Tongues???

[presidente]

Hi Presidente, I am no doubting that Jesus heals and is doing miracles today! I have been involved 20 years in mission ministry in India with Christians which came not from Pentecostal ore charismatic background. They experienced healings and people turn to Christ. Also in our church people were healed from cancer. And you must also not think that as non charismatic and non pentecostal we are living without the Holy Spirit.

As I have pointed out, that is not my position.

Would you say that in these churches where people are healed, that before they are healed, they believe God to heal them? Do they also have faith that they will speak in tongues, interpret tongues, prophesy, or do miracles?

 

[wolfwint]

As I have pointed out, that is not my position.

Would you say that in these churches where people are healed, that before they are healed, they believe God to heal them? Do they also have faith that they will speak in tongues, interpret tongues, prophesy, or do miracles?

The Pentecostal/ charismatic movements presenting a cheap copy of that what we found in the word of God. You claimed to have the same power as the apostles had in their times in healing and doing miracles. But you can not present the same results. So i am question that God is behind this! To such a doctrine I should long for to get extraordinary abilitys? For what? Feel better?

 

[garee]

There is no reference in scripture to a 'conversation' in regard to speaking in tongues.

So then God was just speaking into the air making noises when He put His words on Peter's lips ?

2Corinthians 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight

To prophesy is to declare the word of God. Words have understanding. When God said let there be in the beginning,...according to that work of His faith what He hoped for appeared. His faith that He works in us to both will and do his good pleasure is not without works. It is not of us even though we do have the treasure of His authority, as Chrsit in us.

The gospel is not without a living dialog. It cannot return empty, meaningless, as moaning or sighs that have no meaning.

Those who sought after signs and wonders (natural man) the generation of Adam, before they would believe (themselves) by what they performed .They offered their own song of self-righteousness which made the cross without effect. It gave them confidence a a work they though they could do.

1Corinthians 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?


They tried to get Christ to dance to their own tune hoping he would act as a circus seal (tempting God) Show us a miracle.

Matthew 11:17 And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.

When Peter spoke in his own tongue God interpreted it into their languages (many) called prophecy .It was a sign to the unbelieving Jew that must walk by sight after something they could experience. making what they did perform their own spiritual confidence. Experience is not the validator of the spiritual things of God.( not seen, the faith principle) Scripture alone is.

It is not a stand alone gift it requires dialog

Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice,(Paul needing God to interpret the prophecy as an interpretation coming from the other language ) I shall be unto him (the other person) that speaketh a barbarian, (Paul also needing a interpretation from one langue to another) and he that speaketh (the other person) shall be a barbarian unto me.(two way conversation) Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts,(not seen) seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue (Paul ) pray that he (the other person) may interpret. (The work of God interpreting it in another language ... vice versa)

Unless God interprets it ...neither can and therefore will they understand each other. They will be a barbarians to each other, just as it was at the Tower of Babel when God confused the languages so they could not understand each other.


All new revelations as prophecy has ceased. What we had in part up until the last word spoken through John ...today we have the perfect/complete with no law missing by which we could know Him more adequately . Why would you need more than he has revealed so that you can go above that which is written before you can believe? How is that walking by faith?

What kind of confidence to you call that?

 

[Enow]

As I have pointed out, that is not my position.

Would you say that in these churches where people are healed, that before they are healed, they believe God to heal them? Do they also have faith that they will speak in tongues, interpret tongues, prophesy, or do miracles?

And without the other calling of seeking another baptism of he Holy Spirit with evidence of tongues to do so?

Why is there no calling of another baptism with the Holy Spirit with evidence of interpreting tongues?

Why is there no calling of another baptism with the Holy Spirit with evidence of prophesy?

Why is there no calling of another baptism with the Holy Ghost with evidence of miracles?

Because there is no other calling of another baptism of the Holy Ghost as standing apart from salvation. Period.

It should be highly circumspect that only tongues which never comes with interpretation is the hype of this other calling, but it is not to tongue speakers.

There is God's gift of tongues of other men's lips to speak unto the people.... 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 which will not serve as a sign to believers nor as proof to the believers that they had received the Holy Spirit when He is to be received by faith in Jesus Christ; not by the sign of tongues. The sign of tongues were only to serve as a sign to non-believers.

Tongues with interpretation serves the church by edifying the church mixed with foreigners. If all speak the same language, prophesy is all that is needed to edify that church.

 

[presidente]

The Pentecostal/ charismatic movements presenting a cheap copy of that what we found in the word of God. You claimed to have the same power as the apostles had in their times in healing and doing miracles. But you can not present the same results. So i am question that God is behind this!

Why is your post so antagonistic? Honestly, I find it rather obnoxious. I haven't claimed to have apostolic power to heal and to do miracles.

I can't remember hearing a Charismatic or Pentecostal preacher brag about having the power to heal like the apostles do. You might be able to find such a person. I have heard a lot of preachers preach quite a bit on Jesus' power to heal, and talk about how God is the healer.

To such a doctrine I should long for to get extraordinary abilitys? For what? Feel better?

I think you left something out you meant to say, there, so I'll guess at what you mean. Paul says in I Corinthians to eagerly desire for spiritual gifts.

 

[presidente]

And without the other calling of seeking another baptism of he Holy Spirit with evidence of tongues to do so?

I do not believe that one has to speak in tongues to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. What does 'baptism' refer to? In Biblical times, they would thoroughly soak someone who was baptized. Baptism with the Holy Ghost is a picture of being immersed with the Spirit. To those who believed, and received the seal of the Spirit, Paul also gave the instructions to be filled with the Spirit. Can you show me where everyone who is saved is filled with the Spirit? If they are, why would Paul says this in Ephesians. I already showed you in Acts 19 that there were those who had already received the Gospel and had already been baptized by Paul. After that, he laid his hands on them and the Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Do you think Paul would have baptized people who did not believe the Gospel?

It should be highly circumspect that only tongues which never comes with interpretation is the hype of this other calling, but it is not to tongue speakers.

I have witnessed the interpretation of tongues on numerous occasions, possibly hundreds of times.

There is God's gift of tongues of other men's lips to speak unto the people.... 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 which will not serve as a sign to believers nor as proof to the believers that they had received the Holy Spirit when He is to be received by faith in Jesus Christ; not by the sign of tongues. The sign of tongues were only to serve as a sign to non-believers.

Tongues with interpretation serves the church by edifying the church mixed with foreigners. If all speak the same language, prophesy is all that is needed to edify that church.

But I imagine if if you went to a church meeting and they just prophesied and no one preached a sermon, you'd probably be really critical of it.

Paul lists other things besides prophesying that can edify the church in I Corinthians 14:26, including psalms, teachings, tongues, and interpretations. In Romans 12, he mentions certain gifts including prophesying, teaching, and exhortation. We do need prophesying, but we also need teaching and exhortation.

We should appreciate all the manifestations of the Spirit, not love some manifestations of the Spirit, and then hate other manifestations of the Spirit.

 

[fredoheaven]

Let's look at the verses I quoted from I Corinthians 14 again.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

I believe 'tongues' means the same thing in verses 18 and 19. Here he is referring to speaking in a foreign language by a gift/manifestation of the Spirit. The speaker does not understand the language, and is therefore unable to interpret unless he is enabled to do so (v. 13.)

Hi Presindente,

Still the bible is clear, tongues in v.18 P are languages Paul knew. This is to stress on the importance of understanding them though it may be only a few. What Paul knew he surely understood, what he surely understood, he knew.
v.19 is in reference to what he didn’t knew. The need for an Apostle Paul to contrast the tongue n v.18 to that of verse 19 is a clear indication the difference of the’ known’ tongue and unknown tongue.

Perhaps, I could learned more English usage from you for the use of “than” by explaining them. Having looked at the verses you quoted from and so far, I believe they are not the same. Now with the help of v13 still do not warrant the two verses to be of the same.

My analysis is that V13 is not equal to v.18 but equal v. 19.

God bless

 

[presidente]

Hi Presindente,

Still the bible is clear, tongues in v.18 P are languages Paul knew.

No, taken with verse 18, it argues the opposite. Notice the word 'yet' in verse 19. Paul spoke in tongues more than them all YET in the church he would rather speak five words with the understanding. Notice the contrast between speaking in tongues and speaking with the understanding. Why wouldn't Paul be speaking with 'the understanding' if he knew the languages when he spoke in tongues in verse 18?

Perhaps, I could learned more English usage from you for the use of “than” by explaining them. Having looked at the verses you quoted from and so far, I believe they are not the same. Now with the help of v13 still do not warrant the two verses to be of the same.

My analysis is that V13 is not equal to v.18 but equal v. 19.

I think I understand your argument here, but I am not sure. The way I read the passage, what speaking in tongues is and what it is like does not change throughout the passage. The way I understand verse 13 is that the speaker needs a supernatural gift to be able to interpret a language which he speaks. Without interpretation, neither he nor the audience understands. Paul contrasts speaking in tongues with speaking with 'the understanding'. Speaking with the understanding is the way we normally speak, speaking in a language we understand.

In verses 18-19, Paul contrasts speaking in tongues with speaking with the understanding. Again, speaking in tongues is the same thing, speaking in languages he does not know.

The definitions of words and meanings of terms stay consistent throughout the passage.

 

[fredoheaven]

No, taken with verse 18, it argues the opposite. Notice the word 'yet' in verse 19. Paul spoke in tongues more than them all YET in the church he would rather speak five words with the understanding. Notice the contrast between speaking in tongues and speaking with the understanding. Why wouldn't Paul be speaking with 'the understanding' if he knew the languages when he spoke in tongues in verse 18?




I think I understand your argument here, but I am not sure. The way I read the passage, what speaking in tongues is and what it is like does not change throughout the passage. The way I understand verse 13 is that the speaker needs a supernatural gift to be able to interpret a language which he speaks. Without interpretation, neither he nor the audience understands. Paul contrasts speaking in tongues with speaking with 'the understanding'. Speaking with the understanding is the way we normally speak, speaking in a language we understand.

In verses 18-19, Paul contrasts speaking in tongues with speaking with the understanding. Again, speaking in tongues is the same thing, speaking in languages he does not know.

The definitions of words and meanings of terms stay consistent throughout the passage.

Yes, Paul spoke in tongues(languages) more than them all and the scripture of truth defines this kind of speaking that ‘yet’ in the church he would rather speak 5 words with understanding. What is this with understanding? His speaking of tongues not unknown tongues. This ‘yet’ indicates not a contrast as this was followed by colon so it must be an explanation, definition or description of the v 18. Maybe you can shed more on the usage of the colon in the English for better understanding. You are more qualified to do that.

Yes indeed, the speaker in v/13 needs the supernatural gift and consistent with v.19 for it is qualified by the word “unknown”.

Again, I believe what Paul contrast is the speaking in tongues i.e. with understanding, the languages he know with the languages he does not know, which is the speaking in an “unknown tongue.”

God bless

 

[88]

I do not believe that one has to speak in tongues to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. What does 'baptism' refer to? In Biblical times, they would thoroughly soak someone who was baptized. Baptism with the Holy Ghost is a picture of being immersed with the Spirit. To those who believed, and received the seal of the Spirit, Paul also gave the instructions to be filled with the Spirit. Can you show me where everyone who is saved is filled with the Spirit? If they are, why would Paul says this in Ephesians. I already showed you in Acts 19 that there were those who had already received the Gospel and had already been baptized by Paul. After that, he laid his hands on them and the Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Do you think Paul would have baptized people who did not believe the Gospel?



I have witnessed the interpretation of tongues on numerous occasions, possibly hundreds of times.



But I imagine if if you went to a church meeting and they just prophesied and no one preached a sermon, you'd probably be really critical of it.

Paul lists other things besides prophesying that can edify the church in I Corinthians 14:26, including psalms, teachings, tongues, and interpretations. In Romans 12, he mentions certain gifts including prophesying, teaching, and exhortation. We do need prophesying, but we also need teaching and exhortation.

We should appreciate all the manifestations of the Spirit, not love some manifestations of the Spirit, and then hate other manifestations of the Spirit.

**** if you don't have tongues ask God for them---- it is a useful tool...

 

[garee]

**** if you don't have tongues ask God for them---- it is a useful tool...

Useful to confirm a person has the Holy Spirit by making a noise?

 

[presidente]

So then God was just speaking into the air making noises when He put His words on Peter's lips ?

You said 'conversation.' When Peter was preaching for a long time, he was probably not having a conversation. The people did ask Peter what to do at the end of his preaching. That part might have been a 'conversation.' But we are talking about speaking in tongues, which happened before Peter preached. There is no indication that the disciples spoke in tongues, then the other people responded, then the disciples spoke in tongues. There is no 'conversation' in tongues mentioned in the chapter.

 

[presidente]

fredoheaven

'Unknown' is in italics, which means the translators just added the word into the text. It wasn't in the Greek. Speaking in tongues is contrasted with speaking with the understanding in the passage.

 

[garee]

You said 'conversation.' When Peter was preaching for a long time, he was probably not having a conversation.

I would offer if he was not having a conversation he would be speaking into the air rather than a tongue he is familiar with. by which other believed God (not Peter he is not a source of faith but is a precipitant just like any believer. )

The gift is God does the interpreting... called prophecy. God was no longer speaking though the Jew alone, tongues (not prophecy) was a sign to the unbelieving Jew (no faith) .

Those who heard prophecy(the word of God) in their own language where those who were given the faith of Christ by which they then could believe God who remains without form.

The people did ask Peter what to do at the end of his preaching. That part might have been a 'conversation.' But we are talking about speaking in tongues, which happened before Peter preached.

If they asked him what to do they were required to believe the answer coming from God. If God did not interpret it into their language then they did not hear the gospel.

Whenever Peter or Paul spoke and a person that spoke another language.. God did the work of interpreting it so that they could believe God. And not words that have no meaning like groaning, making sounds. We walk by faith and not after some work we could perform (walking by sight) again like making noise.

There is no indication that the disciples spoke in tongues, then the other people responded, then the disciples spoke in tongues. There is no 'conversation' in tongues mentioned in the chapter.

If Peter understood Cornelius in his normal dialect someone did the interpreting?

Then after the Holy Spirit interpreted it into a language Peter could understand ..then “Peter answered” and again the Holy
Spirit interpreted into the language of redemption, remission of sins. The reason for prophecy.

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.(prophecy) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. “Then answered Peter”, Act 10:43

No conversation in respect to remission of sin ...no gospel .

 

[presidente]

I would offer if he was not having a conversation he would be speaking into the air rather than a tongue he is familiar with. by which other believed God (not Peter he is not a source of faith but is a precipitant just like any believer. )

If your argument that if it's not a conversation it is 'speaking into the air' then most preaching in churches would be 'speaking into the air' because the sermons are monologues not conversations.

I am not opposed to conversation as a form of teaching, but it doesn't make sense to assume that speaking in tongues in any passage of scripture was a conversation.

The gift is God does the interpreting... called prophecy.

Prophesying and interpretation of tongues are listed as different gifts of the Spirit. For to one is given...prophecy...to another... the interpretation of tongues.

If they asked him what to do they were required to believe the answer coming from God. If God did not interpret it into their language then they did not hear the gospel.

The disciples spoke in tongues. There is no good reason to think that the languages they spoke were different from the languages the people heard. No interpretation is necessary if someone is speaking in your language. Then Peter stood up and preached. There is no indication that he preached supernaturally 'in tongues.' That is not in the passage. Why wouldn't Acts 2 state that if that were the case?

Whenever Peter or Paul spoke and a person that spoke another language.. God did the work of interpreting it so that they could believe God.

You are imagining things. Do a little research on the historical background. Greek was a lingua franca in the eastern part of the empire and many educated Romans knew it as well.

If Peter understood Cornelius in his normal dialect someone did the interpreting?

It is likely they both spoke Greek.

Then after the Holy Spirit interpreted it into a language Peter could understand ..then “Peter answered” and again the Holy
Spirit interpreted into the language of redemption, remission of sins.

This is speculation out of your own imagination, not something from the Bible.

No conversation in respect to remission of sin ...no gospel .

Peter preached. He may have had a 'conversation' a little at the beginning, but the people were saved after hearing the preaching. Preaching can be a monologue. It doesn't have to be a conversation.

 

[wolfwint]

Why is your post so antagonistic? Honestly, I find it rather obnoxious. I haven't claimed to have apostolic power to heal and to do miracles.

I can't remember hearing a Charismatic or Pentecostal preacher brag about having the power to heal like the apostles do. You might be able to find such a person. I have heard a lot of preachers preach quite a bit on Jesus' power to heal, and talk about how God is the healer.



I think you left something out you meant to say, there, so I'll guess at what you mean. Paul says in I Corinthians to eagerly desire for spiritual gifts.

Hi Presidente, my post is not against you. It is against a false doctrine. I know pentecostals and charismatics which telling me that I am not a real christian because I dont speak in tongues; which telling me I cant understand thescripture because I do not habe the baptism with the Holy Spirit. I know charismatics which claim today we have the same task as Jesus have and quoting Matthew chapter 10 for to proof it. I know christians which claim take 30 minutes per day in praying in tongues and some of your current problems are getting solved. I know christians which are saying you are sick because you have not faith enough. If we would have the task as Jesus had to heal in his days while walking on earth, then why we today not happen the healings and miracles like we can read about in the Gospels ore in Acts? This why I said that today we have a cheap copy from that what happend in the apostolic time. (the answer you can find in f.e. John 20,30-31)
I am against a false doctrine which is not based on the scripture, but on man will. I am against a false doctrine which deceives people. I am against a false doctrine which brings people a false hope. f.e. you will be healed and short time later she dies. I am against a false doctrine which makes false promises. You really wonder that I am against the charismatic/pentecostal doctrine?

I have a spiritual gift from beginning of my childhood as gods child. Distinguish the Spirits. He gave me without asking for. In the scripture i find that speaking in tongues is one of the smallest gifts. But it seems me that all are should be eager to get this small gift instead to get the highest gift: LOVE! For the most charismatic and pentecostal people it seems that the ability to speak in tongues is a sign that somebody is a real christian and has a good relationship to the father. But in the scripture I find that love is the sign of a christian / child of God the father, who is LOVE!

 

[garee]

If your argument that if it's not a conversation it is 'speaking into the air' then most preaching in churches would be 'speaking into the air' because the sermons are monologues not conversations.

Sermons that give understandings and not just making sounds without any meaning.

I am not opposed to conversation as a form of teaching, but it doesn't make sense to assume that speaking in tongues in any passage of scripture was a conversation.

It is not a standalone gift as in just makes a noise and it is evidence a person has the Holy Spirit by a work they could perform.

It might be gratifying to the flesh but it would go no further than for a person to glory in their own flesh and encourage others to follow. Remember God is no longer bringing any new revelations as prophecy.

Prophesying and interpretation of tongues are listed as different gifts of the Spirit. For to one is given...prophecy...to another... the interpretation of tongues.

Yes to one comes the word of prophecy that God graciously put on the tongue of man (God’s word not the word of the prophet as a private interpretation/revelation) and to another God interprets it into a language they can understand.

If one would prophecy and God did not give another the interpretation of tongues in a language they could understand , then they should be silent seeing the prophecy would fall on deaf ears. We are to hear what the Spirit says to the churches, as the Spirit gives us ears to hear..

The disciples spoke in tongues. There is no good reason to think that the languages they spoke were different from the languages the people heard.

Other than at the same time many nations heard the interpretation and not that Peter repeated the message each time to a different nation?

No interpretation is necessary if someone is speaking in your language.

Not to the one speaking.

Then Peter stood up and preached. There is no indication that he preached supernaturally 'in tongues.' That is not in the passage. Why wouldn't Acts 2 state that if that were the case?

They heard the supernatural interpretation from God in their own language.

When Peter was given prophecy in Acts 2 he declared the word of God in His own language. .More than ten different nations languages received an interpretation of God so they could supernaturally understand the prophecy in their language.

Tongues are a sign to them that believe not. Those who believed not (the apostate Jews) they understood what Peter said they spoke the same language . It was that they could not believe the other nations understood .It was a sign against them.
The prophecy that the other nations heard was for those who do believe God, as God gives the interpretation.

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Act 2:4

The Spirit supernaturally gave them understanding as a gift.

And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. Act 2:6

They could understand each other, a temporal reversal of the Tower of Babel when God confused all the languages..

And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

Amazed and marveled is a faith issue. They were amazed that the Holy Spirit had given them understanding in their own languages..

And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Act 2:7-8

Not just Peter, they heard every man in their language .They understood even though they did not understand anothers language unless God gave them the understanding in thier own language . Every man from every nation was given an interpretation from God, the giver of gifts.

You are imagining things. Do a little research on the historical background. Greek was a lingua franca in the eastern part of the empire and many educated Romans knew it as well.

Greek in its original autograph was the language that God used as a gift to inspire His written word.(new testament) Those who heard, heard the prophecy in their own language.

It was a sign to the unbelieving Jew who must believe God does not speak through the Gentiles.

The same remains today it’s still a sign to those who rebel .They are still waiting for Christ to appear in the flesh . That places the outward Jew (not all Israel is Israel) as antichrists.

1John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

It is likely they both spoke Greek.

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word........... (God gave them the understanding or they could hear nothing other than the voice of their conscience).

Peter spoke in Greek the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word, as the interpretation of God.

Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If the language was the same( Greek) there would be no need be astonished

Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (Who was given a interpretation of their language).

Peter preached. He may have had a 'conversation' a little at the beginning, but the people were saved after hearing the preaching.

The preaching of prophecy, yes. Not tongues . Tongues remains a sign against those who make prophecy, the word of God without effect .The cross their stumbling block

Preaching can be a monologue. It doesn't have to be a conversation.

Yes as we are given the ears to hear prophecy. we understand it is a conversation between God and the sinners, saved by grace. Called the hearing of faith.

Philippians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

 

[presidente]

It is not a standalone gift as in just makes a noise and it is evidence a person has the Holy Spirit by a work they could perform.

Someone could speak in tongues without an interpretation. That's why Paul had to give the instructions he did in verse 28, so that the one who speaks in tongues without an interpreter would be quiet. He is talking about genuine gifts.

You seem to have a problem with the idea that someone might do a work that indicates that he has the Holy Spirit. This is your problem, not something that the Bible teaches is a problem. Jesus said '...if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.' His works demonstrated the power of the Spirit.

Remember God is no longer bringing any new revelations as prophecy.

You need to stop making up doctrines and believe what the Bible says. Did you receive this information by a new revelation, because I can't find it in my Bible. The faith was once delivered to the saints, but prophesying is revelatory in nature. The Bible doesn't list everyone by name and their spiritual gift, but Timothy received a gift through prophecy, and by the prophecies he received, he was to fight a good warfare. We don't know what those prophecies were. Many prophecies referenced in the Bible aren't quoted in the Bible.

Other than at the same time many nations heard the interpretation and not that Peter repeated the message each time to a different nation?

You are assuming that Peter preached 'in tongues' which is just a plain weird interpretation. Look in Acts 2.

14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

It says Peter 'said unot them.' It doesn't say he spoke miraculously in tongues. I think you would benefit from reading a little about the history and times back then. According to Edersheim, Jews in the holy land would have learned Hebrew and many would have spoken Aramaic. If you study, you will also see that Greek was a lingua franca back then. Peter may have preached the very Greek sermon in the text there... in Greek.

In any case, there is no hint that Peter preached the message 'in tongues.' That idea is pure eisegesis on your part.

They heard the supernatural interpretation from God in their own language.

Two St. Gregory's in the 400's held opposite views on this. But the 'miracle in the ear' idea is just way too convoluted. The text already says they were speaking in other languages. Why would the language the people heard be different from the foreign languages they spoke in?

If the apostles were speaking in their languages, it makes sense that they would hear them speaking in their languages. There is no need for reading a 'miracle in the ear' into Acts 2. Sure, God could have done that, but it certainly isn't clear in the text, and that is a less straight-forward interpretation.

If there is a crowd of 120 people speaking many languages, and one of them is there standing several yards from me speaking my language, I could probably what he says. If they took turns and spoke loudly, I could understand my own language or a language I know well being spoken as well.

Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.


If the language was the same( Greek) there would be no need be astonished

It says they were astonished that the gift of the Holy Ghost was poured out on the Gentiles. It does not say that they were astonished because they could understand the languages being spoken. How many languages would Jews from Judea or Galillee speak that a soldier living in that part of the world might not learn naturally? Why would that astonish them?

They were astonished because Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Kavik]

Let me first preface this post by making it clear that it is not written with any deliberate intention of offending anyone who practices glossolalia (a/k/a ‘speaking in tongues’).

As a Linguist, I have studied the phenomenon of glossolalia from both a linguistic and cultural point of view; my primary concentration being on the linguistic aspect. What follows is extracted from a considerably longer post – I have tried to edit it to be as brief as possible, but it still must be presented in three parts

PART 1 –

There are volumes that can be written on the subject of “tongues” – the below is an attempt at a brief summary on the phenomenon as viewed and studied through the lens of linguistics.

When it comes to “tongues”, there are two separate issues at hand; ‘tongues’ as described in the Bible, and the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic practice/understanding of ‘tongues’. With the latter, we may also include ‘tongues’/glossolalia as practiced by many non-Christians in their various cultural traditions. The first issue (Biblical tongues) is, contrary to how many view it, in no way mutually inclusive with the latter two; they are totally different phenomenon.

Let me first state that I am neither a so-called cessationist nor a continuationist (I’ve never heard the two terms until just late last year). Thus, the views offered below are not derived from any particular religious context, view, or slant, but ones based on a more in depth reading of the two main sources cited as evidence for modern ‘tongues’: the Pentecostal narrative of Acts, and in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. Since I am a Linguist, these texts have been viewed primarily through the lens of linguistics.

I am strongly of the opinion that Biblical ‘tongues’ are simply real languages, perhaps unknown (i.e. foreign) to those listening to them, but known by the speaker (typically his/her native language). Further, all Biblical references to tongue(s) (‘glossa’) describes one of two things: the physical organ in the mouth, or real language(s).

Let’s take a look at both Acts and Corinthians with respect to ‘tongues’. I’ll start with Acts.

In general, there are many “misreadings” (for lack of a better term) that most people don’t even think about when reading both Acts and Corinthians. Many people tend to gloss over things that are critical to fully understanding the context of the text, or assume one thing means something else entirely. These misreadings have resulted in many misinterpretations of the texts.

What do I mean by a misreading? Perhaps the best example is the “list” in Acts 2:9-11 – the common belief and assumption is that it is a list of languages. But look closely at that list again…..what do you notice? It’s not a list of languages, is it? It’s a list of geographic locations and ethnic groups. Is there any sort of relevance to these places referenced in the list? Well, yes indeed; upon closer inspection, we discover that they are specifically those lands and areas of the Jewish Diaspora (Cyprus and Syria are missing – perhaps due to copyist errors over time). Both the Western and Eastern Diaspora are included which is significant, but we’ll get to this later.

So what about the languages? Read the entire narrative again carefully. Did you notice anything? It may not be apparent at first, but it’s there. Not one place in the entire Pentecostal narrative is even *one* language ever referenced by name…not one. Further, nowhere in the entire narrative does it suggest or imply that communication was even a problem to begin with! For me, this would send up a few red flags if I were to postulate modern Pentecostal/Charismatic tongues for those of Acts.

So if communication was not the issue, what was the problem?

The Pentecostal narrative, contrary to how many interpret it, does not describe xenoglossy, nor does it describe a miracle of hearing one’s own language when someone is speaking another (a phenomenon called “akolalia” by some); the “other languages” referred to were simply Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongues (sic!) of those local Jews, as well as those of the Diaspora, visiting Jerusalem for Shavuot.

With respect to the Diaspora, again to try and keep it brief and without several pages of explanation, Jews of the western Diaspora spoke Greek as their native language; those of the eastern Diaspora spoke Aramaic. They would have been familiar with the local languages these places (particularly the eastern Diaspora), but would not have spoken them as their first/primary language. The Jews already in Judea would have spoken Aramaic as well, though some possibly grew up with Greek.

So, wait a second – why are they referred to as “other languages”? Other than what? The answer lies in an overlooked aspect of Judaism (also found in other religions); ecclesiastical diglossia. The rules of ecclesiastical diglossia of the time demanded that teaching, evangelization, religious instruction, etc. such as what occurred at Pentecost be done in Hebrew (though Greek was slowly gaining influence as an acceptable alternative). The Jews gathered there expected to hear Hebrew, the culturally (and religiously) correct language to use in this situation and on this occasion – instead they heard the apostles speaking in their native languages of Greek and Aramaic; both of which the apostles would have spoken. The result was amazement, wonder, astonishment and even ridicule at such an obvious breach of cultural “etiquette”. These men were Galileans after all; they should know better!

What we are witness to here is the breaking of a cultural barrier that was necessary in order to spread the message of Christianity to the world. Indeed, the real miracle of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost may simply have been to give the disciples the courage and spiritual strength to “spread the word” and to dispose of the cultural necessity to do so in one (or two) language(s) (i.e. observe strict adherence to ecclesiastical diglossia). That cultural barrier would now be broken without fear of any reprise and local vernaculars would be used to teach the people. With this cultural barrier now broken, the disciples, one could almost say, “paved the way” for the quick spreading of a new religion called Christianity.

Let’s quickly get back to our list for a moment. Was there any significance to specifically name the lands of the Jewish Diaspora? As we have just discussed, it certainly does not appear to have been to represent and demonstrate linguistic diversity since we’re only talking about two languages. Indeed, it could very well be argued that Luke’s purpose in presenting this list (with Cyprus and Syria missing) may strongly suggest that the first apostolic ministry was to the Jewish Nation as a whole (Diaspora included).

Pentecost - no modern concept of ‘tongues’, no xenoglossy, no akolalia, no language miracle needed here folks; simply Greek and Aramaic instead of the culturally correct and expected Hebrew.

 

[Kavik]

PART 2 –

Let’s turn now to Corinthians.

First, and I think foremost, it is critical to understand that Corinth was a multi-cultural, linguistically diverse city on not one, but two ports. As a major seaport city, one would expect to find a constant influx and varied mix of visitors, travelers, transients, freedman and slaves. Though Greek was the language of Corinth, as well as the ‘English of its day; i.e. almost everyone in the Mediterranean basin was familiar with it to some degree, communication in general between people from different lands and countries must have been difficult at best as it would have had to be conducted in Greek; a language, not everyone knew equally well.

A church, any organization really, tends to reflect its environment. Since Corinth was multilingual, one would also expect to see this diversity reflected in its church and other social/religious organizations.

At first glance, Corinthians presents what at first may seem like a slew of evidence for tongues-speech (T-speech), most people focus on two passages: 1 Cor. 14:2, and 1 Cor. 14:13-14.

Many use 1 Cor. 14:2 as “proof” of tongues being spiritual language(s) – but upon closer examination, it simply describes real language, though a foreign one to the “hearers”. Note that nowhere does the passage state that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying.

To explain it further, as one writer put it, “Think of it this way; if I showed up at a Bible study and began to speak in German, but no one else in the room could speak German, I might impress a few people, but no one would understand me. So if I speak in a language that no one else in the room can speak, I am in fact not speaking to men, but to God (who alone can understand all languages). Anything I say would be a mystery to those in the room. That is what Paul was trying to convey” by people speaking a foreign language at a public worship.

Another way to look at it is this: if I attend a worship service in ‘East Haystack’, Alabama two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone in East Haystack speaks anything *but* English is pretty slim to nil. If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a bloody word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one *there* will understand my “tongue”. That does *not *mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service. So it ends up being a “real language no one understands” (within that given context). To the people listening to me, I am speaking ‘mysteries” in the Spirit (i.e. I’m praying earnestly from my heart and from deep within my being = praying ‘in the spirit’).


Corinthians 14:13-14 seems to present a problem with respect to asserting that ‘tongues’ here is meant as real language(s). “Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.”

Or to paraphrase the first part, “If a person speaks in a foreign language (as his first language), let him pray that he can adequately translate what he’s saying into the language of Corinth (Greek)”. It seems somewhat odd at first, but when you take into consideration the intricacies of translating (even something that appears easy and straightforward at first glance), it’s really no wonder that Paul admonishes the person to pray for guidance that he may translate it (adequately and correctly) into Greek.

As an example, I have translated a simple four line ‘meal’s grace’ into several local Native American languages of northern New England and can attest that what seems so simple at first; four simple lines, can be maddeningly difficult – it’s not just the grammar, it’s also the cultural aspect – what you say, or the way you say something, in language X, may not be anything like how it needs to be said in language Y, particularly in a religious context. In light of the intricacies involved in translating, I don’t see verse 13 as being an issue with respect to real language.

With respect to verse 14, I am going to quote from an article (A New Look At Tongues Part II) by Robert Zerhusen who explains it much better than I can:

“1 Corinthians 14:14 is probably the main text used to argue that the language speaker did not understand his language. Paul says that if he should speak in a language (without translation), "my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful [akarpos]." Lenski takes akarposas passive: "my nous or understanding" is inactive and thus akarpos--"barren," "unfruitful," producing no distinct thoughts".

Paul could also be using akarpos in the active sense:

A decision upon its meaning centers in akarpos ("unfruitful") whether the adjective is passive in sense, meaning the speaker himself receives no benefit, or active in sense, meaning his nous (understanding) provides no benefit to others...The view that assigns akarpos a meaning of "produces nothing, contributes nothing to the process"... is not convincing, because akarpos does not mean "inactive." It is a word for results and does not apply to the process through which the results are obtained. The present discussion does not center on the activity or nonactivity of the tongues speaker's mind, but rather on potential benefit derived by listeners.

The whole context of 1 Corinthians 14 is the effect upon the hearers of untranslated languages.
Paul’s concern is the edification of the group. Therefore, 14:14 should be taken as "My spirit prays but my mind does not produce fruit [in others]." This says nothing about whether or not the speaker understood his own utterance.”

In fact, you’re not going to find anywhere where it specifically indicates that the speaker either does or does not understand what he is saying. It’s simply never definitively stated. It has to be inferred from context. If you adhere to T-speech, then the speaker does not understand what he’s saying. With real languages, he does.

We can quickly dismiss 1 Cor. 13:1 with respect to modern tongues/prayer language/heavenly language, etc. as it’s simply hyperbole.

With that passage in Corinthians (14:13-14) as well as verses 27-28, what one has to keep in mind is that this is simply a letter. Paul is not writing a religious treatise here; he’s just responding to (presumably) a letter written to him describing the situation in Corinth where the writer is simply asking his advice on how to handle the language situation in Corinth.

Throughout this entire section of his letter Paul’s main concern is clarity, understanding, and intelligibility during a public worship service such that *everyone* there can benefit, not just one or two people.

How do you establish this when you’re in the middle of a huge multi-cultural and linguistically diverse city where everyday communication can be a challenge?

In this case, yes, I would definitely posit that Paul states the phenomenally obvious solution (though in an extremely elaborate and eloquent way). To paraphrase – “Make sure people can understand each other in a public worship so everyone has an opportunity to benefit from what’s being said. If you have some guy come in and start speaking his native language and no one understands it, it’s not doing anyone any good but him – everyone needs to have the opportunity to benefit, so…best case scenario is to have him learn enough Greek so he can translate what he’s saying, but obviously this isn’t going to happen overnight, so in the meantime either have him find a translator or, if no translator can be found, better for him to not say anything at all so as not to add to or create any further confusion.”

I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that; real language issue, real language solution to the issue.

Yes, when paraphrased in a very blunt manner as above (i.e. “have the dude learn some Greek but in the meantime, tell him to either get a translator or keep quiet), Paul seems to be having a “Captain Obvious moment”, but it sounds like perhaps the obvious needed to be stated in this instance. In fact, I’ve often wondered if Paul wasn’t even a bit irritated with the issue and gave (in a very eloquent manner) an intentionally blunt remark (“read between the lines”, so to speak). I think many times these passages are interpreted by certain religious groups to fit their understanding and practice of modern tongues (T-speech).

Given the demographic make-up of Corinth, and the common everyday issues such cultural and linguistic diversity bring, to postulate anything here but real language being referenced just doesn’t stand up to the reality of the situation. Not everything in the Bible needs to be divine or miraculous; sometimes it just describes common everyday issues; in this case here, one of clarity and communication in a place where those two things were difficult to achieve at best.