The crowd understood the Apostles in their own language. It's pretty clear.
They understood in tongues, but it doesn't say they PREACHED in tongues. They spoke in tongues, and then Peter preached. You don't think Peter preached in tongues do you? The text doesn't say that.
When the apostles spoke in tongues, some of the people responded by saying they were drunk. After he preached, people got saved. They didn't get saved from tongues.
Consider the parallel. Paul quotes from Isaiah about tongues, 'and yet for all that, they will not hear me' and gives an illustration of an unbeliever or uninstructed man coming into a church gathering and saying 'ye are mad.' In Acts 2, the apostles spoke in tongues, and people thought they were drunk. In both cases, they responded in a similar manner. The people there were not cut to the heart until Peter preached the Gospel to them.
Isaiah is talking about foreigners speaking other native languages, not people babbling incoherently.
Foreign languages sound like babbling incoherently if you do not know the language. It sounds like Barbarians talking.
The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.
No one interprets today. Those who claim to interpret never can tell the difference in fake and real tongues. In fact many of them probably interpret even when it's fake, making them liars.
Where do you get the authority to pontificate these broad sweeping statements? How do you know that no one interprets today? I've probably witnessed tongues interpreted hundreds of times, maybe more. I've never gotten the interpretation in church, but some of those who have have also had the experience where they get the interpretation but someone else gives the message before they speak out. I've also experienced where either an interpretation or a prophecy, and I think it was an interpretation of tongues, told me a question I had just asked in my heart. I was in high school and we were singing 'Give glory and honor and power unto Him..." in church. I did not know that was a quote from the book of Revelation, and I thought, how can you give power to God. Someone got a message and spoke it out. It started out something along the lines of, "You say in your heart, 'how can you give power to God?..." I've seen and experienced a lot more of that specific stuff with prophecy and words of knowledge than with interpretation.
How do you know that no interpreters of tongues can tell the difference between real and fake tongues? There are people who tell of being able to tell if certain things are of God or not by the discernment of spirits.
Your own belief system is inconsistent. On the one hand, you allow for these kinds of things. On the other, you say they are all fake? If they happen sometimes, you can't say they are all fake.
Also, your big concern that some tongues may be fake is not a concern the authors of scriptures share. You seem to be afraid for churches to obey this passage about allowing tongues for fear that there might be a fake tongue. If that is something you should be afraid about, why isn't Paul afraid of it? Why doesn't he warn about it in the passage? If it is necessary to have some sort of laboratory verification of a tongue, or if it is necessary to have someone from another country come in and understand the tongue before it is spoken in church, why doesn't Paul say that? Why does Paul write 'no one understandeth him' but allow the gift to operate, or pass on commandments from the Lord that the gift be allowed to be 'done unto edifying' in church if it has to be verified that way?
Let's suppose someone has a fake tongue. He goes to church and speaks it out and there is no interpretation. If he follows I Cor. 14:27-28, he'll shut up after that. Sometimes when someone speaks out a message like that, the church waits a short while and if no one gets the interpretation, they move. Let's say someone else is a bit undiscerning, but he gets a prophecy and speaks it out during that silence after the tongue. But the content of the prophecy is edifying. That is something you can evaluate better if you can understand it. You can check if it blatantly violates scripture. A lot of prophecies don't predict the future beyond what is written anyway. A lot of them, in my experience, are quotes of scripture or paraphrases of Biblical passages or concepts, sometimes focused on the situation of the church or individuals in the church. If tongues don't edify because people don't understand it, why would a fake uninspired babbling tongue damage if people don't understand it?
But the scriptures say 'forbid not to speak with tongues' and 'let it by by two or three'. They do not forbid tongues. There is no suspicion about false tongues taught in the passage. I think you are approaching this issue with a set of unbiblical concerns. We, as believers, are given instructions to follow and we should follow that in faith and believe God to work.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? [SUP]7 [/SUP]If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? [SUP]8 [/SUP]And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? [SUP]9 [/SUP]So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. [SUP]10 [/SUP]There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, [SUP]11 [/SUP]but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. [SUP]12 [/SUP]So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.
The tongues being practiced at Corinth were not beneficial. Paul alludes them to to instruments without distinct sounds and that if they have no distinct sound, they aren't serving any purpose. He stresses here that the building of the church is what is important.
They were beneficial to the speaker. The interpretation is beneficial to the church. His argument hear leads up to the instructions regarding tongues being
interpreted. If tongues are not beneficial at all (even when interpreted) why would Paul write to allow them and not forbid them in church? Why would the Lord command that?
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret. [SUP]14 [/SUP]For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. [SUP]15 [/SUP]What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. [SUP]16 [/SUP]Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider[SUP][
b][/SUP] say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? [SUP]17 [/SUP]For you may be giving thanks well
Benefits of tongues-- pray with your spirit. You give thanks well.
enough, but the other person is not being built up. [SUP]18 [/SUP]I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
Reasons why tongues should be interpreted, or if there is no interpreter why one should do something else that does edify like sing a psalm, give a teaching, or prophesy.
No one can even claim to tell the difference in fake tongues and real tongues. Why is this? Could it be because it's all faked and anyone who claims to interpret is a liar?
If there are people who interpret, are you a liar? If some people are gifted to tell the difference between real and fake tongues, are you a liar?
We are given some instructions about testing spirits and proving all things, but nothing specific in this regard about speaking in tongues. The Bible doesn't warn us to be on our guard about fake tongues. It seems like it is a bigger deal to you than it is to the authors of scripture.
I've talked to a lot of tongue speakers who admit to faking tongues, or "feel" like they are faking it. No one can ever tell the difference and call them out though. Why is this?
I haven't asked people if they felt like faking tongues. I wouldn't be surprised if some people did. In churches that minister to the lower classes and the down and out, and even churches that don't, you are likely to have some weird folks or unthinking folks in the bunch. There has been some foolishness like trying to wobble someone else's jaw when they speak in English and are praying and asking God to speak in tongues, or telling them to say 'glory' over and over again. I've heard preachers preach against such things. Apparently, it happened way back when, too, because F.F. Bosworth mentioned it in a booklet maybe before 1920 or so about some of the less scrupulous preachers doing things like that (about saying glory or some other word that is.) I'm not defending the whole Pentecostal or Charismatic movements, and certainly not the prosperity preachers on TV. I am saying that spiritual gifts are real and that we should follow the instructions in the Bible.
If certain preachers go on TV and try to manipulate people out of money and they say that speak in tongues, does that make the apostles' speaking in tongues fake? No. Why would it make the speaking in tongues of everyone who speaks in tongues today fake.
I was in a Pentecostal church for 2 years. I've got a little experience. I have no problem with it being able to happen and I believe sometimes it has. Most of the time it's faked and has been proven faked by lack of evidence provided.
If you think it happens sometimes, why would you say interpretations are all fake or interpreters all liars? That makes no sense.
And I smell a major flaw in your reasoning 'proven faked by lack of evidence provided.' That makes no sense at all. Something doesn't have to be proven to you to be true. I could tell you I passed a message to the president and he took my advice. If you don't believe me and I don't present evidence, that doesn't mean it isn't true. (It wasn't the US president, though.)
Many have died who refused medical attention because of the lies of their pastors and the pastors blame it on the lack of faith of the one supposedly healed.
So does that mean you don't believe God healed through Paul or Peter? Does that mean you don't believe God heals through people?
I'd imagine that is kind of rare. Even the WOFers, as far as I know, aren't against going to the doctor. Lots of people in the healing movement before the Pentecostal movement did not believe in going to doctors, that it showed a lack of faith, and some of the early Pentecostals believed that way, too. But back then, doctor's did not have the track record they have today. And over-the-counter medicines could contain morphine and cocaine.
You were deceived. There are videos of those who have gone undercover into the leading faith healers services and those with real ailments are not allowed on stage, just those with borderline problems (i.e. partial blindness, partially wheelchair bound, etc.).
Deceived how? I told you about a guy I heard preach, who had a very visible scar where his head was chopped 75% off by Mus. lim attackers. The head of the Bible school, a friend of a friend, laid hands on him and prayed for him. God healed him. His spinal cord was severed. He was up preaching in front. I talk about Jack Coe. Who are these 'leading faith healers' you are talking about? How is that a basis for accusing me of being deceived. Did these guys go undercover in the 1950's. Jack Coe laid hands on sick and injured people in front of everyone.
I'm not sure who you are talking about. But let's imagine at a Benny Hinn crusade, if they only allow people who have been healed on stage to give testimonies, Hinn doesn't usually lay hands on the sick for healing on stage. He tells people to pray for themselves or for each other, and then has the testimonies go on stage. It's not how Jesus did it or how healing was done in a lot of those revivals in the 1950's where they laid hands on the sick in front of everyone.
The practice of having people lay hands on themselves may have been a way to prevent the government persecution of prosecuting preachers for practicing medicine without a license for laying hands on the sick. It could have also been a way to accommodate crowds. I think it was Bosworth I read about who did that.
Someone with pure blindness or is completely crippled is not allowed near the stage and are stopped by security.
At a Benny Hinn crusade, if you knew his method, that wouldn't be too surprising. He talks about not many being in the 'healing ministry.' I consider healing ministry to involve laying hands on the sick, moreso that collecting testimonies. If someone follows that model of healing crusade, then it isn't dishonest if they only let the healed on stage. But it doesn't do much for the ones who are sick.
Info is gathered from people by church workers posing as regular people coming to hear the sermon from those there for healing so it seems as if the pastor has divine knowledge of the person.
I haven't seen a lot of these kinds of things on TV these days. But I don't remember the Benny Hinn crusades I saw back in the 1990s when I first heard of Benny Hinn and saw him on TV, or bits of Bonnke crusades where either of them seemed to have divine knowledge about people. I saw on TV that Peter Poppoff was said to have a radio earpiece and someone picked up his wife's voice reading cards people had turned in. Peter Poppoff had this miracle water or miracle oil thing recently I saw on one of those news specials, asking people to send in a certain amount of money and follow certain prayer instructions with the blessed water, oil, salt, or something like that. You know your standard Pentecostal preacher would probably consider some of the preachers on TV to be con artists. If you see all this as one monolithic movement, I can see the skepticism. But a guy on TV selling holy water listening to cues from his wife through earpiece doesn't make the miracles of Peter false. And they don't make miracles done by saints these days false either.
I have also witnessed prophesying and words of knowledge where there was no natural way the person could know such things. I've gotten a few words of knowledge like that myself just praying with people, and I know I don't have an earpiece or cue cards. I took my parents to a meeting where a man prophesied over them and prayed with them in great detail for about half an hour, and no one there knew my parents but me. And I hadn't seen them in a while or told them that my parents were building a house or the future details of the land which they would later find and build a house on.
This also serves the purpose of screening for those who can be seemingly healed to those who the pastor would not be able to fake it with. Plenty of info out there if you wanna look it up. The rest are just under a spell of religious hysteria, the need to feel something, and are just all around deceived.
I'm not saying there are fakes. But that doesn't make the evangelist who got his head chopped mostly off fake and it's not something to mention in relation to Jack Coe if this story you told isn't about Jack Coe.
Demons can fake signs.
9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
I recommend you and others heed the warnings.
I am aware of the warnings. Jesus warned about false prophets. But many chapters later, He said that He would send prophets. The Bible warns about lying signs and wonders, but it also gives plenty of examples of true wonders, tells about the gift of the working of miracles among believers, and predicts the wonders of the two witnesses. It would be foolish to think that anyone claiming to do miracles is right and holy. But it is also foolish to dismiss all miracles and other gifts of the Spirit as fake, since the Bible teaches these are gifts to function in the body of Christ. We must still obey the scriptures regarding the commandments of the Lord for allowing spiritual gifts to operate in church meetings.
I'll take a look, thanks for the link.
You have been deceived. There is plenty of evidence against every well known faith healer debunking them. Look it up.
I dunno Reinhard Bonnke but he seems to be a top guy on the false signs and wonders movement. I'll look into what he does though because apparently he has claimed to raise people from the dead. Words are cheap, so the "so and so told me" or "I heard about so and so" really doesn't cut it for me.[/QUOTE]
