TONGUES false teaching.

If you have attended as many Pentecostal church meetings as I have you will agree that what is seen in all of them is the habit of "SPEAKING" in Tongues.

It is a method of speaking in such a way that no one understands what is said.
No one interprets what is muttered.
Women it seems are the ones who do most of the "Tongues" noises.

Now, allow me to say that I have been there and done that. However as I grew older and actually READ what the Bible says it becmae very clear that what is seen today is NOT BIBLICAL tongues as recorded in the Bible.

So then, instead of just accepting what we have been told or doing what we WANT to do, shall we actually see what the Bible does it fact say??????

Acts 2:7-11............

Notice the phrase in Acts 2:11, "our tongues." The crowds heard the Apostles preach in their own native tongues, not some unknown heavenly jibber jabber. There was NEVER any heavenly languages spoken that no one understood and required an interpreter.

There is a drastic difference between Biblical tongues and the heretical speaking in tongues we see in churches today.

The "speaking in tongues" which the Pentecostals foolishly practice are UNKNOWN tongues, not anything found on earth. Supposedly, those unknown tongues can only be interpreted by ONE spirit-filled member of the congregation.

The Apostle Paul speaks common sense to us Corinthians 14:19...
"Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."

Now before replying to this post from an "Emotional" response, and actually that is what speaking in tongues is, an EMOTIONAL event, take the time to do the work first.

Read 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14. Anyone can see that they are "Corrective" Chapters from Paul to the church and the CONTEXT is .....ready.....
Speaking in tongues".

Now that being the correct hermeneutical point then notice carefully chapter 14:34........
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. "

Literally....the CONTEXT demands that "women are not permitted to speak in TONGUES in church".

Without women speaking in tongues there is then in fact no tongues movement at all.

I thought that someone should be able to interpret what the person is saying when they are speaking in tongues?

I went to a church where the pastor’s wife spoke in tongues but I don’t think anyone could interpret and she never acted as if she knew what she was saying. I also noticed that her husband was the church (he was the pastor, teacher and worship leader..it was a small church) so I always wondered if this was a way for her to be noticed, honestly.

Well hi Lisamn

There is a problem with both sides not doing things according to scripture and I think you will find most people agree to that

Hi Sophie! I’m not sure what sides you are talking about here?

Oh sorry. You're new here. We have basically two sides ... those who are cessationists and those, like myself, who are not.

And then as always, the undecided too I guess.

I thought that someone should be able to interpret what the person is saying when they are speaking in tongues?

I went to a church where the pastor’s wife spoke in tongues but I don’t think anyone could interpret and she never acted as if she knew what she was saying. I also noticed that her husband was the church (he was the pastor, teacher and worship leader..it was a small church) so I always wondered if this was a way for her to be noticed, honestly.

did the wife use a microphone ?

No..she just would be sitting there and talking in a language I’ve never heard before. I asked her what she was saying and she just smiled at me.

Ok, cos maybe with a microphone she may seek attention or wanting to look good.

Like I said..her husband took all the attention..I thought maybe she did it to attract attention to herself..no one really knew what she was saying..or if they did they didn’t say anything. I at first thought it was kinda neat..but then thought that someone should have known what she said.
We all also spoke english..so why would tongues be needed?

maybe using a microphone would be a change in mindset. Without a microphone people are nobody's.

Like I said..her husband took all the attention..I thought maybe she did it to attract attention to herself..no one really knew what she was saying..or if they did they didn’t say anything. I at first thought it was kinda neat..but then thought that someone should have known what she said.
We all also spoke english..so why would tongues be needed?

It wasn’t a big church...she could be heard from where she was sitting.

No one is supposed to speak in tongues when no translator is present so she is violating what Paul taught...not to mention she isn't actually speaking the type of tongues Paul spoke about anyways.

1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

On the gift of tongues, those who claim it continues in it's modern form have misinterpreted 1 Corinthians 12:10:

"and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues,"
...

My problem isn't so much with the gift of tongues but with the sloppy interpretation used to justify it and the way it's put into practice.

There is no magical or miracle subject here. Tongues simply is a VERY OLD English word for "languages". All Paul is talking about is speaking and translating foreign languages so other people can know what's being said. Most of what Paul talks about in regards to "tongues" is this. The odd sounding "language" found in some churches is simply not something the bible promotes.

While "tongues" does indeed mean "languages", 1 Corinthians 14:13-19 makes it clear that the languages spoken "in tongues" are not learned foreign languages. Paul writes in v. 19 that he would rather speak five words with his mind than ten thousand in a tongue. If he were merely speaking a foreign language that he had previously learned, he would be using his mind. He clearly distinguishes the two.

If there were "no magical or miracle subject here", then why does Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, include tongues among prophecy, healing, discernment of spirits, and miracles?

He used "understanding" not "mind.

1Co 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

This is what he is saying, "Yet in the church I would rather speak five words I understand, that by my voice I might teach others, than ten thousand words in an a language I don't understand. "

Prophecy isn't a miracle either but it's placed there too. Prophecy is simply repeating what God told you about the future.

The NASB has "mind". Regardless, my point stands: it is not a manifestation of the Holy Spirit if he is speaking a language he has already learned.

That's your interpretation; I don't agree. If Paul were speaking a language he did not understand, he would be doing so by the Holy Spirit, so your position is still refuted.

Wow. Okay... any other words you want to redefine, while you're at it?

The part of the HS is for him to fully understand what is being spoken more than just linguistically and to be able to re-speak it in another language accurately. IOW there are great translations and very bad translations.

No, it isn't. Paul would choose to speak 5 words he knew rather than speak many words he didn't know. He is speaking about real languages not a faked supposed language.