Speaking in Tongues Volume 3...

Timtoolman,

You said, '. . . healing services. . . .'

.

 

We do that at our church Ray, just don't have healing services and a healer who heals all. I do think that God heals today and God may even grant someone, a missionary for example, the gift of tongues but what is going on today is so far from scripture.
Let me add Ray that I disagree with you on much of the charasmatic movement but I respect you from your posts on here as a well read and well studied person of the scriptures. This is one subject I settled (tongues) long ago when I was a youth and knew very little. I have answered all the questions and will do so for you if you wish. but I tell you unless you can come up with some knew revelatioin or approach that many of my co-worker (alot of tongues people) then you are wasteing both our time. But the choice is yours.

 

I don't think it is a waste of time to try to help people become aware of all that God has for them!!

Selah,

Tam

 

I agree Tamborine lady, just that on this subject I settled long ago and never looked back. It is too clear too me. So it is not a matter of me not wanting all that God has for me but do you or Ray have anything to offer that is from God. On the matter of tongues. I can find nothing that I lack or will not recieve by not speaking in tongues. I am willing to talk to you or him about it though.

 

For students of the N.T. it must be strange when people claim that 'tongues' is an earthly, national language when all of the passages using the word 'tongues' is the base word, 'glossa' where theologians get the word, Glossalia. (spelling).

Dr. James Strong explains thus: uncertain tongue, one naturally unacquired meaning not a national language. It is a special language with which to speak to the Lord God.

From I Corinthians chapter 12:10 through
I Corinthians 14:18 God uses the word 'glossa'. In this verse 10 the Greek word is 'glossown.'

In 14:21 the word is 'heteroglossos.

In 14:22, 23 & 39 God speaking through the Apostle Paul again goes back to the word, 'glossa'.

There are few Elders/Pastors and especially laity who have taken time to study what the Greek language has to say along with it's meaning.

This is simple. The phenemonon of 'speaking in tongues' is not the language from a far away country, except the language of Heaven. Thus, Glossalia is well within Biblical exegesis and absolutely is not a nationalistic, human language.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

Some quickly speak of a misuse of 'tongues.' What about Baptist's and other Christians who abuse Jesus' grace and their eternal security?

Hey, now I am preaching the truth. Do I hear an Amen?

 

It is sometimes claimed, though, that whereas the “tongues” of Acts 2 were ordinary human languages, elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 1 Corinthians 14) “tongues” were ecstatic utterances, that is, mysterious sounds, unknown to anyone except to the speaker and God. The evidence, however, from the Corinthian context demonstrates otherwise. Consider the following points with reference to the data in 1 Corinthians 14.


The “tongue” of this context was a gift that provided edification (v. 4) and instruction (v. 19). Mere inarticulate sounds do not.

In a church assembly composed of various nationalities, a Christian was forbidden to use his tongue-gift before an alien audience – unless someone was present who could “interpret.” (vv. 5, 13, 27-28). The Greek word for interpret is diermeneuo, which normally means to translate from one language to another (see Cesla Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Peabody, MA, 1994, Vol I, p. 312). Compare Acts 9:36, where the name “Tabitha” is translated as “Dorcus” – the former being an Aramaic name, the latter the Greek version.

Paul says that if one speaks in a “tongue,” and others do not understand the language, the speaker would sound like a “barbarian” (v. 11). This term signifies a one who speaks a “foreign tongue” (F.W. Danker, et al., Greek-English of the New Testament, Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000, p. 166; see also Acts 28:2). This is another indication that human languages are in view.

The expression “strange tongues” (v. 21), is taken from Isaiah 28:11, where the reference is to the language of the Assyrians (a nation that would invade Israel). This use by Paul further demonstrates the nature of “tongues” in the Corinthian context.

Paul gave instructions regulating one who possessed the gift of a “tongue.” If those within the church assembly did not understand the particular “tongue” he was able to speak, he either must use an interpreter, i.e., translator (see above), if one was available, or else he was to remain silent (vv. 27-28). Those who claim to “speak in tongues” today jabber on – irrespective of the composition of the audience. Their practice does not conform to the New Testament standard.

AND

It follows that on the day of Pentecost there was a clear need for this manifestation: everyone was from a different land and spoke a different language. However, everyone understood. This clearly implies that speaking in tongues is not meaningless babbling, but readily understood speech and language.

While on the day of Pentecost there was a need, due to varying languages, in the case of a group of people who all speak and understand the same language, what would be the purpose of tongues? In Scripture we do not find other indications or references to the apostles speaking in tongues, other than on the day of Pentecost. Perhaps it was because no such need had made itself evident.

It is only my personal opinion, but I think the Orthodox Church would say that "regularly scheduled" speaking in tongue sessions conducted by individuals who speak the same language somehow miss the point. For example, it seems inconceivable to say, "Welcome to our mid-week prayer service. From 7:00 until 7:30 we will pray and sing hymns, and then we will speak in tongues."
If everyone speaks the same language, what is being revealed? If what is uttered is not intelligible to the hearers, what is being communicated?

If it is a way of showing who in a congregation is filled with the Holy Spirit and who isn't, it constitutes heresy, for the Holy Spirit is everywhere present and fills all things, including those individuals who have been created in God's image and likeness yet who reject the very notion. Scripture is very clear that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are never to become sources of personal pride.

And

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/char/biblical.htm

 

Tim, since you have your mind made up and are happy with it, why don't you go away and leave those of us who have the truth FOR US alone.

Bye,

Tam

 

Well Tam I think others should have the same chance as me to see really how hard people are trying to make this tongues what it isn't.
I got a question for you if you don't mind. What does your haveing tongues profit you that I am losing out on? Scripture to back up please.

 

Timtoolman,

A sign that a person does not know the truth is that you ignored totally the Greek words, as noted in I Corinthians 12 and 14.

Yes, the 'tongues' is glossalia (the Greek word} and that by itself is of no value as you too have said. But when this glossalia happens, and some Christian interprets the tongue (the interpretation of tongues) is what makes it a edifying experience coming straight from our Lord.

The 'interpretation of tongues' never adds new Christian doctrine, but it sure does emphasize Christian truth and especially meets the needs of those in the congregation.

In Acts 'tongues' were evident and those who preached were understood by many different languages and national people who were in Jerusalem for the holy days. This was one 'tongue' that everyone understood.

I agree with you that 'speaking in tongues' is not a sign that anyone is filled with or as some say 'baptized in the Holy Spirit.'

Personally, being filled with the Spirit requires of all Christians being totally obedient to the Lord and loving Him not merely by words but in deeds.

 

I Have not taken greek but I have looked this over long time ago Ray. Your interptation of glossa is different from most scholars that I know. Now I have to trust someone and using logic and seeing how inconsistant you and tongues people that I know are I find that your definatino is not correct. I will demonstrate from your post.

THis was one of my charges. What does tongues do for me that I cannot get from God's word and worship. If this is the only way to be edified then why is not tongues for everyone. See I as I type I find myseld confounded by the ignorance of it all. We are not even talking about the same thing. I am saying it is a known lang. Period!

QUOTE]Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
The 'interpretation of tongues' never adds new Christian doctrine, but it sure does emphasize Christian truth and especially meets the needs of those in the congregation.][/QUOTE]
Here is the charge i had earlier. What does it do, your jibberish tongues? It is nothing new. Can I not pick up God's word and find the truth. Is not God's word good enough that I need to seek confirmation of it from other men. Or even that God needs to confirm it through people cause His word is not good enough. See I have the truth, it is called the Bible. That is my truth not some emotional experience. And is not speaking in tongues a sign for the UNBELIEVER?! You do not use scripture properly by claiming it is for the congregation. Actually it is saying the opposite. cor 14:4

Now here it appears ;you are trying to make it sound like there was one language spoken and all were like interpters. However the context bears out that there were devout men of every nation and they heard in their OWN language. Not there was one tonge spoken and they understood it. You will never be able to honestly back that stance if that is what you are saying. Pt. is this was not a prayer language, angel or some jibberish but known national languages.

I agree being filled requires christians being obedient to the word. I know many spirit filled men in the Bible and through history that never spoke in tongues.
And Ray you have totally ignored my last post. No answers just telling me I do not have the truth because I did not address you issue on the greek. You found someone that suites your theology. That is fine. But it still doesn't fit Ray. I can go and qoute scholars who claim it is a KNOWN language and it will not leave any contradictions in scripture. I can grather from "divers kinds of languages, that is I spoke with the tongues of all men," and manyh other key phrases that the issue was not to speak unless someone interpts for you. Therefore edifing all the body. It is wrong and selfish or un-loving to speak in a congregation when those around you do not know what your saying.

[ January 04, 2006, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: Timtoolman ]

 

Actually if you had read the link you would have seen ;your answer to your greek. Seems not all see it like your guy Strong.

other tongues (Acts 2:4), heterais glossai -- that is, Other than their native tongues.

own language (Acts 2:6, &c.), tei idiai dialektoi -- that is,

Locative case. Each one could understand his own language when he heard that. Every one that came heard somebody speaking in his native tongue. (Ibid, 23.)


tongues (various locations), glossa -- that is,

the language used by a particular people in distinction from that of other nations: Acts ii.11...; new tongues which the speaker has not learned previously, Mk. xvi. 17... 1 Co. xii. 10...; to speak with tongues; this, as appears from 1 Co. xiv. 7 sqq., is the gift of men who, rapt in an ecstasy and no longer quite masters of their own reason and consciousness, pour forth their glowing spiritual emotions in strange utterances, rugged, dark, disconnected, quite unfitted to instruct or to influence the minds of others: Acts x. 46; xix. 6; 1 Cor xii. 30; xiii.1; xiv. 2, 4-6, 13, 18, 23, 27, 39... (J.H. Thayer, The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, 118.)

divers kinds of tongues (1 Cor. 12:10), gene glosson -- that is,

No word for "divers" in the Greek. There has arisen a great deal of confusion concerning the gift of tongues as found in Corinth. They prided themselves chiefly on this gift which had become a source of confusion and disorder. There were varieties (kinds, gene) in this gift, but the gift was essentially an ecstatic utterance of highly wrought emotion that edified the speaker(#14:4) and was intelligible to God (14:2,28). It was not always true that the speaker in tongues could make clear what he had said to those who did not know the tongue (14:13): It was not mere gibberish or jargon like the modern "tongues," but in a real language that could be understood by one familiar with that tongue as was seen on the great Day of Pentecost when people who spoke different languages were present. In Corinth, where no such variety of people existed, it required an interpreter to explain the tongue to those who knew it not. Hence Paul placed this gift lowest of all. It created wonder, but did little real good. This is the error of the Irvingites and others who have tried to reproduce this early gift of the Holy Spirit which was clearly for a special emergency and which was not designed to help spread the gospel among men. See on Acts 2:13-21; 10:44-46; 19:6. (Robertson, IV.170.)

interpretation of tongues (1 Cor. 12:10), hermeneia glosson -- that is,

Old word, here only and 14:26 in N.T., from hermeneuo from Hermes (the god of speech). Cf. on diermeneuo in Luke 24:27; Acts 9:36. In case there was no one present who understood the particular tongue it required a special gift of the Spirit to some one to interpret it if any one was to receive benefit from it. (Ibid.)

speak with the tongues (1 Cor. 13:1), tais glossais -- that is,

Instrumental case. Mentioned first because really least and because the Corinthians put undue emphasis on this gift. (Robertson, IV.177.)

all spake with tongues (1 Cor. 14:5) -- that is,

Translate, "Now I wish you all to speak with tongues (so far am I from thus speaking through having any objection to tongues), but rather IN ORDER THAT (as my ulterior and higher wish for you) ye should prophesy." Tongues must therefore mean languages, not ecstatic, unintelligible rhapsodie (as NEANDER fancied): for Paul could never "wish" for the latter in their behalf. (Jameson/Fausset/Brown, III.Part 3.323. Eerdmans.)

Hastings points out that "It is significant that the Pauline notices of 'tongue-speech' are concerned only with the Corinthian Church." Mystical, ecstatic, even demonic utterances in supposed communication with the gods were not uncommon in Corinth. Ecstatic utterances had invaded the church from the pagan worship so prevalent in the city (1 Cor. 14:2, 4, 13, 14, 19, 26, 27, including all the verses having unknown added by the translators). 1 Cor. 14:9 refers to the physical tongue of man; 1 Cor 14:23, plural with a plural pronoun, refers to the Corinthian ecstatic utterances. Observe that chapter 14 contains a mixture of the word tongues: vv. 2, 4, 13, 19, 26 & 27, pagan ecstatic utterances; vv. 5, 6, 18 & 22, actual ethnic languages. (Encyclopaedia, III.371a; The Pulpit Commentary, XIX.397; The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, by Spiros Zodhiates, 1436, 1438.)

Therefore, Paul says that he desires that they would indeed be able to supernaturally speak with other ethnic languages as he can, but on the other hand, he is soundly renouncing and rebuking the ecstatic utterances which were actually taking place in this church.

The rest is great too. In your search for truth you ought to read it.

 

Timtoolman,

You said, 'Ecstatic utterances had invaded the church from the pagan worship so prevalent in the city.'

 

Oh bother!!

1 Cor 14-38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

Over and out

Tam

 

Timtoolman,

I have gone through the system. My Greek professor in Bible College, though he read his devotions from the Bible in Greek, would not admit that the Greek word in I John 3:9 was 'poiea' meaning practice and not 'commit' and is in the present active tense. In order to keep his ultra-Arminian theology he was saying that if a Christian commits one wilful sin, he or she would lose his or her eternal salvation. Why? Because he refused to follow the word--meaning practice.

You can give me many Greek scholars and 90 some % of those men will not go against their own denominational views. Why? If they did they would be censured by the denominational leaders and eventually kicked out of that denomination. Not many are willing to let the Greek language speak for itself. Church tradition is not always a good thing.

My guess is most Baptist schools will not go along with the Greek word, 'glossia' or Glossalia, because they would have to adjust their thinking and welcome the Presence of the Spirit in the way that He desires people to be open to His ministrations.

What was true of my Greek professor may be also true of your instructors in the faith some years ago.

 

Paul did allow tongues in corporate worship with an interpretation. If no interpreter then he did not allow it.

The purpose of Paul's writing was to put tongues in it s proper perspective and put a lid on it in public worhsip so that al are edified.

 

Tam, excuse me but it really is hard to have a dialouge with y9ou if you don't read my post. I said unless (RIGHT SMACK ABOVE ;your post)there be an interptor. My pt was that it seems strange that one: the HS would lead someone to talk in tonuges without an interptor and two: that Paul would even make a rule to silence the HS no matter what the situtation was.

 

Paul did allow tongues in corporate worship with an interpretation. If no interpreter then he did not allow it.

The purpose of Paul's writing was to put tongues in it s proper perspective and put a lid on it in public worhsip so that al are edified. </font>[/QUOTE]Same to youu gb if you are not going to read my post then don't bother responding. See my post to Tam.

And why is everyone ignoring all the rest of inconsistances I have posted in tongues. There must be 50 inconsistancies in my last 4 post that no one has bothered to answer.
Then the one you do pick comes from not actually listening or reading my post.