problem related to praying in tongues

[Kavik]

Here's an example of Agnes Ozman's automatic writing of her "tongues" which she transcribed as she spoke. The caption at the bottom misspelled her name as Miss Auswin. For those who may not know, Ozman was the first who spoke in "tongues" in Topeka, KS, which kickstarted the Pentecostal movement.

Here's another one which is supposed to be Chinese.

https://charlesasullivan.com/9604/early-pentecostal-tongues-part-3/

Both were reported to be 'Chinese' - one of the very few instances where "tongues" were written. I suspect Ms. Ozman may have seen Chinese writing and attempted to imitate it in her writing. The first example inspired perhaps by Chinese calligraphy on a painting, the second by regular block print you'd see on a sign or something.

 

[Kavik]

How on earth do you derive Paul's quotation refering tounges to language of angels as a hyperbole. ??

I think you need to do a grammar re-check re literary hyperbole.

 

[Fundaamental]

I think you need to do a grammar re-check re literary hyperbole.

I have,

Your basically saying Paul used an exaggeration to describe tounges as the language of angels.


And you want to pass your exaggeration of, as a grammar fault I have.

Talk about a cop out wow.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

who cares about HYPERBOLE when Paul ends with this

but Paul also ended with a COMMAND from GOD:
37 ...he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.
38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
39 So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.


basically, Paul said: I am writing to you are a command of the Lord

and ONE of those Commands by GOD: do not forbid speaking in tongues



when is the last time you OBEYED this Command by GOD?

38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

I have,

Your basically saying Paul used an exaggeration to describe tounges as the language of angels.


And you want to pass your exaggeration of, as a grammar fault I have.

Talk about a cop out wow.

You actually believe Speaking in Tongues is the Language of the Angels?

Paul isn't even referring to Speaking in Tongues when he says if he could speak the language of Angels.

And No, Paul, never spoke angelic languages. Even when he went to Heaven for a few days, he never spoke. He said what he saw could never be told to us because we couldn't understand it.

Where. If I understand correctly, did you get that Speaking in Tongues is Same as Angels Language?


First off, only God can understand Speaking in Tongues, not the Angels.

So, how can Speaking in Tongues be Angel Language?

They don't understand what's being said at all.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

It's why Speaking in Tongues is excellent when casting out Demons.

They only know you are Speaking to God and it ain't going to end well for them.

 

[VARob]

Here's an example of Agnes Ozman's automatic writing of her "tongues" which she transcribed as she spoke. The caption at the bottom misspelled her name as Miss Auswin. For those who may not know, Ozman was the first who spoke in "tongues" in Topeka, KS, which kickstarted the Pentecostal movement.

Here's another one which is supposed to be Chinese.

https://charlesasullivan.com/9604/early-pentecostal-tongues-part-3/

There is no such thing as writing in tongues, so this is completely irrelevant.

 

[VARob]

Ecstatic utterances is the correct name for what is called tongues as practiced today.

For deniers such as yourself, yes.

It's not in God's word because ecstatic utterances aren't taught God's word.

That’s right. But speaking in tongues is.

 

[VARob]

It's why Speaking in Tongues is excellent when casting out Demons.

That’s not in the Bible.

 

[VARob]

No, it was called "glôssa" - meaning "language" (i.e. real, rational speech)

Speaking in tongues is speaking a language.

 

[VARob]

I think it is the reverse it is sad that Christians have accepted a false manifestation as some private prayer language when Paul was clearly employing hyperbole.

Tongues, "lingua" in the letter to the Corinthians is known earthly languages so you would be correct that this is what Paul is addressing in his letter.
Ecstatic utterances is what we hear in modern day churches which is not speaking in a known earthly language.

Languages are organized and if angels did have a language that was given to humans I am sure it would be far more organized and meaningful not less.

The manifestation of speaking in tongues is never described as speaking a known earthly language.

 

[VARob]

did you see Paul speak in Tongues?

if the Spirit causes you to groan and Speak in Tongues, you don't think Paul looked ecstatic?

Paul did it so much he mentioned it.

groaning in the spirit is like vomiting dry heaves. you don't think jerking around and moaning like Paul would have done is not ecstatic?

Where in the hell do you come up with this stuff?
You’re NOT helping.

 

[VARob]

It is in some translations. Let me guess, you're a KJV onlyist.

Guess again.

 

[ResidentAlien]

The manifestation of speaking in tongues is never described as speaking a known earthly language.

Of course it is, you're just to stubborn-headed to admit it. On the day of Pentecost they all heard them speak in their own native tongues. So to continue in this line of reasoning makes you look very foolish indeed.

 

[VARob]

Of course it is, you're just to stubborn-headed to admit it.

No it’s not. Speaking in tongues is a language of men or of angels.

On the day of Pentecost they all heard them speak in their own native tongues.

That’s correct, but that almost never happens, which is why Paul said that when tongues are spoken aloud in a meeting they must be interpreted.

So to continue in this line of reasoning makes you look very foolish indeed.

On the day of Pentecost, you would have been one of the ones accusing the apostles of being drunk.

 

[Kavik]

The manifestation of speaking in tongues is never described as speaking a known earthly language.

That is the only thing 'tongues' is (when referring to somehting spoken, at any rate). Nowhere in the Bible is modern tongues-speech (the tongues of today's Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians) evidenced or advocated.

 

[Kavik]

That’s correct, but that almost never happens, which is why Paul said that when tongues are spoken aloud in a meeting they must be interpreted.

Yes, because no one at that public gathering speaks/understands that particular language; thus, the only one benefitting is the speaker. Paul calls for understanding and clarity at a public gathering such that all may benefit - hence his admonition that the speaker should try and secure a translator (else keep silent and pray to God and himself).

 

[VARob]

That is the only thing 'tongues' is (when referring to somehting spoken, at any rate). Nowhere in the Bible is modern tongues-speech (the tongues of today's Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians) evidenced or advocated.

You’re wrong.

Even though you don’t believe speaking in tongues is legit, I do hope that you’ll become a Christian.

 

[VARob]

Yes, because no one at that public gathering speaks/understands that particular language; thus, the only one benefitting is the speaker. Paul calls for understanding and clarity at a public gathering such that all may benefit - hence his admonition that the speaker should try and secure a translator (else keep silent and pray to God and himself).

The person who speaks in tongues is to be the one to interpret (1 Cor 14:5, 13).

 

[ResidentAlien]

No it’s not. Speaking in tongues is a language of men or of angels.


That’s correct, but that almost never happens, which is why Paul said that when tongues are spoken aloud in a meeting they must be interpreted.


On the day of Pentecost, you would have been one of the ones accusing the apostles of being drunk.

No need to keep arguing this with you. You're doing a very good job of making yourself look like an idiot. No help needed from me.