What do Baptists believe about speaking in tongues?

[Righttruth]

RT,

This is not what 1 Cor 14:2 teaches: 'For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit (NIV).

Therefore, the person given the gift of tongues,

• is not speaking to people but to God;
• Nobody understands those with this gift,
  
• because they 'utter mysteries'.

Are you calling 'mysteries by the Spirit' gibberish?

Oz

I am least bothered on what one communicates in a closed room in whatever posture and style.

 

[Righttruth]

RT,

All spiritual gifts are given by the Holy Spirit, including speaking in tongues, in which 'mysteries by the Spirit' are spoken (1 Cor 14:2 NIV).

I find to label the gift of tongues as gibberish instead of the biblical designation as 'mysteries by the Spirit', to be blasphemous.

Oxford Dictionaries online defines gibberish as 'unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense' (Oxford dictionaries online 2018. s.v. gibberish).

The gift of speaking in tongues is only gibberish if there is no gift of interpretation (not translation) in the church gathering. See 1 Cor 14:11 (NIV): ' If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me'.

'I would like every one of you to speak in tongues....' (1 Cor 14:5 NIV).

Oz

1 Corinthians 14: 2 For 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.

Speaking gibberish is not related to the Holy Spirit, but to a man's spirit as indicated above. So it is blasphemous to attribute an emotional burst of unknown talk to the Holy Spirit!

Both v. 11 and 15 no way relate to the Holy Spirit.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Speaking gibberish is not related to the Holy Spirit, but to a man's spirit as indicated above. So it is blasphemous to attribute an emotional burst of unknown talk to the Holy Spirit!

The chapter starts with Paul comparing two different gifts of the Holy Spirit. One is prophecy and the other is speaking in tongues. Don't call it gibberish. That's foolish.

...but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

The Holy Spirit isn't talking to himself. The language is a gift of the Holy Spirit, but the man is the one doing the communicating.

 

[Righttruth]

The chapter starts with Paul comparing two different gifts of the Holy Spirit. One is prophecy and the other is speaking in tongues. Don't call it gibberish. That's foolish.

Claiming the utterance of a person on his own with his spirit as that of the Holy Spirit is blasphemy! This is not a spiritual gift as listed by Paul.

The Holy Spirit isn't talking to himself. The language is a gift of the Holy Spirit, but the man is the one doing the communicating.

The Holy Spirit helps a person in communicating to God if he is unable to find words. Not when he is speaking gibberish with meaningless words!

 

[OzSpen]

I am least bothered on what one communicates in a closed room in whatever posture and style.

That's not answering the issue i raised.

 

[OzSpen]

1 Corinthians 14: 2 For 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.

Speaking gibberish is not related to the Holy Spirit, but to a man's spirit as indicated above. So it is blasphemous to attribute an emotional burst of unknown talk to the Holy Spirit!

Both v. 11 and 15 no way relate to the Holy Spirit.

RT,

These seem to be your preconceived ideas. I'm not sure you are open to my engaging with you on the basis of exegesis, contextual interpretatio and exposition.

Speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:28-30).

To impose on 'tongues' that it is speaking in a known foreign language is contradictory to the teaching of 1 Cor 14: 2, 'For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit (Notice that the NIV translates pneuma as 'Spirit' and not 'spirit'. That's because the gift of tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor 14:11-15 is most definitely relating to the Holy Spirit as 1 Cor 14:2 in the NIV rightly translates as 'Spirit'. This is the context.
In these verses Paul is correcting wrong exercises of spiritual gifts in the Corinthian church (it happens in churches today that are open to the Holy Spirit's gifts).

Paul, in providing correction of disorder relating to the gifts, says nowhere that vv 11-15 in no way relates to the Holy Spirit.

Paul's affirmative teaching is: 'I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you' (1 Cor 14:18 NIV). It would be preposterous to state that Paul said of himself, 'I thank God that I speak in gibberish more than all of you'.

See my articles,

• Gift of tongues is gibberish?
• Is the gift of tongues an example of babbling to God?
• Tongues and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit
• Baptism of the Holy Spirit: When does it happen?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Claiming the utterance of a person on his own with his spirit as that of the Holy Spirit is blasphemy! This is not a spiritual gift as listed by Paul.

What does 1 Cor 14:2 state, 'For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands
them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit' (NIV).

Let's get something clear, this is NOT 'the utterance of a person on his own with his spirit'. This Scripture is clear that the person who speaks in tongues, by the Holy Spirit, utters 'mysteries by the Spirit'. The person is not most definitely speaking 'mysteries' by the Spirit and that's why it needs the accompanying gift of interpretation in the public gathering.

It seems that you are engaging in eisegesis - imposing your view on the text - by making the gift of tongues equivalent to gibberish = 'nonsense, rubbish, balderdash, blather, blether. Informal drivel, gobbledegook, mumbo jumbo, rot, tripe, hogwash, baloney, bilge, bosh, bull, bunk, guff, eyewash, piffle, twaddle, poppycock, phooey, hooey, malarkey, dribble' (Oxford dictionaries online 2018. s.v. gibberish).

This association of a genuine gift of the Spirit with poppycock, I find to be illogical and absurd.

I buy a bag of tomatoes at the supermarket and I find a rotten one in the bag - I may not see the rotten spot until I cut the tomato in half. That doesn't stop me from eating tomatoes.

One or 100 bad examples of disorder in Pentecostal/charismatic churches today should not be reason for abandoning the genuine gifts of the Spirit including the gift of tongues, which is not a known foreign language or gibberish, but is the gift of speaking 'mysteries in the Spirit' to God.

Oz

 

[Righttruth]

The chapter starts with Paul comparing two different gifts of the Holy Spirit. One is prophecy and the other is speaking in tongues. Don't call it gibberish. That's foolish.

No, Paul was alarmed by the way people started mocking at the Pentecostal phenomenon after he left Corinth, being there for about one and a half years. He had reports from that place both for and against these strange activities. So he wrote of spiritual gift of diverse tongues, and activities based on emotional persons's spirits. Equating the two is twisting his letter leading to destruction as Peter warned!

The Holy Spirit isn't talking to himself. The language is a gift of the Holy Spirit, but the man is the one doing the communicating.

The Holy Spirit helps in conveying the message if one fails in words. It does not mean he will encourage unknown tongue speaking. What is unknown tongue to the Holy Spirit?

 

[Righttruth]

That's not answering the issue i raised.

That answers; the unknown tongue (gibberish) is not related to the Holy Spirit!

 

[Righttruth]

RT,

These seem to be your preconceived ideas. I'm not sure you are open to my engaging with you on the basis of exegesis, contextual interpretatio and exposition.

I am referring to period of gibberish talk in Corinth after Paul left, and its cessation for hundreds of years later. I am not interested in contemporary and misleading understanding that is in vogue from past about one hundred years or so.

Speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:28-30).

To impose on 'tongues' that it is speaking in a known foreign language is contradictory to the teaching of 1 Cor 14: 2, 'For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit (Notice that the NIV translates pneuma as 'Spirit' and not 'spirit'. That's because the gift of tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

NIV is considered as one of the worst versions, not many truth seekers don't even want to touch that from a long pole!

Paul's affirmative teaching is: 'I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you' (1 Cor 14:18 NIV). It would be preposterous to state that Paul said of himself, 'I thank God that I speak in gibberish more than all of you'.

Scholarly Paul,probably, was well versed in many other languages. He is referring to that, not speaking unknown tongue which can never be related to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Righttruth]

What does 1 Cor 14:2 state, 'For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands
them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit' (NIV).

Let's get something clear, this is NOT 'the utterance of a person on his own with his spirit'. This Scripture is clear that the person who speaks in tongues, by the Holy Spirit, utters 'mysteries by the Spirit'. The person is not most definitely speaking 'mysteries' by the Spirit and that's why it needs the accompanying gift of interpretation in the public gathering.

It seems that you are engaging in eisegesis - imposing your view on the text - by making the gift of tongues equivalent to gibberish = 'nonsense, rubbish, balderdash, blather, blether. Informal drivel, gobbledegook, mumbo jumbo, rot, tripe, hogwash, baloney, bilge, bosh, bull, bunk, guff, eyewash, piffle, twaddle, poppycock, phooey, hooey, malarkey, dribble' (Oxford dictionaries online 2018. s.v. gibberish).

This association of a genuine gift of the Spirit with poppycock, I find to be illogical and absurd.

I buy a bag of tomatoes at the supermarket and I find a rotten one in the bag - I may not see the rotten spot until I cut the tomato in half. That doesn't stop me from eating tomatoes.

One or 100 bad examples of disorder in Pentecostal/charismatic churches today should not be reason for abandoning the genuine gifts of the Spirit including the gift of tongues, which is not a known foreign language or gibberish, but is the gift of speaking 'mysteries in the Spirit' to God.

Oz

NIV is considered as one of the worst versions! Why this kind of gibberish talk generated after Paul left after staying in Corinth for about one and a half years? Why did it cease for hundreds of years after Paul's advice of seeking better gifts? Does God give inferior and superior gifts?

 

[OzSpen]

That answers; the unknown tongue (gibberish) is not related to the Holy Spirit!

Gibberish is your imposed meaning. Surely the apostle Paul would not admit, 'I thank God that I speak in gibberish more than all of you' (1 Cor 14:18 ESV).

He dares to admit that he thanks God for this gift of the Spirit - tongues.

You don't want to look on tongues as a genuine gift of the Spirit. Paul would not state that 'anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God' as meaning 'anyone who speaks in gibberish does not speak to people but to God' (1 Cor 14:2 NIV).

I have no more to discuss when you engage in eisegesis like this.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

duplicate

 

[OzSpen]

NIV is considered as one of the worst versions! Why this kind of gibberish talk generated after Paul left after staying in Corinth for about one and a half years? Why did it cease for hundreds of years after Paul's advice of seeking better gifts? Does God give inferior and superior gifts?

RT,

Who said so??

A Professor in a Baptist seminary, Dr Rodney Decker, has written 50pp of review of the 2011 edition of the NIV. His conclusion is:

"My judgment is that the NIV11 is a usable translation in many situations. It continues the NIV tradition largely unchanged, though improved in many small ways across the breadth of the canon. It is not perfect. No translation is. (Have I mentioned that before?) It has a few warts. All translations do. Overall, however, it is an improvement of an otherwise fine translation" (An Evaluation of the 2011 Edition of the New International Version NT, Rodney J. Decker, ThD, Professor of Greek and New Testament).​

So the NIV is a 'fine translation' from this evangelical scholar's research. One needs to understand that it is a dynamic equivalence translation (meaning for meaning) and not a literal translation (word for word).

As a person who reads koine Greek and has taught NT
Greek, I endorse Prof Decker's assessment that it is an excellent translation with a few warts - as all translations have.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I am referring to period of gibberish talk in Corinth after Paul left, and its cessation for hundreds of years later.

Please provide evidence that the gift of tongues (NOT gibberish) ceased for hundreds of years after Paul's writing to the Corinthians.

 

[Righttruth]

Gibberish is your imposed meaning. Surely the apostle Paul would not admit, 'I thank God that I speak in gibberish more than all of you' (1 Cor 14:18 ESV).

He dares to admit that he thanks God for this gift of the Spirit - tongues.

You don't want to look on tongues as a genuine gift of the Spirit. Paul would not state that 'anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God' as meaning 'anyone who speaks in gibberish does not speak to people but to God' (1 Cor 14:2 NIV).

I have no more to discuss when you engage in eisegesis like this.

Oz

Yes, Paul is claiming that he spoke more languages than many in the congregation, something not surprising to a scholar with his exposure to different cultures. That is precisely the gift of the Spirit.
Why should we worry on the means of communication between a person and God privately?

 

[Righttruth]

RT,

Who said so??

A Professor in a Baptist seminary, Dr Rodney Decker, has written 50pp of review of the 2011 edition of the NIV. His conclusion is:

"My judgment is that the NIV11 is a usable translation in many situations. It continues the NIV tradition largely unchanged, though improved in many small ways across the breadth of the canon. It is not perfect. No translation is. (Have I mentioned that before?) It has a few warts. All translations do. Overall, however, it is an improvement of an otherwise fine translation" (An Evaluation of the 2011 Edition of the New International Version NT, Rodney J. Decker, ThD, Professor of Greek and New Testament).​

So the NIV is a 'fine translation' from this evangelical scholar's research. One needs to understand that it is a dynamic equivalence translation (meaning for meaning) and not a literal translation (word for word).

As a person who reads koine Greek and has taught NT
Greek, I endorse Prof Decker's assessment that it is an excellent translation with a few warts - as all translations have.

Oz

Anything that leads to warts need to be considered with caution! Though no version is perfect, yet KJV continues to reflect correct translation.

 

[Righttruth]

Please provide evidence that the gift of tongues (NOT gibberish) ceased for hundreds of years after Paul's writing to the Corinthians.

The evidence is the revival that took place in the USA about one hundred years ago. Mushrooming of Pentecostal based denominations with further splits that followed. (Revival also appeared in UK earlier to the USA but it died out). The black pastor who started this died heart broken for the way things went bad to worse.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, Paul is claiming that he spoke more languages than many in the congregation....

That's an imposition on the text. For what is the Holy Spirit's gift of tongues given? ' For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God' (1 Cor 14:2 NIV).

 

[OzSpen]

Anything that leads to warts need to be considered with caution! Though no version is perfect, yet KJV continues to reflect correct translation.

That cannot be possible for the KJV as it is based on Erasmus's Textus Receptus Greek text that was created from only a handful of Greek MSS:

Erasmus 'had only six Greek manuscripts immediately accessible to him in Basel. They all dated from the 12th Century or later'.

He didn't have a MSS with the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation, so he translated them from the Latin Vulgate. Since the publication of the Textus Receptus, no new Greek MSS has been found that agrees fully with Erasmus's translation (Textus Receptus).