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

[lecoop]

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, why would you write on something that you for certain have never experienced, and know nothing about? For example,

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?

Does this agree with Paul? Certainly not!

1 Cor 14
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

If people would just understand and believe this verse, much of the controversy would disappear.

Please not the first phrase: "speaks not unto men, but unto God."

Think about this for a moment. If Paul was speaking of a "foreign language" wouldn't the speaker in tongues be speaking to the foreigners? Of course he would. but Paul says he is speaking to God. Why did Paul say that? Paul goes on to say, "for no one understands him." If tongues were simply a foreign language, Paul could not and would not have said this. This one phrase is saying that humans anywhere, no matter what their language, do not, can not, and will not understand tongues. That is why Paul says that an "interpreter" is needed.

Paul clearly here is speaking of a heavenly langauge, created on the spot by the Holy Spirit and passed to the human spirit, and then spoken out. It was not any human language at all. SputnikBoy is in error and is in disagreement with Paul. Paul ends this one sentence by saying that the person speaking in tongues is speaking "in the spirit," and speaking mysteries. In the spirit, means the opposite of in the flesh. What Paul is saying is that it is the human spirit doing the speaking and the brain or mind is bypassed. The speaker has no idea what he or she is saying. This is the bible definition of "tongues." It is clearly NOT a human langauge from some other part of the world.

What you did was slander the Holy Spirit that has given the utterance of tongues for the last hundred years, and is continuing today. That is a dangerous thing to do, but you surely have done it in ignorance.

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

If you choose to call the language of the HS "babbling," that is your business. However, it is clear that you have no understanding of tongues, or why or how God uses tongues. There are things that cannot be accomplished in the learned language, that can be prayed out in tongues. Just as an example, when one does not know how to pray about something. This is the first and formost purpose for tongues: as a prayer language. Paul makes this clear here:

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

There can be no doubt that Paul is speaking of tongues here, for that is the context. This then, is the primary scriptural purpose for tongues.

Coop

 

[lecoop]

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.

tongues, according to Paul, are a language created "on the spot" by the Holy Spirit, passed to a human spirit, and spoken out by the person. That is what they "were" and that is still what they "are" today, in spite of what SputnikBoy thinks. The Holy Spirit is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He did not change over the course of the church age.

Paul said, "no man understands," clearly disagreeing with the posts here. "No man" means no man, anywhere on earth. Tongues are directed toward God, for God is the only one that understands, since the Holy Spirit giving the utterance also assigns a meaning to the tongues.

Coop

 

[lecoop]

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.

I disagree and Paul disagrees. Obviously, tongues are a language of the Holy Spirit, and NOT any human language spoken anywhere on earth. paul makes this clear when he says, "no man understands."

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....

Wow! You are close to the truth here. It is written that they "heard" in their own language. But what were the 120 speaking? They were speaking in tongues, as discribed by Paul, "gibberish' that "no man understands." Luke makes it clear that there was a miracle of hearing going on on the day of Pentecost.

Coop

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

My question is, well ...it's exactly the same as the thread title.

Where do Pentecostal tongues actually come from?

The Holy Spirit.

 

[Georges]

My question is, well ...it's exactly the same as the thread title.

Where do Pentecostal tongues actually come from?

The Holy Spirit.

Jehovah's Holy Spirit.... :angel:

 

[lecoop]

Where do Pentecostal tongues come from?

The Holy Spirit
Jehovah's Holy Spirit....


Both awesome and correct answers!

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

1 Cor 14
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

The Holy Spirit gives the utterance to the human spirit, and the miracle of tongues is that the Holy Spirit makes the connection from the human spirit to the mouth, bypassing the mind. So Paul said the "understanding is unfruitful," meaning that the person speaking has no clue what he or she is saying. It is their human spirit communicating with God.

There can be no better place for a human being to be, for when one speaks in tongues, they are caught between God the Holy Spirit in them, creating a language on the spot, assigning a meaning to it, and God the Father in heaven listening and answering. A prayer in tongues, then, is always a perfect prayer: a prayer in God's perfect will.

Coop

 

[lecoop]

There was another post with 1 Cor. but I disagreed with some of it, so I have posted this one.

I believe that this will help you understand why I believe what I believe about tongues. Please study this with an open mind.

1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

Paul starts out this discussion about spiritual gifts with the idea that we should desire spiritual gifts, but immediately sets out to put prophecy way up on the list as one to be desired. His reason will be shown later. This was in no way meant to put down tongues.

2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God:

Note carefully this first mention of tongues: it clearly says that one speaking in tongues is not speaking to men, but is speaking to God.

Why would Paul say that?

2 for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Note very carefully why Paul says that tongues is man talking to God: because no man understands him. Stop and think if that seems to contradict what you believe about tongues. I know that you believe that the tongues referred to by Paul is talking about languages spoken by men here on earth - but listen to what the Holy Spirit, through Paul, said: Tongues is not talking to men, but to God, because NO MAN UNDERSTANDS HIM. There is not one human being on earth that can understand when someone is talking in tongues because he is TALKING TO GOD using a heavenly language. The only way for anyone to get the understanding is if someone has the associated gift of interpretation.

3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

Now Paul clearly shows that he is making a comparison of speaking in tongues with Prophecy, both supernatural gifts of the Spirit as shown in chapter 12. Notice the "But." The "but" also shows that one talking in tongues IS NOT talking to men for edification, etc. He said that tongues is man talking to God, BUT Prophecy is man talking to other men for the purpose of edification, exhortation, and comfort. This should be very clear now: Tongues is man talking to God; Prophecy is man talking to man. Paul continues this comparison throughout most of this chapter.

4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself;

Paul is saying that someone speaking in tongues is edifying, or building himself up (like edifice which means structure, building). This is a good thing.

Now a question - Does someone that is speaking in the common language of the people (for the purpose of edifying others) edify himself also? Maybe to some extent, but Paul doesn't ever say that someone prophesying* is building himself up.

*prophesying: a supernatural gift that brings a fresh word from heaven - what God is saying to the local church today, given by the speaker in his normal language.

So we can see that there is something supernatural about tongues that causes the speaker to be edified, or built up in the Lord.

4 but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Again Paul uses the "but" for his comparison. Prophecy edifies the church.

WHY? Tongues is a heavenly language directed toward God, but Prophecy is in the language of the people present. No one can understand tongues, so only the speaker is edified, but all can understand the Prophecy (in their language) so all are edified.

5 I would that ye all spake with tongues,

Paul is clearly showing that tongues were very important to him, and obviously should be important to everybody.

5 but rather that ye prophesied:

Again, Paul uses the "but" for his comparison. He would rather that people prophesied versus speak in tongues. WHY? Simply because only the speaker is edified if one talks in tongues, (no man understands) but all listeners are edified if one prophecies (in common language so all understands)

5 for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying

Again the comparison between tongues & prophecy: Prophecy is greater, because all are edified, EXCEPT someone interprets into the common language, so that all may be edified. So tongues with interpretation are equivalent to prophecy.

WHY interpret? Obviously the tongues were not in the common language! (no man understands! Tongues are not in any common language, because they are supernatural.)

VERY IMPORTANT: If tongues were a gift of a local language from heaven meant to replace or take the place of an interpreter (suppose you wanted to preach to a foreign group and no interpreter could be found), why is Paul saying "except he interpret" meaning that the speaker speaking in tongues must also interpret if the listeners are to understand. If God supernaturally gave this man the ability to preach in their language no interpreter would be needed! But an interpreter is needed because tongues are a heavenly language and no man understands.

6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you,

WHY did Paul say "what shall it prophet you?" Tongues profits no one but the speaker because tongues are not in the common language and no man understands.

If tongues were a gift to take the place of an interpreter, so one could supernaturally preach in a language he never learned the hard way, why did Paul say "what shall I profit you?" That would make no sense. But if tongues are a heavenly language, then indeed, it would not profit anyone but the speaker, because no man understands.

6 except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

Again the comparison, with "except" rather than a "but." Clearly, all the other speech mentioned is in the common language, so all can understand and be edified.

7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

Tongues are not a distinct sound and "it shall not be known what is piped" or talked in tongues because no man understands him.

8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

Tongues are an uncertain sound. WHY? Because no man understands him.

9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood,

Tongues cannot be understood, because he is talking to God & not man and no man understands.

9 how shall it be known what is spoken?

It can not be known what is spoken because no man understands.

9 for ye shall speak into the air.

Tongues are not talking to any people around, but to God, so one could say he is speaking "into the air."

10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

Tongues have significant meaning, even if no one understands.

11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice,

Why wouldn't Paul know the meaning? Because tongues is not talking to man but to God, and no man understands.

11 I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

WHY? Because no man understands. Tongues are created in the human spirit by the Holy Spirit, and directed towards God the Father. Only God knows what the interpretation of the tongues is, since He created it. If I get up in front of people and just talk in tongues, I would be a barbarian to them!

12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

Clearly in Paul's mind, edifying the church was vastly greater than edifying self (by speaking in tongues)

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

WHY? Because no man understands him. He can't go and look for someone to translate, because he is speaking unto God and only God can understand. That is why he has to pray. He would find no one that could understand and translate.

Notice it is interpret, not translate. There can be no translator, except God. But by the gift of interpretation, the Holy Spirit can give the meaning of the tongues.

Again, if tongues were a supernatural gift in a local language to help a missionary preach to the locals, why would Paul say to pray for an interpreter? That would make no sense. Why would I need an interpreter if I am miraculously able to speak in their language? But since tongues is a heavenly language and no man understands, then indeed if I am the missionary speaking in tongues, I would need to pray that God give me the gift of interpretation, or pray that they would hear me in their language.

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth,

This is a very important thought: the source of the tongues is always from the SPIRIT. It is your human spirit, by the Holy Spirit giving utterance, that tongues are spoken. One could very easily do arithmetic homework, while at the same time speak in tongues, because the brain is disengaged while one is speaking in tongues. It is coming straight out of the human spirit.

14 but my understanding is unfruitful.

WHY? Why is the understanding unfruitful? Because no man understands - not even the speaker! He is talking to God, not to himself. If tongues were the ability to speak (or preach) in a local dialect, Paul is saying that he would not understand a word he was saying! Would you get up and speak for 30 minutes in front of foreigners when you didn't understand a word you were saying? I don't think so! Again, this doesn't make any sense. But if tongues were a heavenly language, then indeed my understanding would be unfruitful.

15 What is it then?

Since tongues come from my spirit and I don't even know what I'm saying, what shall I do?

15 I will pray with the spirit,

Paul just got through saying in verse 14 that tongues is "my spirit prayeth", so there can be no other meaning here except that Paul will spend time praying in tongues. To make this verse say anything else than praying in tongues, would be to take this verse out of context.

15 and I will pray with the understanding also:

Paul has just said many times that with tongues there is no understanding, but with prophecy there is understanding, so now he is saying that he will spend some time praying in his own language. So he will pray in tongues a while, then pray in Hebrew or Greek (that he understands) for a while. There can be no other intent here by Paul. He has just written 15 verses where he makes a comparison of speaking in tongues versus speaking in the common language that is understood.

To make this verse say anything else than a paradigm* of praying in tongues, and then in the local language would, again, be to take this verse totally out of context.

Paradigm* "Para" is "one along side another," as in paratrooper or parallel, and "digm" is a comparison, so paradigm is to bring two thoughts or ideas right up along side of each other for easy comparison. (The meaning of this word has drifted somewhat from when it was first used. Too many college professors wanted to look big, so they started using this word to mean "a new idea" or a big change (a paradigm shift) or anything to impress students. The point in this verse is what Paul has done all through the chapter: bring two thoughts up along side each other for a comparison: tongues compared with speech in a local language.

15 I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Now after praying both in tongues and in Greek, Paul will spend some time singing in tongues (with the spirit) & in Greek (with the understanding).

16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit,

Again, Paul is saying that the prayer "with the Spirit" that he is talking about is praying in tongues. Again, to make this verse say anything else but praying in tongues would be to take it out of context.

16 how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

WHY doesn't he understand? Because no man understands; he is talking to God. The man said a blessing prayer in tongues, and no one understood him. If tongues were a supernatural gift to speak the local language, why would Paul (or the Holy Spirit) even say this? It would make no sense. But if tongues were a heavenly language that no man understands, then indeed, those in the room could not even say "amen" because they didn't have a clue what was just prayed.

17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

Note that a prayer in tongues is a good prayer, but not for a meeting place - it is talking to God, and no man understands.

18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

Paul obviously spoke in tongues a lot. In other words, he spent a lot of time speaking words out of his spirit that he did not understand, nor did anyone else. Since he just made several good arguments that when he is in front of people he would rather speak 5 words in the common language than thousands in tongues, where do you suppose he did all his tongue talking? In front of foreigners in their language? Not a chance! Because he would be speaking words that he did not understand and that he knew they couldn't understand, and knew were to be directed toward God. No - Paul did his tongue talking while he was alone praying.

19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Why "5 words with my understanding?" Because he knew that speaking in tongues is speaking without any understanding (no man understands). He would rather teach in the common language than be a barbarian to them (utter words no man could understand). Five words in Greek would be far more valuable to them then 10,000 words that no one could understand.

Note that this does not sound like, and indeed cannot be, someone that was given a supernatural ability to speak in a language unknown to him, but a common language in wherever he was at. (Such as happened on the day of Pentecost.) In fact, nothing in this chapter sounds much like what happened on the day of Pentecost. Paul just spent 19 verses in a comparison of tongues versus understanding, and here he continues: 5 words with understanding or 10,000 words without understanding (tongues).

20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

Paul is saying, "please, since you are adults, understand what I'm teaching you."

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

My bible shows this as a from IS 28:11 where it starts "For with stammering lips..." This is a perfect description of someone just filled with the Spirit and starting to speak in tongues. I've seen many people "stammer" or just repeat one or two syllables over and over. This was probably a prophecy of the day of Pentecost. It goes on to talk about a "rest" and "refreshing," which also goes along with the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of tongues. Unfortunately, people are still not hearing.

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Just a thought here: would Paul be talking about tongues used as a prayer language here, or the gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation used to bring a message to a group gathered together? I would definitely say it is not the prayer tongues.

23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

I agree with Paul - if everyone was speaking in a tongue that no human could understand (no man understands), it would be pandemonium. All things should be done excellently and with order.

24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:

Prophecy, again, is in the local language, and most would understand.

25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

The rest of the verses are instructions to the church.

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
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.

Notice again, that this tongue is not in any human language, and if anyone is to understand, it must come through the other supernatural gift of interpretation. If there is no one present with the gift of interpretation, then there should be no tongues!

What about the day of Pentecost?

I'm so glad you ask! As I have pointed out to you before, the miracle there was on the hearing end, not the speaking end.

Acts 2
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.
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.


The tongues here were no different that what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 14. God just added an extra dimension here so that others heard in their own language.

To say that they spoke in those languages would be to add something to the scripture that is not there. Keep in mind that the 120 people speaking in tongues did not understand what they were saying, because they were talking to God and no man understands. Obviously there are exceptions, because here, through supernatural hearing, people did understand!

Coop

 

[SputnikBoy]

Is this debate even worthy of going the distance? 'Convenient' misinterpretations of scriptures are all that are being used in supposed support of Pentecostal 'tongues'. How, then, can one seriously address such misrepresentations without also being drawn into unwarranted attention to this fallacy of 'tongue-speaking'?

Below is a quotation from William Samarin, professor of linguistics at the University of Toronto, who says:

Over a period of five years I have taken part in meetings in Italy, Holland, Jamaica, Canada and the United States. I have observed old-fashioned Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals. I have been in small meetings in private homes as well as in mammoth public meetings. I have seen such different cultural settings as are found among Puerto Ricans of the Bronx, the snake handlers of the Appalachians and the Russian Molakans of Los Angeles... I have interviewed tongue speakers, and tape recorded and analyzed countless samples of tongues. In every case, glossolalia turns out to be linguistic nonsense. In spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia is fundamentally not language. It is not a language, and it is not often addressed to God. It is usually addressed to a crowd of people present, so it does not fit that qualification. And it is primarily exercised privately today, whereas there is no manifestation of the private use of tongues in the New Testament. Finally, it is not a sign to unbelievers, therefore, we have to judge that the phenomenon that we see and hear today is not the biblical gift of tongues.

What is it then? Well, once again people are being misled, oftentimes quite earnestly and sincerely, into identifying a purely psychological phenomenon, of which many temperaments are capable, a kind of self-induced hypnosis which results in a repetition of sounds and syllables that have no meaning in themselves, as the gift of tongues. In itself it is relatively harmless. If people want to do it at home I have no objection as long as they do not call it the biblical gift of tongues because it is not that. It is this common phenomenon which was present all through the ancient world, and which Plato discusses in several of his discourses, and which was practiced commonly in the mystery religions of that day. It is very often, all through the history of the church, associated with religious excitement. That is what is being identified today as the gift of tongues.

There is SO much more about the Church of Corinth and all of the issues that Paul was addressing than the average Bible reader can possibly comprehend from a mere reading of a few ambiguous scriptures. Even the expression used by Paul of 'speaking into the air' has more to it than a superficial reading would suggest. Try http://www.piney.com/MuGodAir.html

 

[Georges]

The Babbling of Tongues without interpretation as described by Paul comes from the Mystery Religions with which he no doubt was very familiar with...

From http://www.speaking-in-tongues.net/ and many sites just like it....

....In the last century before Christ, Virgil described the ecstatic tongues of the Sybilline priestess on the Island of Delos as the result of her being unified with the god Apollo. This happened while she meditated in a haunted cave amidst the eerie sounds of the wind playing strange music through the narrow crevices in the rocks.

Several of the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world record the same phenomenon. Some of those most often listed are the Mithra cult of the Persians; the Osiris cult originating in the land of the Pharaohs, and the lesser known Dionysian, Eulusinian, and Orphic cults cradled in Macedonia, Thrace and Greece. Another indication comes from Lucian of Samosata (A.D. 120-198) who in De Dea Syria describes an example of glossolalia as exhibited by a roaming believer of June, the Syrian goddess, stationed at Hierapolis in Syria.


..................................................

Paul was writting to Churches in the Greece/Asia Minor area...these area's were seeped in Mystery Religion and Paul used Mystery terminology in many places to connect to the "new" Gentile convert who were very familiar with the Mystery Tongue phenomenon.

 

[lecoop]

Is this debate even worthy of going the distance? 'Convenient' misinterpretations of scriptures are all that are being used in supposed support of Pentecostal 'tongues'. How, then, can one seriously address such misrepresentations without also being drawn into unwarranted attention to this fallacy of 'tongue-speaking'?

Below is a quotation from William Samarin, professor of linguistics at the University of Toronto, who says:

Over a period of five years I have taken part in meetings in Italy, Holland, Jamaica, Canada and the United States. I have observed old-fashioned Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals. I have been in small meetings in private homes as well as in mammoth public meetings. I have seen such different cultural settings as are found among Puerto Ricans of the Bronx, the snake handlers of the Appalachians and the Russian Molakans of Los Angeles... I have interviewed tongue speakers, and tape recorded and analyzed countless samples of tongues. In every case, glossolalia turns out to be linguistic nonsense. In spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia is fundamentally not language. It is not a language, and it is not often addressed to God. It is usually addressed to a crowd of people present, so it does not fit that qualification. And it is primarily exercised privately today, whereas there is no manifestation of the private use of tongues in the New Testament. Finally, it is not a sign to unbelievers, therefore, we have to judge that the phenomenon that we see and hear today is not the biblical gift of tongues.

What is it then? Well, once again people are being misled, oftentimes quite earnestly and sincerely, into identifying a purely psychological phenomenon, of which many temperaments are capable, a kind of self-induced hypnosis which results in a repetition of sounds and syllables that have no meaning in themselves, as the gift of tongues. In itself it is relatively harmless. If people want to do it at home I have no objection as long as they do not call it the biblical gift of tongues because it is not that. It is this common phenomenon which was present all through the ancient world, and which Plato discusses in several of his discourses, and which was practiced commonly in the mystery religions of that day. It is very often, all through the history of the church, associated with religious excitement. That is what is being identified today as the gift of tongues.

There is SO much more about the Church of Corinth and all of the issues that Paul was addressing than the average Bible reader can possibly comprehend from a mere reading of a few ambiguous scriptures. Even the expression used by Paul of 'speaking into the air' has more to it than a superficial reading would suggest. Try http://www.piney.com/MuGodAir.html

SputnikBoy, just because you cannot understand what Paul was saying, does not in any way mean that those of us who do, are "'conveniently' misinterpretating" those verses. Paul make it very plain that "no man understands." What is so difficult with these words? Why does "no man understand?" It is very simple" Because the HS creates a language "on the spot," that sounds to the listener like "gibberish." Some people have a more fluent "language" and others just make a few sylables. It makes no difference, for the Holy Spirit assigns meaning to it, and the meaning is prayed out. This way, God has us praying a perfect prayer.

How can you address this? If you think I have misinterpreted a verse, then please give us your interpretation. It is for sure, the author, the HS, only had one meaning in mind when He had Paul write it.

Next, why would anyone that believes the bible, say that something clearly in the bible is a "fallacy?" Did you not read, "forbid not to speak in tongues?" Paul surely disagrees with your beliefs here.

Is this "professor of linguistics" born again? Of course you know that the word of God is foolishness to those that are not. Obviously, this professor had never received the mighty baptism with the Holy Spirit, and has never spoken in tongues. Both Paul and I disagree with him. Tongues today are exactly what Paul wrote about, for they originate from the HS, just as they did on the day of Pentecost.

Coop

 

[lecoop]

For those readers (and writers) that have never spoken in tongues, may I make a sugestion? Instead of fighting against God, why not let yourself agree with Him? Read over Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10, and Acts 19, and they go to God and say, "God, I want what they got!"

We are still in the church age, and what was a valid experience then is still valid today. Jesus is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

Coop

 

[lecoop]

jgredline says,

Therefore any suggestion, expressed or implied, that everyone should have the gift of tongues, is contrary to the word of God and is foreign to the whole concept of the body with its many different members, each with its own function.
If, as stated here, not everyone has the gift of tongues, then it is wrong to teach that tongues are the sign of the baptism of the Spirit. For, in that case, not everyone could expect that baptism. But the truth is that every believer has already been baptized by the Spirit (v. 13).

If you say the "gift of tongues," from 1 Cor. 12, I agree. What Paul was speaking about here, was a gift of a person, placed in a local body of believers, that had this "gift of tongues." What is this gift Paul is speaking of? It is a gift to give a prophecy in tongues to the local body. In other words, it is "body ministry." In fact, all nine of these gifts are people set in a local body to minister their gift to the local body. For example, the gift of miracles works through a person to minister to another. It is not a personal gift. None of these none gifts listed in chapter 12, are personal gifts. They are all for body ministry.

Therefore, this chapter in general, and the "gift of tongues" in specific, has nothing to do with the tongues given when one receives the mighty baptism with the Holy Spirit. The tongues received at the baptism, is for personal benefit. As Paul said, it edifies the speaker. As Paul said, it is for praying in the spirit and singing in the spirit. It is to allow our spirit man to communicate with God without our mind getting in the way. The tongues described in chapter 14, therefore, are not specifically speaking about the gift of tongues in chapter 12. These are two separate manifestations of tongues: one for body ministry, and few have this gift, and the other is for personal edification, and this is for all who can believe and receive, as it comes with the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

jgredline says

If, as stated here, not everyone has the gift of tongues, then it is wrong to teach that tongues are the sign of the baptism of the Spirit.

jgredline has mixed up the scriptures, and has misunderstood what Paul was teaching. Of course not everyone will have the gift to give a prophecy in tongues to a local body. No one is saying that. Neither will all have the gift of miracles, or the gift of faith. All these gifts listed are for body ministry. However, tongues are definitely the immediate sign of the baptism with the HS, as proven by the book of Acts, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit is for everyone. Unfortunately, this mighty baptism comes by faith, and when people deny it, that shows God plainly that they have no faith to receive.

jgredline says

For, in that case, not everyone could expect that baptism. But the truth is that every believer has already been baptized by the Spirit (v. 13).

Again, this is just human reasoning, not scripture. In every case in the book of Acts, i.e., chapter 2, 8, 10, and 19, all present received this mighty baptism. It is silly to think that if ALL received then, it is just for a few today. Next, if it is not for all, then only a few could obey Paul's scripture:
"What is it then? I will pray in the spirit..."
"I will sing in the spirit."

Praying and singing in tongues is the only way to fulfil this verse, so if the mighty baptism with the HS is only for a few, then only a few could fulfill this verse. This whole idea is silly. God certainly would not give us a scripture that everyone of us could not fulfill.

Then again, in Acts 1, we all are commanded (it was not a suggestion) to receive this mighty baptism with the Holy Spirit. (I know the command was for the 120, but we also are a part of the church of Jesus Christ, and we also have been commanded to make disciples of all nations.)

Is every believer "baptized in the Holy Spirit?" Of course not! Again, this is just human reasoning without scripture. We all have the HS within, if we are born again, but the HS within is NOT the baptism with the HS. The mighty baptism with the HS is the anointing to minister. It comes "upon," some time after salvation, while the HS within comes in our spirit at regeneration. Have you never read?

Matthew 3:16
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Matthew 12:18
Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

Acts 2:17
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Acts 8:16
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 10:44
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Acts 11
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

Note here: this shows that the Holy Spirit "upon" has the same meaning as "filled with the Spirit" because in Acts two it says that they were filled with the Spirit, yet here Peter says the same thing happened to Cornelius, yet in chapter 10 it says that the spirit came on them. Therefore, being "filled with the Spirit," and receiving the baptism with the Spirit, and the HS coming "on" or "upon" are all synonymous terms, except for one minor point: those that received the mighty baptism in Acts 2, were later refilled. It is written, they were all "filled with the Spirit."

Acts 19
6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

It should be clear then, to any reader, that this is describing something different than the regeneration experience. And in fact, Luke proves this, by showing that the people in Acts 8 and Acts 19, clearly were born again, then water baptized, then later, after these events, received the mighty baptism with the HS. These scriptures prove without a shadow of doubt that this baptism with the Holy Spirit is a Second work of Grace: something that comes after salvation.

Coop

 

[SputnikBoy]

The Babbling of Tongues without interpretation as described by Paul comes from the Mystery Religions with which he no doubt was very familiar with...

From http://www.speaking-in-tongues.net/ and many sites just like it....

....In the last century before Christ, Virgil described the ecstatic tongues of the Sybilline priestess on the Island of Delos as the result of her being unified with the god Apollo. This happened while she meditated in a haunted cave amidst the eerie sounds of the wind playing strange music through the narrow crevices in the rocks.

Several of the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world record the same phenomenon. Some of those most often listed are the Mithra cult of the Persians; the Osiris cult originating in the land of the Pharaohs, and the lesser known Dionysian, Eulusinian, and Orphic cults cradled in Macedonia, Thrace and Greece. Another indication comes from Lucian of Samosata (A.D. 120-198) who in De Dea Syria describes an example of glossolalia as exhibited by a roaming believer of June, the Syrian goddess, stationed at Hierapolis in Syria.


..................................................

Paul was writting to Churches in the Greece/Asia Minor area...these area's were seeped in Mystery Religion and Paul used Mystery terminology in many places to connect to the "new" Gentile convert who were very familiar with the Mystery Tongue phenomenon.

From what I've been reading recently I have to agree with you, George. It's quite amazing how much we DON'T know about what Paul is referring to in his letters to the Church of Corinth. For the Pentecostals, however, it's best to remain in ignorance since real knowledge on this issue would see the movement collapse into a heap. Nevertheless, anyone who desires to know the truth about the issue of so-called Pentecostal 'tongues' should visit some of the websites to which you refer. As mentioned previously, we readers of 1 Corinthians are only getting a narrow view - Paul's response/s to issues of his day - that most of us can't comprehend without additional research. It's rather like listening in to one side of a telephone conversation ...one can't begin to make total sense of it until both sides of the conversation are heard.

 

[Georges]

The Babbling of Tongues without interpretation as described by Paul comes from the Mystery Religions with which he no doubt was very familiar with...

From http://www.speaking-in-tongues.net/ and many sites just like it....

....In the last century before Christ, Virgil described the ecstatic tongues of the Sybilline priestess on the Island of Delos as the result of her being unified with the god Apollo. This happened while she meditated in a haunted cave amidst the eerie sounds of the wind playing strange music through the narrow crevices in the rocks.

Several of the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world record the same phenomenon. Some of those most often listed are the Mithra cult of the Persians; the Osiris cult originating in the land of the Pharaohs, and the lesser known Dionysian, Eulusinian, and Orphic cults cradled in Macedonia, Thrace and Greece. Another indication comes from Lucian of Samosata (A.D. 120-198) who in De Dea Syria describes an example of glossolalia as exhibited by a roaming believer of June, the Syrian goddess, stationed at Hierapolis in Syria.


..................................................

Paul was writting to Churches in the Greece/Asia Minor area...these area's were seeped in Mystery Religion and Paul used Mystery terminology in many places to connect to the "new" Gentile convert who were very familiar with the Mystery Tongue phenomenon.

From what I've been reading recently I have to agree with you, George. It's quite amazing how much we DON'T know about what Paul is referring to in his letters to the Church of Corinth. For the Pentecostals, however, it's best to remain in ignorance since real knowledge on this issue would see the movement collapse into a heap. Nevertheless, anyone who desires to know the truth about the issue of so-called Pentecostal 'tongues' should visit some of the websites to which you refer. As mentioned previously, we readers of 1 Corinthians are only getting a narrow view - Paul's response/s to issues of his day - that most of us can't comprehend without additional research. It's rather like listening in to one side of a telephone conversation ...one can't begin to make total sense of it until both sides of the conversation are heard.

That's all I'm saying....get all of the information you can and make an educated decision....

Sput, the "one sided phone conversation" is the best description of the whole problem of fair interpretation I've heard yet....I will use it (if you don't mind) as future opportunity presents itself...

 

[SputnikBoy]

Sput, the "one sided phone conversation" is the best description of the whole problem of fair interpretation I've heard yet....I will use it (if you don't mind) as future opportunity presents itself...

Feel free to use it, George, but don't forget my royalty checks whenever you do ... :smt005

 

[lecoop]

From what I've been reading recently I have to agree with you, George. It's quite amazing how much we DON'T know about what Paul is referring to in his letters to the Church of Corinth. For the Pentecostals, however, it's best to remain in ignorance since real knowledge on this issue would see the movement collapse into a heap. Nevertheless, anyone who desires to know the truth about the issue of so-called Pentecostal 'tongues' should visit some of the websites to which you refer. As mentioned previously, we readers of 1 Corinthians are only getting a narrow view - Paul's response/s to issues of his day - that most of us can't comprehend without additional research. It's rather like listening in to one side of a telephone conversation ...one can't begin to make total sense of it until both sides of the conversation are heard.

(Bold added for comment)

SputnicBoy, as I see it, you are saying one of two things. First, you are much more enlightened than any Pentecostal (which I am sure you would like to believe is true) and so can see that their doctrines of the Holy Spirit are faulty, and their practices, because of those doctrines, are even worse. You can see right through their knowledge of 1 Cor. !4, and can "debunk" them and set them on the right course. You are the one with the "real knowledge" so you immediately see the errors in their thinking.

Second, and probably much closer to the truth: Those that have believed the scritpures, such as Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19, and desired to have what the early church had, immediately received faith from hearing the word, and received the baptism with the HS, and the initial sign of tongues. Once they had received the anointing from the HS, and spoke in tongues, they were then in a much better position to understand the scriptures involving tongues. In other words, experience speaks volumns.

You. on the other hand, did not allow your heart to agree with the stories in Acts, about the baptism, and therefore built up unbelief, which also is keeping you from understanding Paul's writings. We know, as Paul said, that "for the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." What makes the difference? Both heard the gospel, for one must know something to call it foolishness. So for the one, they did not agree with the plan of salvation when they heard it, and so built up resistance to it, as in rebelling against it. For the other, they agreed with the word when they heard it, and obtained faith from the word to receive salvation. When people hear any part of the Gospel, and do not believe it, they have already started rebelling against it.

For those of us that grew hungry for what the early church had, we jumped in, and received the mighty baptism with the HS. I have never met one person, having received this mighty gift, that desired to go back.

Doesn't it make sense, if it was not from God, that God the Holy Spirit would convict and turn people away from it? Surely, if such were the case, many would hear and turn.

On the other hand, I can say from personal experience, that when I received this great gift, my life changed forever. It was as if the moment that I started to pray, I was escorted into the very presense of God. My prayer life, and the effectiveness of my prayers increased many fold. I have found that I hear from the Godhead better than before, and I understand why. The same "conduit" that I use to pray in tongues, is the "conduit" that the Holy Spirit uses to speaks to me. By praying in tongues, I keep that conduit open.

If you deem that the first example given above is correct, and you are more enlightened that any of the Pentecostals, and have the "real knowledge," then you should be well able to show where I went wrong, in my treatus of chapter 14. Please, by all means, go through my post, and put in the corrections, and then we can discuss the differences.

Coop

 

[SputnikBoy]

Coop, you refer to Acts and then you refer to the Pentecostal Church as if the 'tongues' they babble has something to actually do with Acts. And it's this notion that is leading so many astray. THE FACTS ARE that most ANYONE can be taught to babble ...it just takes a little practice and it would appear that there are those Pentecostals who are more than willing to teach someone. Then, wallah! they can sound as 'genuine' as the next person. I know this to be a FACT! Pentecostal 'tongues' are quite easily faked ...some are just better at it than others. The Holy Spirit need not figure into this at all! What CANNOT be faked is the spontaneous speaking of an unlearned FOREIGN language ...a language in which a native of that country can understand.

In traditional Pentecostal thinking ANYONE who babbles is supposedly filled with the Holy Spirit. So are those who participate in 'slaying in the Spirit' (huh?), 'holy' laughter (huh?), barking like a dog (huh?) and other weird and wonderful practices. There seems to be no criteria required. Besides the fact that none of this is scriptural, you can't blame people for being highly sceptical, Coop. The movement that accepts the above practices also has 'tongues' as its major doctrine. It seems that one of the several pagen tribes in the world could enter a Pentecostal Church, use pagan tongues' and pass off as being 'Spirit-filled'. How would anyone know otherwise?

 

[lecoop]

Coop, you refer to Acts and then you refer to the Pentecostal Church as if the 'tongues' they babble has something to actually do with Acts. And it's this notion that is leading so many astray. THE FACTS ARE that most ANYONE can be taught to babble ...it just takes a little practice and it would appear that there are those Pentecostals who are more than willing to teach someone. Then, wallah! they can sound as 'genuine' as the next person. I know this to be a FACT! Pentecostal 'tongues' are quite easily faked ...some are just better at it than others. The Holy Spirit need not figure into this at all! What CANNOT be faked is the spontaneous speaking of an unlearned FOREIGN language ...a language in which a native of that country can understand.

In traditional Pentecostal thinking ANYONE who babbles is supposedly filled with the Holy Spirit. So are those who participate in 'slaying in the Spirit' (huh?), 'holy' laughter (huh?), barking like a dog (huh?) and other weird and wonderful practices. There seems to be no criteria required. Besides the fact that none of this is scriptural, you can't blame people for being highly sceptical, Coop. The movement that accepts the above practices also has 'tongues' as its major doctrine. It seems that one of the several pagen tribes in the world could enter a Pentecostal Church, use pagan tongues' and pass off as being 'Spirit-filled'. How would anyone know otherwise?

Standing on the outside looking in is far different than jumping in. This is no different that those that get born again, while the scoffers look from the outside, and it all looks like foolishness. However, we that have been born again know better. We know that the Holy Spirit went inside, and we know that we are changed.

Don't you think I know who the Holy Spirit is, and what He does? I knew the second that I was born again, that I was a new man. I knew that I was a new creature in Christ Jesus. In the same way, I knew that the Holy Spirit came upon me. Since then, I have felt His manifested presence a thousand times. Once so strong that my bones were shaking, as if I had a hold of 100,000 volts. It is impossible to describe what it feels like when He manifests Himself in such a way. It is like being surrounded in God's love, and having it all over you as honey.

Of course all this is foolishness to you, for you are on the outside looking in. And you will stay there because of what you believe. You see, tongues or "what is spoken" or "babbled" as you might say, is not even the issue: the Holy Spirit is the issue. The tongues is only the initial manifestation of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Don't you think I would know it, if I was plunged into a river of the Holy Spirit? No human could possibly be the same after being placed into the Holy Spirit. When you come up, the HS is all over you, just as water is all over someone when they come up for water baptism. Can you imagine someone saying, "I want to be water baptized, but hold the wet!" No, wet is the character of water: if you go in, you come up wet!

Tongues are a characteristic of the Holy Spirit, and if you are plunged down into the HS, you will come up speaking in tongues. Probably also magnifying God. This is a biblical fact, as shown in Acts 2, 10, and 19.

While I am on that subject, there is another aspect of what is spoken. Since I have received the Holy Spirit, I can't go very long before I must worship and praise my God! This is another sign or evidence that we have the anointing or the presence of the HS all over us: we cannot help bu praise the Lord. If you only knew it, what is spoken is extremely important, and points directly to who is doing the influencing. I can promise you, demons DO NOT praise the Lord! Humans not under the influence of the HS DO NOT praise the Lord.

Again, since you are on the outside, it is all foolishness to you. I would hope though, for your own sake, that you would just believe the scriptures. As Paul said, "Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" Well, have you?

I am just trying to help you avoid the embarrassment when you arrive in heaven, when the first thing Jesus will say to you is, "Why did you not receive my mighty baptism with the Holy Spirit?"

What are you going to tell Him?

Once again, I must repeat, for you have still not got it. Go read Acts 2 again, and you will find that it does NOT say that they spoke in these languages. What it does say is that the listeners HEARD in those languages.

Finally, go and read again, and this time, believe it: "no man understands!" Can't you see that the reason that no man understands is that it sounds like gibberish? Sometimes tongues sound like a language, and sometimes tongues sound like "stammering lips." Either way, the real issue is the baptism with the HS, not what the tongues sounds like.

In reality, the tongues today, in every church I have been in, has everything to do with the book of Acts, for there is the evidence of the baptism with the HS.

If you are taken aback that people are slain in the spirit, what will you do when the Spirit starts standing people back up?

Ezekiel 2:2
And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me...

And did you never read, "the joy of the Lord is my strength?" Don't you think God ever laughs? Listen, heaven is full of laughter! When the HS gets on a human, they cannot help but laugh, for joy is a part of the character of God. So why stand on the outside any longer?

Once again, if I am so wrong about of 1 Cor 14, you should easily be able to set me straight, you knowing the truth of it all.

Coop

 

[golfjack]

reply

Amen, Coop.




May God bless, golfjack

 

[SputnikBoy]

Pentecostal 'tongues' is all a lot of stuff and nonsense. What else can one possibly call it? The implication is that ONLY Pentecostals (and only those who speak in tongues' at that) have an infilling of the Holy Spirit ...in fact, it was MORE than an implication, wasn't it, Coop? So, whenever I hear the likes of Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart (is Jimmy still around?) and other charismatic evangelists babbling away I'm to conclude that these men are SO inspired of The Word that God saw fit to endow them with 'angelic tongues'? Where do we draw the line, Coop?

Coop says that no one but the Holy Spirit would praise God (in 'tongues', no less) and yet would claim that he has no idea what 'tongues' are or what their linguistic 'content' is. How would you know whether you're praising God or cursing God? I've got a FAR better idea, Coop. Try speaking to God in your NATIVE language ...in that way both God AND you will know what is being said! Why do I need to 'babble' in order to feel 'wonderful'?

I'll get back to other aspects of your post later.