The Bible Tongues is not what being done today

[music4Him]

DHK I didn't realize this but it looks like we changed our User ID's the way we wrote our post.

BTW, Glad to meet you STRONG's.

BTW,In the Strong's that I have doesn't say if it is masculin, fenimine, or nuter. Thats why I asked you to check yours and tell me. The other question was how do you know that "teleioV teleios tel'-i-os" was used in the scripture in question? There are 10 "perfect"(s) mentioned in my Strongs. Is there a online bible that has the scripture in greek?

Thank you,
Music4Him

 

[tamborine lady]

Walguy, you said:

Tam implied that anyone who doesn't agree with her on tongues is basically a lazy ignoramus. As one who has spent MANY hours studying the relevant texts and reading opinions on both sides before coming to the conclusion that tongues and the other sign gifts were temporary things whose time has long past, and who has made long posts crammed with Bible references about the subject on this board, I naturally resent that and think an apology is in order.

Tam says:

Ignoramus is YOUR word, not mine. And there will be no apology for what I said, just because you don't believe as I do!!!

I can't make you see what I see, I can't make you receive it!

I am sure that you are a very smart person. But Jesus just doesn't require a PHD or Doctorite or anything else to get us saved and for the Holy Spirit to teach you.

However, I do not hold any hard feeling for you, and I will simply pray for you,

God Bless,

Tam

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by music4Him:

DHK I didn't realize this but it looks like we changed our User ID's the way we wrote our post.

BTW, Glad to meet you STRONG's.

BTW,In the Strong's that I have doesn't say if it is masculin, fenimine, or nuter. Thats why I asked you to check yours and tell me. The other question was how do you know that "teleioV teleios tel'-i-os" was used in the scripture in question? There are 10 "perfect"(s) mentioned in my Strongs. Is there a online bible that has the scripture in greek?

Thank you,
Music4Him

For starters look here:

1COR. 13 GREEK

To get there go to:

www.ccel.org
Click on study bible.
And then click on the book of the Bible you want to study. If it is a translation (Greek) you want scroll down until you find them.
DHK

 

[Walguy]

Originally posted by tamborine lady:

Walguy, you said:

Tam implied that anyone who doesn't agree with her on tongues is basically a lazy ignoramus.

Tam says:

Ignoramus is YOUR word, not mine.

And there will be no apology for what I said, just because you don't believe as I do!!!

it really gets tiresome trying to explain it to people who don't really care to study it.

The implication there is quite clear, Tam.

Isn't there a rule on this board against making inflammatory statements about other members? Perhaps one of the powers that be would care to weigh in on the matter.

Of course, if you would simply apologize for your insult, Tam, it will all be forgotten. Someone who is truly filled with the Holy Spirit would feel bad about having offended fellow believers, don't you think?

 

[music4Him]

Ok...I don't see where it says its nuter though?
-------------------------------------------------
New Testament Greek for ' that which is perfect '

5046 teleios {tel'-i-os}
from 5056; TDNT - 8:67,1161; adj
AV - perfect 17, man 1, of full age 1; 19
1) brought to its end, finished
2) wanting nothing necessary to completeness
3) perfect
4) that which is perfect
(strong's number 5046)
-------------------------------------------------
I'll say this not meaning to sound rude, but I guess it take a good theologian to get us that take words for their true meaning all confused?

Thanks for the website though it really got alot of info.

Music4Him

 

[tamborine lady]

I do not see it as inflammatory, it's simply that we do not agree.

Peace,

Tam

 

[music4Him]

Originally posted by Walguy:
Originally posted by tamborine lady:

Walguy, you said:

Tam implied that anyone who doesn't agree with her on tongues is basically a lazy ignoramus.

Tam says:

Ignoramus is YOUR word, not mine.

And there will be no apology for what I said, just because you don't believe as I do!!!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />it really gets tiresome trying to explain it to people who don't really care to study it.

The implication there is quite clear, Tam.

Isn't there a rule on this board against making inflammatory statements about other members? Perhaps one of the powers that be would care to weigh in on the matter.

Of course, if you would simply apologize for your insult, Tam, it will all be forgotten. Someone who is truly filled with the Holy Spirit would feel bad about having offended fellow believers, don't you think? </font>[/QUOTE]

How about we let it go and not try to make a big issue out of it? Not unless ya'll believe this is benifitting the debate?

BTW, I thought everyone has their own opinion when it comes to debate?

 

[tamborine lady]

That's why I said. we simply do not agree.

Yes, I thought we each had a right to voice our opinions. But, I guess some others don't think so.

Peace,

Tam

 

[Walguy]

Well, my opinion is that a person who claims to be filled with the Holy Spirit because she speaks in 'tongues' made a false and very unkind statement about people who disagree with her, and despite being allegedly Spirit-filled doesn't see anything wrong with insulting fellow believers. I think that speaks volumes about where Tam is really coming from: that she is addicted to the emotional 'high' of modern 'tongues,' and when her position is challenged she reacts emotionally by attacking those who disagree, resorting even to statements that are obviously and maliciously untrue, because she cannot substantively answer the points people like me raise.
It's also my opinion that we have the right to express opinions, but not to insult each other. I'm a little disturbed that such a 'Spirit-filled' person is apparently unable to discern the difference.
If your statement wasn't inflammatory, Tam, then neither was that one.

 

[music4Him]

Originally posted by Walguy:
On Pentecost the believers spoke in known languages, not some kind of private prayer language. At the arrest of Jesus, the people who fell to the ground were unbelievers who did not have the Holy Spirit. Neither of these passages offer any support whatsoever for the modern usage of 'tongues.'
The sign gifts did not have to be taught. Someone who had the gift of healing could heal at will. No one had to teach him how to do it. Same with tongues. The Holy Spirit gave the gift as He saw fit to those who had been specifically chosen by God to have it, and they were able to use it at will. It was not a gift everyone was supposed to have, only a select few as with the other sign gifts.
The most powerful refutation of modern tongues, as I've pointed out numerous times on this board, is that Paul specifically said that Spiritual Gifts are given to us for the COMMON GOOD, to edify others. Modern 'tongues' is used by people to edify themselves, not others. No true manifestation of the Spirit is ever to be used that way. One of the main reasons for God giving Spiritual Gifts in the first place is to help us get our minds off of ourselves and onto serving others. To give a manifestation of the Spirit that is used to minister to ourselves would undermine the very purpose of the Gifts, and God would never do that. We are naturally very good at thinking about ourselves, we certainly don't need God's help for that.
I have yet to see any modern 'tongues' speaker give an adequate response to that point, btw, on this board or elsewhere.

~Walguy, is this the question you want an answer to?
If so can you break it down a little?

Thanks,
Music4Him

 

[Walguy]

OK, here's an excerpt from a post I made in a different thread some time back that deals more specifically with this particular issue:

When Paul was introducing the subject of Spiritual Gifts in I Corinthians, he made this statement: "To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit FOR THE COMMON GOOD." (I Cor. 12:7; emphasis mine) This was a basic parameter for the entire discussion that was to follow.
Later, he writes: "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself..." (I Cor. 14:4a) Those who believe in the 'private prayer language' brand of tongues interpret this 'edification' as a good thing, but Paul meant precisely the opposite. The use of an alleged manifestation of the Spirit to edify one's self directly violates one of the basic purposes for the existence of those Gifts, according to Paul's earlier statement. True manifestations of the Holy Spirit used correctly ALWAYS benefit someone else, not ourself.
People who speak in 'private prayer language' tongues are 'edified' by the false belief that their babbling is evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit in their mind and heart. This makes them feel good and 'special,' and thus they are edified. However, according to Paul, true Spiritual Gifts are meant to edify OTHERS, and in the context of Spiritual Gifts self-edification is a BAD thing, and evidence that what's going on is NOT of God.
The true Gift of Tongues was the ability to speak in a language unknown to the speaker but known to at least one person present, for the purpose of edifying THAT PERSON OR PEOPLE, NOT THE SPEAKER! The only way to justify the 'private prayer language' version of tongues is to separate this one gift from the basic rules which govern the use of all the others. There is no Scriptural basis for doing this.

My challenge for modern tongues speakers is to reconcile through Scripture the obvious contradiction between the unequivocal statement of Paul that the Gifts are given for the common good, and the modern concept of 'tongues' as something used to benefit yourself.
Clear enough?

 

[music4Him]

Or this one?

quote by Walguy
--------------------------------------------------
It is your side who refuse to substantively address the issue of the Gifts being given for the benefit of others. And also why, if ALL the Gifts are still fully operative, we don't see anyone today exercising the Gift of Healing (instantaneous healing of any disease/injury/disfigurement).
It seems to me that your side is a lot closer to 'that's that' than we are.
--------------------------------------------------

or this?
-------------------------------------------------
I believe in miraculous healing in response to prayer, which is what that is an example of. What we do not see is the GIFT of healing, the ability to INSTANTANEOUSLY heal any person of any affliction at any time. If all the gifts are still active, why is no one doing that?
-------------------------------------------------

We are on the gift of tongues, not on healing but I believe it says that there are diversities of gifts but one Spirit. It seems that its the Spirit that works in all these gifts, not the person with the gift. I can have the gift of healing in me and not heal one person unless the Spirit is working. Because it would not be me, but the Spirit working. Just as the Spirit would work with tongues I suppose. So that someone could I suppose tell a person who doen't understand our language... can hear the gospel.

Although I want to stay on the tongue topic. I was listening to James Robinson(sp?) (James and Betty) He said there was time when he would pray for sick people and everyone got healed and then sometimes he would go through a time where no one recived healing. He said it was like the Lord told him that this was the way it would be. Any comments about that?

 

[music4Him]

Walguy you said~
My challenge for modern tongues speakers is to reconcile through Scripture the obvious contradiction between the unequivocal statement of Paul that the Gifts are given for the common good, and the modern concept of 'tongues' as something used to benefit yourself.
Clear enough?

Well I think it would be a good thing to speak to others who need to hear the gospel in their language and if you don't know how to speak their language wouldn't you think the Spirit would move through a person to speak the language or interpret what they (the one needing to hear the gospel) are saying back to you?

 

[Walguy]

Originally posted by music4Him:
Walguy you said~
My challenge for modern tongues speakers is to reconcile through Scripture the obvious contradiction between the unequivocal statement of Paul that the Gifts are given for the common good, and the modern concept of 'tongues' as something used to benefit yourself.
Clear enough?

Well I think it would be a good thing to speak to others who need to hear the gospel in their language and if you don't know how to speak their language wouldn't you think the Spirit would move through a person to speak the language or interpret what they (the one needing to hear the gospel) are saying back to you?

That's what the true gift of tongues was used for. There were specific people in each assembly back then who had the Gifts of tongues and interpretation (two separate Gifts). It wasn't random, as you seem to imply. If one of the people with the Gift of tongues wasn't present, no one else could fill in for them.
The modern use of 'tongues,' however, is as a private language between the speaker and God, which no one else understands, and the 'speaking' edifies the speaker, not someone else. That's the contradiction between Scripture and practice that is never addressed by those who do it.

 

[The Undiscovered Country]

Originally posted by Walguy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by music4Him:
Walguy you said~
My challenge for modern tongues speakers is to reconcile through Scripture the obvious contradiction between the unequivocal statement of Paul that the Gifts are given for the common good, and the modern concept of 'tongues' as something used to benefit yourself.
Clear enough?

Well I think it would be a good thing to speak to others who need to hear the gospel in their language and if you don't know how to speak their language wouldn't you think the Spirit would move through a person to speak the language or interpret what they (the one needing to hear the gospel) are saying back to you?

That's what the true gift of tongues was used for. There were specific people in each assembly back then who had the Gifts of tongues and interpretation (two separate Gifts). It wasn't random, as you seem to imply. If one of the people with the Gift of tongues wasn't present, no one else could fill in for them.
The modern use of 'tongues,' however, is as a private language between the speaker and God, which no one else understands, and the 'speaking' edifies the speaker, not someone else. That's the contradiction between Scripture and practice that is never addressed by those who do it. </font>[/QUOTE]Certianly in our church, whenever a tongue is given, the person leading worship will explin what tongues are for the benefit and visitors and then wait for an interpretation to be given. That seems to me to be entirely consistent with Paul's advice and is essential for the tongue to be of wider edification..

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by music4Him:
Ok...I don't see where it says its nuter though?
-------------------------------------------------
New Testament Greek for ' that which is perfect '

5046 teleios {tel'-i-os}
from 5056; TDNT - 8:67,1161; adj
AV - perfect 17, man 1, of full age 1; 19
1) brought to its end, finished
2) wanting nothing necessary to completeness
3) perfect
4) that which is perfect
(strong's number 5046)
-------------------------------------------------
I'll say this not meaning to sound rude, but I guess it take a good theologian to get us that take words for their true meaning all confused?

Thanks for the website though it really got alot of info.

Music4Him

Okay let me tell you plainly. I will admit I am not a scholar (in the sense that the KJV translators were), but I have taken two years of Greek, and know enough how to recognize a neuter prounoun. Besides English I have studied four languages, Greek and Hebrew being two of them, and I am fluent in one of the other two. That being said, grammar is one of my stronger points. The pronoun and the noun (teleios) is in the neuter gender. Just take my word for it.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

In Acts 2 we see the perfect demonstration of tongues used to reach non-believers. And the response was massive baptisms.

Note how that entire thing would have utterly failed if in fact each of them DID NOT hear those speaking in their OWN tongue!! How "disconfirming" that would have been to the unbeliever.

Paul points that out in 1Cor 14 saying that the ungifted, unbeliever will say "you are barbarian" if he hears you speak jibberish. And that is true EVEN if someone else says "Hey wait a minute - I think I have a handle on that jibberish just spoken!".

How in the world would that be compelling to a non-Christian???!!

Contrast THAT to a unbeliever from China entering a church in South Carolina and suddenly one of the southern-boys stands up and gives a message in a Chinese dialect for that visitor - addressing him specifically.

What a convincing - demonstration. No possibility of trickery. Very compelling to a non-believer!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK said --
BTW, I found this commentary by Robert W. Yarbrough. No where did I see what your talking about.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
--------------------------------------------------
Christ. The New Testament is aware that Jesus Christ was sinless (John 8:46; Heb 4:15; 7:26). It speaks of him being "perfect, " however, only in the Book of Hebrews. God made Christ "perfect through suffering" so that he could bring "many sons to glory" (2:10). "Once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him" (5:9).

Paul surely refers in part to Christ when he says that "when perfection comes, the imperfect [lit. that which is partial] disappears" (1 Cor 13:10).

The New Testament does not belabor the perfection of the Son of God, perhaps because the divine nature (and therefore perfection) of someone who forgave sins, raised the dead, and ascended to the right hand of God seemed to make the point obvious enough.

</font>[/QUOTE]The obvious problem with attributing the perfection mentioned in 1Cor 13 "WHEN the perfect COMES" is that it is future to Christ ALREADY by the writing of 1Cor 13 so that IF spiritual gifts of 1Cor 12 are to be "ended" by that past-fact - then the chapter was dead before it was written.

Futher - it could not be an inspired writing, Paul could not then be an Apostle and the future books of the NT that were going to be written in following decades would be void.

The author above is taking a position about the perfect having ALREADY come and ending the spiritual gifts -- that would not have worked EVEN the day Paul penned the letter to Corinth.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Bob,
That post was by Music4Him, addressed to me. It wasn't my post.
DHK

 

[Amen]

Hi, I would like to chip in my 2 cents worth. My family is Buddhist/Taoist and I've had my share of visiting these Chinese temples, seen Hindus in trance and consulted mediums. The thing I noticed after I became a Christian and attended a few Charismatic churches is that there is really no difference in the tongues spoken by the Taoist mediums, Hindu trance and the Charismatic Christians. They usually sounds the same. One difference I noticed though is that the Taoist medium actually follows the Bible closer than alot of Charismatics I know. Only 1 spoke in tongues and there is always an interpreter while the churches I attended, tongues were a "free for all" kinda thing where everyone spoke at the same time sometimes without anyone interpreting.

I personally know quite a few languages myself but have never ever understood any languages spoken by the Charismatics. I'm always told the languages spoken are from some remote tribes in Africa and etc but it does make me wonder why does God only give these people the gift of tribal tongues? How about the uneducated Chinese old folks who can only understand Chinese dialects (not even mandarin)? It is strange that God would give people a language not used nor understood by anybody in the congregation and not one that is practical for evangelism work. How edifying is that?

In Acts, we are told that the tongues spoken were languages understood by the different people from different nations. It is also always a sign of impending judgement to the Jews and not for those that believed. Now how can a unbeliever believe or marvel when he does not understand the gibberish tongue spoken? Wouldn't he think the church is full of barbarians?

My 2 cents