Lets discuss the gifts one at a time.

[Christina]

Let us first examine the tongues used for edification in public worship. In 1 Corinthians Paul discusses the use of tongues in public worship because at Corinth believers had been abusing this gift. They were speaking in tongues at the same time (14:23) and were speaking in tongues without having the tongues interpreted (14:13-17). When Paul discusses the need for tongues to be interpreted (14:26, 28; cf. 12:10) he uses a Greek word that refers to the translation of a foreign language. When this word (hermencuo) is not used to describe the exposition of Scripture, it simply means “to translate what has been spoken or written in a foreign language into the vernacular.”65 When the word is used of the exposition of Scripture (e.g., Lk. 24:27) it is translated expound. When the word hermencuo is used with regard to tongues it is translated to interpret. An interpreter is someone who translates a foreign language into a language understandable to the present audience. That Paul is referring to real human languages and not some form of ecstatic babbling is also proven by the context. Note the apostle’s analogy between tongues and real human languages. “There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me” (1 Cor. 14:10). “We...see that what Paul describes here refers to foreign languages. The speaker uses his ‘voice’ when he is speaking the language that is incomprehensible to Paul. The term ‘barbarian’ [foreigner, NKJV] settles the point regarding the ‘voice’ that is used in speaking a foreign language and thus also in the analogous case when a member of the church similarly uses his voice in speaking with tongues (foreign human languages).”66 The only reason that tongues must be interpreted (i.e., translated) is so the people in the public worship service can understand what is being spoken and thus be edified by it. That the tongues spoken of in 1 Corinthians 14 are real human languages is also supported by the apostle’s teaching in verses 21 to 22: “In the law it is written: ‘With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; and yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,’ says the Lord. Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers...” Here, tongues are compared to a real, foreign language. Paul quotes a section of Isaiah (28:11) which refers to the coming of the Assyrians against Judah (cf. 2 Kings 17-18). The strange tongues (i.e., the foreign language) of the Assyrians were a sign to the backslidden nation of impending judgment. Grammatically the tongues (i.e., a real human language) of verse 21 must be the same kind as the tongues mentioned in verse 22. “If Paul considered speaking in tongues to be an unknown utterance [i.e., ecstatic babbling or gibberish], he would not have used the same word twice in these two verses, especially since the meaning of glossa was clearly established in the first usage.”67 “[O]ne thing is unmistakenly clear. These verses conclusively show that ‘tongues’ are not gibberish, but natural foreign languages.”68

 

[setfree]

(thesuperjag;51291)
Kriss, no matter how much scripture is right, men will always argue with anything.To Wakka and setfree, I am from men...and to them, so shall it be in their eyes.
thesuperjag, I have not said....what you say comes from an evil spirit. I just can not see the answers in the scriptures you give, without contradictions. Kriss,What we are discussing here is scripture, just because we do not agree on it does not mean we are pushing denomination. It is still a discussion! There are a lot of threads that I do not agree with on this board...but I do not say you are pushing your denomination. It is evident that we will never agree on this subject unless God intervenes.We just do not agree on each others interpretaion!

 

[Christina]

But what about private prayer tongues? Is there not biblical proof that believers could speak in an unknown tongue to God for private edification? No. The common Charismatic viewpoint is read into Scripture. As we examine the three passages (Rom. 8:26, 1 Cor. 13:1; 14:2-4) commonly used as proof texts for a special private heavenly prayer language, we will see that the charismatic view has absolutely no scriptural basis. One passage used as a proof text actually has nothing to do with tongues: “The Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered” (Rom. 8:26). Unutterable or unuttered groanings obviously cannot refer to tongues. Since the Spirit’s intercession cannot be articulated (i.e., spoken or uttered) the groanings must take place in the heart of the believers as they ascend to the throne of grace. Another proof text is 1 Corinthians 13:1: “If I speak with the tongues of men and angels.” Charismatics teach that Paul is identifying two separate forms of tongues. Pentecostal scholar Robert E. Tourville writes: “In 1 Corinthians 13:1 Paul states the possibility of speaking in tongues of men (foreign languages) and of angels.”69 Actually the context and the Greek grammar (ean with the subjunctive) make it very clear that the apostle is not instructing Christians about the importance of two separate kinds of tongues, but rather is speaking hypothetically to make a point. He does not instruct the church to pray in the tongue of angels. Rather, Paul is saying no matter how great your spiritual gift is (i.e., even if you could speak the language of angels), you need love. Although angels may indeed have their own separate language, the apostle’s concern here is the necessity of Christian love. The Corinthians were obsessed with special spiritual gifts and were exercising these gifts in a selfish, self-centered, unloving manner. Paul corrects this by contrasting love with a superlative (i.e., a gift even beyond what the apostle is capable of) exaggeration. Lenski writes: “The unreality of Paul’s supposition lies in the general assumption as such. Paul did have this gift to a high degree, 14:18, but he could speak only in some foreign human languages and not by any means in all of them and not at all in the language of the angels. What he here supposes is the ability to use any and every language including that of heaven. He extends the gift to its utmost height, beyond what it ever was or could be. ‘Yet if I have not love,’ even this supreme gift would be all in vain as far as God’s purpose in the bestowal is concerned.”70 Further, what if Christians could speak in the language of angels? Would it resemble the nonsensical gibberish practiced in Charismatic churches? No, it would not. All languages have a very discernable grammatical structure. Linguists have the ability to examine any language (even languages with which they are not unfamiliar) and determine patterns: noun phrases, verb phrases, adjectives, adverbs, etc. Thus, if people were really speaking in the tongues of angels, it could be determined if a real (although heavenly) language were being spoken. The best proof text for private prayer tongues is 1 Corinthians 14:1-5: “Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.” The first thing that needs to be noted regarding this passage is that, regardless of one’s interpretation of “edifies himself” (v.4), the tongues spoken of through chapter 14 are definite real foreign languages. This point was established by the Greek word for interpret (hermeneuo) which means “to translate a foreign language into the vernacular,” the analogy between tongues and real foreign languages in verses 10 to 11 and the comparison of tongues to the real foreign language of the Assyrians in verses 21 to 22. Further, if Paul was switching from heavenly-private tongues in verses 4 and 5 to real foreign language-public tongues in verses 6 and following, we could expect some sort of transition indicating such a change. There is nothing within chapter 14 that indicates that the apostle believed in two different (heavenly-private, earthly-public) kinds of tongues.71 And, as noted, the “tongues of angels” (13:1) was purely hypothetical. This fact is important because: (a) It proves that all tongues in the New Testament are the same as the tongues in Acts (i.e., real foreign languages); and, (

if one believes or teaches that 1 Corinthians 14:2-4 justifies the private use of tongues in devotions, then there is an objective test to determine if a professing Christian is speaking gibberish (i.e., syllabic unstructured nonsense) or a real foreign language: the private tongue-speaking could be tape-recorded and submitted to any competent linguist for verification. Does this passage really teach the private use of tongues? No. Paul is discussing edification in the assembly during public worship. He argues that he prefers prophecy over tongues because of its superior capability for the edification of the church. When he says, “He who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but God, for no one understands him,” he is not telling the Corinthians that they should be praying in tongues to God in private; he is emphasizing that without an interpreter, no one in the assembly understands except God. “It is equally clear that audeis akouse [lit. no one hears], does not mean that tongues were inaudible, or that no one listened to them, but that no one found them intelligible. One might as well have heard nothing.”72 Likewise when Paul discusses praying and singing with the Spirit (both of which are primarily directed to God), he makes it clear that it must be interpreted, since it takes place in public worship: “Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say ‘Amen’ at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say” (1 Cor. 14:16)? It is simply bad exegesis to take a passage where Paul is correcting an abuse in the public worship service and turn it into an excursus on private devotional prayer. Such a thought was not at all in the apostle’s mind. But, then, what does Paul mean when he says, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself”? Can one at least deduce from this statement that private tongues are useful for sanctification? No. There are a number of reasons why such a view must be rejected. First, the whole thrust of the chapter is to condemn uninterpreted tongues as useless. The context indicates that the apostle is describing someone who speaks in tongues in church (i.e. public worship) without an interpreter. Throughout this chapter, Paul argues again and again for the need to interpret tongues; otherwise, the church is not edified: “Since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret” (1 Cor. 14:12-13). Since the whole thrust of chapter 14 is the edification of the body, it is probable that “edifies himself” is meant to be taken in a negative-pejorative sense. To speak in tongues without an interpreter merely calls attention to oneself and does not benefit the body. People who speak in tongues without an interpreter are showing off. Second, if one takes the common Charismatic interpretation he violates the overall broad context of scripture. The Pentecostal view is that believers can be edified by speech that is not understood; that a believer can be sanctified by a non-cognitive, mystical experience. The problem with this view is that Paul explicitly says that understanding is necessary if Christians are to be edified (14:5, 9, 12-17). If an individual could be edified without understanding, then so could a group of believers. Obviously, the apostle would not contradict himself within the same chapter. Further, there is nothing in Scripture which indicates that God’s people can be edified mystically apart from understanding divine revelation. Jesus said, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (Jn. 17:17; cf. 1 Pet. 1:22; 2:2; Ps. 119:9 ff., etc.). One should not adopt an interpretation which contradicts the overall teaching of Scripture.

 

[Christina]

(setfree;51296)
thesuperjag, I have not said....what you say comes from an evil spirit. I just can not see the answers in the scriptures you give, without contradictions. Kriss,What we are discussing here is scripture, just because we do not agree on it does not mean we are pushing denomination. It is still a discussion! There are a lot of threads that I do not agree with on this board...but I do not say you are pushing your denomination. It is evident that we will never agree on this subject unless God intervenes.We just do not agree on each others interpretaion!
Thats the point set free it isnt its denominationl in belief it not a disagreement of interptation its a religious belief vs scripture period

 

[setfree]

It is funny how you just pick a few scriptures out to explain your point. You left out 1 COr.14:2,13,14,17,18...just to name a few! You mention twisting the scriptures...But what about leaving out the ones that contradict you interpretation? It is evident that by your choice of unbelief...you will never see. YOu miss the meat of the word on this one, sorry!

 

[setfree]

(kriss;51298)
Thats the point set free it isnt its denominationl in belief it not a disagreement of interptation its a religious belief vs scripture period
So who is scriptural and who is just religious beliefs? Who is to judge this? It still comes down to how you interprete the Bible. I stated scriptures the same as you, you answered only part of my questions, you avoided the others.

 

[Christina]

I didnt forget anything you and I have been through this verse by verse 20 times this was not my study but a linguest study of the language used in scripture. to make the point. I frankly dont care whether its true or not I only care what the scripture says if it said otherwise I'd teach it that way.and your wrong the greek only says one thing

 

[Jordan]

(setfree;51301)
(Kriss;51298)
Thats the point set free it isnt its denominationl in belief it not a disagreement of interptation its a religious belief vs scripture period
So who is scriptural and who is just religious beliefs? Who is to judge this? It still comes down to how you interprete the Bible. I stated scriptures the same as you, you answered only part of my questions, you avoided the others.It has been this way, since I am able to see it. Religion (Religious Belief) vs God (Scriptures)John 7:24 - Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

 

[Wakka]

(thesuperjag;51304)
It has been this way, since I am able to see it. Religion (Religious Belief) vs God (Scriptures)John 7:24 - Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
Stop making this a denominational argument. This is getting off topic.I have a question.Does God still send out ministers through healing crusades? I certainly think so. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and that gift will last as long as the Spirit dwells among us.Don't bring up Benny Hinn or Tod Bently as an example. I'm already well aware of them.

 

[setfree]

(kriss;51302)
I didnt forget anything you and I have been through this verse by verse 20 times this was not my study but a linguest study of the language used in scripture. to make the point. I frankly dont care whether its true or not I only care what the scripture says if it said otherwise I'd teach it that way.and your wrong the greek only says one thing
I rest in your own confession! I am through! Your wrong you have never gone over verse by verse..you skip around and add your own interpretation and others not of the Bible!You want to discuss 1 Cor. verse by verse, I will start another thread.

 

[Christina]

(Wakka;51305)
Stop making this a denominational argument. This is getting off topic.I have a question.Does God still send out ministers through healing crusades? I certainly think so. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and that gift will last as long as the Spirit dwells among us.Don't bring up Benny Hinn or Tod Bently as an example. I'm already well aware of them.
No the aspostels healed instanly visable disease's you werent required to believe you were healed so others would see and believe today all the healers are behind a pulpit with their hand out and say that they will heal you because of your lack of faith but you must have some faith or you wouldnt be in chruchlet them go out in the streets and heal the homeless the vets the sick children then I'll believe they are healers

 

[Jordan]

(Wakka;51305)
(thesuperjag;51304)
It has been this way, since I am able to see it. Religion (Religious Belief) vs God (Scriptures)John 7:24 - Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
Stop making this a denominational argument. This is getting off topic.I have a question.Does God still send out ministers through healing crusades? I certainly think so. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and that gift will last as long as the Spirit dwells among us.Don't bring up Benny Hinn or Tod Bently as an example. I'm already well aware of them.Does it look like I even care about the words of Benny Hinn and Tod Bentley? I don't even trust either of them, not even for a second.I'm not the one who started a denominational argument. I have no use of men's words...

 

[Wakka]

(kriss;51307)
No the aspostels healed instanly visable disease's you werent required to believe you were healed so others would see and believe today all the healers are behind a pulpit with their hand out and say that they will heal you because of your lack of faith but you must have some faith or you wouldnt be in chruchlet them go out in the streets and heal the homeless the vets the sick children then I'll believe they are healers
But there are healers who go to places such as India and Africa and they do heal people of Malaria and other diseases. Jason Hamlin is one name that comes in mind, you can hardly find a single sermon by him, and I got lucky because one church in Kuwait decided to upload his message when he preached at their church.Kriss, let me put this straight. All of he big-media healers are only in it for money. The true work lies behind closed doors, and in developing countries.

 

[Christina]

(setfree;51306)
I rest in your own confession! I am through! Your wrong you have never gone over verse by verse..you skip around and add your own interpretation and others not of the Bible!You want to discuss 1 Cor. verse by verse, I will start another thread.
As you do when ever we discuss it you say it doesnt say what it says so it is quite pointless I suggest you reread our many discussions on this and do not try to read something into what I said I meant I have no preference to proving it one way or the other I only know what scripture says I do not have an agenda to prove it wrong other than it isnt written as you seeit and the greek can not be argued with niether can the beginning of the movement and how and when it started.

 

[Christina]

(Wakka;51309)
But there are healers who go to places such as India and Africa and they do heal people of Malaria and other diseases. Jason Hamlin is one name that comes in mind.Kriss, let me put this straight. All of he big-media healers are only in it for money. The true work lies behind closed doors, and in developing countries.
So they say how do you know they have anything to do with it if God decides to heal someone he will he doesnt need anyone there has never been a documented case where a doctor has diganosed an obvious disease we could see that was instanly healed all we have is rumor an what this person says he saw or did. Of course its just words no proof I have attened enough churches to hear it for myselfbrother Joe says there was a healing in his church last week so and so says many were healed in the out reach program last month. Words and rumors

 

[setfree]

(kriss;51310)
As you do when ever we discuss it you say it doesnt say what it says so it is quite pointless I suggest you reread our many discussions on this and do not try to read something into what I said I meant I have no preference to proving it one way or the other I only know what scripture says I do not have an agenda to prove it wrong other than it isnt written as you seeit and the greek can not be argued with niether can the beginning of the movement and how and when it started.
My agenda is to learn truth! I can not make you see it, just like no one could make me see it. unbelief blinded me at one time too! I am sorry Kriss, jag, any one else if I offended you with what God has shown me. At times I get pretty defensive, I just wanted to share and discuss. I have not changed what I believe in my post and I challenge anyone that reads this thread to study it out for themselves, pray to God that He reveal truth and you will indeed be set free. We will all be held accountable for what we say(teach). Ask....seek....and knock....God will open up...we serve an awesome God!

 

[setfree]

(kriss;51311)
So they say how do you know they have anything to do with it if God decides to heal someone he will he doesnt need anyone there has never been a documented case where a doctor has diganosed an obvious disease we could see that was instanly healed all we have is rumor an what this person says he saw or did. Of course its just words no proof I have attened enough churches to hear it for myselfbrother Joe says there was a healing in his church last week so and so says many were healed in the out reach program last month. Words and rumors
Those in His own hometown did not see because of their unbelief.Your seeking a sign before you believe what His word has proclaimed.

 

[Jordan]

(setfree;51312)
(Kriss;51310)
As you do when ever we discuss it you say it doesnt say what it says so it is quite pointless I suggest you reread our many discussions on this and do not try to read something into what I said I meant I have no preference to proving it one way or the other I only know what scripture says I do not have an agenda to prove it wrong other than it isnt written as you seeit and the greek can not be argued with niether can the beginning of the movement and how and when it started.
My agenda is to learn truth! I can not make you see it, just like no one could make me see it. unbelief blinded me at one time too!I am sorry Kriss, jag, any one else if I offended you with what God has shown me. At times I get pretty defensive, I just wanted to share and discuss.I have not changed what I believe in my post and I challenge anyone that reads this thread to study it out for themselves, pray to God that He reveal truth and you will indeed be set free.We will all be held accountable for what we say(teach).Ask....seek....and knock....God will open up...we serve an awesome God!How can you explain that our Lord never spoke in tongue in your view? He never spoke in tongue as men teaches today.

 

[Christina]

You got that right we will all be held accoutable and you always say you are looking for truth but you refuse to belive anything that isnt your verson of truth I cant change what the greek says nor what scripture says you just keep going on about the truth when its right in front of you but you cant or wont see it. You want to blame me or convince me of your truth. If you think you know it fine stop trying to discuss it you already think you have the answer so whats to discuss

 

[Christina]

(setfree;51313)
Those in His own hometown did not see because of their unbelief.Your seeking a sign before you believe what His word has proclaimed.
Thats exactly the point the bible says the gifts are for exactly the oppisite they are to convinve the unbelievers you just made my point.