Speaking in tongues 2

[Knowingtruth]

 

Paul lists spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14, Romans 12, and Ephesians 4. Of the three, 1 Corinthians is generally believed to have been penned first, Romans second, and Ephesians last (in order of the letters we are speaking of here).

 

The conditions in Corinth was worst. To bring order there, Paul came up with a condition of interpretation(that is not found in the book of Acts or elsewhere) hoping that speaking of unknown tongue prompted by person's spirit would cease as church grew in spirituality as it was sign meant for unbelievers.

 

I believe it ceased there soon as people took the advice of Paul to prefer prophesying. We don't see this phenomenon of speaking in an unknown tongue either in Rome or Ephesian subsequently, and it is not listed in the corresponding epistles.

 

 

Does it follow that because you do not see or witness that phenomenon today, you believe same ceases to happen to all? Who do you believe calls the shots when it comes to speaking in tongues?

 

I have witnessed and carefully observed my relatives who claim this redundant activity. It has given me an impression that they behave as though God has become deaf and blind that require unusual sounds and acrobatics. It is against the preaching of Jesus! (Matthew 6:5 &6)

[firestormx]

 

At the same time, if the gift of speaking in tongues were active in the church today, it would be performed in agreement with Scripture. It would be a real and intelligible language (1 Corinthians 14:10). It would be for the purpose of communicating God's Word with a person of another language (Acts 2:6-12). It would be in agreement with the command God gave through the apostle Paul, “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God” (1 Corinthians 14:27-28). It would also be in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:33, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”

 

 

I am not sure if I misunderstood what you said here, so I thought I would point out a few things about this subject in your post and 1 that's not. If your already aware of what I say, then please forgive me for misunderstanding you. I bolded part of the verse you quoted. The reason is this. It says clearly if no interpreter then keep quite in the church. But then says it speak to himself and God. It says to stay quite in the church if no one is there to interpret, it does not say never are you allowed to speak when it's just you and God. In your private prayer time. In fact that's exactly what it says next.

 

1 Corinthians 14:4

He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

 

Also, I saw in another post, someone said that it edifies the person. That's correct and in the bible. But, the word edify is a bad translation. When the KJV was written, there was no English word that meant the same thing as the Greek in the text so they translated it edify. But today we have a word that better matches what the Greek says in this verse. It is charge. Like you would charge a battery. A person who speaks in an unknown tongue charges himself. Inside, in the spirit. That it what the verse is saying. Which is why it is ok to still do in your private prayer. We are even told to pray that we might interpret.

 

Firestormx

Joseph

[Knowingtruth]

 

 

 

At the same time, if the gift of speaking in tongues were active in the church today, it would be performed in agreement with Scripture. It would be a real and intelligible language (1 Corinthians 14:10). It would be for the purpose of communicating God's Word with a person of another language (Acts 2:6-12). It would be in agreement with the command God gave through the apostle Paul, “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God” (1 Corinthians 14:27-28). It would also be in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:33, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”

 

 

To summarise as I see it, the phenomenon that was only local in Corinth  ceased subsequently for thousands of years.

 

That is the way I see it.It is no longer useful today.

 

 

When God has given a great gift of speaking intelligently distinguishing us from animals where is the question of speaking in an unknown language?

Edited August 16, 2013 by GoldenEagle
<<< Edits in red. Please no insults. Please remember it is possible to disagree with another point of view without insulting the other party you're discussing a subject with. >>>

[Knowingtruth]

 

 

At the same time, if the gift of speaking in tongues were active in the church today, it would be performed in agreement with Scripture. It would be a real and intelligible language (1 Corinthians 14:10). It would be for the purpose of communicating God's Word with a person of another language (Acts 2:6-12). It would be in agreement with the command God gave through the apostle Paul, “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God” (1 Corinthians 14:27-28). It would also be in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:33, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”

 

 

I am not sure if I misunderstood what you said here, so I thought I would point out a few things about this subject in your post and 1 that's not. If your already aware of what I say, then please forgive me for misunderstanding you. I bolded part of the verse you quoted. The reason is this. It says clearly if no interpreter then keep quite in the church. But then says it speak to himself and God. It says to stay quite in the church if no one is there to interpret, it does not say never are you allowed to speak when it's just you and God. In your private prayer time. In fact that's exactly what it says next.

 

1 Corinthians 14:4

He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

 

Also, I saw in another post, someone said that it edifies the person. That's correct and in the bible. But, the word edify is a bad translation. When the KJV was written, there was no English word that meant the same thing as the Greek in the text so they translated it edify. But today we have a word that better matches what the Greek says in this verse. It is charge. Like you would charge a battery. A person who speaks in an unknown tongue charges himself. Inside, in the spirit. That it what the verse is saying. Which is why it is ok to still do in your private prayer. We are even told to pray that we might interpret.

 

Firestormx

Joseph

 

 

I agree with you almost. However, where is the need to interpret your private prayer? It had become a nuisance in Corinth--so also  in many Pentecostal churches now--so Paul brought in an unusual solution in an interpreter!

[firestormx]

I agree with you almost. However, where is the need to interpret your private prayer? It had become a nuisance in Corinth--so also  in many Pentecostal churches now--so Paul brought in an unusual solution in an interpreter!

 

The reason to pray to interpret you own private prayers is for as Paul put it. I will Pray in the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also. It is so you know what your praying about. 

 

Also, remember, when the day of Pentecost was fully come they acted strange also. In fact they acted so strange that everyone there watching and seeing what was going on thought they were all drunk. Remember Peter's word's. We are not drunk on new wine as all of you suppose.

[Knowingtruth]

 

 

I agree with you almost. However, where is the need to interpret your private prayer? It had become a nuisance in Corinth--so also  in many Pentecostal churches now--so Paul brought in an unusual solution in an interpreter!

 

The reason to pray to interpret you own private prayers is for as Paul put it. I will Pray in the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also. It is so you know what your praying about. 

 

Also, remember, when the day of Pentecost was fully come they acted strange also. In fact they acted so strange that everyone there watching and seeing what was going on thought they were all drunk. Remember Peter's word's. We are not drunk on new wine as all of you suppose.

 

In fact, Paul prefers the same person to interpret. I wonder, where is the need for that to pray in an unknown tongue to start with and then interpret?

 

I think you are equating what happened on Pentecost was the same as what was happenings in Corinth. They are totally different. On Pentecost, they were speaking an existing foreign language whereas in Corinth they were speaking an unknown language.

[firestormx]

In fact, Paul prefers the same person to interpret. I wonder, where is the need for that to pray in an unknown tongue to start with and then interpret?

 

 

I think you are equating what happened on Pentecost was the same as what was happenings in Corinth. They are totally different. On Pentecost, they were speaking an existing foreign language whereas in Corinth they were speaking an unknown language.

 

1. I answered this first question. You pray to interpret that you might understand what the Holy Spirit within you was praying. For it is the Holy Spirit that gives the utterance or words( The word translated Utterance means words )

 

2. In regards to your statement " On Pentecost, they were speaking an existing foreign language whereas in Corinth they were speaking an unknown language. "

 

 You misunderstand the scripture. It's unknown to the speaker. It's the Holy Spirit that gives the utterance or words. The Holy Spirit of God doesn't need to learn the language, because God made language. If you haven't, do a study of the original Greek about the word usage in Acts 2:4. It says " they ( those gathered in the upper room ) spoke and the Holy Spirit gave the utterance". The people spoke, Holy Spirit gave the utterance or words. Speaking in tongues is a act of faith and cooperation between the person speaking and the Holy Spirit. The person gives the sound, the Holy Spirit gives the words or utterance.

 

As for the difference between the 2, there were people from all over the known world there at the time for the feast of Pentecost. The very people they were speaking to were the interpreters. In Corinth, they all spoke the same language, and nobody was interpreting what was being spoken by the Holy Spirit of God. For it is the Holy Spirit that Gives the utterance, or words. Speaking in tongues and prophecy are much the same when operated as the bible commands. One of the few differences is Speaking in tongues edifies ( builds up ) or charges up the speaker. Prophecy does not.

[Knowingtruth]

My response in bold italics

 

 

In fact, Paul prefers the same person to interpret. I wonder, where is the need for that to pray in an unknown tongue to start with and then interpret?

 

I think you are equating what happened on Pentecost was the same as what was happenings in Corinth. They are totally different. On Pentecost, they were speaking an existing foreign language whereas in Corinth they were speaking an unknown language.

 

1. I answered this first question. You pray to interpret that you might understand what the Holy Spirit within you was praying. For it is the Holy Spirit that gives the utterance or words( The word translated Utterance means words )

 

^{Sorry, there is no Bible support to indicate that the Holy Spirit is uttering through a person in Corinth. That happened in the book of Acts. It is the person's spirit in Corinth.}

 

^{1 Corinthians 14}

^{2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.}

^{14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.}

 

 

 

2. In regards to your statement " On Pentecost, they were speaking an existing foreign language whereas in Corinth they were speaking an unknown language. "

 

 You misunderstand the scripture. It's unknown to the speaker. It's the Holy Spirit that gives the utterance or words. The Holy Spirit of God doesn't need to learn the language, because God made language. If you haven't, do a study of the original Greek about the word usage in Acts 2:4. It says " they ( those gathered in the upper room ) spoke and the Holy Spirit gave the utterance". The people spoke, Holy Spirit gave the utterance or words. Speaking in tongues is a act of faith and cooperation between the person speaking and the Holy Spirit. The person gives the sound, the Holy Spirit gives the words or utterance.

 

I agree that it was unknown to speaker on both occasions. Nevertheless, in Acts it was understood by people present without an interpreter because it was the Holy Spirit that was giving utterance in many known languages! When the Holy Spirit speaks, no one has control over the speech. On Pentecost, people were speaking without understanding what was happening. There was no act faith involved there because it was happening for the first time.

 

 

 

As for the difference between the 2, there were people from all over the known world there at the time for the feast of Pentecost. The very people they were speaking to were the interpreters. In Corinth, they all spoke the same language, and nobody was interpreting what was being spoken by the Holy Spirit of God. For it is the Holy Spirit that Gives the utterance, or words. Speaking in tongues and prophecy are much the same when operated as the bible commands. One of the few differences is Speaking in tongues edifies ( builds up ) or charges up the speaker. Prophecy does not.

 

 

 

 

There was no question of interpreters because they were hearing in their own language. I do not think the different sounds they were making happened to be the same language in Corinth! Prophesying is totally different because it was given in the language understood by the congregation and no interpretation is required. So speaking in tongue in Corinthian way may charge a person but prophecy charges everybody including the speaker.

Edited August 16, 2013 by GoldenEagle
<<< to differentiate posts... >>>

[Sevenseas]

 

 

 

At the same time, if the gift of speaking in tongues were active in the church today, it would be performed in agreement with Scripture. It would be a real and intelligible language (1 Corinthians 14:10). It would be for the purpose of communicating God's Word with a person of another language (Acts 2:6-12). It would be in agreement with the command God gave through the apostle Paul, “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God” (1 Corinthians 14:27-28). It would also be in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:33, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”

 

 

To summarise as I see it, the phenomenon that was only local in Corinth  ceased subsequently for thousands of years.

 

That is the way I see it.It is no longer useful today.

 

 

Unless of course you actually DO practice the gifts of the Spirit of God in which case, they are ALL very useful including the one mentionned in the op.

[Sevenseas]

 

 

 

 

At the same time, if the gift of speaking in tongues were active in the church today, it would be performed in agreement with Scripture. It would be a real and intelligible language (1 Corinthians 14:10). It would be for the purpose of communicating God's Word with a person of another language (Acts 2:6-12). It would be in agreement with the command God gave through the apostle Paul, “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God” (1 Corinthians 14:27-28). It would also be in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:33, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”

 

 

To summarise as I see it, the phenomenon that was only local in Corinth  ceased subsequently for thousands of years.

 

That is the way I see it.It is no longer useful today.

 

 

When God has given a great gift of speaking intelligently distinguishing us from animals where is the question of speaking in an unknown language?

 

 

I advise you should tread lightly. No need to insult those who think or believe differently than you.

 

Respectfully, but in all seriousness.

Edited August 16, 2013 by GoldenEagle
<<< Edited response in red based on edited quote. >>>