No, as it is the "other" use for tongues.
Private edification, as the Spirit communicates to Father.
I still consider it a miracle though.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
'Speaking in Tongues', true vs false.
- Thread starter reddogs
- Start date
Private edification, as the Spirit communicates to Father.
I still consider it a miracle though.
I want to add this bit of aside...
If "that which in part" has been done away with, and we can have faith in nothing but the bible, why do there exist so many versions of the bible?
Is there one that is "perfect" while others are frauds?
If the bible is that "which is perfect", answer me this...When will Jesus reappear?
If "that which in part" has been done away with, and we can have faith in nothing but the bible, why do there exist so many versions of the bible?
Is there one that is "perfect" while others are frauds?
If the bible is that "which is perfect", answer me this...When will Jesus reappear?
This is a straw man argument. None of the well-accepted versions of the Bible contradict any of the others in meaning. In doctrinal teaching, they all agree.
TD
Rom. 8:26 is talking about groanings that can't be spoken. It's about spiritual desire, not speaking in tongues. To claim that it's about tongues is a common Pentecostal misuse of that verse. "We do not know how to pray as we should..." Yet, aren't you claiming that your "tongues" is the proper prayer for that? There's something wrong with the picture Pentecostals are drawing.
TD
Bob Carabbio
Member
I wouldn't know (since I didn't understand or recognize it). What I DO know is that there was an INTERPRETATION in English that I could understand.
Unless, of course it is, and your PenteHOSTILE paradigm just doesn't accept it.
In YOUR OPINION. How do YOU know it's not a "known language" just because YOU don't recognize it. There are probably THOUSANDS of languages you know nothing about.
The Corinthians didn't know any of the Tongues being spoken, but Paul doesn't say they're Fake - he only criticized their USE in the meeting. (probably because they weren't messages to the congregation, but only "prayer tongues"). When God BURDENS a person to speak in tongues, He already knows who He's going to burden with the interpretation.
Sure you could, but you'd be LYING, and YOU'D KNOW IT!!!
How about this: It's an FGBMFI dinner meeting in Marion, OH in 1978. There's a message in a tongue NOT understood by anybody in the room. Immediately the fellow on my Left stands and begins to give the interpretation.
While he's doing that I'm Burdened to interpret, and when the fellow on my left suddenly stops in mid thought, I begin to speak what the Holy Spirit supplies to my mind, and Speak until the flow of words stops.
Whereupon the fellow on my Right stands and picks up the message were I left off, and finishes it out. SO three individuals in sequence speaking the interpretation of the message in tongues, and dovetailing seamlessly to bring forth the entire interpretation. I know that I didn't "Make up" anything, but simply spoke what I was given.
It's the same when I speak in tongues (as I've been doing privately for the last 47 years). When I speak, I speak words supplied to my mind by the Holy Spirit, and don't "Make up" anything.
Last edited:
The evidence is overwhelming that Mk 16:9-20 are inspired, genuine:
Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired? - Apologetics Press
The science of textual criticism is a field of inquiry that has been invaluable to ascertaining the original state of the New Testament text. Textual criticism involves “the ascertainment of the true form of a literary work, as originally composed and written down by its author” (Kenyon, 1951...apologeticspress.org
=========
I would also suggest doing internet searches to read what you can find from John Burgon in how the Sinaiticus was found in the garbage:
"The Sinaiticus was discovered by Constantine Tischendorf in the Greek Orthodox Monastery of St. Catherine, on the Sinai peninsula. Monasteries are known for exceptional libraries, and scholars would often visit to conduct research. St. Catherine’s is no exception. From the monastery’s website:
The Unreliability of the Alexandrian Manuscripts - Preserved Word Ministries
Bible scholarship of the past 150 years has placed much attention on a very small number of manuscripts. While there are over 5000 known New Testament manuscripts, attention has been placed on less than ten. Of these, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have been exalted as the “oldest and...www.preservedword.com
"
Burgon on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Textus Receptus Bibles
John Burgon on Sinaiticus and Vaticanustextusreceptusbibles.com
(my emp)
"On page 11 of his book, Burgon states: "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant mss. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substituted, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is, in fact, easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."
Ernest,
The addition of Mark 16:9-20 to the biblical text is related to the MSS compiled by Erasmus at that time.
The evidence is overwhelming that Mk 16:9-20 are inspired, genuine:
Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired? - Apologetics Press
The science of textual criticism is a field of inquiry that has been invaluable to ascertaining the original state of the New Testament text. Textual criticism involves “the ascertainment of the true form of a literary work, as originally composed and written down by its author” (Kenyon, 1951...
=========
I would also suggest doing internet searches to read what you can find from John Burgon in how the Sinaiticus was found in the garbage:
"The Sinaiticus was discovered by Constantine Tischendorf in the Greek Orthodox Monastery of St. Catherine, on the Sinai peninsula. Monasteries are known for exceptional libraries, and scholars would often visit to conduct research. St. Catherine’s is no exception. From the monastery’s website:The Unreliability of the Alexandrian Manuscripts - Preserved Word Ministries
Bible scholarship of the past 150 years has placed much attention on a very small number of manuscripts. While there are over 5000 known New Testament manuscripts, attention has been placed on less than ten. Of these, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have been exalted as the “oldest and...www.preservedword.com
Burgon on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Textus Receptus Bibles
John Burgon on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
(my emp)
"On page 11 of his book, Burgon states: "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant mss. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substituted, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is, in fact, easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."
Ernest,
News is underwhelming to support the Textus Receptus and the long ending of Mark 16. In fact, there are several 'long' endings of Mark 16.
As for Burgon's research, it has holes so large I could drive a Mack track through them.
The Erasmus Greek text that became the Textus Receptus and had so much influence on the text used for the translation of the KJV New Testament, but it is based on a ‘debased form of the Greek Testament’ (Metzger’s words).
Better Greek manuscripts are available in the twenty-first century and most of the new translations are based on these texts. The Greek text gathered by Erasmus that became the Textus Receptus is not the most reliable Greek text available for NT translation. The manuscripts found since the time of Erasmus and the eclectic Greek text of Nestle-Aland 26, which is used in the United Bible Societies Greek NT (edition 27 is now available), provide a more reliable Greek text from which to translate. The latter Greek text is used in such English Bible translations as the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, NIV, NASB and NLT.
However, there is no point in trying to convince, a dogmatic Textus Receptus supporter, of these details.
Taken from my article, The Greek Text, the KJV, and English translations
Erasmus consulted only one MSS for the Book of Revelation and the last leaf was lacking, so the last six verses were omitted in that Greek MSS. So what did he do? He translated the Latin Vulgate into Greek and published that as the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation. Therefore, in the Greek of the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation, it contains some words and phrases that have been found in no other Greek MSS (see The King James Version disagreement: Is the Greek text behind the KJV New Testament superior to that used by modern Bible translations?)
Oz
I don't agree.This is a straw man argument. None of the well-accepted versions of the Bible contradict any of the others in meaning. In doctrinal teaching, they all agree.
TD
And again, if the NT writings are the "perfect that was to come" which perfect version is the most perfect?
It just leads to the fact that the NT writings are not that which will usher in the end of the gifts of the Spirit.
The Spirit is making intersession for the prayer when speaking in tongues is done alone.Rom. 8:26 is talking about groanings that can't be spoken. It's about spiritual desire, not speaking in tongues. To claim that it's about tongues is a common Pentecostal misuse of that verse. "We do not know how to pray as we should..." Yet, aren't you claiming that your "tongues" is the proper prayer for that? There's something wrong with the picture Pentecostals are drawing.
TD
Just as your kindly supplied scripture says.
Your response is disingenuous because your usage of the term "perfect" doesn't fit the context of this conversation. Did you actually read what I wrote? In what way do you think that versions of the Bible aren't "perfect" (using your jargon)?
TD
Your interpretation is out of context, as you are trying to fit Rom. 8:26 into a 1 Cor. 14 context. This is a typical Pentecostal mistake, as it is a classic interpretive error. It's the same error that all cults use to justify their false ideas. It's a misrepresentation of what the scripture actually says, since nothing in the context of Rom. 8 implies the operation of sign gifts.
TD
1 Cor 13:10 was quoted by someone earlier to infer that the gift of tongues has been done away with...."But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."Your response is disingenuous because your usage of the term "perfect" doesn't fit the context of this conversation. Did you actually read what I wrote? In what way do you think that versions of the Bible aren't "perfect" (using your jargon)?
TD
They said the NT writings were that which was perfect.
But they don't realize that there are many varying versions of the bible and some are just absolutely unGodly.
So, which version was the "perfect" that was to come?
Perfect enough that we no longer need prophesy or the gift of tongues?
Hardly a mistake, as I have already pointed out that there are two different kinds of the gift of tongues.Your interpretation is out of context, as you are trying to fit Rom. 8:26 into a 1 Cor. 14 context. This is a typical Pentecostal mistake, as it is a classic interpretive error. It's the same error that all cults use to justify their false ideas. It's a misrepresentation of what the scripture actually says, since nothing in the context of Rom. 8 implies the operation of sign gifts.
TD
To refute one gift is to refute all the gifts.
Gifts that are still in use today.
You missed the point entirely. Your version of perfection concerning the scripture doesn't fit in the conversation, since it was in reference to completeness. The Greek word translated "perfect" in the KJV actually means "complete" in most if not all passages that use the term. In addition to that, I told you that all versions of scripture teach the same doctrines. Do you disagree with that? If not, then what is your definition of "perfect" that you find confusing about different versions of the Bible? (For example, are you a KJV-onlyist who thinks that the KJV is the only word of God and all other versions are corrupt?)
TD
Rom. 8:26 in various versions:
KJV: "the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."
NIV: "the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans."
ESV: "the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words."
CSB: "the Spirit himself intercedes for us with unspoken groanings."
NASB: "the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words."
NET: "the Spirit himself intercedes for us with inexpressible groanings."
RSV: "the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words."
YLT: "the Spirit himself doth make intercession for us with groanings unutterable."
All these versions were translated by experts who are trying to reveal the truth about what the passage actually says, and have been approved by many reputable Christian leaders. From them comes the obvious conclusion that this intercession is done WITHOUT SPEAKING! There is no speaking in it either by the Spirit by Himself or by the person whom the Spirit is interceding for. Therefore your idea (which is not originally your idea) that it's talking about speaking in tongues is simply wrong. Therefore, what I said about that interpretation being a mistake is certainly a mistake. Pentecostals use (misuse) this verse to justify their babbling tongue.
Modern day tongues is very problematic from a Biblical viewpoint:
1. It is quite impossible to prove that modern day tongues is miraculous. At no time has a tongue talker shown that his "language" was understood by anyone, whether it be someone knowing the language, or someone receiving a miraculous interpretation.
2. The interpretations of tongues given today are not shown to be miraculous orations, but only a pretense of them.
3. Tongues of today are not languages, as they never have enough vocabulary or structure to convey any message, according to expert linguists.
4. Tongues of today is a natural human phenomenon, since it has been proven that anyone can do it if they really try. To top it off, Pentecostals expect every person who receives the Spirit to speak in tongues, which is contrary to the Bible, but shows that there is an inherent acknowledgment by them that anyone can do it.
5. Many religious sects perform glossolalia in the same manner as the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, including those among Hindus, Muslims, and occult religions. This activity is not new, since hundreds of years BC the Greeks believed that a person speaking it was speaking oracles of the gods.
So, just because someone can't understand what the tongue-talker is saying doesn't prove that it's from God. In Acts 2, the crowd knew it was from God because they understood the message (except the sinful unbelieving attitude of some drove them to mock it). So, 3000 people became believers that day. Quite unlike the fruit of modern day tongues.
TD
Rom. 8:26 in various versions:
KJV: "the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."
NIV: "the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans."
ESV: "the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words."
CSB: "the Spirit himself intercedes for us with unspoken groanings."
NASB: "the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words."
NET: "the Spirit himself intercedes for us with inexpressible groanings."
RSV: "the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words."
YLT: "the Spirit himself doth make intercession for us with groanings unutterable."
All these versions were translated by experts who are trying to reveal the truth about what the passage actually says, and have been approved by many reputable Christian leaders. From them comes the obvious conclusion that this intercession is done WITHOUT SPEAKING! There is no speaking in it either by the Spirit by Himself or by the person whom the Spirit is interceding for. Therefore your idea (which is not originally your idea) that it's talking about speaking in tongues is simply wrong. Therefore, what I said about that interpretation being a mistake is certainly a mistake. Pentecostals use (misuse) this verse to justify their babbling tongue.
Modern day tongues is very problematic from a Biblical viewpoint:
1. It is quite impossible to prove that modern day tongues is miraculous. At no time has a tongue talker shown that his "language" was understood by anyone, whether it be someone knowing the language, or someone receiving a miraculous interpretation.
2. The interpretations of tongues given today are not shown to be miraculous orations, but only a pretense of them.
3. Tongues of today are not languages, as they never have enough vocabulary or structure to convey any message, according to expert linguists.
4. Tongues of today is a natural human phenomenon, since it has been proven that anyone can do it if they really try. To top it off, Pentecostals expect every person who receives the Spirit to speak in tongues, which is contrary to the Bible, but shows that there is an inherent acknowledgment by them that anyone can do it.
5. Many religious sects perform glossolalia in the same manner as the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, including those among Hindus, Muslims, and occult religions. This activity is not new, since hundreds of years BC the Greeks believed that a person speaking it was speaking oracles of the gods.
So, just because someone can't understand what the tongue-talker is saying doesn't prove that it's from God. In Acts 2, the crowd knew it was from God because they understood the message (except the sinful unbelieving attitude of some drove them to mock it). So, 3000 people became believers that day. Quite unlike the fruit of modern day tongues.
TD
Do you attend a Pentecostal church to confirm that what you've written here is factual?
I attended Pentecostal and Charismatic churches for 20 years, so I have plenty of experience with it.
TD
The translated word also means "perfect".You missed the point entirely. Your version of perfection concerning the scripture doesn't fit in the conversation, since it was in reference to completeness. The Greek word translated "perfect" in the KJV actually means "complete" in most if not all passages that use the term. In addition to that, I told you that all versions of scripture teach the same doctrines. Do you disagree with that? If not, then what is your definition of "perfect" that you find confusing about different versions of the Bible? (For example, are you a KJV-onlyist who thinks that the KJV is the only word of God and all other versions are corrupt?)
TD
The context implies something better that the gifts of the Spirit had yet to come.
Better than the gifts of the Spirit can be nothing less than "perfect".
Do you recognize two different kinds of gift of tongues?Rom. 8:26 in various versions:
KJV: "the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."
NIV: "the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans."
ESV: "the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words."
CSB: "the Spirit himself intercedes for us with unspoken groanings."
NASB: "the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words."
NET: "the Spirit himself intercedes for us with inexpressible groanings."
RSV: "the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words."
YLT: "the Spirit himself doth make intercession for us with groanings unutterable."
All these versions were translated by experts who are trying to reveal the truth about what the passage actually says, and have been approved by many reputable Christian leaders. From them comes the obvious conclusion that this intercession is done WITHOUT SPEAKING! There is no speaking in it either by the Spirit by Himself or by the person whom the Spirit is interceding for. Therefore your idea (which is not originally your idea) that it's talking about speaking in tongues is simply wrong. Therefore, what I said about that interpretation being a mistake is certainly a mistake. Pentecostals use (misuse) this verse to justify their babbling tongue.
Modern day tongues is very problematic from a Biblical viewpoint:
1. It is quite impossible to prove that modern day tongues is miraculous. At no time has a tongue talker shown that his "language" was understood by anyone, whether it be someone knowing the language, or someone receiving a miraculous interpretation.
2. The interpretations of tongues given today are not shown to be miraculous orations, but only a pretense of them.
3. Tongues of today are not languages, as they never have enough vocabulary or structure to convey any message, according to expert linguists.
4. Tongues of today is a natural human phenomenon, since it has been proven that anyone can do it if they really try. To top it off, Pentecostals expect every person who receives the Spirit to speak in tongues, which is contrary to the Bible, but shows that there is an inherent acknowledgment by them that anyone can do it.
5. Many religious sects perform glossolalia in the same manner as the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, including those among Hindus, Muslims, and occult religions. This activity is not new, since hundreds of years BC the Greeks believed that a person speaking it was speaking oracles of the gods.
So, just because someone can't understand what the tongue-talker is saying doesn't prove that it's from God. In Acts 2, the crowd knew it was from God because they understood the message (except the sinful unbelieving attitude of some drove them to mock it). So, 3000 people became believers that day. Quite unlike the fruit of modern day tongues.
TD
One where foreign languages are being delivered and another where the Spirit edifies the speaker with words meant to
help our infirmities as we don't know what to pray for?
I attended Pentecostal and Charismatic churches for 20 years, so I have plenty of experience with it.
TD
So, did you have some bad experiences at them? Was biblical Pentecostal theology taught at those churches?
The gifts were temporary by nature, but "the word of our God abides forever." Therefore, the Word is that which is more perfect than the sign gifts.
TD