I’ve been following these threads since last I posted and it’s amazing to me the number of different versions and understandings of “tongues” people have (myself included).
What is interesting to me is that almost all the views expressed speak to evidencing/justifying the modern phenomenon via the narrative of scripture. That is, trying to prove the modern phenomenon by evidencing it in the Bible; or conversely, arguing and attempting to show and demonstrate that the Biblical narratives with (respect to tongues) equate to the modern phenomenon.
It just isn’t there; there are no references to “tongues” in the Bible that cannot be explained in terms of, and in light of, real rational language(s). There are plenty of threads on this site that go into this in detail.
All of these arguments are based upon the redefinition of ‘tongues’ by Pentecostals in the early 1900’s. ‘Tongues’ went from being able to supernaturally speak a real rational language completely hitherto unknown to the speaker (xenoglossy), to a completely unknown ‘private prayer language’, or (if spoken in public) an unknown ‘language’ to the speaker that must be ‘interpreted’. This redefinition is integral for this group of Christians in explaining the modern phenomenon in light of scripture.
How do you account for the complete change of tongues doctrine within the Pentecostal church (from definite xenoglossy to unknown “private prayer language”) within about a year or so (1907-1908)?
Why the (seeming) insistence on assuming that “tongues” are something somehow different than “language”? This is perpetuated by continual use of the archaic term ‘tongues’. There’s no reason not to use the more modern term. Like-wise with the word ‘interpretation’. Why is it not replaced with ‘translation’ (though to be fair, ‘interpretation’ is typically used when referring to ‘translating’ the spoken word). Does ‘interpretation’ make it somehow more ‘supernatural’ or esoteric sounding?
Replace ‘tongues’ with ‘language’ (since that’s what the word actually means in modern English) and ‘interpretation’ with ‘translation’ in these passages, and it becomes somewhat difficult to posit the modern phenomenon and have it actually make sense in the context of a given passage.
For those who speak them; have you ever recorded yourself and then listened to what you’re producing?? If not, why not? If you have; what, to you, makes it a language? I would be very curious to know.
There just isn’t anything a ‘tongues-speaker’ is doing that cannot be explain in very simple Linguistic terms. Modern tongues fail the most basic tests which define the concept of ‘language’ – what is being produced is not language, though it is definitely perceived as such by its speakers.
An example of perhaps the most basic universal criteria for something to be ‘language’ is that, at its very basic level, it can be described as consisting of two things: (1) discrete units of various sorts, and (2) rules and principles that govern the way these discrete units can be combined and ordered. It doesn’t matter where (earth, heaven, some distant planet) or by whom (humans, God, angels, aliens) it’s spoken; these criteria are universal. Glossolalia/modern tongues contains neither one of these criteria.
Mind you, I’m not arguing the modern “tongues experience” which is what most people describe when discussing ‘tongues’. Tongues, or more properly, the concept of glossolalia, is a very powerful tool which has been used by various cultures and spiritual paths since time immemorial; but as far as its use in Christianity, it’s a relatively recent addition.
It almost seems to me that it’s ‘discovery’ and subsequent use by Christianity was never really quite fully understood. It seems the concept of glossolalia as a self-created tool just wasn’t an acceptable explanation for this group of Christians. They automatically, and understandably quite naturally, looked towards the narrative of scripture for an answer that would align more closely to their beliefs, but there wasn’t anything there that quite fit the modern phenomenon. The result was that any reference to ‘tongues’ that were there, were redefined and reinterpreted to ‘evidence’ the modern phenomenon.
In defense of the modern phenomenon, whether or not what a modern tongues-speaker is doing is “Biblical” or not, is really kind of a silly argument. There are thousands of things we do every day that are “not in the Bible”; it doesn’t automatically make them wrong.
When recognized as just one of many tools used to establish a closer relationship with the divine, one can rightly defend the modern phenomenon despite the lack of anything in remotely similar in the narratives of scripture.
By the way, let me also add here that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ – I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. Cessationist vs, non-cessationist is a false dichotomy; ‘gifts ceasing’ is mentioned only once in one short sentence, and the remainder of the Bible is totally silent on the matter. The one place it is mentioned is rarely taken into context of the entire passage. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference to “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”; people still speak.
