Replies sorted oldest to newest
quote:Originally posted by lynnblount:
If you have a bible, you can find it all through the new testament - or go to Biblegateway.com and do a search. It is definitely biblical. Some argue that it does not pertain to the Christians of today, however...but as far as it being in the bible - yes.
quote:Originally posted by semiannualchick: I tend to believe that the Pentecostal religion is of the occult. Not to offend anyone of that faith but I'm serious in my wanting to know for a reason. Can anyone tell me if speaking in tongues is meant to be used in this day & time?
Bill, I really don't want any of your long sermon's or cartoons......please.
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Bill, I really don't want any of your long sermon's or cartoons......please.
quote:Hi Chick,
Sorry, my Friend, but if you come on the Religion Forum and ask a question -- all Christians have a right to answer. As a matter of fact, all members have a right to answer. And, since I do not tell you what to write -- I guess the same courtesy is due me.
My own take on speaking in tongues: I don't get it.
Bill
quote:Originally posted by RoadHawg:
Here's an understandable explanation for you...
quote:Originally posted by Clover-Dale:
The whole concept of "speaking in tongues" is preposterous.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with idiots getting up in the pulpit, gyrating around, and thinking up balderdash to say
quote:Originally posted by semiannualchick:quote:Originally posted by RoadHawg:
Here's an understandable explanation for you...
Understandable? I understand perfectly what it is. My question was is it for this day & time?
The link you gave is the opinion of a man that speaks in tongues so of course he is going to give the scripture's that speak positive of it.
I agree with Clover-Dale in that I think it is referring to foreign languages that could not be understood by those who did not speak said language. Most people in churches today speak English so what good is it?
I would still like to find an explanation that would give me proof that it is for today, & not just someone's opinion.
Maybe I'm asking too much.
quote:Originally posted by RoadHawg:
God doesn't change. Surely you agree with that?
God is the the same today as He was yesterday and will be tommorrow.
With that in mind...is there realy a need to ask if speaking in tongues is for today?
In marketing terms it would be referred to as "social proof"...evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit.
quote:Originally posted by lynnblount:
You can't prove everything that's in the bible -sometimes you just have to go on faith.
quote:Originally posted by semiannualchick:quote:Originally posted by RoadHawg:
God doesn't change. Surely you agree with that?
God is the the same today as He was yesterday and will be tommorrow.
With that in mind...is there realy a need to ask if speaking in tongues is for today?
In marketing terms it would be referred to as "social proof"...evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Sounds simple, doesn't it? But to those like me that has a doubt that God exist, finding the truth doesn't come easy.
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Chick,
take a serious look at why you doubt that God does exist.
Bill
quote:Originally posted by Clover-Dale:
The whole concept of "speaking in tongues" is preposterous.
How this all came about is through a misunderstanding and/or deliberate perversion of the King James translation of the Greek text of the New Testament. Obviously, the King James translation was done in England in the early 17th century, and in those days it was common for the English to use the word "tongue" to refer to a "language."
Therefore, when the Bible mentions people "speaking in tongues," typically it was referring to foreign languages that could not be understood by those who did not speak said language. It had nothing whatsoever to do with idiots getting up in the pulpit, gyrating around, and thinking up balderdash to say while pretending it is a mystery language that only God understands.
The Greek word that was being translated was glossa. This word has two meanings: the physical organ we call the tongue and b) a spoken language. It is pretty clear that the very few passages that use the term were referring to the literal tongue (the organ) or to a foreign language.
quote:Originally posted by CrustyMac:
In all seriousness, speaking in tongues is just as patently fraudulent as faith healing. Shame on those who claim to do either.
quote:Originally posted by CrustyMac: Yes, Bill, it is indeed Biblical. And as has been pointed out, "tongues" is a bad translation, just as "Holy Ghost" is a bad translation. Hence, the KJV is not inerrant.
As for God healing physical ailments, we know that doesn't happen, either. We can go over this again, if you wish, but I KNOW this to be true. I will admit my error as soon as God regrows an amputated limb. Either that, or an explaination (sic) from God why He hates amputees so much, while loving all the other physically ill that claim to have been healed by Him.
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:quote:Originally posted by CrustyMac: Yes, Bill, it is indeed Biblical. And as has been pointed out, "tongues" is a bad translation, just as "Holy Ghost" is a bad translation. Hence, the KJV is not inerrant.
As for God healing physical ailments, we know that doesn't happen, either. We can go over this again, if you wish, but I KNOW this to be true. I will admit my error as soon as God regrows an amputated limb. Either that, or an explaination (sic) from God why He hates amputees so much, while loving all the other physically ill that claim to have been healed by Him.
Hi Crusty,
Let's take your accusations against God in reverse. You say that for Him to be God -- He MUST show you, Crusty, the healing of all amputees.
I said nothing of the sort.
What if the amputees do not want to be healed? What if God has a better plan for their lives -- including their amputation?
I will bet anything that I can find at least one amputee that would like to be healed. In fact I am positive I can find many, many, such people.
Joni Tada Eareckson has been a paraplegic since she was a teenager, confined to a wheelchair all her adult life. Do you know what she has said about this? She thanks God for her condition and has said that she would not want her life to be any different. She does not want to get out of her wheelchair and walk -- because she has seen what God has accomplished through her in the wheelchair. Do you think she does not believe in God?
I am happy for her to find meaning in her condition. Whether she believes in God is irrelevant.
No, Crusty, God promised eternal life to all who will believe and receive His free gift; He did not promise to remove all earthly problems and infirmities -- only to give us the strength to overcome and to glorify Him through our afflictions -- as Joni Tada Eareckson has done for so many years.
Ah, here we agree. And in fact, I believe God does not deal with any of our "earthly" problems. My point exactly, hence he doesn't heal amputees, nor does he heal cancer victims. Nor does he punish Haitians for their "pact with the devil". As Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world". (Is that biblical enough for you).
Is tongues in the Bible to be translated only as "foreign languages"? No. When the different passages are taken in context, it is obvious that the writer, at times, intended a language which man does not know. Look at 1 Corinthians 14:2, "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries." This is surely speaking of a heavenly language which man does not understand.
And, in Acts 10:44-46, when Peter was teaching Cornelius and his household about Jesus Christ, we read, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. . . "
Now, Peter and the Jews who had accompanied him to the home of Cornelius spoke the same language as did Cornelius -- so, if Cornelius was only praying in his own language, there would have been no amazement. However, because Cornelius and the others were speaking in a "tongue" -- the Jews were amazed. What language were they speaking? Obviously, in this context, they were speaking a heavenly language which the men did not understand.
The same is true of 1 Corinthians 12:10, where Paul teaches of various kinds of tongues and the interpretation of these tongues.
However, in Acts 2 when Peter and the disciples were speaking to the crowd which gathered outside the Upper Room after the Holy Spirit had come upon the disciples, this time it is known languages. Either the disciples were speaking in the language of the many different peoples gathered there -- or the people were hearing, in their own language, that which was being spoken in the Hebrew language. Either way, this was being done in known languages -- through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Crusty, one suggestion which will give you more credibility in your posts -- stop parroting what others write and start doing informed posts of you own.
I'll take your suggestion under advisement.
You tell me, "And as has been pointed out, 'tongues' is a bad translation, just as 'Holy Ghost' is a bad translation. Hence, the KJV is not inerrant.
You give us no concrete information upon which you base your statement; just, this is what someone else has written so it must be true. Not necessarily.
The fact that someone else has provided you with concrete information is enough for me. I'm too lazy to learn Greek and Hebrew just to argue with you, Bill. Just because you refuse to accept concrete evidence that refutes your distorted interpretation of the Bible does not mean that evidence is false.
Crusty, just once I would like to see you make statements and show some Biblical reference to support or prove your statements.
See above. But since it is obvious to me that the Bible is not the inerrant, literal word of God, authored by God, it would be pointless for me to take a legalistic view of the Bible and go that route. I leave that to you.
You are like the kid on the playground who always stands behind the crowd shouting, "Yeah! Hit him again!" -- but, is always safely behind the crowd.
Ummmm... I disagree. But you are like the guy that says, in the middle of a blizzard, "but officer, the sign says the speed limit is 70mph."
Just once, give us some supporting evidence, preferably Biblical, to support all the claims you are always shouting.
So, if I point out that the KJV is badly translated, that many scholars of Greek and Hebrew say that this is so, that isn't "Biblical" enough for you? No of course not. Since the KJV is literal and inerrant, the original Greek and Hebrew documents (that are copies of copies of copies of the true originals that have contradictions in them) are of no importance. I find that to be faulty reasoning, and as long as you continue to believe that the KJV is the inerrant, literal word of God, authored by God, I will find your reasoning and legalism to be faulty.
Stop just throwing rocks -- and start posting intelligent, supported writings.
I haven't thrown any rocks. I will continue to point out that you aren't God's voice on earth, that your belief in a literal, inerrant KJV is faulty, that the earth and the universe is billions of years older than the 6000 you claim it to be. I will point out that the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical at best, that many of the things in the Bible are not to be taken literally. If you wish to call this "throwing stones", fine; I understand your fear since you live in a house made of glass. And I will continue to point out to others the self-righteous, faulty, Phillistine-like, hate-filled, and intolerant positions that you hold.
This will be a blessing to us and to you; and you will be surprised at what you will learn when you write this way. Anyone can throw rocks; it takes some intelligence to understand the meaning of those rocks. Just my thoughts.
Yes, anyone can throw rocks. You do it regularly with your cartoons, and pithy comebacks. I seek true enlightenment, not just a rigid belief in a book. What really takes intelligence is the idea that one doesn't begin to know everything, that there are many paths to God, and that going to church once a week is no substitute for a real relation with God. Just my thoughts (and while you deny it, they are at least equally as valid as yours). I was going to comment on your continued logical fallacy of trying to paint me as stupid, but I realized that such a point is waisted on anyone that believes the creation as described in Genesis to be literally true.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Have a blissed day,
Bill
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Crusty,
You tell me, "I seek true enlightenment, not just a rigid belief in a book."
Where do you get YOUR enlightenment -- if not from books?
God.
Are your books more reliable than mine, the Bible? God authored my book; who authored your books?
God didn't author "your" book. Men did. Even you will admit to that if you are honest. But I can read, and I know that the Bible can't be 100% literal.
Then, you tell me, "What really takes intelligence is the idea that one doesn't begin to know everything, that there are many paths to God, and that going to church once a week is no substitute for a real relation with God."
You say there are many ways to God; yet, Jesus Christ, in Matthew 7:13-14, tells us, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
And, in John 14:6, Jesus Christ tells us, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."
So, Crusty, you tell us there are many ways to God; yet, Jesus Christ tells us there is only one WAY to God, through Him. Who is right -- you or Jesus Christ? Who should people believe -- you or Jesus Christ?
I believe that Jesus was talking to the Jews then, no? What about infants who don't know about Jesus. What about people in non-Christian countries (heck you would include Catholics, the original inventors of Christianity) who through accident of geography don't know about Jesus? So you are saying, that every non-Jew before Christ, or every non-European until the Catholic Church began sending out missionaries is residing in hell? I don't subscribe to your hateful version of God.
You say, "going to church once a week is no substitute for a real relation with God."
So, since Jesus Christ, according to you, is NOT the only way to God; and being part of a church fellowship is NOT the way to God -- please, Crusty, tell us how a person does attain a relationship with God.
I can't speak for other people, but I can see when someone is so scared of his fate in the afterlife that he has to grasp hold of dogma, and hope that the tiny god he creates in his mind won't see through him. God knows your heart, Bill. Even I can see the tiny, hate-filled, black, fearful heart and soul that you have.
I have given you the Bible's way to God. What is Crusty's way, or ways, to God?
I have a direct relationship with God, uncluttered by the unecessary bureaucracy of organized religion. I am sorry you don't have a similar relationship, can't understand such a relationship, because you are bogged down in errant dogma.
Jesus Christ tells us, in Matthew 24:11, "And many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many."
Would you say that someone who teaches that there are many ways to God and that Jesus Christ is not the only WAY -- is teaching a false religion and is therefore a false prophet such as Jesus warns us about?
I would say that you are a modern day Phillistine. Does that help explain my view?
No, Crusty, there are NOT many ways to God -- there is only one WAY, and that WAY is Jesus Christ.
Blah, blah, blah, and the universe is 6000 years old, and evolution is false, and the Bible is literal until I say it isn't. Yeah, yeah, I know your rant, Bill.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Have a blissed day, Bill. You don't fool me, and you certainly don't fool God.
Bill
quote:Originally posted by CrustyMac:quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Crusty,
You tell me, "I seek true enlightenment, not just a rigid belief in a book."
Where do you get YOUR enlightenment -- if not from books?
God.
Which of your gods?
Are your books more reliable than mine, the Bible? God authored my book; who authored your books?
God didn't author "your" book. Men did. Even you will admit to that if you are honest. But I can read, and I know that the Bible can't be 100% literal.
True, your gods did not author my Bible; but, my God most certainly did.
Then, you tell me, "What really takes intelligence is the idea that one doesn't begin to know everything, that there are many paths to God, and that going to church once a week is no substitute for a real relation with God."
You say there are many ways to God; yet, Jesus Christ, in Matthew 7:13-14, tells us, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
And, in John 14:6, Jesus Christ tells us, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."
So, Crusty, you tell us there are many ways to God; yet, Jesus Christ tells us there is only one WAY to God, through Him. Who is right -- you or Jesus Christ? Who should people believe -- you or Jesus Christ?
I believe that Jesus was talking to the Jews then, no?
No. He was speaking to all mankind.
You say, "going to church once a week is no substitute for a real relation with God."
So, since Jesus Christ, according to you, is NOT the only way to God; and being part of a church fellowship is NOT the way to God -- please, Crusty, tell us how a person does attain a relationship with God.
I can't speak for other people, but I can see when someone is so scared of his fate in the afterlife that he has to grasp hold of dogma, and hope that the tiny god he creates in his mind won't see through him. God knows your heart, Bill. Even I can see the tiny, hate-filled, black, fearful heart and soul that you have.
My Friend, there is a world of difference between fear of my eternal destiny -- and knowing I have eternal security in Jesus Christ. However, I can see where you would not understand this; not being a believer yourself.
I have given you the Bible's way to God. What is Crusty's way, or ways, to God?
I have a direct relationship with God, uncluttered by the unecessary bureaucracy of organized religion. I am sorry you don't have a similar relationship, can't understand such a relationship, because you are bogged down in errant dogma.
You may have a relationship with a god or gods; but, when you denigrate every aspect of God and His Written Word -- it is obvious you do not have a relationship with God.
Jesus Christ tells us, in Matthew 24:11, "And many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many."
Would you say that someone who teaches that there are many ways to God and that Jesus Christ is not the only WAY -- is teaching a false religion and is therefore a false prophet such as Jesus warns us about?
I would say that you are a modern day Phillistine. Does that help explain my view?
No, just another of your agnostic cop-outs.
No, Crusty, there are NOT many ways to God -- there is only one WAY, and that WAY is Jesus Christ.
Blah, blah, blah, and the universe is 6000 years old, and evolution is false, and the Bible is literal until I say it isn't. Yeah, yeah, I know your rant, Bill.
Once again, another of your agnostic cop-outs.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Have a blissed day, Bill. You don't fool me, and you certainly don't fool God.
Your understanding, or misunderstanding, of a Christian is not unusual; it is typical of all agnostics and atheists.
On the other hand, all I can say is, "Praise God He knows me and my love for Him.
Bill
