ECT WHY GLOSSA /TONGUES ARE NOT FOR TODAY !!

[jsjohnnt]

Tongues were for a sign.

1 Corinthians 14:22 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.

The Jews required a sign.

1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

There are no more Jews (Hosea 1:9 KJV, Acts 28:17-31 KJV).

There is no more need for tongues. They have ceased (1 Corinthians 13:8 KJV).

just the facts

and yet Paul spoke in tongues and used them in his devotions. To Paul, they were not used as a sign, but as a function of worship. He did not translate them, nor did he use them in public ministry as far as we know. There are, therefore, two biblical uses for tongues - one was evangelical, and the other was for the benefit of our spirit (I Cor 14:13ff). You really should not use scripture to defeat scripture.

 

[God's Truth]

I spoke them silently. Yes, there was about 20 people within ear shot. They were praising God "as God made happen", as the situation became intense. I then also praised God with them. For about 30 minutes tongues and praise.
The situation resolved itself. I still use tongues. The Holy language that Holy Spirit gifted me with. I speak them silently as Holy Spirit moves me to speak them. I do not understand the language. God does.

You say you do not understand what you are saying. Nowadays tongue speakers, while trying to copy cat the real tongue speaking as is in the Bible, they discount completely that if they do not interpret what they say, even when praying in tongues to God only...then their mind is fruitless. Surely, a fruitless mind is not something one should be aiming for in personal prayer times.

 

[jsjohnnt]

You say you do not understand what you are saying. Nowadays tongue speakers, while trying to copy cat the real tongue speaking as is in the Bible, they discount completely that if they do not interpret what they say, even when praying in tongues to God only...then their mind is fruitless. Surely, a fruitless mind is not something one should be aiming for in personal prayer times.

How on earth do you know what the original tongues sounded like?

 

[rougueone]

You say you do not understand what you are saying. Nowadays tongue speakers, while trying to copy cat the real tongue speaking as is in the Bible, they discount completely that if they do not interpret what they say, even when praying in tongues to God only...then their mind is fruitless. Surely, a fruitless mind is not something one should be aiming for in personal prayer times.

I do not speak for others. " Nowadays tongue speakers, while trying to copy cat the real tongue speaking as is in the Bible "...

I am aware of the damage some particular " churches" have caused to this issue. But I am not them. I shared my experiences. Hoping to edify you and others who may of been on the fence as I was about tongues.

 

[rougueone]

How on earth do you know what the original tongues sounded like?

Good insight.

 

[rougueone]

and yet Paul spoke in tongues and used them in his devotions. To Paul, they were not used as a sign, but as a function of worship. He did not translate them, nor did he use them in public ministry as far as we know. There are, therefore, two biblical uses for tongues - one was evangelical, and the other was for the benefit of our spirit (I Cor 14:13ff). You really should not use scripture to defeat scripture.

Paul spoke in tongues and used them in his devotions. To Paul, they were not used as a sign, but as a function of worship. He did not translate them, nor did he use them in public ministry as far as we know. There are, therefore, two biblical uses for tongues - one was evangelical, and the other was for the benefit of our spirit (I Cor 14:13ff).
AMEN .

 

[God's Truth]

How on earth do you know what the original tongues sounded like?

That question does not even pertain to what I said.

Do you think the nowadays tongue speakers sound like the people in the Bible? You are just proving my point.

 

[God's Truth]

I do not speak for others. " Nowadays tongue speakers, while trying to copy cat the real tongue speaking as is in the Bible "...

I am aware of the damage some particular " churches" have caused to this issue. But I am not them. I shared my experiences. Hoping to edify you and others who may of been on the fence as I was about tongues.

All who claim to speak in tongues are doing damage. Do you really think you can edify people with false tongue speaking? I want to warn those who are not sure, and also warn those who feel sure.

You discount the scriptures that say if you do not interpret what you are saying, then your MIND IS FRUITLESS.

Surely, a fruitless mind is not something one should be aiming for in personal prayer times.

 

[God's Truth]

Paul spoke in tongues and used them in his devotions. To Paul, they were not used as a sign, but as a function of worship. He did not translate them, nor did he use them in public ministry as far as we know. There are, therefore, two biblical uses for tongues - one was evangelical, and the other was for the benefit of our spirit (I Cor 14:13ff).
AMEN .

You even reference the scriptures where Paul says to interpret what you are saying, or your mind is fruitless; yet you go on as if you think Paul is saying a fruitless mind is good.

 

[jsjohnnt]

That question does not even pertain to what I said.

Do you think the nowadays tongue speakers sound like the people in the Bible? You are just proving my point.

Neither of us know what the original tongues sounded like. That is what I am saying. Good grief.

 

[jsjohnnt]

Paul spoke in tongues and used them in his devotions. To Paul, they were not used as a sign, but as a function of worship. He did not translate them, nor did he use them in public ministry as far as we know. There are, therefore, two biblical uses for tongues - one was evangelical, and the other was for the benefit of our spirit (I Cor 14:13ff).
AMEN .

Thank you very much.

 

[jsjohnnt]

Verb tense has nothing to do with the message of I Cor 13:8. Rather, it is one's understanding of "when that which is perfect is come . . ." (v10). In a literal translation, the text says, "when that which is complete (or mature) is come," that will be the end of spiritual teaching (prophesy), tongues and, by association, all spiritual gifts (which would include the gifts of giving, the figt of knowledge, the gift of faith (Romans 12). Obviously, that time has not yet come.

FYI: I am going to give you a few references as to verb tense meaning. I do not believe you got your GK knowledge in a classroom, and that may be the reason for our disagreement. I will try to convince, in terms of scholarship, that verb tense in the gk, has very little to do with time. Present tense verbs really simply express "action with no end in sight." That action might be "eternal," or not. Again, the aorist is not about time at all, rather it frames "completed action." It may picture completed action that has no effect after the fact (Bill ran into a tree and died) or, completed action that has a lasting and eternal effect, through present time (Christ died on the cross for all of mankind). But I will gather up some references, and you can decide for yourself . . . . . . . . . or you can give me references that disprove what I have just said. Good luck with that.

For Dan P: This has been a good refresher for me. I took greek in seminary back in 1968-1971. Been a while. The following is taken from my Dana and Mantey greek grammar. I have several grammar, and they all say essentially, the same thing.

“No element of the Greek language is of more importance to the student of the New Testament than the matter of tense. (p176). The chief function of a Greek tense is thus not to denote time, but progress.”

“There are, therefore, thre fundamental tenses in Greek: the present, representing continuous action; the perfect , representing completed action; and the aorist representing indefinite action. These three tenses were first developed irrespective of time

I was wrong in saying that the aorist represented complete action. I was close.

Dana and Mantey have this to say about the aorist: “The aorist signifies nothing as to completeness, but simply presents the action as attained. “ (p. 193). Moulton (a grammar quoted in D and M) tells us that the aorist denotes “an event as a single whole, without regarding the time taken in its accomplishment.” AT Robertson tells us that the aorist as treating the act as a single whole irrespective of the parts of time involved.”

Summary: aorist has nothing to do with time, in and of itself and frames attained action without regard to whether that action is complete, in a final sense.

I know this is not required reading, but since Dan P got into verb tenses, and was giving out information that was wildly in error. I thought this necessary.

 

[God's Truth]

Neither of us know what the original tongues sounded like. That is what I am saying. Good grief.

You prove your so called tongue speaking is gibberish. You do not even want to say it is what real tongues sounds like! Then what do those who claim they are speaking in tongues think they sound like if not like real tongues?

 

[God's Truth]

The believers in the Bible times who spoke in tongues, they spoke in tongues supernaturally. The believers who supposedly speak in tongues nowadays, they speak gibberish and believe God turns their gibberish into supernatural language, and that is a false doctrine.

 

[jsjohnnt]

You prove your so called tongue speaking is gibberish. You do not even want to say it is what real tongues sounds like! Then what do those who claim they are speaking in tongues think they sound like if not like real tongues?

And you know what real tongues sound like? Enlighten us all. Please. And are these earthly languages or spiritual. And if earthly, guess the first church just had to hire a translator, right?

What is Paul's argument for not using their gift of tongues, in the Corinthian worship service? Because strangers would come in and think they were all mad . . . . . . . kind of like you, right now. In other words, outsiders coming into a Corinthian service of worship would have heard only "gibberish." They would have left that Corinthian service, saying things very similar to what your are saying on this thread. Almost exactly.

Your turn, Chief.

 

[God's Truth]

And you know what real tongues sound like? Enlighten us all.

Why is it so hard for you to understand? You said no one knows what the tongues in the Bible times sounded like. Then what do you think nowadays tongues are? Are you admitting they are fake?

Please. And are these earthly languages or spiritual. And if earthly, guess the first church just had to hire a translator, right?

The Bible says that angels are ministering spirits to those who will inherit salvation. The people of the earth are those who will inherit salvation. Therefore, the angels need to know all the languages of the people on earth!

So even if the biblical speaking in tongues did not sound like any earthly language, (as many nowadays tongue speakers claim it is not an earthly language), speaking in tongues was still heard and understood as different earthly foreign languages....by the foreigners themselves (see Acts 2:6 and 2:11).

Again, the language angels need to minister to us is with our earthly languages. Therefore, like the foreigners in the Bible who understood those speaking in tongues, in their native language, we too would need to understand in our language what the angels were saying to us. No unbelievers of foreign languages are hearing nowadays tongue speakers and coming to believe in Jesus because they hear the truth spoken in their language by those who never learned their language.

What is Paul's argument for not using their gift of tongues, in the Corinthian worship service? Because strangers would come in and think they were all mad . . . . . . . kind of like you, right now. In other words, outsiders coming into a Corinthian service of worship would have heard only "gibberish." They would have left that Corinthian service, saying things very similar to what your are saying on this thread. Almost exactly.

Your turn, Chief.

I have been in churches that claim to speak in tongues and they do not do what Paul says.

I do not think that nowadays tongue speakers are mad, because I know what they think they are doing.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

The believers in the Bible times who spoke in tongues, they spoke in tongues supernaturally. The believers who supposedly speak in tongues nowadays, they speak gibberish and believe God turns their gibberish into supernatural language, and that is a false doctrine.

You do not know all tongues speakers, so your claim is falsehood.

Paul said not to forbid speaking in tongues.

I suspect you dislike tongues speaking because you are very self willed.

You like to control everything others believe and you have never been filled with the Holy Spirit as the early church was.

LA

 

[jsjohnnt]

Why is it so hard for you to understand? You said no one knows what the tongues in the Bible times sounded like. Then what do you think nowadays tongues are? Are you admitting they are fake?

So even if the biblical speaking in tongues did not sound like any earthly language, (as many nowadays tongue speakers claim it is not an earthly language), speaking in tongues was still heard and understood as different earthly foreign languages....by the foreigners themselves (see Acts 2:6 and 2:11).

I do not think that nowadays tongue speakers are mad, because I know what they think they are doing.

You should not confuse Acts 2 with what Paul is talking about in the Corinthian letter. They are not the same.

Think about it, rather than being reactionary. In Acts two, is there any hint of the need for interpreters? No. Each man (as in "every" man) heard what was being preached in their own language. Did anyone think the Apostles were mad men, talking in tongues without an interpreter? No. What was edified, the mind or the spirit? The mind.

All of these considerations, have an opposite answer to them, if reading the Corinthian discussion of tongues.

Look, I used to believe exactly as you do. I ministered in Churches of Christ for 14 years, before leaving that fellowship. I worship with a very open minded, loving, Baptist church, now (and there are many such churches that do not fit this "loving" description). During my sojourn, after leaving the C of C . I worshiped with "charismatic" churches for ten years, and married my tongue speaking wife (didn't know she had this gift, at the time). I am ashamed to say that I preached the very things you believe, believing I was right.

I have attended many services in which tongues were featured, and, in those churches, the problems they have with with tongues are the very same problems the Corinthian church had. If the problems are the same, if Paul's comments and cautions work in the Charismatic Churches of today, why should any of conclude that the actual "tongues" event is different.

I still do not know what that first century experience was like, but I know the Pauline cautions work for all of "charismata," I know of these people's faith (keep in mind that I, myself, am not a tongues speaker) is as deeply felt as mine, they are as committed to the Lord as I am, if not more, and God blesses them in the very same way as he blesses me, in my Baptist-English speaking church. We serve the same Lord. And, since we are saved IN SPITE of ourselves, you included, all of us should be able to share in the fact that we are all prodigal sons of the Father.

 

[jsjohnnt]

You do not know all tongues speakers, so your claim is falsehood.

Paul said not to forbid speaking in tongues.

I suspect you dislike tongues speaking because you are very self willed.

You like to control everything others believe and you have never been filled with the Holy Spirit as the early church was.

LA

I am 70 years old in two weeks - baptised when I was 12, waaaaaay back in 1957. I have been a Christian longer than many of you all have been alive, and the observations, above, were true for me.

Indeed, I was afraid to "let go" in a worship service, sang with my hands in my pockets, fought back tears, and did my best to get out of the worship service without "making a fool out of myself." I am biker type but without the tattoos (I ride a vtx 1800 - and I ride year round - back to Sturgis, Denver, Seattle, San Diego etc, all from near-Fresno, California).

Without asking for it, I was filled with the Spirit back in 1997, as I was driving away for a very typical church service, in my Camaro. As I left the building and drove down a very long driveway out to the frontage road, I was completely overcome with emotion, uncontrollable emotion, and had to pull over immediately. The event lasted about 20 minutes and I was very much aware that "this is from God." No tongues, only tears that did not come from me. I mean, I was very unemotional when I got in my car to drive away from "morning worship," so it was not an emotionally caused experience. It just happened "out of the blue." And when it was over, I was left with this realization: "This is what it means to be filled with the Spirit." My uncontrollable tears were like a glass being filled to overflowing. A one time experience, but wonderful and unforgettable. It was God kicking my butt on the "surrender" issue. When I compare my experience with others, the description of our "events" are PRECISELY the same, except for the fact that I did not speak in tongues.

I will leave that with you. Know this: none of this was from Satan. How do I know? Many reasons, but this is the most profound, I think: My life, since that experience, has not served the "cause of Satan" at all. Of course, I remain a sinner, but my commitment to the Lord unwavering and undeniable.

 

[Puppet]

It is ironic that Charismatics, who consider themselves experts on the Holy Spirit, completely misunderstand the purpose of the Holy Spirit’s ministry.