Tongues???

[VCO]

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, have a look Here

I examined that bath water thoroughly for six months, and I studied nothing else but the subject of Tongues. And I found that there was NO baby in that bath water, just a rotting old rubber doll. After that lengthy personal study that included reading books and articles, listening to several hours of sermons on tape, researching it via Encyclopedias, personal interviews, and comparing the modern charismatic experience to the documented pagan use of tongues in the Mystery Religious such as the worship of ZUES, which started at least 400 years before Christ; I found the modern day Charismatic experience to be IDENTICAL to the the Pagan use of Tongues, and NOTHING LIKE WHAT THE APOSTLES DID.

I then sat down and typed (years before my first computer) a 12 page essay on what all I had learned in my six month study of the Charismatic tongues. It is entitled The Gift of Tongues - A Non-Charismatic Understanding. If at least 3 people request that I post it here, I will; However, I will have to break it up into a minimum of 5 or 6 segments as posts, simply because of it's shear length.

 

[Angela53510]

προσεύχεσθαι, ψάλλειν, εὐλογεῖν, τῷπνεύματι,

My spirit prays to Him...

a soul thoroughly roused by the Holy Spirit and wholly intent on divine things, yet destitute of distinct self-consciousness and clear understanding

προσεύχεσθαι -to pray (infinitive)

ψάλλειν -to sing a song of praise, with or without musical accompaniment (infinitive) 1 Cor. 14:15; James 5:13

εὐλογεῖν - 1. to say something commendatory, speak well of, praise, extol (infinitive) various verses - 11 mentioned in Bauer 2. to ask for bestowal of special favour, esp. of calling down God's gracious power, bless (infinitive) (16 times in the NT) 3. to bestow a favour, ask for benefit.(infinitive) 9 times

τῷπνεύματι, FIRST τῷ πνεύματι, please make sure there is a break between the article and the word. This is the dative article and noun of the verb, which in the nominative case is πνεύμα. With dative, you may put the preposition "in" in front of the Spirit. So "in the Spirit."

So you have said above, in Greek, something to the effect of:

To pray, to sing (a song of praise),, to extol in the Spirit.

So was that what you were saying? Or did you think you were saying "My spirit prays to Him..." as above??

First, although in English, the proper way to say a neutral verb, without aspect, time, gender or person, is to say "to pray." However, in English, the lexical or neutral form of the verb is first person singular. That means "I pray" is what you find in the lexicon.

So NOT:
προσεύχεσθαι - Aorist middle infinitive (to pray - in an indefinite time)

BUT
προσεύχομαι - Present middle deponent (I pray) Deponent is the equivalent of present active, although new research is coming out about this and things are changing!


NOT
ψάλλειν - present infinitive (to pray)
BUT
ψάλλω - 1 st person singular present tense

NOT
εὐλογεῖν - present infinitive (to praise?? Hard to know without a verse attached to it!)
BUT
εύλογέω - Present Active first person singular (I praise?)

NOT
τῷπνεύματι, has no meaning in this form
BUT
τῷ πνεύματι, Dative case, of πνεύμα (In the Spirit)

I assume you are trying to impress us with your ability to speak in "tongues" but I doubt the Holy Spirit would lead you to pray with the wrong words in Greek.

You wrote:

To pray, to rejoice, to extol in the Spirit.

NOT
My spirit prays to Him...

To translate would be difficult for me, as I don't "speak" Greek. But probably something like:
"Πνεύμα μου προσεύχομαι άυτῳ

"Μy Spirit prays to Him"

Your welcome, glad to be of help!

PS. I don't know why I spend the time correcting your none Greek. But when you quote this miserable sentence over and over, it is time to show the world that you don't know English as others have pointed out, let alone Greek.

a soul thoroughly roused by the Holy Spirit and wholly intent on divine things, yet destitute of distinct self-consciousness and clear understanding

Where did you get the above meaningless quote? Try using words you understand, and put them together in a way that makes sense, ok?

PS. Again, I am suggesting you attend a good Seminary, and actually learn Greek and Hebrew, Hermeneutics, and other skills. Rhema is a non-accredited, non-degree granting college. I guess that means if you want to go to Seminary, you will need to get a Bachelor's degree first, which might be hard with your poor writing skills.

 

[Persuaded]

προσεύχεσθαι -to pray (infinitive)

ψάλλειν -to sing a song of praise, with or without musical accompaniment (infinitive) 1 Cor. 14:15; James 5:13

εὐλογεῖν - 1. to say something commendatory, speak well of, praise, extol (infinitive) various verses - 11 mentioned in Bauer 2. to ask for bestowal of special favour, esp. of calling down God's gracious power, bless (infinitive) (16 times in the NT) 3. to bestow a favour, ask for benefit.(infinitive) 9 times

τῷπνεύματι, FIRST τῷ πνεύματι, please make sure there is a break between the article and the word. This is the dative article and noun of the verb, which in the nominative case is πνεύμα. With dative, you may put the preposition "in" in front of the Spirit. So "in the Spirit."

So you have said above, in Greek, something to the effect of:

To pray, to sing (a song of praise),, to extol in the Spirit.

So was that what you were saying? Or did you think you were saying "My spirit prays to Him..." as above??

First, although in English, the proper way to say a neutral verb, without aspect, time, gender or person, is to say "to pray." However, in English, the lexical or neutral form of the verb is first person singular. That means "I pray" is what you find in the lexicon.

So NOT:
προσεύχεσθαι - Aorist middle infinitive (to pray - in an indefinite time)

BUT
προσεύχομαι - Present middle deponent (I pray) Deponent is the equivalent of present active, although new research is coming out about this and things are changing!


NOT
ψάλλειν - present infinitive (to pray)
BUT
ψάλλω - 1 st person singular present tense

NOT
εὐλογεῖν - present infinitive (to praise?? Hard to know without a verse attached to it!)
BUT
εύλογέω - Present Active first person singular (I praise?)

NOT
τῷπνεύματι, has no meaning in this form
BUT
τῷ πνεύματι, Dative case, of πνεύμα (In the Spirit)

I assume you are trying to impress us with your ability to speak in "tongues" but I doubt the Holy Spirit would lead you to pray with the wrong words in Greek.

You wrote:

To pray, to rejoice, to extol in the Spirit.

NOT
My spirit prays to Him...

To translate would be difficult for me, as I don't "speak" Greek. But probably something like:
"Πνεύμα μου προσεύχομαι άυτῳ

"Μy Spirit prays to Him"

Your welcome, glad to be of help!

PS. I don't know why I spend the time correcting your none Greek. But when you quote this miserable sentence over and over, it is time to show the world that you don't know English as others have pointed out, let alone Greek.



Where did you get the above meaningless quote? Try using words you understand, and put them together in a way that makes sense, ok?

PS. Again, I am suggesting you attend a good Seminary, and actually learn Greek and Hebrew, Hermeneutics, and other skills. Rhema is a non-accredited, non-degree granting college. I guess that means if you want to go to Seminary, you will need to get a Bachelor's degree first, which might be hard with your poor writing skills.

Thank you for this great post. I wish I had your knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew.
Thanks again.

 

[jaybird88]

i pray in the English tongue.

 

[Chris2552]

Half of these arguments are started with the spirit of jealousy, a lack of understanding, and then grows into hatred and a feeling of being a lesser spiritual person because you haven't been a gift like the other, what you don't realize is you do have a gift, its just toungues is much more evident.

There are many gifts.

1 Corinthians 12:7
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

I have tounges, i have talked to people on this forum and i can tell you, some have told me dreams they have had, some have the spirit of knowledge, and they understand the bible much better then i do, some of wisdom. Sometimes i wish i could understand it as well as them but we each have a part to play, and we are each here to help each understand and learn.

Just because one has tounges, and you don't understand it, doesn't mean its not from God, they are trying to explain it to you the best they can, and your not listening, but arguing over it.

Why don't you all look inside yourself and try to figure out which one you have instead of fighting over this.

And one other thing, i see people arguing over the meaning of scripture alot as well. Please stop arguing, some have the spirit of knowledge and wisdom,i see them trying to help you understand, but people refuse to listen!

Listen to what they say, for they have been given the gift from the holy spirit, and the gifts are for the benefit of all, not to cause arguments, or division.

 

[RickyZ]

I examined that bath water thoroughly for six months, and I studied nothing else but the subject of Tongues. And I found that there was NO baby in that bath water, just a rotting old rubber doll. After that lengthy personal study that included reading books and articles, listening to several hours of sermons on tape, researching it via Encyclopedias, personal interviews, and comparing the modern charismatic experience to the documented pagan use of tongues in the Mystery Religious such as the worship of ZUES, which started at least 400 years before Christ;

You did a lot of study on man's interpretation of God's word.

I'm curious, did you ever take God's word alone and try speaking in tongues?

 

[VCO]

You did a lot of study on man's interpretation of God's word.

I'm curious, did you ever take God's word alone and try speaking in tongues?

Yes, my wife before I met her, (we were married 36 years before she passed away a year and a month ago), was raised in a Pentecostal Church. She used to speak is the charismatic tongues, and came to believe on her own that it was purely a counterfeit of the miraculous Tongues from GOD that the Apostles did. Therefore she left the Pentecostal Church before she ever met me. I was getting caught up in Kenneth Copeland (whom I came to recognize as a religious con-artist about a year later), but I was even seeking to speak in tongues, shortly after we were married. About seven years after that, I still wanted to believe in the charismatic tongues, and I actually started my study wanting to prove my wife wrong. About two weeks into that six month study, I was convinced she was absolutely right. When my sister in-laws found out we both no longer believed in the Charismatic tongues, they accused me of leading their sister astray, and they challenged me to write a Bible Study explaining why I did not believe in it. I told them I would have to do a lot more studying before I was ready to do the written Bible Study, thus it turned out to be 5 and a half more months of studying the same subject.

During that 5 and a half months, when I studied how the Mystery Religions used it in their worship for over 400 years before the Apostolic Tongues, I found the so called charismatic gift to be IDENTICAL to what the modern day Charismatics and Pentecostals were doing. Even Plato was excited about it, stating: "It was as if I linked up with the gods." IN CONTRAST, Apostolic TONGUES were always spoken in the presence of unbelieving Jews, and those unbelieving Jews heard every word in their own dialectos. That is their native tongue, correct right down to the exact accent they grew up with. And the unbelieving Jews in Cornelius's house were those who came with Peter, who had not had Peter's dream, therefore their unbelief was still that GOD would not save the Gentiles as much as He did the JEWS. THEREFORE, they were the ones who heard in their own dialectos.

Are you one who would like me to post that Study here?

 

[VCO]

i pray in the English tongue.

1 Corinthians 14:19 (NIV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

 

[hornetguy]

Are you one who would like me to post that Study here?

I would like to read through your study... If it's too long to post here, perhaps you could email it? Just a thought...

 

[RickyZ]

Yes, my wife before I met her, (we were married 36 years before she passed away a year and a month ago), was raised in a Pentecostal Church. She used to speak is the charismatic tongues, and came to believe on her own that it was purely a counterfeit of the miraculous Tongues from GOD that the Apostles did. Therefore she left the Pentecostal Church before she ever met me. I was getting caught up in Kenneth Copeland (whom I came to recognize as a religious con-artist about a year later), but I was even seeking to speak in tongues, shortly after we were married. About seven years after that, I still wanted to believe in the charismatic tongues, and I actually started my study wanting to prove my wife wrong. About two weeks into that six month study, I was convinced she was absolutely right. When my sister in-laws found out we both no longer believed in the Charismatic tongues, they accused me of leading their sister astray, and they challenged me to write a Bible Study explaining why I did not believe in it. I told them I would have to do a lot more studying before I was ready to do the written Bible Study, thus it turned out to be 5 and a half more months of studying the same subject.

During that 5 and a half months, when I studied how the Mystery Religions used it in their worship for over 400 years before the Apostolic Tongues, I found the so called charismatic gift to be IDENTICAL to what the modern day Charismatics and Pentecostals were doing. Even Plato was excited about it, stating: "It was as if I linked up with the gods." IN CONTRAST, Apostolic TONGUES were always spoken in the presence of unbelieving Jews, and those unbelieving Jews heard every word in their own dialectos. That is their native tongue, correct right down to the exact accent they grew up with. And the unbelieving Jews in Cornelius's house were those who came with Peter, who had not had Peter's dream, therefore their unbelief was still that GOD would not save the Gentiles as much as He did the JEWS. THEREFORE, they were the ones who heard in their own dialectos.

Are you one who would like me to post that Study here?

Actually I did my own study as well. I read in God's word that tongues are meant to glorify God and edify the speaker. Then I saw people speaking in tongues who glorified God and were edified by doing so. Then a light bulb went on in my head and I thought "wow these two things must be related".

Now, mind you, I have also seen people speak in tongues who did nothing more than glorify themselves. I just knew in my spirit at the time that these were false tongues. Then a light bulb in my head went on and I thought "wow this must be what it means to discern the spirits".

I'm sorry you let false teachers lead you away from a gift of God. That is truly sad.

But as long as I see God saying "a" and I see "a" doing exactly what God said it would do, I'm going to have to stick with "a".

 

[RickyZ]

1 Corinthians 14:19 (NIV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Right on. That's part of that discernment thing.

You know, when I read 1 Corinthians 14 I picture that church being very much like many pentecostal/charismatic churches of today. (Even tho I am a firm defender of tongues I'm not too enthralled with most of the pentecostal/charismatic thing). The whole point of 1 Cor. 14 is to teach time and place. And I do agree that many churches need to learn the lesson of time and place these days.

 

[VCO]

Actually I did my own study as well. I read in God's word that tongues are meant to glorify God and edify the speaker. Then I saw people speaking in tongues who glorified God and were edified by doing so. Then a light bulb went on in my head and I thought "wow these two things must be related".

Now, mind you, I have also seen people speak in tongues who did nothing more than glorify themselves. I just knew in my spirit at the time that these were false tongues. Then a light bulb in my head went on and I thought "wow this must be what it means to discern the spirits".

I'm sorry you let false teachers lead you away from a gift of God. That is truly sad.

But as long as I see God saying "a" and I see "a" doing exactly what God said it would do, I'm going to have to stick with "a".

Hmmm, edify the speaker.

Now I agree Paul did say that, but was he giving us a reason to speak in tongues, or a REASON NOT TO:

1 Corinthians 14:4 (NKJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP] He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

1 Corinthians 10:23-24 (KJV)
[SUP]23 [/SUP] All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
[SUP]24 [/SUP] Let no man seek his own, but every man another's [and the KJV adds this word which is not in the original language translation ->] wealth.

Clearly Paul is talking about edification in both of those verses 23 & 24.

 

[VCO]

I would like to read through your study... If it's too long to post here, perhaps you could email it? Just a thought...

I am going to prove my age. I totally forgot that I uploaded my entire Study onto GOOGLE years ago, and it may still have a few typos. To my surprise the page still works:


The Gift of Tongues - A Non-Charismatic Understanding.

"The Gift of Tongues - A Non-Charismatic Understanding" is a Bible Study that I originally did as a hand written document after six months of Bible Studies on the subject of TONGUES, in early 1980. In 1988, I updated it to include Pastor Neil Beery's testimony about his experiences with either Satan or a demon using the mouth of a "tongues speaker" to curse in a foreign language in a Church. I typed that update to make it more legable. As the computer age came in, I eventually bought a computer to help prepare sermon notes for my Volunteer Prison Ministry. Because of the frequency that this subject comes up, I retyped the Study once again, so that I could save it on the Computer in the WORD doc format, and thanks to the spell checker, I was able to correct all my typos (I hope, lol). Before you laugh, I warn all you younger Christians, the typos get worse and more frequent when you get older, so your day is coming, LOL. My original purpose for writing this Study was to answer my sister-inlaws questions on how I can support Biblically a Non-Charismatic position on the Subject of TONGUES. I have learned since then, that God did not have me write it only for them, as He keeps bringing the subject into my path, via questions from both the Charismatic and the Non-Charismatic side of the fence. Thankfully today, I found out that Google.com has a free program that allows me to publish online my entire study that was until now limited to copy/pasting small segments in forums, and on occasions, sending 5 seperate segments via email. I have no intention of arguing this subject with anyone, as I have seen how defensive and argumentative Charismatics tend to get when they read this study. I wrote to explain my NON-CHARISMATIC position on the subject of the Gift of Tongues. This Study shows that we Non-Charimatic, born again believers have very biblical grounds for not believing in the modern day charismatic experience of what they call Tongues. Their Charismatic experiences are vastly different than what the Apostles did to valid the New Testament to unbelieving Jews. If you have an interest in Reading what I wrote on the Subject, you should be able to view the entire document at the following link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19RFGmuO6-gA0d9dMXxW0tr9EpgXeKi092sESSlSm8P0/edit

The upload somehow dropped the first 3 1/2 sentences of paragraph 1, and it way to late to edit it. So here is the entire opening paragraph:

QUOTE:
My purpose for writing this Bible Study is not to argue with my Pentecostal brothers and sisters, whom I love and respect sincerely. The sole purpose is to present what most non-charismatic Churches teach and believe on this highly controversial subject, showing how we arrive at our Biblical understanding concerning the gift of tongues and why we do not believe in the modern day tongues movement. First and Foremost, I consider the “gift of tongues” a very minor issue that certainly is not worth arguing about. As I have heard Dr. John MacArthur Jr. say, “I am much more concerned about those who gossip in a language that we all understand, than those who speak in an ‘unknown tongue’ that no one understands.” It saddens me however, to realize that this issue has been so blown out of proportion, that it has caused great splits in the Church. Despite the splits, we are still one body (1 Cor. 12:13), even if some of us don’t like to admit it. The following is what I believe to be the truth about this confusion (1 Cor. 14:33) over the “Gift of Tongues”."
END QUOTE.

It seems a little slow to load, but it does after a couple minutes, as the Study is at least a dozen pages long.

Again, I am not posting this to start an argument with Charismatics, but rather, to validate that Non-Charismatics have biblical reasons for not believing in the Charismatic experience. If hearing how Non-Charismatic Believers biblically support a non-authentic view of the Charismatic experience, makes you angry; please do not read it. I have seen way too many arguments on this subject in my life time. I do not want argue with anybody about this, I just want to encourage non-charismatics in their beliefs.

For those who disagree, WE can always agree to disagree.​

 

[RickyZ]

Hmmm, edify the speaker.

Now I agree Paul did say that, but was he giving us a reason to speak in tongues, or a REASON NOT TO:

1 Corinthians 14:4 (NKJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP] He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

1 Corinthians 10:23-24 (KJV)
[SUP]23 [/SUP] All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
[SUP]24 [/SUP] Let no man seek his own, but every man another's [and the KJV adds this word which is not in the original language translation ->] wealth.

Clearly Paul is talking about edification in both of those verses 23 & 24.

Given that Paul summed it all up with 'be eager to prophecy and do not forbid speaking in tongues', he still wants us to speak in tongues.

But that 'edification of the one who speaks' is why I believe Paul said it was the least of the gifts. Every other gift flows thru you to edify someone else. And we are to put others before ourselves. So the gifts that edify others are to be sought before one that edifies ourselves.

But even so, Paul still says that even tho it is the least of the gifts, it is the only one he said he wished we all would partake of.

 

[presidente]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19RFGmuO6-gA0d9dMXxW0tr9EpgXeKi092sESSlSm8P0/edit

​

I am about four pages into this now, and what I can say is this is a really good example of how NOT to eisegete the scriptures.

Why is it that when cessationists read about 'tongues of men and of angels' most of them INSIST it must be hyperbole, but when they read chapter 12, some of them insist that there was someone cursing Christ? Paul is giving 'extremes' in both cases. He says that no one curses Christ by the Holy Ghost and noone says "Jesus is Lord" but by the Holy Ghost. He's giving two extreme examples.

Paul does not state or imply that one of the Corinthian church people was cursing Christ. It is possible that unbelievers did. Paul corrected those who taught against the resurrection and mentioned directly that it was a problem. Why wouldn't Paul specifically address someone who had cursed Christ? Why not mention such a sin in the list of church discipline issues in I Corinthians 5 if it had actually occurred in the church in Corinth? To assume that Paul is addressing a specific case of a believer cursing Christ is far fetched, and pure eisegesis.

To take it a step further and treat the passage as if it is talking about a situation in which someone curses Christ 'in tongues' is totally irrational. It is as if you think if a scenario for who something might have happened pops into your head, it must be the truth. Some mentally ill people think the same way about their delusions. If you can think of a historical-fiction scenario that could possibly fit a particular passage of scripture, that doesn't make the historical fiction true.

This is an abuse of the cultural historical method of interpretation. And abuse of this method is quite widespread. Your article mentions John MacArthur. He has put forth one of the most preposterous bits of eisegesis on this topic I've ever seen, maybe the worst. In one of his sermons, he uses the Oracle of Delphi as some sort of exegetical key to explain I Corinthians 14. Supposedly, the 'tongues' were supposed to be like the utterances of the Oracle of Delphi. There is no reference to this in the passage. He tries to tie in the reference to 'mysteries' in 'speaks mysteries with his spirit' with the 'mystery religions.' This is totally ridiculous, since Paul uses the word in a very positive sense to refer to the mysteries of the Gospel in all other scriptures in which he mentions it. He even calls the tongues they were speaking 'pagan tongues'. His disdain for tongues reached the point where he even made such an accusation against the very speaking in tongues done by the church in Biblical times. And what is the believer who accepts MacArthur's exegesis supposed to do with the rest of the passage? Conclude that Paul wanted the saints to pray to interpret 'pagan tongues' like those of the oracle of Delphi to edify the congregation? Conclude that Paul engaged in speaking 'pagan tongues'? Conclude that Paul, no, even the Lord, commanded that pagan tongues be interpreted.. This is some bad, messed up eisegesis. And I notice you mention him in an article on the subject.

When you interpret the Bible, you have to start with the text. If you start looking at outside historical and cultural resources and bring in an interpretation that actually contradicts the text, we have a problem. History and culture is helpful in understanding scripture in a lot of cases. But this method is often abused. Here, we see a 'conservative' abuse. We often read of liberals doing it. I've seen someone try to argue from culture and history that Job and Abraham worshiped Horus. I've seen people insist that the reasons for instructions for women in I Timothy 2 had to do with a female priesthood to Diana in Ephesus. I don't debate that there was a cult of Diana in Ephesus, but it has nothing to do with the argument in the text.

And your presuppositions, trying to eisegete your application of paganism into the text leads in a different direction from what Paul is teaching. Paul doesn't even hint that people were cursing Christ in tongues. There is nothing in the book that would cause the reader to think that he was concerned about false tongues or demonic tongues. It is not hinted at. Paul focuses on the need for tongues to be interpreted to edify others in the church. Demonic ramblings are not edifying. Interpretations of people cursing Christ are not edifying. There is not even a hint that any of the Corinthians were speaking in pagan tongues. Paul doesn't even raise the possibility. The issues he raises are tongues edifying the self versus the need of the congregation to be edified. So tongues need to be interpreted, or believers need to engage in mutually edifying activities like prophesying.

Your interpretation has people scared that some demon is going to use their tongue, something Paul does not warn about. Paul's writings lead the reader to covet and desire to use spiritual gifts. Your article would have people who believe it scared that the Devil might use them without them knowing it if they are zealous for spiritual gifts.

You've got a message you want to spread. You wrap some history and verses around it. But it is not the same message Paul is teaching in this part of scripture.

 

[presidente]

VCO, I was also thinking about your second hand testimonial evidence for people cursing in tongues. I've heard testimonial evidence of other people hearing tongues where it wasn't cursing. I spoke with a woman who is from a missionary family to China whose husband is Chinese. She's heard people speaking in tongues in English in China, from an old village woman who was saying something that sounded like it came out of the Psalms. I've known people whose prayer in tongues was understood, a missionary whose rebuke to those trying to thwart the crusade was understood 'in tongues' in the local language.

So if some people quote the Psalms in tongues and other people pray, etc. in tongues, and your evidence were true and legit, too, then you should be expecting, based on anecdotal evidence, true and false tongues.

As far as the Bible goes, Jesus said if you being evil know how to give good gives to your children, how much more shall your Father in heaven give good things to them that ask Him. The Gospel of Luke says give the Holy Ghost to them that ask Him. We don't have to be afraid we'll end up with a demon spirit.

But of course, demons could speak through people in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, or whatever other languages demoniacs were speaking in in the accounts in scripture. Demonized people could go to church and speak something demonic in another language. It is something that is possible, but not something the Bible warns believers may happen to them. We need to have the positive attitude toward spiritual gifts that Paul encourages, not some kind of unbiblical fear-mongering.

As far as your second-hand missionary accounts go, in one of them, a missionary goes to church, hears tongues, and runs out vomitting? If you heard someone curse you, would you run outside and vomit? Maybe if a guy were an emotional wreck, it might happen. But generally, I wouldn't expect that reaction. I speak Indonesian. If someone in the US cursed me in Indonesian, I wouldn't seem myself vomitting unless I happened to have an upset stomach.

The verse, that says that the righteous are as bold as a lion; the wicked flee though none pursue comes to mind. I could imagine a scenario where a missionary went to church, someone spoke his secret sin in tongues, and it was so bad that he went outside and vomited and claimed he was being cursed at to hide his secret. I'm not saying that is what happened. I don't know the guy. But someone claiming the tongues are demonic cursing is just as 'subjective' to someone who does not know the language as the missionary's claims were in your second or third hand story.

Your friend's friend's experiences are no basis for doctrine. We need to stick with what the Bible teaches on this issue. It definitely does not teach believers to be afraid that if they receive or exercise spiritual gifts that they will say something demonic or something like that. Paul was dealing with former pagans who had had fellowship with demons before their conversion, and he did not even raise such a warning. But later commentators who abuse the cultural historical approach have eisegeted the idea into the text where it clearly was not intended based on the overall context of the epistle.

 

[VCO]

Given that Paul summed it all up with 'be eager to prophecy and do not forbid speaking in tongues', he still wants us to speak in tongues.

But that 'edification of the one who speaks' is why I believe Paul said it was the least of the gifts. Every other gift flows thru you to edify someone else. And we are to put others before ourselves. So the gifts that edify others are to be sought before one that edifies ourselves.

But even so, Paul still says that even tho it is the least of the gifts, it is the only one he said he wished we all would partake of.

That is because the purpose Tongues in the Church in Corinth, was not yet fulfilled and neither was the New Testament. Not only was the Church at Corinth attracting many out of the pagan religions, they were converting many Jews, who were hearing the genuine speakers of tongues proclaim the mighty works of GOD in their own dialectos.


1 Corinthians 14:21-22 (NIV)
[SUP]21 [/SUP] In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.
[SUP]22 [/SUP] Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.

THAT is not being done today. Tongues were for Unbelieving Jews. And the primary meaning of prophecy back then, only meant to proclaim the word of GOD without error.

Mark 16:20 (NIV)
[SUP]20 [/SUP] Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

Jews were not about to accept the New Testament without the God given signs, like the Prophets did.

 

[VCO]

I am about four pages into this now, and what I can say is this is a really good example of how NOT to eisegete the scriptures.

Why is it that when cessationists read about 'tongues of men and of angels' most of them INSIST it must be hyperbole, but when they read chapter 12, some of them insist that there was someone cursing Christ? Paul is giving 'extremes' in both cases. He says that no one curses Christ by the Holy Ghost and noone says "Jesus is Lord" but by the Holy Ghost. He's giving two extreme examples.

Paul does not state or imply that one of the Corinthian church people was cursing Christ. It is possible that unbelievers did. Paul corrected those who taught against the resurrection and mentioned directly that it was a problem. Why wouldn't Paul specifically address someone who had cursed Christ? Why not mention such a sin in the list of church discipline issues in I Corinthians 5 if it had actually occurred in the church in Corinth? To assume that Paul is addressing a specific case of a believer cursing Christ is far fetched, and pure eisegesis.

To take it a step further and treat the passage as if it is talking about a situation in which someone curses Christ 'in tongues' is totally irrational. It is as if you think if a scenario for who something might have happened pops into your head, it must be the truth. Some mentally ill people think the same way about their delusions. If you can think of a historical-fiction scenario that could possibly fit a particular passage of scripture, that doesn't make the historical fiction true.

This is an abuse of the cultural historical method of interpretation. And abuse of this method is quite widespread. Your article mentions John MacArthur. He has put forth one of the most preposterous bits of eisegesis on this topic I've ever seen, maybe the worst. In one of his sermons, he uses the Oracle of Delphi as some sort of exegetical key to explain I Corinthians 14. Supposedly, the 'tongues' were supposed to be like the utterances of the Oracle of Delphi. There is no reference to this in the passage. He tries to tie in the reference to 'mysteries' in 'speaks mysteries with his spirit' with the 'mystery religions.' This is totally ridiculous, since Paul uses the word in a very positive sense to refer to the mysteries of the Gospel in all other scriptures in which he mentions it. He even calls the tongues they were speaking 'pagan tongues'. His disdain for tongues reached the point where he even made such an accusation against the very speaking in tongues done by the church in Biblical times. And what is the believer who accepts MacArthur's exegesis supposed to do with the rest of the passage? Conclude that Paul wanted the saints to pray to interpret 'pagan tongues' like those of the oracle of Delphi to edify the congregation? Conclude that Paul engaged in speaking 'pagan tongues'? Conclude that Paul, no, even the Lord, commanded that pagan tongues be interpreted.. This is some bad, messed up eisegesis. And I notice you mention him in an article on the subject.

When you interpret the Bible, you have to start with the text. If you start looking at outside historical and cultural resources and bring in an interpretation that actually contradicts the text, we have a problem. History and culture is helpful in understanding scripture in a lot of cases. But this method is often abused. Here, we see a 'conservative' abuse. We often read of liberals doing it. I've seen someone try to argue from culture and history that Job and Abraham worshiped Horus. I've seen people insist that the reasons for instructions for women in I Timothy 2 had to do with a female priesthood to Diana in Ephesus. I don't debate that there was a cult of Diana in Ephesus, but it has nothing to do with the argument in the text.

And your presuppositions, trying to eisegete your application of paganism into the text leads in a different direction from what Paul is teaching. Paul doesn't even hint that people were cursing Christ in tongues. There is nothing in the book that would cause the reader to think that he was concerned about false tongues or demonic tongues. It is not hinted at. Paul focuses on the need for tongues to be interpreted to edify others in the church. Demonic ramblings are not edifying. Interpretations of people cursing Christ are not edifying. There is not even a hint that any of the Corinthians were speaking in pagan tongues. Paul doesn't even raise the possibility. The issues he raises are tongues edifying the self versus the need of the congregation to be edified. So tongues need to be interpreted, or believers need to engage in mutually edifying activities like prophesying.

Your interpretation has people scared that some demon is going to use their tongue, something Paul does not warn about. Paul's writings lead the reader to covet and desire to use spiritual gifts. Your article would have people who believe it scared that the Devil might use them without them knowing it if they are zealous for spiritual gifts.

You've got a message you want to spread. You wrap some history and verses around it. But it is not the same message Paul is teaching in this part of scripture.

I will not argue with you, and our opinions of Dr. John MacArthur are 180 degrees apart. To me he is one the best Spiritually lead Bible Teachers in the land. READ THE BOOKS on the History of Corinth, and the History of the Mystery Religions, I DID. Where on earth did you get the idea that our Bibles contain every detail? The last verse in John, says we have only the highlights. Paul wrote the letter to Corinth to correct the multiple number of problems and confusions they were having. He would not have written that "No one by the Spirit says Jesus is accursed" if it had not happened; besides I have found evidence that it still does happen.

We agree to disagree, totally on this subject. No point in responding to this.

 

[VCO]

VCO, I was also thinking about your second hand testimonial evidence for people cursing in tongues. I've heard testimonial evidence of other people hearing tongues where it wasn't cursing. I spoke with a woman who is from a missionary family to China whose husband is Chinese. She's heard people speaking in tongues in English in China, from an old village woman who was saying something that sounded like it came out of the Psalms. I've known people whose prayer in tongues was understood, a missionary whose rebuke to those trying to thwart the crusade was understood 'in tongues' in the local language.

So if some people quote the Psalms in tongues and other people pray, etc. in tongues, and your evidence were true and legit, too, then you should be expecting, based on anecdotal evidence, true and false tongues.

As far as the Bible goes, Jesus said if you being evil know how to give good gives to your children, how much more shall your Father in heaven give good things to them that ask Him. The Gospel of Luke says give the Holy Ghost to them that ask Him. We don't have to be afraid we'll end up with a demon spirit.

But of course, demons could speak through people in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, or whatever other languages demoniacs were speaking in in the accounts in scripture. Demonized people could go to church and speak something demonic in another language. It is something that is possible, but not something the Bible warns believers may happen to them. We need to have the positive attitude toward spiritual gifts that Paul encourages, not some kind of unbiblical fear-mongering.

As far as your second-hand missionary accounts go, in one of them, a missionary goes to church, hears tongues, and runs out vomitting? If you heard someone curse you, would you run outside and vomit? Maybe if a guy were an emotional wreck, it might happen. But generally, I wouldn't expect that reaction. I speak Indonesian. If someone in the US cursed me in Indonesian, I wouldn't seem myself vomitting unless I happened to have an upset stomach.

The verse, that says that the righteous are as bold as a lion; the wicked flee though none pursue comes to mind. I could imagine a scenario where a missionary went to church, someone spoke his secret sin in tongues, and it was so bad that he went outside and vomited and claimed he was being cursed at to hide his secret. I'm not saying that is what happened. I don't know the guy. But someone claiming the tongues are demonic cursing is just as 'subjective' to someone who does not know the language as the missionary's claims were in your second or third hand story.

Your friend's friend's experiences are no basis for doctrine. We need to stick with what the Bible teaches on this issue. It definitely does not teach believers to be afraid that if they receive or exercise spiritual gifts that they will say something demonic or something like that. Paul was dealing with former pagans who had had fellowship with demons before their conversion, and he did not even raise such a warning. But later commentators who abuse the cultural historical approach have eisegeted the idea into the text where it clearly was not intended based on the overall context of the epistle.

I asked you not to read it if you were going to get mad about it. I guess you skipped over that request. That Study I wrote, is only an example of why we non-charismatics do not believe in the charismatic experience. As for your comment on the Missionary vomiting outside after the lady cursed at him in the native tongue of the African tribe he worked with. I can tell you have never been very, very close to absolute evil. I and my wife have, and yes it will make you nauseous.

No point in discussing this. We will agree to disagree is all there is to it.

 

[notuptome]

I asked you not to read it if you were going to get mad about it. I guess you skipped over that request. That Study I wrote, is only an example of why we non-charismatics do not believe in the charismatic experience. As for your comment on the Missionary vomiting outside after the lady cursed at him in the native tongue of the African tribe he worked with. I can tell you have never been very, very close to absolute evil. I and my wife have, and yes it will make you nauseous.

No point in discussing this. We will agree to disagree is all there is to it.

I'm confident that you are not surprised at the responses of the Pentecostal and charismatics that are here on CC. You have done a fine job on the paper you have graciously given to the readers here on CC.

Thank you.

For the cause of Christ
Roger