'Speaking in Tongues', true vs false.

[OzSpen]

Now you are assuming I'm a cessationist, which is also a false judgment.

And since you bring up miracles, have you made a blind man see or lame person walk? Can you testify what miraculous power you have exercised? Or are you admitting that you also lack power, since you seem to include yourself in the "not anyone exercises Christ's authority"?
TD

TD,

Haven't you read 1 Cor 12:28-29 (NIV)?

'And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts'.​

In the Greek (I know and have taught Greek), the expected answer is, 'No'. All do NOT work miracles but we are asked to 'eagerly desire the greater gifts'. For me that is not miracles but being a teacher in the church.

Oz

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Careful there.
I would think name calling is against the rules.

Nobody was "Called a name". Two Genres of religious paradigms were accurately described.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

It is quite impossible to prove that modern day tongues is miraculous.

Agreed!! in fact theologically, it's quite impossible to "Prove" much of anything to anybody unless the Holy Spirit jumps in with His Conviction. That's why paul resolved to KNOW NOTHING except Jesus and Him Crucified - and let the Holy Spirit do the REAL work of Convicting of SIN and of Judgement.

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.

NOT true - UNLESS ALL full-Gospel Missionaries, and Pastors are bald faced liars. YOU may be willing to make that judgement, but I'm not, and I've been in this for almost 60 years.

What they state is that:
They have spoken in tongues, and BEEN UNDERSTOOD by hearers to be speaking their own language - even with the proper regional accent.
and:
They have spoken in the "Common tongue", and have been HEARD in one or more specific languages.
and:
The tongue was understood by somebody who spoke both the tongue AND the common language, and who verified that the Interpretation given was accurate.

Many religious sects perform glossolalia in the same manner as the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement,

TRUE statement!! and "Speaking in tongues" is also a known feature in Demonization - in some cases with a totally different voice, and without the person's lips even moving as another voice comes from within.

However the existence of the FALSE, doesn't eliminate to existence of the REAL. PenteHostiles, and Cessationists always bring this up as one of their favorite arguments. We're completely used to it.

just because someone can't understand what the tongue-talker is saying doesn't prove that it's from God.

TRUE, and just because I SAY that my interpretation was given me by the holy Spirit proves NOTHING to you - UNLESS it's used by the Holy Spirit to convict YOU of something. THEN you will know its source. The person next to you, however, may remain ignorant of it.

Delivering a message in tongues is not a different manifestation as speaking in tongues (from a Biblical standpoint).

Agreed, but there's no contradiction. You speak English, and if you deliver a PROPHETIC WORD in English that's not a "Different manifestation" (of English) but the SOURCE AND PURPOSE of the utterance is different.

Just because you speak English, however, doesn't mean that you can speak "prophesy" just because you feel like it. I speak in tongues regularly, but I HAVE NEVER been burdened by the Holy Spirit to SPEAK A MESSAGE IN TONGUES to a congregation. The Holy Spirit "Choreographs" the manifestation of gifts in the context of a congregational meeting, or other uses.

There are only 2 "edifications" that I know of (which aren't Biblical edifications) that modern tongues offer:
1. Strengthens a person's faith in modern tongues (which is a distraction from faith in Christ).
2. Makes a person feel better about their religious activity (which I say is a subtle undermining of true humility).

So - you don't accept "Modern Tongues" as being the same as the tongues spoken in Corinth - OR that Paul is a liar, and "tongues" spoken to God don't "edify" (I already know your choice).

So can you please explain in detail how you are edified by your practice

Experientially, and Personally, the immediate effect of beginning to speak in tongues (in early 1973) was being immediately propelled into any number of Bible teaching situations in and out of churches, in addition to my own home group, with Catholics (whose people were experiencing the "Baptism in the Holy SPirit, and the parish priests didn't know how to handle it), and United Church of Christ folks, where I began to do what was impossible for me - i.e. teach the Bible for hours with material supplied to be by the Holy Spirit - generally the night before, and during the meetings which went on for years in the '70s - mostly teaching the basics of Biblical salvation and of FAITH among folks who really had little Biblical basis to understand what Christianity was all about (religious liberals). But as far as establishing a "Cause and effect" relationship, ain't gonna happen. All I DO know is that BEFORE, I couldn't, and AFTER, I could, and did. Simple as that.

(Chuckle) and as frosting on the cake since the Assemblies of God (Pentecostal) didn't accept the "Charismatic movement" (they weren't "Clothesline Holy" enough), I actually wound up in the United Church of CHrist as a teenage, and adult Bible teacher. It was a fascinating experience. after the '70s, MANY Charismatics flowed into the Assemblies of God denomanation, and changed it's ultra-legalistic character radically -

 

[jasonc]

Agreed!! in fact theologically, it's quite impossible to "Prove" much of anything to anybody unless the Holy Spirit jumps in with His Conviction. That's why paul resolved to KNOW NOTHING except Jesus and Him Crucified - and let the Holy Spirit do the REAL work of Convicting of SIN and of Judgement.



NOT true - UNLESS ALL full-Gospel Missionaries, and Pastors are bald faced liars. YOU may be willing to make that judgement, but I'm not, and I've been in this for almost 60 years.

What they state is that:
They have spoken in tongues, and BEEN UNDERSTOOD by hearers to be speaking their own language - even with the proper regional accent.
and:
They have spoken in the "Common tongue", and have been HEARD in one or more specific languages.
and:
The tongue was understood by somebody who spoke both the tongue AND the common language, and who verified that the Interpretation given was accurate.



TRUE statement!! and "Speaking in tongues" is also a known feature in Demonization - in some cases with a totally different voice, and without the person's lips even moving as another voice comes from within.

However the existence of the FALSE, doesn't eliminate to existence of the REAL. PenteHostiles, and Cessationists always bring this up as one of their favorite arguments. We're completely used to it.



TRUE, and just because I SAY that my interpretation was given me by the holy Spirit proves NOTHING to you - UNLESS it's used by the Holy Spirit to convict YOU of something. THEN you will know its source. The person next to you, however, may remain ignorant of it.



Agreed, but there's no contradiction. You speak English, and if you deliver a PROPHETIC WORD in English that's not a "Different manifestation" (of English) but the SOURCE AND PURPOSE of the utterance is different.

Just because you speak English, however, doesn't mean that you can speak "prophesy" just because you feel like it. I speak in tongues regularly, but I HAVE NEVER been burdened by the Holy Spirit to SPEAK A MESSAGE IN TONGUES to a congregation. The Holy Spirit "Choreographs" the manifestation of gifts in the context of a congregational meeting, or other uses.



So - you don't accept "Modern Tongues" as being the same as the tongues spoken in Corinth - OR that Paul is a liar, and "tongues" spoken to God don't "edify" (I already know your choice).



Experientially, and Personally, the immediate effect of beginning to speak in tongues (in early 1973) was being immediately propelled into any number of Bible teaching situations in and out of churches, in addition to my own home group, with Catholics (whose people were experiencing the "Baptism in the Holy SPirit, and the parish priests didn't know how to handle it), and United Church of Christ folks, where I began to do what was impossible for me - i.e. teach the Bible for hours with material supplied to be by the Holy Spirit - generally the night before, and during the meetings which went on for years in the '70s - mostly teaching the basics of Biblical salvation and of FAITH among folks who really had little Biblical basis to understand what Christianity was all about (religious liberals). But as far as establishing a "Cause and effect" relationship, ain't gonna happen. All I DO know is that BEFORE, I couldn't, and AFTER, I could, and did. Simple as that.

(Chuckle) and as frosting on the cake since the Assemblies of God (Pentecostal) didn't accept the "Charismatic movement" (they weren't "Clothesline Holy" enough), I actually wound up in the United Church of CHrist as a teenage, and adult Bible teacher. It was a fascinating experience. after the '70s, MANY Charismatics flowed into the Assemblies of God denomanation, and changed it's ultra-legalistic character radically -

I will add ,locally ,the first racially mixed church in my county was a charismatic one .

the accoints of that is first hand knowledge to those I met in that church and newspaper articles covered that pastor,evangelist.

his tent days are still recalled

 

[Hopeful]

Nobody was "Called a name". Two Genres of religious paradigms were accurately described.

I see it as passive-aggressiveness.

 

[tdidymas]

Agreed!! in fact theologically, it's quite impossible to "Prove" much of anything to anybody unless the Holy Spirit jumps in with His Conviction. That's why paul resolved to KNOW NOTHING except Jesus and Him Crucified - and let the Holy Spirit do the REAL work of Convicting of SIN and of Judgement.

You are quite wrong in this matter, since 3000 people were proven that the apostles were speaking miraculously on the day of Pentecost, and most of Jesus' miracles were proven to be so to his enemies.

NOT true - UNLESS ALL full-Gospel Missionaries, and Pastors are bald faced liars. YOU may be willing to make that judgement, but I'm not, and I've been in this for almost 60 years.

What they state is that:
They have spoken in tongues, and BEEN UNDERSTOOD by hearers to be speaking their own language - even with the proper regional accent.
and:
They have spoken in the "Common tongue", and have been HEARD in one or more specific languages.
and:
The tongue was understood by somebody who spoke both the tongue AND the common language, and who verified that the Interpretation given was accurate.

When you say "they," such is nebulous at best. It would be important to get very specific on who, where, when, etc. because Charismatics have a wide reputation for exaggerations. If the true Biblical gift of tongues actually was in operation, it is overwhelmingly obscured by the counterfeit babbling of those claiming to be "filled with the Spirit."

Furthermore, if P/C apologists really were committed to spreading the good news about real miracles for the purpose of edifying the universal body of Christ, they would be posting videos of the events, which would become obvious. But all I have seen is remarkedly fake. Like I said before, if modern tongues could be proven to be real languages, it would have been done in the past 100 years.

TRUE statement!! and "Speaking in tongues" is also a known feature in Demonization - in some cases with a totally different voice, and without the person's lips even moving as another voice comes from within.

However the existence of the FALSE, doesn't eliminate to existence of the REAL. PenteHostiles, and Cessationists always bring this up as one of their favorite arguments. We're completely used to it.

This argument doesn't take into account the fact that expert linguists have carefully examined and compared modern P/C tongues with those of other religions, and they report that there is no difference in regard to language structure and vocabulary - they all are not languages and have no intelligible meaning to them.

And besides that, many people are deceived by many urban legends, and the longer they believe them, the stronger their belief. But strong belief doesn't constitute truth, as I'm sure you're well aware of, and that is attested by the many cults and religions.

Since from your report above, you believe that modern tongues conveys real language with real meaning, and can be understood by people who know those languages, it begs the question: do you acknowledge that the vast majority of P/C tongues is not languages, that it's just fake babbling?

TRUE, and just because I SAY that my interpretation was given me by the holy Spirit proves NOTHING to you - UNLESS it's used by the Holy Spirit to convict YOU of something. THEN you will know its source. The person next to you, however, may remain ignorant of it.

IMO it doesn't matter if the person who made up the interpretation quotes scripture or paraphrases it, or otherwise speaks a truth. The issue is, where is this activity coming from? Is it from God, or from men? If you say it's from God, but in reality it's from men, then are you not taking the name of the Lord in vain, even if you don't know you're doing that?

Just because a scripture comes to mind to someone who wants to interpret, doesn't prove that the tongue-speaker was coming from God. Sure, God can use anything, even false signs. He causes all things to work together for the good of those who love Him. I don't see that P/Cs are cultic and devoid of God's work, even though that some of their doctrines are riding the edge. God might even be working to some extent among Mormons and JWs, so I can't condemn anyone in that regard.

But the issue is about whether or not modern tongues is actually miraculous. What I'm touching on is the heart of the matter, and one of the main reasons it sparks such controversy. If there is truly miraculous tongues-speaking, then how can it be made known, since most of what is practiced today is fake? Isn't this what the controversy is really about?

Agreed, but there's no contradiction. You speak English, and if you deliver a PROPHETIC WORD in English that's not a "Different manifestation" (of English) but the SOURCE AND PURPOSE of the utterance is different.

Just because you speak English, however, doesn't mean that you can speak "prophesy" just because you feel like it. I speak in tongues regularly, but I HAVE NEVER been burdened by the Holy Spirit to SPEAK A MESSAGE IN TONGUES to a congregation. The Holy Spirit "Choreographs" the manifestation of gifts in the context of a congregational meeting, or other uses.

This doesn't address the question, which is about what modern tongues is really manifesting. No doubt you are assuming that modern tongues is the same as NT tongues, but I'm saying it's not, and this is the issue needing to be addressed. This is what my statement was about.

So - you don't accept "Modern Tongues" as being the same as the tongues spoken in Corinth - OR that Paul is a liar, and "tongues" spoken to God don't "edify" (I already know your choice).

Come now, off with the exaggerative language. No, I don't accept "modern tongues" as the same thing described in 1 Cor. 14. This is the reason for my statement, according to my experience and observation.

Experientially, and Personally, the immediate effect of beginning to speak in tongues (in early 1973) was being immediately propelled into any number of Bible teaching situations in and out of churches, in addition to my own home group, with Catholics (whose people were experiencing the "Baptism in the Holy SPirit, and the parish priests didn't know how to handle it), and United Church of Christ folks, where I began to do what was impossible for me - i.e. teach the Bible for hours with material supplied to be by the Holy Spirit - generally the night before, and during the meetings which went on for years in the '70s - mostly teaching the basics of Biblical salvation and of FAITH among folks who really had little Biblical basis to understand what Christianity was all about (religious liberals). But as far as establishing a "Cause and effect" relationship, ain't gonna happen. All I DO know is that BEFORE, I couldn't, and AFTER, I could, and did. Simple as that.

(Chuckle) and as frosting on the cake since the Assemblies of God (Pentecostal) didn't accept the "Charismatic movement" (they weren't "Clothesline Holy" enough), I actually wound up in the United Church of CHrist as a teenage, and adult Bible teacher. It was a fascinating experience. after the '70s, MANY Charismatics flowed into the Assemblies of God denomanation, and changed it's ultra-legalistic character radically -

I don't see clarity of your before and after - what was it?
TD

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I don't see clarity of your before and after - what was it?

It's right in the TEXT of what I wrote. If you can't "See it", there's no possibility I could make it clearer. Before, I Couldn't, AFTER, I could. Simple as that

 

[tdidymas]

It's right in the TEXT of what I wrote. If you can't "See it", there's no possibility I could make it clearer. Before, I Couldn't, AFTER, I could. Simple as that

1. Before/after WHAT?
2. WHAT could you not do before and could do after?
Please stop being hostile to me.
TD

 

[DavidT]

We find that the scripture shows us that it did occur, but how can a Christian tell if 'Speaking in Tongues' is being given by the Holy Spirit or it has come by a false spirit. Just because a person starts to mutter, mumble or shout unknown 'words' doesn't necessarily mean that they are being given them by the Holy Spirit. People with dementia, or drunks and the insane mumble and shout unknown words, are they being given spiritual gifts of speaking in tongues. Of course not, so how can one tell if the source is from the Holy Spirit, or from another origin.

There are many references to speaking in tongues in the Bible, and we find the most about tongues are Acts 2 and I Corinthians 12-14. Now, you have to understand that at the time there were Jews and non-Jews who came to Jerusalem and from nearby regions who spoke another languages. To communicate with others with different languages, the early Christians needed to have been given a gift so they could understand the Gospel, and the scripture clearly shows that happening. There are many times being able to speak to others in their own tongue or language was very important as we see in the instance when Paul addressed the Jews to give them a understanding of who he was.

Acts 22
1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Now in Acts 2 when the Apostles speak in tongues it makes if very clear why and what they were speaking.

Acts 2
1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

The key part here is there were coming to Jerusalem, 'Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.' We clearly see the purpose and the actual use of speaking in tongues, it was not just babbling or muttering of foolish nonsense, it had a specific purpose and directed for the understanding of those from other languages and lands, as they heard 'speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.'

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

So speaking nonsensical words and utterances with no one to understand or for no practical reason, is it spiritually the same as the speaking in tongues given to the apostles and the early church.

You're on the right track.

Acts 2 in the Greek even contains an alternation with the idea of the tongue spoken on Pentecost. It is Greek glossa, glossa, dialektos, dialetos, glossa, glossa. The Holy Spirit sealed that into Acts 2, showing what the Apostles spoke went out as 'known' languages and even the very dialect of one's town of birth. And that is the true evidence of the cloven tongue of Pentecost.

In 1 Corinthians 12-14, chapters often used to try and support a mysterious unknown tongue, in the KJV phrase "unknown tongue", the word "unknown" is NOT in the Greek manuscripts. It was added by the translators. Paul was not referring to an unknown tongue. He was pointing to known languages.

 

[tdidymas]

You're on the right track.

Acts 2 in the Greek even contains an alternation with the idea of the tongue spoken on Pentecost. It is Greek glossa, glossa, dialektos, dialetos, glossa, glossa. The Holy Spirit sealed that into Acts 2, showing what the Apostles spoke went out as 'known' languages and even the very dialect of one's town of birth. And that is the true evidence of the cloven tongue of Pentecost.

In 1 Corinthians 12-14, chapters often used to try and support a mysterious unknown tongue, in the KJV phrase "unknown tongue", the word "unknown" is NOT in the Greek manuscripts. It was added by the translators. Paul was not referring to an unknown tongue. He was pointing to known languages.

The KJV translators were trying to clarify the text when they added the word "unknown." In context, it meant unknown to the speaker. IOW, the speaking was a miraculously spoken language, and was not understood by the speaker. Then the understanding of the message required an interpreter who either knew the language spoken, or was miraculously given the translation of the message.

It's only in the past 100 years that a reinterpretation of that passage has made it controversial. In order to justify the modern day babble that is commonly spoken in religious circles, "unknown" is now interpreted to mean "unknown to anyone," and "interpretation" now means "whatever spontaneously comes to your mind," as long as it sounds religious, of course.
TD

 

[Bob Carabbio]

1. Before/after WHAT?

Before, and After I received (In Assembly of God vernacular) "The Baptism in the Holy Spirit" with the ability to "Speak in Tongues", which occurred in 1973. I Was Born Again, and became a Christian in 1963.

 

[tdidymas]

Before, and After I received (In Assembly of God vernacular) "The Baptism in the Holy Spirit" with the ability to "Speak in Tongues", which occurred in 1973. I Was Born Again, and became a Christian in 1963.

You didn't finish answering the question: you were not able before, and you were able after - to do what? To "speak in tongues"?? Is this the answer to my question? and if so,

it doesn't answer my original question, which is: can you describe how you are edified by "speaking in tongues?"
Do you understand my question?

Incidentally, your response above in which you claim that no one is in Christ's authority, and to pray "in Jesus' name" is taking the Lord's name in vain - this response is disingenuous, because later you admit to not being in Christ's authority, but you pray in Jesus' name, don't you? Can you see there is something wrong with this picture? You are either self-contradictory, or you say things you don't really believe, which is disingenuous.
TD

 

[Bob Carabbio]

You didn't finish answering the question: you were not able before, and you were able after - to do what?

As I stated clearly: "where I began to do what was impossible for me - i.e. teach the Bible for hours with material supplied to be by the Holy Spirit". It was right there in my original answer.

 

[OzSpen]

As I stated clearly: "where I began to do what was impossible for me - i.e. teach the Bible for hours with material supplied to be by the Holy Spirit". It was right there in my original answer.

Bob,

How does that fit with my being gifted by God as a teacher, but I have to spend long hours in exegesis - studying the language in the original text?

Does that make me a second-class Bible teacher?

Oz

 

[tdidymas]

As I stated clearly: "where I began to do what was impossible for me - i.e. teach the Bible for hours with material supplied to be by the Holy Spirit". It was right there in my original answer.

Sounds like you're talking about "spontaneous teaching." Are you more gifted than the apostles? They spent most of their lives studying the scriptures and memorizing it, since they exhorted the churches to do the same, and said they didn't have time to wait on tables because they didn't want to neglect the word. Teaching the Bible for hours is not an adequate answer to the question, since cult leaders do the same. It certainly doesn't explain how you are edified by speaking in tongues.
TD

 

[Bob Carabbio]

How do I know you're not just talking about the "gift of gab" which is a natural ability?

If it was a "Natrural Ability" then why couldn't I do it "before"??

You don't know, of course, and I knew it was useless to say anything right from the beginning.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

TD,

Your presuppositions are speaking.

• My view is that it is quite impossible for you to prove that modern day tongue-speaking is not miraculous.
• 'At no time has a tongue talker shown that his "language" was understood by anyone'. You don't understand that what happened on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) is quite different from the gifts of tongues and interpretation in 1 Cor 12 & 14.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

How do I know you're not just talking about the "gift of gab" which is a natural ability?
TD

TD,

That's an insulting and demeaning comment. You need to apologize to Bob for your ridiculing of him.

Oz

 

[tdidymas]

TD,

That's an insulting and demeaning comment. You need to apologize to Bob for your ridiculing of him.

Oz

How is it demeaning and ridiculing? Lots of people have that ability, and many are proud of it. I'm simply trying to make a point that sometimes people assume supernatural means in many cases that is actually natural means. What's wrong with that?
TD

 

[tdidymas]

TD,

Your presuppositions are speaking.

• My view is that it is quite impossible for you to prove that modern day tongue-speaking is not miraculous.

I already addressed this by saying that expert linguists have carefully examined modern tongue-speaking, and have clearly shown that anyone can do it, whether they claim to be filled with the Spirit or not. No, it is not miraculous. NT miraculous tongues were proven to be so by the fact that the apostles spoke real languages, and people understood them. Later the apostles heard those who were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues, and knew that it was miraculous. This is quite different than today's tongues, in which no real language is being spoken, and there is not enough structure or vocabulary for it to carry any intelligible meaning. So, if Pentecostals actually want people to believe that modern tongues is miraculous, then they are the ones who have the burden of proof to show it. There must be real languages spoken, in which people actually understand what is being said. Otherwise, it's nothing but meaningless babble and has no relevance to the church or its edification.

• 'At no time has a tongue talker shown that his "language" was understood by anyone'. You don't understand that what happened on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) is quite different from the gifts of tongues and interpretation in 1 Cor 12 & 14.

Oz

There was no difference in manifestation of the tongues of Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 14. Therefore, since there is a vast difference in manifestation of modern tongues, it is not the same as what is described in either Acts 2 or 1 Cor. 14. The difference between Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 14 was venue, not manifestation. Therefore your assumption that modern tongues is the same as NT tongues doesn't hold water.

One important rule of interpretation is precedent. If something is said or described as first happening, then every event of the same after that is assumed to be the same kind as what first happened. When the apostles give commands, for example, we can trace those back to something Jesus said in the gospels. In this case, tongues as a real language in Acts 2 is the precedent for interpreting the manifestation of tongues in the rest of the scripture. Peter concurs in Acts 10 when he said that they received the Spirit the same as the apostles did (referring to the day of Pentecost).

That means that those who spoke in tongues in the house of Cornelius were speaking real languages. In 1 Cor. 14, Paul never says or implies that the manifestation of tongues changed. He describes a venue that appears different - it was not actually a different venue, but was merely emphasized over the venue of being a sign to unbelievers. Still, he shows that venue is still in operation, since he actually does say that tongues is a sign for unbelievers. Therefore he is still talking about tongues being real languages.

And how then is tongues a sign for unbelievers? By proving to be a miraculous event, that's how! When an uneducated person who doesn't know what he is saying is speaking in NT tongues, some unbeliever hears and understands what is being said, finds out that the person speaking didn't learn the language, and concludes that God is there because he has just seen a miracle. This is what is being conveyed in 1 Cor. 14. The church is edified by the intelligible and understandable message spoken, whether it be a message in tongues, an interpretation of the language, or a prophecy.

I'm just not buying the idea about self-edification. I've yet to hear even one tongue-speaking person describe in detail how he is self-edified by it, that is, a valid and Biblical kind of edification. So far, there have only been feeble attempts poked at it, and one person honestly said they do not experience any edification. Edification is much more than the empty response "just because the Bible says so." A person is either edified, or not. Such edification is experienced in real life, or it isn't. Theory, speculation, and attempting to make scripture fit the experience just doesn't cut the mustard.
TD