Відео

The according to you, there are only three accounts in the New Testament when anyone preached the true Gospel. Nice try. Please read 1 Cor 15:1-4 carefully. No tongues are required to confirm.

@@docmlm6644 This letter was written to those who already spoke in tongues. So taking a text out of context is foolish. 1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

@@docmlm6644 ua-cam.com/video/6kda3HM7JAc/v-deo.html

Dear sir, the comments section to my broadcasts are not intended for people who have not listened to the contents to come in and drop unhinged and irrelevant comments, but rather for people who have carefully listened and have specific questions or relevant difference of opinion. This broadcast is not about when tongues cease or whether churches all over the world are babbling in non-languages, as you probably teach. This broadcast was about the verses predicting the arrival of tongues, which identify much about their purpose. I’m guessing since you probably have no clue that tongues in the Bible are always the miraculous ability to speak fluently to people in their own languages, you think that the fabricated babbling nonsense going on “around the world” has anything to do with everyone that preaches the gospel. Please listen to the broadcast regarding who Jesus was talking to in Mark 16. You probably interpret it the same way I did in the past until Hod showed me I was wrong. As far as Corinth already having tongues, as you say, when Paul defined the Gospel to them in 1 Cor 15, read it again carefully. Paul said in the verses he preached that Gospel to them when he was there, and there is no indication he promoted tongues while he was there, and no one would have talked in tongues before he came there in Acts 18, because that is when he preached the Gospel to them and they got saved. There is no mention of tongues at Corinth until he wrote his epistle. When he does writes the epistle he addresses tongues because according to Paul himself, they were ignorant of spiritual gifts. Read carefully 1 Cor. 12:1 and 14:36-38. They were also a very problematic church. Paul didn’t have to rebuke any other church on this issue. I recommend that you listen to my broadcast #5 in this series that discusses tongues at Corinth. Now listen close - there is no record anywhere in the Bible of the biblical gift of tongues operating at Corinth. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. There is no record. There are only three records of their manifestation in the Acts period. Acts 2, Acts 10 and Acts 19. The Corinthians obviously had a problem with talking in unknown languages that nobody understood. That is not the gift of tongues. So what you have built about tongues already reaching Corinth associated with Paul preaching the gospel to them is a “straw man.” In fact, if you add tongues to the Gospel of 1 Cor 15 you are preaching “another Gospel” according to Galatians 1:6-9, you are under a double curse. Instead of dumping random opinions, why not listen to the broadcast and ask intelligent questions? And even better, click on the link I provide for my tract giving 66 things the Pentecostal/charismatic can’t find in the word of God. There are plenty in the list for every brand of of delusional glossamaniac. Then contact me with book chapter and verse for ANY of them if you can. You won’t. Also, if you have any documented accounts of anyone talking in legitimate biblical tongues, please email them to me, and we will put them and you to the test. Again, please limit your comments here to ones relevant to the broadcast. And if you can’t sit and listen to the whole thing, please don’t waste my time. This post is only for people who are serious about the truth regarding tongues. Have a good day sir. And have you obeyed the Gospel of 1 Corinthians 15 (without adding tongues) for salvation?

@@docmlm6644 I have listened an know full well what is being said. Dear Sir, Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important topic. I'd like to address some of the points you've raised, using scripture to provide clarity. Presence of Tongues in Corinth: While you mention there's no record of the gift of tongues operating in Corinth, Paul's extensive discourse in 1 Corinthians chapters 12 to 14 suggests otherwise. He provides specific instructions on the use of tongues within the church: 1 Corinthians 12:10 includes "various kinds of tongues" among the spiritual gifts. 1 Corinthians 14:5 states, "I wish you all spoke with tongues..." 1 Corinthians 14:18 says, "I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all." These passages indicate that tongues were indeed present and active in the Corinthian church, necessitating Paul's guidance on their proper use. Nature of Tongues: While Acts 2 describes tongues as known human languages understood by various nationalities present (Acts 2:6-11), Paul speaks of tongues that are not understood by others: 1 Corinthians 14:2 states, "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." This suggests that tongues can also be a spiritual language not recognized by human listeners, serving for personal edification (1 Corinthians 14:4). Definition of the Gospel: You mentioned 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul recounts the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's important to note that while Paul emphasizes these critical events, he is not providing an exhaustive definition of the gospel. The gospel encompasses the good news of the Kingdom of God, which Jesus preached extensively: Mark 1:14-15 says, "Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.'" Therefore, the gospel is about the arrival of God's kingdom and includes Jesus' teachings, miracles, death, and resurrection. Paul's focus in 1 Corinthians 15 highlights the foundational truths of Christ's resurrection but does not limit the gospel to these points alone. Adding Tongues to the Gospel: Acknowledging the operation of spiritual gifts does not equate to altering the gospel message. The gospel remains centered on the kingdom of God and salvation through Jesus Christ. Spiritual gifts, including tongues, are given for the edification of the church (1 Corinthians 12:7) and should not be considered prerequisites for salvation. Paul warns against adding requirements to the gospel for salvation (Galatians 1:6-9). Use of Tongues Today: While there are differing views on the continuation of tongues, many believers testify to the genuine experience of this gift in accordance with scriptural guidelines. Paul's instructions encourage orderly practice rather than cessation (1 Corinthians 14:39-40). Conclusion: I encourage you to consider these scriptural references and reflect on their implications. Open dialogue and thorough examination of the scriptures can lead to a deeper understanding. Thank you for engaging in this discussion.

Thank you for your insightful comment. Interesting how a Linguist and a Biblicist can come to the same conclusion on biblical tongues vs. the self-created "ecstatics" of the modern day delusional tongues movement. I was amused by your statement about being called a "cessationist." That's a term Chuck Smith liked to pin on people who do not blindly accept that biblical tongues are actually and legitimately operating in the modern tongues movement. In 1 Corinthians 13, tongues are said to "cease" in and of themselves, and in the context, not based on any immediate outside factors. And since God scattered the nations from Babyl, where they all spoke the same language, there will always be languages or "tongues" until some future time (I believe the Millennium) when all mankind will all speak the same language, once again. This I refer to as the "restoration," and it involves far more than languages. As far as the gift of tongues, no one has to believed tongues ceased to take the position that the modern day tongues phenomenon is not biblical, and as you so aptly pointed out, differs nothing fundamentally from how it is practiced in worldwide and historic paganism. I personally do not believe there is any evidence of biblical tongues taking place since Acts 19 My position on it is that they are not needed today, based on how God's purposes for them ordained. They are tied to Israel. When the church is gone after the rapture, and God begins to refine His people Israel to endure to the end of the Tribulation (Matthew 24:13: Joel 2:32), and receive their Messiah, King Jesus, and with the regathering of the Jews and restoration of Israe's Kingdom, why couldn't God use the gift of tongues once again? And after they are gathered again into their Land and Jesus reigns in Jerusalem, we are told there will be one language (Zephaniah 3:9). However, the charismatics and Pentecostals think that just because we don't believe THEY have legitimate tongues that means that we don't BELIEVE IN the gift of tongues. I think we believe in tongues more than they do. We just don't think they have legitimate tongues. Whatever they claim to have, it resembles nothing that is found in the Bible, or anything in the linguistic world, as you so affectively identify. Again, thank you for your refreshing insights!

@@docmlm6644 Indeed - it's not a question of non believing, it's more a question of defining what it is that is believed. As mentioned, my view is that ‘tongues’ (read, *‘languages’* ) - the divine gift, is the God/Holy Spirit given ability to effortlessly learn to speak and be understood through real-language barriers. It is not xenoglossy (as many people incorrectly assume), nor is it the self-created non-cognitive non-language utterance of what certain Christian denominations are producing today (modern tongues-speech). Not to drone on, but most Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are not aware of the "history and development" of 'tongues' in the early Pentecostal church that defined them for other 'tongues-speaking' Christians. If the history of the Pentecostal movement is examined, one fact is very clear: at some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief in tongues as xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing. As a result of things like Azusa Street, early Pentecostal missions were sent all over the world. The issue was that no one bothered to learn the language of the country they were going to, as they firmly believed their “tongues” were these languages. In not one instance was anyone able to even carry on the most basics of simple everyday conversation, let alone preach the gospels. Not much has been recorded about the failure of these missions - you kind of have to hunt it down. This forced a serious theological dilemma - As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined. It seems the latter option was chosen. One would think it impossible to study the history of Pentecostalism without, at the very least, a cursory look at this ‘tongues issue’. Because the Pentecostal doctrine and understanding on tongues was completely redefined, this would seem to present a problem - how can something like this be taught by Pentecostals to Pentecostals, or other denominations that adhere to ‘tongues’? The answer is not overly surprising. The entire issue seems to have been conveniently ‘forgotten about’, and for all intents and purposes, swept under the rug. Very few, indeed if any, Pentecostals are taught about this issue, and in my experience, most aren’t even aware that it ever existed in the first place. One is left to deduce that it represents a chapter in the history of the early Pentecostal church that many would like to just forget. In redefining “tongues”, Pentecostals looked to primary and secondary source works for an alternative explanation. It is during this time that, that (mainly) five German scholars promoted a fresh new approach to Biblical interpretation that purposely tried to avoid the trappings of traditional and enforced interpretations of Biblical texts, collectively known as “Higher Criticism”. Part of this tradition was examining “tongues” as ecstatic utterance, rather than the supposed xenoglossy as understood by mainstream Christianity for centuries. As a quick aside, an important thing to note is that, prior to 1879, the term ‘glossolalia’ did not exist - it is a word coined by English theologian, Frederick Farrar (Dean of Canterbury) in 1879 in one of his publications. The Pentecostal solution to the issue was an adaptation from the works of Farrar, Schaff and a few others. These ideas were further ‘tweaked’ to more adequately fit their new notion of tongues. From this, the concept of “prayer language” as an explanation for the modern phenomenon of tongues-speech was formed. Over a short period of time, a Pentecostal apologetic was built. The emergence of the term “utterance” was strongly emphasized - it kept the definition ambiguous as it allowed for a variety of definitions beyond real, rational language, it was something sort of related to language, and could be defended more easily. “Utterance” fit much better in the Pentecostal paradigm and did not require empirical evidence. ‘Natural Praise’ and ‘adoration’ became a feature of ‘tongues’, and then ‘heavenly’ or ‘prayer language’ further broadened the definition. The term ‘glossolalia’ was transferred in from academia and was given a Pentecostal definition. In short, the tongues doctrine simply shifted into new semantics without any explanation. Xenoglossy one day, “prayer language” the next. The resulting implicit theology however was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy, but rather a synthesis of trying to make sense of the modern “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture. A way to legitimize and justify the modern phenomenon by ‘proofing’ it in the Bible. The problem with this however, was an obvious overwhelming absence therein of anything resembling modern tongues. Call it what you will, but for this group of Christians, the result was a virtual re-definition of scripture with respect to the understanding and justification of modern “tongues”; a re-interpretation of select Biblical texts to fit the modern practice/connotation of what ”tongues” was/is perceived to be. What is amazing to me is how absolutely none of this is taught. It’s a topic that today is completely glossed over and conveniently forgotten about in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles.

@@docmlm6644 PART 1 - Some thought on the Babel narrative from the point of view of a historical linguist .... The Babel narrative is really quite fascinating from the perspective of historical linguistics in that it is one of very few ancient accounts of a people remembering (in a manner of speaking) the history of their language(s) - told of course in a religious context but remembered nonetheless. To best understand this and before any type of analysis can begin, a working definition of a few somewhat ambiguous terms must be defined. Perhaps the most important term needing a more concise definition is (quote) “the whole world”. One must try and put into context and perspective the concept of what would have been considered “the whole world” to the original author(s) of the Babel narrative. The answer is rather simple and straightforward: to a person or people living in what we know call the Middle East several thousand years ago, the "whole world" would have been just that; a small part of what we now call the Middle East. The concept of a larger world existing beyond the lands these people inhabited (and those they were already familiar with) just didn’t exist. Their entire ‘world’ was confined to a relatively small area of the Levant. It is quite possible that lands even on the far borders of the Mediterranean were completely unknown to them. The same holds true for the expression (quote) “all mankind”. Again, this term was confined to only the known people, tribes and nations encompassing their ‘world’. So to summarize, in taking the narrative into historical context, the expressions “the whole world” and “all of mankind” must be understood to refer to a very small part and population of what we today call the Middle East. Now that we have a better understanding of just what was meant by these two expressions, we can examine what language or languages would have been spoken in that area several thousand years ago. Was there or could there indeed have been a common language spoken by (quote/unquote) “all mankind”?! From the point of historical linguistics, this is certainly an intriguing question! The answer is, perhaps surprisingly, yes - *however* , this ‘yes’ must also be understood in context of the aforementioned definitions. It is recognized that almost all languages of what are today the Middle East and parts of North Africa derive from one parent tongue: _Proto Afro-Asiatic._ This proto-language, due to several factors including the migration and isolation of people from each other over time, split off into several dialects, one of which was what is called _Proto-Semitic;_ the parent tongue of all Semitic languages. The general consensus seems to be that Proto-Semitic had its ultimate origins in Arabia, Mesopotamia or perhaps even Africa and spread _westward._ The timeframe for this split is still somewhat debated. Proto-Semitic subsequently splintered off and developed into the various Semitic languages found in the ancient Middle East. This again was due to the same factors mentioned above. It is important to note that this process was not immediate; it took several hundred years for P-Semitic to develop into multiple separate languages. It should also be noted that in ancient times, there were quite a few Semitic languages. It was a good-sized language family. Unfortunately, only a small handful of these have survived into modern times. Turning back to the Babel narrative, and taking into context the concept of “the whole world” as we just discussed earlier; It is quite reasonable to conclude that the common language referred to in the Babel narrative as (quote) “spoken by all mankind” was, in fact, what we know today as Proto-Semitic. What is fascinating is that even back then it was recognized that there must have been at one time some parent language, some “common tongue (sic!)” for the various languages people encountered in their “world”. The (somewhat) mutual intelligibility between these languages, or at the very least the similarity in cognate vocabulary, surely must have been recognized. As just one example, the word for 'god' is essentially the same word in Hebrew "el" as it is in Arabic "allah" as it is in Assyrian and Babylonian (a/k/a Akkadian) "ilu", Phoenician 'l, and Ugaritic 'il. Surely people even back then would have recognized the similarity and further realized they all must have come from the same source language, some ‘parent tongue’, some “one language spoken by all mankind”. In the case of our example, the Proto Semitic *'il. This concept of recognizing the similarity in current languages (cognate words, core grammatical words - things like pronouns, numbers, etc.) and postulating that they all must have derived from some common parent tongue seems to have been preserved in the oral tradition of these people via the Babel narrative. This is actually something quite remarkable. To these people however, the reasons for the various related languages they encountered would not have been known or understood. They would have no concept of the ‘hows and whys’ of the splintering off of the parent tongue, Proto-Semitic; they just knew there are now several distinct languages and the similarities between them seem to point to one parent language at one time. How did they account for this “confounding” of languages? As with many things not clearly understood by ancient man, the reasons were usually attributed to a deity, some “act of God”, if you will. Such must have been the case here as well. The reasons for the ‘confounding’ of these languages was not understood and thus, attributed to an act of God. To these people, this somewhat strange act of God must have begged the question: “Why would God have done such a thing?” I would argue that the Tower itself is more of a literary device than anything; it is pure allegory/metaphor - perhaps the intentional creation of a “back story”, if you will, to explain the reason for the current situation, and to have a vehicle by which to attribute the event as an “act of God”. It’s likely the tower itself was modeled after the ziggurats common in Babylonia; so not something just out of the blue or seemingly far- fetched. In any event, the tower itself may be considered as just a metaphor for man wanting to connect to/become closer to God. I don’t believe it was ever something literal or concrete - i.e. an actual physical structure, despite what some TV shows might like one to believe. Indeed, it has also been suggested that the tower is a metaphor for the human mind, representing how man can be high minded, egotistical, disobedient and rebellious against God. Here was a story that was easy to understand and relate to: As a result of an adverse action/deed perpetrated by mankind as a united intention to try and become like God, God put an end to it by confounding man’s languages and making communication between people difficult, if not impossible, so that they would not be able to complete their intended task.

@@docmlm6644 PART 2 - It seems that this diversity in languages was seen as something instantaneous and probably quite miraculous and mysterious - Again, there was no concept of languages changing and diverging very slowly over long periods of time. People just knew that at one time, there was one language spoken by everyone, and now there were several. Let’s examine a few facts which I suspect are typically glossed over by most people. It is important to note that, while the Babel account does indicate a common original language, it does *not* claim that said language was Hebrew (as many people think/assume). I think this is assumed due to the fact that Hebrew is the sacerdotal (the holy) language of Judaism. For Jews, the language of God. There is also zero indication in the narrative that God necessarily used a supernatural process in ‘confounding’ the languages. The narrative is completely silent in this matter. Further, and perhaps most importantly, though most people interpret and assume it as such, the account does *not* claim that this diversification of languages was an immediate event. This is perhaps the most common concept that is read, or perhaps I should say, ‘misread’, into the text. There’s no reason not to think that a very natural process in language development took place. It seems that people felt this was an important part of their tradition and culture and thus should be remembered. But given that only an oral tradition existed, how does one get people to remember an important story and not forget it in a few generations? In many ancient cultures, the best way is to tell such a story, and have it remembered, is in a religious context; it’s much less likely to be forgotten over generations because it becomes part of both the cultural and, more so, religious traditions of the people. Thus, one might imagine, the Babel narrative was woven - a combining of history (as it was understood back then) and religion into a powerful story with a specific message. The Babel narrative is also interesting in that it relates that these original speakers came from the East. This is generally regarded as the “migration route” of Proto-Semitic, i.e. the original Sprachgebiet (language area) was to the east of what is now Israel and the surrounding countries and moved westward. If, however, the religious context is extracted for a moment, the result is a fairly accurate historical account of what happened - speakers of Proto Semitic migrated towards the west and as they migrated and became isolated nations, groups, etc., their languages eventually splintered off into what would have been at first just dialects of P-Semitic, but over time, separate but a very closely related group of languages (a “confounding” of languages from one parent tongue). When the religious context is added back in, the notion commonly assumed is that _God used the confounding of languages to scatter the people,_ however, it may be argued that _“God scattered the people to cause a confusion of languages ”._ Indeed, it seems that Babel may have served as the focus point, or ‘ground zero’ for this confusion of languages to start. We then see where God scatters the people, no mention that the languages were confounded before he scattered them, which seems to indicate that this is, in fact, the means by which the languages become confounded. An interesting take on the narrative as it fits more closely with what actually happened historically. The story in Genesis makes an interesting play on words, seemingly deriving the name Babel, from the sound of sheep because of the confusion of languages; sounding like a bunch of sheep bah-bah-ing). Babel, however, comes from _Bâbilim_ - the Akkadian/Babylonian word meaning the “gate of the gods”, referring specifically to the now-called “Ishtar Gate” that was the main entrance to the ancient City of Babylon. So the Babel narrative from the viewpoint of historical linguistics. A fascinating account as it is only one of a very few stories worldwide where the history of a people’s language is remembered. As a closing remark, and as sort of an aside, the Babel narrative has absolutely zero to do with the modern concept of “tongues” - Modern tongues are hardly some sort of “reversal of Babel” as some Christian groups might like to think. The concept here is that you have Babel - one language confounded into many - then ‘tongues’, many languages today, reversed into one heavenly language. The problem with this idea is that modern tongues are an entirely self-created phenomenon; by the very nature of how modern tongues are constructed, no two people will ever have the same “tongue” - ever. There are as many ‘tongues’ as there are speakers of same. Indeed, there are more “tongues” than there currently are languages in the entire world, which is hardly a “reversal of Babel”.

Harold Streeter has a fantastic tab for this song. you can find him online. Lewalt Publishing,

@@docmlm6644 got it! thanks for the tip

Thank you, sir. Feel free. I am also interested in knowing more about you.

Borney, thank you for your kind words. Dean John Burgon was a powerhouse in his day. It’s good to know his materials can be found online. I have all of his works in my library that defend the majority text. Too bad modern “scholarship” chooses to ignore all of the evidence he provided in his research.

You are very kind. Thank you.

That’s mighty kind of you to say!

Thank you!

Geoff Hohwald does. You can find him online. He’s a tremendous banjo teacher. I cut my teeth on him and on this song.

Wow, thank you. I appreciate the kind words. And I’m glad it helped you.

You are certainly welcome!

OK Zeb! Sorry about that… But I do like the way Texans talk. God bless you my friend, and thanks for listening!

I like a little thunder and lightning, but usually what I need is God’s gentle rain.

Any chance you happen to be my old surfing buddy by this same name?

You're welcome Linda! Sorry that it is a bit tedious and long. But I felt I needed to do a thorough repudiation of Daniel's claims.

Thanks sweetie. 💕👈

Thanks! I always thought this would be a great banjo tune and then the Grascals did it. So I figured there was no excuse...