"Tonguges" debate

[zeke37]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeke37
If properly divided, both Acts2 (+others)and 1Cor14 are meant to show how the Gospel is to spread past the Jews, and to the rest of the populations around, that came to that church....which there was only a few churches in the beginning. People would travel great distances, and gentiles who heard....and many spoke different languages. But yet the Great Commission was to happen, and this is how.


oscar..
Show us where the references in Acts 2 and 1Cor14 are meant to show how the Gospel is to be spread past the Jews.

Have you read the Acts of the Apostles? Have you read all of 1Cor?

Did you listen to Christ when HE taught that it is the Great Commission?

Don't you know what kind of person Paul was? Don't you know what his commission was?

if it was not for this fact, you would not hear God's word....at least not in English!

So, what you are saying is that the Word of God is NOT for the gentiles and any of those people that are not Hebrew or Greek in speech!
OK then.....believe what you will.


Quote: zeke

The gift of the Cloven tongue of Fire as seen in Acts was a language that when spoken ALL present regardless of what language they spoke, understood perfectly...It is God Himself speaking through the Elect person....and was used to spread the Gospel to the gentiles....and will be used again at the end of the tribulation when the witnessing elect, witness in front of the antiChrist...which completes this Great Commission that He has placed in our hands.

Oscar...
Show us in Acts 2 where it says that the cloven tongues of fire that sat on each of the believers' heads was actually the gift of tongues.

It is a gift of God given to those elect so that the language barrier can be broken....and ALL understand in their own language....for it is not man speaking but God speaking.
I don't see how you can deny this truth!


Quote: zeke

In 1Cor14, Paul is setting the congregation strait about how we humans while led by the Spirit, can also break these language barriers and spread the messages beyond the area. It is not God speaking, but man... speaking God's Scriptures and Psalms to other men.

Oscar...
Where in 1Cor14 does it say that. Show us the exact reference.

I have many times, you just are blind to it. You and I have been down this road before Oscar.


Quote: zeke

Picture a vast multicultural melting pot....where many would congregate to share and learn, but they spoke many different languages there...and there was an abundance of confusion. So Paul teaches them how to avoid the confusion by teaching them that only one preacher at a time to speak...and that one preacher was to have with him a multi-lingual translator, to translate his own language.....Hebrew words....to say.....an Egyptian dialect. Or perhaps more than one translator present so that 2 or 3 languages could be spoken to.

Oscar...
Show us where Paul says that prophesying is preaching. Give us the exact reference. Show us also in the same chapter where Paul says that when a preacher preaches he needs a multilingual interpreter to translate the preaching into different languages.

Prophesying can be preaching....look up the word in a concordance...prophecy this prophecy to the people...
There are no more prophets (visions from God) today....we have them all already....and Jesus said that He had told us ALL things....He is the Word, and we already have the prophets (ps. did Christ ever mention the charismatic babbly tongue? No He did not....did Christ teach us how to pray to the Father? Why yes He did....and was that by babbyl un-speech? Why no it was not. Hmmmm. who should we believe? You or Christ? Hmmmm. now that is a tough one. But to each their own I guess....'cause all one can do is plant the seed of truth and pray that it grows....


Quote: zeke
Language=glossa=tongue

Quote: zeke

If the preacher is not bi-lingual or multi-lingual, then he is to bring a translator, a bi-lingual or multi-lingual translator with them, who knows the language of the audience and the language of the preacher.



Oscar...
Quote the actual reference from 1Cor14 that supports this.


Look up the word "tongues" and see what it means. And then realize that the word "unknown" was added by the translators and is NOT in the manuscripts. It was added because they understood that the tongue was not a native language to those listening,....so unknown was added...but 2000 years later, languages change and English is here now.....it just doesn't mean what you think that it means...and the text itself support my views 100%. The whole chapter, not one verse here and there taken out of context, as you do. That is dishonest....or at the least Lazy, and God does not like lazy people.

Quote: zeke

'Cause if you preach in your language, and the audience is of another language...then the audience would not understand you, and wouldn't even know when to say AMEN....they would only hear barbarian speech instead of the Word of God with understanding....

Oscar...
Again, show us the actual reference that supports what you are saying - not your paraphrase.

that is basically line for line dude.


Quote: zeke

....hence you would be preaching to God and the angels only, for hey understand ALL languages....and the audience wouldn't 'get it'.

Oscar...
Paul said that when a person spoke in tongues they were 'speaking to God'. Show us from the Scripture how speaking to God can be anything else other than prayer. Show us conclusively that Paul is not actually talking about when people pray in tongues in their personal prayer times.

Lol, that is pure tradition of man, and not supported at all, but in the deluded minds. I never claimed that speaking to God is anything other than prayer. Almost each negative warning, you guys take for a positive blessing....it is amazing to me that you understand the scriptures like this, but so be it.


Quote: zeke

What most "charismatics" claim as tongues is not what Paul is speaking about at all. Never. It is a very recent phenomenon which is at it's most innocent...delusional....and at it's worst...down right demonic.

Prove this from scripture. Show us the actual references that support your view.

The whole chapter supports my view. YOU are the one that is taking verses out of context and making a whole religion out of the word language...and missing the whole point, as most of the deceived do.

If you cannot support your view directly from Scripture, then we have the absolute right and authority to say that you are talking a whole lot unsubstantiated nonsense.

Correct, and if you likewise cannot prove your practise biblically, then it is not biblical, thus a tradition of man.

Peter does talk about people wresting the teaching of Paul to their own destruction.

No kidding, we see this with many interpretations of the scriptures....from pre/mid trib rapture to preterism to babbyl tongues.

If you cannot prove your interpretation of 1Cor14 from Scripture, are you not doing the same - wresting Paul's words out of context to support your own opinions?

I can and have and will again, prove that the correct way to view 1Cor14 is tongue=languages, not ecstatic charismatic utterances.....that is confusion, and as you should know, God cannot author confusion....so what are you listening to and speaking if not confusion....or barbarian speech....

Your credibility (and possibly your spiritual standing with God) is on the line. You need to support your views from Scripture otherwise your credibility goes out the window.

No need to judge me brother, God will do so. My spiritual standing is not in as much jeopardy as yours, if you listen to demon tongues interpretations, and pray to God in babyl. But again, I do not doubt your intention. And I am sure that God doesn't either.

You and I spent a little time on this one already Oscar, with each and every scripture in 1Cor14 analyzed....

in His service
c

[zeke37]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeke37


Exactly....

not in ecstatic utterances, or the charismatic tongue which is mumbo jumbo, not the Holy Spirit of God....get real. You are delusional if you think that God speaks this way or hears prayers this way. But again, I do not doubt your intentions...just your methods, and that you teach others this lie....whereby making void the Word of God.



Paul teaches quite clearly in 1Cor14

quite clear for some and evidently not for others...but that is by design. Chapter by chapter, verse by verse, thought by thought. If you did this through the whole chapter, then you might possibly see another side of the story.

that when a person speaks in tongues he speaks to God because God is the only one who understands what he is saying. This view is from a literal reading of the Scripture.

Yes but you are taking it out of context. Think of it as "foreign/foreigners tongue (language)"
You should accept the truth that the church was one of very few, and that meant that people came from all over to hear the Word. They spoke many different languages, and in attendance in the audience of the church, there were representatives of many different languages (tongues). Thus Paul must show them order and the proper way to share the Psalms and Scriptures with each other.

What we are taught here is that if you speak unto a people that do not understand your language, then you are only speaking to God and the angels, not to the people that you were supposed to speak to. They wouldn't understand the words coming out of your mouth , thus could not be edified...so we are taught to bring an interpreter, a bilingual person, who can translate the Word of God from your language to theirs...simple. What Paul is warning you against, you take for advice. And thus a whole religion is born...traditions of man.

If you are to prove that you are not the one who is delusional, you need to show clear support from Scripture for what you are saying.

I have many times, whether you believe it or not. The same scripture that I would use, you would also use in support of your practise. We both know the scriptures, we interpret them differently. If you read the whole thought being taught, I fail to see how anyone could see things differently, unless they were under delusion.

You and I went through 1Cor14 verse by verse already, and you discounted the scripture then, so....

Quote:
How do you think that the Message got to you???? Did you read and understanad the Manuscripts? In the original languages? No?

I guess you have read the original manuscripts, have you?

I have read some of the copies, as you could. You could compare the greek letters and see for your self, many truths. English does not do the scriptures justice in some places, but thank God for the English bible....and tongues (many different languages), through which it was made public for all.

Quote:
Well someone translated it so that the masses could understand it....

My point being that because you read and hear the Word in English, it is proof that the Holy Spirit is at Work, and is exactly how we are supposed to understand and use the information taught in 1Cor14, not a babbyl chanting un language that SOME call Holy. I am not judging you or any other that does this, but I am certainly discerning the truth, and I can see the fruit....confusion

quote:zeke
and when it was done verbally, we are given the instructions in 1Cor14 for doing it in a orderly, non confusing way....so that it doesn't sound like barbarian speech...and in such a way that those listening will know when to say Amen...and we shall NOT pray in unknown tongues, but rather with the Spirit and the mind.

I truly do not know how to get any clearer than that.

The traditions of man.....and nothing more....

Prove from the Scripture that you are not speaking a lot of nonsense yourself.

would you like me to post the 1Cor14 scriptures again..they are all there. You are understanding the word 'tongue/s" to represent something other than what it is...if you can't see the real meaning, I am not going to be able to show you. I mean, God sent the Letter for you to read fully and understand, so it is there. You have already made your mind up anyway....and as I stated earlier, you and I have already done that and been there..

in His service
c

[zeke37]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeke37
the scripture in question is the following...

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


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?


Now how can you go against that and still use a babbyl tongue...a confusing message....and call it the Holy Spirit.

How can you practice and teach others this charismatic tongue when all that is said in this chapter goes against it completely and fully?

I can see that you think that praying in tongues is foolishness.

How you see it.... yes, but not how it is taught in the Word, which you do not understand, even though it has been fully explained, strait from scripture.

This reminds me of what Paul said about the preaching of the Cross. It is an offence to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks. Why was this foolishness to the Greeks?

Because they did not believe.

Because the truth of the cross and the death of Jesus on it is something that is spiritually discerned and not understood by those who are spiritually dead.

Are you calling me spiritually dead?

This supports the truth that a person can only come to Christ if the Holy Spirit draws them and reveals Christ to them. A person cannot come to and accept Christ unless the Holy Spirit opens their darkened mind and helps them to see the truth of what the cross of Christ means.

I agree


Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God because the Holy Spirit revealed it to him. He could never have known it otherwise. No amount of learning could have brought him to that realisation.

Yep, but although in this case Peter was right, there were and are still today many who believe that someone else is the Christ. The Holy Spirit certainly is not responsible for that....even if the ones claiming it, claim revelation from the Holy Spirit.....so we are to test the spirits, and see by fruit whether to follow or not.


Likewise, the operation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit are spiritually discerned and the revelation of them can only come to those who are open to the Lord and willing to do His will.

I do not believe what you practise as the charismatic ecstatic tongue is a gift of God. A multi lingual ability is a gift from God...speaking more than one tongue is a gift, not what you claim as a private prayer language or whatever else others tend to call it.

No amount of academic learning will reveal that to a person.

Yep!

This is why many 'Christians' who are basing their beliefs on what they have learned academically have relatively little spiritual insight into some of the ways of God. They are like St Thomas. They will only believe what they can prove through their senses. These are carnal Christians who have not yet learned to exercise their spiritual discernment and therefore know just the basics of the Christian faith.

Some have insight some do not. Intelligence does not play a factor in faith, but it does play a factor on how to rightly divide the Word. But that is neither here nor there.


The true operation of the gifts of tongues and prophecy, and the other gifts are revealed by the Holy Spirit to those who open their hearts to God and who are seeking to be empowered by the Holy Spirit to do the will of God in their spiritual lives.

I agree completely, but not in your definitions of "tongues" and "prophecy".


Just having a theological and academic understanding of the Scriptures is not enough. There are many who have that, but have never realised that they need to be born again of the Spirit of God in order to be saved. They are still believing that they can get to Heaven through just having an academic knowledge of the Bible. But knowing the Bible, and even reading the original manuscripts does not lead to a personal knowledge of God Himself.

It should if read with understanding, but you are correct in saying that it doesn't mean that always.


I cannot believe that a person who knows God personally could ever say that a group of Christians who speak in tongues are being motivated by the devil, as you have said.

We are warned of many things, and in my estimation plainly so...I don't doubt your faith, nor your desire, nor your ethics. I am saddened about your practise, for I truly believe that it opens the door for demons and evil spirits, con men, and self delusional otherwise good pastors and followers. You might just believe anything that was told to you...or any interpretation even over that of the Word of God.....I wish you would snap out of it, and pray with a clear mind, and in the Spirit.....think of what you wish to communicate to God and ASK., SAT IT, THINK IT!...but don't not-ask it, or not-say it, or not-think it.....for that is confusion....God is NOT the author of Confusion...or babbyl.

So, what are you saying then?

I also cannot believe that a person who knows God personally can adulterate the Scriptures in such a way as you are doing with 1Cor14.

I am not altering, but rightly dividing...you are taking them out of context, completely misunderstanding the key words, and have followed a religion that is based entirely upon the traditions of man.

The more I get to know Him, the more I trust and adhere to the literal words of the New Testament.

Me too! including the proper way to understand the teaching of 'tongues'.


I personally couldn't care less what translation I used.

I could that's for sure. Some are theologically written...based upon a man's interpretation....changing whole thoughts by way of translation.

Arguing over different translations of the Bible is for spiritually dead academics who have no personal knowledge of God.

That is pretty general isn't it. Not all academics are spiritually dead, and not even all charismatics are spiritually dead either. Some will come out of Babylon....

A true appreciation of the Scripture comes only through the work of the Holy Spirit within a person who has a deep and intimate relationship with God.

Study to show thyself approved.

He knows God and God knows him. Then the Holy Spirit reveals the truth of the Word to him, regardless of what translation is used.

And we all claim the Holy Spirit don't we...and many of us have different and even opposing views don't we? So, you might not be right friend...maybe the rest of us are that do not believe in or follow the practise that you do....


So all you are doing through what you are saying is convincing me that you have never met the Father personally, and are trusting only in an academic understanding of the Bible, nothing more.

Well, you are a rather judgemental person. It is appropriate to judge doctrine, not men. Your understanding is different than mine, and I say all of this out of brotherly love, although you may not see it now....you will one day. I really don't wanna see anyone deceived...and what you do makes you a prime target for deception. I may not be the most gentle person here, but truth is truth, and sometimes ya just gotta say IT like IT is.

I really don't think that I shall change you mind Oscar, nor a few other here...but what I can do is show others reading along, who might have wondered....the truth about the Word, in this regard. Just because someone claims the Holy Spirit, doesn't mean that they have Him. And a charismatic manifestation of some unknown prayer language is not the Holy Spirit, no matter how much you claim that it is. I will be able to challenge any post that you or others have to support your claim, and that in itself is enough reason for me to stick around this subject.

I have 2 pet peeves, in theology....

1-a non post trib Gathering (rapture) view, and the charismatic tongue....

I just can't resist...

[Oscarr]

In all of your posts, you have not quoted one single Scripture to prove your opinion. You have merely answered me with more of your own opinions. I wanted actual, literal Scripture quotes to back up your opinions. Unless you can do that, there is no way you can convince me that your opinions are Scriptural.

[Mathetes the kerux]

Zeke . . . where does Acts 10 say the Gentiles received 'Cloven tongues"?

It doesn't . . . the text doesn't even say that Peter and the others even understood the tongue . . .

As for a syllogism . . . there is only one kind . . . a three tiered statement that is based on inference. There are many branches of thought and supposed categories that are engaged in syllogistic enterprise . . . but to call these different syllogisms is not quite accurate . . . they would be better described as different uses of syllogistic inference.

Anyways . . . lets look at glossa . . . are you aware that certain modifiers to the word connote cultural things specific to the time? Like the addition of lalien and en pnumati?

[zeke37]

Zeke . . . where does Acts 10 say the Gentiles received 'Cloven tongues"?

It doesn't . . . the text doesn't even say that Peter and the others even understood the tongue . . .

Maybe we should focus on what the text does say instead of what it does not, for now.


44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Peter is speaking to gentiles....just after being given a vision by God explaining that ALL could have the message and promises of God, not just the ones of the circumcision....gentiles were not unclean....it took Peter a while but he does get the message.

And here he preaches to the gentiles, the Gospel. And the Holy Spirit falls on them.


45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Ya, those Israelites were amazed, and saw for themselves that the message was for the gentiles as well.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

It is my, and most's contention that this is not the charismatic prayer language, but the same as in chapter 2, where likewise language barriers had to be broken, as they came from ALL OVER, and ALL heard the message in their own dialect even...

And they brought back with them the understanding....to spread the message...

and they understood the message and gave God Glory and blessings.

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Again, stressing that the Holy Spirit was not just for the Jew but for all mankind...
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.




As for a syllogism . . . there is only one kind . . . a three tiered statement that is based on inference. There are many branches of thought and supposed categories that are engaged in syllogistic enterprise . . . but to call these different syllogisms is not quite accurate . . . they would be better described as different uses of syllogistic inference.

We could start a thread.....or a religion...lol

Anyways . . . lets look at glossa . . . are you aware that certain modifiers to the word connote cultural things specific to the time? Like the addition of lalien and en pnumati?

What you are alluding at, correctly spelled in the English is actually....pneunmati...

from the same base as pneuma...air...or spirit...or Holy Spirit....or blast.....or cool......or breath of Life body......or wind.....

Yes I am familiar...but again, it doesn't help your case.


Before you get real deep into explanation, I do not deny that "tongues" is a gift, nor that the Holy Spirit is present...

I don't think that you could show me proof that the tongue in 1Cor 14 was referring to the charismatic ecstatic utterances.

It was about preaching, in one language (that of the speaker), and having an interpreter repeat the words, in the audience's languages...and if that is done, and those of the other languages understand and Glorify God, then it is proof positive that the Holy Spirit is present...

nothing to do with charismatic ecstatic utterances.

in Acts it was not the charismatic tongue, but an understanding tongue...as they, both Israelite and Gentile understood...and they understood because they were gentiles, and they now honour God.

The whole point is the spreading of the Gospel into the world, so that Christianity could spread beyond the Jew and Benjaminite...a unmistakable fact that is taught in this chapter and the next, many times.

in His service
c

[zeke37]

In all of your posts, you have not quoted one single Scripture to prove your opinion. You have merely answered me with more of your own opinions. I wanted actual, literal Scripture quotes to back up your opinions. Unless you can do that, there is no way you can convince me that your opinions are Scriptural.


Did you forget about the thread that I started in which you participated...it was verse by verse ....the whole chapter.

You were there....you know what I am refering to...I need not do that again with you...you can refer back to my posts if you wish....I will discuss this with others.

in His service
c

[onelamb]

Speaking in tongues is, to put it simply, Holy Spirit inspired speech in a language unknown to the speaker. As we will examine, it can be spoken in a Christian's private prayer life, or in a public worship service with interpretation.


ARE TONGUES STILL IN OPERATION TODAY?
Yes, there are more Christians on earth today who speak in tongues than there have been at any other time in history! Although they have always been around in varying degrees throughout church history, there has been a strong revival of tongues in this century.
It is true that the Bible refers to a time when tongues shall cease (1 Corinthians 13:8) (1).However, this same passage also tells us when this will happen: When perfection comes, we see face to face, and we know, even as we are known (verses 10-12.) Have these other verses been fulfilled yet? Obviously not,since true perfection will not happen until after Jesus returns (1 John 3:2-3; Ephesians 5:27.) We are still very much "seeing through a glass darkly," as Paul put it in verse 12 .Until the veil of our mortality is removed, and we see Him face to face, our communication with God will always be filtered through our finite, human limitations.We don't always know how to pray properly. This is why God has made available to us this Heavenly prayer language, that takes us beyond our infirmities (Greek:inability to get results) and help us pray with the Spirit making intercession with us through groanings which cannot be uttered (Romans 8:26.) According to respected Greek scholar P.C. Nelson, the literal Greek translation of this implies "groanings which cannot be uttered in articulate speech." We need the Holy Spirit to help us this way just as much, if not more,than the first century church did.


HOW DOES SPEAKING IN TONGUES OPERATE?
In order to answer this question properly, we must look at the fact that the Bible describes three different manifestations of speaking in tongues:

1-Evidential tongues-The initial evidence when someone is baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1- 4;10:44-46;19:2-7.)
2-Intercessory tongues-the ability to pray in other tongues, or "In the Spirit" (1 Corinthians 14:14- 16; Ephesians 6:18;Jude 20) in order to pray beyond our limited human understanding , speak mysteries to God ( 1 Corinthians 14:2) and edify (build up) ourselves (1 Corinthians 14:4.)

3-The ministry gift of tongues, described in 1 Corinthians chapters 12 and 14, involves giving a message in tongues in a public worship service, which is to be interpreted (12:10).This is a powerful sign to unbelievers ( 14:22).This gift is only given in certain situations, as the Spirit wills. Therefore, not all Christians are used in this gift (12:30.)IV. WEREN'T TONGUES GIVEN SO THAT THE EARLY CHURCH COULD PREACH THE GOSPEL IN FOREIGN NATIONS WHERE THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE LANGUAGES?


I once read an article by a certain denominational minister in which he tried to explain tongues by saying that, when Jesus commissioned His disciples to go into all the world, He didn't want them to spend all of their time taking language classes, so He gave them tongues to preach in foreign nations. While I don't question that this brother meant well, this theory is simply not Biblical. It is true that on the Day of Pentecost, the people all heard the works of God proclaimed in their own language (Acts 2:11). However, this was not preaching. When it came time to preach, notice that Peter preached in a language understood by the entire crowd. Nowhere in the Bible do we ever see an example of a person preaching in tongues.

V.ARE TONGUES HUMAN LANGUAGES
-They can be, but are not necessarily. They can also be Heavenly languages-tongues of angels (1 Corinthians 13:1.)
VI.WHY DIDN'T JESUS SPEAK IN TONGUES?

Actually, I'm not totally sure that He didn't. Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit (Luke 10:21,) and groaned in the Spirit (John11:33.) This terminology is very similar to the term "Praying in the Spirit," which Paul uses to describe praying in tongues (1 Corinthians 14: 14-16.) However, even if Jesus did not speak in tongues, there are several possible explanations:

1.Since He was God, there were no languages He didn't know.
2.Since He was sinless, He had perfect communication with the Father, and therefore, He did not need tongues.
3.He was the last person to function as a prophet under the Old Covenant. Tongues are a New Testament phenomenon.Even if Jesus didn't personally speak in tongues, He Himself stated that tongues would be a normative sign to follow believers (Mark 16:17 .) (2) The entire New Testament was written by people who spoke in tongues.


VII. ARE TONGUES THE LEAST OF THE GIFTS? ARE THEY REALLY THAT IMPORTANT?
In 1 Corinthians 12, the Apostle Paul gives us a basic primer on the nine Gifts of the Holy Spirit: Wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, discernment, tongues and interpretation of tongues. Since tongues and interpretation are the last Gift Paul mentions, some have taken this to mean that tongues are the least important of the Gifts, and that we shouldn't really be concerned with them. However, I would respectfully reply that this argument is based on a very presumptuous and inconsistant approach to Biblical interpretation.

Chronological order of how something is listed is not necessarily an indication of importance. For example, in 1 Corinthians 13:13 , Paul tells us that faith, hope, and love remain, yet the greatest of these is love, in spite of the fact that it is listed last. Likewise, in a list of sinful activities recorded in Galatians 5:19-21 , murder is named near the end of the list. Does that mean that murder is a less serious sin than the others? Of course not.

Paul definitely did not view tongues as being unimportant. In fact, he devotes an entire chapter in the Bible to teaching on the subject (1 Corinthians 14). In this chapter, he tells the Corinthian believers that he desires that they all speak in tongues (verse 5), and thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than all of them! (verse 18) Three times in Scripture we are exhorted to covet (Pursue with passion) the Gifts of the Holy Spirit-including tongues (1 Corinthians 12:31; 14:1, 39, the same Greek word is used in all of these Scriptures.) Note that this is worded as a commandment, not an option. To downplay or dishonor any of God's gifts is to dishonor God Himself. May we never, ever fall into this trap.
http://www.james-dave.com/tongues1.html

[amadeus2]

Zeke wrote:
I can and have and will again, prove that the correct way to view 1Cor14 is tongue=languages, not ecstatic charismatic utterances.....that is confusion, and as you should know, God cannot author confusion....so what are you listening to and speaking if not confusion....or barbarian speech....

But did not God create human babies who 'babble' regularly on their way to learning an intelligible language? The same God who made natural babies that babble also make spiritual babies who babble at the beginning until He teaches them to speak clearly

[zeke37]

ok then

[Oscarr]

Did you forget about the thread that I started in which you participated...it was verse by verse ....the whole chapter.

You were there....you know what I am refering to...I need not do that again with you...you can refer back to my posts if you wish....I will discuss this with others.

in His service
c

I remember that your exegesis of this chapter was not in harmony with what Paul was literally saying. I remember making the point that Paul did not imply a subtext when he gave his teaching on tongues and prophecy in 1Cor14. He meant what he literally said, and he said what he actually meant. At no time did Paul literally say what you are saying that he said.

Your exegesis of the chapter is the equivalent of me saying that black is black and white is white, and you interpreting that by saying that white is not necessarily white but a lighter shade of black, implying that I am not really saying that black is black but implying some underlying meaning.

Your interpretation of 1Cor14 is putting words and ideas into Paul's mouth that are not there, and are not supported by anything that Paul has said anywhere else in his letters. All you are doing is overlaying your personal opinions over the literal words of Paul. In this, you are totally misrepresenting Paul. If Paul was around today, he would take legal action against you for misrepresentation, and he would most certainly win the case in court.

[Mathetes the kerux]

What you are alluding at, correctly spelled in the English is actually....pneunmati...

from the same base as pneuma...air...or spirit...or Holy Spirit....or blast.....or cool......or breath of Life body......or wind.....

Yes I am familiar...but again, it doesn't help your case.


Before you get real deep into explanation, I do not deny that "tongues" is a gift, nor that the Holy Spirit is present...

I don't think that you could show me proof that the tongue in 1Cor 14 was referring to the charismatic ecstatic utterances.

It was about preaching, in one language (that of the speaker), and having an interpreter repeat the words, in the audience's languages...and if that is done, and those of the other languages understand and Glorify God, then it is proof positive that the Holy Spirit is present...

nothing to do with charismatic ecstatic utterances.

in Acts it was not the charismatic tongue, but an understanding tongue...as they, both Israelite and Gentile understood...and they understood because they were gentiles, and they now honour God.

The whole point is the spreading of the Gospel into the world, so that Christianity could spread beyond the Jew and Benjaminite...a unmistakable fact that is taught in this chapter and the next, many times.

in His service
c
If you want to bash my mispelling that is OK but . . .
pneunmati

Try to spell it right yourself . . . you have added a "nu". It is PNEUMATI.

You asserted that the gentiles of acts 10 experienced cloven tongues . . . the text does not say that they did . . . not to mention that how would tongues as a foreign language in proclaiming the gospel work here? Peter and the others were believers already . . . yet you would have me beleive that the Gentiles are preaching the gospel to Peter and them? WEAK. Peter and his are already believers and PETER just preached the Gospel TO the Gentiles . . . yet your logic would say that they just preached the Gospel back to them?

Sorry Zeke . . . your contention doesn't hold with the text. Why would Peter and his companions need the Gospel preached to them in a foreign tongue?

As for pnuemati . . . the word pnuema in and of itself connoted unusual and otherworldy content . . . look up the historical usage in Kittles TDNT. Something that was done en pnuemati was understood as something abnormal . . . hardly something that could be attributed to the speaking of normal human languages. En pnuemati was a buzz phrase that connoted supernatural and otherwordly action . . . thus speaking en pnuemati as a corrolary for tongues is a speech that is otherwordly . . . and that is what was communicated. As well glossais lalien was another buzz phrase that connoted ecstatic otherworldy speech . . . like the Pythian Oracle and other mystery cults of the age.

Sorry but linguistic usage and historical context (not to mention the Greek text itself) rule out tongues as being strictly foreign languages.

[zeke37]

If you want to bash my mispelling that is OK but . . .


Try to spell it right yourself . . . you have added a "nu". It is PNEUMATI.

Actually, I did mis spell your mis spell...lol

serves me right...my apologies

You asserted that the gentiles of acts 10 experienced cloven tongues . . . the text does not say that they did . . .

the same events are present in Acts 2 as Acts 10. Believers heard the message in their own dialect. Certainly, the text does not say that they experienced the charismatic tongue! It builds upon the previous expression of what the "tongue" is...which we learn about in Acts 2. There is no extra tongue teaching between Act2 and 10. Are you saying that they spoke the charismatic tongue in Acts 2 as well? No friend...that is a rather large jump to make...

not to mention that how would tongues as a foreign language in proclaiming the gospel work here?

We must be having some kind of communication breakdown here. The whole point is that the Gospel be preached to the World...correct?...

And when ALL languaged (tongued) people can understand what is being said, including the gentiles that were present, then the Word spreads.....into their tongue (language)...that is the point.

Peter and the others were believers already . . .

they heard Peter and followed Peter, and were baptized in the Holy Spirit in front of those of the circumcision, thus showing them that the Holy Spirit was indeed for ALL, and not just for those of the circumcision. And as evidence that the Holy Spirit had indeed INFILLED them....BAPTIZED them, they spoke the CLOVEN tongue of Fire, which is absolute proof that the Holy Spirit is present....so they would have no doubt at all. This language cannot be faked. It is the Language of God, not mumbo jumbo, where all that hear understand perfectly. It is the OPPOSITE of your prayer language...

yet you would have me believe that the Gentiles are preaching the gospel to Peter and them? WEAK.

What is weak is your understanding of what I would have you believe, or else my ability to show you the truth in the scriptures. Perhaps both.

Peter and his are already believers and PETER just preached the Gospel TO the Gentiles . . . yet your logic would say that they just preached the Gospel back to them?

No, not at all. They (those that spoke the tongue) spoke foreign (to the Jews of the area) languages (tongues), and although some of the disciples were multilingual, the majority of people were not. These gentiles that Peter brought with him, were foreigners who spoke a different tongue....Peter preached the Gospel to them, the Holy Spirit Baptized them, they spoke that cloven tongue, whereby absolutely proving that they were infilled with the Holy Spirit...and this happened in front of the circumcised so that they would see it and understand it, see and understand the PROOF....that the message was for everyone....and those gentiles, after being Baptized in the Holy Spirit, gave glory to God, thereby proving once again that they were in the presence of the Holy Spirit. And Peter exclaims that they should not deny them water baptism, as they have been baptized in Spirit....and they of the circumcision saw the proof of that in the cloven tongue...as chapter 11 details.

They didn't preach the Gospel back to Peter...they understood the Gospel, and took it back to their homes and spread the Word....and thus the world has the Gospel of Christ. Read the 11th chapter, and it retells the story....the proof was the cloven tongue, not the ecstatic tongue, which is easily fakeable, but the cloven tongue is not fakeable....everyone understands....

so it is not speaking of the ecstatic charismatic prayer language...or what ever other name given to that practise.


Sorry Zeke . . . your contention doesn't hold with the text. Why would Peter and his companions need the Gospel preached to them in a foreign tongue?

Again, see above. Not to Peter but to their own foreign language speaking peoples...when they returned home.

As for pnuemati . . . the word pnuema in and of itself connoted unusual and otherworldy content . . . look up the historical usage in Kittles TDNT. Something that was done en pnuemati was understood as something abnormal . . . hardly something that could be attributed to the speaking of normal human languages. En pnuemati was a buzz phrase that connoted supernatural and otherwordly action . . . thus speaking en pnuemati as a corrolary for tongues is a speech that is otherwordly . . . and that is what was communicated. As well glossais lalien was another buzz phrase that connoted ecstatic otherworldy speech . . . like the Pythian Oracle and other mystery cults of the age.

If we attribute the Holy Spirit to the act of spreading the Gospel to the World, to the many different tongues, then either way (if it is a prayer laguage, or if it is foreign languages, it is explainable....as you know that is my understanding about the writing of the 14th chapter.

Sorry but linguistic usage and historical context (not to mention the Greek text itself) rule out tongues as being strictly foreign languages.

they are languages, or the actual tongue itself...there truly is no basis for what you say it means....but tradition.




p.s....it is a good thing if the Gospel is preached in one language and through translators, is understood in another language...if those in the other language praise God, then that is proof that it is the Spirit working...

it is a bad thing if the Gospel is preached and the audience hears a foreign language, with no understanding of what is being preached. Then the preaching is in vain, and only God would understand you....and He already knows...lol.

keep that in mind when reading 1Cor14.
in His service
c

[zeke37]

I remember that your exegesis of this chapter was not in harmony with what Paul was literally saying.

I would say the same about yours,

I remember making the point that Paul did not imply a subtext when he gave his teaching on tongues and prophecy in 1Cor14.

I agree

He meant what he literally said, and he said what he actually meant.

Again, I agree

At no time did Paul literally say what you are saying that he said.

Well, we disagree there.

Your exegesis of the chapter is the equivalent of me saying that black is black and white is white, and you interpreting that by saying that white is not necessarily white but a lighter shade of black, implying that I am not really saying that black is black but implying some underlying meaning.

OK, white is all colours, and black is the absence of colour.

Your interpretation of 1Cor14 is putting words and ideas into Paul's mouth that are not there, and are not supported by anything that Paul has said anywhere else in his letters.

In your opinion, not in mine. It was Paul's commission to get the Message to the gentiles...and you overlook the fact that they spoke foreign tongues...

All you are doing is overlaying your personal opinions over the literal words of Paul.

I see things differently, as your tradition leads you blindly, thus making void the Word of God.

In this, you are totally misrepresenting Paul. If Paul was around today, he would take legal action against you for misrepresentation, and he would most certainly win the case in court.



I bet you that I wouldn't be one of the Defendants, but rather the defendants would be those that teach a babbly tongue.......as being from God, when His Word clearly teaches the opposite.

in His service
c

[Mathetes the kerux]

they are languages, or the actual tongue itself...there truly is no basis for what you say it means....but tradition.




p.s....it is a good thing if the Gospel is preached in one language and through translators, is understood in another language...if those in the other language praise God, then that is proof that it is the Spirit working...

it is a bad thing if the Gospel is preached and the audience hears a foreign language, with no understanding of what is being preached. Then the preaching is in vain, and only God would understand you....and He already knows...lol.

keep that in mind when reading 1Cor14.
in His service
c
Like I said . . . your contentions don't hold. You said that tongues are for the spread of the Gospel . . . but that CLEARLY is NOT the case here . . . they already heard the Gospel in a language that they understood . . . your hypothesis needs to be solid all the way around. If tongues are foreign languages for the presentation of the Gospel then why are they beneficial for Peter and his companions. The text says nothing about people going home . . . the tongue speakers are already home! BTW Koine Greek was common to everyone . . . hence the writing of the NT in Koine.

In order for your hypothesis to make sense here . . . Peter's sermon would have to be in tongues . . . it isn't. So the Gentiles speaking in tongues for the sake of those that they can already communicate with in Koine . . . who are already believers . . . doesn't make sense. Again . . . your hypothesis is full of holes.


as for . . .
spoke the CLOVEN tongue of Fire
the cloven tongues WEREN'T spoken . . . they were what APPEARED above the heads of the disciples on Pentecost. Acts 10 says nothing about seeing this same vision. It seems as if you have united the vision with the speaking . . . an unwarranted conclusion. Acts 2 says the cloven fire appeared ABOVE THE HEAD . . . not IN THE MOUTHS.

[Mathetes the kerux]

So . . . where zeke would you like to begin? We still haven't gotten this far yet.

1 Cor 12, 13, 14 or Acts 2?

[onelamb]

Tongues are the initial physical evidence that someone is baptised in the Spirit-we have several examples in scripture-and in each and every case where evidence is given for this baptism-tongues are there...
Acts 2:4, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6

[zeke37]

Tongues are the initial physical evidence that someone is baptised in the Spirit-we have several examples in scripture-and in each and every case where evidence is given for this baptism-tongues are there...
Acts 2:4, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6
I do not disagree.

I do disagree with what YOU call tongues....it differs from what the bible calls tongues....(languages)

in His service
c

[zeke37]

Like I said . . . your contentions don't hold. You said that tongues are for the spread of the Gospel . . . but that CLEARLY is NOT the case here . . . they already heard the Gospel in a language that they understood . . . your hypothesis needs to be solid all the way around.

It is solid. Yes they heard the Gospel, that is the whole point. You fail to remember that fact...our commission. Paul's commission, and Peter's too, although it took him a little time to realize it.

In Acts2, they SAW the cloven tongue of Fire, and SPOKE in that tongue, God Himself speaking....

In Acts10, the gentiles spoke this tongue and glorified God. Who do you think is being filled with the Holy Spirit in Acts10?

And why were the circumcised amazed? because they had previously believed that the Messiah had come only for the Jew, and now they see the proof that the Holy Spirit baptized the gentiles....by the cloven tongue, as we learned in Acts2. If you continue reading in the 11 chapter, Peter retells the story and the point is obvious...the Son of Man came for ALL, and that is the point...


of course they heard the Gospel.

In 1Cor14, it is a church that is being attended. And it being a Christian church, of course the Gospel is being preached.

And even if those in the church were already believers, they must have either heard the Gospel preached in their own tongue (their own language), or from the Cloven tongue of Fire which crosses all language barriers.

and if they were already believers and heard the Gospel in their own language, then it was through the gift of tongues....as I explained and continue to....where through gifted multilingual people, the Messages are spread from preacher through interpreter, to the listening people....hence they heard it in another tongue....and understand it in their own tongue...praise God.



I see no mention of the cloven tongue, or it's implication in the 1Cor14,

We do however see the same thing happening in a sense as that in Acts.

1n Corinth, The scriptures and Psalms are being shared, each in the preachers own language, and it is causing confusion for the multi linguistic church. So order is taught, and not confusion,

using an interpreter, so that you are NOT talking to just God and the angels...but rather that your message gets understood by the people....to whom the message is meant for....sent to...by way of that (gifted by God) multilingual individual....who knows both languages....and the preacher (prophet).

In Acts2, is it your contention that they spoke the charismatic tongue?

If tongues are foreign languages for the presentation of the Gospel then why are they beneficial for Peter and his companions.

So that the message crosses international language barriers and borders.

The text says nothing about people going home . . .

they were gentiles....

the tongue speakers are already home!

not provable...but even still, it was for language barriers, going home as I stated was to show how the message would spread....but either way, word of mouth into foreign languages....and eventually someone who heard it in those foreign languages would take the message abroad...and further and further....until today....we have the message of Christ in almost all languages....

it certainly was not from babyl tongues.

BTW Koine Greek was common to everyone . . . hence the writing of the NT in Koine.

Absolutely not....
Koine is Greek, proper...
What Paul spoke was not. He was quite multilingual and spoke a slang form of Koine, Colloquial Greek. It was much more for the common man, and Paul was NOT as elegant in speech as others were.

In order for your hypothesis to make sense here . . . Peter's sermon would have to be in tongues . . . it isn't.

It is in a tongue...a language. Peter's tongue. And that tongue is foreign to those in the area, or travelling from abroad.

So the Gentiles speaking in tongues for the sake of those that they can already communicate with in Koine . . . who are already believers . . . doesn't make sense. Again . . . your hypothesis is full of holes.

That is not what I am saying

Peter speaks one language (tongue) and the gentiles speak another language (tongue)...each is foreign to the other....

even if they were both speaking Greek or Hebrew, we are not just speaking about complete other languages.....we are speaking of the actual specific dialect....family dialect....which they all heard the words of God in... in their own family dialect...as per Acts2.

You should not just add to the Word between Acts2 and 10...making tongues all of a sudden mean something other than the patter shows.




as for . . .

the cloven tongues WEREN'T spoken . . . they were what APPEARED above the heads of the disciples on Pentecost.

incorrect. The tongue was spoken. Tongue=language..so it was spoken. The image of the Cloven tongue of Fire, was not a vision, but they actually all saw it. And then spoke it.

Acts 10 says nothing about seeing this same vision. It seems as if you have united the vision with the speaking . . . an unwarranted conclusion. Acts 2 says the cloven fire appeared ABOVE THE HEAD . . . not IN THE MOUTHS.

and they SPOKE>>>>>
and YOU are changing what the teaching is in Acts2 and 10...for some reason you have already convinced yourself that the tongue in Acts10 was charismatic prayer to God....I don't get that at all. It is the same as Acts2, and there is NOTHING in the text to suggest otherwise.

Have you read the 11th chapter yet?

And I would ask you.....are you saying that they did NOT speak the cloven gift of the tongue of Fire that is the Holy Spirit Himself speaking?

in His service
c

[zeke37]

So . . . where zeke would you like to begin? We still haven't gotten this far yet.

1 Cor 12, 13, 14 or Acts 2?
I believe that YOU could use the refresher in Acts 2, f

so maybe we should start there.

in His service
c

[Mathetes the kerux]

I believe that YOU could use the refresher in Acts 2, f

so maybe we should start there.

in His service
c
Ok Acts 2 then . . . I will be back and we can examine.

BTW. Koine is NOT Greek proper . . . it was the trade language of Greek . . . the common Greek used by everyone. Not sure where you got your info.

[onelamb]

I do not disagree.

I do disagree with what YOU call tongues....it differs from what the bible calls tongues....(languages)

in His service
c
What are you talking about????? What IS the difference in "what I call tongues" "languages" and what the Bible calls tongues? "languages"--- I believe they are the same.

[zeke37]

What are you talking about?????

The definition of "tongues" as seen in 1Cor14

What IS the difference in "what I call tongues" "languages" and what the Bible calls tongues? "languages"--- I believe they are the same.

I realize that.

Your understanding is not the same as the Bible's.

tongues=languages...and foreign language is implied...when "unknown" was added by the translators.

You seem to think that it is God speaking a prayer through you to Him....OK then....

in His service
c

[Ben12]

I realize that.

Your understanding is not the same as the Bible's.

tongues=languages...and foreign language is implied...when "unknown" was added by the translators.

You seem to think that it is God speaking a prayer through you to Him....OK then....

in His service
c
It does amazes me how God’s people must restricted things of God to what they have experienced or understand; I am so glad that the God I know is so much more then human religious understanding. If you have not experience the Baptism of the Spirit and have not spoken in an unknown tongue/prayer language you are out side that camp. You can dissect it and discern it but you will never believe it because it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with your human experience.

[onelamb]

I realize that.

Your understanding is not the same as the Bible's.

tongues=languages...and foreign language is implied...when "unknown" was added by the translators.

You seem to think that it is God speaking a prayer through you to Him....OK then....

in His service
c
I not only "implied" that tongues could be prayer-I absolutly meant it-for that's what the Bible teaches. It is not "God speaking" it is me-using words the Holy Spirit gives me.

"He who speaks in a tongue, does not speak to man, but to God-indeed, no one understands, but in the spirit he speaks mysteries."

"for you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified"

"I will pray with my mind and I will also pray with my spirit"-I will sing with my understanding and I will sing with my spirit also"

Now, it's been stated again and again that you have no scriptures to back up your "opinions"-so when are you going to produce them. If your beliefs cannot be backed up by scripture-then they are just that, only your opinions-and wrong ones at that.

[jive4005]

Right from the start I want to acknowledge that I think a lot of readers will not "get" the real intent and motive, of this post.
They will be offended or find a need to respond with dissention and possibly anger.
So first I will invoke the name above all names, Christ Jesus, and in His name pray against all ungodly spirits of rancor and dissention.

As so often happens, many professed Christians are pretty thin skinned and easily irratated (not exactly how Jesus says we should be acting...).
This isn't my intent.
I want to let you know I write this because I care.
Being spirit-led... here goes.

What benefit(s) does our Christian community gain from the endless rehashing, debating, discussion, generally disagreeing attitudes and the just plain yadda-yadda-yadda over the fruit generally refered to as TONGUES!?

I find it sad that so many Christians fixate upon this thing.
It's always the same side vs side, belief vs belief, this vs that nonsense that the devil has been using to divide Christians for centuries.
"Keep 'em "pickin'" at the small stuff and they won't notice me sabotaging their lives!"

I believe these kind of going-nowhere-for-decades debates brings forth little of real value (no fruit!). It doesn't get us anywhere on that spiritual level we all say we seek.

I love a good debate and even argument upon occassion. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk of holy and interesting and even difficult things. We should.
But to me (here's where they'll get angry) it seems more like venting than trading of ideas. Some people even appear to take pride in being part of this "fight"(as if God wants us fighting with each other... when we could be effectively fight satan together!).

I'm not saying tongues are not important (they ARE!)... but in the scriptures I read, they are just one of many blessings/gifts.

When something (ANY issue) comes along to block or slow the spiritual and love growth of a Christian (individual or community) it is the reasonsibility of the Christian to act in a loving, patient manner to remove the barrier(s). Listening is usually better than talking. It isn't about the problems, differences or divides we face, but HOW we face them... remembering it's really all about God and His children.

Let's try making sure that our priorites are the same as God's priorities.

GBY all

His,
Rev J

[onelamb]

Standing for the truth of God's Word will always be a priority for me. So, while yes, "tongues are just one of the Spriitual gifts"-they are also the evidence the Bible uses for the baptism in the Spirit. Jesus, told his disciples to not even begin their ministry until they received this baptism-in fact, He called it--"the promise of the Father". It was so important that it turned Peter from being ashamed of Christ before a handmaiden-to one who could preach before thousands. So, yes, I believe it's "important enough" for discussion.

[zeke37]

I not only "implied" that tongues could be prayer-I absolutly meant it-for that's what the Bible teaches.

the bible teaches that tongues are languages, not what you do....which is pray (an incoherancy) in a non language.

It is not "God speaking" it is me-using words the Holy Spirit gives me.

Is not The Holy Spirit, God? You are saying that God is giving you directly, non words utterances, charismatically, to say back to Him.



"He who speaks in a tongue, does not speak to man, but to God-indeed, no one understands, but in the spirit he speaks mysteries."

"for you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified"

"I will pray with my mind and I will also pray with my spirit"-I will sing with my understanding and I will sing with my spirit also"

Now, it's been stated again and again that you have no scriptures to back up your "opinions"-so when are you going to produce them. If your beliefs cannot be backed up by scripture-then they are just that, only your opinions-and wrong ones at that.

I have posted quite a lot of scripture to back up what I know to be true. I don't need to rehash with someone that has already seen my thoughts about 1Cor14, as with Oscar.

but for you with whom we have not yet together gone over the whole chapter, sure no problem...I use the very same scriptures you do, but (IMO)properly divided.

so lets start with the few that you have just given which IMO are out of context.

Perhaps if you keep the thought progressing through, you will see things differently. Perhaps not.


"He who speaks in a tongue, does not speak to man, but to God-indeed, no one understands, but in the spirit he speaks mysteries."

this 2nd verse goes with the 1st and the 3rd and the 4th and the 5th....and the 6th......I use the KJV, because it is closest to the manuscripts....not perfect, yet the best English translation we have.

1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

Here we learn that it is more important to prophecy then to have the rest of the spiritual gifts. and we are about to get taught about the gift called "tongues"....which I say means languages...in this case foreign languages...and you claim is a charismatic prayer language.


2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue (foreign language) speaketh not unto men (which is the point of the preacher/speaker), but unto God (this is a negative, for they were supposed to speak to men): for no man understandeth him (if he speaks in a foreign tongue/language); howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. (while praying in the congregation, or teaching the Word in the congregation, the spirit filled preacher [prophecy-er] will be speaking mysteriously to them, instead of with understanding....since they don't speak the same languages).

3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

instead of in a tongue (that they can't understand) we are taught here that we are to prophecy instead, for if we prophecy (preach properly divided, the written Word) the people will be edified, and exhorted and comforted....not so with tongues, as stated above. The contrast is between those that speak in tongues (foreign languages as so others cannot understand)...bad.....and between prophesying, which is teaching the Word properly, such that it brings edification, comfort and exhortation.

4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; (not a good thing in this case, for "himself" is the only one who would understand...those in attendance won't because his tongue is foreign to him) [U]but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. here again we see the prophecy being lifted up against the tongues being spoken about.

5 I would that ye all spake with tongues [U]but rather that ye prophesied: (Paul is saying here that he wishes they all prophecied, not that they all spoke in tongues....simple mistranslation into some versions of the Word...theologically driven most times) for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, (again this point is driven forward) except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. (this is the point, the Greek is more clear. The English translation is not as clear. The prophecy doesn't come from a charismatic prayer, but rather it means simply...Paul wishes that the did not speak with tongues...implying those there all spoke with different tongues/languages....but instead, that they all prophesied...to prophecy the Word means to teach It properly....teach the Written Word as is, for Jesus said I have told you all things....ps. He also taught us how to pray...and it was not a charismatic tongue....but well thought out, words of love to God, starting with Our Father in Heaven.....)
6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, (it profits nothing if they cannot understand your speech, which is what Paul is talking about)except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? (these are what is opposite of foreign tongues...and these are what Paul is saying. ..tongues [speaking foreign] doesn't profit you, but these aforementioned do....
...the message is not ....ecstatic charismatic utterances are ok if there is prophecy present...it is ....if you speak in a foreign tongue, then you'd better do so with the people being able to understand you....so they can also see revelation, hear prophecy, learn knowledge and adhere to doctrine...how can this be done if it is foreign to them...with a multilingual gifted person...who knows the languages of the speaker and the audience...thus translates.

If you read the whole thought, the point makes itself clear...the way the English is rendered then, a time ago, is not the same as what we speak today. Mistakes are made in doctrine as a result.


"for you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified"

"I will pray with my mind and I will also pray with my spirit"-I will sing with my understanding and I will sing with my spirit also"

again, you have taken these out of order and out of context.


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

Most of you guys and gals seem to omit this verse, that explains the next one.
If you pray in an unknown language (foreign to them listening), then although you believe in God and are praying to Him, those listening ....their understanding is non. They have no understanding. they cannot understand your speech...
And if you are in the audience, and you hear a prayer to God, in a foreign language, and you can not understand it, then although you may have the desire to pray and learn, you can't because you cannot understand the words...you can repeat those words, but doing so means that you have no understanding


15 What is it then? (if not in a foreign tongue, then what?) I will pray with the spirit, (as we all should/not implying the charismatic ecstatic utterances) and I will pray with the understanding also(qualifier for what we are speaking about, understanding....not ecstatic utterances that you guys and gals freely admit is un thought on your part, and lack of understanding...: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Psalms and Scriptures....in the Spirit is not ecstatic tongues...and are to be done with UNDERSTANDING. What you do is opposite.

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?

This is pretty strait forward is it not? If a preacher speaks to the audience in a foreign language (to those listening) although they have just been blessed with the Word, they can't understand you words / language / tongue.... and they won't even know when to say Amen....why??because they can't understand the Words.
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

You (the speaker) may understand and thank God but those others, who don't speak your tongue, they will not be edified...no....they won't understand anything you say...unless you bring along a translator...

incidentally, many ministries do this today...we see them on tv, spreading the Word in Africa, or Asia, or India...and the featured preachers don't speak the language of the people, but they do preach the Word, and multi-lingual interpreters translate the preachers words into the audiences language.....this is what Paul is speaking about...that is it,.....not any charismatic tongue...


stay with the whole thought being presented instead of taking the verses out of context and/or building upon a single verse, or perhaps even the three you shared with me....properly divided they are not speaking of tongues as a good thing, but a bad thing if those listening get no understanding from them.

in His service
c

[onelamb]

How do you know that what I speak is a non language???

If the bible says, "no one understands except God" then what language IS it? You can't have it both ways.

You have taken scripture and given it your own spin rather than listening to the plain teaching Paul was putting forth. For example---If I pray in a tongue-my spirit prays but my understanding is unfruitful--so what shall I do? Paul makes it plain that he does BOTH-balance is the key. He prays in a tongue-but he doesn't "understand' what he's saying-so he prays with his understanding also.


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?



Here you have skipped a whole portion of scripture-this verse is speaking of prayer. We've already shown through scripture that prayer is one of the purposes of tongues-yet it is not to be done for others ears-but for the ears of GOD-for the portion you skipped says that "you indeed give thanks well"

You've also contradicted your previous statement-for you put forth that "with the spirit" didn't mean tongues-and here you're saying it does???, for the other doesn't understand., you can't have it both ways. If like the Bible says, "no one understands but God" then it can't merely be preaching in another language-because then someone WOULD. -and paul NEVER says the purpose of tongues is merely to preach the gospel in a different langauge-you must twist much more scripture than you already have to come to that conclusion.


Then you went on to say "he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself"---and somehow came to the conclusion that this wasn't good????? We all need edificaiton-it merely means "built up"-and this is a good thing!!! Paul even goes on to say, "build yourself up in your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit" Do you think that he was telling us to do something that wasn't right? He even said, "I want you all to speak in tongues"-and also said that "He thanked God he spoke in tongues more than ANY of them--YET in the church...tongues without interpretation are useless in building up the church as a whole.
Paul said that he who prophesies edifies the church--so your saying building up the church is good but not building yourself up in the faith? Sorry, Paul disagrees. He merely said we shouldn't speak in tongues in the church unless we interpret so that the whole church could be built up instead of just ourselves---for he also said, "unless he interpret, so that the church could be edified? No one here is saying anything about standing around in church praying in tongues. The gifts of the Spirit are given to the church by the Spirit-they are SUPERNATURAL. We are given the spiritual gifts-INCLUDING INTERPRETATION-by the Spirit of God-we do not merely "understand" or "bring along a translator".


Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

[Jerrell]

What happened in Acts is not what we think of "speaking in tounges" today, it was not jibber jabber. It was not some unkown and made up language. When the Apostles spoke in tounges it was the natural languages of the men and women present in Jerusalem for the passover- not jibber jabber. Paul speaks about "unknown" tounges which are languages that the people do not know- he is not talking about jibber-jabber. Jibber Jabber is senseless, and ignorance. If someone is going to "pray in the spirit" let them do it at home. Because Paul is clear that if the people cannot understand don't speak it in Church. There is no real interpretaion of jibber-jabber besides a jibber-jabber interpretion.

[zeke37]

How do you know that what I speak is a non language???

all definitions of the charismatic prayer language have been explained to me as being not from their mind, but that God gives them the utterances....and that it is not understandable. It is not a language but an unlanguage.

If the bible says, "no one understands except God" then what language IS it?

What ever the foreign language is....but it is foreign (unknown) to the hearer....hence, you are working in vain because ONLY God hears your words...(not speaking of the charismatic utterances)

You can't have it both ways.

No kidding...


You have taken scripture and given it your own spin rather than listening to the plain teaching Paul was putting forth.

So says you. I say differently.

For example---If I pray in a tongue-my spirit prays but my understanding is unfruitful--so what shall I do? Paul makes it plain that he does BOTH-balance is the key.

No, Paul makes it clear that we are NOT to pray in tongues, but rather with understanding...and with the mind....and also sing to God the same way, not in a tongue that you cannot understand....(ie..singing or praying in Latin hymns and scriptures....we could sing them, but we wouldn't know what they meant....)

He prays in a tongue-but he doesn't "understand' what he's saying-so he prays with his understanding also.

lol

Paul new many tongues..ie...languages....and that made him a great vessel for his line of work....spreading the Word to the Gentiles....and beyond.....

Paul is teaching that we should not just give a prayer or scripture sharing... in a language that is foreign (unknown) to the audience....or vice verse - that the ones hearing the message, should not just repeat the scriptures or Psalms back without fully understanding them...the teaching is about foreign(unknown) languages....

when we pray we are to do so with understanding wand with our mind. Those two descriptions are again...opposite to your charismatic ecstatic utterances...


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?



Here you have skipped a whole portion of scripture-this verse is speaking of prayer. We've already shown through scripture that prayer is one of the purposes of tongues-

to spread the message to the other tongues(languages) ... not what you think...

yet it is not to be done for others ears-but for the ears of GOD

lol, see what man's tradition has done? Again...This is a warning against speaking in tongues (that are foreign to those listening) and you are taking it as a positive. It is not for them, because they cannot understand it...thus you are not preaching to them, but to God instead, for He is the only one that would understand you....those there would not, and that is the whole point...to have those there understand...lol.

-for the portion you skipped says that "you indeed give thanks well"

if they do give thanks well, then they understood the message, and are giving Glory to God...but if you speak a tongue to them, they will not understand and they will not even know when to say Amen...

I find it humorous and sad at the same time to see that you accuse me of leaving out something, and you yourself cut the verse in half....and take it out of context...

the verse(s) are

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

Be interpreted with a human interpreter that knows the languages in question


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

So, if you pray in tongues, YOU ARE IN THE WRONG...

why? Because it is in vain....what Paul is teaching is (from the audience members point of view) if I hear a prayer in Hebrew, but do not understand Hebrew, and I repeat that prayer (or psalm) my spirit is indeed praying, but I wouldn't know what I was saying...and that is unfruitful.

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.

So then, instead of praying in tongues, what are we to do? We are to pray with our minds...thinking about our prayer, and do so with understanding....and the same when we sing praises to God...don't sing in a foreign language unless you know what is being said...otherwise, do so in your own language after such has been translated by an interpreter...translator.

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?

If they don't understand what you say, they won't even know when to say Amen....let alone pray with understanding.

17 For thou verily givest thanks well (in the language that you preached from, and since you speak that tongue or language, then you understand) (Here is what you forgot...or did not mention) , but the other is not edified. (those that do not speak your language (tongue) are not edified, because they cannot understand you....you seek a different language, and unless it is interpreted for them, they will not know when to say Amen even....

This whole chapter is against speaking in tongues..


You've also contradicted your previous statement-for you put forth that "with the spirit" didn't mean tongues-

it doesn't mean tongues...not the same words nor the same implication.

and here you're saying it does???, for the other doesn't understand., you can't have it both ways.

I don't know what you are referencing. I did not contradict myself. Perhaps you did not understand what was written. .....for the other doesn't understand....is that what you mean?

we all speak A tongue dude. I speak the English tongue. I do not speak fluently any other language. Therefore, the preacher and I would have a foreign (unknown) tongue to one another. Same implication here.

If like the Bible says, "no one understands but God" then it can't merely be preaching in another language-because then someone WOULD.

not if no one there understood the language spoken, as is implied. Imagine today if an English preacher went to Africa to preach the word and did not bring a translator with him....The people there would not understand him...but God would...and that is the point...it is not praise, but a negative warning......it is teaching on how to stop confusion, not on how to speak confusion, as your charismatic tongue does...

-and paul NEVER says the purpose of tongues is merely to preach the gospel in a different langauge-you must twist much more scripture than you already have to come to that conclusion.

You are humorous. What is a tongue.....it is a language or an actual tongue. In this case it is a language. What do you do with language while at church? Hmmmm. I wonder??? Paul taught about sharing scriptures and Psalms....and since it is a Christian church, don't you think that the Gospel would be preached.....!!!!!!! I wold certainly hope so...

Each and every point that Paul makes goes against the charismatic utterances, completely and wholly.


Then you went on to say "he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself"---and somehow came to the conclusion that this wasn't good????? We all need edification-it merely means "built up"-and this is a good thing!!!

lol again....sorry but you crack me up.

We are given a warning against speaking in tongues, and you think that it is a positive. If you are there (in church) to share scriptures and Psalms, you are there to edify others.....but if the only person that you edfiy is yourself, then that is a bad thing, when you were supposed to edify all in attendance.

Paul even goes on to say, "build yourself up in your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit" Do you think that he was telling us to do something that wasn't right?

Not at all, Praying in the Holy Spirit is not ecstatic tongue utterances. Sorry charlie.

He even said, "I want you all to speak in tongues"-

no, he said,

5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.


"I WOULD that ye all spoke tongues", implying that he wishes that they all spoke many different languages (as he did), then sharing the scriptures and Psalms would be much easier...but instead we have all this confusion abound,....so Paul gives them rules of how we cross these language (tongues) barriers....and that is with interpreters....multilingual (multi-tongues) people....who are gifted of God to do so


Paul would rather them prophecy, which implies proper understanding of the scriptures, and telling others those Words of God....The comparrison is made. What many ecstatic tongue talkers do not see clearly is that this Greek expression is not really saying both are good, but drawing comparrision and implying the former is not as positive as the latter....


...Instead of speaking in many foreign tongues(languages), I wish you all could prophecy (understand and preach) the Word.

and also said that "He thanked God he spoke in tongues more than ANY of them--

Yes and Paul spoke MANY different languages ... many...He was a Benjaminite, and a Hebrew, and a Roman citizen, different Greek, Hebrew and Chaldea dialects....all tongues....made him great for this purpose.

YET in the church...tongues without interpretation are useless in building up the church as a whole.

because without interpretation, the language spoke is still foreign to them....they need the interpreter to tell them what was just preached...so that they can be edified, otherwise they are just preaching to God and not to the congregation...and that would be a sin....for they were supposed to teach the children the Word.


Paul said that he who prophesies edifies the church--

and that is so....translating a foreign language into a language that the people could understand, builds up the church, as now they can understand the message. Now they know when to say Amen....and now, after the translation, they no longer think that it sounds like barbarian speech....cause they now know what was said....thus they can agree and Glorify God.

so your saying building up the church is good but not building yourself up in the faith?

You are misunderstanding the point of the chapter completely. If you were called to build up many people, but only did so to yourself, then that is a bad thing indeed.

Sorry, Paul disagrees.

He disagrees with your ecstatic utterances.

He merely said we shouldn't speak in tongues (unknown foreign languages) in the church unless we (those words spoken are) interpret so that the whole church could be built up instead of just ourselves---and you just told me, in the same context, that it was ok to build yourself up???

for he also said, "unless he interpret, so that the church could be edified?

Yes, Yes.....the translator must first interpret the words so that the church can be edified....if he did not, then the speech would be in vain, because no one there would

No one here is saying anything about standing around in church praying in tongues.

Wanna bet!!!! seen it many times...heard it many times

The gifts of the Spirit are given to the church by the Spirit-they are SUPERNATURAL.

I agree

We are given the spiritual gifts-INCLUDING INTERPRETATION-by the Spirit of God-

I agree, but not interpretation of mumbo jumbo unintelligible gibberish called the charismatic ecstatic tongue prayer language or whatever. Interpretation of one language to another so that the message can spread across language barriers.

we do not merely "understand" or "bring along a translator".

and Paul states that we should UNDERSTAND>...and that is how to pray...understandingly, with OUR mind.

We are to bring a translator, if you are going to a place that does not understand your speech....if your going to china, bring a Chinese speaking person with you.....and if there are more than one language there, then have two interpreters but not to many at one time, for confusion can set in....keep it orderly and not confusing....one preacher and 2 or 3 interpreters...so that the multicultural/multi-linguistic listeners can all be edified.....we see this on TV today, in many ministries.....even in some that teach the charismatic tongue...they do it because it makes sense even if they are unaware that they are actually following the proper teachings of 1Cor14....




Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).


I love that scripture....

in His service
c

[zeke37]

What happened in Acts is not what we think of "speaking in tounges" today, it was not jibber jabber. It was not some unkown and made up language. When the Apostles spoke in tounges it was the natural languages of the men and women present in Jerusalem for the passover- not jibber jabber. Paul speaks about "unknown" tounges which are languages that the people do not know- he is not talking about jibber-jabber. Jibber Jabber is senseless, and ignorance. If someone is going to "pray in the spirit" let them do it at home. Because Paul is clear that if the people cannot understand don't speak it in Church. There is no real interpretaion of jibber-jabber besides a jibber-jabber interpretion.
:thumbsup:

[Oscarr]

Our brother Zeke has given us his exegesis of 1Cor14. Okay.
Here is an alternative exegesis which you can use as a comparison to see which one you think is closer to what Paul is actually teaching. Here is the link:

http://personal-communication.net.nz/1Corinthians14.html

For those who are interested in delving more into the debate about tongues and wish to read some counter ideas to the popular cessationist notions, go back to the home page of my site and click on the other articles there.

I'm not saying that I have the final definitive answer on the topic, but I have sure tried to give a reasoned, Scriptural point of view.

[Mathetes the kerux]

What happened in Acts is not what we think of "speaking in tounges" today, it was not jibber jabber. It was not some unkown and made up language. When the Apostles spoke in tounges it was the natural languages of the men and women present in Jerusalem for the passover- not jibber jabber. Paul speaks about "unknown" tounges which are languages that the people do not know- he is not talking about jibber-jabber. Jibber Jabber is senseless, and ignorance. If someone is going to "pray in the spirit" let them do it at home. Because Paul is clear that if the people cannot understand don't speak it in Church. There is no real interpretaion of jibber-jabber besides a jibber-jabber interpretion.
A common misconception.

[onelamb]

Jerrell-what language did they speak when they said, "he who speaks in a tongue, speaks not to man but to God-indeed NO ONE understands? Acts 2 is the only time we are told that those around them understood-AND they were all speaking at once-YET each heard them in their own langauge-I believe that the miracle wasn't just in the speaking but in the hearing. And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?

If Paul spoke in langauges the people didnt know-and he did it at home-then what is the difference between that and us today who speak in languages we do not know and do so at home?
If it is "jibber jabber" to you-but the Lord understands it-then what is that to us? We 're not praying to you-but to God-and the Word says, we indeed give thanks well.

I know that some of you are making fun of those things you cannot understand-you cannot because they are spiritually discerned, but making fun of something without scripture to back up what your doing is not only unChristlike-but shameful to the Lord.


"My conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me." Martin Luther

[zeke37]

Jerrell-what language did they speak when they said, "he who speaks in a tongue, speaks not to man but to God-indeed NO ONE understands?


Does this not understanding....does it include yourself...ie..the person praying?

[zeke37]

Our brother Zeke has given us his exegesis of 1Cor14. Okay.
Here is an alternative exegesis which you can use as a comparison to see which one you think is closer to what Paul is actually teaching. Here is the link:

http://personal-communication.net.nz/1Corinthians14.html

For those who are interested in delving more into the debate about tongues and wish to read some counter ideas to the popular cessationist notions, go back to the home page of my site and click on the other articles there.

I'm not saying that I have the final definitive answer on the topic, but I have sure tried to give a reasoned, Scriptural point of view.



From your website...

"Because what he is saying is only understood by God, what he is speaking is mysterious to himself and anyone else who hears what is being said. This is the same as if a person is speaking in a foreign language in front of people who do not understand. What is being said is a mystery to those hearers until a translator makes what is being said understandable to them. "

Man, I think you are on to something here. In fact I know it...But it is not meant to explain the charismatic tongue....

the "blue" text you wrote is the exact explanation....and proper way to view the text. There is no ecstatic/charismatic tongue mentioned...only the (unknown=foreign) tongue=language.

The reason you see truth in the "blue" text is because it is the truth and what Paul was teaching...

in His service
c

[Jerrell]

Jerrell-what language did they speak when they said, "he who speaks in a tongue, speaks not to man but to God-indeed NO ONE understands? Acts 2 is the only time we are told that those around them understood-AND they were all speaking at once-YET each heard them in their own langauge-I believe that the miracle wasn't just in the speaking but in the hearing. And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?

If Paul spoke in langauges the people didnt know-and he did it at home-then what is the difference between that and us today who speak in languages we do not know and do so at home?
If it is "jibber jabber" to you-but the Lord understands it-then what is that to us? We 're not praying to you-but to God-and the Word says, we indeed give thanks well.

I know that some of you are making fun of those things you cannot understand-you cannot because they are spiritually discerned, but making fun of something without scripture to back up what your doing is not only unChristlike-but shameful to the Lord.


"My conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me." Martin Luther
At the time Acts was written Jews Usually spoke two or three languages. Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic. If Peter was to stand up and speak in Egyptian, iw ould be an unknown tounge to those who are listening. And if Peter was to pray in an unknown tounge it would serve to no purpose of the hearers. An "unknown" tounge is merely a language of mankind that one does not know, it is not jibber jabber- what we see in Pentecostal Churches and others.

[onelamb]

Does this not understanding....does it include yourself...ie..the person praying?
yes, when we pray in other tongues-it is in a langauge we do not understand. This DOES NOT mean it is "jibber jabber"-but just what I said, it is a language we do not understand.

This is what Paul spoke of when he said,

"If I pray in a tongue-my spirit prays-but my understanding is unfruitful-so what shall I do? I will pray with my mind and I will also pray with my spirit. I will sing with my mind and I will sing with my spirit also"

The Bible tells us that there were over fourteen foreigners representing many nations, speaking different languages. It is also clear that 120 followers of Christ were all speaking at once----Yet each person heard the disciples praising God in their own language. They exclaimed, "How is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?" (v. 8) They could not figure out how this was possible.
It is clear that the disciples were not "preaching" the gospel in tongues, they were instead "declaring the wonders of God" (v. 11). They were not speaking "to men but to God" (1 Cor 14:2). The people were simply listening in on their praises to God. It wasn't until Peter stood up to speak to the crowd in one common language that the gospel was preached. So tongues are not supernatural human languages given to the apostles so they could preach in languages they did not naturally learn.


Here are some reasons the Bible gives for praying in other tongues.


TONGUES FOR SPIRITUAL EDIFICATION
1 Corinthians 14:4

TONGUES REMIND US OF THE SPIRIT'S INDWELLING PRESENCE
John 14:16-17

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

PRAYING IN TONGUES WILL KEEP YOUR PRAYERS IN LINE WITH GOD'S WILL
Romans 8:26

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Speaking in tongues keeps selfishness out of our prayers. If I pray a prayer out of my own mind and out of my own thinking, it may be unscriptural. It may be selfish.

PRAYING IN TONGUES STIMULATES FAITH
Jude 20

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost

-- PRAYING IN TONGUES ENABLES US TO PRAY FOR THE UNKNOWN

It provides a way to pray for things for which no one thinks for which no one thinks to pray or is even aware. We already know that the Holy Spirit helps us to pray for what we know not how to pray as we ought. In addition the Holy Spirit, who knows everything, can pray through us for things about which our natural mind knows nothing.

PRAYING IN TONGUES GIVES SPIRITUAL REFRESHING,
Isaiah 28:11-12

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear

TONGUES FOR GIVING THANKS
1 Corinthians 14:15-17

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.

When Paul said, "He that occupieth the room of the unlearned . . . " in verse 16 above, he was referring to those who are unlearned in spiritual things.

The bottom line here is, tongues ARE a langauage.-to put it simply-just one we do not know and have not learned by human ways. The Holy Spirit gives the utterance. (Acts 2:4)

[InFathersArms]

When used to denote the miraculous, charismatic gift given to some early Christians, the use of the word "tongues" is contained only in the following verses (NIV): (1 Corinthians 12:10,28,30;13:8;14:2-19,21-28,39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 12:10,28,30;13:8;14:2-19,21-28,39))

Those who compiled the NIV, multi-denominational Bible scholars who's credentials I'll never equal, clearly separated the word "tongues" from the word "language" found elsewhere in the Bible, and for good reason.

Even so, Paul makes it abundantly clear, primarily in 14:2-19, that tongues is never to be considered any sort or pinnacle of achievement or otherwise get in the way of others gifts and responsibilites for service in the church. In fact, that portion of his letter is like a hockey check on tongues, which the Corinthians went overboard on, to the exclusion of gifts and services far more useful to building up the body of Christ in love.

Even in 14:10, Paul talks about tongues being one of the languages of the world, and how important it is that they actually mean something (as well as how useless they are when it's just jibberish).

And as jibberish, it cannot be a sign to unbelievers (1 Co 14:22) for unbelievers would not be impressed by jibberish. Rather, they would simply laugh at it, hence Paul's emphasis on interpretation. Only when translated are tongues useful in their primary role (as a sign to unbelievers): 1 Cor 14:27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

As for other verses in the Bible, particularly those in the OT, referring to the same sort of tongues being referred to in Corinthians, it's a stretch, at best, and literary license to wrongly attempt to support one position over another at worst. In fact, many of the supposed "tongue" verses claimed from throughout the OT have been repeatedly and clearly shown to have nothing to do with the tongues mentioned in 1 Cor.

[onelamb]

Exactly, InFathersarms, we do not advocate praying in tongues in the public meeting-but only speaking out in a tongue when the Spirit is using you to manifest the gift of tongues-and then it will be accompained by the gift of interpretation so that the church will be edified. However, the Bible says that this is INTERPRETATION-not translation-there is a difference. Either way, it is not something that the person giving the interpretation understands in the natural-like a translator does-but this gift is also given by our Supernatural God.

The baptism in the Holy Spirit isn't any kind of "pinnacle'-no one has said that-but it is something that is an important step in the life of believers-so important that when Paul heard that there were new believers - he made it a point to go to them and make sure they received the baptism-and when they did-they spoke in tongues as the Spirit enabled them to speak.
"have you received the Holy Spirit SINCE you believed?"

[zeke37]

At the time Acts was written Jews Usually spoke two or three languages. Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic. If Peter was to stand up and speak in Egyptian, iw ould be an unknown tounge to those who are listening. And if Peter was to pray in an unknown tounge it would serve to no purpose of the hearers. An "unknown" tounge is merely a language of mankind that one does not know, it is not jibber jabber- what we see in Pentecostal Churches and others.
Jarrell, you've got it perfectly friend.

Don't even give it one inch...no matter what they say...
Stay in the truth. If God was speaking, you'd know.

Ps. How did Christ teach His disciples how to pray?

in His service
c

[onelamb]

Mark 16:15-17 He [Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues.The verses above are an excerpt of Mark’s account of Jesus’ Great Commission. It was Jesus Himself who initiated the subject of speaking in tongues in the New Testament. He said that it would be a “sign” that would accompany believers as they went into all the world and preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ.



The Baptism in the Spirit-and the accompianing sign-speaking in other tongues as the Spirit enables-ARE for Christians.

The disciples were saved, received the Spirit in John 20 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+20)-yet did not receive this baptism till Acts 2 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+2).

Paul asked the Ephesian believers-Have you received the Holy Spirit SINCE you believed-Acts 19:6 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+19%3A6)

The gentiles in Acts 10 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+10)-Saved first-then Spirit filled-then baptised in water.

The Samaratians in Acts 8 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+8)-Saved, and baptised in water-yet they still needed this baptism-so Peter and John went to them and they received.

No-the Bible doesn't say that each and everytime someone spoke in tongues it was recognized by the people-for Paul said,

"he who speaks in a tongue doesn't speak to man, but to God INDEED no one understands, but in the Spirit he speaks mysteries."

The only time we are told that those around understood what is said is in the first instance at the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost-and even then-the miracle was in the hearing-not just the speaking for they all spoke at once-yet "we each heard them in our own langauage"


And for those of you who insist that there were only 3 languages represented-I give you the Word of God....

And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians–we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.’” (Acts 2.1-11)

[Dave01]

After viewing a lot of these arguments by cessionalists, it seems that the tongues gift still spooks them the most. That gift is not the only gift we are to be manifesting in our life though,..


12 ¶ (ASV) Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto the Father.


This passage is very important for every believer in Christ. To do the works that Jesus commands here, such as deliverance, healing, miracles, and great faith for situations, you will need the gifts of The Spirit.

Now if people can't even begin to accept the gifts in the first place, or as soon as they hear tongues in the assembly they are spooked like a puppy, then how are they to serve Jesus correctly as He commands here?

We are to be conformed to the image of HIS Son according to Romans 8,..


29 ¶ (ASV) For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:


How are people to do this if they refuse to operate in the gifts that Jesus gave us? There is no way one can manifest healing like Jesus did without the gifts of healings, neither is one able to work miracles without that gift to do it also.

There is no one able to conform to His image without accepting the gifts of The Spirit in their lives. Period. People can argue about it all they want, but they are the renegades who are rebelling against the Son that paid for them, they are the ones not conforming to His image.

[onelamb]

Exactly=and the door to the Spiritual Gifts is opened for us-by the baptism in the Holy Spirit-and tongues just comes with it. This is how the Bible Christians knew that someone received it.....

"who is to stop these from being baptised-for they received the Holy Spirit just as we have....."for we heard them speaking in tongues and glorifying God"
Acts 10:44-46

[Mathetes the kerux]

Acts 2:1-4

Greek (Westcott & Hort)
1και εν τω συμπληρουσθαι την ημεραν της πεντηκοστης ησαν παντες ομου επι το αυτο 2και εγενετο αφνω εκ του ουρανου ηχος ωσπερ φερομενης πνοης βιαιας και επληρωσεν ολον τον οικον ου ησαν καθημενοι 3και ωφθησαν αυτοις διαμεριζομεναι γλωσσαι ωσει πυρος και εκαθισεν εφ ενα εκαστον αυτων 4και επλησθησαν παντες πνευματος αγιου και ηρξαντο λαλειν ετεραις γλωσσαις καθως το πνευμα εδιδου αποφθεγγεσθαι αυτοις

NASB
Acts 2:1-4
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
NASU


For our purposes the latter portion of verse four is our concern.

Your contention has been that the term glwssa means language . . . and by this derrivation you have concluded that it means human (IE known human) language. There are the follwing possible meanings:
1. The literal tongue as a member of the human physiological makeup . . . what is in my mouth.
2. A language
a. A known language to the speaker
b. An unknown language to the speaker (IE foreign language OR ecstatic speech)
3. A manner of speech (either of clear speech or something that needs explaining/interpreting)


By the term eteraiV the author (Luke) leaves no doubt that the language (whether foreign or ecstatic) is something that was NOT previously known by the speakers. This language is something that was given SUPERNATURALLY to the speakers . . . the context provides us the answer that the Spirit is the source/inspiration of the language. So the tongue is patently supernatural.

The historical usage of the term glwssa by itself usually connotes the physical tongue or a language. However, when the term is combined with the term lalew (seen as glwssaiV lalein) it carries with it the connotation of ECSTATIC SPEECH. Equivalents are used to describe the Sybilline prophetesses and other contemporary oracles (the Pythia for instance) in the trance states of the words/language that they would pour forth THAT NO ONE COULD UNDERSTAND. As is seen by the Greek text above . . . this is the phrase used.

To define ecstatic the common conception of a person stumbling around wildly frothing at the mouth and bumping into walls is NOT what is meant.
Rather, the original strict meaning is conferred. That meaning is from two Greek words: ek (out of/from) and istemi (to stand) to combine for ekstasiV . . . this leaves the literal rendering of "out of stance" or of better inference "out of normalcy." This being the case, ecstatic speech is that speech which is out of the ordinary . . . or that which is away from normal standing. Unintelligible may, or may not, be construed, however this is normally understood.

For my purposes here, the historical usage at this point in the position that I hold is the important issue. The phrase "speaking in tongues," while literally by Greek linguistics does not necesitate ecstatic unintelligible speech (it may, as you assert just mean speaking in a foreign language), historically and culturally DOES refer to ecstatic unintelligible speech.

Point one in the exegesis. Let us start here. I think that you will probaby agree with almost all . . . but will probably challenge the historical usage of "speaking in tongues." But please comment on any part.

Zeke . . . I require that you be cordial and not start the whole "you're caught in a lie" rhetoric . . . it really is unbecoming for a fair conversation. I have presented fairly and unbiasedly . . . I expect the same.

Your turn brother.:pray:

[zeke37]

Mat, you wrote...

Acts 2:1-4

Greek (Westcott & Hort)
1και εν τω συμπληρουσθαι την ημεραν της πεντηκοστης ησαν παντες ομου επι το αυτο 2και εγενετο αφνω εκ του ουρανου ηχος ωσπερ φερομενης πνοης βιαιας και επληρωσεν ολον τον οικον ου ησαν καθημενοι 3και ωφθησαν αυτοις διαμεριζομεναι γλωσσαι ωσει πυρος και εκαθισεν εφ ενα εκαστον αυτων 4και επλησθησαν παντες πνευματος αγιου και ηρξαντο λαλειν ετεραις γλωσσαις καθως το πνευμα εδιδου αποφθεγγεσθαι αυτοις

NASB
Acts 2:1-4
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
NASU


For our purposes the latter portion of verse four is our concern.

OK, but I really do prefer the KJV. Most translations are theoretically driven...not pointing any fingers...just stating my reasons for liking the KJV.

And you are using the Hort and Westcott scripts correct?...curious to why you trust them over the Alexandrian, Majority Byzantine, Texus Receptus (Stevens-1550) or (Scrivener-1894)...?

Your contention has been that the term glwssa means language . . . and by this derrivation you have concluded that it means human (IE known human) language.

Actually, that is not my understanding exactly...
In Acts2, the langua