Speaking in Tongues (Privately, Outside of Church)
- Thread starter BenFTW
- Start date
-
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.
The King James translators could not have anticipated that they opened a can of worms by inserting the word "unknown" before tongues in 1 Corinthians (all properly in italics, but leading to confusion nonetheless).
What Kavik has pointed out is correct, and that is how the whole section from chapters 12 through 14 must be interpreted. This was all about Christians speaking a foreign language supernaturally by the power of the Holy Spirit (as in Acts 2).
Therefore in a public meeting an interpreter was a necessity, and Paul even urged the speaker to pray that he may interpret. And the speaking was to be limited to just a few, with women forbidden to speak in public. The idea of a prayer language, or an angelic language, is simply a modern invention, since modern tongues are NOT genuine foreign languages spoken supernaturally.
What Kavik has pointed out is correct, and that is how the whole section from chapters 12 through 14 must be interpreted. This was all about Christians speaking a foreign language supernaturally by the power of the Holy Spirit (as in Acts 2).
Therefore in a public meeting an interpreter was a necessity, and Paul even urged the speaker to pray that he may interpret. And the speaking was to be limited to just a few, with women forbidden to speak in public. The idea of a prayer language, or an angelic language, is simply a modern invention, since modern tongues are NOT genuine foreign languages spoken supernaturally.
This only works if we ignore rightly dividing Acts 19:1-7
It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. [SUP]2 [/SUP]He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” [SUP]3 [/SUP]And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” [SUP]4 [/SUP]Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” [SUP]5 [/SUP]When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [SUP]6 [/SUP]And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. [SUP]7 [/SUP]There were in all about twelve men.
The disciples at Ephesus in Acts 19 presumably spoke 1 known language and were conversing and understanding Paul and presumably Luke.
Luke says there were 12 men in all and when Paul laid his hands on them they began to prophesy and speak in tongues. So which known language where they tlaking in and to who?, Paul or Luke, or both?
Seems like that would be a contradiction since Paul and Luke were speaking, conversing and understanding them already and Luke said only 12 men were present and all of them spoke in tongues.
It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. [SUP]2 [/SUP]He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” [SUP]3 [/SUP]And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” [SUP]4 [/SUP]Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” [SUP]5 [/SUP]When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [SUP]6 [/SUP]And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. [SUP]7 [/SUP]There were in all about twelve men.
The disciples at Ephesus in Acts 19 presumably spoke 1 known language and were conversing and understanding Paul and presumably Luke.
Luke says there were 12 men in all and when Paul laid his hands on them they began to prophesy and speak in tongues. So which known language where they tlaking in and to who?, Paul or Luke, or both?
Seems like that would be a contradiction since Paul and Luke were speaking, conversing and understanding them already and Luke said only 12 men were present and all of them spoke in tongues.
I see the point but and interpretation in not translation . speaking in tongues in context to 1cor 12, 13, and 14 is a language by the Spirit of God who give the ability as the text states. the idea of what you say is modern tongues is not contextual because the Holy Spirit cannot be placed in your box of reason. a linguist doesn't know all languages of the earth. nor does he or she a have the ability to explain spiritual things . The Context of 1cor 12, 13 ands 14 " Gifts of the Holy Spirit ". nothing of modern tongues , modern faith, healing etc... the context is the gifts of the Holy Spirit . and interpreted is not a translator . You have assumed that. speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is known as what ?
prophesying which is what ? preaching the word of God as the Holy Spirit enables you to do so. tongues and interpretation is equal to that as it says in 1cor 14:5 . tongues is a language if you know it or not. So if I get this right
I'm a linguist some speaks in a language you say is an actual modern language yet you do not know what is said I tell you what was said and your ok with that? even if you have no proof of what was said was 100% accurate but because they can certify the modern language , the gifts of the Holy Spirit is real? ahahahahhahaha
prophesying which is what ? preaching the word of God as the Holy Spirit enables you to do so. tongues and interpretation is equal to that as it says in 1cor 14:5 . tongues is a language if you know it or not. So if I get this right
I'm a linguist some speaks in a language you say is an actual modern language yet you do not know what is said I tell you what was said and your ok with that? even if you have no proof of what was said was 100% accurate but because they can certify the modern language , the gifts of the Holy Spirit is real? ahahahahhahaha
Last edited:
1 Cor 14 is about Christian gatherings for worship and how some of the gifts were manifested in those meetings. The questions you have raised have no bearing on that subject. Regarding these disciples at Ephesus, all we are told is that the spoke foreign languages supernaturally to confirm that they had received the gift of the Holy Spirit (as was also the case in the household of Cornelius. We need not speculate as to which languages were spoken who understood what etc. since in both cases the languages are not mentioned (although they are in Acts 2).
So what I have summarized in my post is applicable to church meetings during the Apostolic Age. Following that both tongues and prophecies ceased (1 Cor 13:8) as well as superntural knowledge.
So what I have summarized in my post is applicable to church meetings during the Apostolic Age. Following that both tongues and prophecies ceased (1 Cor 13:8) as well as superntural knowledge.
I have to face the fact that I don't want to believe that what pentecostals and charismatics call tongues are real. I am sure this effects my Bible reading. If I ever become convinced, it will take the teaching of the H Spirit to convince me.
In my opinion, modern use of "tongues," and all the peripheral stuff, is divisive and often ludicrous. I would think that no person of the Godhead has ever been in such places that embrace the silly parts.
In my opinion, modern use of "tongues," and all the peripheral stuff, is divisive and often ludicrous. I would think that no person of the Godhead has ever been in such places that embrace the silly parts.
ceased LOL no it did not you assume it did you think prophesying is the something as an prophet ? no it is not. speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is what it means and is the normative established in Acts 2 and happens many times in the book of Acts and Paul is led by the Holy Spirit to teach on the " Gifts of the Holy Spirit ". found in 1cor 12, 13, and 14
Last edited:
Well in Acts 2 interpretation was unnecessary, but had this phenomenon occurred when there were only Greek speakers, it would have been different. Here is what we read:
And how hear we every man in our own tongue [language], wherein we were born?...we do hear them speak in our tongues [languages] the wonderful works of God.
Here are these Galileans, who normally speak Aramaic (and probably Greek when required) but they are now speaking in our approximately 15 FOREIGN LANGUAGES fluently and clearly, so that we hear them speak "the wonderful works of God". That could include both God's creative and redemptive works, and we are not told exactly what was said.
But human languages were being spoken and understood by their respective native speakers. Had the word "language" been used exclusively in the KJB, that would have been perfectly legitimate.
And how hear we every man in our own tongue [language], wherein we were born?...we do hear them speak in our tongues [languages] the wonderful works of God.
Here are these Galileans, who normally speak Aramaic (and probably Greek when required) but they are now speaking in our approximately 15 FOREIGN LANGUAGES fluently and clearly, so that we hear them speak "the wonderful works of God". That could include both God's creative and redemptive works, and we are not told exactly what was said.
But human languages were being spoken and understood by their respective native speakers. Had the word "language" been used exclusively in the KJB, that would have been perfectly legitimate.
again the 120 speaking did not know what they were saying . Those who heard did. Peter still had to preach the word of God did he not? which the supernatural event drew attention to those so they could hear the gospel . a sign to those who did not believe as 1cor 12, 13, and 14 speak about. the end result of the gift is what matters not if it was dogmatic practice . they spoke in a language they did not learn by the holy Spirit as the text states those who heard witnessed to what was said then did what ? mocked . Then Peter preached which 3000 were saved. the end result legitimizes the ACTION . that IS WHAT Paul IS TEACHING in 1cor chapter 12, 13, and 14. that is why HE says gift of the Holy Spirit and not just the gift of tongues. has nothing to do with modern languages , or if they were it has everything to do with the Work of the Holy Spirit . and God confirmed it with 3000 salvations.
This site does an expose on the matter of why unknown was inserted as a way of referring to a "new" tongue but unknown to the speaker, but as in all things, only God can cause the increase.
Speaking In Tongues - Unknown Tongue Speaking by Commentary
Speaking In Tongues - Unknown Tongue Speaking by Commentary
This is mostly a very accurate posting. But please notice that the mixed crowd only gathered AFTER and BECAUSE OF the tongues that were poured out while it was only the original 120...who obviously had already overcome their own language and belief barriers while becoming "in one accord".
The explanation of "Known earthly languages for the purpose of bringing in the lost (within a gathering)" is NOT applicable when the bible states the 120 were already in one accord, and the crowd had not yet gathered.
The explanation of "Known earthly languages for the purpose of bringing in the lost (within a gathering)" is NOT applicable when the bible states the 120 were already in one accord, and the crowd had not yet gathered.
Most it would seem blindly confuse tongues as a sign against them. They rather make it about them .Prophecy is for those who are given the faith of God to hear what the Spirit is saying.
No scripture is of any private interpretation. He brings both the prophecy and interprets what it says.
The word unknown destroys the fact that God does not allow private interpretations .where another is involved in hearing God and seeking their approval.
The prophecy was unknown until God put is on the lips of Peter and interpreted it to those he gave ears to hear what the Spirit is saying.
Many different nation all at the same twinkling of the eye. Peter understood the message it was not a unknown to him any more that it was to any of the three thousands souls saved that day .
Its an evil generation(natural man) that seeks after a sign before they will belief ..Signs are for the unbeliever . faith for those who hear what the Spirit is saying. We walk by faith the unseen not by sight after that seen or heard with human facilities ..
Isaiah 29:18 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.
Isaiah 42:18 Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see.
No scripture is of any private interpretation. He brings both the prophecy and interprets what it says.
The word unknown destroys the fact that God does not allow private interpretations .where another is involved in hearing God and seeking their approval.
The prophecy was unknown until God put is on the lips of Peter and interpreted it to those he gave ears to hear what the Spirit is saying.
Many different nation all at the same twinkling of the eye. Peter understood the message it was not a unknown to him any more that it was to any of the three thousands souls saved that day .
Its an evil generation(natural man) that seeks after a sign before they will belief ..Signs are for the unbeliever . faith for those who hear what the Spirit is saying. We walk by faith the unseen not by sight after that seen or heard with human facilities ..
Isaiah 29:18 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.
Isaiah 42:18 Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see.
Last edited:
I'll get back to you on this as soon as I remember the wording I had earlier, because sometimes its best for me to take the extra time to be sure a point can be stated quickly and concisely.
Most if not all the references are in my original posting.
However, until the flaw is clearly shown in your assumptions, it is reasonable to assume you will apply your existing assumptions and reach a similar conclusions in each of those examples as well. Hence my desire to bring the proper wording.
Meanwhile.... There are actually only about 5 play-by-play examples in the bible, stating the exact order of events as people are declared as receiving the Holy Ghost. (I referenced at least 4.) Not many doctrines can pass through all of them without the holders of such doctrines needing to declare "Well, that was just an exception" -OR- "Well, that was only back then. The holy ghost comes differently now".
Feel free to look for more play-by-play examples stating exactly when the person(s) receive the holy ghost. And feel free to write down your beliefs about WHEN the holy ghost is given, and then see if your current beliefs make it through all examples.
Until then...
Love in Jesus to you,
Kelby
Most if not all the references are in my original posting.
However, until the flaw is clearly shown in your assumptions, it is reasonable to assume you will apply your existing assumptions and reach a similar conclusions in each of those examples as well. Hence my desire to bring the proper wording.
Meanwhile.... There are actually only about 5 play-by-play examples in the bible, stating the exact order of events as people are declared as receiving the Holy Ghost. (I referenced at least 4.) Not many doctrines can pass through all of them without the holders of such doctrines needing to declare "Well, that was just an exception" -OR- "Well, that was only back then. The holy ghost comes differently now".
Feel free to look for more play-by-play examples stating exactly when the person(s) receive the holy ghost. And feel free to write down your beliefs about WHEN the holy ghost is given, and then see if your current beliefs make it through all examples.
Until then...
Love in Jesus to you,
Kelby
CS1 -
I'm saying Modern tongues is not in the Book of Acts The Holy Spirit working in the lives of the believer is. That is the Main theme of Acts unless you think it is about man ? and not God Spirit?
“The H/S working in the lives of the believer is.” – yes, I agree. Again, I’m not suggesting that the H/S was not at work on Pentecost.
Nehemiah6 -
What Kavik has pointed out is correct, and that is how the whole section from chapters 12 through 14 must be interpreted. This was all about Christians speaking a foreign language supernaturally by the power of the Holy Spirit (as in Acts 2).
Well actually, I don’t think any language was spoken supernaturally in Acts 2; there were just two: Greek and Aramaic, both of which the apostles spoke.
Beastslayer1970 –
The disciples at Ephesus in Acts 19 presumably spoke 1 known language and were conversing and understanding Paul and presumably Luke.
Luke says there were 12 men in all and when Paul laid his hands on them they began to prophesy and speak in tongues. So which known language where they talking in and to who?, Paul or Luke, or both?
The passage simply states that while in Ephesus, Paul found “some/certain disciples”. The text does not offer much more about these people nor does it mention their nationality as it’s not relevant to the story. The natural assumption most make is that they were from Ephesus, but…they may not have been. Ephesus contained the Temple of Artemis – considered to be one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Ephesus had served as a crossroads between East and West for centuries. In short, it’s quite possible (and given what happened, quite probable) that these disciples were not native to Ephesus. We are not told what their native language was. It appears however, that both these people and Paul conversed in the ‘common language’ (dare I say “tongue”) of the day: Greek. When Paul baptized them, they may have simply been, out of joy perhaps, expressing themselves in their native language; one that Paul was obviously not familiar with. The fact that this happened and was reported in the narrative further lends to the idea that these disciples were not native Ephesians. I don’t see this incident as an issue with respect to real language.
CS1 -
A linguist doesn't know all languages of the earth.
This is a common argument, i.e. there are “thousands of languages spoken in the world today, how can anyone know that ‘tongues’ are not one of them?” Yes, there are indeed thousands of languages spoken in the world today – unfortunately not one of them is remotely close to what people are producing in their glossolalia/tongues.
As linguist Dr. William Welmers puts it: “Among us (Linguists), we have heard many hundreds of languages. Furthermore, we have heard representative languages in virtually every group of related languages in the world. At worst we may have missed a few small groups in the interior of South America or in New Guinea. I would estimate that the chances are at least even that if a glossolalic utterance is in a known language, one of us would either recognize the language or recognize that it is similar to some language we are acquainted with."
I concur with this completely.
Dr. Welmers further makes this challenge: "Get two recordings, one of a glossolalic utterance and the other in a real language remote from anything I have ever heard. I'm confident that in just a few moments I could tell which is which and why I am sure of it."
As a Linguist, I also completely concur with his challenge - real language is unmistakable, as is glossolalia.
Beastslayer1970 -
Yet Acts 19 does not say known languages it says tongues.
Yes – but keep in mind that “tongue(s)” simply means “(real) language”. Said language is, of course, known to the person speaking it (typically his/her native tongue (sic!)), but it may not be known to someone listening to it.
Nehemiah6 -
Here are these Galileans, who normally speak Aramaic (and probably Greek when required) but they are now speaking in our approximately 15 FOREIGN LANGUAGES fluently and clearly, so that we hear them speak "the wonderful works of God". That could include both God's creative and redemptive works, and we are not told exactly what was said.
There were not 15 foreign languages; only two – see some of the posts further above. The ‘list’ in Acts does not name one language; in fact, nowhere in the entire narrative is even one language mentioned by name, nor does it even remotely suggest that communication was ever a problem to begin with. The list is a list of place names; specifically, the lands of the Jewish Diaspora. Note that two places are ‘missing’; Cyprus and Syria. The list was put there not to demonstrate linguistic diversity; there wasn’t any, but rather for very political reasons. See the following link for an in-depth discussion on the political significance of “the list”:
https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2000_b_01_Hengel_IoudaiaGeography.pdf
You might need to cut and paste the link. If it doesn't work, do a search for "Ioudaia - List in Acts".
I'm saying Modern tongues is not in the Book of Acts The Holy Spirit working in the lives of the believer is. That is the Main theme of Acts unless you think it is about man ? and not God Spirit?
“The H/S working in the lives of the believer is.” – yes, I agree. Again, I’m not suggesting that the H/S was not at work on Pentecost.
Nehemiah6 -
What Kavik has pointed out is correct, and that is how the whole section from chapters 12 through 14 must be interpreted. This was all about Christians speaking a foreign language supernaturally by the power of the Holy Spirit (as in Acts 2).
Well actually, I don’t think any language was spoken supernaturally in Acts 2; there were just two: Greek and Aramaic, both of which the apostles spoke.
Beastslayer1970 –
The disciples at Ephesus in Acts 19 presumably spoke 1 known language and were conversing and understanding Paul and presumably Luke.
Luke says there were 12 men in all and when Paul laid his hands on them they began to prophesy and speak in tongues. So which known language where they talking in and to who?, Paul or Luke, or both?
The passage simply states that while in Ephesus, Paul found “some/certain disciples”. The text does not offer much more about these people nor does it mention their nationality as it’s not relevant to the story. The natural assumption most make is that they were from Ephesus, but…they may not have been. Ephesus contained the Temple of Artemis – considered to be one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Ephesus had served as a crossroads between East and West for centuries. In short, it’s quite possible (and given what happened, quite probable) that these disciples were not native to Ephesus. We are not told what their native language was. It appears however, that both these people and Paul conversed in the ‘common language’ (dare I say “tongue”) of the day: Greek. When Paul baptized them, they may have simply been, out of joy perhaps, expressing themselves in their native language; one that Paul was obviously not familiar with. The fact that this happened and was reported in the narrative further lends to the idea that these disciples were not native Ephesians. I don’t see this incident as an issue with respect to real language.
CS1 -
A linguist doesn't know all languages of the earth.
This is a common argument, i.e. there are “thousands of languages spoken in the world today, how can anyone know that ‘tongues’ are not one of them?” Yes, there are indeed thousands of languages spoken in the world today – unfortunately not one of them is remotely close to what people are producing in their glossolalia/tongues.
As linguist Dr. William Welmers puts it: “Among us (Linguists), we have heard many hundreds of languages. Furthermore, we have heard representative languages in virtually every group of related languages in the world. At worst we may have missed a few small groups in the interior of South America or in New Guinea. I would estimate that the chances are at least even that if a glossolalic utterance is in a known language, one of us would either recognize the language or recognize that it is similar to some language we are acquainted with."
I concur with this completely.
Dr. Welmers further makes this challenge: "Get two recordings, one of a glossolalic utterance and the other in a real language remote from anything I have ever heard. I'm confident that in just a few moments I could tell which is which and why I am sure of it."
As a Linguist, I also completely concur with his challenge - real language is unmistakable, as is glossolalia.
Beastslayer1970 -
Yet Acts 19 does not say known languages it says tongues.
Yes – but keep in mind that “tongue(s)” simply means “(real) language”. Said language is, of course, known to the person speaking it (typically his/her native tongue (sic!)), but it may not be known to someone listening to it.
Nehemiah6 -
Here are these Galileans, who normally speak Aramaic (and probably Greek when required) but they are now speaking in our approximately 15 FOREIGN LANGUAGES fluently and clearly, so that we hear them speak "the wonderful works of God". That could include both God's creative and redemptive works, and we are not told exactly what was said.
There were not 15 foreign languages; only two – see some of the posts further above. The ‘list’ in Acts does not name one language; in fact, nowhere in the entire narrative is even one language mentioned by name, nor does it even remotely suggest that communication was ever a problem to begin with. The list is a list of place names; specifically, the lands of the Jewish Diaspora. Note that two places are ‘missing’; Cyprus and Syria. The list was put there not to demonstrate linguistic diversity; there wasn’t any, but rather for very political reasons. See the following link for an in-depth discussion on the political significance of “the list”:
https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2000_b_01_Hengel_IoudaiaGeography.pdf
You might need to cut and paste the link. If it doesn't work, do a search for "Ioudaia - List in Acts".