What is the baptism of the holy spirit all about?

[JAL]

You posted that and yet...



You keep switching from defining the gift of tongues from between those that receive the gift..... to those that hear it. May God help you to see that so that you maqy know what He led Paul to say what God's gift of tongues are as those that receive the gift do not know what they are speaking, because it is of other men's lips.

At this link, is a thread explaining how believers misread 1 Corinthians 14th chapter on what Paul meant by the use of the phrase "speaketh not unto men but unto God" as meaning not speaking to God but God understands waht is being said even though the Spirit-manifested tongue speaker does not.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7735980/



The important distinction here is that Paul was defining the use of the gft of tongues when supposedly being manifested by the Spirit in church so that it would be done decently and in order.

At that link provided in this post earlier, Paul gave guidelines as to know what is not being manifested by the Spirit in church when tongues does not come with interpretation as in vs 28 topic of that link.



Paul was citing that "prophesy" of the future event at Pentecost that God would cause His people to speak with other men's lips unto the people and so that was the gift of tongues being manifested in believers at Pentecost to speak unto the people in their native language.

Paul says that the gift of tongues, as a public proclamation, is useless without an interpreter. If Pentecost were tongues, it would therefore have been useless, because there was no interpreter on Pentecost. Pentecost was not, therefore, the gift of tongues. It was the gift of prophecy.

If you deny this, then you deny Paul's argument - in effect you are saying to the Corinthians, "Go ahead and use the gift of tongues all you want without an interpreter, God is fine with that."

Fact is, you are trying to shove the gift of tongues down Pentecost's throat. The two gifts are distinct, and the distinction is utterly crucial for understanding how evangelism/witnessing is supposed to work. It is supposed to be prophetic utterance - that's the paradigm established in Acts 2.

 

[JAL]

Zeke37
You are insisting that the term tongue simply means a known language and thus each Corinthian was speaking in his own language, causing confusion because each Corinthian spoke a different language. You say that Pentecostals of today are just babbling, causing their minds to be unfruitful for God. You say that they should only speak in known languages/tongues - languages they already know - for when we speak (known) languages/tongues, our minds are fruitful. Thus in your view, to speak in a tongue means to speak a language you already know, therefore making your mind fruitful. But Paul disagrees with this conclusion. Paul says that to speak in a tongue causes your mind to be unfruitful. "[14] For if I pray in an (unknown) tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." I put the word "unknown" in parentheses because it is not in the original Greek. In the actual Greek it says that if I speak in a tongue my mind is unfruitful. Therefore a "tongue" in this chapter isn't referring to a known language.

If I am speaking a language I already know, why would I pray to God for an interpretation? "Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret" (verse 13). If I am speaking a language I already know, how can then gift of interpretation be a gift SEPARATE AND DISTINCT from the gift of knowing the language? It doesn't take two gifts two know a language. It only takes one. If God gave me a gifted intellect whereby I learned Hebrew fluently, why would I then need to pray for a SECOND gift (the gift of interpretation) to understand what I said or interpret it for others? That doesn’t make much sense.

You summarize Paul's message thus, "If you are speaking you own native language unknown to the audience, be sure to have an interpreter present." But you're adding a conditional "IF" - there was no "IF" in Paul's declaration. He didn't say, "If the audience doesn’t know the tongue". Rather he ASSERTED that the audience NEVER understands someone who is speaking in the gift of tongues. "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries" (14:2). It's clear enough you are superimposing your own views upon Paul, instead of accepting what he wrote. (Again the word 'unknown' is not in the original Greek - it was added by the translators).

 

[ViaCrucis]

To ViaCrucis

you said:


I have two questions for you please:
1 - What do you mean by: the whole church? If you mean the first church two thousands years ago then I ask you the following question number 2:
2 - it is the same question that I asked to MoreCoffee:
How can a person today know if he is a successor/descendant of those that received the holy spirit two thousand years ago? What if they and all their generations are no more?

thank you

All who are baptized are Christ's, all who are Christ's are in His one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JAL]

Zeke37,
Your view would mean that Paul has created a false dilemma or false dichotomy at verse 4: "He that speaketh in a (unknown) tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church." Why so? You say that we should always speak in languages we already know, you say this is what Paul means by "tongues". For instance you would say (and I would agree) that I should try to preach in a language known to me and to the audience. To edify the whole church, then, I should speak in a known language. Agreed.

But in verse 4 Paul says that the "tongues" in view here does NOT edify the church. It only edifies oneself. To edify the church, we need a SECOND gift (the gift of interpretation or, alternatively, the gift of prophecy). Here again you contradict Paul. To summarize, Paul cannot be referring to known languages, because such languages CAN edify the whole church. He is referring to a gift which cannot, in of itself, edify the church. A perfect fit for such a gift would be a tongue that the audience cannot possibly understand.

You say that an unknown tongue would edify no one, not even the speaker. I submit you are wrong. Sometimes we quit praying and praising when we feel we are running out of words to say. If God gives us the words we might tend to pray and praise a little longer. In our hearts we can say, "Even though I lack words to express your greatness, accept these unknown words as my little effort to continue to praise you - I trust you are giving me words that express the feelings of praise in my heart." You would presume that God is too proud or too insensitive to be capable of appreciating that kind of praise? If that's what you think, I bet you're wrong.

And stop making it look as though everything in the NT is all about evangelism. That wasn't Paul's only agenda. He was also concerned with prayer and praise.

 

[zeke37]

Paul says that the gift of tongues, as a public proclamation, is useless without an interpreter. If Pentecost were tongues, it would therefore have been useless, because there was no interpreter on Pentecost. Pentecost was not, therefore, the gift of tongues. It was the gift of prophecy.

If you deny this, then you deny Paul's argument - in effect you are saying to the Corinthians, "Go ahead and use the gift of tongues all you want without an interpreter, God is fine with that."

Fact is, you are trying to shove the gift of tongues down Pentecost's throat. The two gifts are distinct, and the distinction is utterly crucial for understanding how evangelism/witnessing is supposed to work. It is supposed to be prophetic utterance - that's the paradigm established in Acts 2.

Acts2 was a miracle from God that allowed the speaker
to be understood in what ever language/tongue that the hearer themselves were born with/understood

it was meant for perfect communication/understanding of the message.
it was a supernatural way to kick-start the Great Commission.

you are correct in that 1Cor14's "tongues" is not the same thing
however Paul uses 1Cor14 to show us how WE TOO can spread the Gospel to all tongues of men,
thus continue that same Great Commission

that is the message behind 1Cor14,
not public vs corporate "tongues" as you call it

 

[zeke37]

Zeke37
You are insisting that the term tongue simply means a known language

well, either known or not known, to them listening or speaking
but in 1Cor14 it is always referencing human languages of the nations, yes
but you insist it is an "unlanguage" of sorts

and thus each Corinthian was speaking in his own language, causing confusion because each Corinthian spoke a different language.

well, that would be taking it to the extreme, to say each of them.
Paul is generalizing here, as is obvious
there could be hundreds gathered together at any time in the church

imagine 10 different dialects or languages all under the same roof

imagine that many of them wanted to share what they glean from scriptures about Christ

imagine that there were 10 different people, each speaking their own tongues,
speaking over each other and all at the same time
"trying" to edify the assembly

imagine that there was no order,
nor any translators to translate from one language to another

imagine that some folks refused to allow such transfer between languages

imagine that Paul was correcting them on their bad practices of sharing the Good News and the Great Commission

imagine that Paul will give them both good and bad examples
of how to share the Good News to a multi-lingual society,
or to anyone that speaks a different tongue than you

imagine that it is NEVER about what YOU CURRENTLY THINK it is about

and imagine that by following this chapter properly,
WE were able to receive the Good News in OUR OWN TONGUE(s),
to UNDERSTAND, and thus we came to God

You say that Pentecostals of today are just babbling, causing their minds to be unfruitful for God.

i'm saying they are mumbling, and that's all God hears too.

BUT if you THINK about what you are praying to God,
rationally and with understanding,
yet still decide to MUMBLE that outloud, so be it,

i could care less even if I think it's silly.
but I would not admonish you at all for it.

But your circle goes a step further by claiming 1Cor14 in support of your ecstatic utterances practice
thus making void the true message that God would have us learn from it
about the Great Commission

and that is worth getting some in a huff about
rattle a few cages

You say that they should only speak in known languages/tongues - languages they already know - for when we speak (known) languages/tongues, our minds are fruitful.

well....that's the only thing that is possible.
you CAN'T speak with understanding, in a language that you do not know

Thus in your view, to speak in a tongue means to speak a language you already know, therefore making your mind fruitful.

no.
you are not allowing for the context to determine whether the tongue in question is known or foreign
nor whether it's the speaker or listener as subject



Paul mentions tongues
he is referring to any language that is foreign to the audience,
any audience that any speaker speaks to

Paul spoke more tongues/languages than all, so they are not foreign to him.
understand?

But Paul disagrees with this conclusion.

he disagrees with your misconception about what you thought I said

Paul says that to speak in a tongue causes your mind to be unfruitful.

you are misunderstanding everything, including this
again, you are not keeping the context in place.

"[14] For if I pray in an (unknown) tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." I put the word "unknown" in parentheses because it is not in the original Greek. In the actual Greek it says that if I speak in a tongue my mind is unfruitful. Therefore a "tongue" in this chapter isn't referring to a known language.

huh?
if Paul comes to Corinth and speaks Hebrew (tongue) to this multi-cultural but mostly Greek crowd
that would be him speaking a tongue. his tongue.
it's a "tongue" when the audience does not understand it...anyone's audience

so the Greek person who decides to give a testimony to another of a different tongue
his own Greek language would be a "tongue" to the one he is speaking to




pray/sing/preach....in church, edifying others

Paul continues and says, WHAT THEN? what should we do?
his answer is basically,
well, when we pray/sing, we are to do so with both understanding and in the Spirit
so everyone can understand

that is NOT what happens at Pentecostal/charismatic assemblies. sorry

If I am speaking a language I already know, why would I pray to God for an interpretation? "

you wouldn't.
Paul does not say that.
you ilk interprets things that way, but that is NOT what he says

but if you were Hebrew and your audience was Greek,
then you would pray to God for an interpreter to help you get your message to them,
wouldn't you?

Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret" (verse 13). If I am speaking a language I already know, how can then gift of interpretation be a gift SEPARATE AND DISTINCT from the gift of knowing the language? It doesn't take two gifts two know a language. It only takes one. If God gave me a gifted intellect whereby I learned Hebrew fluently, why would I then need to pray for a SECOND gift (the gift of interpretation) to understand what I said or interpret it for others? That doesn’t make much sense.

of course it doesn't.
that is not what I teach nor what Paul outright says

what you just wrote about, is Paul teaching that;
hey mr. greek man, if you decide to share the good news with anyone that does not speak the greek tongue,
pray that there is someone there to interpret your tongue into theirs

a gifted Believer, that will help you spread the Word
and continue the Great Commission

You summarize Paul's message thus, "If you are speaking you own native language unknown to the audience, be sure to have an interpreter present."

only IF that "tongue" is unknown to your audience.
there is obv. no need of this if the audience speaks your tongue

Paul spoke all kinds of tongues.....
he did not need an interpreter to speak to the audience

but we are not all gifted in tongues as Paul was.
(and i'm not talking about your charismatic meaning of tongues)

we are not all gifted linguists iow.

But you're adding a conditional "IF" - there was no "IF" in Paul's declaration.
He didn't say, "If the audience doesn’t know the tongue". Rather he ASSERTED that the audience NEVER understands someone who is speaking in the gift of tongues.

he's not speaking of the "gift of tongues" every time he uses the word tongues

tongues just means languages, not some supernatural prayer language

I did not add the word IF like you think btw.
Paul gives plenty of examples, with IF in 1Cor14
in fact, the chapter is BASED around that word....because Paul is giving examples
so he says IF a lot

6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you,
​

that means if Paul comes to them speaking a foreign language,
they won't understand him

8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
​

when a trumpet blows, we know it's a trumpet.
it has it's own sound and is understood as such

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.
​

speaking Hebrew to a bunch of Greeks won't accomplish much

10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
11 Therefore 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.
​

get it yet?

12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
​

get it?

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
​

a Hebrew speaking person ending up in Corinth, wanting to share...
that Hebrew person would be speaking an unknown tongue to them in Corinth,
so he is to pray for help so some gifted person (such as Paul)
can help interpreting from one tongue to another

same with a Greek man that goes abroad, or has a foreign neighbours.
his Greek tongue would then be the "unknown" tongue

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

Paul is aying that it is BAD to speak in an unknown tongue, without an interpreter to help
we are supposed to be edifying the church, so they must understand your tongue/language
whether naturally or by interpretation

otherwise the speaker's understanding, what is in his mind, will not be passed on or bear fruit to the church.
and that's a NO_NO.

15 What 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.

16 Else 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?
​

the chapter does not vary....it sticks to this theme the whole way through.
what we try to share with others, MUST be understood to have any value.
so we are to make it so they can understand, or shut up/zip it!
use interpreters and break the language barrier.

again, it is NOT like that TODAY in our "civilized" society
for obvious reasons.....

17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
​

the other, means the church/them listening
who can't understand your words in your native tongue

 

[zeke37]

"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God:

a very bad thing IF you are supposed to edify the church,
which is what the chapter is all about

if they cannot understand you,
then you are preaching to only God
only the air
only yourself

and God wanted you to preach to them, not Him, not the air, not yourself

it's a repeated teaching, not dogma on a special kind of prayer
just breaking language barriers

for no man understandeth him;

if he speaks Hebrew to a Greek church, then the church doesn't understand him

keep the context alive through out the whole chapter

howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries" (14:2).

yep, even though he's in the Spirit, trying to win souls for God,
if they cannot understand your words, then your words as a mystery to them.
he'd say later, barbarian speech

It's clear enough you are superimposing your own views upon Paul, instead of accepting what he wrote.

lol. makes me laugh...well, smile deeply.
just droppin seeds...maybe one day it's grow

(Again the word 'unknown' is not in the original Greek - it was added by the translators).

ya, everyone knows that...
which is why "context" determines whether the "tongues" is known or not known.

 

[zeke37]

Zeke37,
Your view would mean that Paul has created a false dilemma or false dichotomy at verse 4: "He that speaketh in a (unknown) tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church." Why so?

Paul is not telling you it is OK to speak in unknown languages/tongues
that is your circle's big error
he's saying DON'T DO IT, UNLESS you have an interpreter to help get your message to the audience
otherwise you are doing it in vain and only edifying yourself,
or speaking to the air, or only God, instead of those He wanted you to edify

You say that we should always speak in languages we already know,

of course

you say this is what Paul means by "tongues".

I have already explained that to you over the past few posts
by the time you are done reading this post, and the last,
you should have a complete understanding of what my position (and Paul's) is

For instance you would say (and I would agree) that I should try to preach in a language known to me and to the audience. To edify the whole church, then, I should speak in a known language. Agreed.

that is Paul's complete message because folks were not doing that.
they were preaching in their own tongue, regardless of what it was

and multiply that by folks with diff. tongues, speaking over one another at the same time
all trying to edify the church. bringing nothing but confusion

But in verse 4 Paul says that the "tongues" in view here does NOT edify the church. It only edifies oneself.

in Paul's example, that simply means that they cannot understand your words,
because of a language barrier, so you are in reality only edifying yourself,
when your goal was to edify the church

again, this is the continued teaching in the chapter....edify the church

To edify the church, we need a SECOND gift (the gift of interpretation or, alternatively, the gift of prophecy).

you drastically misuse these terms

Here again you contradict Paul. To summarize, Paul cannot be referring to known languages, because such languages CAN edify the whole church.

what are you talking about? Paul says just that over and over again
so I did not contradict him at all.

He is referring to a gift which cannot, in of itself, edify the church. A perfect fit for such a gift would be a tongue that the audience cannot possibly understand.

wow...ok, so nothing I have said made a dent...so be it
the gift of interpretation, is from one language to another
as is the gift of tongues

they can indeed go hand in hand.


let me give you another example;

Paul has the gift of tongues,
because God gifted him in the ability to understand the tongues of men
and he knew many if not all that he ever came in contact with
making him the perfect vessel for the job God had him do, go to the gentiles

Paul also has the gift of interpretation of tongues,
because he can both speak and translate from one tongue to another, even multiples.

Paul does not need an interpreter, because he is his own.
so Paul spoke more tongues than any of them


if Paul spoke Hebrew tongue to them, in Corinth
then they would need that interpreted into Greek
otherwise they would get nothing out of it

that is what Paul teaches in the chapter

You say that an unknown tongue would edify no one, not even the speaker.

well, I say that the speaker would obv. know his own tongue that he is speaking in
but that language must be understood to have a benefit

I submit you are wrong.

ok, but that doesn't matter.
I hope to plant seeds and maybe God will grow them in His time

Sometimes we quit praying and praising when we feel we are running out of words to say. If God gives us the words we might tend to pray and praise a little longer. In our hearts we can say, "Even though I lack words to express your greatness, accept these unknown words as my little effort to continue to praise you - I trust you are giving me words that express the feelings of praise in my heart."

I think that's poppy-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse],
but again, if you didn't use this chapter to support such fantasies,
i could care less

but you do, so I care a lot because you make void the Word of God contained within,
about the Great Commission

You would presume that God is too proud or too insensitive to be capable of appreciating that kind of praise? If that's what you think, I bet you're wrong.

you'd be wrong if you think God can understand your mumbling.
He understands what you just said inside, about God please accept this.....
but He does not understand the babble anymore than we do

I mean, we have PLENTY of instructions on prayer and praise
and NONE of it is ANYTHING like your practice
infact you guys conveniently forget how Jesus taught us all to pray

it was even a specific question asked to Him, because they did not know how to properly pray.

Jesus told them how, and He did not mumble His instructions,
nor tell them to mumble

And stop making it look as though everything in the NT is all about evangelism. That wasn't Paul's only agenda. He was also concerned with prayer and praise.

sure, but chapter 14 is about the Great Commission,
which can indeed include praise and prayer...and should

but 1Cor14 is not about a public vs private special prayer language
that comes out as an unknown non-language

 

[JAL]

zeke37>> If you were Hebrew and your audience was Greek,
then you would pray to God for an interpreter to help you get your message to them,
wouldn't you?


zeke37, I absolutely would NOT make that prayer. If I wanted to speak in my native language, I would simply ask the leadership (or ask the entire congregation if possible), whether there are any translators available. There's no point in PRAYING for a translator if one isn't already present in the audience, unless I have enough faith to believe that God is in the habit of instantly beaming over a remote translator in Star-Trek fashion. God might be willing to do that on occasion, but it's not His normal way of dealing with us. Paul is advising the Corinthians on how things should NORMALLY proceed, in a fitting and orderly way.


Zeke, You still haven't explained why the gift of tongues is separate and distinct from the gift of interpetation. It doesn't take two different gifts to know a language fluently. It only takes ONE gift at most. No one who is fluent in both languages would say, "I can't translate for the audience until God also gives me the gift of intepretatoin." Your position dosn't make sense.


Zeke, You say that Paul keeps switching his terminology. Sometimes he uses the term "tongue" to refer to a language which the audience DOES understand, and other times to one they do NOT understand. That makes the flow of text needlessly confusing. You have Paul using these words, for example, "I thank God that I speak in languages more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a language." Not only is it needlessly confusing for Paul to write this way, it is in fact a a non-sensical statement. No one would ever say, "I thank God that I speak in languages more than all of you" - if taken literaly this is absurd. Rather one would say, "I thank God that I speak MORE LANGUAGES than any of you." (Forgive me for misundertanding you earlier, I had given you the benefit of the doubt that your position isn't absurd. I now realize I was wrong).

jal>> Paul says that to speak in a tongue causes your mind to be unfruitful. "[14] For if I pray in an (unknown) tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." I put the word "unknown" in parentheses because it is not in the original Greek. In the actual Greek it says that if I speak in a tongue my mind is unfruitful. Therefore a "tongue" in this chapter isn't referring to a known language.

You responded that Paul merely means "unfruitful for the church". In your view, the mind does understand the tongue/language but it's not fruituful for the church:

Zeke>> otherwise the speaker's understanding, what is in his mind, will not be passed on or bear fruit to the church.

Zeke, Paul clearly implies that the mind does not have understanding of the language. "14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding." In other words, the Corinthians were praying and singing in a mode where the mind is NOT understanding (which is fine for personal edification, but a NO_NO for public proclamation).


Sorry,Zeke, but it's clear enough to me that you don't want to accept what Paul says so you are using every possible form of mental gymnastics to get around it.

 

[Tellastory]

Paul says that the gift of tongues, as a public proclamation, is useless without an interpreter. If Pentecost were tongues, it would therefore have been useless, because there was no interpreter on Pentecost. Pentecost was not, therefore, the gift of tongues. It was the gift of prophecy.

If you deny this, then you deny Paul's argument - in effect you are saying to the Corinthians, "Go ahead and use the gift of tongues all you want without an interpreter, God is fine with that."

Fact is, you are trying to shove the gift of tongues down Pentecost's throat. The two gifts are distinct, and the distinction is utterly crucial for understanding how evangelism/witnessing is supposed to work. It is supposed to be prophetic utterance - that's the paradigm established in Acts 2.

The gift of tongues is defined by how those that receive it as not understanding the gift of tongue being manifested by the Spirit of other men's lips to speak unto the people.

Paul was explaining why he was exhorting the gift of prophesy over all spiritual gifts by comparing the singular gift of prophesy against the singular gift of tongues in the church because the gift of tongues is not a stand alone gift that it needs interpretation for the whole church to understand it and not just the foreignors visiting the place.

Even Paul said it was unfruitful even to himself unless the tongue he was speaking was interpreted for himself to be truly edified.

Paul gave the bottomline about tongues as being of other men's lips to serve as a sign towards unbelievers, not for believers: Paul said the gift of prophesy serves the believers.

So you have two conundrums in your presentation.

Prophesy serves the believers: not the unbelievers.

Tongues serves as a sign to unbelievers and so it was not the gift of prophesy that was being manifested at Pentecost when those that heard it were not even believers yet.

And the other conundrum is that those that did receive the gift at Pentecost were already believers when they had received the gift of tongues to speak unto the people in their native tongues.

So bottomline: Paul had said in effect that it was the same gift of tongues at Penetcost as being mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14th chapter because it was of other men's lips used by God to speak unto the people.

 

[zeke37]

zeke37>> If you were Hebrew and your audience was Greek,
then you would pray to God for an interpreter to help you get your message to them,
wouldn't you?


zeke37, I absolutely would NOT make that prayer. If I wanted to speak in my native language, I would simply ask the leadership (or ask the entire congregation if possible), whether there are any translators available.

that is exactly what is meant by Paul when he says;
PRAY that someone interpret
why wouldn't you pray to God about it first, before asking?

There's no point in PRAYING for a translator if one isn't already present in the audience, unless I have enough faith to believe that God is in the habit of instantly beaming over a remote translator in Star-Trek fashion. God might be willing to do that on occasion, but it's not His normal way of dealing with us. Paul is advising the Corinthians on how things should NORMALLY proceed, in a fitting and orderly way.

normal? yet you guys claim a special divine prayer un-language?
lol.
there is nothing hidden here.
it's just a translational problem, because words have changed over the years.

I pray you that......it did not mean "to God" every time the word "pray" is used in the bible.
there's PLENTY of examples of this TRUTH
to pray to someone, is to ask or tell them a thing

that can be to God or man.
the word pray in the bible does not always mean a prayer to God

I can ask you a question in the old English using the word pray...

I pray thee, what time is it?

Zeke, You still haven't explained why the gift of tongues is separate and distinct from the gift of interpetation.

sure I have.
in one ear and out the other so to speak, I guess.

Paul had the gift of tongues, because God gifted him in the ability to speak many languages.

Paul had the gift of interpretation because not only could he speak other languages,
he could also interpret from one to another

get it? Paul had both, so he did not need an interpreter.

but that is not always the case.
some folks are gifted in languages but are not able to effectively translate from one to the other.
in fact, most of us who learn a second language fall into this category

my aunt can speak fluent French because she moved to Quebec and eventually learned how to speak it
but she cannot translate with accuracy, from French to English.

and accuracy is what is important because we are speaking of Godly things here.
it takes a special ability to be able to translate with emotion in the right spots, accents in the right spots, giving certain words more emphasis
iow, to give the same message, the same way, to those of other tongues

that's a gift of God

It doesn't take two different gifts to know a language fluently. It only takes ONE gift at most. No one who is fluent in both languages would say, "I can't translate for the audience until God also gives me the gift of intepretatoin." Your position dosn't make sense.
then you do not have any actual experience with multi-lingual persons.

do you think someone with a very thick accent, a landed immigrant, who speaks English,
will be able to accurately reflect your feeling in your words etc, if he is to translate it
since you speak perfect English?

I don't.

jesus...he is lord

or

JESUS!....HE IS LORD!

Zeke, You say that Paul keeps switching his terminology. Sometimes he uses the term "tongue" to refer to a language which the audience DOES understand, and other times to one they do NOT understand. That makes the flow of text needlessly confusing.

wow, you have really become lost.
the context always determines.

Paul knew many tongues.
so what profit is there to them in Corinth, if he comes there and speaks a foreign tongue to them, like Hebrew?
none.

in this case it is obvious that Paul knows the tongue in question (Hebrew for example)
but the audience does not.


it is a very simple concept

You have Paul using these words, for example, "I thank God that I speak in languages more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a language."

and what is so difficult about that?

Not only is it needlessly confusing for Paul to write this way, it is in fact a a non-sensical statement. No one would ever say, "I thank God that I speak in languages more than all of you"

really? no one would? Paul did just that.
Paul was a vessel to spread the Word into the gentile tongues.
don't you understand that? it is soooooo important

it was PARAMOUNT that he knew more languages than them,
he was gifted in it, and used of God because of it, to usher in the gentiles

there were dozens of dialects found in each language, as is evident by Acts2's miracle
Paul had to contend with this multitude of dialects and languages,
and he was gifted specifically so he could.

- if taken literaly this is absurd. Rather one would say, "I thank God that I speak MORE LANGUAGES than any of you." (Forgive me for misundertanding you earlier, I had given you the benefit of the doubt that your position isn't absurd. I now realize I was wrong).

looooool.
I know where I stand Bro....
the absurdity is in the charismatic practise of a fantasy, taking away prayer to God by mumbling/chanting
and making void the Word of God
because they change the teachings of the Great Commission, into a special prayer un-language

what is more absurd?

Paul spoke tongues = Paul spoke languages
don't invoke your 21st century standards of what words mean, to Paul's day.
the meaning of things and words have changed a lot over the centuries

tongues = languages in our western English
as we don't use the term "tongues" today as they did centuries ago

jal>> Paul says that to speak in a tongue causes your mind to be unfruitful. "[14] For if I pray in an (unknown) tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." I put the word "unknown" in parentheses because it is not in the original Greek. In the actual Greek it says that if I speak in a tongue my mind is unfruitful. Therefore a "tongue" in this chapter isn't referring to a known language.

it refers to an unknown to the audience language, (like hebrew would have been to Corinthians)
regardless of who the speaker is speaking it

the one speaking it OBV knows his own language/tongue

the fact is that you have demonstrated that you cannot follow a subject through the chapter
you are still indoctrinated

You responded that Paul merely means "unfruitful for the church". In your view, the mind does understand the tongue/language but it's not fruituful for the church:

what is in his mind would not bear fruit, unless folks can understand his words

Zeke>> otherwise the speaker's understanding, what is in his mind, will not be passed on or bear fruit to the church.

exactly, he'd be speaking to the air, to himself, to God, when he was supposed to edify the church

the entire chapter I about this, how can you miss it?

Zeke, Paul clearly implies that the mind does not have understanding of the language. "14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

Paul says, what should we do then instead?
since that is bad, unfruitful, what should we do?

should we continue to be unfruitful?
NO

he continues; we are to pray and sing with BOTH being in the Spirit and with UNDERSTANDING

15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding."

see?

In other words, the Corinthians were praying and singing in a mode where the mind is NOT understanding (which is fine for personal edification, but a NO_NO for public proclamation).

absolute farce
complete lie
you can't personally edify yourself if you cant understand your own words.
it's impossible

what you think, is NOT what Paul is saying, sorry.

Sorry,Zeke, but it's clear enough to me that you don't want to accept what Paul says so you are using every possible form of mental gymnastics to get around it.

pathetic.
have at it.
I've detailed enough for you, take it or leave it for now.
God will grow the seed if it is meant to be grown.

it's amazing to me that folks who are indoctrinated cannot see the truth.
it's staring them in the face, but they believe a lie
so be it

 

[sunlover1]

absolute farce
complete lie
you can't personally edify yourself if you cant understand your own words.
it's impossible

SURE you can.
God says so.

Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves...
New Living Translation (©2007)
A person who speaks in tongues is strengthened personally...
English Standard Version (©2001)
The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself...


I'll agree with God,
even when it doesn't seem to make sense

But you, beloved, building up yourselves in your most holy faith,
praying in the Holy Spirit...

 

[sunlover1]

it's amazing to me that folks who are indoctrinated cannot see the truth.
it's staring them in the face, but they believe a lie
so be it

Amen

 

[zeke37]

SURE you can.
God says so.

Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves...
New Living Translation (©2007)
A person who speaks in tongues is strengthened personally...
English Standard Version (©2001)
The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself...

no God does not says so the way you put forth at all.
here's what He is putting forth through Paul;

the rules for the Great Commission,

not this fictional public vs private special prayer un-language

i'll give you an example...

let's say that the speaker is Hebrew,
and he's at church speaking to a Greek crowd.
the speaker KNOWS the Hebrew tongue
but that language is unknown to the audience,
like Hebrew would be to most Greeks

your argument has no merit because Paul is saying, basically,
don't speak in Hebrew to them that only understand Greek,
unless you have an interpreter to help you

otherwise you'd be speaking to only God, instead of edifying the church,
which was the point of you preaching to them in the first place, to edify them

later Paul says the same thing, but uses speaking to the air, v 4
and later, speaking to yourself v 9

all the same subject and analogy for Paul admonishing them
Paul did not want them to do what they were doing.

the chapter makes it clear that there are different tongues of men,
represented in the same church
and that foreigners come there to also speak, and they do so in their native tongues.

we even learn that folks were talking over each other,
multiple sermons at one time,
multiple languages all mixing together to make a complete confusing scene
Paul says that if new folks come in and see all this,
they will think were mad/crazy/nuts.


so, don't speak Hebrew to a bunch of Greeks,
UNLESS there is a translator there to help you
otherwise your only speaking to God
your only speaking to the air
your only speaking to yourself

and the point was for the foreign person to edify the church with his words

I'll agree with God,
even when it doesn't seem to make sense

I agree with Him, and the explanation I lay forth makes perfect sense
Paul's point does not waiver even a little, verse by verse.
it is always about accomplishing the Great Commission,
and never about what your dogma suggests

be careful 'cause, making void the Word of God is a dangerous thing

But you, beloved, building up yourselves in your most holy faith,

praying in the Holy Spirit...

praying in the Holy Spirit is not mumbling un-incoherent babbyl
(sorry, but I don't know the politically correct term for it,
even you guys argue about that...glossiolia is the most current I think.)

sorry.
you follow a farce in that regard,

but don't worry, because it is NOT your faith....it's a bad practice that can be amended/cut out.

it's just a FEELING that all humans can get by watching tv or whatever....

it is an experience that you have deemed as being of God,
but it is not.

it is of u

it actually takes away from your prayers with God,
because if you mumble, that's what He hears...mumbling
sorry. Jesus taught us how to pray....

Amen

Amen indeed!

you see, God understood that...no ecstatic mumbling required
no interpretation required either because we both understand the same "tongue"

آمين Arabic
Αμήν Greek
아멘 Korean
Ամեն Armenian
אמן (הסכמ&#1492 Hebrew
アーメン Japanese
Аминь Russian
Aamen Finish

need a translator? I just said Amen in many tongues
and the sounds for these words are not as we would say amen

that's why Paul would say;

15 What 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.
16 Else 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?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
​

at the same time, they were to pray both in the Spirit, and with understanding,
so everyone there, even the new, could be edified

speak/pray/sing in a tongue=language that the new folks can understand,
thus come to God

that's it....

so they would know when to say Amen.

if your tongue is differnet than theirs, find an interpreter to help
if you can't, then sit down and zip it

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

if you can't, then sit down and zip it

Indeed.

What you have done is to take a human act of learning, and substituted it in the place of a list of of Spiritual gifts, from God.

No sir, the gift of interpretation of tongues is still a gift, and clearly labelled as a gift, in a long list of other gifts. As in, not something we can accomplish by our own effort, which learning a foreign language certainly is.

So since you can't selectively take an item from a list and move it elsewhere, what did you say you should do?

 

[zeke37]

Indeed.

What you have done is to take a human act of learning, and substituted it in the place of a list of of Spiritual gifts, from God.

anyone can possess some of the same kinds of things as the Gifts of God are about, as listed in 1Cor12

iow, you don't need to be a Christian to be wise,
but the Gift of Wisdom is done so in God's service,
and is greater than wisdom without God

same with one's linguistic ability.

No sir, the gift of interpretation of tongues is still a gift,

I never said it was not a gift.
it takes a GIFTED interpreter to get things right, in God's service....
to properly translate from one tongue to another to further the Great Commission
that means putting the proper emphesys on certain words
and genuinely caring about the result, for the furthering of the Body of Christ
the Great Commission

it's one of our most important teachings, and yet ypou guys make void the word of God
by changing it to your fiction

and if this teaching on tongues that Paul gives, is followed improperly,
you can even get denominations and such
arising out of mistranslations and mis-interpretations,
such as your circle has done with "tongues" itself.

and clearly labelled as a gift, in a long list of other gifts.

again, never said it wasn't.

As in, not something we can accomplish by our own effort, which learning a foreign language certainly is.

who says that? where is that written?

can one become wise by study?
maybe not Godly wise, but wise

can one have faith without God?
faith can be for any subject, not just God, but Godly faith is the greatest

can one heal without being Godly?
yep, doctors around the world have been doing it for a long time, heathens, athiests alike
but someone gifted by God with healing, is a diff matter, and a greater thing indeed.

you forget that when God speaks, or wants to be heard
no one needs an interpreter. see Acts2

your whole system is based on "tongues" and it is corrupt to the core

So since you can't selectively take an item from a list and move it elsewhere, what did you say you should do?

I did not take it from any list.
that is your misconception, based on your brand of dogma

 

[Thekla]

the Acts 2 "tongues" (where the speaker speaks in one language and the hearer hears what is said in their own language) still occurs ...

 

[JAL]

The gift of tongues is defined by how those that receive it as not understanding the gift of tongue being manifested by the Spirit of other men's lips to speak unto the people.

Huh? Some of your statements are very hard to understand.

Paul was explaining why he was exhorting the gift of prophesy over all spiritual gifts by comparing the singular gift of prophesy against the singular gift of tongues in the church because the gift of tongues is not a stand alone gift that it needs interpretation for the whole church to understand it and not just the foreignors visiting the place.

Huh?
Are you saying it DOES need an interpreter? Or does NOT? Could you try to write a little more clearly please?

Even Paul said it was unfruitful even to himself unless the tongue he was speaking was interpreted for himself to be truly edified.

Yes it DOES need an interpreter. Pentecost did NOT need one. Two different gifts. (Is this really all that complicated?)

Paul gave the bottomline about tongues as being of other men's lips to serve as a sign towards unbelievers, not for believers: Paul said the gift of prophesy serves the believers.

You're seriously going to try to build a theological position on one of the most unclear passages in the entire Bible? Please. I don't even care to speculate on the dynamics of 1Cor 14:21-22.

 

[JAL]

jal>>It doesn't take two different gifts to know a language fluently. It only takes ONE gift at most. No one who is fluent in both languages would say, "I can't translate for the audience until God also gives me the gift of intepretatoin." Your position dosn't make sense.


Zeke>> Then you do not have any actual experience with multi-lingual persons. do you think someone with a very thick accent, a landed immigrant, who speaks English,
will be able to accurately reflect your feeling in your words etc, if he is to translate it
since you speak perfect English?
Sorry, Zeke, but you are trapped in a contradiction. Learning a language fluently involves both speaking and listening. If my pronunciation is so poor – due to my accent – that I improperly convey the message, then I am not FLUENT in that language. You yourself allude to a GIFT of being multilingual. A gift functioning so poorly that I am mispronouncing the words? Even if that were true, that would simply require me to further DEVELOP my gift of multilingualism. There is no need for a SECOND gift. Again, it only takes one gift to know and speak a language. My argument stands. If the languages at issue were a matter of natural learning, there would be no possibility of two different kinds of gifts, one to learn the languages and the other to interpret them. That would make ZERO sense. Period. End of story.
Zeke>>that is exactly what is meant by Paul when he says;
PRAY that someone interpret
why wouldn't you pray to God about it first, before asking? [/quote] First of all, Paul wasn't saying, pray that ANYONE interpret. He was saying, let the speaker pray that he himself may interpret what he said. This makes ZERO SENSE if natural learning is at issue.
After I said it wasn’t the norm for God to do a Star-Trek beam-me-up-Scotty. You replied
Zeke>> normal? yet you guys claim a special divine prayer un-language?


That response is not going to work. At least we who believe in unknown tongues are hermeneutically consistent because we see the WHOLE chapter as a discussion of the supernatural. YOU are the one claiming the passage is 100% natural learning, wholly unsupernatural. And now you have Paul suddenly telling us to pray for a beam-me-up-Scotty? If this were indeed a wholly unsupernatural chapter, as you allege, here’s what Paul would have said, “Guys, before you speak in a foreign tongue, just check with the leadership and/or the congregation to see if any translators are present.” By the way, is the context natural, or supernatural? It’s largely a discussion of the gift of prophecy. Is that a natural talent, in your view? Was Moses just a learned man, and nothing more? Your position on this chapter is so ahermeneutical it’s not even funny.
zeke>>there is nothing hidden here.
it's just a translational problem, because words have changed over the years. I pray you that......it did not mean "to God" every time the word "pray" is used in the bible.
there's PLENTY of examples of this TRUTH
to pray to someone, is to ask or tell them a thing


that can be to God or man.
the word pray in the bible does not always mean a prayer to God

I can ask you a question in the old English using the word pray...

I pray thee, what time is it?

Zeke, Your ahermenutics is getting more sloppy by the moment. You provide no exegetical parallels or precedents for these seemingly outlandish speculations. As already suggested, this is the kind of mental gymnastics required to buttress your indefensible position.

[FONT=&quot]jal>> Not only is it needlessly confusing for Paul to write this way, it is in fact a a non-sensical statement. No one would ever say, "I thank God that I speak in languages more than all of you" If taken literaly this is absurd. Rather one would say, "I thank God that I speak MORE LANGUAGES than any of you." (Forgive me for misundertanding you earlier, I had given you the benefit of the doubt that your position isn't absurd. I now realize I was wrong[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]zeke>> Really? no one would [say that]? Paul did just that.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Paul was a vessel to spread the Word into the gentile tongues.
don't you understand that? it is soooooo important. it was PARAMOUNT that he knew more languages than them, he was gifted in it, and used of God because of it, to usher in the gentiles

there were dozens of dialects found in each language, as is evident by Acts2's miracle
Paul had to contend with this multitude of dialects and languages,
and he was gifted specifically so he could.[/FONT]
Zeke, aside from your sloppy ahermeneutical references to evangelism (in reality this is a passage on the CORPORATE WORSHIP, not on the Great Commission), you either missed or completely ignored the argument. (Sigh). Let me spell it out for you. Heremenutics is not an infallible science. The human propensity to err makes it all the more VITAL AND EXPEDIENT that the biblical interpreter operate on some reasonable GROUND RULES of interpretation. Otherwise we can pretty much take a passage to mean anything we WANT it to say. A good case in point is the troublesome passage, “Unless a man is born of water and Spirit, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” Some have suggested that to be born of water means to be born of the womb. Now here’s the problem with that. There is no known PRECEDENT in the Greek language – or ANY language for that matter – where people commonly used the phrase “He was born of water” when speaking of natural birth. This is not to assume that it’s an impossible interpretation –it’s merely to point out that it’s not HERMENEUTICALLY AND EXEGETICALLY justifiable. (If God gave you that conclusion by a direct REVELATION, fine, but don’t pretend that it is justifiable HERMENEUTICALLY).

(In the Bible we do have at least SOME kind of precedent for the Sprit giving men the ability to speak unlearned languages (Acts 2). So there is nothing unwarranted or totally unjustified in the Pentecostal reading of 1Cor 14).

Same problem with your rendering of 1Cor 14:18, as I pointed out, “[FONT=&quot]No one would ever say, "I thank God that I speak in languages more than all of you". That’s a nonsensical statement for reasons that SHOULD be obvious. Not obvious? Ok I’ll spell it out. Even if you know 50 languages, and I only know two, you don’t speak in languages more than I do, you rather speak MORE LANUAGES than I do. Because when you speak, and when I speak, we are both speaking in languages (because that’s the only way to speak), so you are not speaking in languages more than I am speaking in languages. This is WORSE than reading “born of water” as natural birth because it is a wholly nonsensical statement. Again, if you obtained your reading of this chapter by REVELATION, fine, but don’t pretend it’s HERMENEUTICALLY justifiable – much less expect a Pentecostal to concur with your ahermeneutics. [/FONT]
You should know, by the way, that I am not a Pentecostal, I’m not a member of any church (I dislike all of them), I’ve never spoken in tongues or experienced any supernatural gift of any kind. And I suspect that most Pentecostals haven’t experienced the true gift of tongues. And I certainly don’t agree with everything Pentecotals do in their services. So I would appreciate, in this discussion, if you’d start addressing ME, and MY arguments, and MY position, instead of railing at me as if I were one of them.

Your gymnastics at verses 14-18 are especially severe. I pointed out an issue here but you nonchalantly glossed over it. Is this a case of intellectual dishonesty? Let’s look at that passage again:
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 16 Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer,[d] say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? 17

YOUR claim is that we can ONLY pray with our understanding (that anything else is not even prayer). But if that’s the case, then Paul is making an issue of a non-issue. For instance we all know that a square circle is an impossibility. Knowing that, would Paul take the time to tell us that he doesn’t spend time drawing square circles? Of course not. It is YOUR claim that praying-without-understanding is an impossibility, a square circle, it’s not real prayer. If that were true, would Paul take the time to remind us that he doesn’t engage in that practice? OF COURSE NOT. Here again, your position is IMPOSSIBLE to justify hermeneutically and exegetically. It reduces Paul’s words to a bunch of useless rambling nonsense. Furthermore, your reading is FLATLY CONTRADICTED by the text. The text itself implies that it is NOT a square-circle, it is NOT an impossibility, that is, it is in fact possible to pray without understanding. Because, Paul says this: “I will pray both with my spirit and with my understanding, for OTHERWISE a visitor will not understand what I am saying.” That “otherwise” is HUGE. It implies that praying with the understanding is not the ONLY possibility. There is an OTHERWISE – one that causes problems for a visitor. This DEMOLISHES your entire position (as if it weren’t in ruins already).

 

[sunlover1]

SURE you can.
God says so.

Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves...
New Living Translation (©2007)
A person who speaks in tongues is strengthened personally...
English Standard Version (©2001)
The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself...

I'll agree with God,
even when it doesn't seem to make sense

But you, beloved, building up yourselves in your most holy faith,
praying in the Holy Spirit...

no God does not says so the way you put forth at all.
here's what He is putting forth through Paul;

the rules for the Great Commission,

not this fictional public vs private special prayer un-language

i'll give you an example...

let's say that the speaker is Hebrew,
and he's at church speaking to a Greek crowd.
the speaker KNOWS the Hebrew tongue
but that language is unknown to the audience,
like Hebrew would be to most Greeks

your argument has no merit because Paul is saying, basically,
don't speak in Hebrew to them that only understand Greek,
unless you have an interpreter to help you

otherwise you'd be speaking to only God, instead of edifying the church,
which was the point of you preaching to them in the first place, to edify them

later Paul says the same thing, but uses speaking to the air, v 4
and later, speaking to yourself v 9

all the same subject and analogy for Paul admonishing them
Paul did not want them to do what they were doing.

the chapter makes it clear that there are different tongues of men,
represented in the same church
and that foreigners come there to also speak, and they do so in their native tongues.

we even learn that folks were talking over each other,
multiple sermons at one time,
multiple languages all mixing together to make a complete confusing scene
Paul says that if new folks come in and see all this,
they will think were mad/crazy/nuts.


so, don't speak Hebrew to a bunch of Greeks,
UNLESS there is a translator there to help you
otherwise your only speaking to God
your only speaking to the air
your only speaking to yourself

and the point was for the foreign person to edify the church with his words


I agree with Him, and the explanation I lay forth makes perfect sense
Paul's point does not waiver even a little, verse by verse.
it is always about accomplishing the Great Commission,
and never about what your dogma suggests

be careful 'cause, making void the Word of God is a dangerous thing



praying in the Holy Spirit is not mumbling un-incoherent babbyl
(sorry, but I don't know the politically correct term for it,
even you guys argue about that...glossiolia is the most current I think.)

sorry.
you follow a farce in that regard,

but don't worry, because it is NOT your faith....it's a bad practice that can be amended/cut out.

it's just a FEELING that all humans can get by watching tv or whatever....

it is an experience that you have deemed as being of God,
but it is not.

it is of u

it actually takes away from your prayers with God,
because if you mumble, that's what He hears...mumbling
sorry. Jesus taught us how to pray....


Amen indeed!

you see, God understood that...no ecstatic mumbling required
no interpretation required either because we both understand the same "tongue"

آمين Arabic
Αμήν Greek
아멘 Korean
Ամեն Armenian
אמן (הסכמ&#1492 Hebrew
アーメン Japanese
Аминь Russian
Aamen Finish

need a translator? I just said Amen in many tongues
and the sounds for these words are not as we would say amen

that's why Paul would say;

15 What 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.
16 Else 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?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
​

at the same time, they were to pray both in the Spirit, and with understanding,
so everyone there, even the new, could be edified

speak/pray/sing in a tongue=language that the new folks can understand,
thus come to God

that's it....

so they would know when to say Amen.

if your tongue is differnet than theirs, find an interpreter to help
if you can't, then sit down and zip it

LOTTTTTTTA words to say that Scripture didnt "REALLY" mean what it said.