The Purpose of Speaking in Tongues

[CS1]

Interpretation is not a prophetic word related to Speaking in Tongues, it's an EXPLANATION!

I am not sure what you mean here and who you are speaking to or YELLING lol

 

[garee]

Interpretation is not a prophetic word related to Speaking in Tongues, it's an EXPLANATION!

God does his own interpreting called prophesying. The tongue of God. .(two walking together) . Like Jesus and the father . Or you and the Father.

Not Hey Google! what's me myself and I saying?

Its not Christ in our earthen bodies of death along with those who make senseless noises and fall backward to indicate the the sign of God's judgement against those who have another kind of authority to build another kind of self edifying faith as a wonderment. .

 

[CS1]

I would suggest you stop adding to what the Gift of Tongues is.
IT IS NOT PROPHECY!
It's a GIFT!

who are you speaking to? LOL

 

[garee]

biker said:

I would suggest you stop adding to what the Gift of Tongues is.
IT IS NOT PROPHECY!
It's a GIFT!

The gift of prophecy?

 

[Kavik]

. Acts chapter 2 clearly shows us that at least fifteen foreign languages were spoken by Galileans SUPERNATURALLY. They were not coached by human beings, they did not go to language schools, and they certainly did not babble.

.

Agree with almost everything you say in your post, but the 'list of nations', as it's called in Acts 9-12 is just that - a list of geographic places. Specifically those of the Diasporan lands. Nowhere in the entire narrative is even one language ever referenced by name, nor is it ever even hinted at that, given there were people gathered there from all over the Diaspora, communication was ever an issue to begin with.

What people need to ask themselves is, if I were a Jew living in one of these places in the 1st century, what would be my native language? Not the language I may speak to people at my job, or in the market place, etc., but the language of "hearth and home".

 

[Nehemiah6]

Nowhere in the entire narrative is even one language ever referenced by name, nor is it ever even hinted at that, given there were people gathered there from all over the Diaspora, communication was ever an issue to begin with.

That is incorrect. You want the Bible to be a textbook but that's now how it works. Now please note: And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. (Acts 2:5) Every nation has its own language, or at the very least its own dialects,

Those were devout Jews who had come from all over the Roman empire (and even further) for the feast of Pentecost at Jerusalem. Now do a Google search for each of the nations listed and see what languages were spoken in those regions.

 

[garee]

.

Agree with almost everything you say in your post, but the 'list of nations', as it's called in Acts 9-12 is just that - a list of geographic places. Specifically those of the Diasporan lands. Nowhere in the entire narrative is even one language ever referenced by name, nor is it ever even hinted at that, given there were people gathered there from all over the Diaspora, communication was ever an issue to begin with.

What people need to ask themselves is, if I were a Jew living in one of these places in the 1st century, what would be my native language? Not the language I may speak to people at my job, or in the market place, etc., but the language of "hearth and home".

God bringing His tongue "prophecy" to all the nations of the world. Satan fell (Revelation 20) never again deceiving all the nations that God was a God of the Jews as if God was a man.

languages are in respect to nations people . Two or three makes a nation. Two or three make up of sect a family. One of the many families.

Hebrew it would seem it is made up of two nations. Abram's father the Amorites "the boasters" And Abrams Mother a Hittite "the terrorist ".

Israel the born again the ones that can back up the boast bringing terror with a invitation of love.

 

[KelbyofGod]

Kelby, thank you for your open Post.

Likewise thank you for yours, as I believe it to be honest, not argumentative. I will continue to reply openly.

I am sorry to Hit your feelings.

I didn't post that because you hurt my feelings. You had been using a false argument called "Guilt by Association". We cannot redeem ourselves from the errors of strangers, because those errors don't belong to us. That's why it is a false argument. If we are going to suggest guilt and error in a person, let's at least talk about guilt that they actually own, not someone's guilt that may have nothing to do with them.

I met also Christians from pentecost churches. ( never heared them speaking in tongues) which told me I should also ask God intensivly to get this gift. So I tryed when I was alone to produce voices. No words, a Kind of what came into my mind. I then recognized that I produced them by myself and it was not speaking in tongues. And I felt Strange to do this.

This part is something I would like to ask you more about (privately, if needed) because some people who receive speaking in tongues only receive a small bit at first and don't know how to do more. Then they feel like what they received wasn't speaking in tongues because they think they made it up with their own mind. I was one of those. Fortunately, someone wise told me to keep using the piece that I had until God gave me more. I did this somewhat fearfully for about 2 months until God gave me fluent tongues one day in my dorm at college.

People who did not have someone there to guide them past that obstacle will often give up (because they tried their best and THINK they failed...but they didn't) and then won't try again. They KNOW they tried honestly and didn't seem to obtain the expected result...and that's NOT how God works... so they conclude that what they were told was false. It is reasonable thinking all except for that one little bit that God DID give them. <-- that is very important to remember

I can't tell by your post whether or not you spoke something out loud or just thought or saw something in your mind. In my case, I could feel it in my throat wanting to be spoken but I didn't know what it was. I've heard of others who actually saw the words and just spoke what they saw. God deals with each person according to their own needs.

I will say that people who have tried to receive "speaking in tongues" and feel like they couldn't or didn't get it are the most difficult arguers against speaking in tongues. "A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle." - Proverbs 18:19 KJV

There are many questions I did not answer in this post like "What makes it hard to receive for some, but easy for others?" "How did God give you more in your college dorm?" "How did you know it was really God and not some other thing that allows you to speak this garble-dee-guk?" "What benefit do you get from speaking "gibberish"?

Those are all reasonable questions. I just need to prepare for work. Feel free to ask any that seem reasonable to you, and I'll answer as I have time.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[Scribe]

The tongue speakers in the bible knew what they were saying. Paul said they were edified in doing it. And he said understanding is the basis for edification.

1 Cor 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

 

[Kavik]

out of every nation under heaven. (Acts 2:5) Every nation has its own language, or at the very least its own dialects,

"Every nation under heaven" is an idiomatic expression not meant literally. It's the same in the Babel narrative "the whole world" (what was the 'whole world' to a person living in a small section of what is now the Middle East thousands of years ago). We are told where these people were from in Acts 9-12.

No, every nation does not have its own language. The entire western Diasporan lands had been Hellenized for centuries - Greek had long replaced whatever the original indigenous languages were. You can't confuse the Koine Greek word 'dialektos' with the word it eventually became in modern languages. In short, 'dialektos' simply referred to the language of a particular country/area. For example I might say "I am learning a few languages" (glossa), but "In Helvetia, they speak the Gaulish language" (dialektos). Over time, dialektos came to mean a variation of a particular language(the Quebecoise dialect of French), but that was not its original meaning.

 

[Kavik]

1 Cor 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

See the second half of post 364.

 

[Nehemiah6]

No, every nation does not have its own language.

As if you would know. Why don't you take a trip around the world. Even in England there are various dialects of the English language, and Welsh and Irish have no relation to English.

You are trying very hard to contradict Scripture, and that does not bode well for you.

 

[Scribe]

No, actually it does not. The phrase translated literally is “no one hears (with understanding)”. Got to use a bit of common sense here. The fact that no one understands the speaker, does not automatically assume the speaker himself doesn’t understand what he’s saying. If this phrase were taken completely out of a religious context and used in a general conversation, no one would even question whether the speaker knows what he’s saying or not.

For the modern tongues-speaker, the only way that this phrase can be used to ‘evidence’ the modern phenomenon is if the speaker himself doesn’t understand what he is saying. This is part of the Pentecostal redefinition of certain “tongues texts” in the early 1900’s to justify what it is they were producing, since the original supposition of xenoglossy certainly wasn’t it.

1 Cor 14:14
This one could easily take a few pages to explain properly, but I'll try and sum it up as briefly as possible.....

This passage hinges on the Greek word “akarpos” – which can be used in both in an active sense and in a passive sense.

Most people use it in this passage in the passive sense, i.e. my understanding is unfruitful (to me), or my understanding produces no fruit in/for me. In short, what I'm saying doesn't benefit me as I have no idea what I'm saying even though, as you point out, I am praying a good prayer.

To go off on a bit of a tangent - "Praying in the Spirit" does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.

Given that Paul, in his letter, calls for clarity and understanding at a public worship such that everyone there can benefit, I (as well as others) would argue for the active sense of ‘akarpos’: that is, my understanding is unfruitful for others, or my understanding produces no fruit for/in others.

In other words, the fact I understand what I’m saying does not benefit anyone else as they don’t speak my language.

Now, before you think using this passage with an active meaning is something far-fetched, or a new concept, or a recent ‘theory’, I would ask you to consider Luther’s Bible of 1534 - written almost 500 years ago, and some 30 years before King James VI and I was even born.

This same passage is rendered (in English) “...my understanding brings no one fruit”. Even almost 500 years ago, the idea of this passage having an active usage was nothing new. Indeed, an active understanding/reading fits better with Paul’s intent of clarity so all may benefit. Further, it's clear here the speaker is praying in a particular (known) language; his native language.

There’s just no evidence whatsoever of modern tongues-speech here. The speaker understands perfectly well what he’s saying; again, it’s the audience who doesn’t understand, and thus does not benefit.

Bottom line - the speaker of "tongues" in the Bible always understands what he is saying - it's the listeners who do not.

New International Version
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

English Standard Version
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.

King James Bible
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

New American Standard Bible
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

There is no question that Paul was saying that his MIND does not know what he is saying when he prays in tongues. This is the clear meaning in any translation.

He also said he prayed in tongues more than them all but not in church so he must be talking about praying between himself and God.

It is not likely to be a known language on the earth because after 20 years of praying in tongues more than the Corinthians (who apparently did it a lot) his MIND would have had some understanding on at least some words, or if someone who knew the known language had heard him they could have translated (not the same as the spiritual gift of interpretation) and if they translated the known language then Paul would have began to learn that language. But after all these years his mind remained without understanding when he prayed in tongues. This does not prove for sure that Paul was speaking in a tongue not known on earth but it is strong evidence that it was not a known language.

 

[biker]

Jesus said this type only come out by fasting and prayer but it is faith that does it. And the authority of the Lord Jesus in the believer.

Amen, but that is not related to Speaking in Tongues, that's exactly what Jesus said it's related to, Fasting and Prayer. And the majority of praying is not Speaking in Tongues unless you are actually in the Spirit.

 

[biker]

So prophecy the tongue of God is not a gift of the Holy Ghost? But making senseless baby sounds and falling back slain in the spirit . Does cast out demons? The legion?

To fast is to bring the gospel. . . God's perfect law . The gospel or power of God it cast out demons.

The Bible says our new tongue (the gospel) does the work . Sends them out two, by two to plant the seed. .

Have you looked at the foundation of the doctrine yet? It is found in Isaiah 28 same one spoken of 1 Corinthians 14 . Two witnesses to one doctrine.

Why mock the word the Tongue of God with a oral tradition of men?( Look I did it) Its easy to see that tongues is simply prophecy. The one source of Christian faith .

You are aligning Speaking in Tongues to the words we read in the Bible and that's not what Paul ever said. He did not have the Bible in the first place. May I ask where your Doctrine comes from (Methodist-Baptist-Wesleyan-etc). Honestly, the more I study what you're saying, the more it doesn't make sense.

 

[biker]

I am not sure what you mean here and who you are speaking to or YELLING lol

It was to Garee.
And my point was that for the most part when Tonges and Interpretation take place, the Interpretation, is the explanation in our Language to what we cannot understand in the Tongues.

 

[biker]

who are you speaking to? LOL

Sorry, to Garee.
I am discussing Speaking in Tongues and he is discussing how the Bible is God's Tongue in reading format.
And I am not sure why he is using this angle for the Holy Spirit's Gift of Speaking in Tongues.

 

[biker]

The gift of prophecy?

The Gift of Prophecy and the Gift of Tongues, like the Gift of Discernment, all come from the Holy Spirit.

 

[biker]

God bringing His tongue "prophecy" to all the nations of the world. Satan fell (Revelation 20) never again deceiving all the nations that God was a God of the Jews as if God was a man.

languages are in respect to nations people . Two or three makes a nation. Two or three make up of sect a family. One of the many families.

Hebrew it would seem it is made up of two nations. Abram's father the Amorites "the boasters" And Abrams Mother a Hittite "the terrorist ".

Israel the born again the ones that can back up the boast bringing terror with a invitation of love.

Is the Bible defined in the simple term of God's Tongue Prophecy something you created?
I have never heard it this way before.

 

[CS1]

Amen, but that is not related to Speaking in Tongues, that's exactly what Jesus said it's related to, Fasting and Prayer. And the majority of praying is not Speaking in Tongues unless you are actually in the Spirit.

you point was not retailed to tongues was it? I think it would be helpful if a person would read all three chapters of 1cor 12 -14.
Praying in the Spirit is what Paul said in 1cor. Jesus was talking about spatial warfare