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.
You do demonstrate yourself to be a deep thinker.
Tongues from the perspective of Israel in the bible are a sign of Gods judgment. First reference is the tower of Babel and the languages which are tongues were confused because of Gods judgment on mankind.
Genesis 11:1 ¶ And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 ¶ And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Tongues from the perspective of Israel in the bible are a sign of Gods judgment. First reference is the tower of Babel and the languages which are tongues were confused because of Gods judgment on mankind.
Genesis 11:1 ¶ And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 ¶ And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Jesus and the apostles did miracles. Doing miracles is not the same as walking by sight. The apostles asked Jesus to tell them a sign and He did. The apostles prayed to God to do signs and wonders for the sake of Jesus. The Bible calls none of these things walking by faith and not by sight.
You like to define terms according to your own human reasoning. But in doing so, you contradict the scriptures. I pointed out that the scriptures that contradict, but you have still repeated your unbiblical views. 'But be ye transformed by the renewing your of your minds.'
You keep quoting the 'Wherefore tongues are for a sign...' verse as your 'law of signs.' But then you try to squeeze things out of that verse that aren't even there. THe verse does not teach that signs are only for them that believe not.
Saying that 'tongues are for a sign...to them that believe not' is NOT the same thing as saying signs are only for them that do not believe. I really do not know why you do not seem to understand the words on the page and keep repeating these strange ideas.
I could insist that the Bible teaches that eating chocolate is forbidden if I wanted, and then show you the same verse "Wherefore, tongues are for a sign..." Then I could say, "See, it says not to eat chocolate." The difference with that scenario and what you present is that your ideas are a little more related to the passage. But the similarity is the eisegesis, reading something into the passage that the passage does not say at all.
I have already quoted scripture that proves many of your assertions wrong. There are those who believe without seeing signs and wonders. There are those who believe after seeing them.
There are those who will believe without seeing signs and wonders, and there may be those who would only believe after seeing them. The fact that someone sees after seeing signs and wonders doesn't prove he wouldn't have believed without them. But after a nobleman asked for Jesus to heal His Son, Jesus said, "Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe." But He continued on to do signs and wonders, and there were people who believed in him. After the miracle in Cana of Galilee, Jesus' disciples believed on Him. Where is that in your belief system? You read an idea about signs and wonders into certain scriptures that isn't even there-- that signs are only for unbelievers-- and ignore the scriptures that contradict your view. I suspect if you respond to this, you'll respond by stringing some dijointed religious concepts together in a sentence. I will pray for spiritual understanding for you. The root of the problem seems an inability to perceive. Be humble and ask God to help you understand.
The unbelief of unbelieving Jews is not god. Their unbelief does not determine or define God's purposes. What they want God to do with signs does not limit what God wants to do with signs. If the Jews required a sign when Paul preached to them, that does not force God to use signs only for unbelieving Jews. In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas told of the signs they did among the Gentiles. God had a purpose for Gentiles, too, in addition to Israel, with those wonders He did in Egypt, that the Egyptians might know that He is the LORD.
David did not say to abstain from fornication in this particular verse, but we should. David did not say to believe that Jesus rose from the dead in this particular verse, but we should. What kind of line of reasoning is this? This particular verse doesn't mention an idea, so that is supposed to be proof of something?
No one is argue that we should refuse to believe God unless He sends us a sign. But there are those who believe the Gospel after seeing it presented with signs and wonders. That is evident in the scriptures. Thomas actually refused to believe in Christ's resurrection unless he experienced certain evidences of it and Christ was merciful to Him and said to 'be not faithless but believing.' Thomas missed out on a blessing, the blessing those have who have not seen and yet have believed.
But there is no reference to the idea in most of those passages in the Gospel or Acts that those who believed after seeing signs and wonders were demanding to see signs before they believed.
Do you use this formula for Bible interpretation a lot? Ignore the plain sense of the text, and then read into it an allegorical interpretation that supports your argument, an argument that contradicts other scripture?
Way back when, armies used standards, for example a wooden frame with their banner or symbol on it.
Does taking a verse and reading an idea into it that isn't there at all, an idea that contradicts other scripture, qualify for setting up your own standard? I just saw you do that with 'tongues are for a sign.' That verse doesn't say that all signs are only for them that do not believe. There is scripture that contradicts that idea.
Certain Jews demanded a sign from Jesus. Jesus said a wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and only gave them the sign of the prophet Jonah. His disciples asked Him for a sign, and He went into great detail. The fact that a wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign does not mean that all who seek a sign are wicked and adulterous. It doesn't make the apostles wicked or adulterous. Notice that Jesus gave them a sign when they requested it. The attitude of their hearts was different.
A wicked and adulterous generation ate bread. Do you eat bread? Does that make you wicked or adulterous? Do you see the error in your reasoning? The fact that a wicked and adulterous generation sought a sign doesn't mean that all who sought a sign are wicked and adulterous.
Why aren't you consistent with your own belief system? There is no reason to believe some of your allegorical interpretations if they are not revealed by the Holy Spirit. Do you admit that your allegorical interpretations are not revealed by the Holy Spirit?
Revelation is an ongoing thing. No man can know the Father, except the Son reveal Him. Paul prayed for the saints to have the Spirit of Revelation. The gift of prophecy is a revelatory gift, and we live in the last days when the 'sons and daughters shall prophesy.'
You like to define terms according to your own human reasoning. But in doing so, you contradict the scriptures. I pointed out that the scriptures that contradict, but you have still repeated your unbiblical views. 'But be ye transformed by the renewing your of your minds.'
You keep quoting the 'Wherefore tongues are for a sign...' verse as your 'law of signs.' But then you try to squeeze things out of that verse that aren't even there. THe verse does not teach that signs are only for them that believe not.
Saying that 'tongues are for a sign...to them that believe not' is NOT the same thing as saying signs are only for them that do not believe. I really do not know why you do not seem to understand the words on the page and keep repeating these strange ideas.
I could insist that the Bible teaches that eating chocolate is forbidden if I wanted, and then show you the same verse "Wherefore, tongues are for a sign..." Then I could say, "See, it says not to eat chocolate." The difference with that scenario and what you present is that your ideas are a little more related to the passage. But the similarity is the eisegesis, reading something into the passage that the passage does not say at all.
I have already quoted scripture that proves many of your assertions wrong. There are those who believe without seeing signs and wonders. There are those who believe after seeing them.
There are those who will believe without seeing signs and wonders, and there may be those who would only believe after seeing them. The fact that someone sees after seeing signs and wonders doesn't prove he wouldn't have believed without them. But after a nobleman asked for Jesus to heal His Son, Jesus said, "Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe." But He continued on to do signs and wonders, and there were people who believed in him. After the miracle in Cana of Galilee, Jesus' disciples believed on Him. Where is that in your belief system? You read an idea about signs and wonders into certain scriptures that isn't even there-- that signs are only for unbelievers-- and ignore the scriptures that contradict your view. I suspect if you respond to this, you'll respond by stringing some dijointed religious concepts together in a sentence. I will pray for spiritual understanding for you. The root of the problem seems an inability to perceive. Be humble and ask God to help you understand.
The unbelief of unbelieving Jews is not god. Their unbelief does not determine or define God's purposes. What they want God to do with signs does not limit what God wants to do with signs. If the Jews required a sign when Paul preached to them, that does not force God to use signs only for unbelieving Jews. In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas told of the signs they did among the Gentiles. God had a purpose for Gentiles, too, in addition to Israel, with those wonders He did in Egypt, that the Egyptians might know that He is the LORD.
David did not say to abstain from fornication in this particular verse, but we should. David did not say to believe that Jesus rose from the dead in this particular verse, but we should. What kind of line of reasoning is this? This particular verse doesn't mention an idea, so that is supposed to be proof of something?
No one is argue that we should refuse to believe God unless He sends us a sign. But there are those who believe the Gospel after seeing it presented with signs and wonders. That is evident in the scriptures. Thomas actually refused to believe in Christ's resurrection unless he experienced certain evidences of it and Christ was merciful to Him and said to 'be not faithless but believing.' Thomas missed out on a blessing, the blessing those have who have not seen and yet have believed.
But there is no reference to the idea in most of those passages in the Gospel or Acts that those who believed after seeing signs and wonders were demanding to see signs before they believed.
Do you use this formula for Bible interpretation a lot? Ignore the plain sense of the text, and then read into it an allegorical interpretation that supports your argument, an argument that contradicts other scripture?
Way back when, armies used standards, for example a wooden frame with their banner or symbol on it.
Does taking a verse and reading an idea into it that isn't there at all, an idea that contradicts other scripture, qualify for setting up your own standard? I just saw you do that with 'tongues are for a sign.' That verse doesn't say that all signs are only for them that do not believe. There is scripture that contradicts that idea.
Certain Jews demanded a sign from Jesus. Jesus said a wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and only gave them the sign of the prophet Jonah. His disciples asked Him for a sign, and He went into great detail. The fact that a wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign does not mean that all who seek a sign are wicked and adulterous. It doesn't make the apostles wicked or adulterous. Notice that Jesus gave them a sign when they requested it. The attitude of their hearts was different.
A wicked and adulterous generation ate bread. Do you eat bread? Does that make you wicked or adulterous? Do you see the error in your reasoning? The fact that a wicked and adulterous generation sought a sign doesn't mean that all who sought a sign are wicked and adulterous.
Why aren't you consistent with your own belief system? There is no reason to believe some of your allegorical interpretations if they are not revealed by the Holy Spirit. Do you admit that your allegorical interpretations are not revealed by the Holy Spirit?
Revelation is an ongoing thing. No man can know the Father, except the Son reveal Him. Paul prayed for the saints to have the Spirit of Revelation. The gift of prophecy is a revelatory gift, and we live in the last days when the 'sons and daughters shall prophesy.'
Last edited:
I have bolded the part of the passage below that shows that speaking in tongues can be done in a 'stand alone' manner.
I Corinthians 14
[FONT="][SUP]27 [/SUP]If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.[/FONT]
[FONT="][SUP]28 [/SUP]But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.[/FONT]
I Corinthians 14
[FONT="][SUP]27 [/SUP]If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.[/FONT]
[FONT="][SUP]28 [/SUP]But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.[/FONT]
W
"stand alone" "keep silent", So why are you "shouting from the roof tops?"
Anyone that claims tongues to a believer or an unbeliever should have an interpreter present EVERY time. If not.............stand alone. Don't drag ANYONE into it. Don't mention it to anyone. Don't "hint" it to anyone. It is between them and the Lord.
Anyone that had biblical tongues( ended in 70AD) had an interpreter. If they didn't have an interpreter.............they kept SILENT.
Not to many silent tongues speakers today. When's the last time you seen a fight over the gift of interpretation of tongues?
Anyone that claims tongues to a believer or an unbeliever should have an interpreter present EVERY time. If not.............stand alone. Don't drag ANYONE into it. Don't mention it to anyone. Don't "hint" it to anyone. It is between them and the Lord.
Anyone that had biblical tongues( ended in 70AD) had an interpreter. If they didn't have an interpreter.............they kept SILENT.
Not to many silent tongues speakers today. When's the last time you seen a fight over the gift of interpretation of tongues?
W
"I can't speak in tongues, but I am an interpreter of tongues and I can vouch that tongues is for today."
" If you don't have the gift of interpretation and deny my gift of interpretation then you are real close to blasphemy of the Spirit."
"your not really getting the whole Holy Spirit if you don't interpret."
Where are all these quotes or OP's or threads?
" If you don't have the gift of interpretation and deny my gift of interpretation then you are real close to blasphemy of the Spirit."
"your not really getting the whole Holy Spirit if you don't interpret."
Where are all these quotes or OP's or threads?
You should make your point a bit more clearly. I thought you were quoting posters from the forum until the last line.
You may not realize this, but some Christians do interpret tongues today. In the churches I grew up in, tongues spoken out to the assembly were interpreted, and it was believed that was the way it was supposed to be. I remember once, in a chapel service of a school affiliated with the church I went to, a young man spoke in tongues. No interpretation followed. The principle, who was a pastor, said something like, "I believe that tongue was for personal edification and not meant for the assembly." Then they went on with the chapel service.
Some of the Charismatics tell everyone to speak in tongues at the same time. I would agree with those who say that is disorderly.
You may not realize this, but some Christians do interpret tongues today. In the churches I grew up in, tongues spoken out to the assembly were interpreted, and it was believed that was the way it was supposed to be. I remember once, in a chapel service of a school affiliated with the church I went to, a young man spoke in tongues. No interpretation followed. The principle, who was a pastor, said something like, "I believe that tongue was for personal edification and not meant for the assembly." Then they went on with the chapel service.
Some of the Charismatics tell everyone to speak in tongues at the same time. I would agree with those who say that is disorderly.
Last edited:
W
Point made then.
What about the other post? All these folks shouting from the roof tops that they speak to God without an interpreter present.
Why are they telling us this, when they are suppose to "stand alone?" "keep silent?" Not a one of us should hear about these very private moments. Let alone all the bragging about them.
What about the other post? All these folks shouting from the roof tops that they speak to God without an interpreter present.
Why are they telling us this, when they are suppose to "stand alone?" "keep silent?" Not a one of us should hear about these very private moments. Let alone all the bragging about them.
Paul said, "...I speak with tongues more than ye all, yet in the church..." Paul told us that he spoke in tongues. Thhe implication is that he did so outside of the church. Would you accuse him of bragging for mentioning this fact? If you shared a bit of personal information about yourself and said you had a wife or a mother or father who was still living, I could accusing you of 'bragging', but that doesn't mean you intended to boast. Why would you interpret someone's reference to exercising a spiritual gift to be bragging. These gifts come from God, and Paul wrote earlier in the chapter, 'he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.'
W
Ok. Forget Bragging. Why are we hearing of believers shouting from the roof tops that they speak TO God when they are commanded to keep silent about those "stand alone"(your words) moments?
Paul never went around saying," I speak to God in non-understandable language." If he did, ( and I know he didn't) he was commanded not to tell anyone. Keep silent.
Paul never went around saying," I speak to God in non-understandable language." If he did, ( and I know he didn't) he was commanded not to tell anyone. Keep silent.
The verses we are discussing do not teach what you are saying. The passage says nothing about being silent ABOUT speaking in tongues. It doesn't say to keep it secret that you do speak in tongues. There is no way to squeeze that idea out of the passage. Paul announces that he speaks in tongues in the passage.
Paul was telling those who spoke in tongues to keep silent in the church if there was no interpreter. He did not say to abstain from discussing the topic of speaking in tongues or to keep it a secret that they spoke in tongues. The verse about keeping silent in the church is about not speaking in tongues if there is no interpretation. It is not about not discussing the topic of speaking in tongues.
Pray for God to give you understanding, and re-read the passage. Paul writes right there in the passage "...I speak in tongues more than ye all, yet in the church....". This was in the context of discussing the benefit and disadvantage of praying in tongues without an interpretation.
Paul was telling those who spoke in tongues to keep silent in the church if there was no interpreter. He did not say to abstain from discussing the topic of speaking in tongues or to keep it a secret that they spoke in tongues. The verse about keeping silent in the church is about not speaking in tongues if there is no interpretation. It is not about not discussing the topic of speaking in tongues.
Pray for God to give you understanding, and re-read the passage. Paul writes right there in the passage "...I speak in tongues more than ye all, yet in the church....". This was in the context of discussing the benefit and disadvantage of praying in tongues without an interpretation.
W
Do you have an interpreter with you? No? Then you stand alone. You keep silent. I, nor anyone here should be hearing about your speaking to God in tongues. YOU stand alone.
And the verse is the believer speaking UNTO God. The believer is speaking FOR God , a intelligent, understandable Gospel message.
God is not giving a cryptic message, from Himself, to a believer only to babble His message back to Himself.
And the verse is the believer speaking UNTO God. The believer is speaking FOR God , a intelligent, understandable Gospel message.
God is not giving a cryptic message, from Himself, to a believer only to babble His message back to Himself.
wsblind,
I assume that what geree means that tongues is not not being a 'stand alone' gift is that it functions together with the gift of interpretation. In other words, I interpret his post to mean that speaking in tongues doesn't function alone without the interpretation of tongues.
I disagree with that. If one were not able to speak in tongues without interpretation, Paul would not have to give the instructions to the Corinthians to keep silent in the church if there were no interpreter. If the gift could not be used in a disorderly manner, there would be no need for the instructions on proper order.
The restriction that tongues be interpreted specifically applies to the assembly. The passage does not restrict tongues spoken outside of the assembly. Paul says "I speak in tongues more than ye all, yet in the church...". It is okay to speak in tongues in prayer. But in church, it doesn't edify others unless it is interpreted.
I can see two possible interpretations of 'let him speak to himself and to God'. One is that he may speak in tongues outside of the assembly to himself and to God. The other, which I don't hold to, is that quiet speaking in tongues not spoken out as a message in tongues to the assembly is allowed.
I don't see how you can get the idea of preaching a gospel message out of that verse. If he's silent, he's not going to be preaching a gospel message in the language of the hearers.
I assume that what geree means that tongues is not not being a 'stand alone' gift is that it functions together with the gift of interpretation. In other words, I interpret his post to mean that speaking in tongues doesn't function alone without the interpretation of tongues.
I disagree with that. If one were not able to speak in tongues without interpretation, Paul would not have to give the instructions to the Corinthians to keep silent in the church if there were no interpreter. If the gift could not be used in a disorderly manner, there would be no need for the instructions on proper order.
The restriction that tongues be interpreted specifically applies to the assembly. The passage does not restrict tongues spoken outside of the assembly. Paul says "I speak in tongues more than ye all, yet in the church...". It is okay to speak in tongues in prayer. But in church, it doesn't edify others unless it is interpreted.
I can see two possible interpretations of 'let him speak to himself and to God'. One is that he may speak in tongues outside of the assembly to himself and to God. The other, which I don't hold to, is that quiet speaking in tongues not spoken out as a message in tongues to the assembly is allowed.
I don't see how you can get the idea of preaching a gospel message out of that verse. If he's silent, he's not going to be preaching a gospel message in the language of the hearers.
Hi Presindente
The gift is the interpretation of God working to give one the understanding of another who do not speak the same tongue.
The gift is twofold.It blesses the speaker as well as the hearer.
There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh , and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church .Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. 1Co 14:10-13
If another person speaks in a tongue unknown to the auditor... pray that you the auditor might be given the interpretation in your own language. And when you speak in a language foreign to them they might be given the interpretation of God so that the two can have a conversation in respect to the preaching of the gospel .
It is not a stand-alone gift. If God does not interpret , as He did when Peter spoke in his own tongue into 10 different tongues at the same time, neither one can understand the other.. He would be a barbarian, another language to the speaker, and vice versa.
.
Tongues have ceased, prophecy is complete/perfect, with no law left out by which a person could now God more intimately. .
The idea of making sounds that have no meaning is not a biblical doctrine. A person’s confidence comes by faith, the unseen not after some work a person could do outwardly before they have any confidence they have the Holy Spirit.
Tongues are an interpretation as a revelation of God, It is after no man.
The gift is the interpretation of God working to give one the understanding of another who do not speak the same tongue.
The gift is twofold.It blesses the speaker as well as the hearer.
There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh , and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church .Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. 1Co 14:10-13
If another person speaks in a tongue unknown to the auditor... pray that you the auditor might be given the interpretation in your own language. And when you speak in a language foreign to them they might be given the interpretation of God so that the two can have a conversation in respect to the preaching of the gospel .
It is not a stand-alone gift. If God does not interpret , as He did when Peter spoke in his own tongue into 10 different tongues at the same time, neither one can understand the other.. He would be a barbarian, another language to the speaker, and vice versa.
.
Tongues have ceased, prophecy is complete/perfect, with no law left out by which a person could now God more intimately. .
The idea of making sounds that have no meaning is not a biblical doctrine. A person’s confidence comes by faith, the unseen not after some work a person could do outwardly before they have any confidence they have the Holy Spirit.
Tongues are an interpretation as a revelation of God, It is after no man.
Last edited:
Your explanation is confusing. An auditor performs audits for taxes or company procedures or whatever. Do you mean orator? 'Audio' has to do with hearing. Do you mean listener?
I don't see where you get the idea of a conversation using interpretation of tongues from any passage in the Bible.
First of all, speaking in tongues can be 'stand alone' without interpretation. If it couldn't be used that way, Paul wouldn't have told the one who spoke in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret in I Corinthians 14:13. In that same chapter, Paul wrote, "I would that ye all spake with tongues." In context, he is talking about using the gift as 'stand alone' without interpretation. He says he would rather that they prophesied. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues because he who speaks in tongues edifies himself, and he who prophesies edifies the church. So this is contrasting 'stand alone' tongues with prophesying. There is an exception, though. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues unless he interprets, that the church may be edifying.
So the one who prophesies is greater than the one who uses tongues 'stand alone' without interpretation, unless the one who speaks in tongues also interprets. So it is clear that tongues can function as a 'stand alone' gift, but it is better to use it with interpretation, that the church may be edified.
There is no passage in the Bible where Peter spoke his own tongue and God interpreted it into 10 different languages. Acts 2 does not tell us that this happened. Peter was among those who actually spoke in other tongues. That is clear in the passage. They actually spoke in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
It does not say that they spoke in their own languages and other people heard in different languages.
It says that they spoke in other tongues and people heard the speaking their own languages.
Interpretation of tongues is a manifestation of the Spirit through individual believers. In I Corinthians 14, one person speaks in tongues and someone is to interpret. It doesn't say one person speaks in tongues and God interprets either through a booming voice or through the perceptions of the listener. It doesn't teach that this is interpretation.
This is part of Paul's argument for why speaking in tongues needs to be interpreted. Paul has already established that speaking in tongues exists, and that the the one who speaks in tongues edifies himself
The Bible teaches that whether there be tongues, they will cease. It does not teach that the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased. Whenever anyone speaks in tongues, he eventually ceases. It doesn't go on forever.
No, we know in part and we prophesy in part. You know in part, too. Your knowledge is not complete. If our knowledge were complete, we wouldn't all be having conversations like this one on these forums.
According to Paul, tongues are not without signification. They do have meaning. Those who do not know the language do not understand them.
I don't see where you get the idea of a conversation using interpretation of tongues from any passage in the Bible.
First of all, speaking in tongues can be 'stand alone' without interpretation. If it couldn't be used that way, Paul wouldn't have told the one who spoke in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret in I Corinthians 14:13. In that same chapter, Paul wrote, "I would that ye all spake with tongues." In context, he is talking about using the gift as 'stand alone' without interpretation. He says he would rather that they prophesied. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues because he who speaks in tongues edifies himself, and he who prophesies edifies the church. So this is contrasting 'stand alone' tongues with prophesying. There is an exception, though. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues unless he interprets, that the church may be edifying.
So the one who prophesies is greater than the one who uses tongues 'stand alone' without interpretation, unless the one who speaks in tongues also interprets. So it is clear that tongues can function as a 'stand alone' gift, but it is better to use it with interpretation, that the church may be edified.
There is no passage in the Bible where Peter spoke his own tongue and God interpreted it into 10 different languages. Acts 2 does not tell us that this happened. Peter was among those who actually spoke in other tongues. That is clear in the passage. They actually spoke in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
It does not say that they spoke in their own languages and other people heard in different languages.
It says that they spoke in other tongues and people heard the speaking their own languages.
Interpretation of tongues is a manifestation of the Spirit through individual believers. In I Corinthians 14, one person speaks in tongues and someone is to interpret. It doesn't say one person speaks in tongues and God interprets either through a booming voice or through the perceptions of the listener. It doesn't teach that this is interpretation.
This is part of Paul's argument for why speaking in tongues needs to be interpreted. Paul has already established that speaking in tongues exists, and that the the one who speaks in tongues edifies himself
The Bible teaches that whether there be tongues, they will cease. It does not teach that the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased. Whenever anyone speaks in tongues, he eventually ceases. It doesn't go on forever.
No, we know in part and we prophesy in part. You know in part, too. Your knowledge is not complete. If our knowledge were complete, we wouldn't all be having conversations like this one on these forums.
According to Paul, tongues are not without signification. They do have meaning. Those who do not know the language do not understand them.
I Corinthians 14
[SUP]27 [/SUP]If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
[SUP]28 [/SUP]But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
The passage is clear, no interpreter = no speaking in an unknown tongue. Let him keep silence in the church. It is to be noted that Paul’s letter to the Corinth is not to the individual Christian but rather the Church of Corinth and spiritual gifting of the Holy Spirit is to be manifested for the edification of the church rather than individual. The bolded part which is assumed to be speaking in unknown tongue is not true. The bible says ‘let him speak to himself’.Did the Bible say he has to speak to himself and to God in an unknown tongue? The bible is clear let him just speak nothing else. Is this sensible? Is the person should speak in other language? Possibly he can but strictly forbidden. I bet Paul is saying that one is just only to speak to himself to the language he knows and to God who is sensible enough in a way there is no disturbance.
[SUP]27 [/SUP]If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
[SUP]28 [/SUP]But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
The passage is clear, no interpreter = no speaking in an unknown tongue. Let him keep silence in the church. It is to be noted that Paul’s letter to the Corinth is not to the individual Christian but rather the Church of Corinth and spiritual gifting of the Holy Spirit is to be manifested for the edification of the church rather than individual. The bolded part which is assumed to be speaking in unknown tongue is not true. The bible says ‘let him speak to himself’.Did the Bible say he has to speak to himself and to God in an unknown tongue? The bible is clear let him just speak nothing else. Is this sensible? Is the person should speak in other language? Possibly he can but strictly forbidden. I bet Paul is saying that one is just only to speak to himself to the language he knows and to God who is sensible enough in a way there is no disturbance.
'let him speak to himself and to God'.
1. The passage tells us that this case is in the church. So we ruled out that this is not what is happening outside the church.
1 Cor. 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that areunlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
2. What we are dealing is that this is the edification of the church and not preaching the gospel. Paul is not saying preach the gospel to them in an unknown tongue to the unlearned or unbelievers thus this is the reason why tongues are signs to them that believe an not to them that believe not.
1 Cor. 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.
3. It is all about prophesy and not tongue that will be used for the possibility of the coming of the unbelievers or unlearned.
1 Co. 14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all.
1. The passage tells us that this case is in the church. So we ruled out that this is not what is happening outside the church.
1 Cor. 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that areunlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
2. What we are dealing is that this is the edification of the church and not preaching the gospel. Paul is not saying preach the gospel to them in an unknown tongue to the unlearned or unbelievers thus this is the reason why tongues are signs to them that believe an not to them that believe not.
1 Cor. 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.
3. It is all about prophesy and not tongue that will be used for the possibility of the coming of the unbelievers or unlearned.
1 Co. 14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all.
Last edited:
Fredoheaven,
I am not sure if you misworded that or what, but I don't know what you think 'let him speak to himself and to God' refers to.
Here are a couple of commentator's whose comments show up on Biblegateway if you look up the passage.
This is from Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible. Gill was an 18th century Baptist pastor who pastored in a church that would later be pastored by Charles Spurgeon
I found this at 1 Corinthians 14:28 Commentaries: but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
John Gill learned Greek by age 11.
I am not sure if you misworded that or what, but I don't know what you think 'let him speak to himself and to God' refers to.
Here are a couple of commentator's whose comments show up on Biblegateway if you look up the passage.
This is from Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible. Gill was an 18th century Baptist pastor who pastored in a church that would later be pastored by Charles Spurgeon
I found this at 1 Corinthians 14:28 Commentaries: but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
John Gill learned Greek by age 11.