Wow I can't believe how blind you are, all of those people thought they where drunk after speaking tounges.
They where clueless of the full interpretation.
You need to put yourself in the picture.
Peter immediately stood up and explained the full interpretation.
Why are you forgetting speakers and a interpreter is needed for the gift of tounges
Your just translating acts two to fit in with CORINTHIANS. Totaly foolish.
Anyway I'm not carrying on with this disagreement.
None of you have this gift as far as I can see and your just as clueless as the Galileans.
Guess due to length, this will need to be in two parts.
PART 1
When it’s boiled down, most arguments for tongues at Pentecost can ultimately be said to hinge on two things; first, what the Holy Spirit actually gave the 12 apostles at Pentecost, and second, the crowd’s assumed linguistic diversity. Indeed, one can easily argue that the former completely hinges on the latter.
If one carefully examines what the Greek text says the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles (yes, just 12; not 120, but that’s a story for another day) on Pentecost, and put the narrative into historical, cultural and linguistic perspective, one is compelled to conclude a very different view on the concept of “tongues” at Pentecost and, more so as “initial evidence” of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. One is also forced to rethink the actual languages and role they played in the event.
At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles what in the Greek text is “apophtheggesthai” – usually translated as “to give utterance”. This is, however, not the most accurate translation of this Greek word, but it’s the one that has come to be the more or less ‘de facto’ rendering.
This word is from “apophtheggomai” which is best translated as “to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to” (don’t go to Strong’s and look it up – “Strong’s” is a _concordance_ , not a lexicon; there’s a _huge_ difference).
It refers
not to the content/means of the speech (i.e., the language used), but rather to the
manner of speaking. In each instance where this word occurs in scripture, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired, and it is always, by the way, in the speaker’s native language.
In short, the Holy Spirit did not give the
language (i.e. the means/content), it gave the
manner in which it was spoken.
So why is it usually translated as “to give utterance”? That hinges completely on the next part…
The Jews present at Pentecost, as we are told, came from three areas: Judea, the Western Diaspora and the Eastern Diaspora. “All nations under heaven” is an idiomatic expression – Acts II: 9-11 tells us where those visiting were from.
Jews from Judea spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue. I don’t think there’s any argument there. In addition, many educated Jews, particularly those who were Hellenized, likely would have spoken Greek over Aramaic. Jews (as well as anyone else) from the Western Diaspora spoke Greek – all those lands had been Hellenized for centuries and Greek had long displaced indigenous languages. The Eastern Diaspora was different – no Hellenization, and countries had their own languages. Though people in Jewish communities in these lands spoke the local languages in varying degrees of fluency, it was never their ‘mother tongue’. For Jews in the Eastern Diaspora, the language of ‘hearth and home’, the language “wherein they were born” was Aramaic. This language was one of the things that set them apart as being Jewish; it gave them their cultural and religious identity. Think of the Jews during the Babylonian Captivity/Exile – they did not abandon their language in favor of Babylonian; they held onto it and preserved it as part of their Jewish identity.
To try and use a more modern analogy – think of the Jewish Diaspora in Central and Eastern Europe prior to WWII. Many countries, many languages, and Jewish people living in these places spoke the local language in varying degrees of fluency. But it was _never_ their native language, the language of hearth and home, the language wherein they were born – that language was Yiddish. The one language that defined them as Jews no matter where they were from. Same situation in the 1st century Eastern Diaspora, the defining language (the equivalent of my analogy’s Yiddish) was Aramaic.
Many lands, many places and people, but only two languages; Aramaic and Greek; and of course, the apostles spoke both.
Something to think about - In the entire Pentecost narrative,
not one language is ever referenced by name. Why do you suppose that is?
When Peter stood up and addressed the crowd, what language do you suppose he addressed them in??
The “list of nations”, as it’s called, of Acts 2: 9-11 is simply that – a list of countries, lands and nations that tell us where these people were from;
not what language(s) they spoke, as most people assume. Further, the idea that the “tongues” of Acts II was xenoglossy also stems from this false assumption.
They spoke in “other tongues” – other than what? This phrase is found in numerous Jewish texts in which Hebrew, the “holy tongue,” is contrasted with the “foreign/other tongues” of the Gentile nations. For example, in the apocryphal book Sirach we read, “For the things translated into “other tongues,” have not the same force in them uttered in Hebrew.”
