Only 2 types of tongues not 3

[JoeHardy07]

Isn't speaking in tongues and praying in tongues the same thing?

Read verse 2 and 13-17. It seems to me that Paul uses speaks and prays interchangeably...

[JoeHardy07]

QUOTE You have a strong point about the tongues being the gift, since the context from chs. 12 and 13 are gifts. But why would some be able to PRAY in tongues and some not, since it is prayer? QUOTE

Because praying in tongues and speaking in tongues are the same thing. Speaking in tongues is speaking to God. We call that prayer. That's what Paul men's when he says "Praying in tongues." He simply means speaking to God.

You may have the ability to pray to God in tongues. That simply means that you have the ability to speak in tongues.

Only some have that ability to speak (pray) in tongues. If everyone had that ability, then there would be no interpretation.

I may have the ability to interpret those tongues. Or maybe I have faith, or healing.


This seems a lot less confusing that using one scripture to try and prove three different uses for tongues.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by JoeHardy07

Isn't speaking in tongues and praying in tongues the same thing?

Read verse 2 and 13-17. It seems to me that Paul uses speaks and prays interchangeably...

Possibly, I'm not convinced that he is using speaks and prays interchangeably in 1 Corinthians 14:13-17. I think that passage is best understood as Paul using praying in tongues as a specific example of why one should interpret when they speak in tongues. I don't think it's best understood as an interchangeable use of prays and speaks.

However, other than that one point, the whole chapter seems to make sense when thinking of it as being about praying in tongues with the possible interpretation of those prayers. So it's hard to rule out this idea. It's definately a possibility.

One question for you about tongues:

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Why does it say he is speaking to himself in tongues. Verse 14:2 makes it clear that he doesn't speak to those who don't understand him. So how is he speaking to himself if he doesn't understand himself in light of 14:2?

[JoeHardy07]

[QUOTE=jfrog;830330]Possibly, I'm not convinced that he is using speaks and prays interchangeably in 1 Corinthians 14:13-17. I think that passage is best understood as Paul using praying in tongues as a specific example of why one should interpret when they speak in tongues. I don't think it's best understood as an interchangeable use of prays and speaks.

However, other than that one point, the whole chapter seems to make sense when thinking of it as being about praying in tongues with the possible interpretation of those prayers. So it's hard to rule out this idea. It's definately a possibility.

One question for you about tongues:

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Why does it say he is speaking to himself in tongues. Verse 14:2 makes it clear that he doesn't speak to those who don't understand him. So how is he speaking to himself if he doesn't understand himself in light of 14:2?[/QUOTE]


Paul stated that anyone who speaks in tongues speaks to God and not to men and that he speaks mysteries in the spirit. Look back into Acts 2, some were in doubt saying "What meaneth this?" as they disciples were speaking praises to God in other tongues. It's not that the onlookers didn't understand the words, they didn't understand the MEANING. It was mysterious to them. Just think what kinds of things these 120 were saying! It was probably some crazy stuff, BUT! as Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 14:10, every language on earth has meaning and can be understood, even if it must be interpreted. They were not spouting off gibberish. These were clear, understandable words coming out of their mouths. The MESSAGE of the tongues was a mystery, not the words themselves.

On the Day of Pentecost:

The Tongues were spoken TO GOD...just like Paul said.
The tongues served as a sign FOR (not TO) unbelievers...just like Paul said.
The tongues were understood as EARTHLY languages...just like Paul said.
The tongues were interpreted and dispelled all confusion...just like Paul said.
The church was edified by the gift (3,000 added)...just like Paul said.

Answer me this: Tongues are a gift right, just like healing? Now, did God give you the gift of healing for yourself, or for others? What makes the gift of tongues any different?

Step back a few centuries. When Joseph INTERPRETED Pharoh's dreams, was it becuase Pharoah couldn't understand the language or because he coudn't understand the meaning?

Holy Ghost infilling tongues IS the gift of tongues. They fulfill God's plan in reaching unbelievers when used responsibly and selfLESSly...just like every other gift.

Think about it. Healing wouldn't have got those guys attention in Acts 2. Jesus had been healing them for years and they still wouldn't listen. He needed a way to prove that salvation was for the whole world. He couldn't very well do that with casting out demons, could he? What better way than to confound those selfish, unthankful Jews than with the langauges of the earth...just like in Acts 2, 10 and 19.

[jfrog]

[QUOTE=JoeHardy07;830416]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Possibly, I'm not convinced that he is using speaks and prays interchangeably in 1 Corinthians 14:13-17. I think that passage is best understood as Paul using praying in tongues as a specific example of why one should interpret when they speak in tongues. I don't think it's best understood as an interchangeable use of prays and speaks.

However, other than that one point, the whole chapter seems to make sense when thinking of it as being about praying in tongues with the possible interpretation of those prayers. So it's hard to rule out this idea. It's definately a possibility.

One question for you about tongues:

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Why does it say he is speaking to himself in tongues. Verse 14:2 makes it clear that he doesn't speak to those who don't understand him. So how is he speaking to himself if he doesn't understand himself in light of 14:2?[/QUOTE]


Paul stated that anyone who speaks in tongues speaks to God and not to men and that he speaks mysteries in the spirit. Look back into Acts 2, some were in doubt saying "What meaneth this?" as they disciples were speaking praises to God in other tongues. It's not that the onlookers didn't understand the words, they didn't understand the MEANING. It was mysterious to them. Just think what kinds of things these 120 were saying! It was probably some crazy stuff, BUT! as Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 14:10, every language on earth has meaning and can be understood, even if it must be interpreted. They were not spouting off gibberish. These were clear, understandable words coming out of their mouths. The MESSAGE of the tongues was a mystery, not the words themselves.

On the Day of Pentecost:

The Tongues were spoken TO GOD...just like Paul said.
The tongues served as a sign FOR (not TO) unbelievers...just like Paul said.
The tongues were understood as EARTHLY languages...just like Paul said.
The tongues were interpreted and dispelled all confusion...just like Paul said.
The church was edified by the gift (3,000 added)...just like Paul said.

Answer me this: Tongues are a gift right, just like healing? Now, did God give you the gift of healing for yourself, or for others? What makes the gift of tongues any different?

Step back a few centuries. When Joseph INTERPRETED Pharoh's dreams, was it becuase Pharoah couldn't understand the language or because he coudn't understand the meaning?

Holy Ghost infilling tongues IS the gift of tongues. They fulfill God's plan in reaching unbelievers when used responsibly and selfLESSly...just like every other gift.

Think about it. Healing wouldn't have got those guys attention in Acts 2. Jesus had been healing them for years and they still wouldn't listen. He needed a way to prove that salvation was for the whole world. He couldn't very well do that with casting out demons, could he? What better way than to confound those selfish, unthankful Jews than with the langauges of the earth...just like in Acts 2, 10 and 19.

I still don't see an explanation to verse 14:28 where it says "speaks to himself".

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I still don't see an explanation to verse 14:28 where it says "speaks to himself".

I already noted my idea. It means to speak in tongues quietly and not aloud to everyone else. It's a manner of speech that simply indicates one is keeping it to oneself. Not that one is giving a message to oneself.

[JoeHardy07]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I already noted my idea. It means to speak in tongues quietly and not aloud to everyone else. It's a manner of speech that simply indicates one is keeping it to oneself. Not that one is giving a message to oneself.

Close, but I think there is more to it. I can speak in tongues AND interpret all I want, but unless there is some shred of proof as to what I am saying, there is only confusion. BUT, if someone else can support what I speak by interpreting it, confusion goes bye bye. Funny how God uses the body to edfiy itself thru MULTIPLE members. lol. Keeps liars, corruption and confusion out.

If no one else is there that can back up my words, foriegn or not, I need to keep silence. This is what Paul was drving at when he commands that we should speak to ourselves when no interpreter is present. Else there would just be confusion and suspicious activity and anyone could claim anything was from God...sounds kinda familliar to me.

This opens up a whole new can of worms. You may ask in reference to verse 2, "What if I speak in a heavenly language?"

Answer: Find me in any scripture were tongues were UNDENIABLY anything other than earthly languages. It cannot be proven unquestionably...only theorized. God wouldn't make us assume that tongues were the initial evidence, not would he make us assume that they were anything other than earthly. He would have made if very clear so even retarded and slow individuals could understand it.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by JoeHardy07

Close, but I think there is more to it. I can speak in tongues AND interpret all I want, but unless there is some shred of proof as to what I am saying, there is only confusion. BUT, if someone else can support what I speak by interpreting it, confusion goes bye bye. Funny how God uses the body to edfiy itself thru MULTIPLE members. lol. Keeps liars, corruption and confusion out.

If no one else is there that can back up my words, foriegn or not, I need to keep silence. This is what Paul was drving at when he commands that we should speak to ourselves when no interpreter is present. Else there would just be confusion and suspicious activity and anyone could claim anything was from God...sounds kinda familliar to me.

This opens up a whole new can of worms. You may ask in reference to verse 2, "What if I speak in a heavenly language?"

Answer: Find me in any scripture were tongues were UNDENIABLY anything other than earthly languages. It cannot be proven unquestionably...only theorized. God wouldn't make us assume that tongues were the initial evidence, not would he make us assume that they were anything other than earthly. He would have made if very clear so even retarded and slow individuals could understand it.

What I meant to add to my thoughts was that we pray to ourselves and to God about INTERPRETATION. Pray to interpret.

[JoeHardy07]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What I meant to add to my thoughts was that we pray to ourselves and to God about INTERPRETATION. Pray to interpret.

LOL! Gotcha.