Bible Study WHERE DO PENTECOSTAL 'TONGUES' ACTUALLY COME FROM?

[lecoop]

Pentecostal 'tongues' is all a lot of stuff and nonsense. What else can one possibly call it? The implication is that ONLY Pentecostals (and only those who speak in tongues' at that) have an infilling of the Holy Spirit ...in fact, it was MORE than an implication, wasn't it, Coop? So, whenever I hear the likes of Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart (is Jimmy still around?) and other charismatic evangelists babbling away I'm to conclude that these men are SO inspired of The Word that God saw fit to endow them with 'angelic tongues'? Where do we draw the line, Coop?

Coop says that no one but the Holy Spirit would praise God (in 'tongues', no less) and yet would claim that he has no idea what 'tongues' are or what their linguistic 'content' is. How would you know whether you're praising God or cursing God? I've got a FAR better idea, Coop. Try speaking to God in your NATIVE language ...in that way both God AND you will know what is being said! Why do I need to 'babble' in order to feel 'wonderful'?

I'll get back to other aspects of your post later.

SputnikBoy, why don't you just believe what Paul said? Let's go over it again, since you seem a little slow:

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

1. He that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not unto men...

Now listen closely: this starts what Paul thought of tongues. Tongues are NOT pointed toward man: do you get that? This means that tongues are NOT some human language designed to shorcut learning another language. Just this one phrase blasts your idea of tongues.


2. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh...unto God.

This shows where tongues are directed. Now compare this with what you just wrote: " Try speaking to God in your NATIVE language ...in that way both God AND you will know what is being said! " See how goofed up your idea is compared to the word of God? The purpose of tongues is to pray to God. This is bible: the problem is, you just don't believe it.

3. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh ..unto God: for no man understandeth him;

Please let this sink in, for it is God's word to YOU! When one speaks in tongues "no man understands Him." This means no man in Ankara, Turkey, no man in Bangkok, Thailand, no man in Bamako, Mali, no man in Canberra, Australia, no man in Conakry, Guinea, no man in Dakar, Senegal, no man in Edinburgh, Scotland, no man in Gaborone, Botswana, no man in Harare, Zimbabwe or Ho-Chi-Minh (Saigon), no man in Islamabad, Pakistan, no man in Kampala, Uganda, or Katmandu, Nepal, no man in Kigali, Rwanda, no man in Libreville, Gabon or Lilongwe, Malawi, no man in Lome, Togo, no man in Maputo, Mozambique or Manama, Bahrain, no man in Nouakchott, Mauritania or Nouakchott, Mauritania, no man in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, no man in Porto Novo, Benin, no man in Rabat, Morocco or Reykjavik, Iceland, no man in Suva, Fiji, or Sofia, Bulgaria, no man in Tripoli, Libya or Tierra Del Fuego or Tunis, Tunisia, no man in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, and for sure, no man in Valletta, Malta, Vladivostok, Russia, or Windhoek, Namibia or Xai Xai, Mozambique, or Yampol', Ukraine, or no man in Zacapa, Guatemala.

What is Paul saying? No matter where in the world you go, NO MAN UNDERSTANDS! (This is not a difficult thing.) Why does no man understand? Very simply, because it sounds like gibberish. This is not from man; it is the word of God you disagree with:

Isaiah 28
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

How do we know that this has any reference to tongues? Paul, through the HS, wrote:

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.
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:

There is the link. Like it or not, the Holy Spirit is telling you that tongues are like stammering lips. Believe it or not. Are tongues suppose to be part of the church?


Mark 16
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (We all know this is for us!)
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (We all agree with this too)
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (Why not just believe this too?)
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Why not believe all of God's word? Why pick what parts you want to believe?One thing is for sure, the way you believe, you will never have to worry about being embarrassed by suddenly blurting out something in tongues: God will never bless you with the baptism with the Holy Spirit and tongues as long as you stay in unbelief in this area. You will just bypass that portion of the scriptures.

The implication is that ONLY Pentecostals (and only those who speak in tongues' at that) have an infilling of the Holy Spirit ...in fact, it was MORE than an implication, wasn't it, Coop?

It was not am inplication; it is the word of God. You want to do something your way, instead of God's way. (Good luck!) You want to be immersed into the Holy Spirit, but you want to say, "Hold the wet! I want the HS, but I do not want to speak in tongues!" (Again, good luck.)

How many examples do you need, before you would believe God's word? Why not just one? However, God, in His great mercy, has given you Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10, and Acts 19. In two of these, God makes is VERY plain that this baptism came AFTER people were born again, and after they had been water baptized. This shows clearly that this baptism with the Holy Spirit is NOT salvation, NOT regeneration, or NOT being baptized into the body of Christ. No, it is a second work of the HS, which is simply the anointing to minister the gospel. Believe it and receive it - or doubt it and do without it. It is your choice.

However, if you choose to do without it, please don't rob this blessing from others: this "rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest." Don't blab your ignorance of these scriptures and proclaim it as truth, and therefore hinder others from receiving. This is what the Pharisees were doing. Don't be a Pharisee.

Coop

 

[SputnikBoy]

Coop . . .there is NO SUCH THING as an 'unknown tongue'. The word 'unknown' was NOT in the original manuscripts because it didn't belong there. It was later added - incorrectly, I further add - and simply meant that the language of Swahili, for instance, was 'unknown' to someone such as me who doesn't understand it. Swahili certainly IS 'unknown' to me. I realize that including the term 'unknown' is beneficial to 'your cause' but you really do need to stop using it because it simply is not true. EVERY language is known to SOMEONE on the planet. As for 'angelic tongues' please point me to a scripture that supports this.

You keep quoting Paul and I yet again have to remind you that Paul is responding to incidents within the Church of Corinth that most of us have only a smattering of knowledge about. You can't just take a text here and a text there and pretend to know EXACTLY what they mean. UNLESS we know what Paul was responding to - and we can only come up with an educated guess - then those texts that you offer as 'evidence' for Pentecostal 'tongues' must remain ambiguous. You can't just pluck them out willy nilly and apply them to 'make legitimate' your particular practice.

Do you have any background knowledge on the Church of Corinth? It was a church that was plagued with numerous problems. This church had been infiltrated by false teachers who were challenging both paul's personal integrity and his authority as an apostle. This was by NO MEANS a model church, certainly not a church on which to base ANY major doctrine!

 

[lecoop]

Coop . . .there is NO SUCH THING as an 'unknown tongue'. The word 'unknown' was NOT in the original manuscripts because it didn't belong there. It was later added - incorrectly, I further add - and simply meant that the language of Swahili, for instance, was 'unknown' to someone such as me who doesn't understand it. Swahili certainly IS 'unknown' to me. I realize that including the term 'unknown' is beneficial to 'your cause' but you really do need to stop using it because it simply is not true. EVERY language is known to SOMEONE on the planet. As for 'angelic tongues' please point me to a scripture that supports this.

You keep quoting Paul and I yet again have to remind you that Paul is responding to incidents within the Church of Corinth that most of us have only a smattering of knowledge about. You can't just take a text here and a text there and pretend to know EXACTLY what they mean. UNLESS we know what Paul was responding to - and we can only come up with an educated guess - then those texts that you offer as 'evidence' for Pentecostal 'tongues' must remain ambiguous. You can't just pluck them out willy nilly and apply them to 'make legitimate' your particular practice.

Do you have any background knowledge on the Church of Corinth? It was a church that was plagued with numerous problems. This church had been infiltrated by false teachers who were challenging both paul's personal integrity and his authority as an apostle. This was by NO MEANS a model church, certainly not a church on which to base ANY major doctrine!

SputnikBoy, I can and do know what Paul meant. Furthermore, the KJV translators did a good job with the word, "unknown," for they just amplified what Paul said, "No man understands." What did Paul mean? He meant that tongues were not to be understood by any man, anywhere: that is to say, "unknown." You are stuck on what happened in Acts 2, and are letting that get in the way of what Paul is teaching here. That is a mistake, for there was an added miracle of hearing that took place in Act 2. They were all speaking gibberish, just as Paul was describing here. The difference was, God added the miracle of people hearing in their own language.

I used to believe just like you and argued against tongues. (I grew up in the Wesleyan Church, which taught that any tongues today are from the devil) But one day someone ask me why I would argue against a gift from God. It stopped me in my tracks. Why would anyone argue against a gift from God?

So even though I "knew" (or thought I knew) that tongues was not for everyone, I wanted to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit. So I just "laid aside" all my arguments, and started seeking God. Within two months I received the baptism. Yes, when I received the baptism, I spoke with tongues. But I still did not understand what Paul wrote. That came with many years of meditation on these scriptures.

As I said before, you don't understand what Paul wrote, because you are on the outside looking in. One of the biggest problems with the Corinthian church was that they wanted to bring their prayer language tongues into a local gathering of believers. Even that would be fine, if it was a prayer meeting. If you follow Paul's argument, he does a paradigm: he brings tongues and prophecy along side one another and compares one with the other. However, even this will leave you outside, for you undoubtedly have never prophecied under the anointing either, since you don't have the anointing.

Prophecy is speaking from the spirit in your learned language, while tongues are speaking from your spirit man in a language of the HS that you never learned. In either case, as Paul said, the understanding is unfruitful, meaning that the speaker has no idea what he or she is saying, whether in prophecy or in tongues. The difference is, once you have spoken in prophecy, speaking out from your spirit man in English, you know what you are saying because you understand it. But you don't know it until you say it, because it is coming from your spirit. See, that is what Paul is saying when he says, "the understanding is unfruitful."

I have given many prophecies, and to start, all I got was maybe the first sentence, or the first few words. But as I stepped out in faith and spoke that out, then more came. I have also given prophecies in tongues, and the same thing happened: I would know in my spirit that I was to give a message in tongues, and I would just stand up and start speaking in tongues. Sometimes God would give me the interpretation, and sometimes God would give someone else the interpretation.

Paul's main argument is that prophecy is better that uninterpreted tongues, because all that hear are edified, for they understand the local language. If I were you, I would meditate on this chapter until God gives you some revelation on it. Right now, you cannot fulfill some verses.

I see now why you have not demonstrated the errors in my post on chapter 14. The fact is, I guess are confused about what Paul wrote. Perhaps you could start by listing the verses that you disagree with what I said it meant.

Coop

 

[cyberjosh]

Coop . . .there is NO SUCH THING as an 'unknown tongue'. The word 'unknown' was NOT in the original manuscripts because it didn't belong there. It was later added - incorrectly, I further add - and simply meant that the language of Swahili, for instance, was 'unknown' to someone such as me who doesn't understand it. Swahili certainly IS 'unknown' to me. I realize that including the term 'unknown' is beneficial to 'your cause' but you really do need to stop using it because it simply is not true. EVERY language is known to SOMEONE on the planet. As for 'angelic tongues' please point me to a scripture that supports this.

I don't know if Paul's reference to the tongue of angels supports speaking in tongues, but it seems that the Holy Spirit, when we are praying in tongues, can pray through/for us. First note 1 Corinthians 14:14-15, "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind." We use our spirit to pray in tongues, and God's Spirit in us is the source of the tongues, giving us utterance.

Now the Holy Spirit prays for us of his own accord, "In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (Romans 8:26-27)" But on a lesser scale I think that the Holy Spirit can also pray through us with expressable words which we do not expressly control. Just taking this from my Dad, he has told me that you can pray in tongues upon your own initiation, of course empowered by the Spirit, or the Spirit can strike up prayers inside of you for you, as in on your behalf.

Now what language (tongue) the Holy Spirit would use to do this I don't know, especially when you are alone and it will fall on the ears of no one else but God. But I at least think we could call this a "heavenly" (from God himself) prayer if not in some tongue of Heaven. This is opposed to praying or speaking in tongues from the outpouring desire of our own spirit, with the Holy Spirit just giving utterance (Acts 2:4).

I know this can range into the speculative, but all I can tell you is what I can extract from scriptures and some of the personal testimonies I've heard.

--------------------------------------------------
I also just read something interesting on tongues:

"The gift of Interpretation of Tongues is not a translation of what the other said, but an Interpretation: For example, one may pray in tongues for 2 minutes, and other interprets the message in may be 10 seconds."

That's interesting, I never thought of it that way. If this is true then the interpreter could reveal the spirit, manner, or "gist" of the declaration in tongues.

The article went on to say:

"When someone in the assembly speaks or prays in tongues should also be someone there who Interprets those Tongues to build up the Church. Otherwise pray in tongues by yourself for your own edification (1Cor.14:27-28). We already mentioned what St. Paul says, that tongues plus interpretation are equivalent to prophecy."

God Bless,

Josh

 

[SputnikBoy]

Pentecostal 'tongues' is all a lot of stuff and nonsense. What else can one possibly call it? The implication is that ONLY Pentecostals (and only those who speak in tongues' at that) have an infilling of the Holy Spirit ...in fact, it was MORE than an implication, wasn't it, Coop? So, whenever I hear the likes of Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart (is Jimmy still around?) and other charismatic evangelists babbling away I'm to conclude that these men are SO inspired of The Word that God saw fit to endow them with 'angelic tongues'? Where do we draw the line, Coop?

Coop says that no one but the Holy Spirit would praise God (in 'tongues', no less) and yet would claim that he has no idea what 'tongues' are or what their linguistic 'content' is. How would you know whether you're praising God or cursing God? I've got a FAR better idea, Coop. Try speaking to God in your NATIVE language ...in that way both God AND you will know what is being said! Why do I need to 'babble' in order to feel 'wonderful'?

I'll get back to other aspects of your post later.

SputnikBoy, why don't you just believe what Paul said? Let's go over it again, since you seem a little slow:

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

1. He that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not unto men...

Now listen closely: this starts what Paul thought of tongues. Tongues are NOT pointed toward man: do you get that? This means that tongues are NOT some human language designed to shorcut learning another language. Just this one phrase blasts your idea of tongues.

Okay, one more time ...there is NO SUCH THING as an 'unknown 'tongue'. The word 'unknown' was added to those texts by later writers. Anyone can verify this fact. 'Tongues' are no more pointed toward God than are any other utterances that are spoken with God in mind. 'Tongues' (Greek 'glossa) is just another word for '(human) languages'. We could end this discussion right now from this fact alone.

2. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh...unto God.

No such thing as an 'unknown tongue'. It may not be known to the listener but it's a known language to SOMEONE. You, Coop, are playing on the word 'unknown' and running with it to support a Pentecostal practice.

This shows where tongues are directed. Now compare this with what you just wrote: " Try speaking to God in your NATIVE language ...in that way both God AND you will know what is being said! " See how goofed up your idea is compared to the word of God? The purpose of tongues is to pray to God. This is bible: the problem is, you just don't believe it.

The purpose of tongues is to pray to God ...? Absolute piffle! The purpose of scriptural tongues (obsolete today) was to EDIFY THE CHURCH. There is no reference in ANY Bible version that remotely suggests speaking to God in any other than one's native language.

3. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh ..unto God: for no man understandeth him;

Again ...no such thing as an 'unknown language'. However, if some speaks Swahili (why not?) I won't understand him but God will. Is that so difficult to understand and acknowledge?

Please let this sink in, for it is God's word to YOU! When one speaks in tongues "no man understands Him." This means no man in Ankara, Turkey, no man in Bangkok, Thailand, no man in Bamako, Mali, no man in Canberra, Australia, no man in Conakry, Guinea, no man in Dakar, Senegal, no man in Edinburgh, Scotland, no man in Gaborone, Botswana, no man in Harare, Zimbabwe or Ho-Chi-Minh (Saigon), no man in Islamabad, Pakistan, no man in Kampala, Uganda, or Katmandu, Nepal, no man in Kigali, Rwanda, no man in Libreville, Gabon or Lilongwe, Malawi, no man in Lome, Togo, no man in Maputo, Mozambique or Manama, Bahrain, no man in Nouakchott, Mauritania or Nouakchott, Mauritania, no man in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, no man in Porto Novo, Benin, no man in Rabat, Morocco or Reykjavik, Iceland, no man in Suva, Fiji, or Sofia, Bulgaria, no man in Tripoli, Libya or Tierra Del Fuego or Tunis, Tunisia, no man in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, and for sure, no man in Valletta, Malta, Vladivostok, Russia, or Windhoek, Namibia or Xai Xai, Mozambique, or Yampol', Ukraine, or no man in Zacapa, Guatemala.

Hey, you've made your point ...Swahili would have done. : Whatever, my previous respone applies for this part of your post also. No point covering the same ground needlessly.

What is Paul saying? No matter where in the world you go, NO MAN UNDERSTANDS! (This is not a difficult thing.) Why does no man understand? Very simply, because it sounds like gibberish. This is not from man; it is the word of God you disagree with:

Well, actually it's the word of Paul ...contrary to popular opinion among Christians Paul didn't even come close to being God ...his own words, by the way, not mine. Anyway, my response is the same as given previously.

Isaiah 28
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

The above might sound impressive ...I don't know to whom. But, anyway, that text is also found (I believe) in Isaiah and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

How do we know that this has any reference to tongues? Paul, through the HS, wrote:

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.
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:

And you honestly believe that when I enter a Pentecostal church and hear people babbling, falling over, laughing uncontrollably, making farmyard sounds (I'm exaggerasting to be sure!) that I can apply to them the text that you've given above? Hmmm . . . I don't think so.

Pentecostal 'tongues' is all a lot of stuff and nonsense. What else can one possibly call it? The implication is that ONLY Pentecostals (and only those who speak in tongues' at that) have an infilling of the Holy Spirit ...in fact, it was MORE than an implication, wasn't it, Coop? So, whenever I hear the likes of Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart (is Jimmy still around?) and other charismatic evangelists babbling away I'm to conclude that these men are SO inspired of The Word that God saw fit to endow them with 'angelic tongues'? Where do we draw the line, Coop?

Coop says that no one but the Holy Spirit would praise God (in 'tongues', no less) and yet would claim that he has no idea what 'tongues' are or what their linguistic 'content' is. How would you know whether you're praising God or cursing God? I've got a FAR better idea, Coop. Try speaking to God in your NATIVE language ...in that way both God AND you will know what is being said! Why do I need to 'babble' in order to feel 'wonderful'?

I'll get back to other aspects of your post later.

SputnikBoy, why don't you just believe what Paul said? Let's go over it again, since you seem a little slow:

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

1. He that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not unto men...

Now listen closely: this starts what Paul thought of tongues. Tongues are NOT pointed toward man: do you get that? This means that tongues are NOT some human language designed to shorcut learning another language. Just this one phrase blasts your idea of tongues.

Okay, one more time ...there is NO SUCH THING as an 'unknown 'tongue'. The word 'unknown' was added to those texts by later writers. Anyone can verify this fact. 'Tongues' are no more pointed toward God than are any other utterances that are spoken with God in mind. 'Tongues' (Greek 'glossa) is just another word for '(human) languages'. We could end this discussion right now from this fact alone.

2. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh...unto God.

No such thing as an 'unknown tongue'. It may not be known to the listener but it's a known language to SOMEONE. You, Coop, are playing on the word 'unknown' and running with it to support a Pentecostal practice.

This shows where tongues are directed. Now compare this with what you just wrote: " Try speaking to God in your NATIVE language ...in that way both God AND you will know what is being said! " See how goofed up your idea is compared to the word of God? The purpose of tongues is to pray to God. This is bible: the problem is, you just don't believe it.

The purpose of tongues is to pray to God ...? Absolute piffle! The purpose of scriptural tongues (obsolete today) was to EDIFY THE CHURCH. There is no reference in ANY Bible version that remotely suggests speaking to God in any other than one's native language.

3. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh ..unto God: for no man understandeth him;

Again ...no such thing as an 'unknown language'. However, if some speaks Swahili (why not?) I won't understand him but God will. Is that so difficult to understand and acknowledge?

Please let this sink in, for it is God's word to YOU! When one speaks in tongues "no man understands Him." This means no man in Ankara, Turkey, no man in Bangkok, Thailand, no man in Bamako, Mali, no man in Canberra, Australia, no man in Conakry, Guinea, no man in Dakar, Senegal, no man in Edinburgh, Scotland, no man in Gaborone, Botswana, no man in Harare, Zimbabwe or Ho-Chi-Minh (Saigon), no man in Islamabad, Pakistan, no man in Kampala, Uganda, or Katmandu, Nepal, no man in Kigali, Rwanda, no man in Libreville, Gabon or Lilongwe, Malawi, no man in Lome, Togo, no man in Maputo, Mozambique or Manama, Bahrain, no man in Nouakchott, Mauritania or Nouakchott, Mauritania, no man in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, no man in Porto Novo, Benin, no man in Rabat, Morocco or Reykjavik, Iceland, no man in Suva, Fiji, or Sofia, Bulgaria, no man in Tripoli, Libya or Tierra Del Fuego or Tunis, Tunisia, no man in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, and for sure, no man in Valletta, Malta, Vladivostok, Russia, or Windhoek, Namibia or Xai Xai, Mozambique, or Yampol', Ukraine, or no man in Zacapa, Guatemala.

Hey, you've made your point ...Swahili would have done. : Whatever, my previous respone applies for this part of your post also. No point covering the same ground needlessly.

What is Paul saying? No matter where in the world you go, NO MAN UNDERSTANDS! (This is not a difficult thing.) Why does no man understand? Very simply, because it sounds like gibberish. This is not from man; it is the word of God you disagree with:

Well, actually it's the word of Paul ...contrary to popular opinion among Christians Paul didn't even come close to being God ...his own words, by the way, not mine. Anyway, my response is the same as given previously.

Isaiah 28
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

The above might sound impressive ...I don't know to whom. But, anyway, that text is also found (I believe) in Isaiah and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

How do we know that this has any reference to tongues? Paul, through the HS, wrote:

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.
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:

And you honestly believe that when I enter a Pentecostal church and hear people babbling, falling over, laughing uncontrollably, making farmyard sounds (I'm exaggerasting to be sure!) that I can apply the text that you've given above? Hmmm . . . I don't think so.

Pentecostal 'tongues' is all a lot of stuff and nonsense. What else can one possibly call it? The implication is that ONLY Pentecostals (and only those who speak in tongues' at that) have an infilling of the Holy Spirit ...in fact, it was MORE than an implication, wasn't it, Coop? So, whenever I hear the likes of Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart (is Jimmy still around?) and other charismatic evangelists babbling away I'm to conclude that these men are SO inspired of The Word that God saw fit to endow them with 'angelic tongues'? Where do we draw the line, Coop?

Coop says that no one but the Holy Spirit would praise God (in 'tongues', no less) and yet would claim that he has no idea what 'tongues' are or what their linguistic 'content' is. How would you know whether you're praising God or cursing God? I've got a FAR better idea, Coop. Try speaking to God in your NATIVE language ...in that way both God AND you will know what is being said! Why do I need to 'babble' in order to feel 'wonderful'?

I'll get back to other aspects of your post later.

SputnikBoy, why don't you just believe what Paul said? Let's go over it again, since you seem a little slow:

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

1. He that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not unto men...

Now listen closely: this starts what Paul thought of tongues. Tongues are NOT pointed toward man: do you get that? This means that tongues are NOT some human language designed to shorcut learning another language. Just this one phrase blasts your idea of tongues.

Okay, one more time ...there is NO SUCH THING as an 'unknown 'tongue'. The word 'unknown' was added to those texts by later writers. Anyone can verify this fact. 'Tongues' are no more pointed toward God than are any other utterances that are spoken with God in mind. 'Tongues' (Greek 'glossa) is just another word for '(human) languages'. We could end this discussion right now from this fact alone.

2. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh...unto God.

No such thing as an 'unknown tongue'. It may not be known to the listener but it's a known language to SOMEONE. You, Coop, are playing on the word 'unknown' and running with it to support a Pentecostal practice.

This shows where tongues are directed. Now compare this with what you just wrote: " Try speaking to God in your NATIVE language ...in that way both God AND you will know what is being said! " See how goofed up your idea is compared to the word of God? The purpose of tongues is to pray to God. This is bible: the problem is, you just don't believe it.

The purpose of tongues is to pray to God ...? Absolute piffle! The purpose of scriptural tongues (obsolete today) was to EDIFY THE CHURCH. There is no reference in ANY Bible version that remotely suggests speaking to God in any other than one's native language.

3. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh ..unto God: for no man understandeth him;

Again ...no such thing as an 'unknown language'. However, if some speaks Swahili (why not?) I won't understand him but God will. Is that so difficult to understand and acknowledge?

Please let this sink in, for it is God's word to YOU! When one speaks in tongues "no man understands Him." This means no man in Ankara, Turkey, no man in Bangkok, Thailand, no man in Bamako, Mali, no man in Canberra, Australia, no man in Conakry, Guinea, no man in Dakar, Senegal, no man in Edinburgh, Scotland, no man in Gaborone, Botswana, no man in Harare, Zimbabwe or Ho-Chi-Minh (Saigon), no man in Islamabad, Pakistan, no man in Kampala, Uganda, or Katmandu, Nepal, no man in Kigali, Rwanda, no man in Libreville, Gabon or Lilongwe, Malawi, no man in Lome, Togo, no man in Maputo, Mozambique or Manama, Bahrain, no man in Nouakchott, Mauritania or Nouakchott, Mauritania, no man in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, no man in Porto Novo, Benin, no man in Rabat, Morocco or Reykjavik, Iceland, no man in Suva, Fiji, or Sofia, Bulgaria, no man in Tripoli, Libya or Tierra Del Fuego or Tunis, Tunisia, no man in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, and for sure, no man in Valletta, Malta, Vladivostok, Russia, or Windhoek, Namibia or Xai Xai, Mozambique, or Yampol', Ukraine, or no man in Zacapa, Guatemala.

Hey okay, you've made your point ...Swahili would have done. : Whatever, my previous respone applies for this part of your post also. No point covering the same ground needlessly.

What is Paul saying? No matter where in the world you go, NO MAN UNDERSTANDS! (This is not a difficult thing.) Why does no man understand? Very simply, because it sounds like gibberish. This is not from man; it is the word of God you disagree with:

Well, actually it's the word of Paul ...contrary to popular opinion among Christians Paul didn't even come close to being God ...his own words, by the way, not mine. Anyway, my response is the same as given previously.

Isaiah 28
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

The above might sound impressive ...I don't know to whom. But, anyway, that text is also found (I believe) in Isaiah and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

How do we know that this has any reference to tongues? Paul, through the HS, wrote:

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.
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:

And you honestly believe that when I enter a Pentecostal church and hear people babbling, falling over, laughing uncontrollably, making farmyard sounds (I'm exaggerasting to be sure!) that I can apply the text that you've given above? Hmmm . . . I don't think so.

There is the link. Like it or not, the Holy Spirit is telling you that tongues are like stammering lips. Believe it or not. Are tongues suppose to be part of the church?

No, no, intercession BY THE HOLY SPIRIT is like stammering lips. This has nothing to do with the individual. Red herring.

Mark 16
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (We all know this is for us!)
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (We all agree with this too)
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (Why not just believe this too?)
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

You know, Pentecostals focus so much on their 'tongues' that ALL other gifts of the Holy Spirit are considered to be a nonevent. As for your list of supernatural practices above I've never come across a godly person (to me) yet who has had to display his/her Christianity to me in that manner. The Pentecostals just can't grasp the still small voice of God that abides within the Christian. Those who desire more than that should wait for the circus to come to town and volunteer their services.

Why not believe all of God's word? Why pick what parts you want to believe? One thing is for sure, the way you believe, you will never have to worry about being embarrassed by suddenly blurting out something in tongues: God will never bless you with the baptism with the Holy Spirit and tongues as long as you stay in unbelief in this area. You will just bypass that portion of the scriptures.

I must be one of the very few people in the 'civilized' world who doesn't have a cell phone. Why? I have no interest in owning one at all. I don't care much for speaking on the phone at the best of times without carrying a mobile version of one around with me. The same is true for 'tongues'. If I can't relay to others in their/my language what I want them to know then I don't want it. Honestly, Coop, I'm not envious! :

Anyway, I'm getting a little weary so I'll leave it there for now.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Sorry about the repeats in the above post, Coop. I don't know how that happened ...some gremlin in the system or something. This kind of thing always seems to happen when we involve ourselves in these weird 'tongue-speaking' mystery religions. :-D

Anyway, I couldn't be bothered rectifying the problem. Besides, it will do you good to read my wisdom several times in one post! :

 

[chris overy]

i myself have spoken in toungues. through the holy spirit. there are a couple of different types of tounges that is discussed in the bible. 1 is the different languages. the other is a prayer of toungues. paul speaks of both. any time i have spoken in tougues was through weakness and the holy spirit praying through me. or through a very thankful heart of what the lord has done for me. do i believe in speaking in toungues all the time. the bible speaks very clearly that all are not to speak in toungues at the same time. as it will push non believers away from the word of god rather than accepting it. however toungues can be used to show a miracle to non believers. just as in acts chapter 2.

i was also raised in a penticostal church. i do not believe in toungues in the same way as they do. but i will not judge there hearts and say that it is fake or just for show.

 

[chris overy]

i myself have spoken in toungues. through the holy spirit. there are a couple of different types of tounges that is discussed in the bible. 1 is the different languages. the other is a prayer of toungues. paul speaks of both. any time i have spoken in tougues was through weakness and the holy spirit praying through me. or through a very thankful heart of what the lord has done for me. do i believe in speaking in toungues all the time. the bible speaks very clearly that all are not to speak in toungues at the same time. as it will push non believers away from the word of god rather than accepting it. however toungues can be used to show a miracle to non believers. just as in acts chapter 2.

i was also raised in a penticostal church. i do not believe in toungues in the same way as they do. but i will not judge there hearts and say that it is fake or just for show.

 

[SputnikBoy]

i myself have spoken in toungues. through the holy spirit. there are a couple of different types of tounges that is discussed in the bible. 1 is the different languages. the other is a prayer of toungues. paul speaks of both. any time i have spoken in tougues was through weakness and the holy spirit praying through me. or through a very thankful heart of what the lord has done for me. do i believe in speaking in toungues all the time. the bible speaks very clearly that all are not to speak in toungues at the same time. as it will push non believers away from the word of god rather than accepting it. however toungues can be used to show a miracle to non believers. just as in acts chapter 2.

i was also raised in a penticostal church. i do not believe in toungues in the same way as they do. but i will not judge there hearts and say that it is fake or just for show.

So ...did you speak in a foreign language ...something that could be verified? That is what 'tongues' are. And, if so, was there a foreigner present to whom your message was directed and could therefore benefit by it?

As well-intentioned as some may be regarding this issue I personally require verification that a 'supernatural' experience is actually occurring. Faking (or some form of ecstatic psychological experience) requires no input from the HS and can easily be explained away. Besides, Pentecostal 'tongues' are unbiblical.

 

[lecoop]

So ...did you speak in a foreign language ...something that could be verified? That is what 'tongues' are. And, if so, was there a foreigner present to whom your message was directed and could therefore benefit by it?

As well-intentioned as some may be regarding this issue I personally require verification that a 'supernatural' experience is actually occurring. Faking (or some form of ecstatic psychological experience) requires no input from the HS and can easily be explained away. Besides, Pentecostal 'tongues' are unbiblical.

Sputnikboy, you still have ignored these words from Paul:

"New International Version"

"does not speak to men but to God"

You want Paul to say that he speaks to men of a different language. Paul does not say that. Paul says that he speaks to God. Why? Because God is creating the language, and God is hearing the language.

"Indeed, no one understands him"

Paul does not say what you want him to say here, that "no man understands because this speaker in tongues is not speaking to the right group of people." No. you want Paul to say that, but that is not what is written.

"he utters mysteries with his spirit"

Different languages are not mysteries. But a language created "on the spot" by the HS is a mystery.


"4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church."

Again, you want this to say "if someone is speaking in a language in the wrong country is only edifying himself. Paul does not say that.

"He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues,[d] unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified."

You want Paul to be saying that one must interpret this language because he is preaching to the wrong people. You are mistaken. This is not what Paul is saying. Because this tongue is coming from the human spirit by the HS, not one human being can understand it. It is NOT a "language" from some other part of the world. Paul says that one must interpret, because no man understands him anywhere in the world. Why? Because it is gibberish coming from his spirit, not a known language. With your interpretation, there would not need to be any interpretation, for it would be a known language.

6 Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction?

In your mind, he would be bringing some revelation or knowledge, because he would be preaching to the right people and they would understand. This is NOT what Paul is saying. Paul is saying that he must do something else than tongues, for no man understands tongues.

"7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes?"

Paul did not say to go somewhere where the flute or harp is understood. No, the correct understanding is, if the flute is not making a distinction in notes, no one will understand the tune. No one anywhere in the world. Why? Because tongues are created "on the spot" by the HS and no man understands. The HS creates the gibberish, and God is the only one who understands.

8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?

Paul does not say to get the trumpet to the right group of people, and they they will understand to get ready for battle. No, anywhere, anytime, tongues are not understood by any man, for they are created as gibberish by the HS, and are directed towards God, not towards man. You are putting this backwards, and trying to direct a language towards man; that is, the right man that will understand.

9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.

Note "anyone?" You want Paul to be saying "anyone, unless you find the right people to speak to, and then they will understand..." No, Paul is saying that no one anywhere will understand, because this is a tongue created by the HS. The HS is not copying some other language in the world, to prepare this man to be a missionary to that people group.

10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning.

This verse is the "clincher!" Paul clinched the nail on the other side of the board! Paul says that there are tongues of all sorts all around the world, and they all have meaning to those people, but he is making a paradigm here, in comparing all these languages of the world with tongues. All these tongues around the world have meaning, but tongues do not have any meaning except to God, for they are directed to HIM, and NO MAN UNDERSTANDS."

11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you....

Paul is still in his paradigm, comparing tongues with all the languages of the world. If you are hearing a Frenchman, and don't know french, you two will remain foreigners; you will not understand a word he is saying, and he will not understand a word you are saying, if he does not know English. So Paul says, "so it is with you" that speak tongues in a church meeting. Why? Because tongues are gibberish created on the spot by the HS as a prayer to God, and no man understand, for his spirit is praying.

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

What reason? Because no man understands. So because no man understands, you must pray that you could interpret your own tongues. Now, why in the world would I need to pray to interpret if I have been given a special language to preach, say, Ugandan, and I know this and go to Ugonda, and preach in tongues. I WOULD NOT NEED TO INTERPRET, for I am speaking their language! But if I am speaking gibberish, and no man understands, then indeed, I would need to interpret. I know, you want Paul to mean, you would have to interpret, if you were speaking in tongues to the wrong people group. But this is not what Paul is saying.

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

Why should I pray that I can interpret? Because I have not one clue what I am saying! No [other] man understands, and indeed, the speaker in tongues has no understanding himself! So if I want to know what I am praying, I must get the interpretation myself!

As I said before, would you go out and preach for an hour, without knowing what you are saying? That is what you are trying to get us to beleive: that tongues are for a certain people group that uses that langauge. So if you are given tongues in that language, and go there to be a missionary, and preach to them in tongues, Paul is saying that you don't understand what you are saying. So you would preach for an hour and have no clue what you said!!!!! Would you do that? Then why would you expect others to do it?

15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.

Now Paul gives the conclusion to this problem, that you cannot even understand yourself when you pray in tongues. Why pray for an hour, when you cannot understand what you are praying? So Paul says, pray for a while in tongues, then pray for a while in English, where you can understand. In other words, Paul will do both kinds of praying. Why? Because Paul knows the value of praying in tongues, in the Spirit. Paul knows that it is always a perfect prayer.

16 If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand[e] say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?

This is another clincher. To prove that in verse 15 Paul meant two separate kinds of praying, he adds here that when you are praying "with your spirit," no one can say "amen," for no one understands.

Therefore, I see that Paul does not agree with your idea of tongues at all. But then, perhaps you know more than Paul.

Coop

 

[D46]

i was also raised in a penticostal church. i do not believe in toungues in the same way as they do. but i will not judge there hearts and say that it is fake or just for show.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. You were raised Pentacostal but "do not believe in tongues in the same way...". What do they say about this that causes you to not believe the same way?

lecoop-You may as well "hang it up" trying to convince anyone about tongues. If they don't want it, not to worry-they won't receive it. This is something miraculous from God that is woefully misunderstood, abused and misused and this is why many shy away from it altogether. Howbeit, it is biblical...

Acts 10:44-46 (KJV) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,...

How did they know they received the Holy Ghost? They HEARD them speak with tongues and magnify God.

 

[lecoop]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. You were raised Pentacostal but "do not believe in tongues in the same way...". What do they say about this that causes you to not believe the same way?

lecoop-You may as well "hang it up" trying to convince anyone about tongues. If they don't want it, not to worry-they won't receive it. This is something miraculous from God that is woefully misunderstood, abused and misused and this is why many shy away from it altogether. Howbeit, it is biblical...

Acts 10:44-46 (KJV) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,...

How did they know they received the Holy Ghost? They HEARD them speak with tongues and magnify God.

"lecoop-You may as well "hang it up" trying to convince anyone about tongues. If they don't want it, not to worry-they won't receive it. "

You said that right!

Coop

 

[chris overy]

well many pentecost churches believe that toungues is the most important gift and is the only way to know wethr or not someone is saved. they also believe that toungues has to be spoke everytime one prays or likes the serman they hear or so on and so forth. this is not biblical. paul writes quite abit about toungues. it is not always a forien worldly language. it is also a spiritual language. we can not take what man says or one or two verses on these things and say that we have complete context without all scriptures on the matter.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Acts 10:44-46 (KJV) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,...

How did they know they received the Holy Ghost? They HEARD them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Exactly. I have no argument with that. BUT ...are you seriously suggesting that those who 'babble like pagans' in a Pentecostal church are REALLY magnifying God in a language that an appropriate foreigner can understand? If so, there's a bridge in Sydney that I'm offering for sale ...interested in buying?

 

[D46]

Exactly. I have no argument with that. BUT ...are you seriously suggesting that those who 'babble like pagans' in a Pentecostal church are REALLY magnifying God in a language that an appropriate foreigner can understand? If so, there's a bridge in Sydney that I'm offering for sale ...interested in buying?

I don't know that pagans babble as I've never heard them. Pentacostals don't have the corner market on speaking in tongues. I understand even Charismatic Catholics have experienced it...don't know, but; that's what I've heard.

What's an "appropriate foreigner"? The Scriptures tell me that the gift of the Holy Ghost was..."promised unto you, to your children, and to all that are afar off. Even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Acts 2:39

There are two distinct typ[es of tongues in the Bible. One is the evidential tongues which is spoken when oone received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. This tongue may be a language foreign to the person speaking it but, could be understood by others native to that dialect. Such was the case on the Day of Pentacost when men of every nation heard the hundred and twenty Jews speak in the native language of every person present. This has led some to the belief that this experience was for the purpose of evangelizing foreigh countries. However, the Bible doesn't record any such use of this gift for this express purpose.

The second type of tongues the Bible teaches is a tongue of edification in that, no man understands this tongue.

1 Corinthians 14:2 (KJV) For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

The Corinthians, according to documented history, were a carnal bunch of Christians who liked to display publicly their gift and Paul was correcting them in this book for this. Paul doen't condemn tongues but, that it should be used respectfully.

1 Corinthians 14:5 (KJV) I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

1 Corinthians 14:39-40 (KJV) Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order.

I suspect, SB, that you didn't originally start this post with the intentions of learning about tongues in sincerity, but rather to make fun of it and that's a serious indictment before the face of God.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Forget about 1 Corinthians, D46, if you're looking for something to back up Pentecostal 'tongues'. There was a great deal of corruption going on in the Church of Corinth. History tells us this but we can also see evidence of this in Paul's letters. The poor guy is frustrated!

By the way, there are NO 'tongues of angels' that we know of (from scripture) so don't let us kid ourselves that our Pentecostal brethren are thus gifted! 'Angel-speak' comes from Gnosticism and other mystery religions that Paul makes reference to. Again, don't let us use the Church of Corinth as an example of the 'true' church. BIG mistake.

By the way, an 'appropriate foreigner' is the one who understands the message being spoken in his/her own tongue (language).

 

[lecoop]

Forget about 1 Corinthians, D46, if you're looking for something to back up Pentecostal 'tongues'. There was a great deal of corruption going on in the Church of Corinth. History tells us this but we can also see evidence of this in Paul's letters. The poor guy is frustrated!

By the way, there are NO 'tongues of angels' that we know of (from scripture) so don't let us kid ourselves that our Pentecostal brethren are thus gifted! 'Angel-speak' comes from Gnosticism and other mystery religions that Paul makes reference to. Again, don't let us use the Church of Corinth as an example of the 'true' church. BIG mistake.

By the way, an 'appropriate foreigner' is the one who understands the message being spoken in his/her own tongue (language).

SputnikBoy, just because you lack understanding of 1 Cor 14, does not mean that those of us that do speak in tongues don't understand. It matters little that Paul was giving correction. It is still the word of God, and profitable for doctrine. However, God meant for us to believe it, not argue against it. That is what the Pharisees did.

I can see that you still do not understand the simplist phrase: "no man understands." If someone understood somewhere, that is some "appropriate foreigner," why in the world would Paul say that it must be interpreted? Why didn't Paul say somewhere in this correction, that the speaker must go and find the people that he is to minister to?

That is why this idea is so goofy: if God gave the tongues, and they were a real foreign language, then it must be God's plan that the speaker of said tongues travels to that place, wherever it is, and become a missionary there. However, Paul gives no such instruction! How strange!

No, the truth is, no man understands, because it it not a language of earth, but a made up language, made up "on the spot" by the Holy spirit, to be spoken out by the human spirit.

Next, why in the world would Paul say that a speaker in tongues is speaking to God, and not to man, if he has been given a language of some people group on the earth? If that were the case, then that tongue would be towards men, and not God.

No, the truth is, it is just gibberish made up on the spot by the Holy Spirit, and spoken out by the human spirit, in a prayer to God. It is always a perfect prayer, for the HS assigns meaning to it just like a language, and the heavenly Father listens and answers.

You have never even attempted to answer, what you MUST answer, if you maintain this silly idea: would you preach for an hour, if you had no idea what you were saying? That is what your idea portrays: that a speaker in tongues travels to where ever his or her tongues is for, and preaches there in that langauge. However, Paul said that when the spirit speaks, that is in tongues, the mind is unfruitful. Therefore, this preacher in tongues would be preaching without one clue as to what he is preaching. Once again, would you do that?

Coop

 

[SputnikBoy]

Are you suggesting that, whenever I hear babble in a Pentecostal church, I'm to assume that it's 'angel-speak'? And, just what IS the criteria for determining so-called 'genuine' from 'fake'? There surely HAS to be a way of knowing.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

No, the truth is, it is just gibberish made up on the spot by the Holy Spirit, and spoken out by the human spirit, in a prayer to God. It is always a perfect prayer, for the HS assigns meaning to it just like a language, and the heavenly Father listens and answers

You're half-right, it is gibberish, but it is made up, consciously or sub-consciously, by the speaker, not by an omnipotent Spirit. Are we really to believe that an omnipotent Spirit would provide a "sign" that was so easy to fake? If you don't believe that tongues are supposed to be verifiable human languages, then there is no evidence that anything supernatural is going on because any gibberish that occurs must be accepted as the "real thing" as there is no way to test the real thing.

 

[SputnikBoy]

That's correct, Brad. But then, 'tongues' (no such thing) is but one of the questionable practices that are used by the pretentious ('showy') charismatic culture. One could dress in a wolf outfit and howl at the moon, put the 'this is of the Holy Spirit' tag on it, and who could question it ...?

By the way, Brad ...a little off-topic, but I always assumed that you were a Christian. Now I see by your avatar that you are not. Were you at one time, and did this change ...or what? I'm just curious since my best friend and I are doing a great deal of questioning the Bible lately. We still believe in a Creator-God, but . . . . . .well ...