TONGUES TODAY

[CS1]

"Tongues of angels" was a hyperbolic way of saying that even if you supposedly spoke the most exalted heavenly language but love was absent, then tongues meant nothing. Paul was trying to tell Christians at that time to "cool it" (in modern parlance). He was minimizing tongues in relation to other spiritual gifts.

"Tongues" is simply another translation for human languages. In the 17th century it was used interchangeably with language. But today the word "language" would be correct. And "unknown" was added gratuitously and merely added to the confusion. It is not present in the Greek textThey spoke to men in either Hebrew or Greek. How they communicated in Heaven seems to reflect how they spoke on earth. See Revelation.

they had to speak some language to converse with

Abraham, Daniel, and Mary. Is not the fact that an angel is speaking to a person who has a language special?

In addition, is that not, even more, telling of an example of what is a " known Tongue" As Paul said

in 1cor 14:1

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, "

What is the language of angels? You stated

" There is no record in Scripture about any special language spoken by angels."

you just confirmed " unknown languages "

that was spoken amen.

 

[presidente]

Yep, it is, sine the 1500's, but agree with it or not; that's where the "unknown" before tongues originated from. And, yes, it's painfully obvious that many denominations have ignored that fact for years. Indeed, it's been completely forgotten about.

Do you have any evidence that 'unknown' before tongues was a polemic against the use of Latin in liturgy, or are guessing/assuming?

 

[Absolutely]

Yep, it is, sine the 1500's, but agree with it or not; that's where the "unknown" before tongues originated from. And, yes, it's painfully obvious that many denominations have ignored that fact for years. Indeed, it's been completely forgotten about.

You do know if "unknown" is eliminated, it still reads "unknown" as implied?

 

[Absolutely]

Do you have any evidence that 'unknown' before tongues was a polemic against the use of Latin in liturgy, or are guessing/assuming?

It is like the hebrew debate on mary being a virgin.

" born of a virgin" actually means/says "young maiden"

Virgin is implied.

But to the orthodox jew it is some big deal.

When we see these things we see AGENDAS.

 

[CS1]

You do know if "unknown" is eliminated, it still reads "unknown" as implied?

LOL yes, it does it's in the context at least two times.

 

[CS1]

It is like the Hebrew debate on mary being a virgin.

" born of a virgin" actually means/says "young maiden"

Virgin is implied.

But to the orthodox jew, it is some big deal.

When we see these things we see AGENDAS.

That is an interesting thing too because the Isiah Prophecy a Virgin shall conceive and in the foretelling and forth telling they were looking for it that day. But in context to the foretelling and Mary, it says she was Virgin

WHO KNEW NO MAN meaning did not have sexual relations.

 

[Kavik]

You do know if "unknown" is eliminated, it still reads "unknown" as implied?

In many cases, yes, it does; however, unknown to the listener, not the speaker.

 

[CS1]

In many cases, yes, it does; however, unknown to the listener, not the speaker.

that not Paul said he said I Speak with my understanding( knowing) and I speak with the Spirit without His understanding why?

because it is supernatural language and gifting of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Kavik]

Do you have any evidence that 'unknown' before tongues was a polemic against the use of Latin in liturgy, or are guessing/assuming?

I did; however, I can find only one (from which I paraphrase from) - see: https://charlesasullivan.com/761/unknown-tongues-english-bible/#easy-footnote-4-761

that not Paul said he said I Speak with my understanding( knowing) and I speak with the Spirit without His understanding why?

Already covered this with the discussion on 1 Cor. 14:14-15

 

[CS1]

I did; however, I can find only one (from which I paraphrase from) - see: https://charlesasullivan.com/761/unknown-tongues-english-bible/#easy-footnote-4-761


Already covered this with the discussion on 1 Cor. 14:14-15

yes, and you were wrong

 

[PaulChristensen]

Yep, it is, sine the 1500's, but agree with it or not; that's where the "unknown" before tongues originated from. And, yes, it's painfully obvious that many denominations have ignored that fact for years. Indeed, it's been completely forgotten about.

Except for the several million people across the range of denominations that actually do pray in tongues.

 

[Evmur]

Is the "Tongues" we see practiced today in churches all over the land actually Biblical and valid........
OR is it an emotional exercise in religious fervor????

As far as I know it is just impossible to fake tongues [I'm sure some will disagree]

I mean a language with cadence and flow, if you try to fake it you' ll end up speaking gibberish like bananamananamanana. I've heard ALOT of gibberish like that, I don't condemn it, God reads our hearts and is kind.

But there are genuine tongues which come with much blessing and edification.

 

[Aldg19]

It’s wonderful to know you all I’m leaving to focusing on my life it’s was a wonderful time learning with you all but it’s definitely been a wonderful 3 weeks with you I learned so much but i hope that you understand why I’m leaving it’s best for me to start my music journey with country music and I’m moving to Nashville I have been dreaming about doing country music forever it’s officially real thanks for your love and support I love you so much and I can’t wait to see you and meet you in heaven someday

 

[Evmur]

Thanks for the information. I did follow your link and may I say to you that coming from the Charismatic Pentecostal denomination many years ago, and having attented classes on how to speak in tongues....the action is indeed GIBBERISH and faked to cause one to have an emotional experience.

so we have to go by your experience then.

 

[PaulChristensen]

As far as I know it is just impossible to fake tongues [I'm sure some will disagree]

I mean a language with cadence and flow, if you try to fake it you' ll end up speaking gibberish like bananamananamanana. I've heard ALOT of gibberish like that, I don't condemn it, God reads our hearts and is kind.

But there are genuine tongues which come with much blessing and edification.

The best teaching I received about tongues was that one had to speak from the heart with a definite intention to express praise for the wonderful grace and works of God, or intercession for someone who needs God's intervention. When someone prays in tongues like that, then the language is articulate and expressive.

Someone gabbling monotone stuff like you showed is doing it without knowing what tongues is for, and for no real purpose but to show others that he can speak in tongues.

I was giving this teaching to a group whom I was assisting to come through in tongues, and I told them that when they speak it has to come right from their stomachs and not just from their mouths. One guy came through in tongues and spoke like a Japanese sumo wrestler, and after a while said, "My stomach hurts!" What he was doing was contracting his abdominal muscles so right that he was getting cramp. I told him that it was not to literally come from his stomach, but from his heart. He got the message and his stomach no longer hurt when he spoke in tongues.

 

[presidente]

I did; however, I can find only one (from which I paraphrase from) - see: https://charlesasullivan.com/761/unknown-tongues-english-bible/#easy-footnote-4-761

This does not quite prove your point which is about why the KJV translators put 'unknown' before tongues. Sure, the KJV translators who concerned about the RCC doing mass in Latin and not the language of the people, as all Protestants are. But they were also working within an interpretive and translation tradition. The page your references mentioned Thomas Aquinas using the term 'unknown tongues', or so it translates.

This page shows 'unknown tongues' shows up before the KJV in the Geneva Bible. https://charlesasullivan.com/3383/unknown-tongues-bible/

Saying the reason 'unknown' was added was as a polemic against Rome is just guesswork unless you have some commentary specifically on why this phrase was used. One translator could have read Aquinas.

I see no reason to think that the italicised 'unknown' in I Corinthians 14 had anything to do with Pentecostal doctrine in the early 1900s. There might be a small percentage of Charismatics who seem to think tongues cannot be real languages. But most Pentecostals and Charismatics do not seem to think that way. Usually, in these threads, someone brings up this straw man, pointing out that 'unknown' was not in the original Greek, as if that proved their point and really had anything to do with the doctrinal discussion.

Already covered this with the discussion on 1 Cor. 14:14-15

The problem with your viewpoint on this is verse 19, where Paul treats praying with the mind as one thing, and praying with tongues as anohter.

 

[presidente]

so we have to go by your experience then.

Not just that. Major also has some false assertions about the Greek language that he expects us to go by.

In the past, he stopped posting on the thread at some point after I pointed out that 'tois' in Mark 16 in the phrase 'them that believe' goes with the word translated 'believe' and does not refer grammatically way back to the eleven apostles verses earlier. But then, he repeated the same nonsense in this thread again.

There was a commentary written by someone in the 'Church of Christ' movement that made the same point, but getting published does not make the assertions about grammar right. This sort of thing can be checked out by asking someone who knows Greek.

 

[Evmur]

Not just that. Major also has some false assertions about the Greek language that he expects us to go by.

In the past, he stopped posting on the thread at some point after I pointed out that 'tois' in Mark 16 in the phrase 'them that believe' goes with the word translated 'believe' and does not refer grammatically way back to the eleven apostles verses earlier. But then, he repeated the same nonsense in this thread again.

There was a commentary written by someone in the 'Church of Christ' movement that made the same point, but getting published does not make the assertions about grammar right. This sort of thing can be checked out by asking someone who knows Greek.

They jump through such hoops and perform amazing acrobatics rather than simply and humbly receiving God's precious gifts.

... why would anybody not want to speak and pray in unknown tongues?

 

[Absolutely]

Not just that. Major also has some false assertions about the Greek language that he expects us to go by.

In the past, he stopped posting on the thread at some point after I pointed out that 'tois' in Mark 16 in the phrase 'them that believe' goes with the word translated 'believe' and does not refer grammatically way back to the eleven apostles verses earlier. But then, he repeated the same nonsense in this thread again.

There was a commentary written by someone in the 'Church of Christ' movement that made the same point, but getting published does not make the assertions about grammar right. This sort of thing can be checked out by asking someone who knows Greek.

I think a lot of the cessationists are coming from a wounded spirit, at those operating in the gifts.
Sad that they invest huge energy and time at something they neither want or seek.

It is the equivalent of myself attacking seamstress websites.

It HAS TO BE A SPIRIT. No doubt the pharisees had that exact same dynamic.

 

[presidente]

I think a lot of the cessationists are coming from a wounded spirit, at those operating in the gifts.
Sad that they invest huge energy and time at something they neither want or seek.

Sometimes someone has a bad experience and gets wounded. There is some fakery, hypocrisy, etc. that occurs under the label of 'charismatic', just like their is with other movements. Some people throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.


\