TONGUES is a precious gift from God

[ResidentAlien]

Let the person I am speaking to answer the point that he made to define how language can be proven. Your enthusiasm for disproving a continuation of tongues is commendable - but you're going ahead of what has been said. I didn't say the two toddlers were speaking at all. Pay attention.

Yes I'll do that from now on. Frankly, you don't speak very clearly so I will follow your advice.

 

[Rhomphaeam]

Yes I'll do that from now on. Frankly, you don't speak very clearly so I will follow your advice.

I speak contextually and don't deviate from one path to another path when sifting meanings. This claim by the poster I am responding to is very specific and unless it is addressed in the same specificity there is no point in saying anything at all other than to cite Scripture. You yourself laid down the idea that no one was able to answer his question. How clear any answer is would be relative to whether his question is real. He used terminology and he claimed to have a sincere reason for his original post when he interjected into this thread. Now he can answer it himself. Spending ones time playing with words seems like a waste of time to me. Thank you.

 

[TheLearner]

I am not going to keep up. What are the basic themes at this time.

 

[Rhomphaeam]

I am not going to keep up. What are the basic themes at this time.

@#466

 

[SophieT]

What passage of scripture is that from?

For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries in the Spirit. I Corinthians 14:2

 

[SophieT]

I would answer it, but his posting history shows the majority of threads he participates in are those dealing with Tongues. It's rather obvious he gains from each thread and uses it on the next. And now, he is pretending to be able to know the differences in linguistic. There are literally less than 50 true college and professional linguistic's worldwide who travel and study the differences between races, creeds, and territorial. I doubt he is one of them. and to offer him anything, is only offering him fuel towards the next Tongues Thread.

you probably do not know this, but he actually is involved in some kind of 'religion'...he has said so, but he will not disclose what it is

don't waste your time...he wants people to upload a tape of themselves speaking in tongues

 

[Godsgirl83]

bc people don't study they lack knowledge and lack of knowledge leads to deception and an easy way.

Hosea 4:6:
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge........

 

[Godsgirl83]

Let the person I am speaking to answer the point that he made to define how language can be proven. Your enthusiasm for disproving a continuation of tongues is commendable - but you're going ahead of what has been said. I didn't say the two toddlers were speaking at all. Pay attention.

First off, these are just my thoughts, and really you DO NOT have to reply (though I wouldn't be surprised if you do -and if you do, don't get offended or be surprised if I don't reply)

You "talk" so much that personally, from my point of view I have no idea (without spending time going back to reread/reskim through everything) who you are talking about letting answer you
Personally, I am tired of seeing every wanna be youtube star use the same clips over and over.
The toddlers would be cute and funny if shown in a different situation, although pretty fitting for the forums here, as that's what some users here sound like
I strongly question why you, who professes to being an ex-satanist, would choose a video clip that (@ around 2:50 into the clip) refers to "satanist sacrificing babies, and melting those babies into candles, their skin" followed by the youtuber leaning over a candle........
I mean that Copeland/Browne clip is ALL OVER youtube. You couldn't pick a different clip!?????!!!
(Yeah I already know: blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah, toddler gibberish proves the point I wanted to make about Copeland/Browne blah blah blah)

 

[Godsgirl83]

there is no point in saying anything at all other than to cite Scripture.

Well, with all the words I've seen you post, can't say I've seen much of this being done.

 

[Godsgirl83]

I am not going to keep up. What are the basic themes at this time.

Well basically, you've clicked into a typical BDF thread
Where several posters think they are right, and everything goes round and round like a dog chasing it's tail, but never catching it.........

Popcorn?

 

[JTB]

Let me help out a little if I can; perhaps this will elicit some kind of a response.

Those who say there are fake tongues and true tongues:

1. Is the fake variety the use of tongues in an un-Biblical way? For example, more than two or three all speaking at once; speaking in tongues with no interpreter present, etc.

2. Or is it something specific about the spoken sounds? That is, the sounds coming out of one person's mouth are genuine while another's aren't.

Both

Why does it always have to be either/or?

 

[JTB]

So the sounds are the same, only one is infused with the Spirt and another isn't.

One can speak in a legitimate tongue wrongly, Kinda falls under the Spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets thing. The Sprit may move someone to speak but they have the power not to. Likewise someone might speak when the Spirit is not really behind that particular word.

 

[JTB]

From what you say, it sounds like you would probably view genuine tongues as the exercising of the gift in accordance with Biblical guidelines and all other false then. Am I correct?

There are false tongues, there are true tongues, and there are true tongues done incorrectly.

And I believe Paul said while he wished we all would speak, he'd rather we not speak than do it incorrectly.

 

[JTB]

People have rarely heard me speak in tongues. Though I don't try to hide it. I don't think about it too hard.

Unless you're giving prophesy in an assembly, that's the way it should be.

 

[Oblio]

I've got my Pringles!

 

[1ofthem]

I've got my Pringles!

You do know what they say don't you...

Once you pop you can't stop....lol

 

[Oblio]

You know what I like most on these forums? When we get along.

 

[Rhomphaeam]

Well, with all the words I've seen you post, can't say I've seen much of this being done.

Salvation - The Living Meaning

 

[Rhomphaeam]

First off, these are just my thoughts, and really you DO NOT have to reply (though I wouldn't be surprised if you do -and if you do, don't get offended or be surprised if I don't reply)

You "talk" so much that personally, from my point of view I have no idea (without spending time going back to reread/reskim through everything) who you are talking about letting answer you
Personally, I am tired of seeing every wanna be youtube star use the same clips over and over.
The toddlers would be cute and funny if shown in a different situation, although pretty fitting for the forums here, as that's what some users here sound like
I strongly question why you, who professes to being an ex-satanist, would choose a video clip that (@ around 2:50 into the clip) refers to "satanist sacrificing babies, and melting those babies into candles, their skin" followed by the youtuber leaning over a candle........
I mean that Copeland/Browne clip is ALL OVER youtube. You couldn't pick a different clip!?????!!!
(Yeah I already know: blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah, toddler gibberish proves the point I wanted to make about Copeland/Browne blah blah blah)

I agree it would have been a simple matter to have posted the entire clip and resisted the clip I did post - but as you say I wanted to post the one I did because the babes demonstrate a point I was making to the person I was writing to. I also agree that the candle comment was unfortunate - yet I posted the video despite believing that it would be.a simple matter for others to question my own faith given my acknowledgement earlier that I was once a Satanist. As a matter of accuracy I was an occult theosopher with satanic predications. But that scarcely seems to matter.

You appear to need to express your thoughts and at the same time to make it impossible for me to make any response because your entire comment is littered with snares. Inferentially if I don't humble myself and be silent - then I am proud. If I do respond and you do not reply - then I am offended according to you - and you question my motive in a precept of citing Satan. Then you tell me that I don't cite Scripture by posting a single line from a comment I made @#522. Why decontextualise what I have said when what I said explains why I wasn't citing Scripture to an unbeliever in trying to address his original question? Why?

So just to make amends here is the standing in ministry and Academia of the brother who's video I did post which you found so doubtful:

- 4 years in the U.S. Coast Guard - B.A. - (Missions and Bible) Assemblies of God - M.A. - Cross Cultural Studies - Fuller Graduate School - M.Div. - North Park Seminary - 3 months - Haiti - 1 year - Missionary in Brussels, Belgium, learning French - Bon Jour! - 3 years - Missionary in the Democratic Republic of the Congo teaching in Seminary and Bible College, Evangelism and getting tropical diseases and learning Lingala - 10 years - 2 Evangelical Covenant Churches (Sr. Pastor) - 1 class - professor in Charismatic non accredited college - 1 year - Adjunct Professor (AG University) - teaching Cults and Denominations and Apologetics - 2 years - Adjunct Professor (Evangelical University) - Philosophy Department (Ethics) - 20 years - Adjunct Professor (Another Evangelical University) - 17 different subjects in ministry, missions, theology, ethics, church history,

And here is the clip you express exasperation to - in isolation:

And here is the sweet babes in isolation:

So I guess that the only bit missing is the linguistic meaning alluded to and verbally stated by a pastor and academic professor - which was of course the predicative clausal meaning expressed in clear terms by the original poster to whom I was responding.

Have a great day sister.

 

[Rhomphaeam]

@shittim - hope this livens you up from the boredom of having to exercise some intelligence - it does seem appropriate in view of the difficulty some seem to have with language. I stripped out all the words and just left the mine. I could say that this mime is akin to the babes video in the post @#539 - rather than highlighting a mistaken claim to spoken language of the babes who are not capable of any spoken language seeing as their brains haven't developed sufficiently to support spoken constructs borne out of cognition - whereas the mime is a volitional artistic intention to protect emotional meaning. Both precepts are grounded in the neurological apparatus (you know sister - the brain) yet the babes are expressing real meaning as well - just not so well as the mime artists. The precept that defines the process the babes are going through is the acquisition of first language and the mime artists - well they are simply being artistic.

One amusing - the other rather skilled - but both are the same theatre of operation. The body sister. The neurophysiological man. What do you think the one babe is doing when he seeks to draw attention to his right foot that has no sock on it? Whereas his brother has both feet socked. Three socks and one meaning in visibility. I don't flinch sister - no need to be concerned for this man.

You can go to Genesis chapter two and find the entire explanation right there and why it is a mistake to make light of deception and then agree with another linguistic argument that just happens to be grounded in Hebrew and Greek. The music is just great.

Shalom

© Copyright RHUOMAI NBLM/NBLC 2018