TONGUES false teaching.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,112
4,374
113
Part 1 -
There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" – when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); usually unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) – it’s their native language.

In contrast, the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with.

It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns, assonance, alliteration, and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is also interesting to note that any disallowed sound combinations, i.e. consonant clusters, in the speaker’s native language are also disallowed in his/her tongues-speech. Further, this subset of phonemes typically contains only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically.

Tongues-speech is occasionally sprinkled with recognizable praise words/phrases (things like ‘hallelujah’, ‘praise Jesus’, ‘Meshiach’, ‘Adonai’, etc.). Sometimes, part of the utterance is rendered in the speaker’s native language, and part in tongues-speech. One of the most immediately recognizable results of all these processes is that no two ‘speakers’ will ever have the same “tongue”…ever. There are as many ‘tongues’ as there are speakers of tongues.

Occasionally some speakers will use two or more subsets of phonemes to generate glossolalia, producing what, to them, sounds like two (or more) distinct “tongues languages”, thus claiming to be able to speak in “divers tongues”.

Here’s the thing, if a person or being produces a stream of speech, in order for it to be ‘language’, regardless of whether spoken in front of you, in some remote corner of the word, on some alien planet, or on some heavenly/spiritual plain of existence, for it to be 'language', it must contain, at a minimal, two specific features – I can’t stress enough that these two features are universal, regardless of where or, more to our point, by whom the speech is being produced; 'tongues-speech’ contains neither one of these two features. It is simply a facade of language. Neither, by the way, is modern tongues/glossolalia gibberish. Gibberish by its nature does not seek to mimic language. Glossolalia does.

People tend to believe something to be supernatural because they can't explain it otherwise. There are, of course, many things in religion which must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved nor disproved. "Tongues" however, is not one of these things. It is something very concrete and tangible; it is a phenomenon which can be (and has been) studied and analyzed. As one writer rather bluntly put it: “tongues speakers need to understand they are making a very testable claim, and the test has failed, every single time.”

Indeed, there is absolutely nothing that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot easily be explained in linguistic terms.

Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely no Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be one which is radically different from what you believe, or were taught.

If the history of the Pentecost movement is examined, one fact is very clear: at some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief in tongues as xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing.

As a result of things like Azusa Street, early Pentecostal missions were sent all over the world. The issue was that no one bothered to learn the language of the country they were going to, as they firmly believed their “tongues” were these languages. In not one instance was anyone able to even carry on the most basics of simple everyday conversation, let alone preach the gospels.

Not much has been recorded about the failure of these missions – you kind of have to hunt it down.

This forced a serious theological dilemma — As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined.

It seems the latter option was chosen.

You know nothing of the pentecostal doctrine or the founding of it. Which is in the Book of Acts and the New Testament. FYI most earlier ones for your information were Southern Baptist. There was no issue with the pentecostal experience until it became a movement. You try to use science and secular mind-set to explain a biblical/spiritual context, that is error. I looked very hard for any Scriptural references to support your post I do not see anything here to address 1Corinthians chapter 12-14 or Eph chapter 4 or the Book of Acts accounts contextually. Which all Pentecostals stand on.

The idea of those of secular, carnal, unsaved explaining the Gifts of the Holy Spirit is absurd. And Christians regurgitating them because they have hate for Pentecostals. These same types who say when speaking about the gift of tongues, found in the listing of all gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1cor chapter 12 hold to secular explanation of biblical things. Here are some secular statements which is common:

  • entirely self-created phenomenon.
  • It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes)
  • People tend to believe something to be supernatural because they can't explain it otherwise.
  • “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot easily be explained in linguistic terms."

Please know those who received such explanation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit will and have supported gay marriage , transgenderism, and look to pagan worship to attack and using the very same kind of secular science to do so.

I will say this, IF the science speaks against what God said not to do, the science is wrong.

Of course the secular science would say " it's all made up", but transgender is a real thing.
They even try to explain a supernatural event recorded in the Word of God because "it is scientifically impossible for the red sea to be split, or Jesus did not actually walk on water. " it's fairy tales", "Spaghetti Monster under the sea", and " that was meant figuratively, not literally". Most Christians who support this type of explanation have been attacked as many of us have in our Secular education. Can't be part of the clubs if you stand for such things. Wimps, and sell outs.

This is not about the gifts of the Holy Spirt, this is about those who have a carnal mind-set and will not accept what the word of God says because it insults their carnal mind-set (intelligence) . They will pull out a linguist or two but if there is list of other scientific studies that say otherwise, well, that is false.

You can't explain what happen in book ACTS accounts of the empowering of the 120, by the Holy Spirit or the House of Cornelius, or the christians who Paul met, refute 1cor 12 through 14, without taking only one verse to build a straw man on.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today and the gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues, and prophesying are for the edification of the Body of Christ which that is still happening today.

Deal with the abuse, the scamming, of those who you know we all have spoken out about, but don't use pagan or secular science to disprove Biblical spiritual things seen in the word of God that we believe is for today.

Refute by the word of God. You can't you all wrong about 1cor 13:10 and many will not admit it because of pride ,so you

go out side the word of God and try to stick false pagan practices like Kundalini or other cult and pagan things.

Yet it is well known those in the holiness movement would never even have anything to do with pagan or Cultic practices .

The only source used in the 1900's for the gifts of the Holy Spirit was the Bible. Those here would have you believe

1. a group of people who had a desire to have more of God praying to the Lord Jesus was over taken by a cult they never knew about or even spoken on. The very Pentecostal doctrine which was taken from the very word of God explains why we believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today.
2. Those who claim to be christians have to go outside the Bible to explain what happen inside the Bib le that those who believe still happens today are going because , when they called on Jesus and asked for the empowering the Holy Spirit God gave them a devil instead.

yet they say we are unbiblical. Ridicules.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,112
963
113
When Paul spoke about the tongues of angels, he was simply using hyperbole.
A 1612 Christian Dictionary confirms this. It's an hyperbole.

Thomas Wilson, A Christian Dictionary (1612)

Tongues of men and Angels. sig:Such an excellent faculty of speach, as might not only become men, but euen the Angels if they could speake: yet were it nothing worth, vnlesse it were imployed (through loue) vnto the edification of others. 1 Cor. 13, 1. If I could speake with the Tongue of Men and Angels, and had not loue, I were as sounding Brasse, and tinkling Cimball. An Hiperbole.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
42,657
17,111
113
69
Tennessee
Good night, ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Time for me to catch some ZZZ go
Combined with interpretation, it benefits the church. Otherwise, he who speaks in tongues edifies himself.

But it is one of the gifts of the Spirit. It would not be right to be unappreciative or not value it.
I agree with you that this gift to be effective it must be interpreted. Paul himself said that those speaking in tongues must have an interpreter. It is possible to misuse a gift. All gifts from the Holy Spirit have great value including the speaking in tongues.
 

calibob

Sinner saved by grace
May 29, 2018
8,268
5,516
113
Anaheim, Cali.
Time for me to catch some ZZZ go

I agree with you that this gift to be effective it must be interpreted. Paul himself said that those speaking in tongues must have an interpreter. It is possible to misuse a gift. All gifts from the Holy Spirit have great value including the speaking in tongues.
He also said that people that speak in tongues without interpretation are like noisy symbols or clanging gongs. Without love we are nothing.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,165
1,795
113
A 1612 Christian Dictionary confirms this. It's an hyperbole.

Thomas Wilson, A Christian Dictionary (1612)

Tongues of men and Angels. sig:Such an excellent faculty of speach, as might not only become men, but euen the Angels if they could speake: yet were it nothing worth, vnlesse it were imployed (through loue) vnto the edification of others. 1 Cor. 13, 1. If I could speake with the Tongue of Men and Angels, and had not loue, I were as sounding Brasse, and tinkling Cimball. An Hiperbole.
So why if Thomas Wilson thought it was hyperbole and his idea was parroted by others. That doesn't make it true. Since then, the Dead Sea Scrolls have been discovered and 'tongues of angels' shows up in intertestamental literature.

Paul gives 'extreme' examples in the passage, but not impossible examples. Giving all away or giving oneself to be burned are things that are possible to be done. However you interpreted the phrase, whether literally or figuratively, one can speak to the mountain in faith and it can be cast into the sea... so that is possible however it was intended to be interpreted when Christ spoke it. Paul isn't talking about unreal or imaginary scenarios in the rest of the passage. 'Tongues of men or of angels' should be interpreted in that light.

Is it impossible to speak in the tongues of men?
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,165
1,795
113
He also said that people that speak in tongues without interpretation are like noisy symbols or clanging gongs. Without love we are nothing.
He who speak in tongues without love is like clanging cymbal etc. The one who speaks a language others do not understand speaks into the air.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,165
1,795
113
On Christ birth, the angels spoke to the shepherds at night in a language they understood. Likewise of Mary and Joseph.
Maybe they spoke Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, which could be different from whatever they speak in heaven.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,112
4,374
113
Time for me to catch some ZZZ go

I agree with you that this gift to be effective it must be interpreted. Paul himself said that those speaking in tongues must have an interpreter. It is possible to misuse a gift. All gifts from the Holy Spirit have great value including the speaking in tongues.
Actually he did not say " Must have an interpreter" Paul said in 1cor 14:13 " Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret." KJV.

And if is most certain one can misuse a gift. Many Pastors have which is a gift to the Church for protecting us in the faith.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,165
1,795
113
It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns, assonance, alliteration, and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is also interesting to note that any disallowed sound combinations, i.e. consonant clusters, in the speaker’s native language are also disallowed in his/her tongues-speech. Further, this subset of phonemes typically contains only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically.
That does not fit with my own experiences from what I've heard. I have a degree in Linguistics, also.

One of the most immediately recognizable results of all these processes is that no two ‘speakers’ will ever have the same “tongue”…ever. There are as many ‘tongues’ as there are speakers of tongues.
There are thousands of languages, and probably many times more than that if we think of it historically. I have known more than one person to have heard speaking in tongues in English by those who do not understand the language, so what you are saying is not true.

Also, sometimes two people get the same interpretation for a tongue, based on what several people who interpret tongues have told me. I have experienced something similar with words of knowledge.

Here’s the thing, if a person or being produces a stream of speech, in order for it to be ‘language’, regardless of whether spoken in front of you, in some remote corner of the word, on some alien planet, or on some heavenly/spiritual plain of existence, for it to be 'language', it must contain, at a minimal, two specific features – I can’t stress enough that these two features are universal, regardless of where or, more to our point, by whom the speech is being produced; 'tongues-speech’ contains neither one of these two features.
What are the two features you speak of?

And where did you get your samples from alien planets as evidence for that part of your assertion?

People tend to believe something to be supernatural because they can't explain it otherwise. There are, of course, many things in religion which must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved nor disproved. "Tongues" however, is not one of these things. It is something very concrete and tangible; it is a phenomenon which can be (and has been) studied and analyzed. As one writer rather bluntly put it: “tongues speakers need to understand they are making a very testable claim, and the test has failed, every single time.”
That is not true either if you accept historical documents and witness' testimony. There are a number of witness' testimonies to people recognizing speaking in tongues in their own language or else having a language they spoke 'in tongues' as a language someone else knew. I have met and know people who have had this experience.

Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely no Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be one which is radically different from what you believe, or were taught.
As I recall, you were a proponent of the theory that the people in Acts 2 were shocked that Peter was speaking in either Greek or Aramaic as opposed to non-liturgical Hebrew, a theory that managed to get published in some kind of journal somewhere, but that doesn't fit well with the historical situation at that time, since Jerusalem apparently had Greek-speaking synagogues. The church apparently had Greek-speaking widows.

If the history of the Pentecost movement is examined, one fact is very clear: at some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief in tongues as xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing.
No, what was re-examined was the Biblically unjustified presupposition that Parham and some early Pentecostals had that speaking in tongues would be used as a direct vehicle for preaching the Gospel, something that is not even clearly demonstrated in Acts 2. The disciples there could have been praising God. Peter apparently preached the regular way, and there is no indication that he was 'speaking in tongues' through a gift of the Spirit when he addressed the crowd. They re-examined the idea that they would speak in tongues and it would automatically be what was heard.

If you read The Apostolic Faith, the journal for Azusa Street, there are a large number of testimonies in which someone spoke in tongues and someone else knew the language and identified it. I believe I counted maybe 8 or 10 or more examples in two editions of the newsletter, out of 11 or 12. (It has been a while back.) Also, there is first-hand testimony of similar events happening at the Azusa Street revival itself. In Vinson Synan's interview with people who had been children at the revival back in the '60's or early '70's, one of them said what drew people to the revival was people speaking in tongues in the languages of people who would show up for the meetings, Japanese, etc. I have come across a number of testimonies of similar events in writings from people who were there, such as a reference to someone understanding Russian according to Val Dez's 'Fire on Azusa', or another book, 'The Comforter Has Come'.

Several years earlier, Agnes Ozman wrote that a tongue she spoke in identified as Bohemian, also, within a few days of her initial experience of speaking in tongues. I have read that she spoke Chinese. Vinson Synan, Ph.D. (who might be considered the founder of the field of Pentecostal history as an academic discipline) said that it was in some of their papers that the language was identified as Chinese by someone who worked in a laundry in Topeka.
As a result of things like Azusa Street, early Pentecostal missions were sent all over the world. The issue was that no one bothered to learn the language of the country they were going to, as they firmly believed their “tongues” were these languages. In not one instance was anyone able to even carry on the most basics of simple everyday conversation, let alone preach the gospels.

Not much has been recorded about the failure of these missions – you kind of have to hunt it down.

This forced a serious theological dilemma — As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined.
AG Garr had a tongue he spoke in identified as Bengali/Bangla at Azusa Street, but it was not how speaking in tongues had sounded when he did it previously. When he went to India as a missionary, and spoke in tongues, he did not speak in Bangla.

This belief that some early Pentecostals held to, that speaking in tongues was given so they could preach the Gospel 'in tongues' was an assumption that was not taught in scripture. They had to rethink that.

They had been in a revival in an international city with immigrants from various parts of the world, and people who knew the languages identified some of the 'speaking in tongues' as these languages. Then, some some of them went out as missionaries, they couldn't make the tongue they spoke be whatever the tongue of the area was... but nor did the Bible promise such a thing would happen.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,112
4,374
113
So why if Thomas Wilson thought it was hyperbole and his idea was parroted by others. That doesn't make it true. Since then, the Dead Sea Scrolls have been discovered and 'tongues of angels' shows up in intertestamental literature.

Paul gives 'extreme' examples in the passage, but not impossible examples. Giving all away or giving oneself to be burned are things that are possible to be done. However you interpreted the phrase, whether literally or figuratively, one can speak to the mountain in faith and it can be cast into the sea... so that is possible however it was intended to be interpreted when Christ spoke it. Paul isn't talking about unreal or imaginary scenarios in the rest of the passage. 'Tongues of men or of angels' should be interpreted in that light.

Is it impossible to speak in the tongues of men?
the whole chapter of 1cor 12 through 14 should be seen in the light of the context and subject, which is the gift of the Holy Spirit.

in Chapter 12 Paul explains what they are and who they are for , and the benefits of them. Chapter 13 is speaking of operating of the gifts in Love to use them without love makes them Meaningless. Chapter 14 is correction of error and using them going forward.

They are unit chapter the context is not in chapter 12 and few verses in 13 & 14 the context of the subject is in all three collectively Paul did not write in chapters and verses. that was added to help you and I with what is said.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,112
4,374
113
I stand corrected. It's not a memory verse of mine.
I think you got the point in your comment if you meant to say love. "LOVE" is the key in chapter 13 :) that is a great application you used I say amen
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
A 1612 Christian Dictionary confirms this. It's an hyperbole.

Thomas Wilson, A Christian Dictionary (1612)

Tongues of men and Angels. sig:Such an excellent faculty of speach, as might not only become men, but euen the Angels if they could speake: yet were it nothing worth, vnlesse it were imployed (through loue) vnto the edification of others. 1 Cor. 13, 1. If I could speake with the Tongue of Men and Angels, and had not loue, I were as sounding Brasse, and tinkling Cimball. An Hiperbole.
Opinion confirms opinion; good to know. :)
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
He also said that people that speak in tongues without interpretation are like noisy symbols or clanging gongs.
Respectfully, Paul wrote no such thing. The missing element was not interpretation but rather love.

EDIT: Already addressed and admitted as an error, thanks.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,112
4,374
113
Opinion confirms opinion; good to know. :)
kind of like "Scripture interprets scripture " but not the same, more like "what I think, is in line with what I think. "

lol
 

calibob

Sinner saved by grace
May 29, 2018
8,268
5,516
113
Anaheim, Cali.
Respectfully, Paul wrote no such thing. The missing element was not interpretation but rather love.

EDIT: Already addressed and admitted as an error, thanks.
It wasn't a direct quote or supposed to by simply paraphrased by me. I could have taken a few more minutes but I thought most of us have read first cortih 13 a few hundred times.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
I've been in the house to long. We are on lockdown here.
I hear you. We are under a partial lockdown here, but at least it doesn't prevent me from spending an afternoon in the workshop.