Seeking truth about "tongues"...

[Revmitchell]

Guys awaken is an unrepentant plagiarizer. She needs to come clean and stop it. She cannot really make her own arguments for the most part so she has to copy and paste from others and pass it off as her own so as to seem to know what she is talking about.

 

[awaken]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
interesting claim.

Now for the Bible.

Acts -

Acts 2

King James Version (KJV)

2 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 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 tonguesthe wonderful works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.




Takes a lot of assumption and tradition to say that in spite of the text saying otherwise.

1Cor 14:22-23 - Tongues is specifically for a sign to unbelievers not believers.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?


It is specifically for evangelism.

And Paul makes the point in 1Cor 14:15-16 that if tongues is not used in such a way as to effectively reach the unbeliever - then it is an abuse of the gift of tongues.

in Christ,

Bob

It is a sign to the unbeliever! What sign is it to the unbeliever?

 

[awaken]

So you do not believe the "rest" and "refreshing" is found in believing in the Word of God about their promised Messiah although it was the repeated "doctrine" of all the prophets (v. 9) and thus "precept upon precept, here a little and there a little (v. 10). You don't believe this promised rest preached by all the prophets was "the word of the Lord" that had been given unto them "precept upon precept, line upon line, here a littel, and there a little (v. 13).

You cannot see that in verse 14 Isaiah repeats the same promise AGAIN or the "word of the Lord" about their coming Messiah and beleiving on him versus a covenant of death by rejection of him?

Do you see how verses 11-12 are placed between verses 9-10 and verse 13 which all speak about the same thing?

9 ¶ Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14 ¶ Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

This text says nothing about Pentecost. Nothing about the Promise of the Spirit. Only that tongues from other people will tell them the same thing that all the prophets had told them with one difference - HE HAS COME and that is precisely what Peter told them on the day of Pentecosts and it was tongues that confirmed this message and got their attention.

The problem is that you have made up your mind in spite of the facts and there is no basis to discuss it any more with you.

I see that THIS is referring back to vs. 11! So what is it referring to in vs. 11?
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

 

[awaken]

You are reading into Scripture that which is not there.
You cannot make an argument from silence.

Here is what the verse says:
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

The spoke forth, or proclaimed the wonderful works of God. There was no praise, no prayer, etc. It was a proclamation of the wonderful WORKS of God. What works has God done.
Then Christ had just died and risen again. What do you say at Easter? "He is risen!" "He has ascended." "He is coming again" Look at the miracles he did--He raised the dead! He raised Lazarus! "He raised my son......" These would be the wonderful works of God--more like testimonies both of God and of what the Lord had done for them over the past 40 days and past three years.
There is no prayer here.

In Acts 10 there were Jews present.
First there were Jews that Peter took with them. They were unbelieving in the sense that they did not believe that salvation had come to the Gentiles. Peter himself had to be convinced in a vision, and even then he was not totally convinced.
Secondly, this was a public event. Cornelius was a centurion, but thought by most to be a Jewish Proselyte, a Gentile that had converted to Judaism. He was a devout man accepted by the Jewish community. It doesn't say other Jews were not present. The focus is on the gospel going out to the Gentiles.

Acts 10:27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.
--The many gathered are the many in Cornelius's house which no doubt are gentiles.

Acts 11:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
--Notice in Peter's rehearsal of the events to the church, he leaves out the speaking in tongues completely for it is not an important part of the entire episode. What was important was that the gospel went forth to the Gentiles; they received it and were saved; the Holy Spirit came upon then (that is they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit). Speaking in tongues was totally irrelevant.

Unbelieving is unbelieving in Christ! Those Jews already believed in Christ!

Acts 10 states that they were praising God just like Acts 2! Acts 10 says they were magnifying God! THe sign was to the Jews that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit just as they did! The sign was tongues! NOthing is irrelevant in the Word of God!

 

[The Biblicist]

I see that THIS is referring back to vs. 11! So what is it referring to in vs. 11?
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

The prophets had laid down the word of the Lord about the coming messiah line upon line, precept upon precept here a little, there a little but THEY REJECTED THE PROPHETIC Word from THEIR OWN PROPHETS in their OWN NATIVE LANGUAGE.

So God is going to bring the same doctrine, the same teaching but not through the JEWISH TONGUE or JEWISH PROPHETIC HEBERW WRITINGS but through GENTILE LANGUAGES - the gift of tongues. Yet, even from this new way "they will not hear" and destruction will be the consequence.

 

[DHK]

Unbelieving is unbelieving in Christ! Those Jews already believed in Christ!

Unbelief has many forms. You demonstrate that on this forum.
Peter had a problem with unbelief. In fact he denied our Lord.
What is Peter's problem here:

Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Peter had a problem with unbelief. What do you think the Lord was trying to teach him here?
Why did Peter take some Jews (those of the circumcision) with him?
It was a sign for the Jews, for all of them, for the nation of Israel as a whole.
This is where you get into trouble not understanding how the Book of Acts is a transitional book, a book of history. These Jews still thought that salvation was only for the Jews. Thus there was unbelief. Did not Jesus die for the sins of the world--apparently not--if only Jews could be saved. They were stuck in their unbelief and thus the purpose of tongues.

Acts 10 states that they were praising God just like Acts 2!

Demonstrate where those speaking in tongues were actually praising God.
They were "speaking forth the wonderful works of God." Period!

Acts 10 says they were magnifying God! THe sign was to the Jews that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit just as they did! The sign was tongues! NOthing is irrelevant in the Word of God!

Now you agree that it was a sign to the Jews; make up your mind!!
It was irrelevant to Peter as he recounted the entire episode in chapter 11.
It was the least "relevant" gift to Paul as he lists it last, of least importance in 1Cor.12:28, where he lists all the gifts in order. But tongues is listed at the bottom of the list almost as if it has no relevance at all compared to the other gifts. He then says to seek those that are greater (not tongues).

 

[awaken]

The prophets had laid down the word of the Lord about the coming messiah line upon line, precept upon precept here a little, there a little but THEY REJECTED THE PROPHETIC Word from THEIR OWN PROPHETS in their OWN NATIVE LANGUAGE.

So God is going to bring the same doctrine, the same teaching but not through the JEWISH TONGUE or JEWISH PROPHETIC HEBERW WRITINGS but through GENTILE LANGUAGES - the gift of tongues. Yet, even from this new way "they will not hear" and destruction will be the consequence.

So now tongues is "Gentile Languages"....where do you get this stuff from?

Vs. 12 is referring back to vs. 11!

 

[awaken]

Demonstrate where those speaking in tongues were actually praising God.
They were "speaking forth the wonderful works of God." Period!

Acts 10 says they were magnifying God. My Bible says magnifying is the same as praise. THey received the Holy Spirit just like Acts 2...

Now you agree that it was a sign to the Jews; make up your mind!!

What kind of sign was it to the Jews? It was sign that they had received the Holy Spirit just like in Acts 2.

It was irrelevant to Peter as he recounted the entire episode in chapter 11.
It was the least "relevant" gift to Paul as he lists it last, of least importance in 1Cor.12:28, where he lists all the gifts in order. But tongues is listed at the bottom of the list almost as if it has no relevance at all compared to the other gifts. He then says to seek those that are greater (not tongues).

Every manifestation of the Holy Spirit is relevant!
You forgot the word EXCEPT in vs. 5! Tongues with the interpretation is edifying to the church!

 

[awaken]

Guys awaken is an unrepentant plagiarizer. She needs to come clean and stop it. She cannot really make her own arguments for the most part so she has to copy and paste from others and pass it off as her own so as to seem to know what she is talking about.

I got my 3 points...I will try to be more careful!

 

[The Biblicist]

So now tongues is "Gentile Languages"....where do you get this stuff from?

Vs. 12 is referring back to vs. 11!

Isaiah did not say they would speak to Jewish people in their OWN language but with "ANOTHER" language. Do you think "ANOTHER" means the same as their OWN language?????? If I told you that somebody is going to speak to you in "ANOTHER" language would you think that included your own????

On Pentecost they did not hear Hebrew but the dialects in the countries LISTED in which they were 'born." I can point out the obvious but I can't help with common sense.

 

[awaken]

Isaiah did not say they would speak to Jewish people in their OWN language but with "ANOTHER" language. Do you think "ANOTHER" means the same as their OWN language?????? If I told you that somebody is going to speak to you in "ANOTHER" language would you think that included your own????

On Pentecost they did not hear Hebrew but the dialects in the countries LISTED in which they were 'born." I can point out the obvious but I can't help with common sense.

I thought they spoke Galilean? vs. 7
I also thought it was Jews that gathered for Pentecost!

Either way another tongue just means one that you did not learn or know. What tongue did the Gentiles start speaking in Acts 10? Was it "Gentile languages?"

 

[The Biblicist]

I thought they spoke Galilean? vs. 7

No such language. That is a location with Israel just as there no such langauge as Judean as that is a location within Israel also. In the time of Isaiah the native langauge was hebrew. In the time of Christ the native language was Aramaic. The point is they did not speak to the Jewish dispersion in their own language (Aramaic) but in the native language wherein these dispersia Jews had been born. The fact that they were Galileans was proof this was a supernatural phenomena that had no natural explanation.

I also thought it was Jews that gathered for Pentecost!

That was the optimum time for such a prophecy is it not?


Look, you are so committed to your error that you can't even exercise common sense. You jump from one irrational argument to another in desperation to justify something that the Bible and common sense does not justify, so what use it to continue this discussion?

 

[DHK]

Acts 10 says they were magnifying God. My Bible says magnifying is the same as praise. THey received the Holy Spirit just like Acts 2...

Obfuscating Scripture is wrong. I consider it sin.
Acts 2 was on the Day of Pentecost, and in Jerusalem.
Acts 10, eight chapters later, was in Caesarea, fifty-five miles northwest of Jerusalem, on the Mediterranean, just south of Mount Carmel; and so named by Herod, who rebuilt it, in honor of Cæsar Augustus, according to Jamieson, Faucett and Brown.
The two events are entirely different. Just because they were "magnifying God" in Acts 10 does not mean they were doing exactly the same thing in Acts 2. They were two different events. Why do you continue to read into the Scriptures things that are not there.
In Acts two the audience was Jewish.
In Acts ten the audience was Gentile.
They were two different events; two different times; two different peoples; two different reactions.

What kind of sign was it to the Jews? It was sign that they had received the Holy Spirit just like in Acts 2.

Why did Peter take so much care in taking Jews with him?
Every time tongues were spoken Jews were present.
Tongues is a sign to the Jews and to them that believe not.
Every time tongues are spoken Jews are present.

Every manifestation of the Holy Spirit is relevant!
You forgot the word EXCEPT in vs. 5! Tongues with the interpretation is edifying to the church!

It is the least of all the gifts.

 

[awaken]

No such language. That is a location with Israel just as there no such langauge as Judean as that is a location within Israel also. In the time of Isaiah the native langauge was hebrew. In the time of Christ the native language was Aramaic. The point is they did not speak to the Jewish dispersion in their own language (Aramaic) but in the native language wherein these dispersia Jews had been born. The fact that they were Galileans was proof this was a supernatural phenomena that had no natural explanation.




That was the optimum time for such a prophecy is it not?


Look, you are so committed to your error that you can't even exercise common sense. You jump from one irrational argument to another in desperation to justify something that the Bible and common sense does not justify, so what use it to continue this discussion?

Just trying to show you it was not just a "Gentile language." We do agree that it was supernatural!

 

[Revmitchell]

I got my 3 points...I will try to be more careful!

Baloney you did it again in post 161

 

[awaken]

Obfuscating Scripture is wrong. I consider it sin.
Acts 2 was on the Day of Pentecost, and in Jerusalem.
Acts 10, eight chapters later, was in Caesarea, fifty-five miles northwest of Jerusalem, on the Mediterranean, just south of Mount Carmel; and so named by Herod, who rebuilt it, in honor of Cæsar Augustus, according to Jamieson, Faucett and Brown.
The two events are entirely different. Just because they were "magnifying God" in Acts 10 does not mean they were doing exactly the same thing in Acts 2. They were two different events. Why do you continue to read into the Scriptures things that are not there.
In Acts two the audience was Jewish.
In Acts ten the audience was Gentile.
They were two different events; two different times; two different peoples; two different reactions.

They received the same gift for the same purpose! To praise God..
"If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?" (1 Corinthians 14:16)

Why did Peter take so much care in taking Jews with him?
Every time tongues were spoken Jews were present.
Tongues is a sign to the Jews and to them that believe not.
Every time tongues are spoken Jews are present.

It is the least of all the gifts.

But it is still a gift and it is from God!
Again, the sign was tongues and it was a sign that they had received the Holy Spirit just like Acts 2.
What was the sign in Acts 19 that they had received the Holy Spirit? Tongues and Prophecy!

 

[awaken]

Baloney you did it again in post 161

That was the one I was speaking of!

 

[The Biblicist]

Just trying to show you it was not just a "Gentile language."

You are throwing common sense out the window! If the writer is jewish (Isaiah) and he is writing to Jews ("Jerusalem") and tells them that God will speak to them in "ANOTHER" language other than what the prophets have been speaking to them (their own native langauge) then that is a GENTILE langauge because all people on earth are either JEWISH or GENTILE there are no other options!

That is the point of noticing they were "galileans" or those whose language was the JEWISH native language. They were speaking in "ANOTHER" language other than the native JEWISH langauge. There are only two kinds of people in the world - JEWS or GENTILES and they were not speaking in the JEWISH language so that leaves GENTILE langauges and those gentiles nations are listed for you to read in black and white:

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.

These are GENTILE nations and "our own dialect where we were born" are GENTILES dialects.

So you are wrong, thoroughly wrong - they were speaking in "ANOTHER" dialect than then the JEWISH dialect.

If they spoke in the JEWISH dialect IT WOULD BE NO MIRACLE AT ALL as they were trained in that dialect - You lack spiritual discerment in the simplest things.

 

[awaken]

You are throwing common sense out the window! If the writer is jewish (Isaiah) and he is writing to Jews ("Jerusalem") and tells them that God will speak to them in "ANOTHER" language other than what the prophets have been speaking to them (their own native langauge) then that is a GENTILE langauge because all people on earth are either JEWISH or GENTILE there are no other options!

That is the point of noticing they were "galileans" or those whose language was the JEWISH native language. They were speaking in "ANOTHER" language other than the native JEWISH langauge. There are only two kinds of people in the world - JEWS or GENTILES and they were not speaking in the JEWISH language so that leaves GENTILE langauges and those gentiles nations are listed for you to read in black and white:

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.

These are GENTILE nations and "our own dialect where we were born" are GENTILES dialects.

So you are wrong, thoroughly wrong - they were speaking in "ANOTHER" dialect than then the JEWISH dialect.

If they spoke in the JEWISH dialect IT WOULD BE NO MIRACLE AT ALL as they were trained in that dialect - You lack spiritual discerment in the simplest things.

I ask you again...what did they speak in Acts 10 when the Gentiles started speaking in tongues?

 

[The Biblicist]