Do all speak in tongues? Is it a sign for believers or unbelievers? Is it a spiritual language or the ability to speak human languages that one has not studied, in order to share the wonders of God?
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Speaking in tongues; actual languages or prayer language?
- Thread starter Asforme&myhouse
- Start date
I’m feeling feisty 
My vote is the latter FWIW
I can tell,I’m feeling feisty
I pray when lead by the Holy Spirit to pray in my spiritual language. I wont argue about it nor do I feel the need to defend it. It just is. But given time I can give you scripture if you insist.
I insist
FWIW, I agree with VV76. I don't see evidence for spontaneous "conlanging", and I see its original purpose on Pentecost was to speak to others in their own language, and the principle that there should be someone to interpret.
con-lang
(n) A portmataeu of "constructed language", used to refer to an artificially created language, such as Esperanto, Klingon, or Elvish.
(v) The process of creating a new conlang.
con-lang
(n) A portmataeu of "constructed language", used to refer to an artificially created language, such as Esperanto, Klingon, or Elvish.
(v) The process of creating a new conlang.
The context that we see it used in scripture seems to be that of reaching people who speak a different language. That is certainly the case during Pentecost. The verse that was always given to me to say it was something other than that is
1 Corinthians 13:1 KJV
[1] Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
However, this verse isn’t prescribing something different. It seems Paul is using a bit of hyperbole to make a point, and not a point about the gift of tongues.
When Paul speaks about its’ use in the ecclesia, it must be interpreted.
1 Corinthians 13:1 KJV
[1] Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
However, this verse isn’t prescribing something different. It seems Paul is using a bit of hyperbole to make a point, and not a point about the gift of tongues.
When Paul speaks about its’ use in the ecclesia, it must be interpreted.
I believe both kinds of tongues exist. An example of scripture speaking of the 'gibberish' tongue:
1COR14:1-5
Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 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. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy, and greater is he who prophecies than he who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
Sections that make it doubtful that this passage is speaking of the kind of tongues that are in other men's language that they may hear the gospel I took the liberty of changing to blue.
1COR14:1-5
Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 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. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy, and greater is he who prophecies than he who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
Sections that make it doubtful that this passage is speaking of the kind of tongues that are in other men's language that they may hear the gospel I took the liberty of changing to blue.
I grew up on a "Special" Pentecostal church that took up the serpent. People there were full of something but it wasn't the Holy Spirit. I saw them time and time again fake tongues. Someone would speak then another would open a bible and read from a note "translating" what was said. Usually it was two women but sometimes their husband's would get in. I thought that speaking in tongues was complete manure and became a Baptist. Later In life I was in Afganastan. I was there when a private I knew who was always tying to share the word with the locals started talking to a couple of men in english. Our translator was telling him that they only spoke Pashayi when they started understanding what was being said to them then they start asking questions in Pashayi and we understood them. Thats the only instance I can say for sure that I know speaking in tongues was genuine......yet.
Last edited:
After I get some sleep I will be sure to address this.I insist
Shalom and good night
I think you’re on to something there
That’s pretty cool!
C
Cap
Guest
I believe speaking in tongues is relevant and a minor gift of the Spirit. It's a sacred thing to me. Hard to define like Baptism of Fire. It's there if you want to see it. But, can be abused like anything else. I am not at all trying to force my belief on anyone, it's just what I have come to believe and I am good with that. I just wanted to share my opinion.
If toungues are a mystery language spoken to God, what is the point of speaking it in the assembly?
There is also little more to that context....
I haven't met a toungue speaking church that followed verse 34 either.
The closest scriptural description I’ve found to what is seen today is vain and profane babbling. It’s vain because it only edifies the actor and profane because it claims divine origin. The babbling part is pretty self evident
2 Tim 2:16. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
1 Tim 6:20. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
2 Tim 2:16. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
1 Tim 6:20. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Without an interpreter, the point of speaking tongues in the assembly is to alienate outsiders and make them question your sanity. So you'd think it'd be right up my alley, really.
Full disclosure, I edify myself in this way occasionally. Usually in situations where I don't know what else to say and I haven't done it in a while. It's not the most useful thing, but it's a shame to let dust collect on any tool.
While I'm not 100% convinced angelic languages aren't a legitimate thing, I must admit that this verse is exactly what has happened to a lot of tongue speaking churches. But are you sure this is talking about tongues as opposed to fables and the like?
Although to be fair, 99% of all American churches are increasing unto more ungodliness as well; but at least they don't appear to be worshiping demons either.
Nope. This is just the closest I’ve found to what I see
Why is this so difficult? Paul says it's a thing. He does it. He wishes we all did BUT IT'S NOT FOR THE CONGREGATION UNLESS IT'S ACCOMPANIED BY TWO INTERPRETATIONS. Nowhere in scripture is it linked to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (although it frequently accompanies it Scripture doesn't make that leap and neither can we) but it is definitely a thing. It appears to be one of the gifts of the spirit. And you can abuse it. Follow the rules people. They make perfect sense when you finally accept that they are in fact rules laid out for us to obey and not just ancient musings of philosophical hippies that we have to read like tea leaves or chicken guts.