Challenging the theory of interpretive hearing in Acts chapter two

[Locoponydirtman]

I don't know what it is about scripture that inclines people to draw conclusions that don't fit the text. I would assume that it works be more reasonable to read the denoted in context and then draw inference.
Here is an example. Some reasoned that they were drunk. Why would anyone reason that they were drunk if they heard unlearned men speaking a different languages that were the native tongues of those who were there? I have never heard a drunk break into a language that he didn't know how to speak. So it could be behavior. What do people often do when they are drunk? Become boisterous, speak loudly, speak personally to people they don't know, become excited, and proclaim the same message over and over.
So likely they were all sitting quietly praying when the holy Spirit came down the disciples became loud and animated preaching loudly and excited speaking the gospel of Jesus in the native languages of the people around in a celebratory fashion.
The ones with closed hearts started saying these guys are drunk to which Peter answered it's only 9:00 am these guys aren't drunk.

 

[Sketch]

I don't know what it is about scripture that inclines people to draw conclusions that don't fit the text. I would assume that it works be more reasonable to read the denoted in context and then draw inference.
Here is an example. Some reasoned that they were drunk. Why would anyone reason that they were drunk if they heard unlearned men speaking a different languages that were the native tongues of those who were there? I have never heard a drunk break into a language that he didn't know how to speak. So it could be behavior. What do people often do when they are drunk? Become boisterous, speak loudly, speak personally to people they don't know, become excited, and proclaim the same message over and over.
So likely they were all sitting quietly praying when the holy Spirit came down the disciples became loud and animated preaching loudly and excited speaking the gospel of Jesus in the native languages of the people around in a celebratory fashion.
The ones with closed hearts started saying these guys are drunk to which Peter answered it's only 9:00 am these guys aren't drunk.

Thanks. That's a great point.
The reaction was to think they were drunk.

I always wonder about the reference to liquor as "spirits".

 

[Kavik]

Only the Twelve and definitely nothing to do with some sort of "miracle of hearing" - the narrative is pretty clear on both points, yet for some reason some people just can't let go of that"hearing" theory.

There is, of course, a completely different view altogether which a few posters have alluded to. I won't get into it here, but should anyone want to delve into it, I refer you to:

https://christianchat.com/blogs/?starter_id=253767 specifically, "Another Understanding of "Tongues" at Pentecost (parts 1-4)

 

[dcontroversal]

Bump for those still ignoring the facts........

Some of you need to go back to the 1st century and set these confused people straight.....

King James Version
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

Darby Bible Translation
and how do we hear them each in our own dialect in which we have been born,

World English Bible
How do we hear, everyone in our own native language?

Young's Literal Translation
and how do we hear, each in our proper dialect, in which we were born?

King James Version
Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

 

[Kavik]

Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

It's also important to keep in mind that this is not a list of languages; it's a list of place names. I think many people kind of miss this and assume that these are languages being referred to; they are not.

 

[Sketch]

Only the Twelve and definitely nothing to do with some sort of "miracle of hearing" - the narrative is pretty clear on both points, yet for some reason some people just can't let go of that"hearing" theory.

There is, of course, a completely different view altogether which a few posters have alluded to. I won't get into it here, but should anyone want to delve into it, I refer you to:

https://christianchat.com/blogs/?starter_id=253767 specifically, "Another Understanding of "Tongues" at Pentecost (parts 1-4)

Thanks for the link.

This came up earlier about the twelve not the 120.
Could you detail that out a bit. Not sure about that conclusion either. Thanks.

 

[dcontroversal]

It's also important to keep in mind that this is not a list of languages; it's a list of place names. I think many people kind of miss this and assume that these are languages being referred to; they are not.

Ummmmmmmm...It is a LIST of where they are FROM and qualified as LANGUAGES fro those AREAS.....do you guys just like to flat ignore, reject and chunk context under the table...???

King James Version
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

Darby Bible Translation
and how do we hear them each in our own dialect in which we have been born,

World English Bible
How do we hear, everyone in our own native language?

Young's Literal Translation
and how do we hear, each in our proper dialect, in which we were born?

 

[Sketch]

Bump for those still ignoring the facts........

Some of you need to go back to the 1st century and set these confused people straight.....

King James Version
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

Darby Bible Translation
and how do we hear them each in our own dialect in which we have been born,

World English Bible
How do we hear, everyone in our own native language?

Young's Literal Translation
and how do we hear, each in our proper dialect, in which we were born?

King James Version
Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

So, do you support the interpretative hearing idea?
These say they were hearing, "every man in our own tongue", "each in our own dialect", "each in our proper dialect".
Which seems to indicate the hearing of many tongues, not just their own. Thus speaking in tongues.

 

[dcontroversal]

So, do you support the interpretative hearing idea?
These say they were hearing, "every man in our own tongue", "each in our own dialect", "each in our proper dialect".
Which seems to indicate the hearing of many tongues, not just their own. Thus speaking in tongues.

The word is inspired.....there were not some 15 men blabbing at one time.....the context is clear and so is the use of TONGUES.....there is no conflict and or error in believing the text...Peter and company spoke and THEY all HEARD in their OWN dialect......

This is clear--->and how do we hear them each in our own dialect in which we have been born

Whoever said this does not say.....HOW ARE THEY SPEAKING IN OUR OWN DIALECT IN WHICH WE HAVE BEEN BORN

 

[Locoponydirtman]

So if I am in India and I hear someone speaking English, and I say I hear them speaking in my language, it's not a miracle of hearing it's that they are indeed speaking my language.

 

[garee]

Again, you are speaking in generalities that have no direct bearing on the passage in question.
I mean no disrespect, but I need to ask you directly. If you do indeed believe this, where is the basis of it?
What you have stated does not undo what is plainly stated in the passage. I just don't see it.

Acts 2:4
All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

That's the first time you offered a verse. There does not appear to be anything in that verse that would change the law that God when he spoke through a person with other tongues/languages , others understood the prophecy .

The record in Isaiah 28 is very upfront and out in the open as a law not subject to be changed. It would seem you are ignoring the foundation..

I understand some want to make it into noise with no meaning where another person would have to get another person to interpret it as a private interpretation and in the end it would be a positive sign . Those would be those who seek after a sign. I am not from the school of thoughts that promotes outwards signs as gifts that comes from sign seekers called Charismatics.

I believe I have a good understanding on what tongues are, what they do and why God mocked the Jews as a sign against them.

If we do not look at the law (1 Corinthians 14 :21-22) first and foremost of the Old testament prophecy in Isaiah as the foundation .Then it would seem you are possibly generalizing in some idea you have. What ever words as tongues a recognizable language that was spoken was also understood by the hearer .

In the law (Isaiah 28) it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips 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, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.1 Corinthians 14 :21-22

Today in most cases it has been turned upside down and made into a sign to confirm something positive. . Again we should begin by looking at the foundation in Isaiah 28 and not the fulfillment (Acts 2) one the foundation is established the meaning becomes clearer
It like David said in Psalms if the foundations are destroyed what would those who have a imputed righteousness do? And not to change the subject but other foundations have been destroyed or diverted in that same way .So that in the end people can seek after the things seen and not the unseen understanding (faith) .Baptism is another whose foundation is found in the Old. In most cases today it is presented as a new testament doctrine to confirm a person has the Holy Spirit

Psalm 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

 

[garee]

So if I am in India and I hear someone speaking English, and I say I hear them speaking in my language, it's not a miracle of hearing it's that they are indeed speaking my language.

I would take it another step .Its a miracle we can hear God speaking seeing its his prophecy .

 

[dcontroversal]

So if I am in India and I hear someone speaking English, and I say I hear them speaking in my language, it's not a miracle of hearing it's that they are indeed speaking my language.

Hilarious....he has jokes......!!

 

[dcontroversal]

Hear is a question for all to answer.....

Is it possible for a man to speak in one language and 17 different nationalities have the ability to understand in their own language?

Can God do this or NOT?

WHEN PETER stands UP and SPEAKS to the WHOLE CROWD to correct the error of assuming they were DRUNK was PETER speaking in 17 different languages at ONCE so the WHOLE CROWD could understand or DID PETER speak in ONE TONGUE and they ALL understood in their OWN LANGUAGE.....

EXPLAIN please!!

 

[garee]

It just occurred to me that the interpreting of tongues is not really about interpretive hearing at all.
I asked someone who had the gift of the interpretation of tongues how it worked.
He said it was exactly like prophecy. You do not know ahead of time what is coming.

Tongues is prophecy . God, prophesying in more than one langue. What would it have to do what is coming ahead? Prophecy represents the things behind, the things now, and the future .It as it is written is not subject to time restraints .

What is restrained is adding to or subtracting from the book of prophecy (the bible) now that we have it in whole and no longer in part.
God is no longer brining any new prophecy in any manner to include tongues. Its an evil generation (natural unconverted man "no faith") that does look for a sign as a wonder or source of faith .The last the sign of Jonas has been fulfilled.

 

[Kavik]

It is a LIST of where they are FROM and qualified as LANGUAGES fro those AREAS

Precisely- sort of - as a list of places, one needs to take a look at what those places are. They are the lands of the Jewish Diaspora; both Eastern and Western. The question is, if I were a Jew and lived in one of those places, what would my 'native language' be? Various places do not automatically equate to language diversity. I'm greatly oversimplifying this of course, and it's not really the best analogy, but just for illustrative purposes, America, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada - several various lands, but one language; English.

 

[garee]

Hear is a question for all to answer.....

Is it possible for a man to speak in one language and 17 different nationalities have the ability to understand in their own language?

Can God do this or NOT?

WHEN PETER stands UP and SPEAKS to the WHOLE CROWD to correct the error of assuming they were DRUNK was PETER speaking in 17 different languages at ONCE so the WHOLE CROWD could understand or DID PETER speak in ONE TONGUE and they ALL understood in their OWN LANGUAGE.....

EXPLAIN please!!

God has spoken in one language and 17 different nationalities have the ability to understand in their own language. It was a sign against them. God mocking those against those who refused to hear prophecy even in their own language Them mocking Him. And even then they still to this day refuse to hear prophecy by mocking God. But rather they certainly do whatsoever thing goes forth out of their own mouth and see no evil in doing so.

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee.But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. Jeremiah 44:16-17

 

[Kavik]

WHEN PETER stands UP and SPEAKS to the WHOLE CROWD to correct the error of assuming they were DRUNK was PETER speaking in 17 different languages at ONCE so the WHOLE CROWD could understand or DID PETER speak in ONE TONGUE and they ALL understood in their OWN LANGUAGE.....

Peter likely gave his speech in Aramaic; the native language of by far the vast majority of people there. Native language of the Jews form Judea as well as those from the Eastern Diaspora. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume some of the apostles may have translated it into Greek for those from the Western Diaspora.

God could certainly have a person speak in his/her native language and people from say 20 different language backgrounds hear it in their native languages, but at Pentecost he didn't need to as linguistic diversity wasn't an issue.

 

[garee]

Precisely- sort of - as a list of places, one needs to take a look at what those places are. They are the lands of the Jewish Diaspora; both Eastern and Western. The question is, if I were a Jew and lived in one of those places, what would my 'native language' be? Various places do not automatically equate to language diversity. I'm greatly oversimplifying this of course, and it's not really the best analogy, but just for illustrative purposes, America, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada - several various lands, but one language; English.

I would offer that God who does not only bring prophecy but also signifies it using parables and proverbs as parables giving us his poetic language as His understanding as His finger print . Like that of Jerimiah 1 .He is watching to see if his interpretation is being met using a amond tree to represent a sign of those who rebel and change the meaning. Like Moses when he struck the Rock representing Christ twice.

We warned in Deuteronomy 4 not to add new meaning to a word single. seeing adding a new definition can destroy the intent of the author as in plagiarism .

Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And I said, I see a rod of an almond tree.
Then said the Lord unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it. Jeremiah 1:11-12

Words from other English speaking countries do have different meaning applied to them as their own signified language that makes them distinct form other English speaking countries. God can use many manners to show he is watching to see if his thoughts are being revealed . It can be seen in Judges 12 below that the letter of the law kills. Not one jot or title can be removed

God will protect the integrity of His word at all cost.

Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand. Judges 12

 

[Sketch]

The word is inspired.....there were not some 15 men blabbing at one time.....the context is clear and so is the use of TONGUES.....there is no conflict and or error in believing the text...Peter and company spoke and THEY all HEARD in their OWN dialect......

This is clear--->and how do we hear them each in our own dialect in which we have been born

Whoever said this does not say.....HOW ARE THEY SPEAKING IN OUR OWN DIALECT IN WHICH WE HAVE BEEN BORN

They didn't know what speaking in tongues was. This was a whole new thing.
They were amazed at what they heard and wanted to know what it was.

The reaction could not have been, "Oh, they are speaking in tongues." (as if they knew what it was)
It was more like, "What is this that we are hearing?" (it doesn't make sense that we should hear this)

Furthermore, verse four says they were speaking in tongues. (what you call babbling)
Why would ignore this in favor of the other?

Acts 2:4
All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.