ECT Tongues?

[jamie]

There is much discussion about speaking in tongues but why is there no discussion about writing in tongues? I would like to see a written example of speaking in tongues.

Why would anyone speak in an unknown tongue unless it was their native language?

I understand that in World War 2 there were Navajo tongue speakers and there was a reason for them, but Navajo was not a completely unknown language understood by no one.

 

[TweetyBird]

There is much discussion about speaking in tongues but why is there no discussion about writing in tongues? I would like to see a written example of speaking in tongues.

Why would anyone speak in an unknown tongue unless it was their native language?

I understand that in World War 2 there were Navajo tongue speakers and there was a reason for them, but Navajo was not a completely unknown language understood by no one.

Automatic writing is witchcraft. People speak in tongues in many pagan religions. Speaking in tongues is not proof that one is a believer.

 

[patrick jane]

There is much discussion about speaking in tongues but why is there no discussion about writing in tongues? I would like to see a written example of speaking in tongues.

Why would anyone speak in an unknown tongue unless it was their native language?

I understand that in World War 2 there were Navajo tongue speakers and there was a reason for them, but Navajo was not a completely unknown language understood by no one.

Really, why can't anybody write in tongues?

 

[jamie]

Really, why can't anybody write in tongues?

Good question. If people can speak in tongues surely they should be able to text in tongues.

 

[jamie]

Speaking in tongues is not proof that one is a believer.

Does not speaking in tongues prove that one is a believer?

:idunno:

 

[Interplanner]

I've never seen a topic that departed from the base so quickly.

1, the sign of tongues was to Jews to know that the messianic gospel and mission were actually here. There had to be Jews present. That was more important than what was said to the unbelievers.

2, Paul was not trying to encourage the isolated kind of tongues going on in Corinth because it did not edify others, was self-centered, and resembled pagan cults. He concludes by quoting Isaiah about #1. Like the rapture, there is extremely little about this in the NT, and yet has a sort of gravitational pull because it is 'spectacular.' Apparently some rumor got started from Pentecost that it was like the pagan cult over in Greece, but it is only a rumored connection and Paul tried to clear it up and diminish the Corinthian kind.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Does not speaking in tongues prove that one is a believer?

:idunno:

Allow me to answer in one word. "NO!"

 

[jamie]

Allow me to answer in one word. "NO!"

TweetyBird said, "Speaking in tongues is not proof that one is a believer."

Since speaking in tongues is not proof that one is a believer and not speaking in tongues in not proof that one is a believer, speaking in tongues today is just for show. There is no reason to verbalize sounds with no meaning.

And there you have it.

 

[TweetyBird]

Does not speaking in tongues prove that one is a believer?

:idunno:

No. [I see that GM already profoundly answered this already - this is my "AMEN" to his "No!"]

 

[TweetyBird]

TweetyBird said, "Speaking in tongues is not proof that one is a believer."

Since speaking in tongues is not proof that one is a believer and not speaking in tongues in not proof that one is a believer, speaking in tongues today is just for show. There is no reason to verbalize sounds with no meaning.

And there you have it.

"By George", I think she/he finally got it