PDA

View Full Version : A question about tounges



LetsDrinkCoke
Jun 30th 2008, 02:16 AM
I attended a church service today where a lady in the church spoke in tongues. After wards, one man interpreted it but after he was done and a very long silence occurred, the same person who did the speaking in tounges interpreted herself. I want to know if this is right or not, or at least hear people's opinions on it because I really feel that it was wrong to do so and against the Word. Since Paul says that two or three at most should inturepret, it doesn't say at all that the person doing the tounges speaking should also say what it means. Isn't the idea that the person doing it does not understand what they are saying, and the reason for the interputer is to edify the church with the message?

I would just like to hear what some people here have to say. I am seeking this in earnest because I want to do what the Word says, and this issue really divides not only myself, but even many of my friends.

-Joseph

Revinius
Jun 30th 2008, 07:18 AM
i find it rare that one would have the gift of tongues and interpretation at the same time. Why would they not then just speak english? lol

Kahtar
Jun 30th 2008, 01:10 PM
The Word does not place limits on who interprets. In the case of the one speaking tongues interpretting, it is entirely possible for God to give them the tongues, and then afterward the interpretation.
No point in putting God, or His gifts, into such a box. No need to place such limits on it. Let God be God and let Him use whom He will, how He will.

turtledove
Jun 30th 2008, 02:21 PM
I think I understand what you are sharing and can see why it would concern you; but not having been there is is difficult for me to answer and I am sure you have read through I Cor 14 on this subject.

In an assembly, as you mention, generally if someone has the interpretation the one who spoke out in the gift of tongues usually does not. However, if no one has the interpretation the one who spoke in tongues can interpret. I have seen this done on some occasions.

The Word does tell us that all should be done in decency and order. I am not sure why there were two interpreting; but then sometimes when there is a prophecy another one will continue what sounds like the same prophecy so perhaps the second one was a continuation of the interpretation..It could also be that the first or second interpretation was a prophetic word and not an interpretation in tongues. When this is happening with more than one speaking quickly it is sometimes hard to tell.

Did the atmosphere seem peaceful? It is really up to the pastor (preacher) or someone in authority to keep peace and order in a general gathering and make corrections if need be.



One thing I go by is that the messages should be bringing edification/exhortation to the people listening.

Sold Out
Jun 30th 2008, 02:47 PM
I would just like to hear what some people here have to say. I am seeking this in earnest because I want to do what the Word says, and this issue really divides not only myself, but even many of my friends.

-Joseph

Paul really blasted the Corinthian church for using this gift in error. That's why he stressed to them that if no one interprets, then keep silent. It is better to speak INTELIGIBLY than to speak in a language no one understands and the church is not edified.

downpouredlife
Jun 30th 2008, 02:49 PM
I attended a church service today where a lady in the church spoke in tongues. After wards, one man interpreted it but after he was done and a very long silence occurred, the same person who did the speaking in tounges interpreted herself. I want to know if this is right or not, or at least hear people's opinions on it because I really feel that it was wrong to do so and against the Word. Since Paul says that two or three at most should inturepret, it doesn't say at all that the person doing the tounges speaking should also say what it means. Isn't the idea that the person doing it does not understand what they are saying, and the reason for the interputer is to edify the church with the message?

I would just like to hear what some people here have to say. I am seeking this in earnest because I want to do what the Word says, and this issue really divides not only myself, but even many of my friends.

-Joseph

Paul does imply that the speaker can give an interpretation:



1 Corinthians 14:5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.

I don't think that this is often the case, however, because yeah, the point is that the person doesn't know what they're saying because it's God saying it. I'd be more hesitant (but not unwilling) to accept the person's interpretation, because it requires more discernment - anyone can babble and then make up their own interpretation. It requires more testing.

1of7000
Jun 30th 2008, 04:14 PM
The way the greek reads the one that speaks in tongues will have the interpretation. who better? anyone "interpreting" is only manifesting their own prophecy.(forthtelling not foretelling)

what happened from what you said was the lady spoke in tongues got interrupted by a man uttering prophecy then continued on with her interpretation.

the man was out of order and needs instruction.

another point, speaking in tongues with interpretation equals prophecy. prophecy is for the more "mature believers" both are intended to inspire and build up the Body of Christ. both are inspirational manifestations so the words are not there until the instant before spoken

downpouredlife
Jun 30th 2008, 05:04 PM
The way the greek reads the one that speaks in tongues will have the interpretation. who better? anyone "interpreting" is only manifesting their own prophecy.(forthtelling not foretelling)

what happened from what you said was the lady spoke in tongues got interrupted by a man uttering prophecy then continued on with her interpretation.

the man was out of order and needs instruction.

another point, speaking in tongues with interpretation equals prophecy. prophecy is for the more "mature believers" both are intended to inspire and build up the Body of Christ. both are inspirational manifestations so the words are not there until the instant before spoken

Interesting - I agree, it's a true statement for 1 Corinthians 14:13


For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says.


but what about 1 Corinthians 14:27?


If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. (italics mine)

Does anyone know if the Greek implies that in this case as well? (I'd be interested to see which case is more prominent in the epistles)

and 1 Corinthians 12:10


...to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.

Greek or not, that last one totally implies that the gifts can be separate, and therefore operate independently of one another. (e.g. you can speak in tongues, and I could interpret, even if I don't speak in tongues)

Again, I mostly curious about the middle verse because it seems BOTH cases are referred to in scripture. So I'm wondering, which one is more prominently referred to - the speaker interpreting, or another individual. It would make a difference in how we taught about tongues!

godsgirl
Jun 30th 2008, 05:10 PM
It's entirely possible that the man didn't give the entire interpretation. Perhaps he got "scared" or just didn't get it all. It is perfectly ok for the one doing the speaking in tongues to finish. It was obvious to those in your church with discernment-that the Body needed to wait for more (and so the silence). Nothing wrong here as far as I can see.
In my church usually a different person gives the interpretation-but not always.

keck553
Jun 30th 2008, 05:22 PM
God is a God of order. Check out the universe. No one is ordained by God to walk around in a daze and jibber-jabber like a pagan or a kabbalist.

When the gift is given by God, it is a gift to communicate with others in various languages. The purpose is to spread the Gospel. The result should always be edifying and glorifying to the Lord.

All babbling does is spread confusion and chaos.

Many who profess to have teh evidence of being baptised in the Holy Spirit by 'speaking in tongues' (babble) fail to show they have God's approval, evidenced by their depature to sound doctrine. Paul wrote: No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval (1 Cor 11:19). People I know insist that thier 'speaking in tongues' is athtentic and of value, dispite the fact that it does not enrich thier understanding, nor can they say AMEN to thier own prayers. There is no evidence that this has God's approval or that it is led by the Holy Spirit.

No doubt God spoke miraculously through many people in the early church through gifts of prophecy, tongues (languages) and other interpretations.

But now we have the word of God in it's fullness! Why are so many people being enticed and led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Jesus, our Messiah and go beyond the written Word? Have some minds become so dulled and blinded to the truth that they attract themselves to spiritual experiences and the appearance of miracles rather than the diligent study of God's word?

Some say those who diligently sutdy teh Scriptures, by which we distiguish between good and evil (Heb 5:14 and 6:11) are stoic and opposed to the 'unpredictable' moving of the Holy Spirit. Indeed the ability to speak in other languages was a Gift of the Holy Spirit, and testified to in the Scriptures. It is for this reason that many are persuaded to speak incoherant and unintelligible utterances in 'blind faith' thinking they are on a path that returns them to the fullness of gifts of the early church.

In my opinion, this stance is a denial that the Word of God has been revealed in it's fullness and requires no further prophetic utterance either in our own language, a foreign language, or jibber-jabber, whether by word of knowledge or word of wisdom.

The mature in Christ need not be puffed up by vain spiritual experience.

I would be more than happy to attempt to study together in the spirit of learning and clarifying any scriptual references to 'tongues'.

Friend of I AM
Jun 30th 2008, 05:30 PM
God is a God of order. Check out the universe. No one is ordained by God to walk around in a daze and jibber-jabber like a pagan or a kabbalist.


You know I had to laugh at this one man. Kabbalist? I didn't know they babble.(no offense to any Kabbalists on here - I don't know anything about the doctrine) To be fair, sometimes those who are in the body and speak plain english babble as well...:)

keck553
Jun 30th 2008, 05:39 PM
I threw in Kabbalists because they tend to dabble in metaphysics, which in my view is about the same.

As to your second comment, so true. Myself included. Especially when my blood sugar drops!!

If I can speak to one event that was a turning point for me in all this, (I admit to being involved in all this myself), is when I was on a worship team and my Pastor wanted to emotionally fire up his congregation. He came to me, put his hand on my shoulder and spoke these words to me: "Now when you perform up there, act like you're filled with the Holy Spirit".

Something happened to me instantly the moment I heard that statement. I walked away and from that day I never looked back at my old charismatic days.

It's not my human nature to walk away and turn the way I did, so suddenly. I am convinced I walked away in God's will and against my own will, for I loved the people in that congregation, I loved the worship team. But I love God more.

downpouredlife
Jun 30th 2008, 05:44 PM
When the gift is given by God, it is a gift to communicate with others in various languages. The purpose is to spread the Gospel. The result should always be edifying and glorifying to the Lord.


First of all, I think you're hilarious. Secondly, I'd like to know your take on 1 Corinthians 14:2-4. I agree with you that tongues is a gift that can be used to spread the Gospel.... but isn't there more to it?

PS, I'm interested in doing the study if you start one. I've seen a lot of ideas about tongues, and I'd like to go through what the bible has to say about it for myself. But it's more fun with other people, because they reveal your bias. For example, I forgot that the disciples used tongues to evangelize!

keck553
Jun 30th 2008, 05:53 PM
They sure did. In Greek and all kinds of other intelligible languages! Just like God spoke in (I think) 70 languages from Mt. Sinai (the hebrews had all kinds of foreigners traveling with them).

Remember, the New Testament was not yet written. Now that it is, God's Word is complete and full.

I truely don't want this to become an ego contest. I just am interested in truth. We are all one in Christ and all brothers with Him as our Teacher. :)

So, does this start on a new thread or continue here?

I'll check Paul's writing and comment.

downpouredlife
Jun 30th 2008, 06:00 PM
Just like God spoke in (I think) 70 languages from Mt. Sinai (the hebrews had all kinds of foreigners traveling with them).


Hang on, what??? That's really cool. Where can I look that up? Talk about interesting.....

Anyway, I can guarantee that we won't agree on all points, but I am not interested in arguing, only in study, and it seems like you have a point of view that is worth a deeper look.

BTW, I think I got all uppity on you in the other tongues forum - I don't think I fully understood where you were coming from. oops!;)

LetsDrinkCoke
Jun 30th 2008, 06:52 PM
Trying to keep on topic for a second (only cause its something I still can't wrap my mind around totally) while I have never felt comfortable with tongues in the church service, I do accept it as a gift. After all, it does not say in the bible that all these gifts are forever except tongues. However, since Paul says at least two or three should interpreted, wouldn't it be illogical for the person who is speaking (in a language they don't know) to know the words and do the profess from it? That's why there are others to do the interpreting. I felt the reason there was a long silence after the first person was because there was no second interpreter. Only then did the person doing the tounge speaking take that role upon herself. It made me feel as if they wanted to try and keep the two person thing any way they can.

Some people here have said they don't see a problem with it, but my question is then why would Paul have said that there must be two or at most three people to interpuret?

Firefighter
Jun 30th 2008, 06:56 PM
1Co 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

LetsDrinkCoke
Jun 30th 2008, 06:57 PM
The Word does not place limits on who interprets. In the case of the one speaking tongues interpretting, it is entirely possible for God to give them the tongues, and then afterward the interpretation.
No point in putting God, or His gifts, into such a box. No need to place such limits on it. Let God be God and let Him use whom He will, how He will.

you say not to place limits on God, but I can't agree with that. The Word itself is God, and we must test everything according to the Word. We are not limiting God by questioning or saying something can't be done, we are validating that what is happening IS from God.

You say the word not not place a limit on who can interpret, however Paul does say two or at most three must do it. So there is in fact a limit on who can. Vs. 29 of 1COr 14 says Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. IT does not say that the speaker should interpret, but rather be silent if there are no one else there as seen in vs. 28

LetsDrinkCoke
Jun 30th 2008, 07:00 PM
I don't think that this is often the case, however, because yeah, the point is that the person doesn't know what they're saying because it's God saying it. I'd be more hesitant (but not unwilling) to accept the person's interpretation, because it requires more discernment - anyone can babble and then make up their own interpretation. It requires more testing.

I'm really hesitant on it only for the fact that God is telling this person to speak in tongues, not to interpret. He would have others ready to do that as Paul says the order should be.

We can all agree that God is a God of order, and the order is set in the Word, so the order should be followed. I don't see the order in the word saying the same tongue speaker can interpret.

LetsDrinkCoke
Jun 30th 2008, 07:03 PM
1Co 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.


Here is my problem with that, and once again I say this with sincere ernest and no malace at all.

If God is telling the congregation a message through someone, and then needs that same person to also interpret, then there would be no reason for the tongue speaking cause that person knows the message in our Native Tongue (English for this case).

In the fellowship of church, you have the others to interpret. If it was for one self, talking to God, then obviously they would need to pray that they can interpret it so they can understand it and be edified by it.

Revinius
Jun 30th 2008, 07:47 PM
I try and stay away from the whole tongues thing. In the modern context we cannot know the tongues that is spoken in the pentacostal churches is the same tongues Paul spoke of.

amazzin
Jun 30th 2008, 07:55 PM
i find it rare that one would have the gift of tongues and interpretation at the same time. Why would they not then just speak english? lol

You know it is comments like that that demean the power of God. Perhaps you should contemplate on what it is you actually said and did with your comment.

You slapped God in the face and you made of yourself just like Satan did before his fall

LetsDrinkCoke
Jun 30th 2008, 08:02 PM
You know it is comments like that that demean the power of God. Perhaps you should contemplate on what it is you actually said and did with your comment.

You slapped God in the face and you made of yourself just like Satan did before his fall

This is not a thread to criticize. While the laugh at the end might not have been needed, the point made is valid and one that I happen to have had feelings about.

IF God was giving a message to this person for the church to speak in tongues, and then interpret them self in English, why would he not then just have her speak in English. Were is the edification that comes from personal translation for the church? That is why we have interpreters, why Paul says it is needed, is it not?

timmyb
Jun 30th 2008, 08:02 PM
You know tongues is a gift that the church is supposed to using... often times we see it faked so much that we often decide out of our own supposed wisdom that we're better off without it and thereby hinder the church and it's ministry... that's why we are so leery of healing, prophecy, and other very essential gifts that are given for the benefit of the church

instead of going boldly and exercising our muscles in the gifts, we are so afraid of making mistakes that we would rather not go that direction...

We really need to realize the love of God in our lives and that we are like children riding a bicycle without training wheels for the first time... we will fall... but that never means that we should run away from the task... the gifts of the Holy Spirit, tongues, healing and miracles are of God that he desires us to use... Let ALL things be done decently and in order...

LetsDrinkCoke
Jun 30th 2008, 08:06 PM
You know tongues is a gift that the church is supposed to using... often times we see it faked so much that we often decide out of our own supposed wisdom that we're better off without it and thereby hinder the church and it's ministry... that's why we are so leery of healing, prophecy, and other very essential gifts that are given for the benefit of the church

I agree that we become leery because of how it is handled, like this situation. I am not debating if it is right or not, I already said that while I "personally" have reservations about it in the church service today, it is a gift and should be used by anyone who God has given this gift too. But we are to follow the Word in doing this as well as anything else, and that is why I have my reservations about how this instance was handled.

amazzin
Jun 30th 2008, 08:08 PM
This is not a thread to criticize. While the laugh at the end might not have been needed,

As the chaplian of this forum I will not allow anyone to mock God like this. Do so in real-time if you must but not in this forum.

LetsDrinkCoke
Jun 30th 2008, 08:10 PM
As the chaplian of this forum I will not allow anyone to mock God like this. Do so in real-time if you must but not in this forum.

what is mocking about what I said? I made a point not to not have people critize others here. I don't understand where you coming form with this. I Don't want anyone to critize anyone.

amazzin
Jun 30th 2008, 08:17 PM
what is mocking about what I said? I made a point not to not have people critize others here. I don't understand where you coming form with this. I Don't want anyone to critize anyone.

Wasn't referring to anything you said.

timmyb
Jun 30th 2008, 08:17 PM
amazzin is talking about someone else's remark... not you dude

keck553
Jun 30th 2008, 08:18 PM
ever consider that Tongue = mouth = language (as in intelligble language)? If you had a Russian or a Korean in your congregation, would you not want an interpreter? How difficult can this be made?

No one can show any scripture which defines tongues as wimpering babble outside of a foreign language?

LetsDrinkCoke
Jun 30th 2008, 08:20 PM
Wasn't referring to anything you said.

ok, well I could not follow that considering you quoted part of a post I made.

Kahtar
Jun 30th 2008, 08:22 PM
The Word itself is God, and we must test everything according to the Word. Didn't suggest otherwise.

You say the word not not place a limit on who can interpret, however Paul does say two or at most three must do it.
Actually, it says 'let one interpret'. But it doesn't limit who that one should be.
1 Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret.

IT does not say that the speaker should interpret, but rather be silent if there are no one else there as seen in vs. 28
My Bible says the one speaking in tongues should pray that he also interpret.
[b]1 Corinthians 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.
I guess you can be as rigid about it as you desire. I personally don't think that was Paul's intent.
Let's see, Paul didn't say it was okay to dance in church, or to use musical instruments in church, or any media display or sound equipment. He didn't give us floorplan for our churches or say anything at all about pews, or even a pulpit. How rigid do we want to be?
Yes, the Word of God is our measuring stick, our balance measure. We should always refer to it and weigh everything according to the Word. But we can take that too far, as did the Pharisees, and build fences around it and ourselves so we don't take the chance of violating it in any point.

keck553
Jun 30th 2008, 08:35 PM
You know it is comments like that that demean the power of God. Perhaps you should contemplate on what it is you actually said and did with your comment.

You slapped God in the face and you made of yourself just like Satan did before his fall

Easy friend. We are brothers. Only God gets to judge one's heart.

godsgirl
Jul 1st 2008, 01:15 AM
Trying to keep on topic for a second (only cause its something I still can't wrap my mind around totally) while I have never felt comfortable with tongues in the church service, I do accept it as a gift. After all, it does not say in the bible that all these gifts are forever except tongues. However, since Paul says at least two or three should interpreted, wouldn't it be illogical for the person who is speaking (in a language they don't know) to know the words and do the profess from it? That's why there are others to do the interpreting. I felt the reason there was a long silence after the first person was because there was no second interpreter. Only then did the person doing the tounge speaking take that role upon herself. It made me feel as if they wanted to try and keep the two person thing any way they can.

Some people here have said they don't see a problem with it, but my question is then why would Paul have said that there must be two or at most three people to interpuret?


That isn't what Paul said, what he said was that there should be no more than two or at the most three utterences in tongues in a service--

"If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret;"

Many people in Paul's day were praying in tongues aloud in the church-for others to hear-Paul merely told them that he prayed in tongues quite often also, but in the church, tongues when done loudly enough for the whole church to hear do not edify the body unless the "gift" of tongues is manifested and then the "gift" of interpretation comes forth.

godsgirl
Jul 1st 2008, 01:29 AM
This is not a thread to criticize. While the laugh at the end might not have been needed, the point made is valid and one that I happen to have had feelings about.

IF God was giving a message to this person for the church to speak in tongues, and then interpret them self in English, why would he not then just have her speak in English. Were is the edification that comes from personal translation for the church? That is why we have interpreters, why Paul says it is needed, is it not?

Actually, it's like this, The Holy Spirit lays it upon your heart to speak forth a message in other tongues-for me, this is quite a strong desire that has an actual physical burning in my chest....in order to be obedient to the Lord one will speak forth the words the Holy Spirit gives you to say.

Then the church waits-for the interpretation to come forth. Usually another person in the church will be given the interpretation-it comes the same way, the "knowing" that God wants you to speak and the words to say.

Sometimes no one is obedient enough or listening to the Spirit enough for the interpretation to come through-at this time, and really during the whole silence, the one speaking forth in the tongue, and the body in general will be praying for the interpretation. If no one else has received that "interpretation" then the one speaking forth the tongue will receive it from the Lord.

The interpretaton + the tongue = prophesy-and as such must be judged by the church to make sure it is from the Lord.

That's how it works for me anyway.

BroRog
Jul 1st 2008, 01:38 AM
Actually, it's like this, The Holy Spirit lays it upon your heart to speak forth a message in other tongues-for me, this is quite a strong desire that has an actual physical burning in my chest....in order to be obedient to the Lord one will speak forth the words the Holy Spirit gives you to say.

Then the church waits-for the interpretation to come forth. Usually another person in the church will be given the interpretation-it comes the same way, the "knowing" that God wants you to speak and the words to say.

Sometimes no one is obedient enough or listening to the Spirit enough for the interpretation to come through-at this time, and really during the whole silence, the one speaking forth in the tongue, and the body in general will be praying for the interpretation. If no one else has received that "interpretation" then the one speaking forth the tongue will receive it from the Lord.

The interpretaton + the tongue = prophesy-and as such must be judged by the church to make sure it is from the Lord.

That's how it works for me anyway.

See how backward that is? Paul said that if someone can't interpret, don't speak in tongues at all. He didn't say, "speak in tongues and hope someone might interpret."

BroRog
Jul 1st 2008, 01:45 AM
I don't know what you all are doing in your churches but the supernatural gift of interpretation is not supposed to be used for the supernatural gift of speaking in tongues. If I was the pastor in that church, I'd put a stop to in immediately. This is called false wonders and comes from pride and a need to get attention.

LetsDrinkCoke
Jul 1st 2008, 03:12 AM
For two days I have been praying about this subject and have read over everyones thoughts a lot. Obviously in the end, I pray that the Holy Spirit convicts me on what is right or wrong, however this is what I have felt all day today.

Because there was no interpreter, then it should not have occured. God is not going to speak forth in Tounges without 2 or 3 interpretures. Several people for tounges have said that perhaps the person was just scared, so the tounge speaker had to interpret as well, but that does not make sense because God knows the hearts of everyone in the fellowship. God would not break his own Word, and the Word says there needs to be interpretures. Paul says if there is none, the person should be silet, not interurpt.

If the person doing the tounge speaking is also able to be an inturpreter, then Paul would have said let their be at least one other person to interpute. Considering there is a requirement for two, I can't keep with the idea that the second can be the orignial speaker.

Kahtar, you were the only one to at least use the Word as best you could in what you believe, and for that I really do thank you. I'm not sure however that vs. 13 does not override Pauls requirement with vs. 27. The only reason I say this is simply because if Paul gives the guideline. Perhaps vs. 13 has more to do with personal tounges and talking to God, I don't know, but for the fellowship it does not make sense.

I don't want to keep this thread going and start to degrade at all, I was just hoping for a few honest opinions to what I experienced and hear from several people which I did. I thank everone who posted, and I thank God for the chance to fellowship here on this board with other brothers and sisters.

Revinius
Jul 1st 2008, 04:34 AM
You know it is comments like that that demean the power of God. Perhaps you should contemplate on what it is you actually said and did with your comment.

You slapped God in the face and you made of yourself just like Satan did before his fall

Eh? Did you just compare me to satan? I am stunned.... Because i dissapprove of the context of people speaking the thing they call tongues i am tempting people to sin? I would think i am saying it the other way if anything, urging caution. Perhaps you should be the one telling me "did God tell you not to eat from any tree of the garden?"

1of7000
Jul 1st 2008, 05:36 AM
tongues with interpretation is a sign to unbelievers otherwise the tongues is just babbling to them. the one to interpet is the one that spoke in tongues. there is no logic in having someone else try to interpret if God inspires a message to one

tongues by themselves edify the individual, it is quality time with Father and builds you up spiritually. you don't have to do it if you don't want but you will be missing out. It is also the fundamental manifestation and utilizing it will enhance your ability to operate the other eight.

If you allow the abuse to put you off then satan has won.

godsgirl
Jul 1st 2008, 10:20 AM
Let'sdrinkcoke=can you show me using scripture-where you think that there must be two interpretors for tongues? I think you are misquoting a verse that Paul spoke--but if you look up the verse and quote it here-maybe we can come to a more Biblical conclusion.

godsgirl
Jul 1st 2008, 10:26 AM
See how backward that is? Paul said that if someone can't interpret, don't speak in tongues at all. He didn't say, "speak in tongues and hope someone might interpret."


I didn't say it would't be interpreted-I just said that "usually" God uses another person in this gift-besides the one giving the utterance in tongues. If God tells you to give a message in tongues you can only be obedient in what He asks you--you cannot know for certian that this one or that one will be used in the other gift-and if they aren't, for whatever reason, He will give the interpretation for you. And I didn't say nothing about "hope" someone might interpret-the Bible says, "pray".

You know in your spirit that God wants you to speak forth, to do anything less would be being disobedient to the Lord-but before you speak you cannot know the interpretation or who will bring it. The only thing you can know is if there is someone in the body that is used in that gift.

godsgirl
Jul 1st 2008, 10:28 AM
I don't know what you all are doing in your churches but the supernatural gift of interpretation is not supposed to be used for the supernatural gift of speaking in tongues. If I was the pastor in that church, I'd put a stop to in immediately. This is called false wonders and comes from pride and a need to get attention.

HUIH????? Explain your position using the scripture=I think I must be misunderstanding something here.:confused

BroRog
Jul 1st 2008, 02:45 PM
HUIH????? Explain your position using the scripture=I think I must be misunderstanding something here.:confused

I think you are understanding me. I suspect you never heard this before. You want a scripture verse? I can give you one. But first, give me a scripture where it says that the supernatural gift of interpretation is supposed to be used to interpret the supernatural gift of tongues. I don't think you will find one.

LetsDrinkCoke
Jul 1st 2008, 02:52 PM
Let'sdrinkcoke=can you show me using scripture-where you think that there must be two interpretors for tongues? I think you are misquoting a verse that Paul spoke--but if you look up the verse and quote it here-maybe we can come to a more Biblical conclusion.

God'sgirl, we both know what I am talking about. The word must does not have to be in there for it to be a requirement. If you are going to use that logic, everything in the bible is questonable if the word must is not there. it's not you MUST love your God with all your heart, it is love your god with all your heart. I am not misquoting anything, I am reading it as it is simply put.

downpouredlife
Jul 1st 2008, 05:21 PM
God'sgirl, we both know what I am talking about. The word must does not have to be in there for it to be a requirement. If you are going to use that logic, everything in the bible is questonable if the word must is not there. it's not you MUST love your God with all your heart, it is love your god with all your heart. I am not misquoting anything, I am reading it as it is simply put.



I Corinthians 14:27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret.

The passage you both are referring to says that two or three may speak in tongues, and somone must interpret. It does not say that two or three must interpret at all. The Corinthians were having trouble with order in the Church, and people were speaking out of turn continually, using the excuse that they were "led by the Spirit." This is why he says in verses 31-33, "




For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.


It is church tradition, not scripture that calls for two or three interpreters.

This verse is paralleled by verse 29, where Paul outlines the same process for prophetic utterances: that "two or three" may speak. The pattern laid out is quite similar:



1 Corinthians 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.

I challenge you to find ANY scripture reference that calls for two or three interpreters. I believed that as well - as recently as two days ago- but it does not exist. If you can find it, or even find a verse that implies it, I will concede. But it is irresponsible to believe something is in scripture just because everyone says it is! Find it! Ask your pastor to find it! We are so sleepy, we don't get up and look for ourselves to see what the scripture actually says!
The verse that you are thinking of and misappropriating is 2 Corinthians 3:1. Paul is coming to rebuke the Corinthians for their overt denial of sin, and uses Mosaic Law regarding the accusation of others to back himself up, saying:




"This will be my third visit to you. "Every charge must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."

Often, this rule is applied to prophetic revelation, to confirm that the person was hearing clearly from the Lord. We have, in our lack of diligence in the knowledge of the things of the Spirit, confused the verses.

godsgirl
Jul 1st 2008, 09:47 PM
God'sgirl, we both know what I am talking about. The word must does not have to be in there for it to be a requirement. If you are going to use that logic, everything in the bible is questonable if the word must is not there. it's not you MUST love your God with all your heart, it is love your god with all your heart. I am not misquoting anything, I am reading it as it is simply put.


No, I'm sorry I do not see a verse that says two or three should intepret-if you are talking about a certian one-please bring it forth.

godsgirl
Jul 1st 2008, 09:54 PM
I think you are understanding me. I suspect you never heard this before. You want a scripture verse? I can give you one. But first, give me a scripture where it says that the supernatural gift of interpretation is supposed to be used to interpret the supernatural gift of tongues. I don't think you will find one.


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. 1 corinthians 14:7

Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. 1 Corinthians 14:13

If people speak in other languages, only two or three at the most should speak. They should do it one at a time, and someone must interpret what each person says.

Phenot2
Jul 1st 2008, 10:03 PM
1Co 14:27 If one speaks in a language, let it be by two or three at the most, and in turn, also let one interpret.

it seems that all it takes is one interpreter of whatever language the person is using.

BroRog
Jul 2nd 2008, 12:32 AM
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. 1 corinthians 14:7

Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. 1 Corinthians 14:13

If people speak in other languages, only two or three at the most should speak. They should do it one at a time, and someone must interpret what each person says.

Yes, that is true. But where does it say the interpretor is using supernatural ability?

davidandme
Jul 2nd 2008, 12:38 AM
I attended a church service today where a lady in the church spoke in tongues. After wards, one man interpreted it but after he was done and a very long silence occurred, the same person who did the speaking in tounges interpreted herself. I want to know if this is right or not, or at least hear people's opinions on it because I really feel that it was wrong to do so and against the Word. Since Paul says that two or three at most should inturepret, it doesn't say at all that the person doing the tounges speaking should also say what it means. Isn't the idea that the person doing it does not understand what they are saying, and the reason for the interputer is to edify the church with the message?

I would just like to hear what some people here have to say. I am seeking this in earnest because I want to do what the Word says, and this issue really divides not only myself, but even many of my friends.

-Joseph
Some people misinterpret the Bible and think that the only evidence that the person have that he/she has recieved the Holy is if they inially speak in tounges. This is not true. The gifts of the Spirit are very easy to fake. I have seen it done. However the fruits of the Spirit is a complete diferent story.

downpouredlife
Jul 2nd 2008, 12:41 AM
Yes, that is true. But where does it say the interpretor is using supernatural ability?

In 1 Corinthians 12:9-11



To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

Note that all these examples are supernatural. All of the Gifts of the Spirit are beyond man's natural ability to attain - that's why they're called 'gifts.' Why would Paul add a 'natural gift' at random, in the middle of a list of 'supernatural spiritual gifts?'

godsgirl
Jul 2nd 2008, 12:42 AM
Yes, that is true. But where does it say the interpretor is using supernatural ability?

All of the Spiritual gifts are "supernatural". We are told that they are given by the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:8 As far as the "interpretor using supernatural ability"--besides the fact that all the gifts are supernatural-we are told plainly that no one understands tongues so one is given the interpretation by the same Spirit.

keck553
Jul 2nd 2008, 01:49 AM
check out Isaiah 28 and Joel 2. Paul did..... :)

shalom

downpouredlife
Jul 2nd 2008, 02:13 AM
check out Isaiah 28 and Joel 2. Paul did..... :)

shalom

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.....

BroRog
Jul 2nd 2008, 03:30 AM
In 1 Corinthians 12:9-11



To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

Note that all these examples are supernatural. All of the Gifts of the Spirit are beyond man's natural ability to attain - that's why they're called 'gifts.' Why would Paul add a 'natural gift' at random, in the middle of a list of 'supernatural spiritual gifts?'

I'm not saying the gift of interpretation isn't supernatural. I said the supernatural gift of interpretation is never to be used to interpret a word spoken by the gift of tongues. If that is happening in your church, then you are witnessing false signs and wonders.

davidandme
Jul 2nd 2008, 03:38 AM
I attended a church service today where a lady in the church spoke in tongues. After wards, one man interpreted it but after he was done and a very long silence occurred, the same person who did the speaking in tounges interpreted herself. I want to know if this is right or not, or at least hear people's opinions on it because I really feel that it was wrong to do so and against the Word. Since Paul says that two or three at most should inturepret, it doesn't say at all that the person doing the tounges speaking should also say what it means. Isn't the idea that the person doing it does not understand what they are saying, and the reason for the interputer is to edify the church with the message?

I would just like to hear what some people here have to say. I am seeking this in earnest because I want to do what the Word says, and this issue really divides not only myself, but even many of my friends.

-Joseph
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

a sojourner
Jul 2nd 2008, 03:41 AM
I'm not saying the gift of interpretation isn't supernatural. I said the supernatural gift of interpretation is never to be used to interpret a word spoken by the gift of tongues. If that is happening in your church, then you are witnessing false signs and wonders.

Where do you get that from?

BroRog
Jul 2nd 2008, 03:47 AM
All of the Spiritual gifts are "supernatural". We are told that they are given by the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:8 As far as the "interpretor using supernatural ability"--besides the fact that all the gifts are supernatural-we are told plainly that no one understands tongues so one is given the interpretation by the same Spirit.

I don't think Paul meant to say no one understands. First of all, the one speaking in tongues understands.

One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. . . .

and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

In this we understand Paul's explicit assertion that the person speaking in tongues can interpret his or her own tongues. The command is clear. If a person wants to speak in tongues, he or she must also interpret.

downpouredlife
Jul 2nd 2008, 04:25 AM
I don't think Paul meant to say no one understands. First of all, the one speaking in tongues understands.

http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/biblestudytools/skin/CW/Icon_CrossRef_wht_bg.gif

I Corinthians 14:13-14 For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays,http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/biblestudytools/skin/CW/Icon_CrossRef_wht_bg.gif but my mind is unfruitful.

Therefore, the speaker does not understand what he is saying, because he must pray to interpret what he himself says.

Further, the speaker's own mind in unfruitful - he is not praying with his mind, in a language he understands then, but is praying with his spirit, in a language no man understands, as Paul says in verse 2.

keck553
Jul 2nd 2008, 03:55 PM
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.....

It's the foundation of what Paul and Peter discuss regarding 'tongues'.

BroRog
Jul 3rd 2008, 03:52 AM
http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/biblestudytools/skin/CW/Icon_CrossRef_wht_bg.gif

I Corinthians 14:13-14 For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays,http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/biblestudytools/skin/CW/Icon_CrossRef_wht_bg.gif but my mind is unfruitful.

Therefore, the speaker does not understand what he is saying, because he must pray to interpret what he himself says.

Further, the speaker's own mind in unfruitful - he is not praying with his mind, in a language he understands then, but is praying with his spirit, in a language no man understands, as Paul says in verse 2.

I think you misunderstand Paul's chain of thought here. The portion I quoted comes earlier in the chapter and describes Paul's view of tongues. The part you quoted is Paul's advice to folks who are faking it. If a person were doing it right, as he says earlier, they would be able to interpret for themselves. Some people aren't doing it right. For these folks, Paul advises them to pray that they may interpret.

Think about it. If Paul thought as you do, he would have commanded that we ask God to send someone else other than the one speaking to interpret. But he didn't. He commands that the person speaking in a tongue pray that he himself might interpret.

Also, the word "for" in verse 14 is not in some manuscripts. And it makes more sense without it since Paul follows his statement with a probing question. It should read,

If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What then?

Paul isn't saying he does this. He is asking a rhetorical question. He answers his own question in the next sentence.

I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.

That's what Paul actually does. Unlike those who are doing it wrong, his own prayer in a tongue is not unfruitful to his mind. When Paul prays in tongues, he knows what he is saying.

downpouredlife
Jul 3rd 2008, 01:48 PM
I think you misunderstand Paul's chain of thought here. The portion I quoted comes earlier in the chapter and describes Paul's view of tongues. The part you quoted is Paul's advice to folks who are faking it. If a person were doing it right, as he says earlier, they would be able to interpret for themselves. Some people aren't doing it right. For these folks, Paul advises them to pray that they may interpret.


I don't agree with you. If the believers were 'faking' it, as you put it, Paul would have rebuked them! I have an issue with this reasoning (aside from the assumption that Paul is speaking rhetorically in verse 14). Why, if these believers are 'faking,' would Paul instruct them to pray to interpret their 'faked' speech?



Think about it. If Paul thought as you do, he would have commanded that we ask God to send someone else other than the one speaking to interpret. But he didn't. He commands that the person speaking in a tongue pray that he himself might interpret.

I believe that anyone can receive the gift of interpretation of tongues, just as anyone can receive the gift of tongues whom God choses to give it to. So it is appropriate, if there is no one else to interpret, for the speaker to pray that he himself might interpret. Why pray for another to come, if you can receive the gift yourself?


Paul isn't saying he does this. He is asking a rhetorical question. He answers his own question in the next sentence.

Even if this is rhetorical, (which I don't agree with) Paul still instructs the speakers of 'fake' tongues to pray without interpretion to God, though their mind is unfruitful when they do so. Verse 28



If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

Why would he do that? Because the speaker is edified, though they do not understand what they are saying. (verse 2)



For anyone who speaks in a tonguehttp://media.salemwebnetwork.com/biblestudytools/skin/CW/Icon_Footnotes_wht_bg.gifhttp://media.salemwebnetwork.com/biblestudytools/skin/CW/Icon_CrossRef_wht_bg.gif does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him;http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/biblestudytools/skin/CW/Icon_CrossRef_wht_bg.gif he utters mysterieshttp://media.salemwebnetwork.com/biblestudytools/skin/CW/Icon_CrossRef_wht_bg.gif with his spirit.

This makes it impossible for Paul to have been reprimanding the speakers for 'faking' a spiritual gift of tongues, for he validates what they do twice, saying it edifies them, and that he should continue speaking to God, albeit quietly.

Lastly, if the speakers were 'faking,' it would be impossible for their tongues, which they do not understand, to 'edify' anyone. It would be destructive, even to themselves, for them to continue. It would also be impossible for God to give a gift to interpret their 'faked' tonges.

Look at the context of Paul's direction. He gives it along with direction for giving orderly prophetic words. The issue here is order in a church service - this is why Paul says in verse 33, "God is not a God of chaos, but a God of order."

keck553
Jul 3rd 2008, 04:50 PM
I agree. Paul was zealous and down to earth. Though his arguments are somewhat complex and mis-understood by many, he was just as zealous after the Damascus road incident as he was before. In a different way of course!

godsgirl
Jul 3rd 2008, 08:11 PM
My goodness why does it seem so hard for some of you. I think you are trying to make it fit your own theology and it just doesn't.

1. All can pray in tongues to build our faith
2. Prayer is talking to God
3. The gift of tongues is for the church gathered
4. It must be interpreted so that the church can be built up

Paul said plainly that he prayed in tongues AND in his understanding-balance is the key-not one without the other.

Public Gift of Tongues

Spoken with interpretation to the church (Equal to prophecy-1 Corinthians 14:5 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A5))
To be interpreted (1 Corinthians 14:5 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A5))
Edifies the church (when interpreted-1 Corinthians 14:4-5 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A4-5))
A sign to unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:22 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A22))
Not given to all believers (1 Corinthians 12:30 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+12%3A30)))


Personal Prayer Tongue
Spoken privately to God (1 Corinthians 14:2 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A2))
No interpretation necessary (1 Corinthians 14:28 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A28))
Edifies the individual believer (1 Corinthians 14:4 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A4))
Can be manifested when no unbelievers are present (Acts 10:46 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+10%3A46); 19:6)
Should be desired and practiced by all Christians Mark 16:17 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Mark+16%3A17); 1 Corinthians 14:5 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A5); Ephesians 6:18 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Ephesians+6%3A18); Jude 20 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Jude+20) ).

BroRog
Jul 4th 2008, 12:23 AM
I don't agree with you. If the believers were 'faking' it, as you put it, Paul would have rebuked them! I have an issue with this reasoning (aside from the assumption that Paul is speaking rhetorically in verse 14). Why, if these believers are 'faking,' would Paul instruct them to pray to interpret their 'faked' speech?

I understand you have an issue with my reasoning. But, do you deny the fact that Paul says a person can interpret their own tongues? He says as much here,

and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets . . .

His statement would be meaningless if a man could not interpret his own tongues.


I believe that anyone can receive the gift of interpretation of tongues, just as anyone can receive the gift of tongues whom God choses to give it to. So it is appropriate, if there is no one else to interpret, for the speaker to pray that he himself might interpret. Why pray for another to come, if you can receive the gift yourself?

As I said, the supernatural gift of interpretation is NOT used to interpret a word spoken in tongues. And Paul isn't asking for a man to pray that God would send someone else to interpret. He is asking the man, who is supposedly speaking in tongues, to ask God that he, himself might understand the word spoken.


Even if this is rhetorical, (which I don't agree with) Paul still instructs the speakers of 'fake' tongues to pray without interpretion to God, though their mind is unfruitful when they do so. Verse 28

In that verse, the emphasis centers around church activity. The command is to be silent if you have no interpretor. Obviously, if you are doing it right, you can interpret for yourself. You know what you intended to say.

Remember also, the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.


Why would he do that? Because the speaker is edified, though they do not understand what they are saying. (verse 2)


You are repeating another misconception. Only a person who understands what has been said can be edified. People are not edified (in the Biblical sense) when they do not understand. He makes that point using music as an example. If the sound is not understood, whether it be a song or a warning call, the sound must be understood. In like manner, unless a person understands what is being said, no edification is possible.




For anyone who speaks in a tonguehttp://media.salemwebnetwork.com/biblestudytools/skin/CW/Icon_Footnotes_wht_bg.gifhttp://media.salemwebnetwork.com/biblestudytools/skin/CW/Icon_CrossRef_wht_bg.gif does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him;http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/biblestudytools/skin/CW/Icon_CrossRef_wht_bg.gif he utters mysterieshttp://media.salemwebnetwork.com/biblestudytools/skin/CW/Icon_CrossRef_wht_bg.gif with his spirit.

This makes it impossible for Paul to have been reprimanding the speakers for 'faking' a spiritual gift of tongues, for he validates what they do twice, saying it edifies them, and that he should continue speaking to God, albeit quietly.

This is another common mistake. Verse 2 and 3 are not normative. In these two verses Paul is stating the problem, not what is normal. The problem in the Corinthian church is that folks are speaking in tongues in such a manner that no one in the church derives any benefit.


Lastly, if the speakers were 'faking,' it would be impossible for their tongues, which they do not understand, to 'edify' anyone. It would be destructive, even to themselves, for them to continue. It would also be impossible for God to give a gift to interpret their 'faked' tonges.

Finally, we agree.

BroRog
Jul 4th 2008, 12:26 AM
My goodness why does it seem so hard for some of you. I think you are trying to make it fit your own theology and it just doesn't.

1. All can pray in tongues to build our faith
2. Prayer is talking to God
3. The gift of tongues is for the church gathered
4. It must be interpreted so that the church can be built up

Paul said plainly that he prayed in tongues AND in his understanding-balance is the key-not one without the other.

Public Gift of Tongues

Spoken with interpretation to the church (Equal to prophecy-1 Corinthians 14:5 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A5))
To be interpreted (1 Corinthians 14:5 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A5))
Edifies the church (when interpreted-1 Corinthians 14:4-5 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A4-5))
A sign to unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:22 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A22))
Not given to all believers (1 Corinthians 12:30 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+12%3A30)))


Personal Prayer Tongue
Spoken privately to God (1 Corinthians 14:2 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A2))
No interpretation necessary (1 Corinthians 14:28 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A28))
Edifies the individual believer (1 Corinthians 14:4 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A4))
Can be manifested when no unbelievers are present (Acts 10:46 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+10%3A46); 19:6)
Should be desired and practiced by all Christians Mark 16:17 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Mark+16%3A17); 1 Corinthians 14:5 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Corinthians+14%3A5); Ephesians 6:18 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Ephesians+6%3A18); Jude 20 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Jude+20) ).


We are dealing with these very scriptures. Have you been following along?

godsgirl
Jul 4th 2008, 12:08 PM
We are dealing with these very scriptures. Have you been following along?

Following along as you try to rewrite them.:eek:

keck553
Jul 4th 2008, 07:31 PM
Godsgirl,

Accusations carry no weight. Nowhere can you quote scripture that assigns jibber-jabber in the correct context to anything other than the pagan rantings Paul was attempting to address.

The proof was submitted scriptually, in the correct context in this thread through Isaiah's prophecys and through the prophecys of Joel, both of which were addressed by Paul and Kefa (Peter).

If you want to refute our submissions, instead of accusing us of rewriting scripture, please address the scripture we presented to you and show us how we cited said scripture of context.

I'll resubmit it so you don't have to search:

The purpose of 'tongues' in Acts 2, they can be grouped under two headings: 1) to mark the giving of the Holy Spirit promised by John the Baptist and Jesus for the realization of His world-wide commission, and 2) to mark the beginning of the 'times of the Gentiles," and thus God's judgement against Israel according to the prophets and the words of Jesus in Matthew 21:43. The Spirit was given to bring to fruition the "New Covenant" promised by Jeremiah. Luke is clearly showing that the Shavuot (Pentacost) following Messiah's resurrection as the realization of Jesus' promise that the Spirit would come to aid in the fullfillment of His commands. Remember the commission? The Apostles were to wait before going to evangelize the nations and to wait specifically in Jerusalem and furthermore, wait until the Spirit was given to them by their Master (Acts 1:3-8). Anticipation is demonstrated in the prayer devotion that occurred in Acts 1:14. The only thing coming between the promise, the command, and the ascension of Jesus and the coming of the Holy Spirit is the choosing of Matthias to replace Judas.

The feast of Shavuot also points to the purpose. God is not capricious. Tongues must have a significant story to tell us as to the purpose of the Spirit's coming in this way. the most obvious interpretation dovetails with Jesus' command to the Disciples to evangelize the world in Matt 28:19-20. That he enabled them to speak in different languages was enormously symbolic of the realized new Covenant that would fulfill the prophecy made to thier fathers "in you seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed." And Shavuot (Pentacost), celebrating the harvest, is likewise filled with symbolism as the followers of Jesus are now endowed to reap the harvest of mankind for the glory of God.

Peter seems to hit on this. His quoting of the prophet Joel confirms that God' wouuld give His Spirit to all mankind in the end times, no longer reserving His work only for Israel, and at the giving, it would be marked by prophetic and revealational activity of teh Holy Spirit, and all who call upon God (Jesus) woudl reveive His salvation, regardless of race or national origin. Peter clearly connects Joel to the events of the moment in Acts 2:16. The tongues also functioned as a sign of God's judgement against the nation of Israel and the beginning point of 'the times of the Gentiles." Not so apparent in Acts 2, but reference Joel 2 and it's clearer.

The use of Isaiah 28:11 by Paul in 1 Cor 14 also indicates the purpose of tongues. In verse 21 Paul introduces a quote from Isaiah 28 to substantiate the truth that tongues, so far as being a sign, are for the uinbeleivers, not beleivers (verse 22).

Isaiah 28:11 is instructive. Isaiah prophesies a time when god will speak to unbeleivers and a wayward Israel through stammering lips and a foreign tongue, with the result that they would stumble backward, be broken and taken captive. The same (stammering lips, foreign tongue) is found in Isaiah 33:19. Whike the NASB interpretation of 'stammering tongue is technically possible, the context favors teh more common "to mock" (1 Kings 19:21, Ezekeil 23:32). The use of "lip" in the hebrew לשׁו would render the phrase "with mocking speech", or "manner of speaking." In Genesis 11:1, it's simple rendered "speech". The NIV calls it 'foreign lips.' However, in Hebrew it can also imply derision or mocking, and certainly fits the contextual meaning here.

Isaiah was simply applying a previous prophecy found in Deuteronomy 28:49, where God promises the invasion of foreigners whose langueage would be unknown. As a Torah teacher and Pharisee, Paul certainly would have understood this. he uses the Isaiah passage as indicating the way in which foreign tongues may be used mockingly and as a taunt against Israel, as a sign that the covenant curses, not the blessings, are coming from the hand of God. he therefore attaches the lable 'sign' to the phenomenon as an indicator of fulfilling the prophet's words.

in the immediate context of Isaiah 28:11, the prophey has illustrated the relationship of Israel to God as that of an infant to an adult. God must likewise speak in juvenile style to Israel who is talking with the speech of an infant. In fact, the judgement of God will come from foreigners whose language will be as indistinguishable to them as an adult's speech to an infant's.

Futhermore, in 1 Corinthians 14:20, Paul admonishes the Corinthians not to think like children, but to have mature reasoning. He is following the argument of the prophet he is about to quote - Isaiah !! Paul understand that the fifteenth (Moses), the eigth (Isaiah) and the sixth (Jeremiah) century prophets collectively show God's continuing respect for the Covenant He established with Israel. It's their disobedience that brings the covenant curses. Additionally, Paul follows the structure of Acts 2, in that tongues function as a sign but do not communicate in and of themselves. They point to the prophetic curce precisely by putting the unbeleiver into a state of confusion (verse 23). Unbeleivers entering the asembly while all speakl in tongues will think the church is mad, the exact reaction of the 'unbeleivers' at Shavuot (Pentacost) as recorded. yet, if prophecy is given, as Peter explains the significance of tongues at Shavuot, teh communication of truth in understandible language will bring repentance.

In conclusion, when God speaks to man in a language he cannot understand, rather than being a blessing, this is a curse. In the context of 1 Corinthians 14 then, which finds its setting in the gathered body of Messiah, tongues must be interpreted or else they signal the curse of God upon those hwo hear and do not understand.

My conclusion is that the tongues in Acts 2 were in fact known languages. Anything other than known languages does not fit either the vocabulary used nor the intended purpose, which was two fold - 1) to mark the establishment of the New Covenant and the fulfillment of the promise that "all nations sould be blessed," and to mark the beginning of the era nows as 'the times of the Gentiles" and putting the unbeleiving, national Israel under the judgment of God.

godsgirl
Jul 4th 2008, 10:51 PM
I also believe the tongues in Acts were known languages but I also believe that in Acts-the miracle wasn't just in the speaking but in the hearing also. All 120 were filled and all 120 spoke in tongues at the same time.


When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. And they were amazed and wondered, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappodocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God" [Acts 2:1-11].
They were all filled, and all spoke-all at once yet those around were able to discern their own native tongue coming forth.--some however, accused them of being drunk-so they didn't all understand.




Who said anything about God doing the speaking?

1of7000
Jul 4th 2008, 11:08 PM
My goodness why does it seem so hard for some of you. I think you are trying to make it fit your own theology and it just doesn't.

there is no principle so simple that a good thead cannot overcomplicate and render it useless. :B

Revinius
Jul 5th 2008, 04:59 AM
There is a distinction between the many foreign languages spoken by the uneducated fishermen at the beginning of acts and the spiritual gift of acts mentioned later.

LetsDrinkCoke
Jul 5th 2008, 05:09 AM
I started this thread because I had a very specific question. This was not a thread about tounges being right or wrong or for that matter anything else but the simple question that can be found at the beginning of this thread. I was not even sure I should post this because I knew it would get off topic pretty fast and people would be arguing what scripture says. That's why I personally don't post in this forum too too often but rather just read what people write...I hate getting in the middle of arguments and discourse, something that we as Christians never should do.

Some people gave honest answers and I thank them for it. I'm still not convinced on it, but I did value people's input and took it to heart. Other then that, this thread is pointless now. There are plenty of other threads about tongues. I would love to see the thread closed as it serves no real function other then bickering now.

servantsheart
Jul 5th 2008, 05:29 AM
the Word Does Not Place Limits On Who Interprets. In The Case Of The One Speaking Tongues Interpretting, It Is Entirely Possible For God To Give Them The Tongues, And Then Afterward The Interpretation.
No Point In Putting God, Or His Gifts, Into Such A Box. No Need To Place Such Limits On It. Let God Be God And Let Him Use Whom He Will, How He Will.

amen, Amen, And Amen!;)

godsgirl
Jul 5th 2008, 11:27 AM
I started this thread because I had a very specific question. This was not a thread about tounges being right or wrong or for that matter anything else but the simple question that can be found at the beginning of this thread. I was not even sure I should post this because I knew it would get off topic pretty fast and people would be arguing what scripture says. That's why I personally don't post in this forum too too often but rather just read what people write...I hate getting in the middle of arguments and discourse, something that we as Christians never should do.

Some people gave honest answers and I thank them for it. I'm still not convinced on it, but I did value people's input and took it to heart. Other then that, this thread is pointless now. There are plenty of other threads about tongues. I would love to see the thread closed as it serves no real function other then bickering now.


Discussion of scriptures and their meaning is something that Christians should always do. The real function it serves is not "bickering" but getting us to dig into the Word. Hey, that's a good thing. You will never have people always agreeing on everything-no matter how much love they have for each other. I love my hubby more than life, but I don't agree with him 100% either.
Please don't be offended if we discuss things on discussion boards.
May you be blessed as you come to know Him in an even more intimate way:kiss:

godsgirl
Jul 5th 2008, 11:30 AM
There is a distinction between the many foreign languages spoken by the uneducated fishermen at the beginning of acts and the spiritual gift of acts mentioned later.

I agree! There is also a distiction between tongues used as prayer and tongues as a Spiritual gift as in Pauls teaching in 1 Corinthians.

keck553
Jul 5th 2008, 05:15 PM
Discussion of scriptures and their meaning is something that Christians should always do. The real function it serves is not "bickering" but getting us to dig into the Word. Hey, that's a good thing. You will never have people always agreeing on everything-no matter how much love they have for each other. I love my hubby more than life, but I don't agree with him 100% either.
Please don't be offended if we discuss things on discussion boards.
May you be blessed as you come to know Him in an even more intimate way:kiss:

Precious words. Amen. God bless!

Consider Isaiah 6, while Isaiah is observing. the saraphim worshipping God, they are speaking in Hebrew.