Speaking in Tongues: Its Origins [Ancient and Modern], Purpose, and Power

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
22,994
4,996
113
Like I said, it could be Hebrew that is spoken in Heaven.
i thought that may contradict what happened at Babel, because there all the tongues of men were confounded - so if Hebrew were the heavenly native language, wouldn't that mean some people at Babel did not have their tongues confused?

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth
(Genesis 11:9)

the way i read it, whatever the original language of man is, absolutely no one speaks it after this.
 

obedienttogod

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2019
1,012
338
83
i thought that may contradict what happened at Babel, because there all the tongues of men were confounded - so if Hebrew were the heavenly native language, wouldn't that mean some people at Babel did not have their tongues confused?

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth
(Genesis 11:9)

the way i read it, whatever the original language of man is, absolutely no one speaks it after this.


I like how you are thinking!!

And that original language could very well be the Heavenly Language. I basically mentioned Hebrew, since that is what Language the Torah/Old Testament was written in. By your example, Hebrew could have developed at Babel. But the Language Adam and Eve spoke, as well as those up to the point they were together at Babel, could very well be what is spoken in Heaven.
 

wolfwint

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2014
2,293
421
83
I need to research this person, Agnes Ozman, and see if maybe he used this scripture reference as his Biblical platform.

Acts 10:
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

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.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.


In this passage we have, preaching the WORD, that leads to receiving the Holy Ghost, that results in Speaking in Tongues, that led Peter to baptize them.

So, if this Agnes Ozman followed this series of events, Preaching the WORD, people received the Holy Spirit from hearing the WORD preached, and then they began speaking in Tongues...well technically, by the example we read in Acts chapter 10 verses 44 - 48, this Agnes Ozman is following what we read specifically in the Bible.

But then again, if he did not go in the proper order like we read in Acts chapter 10, I would then question his method.
About Agnes Ozman, according the pentecostal movement she was the first person who got the baptism with the Holy Spirit and as proof for that speaking in tongues (Topeka in 1900 ad)
I thought this was known.
 

wolfwint

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2014
2,293
421
83
I need to research this person, Agnes Ozman, and see if maybe he used this scripture reference as his Biblical platform.

Acts 10:
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

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.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.


In this passage we have, preaching the WORD, that leads to receiving the Holy Ghost, that results in Speaking in Tongues, that led Peter to baptize them.

So, if this Agnes Ozman followed this series of events, Preaching the WORD, people received the Holy Spirit from hearing the WORD preached, and then they began speaking in Tongues...well technically, by the example we read in Acts chapter 10 verses 44 - 48, this Agnes Ozman is following what we read specifically in the Bible.

But then again, if he did not go in the proper order like we read in Acts chapter 10, I would then question his method.
The correct date about Agnes Ozmans baptism with the Holy Spirit was january 1st.1901
 

UnderGrace

Senior Member
May 8, 2016
8,461
4,855
113
Technically, GLOSSA is an Icelandic word that I highly doubt the Greeks were associated with!!

Glossa
Translate from: Icelandic




I have the actual Greek text:

Paul's actual word he used: This translation comes from the Greek Bible using English and Parallel Greek:
γλώσσῃ = in a tongue

Greek Texts
SBL Greek New Testament 2010
ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ θεῷ, οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια·

Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ Θεῷ· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια·

Westcott and Hort 1881
ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ θεῷ, οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια·

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ θεῷ, οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια·

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ, ἀλλὰ τῷ θεῷ· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια.

Greek Orthodox Church 1904
ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ, ἀλλὰ τῷ Θεῷ· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια·

Tischendorf 8th Edition
ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ θεῷ, οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια·

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ, ἀλλὰ τῶ Θεῷ· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ τῶ θεῷ· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια·


EVERY TRANSLATION USES THE WORD "γλώσσῃ = in a tongue," that means "IN A TONGUE."

What is ALSO BEAUTIFUL about these PROPER GREEK TRANSLATIONS, is the fact that the WORD Paul used prior to the WORD (γλώσσῃ = in a tongue) found in every translation is, λαλῶν, which means SPEAKING.

So together, λαλῶν γλώσσῃ means SPEAKING IN A TONGUE!!


Your translation is severely flawed and incorrect!!

Haha you are so funny, do you speak any Mediterranean languages as your native tongue, as in native language? I am not talking about learning it at school I mean raised in it, because unless you are raised in a language one never really knows that language as the native speaker would.

γλώσσῃ, in a tongue ..... is language

Tongue means language, you cannot get around this no matter how hard you try.

https://www.lingq.com/en/translate/el/γλώσσῃ/
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
994
350
63
Well, I am not sure that we are talking about the same miraculous gift that occured in Acts as what is being addressed in Corinthians.
Thinking....
The tongues experience in Acts is caused by the initial baptism of the Holy Ghost into one's body; a complete infilling. Whereas the Holy Ghost causes the Spiritual gift of tongues to operate through willing vessels to draw people to and/or edify the church body.
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
994
350
63
I'm inclined to think it is the same gift, because it's the same Giver, and it is described in similar terms. The disciples were empowered to speak in languages (or perhaps dialects) that they had not learned.
The tongues experience in Acts is caused by the initial baptism of the Holy Ghost into one's body; a complete infilling. Whereas the Holy Ghost causes the Spiritual gift of tongues to operate through willing vessels to draw people to and/or edify the church body.
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
498
91
28
“No one in the Upper Room was speaking the same language either. Each one was speaking something different.”

Nowhere does it state that each of the twelve was speaking a different language.

“Have you EVER HEARD the Heavenly Language spoken by God to His Angels?
How do you know there are not several dialects to it, like the Hebrew Language is complex?
The Hebrew Language, is the Language God chose to give His people, and it is one of the most complex languages known to mankind.”


The concept of ‘dialect’ is a completely natural development of real rational language. It is the direct result of population movements or population isolation over time. Hebrew is no more complex than any other language. Language complexity is a somewhat relevant term; a language may have a rather simple grammar, but be incredibly difficult to pronounce, or may be relatively easy to pronounce and have say a complex verbal system, etc.

“Proper Greek claims the UNKNOWN LANGUAGE is not spoken to men (humans at all). It claims it is ONLY SPOKEN TO GOD!!”

“Both translation of the Greek specifies that Paul meant, men (humans like You and myself) can't understand what is being said, only God can. So basically, the Tongues Paul is speaking of here, is not another human language. It's a language unknown to all humans. It's a language only God knows!!”

This has already been addressed ad nauseum – the speaker is indeed speaking only to God, since God is the only one who, at that particular worship service, understands the speaker’s native language – no one else there speaks or understands it. As others have mentioned, the word “unknown” is a much later addition; the speaker is simply speaking “a language”.

ἀκούει = akouei can hear it = CAN HEAR IT

The verb here means “to hear (with understanding)”. Nobody listening to the speaker hears him with understanding as they don’t speak his language; nothing more complicated than that.

“Paul bragged about speaking in Tongues more than anyone else.
This is clear he has heard others do it, in order to know he does it more!!”


Paul didn’t brag about it – he simply stated that he used foreign languages more than the average person (due to his “work”). Of course he’s heard other people speak in various languages; he’s out among the non-Jews teaching them in said languages.

“Why would he tear them down over foreign languages?”

As others have mentioned, because Corinth was a multi-lingual, multi-cultural port city on not one, but two ports. A place where everyday communication was challenging at best. The local language was Greek, but not everyone spoke it with the same degree of fluency and obviously if they were speaking to a fellow countryman, it would be in whatever their native language was.
Paul calls for clarity and understanding at a public worship – he’s not tearing them down over foreign languages, but rather insists (perhaps “implores” would be a better word here) that if a foreign language must be used, it should be translated so all may benefit, and usage should be kept to a minimum. In addition, if a translator could not be found, better the person just keeps silent and prays to God by himself.

“Glossa” – It’s just the Greek word for ‘language’ or the physical organ in the mouth. Nothing more mysterious than that. How did Icelandic enter the picture?? "Language" in Icelandic is "tungumál" (literally something like "tongue thing"). The tongue in your mouth is "tungu".

Agnes Ozman was a woman. She perhaps best demonstrates the concept of having such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience. She created the experience via non-cognitive non-language utterance.
 

wolfwint

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2014
2,293
421
83
The tongues experience in Acts is caused by the initial baptism of the Holy Ghost into one's body; a complete infilling. Whereas the Holy Ghost causes the Spiritual gift of tongues to operate through willing vessels to draw people to and/or edify the church body.
What is the condition that a believer is fulfilled with the Holy Spirit? What you mean with initial baptism?
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
2,136
206
63
“No one in the Upper Room was speaking the same language either. Each one was speaking something different.”

Nowhere does it state that each of the twelve was speaking a different language.

“Have you EVER HEARD the Heavenly Language spoken by God to His Angels?
How do you know there are not several dialects to it, like the Hebrew Language is complex?
The Hebrew Language, is the Language God chose to give His people, and it is one of the most complex languages known to mankind.”


The concept of ‘dialect’ is a completely natural development of real rational language. It is the direct result of population movements or population isolation over time. Hebrew is no more complex than any other language. Language complexity is a somewhat relevant term; a language may have a rather simple grammar, but be incredibly difficult to pronounce, or may be relatively easy to pronounce and have say a complex verbal system, etc.

“Proper Greek claims the UNKNOWN LANGUAGE is not spoken to men (humans at all). It claims it is ONLY SPOKEN TO GOD!!”

“Both translation of the Greek specifies that Paul meant, men (humans like You and myself) can't understand what is being said, only God can. So basically, the Tongues Paul is speaking of here, is not another human language. It's a language unknown to all humans. It's a language only God knows!!”

This has already been addressed ad nauseum – the speaker is indeed speaking only to God, since God is the only one who, at that particular worship service, understands the speaker’s native language – no one else there speaks or understands it. As others have mentioned, the word “unknown” is a much later addition; the speaker is simply speaking “a language”.

ἀκούει = akouei can hear it = CAN HEAR IT

The verb here means “to hear (with understanding)”. Nobody listening to the speaker hears him with understanding as they don’t speak his language; nothing more complicated than that.

“Paul bragged about speaking in Tongues more than anyone else.
This is clear he has heard others do it, in order to know he does it more!!”


Paul didn’t brag about it – he simply stated that he used foreign languages more than the average person (due to his “work”). Of course he’s heard other people speak in various languages; he’s out among the non-Jews teaching them in said languages.

“Why would he tear them down over foreign languages?”

As others have mentioned, because Corinth was a multi-lingual, multi-cultural port city on not one, but two ports. A place where everyday communication was challenging at best. The local language was Greek, but not everyone spoke it with the same degree of fluency and obviously if they were speaking to a fellow countryman, it would be in whatever their native language was.
Paul calls for clarity and understanding at a public worship – he’s not tearing them down over foreign languages, but rather insists (perhaps “implores” would be a better word here) that if a foreign language must be used, it should be translated so all may benefit, and usage should be kept to a minimum. In addition, if a translator could not be found, better the person just keeps silent and prays to God by himself.

“Glossa” – It’s just the Greek word for ‘language’ or the physical organ in the mouth. Nothing more mysterious than that. How did Icelandic enter the picture?? "Language" in Icelandic is "tungumál" (literally something like "tongue thing"). The tongue in your mouth is "tungu".

Agnes Ozman was a woman. She perhaps best demonstrates the concept of having such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience. She created the experience via non-cognitive non-language utterance.
Hi kavik,

Been studying this "unknown" tongue to which Paul speaks of as "unto a barbarian" in 1 Cor. 14:11

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.

Paul says something in Colossians 3:11 about the Barbarian, Scythian.

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

As per Wiki, the Goths are Germanic Tribe and are called Barbarian. The language though Germanic tribe constitute not a German language but rather English.

I speak English as my third language counting my dialect. But from a linguistic approach could it be possible that the "unknown tongue" in 1 Corinthians 14 is an English rather than "not spoken to men"?

Thanks
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
498
91
28
Hi kavik,

Been studying this "unknown" tongue to which Paul speaks of as "unto a barbarian" in 1 Cor. 14:11

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.

Paul says something in Colossians 3:11 about the Barbarian, Scythian.

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

As per Wiki, the Goths are Germanic Tribe and are called Barbarian. The language though Germanic tribe constitute not a German language but rather English.

I speak English as my third language counting my dialect. But from a linguistic approach could it be possible that the "unknown tongue" in 1 Corinthians 14 is an English rather than "not spoken to men"?

Thanks

“Barbarian” was a generic term (sort of as it is today) – it referred to someone who was neither Greek nor Latin speaking. Any group of people who were totally ignorant of Greek or Latin could (and likely, were) referred to as Barbarians.

The term itself is thought to be onomatopoeic in origin, coming from “ba(r)-ba(r)” – the sound of a sheep bleating. This was in reference to what the language of the “barbarians” sounded like to Greek ears – like the bleating of a sheep.

A Barbarian, since he didn’t know Greek or Latin was considered “uncivilized”. Any group of “uncivilized people could also be referred to as ‘barbarians”.

‘Scythian’ in this case, seems to have more the meaning of “savage” – a term also used for many Native American groups by the Europeans, i.e. Indian equated to “savage” – “savage” equated to Indian. Again, in this case, more of a generic term than referring to actual Scythians.

I would read that passage as “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, uncivilized, savage, slave or free….”

Yes, the Goths were considered “barbarians” by many other European peoples – as mentioned, the word was also used to describe any seemingly “uncivilized people” regardless of where from.

Not sure I follow your last paragraph – ‘unknown’ was a latter addition, so the original was just “language”. If I’m understanding correctly….no, it would not refer to English (by way of barbarian referring to the Germanic Goths), as English (or actually Anglo-Saxon/Old English) did not come about until somewhere around the 400’s AD.
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
994
350
63
What is the condition that a believer is fulfilled with the Holy Spirit? What you mean with initial baptism?
One must receive the infilling of the Holy Ghost it is part of salvation. (Acts 2:1-4, 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6)
 

obedienttogod

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2019
1,012
338
83
About Agnes Ozman, according the pentecostal movement she was the first person who got the baptism with the Holy Spirit and as proof for that speaking in tongues (Topeka in 1900 ad)
I thought this was known.


I never knew this. When it has come to the Gift of Tongues, I follow the Acts Chapter 10 example. It's 100% Biblical!!
 

obedienttogod

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2019
1,012
338
83
Haha you are so funny, do you speak any Mediterranean languages as your native tongue, as in native language? I am not talking about learning it at school I mean raised in it, because unless you are raised in a language one never really knows that language as the native speaker would.

γλώσσῃ, in a tongue ..... is language

Tongue means language, you cannot get around this no matter how hard you try.

https://www.lingq.com/en/translate/el/γλώσσῃ/


You can make any claim you want, but I gave you actual Greek texts from the year 1550 until recently, and those translations come with actual converted English translation. And ALL OF THEM specify they mean, Speaking in a Tongue!!
 

wolfwint

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2014
2,293
421
83
I never knew this. When it has come to the Gift of Tongues, I follow the Acts Chapter 10 example. It's 100% Biblical!!
Well then you should inform yourself. Before Agnes Ozman no believer got the baptism with the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues as proof for at least 1800 years!
 

wolfwint

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2014
2,293
421
83
One must receive the infilling of the Holy Ghost it is part of salvation. (Acts 2:1-4, 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6)
Well, i know i received the Holy Spirit when i was born again. BUT there was no speaking in tongues.
If you would be right the speaking in tongues must have come without I asked for. It did not come.
What then is with the believers between let say 160 ad and 1900 ad?
According your view. There have been no saved people in this time.
And nobody taught this, even the so called churchfathers and reformatores where not saved, because they had not the baptism with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues, as it mention in acts 2, 10 and 19.
And today, out of the pentecostal and charismatic movements no believer is saved. Because they had no baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.
 

UnderGrace

Senior Member
May 8, 2016
8,461
4,855
113
You can make any claim you want, but I gave you actual Greek texts from the year 1550 until recently, and those translations come with actual converted English translation. And ALL OF THEM specify they mean, Speaking in a Tongue!!
And tongue means language, it is not a separate concept like you are trying to make it of ecstatic utterances

γλῶσσα
glōssa

https://biblehub.com/text/james/3-6.htm

Used by James in context refers to the actual tongue, although he is meaning the language (words) that come from the tongue.
Like when we state...Oh she found her tongue alright

Same word used by John in context which means language (speech)
My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
1 John 3:18
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
498
91
28
And tongue means language
Exactly!

All the examples shown simply mean "speaking (a) language"; not engaging in non-cognitive non-language utterance.

As you state - we still use the term today to refer to language: "The Slavic tongues have many grammatical cases", "I don't speak his tongue" etc.. etc. The usage is a bit archaic, except in a few phrases, but it's clearly understood as 'language'.
 

7seasrekeyed

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2017
6,673
2,363
113
Well then you should inform yourself. Before Agnes Ozman no believer got the baptism with the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues as proof for at least 1800 years!

while that is not really funny, it is one of the posts when you don't whether to laugh or cry because it is so so wrong

I didn't know you were keeping records that long
 

7seasrekeyed

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2017
6,673
2,363
113
wolfwint, post: 3905775, member: 189046"]Well, i know i received the Holy Spirit when i was born again. BUT there was no speaking in tongues.
If you would be right the speaking in tongues must have come without I asked for. It did not come.
What then is with the believers between let say 160 ad and 1900 ad?
According your view. There have been no saved people in this time.
And nobody taught this, even the so called churchfathers and reformatores where not saved, because they had not the baptism with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues, as it mention in acts 2, 10 and 19.
And today, out of the pentecostal and charismatic movements no believer is saved. Because they had no baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

you folks are mixed up with regards to salvation and the baptism in the Holy Spirit

and with regards to what you say in the highlighted above? it's baloney with a hint of 'falls flat cause it is not true and you know it'

have you taking up lying as some of the experts here have done?

you know that no one here has said that or even hinted at it

it's disinformation like that, that I think people will have to answer for

it's not true...you know it because even you and I have had that exchange and you and others have had that exchange...so, you really should recant on that one

at least be truthful. lies and exaggerations do nothing for your POV