Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,483,160 members, 5,622,952 topics. Date: Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 08:40 AM

I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? - Religion (9) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? (2957 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) ... (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) ... (19) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 3:12pm On May 22
hoopernikao:
grin grin
Is like the emotions have risen again. Learn to calm down. You cant be erring in interpretation and likewise desert correction yet you are full of emotions.

Emotions doesnt change the truth. Ask the pharisees? So, calm down, read properly and write as a believer.
You are bug. Bugs get squashed from being stepped and stomped upon. I don't mince words, when I am describing nasty pieces of work, being a tool from the devil's workshop. I say it as it is

Acehart:
Let your gentleness be known to all men.”
Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ was never gentle with the Pharisees, the far-to-see. This Sadducee sad-to-see sort doesn't understand gentleness brother. I smell their sort 6000 miles away, the stench is that strong and foul.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 3:53pm On May 22
MuttleyLaff:
You are bug. Bugs get squashed from being stepped and stomped upon. I don't mince words, when I am describing nasty pieces of work, being a tool from the devil's workshop. I say it as it is

Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ was never gentle with the Pharisees, the far-to-see. This Sadducee sad-to-see sort doesn't understand gentleness brother. I smell their sort 6000 miles away, the stench is that strong and foul.

Eeyaaa. Well, I am not surprised. Even the Pharisees thought they were doing God's will when they rejected, cursed and killed Jesus.

It is a known fact, that when false doctrine fails, the proponent moves to lying and bearing false witness, when such fail also, they will move to calling one a devil or seek to tear personalities down. If Jesus was called Beelzebub, who am I to get bothered by your utterances. Infact I am so glad you identified me with Christ rejection and suffering ones more.

But i assure you that this skimming will fail too, I have seen such likes over many years behind, which embraced the truth afterwards. You won't be different.

My greatest desire for you is to Nicodemusly embrace the truth of God's word without your personal experience, emotion or falsehood. We will get there, it may tarry but God's word and Will will prevail over your thoughts, emotions and experiences.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 3:56pm On May 22
MuttleyLaff:
Acehart, please slow down, lmao. You're behaving like someone grabbing stuff off the supermarket shelves, like as if they aren't going to re-open again tomorrow.

Let's get this fact and truth straight first. No matter how much well versed anyone is in Pauline epistles, without the assistance of the Holy Spirit, all the person has, is just sheer head knowledge and nothing from the soul emanated from the spirit man, alive and correctly tuned connected to the Holy Spirit.

It seems you didn't grab the subtle illustration, I earlier made with Genesis 1:26a, in addition to compare and contrast it with Genesis 1:27a

Acehart, we are already exercising different levels and/or essences of hope, faith and love. Of course not yet to perfection, nonetheless.

Yeah, there you're, you've just up there said it with Hebrews 11:1 that: "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". If you aren't trying to exercise hope, you wouldn't be interested in exercising faith. Now because you want to exercise faith, you because of knowing about Romans 10:17, you are now listening to the affirmation word of God. Why? It is because "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Apostle Paul, stepped up to the plate, after when Apostle Peter was found dithering. The same would have happened to Mary, if when Angel Gabriel paid her a visit, she too like Peter was found to be indecisive, but Praise God, that her response to the angel's message was: "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me, according to your word." Praise God. Alleluia.

Are you aware, that father Abraham, saw you in the future, way back in Genesis 22:18 and Genesis 28:14, hmm? Gentiles, is used in Genesis 22:18, while families of the earth is what's used in Genesis 28:14. Isn't that amazing beautiful that God had us in mind from the very beginning when He singled out Abram/Abraham to leave his country, his people and his father's household and go to the land that will be shown him, to make him into a great nation and be blessed, such that his name will be great and he will be a blessing (i.e. Genesis 12:1)

Acehart what exactly are you trying to get your head round with here please?

I have one eye on the “square leg”, tongues, and the other on the “point”, perfect gift. Your earlier illustration painted a picture of the marrow already covered by bones, and the sinews wrapping themselves around the bones; while we wait for that to finish and see the flesh arriving to complete the work of creation; but I am saying that the human being has been formed already.

But do you know that when people say, “wait for the Holy Spirit to interpret the scriptures for you”, we seem to many that we profess that there is no universal, one size-fits-all, meaning to anything in the Bible. Didn’t the angel deliver the same unambiguous message to both Mary and Joseph? I say this with regards to biblical systematic theology and not private messages given by the Holy Spirit to help in issues peculiar to one.

Many have taken advantage of this - Seek the assistance of the Holy Spirit to interpret, to mean don’t agree to any teaching - either good or bad. Why then do the children have teachers?

I guess if we know what the perfect is, we would know whether the “partials” are relevant today. Therefore, I said the “perfect” is the written New Testament in tongues idiosyncratic to any tribe or nation of this world.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 4:01pm On May 22
MuttleyLaff:
Did you read at all, go to the website reference I provided to get a detailed background of that snippet excerpt, or you're just as lazy as ever, comfortably sitting on your hands, didn't and couldn't be bothered to.

Unlike you would do, I left the source where that information came from, simply so, for anyone interested, to do a Berean with. Now, it is only a self-conceited person like you who thinks its you alone that knows about italic insertions in KJV. I asked you to paste here Genesis 1:7, 9-12, 16, 18, 20-21, 25, 27 and 29-31 in the original text form with the insertions/additions/italics, so to see whether you'll be able to make sense of it.

Left to people like you, the Bible will still be written only in Latin, so that it is only the clergy who have access to it and never the laity, but God is bigger than you devils.


grin To go to a website and read KJV declaration on adding italics? It is well documented in all their translations preface if you don't know that.

But claiming that to be God's inspiration by holy men is eye buggling. That means we can all come out and claim same without subjecting it to the true interpretation since anyone can claim his word to be holy writings.

Do you actually understand what HOLY WRITINGS mean? God, help us.

Okay, so when will you documents your own addition as holy MuttleyLaff inspired above the scriptures. grin grin since translators are now accepted as holy writers.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 4:14pm On May 22
hoopernikao:
Eeyaaa. Well, I am not surprised. Even the Pharisees thought they were doing God's will when they rejected, cursed and killed Jesus.

It is a known fact, that when false doctrine fails, the proponent moves to lying and bearing false witness, when such fail also, they will move to calling one a devil or seek to tear personalities down. If Jesus was called Beelzebub, who am I to get bothered by your utterances. Infact I am so glad you identified me with Christ rejection and suffering ones more.

But i assure you that this skimming will fail too, I have seen such likes over many years behind, which embraced the truth afterwards. You won't be different.

My greatest desire for you is to Nicodemusly embrace the truth of God's word without your personal experience, emotion or falsehood. We will get there, it may tarry but God's word and Will will prevail over your thoughts, emotions and experiences.

hoopernikao:
grin To go to a website and read KJV declaration on adding italics? It is well documented in all their translations preface if you don't know that.

But claiming that to be God's inspiration by holy men is eye buggling. That means we can all come out and claim same without subjecting it to the true interpretation since anyone can claim his word to be holy writings.

Do you actually understand what HOLY WRITINGS mean? God, help us.

Okay, so when will you documents your own addition as holy MuttleyLaff inspired above the scriptures. grin grin since translators are now accepted as holy writers.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 7:22pm On May 22
hoopernikao:


Bros, a lot has been given on this thread. May be you are late. You may need to read from beginning again to understand my view and the thread line.

You should now be the one to present your view now if you have any without experience bias. You havent done anything on that yet. You quoted my explanation without single explanation. That again should let you know you are in position to explain yourself. You havent done any. I am sure it shouldnt be hard for you to provide your view scriptural. That is what i want to see.

Present your defense of the post you quoted, that is the ideal thing to do in discussion. You dont appear in court asking your opponent to be explaining again what he has done severally without you doing a single defense. So, get your seat right and type.


One thing I will give you credit for, is that you are quite intelligent, especially to still manage to avoid answering my question.
Knowing that it would simply put an end to this discussion.

But contrary to your accusation that I did not present my defense in your earlier post I quoted. I believe I did.

Your claim was that I made no scriptural references just because I did not inscribe the book, chapter and verse.
May I ask, whenever Jesus or the early apostles referenced old scriptures did you see any mention of the book, chapter and verse?

I did reference scriptural verses, I simply expected any well-taught bible scholar to know what I was referencing.
Since you seem to need spoon-feeding, let me help you then;

1 Corinthians 14:22
Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

This prompts my asking if you have spoken a foreign language to evangelize to an unbeliever.

While reading through from verse 1 to 17 contradicts what we see in churches today- We have majority professing to speak in tongues yet not one to interpret.

1 Corinthians 14: 1-17
Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; [a]for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? 7 Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? 8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? 9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without [b]significance. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a [c]foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me. 12 Even so you, since you are [d]zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the [e]edification of the church that you seek to excel.

13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? 17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.

2 Likes

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 8:11pm On May 22
Acehart:
I have one eye on the “square leg”, tongues...
I am sorry, please pardon me, as I don't seem to understand how you mean "... one eye on the “square leg”, tongues ...". I get "one eye on" but I don't get how or what you mean by “square leg”, tongues"

Acehart:
and the other on the “point”, perfect gift. Your earlier illustration painted a picture of the marrow already covered by bones, and the sinews wrapping themselves around the bones; while we wait for that to finish and see the flesh arriving to complete the work of creation; but I am saying that the human being has been formed already.
C'mon Acehart, stop doing this man. Stop doing this to your self, if just done to me, I don't mind, but no, no, not to yourself too nah. Acehart, we are a construction site, work in progress. We are not the finished article yet bro

Try to be honest and sincere here nah, Acehart. Look around you, look at the world, nah. OK, forget the world, let's come closer home, let's come local. Do you really believe we are formed already? We are one of the 24/7/365 days, most going to church people, in the whole world wide, yet there is still so much woes, misery, dejection, oppression, desertion, infidelity, treachery, abject poverty, prejudices, avoidable starvation, insecurity, no sense of safety, no enjoyable movement, dereliction of duties, no love lost, thievery, scamming, fakeries, et cetera.

Christ, is not coming back for a church that can't present herself to Him without stain, wrinkle or any other blemish. No, but one that is complete holy, blameless and ready for Him.

Acehart:
But do you know that when people say, “wait for the Holy Spirit to interpret the scriptures for you”, we seem to many that we profess that there is no universal, one size-fits-all, meaning to anything in the Bible.

True, one size fits all indeed, but ....

Acehart, you don start again ooo. Watch this. When I was little, I first learned about numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 up to 10 or 20. I didn't know there were more numbers after 10 or 20, nor that there were numbers lesser than 1. Also I first learned alphabets starting from A, B, C, D, E up to Z, I didn't first know that I could write them even as a, b, c, e ..... z. Well as time went on, I got to learn there are quite an uncountable numbers beyond 10 or 20. I learned that 2+2=4, then soon after I learned that even 1+3=4, that 1+1+1+1=4 or 4+0=4. On the alphabet side, I later learned that stringing A, with B, B and A becomes ABBA et cetera.

There's no point going on, you sure I am certain, have gotten the drift, especially with the already above pasted picture, that shows how though one size, truly is whats provided to fit all, albeit, you still need to flesh out, you need to buff up, you need to exercise the body and flex them muscles so that you fill out to perfectly AND SNUGLY FIT INTO THAT JACKET, SHIRT, PAIR OF TROUSERS & SHOES

Do you remember, the story of the widow of Zarapheth refer to 1 Kings 17:7-16, but the focus is on 1 Kings 17:14. It is whatever size of jar that the widow brought that the oil was going to fill up until the day God made it rain on the surface of the ground. Praise God. Alleluia. The flow of anointing has no limit. The power of the Holy Ghost has no limit. It simply is proportional to what is presented and how it is presented.

You see how after the little boy with over-sized suit jacket, trousers and shoes had grown into the suit and all, everything fitted perfectly well, and how the boy turned grown, will be able to effectively move about to be a success in whatever he puts his mind upon.

Acehart:
Didn’t the angel deliver the same unambiguous message to both Mary and Joseph? I say this with regards to biblical systematic theology and not private messages given by the Holy Spirit to help in issues peculiar to one.
Angel Gabriel made a physical direct and personal appearance to Mary. As for Joseph, a version of the same import message was made to Joseph without privilege personal visitation, but rather only in the form of a dream.

Acehart:
Many have taken advantage of this - Seek the assistance of the Holy Spirit to interpret, to mean don’t agree to any teaching - either good or bad. Why then do the children have teachers?
You of course know who and what the Holy Spirit is, don't you. If your answer is in the affirmative, then I dare ask who would you rather be the last authority on whatever you need to know about the counsel of God, hmm?

Acehart:
I guess if we know what the perfect is, we would know whether the “partials” are relevant today. Therefore, I said the “perfect” is the written New Testament in tongues idiosyncratic to any tribe or nation of this world.
I suspect you're trying hard to bend a straight stick to match yours here brother. We have, if we haven't korokoro with our own eyes, witness it ourselves, read the prophecy fulfilled of speaking in tongues recorded three times in scripture. The Bible said, they first heard a noisy loud sound, powerful full force rushing gust of wind sweep into the house they were and filling in the room where they were fitted, then appearing miraculously, were a representation of some form or sort of cloven tongues (i.e. glossa, in Greek, a member of the body, the organ of speech) of fire, sitting upon the disciples and they miraculously began to speak in other tongues/languages, please note this because Acts2:4 said, they did all this as the Spirit gave them utterances. The disciples didn't not force, did not conjure up, did not initiate, did not discretionally do anything. Everything was by the Holy Spirit. Now, isn't it surprising none of the disciples freaked out. Why would they, when they previously have been advanced warned by Jesus Christ, to tarry or wait in the city of Jerusalem until they are endued with power from on high (i.e. Luke 24:48)

Why at all, would they need to have such a power, a different level, a development and an improvement on quality, hmm Acehart. Why nah? Why, aside the obvious other reason(s) was this sort of versatility necessary? Of course, you do remember the state of mind and psychology of the disciples after Jesus was arrested, then humilated, assaulted, ridiculed, and lastly, literally slaughtered, didn't you, hmm?. If you do, then please advise me Acehart, help me with this nah, do you really think these men and women, were in the frame of mind, to go out and proclaim the gospel, just like that, on ordinary run of mill, business as usual, lacking distinctive features or interesting characteristics skillset or abilities, hmm? Please don't because of the little details trees, lose focus of the bigger picture forest.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 9:04pm On May 22
MuttleyLaff:
I am sorry, please pardon me, as I don't seem to understand how you mean "... one eye on the “square leg”, tongues ...". I get "one eye on" but I don't get how or what you mean by “square leg”, tongues"

C'mon Acehart, stop doing this man. Stop doing this to your self, if just done to me, I don't mind, but no, no, not to yourself too nah. Acehart, we are a construction site, work in progress. We are not the finished article yet bro

Try to be honest and sincere here nah, Acehart. Look around you, look at the world, nah. OK, forget the world, let's come closer home, let's come local. Do you really believe we are formed already? We are one of the 24/7/365 days, most going to church people, in the whole world wide, yet there is still so much woes, misery, dejection, oppression, desertion, infidelity, treachery, abject poverty, prejudices, avoidable starvation, insecurity, no sense of safety, no enjoyable movement, dereliction of duties, no love lost, thievery, scamming, fakeries, et cetera.

Christ, is not coming back for a church that can't present herself to Him without stain, wrinkle or any other blemish. No, but one that is complete holy, blameless and ready for Him.


True, one size fits all indeed, but ....

Acehart, you don start again ooo. Watch this. When I was little, I first learned about numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 up to 10 or 20. I didn't know there were more numbers after 10 or 20, nor that there were numbers lesser than 1. Also I first learned alphabets starting from A, B, C, D, E up to Z, I didn't first know that I could write them even as a, b, c, e ..... z. Well as time went on, I got to learn there are quite an uncountable numbers beyond 10 or 20. I learned that 2+2=4, then soon after I learned that even 1+3=4, that 1+1+1+1=4 or 4+0=4. On the alphabet side, I later learned that stringing A, with B, B and A becomes ABBA et cetera.

There's no point going on, you sure I am certain, have gotten the drift, especially with the already above pasted picture, that shows how though one size, truly is whats provided to fit all, albeit, you still need to flesh out, you need to buff up, you need to exercise the body and flex them muscles so that you fill out to perfectly.

Do you remember, the story of the widow of Zarapheth refer to 1 Kings 17:7-16, but the focus is on 1 Kings 17:14. It is whatever size of jar that the widow brought that the oil was going to fill up until the day God made it rain on the surface of the ground. Praise God. Alleluia. The flow of anointing has no limit. The power of the Holy Ghost has no limit. It simply is proportional to what is presented and how it is presented.

You see how after the little boy with over-sized suit jacket, trousers and shoes had grown into the suit and all, everything fitted perfectly well, and how the boy turned grown, will be able to effectively move about to be a success in whatever he puts his mind upon.

Angel Gabriel made a physical direct and personal appearance to Mary. As for Joseph, a version of the same import message was made to Joseph without privilege personal visitation, but rather only in the form of a dream.

You of course know who and what the Holy Spirit is, don't you. If your answer is in the affirmative, then I dare ask who would you rather be the last authority on whatever you need to know about the counsel of God, hmm?

I suspect you're trying hard to bend a straight stick to match yours here brother. We have, if we haven't korokoro with our own eyes, witness it ourselves, read the prophecy fulfilled of speaking in tongues recorded three times in scripture. The Bible said, they first heard a noisy loud sound, powerful full force rushing gust of wind sweep into the house they were and filling in the room where they were fitted, then appearing miraculously, were a representation of some form or sort of cloven tongues (i.e. glossa, in Greek, a member of the body, the organ of speech) of fire, sitting upon the disciples and they miraculously began to speak in other tongues/languages, please note this because Acts2:4 said, they did all this as the Spirit gave them utterances. The disciples didn't not force, did not conjure up, did not initiate, did not discretionally do anything. Everything was by the Holy Spirit. Now, isn't it surprising none of the disciples freaked out. Why would they, when they previously have been advanced warned by Jesus Christ, to tarry or wait in the city of Jerusalem until they are endued with power from on high (i.e. Luke 24:48)

Why at all, would they need to have such a power, a different level, a development and an improvement on quality, hmm Acehart. Why nah? Why, aside the obvious other reason(s) was this sort of versatility necessary? Of course, you do remember the state of mind and psychology of the disciples after Jesus was arrested, then humilated, assaulted, ridiculed, and lastly, literally slaughtered, didn't you, hmm?. If you do, then please advise me Acehart, help me with this nah, do you really think these men and women, were in the frame of mind, to go out and proclaim the gospel, just like that, on ordinary run of mill, business as usual, lacking distinctive features or interesting characteristics skillset or abilities, hmm? Please don't because of the little details trees, lose focus of the bigger picture forest.

I’ll think about your view over the weekend and really understand. “Point” and “Square legs” are two positions directly facing each other on the cricket pitch.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 9:06pm On May 22
Acehart:
I’ll think about your view over the weekend and really understand. “Point” and “Square legs” are two positions directly opposite each other on the cricket pitch.
Cricket is one game I never understood. Couldn't score it, don't know how which team is losing or winning. Maybe its you, who will give me a crash course on cricket.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 9:48pm On May 22
MuttleyLaff:
Cricket is one game I never understood. Couldn't score it, don't know how which team is losing or winning. Maybe its you, who will give me a crash course on cricket.

1. There is a batting side of two players called “batsmen” squaring off against an opposing fielding side of eleven players.

2. The goal for the batting side is to the score a lot of runs within the stipulated innings while avoiding losing all its batsmen before the innings are completed. Runs are made by the hitting the ball and attempting to make a number of “batsmen exchange of positions“ or “runs”. Hitting the ball out of the pitch through the air is six-runs; hitting the ball out of the pitch through the ground is four-runs. Some penalties incur additional runs.

3. The fielding sides goal is to get all the batsmen out as quickly as possible before the end of the innings. Batsmen are dislodged through catching them out (catch the ball in the air before the ball touches the ground), hitting or dislodging the wickets or leg-before-wicket (LBW).

An over is made up of six valid throws by the bowler (the elected thrower of the ball from the fielding side). Innings are made up of several overs. At the end of an inning, the fielding team takes its turn to be the batting team and the batting team becomes the fielding team. So a team can win either by hitting more runs that the other team or in the case of having the same number of runs, the team who had the fewer number of batsmen dislodged wins by “number of wickets“.

Crash course grin

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 10:01pm On May 22
Acehart:
1. There is a batting side of two players called “batsmen” squaring off against an opposing fielding side of eleven players.

2. The goal for the batting side is to the score a lot of runs within the stipulated innings while avoiding losing all its batsmen before the innings are completed. Runs are made by the hitting the ball and attempting to make a number of “batsmen exchange of positions“ or “runs”. Hitting the ball out of the pitch through the air is six-runs; hitting the ball out of the pitch through the ground is four-runs. Some penalties incur additional runs.

3. The fielding sides goal is to get all the batsmen out as quickly as possible before the end of the innings. Batsmen are dislodged through catching them out (catch the ball in the air before the ball touches the ground), hitting or dislodging the wickets or leg-before-wicket (LBW).

An over is made up of six valid throws by the bowler (the elected thrower of the ball from the fielding side). Innings are made up of several overs. At the end of an inning, the fielding team takes its turn to be the batting team and the batting team becomes the fielding team. So a team can win either by hitting more runs that the other team or in the case of having the same number of runs, the team who had the fewer number of batsmen dislodged wins by “number of wickets“.

Crash course grin
Thank you. The way you explained it now made sense, as I was able to relate it to what I usually see the players do when watching them on TV et cetera.

So who is your fav G.O.A.T MVP all rounder and why?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by FOLYKAZE(m): 10:36pm On May 22
MuttleyLaff:
Thank you. The way you explained it now made sense, as I was able to relate it to what I usually see the players do when watching them on TV et cetera.

So who is your fav G.O.A.T MVP all rounder and why?

Ore, I saw the mail request you sent. Corona has successfully handicapped man honestly. I can't use my mail now as there is no subscribed data on my account. Hope you are doing well?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 10:58pm On May 22
FOLYKAZE:
Ore, I saw the mail request you sent. Corona has successfully handicapped man honestly. I can't use my mail now as there is no subscribed data on my account. Hope you are doing well?
Bawo ni Ore mi, iyẹn gangan ni ohun ti mo nshe ayẹwo fun, lati mo boya ara nle, atipe she o dara. Igbekele nkan daradara ni adura mi fun gbogbo wa. Aa ni sofo. Olorun yago, ohun buburu kuro lona fun wa. Amin. Ohun daradara ni tiwa. Amin. E gba mi lago, teba fe soro. E ma fara le ooo.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 2:15am On May 23
Myer:


One thing I will give you credit for, is that you are quite intelligent, especially to still manage to avoid answering my question.
Knowing that it would simply put an end to this discussion.

But contrary to your accusation that I did not present my defense in your earlier post I quoted. I believe I did.

Your claim was that I made no scriptural references just because I did not inscribe the book, chapter and verse.
May I ask, whenever Jesus or the early apostles referenced old scriptures did you see any mention of the book, chapter and verse?
.

grin grin This seems better now. I hope you improve on it. grin
You must be ready to suffer and type cheesy and spend time to explain to show you truly want to contribute not just waste people's time. Scriptures are meant to be quoted always not paraphrased. So, make it a culture to always type and explain well.

You wrote
But contrary to your accusation that I did not present my defense in your earlier post I quoted. I believe I did.

Your claim was that I made no scriptural references just because I did not inscribe the book, chapter and verse.
May I ask, whenever Jesus or the early apostles referenced old scriptures did you see any mention of the book, chapter and verse?

I did reference scriptural verses, I simply expected any well-taught bible scholar to know what I was referencing.
Since you seem to need spoon-feeding, let me help you then;

To be sincere i love this your spoon-feeding well well. That is the bible culture, so maintain it, dont become a Christian who paraphrase scriptures, sometimes its dishonoring. Or are you not proud of typing the scriptures always? You imagine if the Apostles you mentioned have been paraphrasing without quoting, you would have been in endless search in the OT now looking for where they are quoting. You dont have to mention the verse if you want but make sure you spend time to quote it and type it.

You wrote again
1 Corinthians 14:22
Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

This prompts my asking if you have spoken a foreign language to evangelize to an unbeliever.

Context, baba, context. I have mentioned to you severally to always check words and context in every literature. I am sure this has been neglected here.

I will give you full explanation of this in another post soon to save space and avoid complain of reading long post.

Lastly, on the below
While reading through from verse 1 to 17 contradicts what we see in churches today- We have majority professing to speak in tongues yet not one to interpret.

It depends on what you mean by "see in churches". I have admonished you severally to avoid using bogus word such as this. [i]There are over 5 million churches in the world, how many have you been, to reach this conclusion about churches. You cant be using your localized view to explain a universal body. [/i]Stay with what you know.

I will respond fully soon.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 2:56am On May 23
hoopernikao:


I will respond fully soon.

@Myer @Goshen360

EXPLAINING 1 COR 14:21-25

I truly hope you read patiently.

Based on your question concerning 1 Cor 14:22. As I have mentioned earlier, grammar and context must be honored when interpreting the scriptures. You must always seek to find the contextual meaning by placing words in their right position and explanation over their pretext and post-text.
So, to explain 1 Cor 14:22 we must also observe where Paul is coming from. The safest place we can start is from verse 21..

Verse 21-25
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a SIGN, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.


Now the first thing you will notice is that it looks as if the verses are contradictory based on usage of words. For example, he said tongues is for unbeliever, but prophecy is not, yet the unbeliever said you are mad, but received prophesy as God word. Let us decipher this.



Firstly, the bold above are what I will want to shed light on.


1. Unbeliever

When Paul use the word unbeliever, unbelieving it always carry the same meaning with all usage in the Bible. An unbeliever in NT context is the one who has not believed in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor 15:3-4, Rom 10:8-10, John 3:16). So, we must carry this same meaning in this passage.

An unbeliever is not an issue of geographical location, position or knowledge. He is an unbeliever because he doesn’t believe in Christ redemptive work. So, Paul’s unbeliever is all inclusive. Whether he is around you or in Canada, it is the same.


2. Unlearned

The word unlearned is taken from the Greek word idiotes. Where we have the English word idiot. It simply translates illiterate, man as opposed to the learned and educated: one who is unskilled in any art. In this case of what we are looking at, it is interpreted to mean someone destitute of the gift of tongues, that is have no knowledge or not taught about the things of the spirit.

So, the idiotes can be a believer and also an unbeliever. Anyone criticizing the gift of the spirit or tongues is in this category actually.
What is common between this two is that they know nothing about how God function or activities and gifts of God.


3. Sign

A sign is an indication, especially ceremonially or supernaturally. Miracle, sign, token, wonder. The error common here is when you take the word sign to implies a miracle always.

The word sign was used 77 times in NT. It was used to mean either of the following:

- AN INDICATOR:

Mat 26:48 Now he that betrayed him gave them[b] A SIGN[/b], saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.

Luk 2:12 And this shall be A SIGN unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

2Th 3:17 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token (SIGN) in every epistle: so I write.

Rom 4:11 And he received the SIGN of circumcision,

1 Co 1:22 For the Jews require A SIGN and the Greeks seek after wisdom:


- A MIRACLE (Signs and Wonders)

Act 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what MIRACLES and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

Heb 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with SIGNS and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Because of space I will stop at that. You can see that when SIGN is used, it doesn’t always mean a miracle. It also simply means an indicator.



Reading through Isa 28:11 well (We have had a detailed conversation on this in this thread, you can read through), Paul quoted this before using the word sign in next verse. So Paul was explaining verse 21 with 22 and we must pay attention to that.

In Isa 28:11 the speaking in stammering tongues and strange lips wasn’t to perform or show a miracle but to show an indicator that God is speaking to them and they aren’t harkening. It is not a miraculous sign in Isa 28:11 [/b]quoted by Paul but [b]a sign, an indicator, a token for them.
This is the meaning Paul carried into 1 Cor 14:21. A sign here is not referring that a miracle to the unbeliever, you will see that later because he the unbeliever was never convinced by the tongue.



SO, WHAT WAS PAUL TEACHING?

Now Observe,

Firstly, in verse 21 that Paul quoting from Isa 28:11.

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

What you shouldn’t miss here is the last statement …and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

This implies they wont still believe nor accept me even in speaking to them in other tongues. The token/sign is speaking in tongue, but it was determined that it wont be able to bring them to God due to their hearing (heart). This isn’t speaking about the believer but the unbeliever (they will not hear me). A believer have heard God’s call rather has called unto God (Rom 10:11-13).

So using Isa 28:11 to read 1 Cor 14:21

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.


Let me give you how 1 Cor 14:21 will read:

21 ...With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe (that heard me), but to them that believe not(that will not hear me): but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not (will not hear me), but for them which believe (that heard me).
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers (one who will not hear me), will they not say that ye are mad?
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not (will not hear me), or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.



Now for proper reading sake, I will decouple the verses for you. Let us focus on the unbeliever/unlearned as that is where our issue is and also handle this the way it is as a single teaching without verses.

See my emphasis as bold.

21 ...With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore (based on the above), tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe (that heard God), but to them that believe not (that will not hear God)
23 (Based on the above) If the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers (one who will not hear God), will they not say that ye are mad (you acting like crazy people)?
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not (one who will not hear God), or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. (he will now hear me, he is saved and become a believer)


1st, note that he didnt call prophecy a sign for believer, he only called tongue a sign for unbeliever.

2nd, he said they are mad because of tongues, why? It is a language of derision, so because it is unintelligible to him, he will call you mad. This must be the response of every believer in any place on this earth.

The advocates of tongue is a human language, will rather change the meaning of unbeliever here, because if you say it is human language and an unbeliever can hear tongues (maybe it is his language you are speaking), then it contradict what Paul said. Paul said the response of an unbeliever to tongues is always the same: he called you mad, he rejects you and walk away. This cannot change by locations.

Now, Paul said if all prophesy, note that what did eventually convince the unbeliever is prophecy not tongues. He will now hear you and get convinced as his heart is revealed.



SO, WHAT DOES PAUL SAYING?

Same thing he has been saying from verse 1, that prophecy have greater effect in application that tongues. When an unbeliever hear tongue, he can get attracted, confounded but will be mad and reject it at last (reject God), Isa 28:11 (they will not hear me, saith the Lord), But with prophecy, his heart is revealed to see God.

Don’t forget that in 1 Cor 14:3-5, Paul equate the effect tongues/interpretation have to what prophecy will achieve.

1Co 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

So, the church is edified if tongues is interpreted, this is the same thing prophecy achieves. So, to an unbeliever too, he must receive interpretation to hear God (accept God). This will mean a mode of preaching the gospel for his salvation. .

Tongue has never gotten anyone saved and will not, it is a sign to unbeliever, a sign for his rejection of God’s word, calling God’s gift madness but when such is interpreted and point him to things he kept in his heart he will realize God is at work.

WHAT OF BELIEVERS?

Tongues is not a sign to a believer, as he should have understanding, know and hear God in tongue and not refer to it as madness. When you see a believer refer to tongue as madness, he is unlearned (idiotes) as Paul mentioned. Hence, a believer speaks with God (1 Cor 14:2, 28) and EDIFY himself. And by interpretation, he can help the church for COMFORT, EXHORTATION AND EDIFICATION and likewise help the unbeliever, for SALVATION.

Like i said, in the beginning, i truly hope you read carefully.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 5:41am On May 23
MuttleyLaff:
Thank you. The way you explained it now made sense, as I was able to relate it to what I usually see the players do when watching them on TV et cetera.

So who is your fav G.O.A.T MVP all rounder and why?

In cricket?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 5:52am On May 23
Acehart:
In cricket?
Yes please, in cricket.
Of course, you'll be spoilt for choice, if it was from the Bible, I was asking grin
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 5:58am On May 23
MuttleyLaff:
Yes please, in cricket.
Of course, you'll be spoilt for choice, if it was from the Bible, I was asking grin

Cricket...Brian Lara. Bible...I’ll go for Job; It isn’t easy sitting in front of three guys who think they know God and they spew twisted theology through long speeches so that they can shine in the hopes that the one with the right theology breaks.

Job was awesome. David comes next. Tamar, a distant third.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 9:32am On May 23
hoopernikao:


Don’t forget that in 1 Cor 14:3-5, Paul equate the effect tongues/interpretation have to what prophecy will achieve.

1Co 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

So, the church is edified if tongues is interpreted, this is the same thing prophecy achieves. So, to an unbeliever too, he must receive interpretation to hear God (accept God). This will mean a mode of preaching the gospel for his salvation. .

Tongue has never gotten anyone saved and will not, it is a sign to unbeliever, a sign for his rejection of God’s word, calling God’s gift madness but when such is interpreted and point him to things he kept in his heart he will realize God is at work.

WHAT OF BELIEVERS?

Tongues is not a sign to a believer, as he should have understanding, know and hear God in tongue and not refer to it as madness. When you see a believer refer to tongue as madness, he is unlearned (idiotes) as Paul mentioned. Hence, a believer speaks with God (1 Cor 14:2, 28) and EDIFY himself. And by interpretation, he can help the church for COMFORT, EXHORTATION AND EDIFICATION and likewise help the unbeliever, for SALVATION.

Like i said, in the beginning, i truly hope you read carefully.

I'm beginning to give up and conclude that you simply like to hear yourself and not listen to reason.
You have only ended up twisting the obviously straight forward message of this book.

What was Paul addressing here? Spiritual gifts, with specificity to the gifts of Tongues, Interpretation and Prophecy.
I will explain it verse by verse-

1. Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

This verse says it all, The purpose of it all is charity/love.
Also spiritual gifts are to be desired, but the purpose is to prophesy.
Hence Paul exalts the gift of prophecy. Why? Because it is the only way to understand God's mind towards the church.

2. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Now in this verse Paul explains what tongues achieve, that it is not to be understood but a communication of spiritual mysteries.
However this would seem to contrast Acts 2: 6-13 where the gift of tongues was first released to the disciples and understood by the unbelievers who spoke those tongues (languages)
This is why some bible scholars believe there are two types of tongues- known and unknown.
Paul here was addressing the unknown tongues.

3. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4.He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Paul here addresses the purpose of both gifts of prophecy and tongues.
Prophecy is for the benefit of all, while tongues (unknown) is personal.

5. I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

I believe here Paul settles the matter, Prophecy is greater than speaking in tongues which no one can interpret.

6. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

Let me paraphrase here- Paul is simply asking, What is the point of speaking in tongues if it can't be interpreted?

7- 11 here Paul goes on to illustrate how speaking in tongues is more or less making noise, without interpretation.

12. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

Here we can see the purpose of spiritual gifts, is for the edification of the church. To help believers grow.

13-19 In these verses he continues to stress the pointlessness of speaking in tongues if it can't be understood especially in the church gathering.

20. Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

This is self explanatory. Proverbs 4:7

21. In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

I believe you've done justice to this verse Isaiah 28:11. That even with the signs, an unbeliever (hardened heart) would yet not believe.

22. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

This verse says it all. This is where you seem not to understand the intention of Paul.
Even though an unbeliever won't believe, yet speaking in his own (known) tongue is a sign to an unbeliever.
Imagine I'm a yoruba man in an igbo land. And someone who is clearly an igbo man with no understanding of yoruba language starts preaching to me in yoruba or gives a revelation to me in yoruba, I would be amazed. That is the intent of the known tongues. That is what the sign is meant for.
This once more brings me to my question which yet you continue to evade- Have you preached/evangelized to an unbeliever in another tongue?

23. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

Clearly this paints the ridiculous image of what is today obtainable in our churches today. Every one speaking in (unknown) tongues, without interpretation. Clearly any one who is not a member of the church would thing you mad. I can relate to this.

24. But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:

This is the antithesis of verse 23. If I a visitor to your church were to be prophesied to in a language I understand, and with a revelation I know to be true in a way that is convincing, I would have no excuse but to believe. But if I harden my heart still, then I am judged.

25. And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

The experience of an unbeliever who open his heart to a true prophesy and revelation would produce the reaction of awe and worship as explained here.

26-32 Here we see what is clearly missing in today's churches. I know because I have been privileged by my travels around this country to visit different denominations.
Here we see the way the spiritual gifts should operate. Those who speak tongues should be accompanied by those who interpret.
And those who prophesy should do so in an organized manner with others who also prophesy.
The church should have the various spiritual gifts working together in harmony for the edification of the church.

33. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Churches today make one question this verse because what we see in them is confusion.

34-35 has been interpreted by different scholars. Some say Paul was being traditional, while other maintain it is a spiritual order.

36-38 Paul here confidently affirms that any one who is spiritual would agree with him, otherwise, is spiritually ignorant. (You have to admire his audacity even towards the other apostles).

39-40 The summary of it all- Paul is not speaking against speaking in tongues but that it is only profitable with interpretation. Prophecy remains more beneficial to the church. And most especially, all should be done in moderation.

I hope now you will understand these;
-The purpose of it all is Love/Charity.
-Speaking in tongues is only profitable when it can be interpreted. Other wise it is just empty noise that profits no one.
-Speaking in tongues is a sign to unbelievers- if you who is not from my tribe spoke revelations to me in my native language I would marvel. Whether I believe or not is a matter of the state of my heart. While Prophecy is for believers.
-Everything should be done in moderation.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 10:06am On May 23
Myer:


I'm beginning to give up and conclude that you simply like to hear yourself and not listen to reason.
You have only ended up twisting the obviously straight forward message of this book.

What was Paul addressing here? Spiritual gifts, with specificity to the gifts of Tongues, Interpretation and Prophecy.
I will explain it verse by verse-

1. Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

This verse says it all, The purpose of it all is charity/love.
Also spiritual gifts are to be desired, but the purpose is to prophesy.
Hence Paul exalts the gift of prophecy. Why? Because it is the only way to understand God's mind towards the church.

2. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Now in this verse Paul explains what tongues achieve, that it is not to be understood but a communication of spiritual mysteries.
However this would seem to contrast Acts 2: 6-13 where the gift of tongues was first released to the disciples and understood by the unbelievers who spoke those tongues (languages)
This is why some bible scholars believe there are two types of tongues- known and unknown.
Paul here was addressing the unknown tongues.

3. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4.He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Paul here addresses the purpose of both gifts of prophecy and tongues.
Prophecy is for the benefit of all, while tongues (unknown) is personal.

5. I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

I believe here Paul settles the matter, Prophecy is greater than speaking in tongues which no one can interpret.

6. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

Let me paraphrase here- Paul is simply asking, What is the point of speaking in tongues if it can't be interpreted?

7- 11 here Paul goes on to illustrate how speaking in tongues is more or less making noise, without interpretation.

12. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

Here we can see the purpose of spiritual gifts, is for the edification of the church. To help believers grow.

13-19 In these verses he continues to stress the pointlessness of speaking in tongues if it can't be understood especially in the church gathering.

20. Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

This is self explanatory. Proverbs 4:7

21. In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

I believe you've done justice to this verse Isaiah 28:11. That even with the signs, an unbeliever (hardened heart) would yet not believe.

22. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

This verse says it all. This is where you seem not to understand the intention of Paul.
Even though an unbeliever won't believe, yet speaking in his own (known) tongue is a sign to an unbeliever.
Imagine I'm a yoruba man in an igbo land. And someone who is clearly an igbo man with no understanding of yoruba language starts preaching to me in yoruba or gives a revelation to me in yoruba, I would be amazed. That is the intent of the known tongues. That is what the sign is meant for.
This once more brings me to my question which yet you continue to evade- Have you preached/evangelized to an unbeliever in another tongue?

23. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

Clearly this paints the ridiculous image of what is today obtainable in our churches today. Every one speaking in (unknown) tongues, without interpretation. Clearly any one who is not a member of the church would thing you mad. I can relate to this.

24. But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:

This is the antithesis of verse 23. If I a visitor to your church were to be prophesied to in a language I understand, and with a revelation I know to be true in a way that is convincing, I would have no excuse but to believe. But if I harden my heart still, then I am judged.

25. And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

The experience of an unbeliever who open his heart to a true prophesy and revelation would produce the reaction of awe and worship as explained here.

26-32 Here we see what is clearly missing in today's churches. I know because I have been privileged by my travels around this country to visit different denominations.
Here we see the way the spiritual gifts should operate. Those who speak tongues should be accompanied by those who interpret.
And those who prophesy should do so in an organized manner with others who also prophesy.
The church should have the various spiritual gifts working together in harmony for the edification of the church.

33. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Churches today make one question this verse because what we see in them is confusion.

34-35 has been interpreted by different scholars. Some say Paul was being traditional, while other maintain it is a spiritual order.

36-38 Paul here confidently affirms that any one who is spiritual would agree with him, otherwise, is spiritually ignorant. (You have to admire his audacity even towards the other apostles).

39-40 The summary of it all- Paul is not speaking against speaking in tongues but that it is only profitable with interpretation. Prophecy remains more beneficial to the church. And most especially, all should be done in moderation.

I hope now you will understand these;
-The purpose of it all is Love/Charity.
-Speaking in tongues is only profitable when it can be interpreted. Other wise it is just empty noise that profits no one.
-Speaking in tongues is a sign to unbelievers- if you who is not from my tribe spoke revelations to me in my native language I would marvel. Whether I believe or not is a matter of the state of my heart. While Prophecy is for believers.
-Everything should be done in moderation.

Good morning. I like your exposition. May the Lord guide you and give you peace in Christ’s name.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 10:07am On May 23
Acehart:
Cricket...Brian Lara.
Wow, interesting. Why Brian Lara then, of course, I like him too, especially for his cool quiet looking demeanour. He seem s short fella, or is that my imagination

Acehart:
Bible...I’ll go for Job; It isn’t easy sitting in front of three guys who think they know God and they spew twisted theology through long speeches so that they can shine in the hopes that the one with the right theology breaks.

Job was awesome. David comes next. Tamar, a distant third.
I like you choices and even how you threw in Tamar in the mix, to have a female featured, but of the Tamars now is this? I am guessing you aren't talking of Tamar, the daughter of king David

You've hinted a bit why Job is your first. True, Job, no doubt, was dogged. He didn't even for a moment waver in his faith, though he did at points, slip into severe depression but what's with David, why him coming second in your books, then also why Tamar running third, I am intrigued to know the reasons behind your second and third choices. As for me, its a hard one, smh, I am spoilt for choices.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 10:20am On May 23
MuttleyLaff:
Wow, interesting. Why Brian Lara then, of course, I like him too, especially for his cool quiet looking demeanour. He seem s short fella, or is that my imagination

I like you choices and even how you threw in Tamar in the mix, to have a female featured, but of the Tamars now is this? I am guessing you aren't talking of Tamar, the daughter of king David

You've hinted a bit why Job is your first. True, Job, no doubt, was dogged. He didn't even for a moment waver in his faith, though he did at points, slip into severe depression but what's with David, why him coming second in your books, then also why Tamar running third, I am intrigued to know the reasons behind your second and third choices. As for me, its a hard one, smh, I am spoilt for choices.

Yes. Brian Lara was short; he was probably the same height as Tendulkar.

Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah. She was a help to me when life didn’t make sense, so was Job. They just told me that you can do everything by the books and yet your world will shatter. I guess she like Abraham rejoiced to see my day - as Jesus said. The storm is over now or rather it has reduced from a category seven hurricane to just rain showers.

David, O! David! it was how he handled himself in the years after the loss of his children and kingdom - that baffles me and guides me - He shows me that when God wants to refine you into complete holiness, He doesn’t mind ripping you apart, but you still must trust Him through the process.

So tell me yours, if you don’t mind wink
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 11:34am On May 23
Acehart:
Yes. Brian Lara was short; he was probably the same height as Tendulkar.
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

Acehart:
Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah. She was a help to me when life didn’t make sense, so was Job. They just told me that you can do everything by the books and yet your world will shatter. I guess she like Abraham rejoiced to see my day - as Jesus said. The storm is over now or rather it has reduced from a category seven hurricane to just rain showers.

David, O! David! it was how he handled himself in the years after the loss of his children and kingdom - that baffles me and guides me - He shows me that when God wants to refine you into complete holiness, He doesn’t mind ripping you apart, but you still must trust Him through the process.

So tell me yours, if you don’t mind wink
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.

Let me do a commentary of your choices instead and that would be coming from my perspective. Tamar, true to what you said, extra-biblical sources (i.e. Legends of the Jews) said she had a gift of prophecy, which is how she knew that the royal line of David and mighty prophets would come through her hence why she slept with Judah, when she felt being overlooked. She is a strong willed woman, just like Eve, lmao

Young David who became king David. He was a firebrand and independent right from a young age. Nothing is allowed to mess with anything put in young David's care. Right from a young age, he always as being a protector. He doesnt mind, putting his life on the line to save others, especially vulnerable and/or weaker ones. Young David doesnt like God being dissed and/or disrespected, he will go all out to defend God's name and prestige. He wouldn't take nonsense from any bad mouthing Goliath. Such will pay with ltheir ives for such silly mistake, lmao. Grown soon to become king, likes to command respect because he knows his worth and who he is with God. One man, if not for his wife almost breathed his last breath for talking out of turn to the grown David. He knows a good thing when he sees it, upon Nadal's death, he didn't hesitate in marrying Abigail, lmao. When there was a change of plan, God had young David in mind to be His king over Israel. God's reason was that because He had found someone after His own heart. Wow, that is some powerful words of approval going on there coming from God about a fellow human being. Yeah, it's true young David/king David had his few share of tragedies, his children Absalom, Tamar raped, his first child with Bathsheba, who died as punishment from God for his adultery with her, his friends like Jonathan et cetera, his boss and mentor in the person of king Saul et cetera. I almost forgot, he was reddish browned skinned and handsome. No homo and nothing against gays, lmao

Job! The devil showed this man pepper. God allowed it, for lots of reasons and personally, I think IMHO, it was to teach Job a lesson, which I no doubt believe he did learn, after the whole experience.

Second, God knows His creation. He knew Job, is capable of doing the job successfully. Please excuse the intentional pun, there, lmao. Anyway, though it was tough, the devil peppered him well well, the devil pulled out all the stops. The devil threw everything including the kitchen sink at Job, but praise God Alleluia, that Job remained standing, no flinching except to stand and maintain his ground, lmao. His wife came yakety yak in his ears, his three friends came yakety yak in his ears, but my man, kept on saying, no, I am innocent, I did nothing wrong. I am an innocent man.

You see, one of the things I learned from Job's experience, is that, to be careful in all your doings, as you don't know who's 24/7/365 days watching you. Apparently the devil, had been keeping a close eye on Job. The devil obviously had made, to no avail, attempts on Job that failed because Job had continually fortified himself, and that aside the already hedge God had around him (i.e. Job 1:5a, Job 1:5b and Job 1:10)

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 11:57am On May 23
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
:10)

His Windies team was weak in my opinion. Though I liked the guile of their fast bowler, Curtly Ambrose. Like Ambrose, the rest of the team seemed hotheaded. Beside Lara and Chanderpaul, the rest seemed like that Brady Bunch family. With the Australian team wrecking havoc, Lara always hit the balls effortlessly and with style at every opportunity. Hitting sixes and playing balls into spaces isn’t the easiest of skills; sometimes they are done with desperation; you wouldn’t see that desperation with Brian Lara; he was a gently man.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 12:08pm On May 23
Acehart:
His Windies team was weak in my opinion. Though I liked the guile of their fast bowler, Curtly Ambrose. Like Ambrose, the rest of the team seemed hotheaded. Beside Lara and Chanderpaul, the rest seemed like that Brady Bunch family. With the Australian team wrecking havoc, Lara always hit the balls effortlessly and with style at every opportunity. Hitting sixes and playing balls into spaces isn’t the easiest of skills; sometimes they are done with desperation; you wouldn’t see that desperation with Brian Lara; he was a gently man.
You've got me interested in cricket now. I need to go brush up on the how to record or score point, the game tactics, how to know who is winning and losing et cetera Thanks.

PS: So whats your take on Imran Khan, Ian Botham and Graham Gooch
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 12:18pm On May 23
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 12:36pm On May 23
MuttleyLaff:
You've got me interested in cricket now. I need to go brush up on the how to record or score point, the game tactics, how to know who is winning and losing et cetera Thanks.

PS: So whats your take on Imran Khan, Ian Botham and Graham Gooch

I didn’t watch them play. If it wasn’t Brian Lara playing or Shane Warne playing, they wasn’t any need to watch cricket for me. I think I watched Imran Khan once or twice but I don’t think he or Pakistan team did impress anything on my mind. I haven’t watched watched a lot of sports for many years now because of locusts and palmer worms. Now I don’t see them anymore, but they have damaged my love for watching TV or sports too.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 12:39pm On May 23
Acehart:
I didn’t watch them play. If it wasn’t Brian Lara playing or Shane Warne playing, they wasn’t any need to watch cricket for me. I think I watched Imran Khan once or twice but I don’t think he or Pakistan team did impress anything on my mind. I haven’t watched watched a lot of sports for many years now because of locusts and palmer worms. Now I don’t see them anymore, but they have damaged my love for watching TV or sports too.
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
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 12:52pm On May 23
Myer:


You have only ended up twisting the obviously straight forward message of this book.

What was Paul addressing here? Spiritual gifts, with specificity to the gifts of Tongues, Interpretation and Prophecy.

Firstly, when you are making such statement as above, the ideal thing is to point exactly to the twisting, not giving utterance that points to no direction. This is how we can progress and not be repeat everything over and over as it is obvious you agreed with some points raised even if you adversely avoided others.

You first started by saying, i cant explain 1 Cor 14:22 because that will put an end to the discussion. Now, i have done that, you agreed too.
After, you jumped as the discussion didnt end because you have a different opinion. Unfortunately your opinion have hidden some truth behind by jumping over them to explain other things. I will be taking you one by one on this in separate post so as not to mix them up.


Kindly pay attention. I will give you a summary of your thoughts in your last write up.

1. The purpose of 1 Cor 14 is charity (i pointed same out already)
2. Tongues profited no one: Speaking in tongues is only profitable when it can be interpreted. Other wise it is just empty noise that profits no one.
3. That speaking in tongues is human language (Speaking in tongues is a sign to unbelievers- if you who is not from my tribe spoke revelations to me in my native language I would marvel. Whether I believe or not is a matter of the state of my heart. While Prophecy is for believers.)

Not forgetting things you obvious omitted in your explanation.



I will take you on No 2. here

You said: Tongues profited no one

This is a fallacy of improper reading.
1 Cor 14: 2 A man who speaks in tongues edify himself.
1 Cor 14:4, He that speaketh in an tongue edifieth himself;
1 Cor 14:28: let him speak to himself, and to God


The first question i want you to answer is, did Paul teaches that Tongues should not be spoken? Or that tongues is useless?
Putting the scriptures on mind. Paul's language in 1 Cor 14, never condemned tongues but pointed to how it should be used. The place of tongues in edifying yourself and place of prophecy in edifying the church. No where did Paul said dont pray in tongues.

1 Cor 14:34 FORBID NOT TO SPEAK IN TONGUE.

The second question i will raise for you based on verse 34 is HAVE YOU NOT FORBIDDING SPEAKING IN TONGUES OR DO YOU?


Let me repeat again for better structure of your next response.

1. DID PAUL TEACHES THAT TONGUES SHOULD NOT BE SPOKEN? OR THAT TONGUES IS USELESS. I expect you to touch these scriptures that directly point to tongue and not sway around. (1 Cor 14:2, 4, 28, 34)

2. HAVE YOU NOT FORBIDDEN SPEAKING IN TONGUES OR DO YOU based on Paul's instructions? The same Paul who instructed Prophecy, instructed Tongues? Have you been obeying that or the instruction is not necessary?

Like i said, i will separate this conversation not to make it clumsy and loose focus of key issues raised.

I hope you wont dance away from the verses.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 12:52pm On May 23
Myer:


-Speaking in tongues is a sign to unbelievers- if you who is not from my tribe spoke revelations to me in my native language I would marvel. Whether I believe or not is a matter of the state of my heart. While Prophecy is for believers.
-Everything should be done in moderation.

Now the next point you raised is this.

That speaking in tongues is human language You said:
(Speaking in tongues is a sign to unbelievers- if you who is not from my tribe spoke revelations to me in my native language I would marvel. Whether I believe or not is a matter of the state of my heart. While Prophecy is for believers.)


Here you have hidden so many truth that need to be unveiled.

Let us take it from you explaining

1. Who is Paul's unbeliever in 1 Cor 14, is he different by geographical location.
2. 1 Cor 14:22-25 said an unbeliever doesnt understand tongues. How come you paraphrased that an unbeliever can hear again?

1Co 14:23
If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

Bear in mind that the reason he said "you are mad" is not because of the tongue but because he doesn't understand. You cant call you own language madness.

So, if your unbeliever can hear what was said in tongue, then can we stream tongues on google translate and get meaning? That will lead to the issue on interpretation in my next post which you didnt think through in your writing.


See it again what is expected of you.

1. Give your explanation of Paul's UNBELIEVER in 1 Cor 14. Who is an unbeliever, does the definition changed by location?.
2. Paul's Unbeliever doesnt understand tongues, how come yours do?

I truly hope you wont dance away from the verses as pointed out.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 12:52pm On May 23
Myer:

-Speaking in tongues is a sign to unbelievers- if you who is not from my tribe spoke revelations to me in my native language I would marvel. Whether I believe or not is a matter of the state of my heart. While Prophecy is for believers.
-Everything should be done in moderation.

The Third

Just like the second but an extension.

1. What is interpretation of tongues. Is it a gift of the Spirit or human education. If an unbeliever can interpret tongue, can we then subject the gift of the spirit to human effort. Are gifts of the spirit Spiritual or human? Bear in mind word Paul used for gift.


Also bear in mind, how Paul handled interpretation.

1 Cor 14:13 offers prayer as solution to interpretation, not get education.
1 Cor 12:8-10 impressed it among other spiritual gifts that arent human ability. How come it is an ability an unbeliever can acquired.

I truly hope you wont dance away from the verses as pointed out.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 1:01pm On May 23
hoopernikao:


Firstly, when you are making such statement as above, the ideal thing is to point exactly to the twisting, not giving utterance that points to no direction. This is how we can progress and not be repeat everything over and over as it is obvious you agreed with some points raised even if you adversely avoided others.

You first started by saying, i cant explain 1 Cor 14:22 because that will put an end to the discussion. Now, i have done that, you agreed too.
After, you jumped as the discussion didnt end because you have a different opinion. Unfortunately your opinion have hidden some truth behind by jumping over them to explain other things. I will be taking you one by one on this in separate post so as not to mix them up.

Kindly pay attention. I will give you a summary of your thoughts in your last write up.

1. The purpose of 1 Cor 14 is charity (i pointed same out already)
2. Tongues profited no one: Speaking in tongues is only profitable when it can be interpreted. Other wise it is just empty noise that profits no one.
3. That speaking in tongues is human language (Speaking in tongues is a sign to unbelievers- if you who is not from my tribe spoke revelations to me in my native language I would marvel. Whether I believe or not is a matter of the state of my heart. While Prophecy is for believers.)

Not forgetting things you obvious omited in your explanation.

I will take you on No 2..

You said: Tongues profited no one

This is a fallacy of improper reading.
1 Cor 14: 2 A man who speaks in tongues edify himself.
1 Cor 14:4, He that speaketh in an tongue edifieth himself;
1 Cor 14:28: let him speak to himself, and to God

The first question i want you to answer is, did Paul teaches that Tongues should not be spoken? Or that tongues is useless?
Putting the scriptures on mind. Paul's language in 1 Cor 14, never condemned tongues but pointed to how it should be used. The place of tongues in edifying yourself and place of prophecy in edifying the church. No where did Paul said dont pray in tongues.

1 Cor 14:34 FORBID NOT TO SPEAK IN TONGUE.

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?

(1) (2) (3) ... (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) ... (19) (Reply)

Why Do Religious People Pray ? / Davidylan: Are Jews Going To Heaven? / Nude lady Climb Church Altar During Xmas Mass(photo)

(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. 693
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.