praying = speaking to God

[awaken]

Do you believe that you can sing in tongues and "speak" in tongues in addition to "pray" in tongues? If so, then you cannot say with Biblical authority that "tongues is praying" but only that tongues can be in a form of addressing God, which Paul condemns without comprehension.

Paul only condemns it in church without an interpretation to edify the body. Addressing God is praying!

Moreover, "tongues" is by designed God speaking to "this people" as that is precisely what Isaiah 28:11 says and thus you cannot say with Biblical authority that "tongues is...speaking to God"

I have shown over and over it is speaking to God..using scripture!

Isa. 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

1 Cor. 14:21 ¶ 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.

The language is simple and straight forward and yet you contradict it by your restrictive application of tongues to God only. That is not what God says and that is not what God's Word says.

NO, to believe your way...you contradict what Paul says and what happened in Acts 2 and 10.
The people in the crowd said, "we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" In other words, the disciples were praising God, telling Him of His wonders. Peter stood up and addressed the crowd, which was the first time that any of the disciples actually spoke to the crowd at Pentecost.

While the apostle Peter was teaching Cornelius and his household about Christ, the Holy Spirit came on everyone who heard the message. They all began speaking in tongues, but they were not witnessing to anyone because every non-Christian in the house had just gotten saved ( there was no-one else present who needed to hear the Gospel). Instead, they were praising God in tongues by the Holy Spirit, just like the disciples did on the day of Pentecost.

 

[The Biblicist]

You want to start answering issues? How about the above one? How about the fact that you never responded to the use of "allos" versus "heteros" in my response to your total abuse of it in 1 Cor. 12:7-11. How about your failure to respond to my post on 1 Cor. 12:29-30 and your imaginary interperetation that Paul was distinguishing between manifestations to the SAME PERSONS at various times. NOne of these you have answered!

Praying in tongues did not help the spiritual life of the Corinthians. They were CARNAL and Paul could not speak to them as "spiritual." I have never met a tongue speaker who was "spiritual." In fact, every discussion that I have had with such they are more interested in an experience and defending it then any credible evidence of spirituality or spiritual growth. Indeed, they have little use for the scriptures except to support their experiences and rely more on their experiences for leadership than God's Word.

I remember talking to one tongue speaker a few years ago who claimed that the baptism in the Spirit enabled him to live above sin. We got into a discussion and he got so frustrated that he cursed and I said, "ooops there goes your living above sin".

 

[awaken]

Oh please don't be such a hypocrit and play the martyr. YOU are the one that said it had been confirmed did you not! I simply questioned to whom it had been confirmed, only you and those like minded! That is hardly any attack on your personal walk with God!

I find that when people like you can't respond to the issues they start playing the martry and claim they are being personally attacked. Please put aside this hypocritical pretense and stick with the discussion. It is reasonable to question the basis of a professed confirmation and that is precisely what I did.

How would you like me to address that statement? You can not even grasp that the scriptures say tongues is speaking to God..and you want me to tell you how God confirmed it to me? I was letting you know that I only needs God's confirmation...not yours!

 

[awaken]

Praying in tongues did not help the spiritual life of the Corinthians. They were CARNAL and Paul could not speak to them as "spiritual." I have never met a tongue speaker who was "spiritual." In fact, every discussion that I have had with such they are more interested in an experience and defending it then any credible evidence of spirituality or spiritual growth. Indeed, they have little use for the scriptures except to support their experiences and rely more on their experiences for leadership than God's Word.

I remember talking to one tongue speaker a few years ago who claimed that the baptism in the Spirit enabled him to live above sin. We got into a discussion and he got so frustrated that he cursed and I said, "ooops there goes your living above sin".

And that proves what? That all that speak in tongues are the same? NO!

A person with an experience is never at the mercy of one with just opinions/theories. Especially when scriptures back up their experience!

 

[The Biblicist]

Paul only condemns it in church without an interpretation to edify the body.

Do you really believe that the principle of edification for others and SELF is restricted within four walls and outside those four walls regardless of others you are free to babble? He is not referring to just within the church but the use of tongues for any other purpose than the God ordained purpose spelled out in plain English in verses 20-22. That use is where God speaks to "this people" whose rulers reside "in Jerusalem" through the lips and tongues of others.

I have shown over and over it is speaking to God..using scripture!

Read slowly what I am about to say and see if you can grasp it. You selectively choose scripture at the expense of other scripture and build your doctrine on selective texts that you interpret to contradict other texts. In the very context where use of Tongues are being corrected Paul explicitly and clearly quotes Isaiah 28:11-15 in a summary form that clearly and explicitly states that God uses tongue speakers to talk "TO THIS PEOPLE" whose rulers are "IN JERUSALEM". So for you to say that tongues is speaking to God is false! Tongues may be used to pray to God as pray is to God but that is not the only use of tongues nor is it the primary biblical purpose for tongues as Paul gives the primary biblical use of tongues in 1 Cor. 14:20-22 while PLACING RESTRICTIONS ON EVERY OTHER USE.

NO, to believe your way...you contradict what Paul says and what happened in Acts 2 and 10.

So you trash what paul says in simple easy understandable langauge in 1 Cor. 14:20-22 and then pervert what happened in Acts 2. God spoke to those people in Acts 2 and they understood what He was saying through those tongue speakers exactly as Isaiah 28:11 and 1 Cor. 14:21 says!

God spoke to those jews in Acts 10 as a sign that he had accepted Gentiles for baptism and membership in the all Jewish Chruch and they understood that sign.

The people in the crowd said, "we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" In other words,

Don't add your hogwash interpetation! They understood that God was speaking to them through men natually incapable of such speech and took it as a sign from God and understood what God was saying through them.

 

[The Biblicist]

A person with an experience is never at the mercy of one with just opinions/theories. Especially when scriptures back up their experience!

I have never experienced murdering someone and don't need to experience it to know it is wrong. I never experienced ecstatic utterances and don't need to experience it to know it is not Biblical tongues.

The Biblical rule is all experiences must be subjected to God's Word not God's word to experiences - Isa. 8:20. Your claims do not match God's Word and therefore I do not need to experience your claims to know they are wrong any more than I need to experience barking like a dog, slithering like a snake and uncontrolable laughing to know they are demonic in nature.

 

[The Biblicist]

Paul only condemns it in church without an interpretation to edify the body. Addressing God is praying!

I have shown over and over it is speaking to God..using scripture!



NO, to believe your way...you contradict what Paul says and what happened in Acts 2 and 10.
The people in the crowd said, "we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" In other words, the disciples were praising God, telling Him of His wonders. Peter stood up and addressed the crowd, which was the first time that any of the disciples actually spoke to the crowd at Pentecost.

While the apostle Peter was teaching Cornelius and his household about Christ, the Holy Spirit came on everyone who heard the message. They all began speaking in tongues, but they were not witnessing to anyone because every non-Christian in the house had just gotten saved ( there was no-one else present who needed to hear the Gospel). Instead, they were praising God in tongues by the Holy Spirit, just like the disciples did on the day of Pentecost.

Isa. 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

1 Cor. 14:21 ¶ 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.

Do you or do you not receive and accept that both Isaiah and Paul claim that "with men" and with their lips GOD is speaking in other tongues TO THIS PEOPLE??

Do you or do you not receive and accept that both Isaiah and Paul claimed that those people to whom God speaks with the lips and tongues of other men to THIS PEOPLE that those people WILL NOT BELIEVE as a result?

Do you or do you not receive and accept that in context "THIS PEOPLE" refers to the Jewish nation and their rulers are located in Jerusalem?

Isa. 28:14 ¶ Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

Do you or do you not receive and accept that God's word TWICE clearly states that tongues is for God to speak to this people and that it is Biblically inaccurate to say that tongues speaking is only to God.

 

[awaken]

Do you really believe that the principle of edification for others and SELF is restricted within four walls and outside those four walls regardless of others you are free to babble? He is not referring to just within the church but the use of tongues for any other purpose than the God ordained purpose spelled out in plain English in verses 20-22. That use is where God speaks to "this people" whose rulers reside "in Jerusalem" through the lips and tongues of others.

Praying to God is edifying..whether in tongues or your own understanding!

Read slowly what I am about to say and see if you can grasp it. You selectively choose scripture at the expense of other scripture and build your doctrine on selective texts that you interpret to contradict other texts. In the very context where use of Tongues are being corrected Paul explicitly and clearly quotes Isaiah 28:11-15 in a summary form that clearly and explicitly states that God uses tongue speakers to talk "TO THIS PEOPLE" whose rulers are "IN JERUSALEM". So for you to say that tongues is speaking to God is false! Tongues may be used to pray to God as pray is to God but that is not the only use of tongues nor is it the primary biblical purpose for tongues as Paul gives the primary biblical use of tongues in 1 Cor. 14:20-22 while PLACING RESTRICTIONS ON EVERY OTHER USE.

I have addressed that scripture and it does not contradict what Paul says elsewhere. You on the other hand have ignored and continue to ignore what he says concerning tongues. Not only what Paul addresses but also the examples in Acts.

So you trash what paul says in simple easy understandable langauge in 1 Cor. 14:20-22 and then pervert what happened in Acts 2. God spoke to those people in Acts 2 and they understood what He was saying through those tongue speakers exactly as Isaiah 28:11 and 1 Cor. 14:21 says!

God spoke to those jews in Acts 10 as a sign that he had accepted Gentiles for baptism and membership in the all Jewish Chruch and they understood that sign.

No, you ignore that they were not addressing the people..they were praising God! Plain!

Don't add your hogwash interpetation! They understood that God was speaking to them through men natually incapable of such speech and took it as a sign from God and understood what God was saying through them.

THe sign was to show them that it was real! It was from God! It was the promise that Jesus said was coming..baptism in the Holy Spirit. It was seen and heard. That was the sign..tongues!
"For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God." (1 Corinthians 14:2)
How much plainer does Paul have to put it and how many times will you over look this scripture to prove your theories! It is not speaking to men! Prophecy speaks to men..tongues speaks to God!

 

[The Biblicist]

Praying to God is edifying..whether in tongues or your own understanding!

Only when understanding is joined with it or else you are not edified becuase you are ignorant of what you are saying and so is everyone listening but God and thus you speak to God alone, you speak into the air as only God can understand it.

I have addressed that scripture and it does not contradict what Paul says elsewhere. You on the other hand have ignored and continue to ignore what he says concerning tongues. Not only what Paul addresses but also the examples in Acts.

False! I have ignored nothing but have addressed your twisted interpretations by the immediate context in each case and exposed your imaginary interpretations. if not, you could point my errors out with facts instead of wishful thinking.

No, you ignore that they were not addressing the people..they were praising God! Plain!

Where does it state that? It does not state that! It says the PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD what they were saying because God enabled them to speak in their precise langauage and thus God spoke to them through lips and tongues of other men just as Isaiah and Paul explicilty and clearly states. You have to INVENT words not found in the text to support your position.

THe sign was to show them that it was real! It was from God! It was the promise that Jesus said was coming..baptism in the Holy Spirit. It was seen and heard. That was the sign..tongues!

False! Nowhere does the scripture even suggest that tongues are a sign to believer for anything and in fact Paul explicitly denies that very presumption. The tongues on Pentecost was God speaking in known languages to people who knew those languages and understood what was being said and that is precisely what the text says.

"For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God." (1 Corinthians 14:2)
How much plainer does Paul have to put it and how many times will you over look this scripture to prove your theories! It is not speaking to men! Prophecy speaks to men..tongues speaks to God!

Yes, in the context of the church where NONE UNDERSTAND the language being spoke and THAT IS THE CONTEXT which you hypocritically try to ram down my throat when it comes to verses 15-17 in order to support your PRIVATE PRAYING but totally ignore and repudiate when it comes to verses 2-12 where it is so obvious!

 

[The Biblicist]

Isa. 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

1 Cor. 14:21 ¶ 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.

Do you or do you not receive and accept that both Isaiah and Paul claim that "with men" and with their lips GOD is speaking in other tongues TO THIS PEOPLE??

Do you or do you not receive and accept that both Isaiah and Paul claimed that those people to whom God speaks with the lips and tongues of other men to THIS PEOPLE that those people WILL NOT BELIEVE as a result?

Do you or do you not receive and accept that in context "THIS PEOPLE" refers to the Jewish nation and their rulers are located in Jerusalem?

Isa. 28:14 ¶ Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

Do you or do you not receive and accept that God's word TWICE clearly states that tongues is for God to speak to this people and that it is Biblically inaccurate to say that tongues speaking is only to God.

You have never been able to provide a reasonable and biblical response to either 1 cor. 12:7-11 or 1 Cor. 12:29-30. Both of which completely expose and repudiate your view of tongues and proves that your version is nothing more than the command esctatic utterance type.

1. You responded by attempting to claim that verses 29-30 refer to manifestations to the same persons at various time. He uses the word "all" not the word "you" or "ye" which would be required if these are manifestations at different times to the same persons. Furthermore you imaginary interpretation directly contradicts the "allos" and "hertos" in verses 7-11.

2. You responded by attempting to claim that verses 7-11 did not mean "to another" or different person than the one previously mentioned.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have addressed that scripture and it does not contradict what Paul says elsewhere. You on the other hand have ignored and continue to ignore what he says concerning tongues. Not only what Paul addresses but also the examples in Acts.

you have addressed it with imaginary interpretations that have no contextual basis whatsoever! Your interpretations remind me of others pentecostals that I have encountered who drew their interpretations from their feelings, dreams or imaginations but not from any contextual based interpretation of God's Word.

The Biblical fact is that both Isaiah and Paul say that tongues is God using the lips and tongues of men to SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE whose rulers live in Jerusalem!

The Biblical fact is that in Acts 2 the crowd OF JEWS understood what was being spoken in tongues because God spoke to them with the lips and tongues of men supernaturally and they understood it as a "sign" from God to them and that is what drew the crowd.

The Biblical fact is that in Acts 10 the JEWISH church IN JERUSALEM would not have accepted gentiles as members if God had not given these UNBELIEVING JEWS (unbelieving that gentiles be received on equal standing with Jews) a sign that God had accepted them. It was on that visible sign that Peter asked can any man forbid baptism to them as they received the same gift as they did.

 

[awaken]

Isa. 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

1 Cor. 14:21 ¶ 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.

Do you or do you not receive and accept that both Isaiah and Paul claim that "with men" and with their lips GOD is speaking in other tongues TO THIS PEOPLE??

Do you or do you not receive and accept that both Isaiah and Paul claimed that those people to whom God speaks with the lips and tongues of other men to THIS PEOPLE that those people WILL NOT BELIEVE as a result?

The people in Acts heard them speaking in tongues...and they did believe! Explain that!

Do you or do you not receive and accept that in context "THIS PEOPLE" refers to the Jewish nation and their rulers are located in Jerusalem?

Isa. 28:14 ¶ Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

Do you or do you not receive and accept that God's word TWICE clearly states that tongues is for God to speak to this people and that it is Biblically inaccurate to say that tongues speaking is only to God.

So scriptures are contradicting each other?? Paul says it is speaking to God! Acts says it is praising God..you can not have it both ways!

 

[The Biblicist]

The people in Acts heard them speaking in tongues...and they did believe! Explain that!

Exactly my point! They both heard the content of tongues, as it was in their own languauge and received it as a "sign" from God because THREE TIMES they emphasized that these men could not speak like that naturally and so they received it as a supernatural sign. What they believed was the gospel preached after they heard and received this sign. This is in perfect harmony with Isaiah 28:11-12,16 and 1 Cor. 14:21-22. It was received by the Jews as a "sign" from God to them to hear and believe the gospel message that was immediately presented to them AFTER the tongues.

So scriptures are contradicting each other?? Paul says it is speaking to God! Acts says it is praising God..you can not have it both ways!

1. Acts DOES NOT use the term "praising God" but rather they heard them speak about "THE WONDERFUL WORKS OF GOD"! What they believed in was the gospel preached after they received this sign from God.

2. The Bible never says "tongues is a praise language" nor does the Bible ever RESTRICT "tongues to speaking to God" as Paul also says tongues is God speaking TO MEN - 1 cor. 14:21; Isa. 28:11

ONLY when Tongues are in the form of a prayer, is it men speaking to God OR when there are no interpreter the speaker regardless of what form he may be using tongues (speaketh, praying, signing, etc.) speaks into the air and none undestand him but God and thus he speaks to God as his sole audiance. The immediate context demands this interpretation (vv. 3-12) of 1 Cor. 14:2.

But when tongues are used accorrding to God's PRIMARY BIBLICAL DESIGN it it is God speaking to men -Jewish persons - Isa. 28:11-12,16; 1 Cor. 14:21-22.

 

[DHK]

The people in Acts heard them speaking in tongues...and they did believe! Explain that!

It was the Feast of Pentecost.
Jews from over 13 different nations were there. Look at the passage. You can count them if you wish.
Historians believe that there were well over 100,000 Jews present for that feast. Out of that 100,00 only 3,000 got saved. Considering the emphasis that we put on "The Day of Pentecost" that isn't very many is it? The rest rejected their Messiah even though they heard the sign; the very one prophesied in Isaiah 28; one they knew about. John confirms this.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

From then on every time tongues was used it was a sign to the Jews that they should repent, or face judgment. In 70 A.D. they faced judgment. Tongues have ceased. The sign has been removed.

So scriptures are contradicting each other?? Paul says it is speaking to God! Acts says it is praising God..you can not have it both ways!

Scripture never contradicts itself. If you have it contradicting itself it is a evidence that you have it wrong.
You have a wrong definition in Acts 2.
The Greek word is "lelew." It is the most common word to speak or to say. It has nothing to do with prayer, nothing whatsoever. "And they were saying." That is not prayer. Accept it. You are reinterpreting the Bible; stretching its literal interpretation to your own fancy to fit your own man-made religion. You invent things as you go along. The verb "to speak" is not prayer. They weren't praying. They were speaking.

How hear we every man in our own language "speak" in our own language.
There is not any indication anywhere that any of them were praying--not by the ones hearing, nor by the ones speaking. You can't make up your own definitions as you go along your merry way.

 

[The Biblicist]

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Paul is not referring to spiritual gifts as used exclusively in the congregation in the above text but is referring to the DISTRIBUTION OF GIFTS IN GENERAL without any regard to LOCATION.

The words "to another.....to another.....to another" are vain repetition according to your claims that God gives tongues to all Christians.

The words "dividing to every man SEVERALLY AS HE WILL." is nonsense according to your claim that God gives tongues to all Christians.


29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

The Greek text actually contains the Greek word for "no" in every phrase and would read this way:

"not all are apostles; not all are prophets..not all...not all....not all....not all....not all....."

However your claims directly contradict this emphatic denial by Paul that tongues are not given to all Christians.

Paul is talking about the POSSESSION of such gifts not the LOCATION where such gifts are exercised.

Your theories and interpetations are repudiated by Paul in clear and explicit language and in a context of GENERAL distribution and GENERAL possession without any reference to LOCATION.

Your response to my post above was:

THis section of scriptures blends the manifestations and the ministries, and points out that not everyone will be energized in the same way at the same time.


There is no blending at all but a clear distingusihing between ministries and gifts. The fact he uses the negative in the Greek text in every phrase with the word "all" completely repudiates your interpretation that he is merely denying the same person receives these various gifts at the same point in time. His use of "allos" versus "heteros" in verses 7-11 completely repudiate this theory that he is speaking about the SAME person but different manifestations at various times.

"to another [allos]....to another [heteros] - v. 8

1 Cor. 12:7-11 and 29-30 completely repudiates your whole position on tongues that it is given to all Christians and your explanations are completely repudiated by Paul's language especially his use of "allos" and "heteros."

 

[DHK]

So you admit that tongues is (in the spirit also)?

Every Christian prays in the spirit. It has nothing to do with tongues. As I have been saying, you just redefine words to your own liking.
The emphasis there is, the person in the church was praying aloud. He was praying in tongues, praying aloud, in public, and thus had an interpreter so that all would know when to say "Amen."

1 Corinthians 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
--It is in public, obviously! It had to be understood by all.
What language do you pray in that all can understand, and thus say "Amen" at the end of your prayer. Please tell us. If it is something other than English, and the rest can't understand it, then it is not of God (assuming you don't know a second language).

tongues is praying to God..speaking to God!

Your opinion; unsubstantiated. You haven't proved that yet. The person above prayed publicly aloud. So would someone preaching or prophesying. In Acts 2, 10, and 19 there was no praying in tongues.

But in this scriptures he was refering to tongues without interpretations. So again..tongues is speaking to God..is prayer!

In what Scripture?
There is no Scripture where Paul condones praying silently in tongues. Nowhere! Every where they needed an interpreter. It was for edification. It had to have understanding.

You said it was for first century! The Bible does not say that!

The context does. The Jews were judged by 70 A.D.
It was a sign to the Jews.
The apostles had died by the end of the first century. They were a sign for the apostles.
Thus it was for first century Christians. These truths are self-evident.

You say "don't do it!" Paul said "forbid not" The only correction in the church is if you do not have the interpretation and only one at a time and not more than 3.

Paul did not say "forbid not" to you living 2,000 years after the Corinthian Church. He was speaking to first century Corinthians. To no other church did he ever address this problem.
This phenomena that you have is only 100 years old, and to defend it you are throwing out 1900 years of history.

Vs. 28 is plain that you are to speak to God (prayer) in silence if there is not an interpretation. If you can speak silently between you and God in tongues that is prayer!

Here is verse 28:
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.
--He tells you to keep silent because you don't know what you say.
No one can interpret for you; you don't even know what language you speak in. That in itself would tell you its wrong. You have a great misunderstanding of tongues.
"Let him speak to himself and to God" does not mean or say "in tongues."
Why would it. If you can speak in your own language to God, why wouldn't you? Don't you want God to understand you?

Prayer is not limited to the church. We can pray in private anywhere! In tongues and in English (or our understanding).

You can murder people anywhere too, can't you?
Wrong is wrong. If it is wrong in the church it is wrong at home.
If you need an interpreter in the church you need one at home.
If you can't understand yourself in the church, you can't understand at home.
If you can't edify others, you can't edify yourself.
Wrong is wrong.

 

[awaken]

Exactly my point! They both heard the content of tongues, as it was in their own languauge and received it as a "sign" from God because THREE TIMES they emphasized that these men could not speak like that naturally and so they received it as a supernatural sign. What they believed was the gospel preached after they heard and received this sign. This is in perfect harmony with Isaiah 28:11-12,16 and 1 Cor. 14:21-22. It was received by the Jews as a "sign" from God to them to hear and believe the gospel message that was immediately presented to them AFTER the tongues.

"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."
That day the Jews did hear them and understood! That verse says they will not hear..does not make sense with your interpretation. The way you interprete that contradicts what Paul and Acts says about tongues. It is a sign to the unbelievers is what Paul said in 1 Cor. that could be Jew or Gentile. He was speaking to a Gentile church.

1. Acts DOES NOT use the term "praising God" but rather they heard them speak about "THE WONDERFUL WORKS OF GOD"! What they believed in was the gospel preached after they received this sign from God.

I showed where they were not speaking to man but to God. Do you not tell God how wonderful He is.
"Many, O LORD my God, are the wonders you have done. The things you planned for us no one can recount to you; were I to speak and tell of them, they would be too many to declare." (Psalms 40:5)

"Say to God, "How awesome are your deeds! So great is your power that your enemies cringe before you."" (Psalms 66:3)

This goes along with 1 Cor. 14 when it tells us we speak to God. NO contradictions!!

2. The Bible never says "tongues is a praise language" nor does the Bible ever RESTRICT "tongues to speaking to God" as Paul also says tongues is God speaking TO MEN - 1 cor. 14:21; Isa. 28:11

So are you saying there are diversities of tongue? As in different ways they are used? Because Paul is plain in 1 Cor. 14 when he says..
1.Tongues is speaking to God vs. 2.
2. If he prays in tongues, his spirit prays vs. 14.
3. He will pray in tongues AND understanding vs. 15.
4.He blesses with the spirit giving thanks well vs. 16,17.
5. Let him speak to God in silence in church if there is no interpretation. vs 28. Now for me to believe as you do it contradicts all these verses, not to mention Acts 2 and 10 where they are not speaking or preaching to men. The greater weight of scripture leans more toward this interpretation that yours. So maybe you are not interpreting that scripture correct OR there is more than one purpose of tongues?

ONLY when Tongues are in the form of a prayer, is it men speaking to God OR when there are no interpreter the speaker regardless of what form he may be using tongues (speaketh, praying, signing, etc.) speaks into the air and none undestand him but God and thus he speaks to God as his sole audiance. The immediate context demands this interpretation (vv. 3-12) of 1 Cor. 14:2.

So you are saying tongues is a form of prayer?

But when tongues are used accorrding to God's PRIMARY BIBLICAL DESIGN it it is God speaking to men -Jewish persons - Isa. 28:11-12,16; 1 Cor. 14:21-22.

So you are saying there is more than one purpose for speaking in tongues?

 

[awaken]

It was the Feast of Pentecost.
Jews from over 13 different nations were there. Look at the passage. You can count them if you wish.
Historians believe that there were well over 100,000 Jews present for that feast. Out of that 100,00 only 3,000 got saved. Considering the emphasis that we put on "The Day of Pentecost" that isn't very many is it? The rest rejected their Messiah even though they heard the sign; the very one prophesied in Isaiah 28; one they knew about. John confirms this.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

From then on every time tongues was used it was a sign to the Jews that they should repent, or face judgment. In 70 A.D. they faced judgment. Tongues have ceased. The sign has been removed.

No, tongues was given to the church to profit the chruch. YOu guys keep missing this! 1 Cor. 12 it is given to profit all.

Scripture never contradicts itself. If you have it contradicting itself it is a evidence that you have it wrong.
You have a wrong definition in Acts 2.
The Greek word is "lelew." It is the most common word to speak or to say. It has nothing to do with prayer, nothing whatsoever. "And they were saying." That is not prayer. Accept it. You are reinterpreting the Bible; stretching its literal interpretation to your own fancy to fit your own man-made religion. You invent things as you go along. The verb "to speak" is not prayer. They weren't praying. They were speaking.

I covered this in a post to Bilbicist. Also in a previous post to someone else. Peter addressed the crowd. Paul is plain that tongues is speaking to God.

How hear we every man in our own language "speak" in our own language.
There is not any indication anywhere that any of them were praying--not by the ones hearing, nor by the ones speaking. You can't make up your own definitions as you go along your merry way.

They were magnifying God! Praising God! Do you not mangnify God in prayer?

 

[awaken]

Your response to my post above was:

THis section of scriptures blends the manifestations and the ministries, and points out that not everyone will be energized in the same way at the same time.


There is no blending at all but a clear distingusihing between ministries and gifts. The fact he uses the negative in the Greek text in every phrase with the word "all" completely repudiates your interpretation that he is merely denying the same person receives these various gifts at the same point in time. His use of "allos" versus "heteros" in verses 7-11 completely repudiate this theory that he is speaking about the SAME person but different manifestations at various times.

"to another [allos]....to another [heteros] - v. 8

1 Cor. 12:7-11 and 29-30 completely repudiates your whole position on tongues that it is given to all Christians and your explanations are completely repudiated by Paul's language especially his use of "allos" and "heteros."

NO, I see the scriptures I listed above as more evidence to speaking to God instead of speaking to man. UNLESS there is more than one purpose for speaking in tongues. The gifts were given TO the CHURCH for the CHURCH to profit all.

Let me clear something up...then if you want to open another thread on that verse you can. I would really like to stick to "speaking to God" = "prayer".
I do not believe the Lord energizes all the manifestations in every person at the same time. As a matter of fact Paul directs the Corinthians to manifest the Spirit in a way that is a blessing to the Church in 1 Cor. 14:26. I do believe we all have the Holy Spirit as believers or the Holy Spirit should have us. It is the Spirit that is manifested at His will, not ours. But I do not limit the Holy Spirit, I open myself up to anyway He wants to manifest. That said, in a church we do not manifest the same way whether it is through our ministries or the gifts. One assembly He might to chose to manifest through me differently than he did the last. But as a whole we do not manifest all at the same time, each member brings to the assembly something different.

 

[awaken]

Every Christian prays in the spirit. It has nothing to do with tongues. As I have been saying, you just redefine words to your own liking.

No, I am quoting Paul..." For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." Pretty plain, he calls praying in tongues, praying with his spirit.

The emphasis there is, the person in the church was praying aloud. He was praying in tongues, praying aloud, in public, and thus had an interpreter so that all would know when to say "Amen."

Very simple to understand the correction, if you are going to bless, give thanks in tongues then do it with interpretation so they can agree with what you are saying. Common sense to me. I agree with Paul. No one should pray in tongues without an interpreter!

1 Corinthians 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
--It is in public, obviously! It had to be understood by all.
What language do you pray in that all can understand, and thus say "Amen" at the end of your prayer. Please tell us. If it is something other than English, and the rest can't understand it, then it is not of God (assuming you don't know a second language).

Lets again turn the attention off of me and stick to scriptures. I agree as I said above with Paul. We should not pray in public without interpretation. At least you agree they are praying in tongues.

Your opinion; unsubstantiated. You haven't proved that yet. The person above prayed publicly aloud. So would someone preaching or prophesying. In Acts 2, 10, and 19 there was no praying in tongues.

THey were not speaking to the crowd, I have shown that! They started speaking in tongues before the crowd gathered.

In what Scripture?
There is no Scripture where Paul condones praying silently in tongues. Nowhere! Every where they needed an interpreter. It was for edification. It had to have understanding.

vs. 28 If we are allowed to pray silently in church to God in tongues we are allowed to pray anywhere to God in tongues. No where does Paul limit prayer to the assembly whether it is in tongues or our understanding.

The context does. The Jews were judged by 70 A.D.
It was a sign to the Jews.
The apostles had died by the end of the first century. They were a sign for the apostles.
Thus it was for first century Christians. These truths are self-evident.

No, that is how you rationalize it to fit your theory. Tongues, as I have proven over and over were given to more than just the apostles, they were given to the church to profit all.

Paul did not say "forbid not" to you living 2,000 years after the Corinthian Church. He was speaking to first century Corinthians. To no other church did he ever address this problem.
This phenomena that you have is only 100 years old, and to defend it you are throwing out 1900 years of history.

Christians today should be praying in tongues just as they did in the first century (following Paul's guidelines), because when it's done properly then it results in the edification of the speaker and of the church. You limit to the first century not the Bible!

Here is verse 28:
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.
--He tells you to keep silent because you don't know what you say.
No one can interpret for you; you don't even know what language you speak in. That in itself would tell you its wrong. You have a great misunderstanding of tongues.
"Let him speak to himself and to God" does not mean or say "in tongues."
Why would it. If you can speak in your own language to God, why wouldn't you? Don't you want God to understand you?

Are you now saying God does not understand ALL languages? My faith says He does! I also trust the Holy Spirit when I pray in tongues. If the Holy Spirit gives the utterance (Acts 2:4), which he does, then why would I question what is being said. I trust the Holy Spirit knows the perfect will of God.

You can murder people anywhere too, can't you?
Wrong is wrong. If it is wrong in the church it is wrong at home.
If you need an interpreter in the church you need one at home.
If you can't understand yourself in the church, you can't understand at home.
If you can't edify others, you can't edify yourself.
Wrong is wrong.

Well again Paul directs us differently. You restrict it where the scriptures do not. Paul speaks in tongues more than all but not in the church. Don't try to feed me that he preaches in tongues unless you have a scripture to back it up!