TONGUES false teaching.
- Thread starter Major
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
@Dino246 has corrected your erroneous understanding concerning the Greek word glossa used in 1 Cor 14:2.
yep. Interesting that you won't acknowledge that those who speak in tongues speak ... unto God
1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God ...
yep. Interesting that you won't acknowledge that those who speak in tongues speak ... unto God
1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God ...
-
1
- Show all
B
Here are some questions that I have.
Who were the Apostles successors?
If there are apostles today there must have been an Apostolic procession.
We have writing of the church throughout the centuries, what did the Apostles successors write about the gifts of the Holy Spirit? We have what the church through the centuries have said on all manor of subject, from baptism, to the Lord's supper to trinity, and grace and so on and so forth.
Who were the Apostles successors?
If there are apostles today there must have been an Apostolic procession.
We have writing of the church throughout the centuries, what did the Apostles successors write about the gifts of the Holy Spirit? We have what the church through the centuries have said on all manor of subject, from baptism, to the Lord's supper to trinity, and grace and so on and so forth.
S
Yes. I must admit, I do believe I am not supposed to explain the gift of tongues to people that are opposed to it.
I make that mistake often and I keep learning the same lesson over again. Not only is it a waste of my time, and not only does it often get into a spirit of strife, contention and division which we are clearly told to avoid by numerous exhortations in the New Testament, but it can also quench the Spirit in my own ministry and result darkening of understanding and hardening of hearts of those who I am provoking to blasphemes through continuing the arguments.
I have a responsibility to my own sensitivity toward the Holy Spirit to cease from strife and also to help those who are too blind to see their own precarious position in continuing to speak disparagingly about the Holy Spirit gifts in the church.
Every thread on the subject of tongues repeats the same demonic hate toward saints that believe in the gifts and results in the same intellectual dishonest interpretations to try to explain the verses about tongues to mean something other than they do. There is always a clear attitude that emerges that is expressing "I wish that tongues had never been written about in the bible" attitude rather than a desire to want to know what God's intention was in giving these gifts to the church and desiring them like Paul said to do. EARNESTLY DESIRE SPIRITUAL GIFTS should be the desire.
What I should have learned by now is that if the attitude is not "I earnestly desire the spritual gifts that they had in the bible" then I should not discuss it with the person that is contrary to them or does not believe they are for the church today.
I have to remember how I received them by faith and how I never once took on the position "They are not for the church today and I do not want them" That is why I was able to understand the scriptures on the subject.
The heart that says "they are not for today" or "I am sure glad they have ceased" That is not a heart that I should be discussing the subject with or they will only blaspheme and be driven further to darkness. And I will be partially responsible by arguing with them.
So once again I hope to learn not to do this. You can have the last word, I will not respond.
I make that mistake often and I keep learning the same lesson over again. Not only is it a waste of my time, and not only does it often get into a spirit of strife, contention and division which we are clearly told to avoid by numerous exhortations in the New Testament, but it can also quench the Spirit in my own ministry and result darkening of understanding and hardening of hearts of those who I am provoking to blasphemes through continuing the arguments.
I have a responsibility to my own sensitivity toward the Holy Spirit to cease from strife and also to help those who are too blind to see their own precarious position in continuing to speak disparagingly about the Holy Spirit gifts in the church.
Every thread on the subject of tongues repeats the same demonic hate toward saints that believe in the gifts and results in the same intellectual dishonest interpretations to try to explain the verses about tongues to mean something other than they do. There is always a clear attitude that emerges that is expressing "I wish that tongues had never been written about in the bible" attitude rather than a desire to want to know what God's intention was in giving these gifts to the church and desiring them like Paul said to do. EARNESTLY DESIRE SPIRITUAL GIFTS should be the desire.
What I should have learned by now is that if the attitude is not "I earnestly desire the spritual gifts that they had in the bible" then I should not discuss it with the person that is contrary to them or does not believe they are for the church today.
I have to remember how I received them by faith and how I never once took on the position "They are not for the church today and I do not want them" That is why I was able to understand the scriptures on the subject.
The heart that says "they are not for today" or "I am sure glad they have ceased" That is not a heart that I should be discussing the subject with or they will only blaspheme and be driven further to darkness. And I will be partially responsible by arguing with them.
So once again I hope to learn not to do this. You can have the last word, I will not respond.
-
1
- Show all
S
Paul said to do things decently and in order. He also said not to forbid speaking in tongues.
Your faux rage is ridiculous and interesting that you REFUSE to acknowledge any scripture that challenges your faulty beliefs.
1 CORINTHIANS 12
Concerning Spiritual Gifts
1Now about the gifts of the Spirit, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.
7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.
Your faux rage is ridiculous and interesting that you REFUSE to acknowledge any scripture that challenges your faulty beliefs.
1 CORINTHIANS 12
Concerning Spiritual Gifts
1Now about the gifts of the Spirit, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.
7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.
No wonder your theology is so bad.
Your answer is that Paul, the admitted and accepted author of both the letters to the church at Corinth did not write 2 Corinthians 14:34.
You have challenged my theology, my integrity and intelligence from my very first post on this web site and your response to the meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34 is to post an ideology from internet blog sites which questions the authorship of the epistle.
When investigating one of those sites (helpmewithbiblestudy.org)
.....they even say....."It is not likely that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was a quotation.
The bottom line is that for you to continue to do what you want to do with tongues, you now reject Paul as the Author of 1 Corinthians.
How sad that is for you.
I think you have just used up what credibility you have with had with me. It is now time for you to move on to someone else my friend as I really do not have the patience to continue this with you.
Your answer is that Paul, the admitted and accepted author of both the letters to the church at Corinth did not write 2 Corinthians 14:34.
You have challenged my theology, my integrity and intelligence from my very first post on this web site and your response to the meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34 is to post an ideology from internet blog sites which questions the authorship of the epistle.
When investigating one of those sites (helpmewithbiblestudy.org)
.....they even say....."It is not likely that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was a quotation.
The bottom line is that for you to continue to do what you want to do with tongues, you now reject Paul as the Author of 1 Corinthians.
How sad that is for you.
I think you have just used up what credibility you have with had with me. It is now time for you to move on to someone else my friend as I really do not have the patience to continue this with you.
-
1
- Show all
What DOES the Bible say?
1 Cor 14:5) I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
1 Cor 14:39) Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
1 Cor 14:37) If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
I want to do what the Bible says. Do you?
If not:
1 Cor 14:38) But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
1 Cor 14:5) I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
1 Cor 14:39) Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
1 Cor 14:37) If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
I want to do what the Bible says. Do you?
If not:
1 Cor 14:38) But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
-
1
- Show all
I have no rage at all and I challenge you publicly right now to post the number where I have shown RAGE and any discourtesy toward others.
I also challenge you to speak to the Scriptures where I have been faulty.
Now speaking to Chapter 12 that you just used.....The accepted and I believe correct understanding is that the implication clearly is this: those who possess these gifts must not act in an individualistic, adversarial fashion; rather, unity within the body of Christ must prevail (vv. 12ff).
Based upon the foundation laid in Chapter 12, Chapter 13 argues that spiritual gifts must be exercised in love. A gift recklessly invoked, with no consideration for others, is selfish and is nothing more than an irritating noise (vv. 1-3).
Chapter 14 then reveals the sort of contentious disposition that marred the Corinthian church.The apostolic instruction sought to correct those evils by regulating the use of the spiritual gifts, particularly the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and the interpretation (translation) of tongues.
This provides an abbreviated background of the difficulties with which Paul was forced to deal in Chapter 14.How, then, does this relate to the prohibition, “forbid not to speak in tongues”?There appears to have been two principal problems related to the gift of “tongues” and the gift of “prophecy.”Let us consider each of these matters.
Some of those who possessed the gift of speaking in tongues were abusing their blessing.For example, a brother might have the “gift” of speaking in a particular dialect—let us say, as an example, Persian.What was he to do if, in a certain church assembly, only Greek-speaking folks were present?If there was no one who possessed the gift of translation, he was to remain silent (vv. 2,6ff).
While one person was delivering a message in a “tongue,” another was not to interrupt. Rather, those endowed with such gifts were to communicate “in turn” (v. 27).The use of their individual gift was under their personal control (v. 32), and they must exercise self-control in order that confusion not disrupt the meeting (v. 33).
Another prevailing factor was the reality that “prophecy” was deemed to be a “greater” gift than that of tongues.And why was this the case? Because prophecy was the more versatile gift; it involved the divine ability to teach the congregation in the native language (in this case Greek) so that each Christian could be edified (v. 3).On the other hand, the gift of tongues frequently was curtailed by the need for a translator, in the absence of which, the brother with the language gift was required to remain mute.
On account of this difference, prophecy was considered to be the “greater” (v. 5) gift.Because of its utilitarian nature, the gift of “prophecy” is viewed as superior, from a practical vantage point, to that of “tongues” (vv. 1-5; 12; 22-25).
Another prevailing factor was the reality that “prophecy” was deemed to be a “greater” gift than that of tongues.And why was this the case?Because prophecy was the more versatile gift; it involved the divine ability to teach the congregation in the native language (in this case Greek) so that each Christian could be edified (v. 3).On the other hand, the gift of tongues frequently was curtailed by the need for a translator, in the absence of which, the brother with the language gift was required to remain mute.
Source: Didn't Paul Command, "Forbid not to speak in tongues"? : Christian Courier
I also challenge you to speak to the Scriptures where I have been faulty.
Now speaking to Chapter 12 that you just used.....The accepted and I believe correct understanding is that the implication clearly is this: those who possess these gifts must not act in an individualistic, adversarial fashion; rather, unity within the body of Christ must prevail (vv. 12ff).
Based upon the foundation laid in Chapter 12, Chapter 13 argues that spiritual gifts must be exercised in love. A gift recklessly invoked, with no consideration for others, is selfish and is nothing more than an irritating noise (vv. 1-3).
Chapter 14 then reveals the sort of contentious disposition that marred the Corinthian church.The apostolic instruction sought to correct those evils by regulating the use of the spiritual gifts, particularly the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and the interpretation (translation) of tongues.
This provides an abbreviated background of the difficulties with which Paul was forced to deal in Chapter 14.How, then, does this relate to the prohibition, “forbid not to speak in tongues”?There appears to have been two principal problems related to the gift of “tongues” and the gift of “prophecy.”Let us consider each of these matters.
Some of those who possessed the gift of speaking in tongues were abusing their blessing.For example, a brother might have the “gift” of speaking in a particular dialect—let us say, as an example, Persian.What was he to do if, in a certain church assembly, only Greek-speaking folks were present?If there was no one who possessed the gift of translation, he was to remain silent (vv. 2,6ff).
While one person was delivering a message in a “tongue,” another was not to interrupt. Rather, those endowed with such gifts were to communicate “in turn” (v. 27).The use of their individual gift was under their personal control (v. 32), and they must exercise self-control in order that confusion not disrupt the meeting (v. 33).
Another prevailing factor was the reality that “prophecy” was deemed to be a “greater” gift than that of tongues.And why was this the case? Because prophecy was the more versatile gift; it involved the divine ability to teach the congregation in the native language (in this case Greek) so that each Christian could be edified (v. 3).On the other hand, the gift of tongues frequently was curtailed by the need for a translator, in the absence of which, the brother with the language gift was required to remain mute.
On account of this difference, prophecy was considered to be the “greater” (v. 5) gift.Because of its utilitarian nature, the gift of “prophecy” is viewed as superior, from a practical vantage point, to that of “tongues” (vv. 1-5; 12; 22-25).
Another prevailing factor was the reality that “prophecy” was deemed to be a “greater” gift than that of tongues.And why was this the case?Because prophecy was the more versatile gift; it involved the divine ability to teach the congregation in the native language (in this case Greek) so that each Christian could be edified (v. 3).On the other hand, the gift of tongues frequently was curtailed by the need for a translator, in the absence of which, the brother with the language gift was required to remain mute.
Source: Didn't Paul Command, "Forbid not to speak in tongues"? : Christian Courier
So now because you do not agree with me.....I am "Ignorant".
Do you believe that is a Christian thing to say to anyoneesle on the basis that they do not agree with what you think????
The bottom line here is really simple. No Brian surgery is required. YOU are going to do whatever it is YOU want to do and it does not make one iota what the Bible says about it!!!!
Now, what then is is definition of ignorance.
Do you believe that is a Christian thing to say to anyoneesle on the basis that they do not agree with what you think????
The bottom line here is really simple. No Brian surgery is required. YOU are going to do whatever it is YOU want to do and it does not make one iota what the Bible says about it!!!!
Now, what then is is definition of ignorance.
S
Acts 1:12-14
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey.
And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James.
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication,
with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus,
and with His brothers.
Acts 2:1-11
Now when the Day of Pentecost had fully come,
they were all with one accord in one place.
And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind,
and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.
Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them.
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues,
as the Spirit gave them utterance.
It is impossible to say that "the women" were excluded from the "all... spake with tongues..." hermeneutically impossible.
But I know that I am wasting my time with the OP, I only posted this for the benefit of those who want to know if the women spoke in tongues.
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey.
And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James.
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication,
with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus,
and with His brothers.
Acts 2:1-11
Now when the Day of Pentecost had fully come,
they were all with one accord in one place.
And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind,
and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.
Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them.
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues,
as the Spirit gave them utterance.
It is impossible to say that "the women" were excluded from the "all... spake with tongues..." hermeneutically impossible.
But I know that I am wasting my time with the OP, I only posted this for the benefit of those who want to know if the women spoke in tongues.
-
1
- Show all
I want to do what the Bible says about it.
What DOES the Bible say about it?
1 Cor 14:5) I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
1 Cor 14:39) Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
1 Cor 14:37) If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
What DOES the Bible say about it?
1 Cor 14:5) I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
1 Cor 14:39) Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
1 Cor 14:37) If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
-
1
- Show all
If you want to do a Bible study with me then praise God lets do just that my friend.
When We read that the apostles returned to Jerusalem and went to the upper room where the apostles dwelt (verses Acts 1: 12-13). In that room, they apparently met with the other disciples, including the women, and prayed (verse 14). Nothing says that the women prayed aloud.
Verse 15 tells us that the number of the disciples was 120. It also begins to tell us that in one of those meetings, Peter stood up and spoke concerning the need to replace Judas Iscariot with a disciple who had the qualifications to be one of the twelve. An interesting point is that in verse 16, Peter addresses his speech to “Men and brethren.” The Greek says andres adelphoi. Andres is not the generic word for man or mankind, which is anthrōpos. It is the word for “males.”
Also, the “and” in the King James Version is inserted. Thus, verse #16 is literally saying, “Men-brothers” or “Males-brothers.”
Although the women may have been present, Peter is addressing this business of replacing an apostle to the men. We then read how “the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (verse 26). So, chapter one ends speaking of the now twelve apostles.
Acts 2 then begins by saying, “And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.”
Many have assumed the “they” here to mean the 120. But, as we have just seen, the context is the twelve. And we must not forget that Jesus’ command in chapter one concerning this very event was to the apostles, not to the 120. But that’s not all.
In Acts 2:7, those hearing the speaking in tongues say, “Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?”
We know that the eleven apostles were from Galilee, and we may assume this for Matthias. But can we assume that all 120 were Galilaeans? Not at all.
Simon the leper was from Bethany (Matthew 26:6), a village at the Mount of Olives. The woman who anointed Jesus was also probably from Bethany (verse 7). And Lazarus, Mary, and Martha were also from Bethany (John 11:1). Bartimaeus was from Jericho (Mark 10:46).
I found these people in just a couple of minutes, and with more careful study perhaps more could be found who were definitely not from Galilee. I think we can assume that these people, or at least some of them, were among the 120. But, according to those who heard the speaking of tongues on Pentecost, these people could not have been among those speaking because they were not Galilaeans.
Want more???????
When they were thought to be drunk, we read of “Peter, standing up with the eleven” (verse 14). In other words, those who spoke in tongues were accused of being drunk and those who were accused stood up to respond to the charge. The number was twelve, not 120.
Then, after Peter’s speech, we read of the reaction of those who were pricked in the heart: “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (verse 37). Notice that they speak to “Peter and to the rest of the apostles” and they address them as andres adelphoi, “Males-brothers.”
All of this is weighty, and, to me, conclusive evidence that the only people who spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost were the twelve apostles. The 120 did not speak; no women spoke.
But of course.....you believe what you have been told.
We all at times have assumed something about the Bible–often because we have heard it from someone else–and then we may even make another assumption on top of that, and before you know it we have built a structure of wood, hay, and stubble. But if, instead, when we are tempted to make an assumption, we dig into the Bible to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11), we will find that the Bible yields much more wealth than a cursory reading will reveal. And what I did to answer this question is not very difficult. It can be done by anyone with some basic Bible tools or Bible software such as e-Sword. So, happy treasure hunting!
Q. You say that women are to be silent in the assembly. But weren't women among the 120 who spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2? | Word of His Grace
When We read that the apostles returned to Jerusalem and went to the upper room where the apostles dwelt (verses Acts 1: 12-13). In that room, they apparently met with the other disciples, including the women, and prayed (verse 14). Nothing says that the women prayed aloud.
Verse 15 tells us that the number of the disciples was 120. It also begins to tell us that in one of those meetings, Peter stood up and spoke concerning the need to replace Judas Iscariot with a disciple who had the qualifications to be one of the twelve. An interesting point is that in verse 16, Peter addresses his speech to “Men and brethren.” The Greek says andres adelphoi. Andres is not the generic word for man or mankind, which is anthrōpos. It is the word for “males.”
Also, the “and” in the King James Version is inserted. Thus, verse #16 is literally saying, “Men-brothers” or “Males-brothers.”
Although the women may have been present, Peter is addressing this business of replacing an apostle to the men. We then read how “the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (verse 26). So, chapter one ends speaking of the now twelve apostles.
Acts 2 then begins by saying, “And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.”
Many have assumed the “they” here to mean the 120. But, as we have just seen, the context is the twelve. And we must not forget that Jesus’ command in chapter one concerning this very event was to the apostles, not to the 120. But that’s not all.
In Acts 2:7, those hearing the speaking in tongues say, “Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?”
We know that the eleven apostles were from Galilee, and we may assume this for Matthias. But can we assume that all 120 were Galilaeans? Not at all.
Simon the leper was from Bethany (Matthew 26:6), a village at the Mount of Olives. The woman who anointed Jesus was also probably from Bethany (verse 7). And Lazarus, Mary, and Martha were also from Bethany (John 11:1). Bartimaeus was from Jericho (Mark 10:46).
I found these people in just a couple of minutes, and with more careful study perhaps more could be found who were definitely not from Galilee. I think we can assume that these people, or at least some of them, were among the 120. But, according to those who heard the speaking of tongues on Pentecost, these people could not have been among those speaking because they were not Galilaeans.
Want more???????
When they were thought to be drunk, we read of “Peter, standing up with the eleven” (verse 14). In other words, those who spoke in tongues were accused of being drunk and those who were accused stood up to respond to the charge. The number was twelve, not 120.
Then, after Peter’s speech, we read of the reaction of those who were pricked in the heart: “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (verse 37). Notice that they speak to “Peter and to the rest of the apostles” and they address them as andres adelphoi, “Males-brothers.”
All of this is weighty, and, to me, conclusive evidence that the only people who spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost were the twelve apostles. The 120 did not speak; no women spoke.
But of course.....you believe what you have been told.
We all at times have assumed something about the Bible–often because we have heard it from someone else–and then we may even make another assumption on top of that, and before you know it we have built a structure of wood, hay, and stubble. But if, instead, when we are tempted to make an assumption, we dig into the Bible to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11), we will find that the Bible yields much more wealth than a cursory reading will reveal. And what I did to answer this question is not very difficult. It can be done by anyone with some basic Bible tools or Bible software such as e-Sword. So, happy treasure hunting!
Q. You say that women are to be silent in the assembly. But weren't women among the 120 who spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2? | Word of His Grace