Praying in Tongues and prophecy

[@jackfrost2978]

i fully believe is gifts of the Holy Spirit. i also believe that the enemy is very good at deception. Believe but remain on guard and continually test and review. Western churches have mostly lost belief in the gifts or have embraced everything as from God without question or testing. It is odd, that both ends are more represented; than the middle ground that we should be on. These are my thoughts on the topic overall.

[@GenXpreacher]

Yes, the Word of God says to test the spheres to see if they are God

[@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474]

At Pentecost, the apostles weren’t speaking any language they didn’t already know. The spiritual gift given at Pentecost was not that of languages (though a language miracle did occur), but rather prophesy. This would take a few pages to explain properly; so, for the sake of brevity, I’m considerably simplifying and ‘bottom lining’ the below. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit did not give the _language_ (i.e., the means/content) of the apostles’ speech, it gave the _manner_ in which it was spoken. The Holy Spirit gave the 12 (yep, 12, not 120, but that’s a story for another day) apostles what in the Greek text is “apophtheggesthai”. It’s usually translated as “to give utterance”. This is, however, not the most accurate translation of this Greek word, but it’s the one that has come to be the more or less ‘de facto’ rendering. This word is from “apophtheggomai” which is best translated as “to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to”. Don’t go to Strong’s and look it up though - “Strong’s” is a _concordance_ , not a lexicon; there’s a _huge_ difference. Without going into what could be considerable detail, when looking at the “language wherein the attendees were born” there are only two: Aramaic and Greek. The Jews present at Pentecost came from three areas: Judea, the Western Diaspora and the Eastern Diaspora. “All nations under heaven” is an idiomatic expression - Acts II: 9-11 tells us where those visiting were from. The “list of nations”, as it’s called, of Acts 2: 9-11 is simply that - a list of countries, lands and nations that tell us where these people were from; *not* what language(s) they spoke, as most people assume. Further, the idea that the “tongues” of Acts II was xenoglossy also stems from this false assumption. In the entire narrative not *one* language is ever referenced by name - ever wonder why? The miracle of language at Pentecost was making the God of the Jews accessible to all people and moreover, not having to do so in one prescribed language: namely, Hebrew, the sacerdotal language of Judaism. The crowd was expecting to hear Hebrew first followed by translations into Aramaic and Greek as was the tradition and practice of the day; what they got were Aramaic and Greek without Hebrew first. Doing this broke a slew of cultural and religious taboos and was virtually tantamount to heresy which accounts for the crowd’s reaction. Further added to the crowd’s reaction was to hear Galileans (the “country bumkins” of their day) speak so boldly, completely inspired, and with such authority. The actual gift being emphasized is the fact that the Holy Spirit has empowered the disciples to _prophesy_ and to boldly proclaim the Word of the Lord, and this is exactly what we find in verse 14. Peter “lifted up his voice and _addressed_ them”, but perhaps a better translation would be that he lifted up his voice and _prophesied._ We tend to think of prophecy as a kind of foretelling of future events, but in the Hebrew use, it was more often associated with _speaking forth_ the Word of the Lord. I would argue that, if looking for a gift of the Holy Spirit to assign to Pentecost, it would be more the gift of Prophesy than of Languages. No xenoglossy, no modern tongues-speech, just real, rational language(s). There *was* a language miracle at Pentecost provided by the Holy Spirit, no argument there; just not the one most people assume. This also negates the concept of “tongues as initial evidence” - That’s a completely Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian construct.

[@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474]

There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" - and there is only *one* type - when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); usually, but not always, unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) - it’s their native language (in some cases, it is a language the speaker has learned). Indeed, there are absolutely _no_ Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), ‘Tongues’ (read, *‘languages’* ) - the divine gift, is the God/Holy Spirit given ability to effortlessly learn to speak and be understood through real-language barriers. It is not xenoglossy (as many people incorrectly assume), nor is it the self-created non-cognitive non-language utterance of what certain Christian denominations are producing today (modern tongues-speech). _Nowhere_ in the Bible is modern tongues-speech advocated or evidenced. 1Cor. 14:2 is perhaps *the* quintessential verse used by many to “evidence” modern tongues-speech in the Bible. The whole passage is talking about real, rational language. Let me use an analogy - If I attend a worship service in “East Haystack”, some remote town in the US out in the middle of nowhere, two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone speaks anything *but* English is pretty slim to nil. If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a single word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one _there_ will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at _that particular service._ In this sense, therefore, I am speaking _only to God,_ since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (as defined further below), to the people listening to me, I’m still speaking “mysteries” - i.e. even though I’m praying as I ought, no one understands me. An idiomatic expression to say that no one has a clue what I’m saying as no one speaks my language. When one looks at the original Greek, the verb which is usually translated as “understandeth/understands” is actually the verb “to hear” in the sense of understanding what you’re hearing someone say. The verb is *not* “to understand”. That part of the verse is more properly “no one hears [him] with understanding”, i.e. no one listening to him understands what he’s saying. There is _nothing_ in this passage that suggests modern tongues-speech nor is there anything that even _remotely_ suggests that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying. The Greek bears this out; it is the _listeners_ who do not understand, *not* the speaker - no matter how hard modern tongues-speakers want the speaker to also not understand…….unless the author of the text is a bad grammarian, it just isn’t there. “Praying in the Spirit” does _not_ refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will.

[@GenXpreacher]

The Word of God tells us there are tongues in our private language we don’t understand. “For if I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don’t understand what I am saying” 1 Corinthians 14:14 Why would Paul pray words that he doesn’t have no clue what he’s saying? “what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding.” 1 Corinthians 14:15 Why would he say understanding is separate from praying in spirit? Who are we talking to when praying in tongues? “for he who speaks in a tongue is not speaking to men, but to God. Indeed, nobody understands him.” 1 Corinthians 14:2 Speaking in tongues is you privately speaking to God.not people. And here it says that no one understands meaning no one on earth could understand. It’s a language that is outside of this earth language. You can debate it and you can disagree. That is the truth according ti the Written Word via the Holy Spirit. Now public tongues is a different discussion.

[@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474]

@@GenXpreacher PART 1 - When looking at verses/passages, they need to be put into historical, cultural, and when it comes to languages (“tongues”), linguistic context/perspective. Most people don’t do this and take these very literally. Paul’s letter to Corinth does address spiritual gifts but then goes on to speak to real-language issues facing a multi-cultural, multi-lingual, and somewhat transient, population in large city situated on two major seaports. A place where everyday communication can be challenging. Let’s look at the verses quoted: 1Cor. 14:2 is perhaps *the* quintessential verse used by many to “evidence” modern tongues-speech in the Bible. The whole passage is talking about real, rational language. Let me use an analogy - If I attend a worship service in “East Haystack”, some remote town in the US out in the middle of nowhere, two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone speaks anything *but* English is pretty slim to nil. If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a single word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one _there_ will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at _that particular service._ In this sense, therefore, I am speaking _only to God,_ since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (as defined further below), to the people listening to me, I’m still speaking “mysteries” - i.e. even though I’m praying as I ought, no one understands me. An idiomatic expression to say that no one has a clue what I’m saying as no one speaks my language. When one looks at the original Greek, the verb which is usually translated as “understandeth/understands” is actually the verb “to hear” in the sense of understanding what you’re hearing someone say. The verb is *not* “to understand”. That part of the verse is more properly “no one hears [him] with understanding”, i.e. no one listening to him understands what he’s saying. There is _nothing_ in this passage that suggests modern tongues-speech nor is there anything that even _remotely_ suggests that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying. The Greek bears this out; it is the _listeners_ who do not understand, *not* the speaker - no matter how hard modern tongues-speakers want the speaker to also not understand…….unless the author of the text is a bad grammarian, it just isn’t there. “Praying in the Spirit” does _not_ refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will.

[@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474]

@@GenXpreacher PART 3 - There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" - and there is only one type - when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); usually, but not always, unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) - it’s their native language (in some cases, it is a language the speaker has learned). In contrast, the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with. It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns, alliteration, assonance, and over-simplification of syllable structure. The "nail in the coffin", so-to-speak, is that _any and all_ phonological rules (rules governing how sounds are put together in a given language - what is allowed and what is disallowed) governing a speaker's native language, will _also_ govern their tongues-speech. That fact alone negates anything that can be construed as 'divine' in nature and cements that fact that it is a self-created phenomenon. Further, this subset of phonemes mentioned above typically contains only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically. Occasionally some speakers will use two or more subsets of phonemes to generate glossolalia, producing what, to them, sounds like two (or more) distinct “tongues languages”, thus claiming to be able to speak in “divers tongues”. There is absolutely _nothing_ that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot be explained in relatively simple linguistic terms. Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely _no_ Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be one which is radically different from what you believe, or were taught. _Nowhere_ in the Bible is modern tongues-speech advocated or evidenced. “Praying in the Spirit” does _not_ refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. I'm not doubting or questioning the 'tongues experience'; glossolalia as the spiritual tool that it is, can be very powerful and, for many people, the experience is profound. As one commenter put it, “Speaking in tongues distracts the ego/analytical/conscious mind while leaving the subconscious (the heart) wide open to import the divine." Both the spiritual and physical benefits of using this tool are also well documented. Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually _any_ other culture that practices glossolalia. Religious and cultural differences aside, the glossolalia an Evenki Shaman in Siberia, a vodoun priestess in Togo and a Christian tongues-speaker in Alabama are producing are in no way different from each other. They’re all producing their glossolalia in the exact same way; they just have different explanations and beliefs as to why they’re doing it, and where it comes from. It is only in certain Christian denominations where is it construed as something it never was. “Tongues” is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best; non-cognitive non language utterance - the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In _some_ cases, I would argue that it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience via “tongues”. ‘Tongues’ (read, *‘languages’* ) - the divine gift, is the God/Holy Spirit given ability to effortlessly learn to speak and be understood through real-language barriers. It is not xenoglossy (as many people incorrectly assume), nor is it the self-created non-cognitive non-language utterance of what certain Christian denominations are producing today (modern tongues-speech). As a point of note, I’m a Linguist, and let me also add here that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ - I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”. It’s always a bit interesting to see how different tongues-speakers skate around what for them is that awkward discrepancy between the real, rational languages of Pentecost and the so-called “prayer language “ of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. The solution seems to be instituting various “types” of “tongues”. There is only one type of “tongue(s)” in the Bible when referring to something spoken - real rational language(s).

[@GenXpreacher]

@@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474 regarding part 2: Scripture says we speak ‘mysteries. While talking to God with tongues. “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” 1 Corinthians 14:2 Why do we speak mysteries? “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us…” Romans 8:26 What is our weakness? Its that we do NOT know in our natural mind what we need to pray for but our spirit with Holy Spirit prays these mysteries thru us. We don’t know what is happening in the spirit world always, we don’t know what traps the devil is set up against us or what incidents will happen in the future. These are mysteries BUT when our spirit prays in tongues it is a true intercession. The devil cannot understand and cannot intercept. God Bless Thank you for your inquiry