Tongue Speaking not needed today

[Brickjectivity]

Its not natural language but can be mysteries in natural language, because "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit." (1Cor 14:2)

you would also need to find any support in scripture that would suggest prophecy should not be defined as speaking the word of God, but speaking only the words of God which people can conceptually grasp.

"But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort."(1Cor 14:3) This is the role of prophecy both traditionally and in this verse in the same chapter you quoted from. It suggests that prophecy may not be what you have assumed it to be, so perhaps 'Tongues' fills some role that you have reserved for prophecy.

Additionally; I can further add that your interptation is not consistent with Acts 2. Here we clearly see that tongues is defined as the function of speaking in a foreign language you don't know or understand, but which the hearers do.
The people were not amazed that they could understand something that would otherwise be theologically too complex for them to grasp - they were amazed that these unlearned fishermen were speaking in their native languages.

In Acts chapter 2 these Jews weren't amazed because they were hearing their native languages (though it was in their native languages). That would not have amazed them, because they were Jews. They were hearing the praises of the LORD, the praises of the unspeakable name, the greatest mystery of all. That was what amazed them. Don't focus on trivial details while overlooking the significance of what happened.

 

[Rise]

Again - it doesn't matter

It certainly does matter, especially in the context of this thread.
Back up a few pages: I made the statement that the Bible distinguishes from true and false miracles. You quoted my statement, and then launched into a bunch of stuff about magic in an attempt to disagree with my statement. You then tried to quote Bible verses that you believed supported your belief that there is no distinction between the two.

So we need to be clear here about what you're trying to prove and how you're trying to prove it: You're trying to quote the Bible to prove your point, but at the same time you're ignoring the vast amounts of scripture which shows your interpretation of scripture cannot be true. And you are making no attempt to deal with those passages. So we've now firmly established, without contention, that the Bible does very explicitly and clearly draw a distinction between false and true miracles, demonic and godly spiritual operation. And you're making no attempt to directly dispute so much as a single verse I gave you because the scripture is so clear on this fact.

At that point the debate about what the Bible says is over. That is now established without real dispute.

You are instead now engaging in a different subject of debate: whether or not all of the Bible is true. It's very easy to claim the Bible supports your personal beliefs if you're willing to take scissors to it and cut out every part that you think disagrees with you. If we want to establish what the Bible actually says, rather than just re-enforce our own beliefs, we cannot cut out the parts we disagree with to make the Bible conform to our beliefs - we have to let the whole Bible speak for itself. Rewriting the Bible in our image would be the equivalent of idolatry. Idolatry creates your own version of god, a different god, which had assigned to it your own values and ideas.

With the issue of what the Bible actually says being settled; I would then point out to you that everything you are posting has to be read in the context of a Bible that very clearly defines a difference between the two. There is such a thing as counterfeits. They look similar to the untrained eye, but they are actually polar opposites. One is true and valuable, another is deceptive and worthless.

It will also point out that it is especially illogical to turn to Jewish history in an attempt to prove your point; as the Bible establishes that the Jews had a continual history of falling into idolatry, suffering the consequences for it, and then turning back to God. It would be no surprise if we found ancient examples of Jews doing things which the Bible tells them not to.

I could take issue with many of your Biblical examples. In many cases you're reading things into it that the text won't support. I may address them specifically if you can admit what the Bible says about drawing a distinction between true and false miracles, because that is an important foundation that must be established if we are debating other Biblical passages.

I must also point out to you, that even if there were a case in the Bible of an individual doing something that falls under a forbidden category, that doesn't automatically lead us to conclude that God endorsed their actions. Jesus is our model, the only one we are commanded to follow and emulate. No man of the Bible was without flaw, and just because the Bible tells us they did something cannot be taken as God endorsing all their decisions. The Bible is a record of both man's successes and failures, so that we may learn from it.

 

[Ingledsva]

It certainly does matter, especially in the context of this thread.
Back up a few pages: I made the statement that the Bible distinguishes from true and false miracles. You quoted my statement, and then launched into a bunch of stuff about magic in an attempt to disagree with my statement. You then tried to quote Bible verses that you believed supported your belief that there is no distinction between the two.

So we need to be clear here about what you're trying to prove and how you're trying to prove it: You're trying to quote the Bible to prove your point, but at the same time you're ignoring the vast amounts of scripture which shows your interpretation of scripture cannot be true. And you are making no attempt to deal with those passages. So we've now firmly established, without contention, that the Bible does very explicitly and clearly draw a distinction between false and true miracles, demonic and godly spiritual operation. And you're making no attempt to directly dispute so much as a single verse I gave you because the scripture is so clear on this fact.

At that point the debate about what the Bible says is over. That is now established without real dispute.

You are instead now engaging in a different subject of debate: whether or not all of the Bible is true. It's very easy to claim the Bible supports your personal beliefs if you're willing to take scissors to it and cut out every part that you think disagrees with you. If we want to establish what the Bible actually says, rather than just re-enforce our own beliefs, we cannot cut out the parts we disagree with to make the Bible conform to our beliefs - we have to let the whole Bible speak for itself. Rewriting the Bible in our image would be the equivalent of idolatry. Idolatry creates your own version of god, a different god, which had assigned to it your own values and ideas.

With the issue of what the Bible actually says being settled; I would then point out to you that everything you are posting has to be read in the context of a Bible that very clearly defines a difference between the two. There is such a thing as counterfeits. They look similar to the untrained eye, but they are actually polar opposites. One is true and valuable, another is deceptive and worthless.

It will also point out that it is especially illogical to turn to Jewish history in an attempt to prove your point; as the Bible establishes that the Jews had a continual history of falling into idolatry, suffering the consequences for it, and then turning back to God. It would be no surprise if we found ancient examples of Jews doing things which the Bible tells them not to.

I could take issue with many of your Biblical examples. In many cases you're reading things into it that the text won't support. I may address them specifically if you can admit what the Bible says about drawing a distinction between true and false miracles, because that is an important foundation that must be established if we are debating other Biblical passages.

I must also point out to you, that even if there were a case in the Bible of an individual doing something that falls under a forbidden category, that doesn't automatically lead us to conclude that God endorsed their actions. Jesus is our model, the only one we are commanded to follow and emulate. No man of the Bible was without flaw, and just because the Bible tells us they did something cannot be taken as God endorsing all their decisions. The Bible is a record of both man's successes and failures, so that we may learn from it.

Again pure BULL!

Even YHVH is supposed to have created all that is, with an incantation.

"Both the Bible and Jewish mysticism emphasize that God created the universe by means of a series of “speech acts.” Humanity is the only one of God’s mortal creations with the power of speech, implying that our words can, under certain conditions, have the same constructive (and destructive) power." http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/incantations-spells-adjurations/

Levite's paragraph which I posted, is from his paper on Jewish MAGIC!

His paper explained that MAGIC continued even AFTER enacting some of those - laws against certain MAGIC, - as they only covered SOME of their MAGIC acts. The others continued.

Such as casting stones for answers = basically rune casting. They Scryed. They made magic wands and staffs, - and we have many Bible verses showing them doing magic with these - including fertility Magic.

Even the Jewish Encyclopedia page, and the My Jewish Learning page that I sent you to, - say they did MAGIC!

And I put a spell bowl picture up for you. These bowls included negative spells against other people, = MAGIC.

We have artifacts showing they did magic, and continued to do magic.

EDIT - Plus the definition again - ALL of which the Hebrew and early Christians fall under -

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magic

1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations. 2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell : enchantment.

*

 

[Rise]

Its not natural language but can be mysteries in natural language, because "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit." (1Cor 14:2)

That verse cannot be read in isolation. It must be read in the context of everything else we know about tongues from scripture, which establishes that tongues deals with language rather than concepts.

In fact, the Greek word for tongues, "glossai", is a word that refers to either the literal tongue or a language. http://biblehub.com/greek/1100.htm

As I already pointed out, but you ignored, the analogies Paul uses about tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:6-13 all deal with sound. If he was talking about the need to interpret a difficult saying to restate it in understandable terminology, he could have used much more apt analogies that deal with comprehending concepts and parables.

In Acts 2, before they started speaking in tongues, a visible manifestation appeared over their heads of a flaming tongue. That obviously denotes speech, language. You wouldn't use a tongue to symbolize confusing but deep mysteries.

In Acts chapter 2 these Jews weren't amazed because they were hearing their native languages (though it was in their native languages). That would not have amazed them, because they were Jews. They were hearing the praises of the LORD, the praises of the unspeakable name, the greatest mystery of all. That was what amazed them. Don't focus on trivial details while overlooking the significance of what happened.

Let's look at what Acts 2 actually says:

Acts 2:4, ESV
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Or, as the NLT translates it:
And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability.

HCSB:
Then they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different languages, as the Spirit gave them ability for speech.

The greek word for "other" denotes something of a different kind. http://biblehub.com/greek/2087.htm
They spoke with a different kind of glossai (tongues, meaning language in the greek).
It doesn't say they spoke in glossai, period, but they spoke in a different kind of glossai. This denotes a change from one language to another.

You also missed an important part of this account in Acts 2:5
Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. Then they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”

It is because those people came from every nation for the once a year feast in Jerusalem that you have a gathering of people who speak diverse languages. The scripture explicitly says that these men of Galilee were speaking in the languages of 16 different regions of the world.

The scripture says the crowd was "bewildered" by the "sound they heard", "because they heard their own language being spoken". This "utterly amazed them". It was a shock for men from Galilee to be able to speak the native language of those visiting the city from foreign nations around the world.

It very clearly says the source of their bewilderment was hearing their own language being spoken, not the content of what was being spoken.

"But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort."(1Cor 14:3) This is the role of prophecy both traditionally and in this verse in the same chapter you quoted from. It suggests that prophecy may not be what you have assumed it to be, so perhaps 'Tongues' fills some role that you have reserved for prophecy.

Scripture already establishes for us what prophesy is:

Deuteronomy 18:18
God puts His words in their mouth.
Hebrews 1:1
God speaks through prophets to people.

The Hebrew word for prophet has the meaning of "spokesperson".
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5030.htm

The Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) uses the word propheteia in place of the Hebrew equivalent, which is the same word used in the New Testament for prophets. So we are not talking about a different idea when we move from the Old to the New Testament.

In that context, 1 Corinthians 14:3 is Paul is saying that one who speaks God's words speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging, and comfort.

Look at 1 Corinthians 14:5. Why do you think Paul tells us that to prophesy is greater than to speak in tongues? We see here that tongues is prophesy once it's been interpreted. The reason is simple: Because tongues is the Holy Spirit speaking through a person. But it doesn't become as a prophesy (Prophesy being Biblically defined as a word spoken from God and communicated to a person) unless they know what is being said.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That verse cannot be read in isolation. It must be read in the context of everything else we know about tongues from scripture, which establishes that tongues deals with language rather than concepts.

In fact, the greek word for tongues, "glossai", is a word that refers to either the literal tongue or a language. http://biblehub.com/greek/1100.htm

As I already pointed out, but you ignored, the analogies Paul uses about tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:6-13 all deal with sound. If he was talking about the need to interpret a difficult saying to restate it in understandable terminology, he could have used much more apt analogies that deal with comprehending concepts and parables.

In acts 2, before they started speaking in tongues, a visible manifestation appeared over their heads of a flaming tongue. That obviously denotes speech, language. You wouldn't use a tongue to symbolize confusing but deep mysteries.

I think that you are not going to agree with me, because you have an entire model for how you feel the Bible should work. I believe that I should not try to strong-arm you into agreeing and have explained well enough that other people reading can decide what they think. These are the exact same things you said before, and I have already told you that it doesn't matter if there are analogies with sound. Your argument is not becoming more convincing with repetition.

Let's look at what Acts 2 actually says:

Acts 2:4, ESV
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Or, as the NLT translates it:
And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability.

HCSB:
Then they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different languages, as the Spirit gave them ability for speech.

The greek word for "other" denotes something of a different kind.
They spoke with a different kind of glossai (tongues, meaning language in the greek).
It doesn't say they spoke in glossai, period, but they spoke in a different kind of glossai. This denotes a change from one language to another.

You also missed an important part of this account in Acts 2:5
Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. Then they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”

It is because those people came from every nation for the once a year feast in Jerusalem that you have a gathering of people who speak diverse languages. The scripture explicitly says that these men of Galilee were speaking in the languages of 16 different regions of the world.

The scripture says the crowd was "bewildered" by the "sound they heard", "because they heard their own language being spoken". This "utterly amazed them". It was a shock for men from Galilee to be able to speak the native language of those visiting the city from foreign nations around the world.

It very clearly says the source of their bewilderment was hearing their own language being spoken, not the content of what was being spoken.

It says they are Jews, and Jews aren't allowed to be swayed by miracles. Always return to the roots and the old paths, and doing that its clear from Moses testimony that prophets can and do lie, that miracles are not acceptable as testimony of anything and therefore miracles are nothing in themselves. At best a miracle is a challenge to test what the person is saying, which is what they did. They tested the words and reported that they were praises of the LORD -- as opposed to calls to worship other gods. You see what happens here in the story is not a miracle story about miraculous speaking ability but a story about the nature of Christianity and the spirit motivating it. Flaming tongues of fire over heads is a miracle, just like Elijah's flaming chariot. Is it the flaming chariot that is important or is it what Elijah says to Elisha? Its what Elisha says, and the miracles just tell us to check what the person has said.

So the story in Acts 2 does not indicate that people speaking in tongues are speaking other natural languages -- unless they have supernatural flames over their heads. Don't get caught up in miracles and miss testing the messages.

Scripture already establishes for us what prophesy is:

Deuteronomy 18:18
God puts His words in their mouth.
Hebrews 1:1
God speaks through prophets to people.

The Hebrew word for prophet has the meaning of "spokesperson".
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5030.htm

The Septuagint (the greek version of the Old Testament) uses the word propheteia in place of the Hebrew equivalent, which is the same word used in the New Testament for prophets. So we are not talking about something different.

In that context, 1 Corinthians 14:3 is Paul is saying that one who speaks God's words speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging, and comfort.

Look at 1 Corinthians 14:5. Why do you think Paul tells us that to prophesy is greater than to speak in tongues? We see here that tongues is prophesy once it's been interpreted. The reason is simple: Because tongues is the Holy Spirit speaking through a person. But it doesn't become as a prophesy (Prophesy being Biblically defined as a word spoken from God and communicated to a person) unless they can understand what is being said.

As the Genesis-Deuteronomy and the stories in Kings highlight, prophets can and do lie. They're prophets, and prophets are sent to test. They test to see if you are faithful and aren't a follower of miraculous signs, your stomach, greed etc.

Apostle Paul says that they seek out truths for our sakes. In addition to what he says they are deeply stirred by problems that we are callused about and they loudly complain about them, often making themselves a public menace; but no matter how annoying they are they are not to be harmed as long as they speak in accordance with Moses. So they make all kinds of ridiculous stunts up that make everybody angry; but nobody messes with them. The prophets who have books in the Bible are outrageous characters, completely opposite of ministers today. Ministers today are butt kissing congregation pleasers who are like the bad prophets mentioned in Malachi, who only prophecy if it means they get fed. So there is widespread misunderstanding about what prophets are, since there are so many bad ones.

 

[Rise]

It says they are Jews, and Jews aren't allowed to be swayed by miracles.

Jews from 16 different nations who are utterly amazed and shocked that they are hearing men from galilee speak to them in 16 different languages.

Acts 2 says beyond any shadow of a doubt that we are dealing with the speaking of foreign languages. It explicitly lists what they are and ends with tongues in the plural, denoting that we are not talking about one language being spoken to all these Jews and Jewish converts gathered in Jerusalem.

There's no way to escape what the scripture plainly and clearly shows in Acts 2 about tongues being a function of speaking language. Which also happens to fit with the context of everything else we see about tongues in scripture.

So the story in Acts 2 does not indicate that people speaking in tongues are speaking other natural languages

Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. Then they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”

What about these verses is not clear to you?

Maybe reading it in the NLT will help:
4 And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability.
5 At that time there were devout Jews from every nation living in Jerusalem. 6 When they heard the loud noise, everyone came running, and they were bewildered to hear their own languages being spoken by the believers.
7 They were completely amazed. “How can this be?” they exclaimed. “These people are all from Galilee, 8 and yet we hear them speaking in our own native languages! 9 Here we are—Parthians, Medes, Elamites, people from Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, the province of Asia, 10 Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, and the areas of Libya around Cyrene, visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism), Cretans, and Arabs. And we all hear these people speaking in our own languages about the wonderful things God has done!”

Always return to the roots and the old paths, and doing that its clear from Moses testimony that prophets can and do lie,

Correction: False prophets lie. The Bible draws a distinction between genuine and false prophets. God is truth and every word God speaks is truth. The very definition of a false prophet is that they don't speak the truth of God because the words the false prophet speaks didn't come from God in the first place.

that miracles are not acceptable as testimony of anything and therefore miracles are nothing in themselves. At best a miracle is a challenge to test what the person is saying, which is what they did. They tested the words and reported that they were praises of the LORD -- as opposed to calls to worship other gods. You see what happens here in the story is not a miracle story about miraculous speaking ability but a story about the nature of Christianity and the spirit motivating it. Flaming tongues of fire over heads is a miracle, just like Elijah's flaming chariot. Is it the flaming chariot that is important or is it what Elijah says to Elisha? Its what Elisha says, and the miracles just tell us to check what the person has said.

As the Genesis-Deuteronomy and the stories in Kings highlight, prophets can and do lie. They're prophets, and prophets are sent to test. They test to see if you are faithful and aren't a follower of miraculous signs, your stomach, greed etc. Apostle Paul says that they seek out truths for our sakes. They are deeply stirred by problems that we are callused about and they loudly complain about them, often making themselves a public menace; but no matter how annoying they are they are not to be harmed as long as they speak in accordance with Moses. So they make all kinds of ridiculous stunts up that make everybody angry; but nobody messes with them. The prophets who have books in the Bible are outrageous characters, completely opposite of ministers today. Ministers today are butt kissing congregation pleasers who are like the bad prophets mentioned in Malachi, who only prophecy if it means they get fed. So there is widespread misunderstanding about what prophets are, since there are so many bad ones.

I'm not sure why you are posting that, because none of that has anything to do with the fact that Acts 2 clearly shows that tongues by the Holy Spirit deals with speaking languages.

 

[Brickjectivity]

ews from 16 different nations who are utterly amazed and shocked that they are hearing men from galilee speak to them in 16 different languages.

Acts 2 says beyond any shadow of a doubt that we are dealing with the speaking of foreign languages. It explicitly lists what they are and ends with tongues in the plural, denoting that we are not talking about one language being spoken to all these Jews and Jewish converts gathered in Jerusalem.

There's no way to escape what the scripture plainly and clearly shows in Acts 2 about tongues being a function of speaking language. Which also happens to fit with the context of everything else we see about tongues in scripture.

What we are talking about are foreign languages + flames of fire + mysteries being spoken, and the foreign languages came along with flames of fire, which is distinct from what happens in churches when the gift of tongues is exercised. What is said is what matters, and I have never heard of tongues anywhere but Acts 2 being spoken with flames appearing over the speaker's heads, so there's no reason to assume that they will come with natural foreign languages. Why no flames in the normal operation of the gift? Do the flames not work anymore but the foreign languages still do? So your argument continues to be what it was: strained -- as strained as the argument for completely unintelligible tongues. Its the message that matters, not miraculous signs.

Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. Then they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”

What about these verses is not clear to you?

I am tempted to make fun of you for being obsessed with signs and miracles. Everyone is aware of the miracle consisting of 3 things: flames, languages and mysteries spoken. Guess which thing actually makes a difference: not the flames and not the languages. It is the other thing. If they hadn't heard the praises of the LORD, they would never have listened to Peter, miracles or not.

Correction: False prophets lie. The Bible draws a distinction between genuine and false prophets.

Prophets lie or tell the truth, and miracles are no indication of which is which. In Kings a prophet lies to another prophet who subsequently dies for not testing that prophet's words. I Kings 13. The lesson was he shouldn't have taken the prophet's word for it.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that Acts 2 clearly shows that tongues by the Holy Spirit deals with speaking languages.

Tongues is mentioned as a gift in many places other than Acts, but flames go unmentioned. Never again in the NT is there an event where tongues are combined with supernatural lingual ability and flames, so you are merely very impressed by miracles and want to impose them elsewhere. Its much more likely that tongues is indeed the speaking of mysteries.

 

[Rise]

What we are talking about are foreign languages + flames of fire + mysteries being spoken, and the foreign languages came along with flames of fire, which is distinct from what happens in churches when the gift of tongues is exercised. What is said is what matters, and I have never heard of tongues anywhere but Acts 2 being spoken with flames appearing over the speaker's heads, so there's no reason to assume that they will come with natural foreign languages.

You're engaged in a logical fallacy based on a faulty presumption: "Tongues of fire appeared over their heads before they spoke in other languages in this instance, therefore that must always happen otherwise they are not speaking with other languages".
There is not a shred of evidence from the scripture that would lead us to conclude that is the case. Everything else in the scripture, from the the word glossai itself, to the context of 1 Corinthians 14, are all in alignment with the fact that tongues involves speaking in languages.
The fact that they can be both known and unknown languages to the hearers present is then established from both Acts and Corinthians.


You have based your conclusion on a wrong presumption that other languages and visible manifestations of fire are linked together in some kind of formula. But we know from scripture that nothing with God is a formula. Nothing happens the same way exactly twice.

John 9:6-7
Luke 18:35-43
Acts 9:17-18
You would be engaging in the same kind of a logical fallacy to assume that those other men weren't actually healed of blindness, despite the scripture saying they were, because you assume that all praying for restored sight must be accompanied first by putting mud in someone's eyes.

Luke 3:22
You would be committing the same kind of logical fallacy if you looked at this account of Jesus's baptism and then said "well, we don't see anyone else having this happen when they get baptized in water, therefore they didn't really get baptized in water".

Everyone is aware of the miracle consisting of 3 things: flames, languages and mysteries spoken.

There is no mention of the masses seeing the flames of fire after the disciples exit the building.
The scripture explicitly says that what "utterly amazed" them was hearing these men speak in their own native languages.
It does not say they were amazed at seeing a vision of flaming tongues over their heads.
It does not say they were amazed at hearing mysterious things they never understood before being expounded to them in a way they now grasp.

In fact, the word for "mystery" isn't even used in this passage of Acts 2 to describe what they were saying.
The word used to describe the content of their tongue speech is "megaleious", meaning "great, splendid, magnificent". http://biblehub.com/greek/3167.htm
They are proclaiming great deeds, or mighty works, of God; according to most translations.

1 Corinthians 14:2 uses the word "musterion", meaning something which was hidden that is now revealed. Something which is unknowable without the revelation of God. http://biblehub.com/greek/3466.htm

In the context of tongues being languages as established by Acts 2 and the word glossai plainly meaning languages; and in the context of 1 Corinthians 14 talking about languages which cannot be understood; it's not difficult to understand that the reason speaking in tongues is speaking mysteries is because it's something which is hidden from you until it is revealed by interpretation.

Prophets lie or tell the truth, and miracles are no indication of which is which. In Kings a prophet lies to another prophet who subsequently dies for not testing that prophet's words. I Kings 13. The lesson was he shouldn't have taken the prophet's word for it.

You're failing to distinguish that the very definition of a false prophet is the fact that they do not proclaim God's word, but proclaim either their own word or the word of something else.
In that instance in 1 Kings 13, that man who lied about receiving a word from God was acting as a false prophet by definition.

Deuteronomy 18:20
Ezekiel 13:6
Ezekiel 22:28
Jeremiah 23:21
Jeremiah 5:30-31
Jeremiah 14:14-16
Isaiah 8:19
2 Kings 21:6
John 8:44
1 John 4:1
2 Peter 2:1-3

 

[Rise]

Again pure BULL!

You're still making no attempt to dispute the fact that the Bible draws a distinction between genuine works of God and counterfeit works of satan.

You might personally choose not to believe the Bible when it says that, but that is very different from trying to make a factual claim that the Bible does not say something which it clearly does say (which you appeared to do earlier when you disputed my quote about that fact).

Even YHVH is supposed to have created all that is, with an incantation.

This is a good example of why I said you need to precisely define your terms if you want to debate what role "magic" supposedly plays in the Bible.

If your definitions are so loose, broad sweeping, and lacking distinction that you can say "well, God spoke and stuff happened... witches speak and stuff happens... therefore God's a witch", then you can't seriously establish any fact about anything. That's not just intellectual laziness but a logical fallacy.

What is an incantation exactly? How does it work? Why does it work? What is it's motive? What is it's power source?
If you can't qualify the aspects that make an incantation what it is, then we can't honestly examine the content of scripture to determine if that's what people in the Bible are actually doing or not.

The same is true of your other examples. If you can't actually define these terms with some qualitative precision then there wouldn't be much point in debating it because we'd probably just be talking past each other without a common set of terminology with agreed upon meanings.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You're engaged in a logical fallacy based on a faulty presumption: "Tongues of fire appeared over their heads before they spoke in other languages in this instance, therefore that must always happen otherwise they are not speaking with other languages".

No, but you claim since they were granted foreign languages in Acts 2 that it therefore must always be so whenever the gift of tongues operates. Its an unsupported conclusion, a guess by you put forward as a fact.

You have based your conclusion on a wrong presumption that other languages and visible manifestations of fire are linked together in some kind of formula.

Miracles don't prove authority or correctness. What I have not done is I have not linked tongues with speaking foreign natural languages and have replied to you like this:

Its not natural language but can be mysteries in natural language, because "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit." (1Cor 14:2)

You would be engaging in the same kind of a logical fallacy to assume that those other men weren't actually healed of blindness, despite the scripture saying they were, because you assume that all praying for restored sight must be accompanied first by putting mud in someone's eyes.

What matters for us is not the blindness or the miracle but the prayer and whether they are in sin and if that sin is cleansed.

You would be committing the same kind of logical fallacy if you looked at this account of Jesus's baptism and then said "well, we don't see anyone else having this happen when they get baptized in water, therefore they didn't really get baptized in water".

Again, its you who claims every instance of tongues must be accompanied by miracles, so you are projecting onto me.

In fact, the word for "mystery" isn't even used in this passage of Acts 2 to describe what they were saying.

Its used by Paul to describe the use of tongues in general. Again you want to choose between two extremes: incomprehensible glossalalia and foreign languages. Neither of them fits all of the scriptures about tongues. I'm saying its far more likely, considering the NT emphasis upon mysteries, parables and nooby Bible readers that tongues refer to the speaking of mysteries, such as parables. It fits nicely with praises of the LORD, too. Its not unreasonable. Its actually much more reasonable than either of your two extreme cases.

You're failing to distinguish that the very definition of a false prophet is the fact that they do not proclaim God's word, but proclaim either their own word or the word of something else.
In that instance in 1 Kings 13, that man who lied about receiving a word from God was acting as a false prophet by definition.

"We all stumble in many ways. Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect, able to keep their whole body in check." (James 3:2) "The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?" (Ecc 6:11) "Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know." (1Cor 8:1)

 

[Ingledsva]

You're still making no attempt to dispute the fact that the Bible draws a distinction between genuine works of God and counterfeit works of satan.

You might personally choose not to believe the Bible when it says that, but that is very different from trying to make a factual claim that the Bible does not say something which it clearly does say (which you appeared to do earlier when you disputed my quote about that fact).




This is a good example of why I said you need to precisely define your terms if you want to debate what role "magic" supposedly plays in the Bible.

If your definitions are so loose, broad sweeping, and lacking distinction that you can say "well, God spoke and stuff happened... witches speak and stuff happens... therefore God's a witch", then you can't seriously establish any fact about anything. That's not just intellectual laziness but a logical fallacy.

What is an incantation exactly? How does it work? Why does it work? What is it's motive? What is it's power source?
If you can't qualify the aspects that make an incantation what it is, then we can't honestly examine the content of scripture to determine if that's what people in the Bible are actually doing or not.

The same is true of your other examples. If you can't actually define these terms with some qualitative precision then there wouldn't be much point in debating it because we'd probably just be talking past each other without a common set of terminology with agreed upon meanings.

More BULL.

You have been given links to pages showing even the Jews understand they did MAGIC, and continued to do magic, and still do with Kabbalah, etc.

AGAIN - You were told about Levite's paper on the subject, and his quote tells us even after reforms, - they continued with MAGIC practices - because only certain things were forbidden.

SO! It matters not if you believe the common sense - magic is magic - regardless of which Gods name might be used, or that particular God's book saying their magic isn't magic, as you have been shown by JEWISH sites and authors, - that MAGIC continued. And the spell bowls prove this.

Also - other people's Gods and books contain "magic," - and they use their Gods' names too, and his will/OK, But you consider them to be doing evil false magic, - but not the people of your chosen religion whom do the same thing. This is called hypocrisy.

If I am on the outside looking at both groups, - the conclusion is correct that both do magic.

EDIT - forgot YOU said this "This is a good example of why I said you need to precisely define your terms if you want to debate what role "magic" supposedly plays in the Bible."

That was your comment on this - "Even YHVH is supposed to have created all that is, with an incantation."

That information was from http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/incantations-spells-adjurations/

UNDER - Incantations, Spells, and Adjurations

"An incantation or spell is a spoken word, phrase, or formula of power, often recited as part of a larger ritual, which is recited in order to effect a magical result. Most cultures have some idea about words having supernatural constructive powers, but nowhere is this belief stronger than in Judaism.

Both the Bible and Jewish mysticism emphasize that God created the universe by means of a series of “speech acts.” Humanity is the only one of God’s mortal creations with the power of speech, implying that our words can, under certain conditions, have the same constructive (and destructive) power."

READ - Encyclopedia-Jewish-Myth-Magic-Mysticism - Rabbi Geoffrey W. Dennis

https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia...irect=true&ref_=as_li_tl&tag=myjewishlearn-20

Magic of the Ordinary: Recovering the Shamanic in Judaism - Rabbi Gershon Winkler

*

 

[Rise]

More BULL.

You have been given links to pages showing even the Jews understand they did MAGIC, and continued to do magic, and still do with Kabbalah, etc.

Nothing you posted disproves the fact that the Bible, in the verses I gave you, draws a distinction between the genuine power of God and satanic counterfeits.
Remember, you were the one who quoted and challenged my statement regarding that fact, but you have yet to deal directly with any of those verses and argue why you think they don't read that way.
You've actually already ceded that you can't do so.

Both the Bible and Jewish mysticism emphasize that God created the universe by means of a series of “speech acts.” Humanity is the only one of God’s mortal creations with the power of speech, implying that our words can, under certain conditions, have the same constructive (and destructive) power."

That statement would be consistent with Christianity's scriptural view of God creating the universe.
Many Christian sects would also agree that as God's creation we were intended to have similar creative power through our speech.

However, going back to the central point you keep ignoring; There is a Biblical distinction made between those who speak the words of God, in agreement with Him, verses those who speak that which is in alignment with demons. The later are not in relationship to God, not submitted to Him, are actually in rebellion to Him, and will only bring death and destruction to the earth through their partnering with demons. John 10:10.

In the Garden of Eden, man knew only the voice of God, and spoke only that which was in line with God's character and will. Jesus was able to restore that which was lost when Adam fell by only doing what He saw the father doing, and speaking what the Father said.
John 5:19
John 12:49
1 Corinthians 15:45

When Adam fell, he submitted himself to the will of satan, and it could be said he gained the knowledge of being able to do either the will of satan or the will of God.

That is the difference between submission to God, and submission to satan which is rebellion to God (ie. witchcraft, 1 Samuel 15:23), and it is all the difference in the world between salvation or hell being your eternal destiny. Only those who submit to God, in relationship to Him, will be saved from eternal separation from Him.

 

[Ingledsva]

Nothing you posted disproves the fact that the Bible, in the verses I gave you, draws a distinction between the genuine power of God and satanic counterfeits.
Remember, you were the one who quoted and challenged my statement regarding that fact, but you have yet to deal directly with any of those verses and argue why you think they don't read that way.
You've actually already ceded that you can't do so.



That statement would be consistent with Christianity's scriptural view of God creating the universe.
Many Christian sects would also agree that as God's creation we were intended to have similar creative power through our speech.

However, going back to the central point you keep ignoring; There is a Biblical distinction made between those who speak the words of God, in agreement with Him, verses those who speak that which is in alignment with demons. The later are not in relationship to God, not submitted to Him, are actually in rebellion to Him, and will only bring death and destruction to the earth through their partnering with demons. John 10:10.

In the Garden of Eden, man knew only the voice of God, and spoke only that which was in line with God's character and will. Jesus was able to restore that which was lost when Adam fell by only doing what He saw the father doing, and speaking what the Father said.
John 5:19
John 12:49
1 Corinthians 15:45

When Adam fell, he submitted himself to the will of satan, and it could be said he gained the knowledge of being able to do either the will of satan or the will of God.

That is the difference between submission to God, and submission to satan which is rebellion to God (ie. witchcraft, 1 Samuel 15:23), and it is all the difference in the world between salvation or hell being your eternal destiny. Only those who submit to God, in relationship to Him, will be saved from eternal separation from Him.

And BULL again.

You refuse to see what is put in front of you.

The Jews know what their Tanakh says, - AND THEY SAY - only some MAGIC was forbidden, - and other MAGIC continued.

Pretty much every site I have sent you to says this, - AND - those last two books on Jewish MAGIC, - where researched and written by RABBIs.

You need to stop repeating as if it is going to magically change the truth.

*

 

[Rise]

What I have not done is I have not linked tongues with speaking foreign natural languages and have replied to you like this:

Then you have not read the scripture.
Acts 2 specifically links tongues with speaking in foreign natural languages.

One important thing you don't seem to be grasping is that Glossa, the greek word for tongue, is also the greek word for language. There are languages today that still have the same word for tongue as they do for language.
So your confusion will be greatly reduced if you read a translation that replaces "tongues" with "languages", as many of them do.

We also see consistent characteristics of speaking "languages" in the Bible that doesn't change:
If you look at every instance of "speaking in languages" in the New Testament, you always see it paired with the operation/power/gift of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the gift of languages is said explictly to be a gift of a Holy Spirit.

Acts 2: NLT
And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability.

Acts 19 HCSB
And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to speak in other languages and to prophesy.

Acts 10 HCSB
For they heard them speaking in other languages and declaring the greatness of God. Then Peter responded, "Can anyone withhold water and prevent these people from being baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

1 Corinthians 12 HCSB
Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different ministries, but the same Lord. And there are different activities, but the same God activates each gift in each person. A demonstration of the Spirit is given to each person to produce what is beneficial:
to one is given a message of wisdom
through the Spirit,
to another, a message of knowledge
by the same Spirit,
to another, faith by the same Spirit,
to another, gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
to another, the performing of miracles,
to another, prophecy,
to another, distinguishing between spirits,
to another, different kinds of languages,
to another, interpretation of languages.

1 Corinthians 14 HCSB
Pursue love and desire spiritual gifts, and above all that you may prophesy. 2 For the person who speaks in another language is not speaking to men but to God, since no one understands him; however, he speaks mysteries in the Spirit.

No where in scripture is there any suggestion or hint that the Gift Of Languages transforms from one point in the scripture to another to be something completely different. No where is there any suggestion that visual signs above the heads of people are necessary to transform the "Gift of languages by the Holy Spirit", changing it from speaking mysterious parables in your own language to speaking in languages that you don't know.
That concept is a complete invention on your part with no scriptural support, and your idea is not consistent with all of scripture.

Its used by Paul to describe the use of tongues in general.

Which if you want to rightly interpret has to be taken in context with everything else the scripture tells us about the "Gift of Languages", from Acts 2 to 1 Corinthians 14.

You are engaging in eisegesis, whereby you read your own ideas what "mysteries" are into the text while ignoring everything in scripture that disagrees with your conclusion.

You enter with an unsupported presupposition that musterion (mystery) has to mean "parables that hide truth" rather than the actual greek definition which simply means "something that is unknown, hidden".

The actual Greek definition of musterion fits perfectly with the context of unknown languages being interpreted into known language. It is the only logical way to understand that in the context of everything else scripture tells us about "the gift of languages" dealing with language. Especially when Paul's analogies in 1 Corinthians 14, concerning unknown languages, deals with things that have to do with hearing sound.

No, but you claim since they were granted foreign languages in Acts 2 that it therefore must always be so whenever the gift of tongues operates.

I never said it always had to be a language that someone nearby could understand.

It could be a language that no one around them knows, which is where the gift of interpretation of languages comes in.

As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14:10
There are doubtless many different kinds of languages in the world, and all have meaning.

Again, its you who claims every instance of tongues must be accompanied by miracles, so you are projecting onto me.

Back up there. I never said the gift of "glossa" (languages) (an operation of the Holy Spirit) had to be accompanied by the gift of "dunamis" (miracles) (another operation of the Holy Spirit).
You can find both listed as separate gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12.

It seems like you have a misunderstanding of what a Biblical "miracle" is, or you don't realize that the Gift of Languages is said in 1 Corinthians 12 to be an independent gift of the Holy Spirit. You seem to have a faulty presumption, based on no scriptural support, that it is necessary for the "Holy Spirit's gift of miracles" to precede the "Holy Spirit's gift of languages" in order to transform the "gift of languages" from a speaker or parables into a speaker of languages.
Completely illogical, and without scriptural basis.

Miracles don't prove authority or correctness.

I don't see how you think that has anything to do with establishing whether or not the Holy Spirit's Gift of Languages involves speaking languages in the Bible.

And my saying that really highlights how ridiculous your premise is. Are we really debating over whether the Gift of Languages involves speaking languages? It's a lot easier to get away with it when you translate it as "tongues", because not everyone understands what that word means in the context of the Greek.

 

[Rise]

@Ingledsva

Do you realize that quoting individual's opinions doesn't by itself prove anything about what the text of the Bible says?
If you want to dispute what the Bible says, start by quoting the Bible and giving a sound exegetical explanation of what it says.

I gave you some verses to start with, like 2 Thessalonians 2:9. They prove God draws a distinction for us between genuine and counterfeit spiritual works. Explain why the text doesn't actually say that for us.

Remember: You're the one who challenged my statement that the Bible draws such a distinction, and by extension challenged the scripture I used to draw that conclusion. I furnished scriptural proof to back up my statement. Now the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate from the Biblical text why my thesis statement about what the Bible says is not true.

Instead, you're trying to shift the discussion over what some Jewish Kabbalists think (most of which is based on their own non-biblical writings), which is not relevant to a discussion about what the text of the Bible says - unless you are specifically quoting Kabbalistic works that directly deal with those scriptures I gave you; In which case you're basically substituting their interpretation of particular verses for your own attempts at it, but at least then you're still attempting to post some scriptural exegesis that is relevant to the verses I already cited as proof of my thesis statement.

Blanket statements like "kabbalistic jews believe in magic" doesn't prove or disprove any of my Biblical exegesis about specific verses, The truth is a lot of what they believe is not based on the Bible and is even in conflict with it.
You commit a logical fallacy by presuming you can quote any Jewish source you want and claim it is the final word on what scripture says just because they are Jewish. There are many Jewish sects, some of which openly will tell you they don't believe in in the Bible as entirely true and therefore do not base a lot their beliefs on what it says (The best example probably being Reform Judaism)

If you can't directly deal with the Biblical text when challenging my thesis statement about what the Bible says, within a Biblical Scripture debate forum, in a thread that started as a scriptural debate about tongues in the context of Christianity, then you've basically conceded you're wrong. If at that point you are still unwilling to engage with the text of the Bible itself to establish what it does or does not say, then there's no point in continuing this further.

 

[gnostic]

I agree with you that Christian - speaking in tongues - is just babbling, - and it hurts the churches, as they look like idiots.

No, these tongue-speaking don't look "like" idiots...

...they are idiots!

 

[Muffled]

Hear this. Possibly none of the previous posters (other than me) understands the passages about speaking in tongues, because perhaps my gift is in understanding mysteries. As you should know from reading the epistles, there are those with the gift of understanding mysteries and a verse says someone who speaks in tongues speaks mysteries unto God. The concept of mysteries is all over the place in the NT, so lets not be surprised about that. Suppose that I were to speak those mysteries to you, a dedicated person, a converted person, then you might understand them. Ergo mysteries would be given to you, although before that you would not be able to understand. They would be foreign to you. They would go right over your head, somewhat like someone who doesn't know how to read the Bible -- no exactly like that. Ergo you should consider that tongues may not be foreign languages at all but the mysteries of God, which are secrets from the uninitiated. In Acts 2 they are called the praises of the LORD which the various Jews are hearing in their own native languages. Ergo...speaking in gobbledygook is not needed today, but speaking the mysteries, the praises of the LORD is and which tongues are -- most likely.

I believe Greek is a mystery to me or as we used to say it is Greek to me. So my question is if it is an unknown language how would one know whether it was a language or not. Now a language can be invented such as the natives spoke on the TV series "Land of the Lost." Then I think there is at least one language in the TV series "Star Trek." What was it , Klingon?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Then you have not read the scripture.
Acts 2 specifically links tongues with speaking in foreign natural languages.

Which if you want to rightly interpret has to be taken in context with everything else the scripture tells us about the "Gift of Languages"

See the two quote above from your post? This is what your argument looks like: computer troubleshooting. You presume that you are correct when 1 Corinthians 8:1 implies that you cannot be correct and are trying to prove something to me with certainty, as if we are in a chess game. You have an idea of a church that functions with doctrines that are gears that turn in a well oiled machine, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Its never worked that way no matter how much people have tried to make it so. Almost all efforts at ecumenical unity through dialogue about doctrinal terms have failed -- for a good reason. People either aren't allowed or aren't able to be perfectly correct. Mysteries play a huge role in Christianity, no matter how much people hate them, and we do hate them.

No where in scripture is there any suggestion or hint that the Gift Of Languages transforms from one point in the scripture to another to be something completely different. No where is there any suggestion that visual signs above the heads of people are necessary to transform the "Gift of languages by the Holy Spirit", changing it from speaking mysterious parables in your own language to speaking in languages that you don't know.
That concept is a complete invention on your part with no scriptural support, and your idea is not consistent with all of scripture.

The concept was, as I stated from the beginning, an idea I was introducing and did not guarantee. You are the one who made guarantees that you could not keep. All the instances you mentioned in Acts were miraculous events. To begin with there was never any possibility that Jews could change their minds about the Law based upon a miracle be it a resurrection or a super power, and therefore they could not have accepted Jesus as the messiah based upon a miracle either. It would be against the Law and therefore a sin, and therefore it would be illogical. If logic was what you were after then you should have begun with that assumption, but instead you assumed they would be impressed by the miracle, which would have been unlawful and illogical. From there you totally lost me as I could see that you were not operating from a logical basis as you claimed but were defending a model of the Bible - an ecumenical effort.

I don't see how you think that has anything to do with establishing whether or not the Holy Spirit's Gift of Languages involves speaking languages in the Bible.

And my saying that really highlights how ridiculous your premise is. Are we really debating over whether the Gift of Languages involves speaking languages? It's a lot easier to get away with it when you translate it as "tongues", because not everyone understands what that word means in the context of the Greek.

Its still not ridiculous to me. In the minds of the ancients why not use the same term for a word puzzle and a language? Greek Koine is no longer spoken and there are gaps in church history, so we are cutting teeth here. Mysteries are prominent, and they are like a language in several ways. First you learn the words and then you learn the meaning and then you learn even more. Whether they are parables or languages I won't claim with certainty but what good is certainty? The story in Acts may not be a good functional definition of what tongues is, because there is more to language than natural languages and because miracles are trivial events. Would you have me completely overlook this by your insistence upon your own certainty?

 

[Rise]

All the instances you mentioned in Acts were miraculous events.

To say that you would have to define from scripture what a "dunamis" (miracle) is. As I pointed out to you, the "gift of dunamis" it is listed as one of the 9 distinct gifts of the Holy Spirit. Distinct from the "gift of glossa" (languages). 1 Corinthians 12.

If you are trying to say "any operation of the Holy Spirit is a miracle", then by definition "tongues/languages" all throughout the Bible is always a miracle because it is always, in every case, linked with the infilling and operation of the Holy Spirit.

Your use of the word "miracle" is not the best choice of the words for defining the acts of the Holy Spirit "in general" because that word is already used to specify a particular gift of the Holy Spirit. Even though it is common for the average person to describe any act of the Spirit of God as a miracle, if we want to really talk about defining the different gifts of the Spirit and how they relate to each other we need to be very clear and precise with our Biblical terms to avoid operating out of bad presumptions that lead to confusion.

To begin with there was never any possibility that Jews could change their minds about the Law based upon a miracle be it a resurrection or a super power, and therefore they could not have accepted Jesus as the messiah based upon a miracle either. It would be against the Law and therefore a sin, and therefore it would be illogical. If logic was what you were after then you should have begun with that assumption, but instead you assumed they would be impressed by the miracle, which would have been unlawful and illogical. From there you totally lost me as I could see that you were not operating from a logical basis as you claimed but were defending a model of the Bible - an ecumenical effort.

As I already asked you, what does any of that have to do with the topic? We're talking about what scripture says concerning tongues involving the speaking of language. I don't see how what you just wrote has any relevance to that topic.

Its still not ridiculous to me. In the minds of the ancients why not use the same term for a word puzzle and a language? Greek Koine is no longer spoken and there are gaps in church history, so we are cutting teeth here.

If you want to disagree with hundreds of years of greek sholarship, you're going to need some evidence that gives us a reason to think the established definition of musterion is wrong. You can't just assume it is because you need it to be in order to support your theory.

Whether they are parables or languages I won't claim with certainty but what good is certainty when it comes to studying the NT?

2 Peter 1:19 BSB
We also have the message of the prophets, which has been confirmed beyond doubt. And you will do well to pay attention to this message, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Hebrews 11:1 BSB
Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.

Your belief that we cannot know particular things with certainty is itself not an idea consistent with what the Bible tells us.

The story in Acts may not be a good functional definition of what tongues is, because there is more to language than natural languages and because miracles are trivial events.

Acts 2 establishes without any doubt, based on the plain reading of the text, that they spoke in real languages they didn't know through the operation of Holy Spirit.

Throughout the rest of scripture, we see that there is an act of speaking in "languages" that is also linked with the operation of the Holy Spirit.
And there is no reason at all, based on scripture, to believe that all these instances of "languages" spoken in the power of the Spirit are somehow different. Especially since Paul defines the "gift of languages" as one of the distinct gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The greek meaning of the word glossa is also without doubt. It means either languages or the physical tongue. It is never used as a figurative term for parabolic sayings.

Mysteries are prominent, and they are like a language in several ways.

There's a way to read musterion in the context of 1 Corinthians 14 that doesn't violate the rest of the what the text is telling us.

It is often used throughout the New Testament in reference to the deep truths of God which were hidden but then revealed at some point, or that which still remains partially hidden.

Matthew 13:34.
There is a word for parable: Parabole.
http://biblehub.com/greek/3850.htm

It doesn't say Jesus spoke in musterion. It says He spoke in parabole to the people.

He used musterion in Matthew 13:11 when referring to the truth of God that was hidden by the parables.

Although parabole can be said to contain musterion, musterion does not by any definition have to involve parables. You can hide musterion, the truth of God, without using parables.

In the same way: Unknown languages can contain musterion, hidden truth waiting to be revealed, but that doesn't mean it's hidden because the person is speaking in parables. It is hidden because you can't understand the language itself without a translation.

They are called the "Gift of Languages" and the "Gift of Interpreting Languages" for a reason.
It's not "the gift of speaking parables" and the "gift of understanding parables".

Context is key. "tongues" throughout the Bible is always dealing with spoken languages, not parables.

 

[Ingledsva]

Do you realize that quoting individual's opinions doesn't by itself prove anything about what the text of the Bible says?

LOL! Now Jewish Encyclopedia, My Jewish Learning, and Rabbi's works on Jewish Magic, - are just "individual's opinions," and "prove nothing?" LOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!

You will say anything to hold on to your erroneous ideas.

If you want to dispute what the Bible says, start by quoting the Bible and giving a sound exegetical explanation of what it says. I gave you some verses to start with, like 2 Thessalonians 2:9. They prove God draws a distinction for us between genuine and counterfeit spiritual works. Explain why the text doesn't actually say that for us.

LOL! And I posted Magic quotes from the Bible.

Remember: You're the one who challenged my statement that the Bible draws such a distinction, and by extension challenged the scripture I used to draw that conclusion. I furnished scriptural proof to back up my statement. Now the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate from the Biblical text why my thesis statement about what the Bible says is not true.

LOL! Again - I showed that even after those reforms, - MAGIC continued, - because AS STATED, - and shown, - only certain kinds of magic were forbidden.

Fertility magic with magic wands, and tossing stones/runes, for instance - are straight out magic, and have nothing whatsoever to do with YHVH.

Instead, you're trying to shift the discussion over what some Jewish Kabbalists think (most of which is based on their own non-biblical writings), which is not relevant to a discussion about what the text of the Bible says - unless you are specifically quoting Kabbalistic works that directly deal with those scriptures I gave you; In which case you're basically substituting their interpretation of particular verses for your own attempts at it, but at least then you're still attempting to post some scriptural exegesis that is relevant to the verses I already cited as proof of my thesis statement.

Blanket statements like "kabbalistic jews believe in magic" doesn't prove or disprove any of my Biblical exegesis about specific verses, The truth is a lot of what they believe is not based on the Bible and is even in conflict with it.
You commit a logical fallacy by presuming you can quote any Jewish source you want and claim it is the final word on what scripture says just because they are Jewish. There are many Jewish sects, some of which openly will tell you they don't believe in in the Bible as entirely true and therefore do not base a lot their beliefs on what it says (The best example probably being Reform Judaism)

LOL! More BULL! Jewish Encyclopedia is not a Cabbalist's opinion! Nor is My Jewish Learning! You pick one sentence from what I said, - in your attempt to misdirect. Kabbalah shows Jewish MAGIC continued, as do Biblical verses, other writings, spell bowls, etc., - AS I SAID!

If you can't directly deal with the Biblical text when challenging my thesis statement about what the Bible says, within a Biblical Scripture debate forum, in a thread that started as a scriptural debate about tongues in the context of Christianity, then you've basically conceded you're wrong. If at that point you are still unwilling to engage with the text of the Bible itself to establish what it does or does not say, then there's no point in continuing this further.

More BULL - I have provided the JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA, and Bible MAGIC verses.

The reason you no longer wish to continue is because you have been proven wrong by the JEWISH SCHOLARS themselves.

Your Christian opinion is ridiculous, and holds no weight against them.

*