Speaking in Tongues Volume 4...

D28guy said: TamorineLady,

Just saw your post.

Great minds think alike, do they not?

(or would that be..."by the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, etc")

Grace and peace,

Mike

********************************

Or, In one accord!!

Whatever way you say it, I think we are on a roll!!

Peace,

Tam

 

hillclimber,

You said, 'Why would God not give the gift of tongues to missionerys today if they were legitimate? I know of not a single missionery in the world that doesn't have to know/learn the language of the people he'll serve. Not one, and no one else on this board does either.'

.

You said, 'Tongues left with all the other sign gifts early in 1st century. These gifts were signs to Israel.'

.

 

I guess you speak at least 3500 languages fluently and are a grammarian of each of these 3500 or more languages and so you would know!!

 

.

You said, 'Tongues left with all the other sign gifts early in 1st century. These gifts were signs to Israel.'

. </font>[/QUOTE]Please sir, I mean no disrespect to you, especially in light of your years of study and understandings. But you are simply wrong, and DHK's posts on this matter have been thorough and well argued, and you simply have choosen not to believe them. Sometimes we, as believers embrace a perceived truth that we refuse to let go of in spite of real truths coming out. This argument for tongues is one such untruth.

 

Hillclimber. There is no need to talk "down" to people! We are ALL intelligent adults here, and what you believe is not what we believe. No need to try to demean us by acting superior to us.

You are simply misinformed. By your own admission, you said;Sometimes we, as believers embrace a perceived truth that we refuse to let go of in spite of real truths coming out. This argument for tongues is one such untruth.

Your argument AGAINST tongues is the untruth spoken here.

Peace,

Tam

 

Then I invite you to answer the post directed to D28guy, near the top of page 5 which starts with:

Neither D28guy, Ray, yourself, nor anyone else has addressed these points in a Scriptural way.
DHK

 

I was trying carefully and tactfully to respectfully disagree with Ray, and to point out his misunderstanding. I would not presume to talk down to him. I do not place my ego or id above anyone else. I do place a high value on things I've learned to be truths over these many years and refuse to allow them to be abused by non-contextual, and faulty Biblical arguments. And of course you are free to make the same arguments for your positions. I've read DHK's arguments and find them in alignment with my understandings.

If you place my writings in such regard that I seem "above" or enlightened, so be it, as that is your problem and not mine.

And if you believe tongues are for today, why not demand that any/every missionary possess the "gift of tongues" or they cannot be fully equipped for the mission field. It sure would save a ton of educational expense. But there is not a single missionary anywhere that hasn't had to study a language foreign to them for their ministry, if required.

And babbling is not a heavenly, ghostly, angelic, or elvin, etc. tongue. It is incoherent babble, and probably demonic in nature. And it keeps otherwise normal believers from growing in Christ.

Sorry, I have to leave for LA now.

 

The language theory of 3,500 alleged 'tongues' is at the opposite pole as to Biblical theology. By this standard a person would know more languages, both in understand them and 'interpreting' them even more than the former Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

No offense intended, but this view is below the level of a person with a 60 I.Q. It just is not near the realm of human reasoning, sensibility and good reasoning.

 

I guess you speak at least 3500 languages fluently and are a grammarian of each of these 3500 or more languages and so you would know!! </font>[/QUOTE]No but all have been proved fakery. It seems that tongues today is always spoken in one of the 3500 that no one can find. Yeah Okay.

 

Ray this from a man who has added to the scriptures by saying the tongues in acts was an unkown or heavenly language when all else pts too the fact that they heard in thier own language. No ands, ifs, or buts about it Ray, there is no way to pull that out of that text of acts.
Trust me, from you, absolutely no offense taken.

Tim

 

When people came away from the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost the glossalia that they formed into sounds was heard by all nations represented and each understood the Gospel clearly no matter which nation them came from to visit Jerusalem.

 

Neither D28guy, Ray, yourself, nor anyone else has addressed these points in a Scriptural way.
DHK

We have answered you, over and over and over again. The problem is that you pay no attention. You make no effort to see it as the bible presents it. It is very simple to see, but you refuse to use your brain to think about it. Ya'll won't even let the Holy Spirit interpret it for you.

Instead you all would rather rely on commentaries and books written by others, so your theology is not something you learned from God, but from anorher man.

Nothing wrong with education, but some go overboard with it.

So there's no use giving you scripture because you won't look at it the way it is presented.

Peace,

Tam

 

Tam,

As you noticed I listed each verse as to 'tongues' and the 'interpretation of tongues' on page 6 and these people simply ignore the verses. The Holy Spirit is not their Teacher; they are learning from flawed theories that would not make sense even by a sinner. They would see the huge holes in their theology if you give them the benefit of the doubt. I personally, do not see their ideas as even viable.

 

Lets use the bible here............they each understood in their own language! Acts 2:6. Do tongues people even read this verse?!
Word glwvssai...verses 6 and 7 show that EACH ONE HEARD THEM SPEAKING IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE. Context shows an understandable language.

 

I haven't seen a Scriptural answer yet. Every point I listed you cannot refute. You only offer experience, not Scripture. And when you do offer Scripture it is taken out of context. The Bible doesn't contradict itself.

When theology is founded on experience, you are right--I pay no attention. That is the wrong hermeneutic. It is like saying:
I speak in tongues therefore it is Biblical. And that is the basis of most Charismatic theology. Their experience outweighs the Word of God. The Vineyard Church, in which some of its members "roar like lions, hiss like snakes, bark like dogs" believe it is of the Holy Spirit. Why? They have had "the experience." Because they have had the experience it must be of God. Their theology is based on experience and not on the Scriptures. Show me from the Bible, not from your experience.

Is that your omniscient judgement call--one that you condemn others with because you claim to know who amnog is led by the Holy Spirit and who isn't?? Do you take the place of God?

Again you presume to know what we do and don't do. Is this a claim of your omniscience? What do you know of my personal life, what if any commentaries I use, how much time I spend with God, etc. You are very presumptuous and arrogant to take upon yourself the knowledge that God alone has.
But when one is desperate for knowledge and can't answer the questions of them, what else is there to resort to but defamation and personal attack??

And some would do good to have one.

Like I said, Charismatics rely on experience, rather than Scripture, and thus are unable to defend their position.
DHK

 

timtoolman,

You said, 'Lets use the bible here............they each understood in their own language! Acts 2:6. Do tongues people even read this verse?!
Word glwvssai...verses 6 and 7 show that EACH ONE HEARD THEM SPEAKING IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE. Context shows an understandable language.'

 

Ray...

The text does not say that only "one tongue" was spoken and each one heard them speaking in his own language. The text only addresses the fact that the multitudes were amazed and astonished, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear each of us in his own native language?...(Acts 2:7-8). The text does not say if only one or many different tongues (languages) were spoken. However, from the context it seems more likely than not that the disciples spoke in the many different languages mentioned in the Scripture.

 

I would tend to agree, there were many different languages that the apostles were speaking.