Why can’t i speak in tongues as a Christian

What is your Denomination?

None ya

you need to respond biblically as to why you see 1cor 14:1-3

"But he that prophesieth" "speaketh unto men "But he that prophesieth" "speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort."
Means prophesy. When it says very clearly


"But he that prophesieth" "speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort."

this is awesome

Nothing like avoiding, What is your Denomination?

It was not me that used 1cor 14:1-3

it's what the word of God says

nor was I responding to you when I said the first time, LOL.

In several passages (Numbers 23:22, 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psalm 22:21, 29:6; Isaiah 34:7), the King James Version of the Bible mentions a unicorn. The original Hebrew is the word re’em which was translated monokeros in the Septuagint and unicornis in the Latin Vulgate. Later versions use the phrase “wild ox.” The original Hebrew word basically means “beast with a horn.” One possible interpretation is the rhinoceros. But since the Hebrew tow’apaha in Numbers 23:22 refers to more than one horn, it’s likely the translators of the Septuagint used creative license to infer a wild and powerful, but recognizable animal for their versions.

The re’em is believed to refer to aurochs or urus, large cattle which roamed Europe and Asia in ancient times. Aurochs stood over six feet tall and were the ancestors of domestic cattle. They became extinct in the 1600s. In the Bible, the “wild ox” usually refers to someone with great power. In Numbers 23:22 and 24:8, God compares His own strength to that of a wild ox. In Psalm 22:21, David imagines his enemies as wild oxen. The bull represented several different deities including Baal, Moloch, and the Egyptian Apis. The Israelites tried to adopt these beliefs when they made the golden calf.

Whether the re’em refers to a rhinocerous, or an auroch, or some other horned animal, the image is the same—that of an untamable, ferocious, powerful, wild animal. What we do know is that the Bible is not referring to the mythological “unicorn,” the horse-with-a-horn creature of fairy tales and fantasy literature. It is highly unlikely that the KJV translators believed in the mythological unicorn. Rather, they simply used the Latin term that described a “beast with a horn.” Got Questions.org

In Acts 10, they spake with tongues and magnified God. It does not say that they __all__ spoke with tongues. In Acts 19, they spake with tongues and prophesied. it does not say that they _all_ spoke in tongues.
There is no reference to tongues in Samaria. What verse do you think implies it? Can you show that specifically?

They do not state otherwise.

Consider the idea of hearing God speak at Mt. Sinai/Horeb. A preacher says, "Moses went to Mt. Sinai and heard God speak. He took the children of Israel to Mt. Sinai and they all heard God speak. Elijah went there, too, and he heard God speak. That's three witnesses of scripture, so if you take the tour with me to the real Mt. Sinai, you are 100% guaranteed to hear God speak, because it is in the Bible."

There are some problems with that. The 'two and three witnesses' scripture is never about 'if something happened to two or three people, it is guaranteed to happen to me.' It was used in court-type situations, and was to be used in church court type situations, and Christ also had witnesses to who He is.


If you will notice, the line of reasoning for 'initial evidence is weaker than the Sinai argument,
"In Acts 2, they __all_ spoke with tongues. In Acts 10, everyone in the group or representatives of the group either spoke in tongues or magnified God. In Acts 19 everyone in the group or representatives of the group either spoke in tongues or prophesied. Therefore, you are guaranteed to speak with tongues."

That isn't an airtight argument, and assuming the Samaritans spoke in tongues when there is no evidence of it in Acts 8 does not add any more proof.

re'em means extreme power or animal with horns pointed toward sky like an Ox.

but look at the portion i quoted here from your Post.

the KJV mentions unicorn + the Latin Vulgate used unicornis.

in the KJV Bible threads i have brought light to the fact that Erasmus used texts from the 10th Century and newer. he did not go to the literal Hebrew or Greek we call original. and here we see PROOF because the KJV is a Textus Receptus Text and it uses the Secondary Translation. which only furthers my suggestion that the KJV Bible is not the Word of God like we have in the Hebrew Tanakh and 3rd Century Greek Texts. basically, the KJV is a story book of the 2 factual Books and like any story book, it's not accurate and very suggestive and subjected.

How does the evidence you present disagree with Bob Carabbio's?

Let's say there is a bad of thieves who rob their victims along a desert highway. The leader says to a new young robber. "God job with that last robbery. You are a natural. And don't worry if you feel bad after your first kill. It gets much easier. Now, let me give you some advice about how to hold the knife so if they fight back, it ends quickly. And next time, don't scream in that high pitched voice if they attack back."

That contains edification, comfort, and exhortation. But are utterances like this 'prophesying' in the Biblical sense? Are they a 'prophecy.'

The one who prophesies (genuinely) speaks as He is moved by the Spirit. He speaks words from God. It is revelatory speech. The verse you refer to tells what this type of speech---prophesying--- does in the congregation.

How does the verse you quote offer any evidence that those who prophesy are not prophets? If someone thinks anyone who prophesies is a prophet, do you think he will see the verse you quoted as evidence to the contrary? A couple of times in the Old Testaments, it quotes the proverb, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" but it doesn't answer the question.

I Corinthians 14 is not exclusively about non-prophets prophesying. It says to 'let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge', and presumably they could prophesy when they spoke.

I lean toward the idea that one can prophesy without being a prophet. That there is a shift there in the passage in regard to who it is talking about between verse 29 and 31, since it says to let the prophets speak... but then uses 'ye' (second person plural) and says in verse 31 that you are all able to prophesy one by one.

How does this contradict what Bob Carabbio wrote, quoted above?

The Old Testament has some harsh-sounding prophecies in it, but in Romans 15, Paul writes about having hope through the comfort of the scriptures. Revelation has some shocking stuff in it, but it is a book of prophecy.

Which manuscripts do we call 'original' that exist today, or existed in the 16th century? Is there any evidence that Erasmu's translation of the New Testament scriptures had something to do with the words translated unicorn?

Don't pay any attention to all this rubbish coming from this poster who has no clue about the subject. And in any event this is totally IRRELEVANT to the subject of the thread. Especially bringing up unicorns which is simply childish.

You didn't cite it, so I had to do a search to find this definition. I found what you quoted to be a kind of poor definition, probably influenced a bit by Calvin's influence, since Calvin seemed to have a fuzzy understanding of what 'prophesying' meant in the church.

Be that as it may, this site calls the author of Thayers, from which the definition is taken 'the leading universalist theologian of the 19th century.'

A word study of how the term was used and what it meant in contexts, comparing to the equivalent in the Old Testament, would be more helpful than the following definition. I quote more of it to give context, from this page: https://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Strongs/40015007/G4395
The indenting did not come out right. The letters are subsets of the first 1., and the second 1. is under d. in the outline.

Saying prophesying is to 'teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort others' under 'sudden impulse.' Is a fuzzy, sloppy, inaccurate definition of prophesying. If it is genuine prophesying, the key element is the moving of the Spirit, and the words being from God. Paul also recognizes teaching and exhortation as separate gifts from prophecy in Romans 12.[/quote]

well this is one of my continuing disagreements with how some are taught that prophecy in the NT, means you can add to scripture, tell the future and you are on the top of the heap of gifts

Please note I am not taking sides here. I was already in agreement with CS1, who, is in agreement with scripture and that is what I refer to and agree with

In particular, I am only referring to your statement that prophecy in both testaments is the same.

The New Testament gift of prophecy is different from Old Testament prophecy. Paul says the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 2 v 20). The equivalent of Old Testament prophecy is the apostolic testimony recorded in the New Testament. Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles brought God’s authoritative word to his people. In contrast, New Testament prophecy is to be weighed and tested (1 Thessalonians 5 v 19-22).

At its heart, prophecy seems to be bringing God’s word to bear in a particular situation. So it’s intimately tied to God’s word in the Bible, but also involves applying that word to specific situations. Paul says we should “eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy” because “the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort” (1 Corinthians 14 v 1, 3). Sometimes that means predicting the future (as with Agabus in Acts 11 v 27-30). But more generally, prophecy brings the truth to bear on people’s hearts so they can be strengthened, encouraged and comforted. source

I have already pointed out that Paul states tongues are equal to the gift of prophecy IF they are interpreted, so that should be remembered by folks who believe if you are a prophet, then you have some kind of authority no one else has, because yes, that is sadly often how that gift is misused today...I do not see you saying this, but it is in wide use today

It should be noted that the gifts are given for the edification of the body...the building up of the body of Christ and tongues are also for the edification of the individual, as per scripture, again from Paul

A prophet in the OT was sent by God to speak for God, to people who were NOT filled with the Holy Spirit as per the outpouring in Acts and available to all believers today (not that all believers wish to partake for various 'reasons') and the spiritual gift of prophecy today is to strengthen, encourage and comfort as per the highlighted text above.

Are we really going to dither about what the gift is actually for when the Bible explicitly tells us what it is for? How could tongues, IF interpreted, be compared to prophecy if prophecy was only for the foretelling of some event? Those 2 gifts would not then be comparable or equal under certain circumstances at all!

Having said that, a future event can sometimes be told as per the related event when Agabus foretold of a famine that was going to happen. It happened. Note that this was not correction or God warning about impending punishment but of the same nature as the dreams that came to Joseph....not condemnation or judgement as per OT prophets. Also note that is not the description of the function of a prophet as per the description from scripture.

HOWEVER, the main thing I would like to point out is simply the fact that prophets in the OT were the exception and were not sent to comfort but rather to warn, to correct and speak for God to people who preferred not to listen.

Believers today have all the words of the prophets, prophecies yet to come to pass and do not need a go between to speak to them on behalf of God. Moses was not the appointed go between the Israelites and God. God desired to speak directly to the Israelites but they did not want that; they wanted Moses to speak to them so God granted them their desire BUT it was not His best for them.

This is getting long but this is actually a MAJOR MAJOR point for understanding AND protection against deception.

here, not my opinion but the facts from the very best Scholars and Theologians on the subject itself:

from the Christian Publishing House:
FACTS on the TEXTUS RECEPTUS and the KING JAMES VERSION

BY
Allan A. MacRae and Robert C. Newman
Allan Alexander MacRae was an evangelical Christian scholar

Robert C. Newman is Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary, and Director of the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute.


How many manuscripts agree exactly with Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament?
There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with it. Erasmus made it by combining the readings of several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and most of them still later. In some parts of the New Testament he had no manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible.

Then why bother to hunt for early manuscripts? Why not simply follow the textus receptus?
God inspired the manuscripts that came from the hands of the original writers.



now, notice this portion specifically:
Then why bother to hunt for early manuscripts? Why not simply follow the textus receptus?
God inspired the manuscripts that came from the hands of the original writers.

^
they are saying the KJV Bible and Textus Receptus IS NOT THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD!

that's exactly what i thought about the KJV Translators when i discovered they used mythical creatures called unicorns in something they would classify as the Holy Word of God.

the KJV Translators were in deed CHILDISH!

off on a tangent, are we?