The Basics of Speaking in Tongues

[jaybird88]

God's Word says what it says. Not what we would like it to say. As I noted Paul said he prayed and sang WITH the spirit not in the power of the spirit. Big difference.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim 3:16-17

i think your spot on here, the scripture says what it says. it says very clearly Paul prayed and sang with the SPIRIT, what it plainly does not say is that Paul prayed and sang with an angel language which is what so many WANT it to say.

 

[Wansvic]

i think your spot on here, the scripture says what it says. it says very clearly Paul prayed and sang with the SPIRIT, what it plainly does not say is that Paul prayed and sang with an angel language which is what so many WANT it to say.

It says he prayed and sang with understanding, and prayed and sang WITH the spirit indicating one was an understood language and one was not.

 

[crossnote]

@Wansvic –

@ Crossnote –
What kind of sign would that be, people speaking in their own language? We do that everyday.

The ‘sign’ to the Jews was that their God was now accessible to any person in the (known) world and (most importantly) in any language. A concept that was virtually unheard of at the time and for some, almost unthinkable.

I know that, but my question was if in Act 2 they were all speaking in their own language (let's say Hebrew) what sign would that be to those coming from

Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. (Acts 2:9-11 KJV)

?

That would be like me standing in the United Nations General Assembly rattling off the Gospel in English.

 

[Kavik]

It says he prayed and sang with understanding, and prayed and sang WITH the spirit indicating one was an understood language and one was not.

You're reading into the text something that just isn't there. No difference in language - just an indication that said praying/singing was done not only with understanding but also by the power and leading/guidance of the H/S.

 

[jaybird88]

It says he prayed and sang with understanding, and prayed and sang WITH the spirit indicating one was an understood language and one was not.

spirit does not mean angel language. Jesus had the spirit when He did His ministry, yet no angel language. people were in the spirit throughout the bible, Samuel, Moses, Elijah and no angel language.
outside of Pauls one line, there are no examples of this anywhere in scripture, zero.
Paul says other things like this such as let women be silent in church, do you really think women are not allowed to speak in church, especially given all the examples of women speaking in church?
Peter says Paul can be easily misunderstood and Peter was trained by Jesus. if Paul teaches something that can not be confirmed anywhere else in scripture, dont you think there is a good chance your misunderstanding Paul?

 

[Wansvic]

spirit does not mean angel language. Jesus had the spirit when He did His ministry, yet no angel language. people were in the spirit throughout the bible, Samuel, Moses, Elijah and no angel language.
outside of Pauls one line, there are no examples of this anywhere in scripture, zero.
Paul says other things like this such as let women be silent in church, do you really think women are not allowed to speak in church, especially given all the examples of women speaking in church?
Peter says Paul can be easily misunderstood and Peter was trained by Jesus. if Paul teaches something that can not be confirmed anywhere else in scripture, dont you think there is a good chance your misunderstanding Paul?

You are certainly confused. Paul mentions praying, singing, speaking in tongues via the Holy Spirit numerous times in scripture.

 

[Dino246]

No...not hardly......you are missing the bigger picture and fail to acknowledge what is actually being said....Peter did not stand up and speak some 17 or 18 different languages....HE spoke and THEY HEARD in their OWN NATIVE languages.....and it is a hilariously sad truth that YOU and those which peddle tongues fail to biblically acknowledge....the one's dodging the issue are those that CANNOT acknowledge that these MEN stated clearly that they were HEARING IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE.....

Now this is what you expect me to believe.....the men with Peter ALL GOT UP and at the SAME TIME SPOKE IN 17 to 18 different languages in some big quagmire that NO one could understand..........HAHAHAHHAAHHHAHA NO wonder it has turned into some ecstatic mumbo jumbo peddled as languages today....is that what you all do?

Some 4, 8 or 10 people all get up at the same time speaking Russian, Chinese, Spanish, Sue Indian, Italian, French, Dutch, German, English, Korean, Japanese etc. all at the same time and the people ALL understand that....HAHAHHAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH WOW that is a miracle...........

Your attitude stinks, and your response is ridiculous and unworthy of further reply.

 

[Wansvic]

OK - that seems to me to indicate that he prayed and sang in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. Nothing about what language he did it in.

When the entire chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians is read in context it is quite obvious Paul is making specific points about the Spiritual gift of speaking in unknown tongues. Yet you think when he mentions praying and singing in the Spirit he cannot mean he did via unknown tongues.
One can only come to that conclusion if they are bias.

 

[Kavik]

When the entire chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians is read in context it is quite obvious Paul is making specific points about the Spiritual gift of speaking in unknown tongues. Yet you think when he mentions praying and singing in the Spirit he cannot mean he did via unknown tongues.
One can only come to that conclusion if they are bias.

There is no reference to "tongues" in Corinthians that does not refer to, or can not be explained in light of, real, rational languages(s) - usually unknown to those listening/hearing them, but always known the the speaker(s); it's his/their native language(s). Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are reading into the text something that just is not there in order to "proof" the modern phenomenon in the Biblical narrative.

 

[jaybird88]

You are certainly confused. Paul mentions praying, singing, speaking in tongues via the Holy Spirit numerous times in scripture.

yes, praying, singing, speaking in a tongue (language) through the spirit.
i think the confusion is when people see spirit and translate this to angel language.
now if Paul really meant angel language every time he says spirit we should be able to confirm this fact in scripture, after all Paul said let all things be established by 2 or 3 witnesses. however there is no second witness to this, which would mean your misunderstanding Paul.

 

[jaybird88]

why do we never see the any of these people getting baptized and all of a sudden speaking French, Chinese, Swedish, etc? seems kinda strange to me, but then again its next to impossible to fake French, Chinese, or Swedish.

 

[Wansvic]

yes, praying, singing, speaking in a tongue (language) through the spirit.
i think the confusion is when people see spirit and translate this to angel language.
now if Paul really meant angel language every time he says spirit we should be able to confirm this fact in scripture, after all Paul said let all things be established by 2 or 3 witnesses. however there is no second witness to this, which would mean your misunderstanding Paul.

Read the entire chapter for context.

 

[Wansvic]

why do we never see the any of these people getting baptized and all of a sudden speaking French, Chinese, Swedish, etc? seems kinda strange to me, but then again its next to impossible to fake French, Chinese, or Swedish.

It is God's choice as to the Spiritual language spoken by each individual. Just because one does not understand the concept does not mean it does not occur.

 

[jaybird88]

Read the entire chapter for context.

you can read the whole bible from one end to the other and you will not find the 2nd witness. sorry but it simply isnt there.

 

[jaybird88]

It is God's choice as to the Spiritual language spoken by each individual. Just because one does not understand the concept does not mean it does not occur.

in other words you have no idea how to explain that one.

 

[dcontroversal]

Absolutely amazing attempt at diversion. Come on be serious.

Called facts....get used to it........

 

[dcontroversal]

Scripture does not lie: "and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; " This statement indicates God's children are protected in the event they unknowingly consume something harmful.
However, scripture records Jesus words after Satan told Him to do something harmful to Himself: Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." Matt 4:7
So if some idiot chooses to consume something deadly thinking God is going to intervene he is sadly mistaken.

OK....those who push tongues also push Mark....end of story....yet NONE will stand up in church, and as a sign, drink a cup of battery acid.....

The last chapter of MARK by the way is not found in all Greek texts.....especially the oldest....still waiting for someone to do it as proof.......

 

[dcontroversal]

Again, tongues (speaking in other languages) are a sign to unbelievers. That truth has never been revoked as we still have unbelievers, and....
Romans 11:29 NKJV
[29] For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

I would like to see some Scripture indicating that that gift would cease when the Canon would be complete instead of poor hermeneutical practices by some of taking a verse from 1Cor 13 out of it's context (that chapter is about love plopped in the middle of other chapters on gifts indicating a rebuke to spiritual pride), or by using human reasoning to force our presuppositions onto the text.

Whatever happened to Sola Scriptura?

(Yes, there are abuses, but that could indicate the real McCoy is close at hand as satan loves to counterfeit in order to discredit what is true.)

Yep and we also have the......

a. Completed word of God
b. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word <---does not say signs
c. The words cease, fail and vanish away swept under the table by many or JESUS is identified as "THAT"............

Look....I know we agree on many things and regardless of your view I do consider you a brother....I do not shoot from the hip and the best we can do is agree to disagree......Two of the three NO longer exist and the ONLY one that gets pushed and peddled is that which bears no similarity to that which actually took place in the bible......

A house full of chickens cackling = confusion..............When I see one speak English and a Russian understand in Russian and another can interpret in Russian.........then I might be inclined to start leaning that way.....Until then Paul was clear...TONGUES WILL CEASE......I can only go by what was said.

 

[Wansvic]

in other words you have no idea how to explain that one.

You refuse to consider my explanation. The entire chapter is referencing concepts pertaining to the Spiritual gift of tongues.

 

[Kavik]

OK....those who push tongues also push Mark....end of story....yet NONE will stand up in church, and as a sign, drink a cup of battery acid.....

The last chapter of MARK by the way is not found in all Greek texts.....especially the oldest....still waiting for someone to do it as proof.......

Agreed - aside from the fact it's a later addition, the verse that some like to quote is Mark 16:17 - “they will speak in new tongues” (read "they will speak in new languages") –

Yes, in order for the early missionaries to spread the gospel they needed to learn new languages (and hence "speak in new tongues"); new (or, as some like to differentiate between ‘neos’ and ‘kainos’, novel, hither before unknown), to the ones learning them, but obviously not to those who already spoke them.

The passage simply means that in order for the gospel to be spread, people are going to need to learn (and then speak) new languages.

If I say to someone, “Hey, I’m learning a new language” – is that language completely new and never heard of before, unknown to me and anyone else hearing it, or is it simply a new language to me (I don't know it, hence, I'm learning it)??

Again, another example of how many Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are reading into the narrative things that just are not there in order to ‘proof’ the modern tongues phenomenon.