Poll: Tongues

[DHK]

Originally posted by Gershom:
Who is the sign for in 1 Cor 14:28, seeing that the believer is instructed to speak to himself and to God when there is no interpreter?

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

This was a rebuke. Paul was telling them to keep quiet if there was no interpreter.
Speaking to God is not speaking in tongues. It is prayer. Paul does not suggest tongues as a prayer language. It was always a gift to edify the entire church, never to use selfishly to the edification of only one person. You don't find that with any spiritual gift. For example in the gift of healing, one doesn't find the gift of healing used simply for the healer. It is always used for all the members of the church, never for the one possessing the gift. Likewise tongues. It was to benefit all the members, not just the one speaking it. Thus the one speaking always had to have an interpreter so everyone could understand. If there was no interpreter, keep silence. Pray to God, but keep silence in the church.
DHK

 

[Gershom]

DKH posted:

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

This was a rebuke. Paul was telling them to keep quiet if there was no interpreter.
Speaking to God is not speaking in tongues. It is prayer. Paul does not suggest tongues as a prayer language.

Yes, he does. Context says so.

DHK posted:

Speaking to God is not speaking in tongues.

1Cor 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

DHK posted:

It was always a gift to edify the entire church, never to use selfishly to the edification of only one person.

1Cor 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

The Bible just contradicted what you believe. There is speaking in tongues to God, and speaking in tongues does edify the speaker.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Gershom:
DHK posted:

It was always a gift to edify the entire church, never to use selfishly to the edification of only one person.

1Cor 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

The Bible just contradicted what you believe. There is speaking in tongues to God, and speaking in tongues does edify the speaker. [/QUOTE]
There is no contradiction here, just a misunderstanding of what this verse is saying.

1 Corinthians 14:3-4 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

The context is the local church. The entire epistle was written for the believers as the church at Corinth. The contrast is the use of the gift of prophecy and the use of the gift of tongues. In each case Paul says that the gift of prophecy is a better gift because it edifies, it gives understanding, whereas tongues does not. It promotes confusion, disorder, and gives no edification whatsoever.
Again verse 4 is a rebuke, not an encouragement to speak in tongues. The gift is given to the church, the whole church. Therefore if you are speaking in tongues and only edifying yourself you are in the wrong. Don't do it. It is a rebuke to those who do it, for tongues was a gift given to edify the whole church not just one individual. The Bible does not contradict itself. Read the rest of the verse. It is a contrast. But he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
That is why prophecy was the better gift. It would better gift. It would edify the entire church. If all you were doing would be edifying yourself, it would be better not to do it at all. In fact it was unscriptural to do so, as the rest of the chapter would prove to show us.
DHK

 

[Gershom]

The truth stands, of which you previously denied, that there is speaking in tongues to God (1Cor 14:2a For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God), and speaking in tongues edifies oneself (1Cor 14:4a He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself).

Whether rebuke or instruction (I say the latter in this instance) this truth cannot be denied.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Gershom:
The truth stands, of which you previously denied, that there is speaking in tongues to God (1Cor 14:2a For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God), and speaking in tongues edifies oneself (1Cor 14:4a He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself).

Whether rebuke or instruction (I say the latter in this instance) this truth cannot be denied.

Does it matter to God if you pray to him in English, German, Hindi, Cree, Baluchi, etc.?

Biblical tongues are always real known languages. But if you are going to speak to God or pray why would you use any other language, other than your "mother tongue" so that you can both understand what you are saying. Prayer is communication. God is all knowing, but you are not. In the frist century the ones speaking in languages knew what they were speaking. Do you? No. Today it is not tongues (languages); but rather gibberish). It is untranslatable. No one really knows what is being said, and if it is being interpreted no one knows if the interpretation is really of God or not. Generally speaking it is a circus.

Here is how it worked in the first century. Paul, for example, would have need of the gift of tongues because of his missionary jourenys and the many nations that God took him. It is easier to reach a people in the mother tongue than in another language which they may know and understand, but is not their own. For example Greek was the universal language of that day, but it was a second language to most.

If Paul spoke in tongues he would speak in another language--the language of the people of the nation that he would be in at the time. Why would he need an interpreter if he would be speaking in that nation's national language? That is the question. There would be no need of an interpreter. The Jews at that time were scattered all throughout the world. Often Paul would start his ministry in a synagogue. His message would have been translated into Hebrew or Aramaic, the language of the Jews. Tongues was a sign to the Jews, the unbelieving Jews. This was the sign. And this was the need of the interpretation--for the Jews. Paul would speak in another language--the language of the nation in which he was in, but it would no doubt be translated back into Hebrew, the sacred language of the Jews in which they read the Torah.
DHK

 

[Brian30755]

"Do you not realize that many, many people say THE SAME THING about YOU simply because you are a Christian???"

Couldn't care less. I've been insulted and misquoted by experts.

Then I guess my question would be, if YOU couldn't care less, then what makes you think anybody here could care less about YOUR opinion of those who speak in tongues?

What you were implying was that people who speak in tongues are dumb, ignorant, and poor. What I'm saying is, it wasn't nice for you to say that, just as it wouldn't be nice if I said "Most Baptists I know don't bathe regularly" or "Most Methodists I know have a drinking problem", or "Most Presbyterians I know fool around on their wives". While these things may be absolutely true about the Baptists, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians that I personally know, it still wouldn't be very nice for me to come on here and post such a statement, because even though I plainly say "the ones I know", it will still be implied that I believe they are ALL that way.

Anyway, I hope you see why some people took offense at your statment. No hard feelings. Have a blessed day.

 

[johnd]

Hi DHK johnd here
It was the jews: That Put the Lord too a death and they would do the same today, But it is not the jews today it`s the so could christans!!!!!!
There is now debating the word of God, Do you not now that you need the Holy Spirit to underestand the word of God and you quite clealy do not underestand , The Arthor is Spirit and you must Have the the Spirit to underestand it, You do not, That witch is Spirit is Spirit and that witch is flesh is flesh and they are enemy one to they other ,Why do you not just trust the Lord and he will give you the ability to communicate with him in the SPIRIT, If you do not then tuff Luck you will anser to the Lord
and not to eny one on this thread, Pried will not let you , SO it`s tuff luck for YOU

 

[DHK]

Johnd
Insults get you nowhere here,except possibly a reprimand or something more serious. If you have something of value to say, then say it. Back it up with Scripture, not just opinion. Accusations that infer we are not saved or do not have the Holy Spirite are not tolerated are ablsolutely forbidden and will be dealt with henceforth.

it is the so could (sic) Christians!!!! (that put Christ to death)

False. No Christian put Christ to death. However Christ died for the sins of all the world, for those who have now believed as well. That is the very reason that one can obtain salvation, because Christ died for our sins.

There is now (sic) debating the Word of God

I don't debate what the Word of God says. I accept it by faith, and believe it. If you wan't to debate with God and what He says go ahead. But you are on the losing side.

Do you not now (sic) that you need the Holy Spirit to understand the Word of God and you quite clearly do not understand.

1. You say I do not have the Holy Spirit and therefore I am not saved.
2. You claim I have no understanding--I believe the opposite is true by the evidence given in your writing.
You have nothing to back up these claims; are judgemental; and put yourself in the place of God, claiming to know the hearts of mankind.

The author is Spirit and you must have the Spirit to understand it, You do not.

And I do not have the Spirit in your opinion because? Because you are God, and are all-knowing and know the hearts of man? You are clearly out of order. Questioning of another's salvation is prohibited on BB. You need to back and read the rules which you agreed to abide by when you joined this message board. If you don't abide by the rules you are free to leave.

That witch (sic) is Spirit

Which "witch" are you calling Spirit? The witch of Endor? Or one of our modern day witches? Do you involve your self in pagan religions? Some proper spelling and grammar might help your cause a bit. Just a suggestion.

Why do you not just trust the Lord

What makes you think I haven't?
Why do you infer once again that I am unsaved?
Who are you to make such an accusation?

And he will give you the ability to communicate with hin in the SPIRIT

What makes you think that I don't already have that ability? Your judgemental attitude makes me believe that you have no idea of what you are speaking about.

Pried (sic) will not let you, SO it's tuff (sic) luck for you.

Again you are claiming to know the heart of man; and again claiming to be God?
Perhapst this is your own arrogance showing through. Either way it is wrong.
BTW, what is the meaning of "pried"?
DHK

 

[tamborine lady]

Biblical tongues are always real known languages

That is NOT what scripture says!! If they were German,French, etc., then the bible would say somewhere, other languages. It does not. They are always called "unknown tongues"!!



I wonder why!!

Peace,

Tam

 

[dean198]

whatever

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by tamborine lady:

Biblical tongues are always real known languages

That is NOT what scripture says!! If they were German,French, etc., then the bible would say somewhere, other languages. It does not. They are always called "unknown tongues"!!



I wonder why!!

Peace,

Tam

Tam, look in your Bible (KJV). The word "unknown" is in italics. That means it isn't in the Greek. It is supplied by the translators of 1611 who had hoped that by inserting it that it would make better sense to the readers. Unfortunately it has just confused many of them that much more.
The "unknowm" was meant to convey the idea of unknown to the speaker (thus supernaturally given), but known to the congregation, or at least some in the congregation. They were known languages. There is definite proof of this.

First the word tongue means language.
mother tongue = mother language.

Acts 2:4-11 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

All throughout this passage we see that tongues and languages are used interchangeably. They heard them speaak in tongues. What were the tongues? The tongues were the langueages of their own nations.
How hear we every man in our own "tongue" (language) wherein we were born. It is obvious that these were real languages. That is what the gift of tongues was. And that gift has ceased.
What you speak is gibberish.
And that is not a Biblical gift. It is fraudulent, a devilish trick of Satan to deceive many.
DHK

 

[Travelsong]

shambala humbalac simpac infterblat

 

[tamborine lady]

DHK said:All throughout this passage we see that tongues and languages are used interchangeably. They heard them speaak in tongues. What were the tongues? The tongues were the langueages of their own nations.
How hear we every man in our own "tongue" (language) wherein we were born. It is obvious that these were real languages. That is what the gift of tongues was. And that gift has ceased.
What you speak is gibberish.
And that is not a Biblical gift. It is fraudulent, a devilish trick of Satan to deceive many

In the book of Acts, on the day of pentecost, they indeed DID hear Peter speak in their own language!

However, the rest of your statement is wrong. Paul said "though I speak with the tongues of men, (other languages) and of Angels,(heavenly language)...etc. So there ARE tongues that only God understands!!

As for saying what I speak is: "gibberish.
And that is not a Biblical gift. It is fraudulent, a devilish trick of Satan to deceive many", you make a statement that you know nothing about!!

You don't know what unknown tongues I speak. You have never heard me. Tongues as they were in the days of Paul and Peter are still for today.

You know not of what you speak!! You have learned it wrong. I just hope that someday you understand what people are trying to show you.

Selah,

Tam

 

[Ed Edwards]

somebody else: "Biblical tongues are always real known languages"

tamborine lady //That is NOT what scripture says!! If they were German,French, etc., then the bible would say somewhere, other languages. It does not. They are always called "unknown tongues"!!//

Ed - Amen, Sister Tamborine Lady -- Preach it!

Why did God have Paul say this?

1Co 13:1 Though I speake with the tongues of men and Angels, and haue not loue, I am as sounding brasse, or a tinkling cymbal.

What is "tongues ... of Angels"?

 

[Brian30755]

shambala humbalac simpac infterblat

I can't believe you said that!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by tamborine lady:

In the book of Acts, on the day of pentecost, they indeed DID hear Peter speak in their own language!

The miracle was in the gift of tongues. That was the supernatural gift of the Spirit that was given, as the text says. The miraccle was in the speaking, not in the hearing. Keep that in mind. Peter and the others spoke in other languages, not their own. They were Galileans, not Cretes or Arabians, etc.
Peter spoke in one of those langugaes. Some spoke in another. Others spoke still in another, until all had hear the message in their own language. Remember that there were 120 in the Upper Room, but only 11 to 13 language groups represented.

However, the rest of your statement is wrong. Paul said "though I speak with the tongues of men, (other languages) and of Angels,(heavenly language)...etc. So there ARE tongues that only God understands!!

Paul never said that he spoke with the tongues of angels. Neither did anyone else in the Bible make any such claim. Paul didn't claim that he gave his body to be burned either. Neither did he say that he gave all that he had to the poor. Read the context of these verses (1Cor.12:1-3). They are all conditional. They start with "though" or "if, "making them conjectural statements. He never said that he did these things. It would be the same as me saying: "If I had a few million dollars I would buy a hotel in Hawaii and retire there." I didn't say I have a few million dollars, and I didn't say I was retiring in Hawaii. But your logic says I did both.

BTW, the tongues of angels is not a heavenly langueage that only God can understand. Angels have spoken to man throughout the Bible, and man have understood them perfectly well. Angels spoke to Mary, Joseph, Zechariah, Jacob, Abraham, Manoah, and his wife, and many others. There was never a problem with comprehension even though all of these people did not speak the same langauge.

As for saying what I speak is: "gibberish.
And that is not a Biblical gift. It is fraudulent, a devilish trick of Satan to deceive many", you make a statement that you know nothing about!!

Aah, now you're being the one that is judgemental, saying that I don'k know what I am talking about

Fraud is fraud. People go to jail for it in the real world. IMO they should go to jail for in the religious world too. The tongues of today is nothing short of self-deception, deception of others, and in some very serious cases demonic deception to the point of demonic possession. After all, Hindus have spoken in tongues. So do Mormons, and even people dabbling in witch-craft such as Voodooism. Is it all of God?? What makes you think that what you do is of God?

You don't know what unknown tongues I speak. You have never heard me. Tongues as they were in the days of Paul and Peter are still for today.

What is ironic here: Tam, You don't even know what you say, do you?

I don't have to hear you. You don't know what language you speak in. Nobody knows what language you speak in because it isn't a language. It is gibberish. So why be offended if I call it for what it is? It isn't the Biblical gift of real foreign languages. It is a fraudulent mimick of what was done in Bible times. But it certanly is not the real thing.
If it was the real thing, you would have nothing to do with it. Women are not permitted to speak in tongues in the church, and the church is the only place where tongues were permitted. It was a gift for the edification of the church.

You know not of what you speak!! You have learned it wrong. I just hope that someday you understand what people are trying to show you.
Selah,
Tam

Oh, There you go again judging me. Don't you know that verse in Mat.7:1, that Charismatics love to use.
The problem you have is that I do know of what I speak. I speak with the authority of the Word of God. Previously I have expounded for you every single verse of 1Cor.14. You know that. And yet you want me to believe your experiences above and beyond the Word of God. Sorry, I base my beliefs on the Word of God, not on experiences. My foundation is the Bible, not my feelings.
DHK

 

[Brian30755]

The tongues of today is nothing short of self-deception, deception of others, and in some very serious cases demonic deception to the point of demonic possession. After all, Hindus have spoken in tongues. So do Mormons, and even people dabbling in witch-craft such as Voodooism. Is it all of God?? What makes you think that what you do is of God?

I've seen a few people on these message boards saying that satanists, voo-dooers, heavy-metal rock bands, Hindus, etc., have spoken in tongues. I'd like to see some documented evidence of this. It's easy to repeat what you've seen other people say on these message boards, but if you can direct me to where I could see some proof of this, I'd be interested in seeing it.

I'm not saying this is a lie. I'm just saying the only place I've ever seen it mentioned is on these message boards, or on someone's personal website (where again, there is no evidence or real documentation.)

I do know that Satan is a deceiver, and yes, I do believe he could give a counterfeit gift of speaking in tongues to someone. But to assume that everyone who speaks in tongues has been deceived by, or as you say is a possibility, possessed by demons???

What makes you think that what you do is of God?

Well, I asked God for it, and He gave it to me. Now, you may say it didn't come from God, it came from Satan to deceive me. If that's true, I would like to know why Satan would give me anything that would draw me closer to God? Why would he give me something that made me feel like I'd taken a step closer to God? Why would he give me something that, along with giving me a new language (or gibberish, as you like to call it), also gave me a real hunger for God's Word, a deeper love for Jesus, and a new desire to share Jesus with others? I just can't understand why Satan would want me to be closer to God.

 

[tamborine lady]

Brian said: Well, I asked God for it, and He gave it to me. Now, you may say it didn't come from God, it came from Satan to deceive me. If that's true, I would like to know why Satan would give me anything that would draw me closer to God? Why would he give me something that made me feel like I'd taken a step closer to God? Why would he give me something that, along with giving me a new language (or gibberish, as you like to call it), also gave me a real hunger for God's Word, a deeper love for Jesus, and a new desire to share Jesus with others? I just can't understand why Satan would want me to be closer to God.

Tam says: exactly!!, that's what I would like to know. Amen Brian

As for you DHK. The miraccle was in the speaking, not in the hearing. Keep that in mind. Peter and the others spoke in other languages, not their own

Tam says: Yes they did speak in other tongues. However, the people heard them in whatever tongue they spoke. So, I believe that the MIRACLE was in the hearing not the speaking!!

They spoke something and everyone heard that one thing in their own tongue. I know that will give you some fresh fodder for the day, but that's what I think!!

Peace,

Tam

 

[tamborine lady]

DHK said:Aah, now you're being the one that is judgemental, saying that I don'k know what I am talking about
Fraud is fraud. People go to jail for it in the real world. IMO they should go to jail for in the religious world too. The tongues of today is nothing short of self-deception, deception of others, and in some very serious cases demonic deception to the point of demonic possession. After all, Hindus have spoken in tongues. So do Mormons, and even people dabbling in witch-craft such as Voodooism. Is it all of God?? What makes you think that what you do is of God?

Now I ask you, how is what I said to you any worse than what you said to me???

I know what I do is of God because i asked GOD to give it to me,Matthew 7-10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?and God gave it to me!!!


Peace,

Tam

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by tamborine lady:


As for you DHK. The miraccle was in the speaking, not in the hearing. Keep that in mind. Peter and the others spoke in other languages, not their own

Tam says: Yes they did speak in other tongues. However, the people heard them in whatever tongue they spoke. So, I believe that the MIRACLE was in the hearing not the speaking!!

They spoke something and everyone heard that one thing in their own tongue. I know that will give you some fresh fodder for the day, but that's what I think!!

Peace,

Tam

You can choose to believe the Bible or your own reasoning. Go to 1Cor.12 where all the gifts of the Spirit are listed. Is there a gift of "hearing"? Of course not. The miraculous gift being displayed on the Day of Pentecost was the gift of tongues. All who study the Bible know that. They know that the gift of tongues was accompanied with other signs: a mighty rushing wind, cloven tongues of fire. It was a gift of tongues that was the evident of miracle; not a gift of hearing. Why contradict what is being said. Even the unsaaved saw the evidence here and mocked at what was going on:
"These are drunk with wine"
They were referring to those speaking in tongues not those hearing the tongues. The miracle was in the speaking of tongues. The unsaved coundn't understand what was going on because they did not believe, and it was confusion to them.

But the multitude that came to believe could hear certain individuals speak their language. Maybe it was Peter speaking Arabic, or John speak the language of the Cretians, or Peter speaking the language of the Phrygians, etc. They were each able to discern their own language being spoken. There were 120 disciples. They all didn't speak the same language. The miracle was obviously in the speaking of tongues as the Bible says it was. It never once implies it was in the hearing. That is only an assumption that you make. There is no miracle of hearing. That is not one of the spirittual gifts.
DHK