Tongues???
- Thread starter 88
- Start date
-
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.
Albeit he speaks in mysteries. To who? God? There are no mysteries to be speaking to God, is there? So you are not reading that verse right, brother.
Paul began the topic for that chapter with this verse....
1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
See that? If anyone desires spiritual gifts, seek the gift of prophesy over all spiritual gifts. Then he began to EXPLAIN WHY by comparing the gift of prophesy against the gift of tongues. That is his point as he reiterates it again in verse 12 because by comparing the two, he explains that tongues is not a stand alone gift because it does not come without interpretation.
1 Corinthians 14:[SUP]6 [/SUP]Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?[SUP]7 [/SUP]And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?[SUP]8 [/SUP]For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?[SUP]9 [/SUP]So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.[SUP]10 [/SUP]There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.[SUP]11 [/SUP]Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.[SUP]12 [/SUP]Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.[SUP]13 [/SUP]Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
What? Did you overlook all those verses from 6- 12 to know what he had meant in verse 13 that tongues is supposed to come with interpretation for what Paul is praying for when he speaks in tongues?
Paul is not giving any room for tongues to come without interpretation, now is he?
So you are reading verse 2 out of context of verse 1 in why Paul was comparing the gift of prophecy against the gift of tongues as to why every believer should seek the gift of prophecy over all spiritual gits, including tongues, because God's gift of tongues comes with interpretation and when it does not, that is why Paul can tell that person to be silent because his tongue is not being manifested by the Holy Spirit as it is his own native tongue that is being spoken here.
Explain the conundrum here if you believe God's gift of tongues can come without interpretation.
1 Corinthians 14:28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
And yet... Paul said...
1 Corinthians 14:[SUP]39 [/SUP]Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
So again, Paul concludes for believers to seek the gift of prophesy and yet when it comes to tongues, if there is no interpretation, the person is to be silent even though Paul forbids not to speak in tongues therefore tongues are supposed to come with interpretation.
That means God's gift of tongues are never used for a prayer language of the Holy Spirit. Period.
You can't say that it is you praying &/or that the Holy Spirit is praying. It is one or the other. The truth here is, God's gift of tongues is of other men's lips to speak unto the people as Paul gave the bottomline on tongues for clarity's sake so that is tongues is not you praying in tongues nor the Holy Spirit praying in tongues, BUT you praying that someone else may interpret the tongue you are speaking as manifested by the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 14:[SUP]20 [/SUP]Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.[SUP]21 [/SUP]In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
You wish to defend tongues without interpretation, but by His grace & by His help, I wish to defend the faith in Jesus Christ that there is no receiving of the Holy Spirit apart from salvation for any believer to seek after in receiving after a sign like tongues without interpretation which is not God's actual gift of tongues.
Paul began the topic for that chapter with this verse....
1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
See that? If anyone desires spiritual gifts, seek the gift of prophesy over all spiritual gifts. Then he began to EXPLAIN WHY by comparing the gift of prophesy against the gift of tongues. That is his point as he reiterates it again in verse 12 because by comparing the two, he explains that tongues is not a stand alone gift because it does not come without interpretation.
1 Corinthians 14:[SUP]6 [/SUP]Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?[SUP]7 [/SUP]And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?[SUP]8 [/SUP]For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?[SUP]9 [/SUP]So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.[SUP]10 [/SUP]There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.[SUP]11 [/SUP]Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.[SUP]12 [/SUP]Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.[SUP]13 [/SUP]Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
What? Did you overlook all those verses from 6- 12 to know what he had meant in verse 13 that tongues is supposed to come with interpretation for what Paul is praying for when he speaks in tongues?
Paul is not giving any room for tongues to come without interpretation, now is he?
So you are reading verse 2 out of context of verse 1 in why Paul was comparing the gift of prophecy against the gift of tongues as to why every believer should seek the gift of prophecy over all spiritual gits, including tongues, because God's gift of tongues comes with interpretation and when it does not, that is why Paul can tell that person to be silent because his tongue is not being manifested by the Holy Spirit as it is his own native tongue that is being spoken here.
Explain the conundrum here if you believe God's gift of tongues can come without interpretation.
1 Corinthians 14:28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
And yet... Paul said...
1 Corinthians 14:[SUP]39 [/SUP]Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
So again, Paul concludes for believers to seek the gift of prophesy and yet when it comes to tongues, if there is no interpretation, the person is to be silent even though Paul forbids not to speak in tongues therefore tongues are supposed to come with interpretation.
That means God's gift of tongues are never used for a prayer language of the Holy Spirit. Period.
You can't say that it is you praying &/or that the Holy Spirit is praying. It is one or the other. The truth here is, God's gift of tongues is of other men's lips to speak unto the people as Paul gave the bottomline on tongues for clarity's sake so that is tongues is not you praying in tongues nor the Holy Spirit praying in tongues, BUT you praying that someone else may interpret the tongue you are speaking as manifested by the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 14:[SUP]20 [/SUP]Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.[SUP]21 [/SUP]In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
You wish to defend tongues without interpretation, but by His grace & by His help, I wish to defend the faith in Jesus Christ that there is no receiving of the Holy Spirit apart from salvation for any believer to seek after in receiving after a sign like tongues without interpretation which is not God's actual gift of tongues.
God describes His word as Spirit.
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
The Holy Spirit does not tell us things that are not in the bible. The Holy Spirit only speaks what He hears and He hears from the Father in heaven.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
The Holy Spirit does not tell us things that are not in the bible. The Holy Spirit only speaks what He hears and He hears from the Father in heaven.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
most Protestants use a bible with 66 books in it.
I think the only way we can know that that is the right bible is if something outside of the bible told us, since the bible doesn't say how many books should be in it, or which versions of those books (for example, the longer or shorter sending of Mark).
I think the only way we can know that that is the right bible is if something outside of the bible told us, since the bible doesn't say how many books should be in it, or which versions of those books (for example, the longer or shorter sending of Mark).
They are mysteries spoken to God if we don't know what they are (or didn't know what they are and they are made known.)
Even the way you are interpreting it, I don't see how that supports your argument. How do you interpret the verse? DO you think it is just wrong?
Okay, yes the chapter argues for that. I don't see anyone here arguing that uninterpreted tongues is as edifying to the church as prophesying. Everything Paul said about speaking in tongues is still true, also.
Pay attention to the details, phrases like 'yet in the church' and 'keep silent in the church'. Paul said, "I speak with tongues more than ye all: Yet in the church...."
Tongues can be used 'stand alone', but in the congregation the gift of interpretation is required to edify others. It is better to edify the body than to edify oneself. But if there is no interpreter, one who speaks in tongues is allowed to do so, but he must keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God.
No. I've posted quite a bit on the topic throughout the thread, which is rather long. You are making a straw man argument. In the congregation, tongues need to be interpreted.
There is a whole chapter here. Paul does allow for tongues without interpretation in verse 28. Paul's 'restriction' on interpretation is 'yet in the church'. He clearly is making room for uninterpreted tongues when he says 'but let him speak to himself and to God.
That is a strange bit of eisegesis. Why would speaking in tongues suddenly change from a supernatural gift to a natural language if there is no interpreter? That doesn't make sense. The problem is you start from the assumption that tongues is not a 'stand alone gift' rather than learning whether it is or not.
Tongues can function as a 'stand alone gift', but in the assembly, it needs to be used with the gift of interpretation to edify the body.
There is no conundrum. Peter says to use the gifts as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. The Spirit enables individuals to speak in tongues, and as a matter of stewardship, they need to use it according to a certain order if they do so in the church. This order includes interpretation of tongues so that others in the church may be edified.
In verse 28, you underlined 'let him keep silent in the church', but it also says 'and let him speak to himself and to God.' He is allowed to speak in tongues without interpretation, but he is to keep silent in the church if there is no interpreter. If he does speak in tongues without an interpreter, he edifies himself.
It is good to speak in tongues and to edify oneself, for Paul says, "I would that ye all spake with tongues" but it is better to prophesy and edify others, bfor Paul says, "but rather that ye may prophesy."
No, one of those verses shows that speaking in tongues can be used for prayer 'and let him speak to himself and to God.'
The reason you come to your conclusion is you eisegete something weird that doesn't make sense into the verse. In verse 28, if I understand you write, the word 'tongues'-- one occurence of it-- has two definitions for you. One is the supernatural ability to speak in a language. The other is a natural language. If there is an interpreter, well the word 'tongues' there means the supernatural ability. If not, the guy just knows Spanish or whatever. Human language doesn't work like that. That's not a normal way of writing or communicating.
The reason there is a conundrum is you are assume speaking in tongues can never be 'stand alone' and then try to read that idea into the text when it doesn't make sense.
I haven't actually told you that speaking in tongues is the Holy Spirit praying. Paul said if he prayed in a tongue, his spirit prays. So it is the human spirit that prays. But the ability to do so comes through a gift of the Holy Spirit. The words to pray do come from the Holy Spirit. But the speaker's spirit also prays.
Ummm. That doesn't really address the issue of where the words come from.
False dichotomy. I Corinthians 14 shows that there can be tongues without intepretation.
Even the way you are interpreting it, I don't see how that supports your argument. How do you interpret the verse? DO you think it is just wrong?
Okay, yes the chapter argues for that. I don't see anyone here arguing that uninterpreted tongues is as edifying to the church as prophesying. Everything Paul said about speaking in tongues is still true, also.
Pay attention to the details, phrases like 'yet in the church' and 'keep silent in the church'. Paul said, "I speak with tongues more than ye all: Yet in the church...."
Tongues can be used 'stand alone', but in the congregation the gift of interpretation is required to edify others. It is better to edify the body than to edify oneself. But if there is no interpreter, one who speaks in tongues is allowed to do so, but he must keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God.
No. I've posted quite a bit on the topic throughout the thread, which is rather long. You are making a straw man argument. In the congregation, tongues need to be interpreted.
There is a whole chapter here. Paul does allow for tongues without interpretation in verse 28. Paul's 'restriction' on interpretation is 'yet in the church'. He clearly is making room for uninterpreted tongues when he says 'but let him speak to himself and to God.
That is a strange bit of eisegesis. Why would speaking in tongues suddenly change from a supernatural gift to a natural language if there is no interpreter? That doesn't make sense. The problem is you start from the assumption that tongues is not a 'stand alone gift' rather than learning whether it is or not.
Tongues can function as a 'stand alone gift', but in the assembly, it needs to be used with the gift of interpretation to edify the body.
There is no conundrum. Peter says to use the gifts as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. The Spirit enables individuals to speak in tongues, and as a matter of stewardship, they need to use it according to a certain order if they do so in the church. This order includes interpretation of tongues so that others in the church may be edified.
In verse 28, you underlined 'let him keep silent in the church', but it also says 'and let him speak to himself and to God.' He is allowed to speak in tongues without interpretation, but he is to keep silent in the church if there is no interpreter. If he does speak in tongues without an interpreter, he edifies himself.
It is good to speak in tongues and to edify oneself, for Paul says, "I would that ye all spake with tongues" but it is better to prophesy and edify others, bfor Paul says, "but rather that ye may prophesy."
No, one of those verses shows that speaking in tongues can be used for prayer 'and let him speak to himself and to God.'
The reason you come to your conclusion is you eisegete something weird that doesn't make sense into the verse. In verse 28, if I understand you write, the word 'tongues'-- one occurence of it-- has two definitions for you. One is the supernatural ability to speak in a language. The other is a natural language. If there is an interpreter, well the word 'tongues' there means the supernatural ability. If not, the guy just knows Spanish or whatever. Human language doesn't work like that. That's not a normal way of writing or communicating.
The reason there is a conundrum is you are assume speaking in tongues can never be 'stand alone' and then try to read that idea into the text when it doesn't make sense.
I haven't actually told you that speaking in tongues is the Holy Spirit praying. Paul said if he prayed in a tongue, his spirit prays. So it is the human spirit that prays. But the ability to do so comes through a gift of the Holy Spirit. The words to pray do come from the Holy Spirit. But the speaker's spirit also prays.
Ummm. That doesn't really address the issue of where the words come from.
False dichotomy. I Corinthians 14 shows that there can be tongues without intepretation.
Enow,
I think it would help if you would, first of all, pray for understanding when you read the scriptures.
But also with I Corinthians 14, do not read the passage based on the assumption that tongues cannot be 'stand alone'. Rather, read the chapter to find out whether tongues can be a 'stand alone gift'.
I think it would help if you would, first of all, pray for understanding when you read the scriptures.
But also with I Corinthians 14, do not read the passage based on the assumption that tongues cannot be 'stand alone'. Rather, read the chapter to find out whether tongues can be a 'stand alone gift'.
Enow,
I think it would help if you would, first of all, pray for understanding when you read the scriptures.
But also with I Corinthians 14, do not read the passage based on the assumption that tongues cannot be 'stand alone'. Rather, read the chapter to find out whether tongues can be a 'stand alone gift'.
I think it would help if you would, first of all, pray for understanding when you read the scriptures.
But also with I Corinthians 14, do not read the passage based on the assumption that tongues cannot be 'stand alone'. Rather, read the chapter to find out whether tongues can be a 'stand alone gift'.
It was a language foreign to that of the auditors or hearer, and therefore, not known to “them". Not unknown to the person being moved to bring prophecy.
It was not a tongue unknown to all mankind;' and from thereafter an improper conclusion, that we can mumble and God accredits it and encourages the believer to make sounds without meaning instead of unknown to another people.
The words “unknown” is not the Apostle's word, but only an supplement in Italic suggested by the English revisers of the seventeenth century.
The law is still as it is written below .
1Co 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to “them” that believe, but to “them” that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
No such thing as self edifying as if any man could be found with some sort of righteousness of their own selves to prove to themselves they have the Holy Spirit.
The Talmud as a law of the fathers makes the word of God without effect .Why would any man look to the private interpretations as oral traditions of the fathers in whom Christ called a brood of vipers and not the scriptures alone?
The Jews sought after a sign that they performed to give them a false confidence they had the Holy Spirit. The cross was a stumbling block. It why Christ said to them who held to the witness of men above that of Christ the Holy Spirit, below.
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.I receive not honour from men. oh 5:36
Along with searching the scriptures as evidence they had the Holy Spirit there were many oral traditions of the fathers (kosher) that make the faith of God without effect.
Why do you think he spoke that way to those in who would not come to him by faith but needed to work to provide their own witness that they have the Holy Spirit ? where is their confidence in the scriptures without the Talmud.(private interpretations of the fathers)
The Jews sought after a sign that they performed to give them a false confidence they had the Holy Spirit. The cross was a stumbling block. It why Christ said to them who held to the witness of men above that of Christ the Holy Spirit, below.
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.I receive not honour from men. oh 5:36
Along with searching the scriptures as evidence they had the Holy Spirit there were many oral traditions of the fathers (kosher) that make the faith of God without effect.
Why do you think he spoke that way to those in who would not come to him by faith but needed to work to provide their own witness that they have the Holy Spirit ? where is their confidence in the scriptures without the Talmud.(private interpretations of the fathers)
garee,
I mentioned the Talmud because of your weird presuppositions about history and how Jews back then thought. What evidence is there from the Bible that any first century Jews.... who weren't Christians... thought in terms of their having the Holy Spirit?
Having the indwelling Holy Spirit is important to christians.
I mentioned the Talmud because of your weird presuppositions about history and how Jews back then thought. What evidence is there from the Bible that any first century Jews.... who weren't Christians... thought in terms of their having the Holy Spirit?
Having the indwelling Holy Spirit is important to christians.
You made that last bit up, the part about tongues not being unknown to the speaker. (Paul makes a distinction between interpreting tongues and prophesying. Your calling interpretation a 'prophecy' hinders communication.) The Bible doesn't say the 120 understood all of the 17 or so languages and dialects they were speaking in.
I Corinthians 14:13 says for he who speaks in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret. If he knows the language, why does he have to pray to interpret? We see in chapter 12 that interpretation is a gift of the Spirit. Interpretation is accomplished through supernatural means, not because the speaker understands the language. If someone prays in tongues, Paul says his understanding is unfruitful.
This is well established. My argument does not rest on the use of the word 'unknown.' I was just quoting from the KJV. We get KJV-onlyists on here who get bent out of shape if you don't use the KJV, and I memorized this passage in KJV way back when, so sometimes I use that translation.
Tongues is a sign to them that believe not. 'Divers tongues' is also among the manifestations of the Spirit give to believers 'for the common good.' Speaking in tongues edifies the speaker. If it is interpreted it edifies the church. I wonder if you read the word 'only' into these verses where it is not stated. Paul does not say that tongues is only for a sign to them that believe not. The other things the book teaches about speaking in tongues are true, too.
Your ideas or disjointed and incoherent here. It looks like idea tossed salad. If you have something to say, explain it clearly.
There is self-edifying. The passage teaches that he that speaks in tongues edifies himself. Speaking in tongues is not directly tied to righteousness in the passage, or in any of the arguments of posters on the thread that I can recall at the moment.
I Corinthians 14:13 says for he who speaks in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret. If he knows the language, why does he have to pray to interpret? We see in chapter 12 that interpretation is a gift of the Spirit. Interpretation is accomplished through supernatural means, not because the speaker understands the language. If someone prays in tongues, Paul says his understanding is unfruitful.
This is well established. My argument does not rest on the use of the word 'unknown.' I was just quoting from the KJV. We get KJV-onlyists on here who get bent out of shape if you don't use the KJV, and I memorized this passage in KJV way back when, so sometimes I use that translation.
Tongues is a sign to them that believe not. 'Divers tongues' is also among the manifestations of the Spirit give to believers 'for the common good.' Speaking in tongues edifies the speaker. If it is interpreted it edifies the church. I wonder if you read the word 'only' into these verses where it is not stated. Paul does not say that tongues is only for a sign to them that believe not. The other things the book teaches about speaking in tongues are true, too.
Your ideas or disjointed and incoherent here. It looks like idea tossed salad. If you have something to say, explain it clearly.
There is self-edifying. The passage teaches that he that speaks in tongues edifies himself. Speaking in tongues is not directly tied to righteousness in the passage, or in any of the arguments of posters on the thread that I can recall at the moment.
R
speaking in tongues is scriptural (act 2) and it speaks that they all spoke different "ancient" languages of those who were on the on the outside of the "upper room" KJV
speaking in tongues...is a gift...Jesus told his deciples...maybe others(I don't recall) I will go to my father ... and I will send a comforter (the holy spirit)
speaking in tongues...is a gift...Jesus told his deciples...maybe others(I don't recall) I will go to my father ... and I will send a comforter (the holy spirit)
So why then speaking in tongues is not normal for all Christians? Which got the Holy Spirit? It is only normal for Pentecostals and Charismatics. And this seems because of the second baptism with the Holy Spirit. But in 1. Cor. 12 and 14 I find speaking in tongues as a normal gift like others too. It was not connectet with a second baptism of the Holy Spirit.