Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,483,171 members, 5,622,986 topics. Date: Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 08:58 AM

I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? - Religion (11) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? (2959 Views)

Do People Who Speak In Tongues Fake It Or Understand It? / 7 Reasons Why Every Believer Should Speak In Tongues - Kenneth E Hagin / Daddy Freeze: "Speaking In Tongues In Nigerian Churches Is Fake” (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) ... (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) ... (19) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 12:50am On May 24
Myer:


QED.
I couldn't have said it better.

Permit me to mention hoopernikao.
This is how to read the meaning of scripture (exegesis) and not read your own meaning into scriptures.(eisegesis)

grin
Like I said, I won't divert this post by going that route. The focus of this thread is whether a believer should speak in tongues. Let's keep that. Because the route you are going has no defence in the Bible.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 12:51am On May 24
Myer:


Lol I see. Can you pleeeease expatiate on your meaning of context is key?

Paul here highlights the various spiritual gifts and clearly stated distinctly the tongues of men and angels.
If you read further you will see him list the various spiritual gifts while pointing to how Love is above all.

I have of course heard some still explain this away, which is why I was curious to hear yours.

This already changing the course of our discussion. You know me, I appreciate we stay on discussion. There is nothing in what you are trying to bring in this.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 1:07am On May 24
Myer:


Does doctrine change the meaning of what was written in the bible?

An account was given of the event that happened in Acts 2 where the promise of the Holy ghost was fulfilled and descended on the disciples. With it the signs followed as the prophecy of Joel came to pass and the spoke with new tongues.

Do you mean because it was not an epistle written by Paul, this book is irrelevant in understanding the gift of tongues?

At this point, I may need to digress and ask you a more important question. Are you a follower of Paul or Jesus Christ? Just checking oh.

You aren't still reading properly, that is why you are asking such questions you have been raising. Read well, patiently and carefully. You are rushing hence misquoting.

Doctrine which is teaching gives you knowledge hence leads to spiritual growth. No one can grow by seeing events or experience. Experience has it's place but doctrine is what put them in right perspectives. True spiritual maturity comes from teaching not experiences. Experiences is what make anyone come up today to say anything even when contrary to the teaching of the scriptures. We judge all events, experience with established teachings. So, all documented experiences must align to the teaching of the bible. The problem here is you. You are the one who is yet to understand Acts 2. And I have said it many times here 1 Cor 14 is an explanation of Acts 2. Acts 2 is not an explanation of 1 Cor 14.


So read this next thing I writing well.

You should not neglect book of Acts or Acts 2, it is scriptures and gives us the history, practices and patterns of the early church.

But what you must know is, Epistles are direct instructions not events to the Church. They are explanation of all the books of the Bible including the 4 gospels and Acts. It is in Epistles you can unravelled various mysteries and uncleared issues in the bible. The spirit spoke expressly and clearly in epistles for us to be able to grow well.

So, I must first understand what the Apostles taught and how they taught an issue in epistles before going to explain the events. Events are eye witnesses, which the spirit inspired the author to document. Epistles aren't eye witnesses but spirit words, teaching you directly.

So what you missed is this based on our discussion here

You can't use Acts to explain Epistles. You must use Epistles to explain Acts. That is, you must read Paul's epistles well on tongues as that is all we have as teaching in tongues. Then use it to explain events of Acts where you have practices of tongues.

I hope I am clear now? I don try for you o. cheesy
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 1:17am On May 24
Myer:


Why will you limit a discussion on tongues to only 1 Corinthians 14? Or to only Paul's teachings?

Like I have already answered you earlier in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost when the gift of tongues was first recorded in the scriptures, we see clearly that it was indeed a sign to unbelievers as they were each preached to in their various dialects. It is noteworthy that they understood the tongues without the need of an interpreter. Hence it was tongues of men.

Acts 2: 6-13?

13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

If I must add, some believed and were converted but still there were those who didn't believe.

I do hope this answers all your questions.

No you haven't. And yet you haven't understood tongues and you must.

There are key issues you deliberately left behind and that is what will help you see clearly in Acts 2. You haven't yet on 1 Cor 14.

I am not fixative on 1 Cor 14. I said we must understand how tongue is taught first to help you understand it's practices. You are putting the horse before the cart.

You are like a fellow who refused to be taught or study the teaching on piloting a plane but start shouting I can fly a plane because I saw it being practiced. You know what that will end to.


So, your conviction on 1 Cor 14 must be proper first.


1. That tongue is one and not two as taught in scriptures,.

2. That tongue is not human language and it was never taught by Paul as human language.

3. That for tongue to bless there must be interpretation or/and prophecy.

4. That tongues was taught regularly and must be practice always with interpretation and prophecy.

When you are clear on the above, you will see A ts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10, Acts 19 clearly

So, that should be our focus now.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 7:55am On May 24
hoopernikao:


You aren't still reading properly, that is why you are asking such questions you have been raising. Read well, patiently and carefully. You are rushing hence misquoting.

Doctrine which is teaching gives you knowledge hence leads to spiritual growth. No one can grow by seeing events or experience. Experience has it's place but doctrine is what put them in right perspectives. True spiritual maturity comes from teaching not experiences. Experiences is what make anyone come up today to say anything even when contrary to the teaching of the scriptures. We judge all events, experience with established teachings. So, all documented experiences must align to the teaching of the bible. The problem here is you. You are the one who is yet to understand Acts 2. And I have said it many times here 1 Cor 14 is an explanation of Acts 2. Acts 2 is not an explanation of 1 Cor 14.


So read this next thing I writing well.

You should not neglect book of Acts or Acts 2, it is scriptures and gives us the history, practices and patterns of the early church.

But what you must know is, Epistles are direct instructions not events to the Church. They are explanation of all the books of the Bible including the 4 gospels and Acts. It is in Epistles you can unravelled various mysteries and uncleared issues in the bible. The spirit spoke expressly and clearly in epistles for us to be able to grow well.

So, I must first understand what the Apostles taught and how they taught an issue in epistles before going to explain the events. Events are eye witnesses, which the spirit inspired the author to document. Epistles aren't eye witnesses but spirit words, teaching you directly.

So what you missed is this based on our discussion here

You can't use Acts to explain Epistles. You must use Epistles to explain Acts. That is, you must read Paul's epistles well on tongues as that is all we have as teaching in tongues. Then use it to explain events of Acts where you have practices of tongues.

I hope I am clear now? I don try for you o. cheesy

Who taught you that doctrine can't be learnt from written events?

Do you just like to make up these false claims or you actually learnt this in a school of theology?

Did you just discard all the books of the bible and left only Paul, John and Peter's epistles as doctrine?

Let me help you, maybe you might need to go and unlearn all you were taught in your school of theology.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

The book of Acts was written by Luke, who was inspired and given a perfect understanding to write the books he wrote. Luke 1:1-4
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 8:07am On May 24
hoopernikao:


No you haven't. And yet you haven't understood tongues and you must.

There are key issues you deliberately left behind and that is what will help you see clearly in Acts 2. You haven't yet on 1 Cor 14.

I am not fixative on 1 Cor 14. I said we must understand how tongue is taught first to help you understand it's practices. You are putting the horse before the cart.

You are like a fellow who refused to be taught or study the teaching on piloting a plane but start shouting I can fly a plane because I saw it being practiced. You know what that will end to.


So, your conviction on 1 Cor 14 must be proper first.


1. That tongue is one and not two as taught in scriptures,.

2. That tongue is not human language and it was never taught by Paul as human language.

3. That for tongue to bless there must be interpretation or/and prophecy.

4. That tongues was taught regularly and must be practice always with interpretation and prophecy.

When you are clear on the above, you will see A ts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10, Acts 19 clearly

So, that should be our focus now.

I think at this juncture you need some history lesson.

The first mention of tongues in the bible was where?

Did it refer to human language or unknown/angelic language?

Your answer to this question I hope would end this issue of 2 types of tongues.

Now to your number 4 point, it's not clear. Do you mean the disciples taught others how to speak in tongues?

If yes, please where in the bible was that written?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 8:33am On May 24
Bible > Commentaries > 1 Corinthians 13:1
◄ 1 Corinthians 13:1 ►

"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.
"

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers


"Tongues of men and of angels"
—The gift of tongues (see Notes on 1 Corinthians 14) is placed first as that most over-estimated at Corinth. It is useless without love. It would be impossible to define love, as it is impossible to define life; but the best conception of what St. Paul means by love can be found from the description which he subsequently gave of it.


Benson Commentary
1 Corinthians 13:1-3. "Though, &c."

— The apostle having observed in the last verse of the preceding chapter, (with which this chapter is closely connected,) that he would show them a more excellent way, that is, a way more wise, holy, and useful, than that of striving to excel each other in miraculous gifts, now proceeds to do this, directing them to pursue the divine grace of love to God and man, as of the highest excellence, and of absolute necessity.

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels"
— That is, all the languages which are spoken upon earth, and with the eloquence of an angel; and have not charity (i.e. Αγαπην) love; namely, the love of God shed abroad in my heart by the Holy Ghost given to me, and the love of all mankind for his sake;
I am become — Γεγονα, I am, or have been, before God; as sounding brass
— No better than the sounding instruments of brass used in the worship of some of the heathen gods; or a tinkling cymbal
— This was made of two pieces of hollow brass, which being struck together made a tinkling, but with very little variety of sound.

Some have thought that the apostle mentions the tongues of angels, because in the patriarchal ages angels often spake with men. But as they then spake in the language of men, their tongues, thus understood, are the same with the tongues of men.

And therefore by the tongues of angels, the apostle doubtless meant the methods, whatever they are, by which angels communicate their thoughts to each other, and which must be a much more excellent language than any that is spoken by men.


Barnes' Notes on the Bible

"Though I speak with the tongues of men"
- Though I should be able to speak all the languages which are spoken by people. To speak foreign languages was regarded then, as it is now, as a rare and valuable endowment; compare Virgil, Aeneas vi. 625ff.

The word "I" here is used in a popular sense, and the apostle designs to illustrate, as he often does, his idea by a reference to himself, which, it is evident, he wishes to be understood as applying to those whom he addressed.

It is evident that among the Corinthians the power of speaking a foreign language was regarded as a signally valuable endowment; and there can be no doubt that some of the leaders in that church valued themselves especially on it; see 1 Corinthians 14.

To correct this, and to show them that all this would be vain without love, and to induce them, therefore, to seek for love as a more valuable endowment, was the design of the apostle in this passage.

Of this verse Dr. Bloomfield, than whom, perhaps, there is no living man better qualified to give such an opinion, remarks, that "it would be difficult to find a finer passage than this in the writings of Demosthenes himself."

"And of angels"
- The language of angels; such as they speak. Were I endowed with the faculty of eloquence and persuasion which we attribute to them; and the power of speaking to any of the human family with the power which they have. The language of angels here seems to be used to denote the highest power of using language, or of the most elevated faculty of eloquence and speech.

It is evidently derived from the idea that the angels are "superior" in all respects to human beings; that they must have endowments in advance of all which man can have. It may possibly have reference to the idea that they must have some mode of communicating their ideas one to another, and that this dialect or mode must be far superior to that which is employed by man. Man is imperfect. All his modes of communication are defective. We attribute to the angels the idea of perfection; and the idea here is, that even though a man had a far higher faculty of speaking languages than would be included in the endowment of speaking all the languages of human beings as people speak them, and even had the higher and more perfect mode of utterance which the angels have, and yet were destitute of love, all would be nothing.

It is possible that Paul may have some allusion here to what he refers to in 2 Corinthians 12:4, where he says that when he was caught up into paradise, he heard unspeakable words which it was not possible for a man to utter. To this higher, purer language of heaven he may refer here by the language of the angels. It was not with him mere "conjecture" of what that language might be; it was language which he had been permitted himself to hear. Of that scene he would refain a most deep and tender recollection; and to that language he now refers, by saying that even that elevated language would be valueless to a creature if there were not love ...

... It is this love whose importance Paul, in this beautiful chapter, illustrates as being more valuable than the highest possible endowments without it. It is not necessary to suppose that anyone had these endowments, or had the power of speaking with the tongues of human beings and angels; or had the gift of prophecy, or had the highest degree of faith who had no love.

The apostle supposes a case; and says that if it were so, if all these were possessed without love, they would be comparatively valueless; or that love was a more valuable endowment than all the others would be without it.


Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

"speak with the tongues"
— with the eloquence which was so much admired at Corinth (for example, Apollos, Ac 18:24; compare 1 Co 1:12; 3:21, 22),
and with the command of various languages, which some at Corinth abused to purposes of mere ostentation (1 Co 14:2, &c.)

"of angels"
— higher than men, and therefore, it is to be supposed, speaking a more exalted language

For (saith the apostle)
though I speak, that is, if I could speak, or admit I did speak, with the tongues used in all the nations of the world, and with the tongues of angels; by which some understand the best and most excellent ways of expressing ourselves.

Angels have no tongues, nor make any articulate audible sounds, by which they understand one another; but yet there is certainly a society or intercourse among angels, which could not be upheld without some way amongst them to communicate their minds and wills each to other.

How this is we cannot tell: some of the schoolmen say, it is by way of impression: that way God, indeed, communicates his mind sometimes to his people, making secret impressions of his will upon their minds and understandings; but whether angels can do the like, or what their way is of communicating their minds each to other, is a great secret, and we ought to be willingly ignorant of what God hath not pleased, in any part of his revealed will, to tell us.

Neither do I judge it a question proper to this place, where the tongues of angels unquestionably signify the best and most excellent ways of expressing and communicating ourselves to others; as manna is called angels’ food, Psalm 78:25, that is, the most excellent food, for angels, being spiritual substances, need no food, have no mouths to eat, nor bellies to fill; and this the apostle meaneth. Though I could express myself, or communicate my mind to others, in the most excellent way, or in the greatest variety of expression, yet if I have not agaphn, which we translate,

And thus the apostle proveth, that the habit of love to God and man in the heart, is far more excellent than the gift of tongues, which many of the Corinthians had, or coveted, or boasted in, despising those who had it not


Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

... what he says here and in the following verses, is in an hypothetical way, supposing such a case, and in his own person, that it might be the better taken, and envy and ill will be removed: he adds,

"and of angels";
not that angels have tongues in a proper sense, or speak any vocal language, in an audible voice, with articulate sounds; for they are spirits immaterial and incorporeal; though they have an intellectual speech, by which they celebrate the perfections and praises of God, and can discourse with one another, and communicate their minds to each other; see Isaiah 6:3 and which is what the Jews (q) call, ""the speech of the heart"; and is the speech (they say) , "which the angels speak" in their heart; and is the "pure language", and more excellent than other tongues; is pleasant discourse, the secret of the holy seraphim--and is , "the talk of angels"; who do the will of their Creator in their hearts, and in their thoughts:"

This is not what the apostle refers to; but rather the speech of angels, when they have assumed human bodies, and have in them spoke with an audible voice, in articulate sounds; of which we have many instances, both in the Old Testament and the New, wherein they have conversed with divers persons, as Hagar, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Manoah and his wife, the Virgin Mary, Zechariah, and others; unless by the tongues of angels should be meant the most eloquent speech, and most excellent of languages; or if there can be thought to be any tongue that exceeds that of men, which, if angels spoke, they would make use of. Just as the face of angels is used, to express the greatest glory and beauty of the face, or countenance, Acts 6:15 and angels' bread is used for the most excellent food, Psalm 78:25. Dr. Lightfoot thinks, and that not without reason, that the apostle speaks according to the sense and conceptions of the Jews, who attribute speech and language to angels


EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary

ΟὐΔῈ ΕἸ ΜΥΡΊΑ ΣΤΌΜΑΤΑ ἜΧΟΙ ΚΑῚ ΜΥΡΊΑς ΓΛΏΣΣΑς.
The meaning is:
Supposing that I am a speaker with tongues, from whom all possible kinds of articulate tongues might be heard, not simply those of men, but also—far more wonderful and exalted still—those of the angels.

Paul thus describes the very loftiest of all conceivable cases of glossolalia. The tongues of angels here spoken of are certainly only an abstract conception, but one in keeping with the poetic character of the passage ...

Why the apostle begins with the γλώσσ. λαλ., is correctly divined by Theodoret (comp Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact): ΠΡῶΤΟΝ ἉΠΆΝΤΩΝ ΤΈΘΕΙΚΕ ΤῊΝ ΠΑΡΕΞΈΤΑΣΙΝ ΠΟΙΟΎΜΕΝΟς ΤῸ ΧΆΡΙΣΜΑ ΤῶΝ ΓΛΩΣΣῶΝ, ἘΠΕΙΔῊ ΤΟῦΤΟ ΠΑΡʼ ΑὐΤΟῖς ἘΔΌΚΕΙ ΜΕῖΖΟΝ ΕἾΝΑΙ ΤῶΝ ἌΛΛΩΝ. It had become the subject of over-estimation and vanity to the undervaluing of love


Pulpit Commentary
Verse 1.
- "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels"

The case is merely supposed. The tongues of men are human languages, including, perhaps, the peculiar utterance of ecstatic inspiration with which he is now dealing. It is, perhaps, with reference to this latter result of spiritual exultation, at any rate in its purest and loftiest developments, that he adds the words, "and of angels." It is unlikely that he is referring to the rabbinic notion that the angels only understood Hebrew, and not Aramaic or other languages. The words are meant to express the greatest possible climax. The most supreme powers of utterance, even of angelic utterance - if any of the Corinthians had or imagined that they had attained to such utterance - are nothing in comparison with the universally possible attainment of Christian love

It is remarkable, that here again, he places "tongues," even in their grandest conceivable development, on the lowest step in his climax


Vincent's Word Studies
Tongues
- Mentioned first because of the exaggerated importance which the Corinthians attached to this gift.

Angels
- Referring to the ecstatic utterances of those who spoke with tongues.


Pulpit Commentary Homiletics
Life Without Love
1 Corinthians 13:1-3
E. Hurndall
I. THE APOSTLE DECLARES THE NOTHINGNESS OF LIFE WITHOUT LOVE. He supposes some extreme cases.

1. The acquisition of all languages; the utmost facility of expression; the most splendid eloquence. He does not even limit to humanity, but adds, "and of angels," to show that no acquisition in this direction at all meets the case. The Corinthian Church was peculiarly proud of its "gift of tongues;" its love was not so conspicuous. Our glorying is often false glorying. That which is most praised is not always the most praiseworthy. We are apt to prize most what we should prize least. To talk is not the chief thing; to be is far more important. Talking power without love is noise without music, sounding brass, clanging cymbals. Heavenly language would lose its heavenliness without the royal grace


Matthew Poole's Commentary

"though I speak",
that is, if I could speak, or admit I did speak, with the tongues used in all the nations of the world, and with the tongues of angels; by which some understand the best and most excellent ways of expressing ourselves. Angels have no tongues, nor make any articulate audible sounds, by which they understand one another; but yet there is certainly a society or intercourse among angels, which could not be upheld without some way amongst them to communicate their minds and wills each to other.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by pressplay411(m): 8:53am On May 24
Bible Commentaries
Enduring Word.

1 Corinthians 13: 1-2

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

a. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels: The Corinthians were enamored with spiritual gifts, particularly the gift of tongues. Paul reminds them even the gift of tongues is meaningless without love. Without love, a person may speak with the gift of tongues, but it is as meaningless as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. It is nothing but empty noise.

i. “People of little religion are always noisy; he who has not the love of God and man filling his heart is like an empty wagon coming violently down a hill: it makes a great noise, because there is nothing in it.” (Josiah Gregory, cited in Clarke)

b. Tongues of men and of angels: The ancient Greek word translated tongues has the simple idea of “languages” in some places (Acts 2:11 and Revelation 5:9). This has led some to say the gift of tongues is simply the ability to communicate the gospel in other languages, or it is the capability of learning languages quickly. But the way tongues is used here shows it can, and usually does, refer to a supernatural language by which a believer communicates to God. There is no other way to understand the reference to tongues of… angels.

i. In Paul’s day, many Jews believed angels had their own language, and by the Spirit, one could speak it. The reference to tongues of… angels shows that though the genuine gift of tongues is a legitimate language, it may not be a “living” human language, or may not be a human language at all. Apparently, there are angelic languages men can speak by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

ii. Poole has a fascinating comment, suggesting that the tongues of… angelsdescribes how God may speak to us in a non-verbal way: “Angels have no tongues, nor make any articulate audible sounds, by which they understand one another; but yet there is certainly a society or intercourse among angels, which could not be upheld without some way amongst them to communicate their minds and wills to each other. How this is we cannot tell: some of the schoolmen say, it is by way of impression: that way God, indeed, communicates his mind sometimes to his people, making secret impressions of his will upon their minds and understandings.”

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 8:58am On May 24
pressplay411:
Bible Commentaries
Enduring Word.

1 Corinthians 13: 1-2

ii. Poole has a fascinating comment, suggesting that the tongues of… angels describes how God may speak to us in a non-verbal way:

Angels have no tongues, nor make any articulate audible sounds, by which they understand one another; but yet there is certainly a society or intercourse among angels, which could not be upheld without some way amongst them to communicate their minds and wills to each other. How this is we cannot tell: some of the schoolmen say, it is by way of impression: that way God, indeed, communicates his mind sometimes to his people, making secret impressions of his will upon their minds and understandings.”
Gbam!
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 9:01am On May 24
Truth has no agenda or preconceived ideas about something, you've already formed an opinion about it before you've had correct enough information and/or right understanding

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by pressplay411(m): 9:14am On May 24
MuttleyLaff:
Gbam!

That is just an opinion, which is contradicted by other opinions in the commentary.
He claimed Angels made inaudible sounds, how then do we explain angels sing Holy Holy in heaven?
How them does Angel Gabriel deliver good tidings?

Another opinion in the commentary below contradicts that position and seems more plausible as it agrees with other scriptures.

i. In Paul’s day, many Jews believed angels had their own language, and by the Spirit, one could speak it. The reference to tongues of… angels shows that though the genuine gift of tongues is a legitimate language, it may not be a “living” human language, or may not be a human language at all. Apparently, there are angelic languages men can speak by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Goshen360(m): 9:35am On May 24
hoopernikao:


grin grin grin grin

Bro, this your exegesis nah wah o. Tongues of angels kwa?

Dont you read bible again? I hope you havent started reading Gretchen and Hansel type of book. You need to calm down and start reading properly.

All you put above are just assumptions. You are only trying to defend what isnt there. Wondering who exactly is reading his own meaning into the scriptures.

So, now, Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14 tongues are different? grin grin grin grin 1 Cor 14 isnt human tongue again as you said?
You must be from the other side serously. grin

See, how you started.
You mentioned that unbeliever in Paul's doctrine understood tongues. That Paul taught tongues as human language, that is where you started from. And i have challenged that without you having an explanation, now you then turn now that it is angels language. You will soon see Lucife r language.

Apparently, you couldnt defend 1 Cor 14 with your "tongue is human langauge" again. So, firstly accept your error. That is Christiany

I maintain and tell you, that without reading Acts 2 meaning into your explanation, you cannot find anywhere Paul taught tongues as human language. No where. And to start splitting tongue to angel and human is both a lazy approach to Bible study and lack of sincerity to understand Bible language and style .



Tongues in Acts is what Paul explained., no difference. Go and get that down into you. Jesus didnt promise two different tongues. Stop confusing yourself.

I gave you a clue to Paul's' explanation and writing on tongues but you dont pay attention. Paul taught tongues with interpretation and prophecy, Peter explained Acts 2 as prophecy, other places in [b]Acts has prophecies and interpretation. Cant you read it well.[/b]



Well, we will get there. I think 1 Cor 14 is already getting clearer to you since you have opt that it is now ANGELIC TONGUE and not human. shocked shocked shocked

But please read well, again and again, So, that you dont manipulate Paul's teaching.

Let me or us pick two things from the above:

1. If tongues in Acts is what Paul explained, please help us understand 1 cor 14v2

For if you have the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking only to God, since people won’t be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious.

Here, the speaker is ONLY talking to God because people doesn't understand him

But in Acts 2:

The speakers was speaking to men NOT to God and people understood the speakers.


2. If Peter explained Acts 2 as prophecies and interpretations, doesn't that suggest signs and wonders (miracle)? Because how do you explain that someone a language that wasn't learned and others who owns such languages can clearly understand the speakers. Or better still, explain what you mean by Peter explained Acts 2 as prophecy and interpretation?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 10:06am On May 24
pressplay411:
That is just an opinion, which is contradicted by other opinions in the commentary.
He claimed Angels made inaudible sounds, how then do we explain angels sing Holy Holy in heaven?
How them does Angel Gabriel deliver good tidings?

Another opinion in the commentary below contradicts that position and seems more plausible as it agrees with other scriptures.

i. In Paul’s day, many Jews believed angels had their own language, and by the Spirit, one could speak it. The reference to tongues of… angels shows that though the genuine gift of tongues is a legitimate language, it may not be a “living” human language, or may not be a human language at all. Apparently, there are angelic languages men can speak by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
When you talk in dreams or see angels in visions, do you or the angels talk with a physical organ tongue?
When you walk in dreams, are you walking physically, hmm?
The rich man that was begging father Abraham, to please get Lazarus to help him have water dropped on his tongue. Was he talking of a real tongue or was he communicating in Sheol there with real physical tongue, erhn?
Angels when permitted or authorised by God can make communication(s) audible
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 10:06am On May 24
Goshen360:
Let me or us pick two things from the above:

1. If tongues in Acts is what Paul explained, please help us understand 1 cor 14v2

For if you have the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking only to God, since people won’t be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious.

Here, the speaker is ONLY talking to God because people doesn't understand him

But in Acts 2:

The speakers was speaking to men NOT to God and people understood the speakers.
Tongue, an organ of speech, is a member of the body of a human being, not celestial beings and also is the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other people, so again my dear brother Goshen360, that is the kind of language or tongue, what Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 14:2

Think about it Goshen360, if I speak in a tongue, no one understands, then in the absence of interpretation, no one will understand me. It's just me who will understand all I had to say. Even if I do it in private prayers, like for example, recite it in a foreign language I don't know or understand but can recite by sheer pronouncing the seen words as much as I possibly can, then my spirit prays, but my intellect and mind has no understanding and clue of what I've said and/or recite. I know in my spirit that its a good or well wishing prayer, but intellectually pfft, I won't be able to tell you what its all about

Another important thing about 1 Corinthians 14:2, is that, "unknown" was never in the original Greek verse. It is a latter addition by translators, just as I had earlier mentioned on page 6 of this thread, if not even earlier than there

Watch this, for the sake of this discussion and hypothetically speaking, say Goshen360, you, Acehart, Myer, Finallydead and I, are in a gathering comprising of like minded people with Igbo, Yoruba, Fulani, Hausa, Edo etcetera language speaking backgrounds, who dont speak nor understand each other's languages (i.e. each others Igbo, Yoruba, Fulani, Hausa, Edo language is unknown to the other), the only common language each understands is English, now when it is time to pray, teach or preach, which language in the absence of interpretation or someone to interpret into each of Igbo, Yoruba, Fulani, Hausa, Edo, will you speak, pray, teach or preach in?
What language please?. If its you only who understands speaking in Yoruba and you get up to eloquently speak in Yoruba, who is benefited there? Apart from you, who understood all you said in the Yoruba language? You and who?

1 Corinthians 14:2, is telling you that, in the above setting I've mentioned, if you speak languages that others don't know, God will understand what you are saying, though no one else will know what you mean. You will be talking about mysteries that only the Spirit understands. The others will just be second guessing all you've said

Goshen360:
2. If Peter explained Acts 2 as prophecies and interpretations, doesn't that suggest signs and wonders (miracle)? Because how do you explain that someone a language that wasn't learned and others who owns such languages can clearly understand the speakers. Or better still, explain what you mean by Peter explained Acts 2 as prophecy and interpretation?
If Paul, not if Peter.
"Oje lọbọ oju ẹ, pẹlu omi, lmao", loosely translated literally means "make do, go rinse you face with water"

1/ Do you at all understand what's the meaning of the "lost sheep of Israel" phrase Jesus was throwing about?
2/ Do you know anything about what's called the "lost Ten Tribes" and what that is all about?
3/ Do understand what is required, expected and happen during the Passover festival at all?
4/ Do you understand why Acts 2 was done in the hearers' native languages?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 10:31am On May 24
pressplay411:


That is just an opinion, which is contradicted by other opinions in the commentary.
He claimed Angels made inaudible sounds, how then do we explain angels sing Holy Holy in heaven?
How them does Angel Gabriel deliver good tidings?

Another opinion in the commentary below contradicts that position and seems more plausible as it agrees with other scriptures.

i. In Paul’s day, many Jews believed angels had their own language, and by the Spirit, one could speak it. The reference to tongues of… angels shows that though the genuine gift of tongues is a legitimate language, it may not be a “living” human language, or may not be a human language at all. Apparently, there are angelic languages men can speak by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Hi, I just want to take a cue from Habakkuk 2:20 to say a contradiction may not exist.

"But the Lord is in His holy temple. Let all the earth be silent before Him." (Habakkuk 2:20)

In the vision of Isaiah (when he saw the Lord enter into the heavenly temple), he saw the seraphims cover their faces and feet. One writer wrote: They covered their faces because they didn’t find themselves worthy to gaze upon the glory of God; they covered their feet because they didn’t find themselves worthy to stand before the presence of God. In covering their faces, they covered their mouths with their massive wings that even spoken words would be inaudible. If as we pray: thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven, then as Habakkuk speaks of silence of the whole earth as the Lord enters His temple, so it is in heaven, right? Then how did the seraphims cry, Holy, Holy, Holy! until the frames of the door posts trembled? We may not know all about the power of angels but we know that they were purpose-built for their heavenly environment; didn’t Jesus say that they have no need for procreation?

We know they spoke to men in uncovered faces. Men understood them when understanding was made in man’s language. We see that when the voice from heaven said: “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again”, some people said it thundered while some said an angel spoke. In what language did the “angel” utter those words?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 10:56am On May 24
MuttleyLaff:
Tongue, an organ of speech, is a member of the body of a human being, not celestial beings and also is the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other people, so again my dear brother Goshen360, that is the kind of language or tongue, what Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 14:2


Why is it difficult for you and hoopernikao to accept that there were 2 different forms of tongues manifested in the scriptures? Distinctly mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:1.

One which was human language (tongues of men) that could be understood by bystanders in their various dialects. Acts 2:6-12

And the second (tongues of angels) which no one understands except by the inspiration of the gift of interpretation? 1 Corinthians 14:2

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 11:06am On May 24
pressplay411:
That is just an opinion, which is contradicted by other opinions in the commentary.
He claimed Angels made inaudible sounds, how then do we explain angels sing Holy Holy in heaven?
How them does Angel Gabriel deliver good tidings?

Another opinion in the commentary below contradicts that position and seems more plausible as it agrees with other scriptures.

i. In Paul’s day, many Jews believed angels had their own language, and by the Spirit, one could speak it. The reference to tongues of… angels shows that though the genuine gift of tongues is a legitimate language, it may not be a “living” human language, or may not be a human language at all. Apparently, there are angelic languages men can speak by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Acehart:
Hi, I just want to take a cue from Habakkuk 2:20 to say a contradiction may not exist.

"But the Lord is in His holy temple. Let all the earth be silent before Him." (Habakkuk 2:20)

In the vision of Isaiah (when he say the Lord enter into the heavenly temple), he saw the seraphims cover their faces and feet. One writer wrote: They covered their faces because they didn’t find themselves worthy to gaze upon the glory of God; they covered their feet because they didn’t find themselves worthy to stand before the presence of God. In covering their faces, they covered their mouths with their massive wings that even spoken words would be inaudible. If as we pray: thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven, then as Habakkuk speaks of silence of the whole earth as the Lord enters His temple, so it is in heaven, right? Then how did the seraphims cry, Holy, Holy, Holy! until the frames of the door posts trembled? We may not know all about the power of angels but we know that they were purpose-built for their heavenly environment; didn’t Jesus say that they have no need for procreation?

We know they spoke to men in uncovered faces. Men understood them when understanding was made in man’s language. We see that when the voice from heaven said: “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again”, some people said it thundered while some said an angel spoke. In what language did the “angel” utter those words?
"1Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord. He approached the high priest
2and requested letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any men or women belonging to the Way, he could bring them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
3As Saul drew near to Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.
4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?”
5“Who are You, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” He replied.
6“Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless. They heard the voice but did not see anyone
"
- Acts 9:1-7

"1Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
2(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
3I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
4And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.
5As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.
6And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
7And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
8And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
9And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me.
"
- Acts 22:1-9

Let's jazz up the conversation a little with Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 11:25am On May 24
Myer:
Why is it difficult for you and hoopernikao to accept that there were 2 different forms of tongues manifested in the scriptures? Distinctly mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:1.
I am sure you studied English grammar, in at least secondary school during English language lessons, from where your English teacher would have introduced you to Conditional Particle Or Conjunction.

Now Greek speaking people, follow a similar principle when communicating in Greek. You are imposing your English understanding of conditional upon an opposing Greek way of understanding conditionals. Go read up on it because the NT originally want written in English, it rather was in Greek, so this means the rules in Greek grammar applies, not the rules in English language grammar.

Myer:
One which was human language (tongues of men) that could be understood by bystanders in their various dialects. Acts 2:6-12
You're trying so very hard to make fetch happen. For what purpose, to what end? For a gift that the lowest of the lowest on the hierarchy ladder

Myer:
And the second (tongues of angels) which no one understands except by the inspiration of the gift of interpretation? 1 Corinthians 14:2
I have said enough on this verse et al, I just right now, aren't anymore bothered. Whatever floats anyone's boat.

You knew answering my asked questions, will find you out, that's is why you stepped them over, not bothered to reply to them
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 11:27am On May 24
MuttleyLaff:


"1Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord. He approached the high priest
2and requested letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any men or women belonging to the Way, he could bring them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
3As Saul drew near to Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.
4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?”
5“Who are You, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” He replied.
6“Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless. They heard the voice but did not see anyone
"
- Acts 9:1-7

"1Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
2(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
3I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
4And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.
5As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.
6And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
7And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
8And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
9And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me.
"
- Acts 22:1-9

Let's jazz up the conversation a little with Acts 22:7 and Acts 22:9

Okay. Give me a few hours. I’ll just read now and meditate on it.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 11:35am On May 24
MuttleyLaff:
I am sure you studies English grammar in at least secondary school during English language lesson from where your English teacher would have introduced you to Conditional Particle Or Conjunction.

Now Greek speaking people, follow a similar principle when communicating in Greek. You are imposing your English understanding of conditional upon an opposing Greek way of understanding conditionals. Go read up on it because the NT originally want written in English, it rather was in Greek, so this means the rules in Greek grammar applies, not the rules in English language grammar.

You're trying so very hard to make fetch happen. For what purpose, to what end? For a gift that the lowest of the lowest on the hierarchy ladder

I have said enough on this verse et al, I just right now, aren't anymore bothered. Whatever floats anyone's boat.

You knew answering my asked questions, will find you out, that's is why you stepped them over, not bothered to reply to them

By your argument then every thing written in the bible is questionable since it was all not originally written in English language. Of course this is the basis of the very argument. Meaning as you aptly put, everyone should interpret whatever floats his boat.

But that only shows your deficiency in hermeneutics.
Scriptures interpret scriptures.
When you understand this you will realise that you can't make a doctrine on a verse in the scriptures if it is not corroborated by another verse.

By the way, you should probably search out your english teacher on fb and ask for a refund. Either he failed to teach you conjunction and comprehension or you simply lacked the cognitive capacity for basic english.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 12:06pm On May 24
Acehart:
Okay. Give me a few hours. I’ll just read now and meditate on it.
I am just trying with those two verses that seemingly appear contradictory show how the absence of correct understanding could easily make some misinterpret the narrative(s).

We won't go into what language, it was Apostle Paul heard spoke to him. If heavenly language or not, lmao grin grin grin

Just them two verses, that even trips up a lot, quite a few of our Muslim and Atheist brothers/sisters

PS: Thank you Myer, for showing that strawmanning expert and delusional racist's assistant, filling in for the absent head honcho pepper.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 5:25pm On May 24
MuttleyLaff:


"1Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord. He approached the high priest
2and requested letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any men or women belonging to the Way, he could bring them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
3As Saul drew near to Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.
4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?”
5“Who are You, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” He replied.
6“Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless. They heard the voice but did not see anyone
"
- Acts 9:1-7

"1Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
2(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
3I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
4And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.
5As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.
6And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
7And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
8And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
9And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me.
"
- Acts 22:1-9

Let's jazz up the conversation a little with Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9

Lol you want to start another argument altogether.

This only goes back to prove that the bible is full of contradictions and inconsistencies.

Guess we'll never know which is true between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 6:09pm On May 24
Myer:
Lol you want to start another argument altogether.

This only goes back to prove that the bible is full of contradictions and inconsistencies.

Guess we'll never know which is true between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9.
It trips up, a lot, quite a few of our Muslim and Atheist brothers/sisters and it leaves me laughing very hard. On the face of it, they appear contradictory and so you find some argumentative Muslim and Atheist brothers/sisters come up waving those two verses about crying blue murder, that they are inconsistencies, when they aren't, lmao. Doing a thorough or detailed review of the verses would have saved them from slipping on that banana skin.

The construct used in the two verses, we also often use it too, when conversing in Yoruba.

Case in point 1:
"Ẹ ku irọle, sir". Though you heard me, but you, pretending not to have heard, prolly from still nursing an earlier vex, will respond "Mi o gbọ ẹ"

Loosely translated means:
"Good evening, sir". Though you heard me, but you, pretending not to have heard, prolly from still nursing an earlier vex, will respond "I don't hear you"

Case in point 2:
"Good evening, sir". Though you loud and clearly heard me, but since you don't understand nor speak English, will in Yoruba, honestly and truthfully say "Mi o gbọ ẹ" ( i.e. ''I don't understand you'')

1 Like 1 Share

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 6:16pm On May 24
MuttleyLaff:
It trips up, a lot, quite a few of our Muslim and Atheist brothers/sisters and it leaves me laughing very hard. On the face of it, they appear contradictory and so you find some argumentative Muslim and Atheist brothers/sisters come up waving those two verses about crying blue murder, that they are inconsistencies, when they aren't, lmao. Doing a thorough or detailed review of the verses would have saved them from slipping on that banana skin.

The construct used in the two verses, we also often use it too, when conversing in Yoruba.

Case in point 1:
"Ẹ ku irọle, sir". Though you heard me, but you, pretending not to have heard, prolly from still nursing an earlier vex, will respond "Mi o gbọ ẹ"

Loosely translated means:
"Good evening, sir". Though you heard me, but you, pretending not to have heard, prolly from still nursing an earlier vex, will respond "I don't hear you"

Case in point 2:
"Good evening, sir". Though you loud and clearly heard me, but since you don't understand nor speak English, will in Yoruba, honestly and truthfully say "Mi o gbọ ẹ" ( i.e. ''I don't understand you'')

Your explanation though.
I don't think there's a way to expain it away.
It was a faux pas.

There are other contradictory verses and inconsistencies too but there's no need going that route today.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 6:17pm On May 24
Myer:


Did you just discard all the books of the bible and left only Paul, John and Peter's epistles as doctrine?

Let me help you, maybe you might need to go and unlearn all you were taught in your school of theology.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

The book of Acts was written by Luke, who was inspired and given a perfect understanding to write the books he wrote. Luke 1:1-4

Good evening.

You aren't still reading my writings well. Try to do that. You feel impatient on this issue and is affecting the way you read the post hence twisting my words not deliberately but evidently.

For you to even say doctrine can be learnt from events is not a good sign.

Doctrine from didaskalia, root word from didasko means that you must have a teacher who expound and explain to you. With didaskalos one who teaches. There must be a teacher and student that is being instructed. It is a term used for classroom teaching. Didaskalia is different from just learning from events or experiences.

Because you are taking everything as teaching is the reason you may end up believing angels can become our Savior. Or believe anything. It is proper teaching, expounding that will clear that for you.

You really need to know how bible interpretation is handled. Not everything is by shakara. You need to study the writings.



So go and read what I said again. There is no where I told you to discard any part of the scriptures, I only point you to how it's to be read.

The bible is presented in progressive revelation.
Until you understand this, your understanding of the scriptures will not be fully coherent. Is it not the same holy ghost who inspired the writings of the OT. So, do you use OT to interpret NT or use NT to interpret OT? Do you interpret Jesus word using Moses words or you interpret Moses by looking at Jesus.
That is to tell you of how scriptures are handled.

It should be evident to you that Acts is a very young church learning by the holyghost. There are key events you see in Acts which shows the limitation of the Apostles knowledge but those were corrected overtime as they progress in revelation.
Watch Peter well over Acts you will see his growth in understanding along the line.
Even Paul still corrected Peter as late as Galatians. That is progress, growth in knowledge.



For Epistles, it represented the point at which the Apostles have reached a certain level of knowledge. Epistles are teachings by the holyghost through the Apostles. And it explains all the scriptures.

Sincerely, try to recalibrate and study well the patterns of the scriptures. Your mix up can't be cleared until you do this.
Any Christian doctrine or practices not established in the Epistles will fail the test of the scriptures.

I want to rest today o. grin

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 7:19pm On May 24
Myer:
Your explanation though.
I don't think there's a way to expain it away.
It was a faux pas.
If by "... It was a faux pas ..." you mean Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9, then brother, with all due respect and humility I demur.

I am, at all front, currently preoccupied, doing a lot of chasing & catching things up, here and there, so can't right now, begin to start explaining how Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 doesnt have any contradictions and inconsistencies between them

Myer:
There are other contradictory verses and inconsistencies too but there's no need going that route today.
"For God, is not a God of confusion ..."
- 1 Corinthians 14:33a

Atheist brothers/sisters like to spin this line, when trying to knock, dismiss or belittle the Bible, lmao, but the word of God is bigger than them. It is only inexperienced believers who succumb to such incredulous misconceptions. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the Bible hasn't got bad/wrong/incorrect mistranslations, dubious insertions and/or omissions et cetera. No, those are calculated and/or deliberate works of flesh, but the Bible as spiritually inspired from on high, to put on paper, has no contradictions and inconsistencies. Yes I am aware the Vulgate, the late 4th century Latin translation of the Bible was once jokingly referred to as the Vulgar because of loadsa copyists' errors

Every other pseudo contradictory verses and inconsistencies (i.e."... It was a faux pas ...''), from describing them in more detail and/or revealing related relevant facts, all easily becomes clear, as nothing other than false positive contradictions and inconsistencies.

I see you, keep saying "There's too much contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible" because you are unable to unravel what seems to look as if they are "too much contradictions and inconsistencies" when really they aren't

God, is not the author of confusion. Glory be to God in the highest. Amen.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 12:01am On May 25
MuttleyLaff:
You still haven't told me why Lara is your first choice, or is it because he, black, lmao. The race card grin grin grin

Please don't do this to me. Its not fair, nah, it won't be fair on the other giants in the corridor of the faith hall of fame. I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll say have in the past used Judah and Jedidah as reference, mainly because of the meaning of the names, nothing more than that.

You still haven’t told me your (new) MVPs
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 12:04am On May 25
MuttleyLaff:
Yeah I forgot to mention Shane Warne, he's the guy that almost always smears "war" paint or is it sunscreen on his face lmao

Yes. He is the one.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 12:19am On May 25
Myer:


Here in lies the dilemma in 1 Corinthian 14.
Did Paul distinguish between known and unknown tongues?
Clearly he does not forbid speaking in tongues. But rather that it should be moderated.

1 Cor 14:2 seems to be referring to unknown tongues. Which no human can understand except interpreted by one with the gift of interpretation.

This obviously contrasts with Acts 2:6 where unbelievers could understand the tongues without the need for gift of interpretation.

Hence it seems Paul concludes that speaking in tongues for personal edification should not be a public affair but a private affair. Except there is an interpreter.

While speaking in tongues for evangelism should be towards unbelievers in their own language. Hence why it is indeed a sign. Something they would have no choice but to accept as being supernatural.
Whether they end up believing or not.

Yet, you feign ignorance of our bone of contention as you continue to evade providing answer to a question I have repeated in every post on this topic.

Have you personally spoken in another tongue (lamguage) as a sign to an unbeliever?

I agree with you with regards to the bolden. What Paul was differentiating in the tongues of Chapter 12:1-3, and that of chapter 12:10 is the former was not a tool for proclaiming Christ’s gospel; the latter was a tool for the ministers to declare the gospel.

I’d like to ask this:

1. Are the unbelievers in Chapter 14 the Jews who were in the synagogues in Gentile territories (as the book of Acts show that those who weren’t open to believing the gospel were the Jews)?

2. If Paul had in mind the unbelieving Gentiles, what sort of tongues would the believing Gentiles manifest for the perplexity of the unbelieving Gentiles?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 1:16am On May 25
Myer:


QED.
I couldn't have said it better.

Permit me to mention hoopernikao.
This is how to read the meaning of scripture (exegesis) and not read your own meaning into scriptures.(eisegesis)

I’d like to speak about the “tongues of angels”. I had written that the synagogue in Corinth essentially read the Tanakh - the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Writings. These Hebrew texts weren’t written in Gentiles languages; they were exclusively written in Jewish tongues. Some of the books didn’t make it to our Bible but we see someone like Peter referring to the Book of Enoch, one of the apocrypha.

Just for information: Angelic tongues referred to sung praise in Second Temple period Jewish books. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is the principal source for angelic tongues. The Songs describe worship around the throne of God in the heavenly realms. Reference is made to angelic tongues. Throughout the thirteen songs there is everything ranging from accounts of how the angels lead their prayer service in the temple on high to detailed descriptions of the inner throne room where the presence of God and the other god-like beings reside.

In 1 Corinthians 14:7, Paul speaks of a “stringed” instrument - the harp. In one of the sources of angelic tongues hymn books, The pseudepigraphical Testament of Job, Job gives one of his daughters a stringed instrument. In verse 15, he speaks of “singing with the spirit, and singing with the mind”; and giving thanks in verse 17. (Psalms of singing and thanksgiving tongues are sections of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice)

If there was a deep yearning by the Gentiles to display the “spiritual gift“ of knowing the angelic tongue or the Hebrew tongue illustration of how Angels speak rather, would not the meaning verse 1 Corinthians 14:23 be clearer as all the citizens of Corinth who were members in the church at Corinth all speak in Jewish tongue and a fellow citizen (an unbeliever) enters the assembly and see such a manifestation and declare his fellow citizens mad?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 4:18am On May 25
Acehart:
You still haven’t told me your (new) MVPs
Judah and Jedidiah weren't ever MVPs to me. Its the meaning of the two names that I am drawn to, not that they are MVPs.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 5:04am On May 25
Acehart:
I’d like to speak about the “tongues of angels”. I had written that the synagogue in Corinth essentially read the Tanakh - the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Writings. These Hebrew texts weren’t written in Gentiles languages; they were exclusively written in Jewish tongues. Some of the books didn’t make it to our Bible but we see someone like Peter referring to the Book of Enoch, one of the apocrypha.

Just for information: Angelic tongues referred to sung praise in Second Temple period Jewish books. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is the principal source for angelic tongues. The Songs describe worship around the throne of God in the heavenly realms. Reference is made to angelic tongues. Throughout the thirteen songs there is everything ranging from accounts of how the angels lead their prayer service in the temple on high to detailed descriptions of the inner throne room where the presence of God and the other god-like beings reside.

In 1 Corinthians 14:7, Paul speaks of a “stringed” instrument - the harp. In one of the sources of angelic tongues hymn books, The pseudepigraphical Testament of Job, Job gives one of his daughters a stringed instrument. In verse 15, he speaks of “singing with the spirit, and singing with the mind”; and giving thanks in verse 17. (Psalms of singing and thanksgiving tongues are sections of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice)

If there was a deep yearning by the Gentiles to display the “spiritual gift“ of knowing the angelic tongue or the Hebrew tongue illustration of how Angels speak rather, would not the meaning verse 1 Corinthians 14:23 be clearer as all the citizens of Corinth who were members in the church at Corinth all speak in Jewish tongue and a fellow citizen (an unbeliever) enters the assembly and see such a manifestation and declare his fellow citizens mad?
The reason why apocrypha and pseudepigrapha books, like BoE, Jubilees, BoJ, Book of A&E, Book of Noah etcetera never and didnt make it into the 66 canon was because they were fake news. In fact, these first century, soon after Jesus' death, books started being authored and never were God inspired. The Book of Enoch,which there are three versions of it, is a perfected work and good art, of reverse engineering. The Book of Jasher, lmao, the other half of the BoE, twins spawn of Satan, that's paraded about, is not the original one mentioned in the Bible, in verses like Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. The original BoJ (i.e. the Book of Jasher) is lost, missing AWOL. The paraded one, is a hoax, it along with the other apocrypha and pseudepigrapha books, are inflated works of the imagination. They are literary works of fantasy with not likely to be true or to have happened improbable things. It is because the books are not in fact, what they write to be, is why they aren't in the 66 books that make up the Protestant Bible. There are no authenticities, in any of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha books.

Now, I expect some heavyweight person, like you to read the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha books, but have the good sense of able to separate the wheat from the chaff, when reading them books and not as some gullible person normally wouldn't do but rather be taken in by the books, hook, line, sinker and all.

It is true Apostle Peter, and even Jude too sef, referred to the Book of Enoch. They both did when drawing attention to false teachings and slanders permeating the body of the early believers, from the developing craze then of reading those apocrypha and pseudepigrapha books.

Apostle Peter, in his letter, first warned, then Jude in his letter, wrote saying what Apostle Peter earlier wrote about and warned against, has just happened.

Fyi Acehart, celestial beings aka extra-terrestrial aka angelic hosts of heaven are incorporeal beings. They are not composed of matter, they have no physical or material existence, so don't have physical tongues.

Let me ask you a question(s) Acehart, when God communicates with you, what language does He use? In what tongue does God communicate with you?

(1) (2) (3) ... (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) ... (19) (Reply)

Crucifixion Of Jesus In Err - Bible / You Rob God, When You Refuse To Help Others By Azemobor Gregory / Your Quiet Time With God. How Interesting?

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2020 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 600
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.