. To impose an assumption and create a doctrine out of the assumption is problematic, and God is not bound to that assumption and doctrine.

We can then go to the other texts that specifically indicate Spiritual languages to learn that there is such a thing as a language that no man knows and is given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

But I could easily say that you interpreter those versus incorrectly.

Why did Jesus never speak in tongues, why did the disciples never teach it ?

It's the Bible that speaks of languages not understood by any man and given by the Holy Spirit. I'm sorry if your doctrine won't allow for that, but it is the doctrine and not the Bible that is wrong.

Well i think you are referring to interpretation over doctrine, you do know that for over 1000 years there were ecstatic tongue speaking in church until Charles Parnham arrived, are you aware of this - its fact.

 

[RDKirk]

Without getting into a debate over precisely what happened on the day of Pentecost, we know it's not the same thing being discussed by Paul to the Corinthians and not what was happening in the Corinthian congregation.

The phenomenon of Pentecost was one of "universal understanding." However it happened, the result was that every man clearly understood what the apostles said in whatever language that man understood best.

Paul, OTOH, is just as clearly describing the other phenomenon as one that no man understands. So they are different phenomena.

The Corinthian phenomenon has another characteristic: It is inherently and indisputably a work of the Holy Spirit. This is the same phenomenon that occurred in Samaria when Peter and John went there to determine if Samaritans were included in the gospel promise of salvation. It's also the same phenomenon that occurred in the house of Cornelius, also providing indisputable proof of the work of the Holy Spirit.

So whatever this second phenomenon is, it is something that no Christian will deny is the evidence of the Holy Spirit. It can't be something that can be faked or denied.

 

[jiminpa]

Thats not what I am saying at all, I am just saying when the bible refers to tongues it refers not to ecstatic gibberish speech, you just assume it does, I am wrong in saying that ?

When the bible says tongues it refers to it as an earthly language, of course I believe the bible first. It actually says the tongue, a language, a nation (usually distinguished by their speech). Does that sound like it is referring to a heavenly language ?

Do you realize that you are calling the language of the Holy Spirit ecstatic gibberish? It is not me you are disrespecting when calling the inspiration of the Holy Spirit gibberish.

I get that the same word for language is also the same word for nation in Greek. The limitation of the language does not invalidate the explanation in scripture. What Greek word could Luke and Paul have used to speak of languages specific to God and Christians? Was there such a word? If you can demonstrate that Luke and Paul avoided the existing word for Heavenly languages then you may have a point.

So your argument that tongues has to be a human language is that there is no word for a Heavenly language. If you are willing to insult God's Spirit on that reasoning, there is nothing anyone can say to get you to believe the Bible on the subject.

 

[pauluk3]

Without getting into a debate over precisely what happened on the day of Pentecost, we know it's not the same thing being discussed by Paul to the Corinthians and not what was happening in the Corinthian congregation.

The phenomenon of Pentecost was one of "universal understanding." However it happened, the result was that every man clearly understood what the apostles said in whatever language that man understood best.

Paul, OTOH, is just as clearly describing the other phenomenon as one that no man understands. So they are different phenomena.

The Corinthian phenomenon has another characteristic: It is inherently and indisputably a work of the Holy Spirit. This is the same phenomenon that occurred in Samaria when Peter and John went there to determine if Samaritans were included in the gospel promise of salvation. It's also the same phenomenon that occurred in the house of Cornelius, also providing indisputable proof of the work of the Holy Spirit.

But your above statement i simply not accurate, the tongues spoken at Pentecost and spoken in the house of Cornelius were the same (human languages) as Paul states in acts when explain to the apostles that the spirit fell on them and we spoke in tongues as at the beginning (at Pentecost)

15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with[a] water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”



So whatever this second phenomenon is, it is something that no Christian will deny is the evidence of the Holy Spirit. It can't be something that can be faked or denied.

Firstly whenever touges is spoke it is of the Holy Spirit supernaturally- so you do agree there are two types of tongues (ecstatic speech and earthly languages - not know by the speaker as displayed at Pentecost)

 

[jiminpa]

Well i think you are referring to interpretation over doctrine, you do know that for over 1000 years there were ecstatic tongue speaking in church until Charles Parnham arrived, are you aware of this - its fact.

So now you are saying that experience trumps the text of the Bible? We don't experience a lot of things that the Bible records as normal for believers. I attribute that to unbelief, which also seems to be supported by the Bible.

I don't know this Charles Parnham. I don't know that no one spoke in a Spirit inspired language prior to him. I know that the Bible speaks of Holy Spirit given gift of languages not understood by men. The lack of documentation does not equal proof of non-existence.

John, in his Gospel account, acknowledges that Jesus did more miracles than could be documented, but since they weren't documented do you dispute them based on lack of specific account?

What you are really doing with your anecdotal "proof" is holding up a history of unbelief and disobedience to the scriptures among those calling themselves Christians as the standard against which you expect the Bible to comply. Sorry, past disobedience and faithlessness is not the standard I want to emulate.

 

[jiminpa]

But I believe ecstatic speech is not from God, so I am not disrespecting God at all , like i said ecstatic speech only stated when Charles Parnham showed up, have actually read about were Pentecostalism came from ? You do know that almost all pagan religion speak tongues (ecstatic speech) right ?

I hope that excuse works for you.

You see, I don't care about the counterfeits. I don't care about your incomplete knowledge of religious history. I care about what the Bible actually says. The Bible says it's real, that's all I need to know.

 

[jiminpa]

wow , do don't even know were ecstatic speech orginated from, well I am sorry i thought I was getting information from someone who actually had a bit more knowledge, no offence but I dont feel you are qualified to assist me, thanks for the chat.

No, I didn't waste much time learning all of the ways to get Christianity wrong. I spent my time reading the Bible instead. Since you were never looking for what the Bible actually says in the first place and just wanted someone to agree with your unbiblical religious fallacies, I am sure that I am not qualified to assist you in your true goal.