Poll: Tongues

atestring

You're looking the wrong direction, the smoke is coming from here.

 

You know what you are doing. I believe you. But do you honestly know what you are saying?

Matter of fact, I do!! I also have the gift of interpretation!!!



Bless you,

Tam

 

Great! Now we're getting somewhere.
So, what language do you speak in, when you speak in tongues? And which language do you interpret it into?
DHK

 

All gibberish is, is a string of nonsensical syllables said over and over again. It doesn't make sense even to the wisest of linguists, and not even to God.

You are putting God into a box and asking him to understand the incomprehensible--something impossible to do. Before you get riled up and say that nothing is impossible for God--something the atheists accuse of us saying, stop and considet that there are many things that God cannot do:
God cannot lie. The Scripture say so.
God cannot do anything against his nature, nor against His Word.
Can God create a two sided triangle? No.
Can God make 2 + 2 = 3? No.
God cannot do those things which are outside the definitions that man has defined for him to do. It is a matter of logic and definition, not power.

I sympathize with the notion of some of what is called tongues being gibberish because several have come out admitting they were faking it so they would be accepted by the church or group but I would be careful of saying what God cannot understand since He is a very big understanding God. Because you or I cannot understand that which sounds like "gibberish doesn't mean, I would think,of course, God cannot understand it. You would be putting God into a box by saying He cannot understand it. Limiting someone in someway is akin to putting them into a box. Saying God cannot make 2+2=3 is nothing like saying "Well I cannot understand this so God cannot understand this". It is unwise to make a practice of saying God cannot make sense of this or understand that.

"God cannot do those things which are outside the definitions that man has defined for him to do".

Since man defines things by understanding and God does much beyond our understanding, like the peace He gives, how would this be possible or even wise.You know this is a statement that I would have expected from those who like to say "man dreamed up and created God in his own image. I have to ask; Do we make such a statement by our own understanding? Long before man was created God did plenty and now man just figures out what God can and cannot do, he doesn't define anything for God unless God allows him to. Remember ol'Leroy Brown who you didn't do this or that to, well you don't make statements about God doing only what man has defined for Him to do. It's much a matter of form, you know.

 

DHK: "All gibberish is, is a string of nonsensical syllables said over and over again."

I respectfully disagree. Gibberish can be non repeated
nonsensical syllables.

DHK: "So, what language do you speak in, when you speak in tongues?"

Which part of 'unknown tongues' are you having trouble with?
Oh, i remember, you define 'tongues' = known language;
This then gives you the babble that 'unknown tongues' means
'unknown known languages'. Using simple human math thinking, you
end us with 'unknown tongues' = 'language' but the problem is that
you assumed falsely that 'tongues' = known language.
In fact, 'tongues' and especially the KJV 'unknown tongue' means
that YOU DON"W KNOW WHICH LANGUAGE ONE IS SPEAKING.

1Co 14:39 (KJV1611 Edition):
Wherefore brethren, couet to prophesie,
and forbid not to speake with tongues.

OF course, your Southern Baptist version says:

1 Corinthians 14:39 (The Holman Christian Standard Bible):
Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and
do not forbid speaking in other languages.

But i note this verse is in a chapter that speaks of
'unknown tongues' several times (just not the 1 Co 14:39 time).

Caveat of the day:
I suspect most tongues i see on TV are NOT
legitimate unknown tongues but are babble;
that most preachers i see on TV are corrupted
by lots of money.
I have not sampled non-TV sources of tongues
enough to make an overall judgement.

 

Atta boy Ed!!

Peace,

Tam

 

But nonosensical syllables nevertheless. Nonsesical is just that--that which does not make sense--not to man, and not to God.

 

There are many things we can understand.
Atheists try and use "logical syllogisms" to try and disprove Christianity. You sound like you are buying into the atheistic logic, which in actuality consists of illogical fallacies. I tried to explain this before.
When man sets the parameters of that which is impossible, and then commands God to do that which he has already defined as impossible to do, of course God cannot do it. For example God cannot make 2 plus 2 equal 3. No matter which way you look at it 2 plus 2 will always be 4. Not even God can change that. Thus your atheist comes along mockingly and says that your God can't do the impossible. It is not a matter of doing the impossible. God can do all that is possible to do, and that which is within his nature to do.
He cannot make a triangle out of two sides. It defies logic and defies the definition of what a triangle is. First you define a triangle with three sides, and then ask God to make one with only two sides? How absurd is that.
God works with the definitions that we give him to work with. It is a matter of logic and definitions.
Prayer is communication. That is God's definition that he has given us in his word.
The tongues of today is non-communication. It is non-sense babble, gibberish, that which cannot be understood.
Thus just as God cannot make a two-sided triangle, he cannot understand modern tongues. It does't make sense to any one.
DHK

 

Great! Now we're getting somewhere.
So, what language do you speak in, when you speak in tongues? And which language do you interpret it into?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Still waiting for an answer on this one Tam.

 

Charismatics and Pentecostals realize that there is a difference between the tongues of Acts 2 and what is going on in 1 Corinthians 14. But they explain the difference by saying that there are two kinds of tongues. They say the tongues of Acts 2 are real languages and the tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 refer to an ecstatic, private devotional speech that one speaks in an unknown tongue to God personally and privately for self-edification. They recognize a difference and resolve the difference by saying there are two gifts of tongues.

I also recognize a difference, but I resolve it by seeing the true use of it in Acts 2 and the false use of it in 1 Corinthians 14. First Corinthians 14 doesn't talk about another gift; it talks about a perversion of the intended gift and its mixture with the heathen counterfeit. The Bible doesn't teach that there are two kinds of tongues speaking - one a language and one an ecstatic experience. In fact, the same term describes the gift in Acts 2 and in 1 Corinthians 14. So if God wanted to make a distinction, He would have used another term. It is the same word. It is the normal Greek word for language. There is no reason to justify the selfish use of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 as if it were some new, special gift.

 

Some Pentecostals (though a minority) do believe that tongues are real languages and not gibberish. I agree with them. I have a book with about 70 documented cases of speaking in other languages by the Spirit. The fact that many fake tongues is absolutely no argument against tongues being for today.

 

Corinth had at least 12 temples which included the infamous Aphrodite temple whose worshipers practiced religious prostitution. Corinth was widely known for its sexual immorality. In a setting like this it is no wonder that the Corinthians were plagued with numerous problems. Paul's first letter addresses these pagan problems in the church that were carried over from their former lives.

There were divisions and quarrels among them (1:10-12); confusion about baptism (13-17); they were worldly and infants in Christ (3:1-4); they boasted about their wisdom which is "foolishness in God's sight" (18-21); Their acts of righteousness went beyond what is written causing them to "take pride in one man over against another" (4:6); They were haughty and spiritually immature (4:8); some of them were trying to undercut Paul's authority (9:1-3), and said he was unstable (2 Cor. 1:17), and his ministry was not important (2 Cor. 10:10). Some were proud of their sexual immorality (5:1-2); they were taking their disputes before pagan courts and not before the saints (6:1,6); they were cheating other brothers in the church (8); they participated in pagan feasts where meat offered to idols was eaten (8:10); they profaned the Lord's supper by their gluttony and discrimination (11:20-22), and they perverted the gift of tongues which were unintelligible, without meaning and unfruitful to the mind (14:9-14).

There are two types of tongues that Paul wrote about in his first letter to the Corinthians. The genuine tongues spoken by Paul and the counterfeit tongues spoken by church members. Genuine tongues were spoken in known languages and could be understood by the hearer or interpreted by someone. Counterfeit tongues were unknown languages that no one could understand.

When Paul spoke in tongues he gave "some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction." Paul's messages were like playing a tune on a musical instrument that the hearer could recognize or understand its significance. The members speaking in false tongues were like musical instruments playing the same note over and over (chanting), the hearer would not be able to recognize the tune or understand its significance (14:6-8).

The Corinthians were pagans at one time influenced and led astray to mute idols (12:2), they had come out of a back ground of paganism which worshipped Apollo, Asclepius, Demeter, Aphrodite and other pagan gods and goddesses.
A common practice of these pagan religions were "trances, ecstatic speech, and other unusual or bizarre forms of behavior." These pagans spoke to their mute gods by chanting mysteries that no one could understand. The Corinthians continued this practice in the church by speaking mysteries to the living God in unknown tongues that no one could understand. How foolish of the pagans to worship mute gods when they could not answer and how foolish of Christians to worship their God when he would not answer.

Paul spoke more in tongues (languages) than the Corinthian church combined. But in the church he would rather have "five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue" (unknown ecstatic speech) (14:18-19).

I'll give ya all five words of instruction, they are in verse 20: "Brothers, stop thinking like children."

Anyone is entitled to give an answer in no less than 10,000 words using your exclusive and private prayer language .

 

Unfortunately, repeating a discredited definition does not prove
that it has any merit.

My agreeing that some modern unknown tongues are babble does not
prove ALL modern unknown tongues are babble.

If it is right that when in Greek one word is used and in
English two words are used (one of them in italics) for 'unknown
tongues' -- i believe you will find many doctrines will be
totally shattered. This isn't rocket brain surgery, two
english words 'unknown tongue' for one Greek word 'glossa'.

Anyway, i see this verse being broken over and over:

1Co 14:39 Wherefore brethren, couet to prophesie,
and forbid not to speake with tongues.

And this verse is in a chapter about unknown tongues.
Forbiding 'unknown tongues' by defining it away is
still forbiding speaking in unknown tongues.

Caveat of the day:
I belong to a church where the speaking of tongues
is not practiced; nor is it forbidden.
We all in my church desire and practice the better guift.

Does anybody find it strange that the 'unknown tongue'
chapter (third rate gift of the Spirit) follows
the Love Chapter (first rate gift of the Spirit)?
I speak of course of 1 Corinthians 14 following
1 Corinthians 13.

[ June 09, 2005, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]

 

Great! Now we're getting somewhere.
So, what language do you speak in, when you speak in tongues? And which language do you interpret it into?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Still waiting for an answer on this one Tam. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, there is not much point in answering because you already have a preconceived idea on the subject.

Nevertheless, here is my answer:

I do not know what language it is because I have never learned any foreign languages. Sometimes it sounds like hebrew, sometimes baltic, but I'm not sure.

However, God gives me the interpretation in English, because that is the language I speak!! And if I am interpreting someone elses message in tongues, it's always in english when I give the interpretation, because I am always in the company of English speaking people.

Why does it work this way? I have no idea, this is one of the mysteries of God.

So there you have It. So now you can fire away!!

(Tam holds up her shield of faith!!)

Selah,

Tam

 

One also needs to take into consideration that the Corinth of Paul's day, being located along an important Mediterranean trade route, was a quite a cosmopolitan city, having people speaking different languages, similar to that of our modern New York City, for example.

Also, given the fact that there were no Christian church buildings then, people were prone to congregate in various public places; hence there would be a need for someone in that congregation to be able to speak in a foreign language so that those from that foreign area could understand what was being said, and, secondly, there would also be a need to interepret to the native Corinthians in the audience what was being spoken in this foreign language.

Finally, I will repeat my earlier questions to those who claim to have what today is referred to as "The Gift of Tongues":

If God were to call you as a missionary to some foreign land where English isn't spoken, would you have to go to some language school to learn the language of that foreign land?

If your answer is "YES," what ever happened to your gift of tongues? If God gave you this miraculous gift, why would you need language lessons to minister to those folks in that foreign land to which God has called you?

 

Quote:

If God were to call you as a missionary to some foreign land where English isn't spoken, would you have to go to some language school to learn the language of that foreign land?

If your answer is "YES," what ever happened to your gift of tongues? If God gave you this miraculous gift, why would you need language lessons to minister to those folks in that foreign land to which God has called you?

The answer would depend on whether God told me to learn the language, or just go in faith and depend on him.

Selah,

Tam

 

I have an Uncle who is a missionary and a bible translator. One of his co-translators apparently has the gift of tongues, though no one realized it. They are translating the bible into the native language of an indian tribe, and it was rough going since the Indian Tribe's language was a second language to them. They were always having to go back and forth to little dictionaries and things. In doing so discovered that the words for "Holy Ghost" didn't appear to translate into the native language. They struggled with it for some time when one day, while talking to one of the tribes elders the Senior Missionary used a word he had never heard before, and a look of understanding came to the faces of the Indians. The man says it was like a window opened. Suddenly he was able to communicate in a conversational level of the language and to understand the idiomatic expressions that translators of languages tell you never translate "word for word."

It seemed to work in reverse to. Some of the tribal elders who never spoke much english, now are almost fluent in it, and they have begun to preach the word using the KJ and the translation the translation team created for them.

 

Are the Corinthians speaking in false tongues or are they using the true gift of tongues in an improper way or a "false use" as you put it? This is important difference. Why would Paul give the Corinthians instructions on the proper use of the gifts of tongues if Paul didn't fully expect the Corinthians to manifest the true gift of tongues? He wouldn't. The fact that Paul did give instructions means that Paul did fully expect the Corinthians to speak in true tongues. If Paul didn't believe that then Paul never would have given them instructions.

 

I wonder if those who embrace tongues today realize that Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians is the only epistle where the gift of tongues appears. Paul wrote at least twelve other epistles and never even mentioned it, and James, John, and Jude never mentioned it. This fact supports what he said in 13:8 that tongues "will be stilled."

The first revival of tongues within the confines of the evangelical church of Jesus Christ since the apostolic age was in 1901. Where had it been for eighteen hundred years? Does 1 Cor. 13:8 say that tongues will cease and then start up again? No. Tongues ceased; never to begin again. Their purpose was accomplished.

As previously stated the gift of tongues was the ability to speak a foreign language. It was always a known language. For example, when the disciples spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, verse 6 tells us that "every man heard them speak in his own language." But as we come to the Corinthian situation, we find that they had counterfeited the real gift of tongues and substituted an ecstatic kind of speeech that was common in pagan religions of the Greco-Roman world.

 

Both false tongues and the true gift were spoken in the Corinthian church, Paul was instructing them to embrace true tongues and reject false tongues.