Define tongues please

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

I would ask you to kindly define the biblical word “tongues.” Please leave the side bars for another thread. I am only interested in the definition of the word “tongue(s).” If you have a source, I would be interested in reading that document. No arguments, just a simple definition, please!

Your Ever Humble Servant,
Rev. Sandy Bryant DD.
Counter-cult Apologist

[ezekiel_37]

From the Strong's Concordance

Greek dictionary

G1100

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

in His service
c

[grace2u]

Tongue can also refer to the actual tongue and relate to the heart of an individual not just a specific "human" language.

Psa 35:28 And my tongue shall speak of thy righteousness and of thy praise all the day long.

Psa 37:30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.
Psa 37:31 The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide.

Psa 73:9 They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth.


I GOT IT!

Pro 12:18 There is that speaketh like the piercings of a sword: <u>but the tongue of the wise is health</u>.

[hillariousharry]

Hiya Sandy

It would be interesting to know why you posed the question.

With respect your wording comes across with something of a conditional approach.

Two way communication really calls for a sesne of equality.

You should know with a DD...shame on yer!!

Confirm your motive and I will help yer out....guaranteed..plenty of theology background this end (lol) and pentecostal background too ( sadly it went out the window once fanaticism crept in....now a normal down to earth Xian. lol)

Best wishes

HH





(Message edited by hillariousharry on April 14, 2007)

[grace2u]

HH - I was having concerns with Sandy's lack of two-way communication too.

Of course a DD just means that you are educated - not necessarily wise. (From someone who is also working on a doctorate.)

Still my answer above was "tongue" in a singular sense. I was looking for how it was defined in the Bible. For instance if you look at the word "meat" - it can mean physical substance, it can mean "tears" which in itself is symbolic, and it can mean "doing the will of God" from Jesus' perspective anyway.

[grace2u]

From the JFB Commentary:

cloven tongues, like as of fire, etc. — “disparted tongues,” that is, tongue-shaped, flame-like appearances, rising from a common center or root, and resting upon each of that large company: - beautiful visible symbol of the burning energy of the Spirit now descending in all His plenitude upon the Church, and about to pour itself through every tongue, and over every tribe of men under heaven!

Gill:

Act 2:3 - And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire,.... An emblem of the various tongues and languages, in which they were to preach the Gospel; these appearances were like flames of fire parted, and these parted flames looked like tongues; so, a flame of fire is with, the Jews called, &amp;#1500;&amp;#1513;&amp;#1493;&amp;#1503; &amp;#1488;&amp;#1513;, "a tongue of fire", Isa_5:24 hence the Apostle James compares a tongue to fire, Jam_3:6 this was the baptism with fire, John the Baptist speaks of; see Gill on Mat_3:11; and the Jews say (t),

"the holy blessed God baptizeth with fire, and the wise shall understand.

Through this baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire, the apostles became more knowing, and had a greater understanding of the mysteries of the Gospel, and were more qualified to preach it to people of all nations and languages. The Holy Spirit, in his gifts and graces, is compared to fire, because of its purity, light, and heat, as well as consuming nature; the Spirit sanctifies, and makes men pure and holy, purges from the dross of sin, error and superstition; and enlightens the minds of men, and gives them knowledge of divine and spiritual things; and fills them with zeal and fervour for the glory of God and Christ, and the good of his church and interest, and for the doctrines and ordinances of the Gospel; as well as fortifies them against their enemies, whom he consumes, according to Zec_2:5 a passage of Scripture the Jews make use of in an uncommon sense; for they say (u), that as

"Jerusalem was destroyed by fire, "by fire it shall be built again"; as it is said, Zec_2:5 "For I, saith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of fire round about".

The pouring forth of the Spirit upon the apostles, in this form of cloven tongues, as of fire, was indeed the means of rebuilding Jerusalem, in a spiritual sense; or of founding the Gospel church state in the world:

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with <u>new</u> tongues;

Jer 23:31 Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use <u>their</u> tongues, and say, He saith.

Their tongue - not the Lord's truth.
that use their tongues; at their pleasure, their lips being their own. So the Targum,

"who prophesy according to the will of their own hearts

Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Luk 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

[hillariousharry]

Grace2U - I believe that there is always a need for heretical teaching to be challenged and it's good that there are individuals and set- ups that take this on.

But what does concern me, is that often those set-ups refuse to debate and discuss. Yes their prerogative. But with it comes the "holier than thou" approaches....."we are right and hold the monopoly on Truth."

Yes it is often clear where practices are anti scriptural. But these groups tend to get into such a pedantic style about differences of biblical interpretation, to the point that you are just about a heretic if you dont agree with them on almost everthing ( maybe I exagerate a little but on the right track..lol)

This is the problem with the Church. Our common bond is the Cross and Resurrection. Does it really matter whether I believe that the initial evidence of Baptism in the Holy Spirit is speaking in "tongues". Assemblies of God do and I was a pastor in that Movement years ago; but then I learned to question for myself and am more open minded. ( little did they know that I never did speak in tongues as per their fundamental list for going into their ministry ..ha ha - take note Paul Weaver (UK AOG). But these are the things which cause division. Does it matter. I attach myself to a C of E which proclaims the Gospel. But it doesn't bother me that "sprinkling" is practiced. I go with full immersion but "compromise" can be healthy and help towards bringing Xians together.

The problems with set ups referred to above ( and I wonder if "apostolic truth ministries" is within that category), they are so locked into minor scriptural points to the point where they will not even discuss. What they need to do is focus on heresy which clearly goes against the grain; rather than nit picking on beliefs which in no way hinders people getting to heaven.

I may have gone on here....but I am passionate about my view of some of the apologetic groups...they need to review their attitudes. I have been in touch with some of them and the response I have had has not been helpful.

Sandy's style of posting does give me a clue as to whether he would ever debate. I guess he wont reply to this posting because I think that his Movement stands firm in keeping a distance. I may be wrong. But, if so, then I think it a cheek his posing his question...which would seem to be using others.



HH

[grace2u]

I tend to agree with you on that style of posting. As a teacher I realize that someone might post in that manner to get people to think but to do nothing but this - also concerns me.

For a while - I thought it was a more harsh male mannerism that I have seen on these threads where men tend to communicate with each other in this way (albeit if it were women they "might" be just all out pulling each others hair out). LOL!

Still I encourage Sandy to continue if he/she truly wants to dialogue. I for one (although I totally agree about the nitpicking you mention above) am also interested in a possible interpretation that leads me closer to the understanding of the truth of God's word.

[ezekiel_37]

<font color="ff0000">Does it really matter whether I believe that the initial evidence of Baptism in the Holy Spirit is speaking in "tongues".</font>


Yes it does matter, for you will then teach this fallacy, to others.



initial evidence?


Which tongues are you referring to harry?
Act2, or 1Cor14?

2 different things all together.


unknown prayer language is not a gift from God.

see other thread on 1Cor14, tongues.



in His service
c

[hillariousharry]

Ezekiel - I am well adversed in the scriptures you mention.

You know well that the Acts 2 Scriptures saw the fulfilment of the Promise of the Holy Spirt to empower believers to witness.

And of course the teaching in the other ref you give as to the outworking of the 9 spiritual gifts in the Church.

I tend to be quite open minded these days about the use of "tongues"....and thats after being steeped in AOG...UK one of the traditional pentecostal movements. Perhaps you are old enough to go back to the 50s/60/s when the main argument centred on the pentecostal beliefs and those within the holiness movement.

Debate is interesting and it is healthy that the Church is able to have diversity of thought on this. Will always be the case. The main point is that we have common ground in terms of the Cross and Resurrection. many things in Scripture are clearly defined...others are open to interpretation. Therefore if only the Church could compromise more on differences then the door would be wider open to unity.

In my mind "compomise" is a healthy and much needed act. Once I viewed it as a dirty word. but no longer. Whilst I go for the biblical way of water baptism, it doesnt bother me to find that in the church I am attached to, sprinkling is practiced. Such things cause division. For me I can happily go along with such and find it all very constructive.

For me the AOG stance on what they call the "initial evidence" doesnt matter. Fallacy doesnt come into it for me, cos I respect all views and interpretation provided the ticket to heaven is not compromised, that is "Christ the only way".

Once I was a fanatical Xian and needed to make adjustments for health and safety reason. Now I am a believer with both feet firmly on the ground, which for me and my family means better quality of life rather than being imprisoned by unhealthy dogmatic holier than thou approaches, which sadly dominates many fellowships today.

HH

(Message edited by hillariousharry on April 14, 2007)

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

I must admit I found the two answers challenging. One suggests using a dictionary/concordance and the other suggests examining the word’s usage found in other passages. I would like to say that they surprised me more did not answer the question. Nevertheless, I did ask for no arguments! Though, at least one attempts to start a fight.

Let us take a quick look at scripture. "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away." 1 Corinthians 13:8 (KJV).

Allow me to extract a fragment from that verse for discussion purposes. “Whether there be tongues, they shall cease.” The term “language” means what precisely? If we assume, for a moment, the word refers to known languages, we have a problem Houston! I do not know if you have considered it but every known language at the time they wrote this passage is now extinct. Even the English used in the King James Version is no longer in existence.

Of course, we still must deal with the first problem. They did not invent the dictionary until the nineteenth century. While Strong’s or Vine’s is an excellent starting point, they do not provide the definitive answer. We also run into a problem checking the word’s usage elsewhere in scripture. Words, like bapt(ism)(ized), create even more problems. How do we handle someone transliterating an extinct Greek word into an extinct English translation?

Would it be correct to say, “tongue(s) means a form of communications?” I remember a movie in which space aliens talked by touching finger tips. When we read that the word ‘tongue(s)’ is/are “a means of communication,” we see the passage in its true light. As a way to communicate one with the other ‘tongue(s)’ has not ceased. If we read the passage as meaning ‘language(s),’ we must define which language(s).

I would also acknowledge that ‘tongue(s)’ means the little thing in our mouths. Some people have a problem controlling their tongues. Fortunately, it is only you sub-humans who have that problem! My ‘tongue’ has never gotten me into trouble!!

Your Ever Humble Servant,
Rev. Sandy Bryant DD.
Counter-cult Apologist

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). hillariousharry:

Quoting: “Confirm your motive and I will help yer out....guaranteed..plenty of theology background this end (lol) and pentecostal background too ( sadly it went out the window once fanaticism crept in....now a normal down to earth Xian. lol) “
End quote.

Exactly what do you mean by fanaticism? They invented that religion, pentecostalism, on the tail of the Great Earthquake of 1906. The homosexual Charles Fox Parham’s vision included ushering in the latter-day rains. Did I see somewhere that you are from the UK? Perhaps, fanaticism has a different meaning to you.

Your Ever Humble Servant,
Rev. Sandy Bryant DD.
Counter-cult Apologist

[hillariousharry]

Sandy

Your bit about starting a fight was ab it OTT I think.

My thoughts about your stance in your first posting seems to be confirmed in your second.

Your approaches do not in my view confirm any element of "servanthood and humility" and certainly speaks much about the Organisation you appear to represent.

I find your approach quite obnoxious and provocative.

I would suggest you get a proper job...at least you will rub shoulders with people who communicate on an equal footing with each other.

You are not a cut above the rest......why not just be Sandy, at least until your attitude matches up to who you claim to be...."a humble servant " my foot.

No I am not into starting fights....rather finding such attitudes sickening and therefore challenging them.

HH

PS Have just spotted your posting above. I choose to ignore your postings now...your attitude is abnormal. Would be a waste of space trying to discuss further.

(Message edited by hillariousharry on April 14, 2007)

[ezekiel_37]

I never started a fight. I answered a question that was posed. I also said what was in my heart. Mumbo jumbo is not from God. It is not a gift. It is opposite.

Your words Sandy,
<font color="ff0000">Fortunately, it is only you sub-humans who have that problem! My ‘tongue’ has never gotten me into trouble!! </font>


Are you really as "out there" as it seems?
Warning.
Just Another Observation!


in His service
c

[trainedobserver]

Tongues. The ability or phenomenon to utter words or sounds of a language unknown to the speaker, especially as an expression of religious ecstasy. Also called glossolalia, speaking in tongues.

glos·so·la·li·a
Pronunciation [glos-uh-ley-lee-uh, glaw-suh-]
–noun
incomprehensible speech in an imaginary language, sometimes occurring in a trance state, an episode of religious ecstasy, or schizophrenia.


Tongues is not unique to Christianity. It is a natural human cross cultural phenomena that can also be 'learned'. There have been no documented cases of true "speaking in another language" and much to the contrary.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. ezekiel_37:

Nope, you did not try to start a fight, that lies exclusively with harry. You offered the explanation from Strong's as indicated. Your second post on the subject may have been directed at/to harry.

Have you ever read the Peanuts comics strip? Please forgive my spelling, Charles Shultz (SP?) wrote Peanuts as modern day parables using scripture as the basis for each strip. James posed his dissertation on the 'tongue' thusly: "And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh." James 3:6 - 12 (KJV)

We could as easily morph the quote to "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues." Mark 16:17 (KJV). When I was first saved, I did not receive a new ‘physical’ tongue. The tongue in my mouth is the same one I was born with. Nor did I receive a new language. I still speak southern American English. I did receive a new means of communications . . . praise and worship.

You might also consider: "Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre." 1 Timothy 3:8 (KJV). "For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile." 1 Peter 3:10 (KJV)

I used the illustration . . . "Fortunately, it is only you sub-humans who have that problem! My ‘tongue’ has never gotten me into trouble!!" . . . to bring these points home to those who have read all the Bible.

Eighteen years ago God commanded me to take up an apologetics ministry ministering to those caught up in the pseudo-christian cult of pentecostalism. The most profound problem I see is those who have never read their Bible. Please do not misunderstand me, many have read or heard their quote, unquote "proof" text for or against virtually every subject. Nevertheless, they have no idea what God said on the subject. People, for some reason, are unable to connect Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. Unfortunately, the problem lies on both sides of the aisle.

Your Ever Humble Servant,
Rev. Sandy Bryant DD.
Counter-cult Apologist

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. trainedobserver:

You do not show a source for your definition. You closing observation is indeed true. An article in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation entitled "An Ethnological Study of Glossolalia(Speaking in Tongues)" by George J. Jennings, March 1968. Jennings observes that glossolalia is practiced amoung the following non-Christian religions of the world; the Peyote cult among the North American Indians, the Haida Indians of the Pacific Northwest, Shamans in the Sudan, the Shango cult of the West Coast of Africa, the Shago cult in Trinidad, the Voodoo cult in Haiti, the Aborigines of South American and Australia, the aboriginal peoples of the subarctic regions of North America and Asia, the Shamans in Greenland, the Dyaks of Borneo, the Zor cult of Ethiopia, the Siberian shamans, the Chaco Indians of South America, the Curanderos of the Andes, the Kinka in the African Sudan, the Thonga shamans of Africa, and the Tibetan monks.

[skooter942000]

RE:

Define "tongues," please.


ezekiel_37 ...has
As have i on the other thread.



Tongue in the manuscripts means LANGUAGE.

<font color="ff0000"><font face="times new roman,times,roman"><font size="+1">1100. glossa gloce-sah' of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired):--tongue. </font></font></font>


- Being able to speak more than one language,
FOR THE KINGDOMS SAKE, is a GIFT from GOD.

Not all have this GIFT,
(They are the Gifted SCHOLARS and LINGUISTS).

http://www.speaking-in-tongues.org/

[trainedobserver]

"You do not show a source for your definition. "

dictionary.com They have multiple listings from numerous well established reference works.

"
- Being able to speak more than one language,
FOR THE KINGDOMS SAKE, is a GIFT from GOD. "

The evidence is that it is not a "gift" of any kind. The only meaning or relevance it has is what the individual gives it.

[skooter942000]

RE:From Don/Skooter
"
- Being able to speak more than one language,
FOR THE KINGDOMS SAKE, is a GIFT from GOD. "



From (T.O.)
- as a Reply (...i think)

The evidence is that it is not a "gift" of any kind. The only meaning or relevance it has is what the individual gives it.

---------------8 < --- cut -----------------


That's your opinion (T.O.)
- Nothing more.


If you read the BIBLE ,

- Have you - [?]

(You would see these words
FIT perfectly with GOD'S WORD)

- What it addresses.



BTW/ What makes you a (trained observer)?
- Have you a License for that?
- and who gave it to you?

- Just wondering http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gif

[skooter942000]

<font color="0000ff">Hbr 6:10 For God [is] not unrighteous to forget
your work and labour of love, which ye have
shewed toward his name, in that ye have
ministered to the saints, and do minister. </font>

[trainedobserver]

skooter,

If you or anyone else could actually speak in a foreign language that they have never learned you would qualify for James Randi's million dollar challenge. It's a put up or shut up situation with that.

It can be and has been studied. There are no documented cases of it actually happening that I have seen. People claiming to be speaking ancient Hebrew have been shown to be speaking gibberish and 'learned' sounds and words heard from other tongue speakers. I used to do it myself. I know longer believe in the supernatural yet I can speak in tongues that would pass in any Pentecostal church.

I have also heard the cop-out of 'angelic languages' used to explain the problem however I find that too convenient and not in line with the evidence at hand.

It's a terrible feeling finding out you've been duped, I know.

[skooter942000]

T.O.
- You clearly have not read all of my postings.


There are NO GIFTS like you say.
- i never said there were!!!
- Not FROM GOD!!!

People LEARN to speak in other languages.

- get it?


- They take the TIME , (AND LEARN THEM)!!!


Not all people can do this,
- even after trying. - Many fail!!!


A GOD GIVEN GIFT is used, (to spread THE GOSPEL).



- There are """no""" UNKNOWN LANGUAGES.

People """do not""" wake up from bed,
(Able to speak Ancient HEBREW). - ETC


- That is a Fallacy!!! (If anyone claims this)

- Or they are actually POSSESSED!!!
- (if one does)

- But then this is not a GIFT FROM GOD ,
- (now is it).

- But an evil spirit taking over ones body.

CHRISTIANS do not BABEL (-on).
Not in CHURCH
Not at HOME
- Not at all!!!


If one does (Another spirit is there).

And Christians KNOW, you cannot serve TWO MASTERS. (At once)

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gif

[grace2u]

Sandy,

Thank you for your response.