Speaking in tongues

[garee]

Wrong
they spoke in tongues - 120 people all at the same time
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them
speak in his own language. Acts 2:6
This is the miraculous gift of interpretation and again right from the beginning a sign of what was to come -
diversities of tongues, interpretations, prophecies.

God with mocking lips mocking the un regenerated Jews spoke in other nations languages other than Hebrew alone . The sign was against the Jew who refused to hear prophecy confirming their unbelief (no faith) even in the Hebrew their own language, they would stop up the ears like a deaf Adler and refuse to beleive God .

 

[garee]

I believe it was 12. The gift of the HS was initially given to the 12 apostles. But it's not worth forming a new denomination over...

I do agree they were all speaking in tongues at the same time.


Please read 1 Cor 14. It says that when a person speaks in tongues in public, he is to interpret. The others present on the day of Pentecost understanding the languages the apostles were speaking is not the manifestation of interpretation of tongues. Interpretation of tongues is when a Christian speaks in tongues, then speaks the interpretation. That did not happen on the day of Pentecost.

God does the speaking (prophecy ) As he speaks He interprets his thoughts into any language he desires .It not about the thing of man seen but those of God not seen .The law of faith . The things of men seen offend our unseen God. Blasphemy will not be forgiven against the Holy Spirit not seen, we walk by faith .Just as Peter spoke by the faith of God that worked in Peter (not of Peter or any man) as a private interpretation as He speaks we abide in Him. He alone is our teacher comforter and guide and the one who brings to our minds that which he has taught us . His love hems us in . He is our city of refuge

 

[Waggles]

I believe it was 12. The gift of the HS was initially given to the 12 apostles. But it's not worth forming a new denomination over...
I do agree they were all speaking in tongues at the same time.

13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about
an hundred and twenty)
Acts 1:
1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 2:

 

[peacefulbeliever]

13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about
an hundred and twenty)
Acts 1:
1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 2:

Please note: And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, THEY were all with one accord in one place . . . . Then from the previous verse we note who the THEY are - Acts 1:26 Then THEY (the eleven) cast lots, and teh lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

 

[Kavik]

"Unless the person claiming to speak in "tongues" can show a reason to believe their utterances are more than simple babble, there is little reason to invoke scripture into the debate."

Agreed – since all Biblical references to “tongues” refer to real, rational language – perhaps not understood/spoken by those listening/hearing it, but always understood by the speaker(s) (their native language), one cannot use the Bible to ‘evidence’ the modern phenomenon; it’s just not there unless it’s ‘read into’ the text.

"How are you going to prove if someone's tongue is legit or not? There are many human languages that are "dead". Also, tongues can be languages of angels. How are you going to prove that?"

Yes, there are many ‘dead’ languages out there, but the thing is – they can be immediately identified as real rational language(s); modern ‘tongues’ do not meet the criteria that define the concept of language. These criteria are universal; it doesn’t matter where or by whom the language is spoken. If someone were to start speaking a long dead language; the actual language may take some time to identify, but the speech would be recognizable as real, rational language.

There is only one reference in the Bible to “tongues of angels” - Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth, and that section of verses is textbook hyperbole – when an angel speaks, it is in a real, rational language (usually Hebrew). There really isn’t anything to ‘prove’.

With respect to the 12/120 argument –

Contextual evidence in both Acts 1 and Acts 2 supports that it was just the 12, not the 120.

Chapter one ends with the newly formed 12 apostles (i.e. the addition of Matthias to replace Judas). Chapter 2 begins with saying "...they were all with one accord in one place..." It's assumed that the "they" here refers to the 120, but the context goes back to the end of Chapter 1 and refers to the 12. Further, Jesus' command in Chapter 1 concerning this event was to the apostles, not the 120.

There is other contextual "evidence" in Chapter 2 as well that supports 12, not 120 .

 

[shrume]

"How are you going to prove if someone's tongue is legit or not? There are many human languages that are "dead". Also, tongues can be languages of angels. How are you going to prove that?"

Yes, there are many ‘dead’ languages out there, but the thing is – they can be immediately identified as real rational language(s); modern ‘tongues’ do not meet the criteria that define the concept of language. These criteria are universal; it doesn’t matter where or by whom the language is spoken. If someone were to start speaking a long dead language; the actual language may take some time to identify, but the speech would be recognizable as real, rational language.

I believe that when a Christian speaks in tongues, it is an actual language, either of men or of angels. Just because it can't be scientifically proved to be a language does not mean it's not.

There is only one reference in the Bible to “tongues of angels” - Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth, and that section of verses is textbook hyperbole – when an angel speaks, it is in a real, rational language (usually Hebrew). There really isn’t anything to ‘prove’.

It is not talking about angels speaking, it is talking about speaking in the tongues of men or of angels.

With respect to the 12/120 argument –

Contextual evidence in both Acts 1 and Acts 2 supports that it was just the 12, not the 120.

Agreed.

 

[DJ2]

Can you name one? Just one...

How about all of them.

All mentions of tongues in the New Testament are physical supernatural manifestations. Since what is claimed today is obviously not supernatural, this movement is by nature not scriptural.

IOW, for the utterances to be of God it would have to be supernatural not simply babble.

 

[shrume]

How about all of them.

All mentions of tongues in the New Testament are physical supernatural manifestations. Since what is claimed today is obviously not supernatural, this movement is by nature not scriptural.

IOW, for the utterances to be of God it would have to be supernatural not simply babble.

Any time a Christian speaks in tongues it is supernatural.

 

[DJ2]

Any time a Christian speaks in tongues it is supernatural.

Agreed, but the question is simply are the claims of "tongues" today legitimately supernatural or just babble? Unless this question is answered, going further is pointless.

Can you not see this?

 

[Kavik]

I believe that when a Christian speaks in tongues, it is an actual language, either of men or of angels. Just because it can't be scientifically proved to be a language does not mean it's not.

I don’t mean this offensively, but that kind of doesn’t make sense – if it can be shown and demonstrated that it isn’t language, why would you think it is? What would make it a language?

It is not talking about angels speaking, it is talking about speaking in the tongues of men or of angels.

Yes, but if angels speak Hebrew in all instances where their speech is “recorded” (i.e. written down in Biblical narratives), speaking the tongues (read: language) of angels would equate to speaking Hebrew. In all cases, whether “of men or angles”, what’s being described is real, rational language(s).

Any time a Christian speaks in tongues it is supernatural.

The ‘experience’ of tongues may well be supernatural, no argument there, but what is produced (with respect to speech) and how it is produced is very normal and mundane – nothing supernatural there; if it were, it wouldn’t be able to be so easily explained in normal linguistic terms.

 

[notuptome]

Please read 1 Cor 14. It says that when a person speaks in tongues in public, he is to interpret. The others present on the day of Pentecost understanding the languages the apostles were speaking is not the manifestation of interpretation of tongues. Interpretation of tongues is when a Christian speaks in tongues, then speaks the interpretation. That did not happen on the day of Pentecost.

Interpretation cannot be done by the speaker. A testimony must be affirmed by two or three witnesses to be established as true according to Jewish tradition. A matter cannot be established by only one witness.

There was no separate interpretation because all heard in their own language or tongue. There were many witnesses to the matter and it was established to be true.

It is difficult to really know what was going on in Corinth but it was not following the pattern established in Acts.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[shrume]

Interpretation cannot be done by the speaker.

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.

13) Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

A testimony must be affirmed by two or three witnesses to be established as true according to Jewish tradition. A matter cannot be established by only one witness.

Nonetheless, Paul directly states that the person who speaks in tongues is to be the one who interprets.

There was no separate interpretation because all heard in their own language or tongue. There were many witnesses to the matter and it was established to be true.

Yes, there was no manifestation of interpretation at the initial outpouring of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It is difficult to really know what was going on in Corinth but it was not following the pattern established in Acts.

If you read 1 Cor 12-14 it's quite easy to tell what was going on in Corinth. They were all speaking in tongues, and nobody was interpreting. Paul was correcting them on how to operate the manifestations, specifically tongues, interpretation, and prophesy.

The tongues in Acts 2 are identical to tongues in 1 Cor 14. The difference is that there was no interpretation necessary in Acts 2, because the languages the apostles were speaking were the languages of the others present.

 

[notuptome]

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.

13) Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.


Nonetheless, Paul directly states that the person who speaks in tongues is to be the one who interprets.

So you contend that Paul would disregard the clear teaching of Gods word and allow the speaker to interpret his own tongues? I think Paul was more respectful of Gods word than you give him credit for.

Yes, there was no manifestation of interpretation at the initial outpouring of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Is that important? Or was the interpretation simply in the ears of the hearers? Perhaps tongues is not in the tongue of the speaker but in the ears of the hearers?

If you read 1 Cor 12-14 it's quite easy to tell what was going on in Corinth. They were all speaking in tongues, and nobody was interpreting. Paul was correcting them on how to operate the manifestations, specifically tongues, interpretation, and prophesy.

The tongues in Acts 2 are identical to tongues in 1 Cor 14. The difference is that there was no interpretation necessary in Acts 2, because the languages the apostles were speaking were the languages of the others present.

Yes and the church at Corinth was a church that was out of order. The church at Corinth was over taken in error and needed correction.

Perhaps you can illustrate for me some of the similarities of the tongues spoken in Acts and Corinthians. I'm seeing Corinth as a reverse image of what we see in Acts.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[garee]

13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about
an hundred and twenty)
Acts 1:
1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 2:

Yes as the spirit of interpretation (God's) gave them the hearing to understand God (not Peter) men .

I will ask gain...And the sign of tongues... who was it in respect to, and what exactly did it confirm ?The law of God or the things of men?

In the law it is written, With men of other tongues (languages)and other lips (dialects) will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe (prophecy) , but to them that believe notprophecy the word of God) but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, (prophecy) but for them which believe.

Who was God mocking with stammering lips? Those who believed prophecy or those who mocked prophecy in exchange for the oral traditions of men that do make prophecy without effect?

 

[notuptome]

Yes as the spirit of interpretation (God's) gave them the hearing to understand God (not Peter) men .

I will ask gain...And the sign of tongues... who was it in respect to, and what exactly did it confirm ?The law of God or the things of men?

In the law it is written, With men of other tongues (languages)and other lips (dialects) will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe (prophecy) , but to them that believe notprophecy the word of God) but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, (prophecy) but for them which believe.

Who was God mocking with stammering lips? Those who believed prophecy or those who mocked prophecy in exchange for the oral traditions of men that do make prophecy without effect?

Tongues are described as a confirmatory sign. Tongues confirmed that the person who was just saved was indeed filled with the same Holy Spirit that filled the apostles at Pentecost. The same Holy Spirit working in Gentiles as was working in the Jews who were saved through Jesus Christ the God given Messiah.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[shrume]

So you contend that Paul would disregard the clear teaching of Gods word and allow the speaker to interpret his own tongues? I think Paul was more respectful of Gods word than you give him credit for.

Paul explicitly states that the person who speaks in tongues is to be the one to interpret. And I believe that what Paul wrote IS scripture.

Is that important? Or was the interpretation simply in the ears of the hearers? Perhaps tongues is not in the tongue of the speaker but in the ears of the hearers?

Then why does Paul explicitly state that when tongues is spoken in public it must be interpreted?

Yes and the church at Corinth was a church that was out of order. The church at Corinth was over taken in error and needed correction.

Agreed.

Perhaps you can illustrate for me some of the similarities of the tongues spoken in Acts and Corinthians. I'm seeing Corinth as a reverse image of what we see in Acts.

How is it a "reverse image"?

When a person speaks in tongues he does not understand what he is saying (1 Cor 14:2). This was true in Acts 2, and it was true in Corinth.

Acts has the record of the apostles speaking in tongues, and that the others present understood the languages the apostles were speaking. Further details of what tongues is, and how tongues is to be used in worship, is given in 1 Cor 12-14.

 

[garee]

Is that important? Or was the interpretation simply in the ears of the hearers? Perhaps tongues is not in the tongue of the speaker but in the ears of the hearers?

It's both.... as one work of God's faith.

I would offer God gave his interpretation in the ears and mouth of both, a mutual gift working to edify God not seen.

Not their own selves as that seen .

Paul who was moved by God visited many places that had an unknown language in order to convey the gospel, giving God's understanding. When God opened their mouths, having a conversation. He would give them both ears to hear what the Spirit was saying .

There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.1 Corinthians 14;10-11

Both men benefit from the same gift . Today they have real time devices that do the work

 

[shrume]

Tongues are described as a confirmatory sign. Tongues confirmed that the person who was just saved was indeed filled with the same Holy Spirit that filled the apostles at Pentecost. The same Holy Spirit working in Gentiles as was working in the Jews who were saved through Jesus Christ the God given Messiah.

Very true, Roger. And it's still true today.

 

[DJ2]

Modern day "tongues" is not based on physcial or scriptual evidence but rather is a self-conviction rooted on one's own experiences and desires. A dangerous mindset that leads to further heresy. Dabating this issue is like dabating flat-earthers.

 

[shrume]

Modern day "tongues" is not based on physcial or scriptual evidence but rather is a self-conviction rooted on one's own experiences and desires.

Tongues is most definitely based on scriptural evidence. And when a person believes what the scriptures say and steps out on it, the physical evidence is ... evident.

A dangerous mindset that leads to further heresy. Dabating this issue is like dabating flat-earthers.

Everybody knows you do not believe speaking in tongues is real.

...doesn't mean it's not.