Twelve rules that are broken when people speak in tongues Part 2

[electedbyHim]

I will return another time, to help correct all everybody says on the theology forum.

Who corrects you?

 

[electedbyHim]

Now this is curious , how do you think one can speak without thinking ?

I am basing this on a language that is spoken in prayer that no one knows. Some that I used to know have prayed in the gibberish or those that are seen on the o-called Christian channels.

That was what the Corinthians were doing, praying in pagan gibberish.

 

[hawkman]

I am basing this on a language that is spoken in prayer that no one knows. Some that I used to know have prayed in the gibberish or those that are seen on the o-called Christian channels.

That was what the Corinthians were doing, praying in pagan gibberish.

Can you speak gibberish without thinking?

 

[eddif]

Ok
1.Those who speak in tongues
2. Those who interpret
3. Those who have several gifts
4.Those who prophesy

1 Corinthians 14:13 kjv
13. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

I would suppose one who only prays in tongues dos not know what he says.

I really do not knows a scripture that tells if one who interprets, knows what he prays in a tongue.
Paul says he does both, but ……

The scripture says he prays to God.

eddif

 

[eddif]

I am basing this on a language that is spoken in prayer that no one knows. Some that I used to know have prayed in the gibberish or those that are seen on the o-called Christian channels.

That was what the Corinthians were doing, praying in pagan gibberish.

1 Corinthians 12:1 kjv
1. Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

I admit that some Gentiles did probably mutter, but these were born again Christians learning about spiritual gifts.

eddif

 

[jaybo]

Can you speak gibberish without thinking?

If speaking gibberish is how you refer to the gift of speaking in tongues, the answer is clearly "yes". When I speak in tongues I am creating sounds that bypass my conscious mind, as Paul described in 1 Corinthians 14:14, "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unproductive."

 

[Consecrated Life]

. When I speak in tongues I am creating sounds that bypass my conscious mind, as Paul described in 1 Corinthians 14:14, "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unproductive."

How are these " created sounds " productive ?

 

[electedbyHim]

Can you speak gibberish without thinking?

It is obvious I have poor communication skills.

 

[electedbyHim]

1 Corinthians 12:1 kjv
1. Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

I admit that some Gentiles did probably mutter, but these were born again Christians learning about spiritual gifts.

eddif

From all my reading, the Corinthian's were not using the gift correctly, they were abusing it. This is why Paul was rebuking them. They were abusing the gifts like the pagans did. they were not using the true gift of tongues but muttering gibberish.

 

[electedbyHim]

If speaking gibberish is how you refer to the gift of speaking in tongues, the answer is clearly "yes". When I speak in tongues I am creating sounds that bypass my conscious mind, as Paul described in 1 Corinthians 14:14, "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unproductive."

The Effects of Tongues Are Emotional Rather Than Rational

Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I shall pray with the spirit and I shall pray with the mind also; I shall sing with the spirit and I shall sing with the mind also. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind, that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. (1Co_14:13-19)

In this section Paul continues to teach about counterfeit tongues, and therefore continues to speak sarcastically (cf. 1Co_4:8-10). This is indicated in the first place by the fact that he uses the singular tongue (see discussion above under 1Co_4:1-5), which refers to the false gift, except in 1Co_14:27, where the reference is to one man speaking on one occasion. In the second place, what he says here does not, for the most part, apply to the true gift of tongues. If Paul were not speaking sarcastically of counterfeited tongues he would be asking the Corinthians to seek the true gift of interpretation. But he has already made it clear that the Holy Spirit sovereignly distributes gifts “individually just as He wills” (1Co_12:11). Gifts are not to be sought by individuals, but only accepted and properly used.

Paul sarcastically reproaches carnal believers for their immaturity (cf. 1Co_12:20), saying in effect, “While you are jabbering away in your unintelligible pseudo-tongues, you could at least ask God to give you some means of making them beneficial to the church. As you now exercise them they are both pagan and pointless.”

In the pagan rites with which the Corinthians were so familiar, speaking in ecstatic utterances was considered to be communing with the gods spirit-to-spirit. The experience was intended to bypass the mind and normal understanding. As noted above, its mysteries were meant to remain mysterious. Paul here may have used pneuma (which can be translated “spirit,” “wind,” or “breath”) in the sense of breath. If so, He was saying, If I pray in a [self-manufactured] tongue, my [breath] prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

It certainly seems impossible that spirit here refers to the Holy Spirit, as some charismatics believe—His Spirit being manifested through our spirits. All Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but if Paul was speaking of the Holy Spirit in relation to my spirit, then grammatically and theologically he also was speaking of the Holy Spirit in relation to my mind. The Holy Spirit could not be praying through a person while bypassing his mind. And he certainly was not saying that the mind of the Holy Spirit sometimes can be unfruitful. The apostle has to be speaking entirely of himself, and that hypothetically. “If I, though an apostle, were to speak the gibberish that many of you speak, my mind would have no part in it. I would only be making wind, blowing air (cf. 1Co_12:9). What I would say would be as empty and mindless as the ecstasies you used to witness in your pagan temples.”

What is the outcome then ? The answer is that there is no place for mindless ecstatic prayer. Praying and singing with the spirit must be accompanied by praying and singing with the mind also. It is obvious that edification cannot exist apart from the mind. Spirituality involves more than the mind, but it never excludes the mind (cf. Rom_12:1-2; Eph_4:23; Col_3:10). In Scripture, and certainly in the writings of Paul, no premium is placed on ignorance. Quoting Deu_6:5, Jesus reinforced the Old Testament command that we should “love the Lord [our] God with all [our] hearts, and with all [our] soul, and with all [our] mind” (Mat_22:37).

Praying or singing in tongues could serve no purpose, and Paul would not do it. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? Ungifted (idiotes) is, I believe, better translated in its usual sense of ignorant, unlearned, or unskilled. A person who is ignorant of a language being spoken cannot possibly understand what he hears. In a worship service, for example, he could not know when to say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks. Prayers or songs of thanks could not include anyone else if they were given in unintelligible sounds.

Amen is a Hebrew word of agreement and encouragement, meaning “So let it be,” and was commonly used by worshipers in the synagogue. The practice carried over into some early Christian churches and, in fact, is common in many churches today. A person cannot know when to “Amen,” however, if he does not know what is being said. The person speaking in a tongue may feel he is giving thanks well enough, but no one else will know what is being said. The other man is not edified, as he should be when the gift is ministered properly (1Co_14:5, 1Co_14:12).

Lest the Corinthians, after reading this, think he no longer recognized the true gift of tongues, Paul says, I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all. He made it clear that he was not condemning true tongues or enviously criticizing a gift he did not himself possess.

Here he uses the plural tongues. He is no longer speaking hypothetically (cf. 1Co_14:6, 1Co_14:11, 1Co_14:14-15), and he is no longer speaking of a counterfeited gift. Paul had had more experience than any of the Corinthians (you all) in speaking in tongues, though we have no record of a specific instance. He knew what the proper use of the true gift involved and did not involve. We can be sure that he did not use the gift in any perverted way for personal gratification. He may have used it as it was used at Pentecost, to bring a supernatural message to those God wanted to reach, and as a miraculous sign verifying the gospel and his apostolic authority. Yet he considered that gift so low in value as compared to his other gifts and ministries that in none of his writings does he mention a specific use of it by him or any other believer.

The gift of languages had a proper place for a prescribed time as a miraculous confirming sign to unbelievers, with an accompanying purpose of edification through interpretation. However, in the church, Paul continues, I desire to speak five words with my mind, that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. Using the singular (tongue) again to refer to pagan gibberish, he emphasizes that an uncountable number of sounds in unintelligible tones has no place in the church and is useless. Five understandable words are far more desirable.

The apostle was not speaking of an exact mathematical ratio. Although murioi can mean ten thousand (cf. Mat_18:24), the largest number for which Greek had a specific word, it was commonly used to indicate an inestimable number. It is the term from which we get myriad, as it is sometimes translated. In the book of Revelation, for example, the term is repeated (“myriads of myriads”) and then added to “thousands of thousands” (Mat_5:11) to indicate a completely immeasurable figure.

It is in that general sense that the term is used in our text. To speak a very short sentence of five words with [his] mind, giving a message that would instruct or encourage his hearers, was more valuable to Paul than a limitless number of words in a tongue that was incomprehensible to them.

Because Paul knew that the gift of tongues would cease in a few years, he was not giving instructions for governing tongues in the church today. He was not even giving such instruction to the Corinthians, because he was speaking of counterfeit tongues, which were based in self-centered emotionalism and did not originate with the Holy Spirit. He was giving them, as well as Christians of all ages, warning against using self-serving, worldly, carnal, ineffective, and God-dishonoring substitutes for the true spiritual gifts God has ordained to be ministered in the power and in the fruit of the Spirit and for the blessing and edification of His church.

 

[hawkman]

For those who pray in tongues to themselves what benefit is there in that when there is no thinking or knowledge of what you are saying. According to Scripture, that person is not praying to God but to a god.

1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
does not speak to men but to God. This is better translated, "to a god." The Greek text has no definite article (see similar translation in Act_17:23, "an unknown god"). Their gibberish was worship of pagan deities. The Bible records no incident of any believer ever speaking to God in any other than normal human language.

All of the above ^^^ is from your post .

Your commentary is very bold to suggest "God" should be translated to "god" .
So, I find myself arguing with a commentary , sigh .
Lets just see if we can find a translation that does say "god" in 1Cor14:2 .

New International Version
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

New Living Translation
For if you have the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking only to God, since people won’t be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious.

English Standard Version
For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

Berean Study Bible
For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

Amplified Bible
For one who speaks in an unknown tongue does not speak to people but to God; for no one understands him or catches his meaning, but by the Spirit he speaks mysteries [secret truths, hidden things].

Better translated to "god" ? I see NO agreement on that . electedbyhim your commentary has missed the mark .

 

[electedbyHim]

1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
does not speak to men but to God. This is better translated, "to a god." The Greek text has no definite article (see similar translation in Act_17:23, "an unknown god"). Their gibberish was worship of pagan deities. The Bible records no incident of any believer ever speaking to God in any other than normal human language.

All of the above ^^^ is from your post .

Your commentary is very bold to suggest "God" should be translated to "god" .
So, I find myself arguing with a commentary , sigh .
Lets just see if we can find a translation that does say "god" in 1Cor14:2 .

New International Version
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

New Living Translation
For if you have the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking only to God, since people won’t be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious.

English Standard Version
For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

Berean Study Bible
For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

Amplified Bible
For one who speaks in an unknown tongue does not speak to people but to God; for no one understands him or catches his meaning, but by the Spirit he speaks mysteries [secret truths, hidden things].

Better translated to "god" ? I see NO agreement on that . electedbyhim your commentary has missed the mark .

I understand that does not fit your theology. I will trust dedicated men who know the original languages.

Lets suppose the verse is speaking about God, why would anyone speak in ecstatic language to God. Take it further, if it is a true foreign language, what is the benefit. The person speaking the gibberish is clueless.

Please explain.

 

[eddif]

From all my reading, the Corinthian's were not using the gift correctly, they were abusing it. This is why Paul was rebuking them. They were abusing the gifts like the pagans did. they were not using the true gift of tongues but muttering gibberish.

Maybe
The Jews had a history of dealing with God ( or maybe God dealing with with the Jews).

Jews knew about God.

The creator True God
About the tabernacle
Offering for sins
Pre flood information
Prophets
But, the Jews had made righteousness (keeping the law)

The gentiles were mostly without God in the world. They had made up IMHO their religions (with the leading of Satan).

Shortly before Pentecost the Jews got the law in their new hearts and mind of Christ. The Jews received power to witness at Pentecost.
I honestly wish I had a super spot on timeline, but I don’t.

The Jews were working out their issues.

Paul was in Arabic receiving revelations about God.

Then we arrive at Corinth. Basically No History of God (except from Jews that lived in their country. New covenant and they were new at all this stuff. The Jews knew about Urim and Thummin (yes and no ?) so it sounds very critical the way they were told. If a child is about to step in traffic, you probably will not use your sweetest voice. Rod and staff (some Hugs and some swats, but all in agape love.

eddif

 

[hawkman]

I understand that does not fit your theology. I will trust dedicated men who know the original languages.

I understand, there is still hope for you . Maybe one day you can write your own commentary .

Lets suppose the verse is speaking about God, why would anyone speak in ecstatic language to God.

Because they can , God understands all languages, ecstatic included .

Take it further, if it is a true foreign language, what is the benefit.

It has the benefit of not being a false foreign language .

The person speaking the gibberish is clueless.

What method do you use to determine if a person is speaking gibberish ?

Please explain.

I try .

 

[hawkman]

Thanks for sharing that, but this bears no similarity to " Speaking Tongues " as it is being discussed ?

You're welcome ! This is what you asked for below.

Why won't you share the revealed message of your gift with the people of God ?

I shared a revealed message from the Holy Spirit that was a gift .

The message was "That's Demonic" .

 

[electedbyHim]

I understand, there is still hope for you . Maybe one day you can write your own commentary .

Because they can , God understands all languages, ecstatic included .

It has the benefit of not being a false foreign language .

What method do you use to determine if a person is speaking gibberish ?

I try .

Please explain this hope.

I am do not have the gifts that these men of God have to write such knowledge. Please understand that I am showing from commentaries well established Pastors and theologians that are not lay men. These commentaries and studies are from men who devote their lives to God and His written word.

In the original post I did ask for everyone's opinion on my thread, and that is exactly what all who have responded have done.

I will now ask that you not give an opinion and state your answers with facts, please use commentaries and word studies as needed. I welcome this over opinion.

What method do you use to determine if a person is speaking gibberish ?

If they are speaking a foreign language how could it be gibberish. Are they speaking to unbelievers?

Again, I do not believe that tongues are for today per the original post. With the written word of God, there is no need for any of the sign gifts.

Why would any unbeliever today, believe in these so called tongues, wouldn't they think you are all out of your minds?

1 Corinthians 14:23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and uninformed men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your mind?

 

[hawkman]

I will now ask that you not give an opinion and state your answers with facts, please use commentaries and word studies as needed. I welcome this over opinion.

Well, why didn't you say so earlier ? You have some reading ahead of you .

Again, I do not believe that tongues are for today per the original post. With the written word of God, there is no need for any of the sign gifts.

Don't miss the part about the ministry of Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) in this link .

REVELATORY GIFTS: ALL FOR THE COMMON GOOD (1 CORINTHIANS 12:8-10)

 

[electedbyHim]

Well, why didn't you say so earlier ? You have some reading ahead of you .

Don't miss the part about the ministry of Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) in this link .

REVELATORY GIFTS: ALL FOR THE COMMON GOOD (1 CORINTHIANS 12:8-10)

I am sure I understand where you are coming from. I understand that Spurgeon had conflicting views of the gifts. I have read countless of his sermons and know he was a man of God by his preaching. I have yet to read any of his teaching on the gifts. Martyn Lloyd Jones is another man of God and I also do believe he was a continuist, if my memory serves correctly.

I am not certain what this has to do with an exegetical explanation of the verses.

I guess I was not clear once again.

 

[electedbyHim]

1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
does not speak to men but to God. This is better translated, "to a god." The Greek text has no definite article (see similar translation in Act_17:23, "an unknown god"). Their gibberish was worship of pagan deities. The Bible records no incident of any believer ever speaking to God in any other than normal human language.

All of the above ^^^ is from your post .

Your commentary is very bold to suggest "God" should be translated to "god" .
So, I find myself arguing with a commentary , sigh .
Lets just see if we can find a translation that does say "god" in 1Cor14:2 .

New International Version
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

New Living Translation
For if you have the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking only to God, since people won’t be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious.

English Standard Version
For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

Berean Study Bible
For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

Amplified Bible
For one who speaks in an unknown tongue does not speak to people but to God; for no one understands him or catches his meaning, but by the Spirit he speaks mysteries [secret truths, hidden things].

Better translated to "god" ? I see NO agreement on that . electedbyhim your commentary has missed the mark .

I found what I was looking for in the word study of how the word "God" is used in that verse compared to the word God in Acts 17:23. Its the same word in both verses

the word is god .....

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2316/kjv/tr/0-13/#lexResults


Edit again.

I am by no means an educated man in this field of word study, but I believe that was what Pauls intention was according to the commentary that I quoted and given how the Corinthians were still misusing tongues and mimicking the pagan cults some had come out of.

 

[hawkman]

I found what I was looking for in the word study of how the word "God" is used in that verse compared to the word God in Acts 17:23. Its the same word in both verses

the word is god .....

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2316/kjv/tr/0-13/#lexResults


Edit again.

I am by no means an educated man in this field of word study, but I believe that was what Pauls intention was according to the commentary that I quoted and given how the Corinthians were still misusing tongues and mimicking the pagan cults some had come out of.

My choices are either .
A. a man's commentary saying god
or
B. many versions of the bible saying the same thing , God !

Choice B , sorry commentary man .