The Bible Tongues is not what being done today

It's only consistent if the tongue is a known language spoken by someone present but NOT by the speaker. The interpretation is for the benefit of the others present who do not speak that real language.
Frankly, a skeptic who hears someone speaking in gibberish, and then hears someone else say "Here's the meaning of what you just heard but did not understand..." is very likely going to consider that he's being played for a sucker. There's nothing obviously miraculous about any of that, which defeats the purpose of tongues as laid out by Paul. The true gift was an obvious miracle because the person could hear his own language. Any other version of 'tongues' is not the real thing, no matter how sincere the speaker and congregation may be.

 

DHK is absolutely correct about his assertion of the gender of 'that which is perfect' (teleion) from the Greek. I have nearly completed my M.Div., and have had several years of Greek from college and seminary. The Greek word 'teleion' (that which is perfect) is neuter in 1 Corinthians 13:10, and the greek word 'teleion' is also a diminutive neuter pronoun. Also, the tenses of the verbs 'katarghesontai' (will be done away) and 'pausontai' (will cease) from verse 8 are in the future, indicating that the use of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge will cease once 'that which is perfect' is come. These gifts are revelatory, that is, being the kind of communication from God that is of the quality equal to that of inspiration. The tense of the verb 'elthei' (is come) in verse 10 is in the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood in this verse is important since the subjunctive mood indicates probability or objective possibility. The action of the verb will possibly happen, depending on certain objective factors or circumstances. The possibility that the biblical use of tongues was still in use at the time when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians is not in question, but rather the question lies in whether the biblical use of tongues is valid after the time when 'that which is perfect is come' (KJV). Since we know that 'that which is perfect' is in the neuter gender, it *cannot* refer to a person, such as Jesus Christ. The word is referring to an element of revelation that is not incorporated in the first three conditions: tongues, prophecy, and knowledge. Since these three revelatory gifts were given as 'imperfect', then this is clearly referring to Scripture, which is 'perfect'.

 

Getting back to the original post of this topic, the assertion is generally correct. See my previous post on the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. Those who insist on believing that their interpretation and use of tongues today are clearly deluding themselves in believing that these gifts are not only the same as the kind of gift mentioned in the Bible, but that the gift is still being used of God today.
The continuing heresy being propagated by Pentecostalists has caused much confusion to believers today. It is no wonder that Pentecostalists value experience over the Bible.

 

The only thing clear is that it is NOT referring to Jesus Christ Himself. There are other things besides the Bible that the words could be referring to.
It seems to be time to go back into my archives and pull out the analysis of this passage that I have posted before:

In verse 8, three gifts are mentioned. One of them, tongues, is referred to differently from the other two, specifically indicating a DIFFERENT MANNER OF ENDING from the other two gifts (see above). When we get to verse 9, that different gift is no longer mentioned. Only the two gifts whose endings are referred to in an IDENTICAL manner in verse 8 appear in verses 9 and 10. This clearly indicates 1) that the manner of ending discussed in verses 9-10 for prophecy and knowledge does NOT apply to the gift of tongues; and 2) that the gift of tongues will end BEFORE the other two gifts.
Paul wrote these words carefully, employing different terms and different verb forms to describe the different ending points of the gifts. I Corinthians 13 not only does NOT teach that tongues will only end when the 'perfect' comes, it specifically teaches a DIFFERENT, EARLIER ending point for tongues than for knowledge and prophecy.</font>[/QUOTE]You can now see that there is a third alternative available for the interpretation of this passage, one that is consistent with both the other Scripture passages and basic common sense. I highly recommend it.

 

It's only consistent if the tongue is a known language spoken by someone present but NOT by the speaker. The interpretation is for the benefit of the others present who do not speak that real language.
Frankly, a skeptic who hears someone speaking in gibberish, and then hears someone else say "Here's the meaning of what you just heard but did not understand..." is very likely going to consider that he's being played for a sucker. There's nothing obviously miraculous about any of that, which defeats the purpose of tongues as laid out by Paul. The true gift was an obvious miracle because the person could hear his own language. Any other version of 'tongues' is not the real thing, no matter how sincere the speaker and congregation may be. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]The bible talks of tongues of men and of angels so it is not confined to other earthly languages and Paul's comment supports that in a way. If you walked into a meeting and someone stood up and spoke German, you may think it surprising but you probably would not think they were crazy, only that English was not their fist language and that the church was accomodating that in some way. It is where a no. of people bring contributions in totally unrecognisable languages that a visitor may think they're crazy and Paul's context sems to lean toward the latter situation.

 

According to the bible (Acts), tongues are spoken languages that were known by the people from the many nations that were present then. What it is NOT is some unintelligible gibberish! This is a distortion and deception that does NOT come from God. Even if it is biblical for today (which I believe it is not), at least those practicing it should understand it's usage and get it right!

 

...and the batting average of 'tongues' speakers in substantively addressing those two basic Biblical points remains at a 'perfect' .000 .

 

John3v26 wrote
&gt;&gt;Speaking in Tongues, the way the churches do it today is not how it was practice in Bible time.
In the Bible, you never had to teach some one to speak in tongues.&lt;&lt;

Hmmm. My impression is that the vast majority of churches that teach speaking in tongues do not believe in teaching the people a language to speak. Typically Charismatics and Pentecostals teach that people are to speak in tongues as the Spirit gives them utterance. I think so-called "Christian Science" may have 'speaking in tongues' that they actually study and learn, but that is a small group and not what most people think of when they hear about speaking in tongues.

&gt;&gt;In the Bible tongues where used to speak a language that you did not already know.&lt;&lt;

And how is this different from the speaking in tongues of today?

&gt;&gt;Never in the Bible do you see people rolling in the alias speaking gibberish.&lt;&lt;

Is that typical of those who claim to speak in tongues today? I suppose you could find some example of it somewhere in the world, but I wouldn't say it's typical.

Saul lay on the ground prophesying all night once.

John3v26 wrote,
&gt;The so-called tongues of today is not the tongue of the Bible or of God but the devil. &lt;&lt;

Be very careful here. The Pharisees accusd Jesus of doing the works He was doing by the Spirit through the power of a devil. Jesus warned them that if they spoke a word against the Spirit it would not be forgiven neither in this age, nore in the age to come. Keep in mind that what they were doing was attributing the works of God to the Devil.

What you are saying here is beyond foolish. The Bible clearly teaches that speaking in tongues is one of the gifts God gives to His church. You might be able to find some fake manifestations of gifts, but the way you write you are categorically denying all speaking in tongues today. If God is giving some of it you are putting yoruself in a bad position. Stick with the Bible and do not make brash and dangerous assertions.

 

DHK,

Your last post contains a logical flaw. Compare it to the logic below:

Jackie Chan is not Caucasian.
Therefore he must be African American.

Your statement makes about this much sense. Besides, genders do not always match in Greek grammar in the New Testament, and there are plenty of concepts that are not masculine or feminine in gender, like the resurrection or the second coming.

 

I am amazed at the so called knowledge many claim to haveabout speaking in tongues today as (as they the say) opposed to the term Biblical tongues.
Unless a person lived 2000 years ago and attended an assembly back in that time how would they know.
Are there any ancient documents can be substantiated from the first century that can prove that tongues are different today? I think that the arguments that try to makes such claims would more likely be classified as gibbereish than speaking in tongues would be.

 

Your logic is flawed, neither do I suspect you have much knowledge of foreign languages or Greek. A simple example should suffice.

The house is white. (English)
La maison est blanche. (French--correctly)
La maison est blanc. (French--wrongly)

What is the difference? House, in French is a feminine noun which requires a feminine object or adjective. The object in the first statement is feminine, and thus the statement is correct. The object in the second statement is masculine, and so the statement is wrong and very bad grammar. Our English grammar does not differentiate in such things because most of our nouns do not have gender attached to them. In Greek nouns and pronouns not only have masculine and feminine gender, but also a neuter gender to add into the mix. "That which is perfect" is in the neuter gender. It cannot refer to a man, Jesus Christ. In context it refers to revelation, and thus the Word of God, or the Bible.
DHK

 

How does one conclusively know that "That which is perfect" refers to the Bible?

If perfect is in the neuter, could it not refer to "the Day of the Lord", or "heaven", or other things that are not a person?

What makes it conclusive that this phrase refers to the Bible?

 

http://www.bible.org/qa.asp?topic_id=9&qa_id=37

What Paul meant when he referred to the coming of perfection is the subject of considerable debate.

One suggestion is that perfection described the completion of the New Testament.

But verse 12 makes that interpretation unlikely.

A few have suggested that this state of perfection will not be reached until the new heavens and new earth are established. Another point of view understands perfection to describe the state of the church when God’s program for it is consummated at the coming of Christ. There is much to commend this view, including the natural accord it enjoys with the illustration of growth and maturity which Paul used in the following verses. [Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.]

 

DHK is unequivocally right on the grammatical issue. The noun and the pronoun are neuter and do not refer to Christ.

I think that the best interpretation given the context is to see "that which is perfect" as still referring to the parousia. We shall receive a body and an understanding which are perfect.

I agree with Richard Gaffin when he said that to view "that which is perfect" as being the completed canon of scripture is simply not exegetically credible. It makes no sense in context.

 

Show me one Charismatic Church where you can verify, by empirical evidence, (perhaps professional linguists) that the tongues being spoken in that church are real genuine languages unknown to the speaker but known to some other person. That is what the gift of tongues is. If the gift of tongues were operable today, then why are missionaries still required to learn foreign languages? Why doesn't God just give them the gift of tongues?

It is very typical of both the Word of Faith movement and especially the Third Wave Movement. Do a search on the Third Wave Movement and see what you find. Have you ever heard of the Toronto Vineyard Church, and its so-called revival? These are very typical happenings in the Third Wave Movement. Because you have not heard much does not mean they don't happen much.

What has that got to do with the price of tea in Indonesia? That event happened 1,000 years before Pentecost took place.

And so he did.

You are comparing apples to oranges and even worse. Actually you are comparing John to Jesus Christ come in the flesh. Christ had performed miracles right before the very eyes of the Pharisees, and still they did not believe. He had spoken His very words right before them, and still they did not believe. They saw God incarnate, had listened to God's words, had seen his miracles, had been convicted by His Spirit, and still had not believed. It would be more tolerable in the day of Judgement for the homosexuals of Sodom than it would be for them.

But John is not Jesus. He is making an accurate assessment (as did Paul in 1Cor.12:1-4) that some tongues are attributed directly to the devil. Did you take time to read Amen's post a couple pages back. He comes from a Buddhist/Taoist background. They both speak in tongues? Is it the Holy Spirit that causes the Taoist to speak in tongues? He can't tell the difference between the Taoist and the Charismatics speaking in tongues though he himself has a knowledge of many languages. That in itself ought to speak volumes.

That is your opinion which you are entitled to. But it is wrong. Let me give you the truth. The Bible clearly teaches that speaking in tongues is one of the gifts God gave to the churche of the first century when the Bible had not yet been completed. It was a sign to the Jews.

I have stated the Biblical position for you above. It is not a brash and dangerous position, for it is based on the Bible and not on experience. The problem the Charismatics have is that their theology is based on experience and not on the Bible. They have an open ended theology. The revelation was closed with the completion of the Book of Revelation. God's revelation to mankind does not continue. All that God wants us to know is in the pages of the Bible. Thus the gifts mentioned in 1Cor.13:8, have ceased, just as God had said they would.

Answer these two questions.
What is the proper interpretation of 1`Cor.14:21,22, where it tells us plainly that tongues are for unbelieving Jews. If the purpose for tongues were for the unbelieving Jews of the first century, who rejected them as a sign, why are they still being spoken today?

The gift of tongues is but one of the gifts of the Spirit. Tell me about the gift of healing. Name me one person in all the world today that has the Biblical gift of healing--that is able to go into a hospital, walk up and down the corridors and heal ALL that are in the hospital. Can you name me just one persosn who has this gift? Just one person who is able to heal all that come to him? NO! There isn't any. The gifts have ceased.
DHK

 

Vern Poythress wrote about an interesting experiment - it was in an old edition of WTS Journal.

A group of charismatics were asked to speak in tongues. Then a group of random individuals were asked to speak gibberish. Then Pentecostal ministers were asked to discern which were the real "angelic tongues". They chose the gibberish!



But seriously... Look at the fruits of the Spirit in Gal 5. Where is the tongues thing? I'll agree that there is no hard fast Biblical prohibition on tongues today - but what benefit does gibberish speech do? Who benefits from it?

 

So, I'm flicking through the channels trying to find something to watch late one Sunday night and this 'preacher' is telling about waiting in a long line at Burger King... tells the people he starts speaking in tongues really loud and people
'split like the red sea' and he got to move to the front of the line. Then he tells them to try it next time they're waiting in a long line!

 

Cutting line at Burger King - OK now I'm convinced the Spirit is in it!!

 

Dianne I had a tooth extracted and went inside of McD's to get me a milkshake and (while still a little loopy and comming out under the effects of the "feel good" injection" so I wouldn't feel the pain.) I was told that the milk shake machine was broke. All I said was Awwwwwww mannnnnn (with a ton of gause in my mouth) and people split too.

 

But seriously.......arn't fruits of the Spirit and gifts of the Spirit two different subjects?

Music4Him