# On Tongues.....the gift



## blindhog (May 5, 2005)

1 Cor 14:22..."Wherefore tongues are for a sign, NOT to them that believe, but to them that believe NOT:  ..."



This confirms the purpose of the gift of tongues, as first seen in Acts.
Tongues (the gift) is going to be an understandable language of men, for the purpose of showing an unbeliever the power and glory of God, and that He does exist.
It is not jibberish, and not "learned", or even to be sought after. It is not "evidence" of salvation or of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

If you choose to enter this discussion, please answer with a confirming scripture of your belief, in this way we may reach the truth of God, and not the teaching of men.

blessings......the Hog


----------



## PWalls (May 6, 2005)

Seems to me that the whole chapter 14 in 1 Corinthians is a warning to that church to not speak in tongues. That speaking in unknown tongues is dangerous because it tends to edify the speaker and not God. Also, unbelievers will not understand and think a person crazy. It also says that anyone speaking in tongues should have an interpreter present.

1 Cor 14:33 "for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints"

That pretty much sums it up for me. Why do something that confuses people and can lead to edification of the body?

Although, I will say this, we are not to forbid someone to speak in tongues.
1Cor 14:39
I think it just has to have the proper checks and balances. Uttered with the Holy Spirit and with interpretation.


----------



## labman (May 6, 2005)

Pwalls I agree. I can't find the verse but it says it's better to speak one word of a known toungue than 10,000 of an unknown toungue. I just don't believe it's needed in todays times unless two foriegn speaking people are witnessing to each other then I believe god will let you understand each others language. This is just the way I see it.


----------



## PWalls (May 6, 2005)

1 Cor 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."


----------



## labman (May 6, 2005)

That's it thanks!


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (May 9, 2005)

Some of which needs to be said, has already been said.  Below are my thoughts, it looks as if I’m not alone.

First, 1 Corinthians is a letter from Paul to the church in Corinth which he is basically correcting/chastising them for the way they had gone.  In the first chapter we read that he had heard that “there are contentions among you” (1 Cor 1:11).  In verse 10, he pleads that they have no divisions amongst themselves.  Clearly, there was trouble within the church at Corinth.  This sort of reminds me of today as denominational doctrine splits Christians.

Paul puts things in proper perspective in chapter 12 (verses 7-12, 29-30) concerning gifts.  Speaking in tongues is one of many gifts which come from the Holy Spirit (verse 4).

Now, in Chapter 14, he specifically puts “speaking in tongues” in perspective.  Consider verses 3 and 4: “But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men [to] edification, and exhortation, and comfort.  He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church”.  Paul clearly places prophecy as the more beneficial gift.  I looked up the definition of prophecy in a Bible dictionary "the speaking forth of the mind and counsel of God"; another word for that is “preaching”.  Paul goes on to say that IF someone speaks in tongues, let it be done with an interpreter so that the church will be edified (14:5).  In verse 9, he says that all need to know what is being spoken.

Based on these Scriptures, why do some denominations put so much emphasis on speaking in tongues?  It seems that their belief revolves around it.  Some believe it is necessary sign of salvation which is not biblical and in fact, is nothing but a lie.  Again, I refer to 1 Cor 12: 29-30.


----------



## PWalls (May 9, 2005)

I agree. Isn't the letter to the Corinthians the only mention of tongues. Seems like that church was using it wrong.

I think that some people will be gifted with tongues. Paul clearly mentions that as a spiritual gift. However, right after that, he clearly says that there will be an interpreter.

I think that speaking in tongues can be one of the most misused gifts because of the potential for self-edification instead of glorification.

Now, I have never been in the presence of anyone speaking in tongues and have no experience with it. One day, I hope to be in the presence of that gift, but until then, I will be quite happy sharing in the other spiritual gifts that the Lord gives.


----------



## Madsnooker (May 9, 2005)

Blindhog, 

I like Acts 2:4  

Also, tongues is not an understandable language spoken by men, it is jibberish to those listening until it is interpreted in a public setting. You would not have understood Paul when he was speaking in tongues ALONE as he said he did often.

Also, tongues can be evidence of being filled with the holy spirit. A perfect example is Acts 10:44-47 when Peter went to Cornelius's house to preach.

"Even as Peter was saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those listening! The Jews who came with Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit would be given to Gentiles too! But there could be no doubt about it, for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Peter asked, "can anyone object to my baptizing them, now that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?"

Remember, Cornelius was already a  Godly man and yet he was filled with the evidence of speaking in tongues. As the scripture just said "there could be no doubt about it" after they spoke in tongues.



PWALLS,

Your assumption that chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians is a warning to not speak in tongues is incorrect. It is just the opposite. He is giving correction and lets the Corinthians know that if someone does speak in tongues, it should be interpreted, nothing more.

This is what 1 Corinthians says that people keep taking just pieces out of context

I thank God that I "speak in tongues" privately more than any of the rest of you. But in PUBLIC worship I would rather speak five words that people can understand and be helped by, than ten thousand words while "speaking in tongues" in an unknown language.

It is improtant to realize he is speaking to the Corinthian church about proper public worship, not if tongues is for the believer or not. This is very clear in 1st Corinthians 14:18-28 and then summed up in the last 2 verses of chapter 14 which says, "So, my fellow believers, long to be prophets so that you can preach God's message plainly; and never say it is wrong to "speak in tongues"; however, be sure that everything is done properly in a good and orderly way. 

I'm no bible scholar and I know way less than I should for the # of years I've been saved but as I've read these scriptures to gain some understanding it is very clear to me that tongues is for the church body when used correctly and also there are those that speak in tongues privately as Paul did.


----------



## PWalls (May 9, 2005)

I have to disagree about your interpretaion of Acts 2:4. It doesn't say unknown tongues, it says other tongues. If you go onto read verses 5-8, you see that they were speaking in the tongues of other men (in other words different languages).

I agree with you that those men spoke in tongues in Acts 10. It clearly says it in Scripture. However, it was done in public with the Holy Spirit as the author and interpreter for those men.

1 Corinthians is a warning to that Church about how they were speaking in tongues. I am sorry if it came across that I was saying that they were not to speak in tongues (I believe I made that point further in my post). They were doing it wrong and for edification of theirselves. Speaking in tongues in public without an interpretor is what is wrong. Speaking in tongues in private to the Lord as the Spirit directs is glorification.

Paul himself says that it is better to prophecy/preach in public than to speak in tongues because of the edification instead of glorification issue. I have no problem with speaking in tongues in private as their is no edification there. However, I think it is too dangerous for someone to "try" and do in Church.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (May 9, 2005)

David,

I've been Pentecostall all of my life, but I can't think of a denomination that makes 'speaking in tongues' a necessary part of salvation.   Can you be more specific?

Bandy


----------



## labman (May 9, 2005)

I'll just say if you need someone there to inturpret it like the bible says why not just speak your normal language anyway. I don't see the need for it in todays time. and the bible says what has been shown above about it. I went to a church for about 1 yr that tried to teach you how to speak in toungues that is wrong. If you did do it god will teach you not another man. they rubbed your throat and kept saying your gettin it that isn't right in my belief. We left there.


----------



## Madsnooker (May 9, 2005)

PWALLS,

I agree for the most part and you are correct about Acts 2:4 but I still feel it was speaking in tongues just as Paul would privately. I personally believe the reason it was in other languages was becuase that was the first time of such an event and those listening would have thought it not of God if they could not have understood. What I mean is basically it was being interpreted as they spoke. Those speaking in other tongues could not understand but those of other languages could as God knew many different people were in the crowd. As for the Corinthians and today, that problem doesn't usually exist so it has to be interpreted.


----------



## PWalls (May 9, 2005)

Madsnooker said:
			
		

> PWALLS,
> 
> I agree for the most part and you are correct about Acts 2:4 but I still feel it was speaking in tongues just as Paul would privately. I personally believe the reason it was in other languages was becuase that was the first time of such an event and those listening would have thought it not of God if they could not have understood. What I mean is basically it was being interpreted as they spoke. Those speaking in other tongues could not understand but those of other languages could as God knew many different people were in the crowd. As for the Corinthians and today, that problem doesn't usually exist so it has to be interpreted.



MSnook,

I am going to respectfully disagree with you on your interpretation. Those verses clearly mean to me that they were speaking in other tongues (other known human languages). I can see your logic, but I ain't there yet.

As far as the gift of tongues, I am all for it. I say again though that it has to be within certain limitations/restrictions for it to be a "true" or "real" gift. If in public, then it has to be moved by the Holy Spirit and with interpretation. If in private, then that is between you and God and I know for a fact, there ain't nothing gibberish to him.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (May 9, 2005)

Labman,

I'm with you on the quacks....   I've seen plenty of people like that....and I think it does a lot of damage to people who are seeking the baptism.    Nowhere in the NT does it state that people had to be prodded or coaxed into speaking; it came 'naturally' from the Holy Ghost.   When I was baptised, the tongues were easy....and it felt as if I would explode if I didn't speak them!   LOL    If I opened my mouth, that is what came out!    (Hard to explain unless you've experienced it)     Haven't had that since, but no one can explain away that day!     

Stay away from the 'tongues trainers'.   I'm also against those who claim that some have been filled 'with the evidence of laying on the floor'!!!   LOL

Bandy


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (May 9, 2005)

> I've been Pentecostall all of my life, but I can't think of a denomination that makes 'speaking in tongues' a necessary part of salvation. Can you be more specific?



Bandy, there are some factions of the Oneness Pentecostals that believe speaking in tongues is a necessary sign of salvation, if one does not/cannot speak in tongues, then that person has not been saved.  In other words, speaking in tongues is a necessary manifistation of the Holy Spirit if one has received salvation.  There are varying differences from one pentecostal group to the other, I do not make this assertion about all.


----------



## jason308 (May 9, 2005)

Bandy,

"With the evidence of laying on the floor"- Do you mean that someone cannot fall to the ground when touched by the Spirit? I know otherwise. If someone falls to the ground when touched by the Spirit it is no different than if someone jumps, dances, prophecies, speaks in tongues or anything else as the Spirit wills. I can't even begin to understand what the Spirit wills, but when He touches you you lose your control over yourself. Maybe you know what the Spirit would have us to do, I won't even claim to.


----------



## Madsnooker (May 9, 2005)

labman said:
			
		

> I'll just say if you need someone there to inturpret it like the bible says why not just speak your normal language anyway.I don't see the need for it in todays time. and the bible says what has been shown above about it. I went to a church for about 1 yr that tried to teach you how to speak in toungues that is wrong. If you did do it god will teach you not another man. they rubbed your throat and kept saying your gettin it that isn't right in my belief. We left there.



As well you should have. I agree with you. There are abuses for everything. I'm sure you can find a church where they use snakes to prove your faithfullness but thats no reason to no longer have faith. I am well aware of the abuses of tongues as well as tithes, healing and on and on. 

For some reason many Christians seem to be scared to death of tongues. I'm not implying anyone on here I just mean in general when ever this topic is discussed people get very uneasy. To me, even if you don't personally believe it's for today, I don't understand why people have to try and convince others also. If someone says they have spoke in tongues and knowing what the New Testament actually says about tongues then let it go.  I think to do anything else is putting yourself on thin ice.

Let me also add I personally believe there are far more people that speak in tongues or have in there prayer life that are from other denominations than you would think.  

Could it actually be that there is more than just salvation and a more powerfull filling of the Holy Spirit as Cornelius and others with him recieved as was promised to all and alot of us Christians have elected to not go higher with God. (I'm speaking to myself also, believe me) I would think all Christians would think it would be great to have such an experience with God and who cares if you spoke in tongues did flips ran or whatever. My opinion is alot of us would rather tongues have never been mentioned in the Bible and have no desire to get anything else from God other than their assurance of salvation. God said he would pour out his spirit more in the last days than he ever did and I sure pray I don't get in the way.


----------



## PWalls (May 9, 2005)

I am Southern Baptist. I have never spoke in tongues or flipped or jumped or whatever. Nor am I doubtful of my Salvation. The evidence of my salvation is plain to me and my acquaintances who knew what I was like before hand and what I do now.

However, I condemn no one. If I think or feel that it (tongues, backflips, etc)is led by the Holy Spirit, then hallelujah and praise the Lord. I will rejoice with everyone there that the Spirit is working and in evidence.

I am a mere sinner. I do not claim to know all or understand all. The Lord truly works in mysterious ways. If He wants me to always speak English and He wants my neighbor to speak in tongues, then who am I to contradict His divine plan.


----------



## blindhog (May 10, 2005)

Well....I don't think you have to get "higher with God" to receive gifts from the Holy Spirit, scripture shows that.
That kind of thinking leads to a "i'm more spiritual than you" stigma in a church body.  "I can speak in tongues and you don't, so I'm closer to God".

Scriptures are clear with the evidences of salvation and none of them are tongue speaking.  Look at when tongues are shown to be used by the Holy Spirit, and you will see it is for the Glory of God to be shown to unbelievers.

Tongues is not a "prayer language", at least not spoken out loud.


----------



## Madsnooker (May 10, 2005)

As posted by Blindhog

"Well....I don't think you have to get "higher with God" to receive gifts from the Holy Spirit, scripture shows that.
That kind of thinking leads to a "i'm more spiritual than you" stigma in a church body. "I can speak in tongues and you don't, so I'm closer to God".


Blindhog,

I think you missed my point. I didn't mean you have to get higher with God to receive gifts I meant by desireing to get closer to God you are open to whatever he may have for you. This has nothing to do with trying to be more spiritual than others. Sorry if that's the way it came across.


----------



## Madsnooker (May 10, 2005)

PWalls said:
			
		

> I am Southern Baptist. I have never spoke in tongues or flipped or jumped or whatever. Nor am I doubtful of my Salvation. The evidence of my salvation is plain to me and my acquaintances who knew what I was like before hand and what I do now.
> 
> However, I condemn no one. If I think or feel that it (tongues, backflips, etc)is led by the Holy Spirit, then hallelujah and praise the Lord. I will rejoice with everyone there that the Spirit is working and in evidence.
> 
> I am a mere sinner. I do not claim to know all or understand all. The Lord truly works in mysterious ways. If He wants me to always speak English and He wants my neighbor to speak in tongues, then who am I to contradict His divine plan.



I never said by not speaking in tongues or doing back flips was a sign of salvation. I'm not sure how you arrived at that thought by what I previously posted. I would sure never want to imply that. I do not doubt anyones salvation.

And the rest of your reply is basically the same thing I was trying to say.


----------



## Madsnooker (May 10, 2005)

PWalls said:
			
		

> MSnook,
> 
> I am going to respectfully disagree with you on your interpretation. Those verses clearly mean to me that they were speaking in other tongues (other known human languages). I can see your logic, but I ain't there yet.
> 
> As far as the gift of tongues, I am all for it. I say again though that it has to be within certain limitations/restrictions for it to be a "true" or "real" gift. If in public, then it has to be moved by the Holy Spirit and with interpretation. If in private, then that is between you and God and I know for a fact, there ain't nothing gibberish to him.



I'm not sure how you can disagree with me as I also said the spoke in other tongues (other known human languages). And I gave the reason why I thought they did. Again, that is my opinion and I surely don't have all the answers and sure do not want to imply that. And yes I agree, tongues is not jibberish to God.


----------



## PWalls (May 10, 2005)

Madsnooker said:
			
		

> PWALLS,
> 
> I agree for the most part and you are correct about Acts 2:4 but I still feel it was speaking in tongues just as Paul would privately. I personally believe the reason it was in other languages was becuase that was the first time of such an event and those listening would have thought it not of God if they could not have understood. What I mean is basically it was being interpreted as they spoke. Those speaking in other tongues could not understand but those of other languages could as God knew many different people were in the crowd. As for the Corinthians and today, that problem doesn't usually exist so it has to be interpreted.



MSnook, I quoted your original post again for clarity.

You said that you feel it was still speaking in tongues as Paul would have done privately. I disagree with that statement. In Acts, the Bilbe says speaking in "other" tongues. That means other languages, hence known human languages. They were speaking to Parthians, Medes, etc in their own language. It was not gibberish or a prayer language. It was simply th eHoly Spirit giving the ability to speak in different languages so that the message could be preached and the non-believers would be amazed at the power of the Holy Spirit and the apostles.

In 1 Corinthians, speaking in tongues is with an "unknown" language. That is the language that no one can understand without an interpreter.

There is a difference. "Other" is a recognizeable existing language (like Spanish or French or German). "Unknown" is a language that has no relation to any known language and is pure gibberish that has to translated.

Acts mentions "other" language. 1 Corinthians mentions "unknown" language. That is why I was disagreeing with you statement on saying that the apostles were speaking in tongues in Acts.


----------



## Madsnooker (May 10, 2005)

PWALLS, 

I see what you meant. But the bottom line is the Holy Spirit still fell on those that were already believers and they spoke with unknown tongues or other tongues. In Acts, that was considered the day of pentecost and was the first time such an event was recorded. After that day there were other times the Holy Spirit fell with the evidence of speaking in other tongues.

Again, I have my opinion as I stated but one day when I'm in heaven sitting with Jesus he will be able to clear up why on the Day of Pentecost they spoke with other tongues and than other times the spirit fell they spoke with unknown tongues.


----------



## PWalls (May 10, 2005)

I'm with you on that one. One day I'll know. Until then I will keep reading and praying.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (May 10, 2005)

Where is in Scripture that says something like "all these things will be made known unto you" (speaking of the time we go to Heaven)?


----------



## blindhog (May 10, 2005)

PWalls said:
			
		

> MSnook, I quoted your original post again for clarity.
> 
> You said that you feel it was still speaking in tongues as Paul would have done privately. I disagree with that statement. In Acts, the Bilbe says speaking in "other" tongues. That means other languages, hence known human languages. They were speaking to Parthians, Medes, etc in their own language. It was not gibberish or a prayer language. It was simply th eHoly Spirit giving the ability to speak in different languages so that the message could be preached and the non-believers would be amazed at the power of the Holy Spirit and the apostles.
> 
> ...



If you take a concordance and compare the words for "other" and "unknown" you will see that your stated definition of a difference as you see it is just not so.
They mean basically the same thing.

other...heteros....uncertain origin, other ,some ,strange....

unknown....agnocetos....unknown

Just doesn't support your stated definition, which appears to be slanted to support your belief. Scripture has not been shown to support such a statement.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (May 11, 2005)

Here's what Matthew Henry says about Acts 2:4, specifically about speaking in _other_ tongues:

They began to speak with other tongues, besides their native language, though they had never learned any other. They spoke not matters of common conversation, but the word of God, and the praises of his name, as the Spirit gave them utterance, or gave them to speak apophthengesthai—apophthegms, substantial and weighty sayings, worthy to be had in remembrance. It is probable that it was not only one that was enabled to speak one language, and another another (as it was with the several families that were dispersed from Babel), but that every one was enabled to speak divers languages, as he should have occasion to use them. And we may suppose that they understood not only themselves but one another too, which the builders of Babel did not, Gen. 11:7. They did not speak here and there a word of another tongue, or stammer out some broken sentences, but spoke it as readily, properly, and elegantly, as if it had been their mother-tongue; for whatever was produced by miracle was the best of the kind. They spoke not from any previous thought or meditation, but as the Spirit gave them utterance; he furnished them with the matter as well as the language. Now this was, (1.) A very great miracle; it was a miracle upon the mind (and so had most of the nature of a gospel miracle), for in the mind words are framed. They had not only never learned these languages, but had never learned any foreign tongue, which might have facilitated these; nay, for aught that appears, they had never so much as heard these languages spoken, nor had any idea of them. They were neither scholars nor travellers, nor had had any opportunity of learning languages either by books or conversation.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (May 11, 2005)

Whats more amazing is Acts 2:6; no matter what language was spoken, people heard what was spoken in their native language:

Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.


----------



## PWalls (May 11, 2005)

blindhog said:
			
		

> If you take a concordance and compare the words for "other" and "unknown" you will see that your stated definition of a difference as you see it is just not so.
> They mean basically the same thing.
> 
> other...heteros....uncertain origin, other ,some ,strange....
> ...



I'm sorry. I am not reading anything into anything other than a simple understanding of the two words. Other language means other language. A language that is known otherwise it would have said unknown language like it did later in scripture.

Other language means another known language. Parthian, Medean, etc were other known languages. David Mills hit the nail on the head if you read the rest of that chapter and put it into context, then it is a pretty simple deduction that they are speaking other known languages. I am not twisting anything to fit my beliefs.

When Paul is talking to the Corinthians, he specifically mentions "unknown" language. That is a language that is not known or understandable. If he was speaking Medean, he would have said "other".

I do not deny speaking in tongues. I have never denied speaking in tongues. I support speaking in tongues (under the proper settings that Paul lays out). However, I find no reference to it other than in 1 Corinthians. I do not think that using the verses in Acts is a proper support for speaking in tongues.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (May 11, 2005)

I am not taking sides in this discussion just merely expressing my own beliefs based on studies (some of which are listed below) and sermons I have heard.  I believe there is a difference between "other" and "unknown" tongues.  "Other" would be like me all of a sudden being able to speak Russian  or Hebrew.  "Unknown" would be exactly as the word means, a language not known to anyone.

*The Geneva Study Bible:*
2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with c other tongues, as the d Spirit gave them utterance. 
(c) He calls them "other tongues" which were not the same as the apostles commonly used, and Mark calls them "new tongues". 
(d) By this we understand that the apostles were not speaking one language and then another by chance at random, or as eccentric men used to do, but that they kept in mind the languages of their hearers: and to be short, that they only spoke as the Holy Spirit directed them to speak.

*Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible:*
4. they . . . began to speak with . . . tongues, &c.--real, living languages, as is plain from what follows. The thing uttered, probably the same by all, was "the wonderful works of God," perhaps in the inspired words of the Old Testament evangelical hymns; though it is next to certain that the speakers themselves understood nothing of what they

*John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible:*
And they began to speak with other tongues - The miracle was not in the ears of the hearers, (as some have unaccountably supposed,) but in the mouth of the speakers. And this family praising God together, with the tongues of all the world, was an earnest that the whole world should in due time praise God in their various tongues. As the Spirit gave them utterance - Moses, the type of the law, was of a slow tongue; but the Gospel speaks with a fiery and flaming one.


----------



## PWalls (May 11, 2005)

David Mills said:
			
		

> I am not taking sides in this discussion just merely expressing my own beliefs based on studies (some of which are listed below) and sermons I have heard.  I believe there is a difference between "other" and "unknown" tongues.  "Other" would be like me all of a sudden being able to speak Russian  or Hebrew.  "Unknown" would be exactly as the word means, a language not known to anyone.
> 
> 
> *John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible:*
> And they began to speak with other tongues - The miracle was not in the ears of the hearers, (as some have unaccountably supposed,) but in the mouth of the speakers. And this family praising God together, with the tongues of all the world, was an earnest that the whole world should in due time praise God in their various tongues. As the Spirit gave them utterance - Moses, the type of the law, was of a slow tongue; but the Gospel speaks with a fiery and flaming one.



I agree with John Wesley here.

For proponents of the "speaking in tongues" miracle in Acts, they put the emphasis on the hearers of the word and the translation of the tongue into something understandable by the Holy Spirit (miracle to the listeners and not speakers). But to do that, you have to come up with a different definition of the word "other" and "unknown" and explain why they are used differently in two different scriptures.

I take the definitions at face value and not read anything special into them. I put the miracle on the speakers and not the listeners. The Holy Spirit gave the miracle of multi-lingual speech to the apostles. That clearly defines the word "other" and "unknown" as used in the two different scriptures.

Again, I say that I do not deny "speaking in Tongues" as Paul clearly counts it as a spiritual gift in his letter to the Corinthians. It is a real thing that I have never experienced and hopefully will one day. However, I do not believe that is what the Apostles were doing in Acts. I believe they received the miracle of multi-lingual speech from the Holy Spirit so they could communicate to the multi-national gathering at the time.


----------



## blindhog (May 11, 2005)

I beleive it is a gift still, but not as a lot would have you think.  The scripture shows its use and purpose.

If I heard someone speaking out in pigmy it would be "unknown" to me as I have never heard it.


----------



## labman (May 11, 2005)

Madsnooker said:
			
		

> As well you should have. I agree with you. There are abuses for everything. I'm sure you can find a church where they use snakes to prove your faithfullness but thats no reason to no longer have faith. I am well aware of the abuses of tongues as well as tithes, healing and on and on.
> 
> For some reason many Christians seem to be scared to death of tongues. I'm not implying anyone on here I just mean in general when ever this topic is discussed people get very uneasy. To me, even if you don't personally believe it's for today, I don't understand why people have to try and convince others also. If someone says they have spoke in tongues and knowing what the New Testament actually says about tongues then let it go.  I think to do anything else is putting yourself on thin ice.
> 
> ...


I still have faith!  I'm a southern baptist and have been most of my life. we just wanted a change and decided that wasn't for us, we went back to being baptist well we never really changed to anything different. It doesn't matter what you call your religion as long as you believe you have to ask god to forgive you from your sins and come into your heart to get to heaven. That preacher at the asy of god told me your a better christian if you speak in toungues. I told him Billy graham never spoke in toungues that I know of and saved thousands and thousands of people all over the world. So does that make him less of a christian than you. He didn't have much of an answer.


----------



## labman (May 11, 2005)

My son use to play B Ball at an assy of god church. I hunted with the preachers and several members. we never talked religion in the woods, they new I wasn't happy at the baptist church we were at at the time. They invited us to join them not the same church I was talking about earlier. They had a incodent where a women got up and spoke some stuff like it was tongues, then a man got up and spoke like he was reading out of the bible. I got chills like I have now while I'm typing this. But in the bible it says women should keep quiet and not speak out in church. It all happened like it was staged but who am I to say it was or wasn't that is the only time I ever thought it could have been real that I have wittnessed in my life. There are different religions for that very reason some read the bible one way and others read it a different way. just believe the way you were brought up and tought to believe.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (May 12, 2005)

Let me offer this bit of information, and because of it, my stance has somewhat changed.  I didn't realize this until last night when I talked to my pastor and then checked it out for myself.  Anytime you see unknown tongue used in the Bible, the word "unknown" is not in the original Greek text, it was added by man. Anytime you see a work in italics in the Bible, it is not part of the original text.  Now, folks can ask why, well in some cases it was done to help clarify what is being said.

So, now we can dabate what was actually meant.  Consider this;  there was little foreign travel in those days.  Most of the people lived their entire lives in one city or village.  If they were to hear a foreign language, it would have been "unknown" to them.

By the way, the deal about words in italics in the Bible is not my opinion, it is fact.

Something else, and this is a matter of historical fact.  This whole thing of speaking in tongues in the modern church did not come about until the early 1900's.  From the time the New Testament was written to the early 1900's, there's not documented history of anyone speaking in "unknown" tongues.  So, for about 1850 years, no one had been baptised in the Holy Spirit?


----------



## blindhog (May 12, 2005)

I know that the italics words were added to help clarify a meaning in context.
In 1 Cor 14 "unknown" is in italics.
Actually a Greek interlinear bible like Green's would be a useful tool in bible study for this reason.

But I see no scriptural support ot teaching for anything other than a human language.

The voodoo'ers go into trances and speak in "tongues", as do other pagan religions at times. They get "slain in the spirit", which is not in the scripture, but touted as a christian "experience".

The devil has his counterfeits.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (May 12, 2005)

I knew the part about words in italics, I just didn't notice before that the word "_unknown_" was in italics.

I believe a lot of folks, when they read the Bible, do not consider that at many times there is no exact match english word for what is written (in the original text).  Also, consideration must be given that our modern day use of language is not the same as it was when the King James translation came out, some words did not have the same meaning as it does today.

Example: the word "gay".  Today it is used almost exclusively in referring to homosexuals.  Years ago it was used to express happiness.

Anyway, point being is that it is beneficial to use informational sources such as commentaries, Bible dictionaries, etc,.


----------



## PWalls (May 12, 2005)

I also know about the italics and knew about the unknown being in italics. It still remains though that the word "other" was not in italics. Even if one was in italics and other one wasn't then it is still two different word describing two different events.

Remeber, God does not contradict Himself. His Word is true in every verse and chapter. If it were the same kind of tongues, then he would have used the same wording.

At least that is my take.


----------



## blindhog (May 12, 2005)

PWalls said:
			
		

> I also know about the italics and knew about the unknown being in italics. It still remains though that the word "other" was not in italics. Even if one was in italics and other one wasn't then it is still two different word describing two different events.
> 
> Remeber, God does not contradict Himself. His Word is true in every verse and chapter. If it were the same kind of tongues, then he would have used the same wording.
> 
> At least that is my take.



Can you show supporting scriptures to show this to be true, and not personal inference?

Doctrine must be from the substance of scripture, not of man's belief.

I can only find specifically that tongues are a language of man, and nothing different, therefore scripture being always true and never conflicting, then "tongues" would be the same throughout, unless scripurally specified.


----------



## PWalls (May 16, 2005)

blindhog said:
			
		

> Can you show supporting scriptures to show this to be true, and not personal inference?
> 
> Doctrine must be from the substance of scripture, not of man's belief.
> 
> I can only find specifically that tongues are a language of man, and nothing different, therefore scripture being always true and never conflicting, then "tongues" would be the same throughout, unless scripurally specified.



The difference is in the descriptive adjective before "tongues".

Once says "other" and another says "unknown".


----------



## blindhog (May 16, 2005)

That is really not a leg to stand on. I have shown in a previous post that the Greek words for "other" and "unknown" are basically the same meaning.
AND........'UNKNOWN' was added by translators to give more clarification to the context......so.....your stated clarification holds no confirming scriptural support.


----------



## PWalls (May 17, 2005)

blindhog said:
			
		

> That is really not a leg to stand on. I have shown in a previous post that the Greek words for "other" and "unknown" are basically the same meaning.
> AND........'UNKNOWN' was added by translators to give more clarification to the context......so.....your stated clarification holds no confirming scriptural support.



Well then, I guess we'll agree to disagree. I have no problem seeing the difference between the two words. If they meant the same, then the same word would have been used. Scripture does not conflict itself.

As this thread has basically come down to you and me disagreeing with each other, I'll let it go.

Thank you for the debate.


----------



## blindhog (May 17, 2005)

Well I have to agree with ya! On disagreeing....


----------



## Hawkeye (May 18, 2005)

The Tongues spoken in acts 2 is not the same gift of tongues found in Corinthians.
You can see in acts 2 that Jewish men from all over the world who spoke different languages, heard the gospel in their own tongues(languages) so they edified God.

The Gift of tongues as I have received is only for my own edification ,I speak it in private in prayer when my other 4 languages that I speak are not enough to ask or tell God what my spirit wants to say.

The Church of Corinthians was using it in the wrong way so Paul straighten them out , to interpret from this scripture that Paul meant to say "do not use it" is to take the scripture out of context


----------



## blindhog (May 20, 2005)

Paul did not say "do not use it".

He did write what it is for in verse 22 of 1Cor 14.

It is for a sign to unblievers.

Tongues are scripturally shown to be a language unspoken or understood previously by the gift receiver who speaks it.  It is also shown scripturally to be only a language of men.

If there is a spiritual language, then Paul insinuates in verse 2 of 1 Cor 14 that it is unheard, not audible out loud.

The word for "understands" in this verse is "akuo", meaning not understood or heard audibly.

The other times in chap 14 when understood or undertand is used it is a different word meaning to intellectually understand, not to hear audibly.


----------

