Before I start this thread, I want to let you all know that I go to a pentacostal church where they speak in tongues. Every once in a while, after the worship, someone in the congregation will speak out in tongues then everyone will wait until someone "gives the interpretation". I've never spoke in tongues, and don't really seek it.

Now, to the question. This past Wednesday, the speaker spoke on "baptism in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues". He spoke of how it was a supernatural thing to help people witness. But then he said that the act of speaking in tongues is a "step of faith. When you don't know what to pray for, your spirit will know and speaking in tongues is the language of the spirit." . . . .Something along those lines.

Now, I began to think, if something is by definition "supernatural", would there really be the necessity of "faith"? Supernatural is something that is beyond us, beyond our senses, beyond our knowledge many times. However, as the speaker spoke, he said "if you think it is you doing the talking, then you're doing it right. You have to have faith that the 'funny words' you speak is your spirit praying." I thought to myself, if I am formulating incomprehensible syllables from my mouth and having faith that it is my spirit praying, then where does the "supernatural" come into play there, and of what value does the speaking in tongues actually have? I've never really quite got the idea behind all of it.

My final thought on this was, how does my spirit somehow know how to pray when my brain apparently doesn't, . . . . as if the spirit has it's own way of "thought" that my mind isn't in touch with? It doesn't really make sense to me, . . and then when you throw in the notion of speaking words that are unintelligable, you are speaking some "spirit language" that your spirit knows?

All of this to say (bottom line) . . . . . even though I've been raised in churches that speak in tongues, I have to say that I just don't comprehend it all. :confused

At the start of this thread, I just want to encourage all the participants to do two things:
1. Stick to the questions asked and issues raised in the OP
2. Do not turn this into a debate. This is a forum for discussing, not arguing.

Just a friendly reminder to keep things going the way they should! :)

Benjamin

At the start of this thread, I just want to encourage all the participants to do two things:
1. Stick to the questions asked and issues raised in the OP
2. Do not turn this into a debate. This is a forum for discussing, not arguing.

Just a friendly reminder to keep things going the way they should! :)

Benjamin
Ah, you read my mind...

That is, I read that and chuckled, imagining the firestorm of entertaining debate to come.

In Acts the gift of tongues seems to indicate the ability to speak to others in their native tongue. "How do each of us hear in our language," etc.

Paul spoke at length on tongues in 1 Corinthians. I recommend reading the entire book. Several times, actually; that one's a personal favorite.

I think one of the crucial issues in your post is indeed the connection between the supernatural and faith. One of the phrases you find often in the Gospels is Jesus saying, "your faith has healed you". In other words, the faith brought about the working of the supernatural in the person's life.

If you look at Hebrews 11:1, the traditional translation is "Faith is the substance of things hoped for." Watchman Nee rightly points out that the word used for substance is more of a verb than a noun, which would lead us to translate it as following: Faith is the substantiating of things hoped for. Faith makes it possible for the supernatural to manifest in our lives.

Taking that as the foundation of our thoughts, we see that faith is indeed necessary for something supernatural such as speaking in tongues to occur. Faith is indeed essential for anything supernatural to occur through us; even Jesus could not do many miracles in Nazareth because of their unbelief!

The question is, of course, what one needs to have faith in. As a child, I laid in my bed one night and prayed that I would pray in that funny language that my parents pray in. With the childlike faith I had, I believed God answered my prayer and began to speak in tongues. I was 7 at the time and I have spoken in tongues ever since. My faith is in God and the fact that He gives the gift of tongues to those who ask and believe Him for it - and that the result is also from God. That my mind might interpret it as gibberish is indeed a barrier that needs to be overcome, since the rational does not always correspond with faith.

As for your assessment of what actually happens, I would say you are right in saying it is God's Spirit that is enabling us to pray His perfect will while bypassing the mind. This is something that has great spiritual power - something Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 14 when he says that speaking in tongues builds up the individual man.

I hope that gives you at least somewhat of a start in getting an answer to your questions.

Benjamin

My mom has spoken in tongues before and she got the interpretation, but never said anything and then someone across the room said what it was and she was right! So hmm... I heard that tongues is actually 'Arabic tongues' an earthly language, is this true? If so why not just have an Arabic translator around to translate easier? :eek:

My mom has spoken in tongues before and she got the interpretation, but never said anything and then someone across the room said what it was and she was right! So hmm... I heard that tongues is actually 'Arabic tongues' an earthly language, is this true? If so why not just have an Arabic translator around to translate easier? :eek:

Actually, you won't find anything in the Bible saying that. Acts 2 shows us that the people on the day of Pentecost heard the apostles speaking in their own languages, which was a variety of languages. Also, some would argue that tongues is not only tongues of men but can also be tongues of angels. Don't want to argue the case, however.

But how would my spirit know Arabic language? And that particular language is no more "holy" than any other, I wouldn't think.

Along those lines, many times the speaker of the tongues, in the service, many times says the same phrase over and over with a slight deviation in it's phrasology. When someone "interprets it", the interpretation often doesn't seem to follow the same "flow" that the tongues had. It may be longer, . . . shorter, or not follow the same "syntax-ical pattern".

Here's my problem with speaking in tongues. It relies too heavily on someone else's faith that THEY are speaking the right interpretation, and when in a congregation, who's to say if the message is an actual interpretation, then who it was actually for?

I never have felt anything from those who decide to speak in tongues during a service. I've often found them to be out of place and a bit of an interuption. And those who may not be saved, in the service, may have a problem with it. Now, if the speaker of the tongues just happens to be speaking in this person's native tongue, . . . I'd say that is pretty supernatural, and would be something the unsaved person could walk away from the experience wondering what just happened.

But how would my spirit know Arabic language? And that particular language is no more "holy" than any other, I wouldn't think.

Along those lines, many times the speaker of the tongues, in the service, many times says the same phrase over and over with a slight deviation in it's phrasology. When someone "interprets it", the interpretation often doesn't seem to follow the same "flow" that the tongues had. It may be longer, . . . shorter, or not follow the same "syntax-ical pattern".

Here's my problem with speaking in tongues. It relies too heavily on someone else's faith that THEY are speaking the right interpretation, and when in a congregation, who's to say if the message is an actual interpretation, then who it was actually for?

I never have felt anything from those who decide to speak in tongues during a service. I've often found them to be out of place and a bit of an interuption. And those who may not be saved, in the service, may have a problem with it. Now, if the speaker of the tongues just happens to be speaking in this person's native tongue, . . . I'd say that is pretty supernatural, and would be something the unsaved person could walk away from the experience wondering what just happened.
Again, go back to 1 Corinthians. There's instructions on when to speak in tongues, how many to speak in tongues, and when not to speak in tongues. (specifically, with the unbeleiver among you)

A lot of Churches who practice tongue-speaking ignore those scriptures entirely, while using the existence of the chapter to defend the practice. That's something I personally don't like at all. If you say the gift has a place here and now, you're bound by the rules Paul set down for their use.

Still... as I'm not a tongue-speaker, I suppose that doesn't hold much weight.

But how would my spirit know Arabic language? And that particular language is no more "holy" than any other, I wouldn't think.

Along those lines, many times the speaker of the tongues, in the service, many times says the same phrase over and over with a slight deviation in it's phrasology. When someone "interprets it", the interpretation often doesn't seem to follow the same "flow" that the tongues had. It may be longer, . . . shorter, or not follow the same "syntax-ical pattern".

Here's my problem with speaking in tongues. It relies too heavily on someone else's faith that THEY are speaking the right interpretation, and when in a congregation, who's to say if the message is an actual interpretation, then who it was actually for?

I never have felt anything from those who decide to speak in tongues during a service. I've often found them to be out of place and a bit of an interuption. And those who may not be saved, in the service, may have a problem with it. Now, if the speaker of the tongues just happens to be speaking in this person's native tongue, . . . I'd say that is pretty supernatural, and would be something the unsaved person could walk away from the experience wondering what just happened.

Coming from a Pentecostal background, I understand your questions. I myself have had times in Bible school where somebody spoke in tongues, an interpretation came forth, and I was left wondering to which extent this was all 'real'.

At the same time, I myself have been moved by the Holy Spirit to give an interpretation at times. All I can say is that I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was the Holy Spirit moving me to interpret and that what I said was from God and not from me. I would suggest to leave the final call up to God, though I can fully understand your questions.

Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
There seem to be some confusion with this verse.
I will show you the best examples of this

Mark 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.
Mark 7:34 And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.
John 11:33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,

He did not speek in toungues.

Toungue is no diferent that any other Gift of the Spirit, you can not have it from your own volition.
In other words, one can not choose to speek in toungues.
The Gift must come upon you.

Think of it this way:
As one prays, it is like when one fills his cup fuller and fuller with cold water.
As one can not get any fuller "in the spirit" God comes and drops an ice cube in and then you over flow.

Before I start this thread, I want to let you all know that I go to a pentacostal church where they speak in tongues. Every once in a while, after the worship, someone in the congregation will speak out in tongues then everyone will wait until someone "gives the interpretation". I've never spoke in tongues, and don't really seek it.

Now, to the question. This past Wednesday, the speaker spoke on "baptism in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues". He spoke of how it was a supernatural thing to help people witness. But then he said that the act of speaking in tongues is a "step of faith. When you don't know what to pray for, your spirit will know and speaking in tongues is the language of the spirit." . . . .Something along those lines.

Now, I began to think, if something is by definition "supernatural", would there really be the necessity of "faith"? Supernatural is something that is beyond us, beyond our senses, beyond our knowledge many times. However, as the speaker spoke, he said "if you think it is you doing the talking, then you're doing it right. You have to have faith that the 'funny words' you speak is your spirit praying." I thought to myself, if I am formulating incomprehensible syllables from my mouth and having faith that it is my spirit praying, then where does the "supernatural" come into play there, and of what value does the speaking in tongues actually have? I've never really quite got the idea behind all of it.

My final thought on this was, how does my spirit somehow know how to pray when my brain apparently doesn't, . . . . as if the spirit has it's own way of "thought" that my mind isn't in touch with? It doesn't really make sense to me, . . and then when you throw in the notion of speaking words that are unintelligable, you are speaking some "spirit language" that your spirit knows?

All of this to say (bottom line) . . . . . even though I've been raised in churches that speak in tongues, I have to say that I just don't comprehend it all. :confused

At the risk of crossing the warning about a debate, it seems to me the speaker is incorrect by saying the speaking in tongues is an act of faith BECAUSE (finish the paragraph, please) it is a gift. Just like the other gifts mentioned in Paul's writings (knowledge, teaching, wisdom, etc.) not everyone has the same gifts. Therefore, not everyone is going to be able to speak in tongues.

OldChurchGuy

ok so i have been raised non denominational we dont like the whole divided thing going on with denomination but are belives are close to penecostal. any way i was raised in a church that definatly speaks the "penecostal way" as i have heard a lot. ok i have been filled with the Holy Spirit several times. it is an amazing feeling i cant describ it is awesome. i have spoken in tongues before i am not in control when i do it is just sorta like i have no way to stop nomatter what. i think that some people are afraid to release themselves into Gods hands to have the experince to speak in tongues. i know that many people can claim to speak in tongues it would be pretty easy it is just mumble a lot of random words or well half of words iguess and sometimes that is what seems to be happening with somepeople in my church,but it is hard to know the difference. there have been sometimes i have wondered if someone was faking it. it just is a little....foggy i guess, it just seems like a weird moment. i mean sometimes i can just feel how awesome the movment is but sometimes it is like someone forcing what isnt there. i do have a question though is it a sin to fake the holy spirit? i belive it is wrong because of several reasons but i want to know all of yalls thoughts.

I realyze that this can be a very divisive topic, but it's a very important one since a good portion of the church rejects it catagorically while another part of the church embraces it emphatically for this present age?

Fortunately, the scripture has much to say about this; just because it's not necesarily part of your everyday experience doesn't mean it's not valid for the present day church. No one questions divine healing but how many can say its a daily experience for them.

Tongues:

1) Edifies the believer(1Cor.14:4)

2) Is a gift of the Holy Spirit(Mark 16:17,1 Cor.12:10)

3) Can be the tongues of men or of angels(1 Cor.13:1)

4) May or may not be a message from God to the body; ie.,at Pentacost men heard in their native languages the wonderful works of God-something that was done simultaneously by numerous individuals, not a conscious message being delivered in which 1 person spoke and the rest listened. In 1Cor.14:27-28 the context is a mesage given in an unknown tongue to the body-far different than people(men and women) being stirred simultaneously to speak praises to God in an unknown tongue.

5) Ministered according to the measure of faith that the individual has;
"Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophecy according to the proportion of faith."(Rom.12:6) Since prophecy, a spiritual gift is referred, speaking in tongues, a spiritual gift, is inferred

The greatest opposition to spiritual gifts in our time has been the doctrine of dispensationalism which has taught that tongues(and other spiritual gifts) ceased after the Age of the Apostles. Up until Azuza Street Revival in 1900 this was thought to be univerally true and then the Pentacostal, followed by the Later Rain, Charismatic, Third Wave, and other movements have refuted it. The fastest church growth has been in Pentacostal/charismatic churches and the greatest missions growth has been by this same movement.

6) Finally, gifts are given, fruits are grown. 1Cor. 13:1 tells us that we can speak in all the tongues possible but without love it is sounding brass or tinkling symbol. We don't judge the character of an individual by the spiritual gift he manifests but by the fruit he exhibits. But we are told in 1Cor. 14:39,"Wherefore brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues."

James 1:17 says,"Every good and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." If God has given us a perfect gift, who are we to despise God's gift. Rather we are to grow in it's usage.

Sincerely.

FM

Just a couple points here-first of all-we are not "out of control" when we speak in tongues-the Bible says, "the Spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets"-when the Lord asks us to speak in tongues (as a gift of the Spirit) we can obey or not obey.
The Bible teaches that the "gift" of tongues is different in purpose and use from the tongue we receive at our baptism in the Spirit. All who are baptised in the Spirit can speak in tongues (Acts 2:4, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6) but not all will be used in the gift of tongues. (out loud in the congregation where it must be interpreted so that the church will be built up).

As far as the gift of tongues being sometimes the same words over and over-and not the interpretation? That's a good question-but we must realise that the word is "interpretation" not "translation". When someone is interpreting someone elses art, for example, they can describe it in detail or just the basics. The gift of interpretation works the same way.

Before I start this thread, I want to let you all know that I go to a pentacostal church where they speak in tongues. Every once in a while, after the worship, someone in the congregation will speak out in tongues then everyone will wait until someone "gives the interpretation". I've never spoke in tongues, and don't really seek it.

Now, to the question. This past Wednesday, the speaker spoke on "baptism in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues". He spoke of how it was a supernatural thing to help people witness. But then he said that the act of speaking in tongues is a "step of faith. When you don't know what to pray for, your spirit will know and speaking in tongues is the language of the spirit." . . . .Something along those lines.

Now, I began to think, if something is by definition "supernatural", would there really be the necessity of "faith"? Supernatural is something that is beyond us, beyond our senses, beyond our knowledge many times. However, as the speaker spoke, he said "if you think it is you doing the talking, then you're doing it right. You have to have faith that the 'funny words' you speak is your spirit praying." I thought to myself, if I am formulating incomprehensible syllables from my mouth and having faith that it is my spirit praying, then where does the "supernatural" come into play there, and of what value does the speaking in tongues actually have? I've never really quite got the idea behind all of it.

My final thought on this was, how does my spirit somehow know how to pray when my brain apparently doesn't, . . . . as if the spirit has it's own way of "thought" that my mind isn't in touch with? It doesn't really make sense to me, . . and then when you throw in the notion of speaking words that are unintelligable, you are speaking some "spirit language" that your spirit knows?

All of this to say (bottom line) . . . . . even though I've been raised in churches that speak in tongues, I have to say that I just don't comprehend it all. :confused

it reminds me of the movie borat when he finds Jesus :lol:


speaking in touges to me is talking about the bible in your own way and no one else really knows what your talking about.

Jesus will return during the sounding of the last trumpet when all of mankind will be resurrected with a new spirtual body. This is speaking in touges because the body of Christ doesnt really know what im talking about.

the speaking in touges we have today seems to be false and the people lie to them selfs. you know when the 12 apostles can speak there own language after the holy spirit entered them. It seems like today people try to copy this story and they act like they can speak in tongues.The truth is its just there self making up random words and they manipulate there self and they think God is speaking. The only part in the bible when man can speak a different language or his own is when the 12 apostles see the holy spirit and the spirit enters them.

Now this doesn't happen to your every day man and the only people alive that will have this happen is the last prophet of mankind or the two witnesses. The Lord sends us two lamp stands that are from heaven and these are the only people that will be able to do the same things as the 12 apostles. to solve this problem it would be nice to have all the scripture on this topic and what group of people in the bible spoke in tongues did saint Paul speak in tongues.tobad Padre Peo isnt around he would know

Again, go back to 1 Corinthians. There's instructions on when to speak in tongues, how many to speak in tongues, and when not to speak in tongues. (specifically, with the unbeleiver among you)

A lot of Churches who practice tongue-speaking ignore those scriptures entirely, while using the existence of the chapter to defend the practice. That's something I personally don't like at all. If you say the gift has a place here and now, you're bound by the rules Paul set down for their use.

Still... as I'm not a tongue-speaker, I suppose that doesn't hold much weight.

That's a very good point, Steve. And it would seem that you have hit on something that perhaps a lot of pastors and laypeople want to cover over. When you have any service, you should always assume that there are unsaved people there. . . . . if your church is a church that wants to bring in the lost. :hmm:

Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
There seem to be some confusion with this verse.
I will show you the best examples of this

Mark 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.
Mark 7:34 And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.
John 11:33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,

He did not speek in toungues.

Toungue is no diferent that any other Gift of the Spirit, you can not have it from your own volition.
In other words, one can not choose to speek in toungues.
The Gift must come upon you.

Think of it this way:
As one prays, it is like when one fills his cup fuller and fuller with cold water.
As one can not get any fuller "in the spirit" God comes and drops an ice cube in and then you over flow.


Sometimes I have wondered if this gift couldn't manifest itself in some people as simply a hum. . . . . . . .something musical, so to speak. :hmm: To me, I would be FAR less distracted by that then "my babblings".

I heard that tongues is actually 'Arabic tongues' an earthly language, is this true? If so why not just have an Arabic translator around to translate easier? :eek:

Because although your mother's tongue on one occasion may have been Arabic it may very well have been some other language at other times. I have been told there are over 5,000 different languages used in the world. . . a wide choice for the Holy Spirit to use. I have, so I'm told by those proficiant in other languages, spoken German, Chinese, Spanish and Hebrew, among other languages, when speaking, singing or praying to the Lord 'in the Spirit'.

. . . and, Steve, I have found that the unsaved who have overheard my tongues' have almost inevitably heard in their own language, even their own dialect of their language, and have known that God was speaking to them personally, especially because I had no idea what I had vocalised. Mostly, though, I believe the words I speak in tongues are vocalising, much better than I could, what is in my heart.

We are not told-"do not speak in tongues in case some unbeliever is present"-that is a misrepresentation of what the Word says. The Word only teaches that the gift of tongues is to accompianed by the gift of interpretaton.

And yes, Paul spoke in tongues--his words,,

"I thank my God I speak in tongues more than all of you!" The gift of tongues is for the church gathered-just like all the gifts are, but speaking in tongues as prayer are between you and God. That's all Paul was saying.

I have enjoyed reading all the posts on this very important subject.

In response to the opening post, I understand the concern that speaking in tongues during a church service might be disruptive and confuse or repel new believers or those not yet committed to the faith. Paul outlines a very clear protocal for speaking in tongues in such a setting, as others here have pointed out.

In a church I once attended, we were taught that the Holy Spirit will never prompt a believer to speak in tongues when the Word is being taught because the Holy Spirit never interrupts Himself. Also, when tongues are offered, there should always be an interpreter. When the interpretation is given, someone in authority should always verify the authenticity of the tongue/interpretation by either receiving it or rebuking it, with God's Word as a litmus test. Finally, an explanation of what occurred is always given to educate anyone who does not understand (new believers).

As for tongues as a personal prayer language, I understand that speaking in tongues facilitates unfettered prayer. One is able to bypass the hindrances of the carnal mind and pray in a perfect spiritual language that understands and invites God's perfect will. Since prayer is the vehicle through which God's will is invited into the earth realm, I consider praying in tongues to be a very valuable tool as my mind is renewed through study and application of the Word.

If anyone is concerned about unbelievers being offended or turned off by tongues and interpretation in a church service, I would suggest that there are many and far greater offensive practices in some of today's churches.

Shaloam

My Pastor (Jim McClarty) gave what I think is a perfect Biblical answer concerning tongues. Judge for yourselves, if you will...


Speaking In Tongues

Q -
I have a question for you. I have been tempted to visit this fairly large (actually huge) Church of God. I bet there at least 1,000 or 2,000 (if not more) members - which I think is too large, people get lost in the crowd. In any event, my problem with the Church of God is the speaking in tongues thing. What are your thoughts on the subject? I'm sure you must have addressed this at some point. Any guidance or thoughts? I would like to know your perspective on this.

Jim -
So, speaking in tongues, eh? I do have an opinion (as you might expect). I've been asked about it frequently because there's plenty of confusion out there. But, there doesn't need to be.

The Greek word that is translated "tongues" is "glossa" - from which we get the English word "glossary." It should have been translated "language," but during the days of King James (1611) the word "tongue" was synonymous with "language." For instance, we still talk about people who speak a "foreign tongue." And, that's the way the word is used in the Bible. It means, "spoken language."

Now, the first place where the phenomenon of men speaking in languages they didn't naturally speak was on the day of Pentecost, at the inception of the Church. Peter stood up to speak, but his audience was filled with Jews from all over the middle Asia area, who spoke a variety of languages and dialects.


"And, they (the apostles) were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language." (Acts 2:4-6)

What should be instantly obvious from that passage was that the apostles spoke actual foreign languages in order that the multitude could all understand. That's what "tongues" was all about and what the purpose was. Without the methods and means of mass communication that we have available today, every area developed languages and dialects unique to themselves. But, when the time came for the Gospel of Christ to be spread abroad, the message was carried by fishermen, tax collectors, zealots and the like who spoke Greek and some Aramaic.


"And they (the men from every nation) were amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappodocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And, they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?" (Acts 2:7-12)

So, God miraculously caused the Apostles to speak languages that were unknown to them and caused the listeners to hear in their own language. And, the gospel of grace spread. But again, it's obvious that the "tongues" spoken by the Apostles were known, definable languages, not babble or gibberish.

As Paul journeyed through his ministry, he encountered many languages and preached nonetheless. As the Church grew, the gifts of the Spirit spread in order to promote the message of grace. But, some began to abuse the gifts and Paul had to correct them -


"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all; yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." (1 Cor.14:19-20)

Paul went on to instruct the Corinthian church that tongues were not to be exercised in the church meetings. The gift of tongues was a method for preaching and evangelizing among the lost. But, the church was to gather for the purpose of reading, studying, preaching and exhorting through the Word.


"Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not; but prophesying [preaching the word] serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. 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?" (1 Cor. 14:22-23)

So, Paul was quite clear that speaking with tongues - other known, spoken, extant languages of the day - was for a sign to unbelievers and not something to be exhibited in the church. In the church, preaching and teaching are the priority.

Now, when most people think of "speaking in tongues" they mean the sort of ecstatic utterances that we see on TBN or in Assembly of God churches. The people who exercise that sort of activity call themselves "Pentecostal" to connect themselves with the gifts that appeared at the first Pentecost. Or, they are known as "Charismatic" from the Greek word for gifts of the Spirit - "charis." That word is also translated "grace" in many passages.

There is no evidence in Scripture that any of the apostles or early church members ever broke into fits of uncontrolled verbiage and noises. When the Spirit spoke through the Apostles, it spoke a language known by the hearers for the purpose of advancing the gospel message.

The primary verse that the proponents of ecstatic utterance use is from 1 Corinthians 13:1. It's the beginning of Paul's great treatise on love and charity. From the context it's clear that Paul is speaking in hyperbole, overstating his case, in order to prove that charitable love is the greatest Christian virtue. It reads -


"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And, though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And, though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." (1 Cor. 1-3)

Obviously, Paul was saying that even if he had every spiritual gift to the maximum but failed in charity, it was all pointless. But, at the top of his list he used the term "the tongues...of angels." And, that did it. People have grabbed hold of that phrase and claim that their verbal recitations of noises and unknown, unrecognizable words are "the tongues of angels." But, any honest reader of Paul's words can see that Paul was not promoting the idea that angelic languages were suddenly available to mankind. He was saying that even if he spoke every language known among men and angels - a clear case of hyperbole - without Christian charity the sounds he made would sound like horns and cymbals.

Lastly, there's considerable debate in the church-at-large about whether the gifts of the Spirit that are in evidence in the New Testament are available to us today. But, since we haven't seen any people raised from the dead, blind eyes opened, or lepers completely healed, I think it's hard to make the favorable case. Likewise, the ability to speak fluently in languages you've never studied was a necessary gift to get the Church of the ground and begin spreading the Good News. But, there is practically no language or corner of the known world where the message has not been spread. And, Bibles are printed daily in new languages and dialects. So, the necessity of "speaking in tongues" has waned.

Now, can God make men speak other languages if He wants to? Sure. But, it's up to Him. Even at Pentecost, the Apostles were not going through the gyrations and techniques advocated by modern Pentecostals in order to stimulate tongue-talking. In fact, they weren't expecting it at all. God simply spoke through them by His Spirit and they spoke languages that were unknown to them, but known to their listeners. And, they all glorified God as a result.

As far large churches uniting around tongue-talking, it does happen. Nothing unites people faster than a common experience. Like veterans getting together years after a war, they have a lasting bond because of the experience they shared. So, in order to build large congregations, many Pentecostal denominations insist that the only proof of the Spirit being in you - proof positive of your salvation - is that you talk in tongues. To be fair, many of them have backed off that position, seeing that it's unscriptural, but there is still an undue emphasis on tongues in those churches.

There's more to say, and Paul instructed the Corinthian church about how to keep from letting tongue-talking get out of control in their meetings, but I think this is a fair overview. As for me, I'm just a stickler for the Word and I try to adjust our theology and our worship accordingly.

Hope it helps.

Yours for His sake,
Jim

Link (http://www.salvationbygrace.org/uc/sub/qaprint.aspx?qa=16&local=1b)

I went to a church that passed out a pamplet titled,"Is speaking in tongues of the devil?" Sounds like the same pamplet may have been handed out at your church.

Will you blaspheme God by telling Him His perfect gift isn't good enough for you? Or does the passage of Mark 16:17 doesn't exist in your bible?

Even Barnard's research states that the fastest church growth exists in the Pentacostal/Charismatic denominations and that is all over the world.

It is time that Evangelical churches *** comment removed by wia *** simply acknowledge the truth, that speaking in tongues is meant for today, it is part of the 'normal Christian life'. Whether the gift is properly exercised or not is no deterrant for it's usage. The Lord never said-Your scepticism has saved you, rather, your faith has saved you!

Sincerely,

FM

Mailman guy-I will not go through your post line by line-unless it gets to that-but one thing I will point out. Just like thousands of others who have misrepresented church teaching-this guy states that we believe that "the only proof of the Spirit being in you" or "salvation" is speaking in tongues-this is NOT true. We are saved by trusting in the shed Blood of Jesus Christ. Speaking in tongues is merely the first physical evidence that we are baptised in the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:4, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6)


Jesus is the One who baptises in the Holy Spirit (John 1:33) and He is the same forever.

I grew up in a Pentecostal church and this is how I understand the gift of speaking in tongues:



Speaking in Tongues



What makes/allows people to “speak in tongues”?
The Holy Spirit Acts 2:4

Who/What is the Holy Spirit?
The spirit of God the Father Matthew 10:20 I Thessalonians 4:8
The spirit of Jesus, the Son of God Galatians 4:6 I Peter 1:11
One of the Trinity I John 5:7
The Comforter John 14:16, 26
The spirit of truth John 16:13 15:26

Where does He come from?
God the Father Psalm 51:11
Jesus Christ Matthew 3:11
*He came after Jesus was Glorified John 7:39, 20:21,22

Where is the Holy Spirit?
Here, always Matthew 28:20 (see the end of verse 16 in John 14)
In the hearts of believers Ezekiel 36:27 (Mark 16:17)

When does He appear to you?
After you are saved and Baptized Acts 2:38

Why speak in tongues?
To become sons of God John 1:12-13
To be shown things to come, I Corinthians 14:5
things of Jesus, and things of the Father John 16:13-15
To pray when we don’t know what to say Romans 8:26,27
Because God is a spirit and should be worshiped in the spirit John 4:24
To show a sign to unbelievers I Corinthians 14:22-24

How do I receive Baptism in the Holy Spirit?
Ask the Father and He will give it to you Luke 11:11-13
Ask for the church to lay hands on you Acts 8:17 19:7

What am I saying?
Mysteries only God & the Holy Spirit understand I Corinthians 2:7, 12 & 13
Matthew 10:20 14:2
The Word of God Acts 4:31



Can I control it?
(Yes) And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
I Corinthians 14:32,33

Objections
It’s for the early/old Church
But, Beloved be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. II Peter 3:8

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 our old men shall dream dreams: Acts 2:17

Tongues are of the Devil
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Acts 10:46

But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? Matthew 12:24-26

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. I Corinthians 12:3




If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. ~I Corinthians 14:37

..forbid not to speak with tongues ~I Corinthians 14:39

I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: ~I Corinthians 14:18

But how would my spirit know Arabic language? And that particular language is no more "holy" than any other, I wouldn't think.

Along those lines, many times the speaker of the tongues, in the service, many times says the same phrase over and over with a slight deviation in it's phrasology. When someone "interprets it", the interpretation often doesn't seem to follow the same "flow" that the tongues had. It may be longer, . . . shorter, or not follow the same "syntax-ical pattern".

Here's my problem with speaking in tongues. It relies too heavily on someone else's faith that THEY are speaking the right interpretation, and when in a congregation, who's to say if the message is an actual interpretation, then who it was actually for?

I never have felt anything from those who decide to speak in tongues during a service. I've often found them to be out of place and a bit of an interuption. And those who may not be saved, in the service, may have a problem with it. Now, if the speaker of the tongues just happens to be speaking in this person's native tongue, . . . I'd say that is pretty supernatural, and would be something the unsaved person could walk away from the experience wondering what just happened.

Thank you Magnetic, for opening up the floodgates.

My experience with speaking in tongues is that many do not even know what it is. At Pentecost, the people speaking in tongues were prophesying, and praising God in the people's native languages. It is a sign for the unbeliever, and not for the believer. Speaking in tongues is a gift, like every other gift of the Spirit, who gives without repentence. He alone decides who gets what.

I went to some penticostal churches, and it pained me, and infuriated me to hear people say that you do not have the Holy Spirit in you if you do not speak in tongues. Many have been taught that, and now "shanda lama lama landa lama" is considered speaking in another language. I even had a person come to me, ask to pray for me, thinking that I was an unbeliever, and prayed in "tongues" shouting "Maria ala Ramos ,ala Maria". This is not speaking in tongues. It angers me to see such farces in the churches today.

That is not to say that God does not use that gift. I know He does. In a church that I had went to, I attended after I bowed my knee to CHrist, two years after my baptism. The one preacher was teaching a message, and it seemed to me that God took over that preacher. It wa the same day I asked God who was the rider on the white horse, which he replied and said "the church". The man seemed to stop what he was doing. He might have been finished with his sermon, I wasn't paying attention. To me, he stopped everything. Went off of the altar, and went to the front of it. He said that th Lord told him to have people come up to be prayed over by him. This puzzled me a little, since this was a Baptist church that did not have altar calls for the sick. They did that day. I witnessed him praying over a few people, and suddenly, when one person got up there and told the preacher what his ailment was, the preacher started to pray, and God happened. He made the preacher say something in Arabic. In fact, the Spirit told me what he had said the moment after he said it. He said, "Satan get away from him". I told the preacher after service what he had said, and he shook my hand, and I left. I went back the next week, the last week that I ever attended that church, and the same preacher was having a Bible study. He was talking about the Holy Spirit. He asked people if they wanted to have th Holy Spirit, and if they did, stand up. I stood. He told me to sit down, I already have Him. I guess I was right, and that was exactly what God made him say.

This is a move of God. And it is obvious when it happens. It's unmistakable. God is not the type that uses imitations, and the churches need to see that. I was going to speak in tongues once, but a long time ago, I had asked God to have me speak in my native language, because I was afraid that if I spoke in another language, since I am sensitive to spirits, I might end up saying a blasphemy against God, and I am not about to do that. He told me what I was going to say, and then had others say it, only to have me say what He said for me to say after I had received that confirmation.

God gives to whomever he wants, and no one should be forced to try to gain a sign from God. It's impossible. It's better to just have it done God's way.

My Pastor (Jim McClarty) gave what I think is a perfect Biblical answer concerning tongues. Judge for yourselves, if you will...


Speaking In Tongues

Q -
I have a question for you. I have been tempted to visit this fairly large (actually huge) Church of God. I bet there at least 1,000 or 2,000 (if not more) members - which I think is too large, people get lost in the crowd. In any event, my problem with the Church of God is the speaking in tongues thing. What are your thoughts on the subject? I'm sure you must have addressed this at some point. Any guidance or thoughts? I would like to know your perspective on this.

Jim -
So, speaking in tongues, eh? I do have an opinion (as you might expect). I've been asked about it frequently because there's plenty of confusion out there. But, there doesn't need to be.

The Greek word that is translated "tongues" is "glossa" - from which we get the English word "glossary." It should have been translated "language," but during the days of King James (1611) the word "tongue" was synonymous with "language." For instance, we still talk about people who speak a "foreign tongue." And, that's the way the word is used in the Bible. It means, "spoken language."

Now, the first place where the phenomenon of men speaking in languages they didn't naturally speak was on the day of Pentecost, at the inception of the Church. Peter stood up to speak, but his audience was filled with Jews from all over the middle Asia area, who spoke a variety of languages and dialects.



What should be instantly obvious from that passage was that the apostles spoke actual foreign languages in order that the multitude could all understand. That's what "tongues" was all about and what the purpose was. Without the methods and means of mass communication that we have available today, every area developed languages and dialects unique to themselves. But, when the time came for the Gospel of Christ to be spread abroad, the message was carried by fishermen, tax collectors, zealots and the like who spoke Greek and some Aramaic.



So, God miraculously caused the Apostles to speak languages that were unknown to them and caused the listeners to hear in their own language. And, the gospel of grace spread. But again, it's obvious that the "tongues" spoken by the Apostles were known, definable languages, not babble or gibberish.

As Paul journeyed through his ministry, he encountered many languages and preached nonetheless. As the Church grew, the gifts of the Spirit spread in order to promote the message of grace. But, some began to abuse the gifts and Paul had to correct them -



Paul went on to instruct the Corinthian church that tongues were not to be exercised in the church meetings. The gift of tongues was a method for preaching and evangelizing among the lost. But, the church was to gather for the purpose of reading, studying, preaching and exhorting through the Word.



So, Paul was quite clear that speaking with tongues - other known, spoken, extant languages of the day - was for a sign to unbelievers and not something to be exhibited in the church. In the church, preaching and teaching are the priority.

Now, when most people think of "speaking in tongues" they mean the sort of ecstatic utterances that we see on TBN or in Assembly of God churches. The people who exercise that sort of activity call themselves "Pentecostal" to connect themselves with the gifts that appeared at the first Pentecost. Or, they are known as "Charismatic" from the Greek word for gifts of the Spirit - "charis." That word is also translated "grace" in many passages.

There is no evidence in Scripture that any of the apostles or early church members ever broke into fits of uncontrolled verbiage and noises. When the Spirit spoke through the Apostles, it spoke a language known by the hearers for the purpose of advancing the gospel message.

The primary verse that the proponents of ecstatic utterance use is from 1 Corinthians 13:1. It's the beginning of Paul's great treatise on love and charity. From the context it's clear that Paul is speaking in hyperbole, overstating his case, in order to prove that charitable love is the greatest Christian virtue. It reads -



Obviously, Paul was saying that even if he had every spiritual gift to the maximum but failed in charity, it was all pointless. But, at the top of his list he used the term "the tongues...of angels." And, that did it. People have grabbed hold of that phrase and claim that their verbal recitations of noises and unknown, unrecognizable words are "the tongues of angels." But, any honest reader of Paul's words can see that Paul was not promoting the idea that angelic languages were suddenly available to mankind. He was saying that even if he spoke every language known among men and angels - a clear case of hyperbole - without Christian charity the sounds he made would sound like horns and cymbals.

Lastly, there's considerable debate in the church-at-large about whether the gifts of the Spirit that are in evidence in the New Testament are available to us today. But, since we haven't seen any people raised from the dead, blind eyes opened, or lepers completely healed, I think it's hard to make the favorable case. Likewise, the ability to speak fluently in languages you've never studied was a necessary gift to get the Church of the ground and begin spreading the Good News. But, there is practically no language or corner of the known world where the message has not been spread. And, Bibles are printed daily in new languages and dialects. So, the necessity of "speaking in tongues" has waned.

Now, can God make men speak other languages if He wants to? Sure. But, it's up to Him. Even at Pentecost, the Apostles were not going through the gyrations and techniques advocated by modern Pentecostals in order to stimulate tongue-talking. In fact, they weren't expecting it at all. God simply spoke through them by His Spirit and they spoke languages that were unknown to them, but known to their listeners. And, they all glorified God as a result.

As far large churches uniting around tongue-talking, it does happen. Nothing unites people faster than a common experience. Like veterans getting together years after a war, they have a lasting bond because of the experience they shared. So, in order to build large congregations, many Pentecostal denominations insist that the only proof of the Spirit being in you - proof positive of your salvation - is that you talk in tongues. To be fair, many of them have backed off that position, seeing that it's unscriptural, but there is still an undue emphasis on tongues in those churches.

There's more to say, and Paul instructed the Corinthian church about how to keep from letting tongue-talking get out of control in their meetings, but I think this is a fair overview. As for me, I'm just a stickler for the Word and I try to adjust our theology and our worship accordingly.

Hope it helps.

Yours for His sake,
Jim

Link (http://www.salvationbygrace.org/uc/sub/qaprint.aspx?qa=16&local=1b)



Excellent work! Gibberish is not a true "tongue" and certainly does not come from God.

I wrote this awhile ago:


1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an FORIEGN LANGUAGE speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
What good is it to speak in a language no hearer but God can understand?
1 Corinthians 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an FORIEGN LANGUAGE edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
If one speaks in a FORIEGN LANGUAGE that only he knows and no other, then he only edifies himself and does nothing good to those who are listening but cannot understand.
1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with FORIEGN LANGUAGES, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with FORIEGN LANGUAGES, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

It is better to speak in an understood language and prophesy rather than speak a FORIEGN LANGUAGE unless you interpret what you are saying in a language that the listeners understand.

1 Corinthians 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

But to come simply speaking in various languages that aren't understood profits no one.

1 Corinthians 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

It is the same with a musical instrument. What good is playing one if it is randomly played with indistinct sounds?

1 Corinthians 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

Certain trumpet sounds (short musical pieces) signified certain actions to be carried out. Have you ever heard a trumpet sound at the horse races that tells the racers to begin the race? What if the trumpet made a strange sound no one knew? It would be confusion.

1 Corinthians 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

NEVER utter sounds or imaginary words in a fake supposedly "holy language"! If it is not easily understood by the listener then the speaker has done something WRONG!

1 Corinthians 14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
1 Corinthians 14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

Do not speak and sound like a barbarian. This means do not speak retardedly, in a mumbo-jumbo, gibberish, non-sense, false, made up by YOU "tongue".

1 Corinthians 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

The zealous wish to have evidence of the Holy Spirit so they have invented a false tongue, they call it an unknown tongue but it is what Paul said to NOT do.

1 Corinthians 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
1 Corinthians 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
1 Corinthians 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

Here if one speaks in a language unknown to anyone, then how is anyone supposed to know when to say "Amen"? They wouldn't because they cannot understand what is being said and that also applies to the speaker. It is confusion and that is of the devil.

1 Corinthians 14:17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
1 Corinthians 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with FORIEGN LANGUAGES more than ye all:

Paul spoke many FORIEGN LANGUAGES which is why he was so perfect to go forth and spread the gospel to foreign countries!

1 Corinthians 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

It is better to speak 5 words someone can understand than 10,000 words in a language they cannot. I hope I don't have to explain why that is.

:confused Why is that, Naphal? :confused . . . . . . . . . Just kidding. ;)

For me, I don't have a whole lot of faith. There will always be a part of me that, if I decided to speak unknown phrases, would wonder if I just wasn't . . . speaking gibberish. . . . and not something that my spirit may be "uttering". I still have a problem with the idea that somehow my spirit speaks, or has a "language", that is different than mine. I would have to ask HOW it obtained this "language" in the first place?

More than that, though, . . . . I feel that if I'm going to receive a supernatural gift, there will be no doubts as to what is happening. I shouldn't have to have faith that I'm receiving a gift.

I just wanted to thank you all for this thread. It is reminding me to speak in tongues here this moring. It's building up my spirit man. I am feeling better already. Thankyou. If you haven't tried it before, you ought to;)
1 Cor 14:4

Before I start this thread, I want to let you all know that I go to a pentacostal church where they speak in tongues. Every once in a while, after the worship, someone in the congregation will speak out in tongues then everyone will wait until someone "gives the interpretation". I've never spoke in tongues, and don't really seek it.

Now, to the question. This past Wednesday, the speaker spoke on "baptism in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues". He spoke of how it was a supernatural thing to help people witness. But then he said that the act of speaking in tongues is a "step of faith. When you don't know what to pray for, your spirit will know and speaking in tongues is the language of the spirit." . . . .Something along those lines.

Now, I began to think, if something is by definition "supernatural", would there really be the necessity of "faith"? Supernatural is something that is beyond us, beyond our senses, beyond our knowledge many times. However, as the speaker spoke, he said "if you think it is you doing the talking, then you're doing it right. You have to have faith that the 'funny words' you speak is your spirit praying." I thought to myself, if I am formulating incomprehensible syllables from my mouth and having faith that it is my spirit praying, then where does the "supernatural" come into play there, and of what value does the speaking in tongues actually have? I've never really quite got the idea behind all of it.

My final thought on this was, how does my spirit somehow know how to pray when my brain apparently doesn't, . . . . as if the spirit has it's own way of "thought" that my mind isn't in touch with? It doesn't really make sense to me, . . and then when you throw in the notion of speaking words that are unintelligable, you are speaking some "spirit language" that your spirit knows?

All of this to say (bottom line) . . . . . even though I've been raised in churches that speak in tongues, I have to say that I just don't comprehend it all. :confused
All who believe, have been baptised in the spirit. It's not just speaking in tongues that prove or make you more connected or feel supernatural in the presence of God. It could also be groanings that you can't explain- the Holy Spirit within you crying out to God. Or it could be quiet times or times you're singing, dancing, shouting, crying or laughing that brings you to this place as well.

Any form of communication with God can bring you to those places where the manifestation of His supernatural Spirit can take place. Don't limit it to just tongue speaking.

God bless,
Joztok

:confused Why is that, Naphal? :confused . . . . . . . . . Just kidding. ;)

For me, I don't have a whole lot of faith. There will always be a part of me that, if I decided to speak unknown phrases, would wonder if I just wasn't . . . speaking gibberish. . . . and not something that my spirit may be "uttering". I still have a problem with the idea that somehow my spirit speaks, or has a "language", that is different than mine. I would have to ask HOW it obtained this "language" in the first place?

More than that, though, . . . . I feel that if I'm going to receive a supernatural gift, there will be no doubts as to what is happening. I shouldn't have to have faith that I'm receiving a gift.

You're on the right track.

Here's a small side track to this:

I have several friends that are Pentacostal and unquestioningly accept speaking in tongues as a spiritual gift (in fact, I acknowledge that it is also....just disagree on the manifestation of it).

Discernment is also a spiritual gift. These same friends that unquestioningly accept speaking in tongues will turn their back on someone who, through the gift of discernment, tries to warn them about some high-profile "Christians".

I can think of several, who I will not specifically name, that have been mentioned by MANY MANY Christians with the SPIRITUAL gift of discernment, yet they are ignored.

So my challenge would be this: as readily and emphatically as you embrace the gift of tongues, you should pray about the willingness to accept the gift of discernment, as given to others. Perhaps there is a reason so many feel foreboding about these people.

All who believe, have been baptised in the spirit.

God bless,
Joztok

That isn't true-at least not according to scripture.

In Acts 19 we have Paul asking the Ephesians--'have you received the Holy Spirit SINCE you believed?"--and the Samaratians in Acts 8-saved, and baptised in water yet did not receive this blessing until later-so although your argument may sound nice and inclusive-it isn't scriptural.

Jesus said that the baptism in the Spirit was for all who would "ask" and He called it "the Promise of the Father" in Acts 1-Peter told us that this promise was for us when he said, "for this promise is to you, to your children and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call"-Acts 2:37

Speaking in tongues is simply the sign we are given in scripture that this baptism has occured.(Acts 2:4, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6) Tongues as prayer can be a "foreign language" I guess, but according to Paul they are for speaking to God-"he who speaks in a tongue, does not speak to man, but to God--Indeed NO ONE understands, for in the spirit he speaks mysteries.", so I don't see what difference it makes.

Here's a small side track to this:

I have several friends that are Pentacostal and unquestioningly accept speaking in tongues as a spiritual gift (in fact, I acknowledge that it is also....just disagree on the manifestation of it).

Discernment is also a spiritual gift. These same friends that unquestioningly accept speaking in tongues will turn their back on someone who, through the gift of discernment, tries to warn them about some high-profile "Christians".

I can think of several, who I will not specifically name, that have been mentioned by MANY MANY Christians with the SPIRITUAL gift of discernment, yet they are ignored.

So my challenge would be this: as readily and emphatically as you embrace the gift of tongues, you should pray about the willingness to accept the gift of discernment, as given to others. Perhaps there is a reason so many feel foreboding about these people.


The problem is that many who say they have the "gift of discernment" only use the fact that they disagree with someones doctrine to condemn others to hell. Besides that, we do not "have" gifts we are used in the gifts as the Spirit wills.

joztok



All who believe, have been baptised in the spirit. It's not just speaking in tongues that prove or make you more connected or feel supernatural in the presence of God. It could also be groanings that you can't explain- the Holy Spirit within you crying out to God. Or it could be quiet times or times you're singing, dancing, shouting, crying or laughing that brings you to this place as well.
Are we to be following our feelings looking for a "experience" or are we to have the thinking of Christ?

Are these "experiences" to replace doctrine and spiritual growth as a source of focus?

Phill 3
18 for many walk of whom many times I told you -- and now also weeping tell -- the enemies of the cross of the Christ!
19 whose end [is] destruction, whose god [is] the belly, and whose glory [is] in their shame, who the things on earth are minding.
If we lead by how we feel; then we can end up as enemies of the Cross; our master is our belly {emotions}; our master then would not be the doctrine of Christ.

That isn't true-at least not according to scripture.

In Acts 19 we have Paul asking the Ephesians--'have you received the Holy Spirit SINCE you believed?"--:lol: I knew that was coming. The "disciples" in verse 2 were John the Baptist's disciples (verse 3) who hadn't even believed on Jesus Christ yet for Salvation (verse 4 and 5). Bad example.

and the Samaratians in Acts 8-saved, and baptised in water yet did not receive this blessing until later-so although your argument may sound nice and inclusive-it isn't scriptural. Two things here. They were not saved. They were only baptized in water in the name of Jesus which is Peter's baptism for Israel (Acts 2:38) and they were Jews who needed the "sign" of speaking in tongues so that they could believe (I Corinthians 1:22).


Jesus said that the baptism in the Spirit was for all who would "ask" and He called it "the Promise of the Father" in Acts 1-Peter told us that this promise was for us when he said, "for this promise is to you, to your children and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call"-Acts 2:37 Misapplication! The "promise" was to Jews, their children, and all the jews in the dispersion. That had nothing to do with Gentiles.


Speaking in tongues is simply the sign we are given... No, the jews are given it (I Corinthians 1:22; 14:22).

Jonny

:lol: I knew that was coming. The "disciples" in verse 2 were John the Baptist's disciples (verse 3) who hadn't even believed on Jesus Christ yet for Salvation (verse 4 and 5). Bad example.
Two things here. They were not saved. They were only baptized in water in the name of Jesus which is Peter's baptism for Israel (Acts 2:38) and they were Jews who needed the "sign" of speaking in tongues so that they could believe (I Corinthians 1:22).

Yes, they were Johns disciples-but John preached Jesus Christ-so they were Christians-also-if you look carefully at the verses you will find that Paul baptised them in water--(a sure sign that they were saved)THEN they were baptised in the Spirit. and 1 Corinthians 1:22 does not say that the only ones who speak in tongues were Jews. AND if you look carefully at those who were baptised in the Spirit in Acts 10-you will find that they were GENTILES. AND they spoke in tongues-just like every other time we are given a sign that one is baptised in the Spirit----


And-if you will look at verse 12 of Acts 8 you will find that they were absolutly saved--

"but once they began to believe Philip as he preached the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, men and women alike were baptized. "

Misapplication! The "promise" was to Jews, their children, and all the jews in the dispersion. That had nothing to do with Gentiles.

I disagree-"for this promise is to you to your children and to all who are afar off-EVEN AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL"-doesn't mean just Jews-it means "even as many as the Lord our God shall call". It has everything to do with the gentiles-AND the Jewish believers. God is no respecter of persons-for in Christ we are neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free ect..

No, the jews are given it (I Corinthians 1:22; 14:22).

and also the rest of us-who will accept.



Jonny


Just pretty much a total disagreement with what you've posted.

And the gentiles-Acts 10. Yes, and for what purpose? The Jews (Peter) NEEDED to see that the VISION he just had was legit. When they began speaking in tongues, it was for PETER'S BENEFIT and those Jews with him (verse 45). There is no record of any other Gentile speaking in tongues AFTER THIS. None.
In regards to Acts 19, the disciples of John didn't know about Christ, that is, who he was, and what he did. They didn't. You misapplied, but I don't expect you to admit it.
In regards to Acts 2, you are wrong again. Acts 2 contains no message for any Gentile EVER. It is a national chapter who's message ends with Peter's beckoning for ISRAEL to repent of CRUCIFYING their MESSIAH!

Jonny

Yes, and for what purpose? The Jews (Peter) NEEDED to see that the VISION he just had was legit. When they began speaking in tongues, it was for PETER'S BENEFIT and those Jews with him (verse 45). There is no record of any other Gentile speaking in tongues AFTER THIS. None.
In regards to Acts 19, the disciples of John didn't know about Christ, that is, who he was, and what he did. They didn't. You misapplied, but I don't expect you to admit it.
In regards to Acts 2, you are wrong again. Acts 2 contains no message for any Gentile EVER. It is a national chapter who's message ends with Peter's beckoning for ISRAEL to repent of CRUCIFYING their MESSIAH!

Jonny

You have added to scripture = we are not baptised in the Spirit as a "sign to Peter"-

Do you believe that Paul would baptise unbelievers in water?

I believe all the Word is for all of us, so I'm certianly not going to agree that "Acts 2 contains no message for any gentile EVER."

It's amazing how when shown you are totally wrong and that scripture disagrees with you--that somehow you just decided that "those scriptures don't count"

You have added to scripture = we are not baptised in the Spirit as a "sign to Peter"- Again, you are falsly equating baptism in the spirit to speaking in tongues. Tongues are for a SIGN...(again) a SIGN( again) a SIGN to them that believe NOT! I Corinthians 1:22 says that Jews require a SIGN in order to believe ANYTHING! How else would Peter know that his vision was legite if they hadn't spoken in tongues? I haven't added to scripture- you just ignored it!


I believe all the Word is for all of us, so I'm certianly not going to agree that "Acts 2 contains no message for any gentile EVER." Have you went to mount Moriah and sacrificed a dove or a bullock, or an ox, or a lamb because you sinned? Have you been worshipping on Saturday? Have you been killing your son if he didn't obey you the second time? These all were jewish commandments. Acts 2 deals with Jews. Why entangle yourself in the mess and end up having to SAVE YOURSELF? (Acts 2:40)


It's amazing how when shown you are totally wrong and that scripture disagrees with you--that somehow you just decided that "those scriptures don't count"It's amazing how you totally misapplied scripture and blamed somebody else for rightly dividing it!

Jonny

If a true tongue speaker and my self a non tongue speaker got up in the morning and decided to talk to God. What would be the point of this? God knows all things. Does he listen to the Tongue speaker first before me? Is his prayer more important than mine?

Why speak where you have to have someone speak for you once you have spoken in tongues?

Does Billy Graham speak in tongues?

Did Jesus speak in tongues?

Is it a gift for the Apostles that is no longer needed?

Can a gifted speaker also heal?

If a true tongue speaker and my self a non tongue speaker got up in the morning and decided to talk to God. What would be the point of this? God knows all things. Does he listen to the Tongue speaker first before me? Is his prayer more important than mine?

God knows all things-this is correct-but I don't get the point of your question here-that doesn't mean that we don't pray does it-just because God knows what you are going to pray for? Prayer in tongues is prayer that surpasses our human spirit-that's all.

Why speak where you have to have someone speak for you once you have spoken in tongues?

Can you ask this question another way? I'm not sure I understand what your saying-are you talking about the Spiritual gift of tongues here-or are you talking about prayer in tongues?

Does Billy Graham speak in tongues?

I don't know-but that isn't a relative question anyway.

Did Jesus speak in tongues?

Jesus had perfect knowledge of the Father-He and the Father are One-there is no reason for Him to speak in tongues because He "knows as He is known" and when Jesus returns so will we, then tongues will cease.

Is it a gift for the Apostles that is no longer needed?

No

Can a gifted speaker also heal?
Jesus is the healer-not us-but if God so chooses He can use us in the gift of healing.



I'm sorry if I didn't answer your questions properly-perhaps you could rephrase them if you would please-for on some of them I don't get what your really asking.

The Bible is where we get the teaching that those who are baptised in the Spirit will speak in tongues as the Spirit enables them-Jew and Gentile-just like I've already shown through scripture.

I believe that the Words written to the Church-like ACTS-is for all of the church. The words written before the death and ressurection of Jesus are the "law" Jesus fulfilled the Law for believers. Jesus is the baptiser in the Spirit-and He called this baptism the "Promise of the Father"-and Peter said,
"for this promise is to you, to your children, and to all who are afar off-EVEN AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL."

I speak in tongues, just like every other believer who is baptised in the Spirit.

The Bible is where we get the teaching that those who are baptised in the Spirit will speak in tongues as the Spirit enables them-Jew and Gentile-just like I've already shown through scripture.

Except the tongues of the Holy Spirit can be understood by anyone who is listening because when the Spirit speaks it can be heard in the language of the hearer and needs not to be interpreted. Any other utterances from a person which cannot be understood is either meaningless babble or is simply a human language (example Latin) that the speaker knows but the listener does not.

What is very common these days is for a person to pretend to have the HS speak through them while they secretly ramble off mumbo jumbo. That doesn't mean there isn't a true Holy Tongue but what it does mean is a lot of people fake it and attribute their ramblings to that of the Spirit.

Except the tongues of the Holy Spirit can be understood by anyone who is listening because when the Spirit speaks it can be heard in the language of the hearer and needs not to be interpreted. Any other utterances from a person which cannot be understood is either meaningless babble or is simply a human language (example Latin) that the speaker knows but the listener does not.

What is very common these days is for a person to pretend to have the HS speak through them while they secretly ramble off mumbo jumbo. That doesn't mean there isn't a true Holy Tongue but what it does mean is a lot of people fake it and attribute their ramblings to that of the Spirit.

Your post isn't at all Biblical. The ONLY time we are told that those around them understood the language being spoken is on the Day of Pentecost when the Spirit was for the first time-poured out upon the church--but The Word also says that "he who speaks in a tongue-does not speak to man-but to God-Indeed no one understands for he speaks mysteries in his spirit." Now, just by that verse alone we can see that you have not got your teaching from the Word of God-because the Word doesn't agree with what your saying.

You have the right to say-these things are "meaningless babble" but to those of us who know better-it just sounds like sour grapes. Actually, talking like you have about the gifts of God? What purpose does that serve?

Your post isn't at all Biblical.


Sure it is.



The Word says that "he who speaks in a tongue-does not speak to man-but to God-Indeed no one understands for he speaks mysteries in his spirit." Now, just by that verse alone we can see that you have not got your teaching from the Word of God-because the Word doesn't agree with what your saying.

Context, context, context!!!


1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
1 Corinthians 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

What is being said here is that speaking in an unknown tongue, which is a foreign language today, means that you are only talking to God UNLESS you also translate what you are saying. This has nothing at all to do with the Holy Tongues or made up babble.






You have the right to say-these things are "meaningless babble" but to those of us who know better-it just sounds like sour grapes. Actually, talking like you have about the gifts of God? What purpose does that serve?

It serves the ego and self edification which is a sin.

Naphal,

I'm going to take a different route in this discussion: they say that the man with an experience is never at the mercy of the man with an argument. You can see in Scripture whatever you want to see, and I will respect that. You can look at Acts 2 and see the foreign languages, look at 1 Corinthians 14 and say that it shows we shouldn't be speaking gibberish (obviously not the only interpretation of the verses in question) and that is fine if that is what you choose to believe.

But you know what? I've experienced it. I have been speaking in tongues ever since that night in 1987 when I asked God to give me the gift of speaking in tongues. I know it is from God, since speaking in tongues brings God's presence like nothing else does when I do it. I know the Spirit prays through me when I speak in tongues. So use your arguments and throw them out there - the man with an experience is never at the mercy of the man with an argument.

Unless I am under the influence of some demonic spirit, but I suppose the fruit should be able to tell that tale.

You know, when God does something supernatural in the Bible, it usually requires our cooperation. Look at 2 Chronicles 20, for instance. Jehoshaphat is told that this battle is not his but the Lord's. At the same time, he is told to go up against his enemies. As he goes up against his enemies, God confuses them and they are defeated. For the miracle to happen, Jehoshaphat needed to step out in faith. In the New Testament, Jesus often asks people to 'take up their mat and walk', 'stretch out their hand', 'get up', or 'show yourself to the priest'. In almost every instance, it requires an action on the part of the one receiving the miracle.

What am I trying to say? We cannot sit back and expect God to pour out the supernatural upon us. His Church has done that for far too long, which is one of the reasons we're in the state we're in right now. God is asking us to take action, to do something with what He has placed in our hands so that He can bless it, break it, multiply it, and give it out.

You want to speak in tongues? Pray, yes, but also step out in faith. Take up your mouth and speak. Trust me, God will do the rest.

Naphal,

I'm going to take a different route in this discussion: they say that the man with an experience is never at the mercy of the man with an argument. You can see in Scripture whatever you want to see, and I will respect that. You can look at Acts 2 and see the foreign languages, look at 1 Corinthians 14 and say that it shows we shouldn't be speaking gibberish (obviously not the only interpretation of the verses in question) and that is fine if that is what you choose to believe.

But you know what? I've experienced it. I have been speaking in tongues ever since that night in 1987 when I asked God to give me the gift of speaking in tongues. I know it is from God, since speaking in tongues brings God's presence like nothing else does when I do it. I know the Spirit prays through me when I speak in tongues. So use your arguments and throw them out there - the man with an experience is never at the mercy of the man with an argument.

Unless I am under the influence of some demonic spirit, but I suppose the fruit should be able to tell that tale.

You know, when God does something supernatural in the Bible, it usually requires our cooperation. Look at 2 Chronicles 20, for instance. Jehoshaphat is told that this battle is not his but the Lord's. At the same time, he is told to go up against his enemies. As he goes up against his enemies, God confuses them and they are defeated. For the miracle to happen, Jehoshaphat needed to step out in faith. In the New Testament, Jesus often asks people to 'take up their mat and walk', 'stretch out their hand', 'get up', or 'show yourself to the priest'. In almost every instance, it requires an action on the part of the one receiving the miracle.

What am I trying to say? We cannot sit back and expect God to pour out the supernatural upon us. His Church has done that for far too long, which is one of the reasons we're in the state we're in right now. God is asking us to take action, to do something with what He has placed in our hands so that He can bless it, break it, multiply it, and give it out.



Personal experience can never be debated because it cannot be proven wrong and it cannot be proven right. You obviously know rather than believe it is of God and I will not debate that. I will only debate what the scriptures describe and leave it to anyone else to decide for themselves.



You want to speak in tongues? Pray, yes, but also step out in faith. Take up your mouth and speak. Trust me, God will do the rest.


Actually I speak in tongues everyday. I am thankful that I am able and pray that God uses me as he sees fit. However, I would never speak before those that cannot understand me because that is self edification and I refuse to do that.

I really wanted to get a good handle on what other Christians on this Forum had to say about tongues, so I read through all the post here before adding my thoughts.
First I will say I have been saved now for almost 29 years, (saved at 40 and am almost 69) and I have never spoken in tongues per say. Unless you call singing “in ex-cel-sis De-o” as speaking in tongues.:D Which might be Latin, I don't know.:) But the fact is when I was saved I received the Holy Spirit because I know that it is His Spirit that witnesses to my spirit that all these things are true, (God's Word). I didn't need to speak in tongues to show me this. Not my experience but my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ did this.
Let me say something about “Spiritual Gifts”. While it is true that gifts are distributed by the Spirit as He wishes, it is also true that we can ask for gifts that will be of greatest value in the local fellowship. That is why Paul suggests that the gift of prophecy is eminently desirable. he goes on to explain in 1 Cor. 14 why prophecy, for instance, is of greater benefit than tongues.
Now he who speaks in a tongue without interpretation is not speaking for the benefit of the congregation. God understands what he is saying but the people don't because it is a foreign language to them. He might be setting forth marvelous truths, hitherto unknown, but it does no good because it is all unintelligible.
But now to the one who prophesies, on the other hand, builds people up, encourages them, and comforts them. The reason for this is that he is speaking in the language of the people; that is what makes the difference. When Paul says that the prophet builds up, stirs up, and binds up, he is not giving a definition. he is simply saying that these results follow when the message is given in a language the people know.
Because I do not speak in tongues, I believe I can say this with clarity that I would rather have the gift of prophesies rather that that of tongues.
With that said, I will also say that I do not restrict God by saying that others do not have the gift of tongues, but I will say there might be those Christians who are being led to believe you must speak in tongues as a sign that you are saved. This I will say is just not true. I am living proof that one can be saved without having the gift of tongues.
May we use the gift God has given us and not worry about the ones He did not give us.

I find it interesting that "tongues" is often a prelude to Gods judgement, upon a nation.

It is a sign that a people are off track and the hammer of God is about to come and squish them.

This occured in Israel:

Isa 28:11

For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

This occured in Judiah:

1 cor 14

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

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.

This also can be a sign to the USA of incoming judgement of God.

With all these "tongues" occuring both in the fact we are losing our language, and those in the church are seeking to learn this talent of speaking in some emotional "tongue".

I personally see this as a grave warning that God is growing displeased with the fruit the Branch Called the USA is produceing; and its about to get clipped off.

Now he who speaks in a tongue without interpretation is not speaking for the benefit of the congregation. God understands what he is saying but the people don't because it is a foreign language to them. He might be setting forth marvelous truths, hitherto unknown, but it does no good because it is all unintelligible.


Someone who would speak openly in a church in a language no one other than God understands is doing no one any good. Someone who is speaking what they think and believe is a "magical, miraculous, mysterious "tongue" " of random sounds and utterances is deceiving themselves and others IMO :)

If I had to choose between the two I'd choose the first hands down.

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

But "stammering" lips here is not a validation of the gibberish and "stammering tongue" found in many of today's churches.

3934
03934 la`eg {law-ayg'}
from 03932; TWOT - 1118b; adj
AV - mocker 1, stammering 1; 2
1) mocking
1a) mocker (noun cstr)


This merely means mocking although some might say this type of gibberish mocks God rather than the listeners as should be the recipients of the mocking according to the verse in question.

Here's a small side track to this:

I have several friends that are Pentacostal and unquestioningly accept speaking in tongues as a spiritual gift (in fact, I acknowledge that it is also....just disagree on the manifestation of it).

Discernment is also a spiritual gift. These same friends that unquestioningly accept speaking in tongues will turn their back on someone who, through the gift of discernment, tries to warn them about some high-profile "Christians".

I can think of several, who I will not specifically name, that have been mentioned by MANY MANY Christians with the SPIRITUAL gift of discernment, yet they are ignored.

So my challenge would be this: as readily and emphatically as you embrace the gift of tongues, you should pray about the willingness to accept the gift of discernment, as given to others. Perhaps there is a reason so many feel foreboding about these people.

It is the gift of discerning of spirits and this gift reveals which spirit is at work, HolySpirit, human spirit or evil spirit. To recieve any more detail than that would no longer be the gift of discerning of spirits but would be the gift of word of knowledge at work.I agree, we certainly need this gift operating within the body of Christ as we need all of them.
Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Concerning the gifts of the Spirit, where there is restraint, well you can figure the rest out.

I really wanted to get a good handle on what other Christians on this Forum had to say about tongues, so I read through all the post here before adding my thoughts.
First I will say I have been saved now for almost 29 years, (saved at 40 and am almost 69) and I have never spoken in tongues per say. Unless you call singing “in ex-cel-sis De-o” as speaking in tongues.:D Which might be Latin, I don't know.:) But the fact is when I was saved I received the Holy Spirit because I know that it is His Spirit that witnesses to my spirit that all these things are true, (God's Word). I didn't need to speak in tongues to show me this. Not my experience but my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ did this.
Let me say something about “Spiritual Gifts”. While it is true that gifts are distributed by the Spirit as He wishes, it is also true that we can ask for gifts that will be of greatest value in the local fellowship. That is why Paul suggests that the gift of prophecy is eminently desirable. he goes on to explain in 1 Cor. 14 why prophecy, for instance, is of greater benefit than tongues.
Now he who speaks in a tongue without interpretation is not speaking for the benefit of the congregation. God understands what he is saying but the people don't because it is a foreign language to them. He might be setting forth marvelous truths, hitherto unknown, but it does no good because it is all unintelligible.
But now to the one who prophesies, on the other hand, builds people up, encourages them, and comforts them. The reason for this is that he is speaking in the language of the people; that is what makes the difference. When Paul says that the prophet builds up, stirs up, and binds up, he is not giving a definition. he is simply saying that these results follow when the message is given in a language the people know.
Because I do not speak in tongues, I believe I can say this with clarity that I would rather have the gift of prophesies rather that that of tongues.
With that said, I will also say that I do not restrict God by saying that others do not have the gift of tongues, but I will say there might be those Christians who are being led to believe you must speak in tongues as a sign that you are saved. This I will say is just not true. I am living proof that one can be saved without having the gift of tongues.
May we use the gift God has given us and not worry about the ones He did not give us.
Great Post Irv, I would like to add a little thought concerning tongues.
1Corinthians 14:2-4
2 For if your gift is the ability to speak in tongues,* you will be talking to God but not to people, since they won’t be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious. 3 But one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting them. 4 A person who speaks in tongues is strengthened personally in the Lord, but one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.

Jude 20
But you, beloved building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit

This very important also, Sometimes in our walk with Christ we find ourselves all alone with the Lord. Sometimes in great trials and times of testing and we become discouraged.

1Samuel 30:6
6 And David was greatly distressed; for the people spake of stoning him, because the soul of all the people was grieved, every man for his sons and for his daughters: but David encouraged himself in the Lord his God.

Please don't think I'm saying that David prayed in tongues, but he encouraged himself in the Lord. We, under the new covenant now have the enabling power of HolySpirit to help us in everything concerning our walk with Christ. The gift of tongues is a very effective way to encourage yourself and build yourself up in the Lord especially when you are without the comfort of a brother or sister. I pray in tongues (Spirit) daily 1-2 hours, sometimes more. But I believe that one's greatest ministry is ministering directly to the Lord, not others. Yes, the gift of prophecy is better for the group but tongues is better for the individual. How can I encourage someone if I am not encouraged myself?

I know there are many on this board alone that are against what I just said. I am not offended by that but it does sadden me some. Because of your mindset you have only limited yourself, I will continue to pray and speak in tongues , encouraging and building myself up in the Lord until I leave here( don't know what I'll be doing after that:) ) no matter what others think.

1Corinthians 14:39
39 So, dear brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and don’t forbid speaking in tongues.

Again, I will say great post jiggyfly,
I would never put anyone down for speaking in tongues, as long as it is done as you explained. Just because I don't have this gift, I do find that when I pray, there are times I am moved in the Spirit, and cannot even speak. I find myself groaning and lifting my heart up to God. Praise God He knows my every thought and intent of my heart. That is the beauty of knowing the Lord hears us even when we don't speak anything.
Again, nice post.

Naphal



"But "stammering" lips here is not a validation of the gibberish and "stammering tongue" found in many of today's churches."



Isa 28:11 Indeed, He will speak to this people Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue,

Not a validation;
In Isa 28:11 The "tongue" wasnt the gift of the spirit; rather it is the language of the invading army.

It seems there is a focus on another language or tongue before a fall of a nation.

1 cor 14:22

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.

Many churches today take a sign, to those Jews who did disbelieve; of warning and of doom.

They then direct this warning towards the "believers" as a sign of the spirit;

Which is misuse of the purpose of tongues and for sure is not the spiritual gift of tongues.

We are not to look for signs; and tongues is defined as a sign. {1 cor 14:22}


We are to live by faith, Therefore we are not to look for the SIGN of tongues.


2 Corinthians 5:7 ( For we walk by faith, not by sight: )

When we fail to live by faith thru the looking for signs; this shows the rebellion of our hearts toward the truth.

Matt 12

39But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;

Once again tongues is DEFINED IN SCRIPTURE as a SIGN.


1 cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign

To seek this sign is out of line with faith {2 Corinthians 5:7}; and is a witness as to the human viewpoint with in many churches.

being born again is an act of faith. yes, we believe and confess even though we do not see Christ physically. the same goes for speaking in tongues etc.
speaking in tongues is a sign of holy spirit baptism while divers tongues like we have in the acts of the apostles is the supernatural endowment to utter other languages which are not learnt by or known to the speaker. the word tongue is better interpreted as languages as a christian is able to receive a word or message from God and pass to the people in a language he has not learnt.

the recipient may know or understand the language and at other times require interpretation. it is not the same as the experience of speaking in tongues. in either case the utterances are divine; they are not the products of human thoughts or reasoning. the holy spirit gives the utterances and interpretation.

the bible says "who can know the mind of a man except the spirit of the man that lives within him"; who also can know the mind of God except the spirit of God? that is why at new birth, we receive the spirit of God who scripture says helps our infirmities when we do not know what to pray. (romans 8: 26-27)

it does not matter that the words are incomprehensible because it is your spirit connecting to the spirit of God. (1 cor. 14:14)
the bible says to covet the best gifts. i enjoin you to please read 1 cor. chps 12 and 14 and i pray God will give you more underdstanding and open your heart to see why you should seek it.

shalom!

jmk



being born again is an act of faith.


Act of God rather.


John 1:13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.



yes, we believe and confess even though we do not see Christ physically. the same goes for speaking in tongues etc.


Not sure how you are tieing tongues into Christ???




speaking in tongues is a sign of holy spirit baptism


Umm no;

We are not to live by any sort of sign.

We are told;

Matt 12


39But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;


So if we craves signs it is a warning that we are inhuman viewpoint and not focused on Christ.

We are to live by faith.


Hebrews 10:38 - Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.



while divers tongues like we have in the acts of the apostles is the supernatural endowment to utter other languages which are not learnt by or known to the speaker. the word tongue is better interpreted as languages as a christian is able to receive a word or message from God and pass to the people in a language he has not learnt.

the recipient may know or understand the language and at other times require interpretation. it is not the same as the experience of speaking in tongues. in either case the utterances are divine; they are not the products of human thoughts or reasoning. the holy spirit gives the utterances and interpretation.


Is tongues like a possession?




the bible says "who can know the mind of a man except the spirit of the man that lives within him"; who also can know the mind of God except the spirit of God? that is why at new birth, we receive the spirit of God who scripture says helps our infirmities when we do not know what to pray. (romans 8: 26-27)


Not quite seeing how you are using tongues into that.



it does not matter that the words are incomprehensible because it is your spirit connecting to the spirit of God. (1 cor. 14:14)
the bible says to covet the best gifts. i enjoin you to please read 1 cor. chps 12 and 14 and i pray God will give you more underdstanding and open your heart to see why you should seek it.

shalom!


This is not a use of tongues;

We connect to the mind of Christ thru doctrine; not thru tongues.

1 Corinthians 2:16
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

As you stated tongues was a sign.


1 cor 14

21In 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.

22Wherefore 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.


The bible states it is a sign to the unbelieving Hebrew.
The bible states it is NOT a sign to those who believe.

I think perhaps your focus is wrong.

Great Post Irv, I would like to add a little thought concerning tongues.
1Corinthians 14:2-4
2 For if your gift is the ability to speak in tongues,* you will be talking to God but not to people, since they won’t be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious. 3 But one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting them. 4 A person who speaks in tongues is strengthened personally in the Lord, but one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.

Jude 20
But you, beloved building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit

This very important also, Sometimes in our walk with Christ we find ourselves all alone with the Lord. Sometimes in great trials and times of testing and we become discouraged.

1Samuel 30:6
6 And David was greatly distressed; for the people spake of stoning him, because the soul of all the people was grieved, every man for his sons and for his daughters: but David encouraged himself in the Lord his God.

Please don't think I'm saying that David prayed in tongues, but he encouraged himself in the Lord. We, under the new covenant now have the enabling power of HolySpirit to help us in everything concerning our walk with Christ. The gift of tongues is a very effective way to encourage yourself and build yourself up in the Lord especially when you are without the comfort of a brother or sister. I pray in tongues (Spirit) daily 1-2 hours, sometimes more. But I believe that one's greatest ministry is ministering directly to the Lord, not others. Yes, the gift of prophecy is better for the group but tongues is better for the individual. How can I encourage someone if I am not encouraged myself?

I know there are many on this board alone that are against what I just said. I am not offended by that but it does sadden me some. Because of your mindset you have only limited yourself, I will continue to pray and speak in tongues , encouraging and building myself up in the Lord until I leave here( don't know what I'll be doing after that:) ) no matter what others think.

1Corinthians 14:39
39 So, dear brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and don’t forbid speaking in tongues.
__________________
Jesus is Lord and there's nothing you can do about it!!!

For as many as are led by doctrines, these are the sons of religious men. 1Jiggyfly 1:2

find it interesting that "tongues" is often a prelude to Gods judgement, upon a nation.

It is a sign that a people are off track and the hammer of God is about to come and squish them.




Did the hammer of God come and squish the apostle Paul for speaking tongues?

Did the hammer of God come and squish the apostle Paul for speaking tongues?

Paul spoke tongues as in various human languages such as Greek and Hebrew not babble and confusion. One must understand what a tongue is and what tongues are human tongues and what the holy cloven tongues is as well as recognizing the false, faked, sometimes evil tongues that are passed off as holy.

Paul spoke tongues as in various human languages such as Greek and Hebrew not babble and confusion. One must understand what a tongue is and what tongues are human tongues and what the holy cloven tongues is as well as recognizing the false, faked, sometimes evil tongues that are passed off as holy.

Interesting. Who is going to decide this for us all?

Interesting. Who is going to decide this for us all?

I would say "decided" and that would be God. Do you disagree with what I said? Do you disagree that there are these different kinds of tongues?

Oh, no absolutely not! I definitely agree that a person can speak in tongues, which can be a variety of human languages or an actual heavenly language. And then there are indeed false tongues. I was just wondering what you meant by babble and confusion - terms commonly used to refer to the tongues spoken by many Pentecostals around the world.

My Pastor (Jim McClarty) gave what I think is a perfect Biblical answer concerning tongues. Judge for yourselves, if you will...


Speaking In Tongues

Q -
I have a question for you. I have been tempted to visit this fairly large (actually huge) Church of God. I bet there at least 1,000 or 2,000 (if not more) members - which I think is too large, people get lost in the crowd. In any event, my problem with the Church of God is the speaking in tongues thing. What are your thoughts on the subject? I'm sure you must have addressed this at some point. Any guidance or thoughts? I would like to know your perspective on this.

Jim -
So, speaking in tongues, eh? I do have an opinion (as you might expect). I've been asked about it frequently because there's plenty of confusion out there. But, there doesn't need to be.

The Greek word that is translated "tongues" is "glossa" - from which we get the English word "glossary." It should have been translated "language," but during the days of King James (1611) the word "tongue" was synonymous with "language." For instance, we still talk about people who speak a "foreign tongue." And, that's the way the word is used in the Bible. It means, "spoken language."

Now, the first place where the phenomenon of men speaking in languages they didn't naturally speak was on the day of Pentecost, at the inception of the Church. Peter stood up to speak, but his audience was filled with Jews from all over the middle Asia area, who spoke a variety of languages and dialects.



What should be instantly obvious from that passage was that the apostles spoke actual foreign languages in order that the multitude could all understand. That's what "tongues" was all about and what the purpose was. Without the methods and means of mass communication that we have available today, every area developed languages and dialects unique to themselves. But, when the time came for the Gospel of Christ to be spread abroad, the message was carried by fishermen, tax collectors, zealots and the like who spoke Greek and some Aramaic.



So, God miraculously caused the Apostles to speak languages that were unknown to them and caused the listeners to hear in their own language. And, the gospel of grace spread. But again, it's obvious that the "tongues" spoken by the Apostles were known, definable languages, not babble or gibberish.

As Paul journeyed through his ministry, he encountered many languages and preached nonetheless. As the Church grew, the gifts of the Spirit spread in order to promote the message of grace. But, some began to abuse the gifts and Paul had to correct them -



Paul went on to instruct the Corinthian church that tongues were not to be exercised in the church meetings. The gift of tongues was a method for preaching and evangelizing among the lost. But, the church was to gather for the purpose of reading, studying, preaching and exhorting through the Word.



So, Paul was quite clear that speaking with tongues - other known, spoken, extant languages of the day - was for a sign to unbelievers and not something to be exhibited in the church. In the church, preaching and teaching are the priority.

Now, when most people think of "speaking in tongues" they mean the sort of ecstatic utterances that we see on TBN or in Assembly of God churches. The people who exercise that sort of activity call themselves "Pentecostal" to connect themselves with the gifts that appeared at the first Pentecost. Or, they are known as "Charismatic" from the Greek word for gifts of the Spirit - "charis." That word is also translated "grace" in many passages.

There is no evidence in Scripture that any of the apostles or early church members ever broke into fits of uncontrolled verbiage and noises. When the Spirit spoke through the Apostles, it spoke a language known by the hearers for the purpose of advancing the gospel message.

The primary verse that the proponents of ecstatic utterance use is from 1 Corinthians 13:1. It's the beginning of Paul's great treatise on love and charity. From the context it's clear that Paul is speaking in hyperbole, overstating his case, in order to prove that charitable love is the greatest Christian virtue. It reads -



Obviously, Paul was saying that even if he had every spiritual gift to the maximum but failed in charity, it was all pointless. But, at the top of his list he used the term "the tongues...of angels." And, that did it. People have grabbed hold of that phrase and claim that their verbal recitations of noises and unknown, unrecognizable words are "the tongues of angels." But, any honest reader of Paul's words can see that Paul was not promoting the idea that angelic languages were suddenly available to mankind. He was saying that even if he spoke every language known among men and angels - a clear case of hyperbole - without Christian charity the sounds he made would sound like horns and cymbals.

Lastly, there's considerable debate in the church-at-large about whether the gifts of the Spirit that are in evidence in the New Testament are available to us today. But, since we haven't seen any people raised from the dead, blind eyes opened, or lepers completely healed, I think it's hard to make the favorable case. Likewise, the ability to speak fluently in languages you've never studied was a necessary gift to get the Church of the ground and begin spreading the Good News. But, there is practically no language or corner of the known world where the message has not been spread. And, Bibles are printed daily in new languages and dialects. So, the necessity of "speaking in tongues" has waned.

Now, can God make men speak other languages if He wants to? Sure. But, it's up to Him. Even at Pentecost, the Apostles were not going through the gyrations and techniques advocated by modern Pentecostals in order to stimulate tongue-talking. In fact, they weren't expecting it at all. God simply spoke through them by His Spirit and they spoke languages that were unknown to them, but known to their listeners. And, they all glorified God as a result.

As far large churches uniting around tongue-talking, it does happen. Nothing unites people faster than a common experience. Like veterans getting together years after a war, they have a lasting bond because of the experience they shared. So, in order to build large congregations, many Pentecostal denominations insist that the only proof of the Spirit being in you - proof positive of your salvation - is that you talk in tongues. To be fair, many of them have backed off that position, seeing that it's unscriptural, but there is still an undue emphasis on tongues in those churches.

There's more to say, and Paul instructed the Corinthian church about how to keep from letting tongue-talking get out of control in their meetings, but I think this is a fair overview. As for me, I'm just a stickler for the Word and I try to adjust our theology and our worship accordingly.

Hope it helps.

Yours for His sake,
Jim

Link (http://www.salvationbygrace.org/uc/sub/qaprint.aspx?qa=16&local=1b)


AMEN BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This entire thread looks like one big copy and paste.

It's the never-ending I'm Henry the 8th I Am . . .

SECOND VERSE . . . SAME AS THE FIRST!!!:lol: :B

This entire thread looks like one big copy and paste.

It's the never-ending I'm Henry the 8th I Am . . .

SECOND VERSE . . . SAME AS THE FIRST!!!:lol: :B
You'll notice that experienced posters, such as myself, will post once or twice at the beginning then walk away and wait for the thread to get so long that only the die-hards who will sustain a line of thought will keep coming back. Get another 70 posts on this thing, and it'll almost be worth reading...

cwb



Did the hammer of God come and squish the apostle Paul for speaking tongues?


http://palestinefacts.org/images/jerusalem_destruction_70ad.jpg

70 ad;

The hammer came down on the jews.

Which is who the tongues was a sign to.


1 cor 14 21In 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.

22Wherefore 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.

This entire thread looks like one big copy and paste.

It's the never-ending I'm Henry the 8th I Am . . .

SECOND VERSE . . . SAME AS THE FIRST!!!:lol: :B
You can say ( or sing)that again!:lol: It's about like the eXternal security threads. Almost makes the tattoo threads inviting.:lol:

cwb



http://palestinefacts.org/images/jerusalem_destruction_70ad.jpg

70 ad;

The hammer came down on the jews.

Which is who the tongues was a sign to.


1 cor 14 21In 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.

22Wherefore 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.
What does that have to do with the apostle paul speaking in tongues and seeing it as a very important thing to do in his personal life. If the apostle Paul did not see it as an important thing to do in his personal life, why would he have done it?

Oh, no absolutely not! I definitely agree that a person can speak in tongues, which can be a variety of human languages or an actual heavenly language. And then there are indeed false tongues.


Ok, that's a good start!


I was just wondering what you meant by babble and confusion - terms commonly used to refer to the tongues spoken by many Pentecostals around the world.

While I believe in the true heavenly tongues, I do not believe they ever need interpretation because the miracle is that the hearer can understand it no matter what tongues they speak and understand. Any other tongue is either a human language that the listener simply never learned yet or is the false "babble" tongue of nonsense and it is that tongue that is found in a lot of churches today.

Ok, that's a good start!



While I believe in the true heavenly tongues, I do not believe they ever need interpretation because the miracle is that the hearer can understand it no matter what tongues they speak and understand. Any other tongue is either a human language that the listener simply never learned yet or is the false "babble" tongue of nonsense and it is that tongue that is found in a lot of churches today.


Again, we must go by the scriptures in this matter-tongues, when done aloud in the church-must be interpreted-so-no, the average hearer does NOT understand. The only time we are told those hearing understood what was being said is in the first instance of tongues in the book of Acts.

He who speaks in a tongue does NOT speak to man but to God--INDEED NO ONE understands.

Any other tongue is either a human language that the listener simply never learned yet or is the false "babble" tongue of nonsense and it is that tongue that is found in a lot of churches today.

You know, I don't agree with a lot of what goes on in many churches today, and I agree that many people who say they are operating in the gift of tongues really are not. However, must we sit here and get a nasty and derogatory attitude about stuff and use unnecessary comments such as "babble" and the like? Can we not just simply make our point and move on without the need to talk down to or insult someone else's belief? If you don't believe in it . . . fine. But we can approach this issue with respect.

What does that have to do with the apostle paul speaking in tongues and seeing it as a very important thing to do in his personal life. If the apostle Paul did not see it as an important thing to do in his personal life, why would he have done it?

Paul is talking about speaking in foreign languages not in some mysterious, supposedly holy tongues of the Holy Spirit.

cwb



What does that have to do with the apostle paul speaking in tongues and seeing it as a very important thing to do in his personal life. If the apostle Paul did not see it as an important thing to do in his personal life, why would he have done it?
As a sign to the jews.

Like he wrote in 1 cor 14:21-22

cwb

As a sign to the jews.

Like he wrote in 1 cor 14:21-22

How could it be a sign when he was not doing it in church but in private. I agree when Paul did it in church and an interpretation was given, it was for a sign. However it seems pretty clear Paul also spoke in tongues alot in private.

I cor 14:18

I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.

Paul is talking about speaking in foreign languages not in some mysterious, supposedly holy tongues of the Holy Spirit.

Paul himself clearly did not understand the language he spoke in when he spoke in tongues or when he prayed in tongues.

I cor. 14:14
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Paul himself clearly did not understand the language he spoke in when he spoke in tongues or when he prayed in tongues.

I cor. 14:14
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.


Untrue.


1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
1 Corinthians 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
1 Corinthians 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
1 Corinthians 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
1 Corinthians 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
1 Corinthians 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
1 Corinthians 14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
1 Corinthians 14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
1 Corinthians 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
1 Corinthians 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.


Paul is not saying he cannot understand the tongues he speaks but showing how wrong it is to speak in tongues that no one including the speaker understands and yet here we have so many today doing exactly as Paul spoke against.

cwb



How could it be a sign when he was not doing it in church but in private. I agree when Paul did it in church and an interpretation was given, it was for a sign. However it seems pretty clear Paul also spoke in tongues alot in private.



Ok lets get real.

Its was sign because frankly Paul said it was.

1 cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign,....

cwb



Ok lets get real.

Its was sign because frankly Paul said it was.

1 cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign,....

???????????????????

Yes it was a sign when he did it in church. When he did it in his personal life, it could not be a sign as nobody saw it of heard it. Hey let's get real. I'l be happy to discuss this with you. However, no insults please.

Untrue.


1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
1 Corinthians 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
1 Corinthians 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
1 Corinthians 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
1 Corinthians 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
1 Corinthians 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
1 Corinthians 14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
1 Corinthians 14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
1 Corinthians 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
1 Corinthians 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.


Paul is not saying he cannot understand the tongues he speaks but showing how wrong it is to speak in tongues that no one including the speaker understands and yet here we have so many today doing exactly as Paul spoke against.

Not sure how you can say Paul understood what he spoke in tongues when he says his understanding is unfruitful when he speaks in tongues. Look at verse 13. Why pray to interpret something you already understand?

cwb



Yes it was a sign when he did it in church. When he did it in his personal life, it could not be a sign as nobody saw it of heard it. Hey let's get real. I'l be happy to discuss this with you. However, no insults please.
It is a sign period;

A sign to who; the unbeliever Jews.

Paul didnt say when used in the church it is a sign.

When the sign has been seen; its warning shown; there is no more need for a sign.
Thus why they ended.

Tounges = Sign



Tongues ceased; and Paul was very clear that they would before he went into them.

1 cor 13:8
8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Tongues thru their use brought about their own end;
As they was used they was shown as a sign.
When the sign was seen its need came to a end; they was a sign of judgmeent; that which occured in 70 ad.

The tongues of today are a counterfit; brought on by skill or emotion.



We are to live by faith; not any thing of signs or counterfits of a sign.

cwb

It is a sign period;

A sign to who; the unbeliever Jews.

Paul didnt say when used in the church it is a sign.

When the sign has been seen; its warning shown; there is no more need for a sign.
Thus why they ended.

Tounges = Sign



Tongues ceased; and Paul was very clear that they would before he went into them.

1 cor 13:8
8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Tongues thru their use brought about their own end;
As they was used they was shown as a sign.
When the sign was seen its need came to a end; they was a sign of judgmeent; that which occured in 70 ad.

The tongues of today are a counterfit; brought on by skill or emotion.



We are to live by faith; not any thing of signs or counterfits of a sign.

Tongues have not ceased. That which is perfect has not come yet. Jesus Christ has not already returned.

I will discuss this matter with anybody who wants to in a respectful manner. Centurionoflight, since it appears you have no intention of being respectful, I will have to discontinue any further discussion with you on this matter.

Not sure how you can say Paul understood what he spoke in tongues when he says his understanding is unfruitful when he speaks in tongues. Look at verse 13. Why pray to interpret something you already understand?

You're misunderstanding what he is saying. He is giving an example by using himself, not that he literally cannot understand the own words he speaks.

When he says "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself" he is not saying this is a good thing. Read verse 7, anything that makes sounds that are incoherent is not a good thing. Paul is speaking against things such as the "tongues" that is common in some churches.

cwb



Tongues have not ceased. That which is perfect has not come yet. Jesus Christ has not already returned.
The maturing {of Knowledge and prophecy} has come; it is in that bible you hold.

1 Corinthians 13
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part;

10 but when that which is {teleios: wanting nothing necessary to completeness} is come, that which is in part shall be done away.
The address of the complete it directed to that which is partial; plus its is no gender; thus it is not refering to Christ.

Also another thing;

TONGUES ceased before the completed knowledge and doctrine occured.

As Stated;
Tongues will cease; Thru their use.
Tongues worked against it self to bring about its own end; IN ALL FORMS.

This is why Paul stated in that time; not to forbid it.

The tongues of today are a counterfit; brought on by skill or emotion.



We are to live by faith; not any thing of signs or counterfits of a sign.

Amen. I agree fully.

Untrue.


1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
1 Corinthians 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
1 Corinthians 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
1 Corinthians 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
1 Corinthians 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
1 Corinthians 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
1 Corinthians 14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
1 Corinthians 14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
1 Corinthians 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
1 Corinthians 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.


Paul is not saying he cannot understand the tongues he speaks but showing how wrong it is to speak in tongues that no one including the speaker understands and yet here we have so many today doing exactly as Paul spoke against.


Your statement is totally untrue. Paul did not say that at all. Paul said, that he "thanked God that he spoke in tongues more than any of them"--so how can you come to the conclusion that he was saying it was wrong? Your own bias is getting in the way of clear scripture. YET in the church tongues should not be done without the companion gift of interpretation. (so that the church can be edified-not just the speaker of tongues) Why is that so hard for some of you to understaND. Tongues as private prayer are just that --PRIVATE-and for the EDIFICATION (bulding up) of our faith. To turn it around and somehow come to the conclusion that edification of our faith is wrong shows how misinformed you are.

Build yourselves up in your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit.--my goodness, sounds like it's something he WANTS us to do.

The "Bible" is not what the Word is speaking of when it says, "that which is perfect"-not until we "know as we are known" will the Spiritual gifts (including tongues) pass away. Now, we see through a glass dimly-but when His kingdom comes we will no longer need the gifts and people like you will not have to cut out the parts of the Bible that they don't agree with.

You're misunderstanding what he is saying. He is giving an example by using himself, not that he literally cannot understand the own words he speaks.

When he says "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself" he is not saying this is a good thing. Read verse 7, anything that makes sounds that are incoherent is not a good thing. Paul is speaking against things such as the "tongues" that is common in some churches.

he was not speaking against tongues. He said to not forbid tongues in I cor 14:39. God's word has not changed. He is not giving an example when he says he spoke in tongues in private more than the whole Corithian church

I cor 4:18
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

I cor 14:13,14
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

He is giving no indication at all here that he is speaking figuratively when he says his understanding is unfruitful. What he is saying is not to do it in church or publickly if it is not interpreted. I know there are some churches where speaking in tongues is out loud with no interpretation. This is wrong. Just as those who forbid all together speaking in tongues are in error.

Again, when I read this it seems pretty clear to me that speaking in tongues was important to the apotle Paul in his private prayer life. Important enough for him to do it more than the whole Corinthian church put together. He just did not do it publicly unless there was an interpretation.

Your statement is totally untrue. Paul did not say that at all. Paul said, that he "thanked God that he spoke in tongues more than any of them"--so how can you come to the conclusion that he was saying it was wrong?


Because if you read what he talks about he is talking against any tongue that the speaker cannot understand. Sure Paul spoke in tongues, but that's just languages like we are talking now. I speak in two tongues, English and German. Paul says speaking in languages is a good thing as long as you speak the same language as the people you are talking to!



Your own bias is getting in the way of clear scripture. YET in the church tongues should not be done without the companion gift of interpretation. (so that the church can be edified-not just the speaker of tongues) Why is that so hard for some of you to understaND. Tongues as private prayer are just that --PRIVATE-and for the EDIFICATION (bulding up) of our faith. To turn it around and somehow come to the conclusion that edification of our faith is wrong shows how misinformed you are.

Well, you really don't understand what you're talking about so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

he was not speaking against tongues. He said to not forbid tongues in I cor 14:39. God's word has not changed. He is not giving an example when he says he spoke in tongues in private more than the whole Corithian church

He's talking about speaking in languages! Not some weird mumbo jumbo. Paul spoke possibly around 8-10 languages but he could speak and converse in them all, not just babble some nonsense off that he nor anyone else could understand. Paul spoke against doing that!


Again, when I read this it seems pretty clear to me that speaking in tongues was important to the apotle Paul in his private prayer life. Important enough for him to do it more than the whole Corinthian church put together. He just did not do it publicly unless there was an interpretation.

That's not at all what Paul was talking about. He didn't speak in "tongues" in the manner you are saying and possibly doing.

He's talking about speaking in languages! Not some weird mumbo jumbo. Paul spoke possibly around 8-10 languages but he could speak and converse in them all, not just babble some nonsense off that he nor anyone else could understand. Paul spoke against doing that!



That's not at all what Paul was talking about. He didn't speak in "tongues" in the manner you are saying and possibly doing.

To call a manifestion of the Holy Spirit "mumbo jumbo" is a serious error. Paul clearly states his understanding is unfruitful when speaking in tongues. Again Paul clearly did not speak against speaking in tongues. Also speaking is tongues is one of the nine manifestations of the Holy Spirit the apostle Paul spoke about in I cor 12: 7-10. If when the apostle Paul spoke in tongues, he was merely speaking languages he already knew, that would not be a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. He would not need to Holy Spirit to give him the tongues. Neither would anybody need the Holy Spirit for any interpretation. Interpretation of tongues is also one of the nine manifestation listed in I cor 12: 7-10.

Hi!

I use to speak in tongues all the time when I was in a Pentecostal church, but I want to focus on something else in the tongue category. Why isn't there a lexicon for this "angelic" language? Are the same words ever repeated? and if so, why not have the interpretor of tongues publish a book on the language of tongues and their interpretations. Perhaps they should call it, "Tongues...the angelic language and the interpretation of it." Just wondering...

Love,
Madeline

He's talking about speaking in languages! Not some weird mumbo jumbo. Paul spoke possibly around 8-10 languages but he could speak and converse in them all, not just babble some nonsense off that he nor anyone else could understand. Paul spoke against doing that!

Paul disagrees with you . . .



1 Corinthians 14:18-19
I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.


Paul is saying here that he would rather speak five words with his own understanding than ten thousand words in a tongue. Therefore, he's saying to you that the tongues he is speaking he doesn't understand. In other words, your claim that he is speaking learned languages is false and contradicts this passage of scripture. If I learned how to speak in Spanish, I would understand what it was I was speaking. However, if I was supernaturally speaking a language through the power of the Holy Spirit, I would not understand the language because I hadn't previously learned it.

And again, there is no need for your derogatory attitude with referring to this as "mumbo jumbo". Be respectful please.

1 Corinthians 14:18-19 - "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue." KJV

The word "unknown" in brackets was supplied by the translators.

1 Corinthians 14:18-19 - "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue." KJV

The word "unknown" in brackets was supplied by the translators.

Those "unknowns" aren't even in my bible. Mine simply says that Paul doesn't understand those tongues, and the term "understanding" is not in brackets.

FYI . . .

The Greek term used there is "nous", and it means the following . . .


1) the mind, comprising alike the faculties of perceiving and understanding and those of feeling, judging, determining
a) the intellectual faculty, the understanding
b) reason in the narrower sense, as the capacity for spiritual truth, the higher powers of the soul, the faculty of perceiving divine things, of recognising goodness and of hating evil
c) the power of considering and judging soberly, calmly and impartially 2) a particular mode of thinking and judging, i.e thoughts, feelings, purposes, desires

To call a manifestion of the Holy Spirit "mumbo jumbo" is a serious error..


I agree! Also, attributing a fake, evil tongue of nonsense as the work of the Holy Spirit is also as serious. I hope you agree with that.




Again Paul clearly did not speak against speaking in tongues.

He spoke against certain kinds or uses of tongues. The fake tongues should never be uttered let alone attributed to God and speaking in tongues that others can't understand is simply fruitless and a waste of everyones time.

Hi!

I use to speak in tongues all the time when I was in a Pentecostal church, but I want to focus on something else in the tongue category. Why isn't there a lexicon for this "angelic" language? Are the same words ever repeated? and if so, why not have the interpretor of tongues publish a book on the language of tongues and their interpretations. Perhaps they should call it, "Tongues...the angelic language and the interpretation of it." Just wondering...

Love,
Madeline

They couldn't do this because they are not speaking a tongue. It's just babble and confusion.

I agree! Also, attributing a fake, evil tongue of nonsense as the work of the Holy Spirit is also as serious. I hope you agree with that.

However, you do not have the corner on truth, and I'm sure there are many things you believe that are probably not in total harmony with the gospel truths. But, it wouldn't be nice of us to come on here and totally disrespect your views in such a crass and "know-it-all" fashion. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, and we should treat each other accordingly. You can disagree in a gentle and loving manner.

Hi VR! :)


Those "unknowns" aren't even in my bible. Mine simply says that Paul doesn't understand those tongues, and the term "understanding" is not in brackets.

Let's take a look at the context...it's very clear if we look at it from an unbiased viewpoint.

Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [B]I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.

Pauls point is that there is no reason to speak in a language where the listeners could not understand what he was saying. For example...there would be no point of speaking in Jamacian to a Jewish audience. Paul is trying to tell us that speaking 5 words in Hebrew to a Hebrew audience is of more edification than speaking in a language unknown to his listeners...even if it's 10,000 words. That's the context. Hope you accept it!

Love,
Madeline

Paul disagrees with you . . .



Paul is saying here that he would rather speak five words with his own understanding than ten thousand words in a tongue. Therefore, he's saying to you that the tongues he is speaking he doesn't understand.


That's not what he is saying. He is saying it's better to say 5 words everyone understands than 10k that he only understands.

(BBE) But in the church it would be better for me to make use of five words of which the sense was clear, so that others might have profit, than ten thousand words in a strange tongue.

(CEV) But words that make sense can help the church. That's why in church I had rather speak five words that make sense than to speak ten thousand words in a language that others don't know.



In other words, your claim that he is speaking learned languages is false and contradicts this passage of scripture.
If I learned how to speak in Spanish, I would understand what it was I was speaking. However, if I was supernaturally speaking a language through the power of the Holy Spirit, I would not understand the language because I hadn't previously learned it.



Sorry, that's not what Paul is saying.


And again, there is no need for your derogatory attitude with referring to this as "mumbo jumbo". Be respectful please.

It is an accurate description for false tongues. There is no disrespect, only the truth.


John 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.


Galatians 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Hi VR! :)



Let's take a look at the context...it's very clear if we look at it from an unbiased viewpoint.

Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [B]I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.

Pauls point is that there is no reason to speak in a language where the listeners could not understand what he was saying. For example...there would be no point of speaking in Jamacian to a Jewish audience. Paul is trying to tell us that speaking 5 words in Hebrew to a Hebrew audience is of more edification than speaking in a language unknown to his listeners...even if it's 10,000 words. That's the context. Hope you accept it!

Love,
Madeline

I'm fine with the context. The context doesn't change the fact that Paul says very plainly that he doesn't understand the tongues he's speaking. Therefore, they could not possibly be learned. If you learn a language, you understand it. Paul clearly states that he doesn't understand it.

That's not what he is saying. He is saying it's better to say 5 words everyone understands than 10k that he only understands.

(BBE) But in the church it would be better for me to make use of five words of which the sense was clear, so that others might have profit, than ten thousand words in a strange tongue.

(CEV) But words that make sense can help the church. That's why in church I had rather speak five words that make sense than to speak ten thousand words in a language that others don't know.




Sorry, that's not what Paul is saying.



It is an accurate description for false tongues. There is no disrespect, only the truth.


John 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.


Galatians 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

The translation you're using is eliminating a key word in the Greek. That word is "nous" and it clearly illustrates that Paul does not understand the tongue he is speaking.

However, you do not have the corner on truth, and I'm sure there are many things you believe that are probably not in total harmony with the gospel truths. But, it wouldn't be nice of us to come on here and totally disrespect your views in such a crass and "know-it-all" fashion. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, and we should treat each other accordingly. You can disagree in a gentle and loving manner.

I am being gentle and loving. I have been told I am biase4d and don't know what I am talking about, that I have a lack of faith of that I have envy. I don't take offense. I am simply offering you the truth. You can accept or reject it. I only am trying to save my fellow brethren from possible blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Hi VR! :)



Let's take a look at the context...it's very clear if we look at it from an unbiased viewpoint.

Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [B]I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.

Pauls point is that there is no reason to speak in a language where the listeners could not understand what he was saying. For example...there would be no point of speaking in Jamacian to a Jewish audience. Paul is trying to tell us that speaking 5 words in Hebrew to a Hebrew audience is of more edification than speaking in a language unknown to his listeners...even if it's 10,000 words. That's the context. Hope you accept it!

Love,
Madeline

Very excellent work but I fear these few words cannot be understood no matter what language you use :)

I am being gentle and loving. I have been told I am biase4d and don't know what I am talking about, that I have a lack of faith of that I have envy. I don't take offense. I am simply offering you the truth. You can accept or reject it. I only am trying to save my fellow brethren from possible blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

I reject it because it doesn't line up with Scripture as I'm pointing out to you. However, I'm not going to refer to your beliefs as "garbage" or "nonsense" or anything along those lines. It is disrespectful. Just because you believe it doesn't make you right.

The translation you're using is eliminating a key word in the Greek. That word is "nous" and it clearly illustrates that Paul does not understand the tongue he is speaking.

Nous means intellect or something that makes sense which is why the KJV uses "understanding" and the verses properly carry forth the meaning of Paul's words. He in no way at all claimed he couldn't understand himself.

Why don't you explain why Paul would rather use 5 words he understands than 10k that no one understands and compare that to your defense of a "tongue" that no one can understand.

Very excellent work but I fear these few words cannot be understood no matter what language you use :)

Yet again, another arrogant remark. You are not presenting good fruit here, Naphal. Why should anyone accept the views of someone who is presenting them without the fruit of the Spirit being demonstrated to go along with it?

Hi again!:)


I'm fine with the context. The context doesn't change the fact that Paul says very plainly that he doesn't understand the tongues he's speaking. Therefore, they could not possibly be learned. If you learn a language, you understand it. Paul clearly states that he doesn't understand it.

Hmmm....you're adding to what I said! I never said Paul "understood" what he was saying. Please re-read my prior post and the example I gave to avoid going in circles in the future. This seems to be a commonality in some posters. Of course it's an "unknown" language...Pauls emphasis is on edifying his listeners with a language they are able to understand as to a language they cannot. It's so easy to understand, the context is clear. :)

Love,
Madeline

Hi again!:)



Hmmm....you're adding to what I said! I never said Paul "understood" what he was saying. Please re-read my prior post and the example I gave to avoid going in circles in the future. This seems to be a commonality in some posters. Of course it's an "unknown" language...Pauls emphasis is on edifying his listeners with a language they are able to understand as to a language they cannot. It's so easy to understand, the context is clear. :)

Love,
Madeline

Perhaps you should take your own advice and read my responses, because I haven't argued whether or not Paul wants the listeners to understand in their own language. I was addressing the fact that Naphal believes Paul is speaking languages that he understands.

Nous means intellect or something that makes sense which is why the KJV uses "understanding" and the verses properly carry forth the meaning of Paul's words. He in no way at all claimed he couldn't understand himself.

Why don't you explain why Paul would rather use 5 words he understands than 10k that no one understands and compare that to your defense of a "tongue" that no one can understand.

I know what the term means. As you can see . . . I presented the very definition of it in this thread. And he says "with my understanding", which would indicate that he doesn't understand the tongue, so he would rather speak with a language he does understand so the entire church may be edified.

I reject it because it doesn't line up with Scripture as I'm pointing out to you. However, I'm not going to refer to your beliefs as "garbage" or "nonsense" or anything along those lines. It is disrespectful. Just because you believe it doesn't make you right.

Hold on there! I never said your beliefs are nonsense! I know you believe in this sincerely. I said the actual "words" of the false tongue is nonsense as in there are no words that have any meaning. It's made up and babble and Paul spoke against this.

However, you do not have the corner on truth, and I'm sure there are many things you believe that are probably not in total harmony with the gospel truths.

Why would you be sure that there are many things I believe in that aren't in harmony with the gospel truth? How is that gentle and respectful?

Hold on there! I never said your beliefs are nonsense! I know you believe in this sincerely. I said the actual "words" of the false tongue is nonsense as in there are no words that have any meaning. It's made up and babble and Paul spoke against this.

I didn't say you were referring to me. However, there are posters here, such as godsgirl, who do not agree or see things the same way you do. Therefore, if you are referring to what she believes as "babble" or "mumbo jumbo", you are being disrespectful. You can speak of this issue without being so condescending about it. If you don't believe it . . . that is completely up to you. However, there are many things in this thread alone that I don't agree with you on, but I'm not going to disrespect what you believe. I believe what you're saying here is just as false as any other "false tongue" practice or teaching, but that gives me no right to disrespect you.

Yet again, another arrogant remark. You are not presenting good fruit here, Naphal. Why should anyone accept the views of someone who is presenting them without the fruit of the Spirit being demonstrated to go along with it?

Sheesh! It's just the truth. I don't think you will believe us no matter what language is used. That's no arrogance. It's often the same for those who believe in the pre-trib. No matter what you say or how you say it or what language, they can't accept it or can't see how it's false.

Why would you be sure that there are many things I believe in that aren't in harmony with the gospel truth? How is that gentle and respectful?

Because nobody is in total harmony. That is why Paul stated not to worry about disputable matters. This is the reason you have a ton of different denominations out there. It's because millions of people see different things from the same Scriptures. I guarantee you right now that there are some things about the Scriptures that you aren't understanding correctly just like there are things that I'm not understanding correctly. It's a part of growing in Christ.

Sheesh! It's just the truth. I don't think you will believe us no matter what language is used. That's no arrogance. It's often the same for those who believe in the pre-trib. No matter what you say or how you say it or what language, they can't accept it or can't see how it's false.

You don't seem to understand that it's just false to you. It's not false to others. And just because it's false to you doesn't mean you are right. Therefore, taking on an arrogant attitude is completely unnecessary.

Heeeellllooooo again!:)


Perhaps you should take your own advice and read my responses, because I haven't argued whether or not Paul wants the listeners to understand in their own language. I was addressing the fact that Naphal believes Paul is speaking languages that he understands.

Sorry, just wanted you to say hi back! Don't see that too much around anymore. :) The first post your replied to mine wasn't even directed towards you or anyone in general. I just thought that it might be helpful and perhaps in some way be beneficial to this discussion. That's when you said:


Those "unknowns" aren't even in my bible. Mine simply says that Paul doesn't understand those tongues, and the term "understanding" is not in brackets.

Unknowns aren't in your bible? that's fine and good to know. As for "understanding" not being in brackets, why did you bring that up? I never stated that "understanding" was in brackets. By making such statements you allow for others to be confused at what exactly you're arguing for. It almost reads as I failed to realize that the context says that Paul was referring to a language he did not understand. This is why I responded with how I interpret that passage. Hope you understand.:)

Love,
Madeline

Very excellent work but I fear these few words cannot be understood no matter what language you use :)

Hi Naphal! :)

Those few words cannot be understood by who? Paul? the listeners?

Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.

Not sure what you're implying. But IF those few "5" words could not be understood by his listeners, then why would Paul want to teach others with a language which cannot be understood? Now bear in mind that I am uncertain as to why you mean by your post. Please explain. I have to go to bed soon! :)

Hi Naphal! :)

Those few words cannot be understood by who? Paul? the listeners?

Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.

Not sure what you're implying. But IF those few "5" words could not be understood by his listeners, then why would Paul want to teach others with a language which cannot be understood? Now bear in mind that I am uncertain as to why you mean by your post. Please explain. I have to go to bed soon! :)

Oh I was talking about the words you said to the person you were talking to. It was a joke but was taken badly by Vertical. Have a good night!

Heeeellllooooo again!:)

Hi back, Madeline!


Sorry, just wanted you to say hi back! Don't see that too much around anymore. :) The first post your replied to mine wasn't even directed towards you or anyone in general. I just thought that it might be helpful and perhaps in some way be beneficial to this discussion. That's when you said:

I simply misunderstood you then. I thought you were confused as to what I was really addressing and that is why you quoted me. I was simply trying to clarify that I wasn't arguing whether or not Paul wanted to teach others in a tongue they would understand. I was addressing Naphal's opinion that Paul understood that tongues he speaks. I believe it clearly teaches that Paul didn't understand those tongues.

You don't seem to understand that it's just false to you. It's not false to others. And just because it's false to you doesn't mean you are right. Therefore, taking on an arrogant attitude is completely unnecessary.

Well two can play that game but I prefer to simply keep discussing the topic. I don't believe Paul said he couldnt understand anything he said and that he explicitly spoke against speaking any language of disharmony and no meaning, called babble and many other names. He also spoke against speaking in a language only the speaker can understand because it cannot benefit the listener and he was talking about speaking for example about speaking in German to a crowd that cannot understand German!

Well two can play that game but I prefer to simply keep discussing the topic. I don't believe Paul said he couldnt understand anything he said and that he explicitly spoke against speaking any language of disharmony and no meaning, called babble and many other names. He also spoke against speaking in a language only the speaker can understand because it cannot benefit the listener and he was talking about speaking for example about speaking in German to a crowd that cannot understand German!

He clearly said His understanding is unfruitful when speaking in tongues. You want to change the scriptures because you don't like it says.

I cor 14:14
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

It is that simple. When he prayed in tongues, his spirit was praying. No need to change it because you don't like it. Better for you to change your mind rather then changing what the word of God says.

He clearly said His understanding is unfruitful when speaking in tongues. You want to change the scriptures because you don't like it says.

I neither need to change them nor am afraid of what they actually say. This is what Paul said:

(MSG) If I pray in tongues, my spirit prays but my mind lies fallow, and all that intelligence is wasted.

This does not mean Paul didn't understand himself but that praying in tongues is useless and wastes one's intelligence.



It is that simple. When he prayed in tongues, his spirit was praying. No need to change it because you don't like it. Better for you to change your mind rather then changing what the word of God says.

Do you pray in tongues? :)

Hi!

I use to speak in tongues all the time when I was in a Pentecostal church, but I want to focus on something else in the tongue category. Why isn't there a lexicon for this "angelic" language? Are the same words ever repeated? and if so, why not have the interpretor of tongues publish a book on the language of tongues and their interpretations. Perhaps they should call it, "Tongues...the angelic language and the interpretation of it." Just wondering...

Love,
Madeline

Interpretation of tongues is one of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

By the way, I did know speaking in tongues was exclusive to pentecostal churches. I do not belong to a pentecostal church and still believe in speaking in tongues. You say you use to speak in tongues when you belonged to a pentecostal church. Does that mean you no longer speak in tongues in private now that you don't belong to that church?

Gill

1Co 14:14 - For if I pray in an unknown tongue,.... In the Hebrew tongue, which the greatest part of the Jewish doctors insisted (a) upon should be only used in prayer; which notion might be borrowed from them, and now greatly prevailed in the church at Corinth; and the custom was used by such as had the gift of speaking that language, even though the body and bulk of the people understood it not:

my spirit prayeth; I pray with my breath vocally; or else with affection and devotion, understanding what I say myself, and so am edified; or rather with the gift of the Spirit bestowed on me:

but my understanding is unfruitful; that is, what I say with understanding to myself is unprofitable to others, not being understood by them.



Clark
1Co 14:14 -
For if I pray in an unknown tongue - If my prayers are composed of sentences and sayings taken out of the prophets, etc., and in their own language - my spirit prayeth, my heart is engaged in the work, and my prayers answer all the purpose of prayers to myself; but my understanding is unfruitful to all others, because they do not understand my prayers, and I either do not or cannot interpret them. See the note on 1Co_14:19.


Barnes

But my understanding - (ὁ δὲ νοῦς μου ho de nous mou). My intellect, my mind; my mental efforts and operations.

Is unfruitful - Produces nothing that will be of advantage to them. It is like a barren tree; a tree that bears nothing that can be of benefit to others. They cannot understand what I say, and of course, they cannot be profited by what I utter.



Wesley

1Co 14:14 - If I pray in an unknown tongue - The apostle, as he did at 1Co_14:6, transfers it to himself. My spirit prayeth - By the power of the Spirit I understand the words myself. But my understanding is unfruitful - The knowledge I have is no benefit to others.

I neither need to change them nor am afraid of what they actually say. This is what Paul said:

(MSG) If I pray in tongues, my spirit prays but my mind lies fallow, and all that intelligence is wasted.

This does not mean Paul didn't understand himself but that praying in tongues is useless and wastes one's intelligence.




Do you pray in tongues? :)

Why did He continue doing it then.

I cor 14:18
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

You are still trying to change what the word of God says. By the way what translation is that you quoted from. I just looked up about 7 translations and didn't see any of them say what you just quoted.

Why did He continue doing it then.

I cor 14:18
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

You are still trying to change what the word of God says. By the way what translation is that you quoted from. I just looked up about 7 translations and didn't see any of them say what you just quoted.

I don't think you're understanding that there are different tongues that are spoken and that Paul is speaking of different ones at different times. Paul said praying in tongues is a waste of his intelligence and that makes sense if you understand what eh is talking about as well as why he is happy that he can speak more languages/tongues than anyone else. These are two very different things which is why he is down on the one and happy about the other.

The translation I quoted is the MSG.

I don't think you're understanding that there are different tongues that are spoken and that Paul is speaking of different ones at different times. Paul said praying in tongues is a waste of his intelligence and that makes sense if you understand what eh is talking about as well as why he is happy that he can speak more languages/tongues than anyone else. These are two very different things which is why he is down on the one and happy about the other.

The translation I quoted is the MSG.




That is NOT at all what Paul said.

1Corinthians 14:14-20
14 For if I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don’t understand what I am saying.
15 Well then, what shall I do? I will do both. I will pray in the spirit,* and I will pray in words I understand. I will sing in the spirit, and I will sing in words I understand. 16 For if you praise God only in the spirit, how can those who don’t understand you praise God along with you? How can they join you in giving thanks when they don’t understand what you are saying? 17 You will be giving thanks very nicely, no doubt, but it doesn’t help the other people present.
18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in a church meeting I would much rather speak five understandable words that will help others than ten thousand words in an unknown language.
20 Dear brothers and sisters, don’t be childish in your understanding of these things. Be innocent as babies when it comes to evil, but be mature and wise in understanding matters of this kind.

Hi Naphal! :)

Those few words cannot be understood by who? Paul? the listeners?

Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.

Not sure what you're implying. But IF those few "5" words could not be understood by his listeners, then why would Paul want to teach others with a language which cannot be understood? Now bear in mind that I am uncertain as to why you mean by your post. Please explain. I have to go to bed soon! :)


I think it's easy to see that what Paul was speaking against was speaking in tongues (which is prayer to God), aloud in the congregation-for the church could not say "amen" to your thanksgiving-even though you give thanks well. When tongues are spoken aloud in the church-the gift of interpretation is also given-so that the church can be edified.

Paul prayed in tongues quite often in private-as we should-but didn't manifest the gift of tongues (in the church) unless he was being used by the Spirit to speak-then the gift of interpretation was also manifested.


And Nephall-Paul didn't say praying in tongues was a "waste of his intellegence"-that Bible your reading-MSG-I've never heard of it-what is it-and could you please supply scripture verses for your "points"?

Interpretation of tongues is one of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

By the way, I did know speaking in tongues was exclusive to pentecostal churches. I do not belong to a pentecostal church and still believe in speaking in tongues. You say you use to speak in tongues when you belonged to a pentecostal church. Does that mean you no longer speak in tongues in private now that you don't belong to that church?


I received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit with speaking in other tongues as the initial evidence of that baptism when I was a member of the Presbyterian church. Of course, it didn't take me long to leave that church and find one that was more Biblically sound.

First of all the gifts are equal there is no lesser spiritual gift. However I think in that time, tongues was very common, meaning somthing everyone had. Thats why tongue tends to be looked down upon as lesser. therefore when Paul was talking, he was saying although tongue is good and I encourage everyone to have it.. seek somthing that can edify not just you but others.. Meaning that tounges servers a purpse other than a lauange, it edifies the speaker, by utter words and mysteries we cannot understand. It builds us up. Its a voice between you can God, crying out the groans of the holy ghost... In my opinion that is somthing everyone should desire.

I think you are right Carey-except that we are not told anywhere in scripture that tongues tends to be looked down upon. "Tongues is the least of the Gifts" is a falacy brought on by the ceasationists-it isn't anywhere in scripture. I personally believe that they say this to give themselves some kind of excuse as to why they never accepted it.

All Christians who are baptised in the Spirit can speak in other tongues (generally used as prayer and praise to God), but of all those Christians only a few actually ever manifest the Gift of Tongues=which is to give a message aloud in the assembly for interpretation so that the church can be built up.-They may be used in the gift of interpretation or the gift of the Word of knowledge-or prophecy.

Putting tongues aside for a moment to prove my point is there any other gifts in operation today? Like healing etc.
Godsgirl??????????????

John914

Oh John let me answer your question.


Yes!

Putting tongues aside for a moment to prove my point is there any other gifts in operation today? Like healing etc.
Godsgirl??????????????

John914

Absolutely! As a matter of fact, the Lord just healed a girl's shoulder that me and a couple of others prayed for last night. She injured her shoulder and had to where her arm in a sling until last night when the Lord touched her. All it takes is a little faith and obedience.

I meant tongues tends too be looked down upon by people today, it tends to be considerd a less valauble gift than others. I think part of the reason this is, is because of the way Paul talks about it in Corinthians, since it was so common he tells the people to seek other things as well. Not because tongues isent useful but because we should be seeking other things as well. Basically dont just stay in your comfort zone ...
But the fact is if tongues was such a normality then I dont see why it shouldent be now.

Absolutely! As a matter of fact, the Lord just healed a girl's shoulder that me and a couple of others prayed for last night. She injured her shoulder and had to where her arm in a sling until last night when the Lord touched her. All it takes is a little faith and obedience.
Gee! with that gift would you please go to the nearest childrens hospital and heal them. Oh by the way I am sitting here dieing with heart problems, do I have a chance?? I am truly sorry, but I tend not to believe you.

john914

Oh John let me answer your question.


Yes!

If yes then were are all the healers in the childrens hopital. They could sure use a miracle or two.

You can say YES, but I have lived over 60yrs and have yet to run into one Miracle worker or a HEALER. I have never run into a person who could prove they spoke in tongues, but you say yes. How long does one have to live before he runs into just one of these people??


John914:)

Before I start this thread, I want to let you all know that I go to a pentacostal church where they speak in tongues. Every once in a while, after the worship, someone in the congregation will speak out in tongues then everyone will wait until someone "gives the interpretation". I've never spoke in tongues, and don't really seek it.

Now, to the question. This past Wednesday, the speaker spoke on "baptism in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues". He spoke of how it was a supernatural thing to help people witness. But then he said that the act of speaking in tongues is a "step of faith. When you don't know what to pray for, your spirit will know and speaking in tongues is the language of the spirit." . . . .Something along those lines.

Now, I began to think, if something is by definition "supernatural", would there really be the necessity of "faith"? Supernatural is something that is beyond us, beyond our senses, beyond our knowledge many times. However, as the speaker spoke, he said "if you think it is you doing the talking, then you're doing it right. You have to have faith that the 'funny words' you speak is your spirit praying." I thought to myself, if I am formulating incomprehensible syllables from my mouth and having faith that it is my spirit praying, then where does the "supernatural" come into play there, and of what value does the speaking in tongues actually have? I've never really quite got the idea behind all of it.

My final thought on this was, how does my spirit somehow know how to pray when my brain apparently doesn't, . . . . as if the spirit has it's own way of "thought" that my mind isn't in touch with? It doesn't really make sense to me, . . and then when you throw in the notion of speaking words that are unintelligable, you are speaking some "spirit language" that your spirit knows?

All of this to say (bottom line) . . . . . even though I've been raised in churches that speak in tongues, I have to say that I just don't comprehend it all. :confused


I'm with you, honestly, tongues is not some strange babble that we can't understand. It is intended for witnessing to folks of other languages, you can read about that in the book of acts. And in the beginning it came upon many for the simple sign to the jews that "yes, God has accepted the gentiles too". That's it, you never see where it's some strange babble, but you do see where if there is not interpretter, then we need to keep silent when it comes to tongues, because we edify ourselves only.
I have seen both the phony babble, and the true tongues. And there is a definate difference, and those who have experienced true tongues will tell you that as well. I know of one man in particular who said he didn't speak a certain language but suddenly started speaking in tongues when he was trying to witness to a man of another language. They UNDERSTOOD EACH OTHER.

Gee! with that gift would you please go to the nearest childrens hospital and heal them. Oh by the way I am sitting here dieing with heart problems, do I have a chance?? I am truly sorry, but I tend not to believe you.

john914

You are free not to believe. It's not my job to convince you. You asked a question and I gave you an answer. I'm sorry for the situation you are in, but your situation is not what decides what I believe. The Word of God is my standard, and it cannot be denied.

If yes then were are all the healers in the childrens hopital.

They are probably all sitting around asking "Where are all the healers in the children's hospital" instead of putting their faith in action and going to the children's hospital.

Gee! with that gift would you please go to the nearest childrens hospital and heal them. Oh by the way I am sitting here dieing with heart problems, do I have a chance?? I am truly sorry, but I tend not to believe you.

john914

Are you honestly saying our Lord God and savior, CREATER of this entire world is in capable of healing?? Do not put limitations on what Christ can and cannot do. He is God, he can do anything.....

Read all of 1 Corinthians 14 and it explains that tongues is not some babble that is used for yourself. All gifts are to edify the church...


1Cr 14:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=14&verse=9&version=kjv#9)So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
1Cr 14:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=14&verse=10&version=kjv#10)There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them [is] without signification.

1Cr 14:11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=14&verse=11&version=kjv#11)Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh [shall be] a barbarian unto me.

1Cr 14:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=14&verse=12&version=kjv#12)Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual [gifts], seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

1Cr 14:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=14&verse=13&version=kjv#13)Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.

1Cr 14:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=14&verse=14&version=kjv#14)For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

1Cr 14:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=14&verse=15&version=kjv#15)What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

yes, the gifts of the Spirit are valid today-and will be until "we know as we are known" 1 Corinthians 13:12

BUT-and this is a big one-they are "as the Spirit wills" 1 Corinthians 12:7- we cannot "go and empty out the hospitals" because the gifts of the Spirit belong to God-He only uses us as His vessels. And the gifts of the Spirit are for the church (for the common good) 1 Corinthians 12:7 I have never been used in the gift of healing-but I have been used in words of knowledge and words of prophecy and the gift of tongues (which by the way, isn't merely praying in tongues)-the gift of tongues-just like all the other 8 gifts are for "when you come together" 1 Corinthians 12:7--and none of us can just use these gifts at will-they belong to Him.

I'm with you, honestly, tongues is not some strange babble that we can't understand. It is intended for witnessing to folks of other languages, you can read about that in the book of acts. And in the beginning it came upon many for the simple sign to the jews that "yes, God has accepted the gentiles too". That's it, you never see where it's some strange babble, but you do see where if there is not interpretter, then we need to keep silent when it comes to tongues, because we edify ourselves only.
I have seen both the phony babble, and the true tongues. And there is a definate difference, and those who have experienced true tongues will tell you that as well. I know of one man in particular who said he didn't speak a certain language but suddenly started speaking in tongues when he was trying to witness to a man of another language. They UNDERSTOOD EACH OTHER.


No not always, the Bible says,

He who speaks in a tongue-does not speak to man, but to God-INDEED NO ONE UNDERSTANDS, but in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 1 Corinthians 14:2

In the book of Acts-chapter 2-we have the only time that those around understood-and the miricle was in the hearing as well as the speaking-because they were all speaking at once Acts 2:4-yet they EACH heard them in their own language Acts 2:6

Read all of 1 Corinthians 14 and it explains that tongues is not some babble that is used for yourself. All gifts are to edify the church...


1Cr 14:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=14&verse=9&version=kjv#9)So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
1Cr 14:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=14&verse=10&version=kjv#10)There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them [is] without signification.

1Cr 14:11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=14&verse=11&version=kjv#11)Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh [shall be] a barbarian unto me.

1Cr 14:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=14&verse=12&version=kjv#12)Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual [gifts], seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

1Cr 14:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=14&verse=13&version=kjv#13)Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.

1Cr 14:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=14&verse=14&version=kjv#14)For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

1Cr 14:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=14&verse=15&version=kjv#15)What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Yes you are correct.

The "tongues" usually passed off today is not from God and has no relation to the tongues spoken of in the bible.

Yes you are correct.

The "tongues" usually passed off today is not from God and has no relation to the tongues spoken of in the bible.
Have you ever experienced the gift of speaking in tongues?

Have you ever experienced the gift of speaking in tongues?

I have not received the tongues of the Holy Spirit, no.

The issue here is misidentifying a false, self-invented tongue and calling it the tongues of the HS.

What truly comes from God is wonderful but I am sure we can all agree that what does not come from God but is credited to Him is false and wicked.

I have not received the tongues of the Holy Spirit, no.

The issue here is misidentifying a false, self-invented tongue and calling it the tongues of the HS.

What truly comes from God is wonderful but I am sure we can all agree that what does not come from God but is credited to Him is false and wicked.


The U.S. Treasury Dept. trains it's agents to recognize counterfeits by studying and becoming familiar with the genuine currency. Likewise if you have never tasted real butter then I don't believe you can offer a credible critique of margarine as a substitute. So to be honest, with all due respect, if you have not experienced the gift of speaking in tongues I don't think you are qualified to say what is or is not genuine.

The U.S. Treasury Dept. trains it's agents to recognize counterfeits by studying and becoming familiar with the genuine currency. Likewise if you have never tasted real butter then I don't believe you can offer a credible critique of margarine as a substitute. So to be honest, with all due respect, if you have not experienced the gift of speaking in tongues I don't think you are qualified to say what is or is not genuine.

And that's what it boils down to . . .

It never fails that it is those who never experience the gift of tongues that deny it's validity. It's the same for anything brought by the Holy Spirit. If someone doesn't have healing operating in their life or in their church . . . well, it just must not be for today and the people who say it is are simply deceived and attempting to find validity in false healings and teachings. It's all about conforming God's Word and the Spirit to their own experience, or lack thereof.

The U.S. Treasury Dept. trains it's agents to recognize counterfeits by studying and becoming familiar with the genuine currency. Likewise if you have never tasted real butter then I don't believe you can offer a credible critique of margarine as a substitute. So to be honest, with all due respect, if you have not experienced the gift of speaking in tongues I don't think you are qualified to say what is or is not genuine.

I can because I have studied the genuine tongue so I am very able to discern between it and fakes and there are a lot of fakes out there.

And that's what it boils down to . . .

It never fails that it is those who never experience the gift of tongues that deny it's validity.

Tongues are valid, but there are fakes also.

Tongues are valid, but there are fakes also.

Of course there are. And there are fake Christians as well. That doesn't invalidate Christianity.

Of course there are. And there are fake Christians as well. That doesn't invalidate Christianity.

The issue about invalidating tongues was a false accusation. I said most of the tongues of today are fake and not genuine and the accusation was made that I didn't believe in the true tongues but naturally I do.

The issue about invalidating tongues was a false accusation. I said most of the tongues of today are fake and not genuine and the accusation was made that I didn't believe in the true tongues but naturally I do.

I agree that discernment is important.

Unfortunately "fakes" are going to happen when there are Pentecostal churches putting such a tremendous emphasis on this one gift (I've seen it first hand).

Sadly, I think many have made an idol out of speaking in tongues. I think all Spirit-filled churches need to be very guarded about letting experience take center stage instead of the Word of God.

I agree that discernment is important.

Unfortunately "fakes" are going to happen when there are Pentecostal churches putting such a tremendous emphasis on this one gift (I've seen it first hand).

Sadly, I think many have made an idol out of speaking in tongues. I think all Spirit-filled churches need to be very guarded about letting experience take center stage instead of the Word of God.

Agreed.........

Yes you are correct.

The "tongues" usually passed off today is not from God and has no relation to the tongues spoken of in the bible.

If how you define true speaking in tongues does not go along with how the bible defines it, you can't discern between genuine and conterfeit.

If how you define true speaking in tongues does not go along with how the bible defines it, you can't discern between genuine and conterfeit.

That goes without saying actually.

I can because I have studied the genuine tongue so I am very able to discern between it and fakes and there are a lot of fakes out there.

I think that your statement is probably true of most who share your opinion, they operate in their own natural understanding and ability when it comes to discerning Spiritual gifts.

1Corinthians 2:10-16
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

The U.S. Treasury Dept. trains it's agents to recognize counterfeits by studying and becoming familiar with the genuine currency. Likewise if you have never tasted real butter then I don't believe you can offer a credible critique of margarine as a substitute. So to be honest, with all due respect, if you have not experienced the gift of speaking in tongues I don't think you are qualified to say what is or is not genuine.

chal > Using that logic, I would have to be dead (by murder) to serve on a jury in a murder trial. After all, how could I say if someone had really been murdered unless I had experienced murder myself?

You can tell real butter from margarine by other means than taste and there are other things to consider besides taste in offering it as a credible alternative. Judging by this display of twisted logic, I don't think you are qualified to say who is or is not qualified to say what is or is not genuine.

chal > Using that logic, I would have to be dead (by murder) to serve on a jury in a murder trial. After all, how could I say if someone had really been murdered unless I had experienced murder myself?

You can tell real butter from margarine by other means than taste and there are other things to consider besides taste in offering it as a credible alternative. Judging by this display of twisted logic, I don't think you are qualified to say who is or is not qualified to say what is or is not genuine.

And this is just your opinon also, but I'm used to people who stand on the outside acting in this manner. Again here is another example of someone using their own logic to judge things of the Spirit. Love your example too, I bet that our perfect judicial system has never falsely judged anyone either.

For everyone who believes that the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues is something of the past, it is for themselves. But praise God it is still very available to all those who are open to it.

Operating in suspicion is many times confused with discernment. You can not discern someone speaking in tongues true or false except by the Spiritual Gift of discerning of spirits and or the spiritual gifts word of knowledge and word of wisdom.

I can because I have studied the genuine tongue so I am very able to discern between it and fakes and there are a lot of fakes out there.

1Corinthians 12:8-11
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 but all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

And this is just your opinon also, but I'm used to people who stand on the outside acting in this manner. Again here is another example of someone using their own logic to judge things of the Spirit. Love your example too, I bet that our perfect judicial system has never falsely judged anyone either.

For everyone who believes that the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues is something of the past, it is for themselves. But praise God it is still very available to all those who are open to it.

chal > I don't believe the gift of speaking in tongues is a thing of the past, or that there are no legitimate tongues ever spoken. I just pointed out that the logic you presented in explaining your point of view concerning them was faulty. Whether you are right or wrong, whether or not I agree with you, the example you gave was not logical and does no justice to your point regardless of whether it's right or wrong. Your assesment of what I posted was evidently that I said that actually speaking in tongues (as opposed to blabbering gibberish as many do today) , was a thing of the past, but if I had meant that I would have simply said that. You also say that I am judgiing the things of the Spirit when I was only judging your logic, which was way too faulty to be of the Spirit. Sorry, no cigar this time around.

(as opposed to blabbering gibberish as many do today)

Could you explain and define for us what is "blabbering gibberish" and where Scripture states to watch out for this because it is some sort of false tongue? What does "divers tongues" sound like, and how can we recognize when another individual is operating in this "divers tongue" as opposed to "blabbering gibberish"?

Could you explain and define for us what is "blabbering gibberish" and where Scripture states to watch out for this because it is some sort of false tongue? What does "divers tongues" sound like, and how can we recognize when another individual is operating in this "divers tongue" as opposed to "blabbering gibberish"?

chal > *** edited by wia *** I am speaking english and if you follow the context of my post, the topic of the thread and look up the meaning of English words that you don't know, it's clear what I mean by blabbering gibberish. I'm speaking of what passes for speaking in tongues (languages) in many churches today, but is not a language at all, but something akin to an infant trying to form words.

Neither I nor scripture states for anyone to "look out," for *** edited by wia *** a false tongue. It would have to be a tongue in the first place to qualify for that. I don't imagine the gospel writers thought that anyone would be blabbering gibberish because of what they clearly taught concerning naturally unaquired languages, so there was no reason to issue a warning. It would be the equivalent of me telling you to "watch out for the purple people eaters." Divers tongues would sound like a diversity of languages being spoken, because that's what it is.

1st Corinthians 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

This doesn't say that anyone is going to be speaking divers kinds of tongues simultaneously. It simply means to be able to speak more than one kind of tongue. IOW to be multi-lingual. It doesn't say anything abourt skeaking in gibberish or blabbering (see definitions below).

You can recognize when one is speaking in divers kinds of tongues when they speak in several languages. It would sound like whatever the language they were speaking at that time sounds like.

In the future, it would help if you look up words that you don't understand yourself. After all I could be posting anything and telling you it's the definition. Online dictionaries are free and easy to use. Just try to put the words in context of how they were posted, when there is more than one entry that are not similar and you won't have to wonder if I'm telling the truth or not..

blabber: v : speak (about unimportant matters) rapidly and incessantly
[syn: chatter, piffle, palaver, prate, tittle-tattle,
twaddle, clack, maunder, prattle, blab, gibber,
tattle, gabble]

gibberish \gib"ber*ish\ (j[i^]b"b[~e]r*[i^]sh or
g[i^]b"b[~e]r*[i^]sh), n. [From Gibber, v. i.]
1. Rapid and inarticulate talk; unintelligible language;
unmeaning words.
[1913 Webster]

tongue;
01100 1100 glossa gloce-sah'
of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language
(specially, one naturally unacquired):--tongue.

divers kinds; (from 1st Corinthians 12:10)
01085 1085 genos ghen'-os
from 1096; "kin" (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative,
individual or collective):--born, country(-man), diversity,
generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock.
see GREEK for 1096

Diversity \Di*ver"si*ty\, n.; pl. Diversities. [F.
diversit['e], L. diversitas, fr. diversus. See Diverse.]
1. A state of difference; dissimilitude; unlikeness.
[1913 Webster]

They will prove opposite; and not resting in a bare
diversity, rise into a contrariety. --South.
[1913 Webster]

2. Multiplicity of difference; multiformity; variety.
"Diversity of sounds." --Shak. "Diversities of opinion."
--Secker.
[1913 Webster]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwb http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1277839#post1277839)
If how you define true speaking in tongues does not go along with how the bible defines it, you can't discern between genuine and conterfeit.



That goes without saying actually.

Reading your previous posts show me you are not qualified to discern the genuine from the counterfeit. You say that the apostle Paul understood the words he was saying when he spoke in tongues. The apostle Paul in scriptures states otherwise.

I cor 14:14-15
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

This clearly shows that praying in the spirit is in contrast to praying with the understanding. No commentary needed here. The scriptures make it plain as day. As you cleary can't define speaking in tongues according to the scriptures, you are most certainly not qualified to discern what is genuine speaking in tongues and what is conterfiet.

This doesn't say that anyone is going to be speaking divers kinds of tongues simultaneously. It simply means to be able to speak more than one kind of tongue. IOW to be multi-lingual. It doesn't say anything abourt skeaking in gibberish or blabbering (see definitions below).

You can recognize when one is speaking in divers kinds of tongues when they speak in several languages. It would sound like whatever the language they were speaking at that time sounds like.

In the future, it would help if you look up words that you don't understand yourself. After all I could be posting anything and telling you it's the definition. Online dictionaries are free and easy to use. Just try to put the words in context of how they were posted, when there is more than one entry that are not similar and you won't have to wonder if I'm telling the truth or not..




Being multilingual is not speaking in tongues. People can do that with on their own simply by learning another language. The Holy Spirit is not needed for a person to learn another language. Many unsaved people are mutilingual. When someone speaks in tongues according to how the bible defines speaking in tongues, the person speaking in tongues does not understand the language he is speaking. He speaks as the Spirit give the utterance.

Being multilingual is not speaking in tongues. People can do that with on their own simply by learning another language. The Holy Spirit is not needed for a person to learn another language. Many unsaved people are mutilingual. When someone speaks in tongues according to how the bible defines speaking in tongues, the person speaking in tongues does not understand the language he is speaking. He speaks as the Spirit give the utterance.

chal > You are only begging the question. I explained myself, but you refute my post by saying "it isn't true because you say it isn't true." Can you back what you say with an argument based on scripture? You misunderstood my post to begin with. Nowhere did I say that the Holy Spirit is needed to teach someone a language. I didn't say that one had to be saved to be multi-lingual. I didn't say that the person speaking the tongue understands the language. These are all strawmen you have invented, but you have not addressed my post at all.

chal > You are only begging the question. I explained myself, but you refute my post by saying "it isn't true because you say it isn't true." Can you back what you say with an argument based on scripture? You misunderstood my post to begin with. Nowhere did I say that the Holy Spirit is needed to teach someone a language. I didn't say that one had to be saved to be multi-lingual. I didn't say that the person speaking the tongue understands the language. These are all strawmen you have invented, but you have not addressed my post at all.

I apologize then for misunderstanding your post. I do believe that the apostle Paul made it clear in I cor 14 that when he spoke in tongues, neither he nor anybody else listening would understand the words he was speaking. Despite the fact that neither he nor any listeners understood the words he spoke when speaking in tongues, Paul makes it clear that he saw speaking in tongues as something very, very important to do in his private personal life. When I read your post, I percieved that maybe you were trying to say differently and I apologize for misunderstanding.

I apologize then for misunderstanding your post. I do believe that the apostle Paul made it clear in I cor 14 that when he spoke in tongues, neither he nor anybody else listening would understand the words he was speaking. Despite the fact that neither he nor any listeners understood the words he spoke when speaking in tongues, Paul makes it clear that he saw speaking in tongues as something very, very important to do in his private personal life. When I read your post, I percieved that maybe you were trying to say differently and I apologize for misunderstanding.

chal > Hey, no problem, but can you present a clear argument in a logical progression to explain why you think Paul makes your assertions clear? If he nor any listeners understand it can it still be considered a language? If so, why and what would the point be to make oneself a barbarian? You see, I'm not trying to promote an agenda. If you can show me something in scripture and present a logical argument that it says what you say it does, then I may learn something, but I don't just accept the kind of non sequiturs and begging of the question that I have pointed out already in this thread, that have been logically leap frogged, or just ignored outright. IOW, it has to make sense and I ain't seeing very much of that yet. Just the usual emotional outbursts that come with the territory on "tongues threads." .

I Corinthians 14:11: Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

chal > Hey, no problem, but can you present a clear argument in a logical progression to explain why you think Paul makes your assertions clear? If he nor any listeners understand it can it still be considered a language? If so, why and what would the point be to make oneself a barbarian? You see, I'm not trying to promote an agenda. If you can show me something in scripture and present a logical argument that it says what you say it does, then I may learn something, but I don't just accept the kind of non sequiturs and begging of the question that I have pointed out already in this thread, that have been logically leap frogged, or just ignored outright. IOW, it has to make sense and I ain't seeing very much of that yet. Just the usual emotional outbursts that come with the territory on "tongues threads." .

I Corinthians 14:11: Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

I have to go to work right now but I will respond when I get home.

I have to go to work right now but I will respond when I get home.

chal > Thanks. It's nice to hear something beside a knee jerk response.

Reading your previous posts show me you are not qualified to discern the genuine from the counterfeit.

Same to you.





You say that the apostle Paul understood the words he was saying when he spoke in tongues. The apostle Paul in scriptures states otherwise.

I cor 14:14-15
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

This clearly shows that praying in the spirit is in contrast to praying with the understanding. No commentary needed here. The scriptures make it plain as day. As you cleary can't define speaking in tongues according to the scriptures, you are most certainly not qualified to discern what is genuine speaking in tongues and what is conterfiet.



That is not anywhere near what Paul is saying. Paul would be appalled to be so badly interpreted.

Being multilingual is not speaking in tongues.

Actually that is exactly the same thing.


People can do that with on their own simply by learning another language.

Indeed although i would have left out the "simply" as it is not so simple a task.



When someone speaks in tongues according to how the bible defines speaking in tongues, the person speaking in tongues does not understand the language he is speaking.

If the speaker does not understand what he is saying it is guaranteed that it is not the holy tongues of the Spirit. Furthermore the Holy tongues is also understood by the hearer else it is also not the Holy tongues.

chal > Hey, no problem, but can you present a clear argument in a logical progression to explain why you think Paul makes your assertions clear? If he nor any listeners understand it can it still be considered a language? If so, why and what would the point be to make oneself a barbarian? You see, I'm not trying to promote an agenda. If you can show me something in scripture and present a logical argument that it says what you say it does, then I may learn something, but I don't just accept the kind of non sequiturs and begging of the question that I have pointed out already in this thread, that have been logically leap frogged, or just ignored outright. IOW, it has to make sense and I ain't seeing very much of that yet. Just the usual emotional outbursts that come with the territory on "tongues threads." .

I Corinthians 14:11: Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

I will try to answer your questions.



Hey, no problem, but can you present a clear argument in a logical progression to explain why you think Paul makes your assertions clear?


Assertion #1 - " I do believe that the apostle Paul made it clear in I cor 14 that when he spoke in tongues, neither he nor anybody else listening would understand the words he was speaking. "

I cor 14:14-15
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Paul here says that when he prays in a tongue, his understanding is unfruitful. Furthermore it sets in contrast praying in the spirit and praying with his understanding. This shows that praying in the spirit is different than praying with his understanding. This shows that Paul himself did not understand the words being spoken when speaking in tongues.

I cor. 14:13
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.

If others already understood the words being spoken in an unknown tongues, there would be no need for an intepretation. Verses 14 - 19 also show that others did not understand what Pual spoke when speaking in tongues.

Assertion #2 - Despite the fact that neither he nor any listeners understood the words he spoke when speaking in tongues, Paul makes it clear that he saw speaking in tongues as something very, very important to do in his private personal life.

I cor 14:17,18
For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

The apostle Paul is saying here that he spoke in tongues more than all of the corinthian church in his private life. If Paul did not see speaking in tongues as something important to do, why would he go about doing it more than all of the Corinthian church. Right in these verses he says that when somebody speaks in tongues they are giving thanks well.



If he nor any listeners understand it can it still be considered a language?


It absolutely can still be considered a language. Let's just say when I speak in tongues the language God gives me is Russian (Just an example). I do not understand Russian. Russian is still a language even though I do not understand it. If I were to speak in tongues with others present (I would not do this without an interpretation being given) who do not understand Russian, that would not change the fact that Russian is language.



If so, why and what would the point be to make oneself a barbarian?


There would be no point at all to make oneself a barbarian. In the example I gave where nobody understood Russian and the language I spoke in tongues was Russian, there would be no purpose for me to speak in Russian to people who do not understand it. This is why Paul said in verse 28 of I cor 14:

But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Notice Paul does not say here that if there is no interpreter, to not speak in tongues at all. He says let him speak to himself and to God. There are many benefits for somebody to speak in tongues privately in his own prayer life. We by our limited knowlege and understanding might not know everything that is going on in a situation. By praying in the spirit rather than our limited understanding, we can cover situations that we do not even know what is going.

Roman 8:26 says
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God.

Jude 1:20
But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

I cor 14:2
For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

I would agree with you that there is no purpose for speaking in tongues in public where nobody understands it and making oneself a barbarian. However from the scriptures I pointed out, I believe there is a great benefit for somebody to do it in their own private prayer life and that it is a wonderful tool that God gave us.

This is why it upsets me when there are churches who have misused it to the point of turning others off from speaking in tongues. When there are churches which allow their congregation to speak in tongues with no interpretation (and they do it all at the same time), this only turns people off from speaking in tongues. It boggles my mind that there are some churches that do this when the bible so clearly tells them not to do this. If the only time I had heard speaking in tongues, it was done in this manner, it probably would have turned me off also and I would have never spoken in tongues. I have also seen in some churches where people are supposedly being knocked over by the Holy Spirit. This has nothing to do with speaking in tongues. I do not see any scriptural support for this.



but I don't just accept the kind of non sequiturs and begging of the question that I have pointed out already in this thread,


Was there another question you asked in this thread other than the ones you asked me in this post? I looked for it but was unable to find it.

Actually that is exactly the same thing.



Indeed although i would have left out the "simply" as it is not so simple a task.




If the speaker does not understand what he is saying it is guaranteed that it is not the holy tongues of the Spirit. Furthermore the Holy tongues is also understood by the hearer else it is also not the Holy tongues.

1Corinthians 12:8-11
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 but all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

According to your last statement the HolySpirit issues a completely useless gift then when He gives someone the gift of interpretation of tongues.

cwb;1278982 > I will try to answer your questions.

chal > Good morning, or whaever it is where you are.



Assertion #1 - " I do believe that the apostle Paul made it clear in I cor 14 that when he spoke in tongues, neither he nor anybody else listening would understand the words he was speaking. "

chal > If no one understands what is being said, how can anyone determine if it's a tongue?

01100 1100 glossa gloce-sah'
of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language
(specially, one naturally unacquired):--tongue.

Language \Lan"guage\, n. [OE. langage, F. langage, fr. L. lingua
the tongue, hence speech, language; akin to E. tongue. See
Tongue, cf. Lingual.]
[1913 Webster]
1. Any means of conveying or communicating ideas;
specifically, human speech; the expression of ideas by the
voice; sounds, expressive of thought, articulated by the
organs of the throat and mouth.
[1913 Webster]

I cor 14:14-15
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.


Paul here says that when he prays in a tongue, his understanding is unfruitful. Furthermore it sets in contrast praying in the spirit and praying with his understanding. This shows that praying in the spirit is different than praying with his understanding. This shows that Paul himself did not understand the words being spoken when speaking in tongues.

chal > It says "his understanding is unfruitful," not that everyone's understanding is unfruitful. Again, if no one understands, how can it be determined to be a language?

gibberish \gib"ber*ish\ (j[i^]b"b[~e]r*[i^]sh or
g[i^]b"b[~e]r*[i^]sh), n. [From Gibber, v. i.]
1. Rapid and inarticulate talk; unintelligible language;
unmeaning words.
[1913 Webster]

chal > The only definition of language that description fits is gibberish, which is really a non-language, because it doesn't convey or communicate any ideas. Yet when I say this people get offended. Why is that? It's exactly what they are saying it is, not me. I'm just pointing out that this is what you are in fact saying when you say that "no one understands." It's what Paul is saying when he says that;

I Corinthians 14:11:
Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

He becomes a barbarian when he speaks gibberish, because no one understands it. If no one present understands it and it is a legitimate language, then it might as well be gibberish, because it is for all practical purposes, virtually gibberish to those present.


I cor. 14:13
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.

chal > How can you interpret something that if you don't understand it?


If others already understood the words being spoken in an unknown tongues, there would be no need for an intepretation. Verses 14 - 19 also show that others did not understand what Pual spoke when speaking in tongues.

chal > Evidently the interpreter understood it or he couldn't interpret it.


Assertion #2 - Despite the fact that neither he nor any listeners understood the words he spoke when speaking in tongues, Paul makes it clear that he saw speaking in tongues as something very, very important to do in his private personal life.

chal > Yes, Paul was multi-lingual. He spoke more than one language. He may also have used some naturally unaquired language, but I doubt if he would have used it in a context that would render it gibberish.


I cor 14:17,18
For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

chal > I doubt if he means that he thanks God for speaking gibberish.


The apostle Paul is saying here that he spoke spoke in tongue more than all of the corinthian church in his private life. If Paul did not see speaking in tongues as something important to do, why would he go about doing it more than all of the Corinthian church. Right in these verses he says that when somebody speaks in tongues they are giving thanks well.

chal > I think it is very important that Paul spoke in languages, whether naturally unaquired or not. Where do you get that he said this concerning his private life? I don't see that in the text. He doesn't specify a location in which he speaks in tongues more than them all.


It absolutely can still be considered a language. Let's just say when I speak in tongues the language God gives me is Russian (Just an example). I do not understand Russian. Russian is still a language even though I do not understand it. If I were to speak in tongues with others present (I would not do this without an interpretation being given) who do not understand Russian, that would not change the fact that Russian is language.

chal > Then you can no longer say; "that when he spoke in tongues, neither he nor anybody else listening would understand the words he was speaking," because someone does understand Russian. If there was no one present who could speak Russian, what would be the point? To become a barbarian to them?


There would be no point at all to make oneself a barbarian. In the example I gave where nobody understood Russian and the language I spoke in tongues was Russian, there would be no purpose for me to speak in Russian to people who do not understand it. This is why Paul said in verse 28 of I cor 14:

chal > Of course not.


But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

chal > Amen!


Notice Paul does not say here that if there is no interpreter, to not speak in tongues at all. He says let him speak to himself and to God. There are many benefits for somebody to speak in tongues privately in his own prayer life. We by our limited knowlege and understanding might not know everything that is going on in a situation. By praying in the spirit rather than our limited understanding, we can cover situations that we do not even know what is going.

chal > Well of course, you can speak to God in any language, because He is omniscient.


Roman 8:26 says
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

chal > "groanings that cannot be uttered," don't fit the description of languages


And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God.

chal > Which requires no language at all.


Jude 1:20
But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

chal > I fail to se where this fits in.


I cor 14:2
For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

chal > Yep, if you speak a language that no one understands, then God is the only one who knows what you're saying.


I would agree with you that there is no purpose for speaking in tongues in public where nobody understands it and making oneself a barbarian. However from the scriptures I pointed out, I believe there is a great benefit for somebody to do it in their own private prayer life and that it is a wonderful tool that God gave us.

chal > Yes, I recoomend highly that people should speak in languages in their private prayer life. I speak to God in the English language (tongue) and I'm sure He understands me. As I said you can speak to God in any language because He is omniscient.


This is why it upsets me when there are churches who have misused it to the point of turning others off from speaking in tongues. When there are churches which allow their congregation to speak in tongues with no interpretation (and they do it all at the same time), this only turns people off from speaking in tongues. It boggles my mind that there are some churches that do this when the bible so clearly tells them not to do this. If the only time I had heard speaking in tongues, it was done in this manner, it probably would have turned me off also and I would have never spoken in tongues. I have also seen in some churches where people are supposedly being knocked over by the Holy Spirit. This has nothing to do with speaking in tongues. I do not see any scriptural support for this.

chal > Amen! Preach it.


Was there another question you asked in this thread other than the ones you asked me in this post? I looked for it but was unable to find it.

chal > I was speaking of the thread topic. In the OP there are several questions raised and in the course of the discussion I believe there are a few more.

edit : I should also add that when someone makes and assertion that a particular thing is true, it implies that the opposite is not true, or vice versa and that implies a question, i.e., "is this indeed the case?" That is the question that is generally begged.

If no one understands what is being said, how can anyone determine if it's a tongue?

01100 1100 glossa gloce-sah'
of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language
(specially, one naturally unacquired):--tongue.

Language \Lan"guage\, n. [OE. langage, F. langage, fr. L. lingua
the tongue, hence speech, language; akin to E. tongue. See
Tongue, cf. Lingual.]
[1913 Webster]
1. Any means of conveying or communicating ideas;
specifically, human speech; the expression of ideas by the
voice; sounds, expressive of thought, articulated by the
organs of the throat and mouth.
[1913 Webster]

I cor 14:14-15
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.





When somebody speaks German, Russian, French or many other languages, I do not understand them. However I know that it is a language they are speaking.




It says "his understanding is unfruitful," not that everyone's understanding is unfruitful. Again, if no one understands, how can it be determined to be a language?

gibberish \gib"ber*ish\ (j[i^]b"b[~e]r*[i^]sh or
g[i^]b"b[~e]r*[i^]sh), n. [From Gibber, v. i.]
1. Rapid and inarticulate talk; unintelligible language;
unmeaning words.
[1913 Webster]

chal > The only definition of language that description fits is gibberish, which is really a non-language, because it doesn't convey or communicate any ideas. Yet when I say this people get offended. Why is that? It's exactly what they are saying it is, not me. I'm just pointing out that this is what you are in fact saying when you say that "no one understands." It's what Paul is saying when he says that;

I Corinthians 14:11:
Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

He becomes a barbarian when he speaks gibberish, because no one understands it. If no one present understands it and it is a legitimate language, then it might as well be gibberish, because it is for all practical purposes, virtually gibberish to those present.


You should read the whole context surrounding where Paul says "his usderstanding is unfruitful. I am sure if you read the context there you will see that others also do not understand.

I also get offended when you use the word gibberish for speaking in tongues especially when the scriptures calls it the wonderful works of God. As you stated here, you know that when you use the word "gibberish" for s[eaking in tongues that it offends many of you brothers and sisters in Christ. Since you know that it is offensive, maybe you should be courteous and find a different word to use.


How can you interpret something that if you don't understand it?


It is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. There are 8 other manifestions listed in I cor 12.



Evidently the interpreter understood it or he couldn't interpret it.




Again there is a manifestion of Holy Spirit listed in I cor 12. It is called interpretation of tongues.


I doubt if he means that he thanks God for speaking gibberish.


No, He thanks God by speaking in tongues (a language he himself did not understand)



Then you can no longer say; "that when he spoke in tongues, neither he nor anybody else listening would understand the words he was speaking," because someone does understand Russian. If there was no one present who could speak Russian, what would be the point? To become a barbarian to them?




Please go and re-read my post. I already answered your question here.



Yes, I recoomend highly that people should speak in languages in their private prayer life. I speak to God in the English language (tongue) and I'm sure He understands me. As I said you can speak to God in any language because He is omniscient.



I am just curious, did you read my post or did you just skim through real quickly?

chal > You really should iearn to use a dictionary.

Wow! Thanks for your kind response. A spell check would come in handy here as well.:P


I am speaking english and if you follow the context of my post, the topic of the thread and look up the meaning of English words that you don't know, it's clear what I mean by blabbering gibberish.

I know what the words mean in the English language, but I'm still unsure how you apply those two words to what you say is happening in churches today.


I'm speaking of what passes for speaking in tongues (languages) in many churches today, but is not a language at all, but something akin to an infant trying to form words.

How do you know? When I hear someone speaking Chinese . . . it sounds like what I guess could be defined as "blabbering gibberish" to me.


Neither I nor scripture states for anyone to "look out," for such nonsense or that it is a false tongue. It would have to be a tongue in the first place to qualify for that. I don't imagine the gospel writers thought that anyone would be blabbering gibberish because of what they clearly taught concerning naturally unaquired languages, so there was no reason to issue a warning. It would be the equivalent of me telling you to "watch out for the purple people eaters." Divers tongues would sound like a diversity of languages being spoken, because that's what it is.

I'm aware of what it is. However, I'm still unaware of what this "blabbering gibberish" is you so adamantly speak out against. Apparently, judging from your response, you aren't too sure either.


This doesn't say that anyone is going to be speaking divers kinds of tongues simultaneously. It simply means to be able to speak more than one kind of tongue. IOW to be multi-lingual. It doesn't say anything abourt skeaking in gibberish or blabbering (see definitions below).

Again, what is this gibberish and blabbering?


You can recognize when one is speaking in divers kinds of tongues when they speak in several languages. It would sound like whatever the language they were speaking at that time sounds like.

Hmmmm . . . I've heard many people speak in tongues that sounded like what I thought were languages. I didn't understand what they were saying, but it did sound like a language. I'm still unsure about this "blabbering gibberish" of which you speak, however. You sure do judge quite confidently.


In the future, it would help if you look up words that you don't understand yourself. After all I could be posting anything and telling you it's the definition. Online dictionaries are free and easy to use. Just try to put the words in context of how they were posted, when there is more than one entry that are not similar and you won't have to wonder if I'm telling the truth or not..

Again, I understand fine what the words mean. I just don't understand your application of the words. I'm trying to understand where this "blabbering gibberish" comes in biblically, and how you know so confidently that what they speak is not a language of some sort.

cwb;1279048 > When somebody speaks German, Russian, French or many other languages, I do not understand them. However I know that it is a language they are speaking.

chal > that doesn't fit into the category of, "nobody understands."


You should read the whole context surrounding where Paul says "his usderstanding is unfruitful. I am sure if you read the context there you will see that others also do not understand.

chal > I'm sorry, but your assumption that I have not read the whole context is condescending and rude. I'm sure if you stop making those kind of assumtions, because i don't agree with you this conversation will prove to be much more fruitful..


I also get offended when you use the word gibberish for speaking in tongues especially when the scriptures calls it the wonderful works of God. As you stated here, you know that when you use the word "gibberish" for s[eaking in tongues that it offends many of you brothers and sisters in Christ. Since you know that it is offensive, maybe you should be courteous and find a different word to use.

chal > Evidently you have not comprehended my posts. My whole point is that speaking in tongues is not gibberish. My secondary point is that how you are defining it lines up perfectly with the definition of the word gibberish. You are saying that, not me.Maybe you should use some of the courteousness you prescribe for me. i would be glad to share it with you. Your accusation is false and it's there in print to prove it.


It is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. There are 8 other manifestions listed in I cor 12.

chal > That has nothing to do with the question I asked.



Again there is a manifestion of Holy Spirit listed in I cor 12. It is called interpretation of tongues.

chal > It's irrelevant to my question and the following statement to tell me where it comes from or what it's called. Evidently the interpreter understood it at some point or he wouldn't be able to interpret it regardless of "what it's called."


No, He thanks God by speaking in tongues (a language he himself did not understand)

chal > You're befgging the question. You're saying that Paul spoke in languages that he didn't understand, because Paul spoke in languages that he didn't understand.


Please go and re-read my post. I already answered your question here.

chal > You "answered," it by begging the question so I repeated it.


I am just curious, did you read my post or did you just skim through real quickly?[

chal > I find it extremely rude to suggest that I commented on your post without actually reading it?

VerticalReality;1279064> Wow! Thanks for your kind response. A spell check would come in handy here as well.:P

chal > And thank you for your ungrateful response. It seemed to me that if you had to ask the definition of a common word, then you perhaps didn't know how to use a dictionary. I think many people here make typos and my spelling may not be the best, but If you could point out any mispellings that were so bad that you couldn't understand what I was saying, I would be glad to correct them.


I know what the words mean in the English language, but I'm still unsure how you apply those two words to what you say is happening in churches today.

chal > From your post it appeared that you didn't know what the words meant. The context I used them in is not complicated. Just apply the definion to the context of what I said .


How do you know? When I hear someone speaking Chinese . . . it sounds like what I guess could be defined as "blabbering gibberish" to me.

chal > It doen't sound like blabbering gibberish to someone who speaks Chinese, so even thiough it sounds like gibberish, it's not. If you speak in a legitimate language that no one in hearing distance can understand, then you have become a barbarian to all present. You have used it to the same effect as gibberish,.


I'm aware of what it is. However, I'm still unaware of what this "blabbering gibberish" is you so adamantly speak out against. Apparently, judging from your response, you aren't too sure either.

chal > I posted the definitions to show what they meant. You told me that you already knew what they meant and yet you keep asking what they mean.


Again, what is this gibberish and blabbering?

chal > I posted the definitions to show what they meant. You told me that you already knew what they meant and yet you keep asking what they mean. Which is it. Do you know or don't you. If you know then apply then to the context of the rest of the dialogue.


Hmmmm . . . I've heard many people speak in tongues that sounded like what I thought were languages. I didn't understand what they were saying, but it did sound like a language. I'm still unsure about this "blabbering gibberish" of which you speak, however. You sure do judge quite confidently.

chal > It's not hard to tell when someone is speaking gibberish or using a legitimate language in a manner that makes him become a barbarian to those he is speaking to. It's not hard to tell if someone is speaking a language that is unknown to all present and doesn't have an interpreter and futhermore, freely admits that he nor anyone else knows what he's saying.


Again, I understand fine what the words mean. I just don't understand your application of the words. I'm trying to understand where this "blabbering gibberish" comes in biblically, and how you know so confidently that what they speak is not a language of some sort.

chal > Yes, I see that you don't understand my posts, because I never said that "blabbering gibberish comes in Biblically." I said that it is not "speaking in a language," by definition. It has nothing to do with speaking in a legitimate languages as it is stated in scripture.

chal > And thank you for your ungrateful response. It seemed to me that if you had to ask the definition of a common word, then you perhaps didn't know how to use a dictionary. I think many people here make typos and my spelling may not be the best, but If you could point out any mispellings that were so bad that you couldn't understand what I was saying, I would be glad to correct them.



chal > From your post it appeared that you didn't know what the words meant. The context I used them in is not complicated. Just apply the definion to the context of what I said .



chal > It doen't sound like blabbering gibberish to someone who speaks Chinese, so even thiough it sounds like gibberish, it's not. If you speak in a legitimate language that no one in hearing distance can understand, then you have become a barbarian to all present. You have used it to the same effect as gibberish,.



chal > I posted the definitions to show what they meant. You told me that you already knew what they meant and yet you keep asking what they mean.



chal > I posted the definitions to show what they meant. You told me that you already knew what they meant and yet you keep asking what they mean. Which is it. Do you know or don't you. If you know then apply then to the context of the rest of the dialogue.



chal > It's not hard to tell when someone is speaking gibberish or using a legitimate language in a manner that makes him become a barbarian to those he is speaking to. It's not hard to tell if someone is speaking a language that is unknown to all present and doesn't have an interpreter and futhermore, freely admits that he nor anyone else knows what he's saying.



chal > Yes, I see that you don't understand my posts, because I never said that "blabbering gibberish comes in Biblically." I said that it is not "speaking in a language," by definition. It has nothing to do with speaking in a legitimate languages as it is stated in scripture.

Nevermind, chal. There's not much good fruit coming from this.

Nevermind, chal. There's not much good fruit coming from this.
I have to agree with you VerticalReality, sad but it has been my experience most of the time. You just have to drop it and hope that HolySpirit can open their eyes and minds.

1Corinthians 12:8-11
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 but all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

According to your last statement the HolySpirit issues a completely useless gift then when He gives someone the gift of interpretation of tongues.

This is concerning speaking and understanding foreign languages and is considered a gift. This is more than someone who speaks more than one language but someone who is truly gifted in full understanding and able to interpret everything from one language to another and I would add that this gift and ability covering many languages.

The Holy tongues needs no interpreting because anyone can understand it as if it is the language they had been born into. Never is the Holy tongues not understood.

I also get offended when you use the word gibberish for speaking in tongues especially when the scriptures calls it the wonderful works of God.

There is a huge difference between speaking in tongues and speaking in gibberish and calling it tongues. That's what the issue is. Gibberish is never a tongue and is certainly never the Holy tongues of the HS.

Gibberish is gibberish and yet it is passed off very commonly as the beautiful miracle of God. That is what is truly offensive.

This is concerning speaking and understanding foreign languages and is considered a gift. This is more than someone who speaks more than one language but someone who is truly gifted in full understanding and able to interpret everything from one language to another and I would add that this gift and ability covering many languages.

The Holy tongues needs no interpreting because anyone can understand it as if it is the language they had been born into. Never is the Holy tongues not understood.
I am sorry that you very misinformed and mistaken and I remind you these are spiritual gifts not carnal. If what you say had any truth to it then we could assume that HolySpirit has given your definition of speaking in tongues and interpreting tongues to satanists.
Do you have any scripture to back up that Holy tongues need no interpreting, and by the way what are Holy tongues???

There is a huge difference between speaking in tongues and speaking in gibberish and calling it tongues. That's what the issue is. Gibberish is never a tongue and is certainly never the Holy tongues of the HS.

Gibberish is gibberish and yet it is passed off very commonly as the beautiful miracle of God. That is what is truly offensive.
Again no scripture?????? There is also a lot of knowledge that is passed off to be the truth but turns out is nothing more than carnal thinking. Bwana asi fiwe

[quote=Naphal;1279568]Do you have any scripture to back up that Holy tongues need no interpreting, and by the way what are Holy tongues???

Why are you in this thread if you don't know what the holy tongues are? This is what this thread is about! Holy tongues are from the Holy Spirit, a miracle also called the cloven tongues. The tongues are Holy because they come from God. All other tongues are man made along with gibberish which is called a tongue but isnt.

The Holy tongues of the Holy spirit are shown in detail in Acts so I suggest reading there to get familiar with this topic.

How do you know if the tongue I speak is Holy or not? How did the disciples know?

How do you know if the tongue I speak is Holy or not? How did the disciples know?

You know by what is said, and by what isn't said. There is also a difference between speaking Holy things and speaking in the Holy tongues.

[quote=jiggyfly;1279576]

Why are you in this thread if you don't know what the holy tongues are? This is what this thread is about! Holy tongues are from the Holy Spirit, a miracle also called the cloven tongues. The tongues are Holy because they come from God. All other tongues are man made along with gibberish which is called a tongue but isnt.

The Holy tongues of the Holy spirit are shown in detail in Acts so I suggest reading there to get familiar with this topic.
I guess you don't have any scripture then to back up what you are saying, correct? I believe I am very familiar with the gift of speaking in tongues, but probably not the holy tongues you have mentioned where are they in the scriptures referred to as Holy?

[quote=Naphal;1279616]
I guess you don't have any scripture then to back up what you are saying, correct? I believe I am very familiar with the gift of speaking in tongues, but probably not the holy tongues you have mentioned where are they in the scriptures referred to as Holy?

I think it's pointless for me to have to explain to you why a miracle that comes from God via the Holy Spirit would be a Holy thing. I also already pointed you towards Acts to learn of the true speaking in tongues and what it is like and how it is understood by everyone rather than another version of tongues that is unintelligible and not holy.

I believe I am very familiar with the gift of speaking in tongues, but probably not the holy tongues you have mentioned where are they in the scriptures referred to as Holy?

chal > I suggest reading these in context of the surrounding verses as well as studying them in the context of the entire Bible.

Acts 2:4: And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 19:6: And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

edit: The quotes got messed up in the post I quoted and I believe it gives the appearance that someone was asking the question who was actually responding to it, so I removed everything but the point I am addressing to avoid confusion.

All of this to say (bottom line) . . . . . even though I've been raised in churches that speak in tongues, I have to say that I just don't comprehend it all. :confusedThat's because:

God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:33

Short and sweet post I know, with no intention to offend anyone. :)

[quote=jiggyfly;1279816]

I think it's pointless for me to have to explain to you why a miracle that comes from God via the Holy Spirit would be a Holy thing. I also already pointed you towards Acts to learn of the true speaking in tongues and what it is like and how it is understood by everyone rather than another version of tongues that is unintelligible and not holy.

I agree with you on the pointless thing, I have read acts 2 many times and studied it. I don't see where it says that those speaking knew what they were saying, it also says they spoke in tongues, plural, meaning more than one. I think you are the one who lacks understanding on this subject and so I agree it is pointless to continue this thread especially since you are unwilling to list the scriputre that support your belief and answer the several questions that I have asked. Yesu ni Bwana, Mungu ni mwema.

Acts 2:
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, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Nevermind, chal. There's not much good fruit coming from this.

chal >Nevermind what? I'm only discussing the topic. I'm not going to nevermind the topic. It's still an open thread. If you're referring to my responding to your posts, that''s kinda the whole point of posting. There would be no point in posting if no one responded.

I have to disagree with your assessment of my posts in this thread.. Big surprise eh :rofl:. Some people actually understand what I'm saying and agree. If nothing more they are fruitful, by getting encouragement and fellowship from those who are in agreement. Perhaps some who are approaching this in an inquisitive manner have comprehended as well and are considering it among the many views they are beiing exposed to. I studied this topic for several years with no bias whatsoever as I was not taught as a child anything concerning the matter. Speaking gibberish (by their own definition, not mine) and calling it "speaking in tongues," just does not hold up to the light of scripture. I have attended inter-denominational Bible studies and fellowshipped with people who practice this, but who also respected my beliefs. On many other matters we were in agreement. I could never belong to their denomination, but it didn't stop us from recognizing one another as Christians. I know from personal experience over many years, that this does not have to be a dividing issue in the church at large and it doesn't have to come down to ad hominem as it often does. Unless it is presented in a legalistic way, it should not be a dividing issue. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

Maybe it's not fruitful for you and I'm sorry to hear that, but I don't think it has to be that way. I could make some suggestions as to a way to avoid that, but in view of what I have been falsely accused of, it would probably be misconstrued as well, so I will hold my thoughts and pray that you find peace on the matter through some other means.

I think there is plenty of good fruit coming out of this. It may not be the fruit you want to come out of it, but that doesn't negate it. The scriptures are being discussed and those with ears to hear can see that speaking in tongues, is much different than the gibberish that is sometimes passed off as tongues in many churches today. There are many people who would like to squash scripture being used in a logical context , because it exposes that gibberish is not tongues according, when viewed in the light of scripture.

I would like to point out once again that I am not saying that speaking in tongues as described in scripture is gibberish. My assessment of the gibberish that some people speak and teach as a gift of the Holy Spirit in churches again, is according to thier (people who practice speaking nonsensical sounds as speaking in tongues) own description, which lines up precisely with the definition of gibberish. IOW, I am not saying it, I am just pointing out that this is how many people are defining it and as often is the case, the messenger gets shot. :eek: Ouch!

Quote by Chal> I think there is plenty of good fruit coming out of this. It may not be the fruit you want to come out of it, but that doesn't negate it. The scriptures are being discussed and those with ears to hear can see that speaking in tongues, is much different than the gibberish that is sometimes passed off as tongues in many churches today. There are many people who would like to squash scripture being used in a logical context , because it exposes that gibberish is not tongues according, when viewed in the light of scripture.


Although it may not be some of the gibberish that some make it out to be neither is it the carnal or natural learned tongues of man that you say it is, it is so much more than you have said, it is supernatural and does not make sense to the natural or carnal mind, period.

Although it may not be some of the gibberish that some make it out to be neither is it the carnal or natural learned tongues of man that you say it is, it is so much more than you have said, it is supernatural and does not make sense to the natural or carnal mind, period.

chal > First let me clear up the identity confusion. I am not, nor have ever been in the past, James Strong and I did not make up the definitions I posted. I, nor James Strong have never said that tongues are "carnal." Nor did I, nor he say that they were always "natural." In fact I said that is some cases they are exactly the opposite (naturally unacquired). This must be determined by context, but whether naturally aquired or not, they are by definition legitimate languages. I would really appreciate it if you would stop putting words into my mouth. I also think that it does nothing to promote your argument to keep repeating the same rhetoric with no argument.

Carnal \Car"nal\, a. [L. carnalis, fr. caro, carnis, flesh; akin
to Gr. ?, Skr. kravya; cf. F. charnel, Of. also carnel. Cf.
Charnel.]
1. Of or pertaining to the body or its appetites; animal;
fleshly; sensual; given to sensual indulgence; lustful;
human or worldly as opposed to spiritual.
[1913 Webster]
01100 1100 glossa gloce-sah'
of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language
(specially, one naturally unacquired):--tongue.

chal > First let me clear up the identity confusion. I am not, nor have ever been in the past, James Strong and I did not make up the definitions I posted. I, nor James Strong have never said that tongues are "carnal." Nor did I, nor he say that they were always "natural." In fact I said that is some cases they are exactly the opposite (naturally unacquired). This must be determined by context, but whether naturally aquired or not, they are by definition legitimate languages. I would really appreciate it if you would stop putting words into my mouth. I also think that it does nothing to promote your argument to keep repeating the same rhetoric with no argument.

Carnal \Car"nal\, a. [L. carnalis, fr. caro, carnis, flesh; akin
to Gr. ?, Skr. kravya; cf. F. charnel, Of. also carnel. Cf.
Charnel.]
1. Of or pertaining to the body or its appetites; animal;
fleshly; sensual; given to sensual indulgence; lustful;
human or worldly as opposed to spiritual.
[1913 Webster]
01100 1100 glossa gloce-sah'
of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language
(specially, one naturally unacquired):--tongue.

And because it takes at least two conflicting opinions to have an argument and it seems there are more than two present and I tire easy of arguing, *** edited by wia *** you will have to continue without me. Please don't be deceived and think that I am bowing out because I am deluged by your knowledge, because that simply just isn't the case, I don't like beating a dead dog, asante.

Notice to everyone: Let's watch our words to each other.

God Bless!

Hmmmm . . . I've heard many people speak in tongues that sounded like what I thought were languages. I didn't understand what they were saying, but it did sound like a language. I'm still unsure about this "blabbering gibberish" of which you speak, however. You sure do judge quite confidently.



And that is exactly what speaking in tongues is - when the one speaking in tongues does not what he is speaking. Some people might want to call it giberish only because they don't understand it. The apostle Paul certainly did not call it gibberish because he didn't understand it.

I Cor 14:13-19
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:


Neither Paul nor the hearers understood the words spoken when speaking in tongues. That is why Paul said to when speaking in tongues is done in church it is to have an interpretation accompanying it. If some people want to call a manifestation of Holy Spirit gibberish, that is their privilege. Ultimately, it is God who is going to be the judge.

I do not understand Russian. That does not make Russian gibberish. I also do not understand French, German, arabic or polish and a whole lot of other languages. Just because I do not understand a language does not make that language gibberish.

And that is exactly what speaking in tongues is - when the one speaking in tongues does not what he is speaking. Some people might want to call it giberish only because they don't understand it. The apostle Paul certainly did not call it gibberish because he didn't understand it.

I Cor 14:13-19
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:


Neither Paul nor the hearers undertood the words spoken when speaking in tongues. That is why Paul said to when speaking in tongues is done in church it is to have an interpretation accompanying it. If some people want to call a manifestation of Holy Spirit gibberish, that is their privilege. Ultimately, it is God who is going to be the judge.

You are presenting a description of tongues, that fits the definition of gibberish i.e., "unintelligible language (not clearly understood or expressed)." I suggest if you believe it is wrong, that you should stop doing it.

I am presenting the opposite of that view, i.e., that tongues are not gibberish (unitelligible, not clearly understood or expressed. It's ironic that I have been accused of "calling tongues gibberish," when I am saying exactly the opposite. :rofl:

I do not understand Russian. That does not make Russian gibberish. I also do not understand French, German, arabic or polish and a whole lot of other languages. Just because I do not understand a language does not make that language gibberish.

chal > No legitimate language can be gibberish. If someone can understand it, it is a legitimate tongue. If it's unintelligible to him and no one else present can understand it, although it may be a legitimate language and understandable to someone else who is not present, for all practical purposes it is unitelligible (gibberish) to all present. He makes himself a barbarian unto all present, because they can't understand him. It's in how he is using it, not in the unused potential of the language.


"When someone speaks in tongues according to how the bible defines speaking in tongues, the person speaking in tongues does not understand the language he is speaking.

chal > That is called a naturally unaquired language and is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is not something that no one understands. It is a legitimate language and someone should be present to interpret it. It is not gibberish, but if no one is present to interpret it, it is for all practical purposes gibberish, because it is unitelligible to those present Paul addresses this misuse of that gift in I Corinthians 14.

Let all things be done unto edifying. 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

To interpret, the interpreter must understand a legitimate language. If it is the Holy Spirit interpreting through Him then the Holy Spirit is the interpreter and is the one who understands. It no longer fits into the category of "no one understands what is being said, i.e., gibberish (unitelligible). The Holy Spirit is someone.

This is what I have been saying all along. A few people have followed what I was saying, but a few have interpreted me as saying the exact opposite of what I said.

Several people here are arguing against themselves when they say that tongues are not legitimate languages and then contradict themselves by saying that they are not gibberish either. It has to be one or the other. It can't be intelligible and unitelligible simultaneously.

I have been to several churches where people are either speaking gibberish, or turning a legitimate language into a virtual gibberish, because no one present understands it, no one interprets it and it's for all practical purposes gibberish to all present. They make themselves barbarians to all present. They don't even try to interpret it or understand it. Then they preach a doctrine that if someone else doesn't do the same, then they have not recieved the Holy Spirit, even though these people accused of not having recieved the Holy Spirit are in many cases, showing the fruit of the Spirit in their lives, not by speaking in languages that no one understands into the air, but by the means of worshipping, praying, doing ministry and fulfilling the great commission.

Galatians 5:22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

I asked on another thread (and was shot down because it was a "no debate [no discussion?] thread) if anyone themself has themself spoken, or has been present when someone else, spoke in a KNOWN language (such as Italian) that was unknown to themselves. Seemingly, no one has. My question then proposed that since many take The Book of Acts, and particularly Pentecost, as a model for what we are meant to manifest today, why do we see this absence of the sign of speaking in a KNOWN language?

I'll futher propose that since we do not see this sign, perhaps it was a sign for the 1st-Century church only (guess that makes me at least a partial cessationist). And I'll further propose that the sign (or gift) of speaking in any tongue, known or never heard before, is utterly unnecessary in the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

I know that the worldwide church has appeared to move inexorably in the direction of (lying?) signs and wonders, and that the above statements will no doubt ruffle feathers. But why this focus on supernatural manifestations, when our commission is to speak a very simple and easily understood Gospel to the unsaved?

God is sovereign, and does what He will when He will. But as for us--are we seeking gifts, or powers? And are we seeking the Kingdom?

I asked on another thread (and was shot down because it was a "no debate [no discussion?] thread) if anyone themself has themself spoken, or has been present when someone else, spoke in a KNOWN language (such as Italian) that was unknown to themselves. Seemingly, no one has. My question then proposed that since many take The Book of Acts, and particularly Pentecost, as a model for what we are meant to manifest today, why do we see this absence of the sign of speaking in a KNOWN language?

I'll futher propose that since we do not see this sign, perhaps it was a sign for the 1st-Century church only (guess that makes me at least a partial cessationist). And I'll further propose that the sign (or gift) of speaking in any tongue, known or never heard before, is utterly unnecessary in the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

I know that the worldwide church has appeared to move inexorably in the direction of (lying?) signs and wonders, and that the above statements will no doubt ruffle feathers. But why this focus on supernatural manifestations, when our commission is to speak a very simple and easily understood Gospel to the unsaved?

God is sovereign, and does what He will when He will. But as for us--are we seeking gifts, or powers? And are we seeking the Kingdom?

I feel the ability to pray perfectly in the Spirit via speaking in tongues is a great asset to fulfilling the great commission.

I hope God feels that way, too...

Rom 8:24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he {already} sees?
Rom 8:25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.
Rom 8:26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for {us} with groanings too deep for words;
Rom 8:27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to {the will of} God.

I asked on another thread (and was shot down because it was a "no debate [no discussion?] thread) if anyone themself has themself spoken, or has been present when someone else, spoke in a KNOWN language (such as Italian) that was unknown to themselves. Seemingly, no one has. My question then proposed that since many take The Book of Acts, and particularly Pentecost, as a model for what we are meant to manifest today, why do we see this absence of the sign of speaking in a KNOWN language?

I'll futher propose that since we do not see this sign, perhaps it was a sign for the 1st-Century church only (guess that makes me at least a partial cessationist). And I'll further propose that the sign (or gift) of speaking in any tongue, known or never heard before, is utterly unnecessary in the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

I know that the worldwide church has appeared to move inexorably in the direction of (lying?) signs and wonders, and that the above statements will no doubt ruffle feathers. But why this focus on supernatural manifestations, when our commission is to speak a very simple and easily understood Gospel to the unsaved?

God is sovereign, and does what He will when He will. But as for us--are we seeking gifts, or powers? And are we seeking the Kingdom?

chal > Hey bro. Good to see you around. I have always been neutral on the issue of whether speaking in tongues as stated in the Bible are a gift for today. I don't see any conclusive proof one way or the other on that issue. I only know that I have never seen it personally in any way shape or form that it is described in the Bible.

I have never been in situations where it may have been useful. All the ministry I have done was in English, although many different dialects and I quickly pick up local dialects in my native English, although foreign tongues are a whole different story. Dutch! :eek:. I can imagine where something like that may be useful in ministry to a region where someone didn't speak the natiuve tongue. I know that there are arguments on both sides of that issue, but in the abscence of being able to see anything conclusive, I'm still on the listening side of that debate.

The U.S. Treasury Dept. trains it's agents to recognize counterfeits by studying and becoming familiar with the genuine currency. Likewise if you have never tasted real butter then I don't believe you can offer a credible critique of margarine as a substitute. So to be honest, with all due respect, if you have not experienced the gift of speaking in tongues I don't think you are qualified to say what is or is not genuine.And so we are called to be fruit inspectors instead. A gift may not be able to be tested - as you said especially if one has not been given it; but the fruit that develops (or lack thereof) can be.

I asked on another thread (and was shot down because it was a "no debate [no discussion?] thread) if anyone themself has themself spoken, or has been present when someone else, spoke in a KNOWN language (such as Italian) that was unknown to themselves.

How would I know if I am speaking in a known language?

If I don't know Italian, how would I know if someone is speaking it?

My question then proposed that since many take The Book of Acts, and particularly Pentecost, as a model for what we are meant to manifest today, why do we see this absence of the sign of speaking in a KNOWN language?

Hi Sig,

From reading here over the past while I would recommend you track down Francis and ask for her testimony on this if she is open. Your question’s timeframe depends on personal testimony for an answer. I have personally (not physicaly) seen fruit in hers for what that may be worth.

Peace,

Joe

Tanks, eh?

I guess my point might be that if this occurs, it is indeed rare--especially considering the size of the current worldwide church. And if it is so rare--why?

Tanks, eh?

I guess my point might be that if this occurs, it is indeed rare--especially considering the size of the current worldwide church. And if it is so rare--why?

Again, SIG, can you tell me how I'm supposed to know I am speaking a known language if I don't know every language that has ever been spoken?

How are others supposed to know if it is a known language if they don't know every language that has ever been spoken?

How do I know if I'm speaking Italian if I don't know Italian?

Again, SIG, can you tell me how I'm supposed to know I am speaking a known language if I don't know every language that has ever been spoken?

How are others supposed to know if it is a known language if they don't know every language that has ever been spoken?

How do I know if I'm speaking Italian if I don't know Italian?How are you to know? Because you are also to pray for understanding.

(1 Cor 14:13 KJV) Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Again, SIG, can you tell me how I'm supposed to know I am speaking a known language if I don't know every language that has ever been spoken?

How are others supposed to know if it is a known language if they don't know every language that has ever been spoken?

How do I know if I'm speaking Italian if I don't know Italian?

I don't speak Italian, but I've seen enough Italian films to recognize the sound of it..

Or...if there is an Italian-speaker present, they would recognize (this would certainly be common in multi-lingual settings, such as in Europe).

Etc...

Again--what are we to make of signs that were common in the 1st-Century church, but seem to be non-existent today?

PS--Was reading this morning that early church historians (such as Augustine) reported that some signs had faded away...Need to research this further...

I don't speak Italian, but I've seen enough Italian films to recognize the sound of it..

Or...if there is an Italian-speaker present, they would recognize (this would certainly be common in multi-lingual settings, such as in Europe).

Etc...

But you're not answering my question. If I don't know every known language (nor does every person in the congregation), how am I supposed to know if I am speaking a known language?

How are you to know? Because you are also to pray for understanding.

(1 Cor 14:13 KJV) Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Even if I am given interpretation of the tongue, how do I know which specific language it is?

[quote=Naphal;1280144]

I agree with you on the pointless thing, I have read acts 2 many times and studied it. I don't see where it says that those speaking knew what they were saying, it also says they spoke in tongues, plural, meaning more than one. I think you are the one who lacks understanding on this subject and so I agree it is pointless to continue this thread especially since you are unwilling to list the scriputre that support your belief and answer the several questions that I have asked. Yesu ni Bwana, Mungu ni mwema.

Acts 2:
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, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

The point is that the true tongues that comes from God is understood by anyone that can hear it. Any tongue that cannot be understood is not the "Holy tongues" from God.

[quote=jiggyfly;1280186]

The point is that the true tongues that comes from God is understood by anyone that can hear it. Any tongue that cannot be understood is not the "Holy tongues" from God.

The why is one of the gifts interpretation of tongues?

[quote=Naphal;1281763]

The why is one of the gifts interpretation of tongues?

Completely unrelated to the Holy tongues. When you see the word "tongues" in scripture it is "languages" and that can be normal human languages or at times it is the one from God.

God gives a gift of people learning languages and then being given a gift of interpreting them very well. This was needed in order to convey the gospel perfectly in new languages. Sure, people learn languages and appear to be decent translators seemingly without it being a gift from God but scripture is speaking about people who are extraordinary translators.

NEVER does the Holy tongues need translating....never.

I question this 'primary reason of conveyong the gospel' when it comes to tongues. Certainly, this is what we primarily see in Acts 2. But if we look at passages in Acts 10 and Acts 19, this is mentioned nowhere. Any implication that Cornelius and John's disciples were preaching the gospel to somebody that spoke another language is speculative at best and cannot be substantiated by Scripture.

Secondly, nowhere in Scripture is it actually said that this is the purpose of tongues. Certainly, one might deduct this from Acts 2 in combination with an Old Testament Scripture I have heard quoted here before, but it cannot be substantiated from other accounts in Acts, nor from the discussion in 1 Corinthians 12-14.

I do not deny that tongues sometimes works this way...but I do not see enough evidence from Scripture to say as confidently as some do that it was primarily for spreading the gospel.

I question this 'primary reason of conveyong the gospel' when it comes to tongues. Certainly, this is what we primarily see in Acts 2. But if we look at passages in Acts 10 and Acts 19, this is mentioned nowhere. Any implication that Cornelius and John's disciples were preaching the gospel to somebody that spoke another language is speculative at best and cannot be substantiated by Scripture.

Secondly, nowhere in Scripture is it actually said that this is the purpose of tongues. Certainly, one might deduct this from Acts 2 in combination with an Old Testament Scripture I have heard quoted here before, but it cannot be substantiated from other accounts in Acts, nor from the discussion in 1 Corinthians 12-14.

I do not deny that tongues sometimes works this way...but I do not see enough evidence from Scripture to say as confidently as some do that it was primarily for spreading the gospel.

Please tell us what the purpose was for the tongues being understood by all no matter what language or area they came from on Pentecost day. Why did God have the disciples speak in this language that everyone could understand?

Please tell us what the purpose was for the tongues being understood by all no matter what language or area they came from on Pentecost day. Why did God have the disciples speak in this language that everyone could understand?

As I said in my previous post, conveying the good news of the Gospel to all those present that day in their own languages was one of the reasons of the speaking in tongues that day. I do not deny this fact. My point was that I do not feel there is enough Scriptural support to make this the primary reason for speaking in tongues everywhere at any time in every way. The rest of Scripture simply doesn't seem to support that in my opinion. As I said before, deducting that from Acts 10 and Acts 19 is at best speculative and in my opinion highly questionable.

Even if I am given interpretation of the tongue, how do I know which specific language it is?I would imagine that it is because someone in the audience who heard and understood it would know and be able to testify. The interpretation is for those who do not know the language so they can glorify God in your giving of thanks. That way the whole body is edified and not just the speaker. The idea that tongues is to be used for our prayer language when we are alone is not supported in scripture. Paul speaks in the context of when we are gathered together, not alone in our prayer closet. The gifts are for the Body not the individual. Which is why we see Paul giving instruction for their use in the fellowship and admonishing their abuse.

The idea that tongues is to be used for our prayer language when we are alone is not supported in scripture.


I cor 14:27-28
If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret.
But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

I cor 14:14-19
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:


The apostle Paul used tongues for his personal prayer when he was alone. Not only that he did it alot. If you don't want to do it - that's fine. It is your privilege not to. However, don't criticize those who do.

And herer's another verse-
"He who speaks in a tongue, does not speak to man, but to God...."

After all, that's what prayer is...speaking to God.

"I thank my God I speak in tongues more than you all..."
The Apostle Paul

The apostle Paul used tongues for his personal prayer when he was alone. Not only that he did it alot. If you don't want to do it - that's fine. It is your privilege not to. However, don't criticize those who do.cwb,
There is nothing written there that says Paul spoke to God in prayer when he was alone in "tongues". His context is within the fellowship, and therefore his own prayers to God would be in that same context. You must assume this is what he means because it is not what he said.

He also said that he would use His understanding as well.

I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also:

I think this would be a better argument for speaking in tongues being a secret prayer language, if he had said "I will pray in both known and unknown tongues," but he didn't. He said he would pray with both understanding and the spirit, not understanding and unknown tongues.

It seems to me that something is being added to arrive at that conclusion, since he is speaking about what is proper in a corporate worship setting and the whole point he is making is that is no one is edified by speaking or praying in a tongue that no one understands. It doesn't follow that it (praying in the spirit) is some secret prayer language that is simultaneously unitelligible (gibberish) and a tongue (a comprehendable language) as some have suggested, since neither prayer or spirit means language or unitelligible.

it's;


14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

not;


If my spirit prayeth, I pray in an unknown tongue and my understanding is unfruitful.

cwb,
There is nothing written there that says Paul spoke to God in prayer when he was alone in "tongues". His context is within the fellowship, and therefore his own prayers to God would be in that same context. You must assume this is what he means because it is not what he said.

Paul says in verse 19 of I cor 14
Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.

When he says "yet in the church", it shows that he speaking in contrast to what he was saying before - that he prayed in tongues alone. It looks pretty clear to me here that Paul is saying he spoke in tongues alot on his own. Not only did Paul speak in tongues in his personal prayer life, he admonished other to do it also in verses 27 and 28. Paul is telling people not to spkeak in tongues out loud in church if there is no interpreter. the context also shows that Paul spoke in tongues alot on his own but did not do so within the fellowship unless it was interpreted. His admonishment to not speak in tongues when in the fellowship unless interpreted does not negate that he did speak in tongues alot when he was alone with God. Again here are the verses.

I cor 14: 13-19
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.

CWB,
You have proved your point well! Being this is one of the sign gifts and Paul was an apostle, I expect you are right. I should have looked up the passage myself.

Blessings,

The apostle Paul used tongues for his personal prayer when he was alone.


Paul did no such thing. He is trying to give an example of how not to pray.






1Co 14:13

When we speak languages that others don't know, we should pray for the power to explain what we mean.

1Co 14:14


For example, if I use an unknown language in my prayers, my spirit prays but my mind is useless.

1Co 14:15


Then what should I do? There are times when I should pray with my spirit, and times when I should pray with my mind. Sometimes I should sing with my spirit, and at other times I should sing with my mind.

1Co 14:16


Suppose some strangers are in your worship service, when you are praising God with your spirit. If they don't understand you, how will they know to say, "Amen"?

1Co 14:17


You may be worshiping God in a wonderful way, but no one else will be helped.

1Co 14:18


I thank God that I speak unknown languages more than any of you.

1Co 14:19


But words that make sense can help the church. That's why in church I had rather speak five words that make sense than to speak ten thousand words in a language that others don't know.

1Co 14:20


My friends, stop thinking like children. Think like mature people and be as innocent as tiny babies.

Make sure to read his words carefully as he is talking about NOT praying in a language others do not understand because it is fruitless. It is even worse to pray in a language you don't understand yourself because you don't know what you are saying! He says to stop thinking like children!


Not only that he did it alot. If you don't want to do it - that's fine. It is your privilege not to.

I would never do it and Paul certainly didn't.


However, don't criticize those who do.

Paul did and I am merely repeating his criticism.

And herer's another verse-
"He who speaks in a tongue, does not speak to man, but to God...."

After all, that's what prayer is...speaking to God.

"I thank my God I speak in tongues more than you all..."
The Apostle Paul


Completely misunderstood. Paul is only saying if you pray openly to a room of people in a language you know but a language they don't understand then the only person that can understand is God. He isn't saying this is a good thing but a bad thing because this type of prayer should be understood by those listening!

The second quote is speaking about how many different languages Paul could speak and preach and pray in. Some experts surmise Paul spoke around 20 languages which made him perfect to spread the gospel to people who spoke those 20 languages! Paul is not speaking about the Holy tongues nor saying he does it often.

Paul says in verse 19 of I cor 14
Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.

When he says "yet in the church", it shows that he speaking in contrast to what he was saying before - that he prayed in tongues alone. It looks pretty clear to me here that Paul is saying he spoke in tongues alot on his own. Not only did Paul speak in tongues in his personal prayer life, he admonished other to do it also in verses 27 and 28. Paul is telling people not to spkeak in tongues out loud in church if there is no interpreter. the context also shows that Paul spoke in tongues alot on his own but did not do so within the fellowship unless it was interpreted. His admonishment to not speak in tongues when in the fellowship unless interpreted does not negate that he did speak in tongues alot when he was alone with God. Again here are the verses.

I cor 14: 13-19
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.

The contrast is not private prayer vs in the church. Paul starting about praying in the church and then drifted into how he speaks more languages than anyone else and then re-set the subject concerning how we should pray in church when others are around. Never pray with people in a language they can't understand or that you can't understand. It's that simple.

I am closing this thread. There is heat and there is fire. There are subtle digs and there is plain nasty. This is too hot and too nasty to continue. A mess of you need to perhaps ponder repenting. The comments here have been way over the top by many... both veiled comments and outright comments. I love a good and lively debate as well as the next person. This thread has sure enough long passed that point and folks are getting bent over it. The discussion isn't worth that.