praying = speaking to God

[DHK]

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.

These were 3,000 Jews saved on the Day of Pentecost. There were still approximately 100,000 Jews there. Do you still call that a church?? They were speaking in tongues on the Day of Pentecost, not in a church. Now if we are all going to agree that it is a gift given to the church, then don't ever bring up the Day of Pentecost again. Settled? Or deal with the text in context, now, and don't dismiss it!

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.

Peter was preaching to about 100,00 Jews in the Temple on the Day of Pentecost. Before that, before anyone had gotten saved, they spoke, that is spoke in tongues. It was for those that were there--their benefit.
Tell me:
Psalms 103:2 Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:
--What do you think of this verse?
Is the Psalmist praying? If so, what is he praying about?

Most commentaries will tell you that he is not necessarily praying. This is not directed to God. He is directing this thanksgiving to himself. It is no different than what was happening in Acts 2. The magnification of God, or his glories are not necessarily prayers to God. There is no indication that there was any praying going on. You are reading into Scripture that which isn't there.
People do that a lot around here. Ask the RCC. That is how they get infant baptism out of the jailor's household. They read into the passage that which isn't there. You do the same thing.

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

No, they are separate. One can magnify God without praying.

 

[awaken]

These were 3,000 Jews saved on the Day of Pentecost. There were still approximately 100,000 Jews there. Do you still call that a church?? They were speaking in tongues on the Day of Pentecost, not in a church. Now if we are all going to agree that it is a gift given to the church, then don't ever bring up the Day of Pentecost again. Settled? Or deal with the text in context, now, and don't dismiss it!

Were they not assembled together. You do not have to be in a building to have church

Peter was preaching to about 100,00 Jews in the Temple on the Day of Pentecost. Before that, before anyone had gotten saved, they spoke, that is spoke in tongues. It was for those that were there--their benefit.
Tell me:
Psalms 103:2 Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:
--What do you think of this verse?
Is the Psalmist praying? If so, what is he praying about?

Sounds like he is speaking to his own soul..to bless the Lord and forget not all his benefits. YOUR POINT?

Most commentaries will tell you that he is not necessarily praying. This is not directed to God. He is directing this thanksgiving to himself. It is no different than what was happening in Acts 2. The magnification of God, or his glories are not necessarily prayers to God. There is no indication that there was any praying going on. You are reading into Scripture that which isn't there.
People do that a lot around here. Ask the RCC. That is how they get infant baptism out of the jailor's household. They read into the passage that which isn't there. You do the same thing.

No, they are separate. One can magnify God without praying.

I have shown over and over that they were not speaking to the crowd! The crowd gathered after they began speaking in tongues.

 

[DHK]

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.

You are demonstrating that you are not very knowledgeable about this subject even though you think you have this gift.
Look at 1Cor.14:14 in another translation with better clarity.

1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in another language, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. WEB
--If you prayed in Hebrew, your human spirit would be praying, but your understanding would be unfruitful. Therefore don't do it.
Why are you trying to take this forceful rebuke and use it as a permission and to speak in tongues. This is a perversion of Scriptures. If the understanding is not there don't do it!!!!!!
That is what Paul said. It doesn't matter where you are. If there is no understanding, don't do it!

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!

Good! You need to give up your practice then. All tongues were in known languages. What is yours?

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.

Go to a typical service. Paul would enter a synagogue. Perhaps he would be in Spain. We believe he eventually reached there. He would open in prayer. He would expound the Scriptures. He would close in prayer. Everything is audible. Everything is for the edification of others. God gave him the tongue or language to do so. If he had no interpreter, he would interpret again for the sake of the Jews. There was no silent prayer or private prayer language. Paul spoke in tongues more than them all because he was a missionary. Tongues was not used for prayer (silently). It was used for edification, and therefore preaching and prophesying. This is made plain by the same scripture you have been using. If there is no understanding then shut up!!

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

No they weren't. And they weren't praying either. You are placing an either/or dichotomy when there doesn't have to be one. There are other choices.

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.

You still need to provide Scripture that demonstrates tongues can be used as a private prayer language. You don't have any. You say verse 28??

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the assembly, and let him speak to himself, and to God. WEB
--There is no mention of tongues in the verse. None.

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.

They were given to those in the church as long as they had and/or fulfilled their purpose. Once their purposes were fulfilled they ceased.
1. They were signs of the apostles. Apostles dead; signs dead.
2. They were signs for the first century Jews. Jews dead; signs dead.
3. They were temporary as vehicles for revelation until the Word of God was complete. The word of God is complete. The gifts have ceased. They were in the church in the first century; they are not needed anymore; they have fulfilled their purposes.

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!

We have the Bible printed in almost every language of the world. We don't need tongues. We have the capabilities of studying foreign languages as William Carey demonstrated. The gift of tongues has ceased. There is no example of anyone praying privately in a special prayer language. No one has ever done that in the Bible. You have misinterpreted the Bible to come up with that fad. It doesn't edify anyone. Paul says it doesn't. It has no understanding.

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.

Not even God understands Gibberish. They are nonsense syllables run together with no meaning. What is there to understand? It is not the Holy Spirit that gives you utterance either.

Acts 2:4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit gave them the ability to speak.
--You weren't even there, first of all.
Secondly, if the Holy Spirit has given you the ability to speak other languages, then what are the languages that you are now able to speak. You would know about it!

Acts 2:6 When this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because everyone heard them speaking in his own language.
--You would know about it, wouldn't you?

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!

First, prove that Paul was not in a church, and not preaching when he spoke in tongues. You are just putting opinion on your plate, and it is unscriptural.
Secondly, I have proved to you that the gifts were confined to the first century solely by their purpose.
Thirdly, Paul puts little emphasis on tongues as he would rather speak 10,000 words with understanding (in his own language), then just 5 words in tongues (without understanding).
The message is don't speak in tongues.

 

[DHK]

Were they not assembled together. You do not have to be in a building to have church

Sounds like he is speaking to his own soul..to bless the Lord and forget not all his benefits. YOUR POINT?

I have shown over and over that they were not speaking to the crowd! The crowd gathered after they began speaking in tongues.

Acts 2:6 When this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because everyone heard them speaking in his own language.

The setting:
They were in the Temple. That doesn't mean they were all assembled, for the Temple was quite large. It had a very large outer court where Gentiles were permitted as well. In some room in that large temple area these 120 were gathered. When they started to speak in tongues all those gathered in that larger court heard them and came closer--"the multitude came together."

It obviously wasn't a church. It was a Jewish feast day, and they were in a Jewish building called the Temple. Much later on, after the 3,000 were saved and then baptized they would be organized into a church. But not at this point.

My point with Psalm 103:2 is the same with those in Acts 2 that spoke in tongues. They weren't praying.

 

[awaken]

You are demonstrating that you are not very knowledgeable about this subject even though you think you have this gift.
Look at 1Cor.14:14 in another translation with better clarity.

1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in another language, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. WEB
--If you prayed in Hebrew, your human spirit would be praying, but your understanding would be unfruitful. Therefore don't do it.

Stop adding your inserts..he never says don't do it! But he does say forbid not!

Why are you trying to take this forceful rebuke and use it as a permission and to speak in tongues. This is a perversion of Scriptures. If the understanding is not there don't do it!!!!!!

Practice what you preach! You add to the scripture all the time..just like above!

That is what Paul said. It doesn't matter where you are. If there is no understanding, don't do it!

No, he does not say that vs. 28 says if there is no interpretation, let it be between you and God..not outloud in the church.

Good! You need to give up your practice then. All tongues were in known languages. What is yours?

I will ignore these comments from now on...because you prove nothing from scriptures by them. They add NOTHING to the debate!

Go to a typical service. Paul would enter a synagogue. Perhaps he would be in Spain. We believe he eventually reached there. He would open in prayer. He would expound the Scriptures. He would close in prayer. Everything is audible. Everything is for the edification of others. God gave him the tongue or language to do so. If he had no interpreter, he would interpret again for the sake of the Jews.

That is your mind explaining away what the scriptures actually say about tongues. It is speaking to God...NOT MEN!

There was no silent prayer or private prayer language. Paul spoke in tongues more than them all because he was a missionary. Tongues was not used for prayer (silently). It was used for edification, and therefore preaching and prophesying. This is made plain by the same scripture you have been using. If there is no understanding then shut up!!

You continue to leave out the part where he says "keep silent" and pray between you and God.

No they weren't. And they weren't praying either. You are placing an either/or dichotomy when there doesn't have to be one. There are other choices.
You still need to provide Scripture that demonstrates tongues can be used as a private prayer language. You don't have any. You say verse 28??

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the assembly, and let him speak to himself, and to God. WEB
--There is no mention of tongues in the verse. None.

Speaking to God is prayer!! If you want to use vs. 28 keep it in context vs. 27 will shed light on it for you...it is speaking of tongues!

They were given to those in the church as long as they had and/or fulfilled their purpose. Once their purposes were fulfilled they ceased.

But when did he say they will cease..and he only mentioned three..prophecy, tongues and knowledge. You always leave out verses to help you have a clear understanding..vs. 12.." For now we see through a glass darkly; but THEN (they will cease) face to face: now (this church age) I know in part; but THEN (when they will cease) I know even as I am known.

1. They were signs of the apostles. Apostles dead; signs dead.
2. They were signs for the first century Jews. Jews dead; signs dead.

You added FIRST CENTURY to the Word of God!

3. They were temporary as vehicles for revelation until the Word of God was complete. The word of God is complete. The gifts have ceased. They were in the church in the first century; they are not needed anymore; they have fulfilled their purposes.
We have the Bible printed in almost every language of the world. We don't need tongues. We have the capabilities of studying foreign languages as William Carey demonstrated. The gift of tongues has ceased. There is no example of anyone praying privately in a special prayer language. No one has ever done that in the Bible. You have misinterpreted the Bible to come up with that fad. It doesn't edify anyone. Paul says it doesn't. It has no understanding.
Not even God understands Gibberish. They are nonsense syllables run together with no meaning. What is there to understand? It is not the Holy Spirit that gives you utterance either.

Well the Word says different! Acts 2:4 You keep adding to the Word of God! No... Paul's illustration speaks of maturity, but notice that he was not talking about the maturity of the New Testament. He was talking about our maturity as believers, which will finally be "perfected" or "completed" when we are transformed at the return of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:51-53, Philippians 3:20-21, and 1 John 3:2).

Since Paul used a description of spiritual maturity to elaborate on his statement that "when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears," it provides further confirmation that this "perfection" does not refer to the completion of the New Testament.

Acts 2:4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit gave them the ability to speak.
--You weren't even there, first of all.

What does that have to do with anything? The Word is plain! The Spirit gives the utterance!

Secondly, if the Holy Spirit has given you the ability to speak other languages, then what are the languages that you are now able to speak. You would know about it!

SHOW ME ONE SCRIPTURE WHERE IT SAYS THE SPEAKER UNDERSTANDS THE LANGUAGE HE IS SPEAKING. NONE! But it does say if you speak in tongues to pray for the interpretation. That is proof that you do not know what you are praying..if you did you would not have to pray for the interpretation. So stop bringing that up..because you have no scriptural proof of the speaker understand himself what he is saying.

Acts 2:6 When this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because everyone heard them speaking in his own language.
--You would know about it, wouldn't you?

Again, can you debate without the snide remarks...they are really showing how desperate you are to prove your theory..or maybe your fustration that you can not.

First, prove that Paul was not in a church, and not preaching when he spoke in tongues. You are just putting opinion on your plate, and it is unscriptural.

No, Paul said himself he spoke more than anyone..he said it was speaking to God. In the church (when) he preached/taught he did that so the assembly could understand him. Common sense! Plus..NO WHERE in scriptures does is show ANYONE PREACHING/EVANGALIZING in tongues.

Secondly, I have proved to you that the gifts were confined to the first century solely by their purpose.

You miss the main purpose..you ignore over and over scriptures that do not fit your theory. Paul says they are speaking to God!!

Thirdly, Paul puts little emphasis on tongues as he would rather speak 10,000 words with understanding (in his own language), then just 5 words in tongues (without understanding).
The message is don't speak in tongues.

NO, He said forbid not to speak in tongues! Why do you insist on adding what Paul does not say. He also said he does not want us to be ignorant about any of them!

Keep 1 Cor. 12-14 in context...he is speaking about spiritual gifts..correcting how they are to be used in the church..but not forbidding any of them. AND NEVER SAYS WE CANNOT PRAY IN ANY FORM IN PRIVATE...

 

[awaken]

Acts 2:6 When this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because everyone heard them speaking in his own language.

The setting:
They were in the Temple. That doesn't mean they were all assembled, for the Temple was quite large. It had a very large outer court where Gentiles were permitted as well. In some room in that large temple area these 120 were gathered. When they started to speak in tongues all those gathered in that larger court heard them and came closer--"the multitude came together."

It obviously wasn't a church. It was a Jewish feast day, and they were in a Jewish building called the Temple. Much later on, after the 3,000 were saved and then baptized they would be organized into a church. But not at this point.

My point with Psalm 103:2 is the same with those in Acts 2 that spoke in tongues. They weren't praying.

Grasping at straws! Acts 2:1 They were all with one accord IN ONE PLACE!

 

[The Biblicist]

"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!

The Jewish nation did not respond only a remnant did. Isaiah is talking about the nation of Israel as a whole not a remnant, just as the consequences for rejecting it were not personal but national.

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)

You can't just JUMP into another book and assume that the works they were declaring was something the text does not even provide a word about?

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

Why didn't you quote "singing" as well? huh? Of course tongues are diverse in use as your own tongue is diverse in use! Any use with your own tongue according to your own dialect can be done with a foreign langauge. Is it proper or right to say that speaking in English is to God only and is a praise language?????!!! No! Tongues can be used by God to speak to men as well as men to speak to other man or to God or to themsleves, or sing, or pray, or preach, or exhort or whatever.

The principle of edification concerning the tongue speaker himself is not restricted within four walls as that is silly!



.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

What in the world can you find in 1 Cor. 12:7-11 and 29-30 that teaches that?!? Those scripture repudatiate what you believe in the clearest terms possible!

I do not believe the Lord energizes all the manifestations in every person at the same time.

Why are you repeating this utter nonsense? 1 Cor. 12:7-11 and the use of "allos" and "heteros" completely repudiate this nonsense! Paul is flatly denying that the Holy Spirit gives the same gifts to all but rather equips each according to the purpose he has for them in the body and no member can replace the other. In 1 Cor. 12:29-30 he flatly repudiates the idea that God gives "all" share in these ministries or gifts and yet you reverse his language to say the very opposite!

 

[The Biblicist]

Grasping at straws! Acts 2:1 They were all with one accord IN ONE PLACE!

The problem is that you have only an order of events without any proof everything listed was confined in the same place. You cannot prove that the speaking in tongues was confined to that place or it was something they were doing as they moved about in the temple. Supposition is all you have!

I do not buld doctrine on supposition but on clear explicit statements. The clear explicit statements in 1 Cor. 12:7-11 and 29-30 completely repudiate your whole position. The clear statement of Isaiah 28:11-15 as quoted and interpreted by Paul in 1 Cor. 14:21-22 repudiates your whole idea that tongues is restricted to speaking only to God and is a praise tongue. Your supposition that "the wonderful works of God" is simply a praise tongue has nothing to support it since the context clearly says the lost Jews understood what was being said and perceived it was a sign of God to them as THREE times they repeat that it could not natural. The fact that Isaiah 28 refers to the NATION and not a remnant and the consequences were NATIONAL and not in regard to any remnant completely void your objections. The fact that 1 Cor. 14:2 says "speaketh" not "prayeth" and that verses 3-12 which is by any man's reasonable conclusion the immediate context of verse 2 which explains why that manner of use of tongues is UNKNOWN to all in the assembly because it is without intepretation to the speaker or hearer and thus God is the only audiance that understands it. The fact that the scriptues clearly state that the mature use of tongues is for a sign to "this people" and not for believers or for self-edification overthrows your entire position.

Finally, the fact that these were all KNOWN HUMAN LANGUAGUES from and only UNKNOWN in a context where it is used improperly completely exposes your kind of tongues as mere ecstatic utterances.

 

[awaken]

The Jewish nation did not respond only a remnant did. Isaiah is talking about the nation of Israel as a whole not a remnant, just as the consequences for rejecting it were not personal but national.







You can't just JUMP into another book and assume that the works they were declaring was something the text does not even provide a word about?



Why didn't you quote "singing" as well? huh? Of course tongues are diverse in use as your own tongue is diverse in use! Any use with your own tongue according to your own dialect can be done with a foreign langauge. Is it proper or right to say that speaking in English is to God only and is a praise language?????!!! No! Tongues can be used by God to speak to men as well as men to speak to other man or to God or to themsleves, or sing, or pray, or preach, or exhort or whatever.

The principle of edification concerning the tongue speaker himself is not restricted within four walls as that is silly!



.

Thank you for pointing that out...tongues is not restricted to the assembly! Maybe DHK will come to understand that as well.

 

[awaken]

What in the world can you find in 1 Cor. 12:7-11 and 29-30 that teaches that?!? Those scripture repudatiate what you believe in the clearest terms possible!

vs. 7 the manifestation of the Spirit is to every man TO PROFIT ALL. The other vs. were from chapter 14..all speak of tongues speaking to God...prayer!

Why are you repeating this utter nonsense? 1 Cor. 12:7-11 and the use of "allos" and "heteros" completely repudiate this nonsense! Paul is flatly denying that the Holy Spirit gives the same gifts to all but rather equips each according to the purpose he has for them in the body and no member can replace the other. In 1 Cor. 12:29-30 he flatly repudiates the idea that God gives "all" share in these ministries or gifts and yet you reverse his language to say the very opposite!

You did not read my post correctly! Also for you to say that the Holy Spirit can not give who and what he will is limiting Him. The Word does not put those limits on Him..man does! He divides to each man severally as he will. There are several examples of people in the Bible that manifest more than one gift.

 

[awaken]

The problem is that you have only an order of events without any proof everything listed was confined in the same place. You cannot prove that the speaking in tongues was confined to that place or it was something they were doing as they moved about in the temple. Supposition is all you have!

Do you even know what was being debated here?

I do not buld doctrine on supposition but on clear explicit statements. The clear explicit statements in 1 Cor. 12:7-11 and 29-30 completely repudiate your whole position. The clear statement of Isaiah 28:11-15 as quoted and interpreted by Paul in 1 Cor. 14:21-22 repudiates your whole idea that tongues is restricted to speaking only to God and is a praise tongue. Your supposition that "the wonderful works of God" is simply a praise tongue has nothing to support it since the context clearly says the lost Jews understood what was being said and perceived it was a sign of God to them as THREE times they repeat that it could not natural. The fact that Isaiah 28 refers to the NATION and not a remnant and the consequences were NATIONAL and not in regard to any remnant completely void your objections. The fact that 1 Cor. 14:2 says "speaketh" not "prayeth" and that verses 3-12 which is by any man's reasonable conclusion the immediate context of verse 2 which explains why that manner of use of tongues is UNKNOWN to all in the assembly because it is without intepretation to the speaker or hearer and thus God is the only audiance that understands it. The fact that the scriptues clearly state that the mature use of tongues is for a sign to "this people" and not for believers or for self-edification overthrows your entire position.

Finally, the fact that these were all KNOWN HUMAN LANGUAGUES from and only UNKNOWN in a context where it is used improperly completely exposes your kind of tongues as mere ecstatic utterances.

No where ...in any post... have I ever said that tongues was anything other than a real language!

 

[The Biblicist]

Thank you for pointing that out...tongues is not restricted to the assembly! Maybe DHK will come to understand that as well.

Please do not misrepresent my position. You know very well that DHK and I are in perfect agreement when it comes to the use of tongues for a sign to the Jewish nation. There is no scritpure or example for the PERSONAL use of tongues or any other "sign" gift outside of the assembly.

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you even know what was being debated here?

- Acts 2:1-6

No where ...in any post... have I ever said that tongues was anything other than a real language!

What known language have you spoken without training and who has confirmed it to be that language besides yourself? Those in Acts 2 were confirmed by native born witnesses. They did not confirm themselves.

 

[awaken]

Please do not misrepresent my position. You know very well that DHK and I are in perfect agreement when it comes to the use of tongues for a sign to the Jewish nation. There is no scritpure or example for the PERSONAL use of tongues or any other "sign" gift outside of the assembly.

THis is what you said...

The principle of edification concerning the tongue speaker himself is not restricted within four walls as that is silly!

You said that tongues was not restricted to the four walls...I agree! DKH said we could not speak to God/tongues as described in vs 2 outside the church. Speaking to God can be anywhere!

 

[awaken]

- Acts 2:1-6




What known language have you spoken without training and who has confirmed it to be that language besides yourself? Those in Acts 2 were confirmed by native born witnesses. They did not confirm themselves.

Show me one scripture where anyone that spoke in tongues had to confirm the language they were speaking.
Acts 2 was understood...but Acts 10 or 19 there is no one there to confirm or anywhere in scriptures that anyone that speaks in tongues has to prove anything to anyone.
The only rules about tongues is...
That in the assembly it has to be done in order by two, or at the most by three and in turn, and let one interpret.
If you speak in tongues in Church make sure there is an interpreter, if not let it be between you and God silently.
Where does Paul say..if you speak in tongues you have to confirm it by a linguistic expert? NOWHERE...why do you put leagalistic doctrines on people that the Bible does not!

 

[The Biblicist]

Q

Show me one scripture where anyone that spoke in tongues had to confirm the language they were speaking.

My oh my, are you that desperate to ask such a question that can be so easily answered to your deficiency?

Acts 2 was understood...

This is the quintisential text and there it is confirmed three times and written print.

Acts 10

Acts 10 are GENTILES speaking and it was confirmed as tongues by the JEWS present. The last time I checked Gentiles do not speak Aramaic which was the native tongue of these Jews. If these were Dispersion Jews then any number of languages could have been spoken but did not Peter ask who among them could forbid baptism as they RECOGNIZED these GENTILES were speaking known langauges foreign to GENTILES?

or 19 there is no one there to confirm or anywhere in scriptures that anyone that speaks in tongues has to prove anything to anyone.

Acts 19:6 is joined right to verse 7 I beleive but I could be mistaken! Does not verse 7 mention a synoguoge where lost Jews were attending and was not that Paul's custom in every city he went FIRST to the Jews at the synogue and then to the Gentiles?

The only rules about tongues is...
That in the assembly it has to be done in order by two, or at the most by three and in turn, and let one interpret.
If you speak in tongues in Church make sure there is an interpreter, if not let it be between you and God silently.
Where does Paul say..if you speak in tongues you have to confirm it by a linguistic expert? NOWHERE...why do you put leagalistic doctrines on people that the Bible does not!

In all these cases in the book of Acts there were ALWAYS listeners who were not speaking in foreign dialects but could understand it was foreign dilects and not the COMMON gibberish found in the Gentile Temples, and current world religions and pentecostalism which is nothing but esctatic utterances.

Just as I thought, you do not speak in any foreign dialect whatseover and no one born in any native tongue has every confirmed you have ever spoken in Biblical tongues - period - end of story!

 

[The Biblicist]

In all these cases in the book of Acts there were ALWAYS listeners who were not speaking in foreign dialects but could understand it was foreign dilects and not the COMMON gibberish found in the Gentile Temples, and current world religions and pentecostalism which is nothing but esctatic utterances.

Just as I thought, you do not speak in any foreign dialect whatseover and no one born in any native tongue has every confirmed you have ever spoken in Biblical tongues - period - end of story!

Not trying to be harsh on you, but the bottom line is that you really don't know based merely on experience whether your utterances are the common variety type that most Pentecostals blabber and most world religions have always blabbered or it is real KNOWN languages until some one in another language hears and confirms it. You can claim it till your blue in the face and by the way they make the same claim that god is their source of their experience as well.

 

[awaken]

Not trying to be harsh on you, but the bottom line is that you really don't know based merely on experience whether your utterances are the common variety type that most Pentecostals blabber and most world religions have always blabbered or it is real KNOWN languages until some one in another language hears and confirms it. You can claim it till your blue in the face and by the way they make the same claim that god is their source of their experience as well.

Well..I am not trying to be harsh either...but it really does not matter what you think of my experience! I could share many things that has been confirmed by the Holy Spirit...but you can not even believe what the Word says about tongues. It is speaking to God! I don't care how many times you dance around the scriptures..
you can not get passed...
14:2 where it is plain that it is speaking to God not man.
vs. 13 They speaker does not understand what he is saying..or Paul would not ask him to pray for the interpretation.
vs. 14 praying in an unknown tongue..my spirit prays..but my understanding is unfruitful.
vs. 16-17 you bless, sing, pray, give thanks with the spirit AND with understanding.
vs. 18 Paul speaks in tongues more than all.
vs. 28 Without an interpreter we are to pray between God and ourselves in the church.
vs. 39 Forbid not to speak in tongues.
Everyone of those scriptures are enough to convince me that speaking in tongues is speaking to God=prayer!

 

[Revmitchell]

Well..I am not trying to be harsh either...but it really does not matter what you think of my experience! I could share many things that has been confirmed by the Holy Spirit...but you can not even believe what the Word says about tongues. It is speaking to God! I don't care how many times you dance around the scriptures..
you can not get passed...
14:2 where it is plain that it is speaking to God not man.
vs. 13 They speaker does not understand what he is saying..or Paul would not ask him to pray for the interpretation.
vs. 14 praying in an unknown tongue..my spirit prays..but my understanding is unfruitful.
vs. 16-17 you bless, sing, pray, give thanks with the spirit AND with understanding.
vs. 18 Paul speaks in tongues more than all.
vs. 28 Without an interpreter we are to pray between God and ourselves in the church.
vs. 39 Forbid not to speak in tongues.
Everyone of those scriptures are enough to convince me that speaking in tongues is speaking to God=prayer!

What is your end goal here with all these one horse threads?