Speaking in tongues

[garee]

Writing about things that have already passed is what we call history, it can not be prophesy not unless they have some implication of what is yet to come.

Yes, Christ's infallible account of history .

Moses prophesied (declared the will of God) 900 year after (Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth).

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

God moved Moses.

It would be the work of the father of lies to make it predicting the future alone making prophecy without effect. No oral traditions of men passed down from one generation to the next in the bible .

 

[notuptome]

You say that (over and over), but you have not come close to proving it even one time.


Agreed.


The manifestation of speaking in tongues is not in Genesis, Isaiah, or Joel at all, and Mark 16:9-20 is questionable. What I have explained about tongues does align with Acts and 1 Cor.


I am not proof texting. I believe what I do about tongues because of the scriptures.

You have made several false claims about Paul, claiming he said things he did not, claiming he did not say things that he did. Just a couple pages ago you made the ludicrous statement that in the New Covenant tongues is not biblical. Even you had to admit you were wrong.


One day you'll be knocked off your self-erected pedestal, Roger, and I won't be the one doing it.

You can have the last word if you like. I'm finding myself sinking to your level, and I don't like it down here.

To anyone else reading this thread, my apologies.

I can only give you the scripture I cannot make you receive it and believe it.

You do need to rise to the level of scriptural belief over personal agendas.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

Guys, you're never going to change Roger's mind. Or his mindset. The rebar is in, the concrete has set, and it's not moving any time soon. We go way back, right Rog? I've learned to accept his insanity, I mean in a world of insane people what's one more on our side?

Always nice yankin' your chain Rog

Not entirely. Consider what Paul says of prayer tongues: It is the only one he wished we all would partake of, yet he also said of all the gifts it is the least. Why would he want all of us to do the least thing?

Every other gift is something that God works thru us to towards another person. The gifts we use edify another person, not us. Every one of them, except tongues. It is the only one that specifically edifies the user as well.

We are charged to think of others before ourselves. That's why the gifts are thru us not to us. But after a long hard day of giving it all away, face it you're drained. So you sit in a quiet place and commune with God, speaking directly with Him in His language, all the while recharging like a cell phone on a Qi pad.

That's why it is the least - it is the one thing we do for ourselves instead/along side of others - and that is why Paul wished we all would do it, because we all need to recharge in His presence.

And this gift is specifically made for just that purpose.

You know I yank back right?

Paul wishes they all spoke in tongues not prayed in tongues. Prayer without knowledge is unfruitful.

There is not a single instance of prayer in tongues in the bible. It is a recent creation. God does miracles but God does not do inane.

The longer you stay in Calif. the more distant you become from God. Must be something in the water.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[peacefulbeliever]

In response to post #1,331

This is sort of a “the majority of people who engage in glossolalia are…” sort of thing – i.e. you do not have to belong to these denominations to ‘speak in tongues’, but the majority do. On a more global scale, anyone can learn to speak in tongues regardless of their beliefs. It's not anything that is unique to Christianity.

Yes, anyone can learn a language . . . unfortunately, tongues in the context of its usages is NOT a learned language. Also in the context of the usage of "tongues", it is unique to Christianity because it is given by the Spirit via the gift of holy spirit - ONLY given to those who believe in Jesus Christ, e.g. Christians.

I think that’s perhaps one of the main operative phrases for virtually all tongues-speakers, i.e. “it’s a language because (to me) it sounds like one".

A person’s glossolalia is generally patterned after what that individual speaker perceives as what a foreign language ‘should’ sound like.

Well, let me put it this way . . . God said that every believer has been given the gift of holy spirit and it is one of the manifestations of the Spirit that each believer can manifest. So, if God says that it is a language, that it edifies the believer when done alone and edifies the church when interpreted - who am I to argue with God?

I get where you’re coming from in the above response, but if ‘tongues’ are a heavenly language, why would there ever be need for more than one? I would think that in the spiritual realm, there would never be a need for multiple languages, particularly a separate language for each speaker. This is getting a bit nit-picky, but if everyone is speaking their own language, how would general communication between two individuals be affected? Certainly, it’s not a matter of knowing the other person’s ‘language’; everyone would need to know thousands of them. Doesn’t stand to reason – only one language would be necessary.

Further, I don’t think the demographic, geographical and chronological reasons/situations that resulted in multiple languages on earth, would even exist.

Again, absolutely no need for more than one tongue/language, yet no two speakers will ever have the same ‘tongue‘ – that heavily evidences modern tongues as being completely self-created, based partly upon how a person perceives what a foreign/unknown language ‘should’ sound like.

Nope, you don't exactly "get where I am coming from". A "heavenly language"? Tongues are a known language SOMEWHERE in the world or a language which is considered a "dead language" - one that is no longer used.

General communication between two individuals . . . tongues is never used for the purpose of general communication.

"modern tongues as being completely self-created" . . . nope.
"Doesn't all language carry familiar consonant sounds and vowel sounds? Not really understanding your question."

Every language contains an underlying ‘set’ of sounds (called ‘phonemes’). This set of sounds is referred to as a language’s ‘phonemic inventory’. So, for example, if one were to compare the phonemic inventory of, say, Irish Gaelic with that of English, though there would be some overlap of sounds which are found in both languages, English would contain a few sounds which would not exist in Irish, and conversely, Irish will contain a few that do not exist in English.

If a speaker of English who has never been exposed to any other language (in any way, shape or form) were to speak in tongues, his/her tongue would only contain those sounds found in English; it wouldn’t contain any sound not found in ‘phonemic inventory’ of English; this, despite the hundreds of phonemes found in language.

This goes to the point that ‘tongues’ are a self-created phenomenon – a person’s tongue can only contain sounds the speaker has heard before. That doesn't exactly scream 'divinely inspired speech.'

Okay.

God gives the language . . . . God knows the nuances of EVERY language - it is not up to the individual to know the nuances only that the individual speaks what God gives him to speak.

That would be a textbook definition of random free vocalization, save for the “Spirit energizing our speech”. That almost sounds like it’s more a kind of psychological reinforcing than anything – by that I mean, the production of the sounds is random free vocalization, but it is ‘rationalized’ as being something divine in nature; it’s the only way it can make any sense to the speaker. And, of course, it fits with his/her belief in what they've been taught tongues are.

The fact that it is free vocalization also partly accounts for the reason a person can’t really repeat what they just uttered, nor can they write it down (unless first recorded and then transcribed). The speaker does not need to think about what to say; they just say it.

It's called believing God when he says that a believer can and will speak in tongues. The speaker just speaks knowing, trusting and believing that it is from God according to scripture. You can call it "random free vocalization" if you want . . . I believe it is a manifestation of the gift of holy spirit - given to us for the common good - to edify ourselves spiritually and to edify the church.

 

[Noose]

Well, let me put it this way . . . God said that every believer has been given the gift of holy spirit and it is one of the manifestations of the Spirit that each believer can manifest. So, if God says that it is a language, that it edifies the believer when done alone and edifies the church when interpreted - who am I to argue with God?

How does a person get edified by things they don't understand whereas a group must understand the same things to get edified?

 

[garee]

Well, let me put it this way . . . God said that every believer has been given the gift of holy spirit and it is one of the manifestations of the Spirit that each believer can manifest. So, if God says that it is a language, that it edifies the believer when done alone and edifies the church when interpreted - who am I to argue with God?

It would seem to warn against self edification.... but he that prophesies edifies the church. the representative glory that edifies God , the unseen true glory, who does the work . It is not exalting both. Just as it is not a sign to confirm a person who has the Holy Spirit but one that does not hear prophecy the word of God... no Holy Spirit . The father of lies turning things upside down

He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.1 Corithiamns14 .

 

[peacefulbeliever]

How does a person get edified by things they don't understand whereas a group must understand the same things to get edified?

As much as things have been explained throughout this thread, I guess you'll have to ask God that question - He is the one that said "He that speaks in a tongue edifies himself but he that prophesies edifies the church. I would that you all speak with tongues, but rather that you prophesied: for greater is he that prophesies than he that speaks with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying."

 

[peacefulbeliever]

It would seem to warn against self edification.... but he that prophesies edifies the church. the representative glory that edifies God , the unseen true glory, who does the work . It is not exalting both. Just as it is not a sign to confirm a person who has the Holy Spirit but one that does not hear prophecy the word of God... no Holy Spirit . The father of lies turning things upside down

He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.1 Corithiamns14 .

Where is one warned "against self edification"? Plainly states that one that speaks in a tongue edifies himself - UNLESS he interpret that the church may receive edifying. 1 Cor. 14:4,5

 

[Noose]

As much as things have been explained throughout this thread, I guess you'll have to ask God that question - He is the one that said "He that speaks in a tongue edifies himself but he that prophesies edifies the church. I would that you all speak with tongues, but rather that you prophesied: for greater is he that prophesies than he that speaks with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying."

No one can explain illogical things but thanks for trying. You can not also implicate illogical things on God, it is your understanding that is not straight. Paul never means 'unknown words' to be tongues- the unknown is always with respect to the listeners and gifts are never for self edification.

1 Cor 12:7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.

Edification is in the context of understanding and Paul calls it self edification if the speaker is not able to pass the understanding to others- so that the understanding remains only with them. Paul is against such and for that reason he says your understanding is unfruitful.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

No one can explain illogical things but thanks for trying. You can not also implicate illogical things on God, it is your understanding that is not straight. Paul never means 'unknown words' to be tongues- the unknown is always with respect to the listeners and gifts are never for self edification.

1 Cor 12:7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.

Edification is in the context of understanding and Paul calls it self edification if the speaker is not able to pass the understanding to others- so that the understanding remains only with them. Paul is against such and for that reason he says your understanding is unfruitful.

The word "unknown" has been added to the text . . . as shown by "italics". Why is it that MY understanding is not straight but YOURS is?

"Since both a Christian church and individual Christians are likened to a building or temple in which God or the Holy Spirit dwells, the erection of which temple will not be completely finished till the return of Christ from heaven, those who, by action, instruction, exhortation, comfort, promote the Christian wisdom of others and help them to live a correspondent life are regarded as taking part in the erection of that building and hence are said to (dropping the figure) to promote growth in Christian wisdom, affection, grace, virtue, holiness, blessedness . . . passive - to grow in wisdom, piety, etc." - Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

Vine's Concise Dictionary of the Bible - oikodome - edify (noun) denotes the act of building (oikos - "a home", and demo "to build"); this is used only figuratively in the NT, in the sense of edification, the promotion of spiritual growth (lit., "the things of building up"), [Romans 14:19; 15:2; 1 Cor. 14:3,5,12,26, e.g.] . . . or figurative, of the future body of the believer [2 Cor. 5:1], or of a local church, [1 Cor. 3:9, or the whole church, the body of Christ [Eph. 2:21]

Bullinger's Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament - to build a house, and then generally to build, construct. Metaphorically to build up, establish.

For the common good [for that which is profitable] - to the church for edification, building up the body of Christ, giving strength and growth by encouragement, exhortation; . . . for the common good [for that which is profitable] to the individual, building up spiritually giving strength and growth to the individual so that they in turn can strengthen the body by encouragement and exhortation.

 

[Noose]

The word "unknown" has been added to the text . . . as shown by "italics". Why is it that MY understanding is not straight but YOURS is?

"Since both a Christian church and individual Christians are likened to a building or temple in which God or the Holy Spirit dwells, the erection of which temple will not be completely finished till the return of Christ from heaven, those who, by action, instruction, exhortation, comfort, promote the Christian wisdom of others and help them to live a correspondent life are regarded as taking part in the erection of that building and hence are said to (dropping the figure) to promote growth in Christian wisdom, affection, grace, virtue, holiness, blessedness . . . passive - to grow in wisdom, piety, etc." - Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

Vine's Concise Dictionary of the Bible - oikodome - edify (noun) denotes the act of building (oikos - "a home", and demo "to build"); this is used only figuratively in the NT, in the sense of edification, the promotion of spiritual growth (lit., "the things of building up"), [Romans 14:19; 15:2; 1 Cor. 14:3,5,12,26, e.g.] . . . or figurative, of the future body of the believer [2 Cor. 5:1], or of a local church, [1 Cor. 3:9, or the whole church, the body of Christ [Eph. 2:21]

Bullinger's Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament - to build a house, and then generally to build, construct. Metaphorically to build up, establish.

For the common good [for that which is profitable] - to the church for edification, building up the body of Christ, giving strength and growth by encouragement, exhortation; . . . for the common good [for that which is profitable] to the individual, building up spiritually giving strength and growth to the individual so that they in turn can strengthen the body by encouragement and exhortation.

1st - you got your building upside down. We are being built together with Christ being the chief corner stone and the disciples are the foundation, then we believers are being added one by one until the last believer, then the end comes. Christ was and is and is to come the Almighty - meaning that He always comes and has been coming for the last 2000 years.

2nd- too much dictionary for a simple matter -'giving strength and growth by encouragement, exhortation' can only be achieved through understanding. Paul says tongues must be interpreted for the congregation to be edified and we know that interpretation is done so that people understand. So, edification of the congregation comes when they understand, it is illogical to claim that self edification would be achieved in a different manner other than understanding and you don't need a dictionary to know this.

 

[Dino246]

This kind of reasoning is below threshold.
The virgin birth of the Messiah happened as it was prophesied, why was it necessary? You seem to say prophesy is nothing but it is everything to a believer. Prophesy is the sign to the believer that God is true and is the sign that God uses to set Himself apart from any other god.
...

Your inability to understand nuances of language makes it nonsensical to continue to discuss this matter with you.

I wrote, "not everything in them was prophesied beforehand". You read it as, "nothing in them was prophesied beforehand."

"Not everything" is semantically distinct from "nothing". "Not anything" would be semantically equivalent to "nothing".

"Not everything" means "some things but not all things".

So... now that you (hopefully) understand the meaning of "not everything", I'll leave it to you to respond to what I actually wrote.

 

[notuptome]

Your inability to understand nuances of language makes it nonsensical to continue to discuss this matter with you.

I wrote, "not everything in them was prophesied beforehand". You read it as, "nothing in them was prophesied beforehand."

"Not everything" is semantically distinct from "nothing". "Not anything" would be semantically equivalent to "nothing".

"Not everything" means "some things but not all things".

So... now that you (hopefully) understand the meaning of "not everything", I'll leave it to you to respond to what I actually wrote.

I'd add that you may need an interpreter but that could be considered snarky. LOL

Frustrating endeavoring to communicate even in a common language or tongue.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Noose]

Your inability to understand nuances of language makes it nonsensical to continue to discuss this matter with you.

I wrote, "not everything in them was prophesied beforehand". You read it as, "nothing in them was prophesied beforehand."

"Not everything" is semantically distinct from "nothing". "Not anything" would be semantically equivalent to "nothing".

"Not everything" means "some things but not all things".

So... now that you (hopefully) understand the meaning of "not everything", I'll leave it to you to respond to what I actually wrote.

And why is Mark 16:17 part of your "not everything"?
I said, you need to write your own bible and tell us what is prophesy and what is not in your bible.

Mark 16:15He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

This is prophesy. The signs and wonders as promised accompanied the disciples and even Paul did not succumb to a deadly viper's bite.
I have been looking for reasons as to why someone would go pick different actual events (by the disciples/Apostles) that happened in different places, different times so that they add to Mark to have the so called longer ending. There's absolutely no reason.
-There's no doctrinal emphasis in the so called longer ending, just random promises and stories
-If it is true that someone added, they gained nothing, absolutely nothing by doing it
-Unlike the manuscript evidence that most scholars use to claim that the NT scriptures were written centuries later and hence the stories about longer ending and shorter ending, the bible itself uses words that testifies that it was written earlier in the 1st century;

words like "whosoever readeth, let the understand.." shows that their was earlier intentions of documenting it.

In Revelation we see the angel telling John to write a scroll and within the scroll we find words like "from now onward..." which means that it was time conscious. It never means future, it meant from that second going forward and it was also documented at that time the angel was revealing these things.

Mark's longer ending is non issue, if it is missing in earlier manuscripts doesn't mean it was fabricated later. Read it again and try to go into the mind of someone who would have thought of fabricating it- ask yourself; what was he thinking/ would it have saved his life/ was it a particular doctrine he was trying to add?

 

[Dino246]

And why is Mark 16:17 part of your "not everything"?

Once again, try responding to what I actually wrote.

 

[Dino246]

I'd add that you may need an interpreter but that could be considered snarky. LOL

Frustrating endeavoring to communicate even in a common language or tongue.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I genuinely appreciated that.

 

[theanointedsinner]

key verses from the book of 1st Corinthian

1 Cor 3:21
no more boasting about human leaders!

1 Cor 6:20
honor God with your body

1 Cor 10:29
I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours.

chapter 12 - 14
love > spriritual gifts

 

[Jewel5712]

Can someone explain to me the uniqueness of this gift of speaking in tongues which most congregations in my neighbourhood insist on acquiring? Is it in any way superior to or more edifying than other gifts?

Ive geard it said tgat its your own personal love language to God..t english..spanish etc..but if spoken in public there should be an interpreter..if in prayer..t can bring you to a whole nother level of intimacy with your heavenly Father

 

[Iconoclast]

no one speaks in tongues today....rhyming noises are not tongues

 

[RickyZ]

Frustrating endeavoring to communicate even in a common language or tongue.

Roger

Yes, sometimes our minds just cannot find the right words.

Our minds.