The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

[renee819]

Pressing-on wrote,

I don't believe I am getting them mixed up.

Acts 2:4 (other tongues) and I Cor 14:2;4;13;14;19 and 27 (unknown tongues) use the same Greek definition -

G1100
γλῶσσα
glōssa
gloce'-sah
Of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired): - tongue.

It would be the same interchangeability as using Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost - same difference.

Right! Tongues is the same, but the words proceeding them makes the difference.

The word proceeding Other Tongues, “Other”---heteros
Usage Notes:
..
English Words used in KJV:
another 43
other 42
other thing 3
some 2
next day 2
miscellaneous translations 7
[Total Count: 99]
..
of uncertain affinity; (an-, the) other or different :- altered, else, next (day), one, (an-) other, some, strange.

And we know Other Tongues is Foreign Languages, because the Jews, that were there from different countries, understood what was being said.

In 1 Cor.14, the word Unknown was added by the translators. But you can see the reason why, the language is Unknown. But Paul uses the word, “divers tongues” and one of the meanings is “diversity” and the scripture clearly tells us, that, “no man can understand him” speaking of Unknown Tongues. That is why that God also gave the Gift of Interpretation. And Paul says, if you have the Gift of Unknown Tongues, pray for the Gift of Interpretation.
The word for divers----genos

English Words used in KJV:
kind 5
kindred 3
offspring 3
nation 2
stock 2
born 2
diversity 1
misc. 3
[Total Count: 21]
..
from <G1096> (ginomai); “kin” (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, indivual or collective) :- born, country (-man), diversity, generation, kind (-red), nation, offspring, stock.

Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by renee819

Pressing-on wrote,



Right! Tongues is the same, but the words proceeding them makes the difference.

The word proceeding Other Tongues, “Other”---heteros
Usage Notes:
..
English Words used in KJV:
another 43
other 42
other thing 3
some 2
next day 2
miscellaneous translations 7
[Total Count: 99]
..
of uncertain affinity; (an-, the) other or different :- altered, else, next (day), one, (an-) other, some, strange.

And we know Other Tongues is Foreign Languages, because the Jews, that were there from different countries, understood what was being said.

In 1 Cor.14, the word Unknown was added by the translators. But you can see the reason why, the language is Unknown. But Paul uses the word, “divers tongues” and one of the meanings is “diversity” and the scripture clearly tells us, that, “no man can understand him” speaking of Unknown Tongues. That is why that God also gave the Gift of Interpretation. And Paul says, if you have the Gift of Unknown Tongues, pray for the Gift of Interpretation.
The word for divers----genos

English Words used in KJV:
kind 5
kindred 3
offspring 3
nation 2
stock 2
born 2
diversity 1
misc. 3
[Total Count: 21]
..
from <G1096> (ginomai); “kin” (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, indivual or collective) :- born, country (-man), diversity, generation, kind (-red), nation, offspring, stock.

Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.

I don't believe there is a difference between "other" and "unknown". I base that on the fact that in Acts 2:4-8, the languages being spoken were languages "unknown" to the speakers.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by houston

I'm not exactly sure that I understand the question. What does tongues have to do with wiping people out?

I will have to get back to you on this. I was in the middle of a discussion with a friend so it was on my mind and I posted those comments without thinking them through.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by houston

I'm not exactly sure that I understand the question. What does tongues have to do with wiping people out?

However, what I will say is that when the bible states tongues are a sign to the unbeliever we tend to think of it in a "present day/now" type of thing, but I don't think that is the correct way to view it. The bible was written to a certain people, not us. There are prophecies about the tongues that were pretty specific to the people of that day and I believe that the "sign to the unbeliever" was about God's return. I am almost a preterist in my mindset on it. The bible seems to be clear in many areas regarding what partial prets and what full prets believe. With that being the case, if God came back in A.D. 70 then tongues, as a sign to the unbeliever, would have been for THAT time and not specifically for today. That doesn't mean it can't happen now because we know it does. But that means it may not be anything more than a personal prayer language. Just some thoughts.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jack Shephard

However, what I will say is that when the bible states tongues are a sign to the unbeliever we tend to think of it in a "present day/now" type of thing, but I don't think that is the correct way to view it. The bible was written to a certain people, not us. There are prophecies about the tongues that were pretty specific to the people of that day and I believe that the "sign to the unbeliever" was about God's return. I am almost a preterist in my mindset on it. The bible seems to be clear in many areas regarding what partial prets and what full prets believe. With that being the case, if God came back in A.D. 70 then tongues, as a sign to the unbeliever, would have been for THAT time and not specifically for today. That doesn't mean it can't happen now because we know it does. But that means it may not be anything more than a personal prayer language. Just some thoughts.

I believe it is error to deny the current validity of tongues by relegating its relevance to the apostolic age.

Paul states that "tongues will cease" and that "when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away" - I Cor 13:8-10.

However, Paul also writes that "knowledge will pass away" - I Cor 13:8.

Yet, no one ever insists that knowledge was valid only for the apostolic age.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I believe it is error to deny the current validity of tongues by relegating its relevance to the apostolic age.

Paul states that "tongues will cease" and that "when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away" - I Cor 13:8-10.

However, Paul also writes that "knowledge will pass away" - I Cor 13:8.

Yet, no one ever insists that knowledge was valid only for the apostolic age.

I am not saying they are totally invalide, but I don't think they serve the same purpose today as they did "current day." If one believes in preterism then what you wrote about what Paul wrote then "that which is perfect is come" came in A.D. 70 and tongues do not serve the same purpose. Whether one believes preterism or not I don't think Bible is clear about tongues being anything related to being part of salvation, IMO.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jack Shephard

I am not saying they are totally invalide, but I don't think they serve the same purpose today as they did "current day." If one believes in preterism then what you wrote about what Paul wrote then "that which is perfect is come" came in A.D. 70 and tongues do not serve the same purpose. Whether one believes preterism or not I don't think Bible is clear about tongues being anything related to being part of salvation, IMO.

Well, since people are still receiving the Holy Ghost and the operation of the gifts are still taking place, God would have to have, Himself, ended all of it. Guess that means I could never be a Preterist.

It seems clear that tongues is part of salvation. You can see that, clearly, in Acts 10:44-47. Paul was questioned by the elders of Jerusalem, shortly thereafter, about what happened at Cornelius' house.

His defense was built upon the very evidence that they had spoken in tongues.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, since people are still receiving the Holy Ghost and the operation of the gifts are still taking place, God would have to have, Himself, ended all of it. Guess that means I could never be a Preterist.

It seems clear that tongues is part of salvation. You can see that, clearly, in Acts 10:44-47. Paul was questioned by the elders of Jerusalem, shortly thereafter, about what happened at Cornelius' house.

His defense was built upon the very evidence that they had spoken in tongues.

That grouping verses in Acts 10 doesn't state anything about salvation but just an outpouring of tongues. Verse 43 says that whosever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. So it's pretty clear to me that the tongues weren't a part of the salvation, but part of the workings of worship.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jack Shephard

That grouping verses in Acts 10 doesn't state anything about salvation but just an outpouring of tongues. Verse 43 says that whosever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. So it's pretty clear to me that the tongues weren't a part of the salvation, but part of the workings of worship.

I don't believe anyone I know teaches that salvation is "just" an outpouring of tongues.

Look at verse 43 and put into context that this is the beginning of the New Covenant. How does verse 43 begin?

"To him give all the prophets witness..."

Having read that, let's go back to and read the verses in Acts 10:34-42. He ends his discourse with verse 43 after laying a foundation. And guess what happened?

(44) "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word."

Now that is power and these are true and honest hearts receiving the Word of God.

Verse 47 states they were baptized.

Of course, at the beginning of the chapter, it states that Cornelius and his house feared God and gave much to those in need. Therefore, we have a household guided by a man who believed in repentance and in "Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.".

So, there is your Gospel - signed, sealed and delivered.

Oh, snap, it's Acts 2:38 again!

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't believe anyone I know teaches that salvation is "just" an outpouring of tongues.

Look at verse 43 and put into context that this is the beginning of the New Covenant. How does verse 43 begin?

"To him give all the prophets witness..."

Having read that, let's go back to and read the verses in Acts 10:34-42. He ends his discourse with verse 43 after laying a foundation. And guess what happened?

(44) "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word."

Now that is power and these are true and honest hearts receiving the Word of God.

Verse 47 states they were baptized.

Of course, at the beginning of the chapter, it states that Cornelius and his house feared God and gave much to those in need. Therefore, we have a household guided by a man who believed in repentance and in "Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.".

So, there is your Gospel - signed, sealed and delivered.

Oh, snap, it's Acts 2:38 again!

I wasn't meaning that tongues meant salvation to you, but I believe that most OP's believe the initial evidence thing so they equate tongues as being a sign of salvation.

His foundation ended with his call to salvation, verse 43. Verse 45 shows that Gentiles were astonished because of what they heard. They heard something familiar coming from an unfamiliar source, Gentiles. That still doesn't give a clear picture that the HG was salvation, but 43 saying whosoever believeth in him shall hall receive remission of sins - that is pretty clear there.

I am not sure if your last statement means that you believe Acts 2:38 is the Gospel or not.