tongue speakers please answer

Julie,
Your post was a good one. You were right on. There are many Charismatic groups that believe that tongues are a requirement for salvation. However there are many that don't. The ones that don't believe that tongues are necessary for a second blessing. But whatever they believe it is necessary for the Bible doesn't teach either. The Bible never commands one to seek for tongues, never commands one to speak in tongues, and never instructs one how to speak in tongues. That's odd isn't it? Yet Charismatic groups issue all kinds of instructional booklet on how to let loose your tongue and speak in gibberish, where as tongues in Biblical tongues were known languages. I guess if they'd want instructional booklets, they would be better off going to language schools and learning some real languages.
The gibberish spoken by Charismatics today was something that Paul was rebuking in 1Cor. 12:3. Since some of those people did not know what they were saying, and what they were saying was definitely not of the Holy Spirit, Paul says that they were speaking of another spirit. They were calling Jesus accursed. I believe this is true of many tongues-speakers today. They cannot give any evidence of what they are saying. How do they know that they are actually praising God? It is a good possibility that they are praising Satan or calling Jesus accursed. They don't know because they don't know what they are saying, and they cannot prove it. Actually their actions (completely out of control) resemble more of an occult or Satanic meeting than a Holy Spirit led meeting, where God is a God of order and not of confusion.

There were but two reasons for tongues in the New Testament, and only two reasons:
1. It was a sign for the unbelieving Jew (1Cor.14:21,22).
2. It was given because the revelation of God (the Bible) was not yet complete.

Any other reason (like praying) was bogus. Jews who were skeptical about the authenticity of the Bible were always present in every place in the Bible where tongues are mentioned. Acts 2, 10, and 19, all record that there were Jews present. They are the only places where tongues are mentioned.
When the Bible was complete with the Book of Revelation at the end of the First Century, tongues ceased. It is not a gift today. What is practiced today is a counterfeit of Satan, a delusion, a fake. Some of the wealthiest people are those advocating tongues. Ever wonder why? Tongues and faith healers work hand in hand and both advocate the same things. Yet a faith healer will never take up the challenge to walk through a sate hospital and heal those of real diseases. Ever wonder why?
You cannot server two masters.
DHK

 

Atestring:
The gibberish
What is the greek word for "gibberish?"
---Gibberish is an English slang word to describe the nonsensical syllables that Charismatics spout forth, and then claim to have spoken with the Biblical gift of tongues. No linguist has ever been able to translate gibberish. Gibberish is not a real language. Biblical tongues were. Modern tongues (gibberish) is the devil's counterfeit of a gift that Paul said would cease (1Cor.13:8), when the perfect or complete has come (1Cor.13:10), which I believe refers to the completed perfect Word of God. Biblical tongues ceased at the end of the first century.
If you want the Greek word for gibberish consult an English to Greek dictionary that includes slang words.

Why did Paul say "Forbid not."
Paul said Forbid not to speak in tongues to those Christians living in the first century before the canon of Scripture was completed. He did say it would cease. He said it would cease when the perfect would come (the perfect Word of God).
Secondly, he said "Forbid not," in the context of 1Cor.14. That is, if you keep all the conditions that Paul has laid out in the fourteenth chapter of First Corinthians, I do not forbid you to speak in tongues, and no one else should either. There is not a Charismatic church in existence that is or can keep all the conditions of chapter 14. If you don't believe me, I will list them for you later.

"How can you disprove this" My challenge has always been to the Charismatics to prove that your speaking in tongues is of the Holy Spirit. There were some in the church at Corinth that were calling Jesus Christ accursed. These were believers. How could a believer call Jesus Christ accursed, except it be by another spirit, and through another language? That is what was happening in 1Cor.12:3. Prove what you are saying is of the Holy Ghost. How do you know it is not? When a person calls Jesus Christ accursed it is not of the Holy Ghost.

How do you know about occult and satanic meetings?
Are you a regular attender?
---I know a lot about drugs and alcohol, but I've never been an alcoholic or a drug addict.

"How do you know this?"
I know this from what the Bible teaches. Charismatics try to justify their theology by their experience. Because I have an experience makes me right, is not good theology. Instead of basing their theology on the Word they base it on tongues or other experiences. Thus much of what is taught in Charismatic circles is utter chaos and confusion. All one has to do is compare what they teach with the Bible to know these things. The gift of tongues has ceased according to Scripture and according to history. It has only resurfaced at the beginning of the twentieth century. It is a relatively new movement. If it was of God, why would one not be able to trace it back to the apostles, not just the beginning of the last century? Was this gift lost for 1800 years? It ceased at the end of the first century because it was no longer needed. Today you have Satan's counterfeit.

You have asked some good questions Atestring.
I hope I have helped some.
DHK

 

DHK, I am so glad you know how to privately interpret scriptures.

To bad the way you try to interpret scriptures limits what God can do. How can you ever accept something if you never accept it?

 

Acts 19
1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

If someone is baptised in the holy spirit when they are saved then what is the meaning of this?

If tounges was alwayse a known languge how did they know a person was speaking in tounges?

Why would God make interpretation of tounges a gift if it was a known language?

I am not saying that a person doesnt have the Holy spirit living inside of him when he is saved, but there defenately is a batism of the Holy Spirit.

 

>>> If someone is baptised in the holy spirit when they are saved then what is the meaning of this? <<<

The disciples of John in the passage you gave weren't saved yet; they hadn't heard of the Holy Ghost, and they had pretty much ignored John the Baptist's teaching that they should follow the one who came after him.

>>> If tounges was alwayse a known languge how did they know a person was speaking in tounges? <<<

Acts 2:7-8 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

>>> Why would God make interpretation of tounges a gift if it was a known language? <<<

Because it was a language unknown to the speaker.

 

Acts 19
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Ok they were saved in verse five. Why did paul have to lay hands on them in verse six for the holy ghost to come on them. Again how did paul know they were speaking in tounges and not just some other languge they knew.

mark 16
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues

did Jesus say known tounges or new touges

 

You really did not answer the question that was asked peter1. The Question was, "If tounges was alwayse a known languge how did they know a person was speaking in tounges?"

Peter if you will notice that in Acts 2 there was a common language that everyone knew, They All Said one to another, How do we hear these men in our own tongue. (Paraphrased). But someone had to inform someone else that they were speaking in another tongue.

And also notice in Acts 2 the people that were dwelling in Jerusalem that heard the apostles speaking in tongues did not have the gift of interpretation. Remember that the Gift of Interpretation is a Gift of the Holy Spirit and without the Holy Spirit you cannot have the gifts of the Holy Spirit. And those men did not have the holy Spirit.

Brian

 

How many languges do you know? If i was speaking to you in kurdish or arabic or hebrew do you think you would understand me.

 

you guys ever hear the phrase, "majoring on the minors, and minoring on the majors"?

>>> Ok they were saved in verse five. Why did paul have to lay hands on them in verse six for the holy ghost to come on them. Again how did paul know they were speaking in tounges and not just some other languge they knew.

mark 16
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues

did Jesus say known tounges or new touges <<<

how did Paul know? because obviously, like at Pentecost, they started prophesying in a language not their own, and someone there asked the question, "how is it that these unlearned guys are speaking in our own tongue?"

why did Paul have to lay hands? the better question, which i saw DHK or someone write, is: why wasn't Phillip good enough? people got saved because of Phillip's preaching, but it wasn't until the apostles came and layed hands on them that the Holy Spirit filled them. don't you think you should resolve that question?

Jesus said new tongues, as in: a tongue never previously spoken by the person speaking. as in, me suddenly speaking Russian, or Arabic.

>>> You really did not answer the question that was asked peter1. The Question was, "If tounges was alwayse a known languge how did they know a person was speaking in tounges?" <<<

step back a moment, and look at the verses provided. it was apparently a general consensus that people from Galilee were not exactly scholars; see v. 7. then the Parthians said to the Medes, in the common language that you mentioned, hey, we're hearing these guys speak Parthian. the Medes said, hey, we're hearing them speak our language. and so on for the Phrygians, the Elamites, and the Cretes, and the Arabians, and the rest.

Don't make this harder than it is.

 

where did you get that from, certanly not the bible. Every time the bible talks about someone being filled with the holy spirit it mentions speaking in tounges but of all the times it mentions speaking in tounges only in chapter 2 of acts do we hear people hearing their own languge being spoken.

 

where did you get that from, certanly not the bible. Every time the bible talks about someone being filled with the holy spirit it mentions speaking in tounges but of all the times it mentions speaking in tounges only in chapter 2 of acts do we hear people hearing their own languge being spoken.</font>[/QUOTE]That is not true. Every time the Bible mentions tongues it speaks of another known language. The language is unknown to the speaker but known to someone in the congregation. That was one of the purposes of tongues, to give understanding to someone. An interpreter was needed to give understanding to everybody. The Greek word for "tongues," "glossa" means "language," and could be thus translated.
DHK

 

Crazy, you really didn't think that through, did you?

what you're saying is that the jailer and his entire household in Acts 16 didn't speak in tongues when they were saved, because scripture doesn't explicitly say they did.

if you say without doubt that the jailer and his household spoke in tongues, because other people were recorded speaking in tongues when they were saved, then you're using the principle of "it happened somewhere else this particular way first, so it happened that way every single time."

if that's a true principle, then what i gave you is absolutely valid, because the first recorded use of the gift of tongues is in Acts 2, and it specifically says that the apostles were speaking in languages they previously had no knowledge of.

so it's one way or the other: either everyone spoke in tongues when they were saved, and those tongues were languages not previously known to the speaker; or some people spoke in tongues and others didn't.

quite the catch-22, isn't it?

Crazy, you didn't answer the "why wasn't Phillip good enough" thing.

good response, DHK. we are to test the spirits, and search out the scriptures.

 

might i add, Crazy and DHK, that we must remember the purpose of speaking in tongues, too (from 1 Corinthians 14): as a sign for unbelievers.

 

I know that you study it is evident that you do study. You dont have have to experience drugs to accept the way of a drug addict. That is a poor analogy.

Alright, We say it is real you say it is not. We have experienced it, You have not. We have read the same exact scripture that you have. We have the evidence. WHere is yours. What signs are following you? We can back up the word of God with What God has given us. What can you back it up with? What you think, Your theology? With what The Councils of our Forefathers? DHK, I agree with you there is alot of fake stuff out there, but who am I to say that it is fake? If it is it will be known sooner or later.

 

Amen!!!!!!

 

&gt;&gt;&gt; We have the evidence. WHere is yours. &lt;&lt;&lt;

would you mind explaining this?

 

Mark 15:16-20

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that beieveth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. and these signs shall Follow them that believe. In my Name shall they cast out devils, they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents and if they drink andy deadly thing it shall not hurt them, they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth and preached every where, THE LORD WORKING WITH THEM AND CONFIRMING THE WORD WITH SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN

Jesus said that its an adultress gereration that follow after signs. And that is correct. We dont seek after the signs but as jesus said in Mark 16. Those signs will follow after them which believe.

 

A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an arguement.

For those who have never experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the arguement will always be that we are decieved, for those of us who have experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirt, we will never be desuaded.