Featured The Early Church on Speaking In Tongues

Okay, take care.

 

What good is a soldier that knows all about guns, but doesn't have one. Not using this Gift has crippled the Church.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB06DaOGmW8

 

Using this gift has made the church a laughing stock. The Pensecola "Outpouring," the Toronto "Blessing" -- sheer ego and ignorance. The Pentecostal missionaries of the early last century attempted to go to China, India and Africa to "preach the gospel" with absolutely no language background, thinking they would be "granted the gift of tongues" and speak the language without knowing an accent mark about it. Again, sheer stupidity.

You can make whatever claim you want, you'll be as wrong as the church at Corinth was, and more so.

 

Different gift.

 

TNID, you will NEVER get the gobblers to admit they are gobbling. Save the grey hairs. The issue is not worth discussing. You may as well try and prove you're not a racist to some of the folks, here. Futile. Fruitless.

 

I agree those who are claiming they are speaking in tongues are only making gibberish sounds that mean nothing. It is ungodly.

 

Not even ...

 

Let me ask you. Have you ever won a single person to Christ with your tongues-speaking? RD2 said that tongues do not bring people to Christ, and he speaks in tongues as you do.

Wayne Robinson wrote, "My growing disenchantment peaked. I concluded that instead of tongues turning me towards people and their needs, my preoccupation with tongues speaking had turned me inward. Instead of driving me out into the midst of a world of hurt, lost and lonely men and women, I had retreated to a closet to seek a spiritual high for myself. Instead of identifying myself with the meek and the lowly, I had set myself apart as a member of the spiritual aristocracy. I was trying to impress. In effect, I was shouting, 'Look, people, I'm a Christian who speaks in tongues and I have the evidence to prove it'" (I Once Spoke in Tongues, pp. 54-55).

 

Your analogy is backward, especially in light of 1 Cor 14. You see, you profess to have a gift, and you attempt to use it, without understanding what it is you are saying. The better analogy here is a soldier with a weapon without understanding what it is or does.

It's like giving a caveman an assault rifle. He's more likely to hurt himself than anyone or anything else.

 

Wow. I have seldom seen so many "sure" statements with less Bible support. He doesn't even prove that a "prayer language" is in the Bible. (The phrase doesn't exist in the Bible, actually). "Pray more than 1 hour, to receive it." Where's that in the Bible? Not there. He tried to use it the next day after he "got it" and couldn't get it going. That's a danger sign right there! God's gifts aren't like that anywhere in the Bible!

And on and on it goes, with absolutely no Biblical proof.

 

1Co 14:21-22
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.


Truth is, these 2 verses alone would refute the whole movement, if anyone cared to see what they actually say.

 

May I add...

.... for those who cared to look? Several different versions included!

New International Version - "Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues."

New Living Translation -
"So, my dear brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and don't forbid speaking in tongues."

English Standard Version -
"So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues."

New American Standard Bible - "Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues."

Please note, that I do not care who does or does not speak in tongues, especially in the privacy of their own prayer closet, so I include this verse only to say, that there are those that refute tongues, but fail to remember this. either Paul was contradicting himself, or he spoke in prayer tongues, too? Will have to wait to heaven to discover the truth! Either way, it doesn't matter to me. Like PnS says, "It's amazing!" Bless you Prophet!

 

If you had...

....looked into that movement ... you'd remember it had to do with laughing in the spirit. This debate is not about that. PnS and I and others do not take lightly this gift, and I'm sure none of us agreed with the so called Toronto blessing. It was one more foolish charismatic event that did nothing but, as you say, make light of the Pentecostal gift of prayer language gift! Thanks for sharing!:thumbs:

 

Surely you know that "tongue" is the 1611 word for language (too bad the KJV adds "unknown")? And the Greek word here is the word for "language"? But even were I to grant the "tongues" translation, this verse does NOT teach that Paul had a private prayer language. There is no "private" or "prayer" in this verse, just "speak." This is one more example of very faulty exegesis by a tongues speaker--no offense.

IMO as a Bible translator, these translations use the word "tongue" because (1) it's traditional, and (2) it is a sop to the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches that like the archaic word. (And the NLT and NIV are lousy translations anyway.) Translations agreeing with me: HCSB ("other languages"), Beck ("strange languages"), the Japanese Nagai translation (言葉をもて話がたる, speak languages), the Chinese Union Version (話方言, speak dialects) etc.

 

What is "too bad" about calling something "unknown"?

The verses that define the gift of toungues make plain what is meant by "toungues", and limits it to "so many voices", and each with a signification.

What about lips?, can we start a lips movement now? Why hasn't somebody?

Toungues are a sign to unbelievers.
This eliminates "prayer closet" clucking, as a possible manifestation of this gift, even if one was confused about the limits and definitions set on the gift in the first place.

 

I personally have dealt with many possessed people...people declared MPD and institutionalized by the State...who traced the origin of the entrance of the evil spirits to the time they first "spoke in toungues".

I have heard the devils speak, calling Jesus a liar, claiming the person they possess, distorting the body of the possessed one.

These are people who met Satan in church, in a Charismatic church, in a toungues talking church.

One was delivered, and went to the state facility every weekend, preaching to the inmates. One of them was his daughter.

One had voices, idk how many. She would fall into a trance, staring blankly ahead, repeating what "the voices say".

I am working with an Indian now, who had a "mental breakdown", in a roomfull of people "praying in their heavenly language". He has had thoughts of murder, rage and hatred, since, and is now a felon, due to expressing these thoughts.
He was at a charismatic bible college, training for the ministry.
Of course, being Armenian, they blamed him when he crumbled, telling him his faith faltered.

What an evil movement. Wizards, nicolaitans, shaman, Balaams.

You will never again convince me that God is in your evil, I have seen too much.
Anathema.

 

RD - just a word of caution: In the very same chapter that it says "do not forbid to speak in tongues," it also says "he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself...he who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues...so that the church may be edified...try to excel in gifts that build up the church...I shall pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind...tongues are a sign for unbelievers; prophecy is for believers...all of these must be done for the strengthening of the church."

In other words, what you propose is a selfish gift, and is contradictory to what Paul was admonishing the Corinthians about in this chapter. I apologize if that sounds harsh, but I can't think of any other way to put it. Remember that the gift of languages (tongues) in Acts 2 was used to edify the church, and to bring unbelievers to Christ. A "private prayer language" does not do this. The gifts are NOT meant for individual edification; we should ALWAYS consider our brethren above ourselves. And if your gift doesn't edify others, then what good is it? You've become a sounding gong or clanging cymbal.

 

Mmmm, no ... it was much more than just "laughing." It was also "being slain in the spirit," "tongues" and a whole host of other nonsense that the pastor and congregation wanted desperately to believe was the "outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the last days" as they see prophesied in Joel. Well, if that was the case, it wouldn't have just been going on in Pensacola, would it? The "Toronto Blessing" was essentially the same thing. According to the editor of Charisma magazine, it was likely demonic in nature:

Unfortunately, it is. You and PnS can claim to use tongues as you have stated, and it is all well and good. The problem is, regardless of whether you believe it to be a valid gift form God, it is not. I'm sorry to get in your face like that, to make an accusation you do not like, but I must deal in truth. The concept of "tongues" as a prayer, or personal langauge between you and God, is just as unbiblical as the Pentecostal/Charismatic practices of that gift, and the other ungodly things they do, such as at Toronto and Brownsville/Pensacola.

I realize that, which is what disturbs me most. It is no different than speaking in tongues. First Corinthians 14:13-17 indicates that praying in tongues also has to be interpreted. As a result, praying in tongues was offering a prayer to God. This prayer would minister to someone who spoke that language, but would also need to be interpreted so that the entire body could be edified. In other words, there would be nothing "private" about it, but it would be a corporate prayer, and as tongues is clearly (I know you'll argue this) a dead gift, all forms, whether speaking publicly or praying publicly, is no longer valid.

Good. Let's build on that.

 

Because the word "unknown" was not in the original Greek, but was added by the translators and is therefore superfluous. Look in your KJB: "unknown" is in italics. In 1611 there was no problem with any "tongues movement," so the translators simply meant "foreign language" by the term "unknown tongue."

That's backwards. Proper exegesis starts with the meanings of the words, then looks at the grammar, then makes a statement about the meaning based on semantics, grammar and the historical data. In other words, there are no verses that "define" the gift of tongues. The Greek word itself, glossa, meaning "language," defines the gift.

It would make about as much sense as the tongues movement. :smilewinkgrin:

I agree completely.

 

I don't care what English word the translators had to add, to make it make sense in English. I don't need anything more than the context to know what is meant by "unknown".

You are a translator. You have a different take.

I speak English, and the definition of the gift of tongues is easy to glean from the 3 chapters in ICor.

It is easy to see, in light of the miracle on Pentecost as well.