Oh dear Oh my! Tongues again ...

[Imalive]

Hey I was just thinking.. the Spirit hovered over the waters and God said: let there be Light!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hey I was just thinking.. the Spirit hovered over the waters and God said: let there be Light!

There you see. Even the Earth was baptised

 

[psalms 91]

An interesting response. Do you think you're attacking anybody, maybe even Christian brothers/sisters?

Actually I found gis resonse right on, interesting that you would think hisa resoense might be an insult yet escuse all the insults and mockery that has went on in this thread, you included.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Actually I found gis resonse right on, interesting that you would think hisa resoense might be an insult yet escuse all the insults and mockery that has went on in this thread, you included.

I think his response is interesting. That's why I said so.

psalms 91, nobody attacked you. Nobody called you bad names or anything. What was written was that many people who claim to speak in tongues fit the C3PO comments. I think that is accurate. All the examples I can think of fit the C3PO comments.

 

[Josiah]

IMO, this Lutheran SATIRE video makes a valid and good point (although IMO satire is often not the BEST way to make points).....


MY question (never answered.... never even an attempt to answer by Pentecostals) is "WHAT WAS TONGUES.... AND HOW CAN WE KNOW WHAT PEOPLE CALL TONGUES TODAY IS WHAT THE BIBLE SPEAKS ABOUT?"


Clearly, obviously, what began to happen roughly a century ago (CALLED "Tongues") is not actual languages (I think that's been proven).... but was it actual languages in the Bible? Clearly, obviously, it was never "the language of angels" since there is no such thing - not in the First Century, not in the Twenty-First (C-3PO correctly explains that). What it WAS seems indefinite.... what started a century ago appears to be jibberish.


IMO, I wonder if this is just a form of "holy laughter" or crying or other emotional releases - purely psychological. And I wonder if this new thing has nothing whatsoever in common with what the Bible calls "Tongues." That said, I'm not sure what the Bible calls "Tongues" although I suspect it was actual human languages. In any case, it seems to have ceased within the First Century.


My half cent (maybe less).....


- Josiah

 

[Imalive]

IMO, this Lutheran SATIRE video makes a valid and good point (although IMO satire is often not the BEST way to make points).....


MY question (never answered.... never even an attempt to answer by Pentecostals) is "WHAT WAS TONGUES.... AND HOW CAN WE KNOW WHAT PEOPLE CALL TONGUES TODAY IS WHAT THE BIBLE SPEAKS ABOUT?"


Clearly, obviously, what began to happen roughly a century ago (CALLED "Tongues") is not actual languages (I think that's been proven).... but was it actual languages in the Bible? Clearly, obviously, it was never "the language of angels" since there is no such thing - not in the First Century, not in the Twenty-First (C-3PO correctly explains that). What it WAS seems indefinite.... what started a century ago appears to be jibberish.


IMO, I wonder if this is just a form of "holy laughter" or crying or other emotional releases - purely psychological. And I wonder if this new thing has nothing whatsoever in common with what the Bible calls "Tongues." That said, I'm not sure what the Bible calls "Tongues" although I suspect it was actual human languages. In any case, it seems to have ceased within the First Century.


My half cent (maybe less).....


- Josiah

We had a thread about that but noone listens so lol then not. What do I care? Tiresome.

 

[tango]

IMO, this Lutheran SATIRE video makes a valid and good point (although IMO satire is often not the BEST way to make points).....

MY question (never answered.... never even an attempt to answer by Pentecostals) is "WHAT WAS TONGUES.... AND HOW CAN WE KNOW WHAT PEOPLE CALL TONGUES TODAY IS WHAT THE BIBLE SPEAKS ABOUT?"

Clearly, obviously, what began to happen roughly a century ago (CALLED "Tongues") is not actual languages (I think that's been proven).... but was it actual languages in the Bible? Clearly, obviously, it was never "the language of angels" since there is no such thing - not in the First Century, not in the Twenty-First (C-3PO correctly explains that). What it WAS seems indefinite.... what started a century ago appears to be jibberish.

IMO, I wonder if this is just a form of "holy laughter" or crying or other emotional releases - purely psychological. And I wonder if this new thing has nothing whatsoever in common with what the Bible calls "Tongues." That said, I'm not sure what the Bible calls "Tongues" although I suspect it was actual human languages. In any case, it seems to have ceased within the First Century.

My half cent (maybe less).....

- Josiah

I think what happened on the day of Pentecost is reasonably clearly recorded - the disciples began to speak in other tongues, and those present noted that although the speakers were Galileans they were all hearing their own native tongues. In this light I don't think there can be any doubt that the disciples speaking were speaking in other human languages.

It is interesting to note that some present assumed the disciples were drunk. Whether this is a matter of them not understanding any of the languages the disciples were speaking, or refusing to accept that a simple Galilean fisherman could possibly be speaking fluent Pamphylian, isn't clear.

Another interesting point is that Acts 2 starts with the notion that "they were all in one place" but isn't entirely clear whether "they" refers to the 12 (Judas having just been replaced in the immediately preceding verses) or a larger group of disciples. If it were a large group it must have been a huge cacophony of different things said in different languages, which starts to make it more understandable that some might think they were drunk - if you imagine a group of 50-100 people all talking over each other in different languages it's hard to see it sounding anything other than the kind of unintelligible murmuring. It would be like walking into a busy meeting place and trying to pick one voice out among the dozens of others. If it were just the 12 it raises all sorts of interesting questions about how so many people could hear their own language.

I still don't see any reason why two people standing side by side shouldn't hear different things coming from the mouth of the same speaker, if the Holy Spirit is involved. We often seem to focus very much on what we hear - is there any specific reason why one person shouldn't be praying in their native English while a Russian-speaker within earshot hears the message in their native Russian? This would seem to be the sort of thing that would indicate the Holy Spirit at work, if we ever got to find out about it. And of course if we don't even know the Holy Spirit is at work through us in some way it helps keep us humble - there's no chance of any attitude of "hey, look at the spirit working through ME" if we don't even see that the Spirit is working at all.

 

[Josiah]

I think what happened on the day of Pentecost is reasonably clearly recorded - the disciples began to speak in other tongues, and those present noted that although the speakers were Galileans they were all hearing their own native tongues. In this light I don't think there can be any doubt that the disciples speaking were speaking in other human languages.

It is interesting to note that some present assumed the disciples were drunk. Whether this is a matter of them not understanding any of the languages the disciples were speaking, or refusing to accept that a simple Galilean fisherman could possibly be speaking fluent Pamphylian, isn't clear.

Another interesting point is that Acts 2 starts with the notion that "they were all in one place" but isn't entirely clear whether "they" refers to the 12 (Judas having just been replaced in the immediately preceding verses) or a larger group of disciples. If it were a large group it must have been a huge cacophony of different things said in different languages, which starts to make it more understandable that some might think they were drunk - if you imagine a group of 50-100 people all talking over each other in different languages it's hard to see it sounding anything other than the kind of unintelligible murmuring. It would be like walking into a busy meeting place and trying to pick one voice out among the dozens of others. If it were just the 12 it raises all sorts of interesting questions about how so many people could hear their own language.

I still don't see any reason why two people standing side by side shouldn't hear different things coming from the mouth of the same speaker, if the Holy Spirit is involved. We often seem to focus very much on what we hear - is there any specific reason why one person shouldn't be praying in their native English while a Russian-speaker within earshot hears the message in their native Russian? This would seem to be the sort of thing that would indicate the Holy Spirit at work, if we ever got to find out about it. And of course if we don't even know the Holy Spirit is at work through us in some way it helps keep us humble - there's no chance of any attitude of "hey, look at the spirit working through ME" if we don't even see that the Spirit is working at all.

Good and valid points.....

I find it curious that Acts 2:4 says "they" (yeah, we don't know who the "they" and "all" were) SPOKE in other tongues.... but in 2:6, each (of those in the crowd?) HEARD "them" speaking in their own language (and bunch of locals are given, I assume each had a tribal language). Is the miracle or gift in the SPEAKING or in the HEARING? Did all hear ALL of them speaking in their own language or simply pick out their own language among the very many (I know that can happen.... I've been in big crowds in foreign countries and can pick out English far away!).

I do TEND to think at Pentecost, "tongues" were actual, known, spoken human languages. I think it's a bit fuzzier as we get to Paul's writings, but I tend to think that's probably the case. The thing is: Pentecostals don't think so (unlike what the preacher in the video says)..... which leaves us with: WHAT then WAS it? (I agree, it's not "the language of angels" - that's NOT what Paul is saying). If they can't tell us WHAT it was, how can we know what they are doing IS "tongues" AT ALL?

Laying aside that's "it" is an unknown - and thus no way to know if what is called "tongues" by some today is "tongues" AT ALL - IMO, we're left with real, human languages. And I think it's been proven, what started to be done a century or so ago and called "tongues" well.... isn't that at all. Which leads me to the "emotional release" theory.


Now.... I've tried to be nice here (cuz I am) because I don't suspect any insincerity here. Experience is extremely hard to evaluate. And it may well be this "whatever-it-is" DOES bless them..... MY very tiny interface with this was in Catholicism where Charismatics tends to be very private and inward focused (NEVER used in church!) and tends to be seen purely as a spiritual thing. What even less I've learned about in Protestantism seems to be a different animal. I guess I'm pretty okay with the whole thing..... until it becomes looked upon as making them more "saved" or worthy of such..... or better than others. When anything boasts ego and detracts from the Cross and divides Christians into "more" and "less" - I tend to not see it as something from God.

And then there is that girl I knew.... and her telling me ANYONE could speak in tongues.... just say "Praise precious Jesus Prince of Peace" over and over, faster and faster. HHHHUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMM.....


Thanks for your post!


- Josiah

 

[tango]

Good and valid points.....

I find it curious that Acts 2:4 says "they" (yeah, we don't know who the "they" and "all" were) SPOKE in other tongues.... but in 2:6, each (of those in the crowd?) HEARD "them" speaking in their own language (and bunch of locals are given, I assume each had a tribal language). Is the miracle or gift in the SPEAKING or in the HEARING? Did all hear ALL of them speaking in their own language or simply pick out their own language among the very many (I know that can happen.... I've been in big crowds in foreign countries and can pick out English far away!).

I do TEND to think at Pentecost, "tongues" were actual, known, spoken human languages. I think it's a bit fuzzier as we get to Paul's writings, but I tend to think that's probably the case. The thing is: Pentecostals don't think so (unlike what the preacher in the video says)..... which leaves us with: WHAT then WAS it? (I agree, it's not "the language of angels" - that's NOT what Paul is saying). If they can't tell us WHAT it was, how can we know what they are doing IS "tongues" AT ALL?

I don't think we can have any doubt that at Pentecost the tongues were actual human languages, based on the fact people present heard their own language and marveled. Technically speaking Acts doesn't explicitly rule out the disciples all muttering shunda, kushandai in unison while the Holy Spirit picked up the slack and translated it into something intelligible for those present but it seems like you have to really torture the text to conclude that.

As far as Paul's writing on the topic of "the tongues of angels" there seem to be different ways of interpreting it. We might interpret it as saying "I speak in the tongues of angels but without love it's worthless" but from what I understand it would also be valid to interpret it as saying "even if I were to speak in the tongues of angels, without love it would be worthless". I think that taking that verse to say anything about tongues, other than their uselessness in the absence of love, is to miss the point of the message.

Laying aside that's "it" is an unknown - and thus no way to know if what is called "tongues" by some today is "tongues" AT ALL - IMO, we're left with real, human languages. And I think it's been proven, what started to be done a century or so ago and called "tongues" well.... isn't that at all. Which leads me to the "emotional release" theory.

I make no claim to have any universal knowledge of tongues, human or otherwise. What I can say is I've heard people speaking something that I later realised sounded a lot like Hebrew (the time gap was such between hearing the "tongues" and hearing a native Hebrew speaker I couldn't be 100% certain how close it was), and I don't think the first speaker had any natural understanding of the Hebrew language. I've also seen situations where it's hard to conclude anything other than people feeling pressured to speak in tongues and presumably coming up with some gibberish to be accepted by the group, who ironically demonstrated their lack of discernment by accepting it as evidence the Holy Spirit really was at work.

Now.... I've tried to be nice here (cuz I am) because I don't suspect any insincerity here. Experience is extremely hard to evaluate. And it may well be this "whatever-it-is" DOES bless them..... MY very tiny interface with this was in Catholicism where Charismatics tends to be very private and inward focused (NEVER used in church!) and tends to be seen purely as a spiritual thing. What even less I've learned about in Protestantism seems to be a different animal. I guess I'm pretty okay with the whole thing..... until it becomes looked upon as making them more "saved" or worthy of such..... or better than others. When anything boasts ego and detracts from the Cross and divides Christians into "more" and "less" - I tend to not see it as something from God.

Sometimes it's best to simply ignore thing that aren't hurting anyone else. The trouble with the "if you feel it blesses you then that's great" is that it opens the door to all sorts of New Age claptrap that sounds good, offers some concept of "hope" but ultimately leads people away from a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

When tongues become the focus and a means of regarding others as less spiritual, I think that's exactly what Paul was talking about in 1Co 13. Even assuming the tongues are genuinely a gift from God, the love is missing so they might as well be a gong.

And then there is that girl I knew.... and her telling me ANYONE could speak in tongues.... just say "Praise precious Jesus Prince of Peace" over and over, faster and faster. HHHHUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMM.....

Uhhhh..... yeah..... if you can learn to do it the chances are it isn't a spiritual gift. It reminds me of the assorted books and classes with encouraging titles like "the art of hearing God" that often do little more than encourage people to spout a lot of blabber in the hope that sooner or later they hit on something and anything that misses completely can be excused with "maybe that wasn't meant for you".

For those wanting to sound like they are speaking in tongues, speaking fast through a long cardboard tube is a good start

 

[atpollard]

1 Corinthians 14:1-5 NASB
1 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. 4 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

 

[MoreCoffee]

1 Corinthians 14:1-5 NASB
1 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. 4 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

Yes, that passage is in the new testament scriptures. Was there something you wanted to say about it or are you intimating that it is self interpreting and we should all know viscerally why you posted it?

1 Corinthians 14:1-5 Pursue charity. Be zealous for spiritual things, but only so that you may prophesy. [2] For whoever speaks in tongues, speaks not to men, but to God. For no one understands. Yet by the Spirit, he speaks mysteries. [3] But whoever prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. [4] Whoever speaks in tongues edifies himself. But whoever prophesies edifies the Church. [5] Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but more so to prophesy. For he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless perhaps he interprets, so that the Church may receive edification.​

The Christians in Corinth spoke in tongues, what languages they spoke is not revealed, being native Greek speakers and possibly knowing Latin and Aramaic (many Jews spoke Aramaic at the time and at least some in Corinth were Jewish converts to Christianity) it is possible that some spoke in languages that were different from Latin, Greek, and Aramaic, perhaps a Thracian dialect but likely a dialect that somebody in the meeting would know. But some interpreters today think that they spoke in no-earthly-languages. Since the 1990s in Pentecostal and Charismatic scholarly discussion "speaking in tongues" has come to signify something that is not an earthly language and hence is not capable of normal linguistic analysis. Most Pentecostal and Charismatic scholars hesitate to call it "ecstatic speech" and very few Pentecostal scholars would call it gibberish yet in effect from a linguists perspective it is not a language and not any coherent analysable set of meaningful sounds.

Before the 1900s when the Pentecostal movement began nearly all commentators thought of "speaking in tongues" as speaking in a human language. Albert Barnes comments are representative and helpful.

1 Corinthians 14:2

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue - This verse is designed to show that the faculty of speaking intelligibly, and to the edification of the church, is of more value than the power of speaking a foreign language. The reason is, that however valuable may be the endowment in itself, and however important the truth which he may utter, yet it is as if he spoke to God only. No one could understand him.

Speaketh not unto men - Does not speak so that people can understand him. His address is really not made to people, that is, to the church. He might have this faculty without being able to speak to the edification of the church. It is possible that the power of speaking foreign languages and of prophesying were sometimes united in the same person; but it is evident that the apostle speaks of them as different endowments, and they probably were found usually in different individuals.

But unto God - It is as if he spoke to God. No one could understand him but God. This must evidently refer to the addresses “in the church,” when Christians only were present, or when those only were present who spoke the same language, and who were unacquainted with foreign tongues. Paul says that “there” that faculty would be valueless compared with the power of speaking in a manner that should edify the church. He did not undervalue the power of speaking foreign languages when foreigners were present, or when they went to preach to foreigners; see 1Co 14:22. It was only when it was needless, when all present spoke one language, that he speaks of it as of comparatively little value.

For no man understandeth him - That is, no man in the church, since they all spoke the same language, and that language was different from what was spoken by him who was endowed with the gift of tongues. As God only could know the import of what he said, it would be lost upon the church, and would be useless.

Howbeit in the Spirit - Although, by the aid of the Spirit, he should, in fact, deliver the most important and sublime truths. This would doubtless be the case, that those who were thus endowed would deliver most important truths, but they would be “lost” upon those who heard them, because they could not understand them. The phrase “in the Spirit,” evidently means “by the Holy Spirit,” that is, by his aid and influence. Though he should be “really” under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and though the important truth which he delivers should be imparted by his aid, yet all would be valueless unless it were understood by the church.

He speaketh mysteries - For the meaning of the word “mystery,” see Note, 1Co 2:7. The word here seems to be synonymous with sublime and elevated truth; truth that was not before known, and that might be of the utmost importance.


1 Corinthians 14:5

would that ye all spake with tongues - "It is an important endowment, and is not, in its place, to be undervalued. It maybe of great service in the cause of truth, and if properly regulated, and not abused, I would rejoice if these extraordinary endowments were conferred on all. I have no envy against anyone who possesses it; no opposition to the endowment; but I wish that it should not be overvalued; and would wish to exalt into proper estimation the more useful but humble gift of speaking for the edification of the church."

Greater is he that prophesieth - This gift is of more value, and he really occupies a more elevated rank in the church. He is more "useful." The idea here is, that talents are not to he estimated by their "brilliancy," but by their "usefulness." The power of speaking in an unknown tongue was certainly a more striking endowment than that of speaking so as simply to be "useful," and yet the apostle tells us that the latter is the more valuable. So it is always. A man who is useful, however humble and unknown he may be, really occupies a more elevated and venerable rank than the man of most splendid talents and dazzling eloquence, who accomplishes nothing in saving the souls of people.

Except he interpret - However important and valuable the truth might he which he uttered, it would be useless to the church, unless he should explain it in language which they could understand. In that case, the apostle does not deny that the power of speaking foreign languages was a higher endowment and more valuable than the gift of prophecy. That the man who spoke foreign languages had the power of interpreting, is evident from this verse. From 1 Corinthians 14:27, it appears that the office of interpreting was sometimes performed by others.​

 

[Andrew]

When I used to get drunk and people would say "hey that guys drunk" I would start speaking fluent chinese out of nowhere lol true story

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

Shalunga shalanga umma fum fala- fala. That probably looks like gibberish. Probably because it is gibberish. " Tongues" in the elder English was a word synonymous with " languages." If I could speak in fluent Hindi declaring the truths of Law and Gospel, I might reasonably be considered to be speaking in tongues. Of course, native Hindi speakers from India would have to understand every word I said and associate it with Christianity.

 

[Andrew]

Shalunga shalanga umma fum fala- fala. That probably looks like gibberish. Probably because it is gibberish. " Tongues" in the elder English was a word synonymous with " language." If I could speak in fluent Hindi declaring the truths of Law and Gospel, I might reasonably be considered to be speaking in tongues. Of course, native Hindi speakers from India would have to understand every word I said and associate it with Christianity.

Maybe its an alien tongue who listens to us telepathically to understand Christianity, the bible does not say its not so...
I dont know what it is but I speak "tongues" and there is something to it, not aliens, but as long as im a man I am speaking my own language to God and thats ok with me, I know what the feeling and words are "meaning" but its to God and for God in praise. I cant help it so please dont "cease" my tongue speaking please

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

Also 99% of what I read online is "gibberish" if any wish to argue that im down for it

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

Maybe its an alien tongue who listens to us telepathically to understand Christianity, the bible does not say its not so...
I dont know what it is but I speak "tongues" and there is something to it, not aliens, but as long as im a man I am speaking my own language to God and thats ok with me, I know what the feeling and words are "meaning" but its to God and for God in praise. I cant help it so please dont "cease" my tongue speaking please

You know, people criticize those of us who love the beauty and the inspirational nature of the wording in the King James version of the Bible. They say that it is "Shakespearian" language that no one today speaks...but then we also read (often from the same people) that which folks like yourself maintain--that a completely unrecognizable string of sounds uttered by a believer as a private 'prayer language' is important to them because it is uplifting.

It's a weird turn of events, isn't it?

 

[Andrew]

You know, people criticize those of us who love the beauty and the inspirational nature of the wording in the King James version of the Bible. They say that it is "Shakespearian" language that no one today speaks...but then we also read (often from the same people) that which folks like yourself maintain--that a completely unrecognizable string of sounds uttered by a believer as a private 'prayer language' is important to them because it is uplifting.

It's a weird turn of events, isn't it?

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Lamb]

Why has "uplifting" become so important? I heard on the radio a commercial for a church service and they emphasized "uplifting sermon". Is that needed in order to know that God is at work? No.

 

[Andrew]

Nothing wrong with praising and rejoicing which is very uplifting as well but its not self centered

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Lamb]

Nothing wrong with praising and rejoicing which is very uplifting as well but its not self centered

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

There is nothing wrong with praising and rejoice, I agree. The problem comes when people expect to be uplifted and relying on emotions instead of knowing that we're fed by God's Word and Sacrament whether we are joyous or not in that reception. His Word will not return to Him empty.