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

[jgredline]

Hello Sput
Well here is the big one.
I hope it makes sense to you. Blessings my friend
1 Cor 14:2-28. I was using the NKJV for this exposition.
14:2 He who speaks in a tongue without interpretation is not speaking for the benefit of the congregation. God understands what he is saying but the people don’t because it is a foreign language to them. He might be setting forth marvelous truths, hitherto unknown, but it does no good because it is all unintelligible.

14:3 The man who prophesies, on the other hand, builds people up, encourages them, and comforts them. The reason for this is that he is speaking in the language of the people; that is what makes the difference. When Paul says that the prophet builds up, stirs up, and binds up, he is not giving a definition. He is simply saying that these results follow when the message is given in a language the people know.

14:4 Verse 4 is commonly used to justify the private use of tongues for self-edification. But the fact that the word “church†is found nine times in this chapter (vv. 4, 5, 12, 19, 23, 28, 33, 34, 35) offers rather convincing evidence that Paul is not dealing with a believer’s devotional life in the privacy of his room, but with the use of tongues in the local assembly. The context shows that, far from advocating the use of tongues for self-edification, the apostle is condemning any use of the gift in the church that does not result in helping others. Love thinks of others and not of self. If the gift of tongues is used in love, it will benefit others and not only oneself. In other words tongues used as a prayer language should be used in private.
He who prophesies edifies the church. He is not parading his gift for personal advantage, but speaking constructively in a language the congregation can understand.

14:5 Paul does not despise the gift of tongues; he realizes that it is a gift of the Holy Spirit. He could not and would not despise anything that comes from the Spirit. When he says “I wish you all spoke with tongues,†he is renouncing any selfish desire to limit the gift to himself and a favored few. His desire is similar to one expressed by Moses: “O, that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them†(Num. 11:29b). But in saying this, Paul knew that it was not God’s will that all believers should have any one gift (see 12:29, 30).
He would rather that the Corinthians prophesied, because in so doing they would be building up one another, whereas when they spoke in tongues without interpretation, their listeners would not understand and therefore would not be benefited. Paul preferred edification to display. “What astonishes is far less important for the spiritual mind than what edifies,â€Â
The expression unless indeed he interprets could mean “unless the one speaking in tongues interprets†or “unless someone interprets.â€Â

14:6 Even if Paul himself came to Corinth speaking with tongues, it would not profit them unless they could understand what he said. They would have to be able to recognize what he was saying as revelation and knowledge, or prophesying and teaching. Commentators agree that revelation and knowledge have to do with inward reception, whereas prophesying and teaching have to do with the giving out of the same. Paul’s point in this verse is that in order to profit the church, a message must be understood. He goes on to prove this in the following verses.

14:7 First of all, he uses the illustration of musical instruments. Unless a flute or harp makes a distinction in the notes, no one will know what is being piped or played. The very idea of enjoyable music includes the thought of distinction in notes, a definite rhythm, and a certain amount of clarity.
14:8 The same is true of a trumpet. The call to arms must be clear and distinct, otherwise no one will prepare for battle. If the trumpeter merely stands up and blows one long blast in a monotone, no one will stir.
14:9 So it is with the human tongue. Unless the speech we utter is intelligible, no one will know what is being said. It would be as profitless as speaking into the air. (In verse 9, “tongue†means the organ of speech, not a foreign language.) There is a practical application in all of this, namely, that ministry or teaching should be clear and simple. If it is “deep†and over the heads of the people, then it will not profit them. It might result in bringing a certain measure of gratification to the speaker, but it will not help the people of God.

14:10 Paul passes to another illustration of the truth he has been setting forth. He speaks of the many different kinds of languages in the world. Here the subject is broader than human languages; it includes the communications of other creatures. Perhaps Paul is thinking of the various birdcalls and the squeals and grunts used by animals. We know, for instance, that there are certain mating, migratory, and feeding calls used by birds. Also there are certain sounds used by animals to warn of danger. Paul is simply stating here that all of these voices have a definite meaning. None of them is without significance. Each one is used to convey some definite message.

14:11 It is true also with human speech. Unless a person speaks with articulate sounds, no one can understand him. He might as well be repeating meaningless gibberish. Few experiences can be more trying than the attempt to communicate with one who does not understand your language.
14:12 In view of this, the Corinthians should mingle their zeal for spiritual gifts with the desire to edify the church. “Make the edification of the church your aim in this desire to excel,†Moffatt translates it. Notice that Paul never discourages them in their zeal for spiritual gifts, but seeks to guide and instruct them so that in the use of these gifts they will reach the highest goal.

14:13 If a man speaks in a tongue, he should pray that he may interpret. Or the meaning might be to pray that someone may interpret. It is possible that a man who has the gift of tongues might also have the gift of interpretation, but that would be the exception rather than the rule. The analogy of the human body suggests different functions for different members.
14:14 If a man, for instance, prays in a tongue at a meeting of the church, his spirit prays in the sense that his feelings find utterance, though not in the commonly used language. But his understanding is unfruitful in the sense that it doesn’t benefit anyone else. The congregation doesn’t know what he is saying. As we will explain in the notes on 14:19, we take the phrase my understanding to mean “other people’s understanding of me.â€Â

14:15 What is the conclusion then? It is simply this: Paul will not only pray with the spirit, but he will also pray in such a manner as to be understood. This is what is meant by the expression: “I will also pray with the understanding.†It does not mean that he will pray with his own understanding, but rather that he will pray so as to help others to understand. Likewise he will sing with the spirit, and also sing so as to be understood.
14:16 That this is the correct meaning of the passage is made abundantly clear by verse 16. If Paul gave thanks with his own spirit, but not in such a way as to be understood by others, how could one who did not understand the language he was using say “Amen†at the close?
He who occupies the place of the uninformed means a person who is sitting in the audience and does not know the language that is being used by the speaker. This verse incidentally authorizes the intelligent use of the “Amen†in public gatherings of the church.

14:17 Speaking in a foreign language, one might indeed really be giving thanks to God, but others are not edified if they do not know what is being said.
14:18 The apostle apparently had the ability to speak more foreign languages than all of them. We know that Paul had learned some languages, but here the reference is undoubtedly to his gift of tongues.
14:19 In spite of this superior language ability, Paul says that he would rather speak five words with his understanding, that is, so as to be understood, than ten thousand words in a foreign tongue. He was not at all interested in using this gift for self-display. His chief aim was to help the people of God. Therefore he determined that when he spoke he would do so in such a way that others would understand him.
The expression my understanding is what is known as an “objective genitive.†It does not mean what I myself understand, but what others understand when I speak.

Hodge demonstrates that the context here has to do, not with Paul’s own understanding of what he spoke in tongues, but of other people’s understanding him:

That Paul should give thanks to God that he was more abundantly endowed with the gift of tongues, if that gift consisted in the ability to speak in languages which he himself did not understand, and the use of which, on that assumption, could according to his principle benefit neither himself nor others, is not to be believed. Equally clear is it from this verse that to speak with tongues was not to speak in a state of mental unconsciousness. The common doctrine as to the nature of the gift is the only one consistent with this passage. Paul says that although he could speak in foreign languages more than the Corinthians, he would rather speak five words with his understanding, i.e., so as to be intelligible, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. In the church, that is, in the assembly, that I might teach others also (katēchē) to instruct orally, Gal.6:6. This shows what is meant by speaking with the understanding. It is speaking in such a way as to convey instruction.

14:20 Paul next exhorts the Corinthians against immaturity in their thinking. Children prefer amusement to usefulness, flashy things to stable ones. Paul is saying, “Don’t take a childish delight in these spectacular gifts which you use for self-display. There is one sense in which you should be childlike, and that is in the matter of malice or evil. But in other matters, you should think with the maturity of men.â€Â
14:21 Next the apostle quotes from Isaiah to show that tongues are a sign to unbelievers rather than to believers. God said that because the children of Israel had rejected His message and had mocked it, He would speak to them through a foreign language (Isa. 28:11). The fulfillment of this took place when the Assyrian invaders came into the land of Israel, and the Israelites heard the Assyrian language being spoken in their midst. This was a sign to them of their rejection of God’s word.

14:22 The argument here is that since God intended tongues as a sign to unbelievers, the Corinthians should not insist on using them so freely in gatherings of believers. It would be better if they prophesied, since prophesying was a sign for believers and not for unbelievers.
14:23 If the whole church comes together in one place, and all the Christians speak with tongues without interpretation, what would strangers coming in think about it all? It would not be a testimony to them; rather they would think that the saints were mental cases.
There is an apparent contradiction between verse 22 and verses 23–25. In verse 22, we are told that tongues are a sign to unbelievers whereas prophecy is for believers. But in verses 23–25, Paul says that tongues used in the church might only confuse and stumble unbelievers whereas prophecy might help them.

The explanation of the seeming contradiction is this: The unbelievers in verse 22 are those who have rejected the word of God and closed their hearts to the truth. Tongues are a sign of God’s judgment on them, as they were on Israel in the Isaiah passage (v. 21). The unbelievers in verses 23–25 are those who are willing to be taught. They are open to hear the word of God, as is evidenced by their presence in a Christian assembly. If they hear Christians speaking in foreign languages without interpretation, they will be hindered, not helped.

14:24 If strangers enter a meeting where the Christians are prophesying rather than speaking in tongues, the visitors hear and understand what is being said and they are convinced by all and convicted by all. What the apostle is emphasizing here is that no real conviction of sin is produced unless the listeners understand what is being said. When tongues are being used with no interpretation, then obviously visitors are not helped at all. Those who prophesy would, of course, do it in the language in current use in that area, and as a result listeners would be impressed by what they heard.
14:25 The secrets of a man’s heart are revealed by prophecy. He feels that the speaker is addressing him directly. The Spirit of God works conviction in his soul. And so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among these people.

And so Paul’s point in verses 22–25 is that tongues without interpretation produce no conviction among unbelievers, whereas prophecy does.
14:26 Because of the abuses that had entered the church in connection with the gift of tongues, it was necessary for the Spirit of God to set forth certain regulations to control the use of this gift. In verses 26–28, we have such controls.

What happened when the early church came together? It appears from verse 26 that the meetings were very informal and free. There was liberty for the Spirit of God to use the various gifts which He had given to the church. One man, for instance, would read a psalm, and then another would set forth some teaching. Another would speak in a foreign tongue. Another would present a revelation which he had received directly from the Lord. Another would interpret the tongue that had already been given. Paul gives tacit approval to this “open meeting†where there was liberty for the Spirit of God to speak through different brothers. But having stated this, he sets forth the first control in the exercise of these gifts. Everything must be done with a view to edification. Just because a thing is sensational or spectacular does not mean that it has any place in the church. In order to be acceptable, ministry must have the effect of building up the people of God. That is what is meant by edificationâ€â€spiritual growth.

14:27 The second control is that in any one meeting no more than three may speak in tongues. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three. There was to be no such thing as a meeting where a multitude of people would arise to show their proficiency in foreign languages.
Next we learn that the two or three who were permitted to speak in tongues in any one meeting must do so in turn. That means that they must not speak at the same time, but one after the other. This would avoid the bedlam and disorder of several speaking at once.

The fourth rule is that there must be an interpreter. Let one interpret. If a man got up to speak in a foreign language, he must first determine that there was someone present to interpret what he was about to say.
14:28 If there was no interpreter present, then he must keep silent in church. He could sit there and speak inaudibly to himself and to God in this foreign language, but he was not permitted to do so publicly.

The end. I pray / hope that this really helps even one person as I have spent hours on this.
Blessings Jg

 

[golfjack]

reply

That was a great post Jgre. I thank you for taking the time to explain this gift. You show great wisdom coming from a Baptist, just kidding Brother. I do agree with your post. This is how my Church operates in the gifts. Others, I don't know. You know, with tongue interpretation and prophesy, they should line with the fruits of the Spirit, like Joy, something to shout about.

A Christian does not have to pray in tongues to be saved, that's for sure. But I highly recommend it because one has direct access to the Father. I pray in tongues when I don't know how to pray it out. Being filled with the Holy Spirit can save one's life. I once was involved in a rear end collission going about 60. As soon as I saw what was going to happen, I started to pray in tongues, and the car was demolished, but came out without a scratch.

Again, Thank you so much. Still work Huh. I retired when I was 54, and eventually went into the Evangelistic Ministry.



May God bless, golfjack

 

[SputnikBoy]

Thanks for all of the responses but I still don't believe for one second that 'tongues' were anything other than actual languages of the world. As I mentioned previously, in ALL cases of scriptural 'tongue-speaking' the Greek word 'glossa' is used. It simply means 'language' and a KNOWN language at that. I have not been given any evidence to make me believe otherwise.

Another thing that absolutely stumps me. Why a special 'prayer language'? This is not even scriptural. Why would one even WANT some unseen force to take control over their vocal chords? I sure would not. I want to KNOW what I'm saying at all times! Why is NOT KNOWING what one is saying so beautiful? Why would not praying in a language that BOTH GOD AND THE SPEAKER UNDERSTAND be any less beautiful? Are we allowed to use our brains on this issue or is that a 'spiritual' no-no?

Prayer language ...hmmm. What does Jesus have to say about this? We find it in Matthew 6:6-13.

"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him. This, then, is how you should pray." Jesus then recites The Lord's Prayer.

Please note that 'babble' is frowned upon. While God knows what we need in advance, He still awaits our asking in our OWN words. Not once does Jesus even hint at a specific 'prayer language'. The Lord's Prayer is given as an example of how one should pray.

Today's examples of 'tongue-speaking' in all of its forms is an 'invention' from a little over a hundred years ago. It all began at the Azuzza Street Revival that took place in the early 1900's. Before then and way back to biblical times we hear nothing of it. After 1 Corinthians 13/14 we hear NOTHING about 'tongues' at all. Why? Because it was basically a non-issue and died a natural death after it had fulfilled its objective.

 

[jgredline]

Sput
May I suggest going back and reading all my post. I believe I covered what your asking.
Thanks javier

 

[SputnikBoy]

Sput
May I suggest going back and reading all my post. I believe I covered what your asking.
Thanks javier

The posts are SO LONG and it would be difficult to know where to start. I really don't think this issue is all that complex or confusing. It's just BECOME confusing because of the misinterpretation of scripture. My take on this issue is that scriptural tongues were simply known languages of the world. Their purpose was to spread the gospel to all nations (often assembled in one city) as well as being a sign to Israel, the unbelievers. The Holy Spirit enabled specific people to be empowered for this reason and for this reason alone. And THAT, to me, is just THAT.

Okay, having said that, I don't believe that 'tongues' suddenly take on a different slant once we get to 1 Corinthians. And it's HERE that misinterpretation (hence confusion) creeps in. Paul here uses some hyperbole (exaggerated language only folks!) when he refers to 'the tongues of men and of angels.' And, It's HERE that people think, 'Hmmm, does that mean I can actually speak in the language of angels ...?" And this is where it gets crazy. 'Tongues' then cease to become 'languages'. They then take on a life of their own.

It becomes quite evident that the Church of Corinth was not exactly a 'model church'. Paul appears to be giving out one admonishment after another. The only reason he talks about tongues (languages) at all is because the church is being affected negatively by the abuse of people jabbering away in different langages that no one understands. We don't even know if this has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the Holy Spirit. We are never told EXACTLY what the problems were because we only have one side of the story - Paul's letters. But ...there is absolutely no reason to believe that 'tongues' suddenly become some 'mystery language' ...a language of unearthly origin. This is merely speculation derived from a MISINTERPRETATION but it has become THE major doctrine of the Pentecostal Church.

Do you, jg, enter a Pentecostal church, hear someone 'babbling' and automatically conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person has an infilling of the Holy Spirit ...that they are actually 'speaking in tongues'? Or do you enter a Pentecostal church, hear someone babbling and think, 'this person MIGHT but not necessarily have an infilling of the Holy Spirit and they MIGHT but not necessarily be 'speaking in tongues'? If so, what is the criteria (or the litmus test) for what is 'genuine' and what is not? We've heard from several posters who actually believe in 'tongues' that much of the 'tongue-speaking' that goes on in Pentecostal circles is fake. How do we determine, then, was is REAL or fake or is it easier to conclude that it's ALL fake ...simply as a precaution? As I mentioned previously, Pentecostal 'tongues' is not an exact science, is it?

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

How do we determine, then, was is REAL or fake or is it easier to conclude that it's ALL fake ...simply as a precaution?

You can not have a counterfeit thing if you do not have a real thing. For example, if someone walked up to you and asked you for change for his seventeen dollar bill, you would immediately know that his seventeen dollar bill was fake, because there is no such thing as a real one.

However, real things can be counterfeited. Tongues can be faked, because tongues are real.

How to tell the difference? Ask God. Suggested prayer "Lord, is this for real?" Now, I know that sounds simple. But if you are seeking first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, if you have committed yourself to the Lord, and asked Him to protect you from false teaching and false doctrine, and to reveal to you the lies, He will do it.

Luk 11:9-13
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if [he ask] a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

 

[jgredline]

Well Sput
I will tell you this. I spent over four hours putting my post togther and fishing through my concordance and if you really want to know what your asking means, you will not only take the time to read my post, but study them in conjunction with your bible. For me going back and studing it again this morning was a real blessing to me, so don't feel obligated to read them. I will throw this out there as well. I have been witness to Demonic Tongues. Yes you heard right. Demonic Tongues. So not all tongues are from God.
The first time I heard this was when we were expelling a demon from an 18 year old kid who got mixed up with things he should not have been. Anyway, I am getting off topic so I will stop for now.
jg

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Well Sput
I will tell you this. I spent over four hours putting my post togther and fishing through my concordance and if you really want to know what your asking means, you will not only take the time to read my post, but study them in conjunction with your bible. For me going back and studing it again this morning was a real blessing to me, so don't feel obligated to read them. jg

jgredline,

I have found that the Lord will often put me in situations where I believe He is going to use me, only to walk away feeling like I was the one that learned the most. Other times, I am feeling hopeless, helpless and useless, and the Lord will tell me that all I have to to is be there. That alone is encouraging others who were hopeless until I walked in.

Those of us who did not ask the questions were blessed by your posts.
The Lord does indeed work in mysterious ways.

 

[jgredline]

Well Sput
I will tell you this. I spent over four hours putting my post togther and fishing through my concordance and if you really want to know what your asking means, you will not only take the time to read my post, but study them in conjunction with your bible. For me going back and studing it again this morning was a real blessing to me, so don't feel obligated to read them. jg

jgredline,

I have found that the Lord will often put me in situations where I believe He is going to use me, only to walk away feeling like I was the one that learned the most. Other times, I am feeling hopeless, helpless and useless, and the Lord will tell me that all I have to to is be there. That alone is encouraging others who were hopeless until I walked in.

Those of us who did not ask the questions were blessed by your posts.
The Lord does indeed work in mysterious ways.

Little Angel
Thank you so much for your blessed words
Javier

 

[SputnikBoy]

Well Sput
I will tell you this. I spent over four hours putting my post togther and fishing through my concordance and if you really want to know what your asking means, you will not only take the time to read my post, but study them in conjunction with your bible. For me going back and studing it again this morning was a real blessing to me, so don't feel obligated to read them. I will throw this out there as well. I have been witness to Demonic Tongues. Yes you heard right. Demonic Tongues. So not all tongues are from God.
The first time I heard this was when we were expelling a demon from an 18 year old kid who got mixed up with things he should not have been. Anyway, I am getting off topic so I will stop for now.
jg

I'm sorry, jg. I DO realize that you spent a great deal of time and effort on your posts and I will try to refer to them ASAP. Right now I'm shuffling between responding to posts on the forum and conducting a home-based CD business ...Christian sound-tracks (backing tracks). Anything too much indepth regarding the issue is rather out of the question at the moment. Also, as mentioned, I don't know that we NEED to get TOO indepth on this issue as it IS rather black and white if we remove the 'ambiguities' of 1 Corinthians 13/14.

Anyway, as mentioned, I'll do my best to address your posts ASAP. Thanks!

 

[SputnikBoy]

How do we determine, then, was is REAL or fake or is it easier to conclude that it's ALL fake ...simply as a precaution?

You can not have a counterfeit thing if you do not have a real thing. For example, if someone walked up to you and asked you for change for his seventeen dollar bill, you would immediately know that his seventeen dollar bill was fake, because there is no such thing as a real one.

You know that I know this, of course ...? The REAL 'tongues' are the foreign languages that are spoken of in the Bible. Once we establish this and understand what 'tongues' were, why 'tongues' were given and for WHOM 'tongues' were given then we know that Pentecostal 'tongues' (AKA gibberish or babble) are a counterfeit (a sham). It isn't too difficult to figure out. Okay?

However, real things can be counterfeited. Tongues can be faked, because tongues are real.

Substitute the word 'foreign language' for 'tongue', Gabby, and everything will fall into place. There really IS no mystery surrounding this issue.

How to tell the difference? Ask God. Suggested prayer "Lord, is this for real?" Now, I know that sounds simple. But if you are seeking first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, if you have committed yourself to the Lord, and asked Him to protect you from false teaching and false doctrine, and to reveal to you the lies, He will do it.

God will not prevent someone from babbling if that's what they desire to do. The onus is not on God but the individual. If they can't say in their own vernacular what they want to say then perhaps they should either remain quiet or otherwise say the Lord's Prayer ...in ENGLISH if that happens to be their native language. It's so simple I can't believe that others can't see it.

Luk 11:9-13
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if [he ask] a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Nice. But nothing about 'praying in tongues', unfortunately. No red herrings, please.

 

[SputnikBoy]

There are responses on the previous page, jg, and others.

Meanwhile, could we address strands of this issue one at a time?

For instance ...what WERE (I say 'were' because I want to avoid associating scriptural tongues with ungodly Pentecostal 'tongues') tongues as spoken of in scripture? What, actually, were they? And please don't give a list of different kinds of 'tongues' (as in actual, spiritual, prayer, etc) since ONE definition of tongues is all that is required. Thank you.

 

[Georges]

There are responses on the previous page, jg, and others.

Meanwhile, could we address strands of this issue one at a time?

For instance ...what WERE (I say 'were' because I want to avoid associating scriptural tongues with ungodly Pentecostal 'tongues') tongues as spoken of in scripture? What, actually, were they? And please don't give a list of different kinds of 'tongues' (as in actual, spiritual, prayer, etc) since ONE definition of tongues is all that is required. Thank you.

Obviously "tongues" are foreign languages unknown to the speaker, but known to the hearer...and should be established by at least 2 witnesses.

It is quite possible that by God's HS that the men spoke in their own language, but the hearers may have heard it in their native language....

For instance....I may say "Thank you" in English once, at the same time a Frenchman may hear "Merci", a Spaniard "Gracias", a German "Danke" at the same time....

I think the same prinicple was held at the first Pentecost at Mt. Sinai...where the Torah was given in the 70 known tongues of the time....It wouldn't make sense for the Torah to be given 70 different times...but it would make sense to utter the Torah once and by the HS cause it to be understood in "mind and hearing" to the people of the 70 different nations.

 

[cyberjosh]

I have been witness to Demonic Tongues. Yes you heard right. Demonic Tongues. So not all tongues are from God.

That was my unspoken theory I mentioned on page one. But now that the can of worms has opened...

 

[jgredline]

OK Cyber
Since you asked, I will type up one of my expieriances. I do it only to Glorify God and the miracle he performed.
I will work and it and post it in a little while.
Blessings.
Jg

 

[Lewis]

jgredline did you get my PM ?

 

[jgredline]

jgredline did you get my PM ?

I did. Thank you. I sent you a reply. Did you not recieve it?
Let me know. Blessings. Jg

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

No red herrings, please.[/color]

huh?

 

[SputnikBoy]

Luk 11:9-13
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if [he ask] a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Nice. But nothing about 'praying in tongues', unfortunately. No red herrings, please.

No red herrings, please.

huh?

A red herring is anything that diverts attention from a topic or line of inquiry. The scriptural text you gave above to somehow support 'tongues' has nothing to do with 'tongues' . . .hence ...it's a red herring.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

A red herring is anything that diverts attention from a topic or line of inquiry. The scriptural text you gave above to somehow support 'tongues' has nothing to do with 'tongues' . . .hence ...it's a red herring.

I was replying to the following question. I am sorry if that threw you off...

How do we determine, then, was is REAL or fake or is it easier to conclude that it's ALL fake ...simply as a precaution?