Bible Study Speaking in Tongues

[von]

Sputnik- Yeah, I guess you can plead the fifth. lol But, we are not all a bunch of wierdos. There are some wierdos everywhere you know? lol

Merry Menagerie- That is why you have to try the Spirits whether they be of God. That would be called discernment, but they are not all fakes. That is why it is a language that you speak only in your prayers not out in church unless you or someone else has the gift of interpretaion.

 

[Merry Menagerie]

Well this 'prayer' language thing is debatable - but whatever

 

[SputnikBoy]

I feel that I, somehow, inherited the logic of Star Trek's Mr Spock ...I think we must be related. The pointy ears are probably a dead giveaway anyway.

So ...if one speaks and understands the English language, then logic would dictate that God will be addressed (in prayer) by the individual in the language of English. There are definite advantages to this. [a] God will understand what the individual has to say, and the individual will understand what he/she is saying to God also.

Alternatively, if one speaks and understands the English language, then logic would dictate that God will NOT be addressed (in prayer) by the individual in 'utterances' that are NOT resembling the language of English or any other known language. There are definite DISadvantages as long as one 'babbles' instead of speaking in English. [a] God (yes, EVEN God) cannot understand meaningless 'babble', and nor can the individual who is 'babbling'. So, neither the individual OR God will benefit from the prayer because the 'utterance' spoken have no substance. As Paul said, "they will be (merely) speaking into the air." (1 Corinthians 14:9) By the way, how come all today's 'tongue-speakers' ignore that piece of scripture?

Am I being TOO logical, perhaps?

 

[von]

No, you are not TOO logical. You are just not a believer in this. That's up to you. Let me ask you a question? If these people were speaking known languages then why did Paul say it is a sign to unbelievers? Why did he say let there be an interpreter? And why did he say let there be only one , three at the most. How often do you find a group of people from all different languages assembled together in the same place and why would only three languages be allowed to be interpreted. You see, it doesn't take a whole lot of logic, just common sense.

 

[SputnikBoy]

No, you are not TOO logical. You are just not a believer in this. That's up to you. Let me ask you a question? If these people were speaking known languages then why did Paul say it is a sign to unbelievers?

Sputnik: I believe the 'unbelievers' Paul was referring to were the Jews who had rejected Christ. The 'sign' was for them. The 'known' languages were 'unknown' to anyone who didn't understand them. For instance, if I speak to you in Swahili, THAT is a known language. The chances are, however, that Swahili will be an 'unknown' language to you.

von: Why did he say let there be an interpreter?

Sputnik: For this reason: If I preach the gospel in Swahili to one or more people in my congregation who don't understand English but who DO understand Swahili, then others in the congregation who don't understand Swahili won't have a clue what is being said. To them I'll be speaking 'mysteries'. Therefore, it would be appropriate and in keeping with common etiquette that someone interpret the 'Swahili message' to the rest of the congregation. As a result everyone benefits ...EVERYONE (the church) is edified by the message.

von: And why did he say let there be only one , three at the most. How often do you find a group of people from all different languages assembled together in the same place and why would only three languages be allowed to be interpreted.

Sputnik: The key to this entire issue of 'tongues' is ...the Church of Corinth. For one to suggest that EVERYTHING contained in Paul's message was intended for yours or my local church of today is rather ludicrous. If you read up on the history of the Church of Corinth, you'll become very aware of what was going on in that church that prompted Paul to write the way he did. It's too lengthy to go into here right now; however, the city of Corinth was the hub of commerce at that time. People from many different countries and many different 'tongues' (languages) came together to do business. You BET that there would have been people of 'many tongues' who were visiting the Church of Corinth. To preach the gospel to them in their own language would have been a great opportunity for the Holy Spirit!

von: You see, it doesn't take a whole lot of logic, just common sense.

Sputnik: And common sense comes about through an understanding and a knowledge and a background on the issue being debated. One cannot seriously discuss the issue of 'tongues' and the scriptures contained in 1 Corinthians without first analyzing the history and the culture and the issues surrounding these scriptures. Maybe someone could post relevant information pertaining to the Church of Corinth so that we can take it from there.[/quote]

 

[Merry Menagerie]

No, you are not TOO logical. You are just not a believer in this.

Not necessarily

That's up to you. Let me ask you a question? If these people were speaking known languages then why did Paul say it is a sign to unbelievers?

Because the gift of tongues which are known languages...was supernatural and were given miraculously and were a sign to the Jews at the time.

Why did he say let there be an interpreter?

Because if I was to speak in say 'japanese' in an english speaking congregation not all would be able to understand me and I'd be speaking mysteries. An interpreter is necessary so that I can edify the church.

And why did he say let there be only one , three at the most.

To keep it orderly

How often do you find a group of people from all different languages assembled together in the same place

The Holy Spirit has given us all different languages.

and why would only three languages be allowed to be interpreted.

Only three tongues are to be manifested as well. The reason...to keep things orderly.

You see, it doesn't take a whole lot of logic, just common sense.

It makes perfect sense

 

[SputnikBoy]

Thanks menag ...you and I must have posted around the same time. We seem to be in harmony here.

 

[von]

Sorry, on this we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Merry Menagerie]

You need to understand though, von, that I speak in tongues myself so I'm not talking from the perspective that I don't believe in them. It's just that I no longer believe what most pentecostal believes anymore.

 

[von]

Merry- I agree. That is what I am saying. I don't believe like most, actually any pentecostals believe. I believe things should be done decently and in order, not just on a whim.

 

[SputnikBoy]

So, as asked before, what IS the criteria one uses to accept or to toss out 'tongues'? I really do wish that we could eliminate the actual word 'tongues' and substitute it with the CORRECT word ...that is ...'languages'. The very word 'tongue/s' gives the impression of something much more than its correct definition, something supernatural and mystical, and the word itself therefore takes on a life of its own. My native tongue is English. I therefore speak in the tongue of English. That's the word 'tongue' for you.

 

[von]

The Bible uses the word tongues not languages, that's what I go by. I still want someone to explain why interpretation can not be given only to three languages within the same service. Also, what is the difference in the miracuous "speaking in tongues" or the miracle of the 120 speaking in 120 different known languages?

 

[Free]

I really do wish that we could eliminate the actual word 'tongues' and substitute it with the CORRECT word ...that is ...'languages'. The very word 'tongue/s' gives the impression of something much more than its correct definition, something supernatural and mystical, and the word itself therefore takes on a life of its own.

Acts 1:3-4, "3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance."

So, please tell me Sputnik, what does "tongues" mean again? Do you want to add to your definition?

Whether it's "tongues" or "languages" in reference to the supernatural gift is really irrelevant. People still use "tongue" in place of "language" even today, outside of any Christian or supernatural context.

 

[Merry Menagerie]

The Bible uses the word tongues not languages, that's what I go by.

We all go by that but the definition of tongues is what's important.

I still want someone to explain why interpretation can not be given only to three languages within the same service.

Because only three languages are to be given.

Cor 14 v 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two or at the most by three and that by course; and let one interpret.

It says here that only three unknown tongues to be given..to keep things orderly.

Also, what is the difference in the miracuous "speaking in tongues" or the miracle of the 120 speaking in 120 different known languages?

Nothing! They are all tongues...both are languages..some known by the people around or the congregation and some unknown by the poeple around or the congregation.

 

[SputnikBoy]

I really do wish that we could eliminate the actual word 'tongues' and substitute it with the CORRECT word ...that is ...'languages'. The very word 'tongue/s' gives the impression of something much more than its correct definition, something supernatural and mystical, and the word itself therefore takes on a life of its own.

Acts 1:3-4, "3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance."

So, please tell me Sputnik, what does "tongues" mean again? Do you want to add to your definition?

Sputnik: Are you referring to the 'tongues of fire'? If so, obviously that's referring to a different phenomenon altogether. The tongues that were given by the Holy Spirit were languages (Greek 'glossa'). Furthermore, they were languages that were recognized by many foreigners who were present. What occurred here had been prophesied by Jesus. Jesus had told his followers to remain in Jerusalem to await the coming power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49). Why had Jesus promised them 'a helper'? So that they could preach the gospel to all the world (Mark 16:15). The gift of speaking other languages was given to start them on their way. Pentecostal 'gibberish' is just a mockery of that wonderful gift.

Free: Whether it's "tongues" or "languages" in reference to the supernatural gift is really irrelevant.

Sputnik: I beg to differ. A foreign language demands structure, purpose, and definition that is absent from Pentecostal 'gibberish'. As long as something 'mystical' remains by the continued usage of the word 'tongues' ...a Pentecostal can still feign some kind of authenticity to his/her peers. In other words, as long as 'tongue' doesn't have to mean 'foreign language', there is no one to tell them that it's all a lot of baloney. Oh, and by the way, according to Paul, a female shouldn't be talking to begin with ...whether in 'gibberish' or whether in an actual language.

Free: People still use "tongue" in place of "language" even today, outside of any Christian or supernatural context.

Sputnik: Yes, of course they do but, generally, the word doesn't take on a life of its own as Pentecostal 'tongues' has. And THAT'S the big difference here. Incidentally, ANYONE can speak 'gibberish' with practice. It doesn't require the assistance of the Holy Spirit. For one to speak in a foreign language that they have never learned, however, is a DIFFERENT story!

 

[von]

I'm sorry I just don't believe that. It's like people who try to say that the Red Sea really didn't part but it was only so deep and at a certain time of the year the current pushed it aside and that is how the children of Irsael walked across on dry land. Did you ever hear anyone tell it that way. I have. I put no limitaions on God, I believe the whole Bible just like it states it. I'm satisfied with that. It's interesting though to hear how others interpret it.

 

[SputnikBoy]

This isn't a case of putting limitations on God, von, it's a case of people having misinterpreted the scriptures and having made a doctrine out of the misinterpretation. While it is true that God can do whatever He wants whenever He wants, the gift of tongues are, generally, not for today anyway. Today we have far more sophisticated ways of communicating the gospel to the world. We really ARE kidding ourselves if we think for one minute that the Pentecostals are preaching the gospel to foreigners!

If one is not comprehending the scriptures of Paul in regard to tongues, then one is being led astray. While I realize that you're in the process of learning, von - same as all of us - You really should not accept something like 'tongue-speaking' at face value. Fanatasism in regard to religious beliefs can often lead to borderline insanity. People do all kinds of weird things with the scriptures as you must be catching on by now. Problems can occur when people don't understand:

* the CONTEXT of the scripture
* WHO the message was given to (not always us)
* WHY the message was given (not always us)
* the LITERAL from the FIGURATIVE
* the ACTUAL from the HYPERBOLE
* the REAL from the SYMBOLIC
* the CULTURE of the day (often far removed from that of ours)

Some crazy beliefs can result from any of the above. Pentecostal 'tongues' is one such example. Beware, von. Just because 'everybody might be doing it' doesn't necessarily give it credibility.