Speaking in Tongues Volume 3...

'Back to here Ray. actually you seem to trying to say that glossia is or means heavenly langauge. No one has ever tried that on me and I have to admitt I was perplexed. I simply say you and Srong are wrong. Glossia does indeed mean langauge and Strong is adding his own meaning to it by saying it means a heavenly langauge (if I understand right). That is completely wrong. It depends on what modifies glossia as shown in post 753. In mark 7:33 it means what? Not even language but the organ, the tongue. Again I flat outright reject your special defining for tongues. Does not fit and nowhere does it even int of a heavenly langauge in the Bible except Paul's Hyperbole about speaking with the tongues of all men and angels. But if you can't recognize it for what it is then continue on.

Now I admitt again I am not a greek scholar but I can take the word of men and compare the context and eveidence and allow the HS to show me the truth. I believe He has done just that!

 

gb93433,

Your post on this page 9 is exactly correct! This is true for the Corinthian church and all churches who believe in the 'gifts of the Spirit.'

How refreshing to see someone write the truth who knows what they are talking about.

Finally.

"Ray"

 

gb93433,

Sorry, I meant page 8.

 

'Back to here Ray. actually you seem to trying to say that glossia is or means heavenly langauge. No one has ever tried that on me and I have to admitt I was perplexed. I simply say you and Srong are wrong. Glossia does indeed mean langauge and Strong is adding his own meaning to it by saying it means a heavenly langauge (if I understand right). That is completely wrong. It depends on what modifies glossia as shown in post 753. In mark 7:33 it means what? Not even language but the organ, the tongue. Again I flat outright reject your special defining for tongues. Does not fit and nowhere does it even int of a heavenly langauge in the Bible except Paul's Hyperbole about speaking with the tongues of all men and angels. But if you can't recognize it for what it is then continue on.

Now I admitt again I am not a greek scholar but I can take the word of men and compare the context and eveidence and allow the HS to show me the truth. I believe He has done just that! </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, Tim, this has been used and abused by "tongue speakers" for over fifty years. It isn't new and it has been knocked down as many times as it has been mentioned.

You are absolutely right. Strong adds his own theory and Berian, THd is riding on his coat-tail. Nothing more.

Read "tongues" in-context in the Bible and it is clear as spring-water.

After all, why would the Assembly of God and other charismatics use a gift that was so diminished by Paul to become a MAJOR part of their religion? Simply because tongues is the easiest gift to fake. Much easier than healing someone like ole Oral Roberts who would stretch a person's shortened leg to the same length as his other leg.

 

Phillip,

You said, 'You are absolutely right. Strong adds his own theory and Berian, THd is riding on his coat-tail. Nothing more.'

 

And no surprise! That is when the Charismatic movement began. The Pentecostal movement began at the beginning of the 20th century; the Charismatic movement (2nd wave) in the 60's, and the 3rd wave in the 70's. Glossalalia isn't in the Bible. It is not even a Greek word. You can't find it anywhere in the Bible: Greek or English. It is not there. You will find it paganism, but not in Biblical Christianity.
The word "glossa" is in the Greek, but not "glossalalia," a term which refers to speaking in ecxtatic speech. There is no ecstatic speech in the Bible, none that can be Biblically demonstrated, and none that is of God. Glossa is a word that simply means language, that is, in a foreign language. Glossalalia is a made up English term to describe the nonsensical gibberish that started at the beginning of the 20th century that people falsely called tongues, and never before was heard among Christians. It was common only among cults and other pagan religions.
People in the Charismatic movement who are deceived into speaking in these so-called tongues ought to beware lest Satan should get an advantage of them.

The Lord used glossa. It means language. It was translated by the KJV translators as tongue, as in "mother tongue." It means language. The Lord preserved the Word of God in the Greek language (in the New Testament) not in the KJV. Most other translations use the word "langauge."

So what other church's doctrine would you follow. Is the AOG your final authority in faith in doctrine? Why not the United Pentecostal; the Oneness Only, or even the Mormons? What is stopping you from following the Bible instead of the aberrant doctrines of Charismatic churches.

And who on this board are you so arrogantly inferring is not spiritual?

He also said that they would cease, not continue. This is a fact that the Charismatics on this board have failed to deal with in a Scriptural manner.
DHK

[ January 05, 2006, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

glossalalia is indeed a tern that cannot be found in Greek Texts.

glossa is the Greek word for language as DHK has stated.

My mother used to tell me the 'speaking in tongues' was evidence of the Holy Spirit in one's life. Her reasoning was, if one did not speak in tongues, one could not have the Holy Spirit. But, Paul wrote to the Corinthian church that there were many administrations of the Spirit. To one was given tongues, to another the interpretation, etc...

I have stated my stance on the tongues earlier, so I need not repeat that. Only, for one to hear, one needs to be willing to listen.

 

Thanks Phillip, I agree. It really is not much of a challenge to me. THERE are so many inconsistancies in the tongues movement you barely know where to begin. Like I said earlier the church of corinth was not walking obedient to the word, thus all of Paul's instruction. Actually I hate to say it but I think that most of the tonges church are lot like the church of cornith. Why you would want to immatate that I don't know. Wonder how come the tongues of fire are not seen and the sound of rushing wind?

 

DHK,

You said, 'He also said that they would cease, not continue. This is a fact that the Charismatics on this board have failed to deal with in a Scriptural manner.'

.

 

standingfirminChrist,

You said, 'My mother used to tell me the 'speaking in tongues' was evidence of the Holy Spirit in one's life.'

.

 

And you call this Scriptural support for "glossalalia??"
This verse is a figure of speech that refers to the timelessness of God, nothing more. It has nothing to do with tongues--not even the time period of when tongues shall cease. Study more Ray.

More accurately, God invented time for our sakes. He created the entire universe. Time comes from the earth rotating on its axis, as well as the earth revolving around the sun. But it was God who created it all. There is no time with God. He is eternal. He is beyond time. Your human reasoning is faulty.

Again, this is your faulty reasoning based entirely on your opinion and nothing else. As I previously said: "Charismatics cannot Scripturally demonstrate their position." You have yet to do so. Stating a position is not demonstrating it Scripturally.

Glossalalia is hardly a theological term. It is not even found in most standard theological textbooks. It is dictionary term to describe a modern day phenomena that started in the 20th century, and not before then. It is an unscriptural one at that. You have yet to demonstrate any Biblical basis for this totally unscriptural practice of speaking nonsensical syllables strung together for the purpose of giving one an emotional high. Emotional highs are no substitute for the Holy Spirit.

Yes some do. Your post demonstrates as much.
DHK

 

DHK,

Look up the word 'tongues' in the Greek N.T. or have someone help you read it. I know your type personality, you will not accept the Greek word if it were phonetically sound out for you.

And now you have blessed us with you scientific prowess.

I Corinthians 14:5 says,'glossais' delivering for our attention to the phenemenon and theological concept of Glossalia.

Sorry, folks it is not the French, Spanish or the German language. This is the 'glossais' that the Lord has gifted some Christians with so there can be 'the interpretation of tongues' for the edification of His church.

I personally do not have this gift, but am not willing for people to decimate the word, 'glassais' when it written in very N.T. Bible.

 

I don't know any greek, and I have not studied it.

But I do believe my Bible without discarding any of it.

I believe that the peole that translated the KJV got it close enough for me.

There is not enough time in the day to try to check out every word.

The Holy Ghost is a very good interpreter and He will show me what is right.

You are right DHK, tongues will cease. Just not when you want them to.

Peace,

Tam

 

What I have found interesting for those who may wonder about tongues in 1 Cor. People who study languages have found that people who speak in tongues have been recorded and what they said has not found to contain any language patterns. It is simply ecstatic utterance such as gibberish.

 

The Theological Dictionary of The New Testament, Vol. 1, pages 719-727 traces it back into the OT. Especially read page 724 on the usages in the OT.

 

The Theological Dictionary of The New Testament, Vol. 1, pages 719-727 traces it back into the OT. Especially read page 724 on the usages in the OT. </font>[/QUOTE]That is a theological dictionary of more recent origin. Like I said, dictionaries usually include such things. They include just about everything, just like encyclopedias do. But a theological textbook, such as used in a theology class doesn't. Try finding it in "Christian Theology," by Emery H. Bancroft, for example. It just isn't there.
DHK

 

The APOSTLE Paul teaches that tongues has a place in the church, if there is an interpreter. But if there is not an interpreter, Paul also gives instruction. But the instruction is different than what most people think. Read what the APOSTLE Paul says:

1CO 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

If an interpreter is not present, the person speaking in tongues should “speak to himself and God.” The word that God has given to be spoken needs to be spoken. Most teach that if a person has something to speak in tongues, and no interpreter is present in the church, then the person with the word should be silent, and not speak at all. But the APOSTLE Paul has more discernment than most. He understands that God wants His word to be spoken, even if there is no man to hear it, besides the person speaking in tongues. What is the purpose? God knows. Paul did not reveal why this was his teaching.

Also, I will again reiterate what I posted some time ago.

The APOSTLE Paul concluded his teaching on spiritual gifts with this:

1CO 14:39 Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

If what we teach aligns with this, we can be sure we are on solid ground. If not, then we have to wonder how we came to disagree with the word that the Holy Spirit gave to the APOSTLE Paul.

 

Ray, I read the passage first in an interlinear, and then without the interlinear--just in the TR itself without any English translation. The singular for tongue is glossa, and the plural is glossais. However there is no such word as glossalalia. That is the word in question. Glossalalia is an anglicized word coming from Greek origins which refers only to this modern day phenomena of speaking in an ecstatic tongue, a practice that is unbiblical and unsupported with Scripture. In fact there is no way that a case can be made for it through Scripture because these two words: glossa, and its plural, glossais, always refer to a real known language; never ecstatic speech.

{qb]

[/b]
And your point is? There is no "glossalalia" here.
Look at a different translation that makes it more clear for you:

1 Corinthians 14:5 Now I desire to have you all speak with other languages, but rather that you would prophesy. For he is greater who prophesies than he who speaks with other languages, unless he interprets, that the assembly may be built up.

You ought to be the one that is sorry and repent of your aberrant theology, and for leading people astray. It has been clearly shown to you that the KJV rendering of "other tongues" means "other languages," and yet you stubbornly refuse to believe in spite of all the evidence given.

It isn't it odd how the Holy Spirit of God gave the gift of speaking in other languages to certain individuals in the church, but the ability to speak in ecstatic speech (not a gift) is found primarily, and quite commonly, among cults and fales religions.
DHK

 

As far as translating goes, I do like the KJV, but I realize that there are shortcoming in it, as did the original translators. They expected other to build upon their work.

For example, the word "ghost" never appears with the word "holy" in the Greek. The word "ghost" (phantasma) appears only in Matthew 14:26 and Mark 6:49. (Interestingly, the KJV translates it as "spirit" in both instances.)

Entire denominations have been built upon the difference between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost. However, I don't think of the Holy Spirit as some sort of ethereal being raised from the dead or some demon.

By the same token, the word "unknown" was added by the translators, and there is no reason for it to be there, other than by interpretation of men. It is not translation! Translating it, it says, "languages". Period. Nothing else modifying it. The word "unknown" never appears with "languages" in the NT, to designate some sort of heavenly language.

 

I don't disagree with that at all. 1Cor.13:8 teaches that tongues were to cease not to contine. Tongues did indeed cease as Paul said they would. They have not continued for 21 centuries. What sign would continue for 21 centuries. How ludicrous to even think that that would happen. Tongues were for a sign to the Jews. The sign has been removed because its usefulness has been completed. Thus forbid not to speak in tongues was a command given to first century Christians. It was given to the Corinthian Church, and applicable to first century Christians. It is not applicable to us. Do you keep all the commands of Scripture? Do you keep the Passover, as commanded, remain celibate as Paul commanded, etc.
DHK