Speaking in tongues

[presidente]

I asked if he felt anything while I prayed for him. He reported a tremendous heat on his back where I was laying my hands.
His pain had gone from a 10 to an 8, so we pressed in until it went to 5 and then 3 and then 0.
Afterwards he was walking around the sanctuary waving the cane over his head praising God.
The next Sunday he testified before the church that he had been healed and that I had prayed for him.
This has not happened to me since. I thought God was showing me that I had a healing ministry. Not so.

That's great! Praise God!

There was one preacher who would tell testimonies about healing and say stuff like, "I did not feel any heat on my hands. I just prayed and believed and she was healed".

I'll tell a testimony. I prayed for a woman who had shoulder pain. While I was praying for her, I did not feel any heat, oil, or electricity. But she said the pain was gone and it was good after I prayed with her-- praise God.

Sometimes people do feel things like that, which is fine. But if you don't, that's fine too. Don't let it hinder your faith. As one preacher said, it's not what you feel. It's what you believe.

 

[presidente]

I have never seen or heard legitimate tongues my entire life. And believe me, I am watching.
I have however heard and seen outrageous nonsensical gibberish posing as tongues. Bogus tongues can be seen on YouTube any time you like. Legitimate tongues? Quite the contrary.
Nor one single solitary legitimate miraculous healing of the "capital A" Apostle kind.

If you heard a 'legitimate tongue' on YouTube, how would you know? I've got a degree in Linguistics, and I have studied or can speak about 9 langagues (native in English, fluent in Indonesian, can speak Malaysian becuase it is so similar to Indonesian.) I have heard speaking in tongues that sounds like it could be a real language to me. I've been in a meeting in Indonesia, and I did not know if someone had spoken in a local area language besides the lingua franca or if it was a message in tongues until the interpretation came in Indonesian and I knew then.

I have also heard someone say 'ba ba ba ba' or 'bada bada bada' and that was supposed to be speaking in tongues. But the issue is whether there is real speaking in tongues.

I also took an audio clip of speaking in tongues and gave it to an Arabic professor with a PhD who also knew Persian and played it. He did not know the languge, but said it sounded like Kurdish. He did not say "That's gibberish" even though he did not know it was 'speaking in tongues.'

If you have ever heard Mandarin, the first time you heard it, didn't it sound like pure gibberish.

If you hear a language you know, you can identify that. But you have no basis for dismissing a language you do not know. Would you recognize Tokarian A if someone started speaking it? I wouldn't.

YouTube also has numerous healing videos, some of them quite dramatic. Before you made your claim, did you bother to check and see if there were some healing that fits your standard. Btw, Jesus is the big A Apostle since He is deity and the a should be capitalized for him. Otherwise, apostle shows up with a small a in the Bible.

 

[presidente]

but there is absolutely no doubt that Abraham was born in about 2300 BC, of this fact there is not the slightest doubt.

I remember asking a Hebrew Bible professor where I studied at University, who I think was a PCA Sunday School teacher though he seemed a bit liberal, but considered himself a moderate-- whether he thought Abraham spoke Hebrew/Canaanite or Proto-Semetic. He said it depends on when you think Abraham lived. Some people think he lived around [insert time] and some people think he lived around [insert time], and I think the gap was about 600 or 800 years. I'm not that good with BC, aso I don't remember the exact years.

 

[presidente]

Lol. Nope. All I want is to see is legitimate medical testimony and unequivocal video footage. Piece of cake, done deal, all of the contention and arguments DISAPPEAR.

You must understand that at many of Jesus miraculous healings the beneficiaries were to go to the priest to be confirmed correct? As a witness to them.....and everyone else of a confirmed miracle duly recorded by the authorities.

Do you believe God heals people in response to prayer? Do you believe God works miracles without working through people?

 

[presidente]

IMO, that is rather weak. If both were 'gathered to his people', that doesn't mean there were two different sets of people. They could still be the same people. And it also points toward this being an idiom.

Except, Moses was buried by God and angels.
Guess again.

Do you realize what you said does not refute what I said?

It doesn't say 'his people buried him', either. The people did mourn Moses. They could have had his body a while before God buried him, for all we know. 'Gathered to his people' could be an idiom related to mourning, death, or burial customs--and it would be quite an odd phrase otherwise.

 

[presidente]

What I am looking for is an example of a member of you church who only knows English manifesting a miraculous language such as Mandarin Chinese or Arabic or Hindustani or Spanish.....something known. Even an ancient language.

So are you saying you could recognize Mandarin, Arabic, or Hindustani? I think most people in the US have a decent chance of recognizing Spanish if they studied it in high school.

Which of these is an language typed with 'the understanding' and which is not?

Arrajalul fiylmadinati wa huna muminuna.
Kenapakau begitusayang ku.
Giginya gigi digigit gigi orang.
Kukukaki kakeku kenapakukenapa si
oyay onay ethopway ablaray

 

[Noose]

Do you realize what you said does not refute what I said?

It doesn't say 'his people buried him', either. The people did mourn Moses. They could have had his body a while before God buried him, for all we know. 'Gathered to his people' could be an idiom related to mourning, death, or burial customs--and it would be quite an odd phrase otherwise.

What you said is nothing and is not supported by anything. A wild guess, no basis at all and now you want to argue about it.

 

[Noose]

Do you really think Paul wrote Hebrews? He did not put his name on it as he did on all his epistles.

Some commentaries take this as a reference to Habakkuk 2:3-4.

Anyway, that's not a crystal clear 'parousia' of Christ verse when compared to other verses. Also, the amil approaches...and I am not amil...make a lot more sense than this distributing of ghosts stuff you promote.

A day with the Lord is as a thousand years.

Whether it is a reference or not and whether it is Paul who wrote it or not- doesn't really matter, it is part of scripture and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.
Your argument falls flat like all your other arguments yet again.

No, it does not follow. That does not make sense. Linguistically, grammatically, textually, it does not follow that 'caught up' to meet the Lord in the air means for the dead to indwell the living.

You might as well say it means to play golf on the moon.

Do you mean Thessalonika? Anyway, each generation of Israelites was to think and speak about the Exodus as if they themselves were brought out of the land of Egypt. Paul was alive at the time, and wrote 'we which are alive and remain.' You are being very hyper-literal here-- and throwing out a major doctrine, the resurrection of the body, in the process.

Aah, it actually does. If Paul was actually caught up with his 1st century listeners as he promised without anyone visibly flying off in air and trumpets sounding, then we know it happened in the spirit.

When I read this, I do not make the same assumptions you do. Verse 20 changes from third person to second person, to address the people. I do not read this and think the people enter into rooms right after the resurrection of the dead. This makes me think of the Israelites staying in their homes in Egypt during the plague of the first born.

I do not make assumptions, i'm talking about real things because it is too straightforward for anyone to make an assumption out of it.
The dead in the Lord will rise - meaning dead believers and not Israelites in Egypt.
The earth (not Egypt) will not conceal it's dead anymore and God is going to avenge them. Such a straight forward verse.

 

[Sketch]

God let me know it was false.

This forum is an interesting place.
God is disagreeing with himself constantly.
I wonder what it means.

 

[Sketch]

That's great! Praise God!

There was one preacher who would tell testimonies about healing and say stuff like, "I did not feel any heat on my hands. I just prayed and believed and she was healed".

I'll tell a testimony. I prayed for a woman who had shoulder pain. While I was praying for her, I did not feel any heat, oil, or electricity. But she said the pain was gone and it was good after I prayed with her-- praise God.

Sometimes people do feel things like that, which is fine. But if you don't, that's fine too. Don't let it hinder your faith. As one preacher said, it's not what you feel. It's what you believe.

Right. Thanks.
And just to be clear, I don't believe that a methodology brings healing. Only God can heal.

It is interesting to study the ways that Jesus used. It was never the same twice, that I recall.
He was listening to the Father's directions. I was in a meeting once where we were praying for healing over a cell phone.
God directed us to call someone with the named malady and pray.

Someone in the audience knew a person that had a relative with the malady. I forget what it was.
But the gentleman had a nonfunctioning bladder or something related. We called the relative got the name and prayed for him.
After we hung up and went on to the next thing the relative called the man to see how he was doing
and let him know we were praying for him. He couldn't talk, they were in the process of cleaning up the mess.
He was suddenly able to use his bladder. Something he hadn't been able to do in over a month.
But unfortunately was unprepared for what happened. No complaints, just a bit of mopping up.

 

[presidente]

What you said is nothing and is not supported by anything. A wild guess, no basis at all and now you want to argue about it.

You are 'arguing, too.

At least what I wrote us not bizaar and unreasonable- that Moses' and Aaron had different 'peopke' and that this is supposed to be evidence for the ghost of dead saints being distributed among. The living.

 

[Noose]

You are 'arguing, too.

At least what I wrote us not bizaar and unreasonable- that Moses' and Aaron had different 'peopke' and that this is supposed to be evidence for the ghost of dead saints being distributed among. The living.

Falling back on ".. could be an idiom..." is more than bizaar and has no basis.

Do you have anything else? otherwise have a great day.

 

[Xethea]

Please pardon me...my mistake.

All of my video upload requests are directed to "Sketch".

Hahahah sorry my bad. You and I hold the same views on tongues.

That is what was confusing me heh

 

[Xethea]

I just had a glance at it and once of his arguments there is obviously wrong, which we can see from context. He says that he that speaks in tongues edifies himself means it 'puffs your ego.'

But look at Paul's argument in I Corinthians 14.

3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

John MacArthur, at least back in the early 1990's, would have had us believe that 'edify' in verse 3 is good, but edify in verse 4 is bad? Why the definition change between verses?

5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Consider the argument, "He that speaks in a tongue edifies himself...I want you all to speak with tongues." If speaking in tongues puffs up the ego, why would Paul want them to do it? In verse 5 speaking in tongues, even without an interpreter is a good thing. We know this because Paul wanted them to speak with tongues. But prophesying is better.

Edifying self--> Good.
Edifying church--> Better.

The one who prophesies and edifies the church is greater than the one who speaks in tongues (without interpretation) and edifies himself. Compare with what Jesus said that He who is the greatest among you shall be the servant of all.

Anyway, MacArthur's assertions do not line up with the text. Basically, he wants to redefine 'edify' between verses 3 and 4, and we are supposed to believe it, I suppose, because he says so. And then the next verse does not make sense if you follow his argument.

His Liberal Oracle of Delphi Interpretation
These days, John MacArthur is known for verse-by-verse teaching. But here, he does not do that. His interpretation does not hold up if you actually go verse by verse through the text. What he's doing is parroting the ideas of 19th century liberals about speaking in tongues. His argument only makes sense if you do not believe the scripture is authoritative and you believe that Paul missed it. Some of the liberals thought the Corinthians were engaging in pagan babble. But if we look at Paul's writings, he treats I Corinthians 14 tongues as a genuine gift. He says their tongues were a 'fabrication coming from their pagan background' and a counterfeit.

Now, if you don't really believe the text of the passage is inspired, you might think Paul was just wrong, and that the Corinthians were engaging in some nonsense pagan babbling. But you can't approach the text sensibly and go verse by verse with a coherent interpetation and believe that if you have a high view of scripture. I think MacArthur was reading some bad commentaries and parroting what he'd read.

Using the Oracle of Delphi as an exegetical key makes no sense either. They were a bit of a distance from Delphi. And what evidence is there for the Oracle of Delphi speaking in some kind of magical babble? There were myths about some people not being able to understand what the prophecy meant, but where is the evidence for it being some sort of incomprehensibl language? Plutarch was a first century author, and he was actually a priest at Delphi. He actually addressed the issue that many people expected a prophecy in high poetry at Delphi. He defended the idea that the oracle could give a prophecy in regular prose. So it is clear they were speaking comprehensible words at Delphi, even if the prophecies they gave were inegmatic.

The really sad thing here is this man is so anti-speaking in tongues, that he has actually attacked the speaking in tongues in the actual pages of scripture itself.

Forget all that explanation with all that other stuff not included in the Bible. I'm talking about the places where he explains the meaning of the verse in the bible, not where he uses other stories as an example. When you get his main point by scripture, not by those stories, then you see he is correct and those verses agree with him and me.

 

[Xethea]

This forum is an interesting place.
God is disagreeing with himself constantly.
I wonder what it means.

No God doesn't disagree with himself. How dare you say such things about the Lord. You sound like you are using his name sarcastically with no love in your words.

You and I have said everything with each other we need to say. Overtime the Lord may convince you of truth as he has me himself. Please, don't use the Lord's name with such useless meaning. That's called "taking his name in vain."

 

[preacher4truth]

No God doesn't disagree with himself. How dare you say such things about the Lord. You sound like you are using his name sarcastically with no love in your words.

You and I have said everything with each other we need to say. Overtime the Lord may convince you of truth as he has me himself. Please, don't use the Lord's name with such useless meaning. That's called "taking his name in vain."

Good point.

 

[cv5]

So are you saying you could recognize Mandarin, Arabic, or Hindustani? I think most people in the US have a decent chance of recognizing Spanish if they studied it in high school.

Which of these is an language typed with 'the understanding' and which is not?

Arrajalul fiylmadinati wa huna muminuna.
Kenapakau begitusayang ku.
Giginya gigi digigit gigi orang.
Kukukaki kakeku kenapakukenapa si
oyay onay ethopway ablaray

Hello. I said that the footage would be sent out for analysis by a qualified professional if necessary.
Furthermore an investigation into the facts of the incident if necessary.

 

[cv5]

You wouldn't believe it even if you spoke in tongues yourself.
Don't you have any Pentecostal or Charismatic churches where you live?

Please upload a video of one of the instances where another LANGUAGE tongue utterance is taking place. According to what you have stated, there are many types. All I really need is the known language type. The "gibberish" language may be obvious but if necessary we can have it examined by an linguistics expert.

What I am looking for is an example of a member of you church who only knows English manifesting a miraculous language such as Mandarin Chinese or Arabic or Hindustani or Spanish.....something known. Even an ancient language.

So please prepare and fulfill this request.....take video footage of the "gibberish" as well as the known language phenomenon.

This will advance the cause of Christians everywhere, as miraculous gifts being confirmed will thus be proven o be valid and on the record for the world to see.

Thanks in advance

 

[Sketch]

No God doesn't disagree with himself. How dare you say such things about the Lord. You sound like you are using his name sarcastically with no love in your words.

You and I have said everything with each other we need to say. Overtime the Lord may convince you of truth as he has me himself. Please, don't use the Lord's name with such useless meaning. That's called "taking his name in vain."

I was trying to make a point. No disrepect to God.

What should readers conclude when two posters claim that got their position from God, yet they disagree?
1) One of the posters is right and the other is wrong? Which one?
2) Both of the posters are right? How can that be?
3) Both of the posters are wrong? Entirely possible.

I tend to go with number three. For the reasons you gave.

 

[garee]

Where do you get the idea that I think of anything about 5 languages? I've never said anything about how many languages there are for anything. The only thing I've said about language is that the Pentecostal view of unknown tongues is false. I never said anything else about languages or how many I believe there are. Have you confused me with someone else?

It is an idea someone came up with to try and confirm making a noise gives a person the privilege to call it prophecy, And that noise can give a person pride by self edifying themselves. Just as the idea of falling back ward slain in the spirit as false sign and wonders or outward healing .(what they call sign gifts) The bible does not use to the words "sign gifts" together .Sign are designed against those who will not hear prophecy.

There are many kind languages in the world. But only one human dialect kind that we are to consider . God Communing with man.( No secret language) But words that convey thought to both the speaker and the hearer in order for two to walk in agreement.

Beginning at Pentecost. God is shown no longer is bringing new revelations as before in the language of Hebrew alone. It provided a outward sign established in Isaiah 28a against those who refuse to hear prophecy in any language.

Some how that law was turned upside down and men are using to confirm they will not hear God but would rather keep their oral tradition of men ….relying on the oral traditions of men . Like the Pentecostals in a hope of widening authority of God's word, in false pride.(no faith)

The idea that men went running around looking for someone to stand in the place of God as a infallible interpreter is not a biblical teaching.

God has stopped bringing new revelations after any manner of prophecy to include tongues .( all the language of all the nations).This is to show us the perfect has come.

Prophecy (new) has ceased along with any new knowledge that would of come with it. There are bibles available in the public written in the all the tongues in the world. Need more words than all the languages provide?The skies the limit. Just make a noise and believe.

Christians were warned before hand of those who add to prophecy, widening its authority as a lying sign and wonder.