TONGUES is a precious gift from God

[Heaven_Bound]

Most here seem like they have been Believers for over 20 years or more.

I am really curious, when you first ever heard the Mark of the Beast preached, did you connect that to RFID Chips, that were not yet invented until recent years?

So, why do we consider it can be possible now for the MOB when back then we did not?


I believe the Example of Tongues in the Bible can be Viewed by how we read it 2,000 years ago, does it mean exactly that, or, did it mean how we see it in smaller Churches Today?

 

[Heaven_Bound]

I am just asking questions before I give my own Opinion.

 

[Kavik]

This is where your modern tongues movement originated, you should look into it. I mean really look into it.

Precisely!

At some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief in tongues as xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing.

This forced a serious theological dilemma — As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined. It seems the latter option was chosen.

 

[Heaven_Bound]

Precisely!

At some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief in tongues as xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing.

This forced a serious theological dilemma — As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined. It seems the latter option was chosen.

WHY?

Did you believe when you first read/heard about the Mark of the Beast, before RFID Chips, the Mark could be an RFID Chip?
Of course You did not, No One did!

So, how do you know the example we read in the Bible is not the example of what is happening today [minus the stupid videos of megachurches], concerning Speaking in Tongues?

 

[Kavik]

WHY?

Did you believe when you first read/heard about the Mark of the Beast, before RFID Chips, the Mark could be an RFID Chip?
Of course You did not, No One did!

So, how do you know the example we read in the Bible is not the example of what is happening today [minus the stupid videos of megachurches], concerning Speaking in Tongues?

I have zero clue what you're talking about in the first paragraph.

Because when it comes to something spoken, there are no references to "tongues" in the Bible that do not refer to, nor that cannot be explained in light of, real, rational language(s). Nowhere in the Bible is modern tongues-speech evidenced or advocated.

In contrast, the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with.

It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns, alliteration, assonance, and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is also interesting to note that any disallowed sound combinations, i.e. consonant clusters, in the speaker’s native language are also disallowed in his/her tongues-speech. Further, these phonemes may be grouped together into a subset typically containing only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically.

There just isn't anything that “tongues-speakers” is producing that cannot be explained in relatively simple linguistic terms.

 

[Heaven_Bound]

I have zero clue what you're talking about in the first paragraph.

Because when it comes to something spoken, there are no references to "tongues" in the Bible that do not refer to, nor that cannot be explained in light of, real, rational language(s). Nowhere in the Bible is modern tongues-speech evidenced or advocated.

In contrast, the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with.

It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns, alliteration, assonance, and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is also interesting to note that any disallowed sound combinations, i.e. consonant clusters, in the speaker’s native language are also disallowed in his/her tongues-speech. Further, these phonemes may be grouped together into a subset typically containing only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically.

There just isn't anything that “tongues-speakers” is producing that cannot be explained in relatively simple linguistic terms.

Paul asserted that whoever speaks in a tongue “does not speak to men, but to God”
If tongues-speech is always a human language, how could Paul say that “no one understands?

 

[Kavik]

Paul asserted that whoever speaks in a tongue “does not speak to men, but to God”
If tongues-speech is always a human language, how could Paul say that “no one understands?

Because that's not at all what he said -

1Cor. 14:2 is perhaps the quintessential verse used by many to “evidence” modern tongues-speech in the Bible.

Let’s paraphrase this verse into a more modern English.

To do this, you need to get rid of the added “unknown”, use a more accurate translation from the Greek, and a more modern rendering of the archaic word “tongue” –

Once done, we have something more like this –

“He that speaks in a language isn’t speaking to others, but only to God; no one hears [him] with understanding (or "no one listening to/hearing him understands what he's saying); nevertheless, though he’s praying in the Spirit, he’s uttering mysteries.”

The whole passage is talking about real, rational language.

Let me use an analogy - If I attend a worship service in “East Haystack”, some remote town in the US out in the middle of nowhere, two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone speaks anything but English is pretty slim to nil.

If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a single word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one there will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service.

In this sense, therefore, I am speaking only to God, since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (as defined below), to the people listening to me, I’m still speaking “mysteries” – i.e. even though I’m praying as I ought, no one understands me; no one has a clue what I’m saying as no one speaks my language.

When one looks at the original Greek, the verb which is usually translated as “understandeth/understands” is actually the verb “to hear” in the sense of understanding what you’re hearing someone say. The verb is not “to understand”. That part of the verse is more properly “no one hears [him] with understanding”, i.e. no one listening to him understands what he’s saying.

There is nothing in this passage that suggests modern tongues-speech nor is there anything that even remotely suggests that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying. The Greek bears this out; it is the listeners who do not understand, not the speaker as well – no matter how hard modern tongues-speakers want the speaker to also not understand…….it just isn’t there.

“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.

 

[Heaven_Bound]

Because that's not at all what he said -

1Cor. 14:2 is perhaps the quintessential verse used by many to “evidence” modern tongues-speech in the Bible.

Let’s paraphrase this verse into a more modern English.

To do this, you need to get rid of the added “unknown”, use a more accurate translation from the Greek, and a more modern rendering of the archaic word “tongue” –

Once done, we have something more like this –

“He that speaks in a language isn’t speaking to others, but only to God; no one hears [him] with understanding (or "no one listening to/hearing him understands what he's saying); nevertheless, though he’s praying in the Spirit, he’s uttering mysteries.”

The whole passage is talking about real, rational language.

Let me use an analogy - If I attend a worship service in “East Haystack”, some remote town in the US out in the middle of nowhere, two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone speaks anything but English is pretty slim to nil.

If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a single word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one there will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service.

In this sense, therefore, I am speaking only to God, since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (as defined below), to the people listening to me, I’m still speaking “mysteries” – i.e. even though I’m praying as I ought, no one understands me; no one has a clue what I’m saying as no one speaks my language.

When one looks at the original Greek, the verb which is usually translated as “understandeth/understands” is actually the verb “to hear” in the sense of understanding what you’re hearing someone say. The verb is not “to understand”. That part of the verse is more properly “no one hears [him] with understanding”, i.e. no one listening to him understands what he’s saying.

There is nothing in this passage that suggests modern tongues-speech nor is there anything that even remotely suggests that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying. The Greek bears this out; it is the listeners who do not understand, not the speaker as well – no matter how hard modern tongues-speakers want the speaker to also not understand…….it just isn’t there.

“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.

I asked my friends Mother, who I posted on here, including her Expert Paper she wrote, [AND YOU ACKNOWLEDGED], and she will be the first to admit that she has no idea what is being said, and that it IS NOT a human Language. She has traveled the world and understands + speaks fluently almost every natural Language on Earth, and still tells me that IS NOT a human Language!

How are Your Credentials more advanced than Hers, that I should accept your Uneducated Opinion?

 

[Kavik]

I asked my friends Mother, who I posted on here, including her Expert Paper she wrote, [AND YOU ACKNOWLEDGED], and she will be the first to admit that she has no idea what is being said, and that it IS NOT a human Language. She has traveled the world and understands + speaks fluently almost every natural Language on Earth, and still tells me that IS NOT a human Language!

How are Your Credentials more advanced than Hers, that I should accept your Uneducated Opinion?

Not sure what you're getting at? What paper did I acknowledge?? And, yes, she is quite correct to state that modern tongues speech is not language (human or otherwise); it does not meet the universal criteria for 'language'. The modern phenomenon is as I have described in post #705 above. Indeed not one example of tongues-speech in the literally thousands and thousands which have been transcribed and studied has ever been found to be a real, rational language - living or dead.

 

[Heaven_Bound]

Not sure what you're getting at? What paper did I acknowledge?? And, yes, she is quite correct to state that modern tongues speech is not language; it does not meet the universal criteria for 'language'. The modern phenomenon is as I have described in post #705 above. Indeed not one example of tongues-speech in the literally thousands and thousands which have been transcribed and studied has ever been found to be a real, rational language - living or dead.

I just posted,
***Paul asserted that whoever speaks in a tongue “does not speak to men, but to God”
If tongues-speech is always a human language, how could Paul say that “no one understands?***

And you replied with, ***Because that's not at all what he said -***

But, She will claim my question I proposed was correct because it is not human Language.

 

[1ofthem]

Some are trying to use the wisdom of men to understand. We know the wisdom of men is foolishness to God and vice a versa.

You are willing to believe that Jesus came to this earth, was crucified for our sins and rose again the third day defeating death, hell, and the grave. Without, any scientific evidence or actual records other than scripture. AND I do THANK GOD for that.

But at the same time, you doubt his Words and the other Scriptures.

This is being like a double minded man or woman. You have to ask in faith.

So again, I say take it to the Lord, trust in his Word, and have faith in Him.

 

[Rhomphaeam]

But, You are well aware that those debating with You have been confused and You never once tried to change in order so they could understand. What is that Message?

This is a forum brother and not a church. There is no message that can be delivered here if you mean in a spirit of prophecy because prophecy is for the church - not a forum. And if I deliver a rational message it will be refused anyway because any rational message would necessarily be spiritually implicated seeing as I am a Christian. You told me already how any intelligent message in a church would be perceived in a forum:

In a Church Setting, you reading your philosophical writing style would be perceived as intelligence.

But on a message board, you will be perceived as a pompous buffoon trying to belittle others.

When I write in a manner that you call philosophical then I am called a sorcerer by yourself and a man who thinks he is the Riddler by @kaylagrl.

And when I reply to that wisdom of yours to my inciting a perception of being a pompous buffoon - and say to you:

I do understand what you have said - yet it is also true that how anyone is perceived is likely to come down to many things in truth - and on a forum that may seem limited to written words that must somehow be to the point. That is your own position. You said so. I understood what you said. It isn't difficult to write short points. It isn't difficult to step ideas in a row and make them easy to understand. Neither is it easy to refuse that complex ideas can be easily missed or else create a breach in understanding that causes the reader to schism off into an effect that is self defeating to the one who is writing - yet be unavoidable because difficult realities cannot be expressed in simple sentences.

Nothing is difficult to read that is appropriately given - to the right audience - in the right way - in the language and manner of those who are reading. Yet for all that - difficult things to understand are best left partially hidden in the words being written or spoken so that the Lord can sift His children according to their hearts. Otherwise people are simply led by a man. I have no wish to lead anyone and neither am I anyones teacher.

.....You require me to answer this:

I agree!

But, Who are You, to think Your writing is so Inspired and complete Truth, if they do not understand, it is their fault?

that seems rather selfish to think if someone doesn't understand You, they are not understanding God through You!

I've never read a single Verse where I scratched my head and thought, this is confusing.

So I think to myself that if perhaps I simply post a Scripture I may be able to satiate your concern for my deficit in wisdom and likely poor spiritual condition and post this:

May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED.”

Which is speaking to this Scripture "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest". Pslam 51:4

.....Then having received a medal of blessing in your emoji you then posts this:

But, You are well aware that those debating with You have been confused and You never once tried to change in order so they could understand. What is that Message?

.....And to your wisdom that I haven't changed despite knowing that those I have been debating have been confused and I haven't even changed my writing style @kaylagrl tells you:

When a poster spins or refuses to be clear when asked I leave them alone. They have a pattern and that's how they will always answer. Some people think they are the Riddler, it gets old fast.

Then in your equitable nature you give the sister a medal of blessing emoji.

So to conclude the post then, brother.

You call me a sorcerer and when I ask you why you explain yourself by telling me that I write in a philosophical way and confuse people then @#649 you follow that up and tell me that:

Clearly, speaking plainly is something you dislike. Clearly, you like confusion. This is not a difficult discussion, but yet, everyone dealing with you has not understood the majority of what you have posted. Your attempts at being poetic and to appear as being brilliant has led to having to ask you the same question in a multitude of ways. Come on man, how difficult is it for You to say, I think Interpretation is incorrect because of this .......?

You are intentional!

How do you expect others to gain the knowledge you claim to posses by speaking riddles so they are more confused afterwards?

You claim i am pushy, I am mean, I am judgmental, but you make it difficult to hold a conversation with you. And when I finally get you to be plain spoken, you wait forever to answer a simple question concerning the Interpretations are questionable.

You served in Jail, you say!
In my Sinful life prior to my Ministry, I got paid to collect money at any cost from those who could never qualify getting loans from a bank and had to go to the kinds of people that you would wet the bed over.

I am just saying, I don't like your approach to our discussion at all!

So you finally ask me "what is the message?"

Which element of this should I take to be the simple plain truth, brother? And you ask for a message - which in my weakened state I perceive may just be a bluff or a snare of just a sense of humour.

 

[Heaven_Bound]

This is a forum brother and not a church. There is no message that can be delivered here if you mean in a spirit of prophecy because prophecy is for the church - not a forum. And if I deliver a rational message it will be refused anyway because any rational message would necessarily be spiritually implicated seeing as I am a Christian. You told me already how any intelligent message in a church would be perceived in a forum:



When I write in a manner that you call philosophical then I am called a sorcerer by yourself and a man who thinks he is the Riddler by @kaylagrl.

And when I reply to that wisdom of yours to my inciting a perception of being a pompous buffoon - and say to you:



.....You require me to answer this:



So I think to myself that if perhaps I simply post a Scripture I may be able to satiate your concern for my deficit in wisdom and likely poor spiritual condition and post this:



Which is speaking to this Scripture "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest". Pslam 51:4

.....Then having received a medal of blessing in your emoji you then posts this:



.....And to your wisdom that I haven't changed despite knowing that those I have been debating have been confused and I haven't even changed my writing style @kaylagrl tells you:



Then in your equitable nature you give the sister a medal of blessing emoji.

So to conclude the post then, brother.

You call me a sorcerer and when I ask you why you explain yourself by telling me that I write in a philosophical way and confuse people then @#649 you follow that up and tell me that:



So you finally ask me "what is the message?"

Which element of this should I take to be the simple plain truth, brother? And you ask for a message - which in my weakened state I perceive may just be a bluff or a snare of just a sense of humour.

I am not saying how you write is not your normal writing style. Since you have done it all throughout this Thread, it is clearly how you write, and how your mind articulates the thoughts into a series of words and sentences. And personally, it reminds me when I read the writings of Wesley, Whitefield, Spurgeon, some of Moody, Sunday, and Others. It's a unique style and that is who you are.

But for some reason, it is not relating to others who are attempting to get more clarification and specifics from you. I just thought for that purpose, maybe approach it with a different and more modern style.

I know for myself, I some how missed that you were discussing the Interpretation portion, and feel you got tired of me putting the focus wrongfully and just flat out stated in plain writing what it was that you were discussing. Which thrilled me, but also made me understand if I missed your point, so are the Others. And that is why I suggested as such. Had I known your intention awhile back, this could have been a good discussion. Anyway, I feel better to finally know what you were trying to say in how you say it.

 

[kaylagrl]

This is a forum brother and not a church. There is no message that can be delivered here if you mean in a spirit of prophecy because prophecy is for the church - not a forum. And if I deliver a rational message it will be refused anyway because any rational message would necessarily be spiritually implicated seeing as I am a Christian. You told me already how any intelligent message in a church would be perceived in a forum:



When I write in a manner that you call philosophical then I am called a sorcerer by yourself and a man who thinks he is the Riddler by @kaylagrl.

And when I reply to that wisdom of yours to my inciting a perception of being a pompous buffoon - and say to you:



.....You require me to answer this:



So I think to myself that if perhaps I simply post a Scripture I may be able to satiate your concern for my deficit in wisdom and likely poor spiritual condition and post this:



Which is speaking to this Scripture "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest". Pslam 51:4

.....Then having received a medal of blessing in your emoji you then posts this:



.....And to your wisdom that I haven't changed despite knowing that those I have been debating have been confused and I haven't even changed my writing style @kaylagrl tells you:



Then in your equitable nature you give the sister a medal of blessing emoji.

So to conclude the post then, brother.

You call me a sorcerer and when I ask you why you explain yourself by telling me that I write in a philosophical way and confuse people then @#649 you follow that up and tell me that:



So you finally ask me "what is the message?"

Which element of this should I take to be the simple plain truth, brother? And you ask for a message - which in my weakened state I perceive may just be a bluff or a snare of just a sense of humour.

When people are having issues understanding you and are confused, either

1. You don't know how to write clearly in this type of style ( forum)

2. You are purposely trying to confuse or obscure what you are saying.

Both happen often here. You and I haven't spoken here so I don't know which issue it is. Nor do I care. My advice to him was, in general, when I come up against someone who seems to be speaking in riddles or who is not clear, after I try to get a clear answer several times , I don't bother with that poster. Why continue if someone cannot be understood?!

 

[Rhomphaeam]

When people are having issues understanding you and are confused, either

1. You don't know how to write clearly in this type of style ( forum)

2. You are purposely trying to confuse or obscure what you are saying.

Both happen often here. You and I haven't spoken here so I don't know which issue it is. Nor do I care. My advice to him was, in general, when I come up against someone who seems to be speaking in riddles or who is not clear, after I try to get a clear answer several times , I don't bother with that poster. Why continue if someone cannot be understood?!

I'll leave others to determine what my writing style is - but just to say it sister, it isn't a style. So whilst you can neutralise your insult by drawing on a criminal mastermind who incorporates riddles into his speech in order to deceive and mock others - the Lord is likely to take a different view when what is being spoken are not riddles - but a spiritual meaning that is prophetically held.. The only point I will concede - and not because you have made it - is that its effect is a sifting effect that ought to make the person who is responding think about their own response when the originator of that effect comes back and says "look what you have said!"

As to your indifference - as articulated in your emoji to my post - that is a poor spirit to have when what you read demonstrated a clear insult to another Christian. And just to say it - as it is always an easy matter to escape by a means of another being gracious and rational in their expressions - at the very least you ought to express any such direction of meanings into a proper spirit of giving cause to believe that the person you are speaking about is in need of some spiritual advise given that it must be self evident that I am against the prophetic direction of the original OP comment - in particular as it became directed to advising a brother that he needed to be saved as an invocation to ask the Father. It literally took the form of giving the words to pray to God. It was a prophetic dial predicated on a false spirit and an undoubted reality that became visible in many charismatic churches and pentecostal churches long before the internet was invented.

But I do understand why I am being resisted and taken to task using any number of emotional or else seeming rational claims - even when as I have shown the rationale is entirely unconvincing due to the spiritual dial of what is ambitiously upheld. Those who have taken me to task are some sisters and a brother - whether the resistance is clever or not - and amounts in its farthest meaning to my being a most vile and undoubted sorcerer. Your rational - predication in this response herein is at least up held in my post @#342 where just this Monday after all these exchanges had occurred already in its accusatory framework you signalled yourself as spirited in the relevant emoji.



If you were surprised by that comment of mine then lets be gracious and just say that it is the surprise to my being able to write in a manner consistent with expressing a personal view that holds to a spiritual truth. Like it or dislike it I am not about a personal view of spiritual things that should only be personalised when they are an expression of a persons words and when that happens I am right into my gift. Follow your own advise and ignore me sister.

 

[Kavik]

I just posted,
***Paul asserted that whoever speaks in a tongue “does not speak to men, but to God”
If tongues-speech is always a human language, how could Paul say that “no one understands?***

And you replied with, ***Because that's not at all what he said -***

But, She will claim my question I proposed was correct because it is not human Language.

Again, no idea what/who you're referring to. Modern tongues-speech is not language; human or otherwise.

 

[Kavik]

So, here are three links to random tongues videos pulled off of YT - curious if any of these would be considered, in you the reader's opinion, as legit 'tongues' - if so why? If not, why not?

What makes them legit, what makes them not legit??

Does it boil down to a matter of personal opinion? What "Joe" considers legit, "Jane" says is bogus, etc. Is there that much disagreement even amongst tongues-speakers as to what's legit and what's not?

Again, these are just random choices I pulled off the internet, but I think exemplify what's out there.

 

[kaylagrl]

I'll leave others to determine what my writing style is - but just to say it sister, it isn't a style. So whilst you can neutralise your insult by drawing on a criminal mastermind who incorporates riddles into his speech in order to deceive and mock others - the Lord is likely to take a different view when what is being spoken are not riddles - but a spiritual meaning that is prophetically held.. The only point I will concede - and not because you have made it - is that its effect is a sifting effect that ought to make the person who is responding think about their own response when the originator of that effect comes back and says "look what you have said!"

As to your indifference - as articulated in your emoji to my post - that is a poor spirit to have when what you read demonstrated a clear insult to another Christian. And just to say it - as it is always an easy matter to escape by a means of another being gracious and rational in their expressions - at the very least you ought to express any such direction of meanings into a proper spirit of giving cause to believe that the person you are speaking about is in need of some spiritual advise given that it must be self evident that I am against the prophetic direction of the original OP comment - in particular as it became directed to advising a brother that he needed to be saved as an invocation to ask the Father. It literally took the form of giving the words to pray to God. It was a prophetic dial predicated on a false spirit and an undoubted reality that became visible in many charismatic churches and pentecostal churches long before the internet was invented.

But I do understand why I am being resisted and taken to task using any number of emotional or else seeming rational claims - even when as I have shown the rationale is entirely unconvincing due to the spiritual dial of what is ambitiously upheld. Those who have taken me to task are some sisters and a brother - whether the resistance is clever or not - and amounts in its farthest meaning to my being a most vile and undoubted sorcerer. Your rational - predication in this response herein is at least up held in my post @#342 where just this Monday after all these exchanges had occurred already in its accusatory framework you signalled yourself as spirited in the relevant emoji.

View attachment 235197

If you were surprised by that comment of mine then lets be gracious and just say that it is the surprise to my being able to write in a manner consistent with expressing a personal view that holds to a spiritual truth. Like it or dislike it I am not about a personal view of spiritual things that should only be personalised when they are an expression of a persons words and when that happens I am right into my gift. Follow your own advise and ignore me sister.

And here is the reason you are having issues with other posters. I made a very simple comment to HB, if you can't understand a poster, move on. You take it as the worst insult you've ever received, take it to the tenth spiritual level, take a fictional character and act like I compared you to an ax murderer. So let me give you some advice in return, you are far too sensitive to be in a forum. You take everything far too seriously,an emoji is not "spiritual". You're ministry is out there, not here. This is a place people discuss, we don't personalize every little word. You do. You and HB were derailing the thread simply because you were talking past each other. I gave advice to him. Now you think you'll take me to task for it. I'm not that person.

 

[kaylagrl]

So, here are three links to random tongues videos pulled off of YT - curious if any of these would be considered, in you the reader's opinion, as legit 'tongues' - if so why? If not, why not?

What makes them legit, what makes them not legit??

Does it boil down to a matter of personal opinion? What "Joe" considers legit, "Jane" says is bogus, etc. Is there that much disagreement even amongst tongues-speakers as to what's legit and what's not?

Again, these are just random choices I pulled off the internet, but I think exemplify what's out there.

None, and I haven't watched any. No sincere person would take something so sacred and put it on a secular media like Youtube. Seriously, gimme a break.

 

[Heaven_Bound]

Again, no idea what/who you're referring to. Modern tongues-speech is not language; human or otherwise.

According to You, someone with No Credentials to make any type of conclusion or decision as you have! I would suggest that everyone should ignore your opinion since it is based off pure conjecture and no professional authority in the realm of Linguistics.