Speaking in tongues

[bygrace]

I think you’re kind of warping things here. Utterance can be almost anything that comes out of your mouth; it describes something/anything which is spoken. So, random free vocalization, though not language, is something that is ‘uttered’, i.e. ‘spoken’. Just like language, just like gibberish, just like the nonsense vocables of some songs. Not sure what your point here is.

‘Tongues’ is not supernatural; it refers to rational language(s). That’s what the word ‘glôssa’ means.

Scripturam ex Scriptura doesn’t always work – you need to put things into historical and cultural perspective to gain a better understanding of what was written. Each book, letter, etc. was written for a specific audience at a specific point in time. That needs to be put into historical and cultural perspective to make better sense of it.

Though I do not follow your particular spiritual path, I assure you I am not an atheist.

I am not disproving anything, but rather putting what was written into a cultural and historical perspective (e.g. the demographics of Corinth in the 1st century AD) which, if anything, sheds a clearer light on the subject.

NO sir, i'm not warped but you are. the term Utterance is what is used in the KJV, your issue is with it? you can use utterance anyway you like true however, you cannot change the context of the word as it is used in Acts 2.

the gifts of the Holy Spirit are supernatural they are explained as such in 1cor 12 through 14. The word
glossa = of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired):—tongue. acts 2:4 Greek.
yes right we do need to have what is known as authorial intent

that is done by using the circle of Contextual meaning:

1.what was the author saying
2. who was the author saying it to?
3. what was the time frame in which it was said
4. how did they apply it when it was said?
5. how do we apply it today.

we can go back and forth with hermeneutical methods all you would like sir, but you are incorrect in your point of
" you need to put things into historical and cultural perspective to gain a better understanding of what was written."

If you do not follow steps 1 to 5 .

 

[bygrace]

Ok. But we need to narrow the data set within the bounds of Acts Ch2 in order create a testable hypothesis.

lol hypothesis hahahha dealing with secular humanist trying to understand The Holy Spirit from the limited ability of the human mind.

 

[bygrace]

@ RickyZ
But isn't it really about experience? What good is it for the Bible to speak of, say, healing, if you never actually get to experience one?

Yes, I agree – the experience is certainly the ‘desired result’, so to speak. “Tongues” are a tool by which a very positive experience can be obtained. The tool (in this case “tongues”) itself however is neither divine nor mysterious. Like most spiritual tools, It is self-created.

@bygrace –
I use the term “modern” here to distinguish/differentiate it from Biblical “tongues” (rational language), and I suppose a way to reiterate that what people are producing today is not to be found in the Biblical narratives. Nothing more should be read into it than that.

you use the term to support your humanistic approach to Biblical interpretation

 

[bygrace]

Yes, and it means "language", not modern tongues-speech.

modern tongues-speech is not a Biblical term nor is in the word of God you are using secular humanism to disprove your bias. and You are failing terribly

 

[bygrace]

@ RickyZ
But isn't it really about experience? What good is it for the Bible to speak of, say, healing, if you never actually get to experience one?

Yes, I agree – the experience is certainly the ‘desired result’, so to speak. “Tongues” are a tool by which a very positive experience can be obtained. The tool (in this case “tongues”) itself however is neither divine nor mysterious. Like most spiritual tools, It is self-created.

@bygrace –
I use the term “modern” here to distinguish/differentiate it from Biblical “tongues” (rational language), and I suppose a way to reiterate that what people are producing today is not to be found in the Biblical narratives. Nothing more should be read into it than that.

rational language that caused those in IS 28 to scoff and mock and in Acts 2 to as coff and mock. and have Paul write about in 1cor 14 .

 

[Kavik]

NO sir, i'm not warped but you are. the term Utterance is what is used in the KJV, your issue is with it? you can use utterance anyway you like true however, you cannot change the context of the word as it is used in Acts 2.

the gifts of the Holy Spirit are supernatural they are explained as such in 1cor 12 through 14. The word
glossa = of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired):—tongue. acts 2:4 Greek.
yes right we do need to have what is known as authorial intent

that is done by using the circle of Contextual meaning:

1.what was the author saying
2. who was the author saying it to?
3. what was the time frame in which it was said
4. how did they apply it when it was said?
5. how do we apply it today.

we can go back and forth with hermeneutical methods all you would like sir, but you are incorrect in your point of
" you need to put things into historical and cultural perspective to gain a better understanding of what was written."

If you do not follow steps 1 to 5 .

“They began to speak in other languages as the Spirit gave them utterance” – they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit inspired them to do so, i.e. speak in other languages. The Spirit inspired them to speak, and perhaps even inspired them on specifically what to say, but it didn’t tell them what language to say it in.

The “circle of contextual meaning” sure sounds a lot like putting things into cultural and historical perspective.

 

[oldethennew]

we all have 'several gifts', at different times, according to Yeshua's timing -
we, hub and I, never question Him on His daily dispensations...

 

[RickyZ]

Like most spiritual tools, It is self-created.

And yet done correctly it still glorifies God.

Just like the Bible says!

Amazing!

 

[RickyZ]

Ok. But we need to narrow the data set within the bounds of Acts Ch2 in order create a testable hypothesis.

No, one narrows down data sets when one picks and chooses data

 

[bygrace]

“They began to speak in other languages as the Spirit gave them utterance” – they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit inspired them to do so, i.e. speak in other languages. The Spirit inspired them to speak, and perhaps even inspired them on specifically what to say, but it didn’t tell them what language to say it in.

The “circle of contextual meaning” sure sounds a lot like putting things into cultural and historical perspective.

the words " Spirit gave " means the ability to do, and then they spoke. yes, the circle of context does do that from the Point of where it is introduced. One verse mention in Isaiah 28 does not change the context of three chapters on the gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1cor 12-14 . And it does not say who was speaking what language but it does say what they all heard in the language the hearers knew.

 

[cv5]

No, one narrows down data sets when one picks and chooses data

Lol. I am conducting my own analysis thank you. I will constrain as I wish.

 

[bygrace]

Lol. I am conducting my own analysis thank you. I will constrain as I wish.

lol conducting your own huh? great I'm sure your finding will produce what you bais creates. Hey will you even use the word of God or is that not needed anymore for you?

 

[garee]

I will answer you. it would be an error not to point out how you used Ps 11:3 to allegorize Is 28 with 1cor 12 to 14 chapters. So lets
look at Is 28.


Who is the Lord God speaking to speaking to? in verse 11 is the one you like to use but you have to back it up to the previous verses.

9. Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
precept here means: command, ordinance, oracle

11. For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
The Isaiah 28 through 33rd chapters form almost one prophecy about the destruction of Ephraim, the unreverent and sin of Judah, the danger of their league with Egypt.

They mocked Isaiah word from the Lord. Verses 9-11 is God telling them they will not know the word of the Lord it will become more distant to you. But he will use other nations: "stammering lips and another tongue" " this people " are Gods People.

he was informing them that they knew not the lord not that they would become more distant than no faith. They mocked God's prophecy . Verses 9-11 is God telling them they refuse to believe prophecy it is offensive to them just as the Jewish disciples that walked away in unbelief in John 6 . They stooped up their ears as a hard saying offensive.

yet they did not listen to the word of the Lord given to Isaiah, did they? Just as they almost did on the day of pentacost. Yet Paul in 1cor 14 is dealing with some of the same things scoffing and mocking verse 21

No such thing as almost believing. It was God mocking them by bringing the prophecy in other languages .Again it was as sign against them confirming they "will not" hear prophecy. Just as explained in Isaiah 28 the foundation of the doctrine of tongues

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.

the word in 1cor 14 :21 is law but contexually it is from the Greek "

1. a precept or injunction same as it is in Is 28 verse 10 both Hebrew and greek use this to Identfy scoffers and mockers YET after hearing the truth by the Holy Spirit they would not Hear the word of the Lord.

None of these verses have anything to do with tongues not being for today or being false. They are in context to those who scoff and mock the word of the Lord.

There is no new tongues as prophecy today as new revelations we have the whole or perfect. Today if a person wants to bring prophecy that exists in other tongues other than their own . They have electronic programs that can interpret one language from another and many are still brining new translations of people who do not have the written word of prophecy .

 

[garee]

lol conducting your own huh? great I'm sure your finding will produce what you bais creates. Hey will you even use the word of God or is that not needed anymore for you?

Its how prophecy God's word in all the languages of the world work .Translation are found in most languages and the one that are not are a work in the progress.

 

[garee]

1 Cor 14:2--'he that speaketh in an unkown tongue speaketh not to men but unto God for others may not understand him but he speaketh mysteries...'. I think when we receive the Holy Spirit we shouldn't b surpeisd if we speak in His language, when we are praising Him, praying and talking to Him. Read on in 1 Cor 14 for more on this, God bless.

His language the signified by which we can understand His mysteries. Which language dialect seeing he brings his interpretation, the bible in all languages .French, Hebrew German, Chinese, Swahili ?

 

[TabinRivCA]

His language the signified by which we can understand His mysteries. Which language dialect seeing he brings his interpretation, the bible in all languages .French, Hebrew German, Chinese, Swahili ?

Like His word says 'an unknown tongue'. Example, like when I'm praising & thanking God for His mercies, my feelings go beyond words into the Spirit language bc He is so good. I hope that makes sense. Jude 20 '...building UP yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost' so I take it we are speaking to God things we may not understand but in the Spirit He does and building our faith is a necessity to me.

 

[Sketch]

What comes after the last chapter (Revelation) in the book of prophecy ?

I Corinthians chapter 12.

 

[bygrace]

he was informing them that they knew not the lord not that they would become more distant than no faith. They mocked God's prophecy . Verses 9-11 is God telling them they refuse to believe prophecy it is offensive to them just as the Jewish disciples that walked away in unbelief in John 6 . They stooped up their ears as a hard saying offensive.



No such thing as almost believing. It was God mocking them by bringing the prophecy in other languages .Again it was as sign against them confirming they "will not" hear prophecy. Just as explained in Isaiah 28 the foundation of the doctrine of tongues





There is no new tongues as prophecy today as new revelations we have the whole or perfect. Today if a person wants to bring prophecy that exists in other tongues other than their own . They have electronic programs that can interpret one language from another and many are still brining new translations of people who do not have the written word of prophecy.

you do not know the context of 1cor tongues or what you say or think is prophecy. Prophesying is not the same as prophecy. They are different in the Greek and the interpretation from Hebrew word in translated English for "Prophecy" is not the same meaning for Prophesying in Greek found in 1cor 14. They would not hear the Word of LORD Isaiah 28 nor would they hear with other languages. AS Paul is explaining in chapter 14 from verses 19 to 23 the context in IS 28, they did not listen then to the word of the Lord = prophecy and they will not listen to the Prophesying= spoken under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Never the less the word of the Lord will go forth. Is 28 is not the foundational doctrine of Tongues. that is improper biblical interpretation. Mark 16 is foundational because Jesus Christ is the final authority. John 14 to 16 chapters spoken by the Lord are, Acts chapter 1 & 2 are, 1cor chapter 12 to 14 are Not IS 28. The Lord would use one whole chpater with only 3 verses to explain tongues the gift of the Holy Spirt ? I thought you would use Joel chapter 2. what a bunch or allegorizing that is done.

 

[bygrace]

Its how prophecy God's word in all the languages of the world work .Translation are found in most languages and the one that are not are a work in the progress.

again you don't know what Hebrew Old Testament word "Prophecy" is from New Testament Greek word "Prophesying".

 

[Dino246]

Some one mentioned I should be thankful to the Pope the King of Catholicism for telling me what the word of God is .He is the poster child of those who do add to the perfect with secret language or private interpretations.

Can you think of another that could represent what the scripture calls a daysman?

What comes after the last chapter (Revelation) in the book of prophecy ?

No, Sketch suggested that we thank a Catholic, not "the Pope".

I don't really care what the Catholics claim and I don't care whether the pope fits the description of "daysman". Both are irrelevant to the discussion of tongues.