what is Speaking in tongues

[frederickdoc]

I am getting a clearer picture now, and thank you for that. With regard to the "cloven" part of the new tongues. What does cloven mean?

No, the "cloven tongues" and the "tongues" of the Holy Spirit are not two different types of tongues. They refer to the Exact Same Event at Pentecost described in Acts 2, but they describe two different parts of that miracle.
The distinction comes down to what the people Saw versus what the people Heard.

1. Cloven Tongues (What They Saw)

• Definition: The word "cloven" is an Old English word (used in the King James Version) that means split, divided, or parted.
• The Visual Miracle: Acts 2:3 describes "cloven tongues like as of fire" appearing and resting on each person.
• The Meaning: This was a visual sign. A single source of spiritual Fire appeared and then split apart into individual Flames, sitting on top of every single believer in the room. It showed that the Holy Spirit was being given to everyone Equally.

 

[Wansvic]

Paul is NOT saying that he prays in an unknown tongue. In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul uses a third‑class conditional clause—ἐὰν + subjunctive—to speak hypothetically about himself: “If I should pray in a tongue…” (ἐὰν προσεύχωμαι). This construction belongs to the subjunctive mood, the Greek way of expressing a situation that is possible but not asserted as fact. By choosing this form, Paul is not claiming that he personally prays in a tongue; he is creating a first‑person hypothetical to expose the logic of the situation. His point is that even if he himself were to pray in a tongue, the act would be unfruitful without interpretation, because the mind would remain unengaged. The grammar signals that Paul is reasoning from a hypothetical scenario, not describing his own practice, in order to show that intelligibility—not ecstatic speech—is what builds up the church.
If you want, I can also craft a shorter version or one that highlights the contrast with 1 Corinthians 13’s “If I speak with the tongues of men and angels…” using the same hypothetical self‑reference device.


Exactly! Paul doesn't suggest that we ask someone else to interpret, he commands that the person speaking interpret.

I noticed your response is AI generated.

First of all, I want to make it clear that I do not rely on AI in order to understand scripture. We have God for that. And He doesn't need anyone to hold His hand. However, I do believe AI can be a useful tool if used properly and it's limitations are understood.

The way in which AI responds depends upon your exact question. Note how AI responded to my unbias direct questions:

My question: Does this scripture indicate the writer prays and sings in tongues?
"This passage (1 Corinthians 14:14-19) indicates the writer (the Apostle Paul) both prays and sings in tongues.
He explicitly states: "I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also," followed by, "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all," confirming it is a frequent part of his personal spiritual life."

AI questioned: Would you like to explore how Paul differentiates between the private use of tongues versus the public use of tongues in church services? My response, yes.

"Paul makes a sharp distinction between the private and public use of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14.
His core argument focuses on order and edification (building up the church) versus personal growth.

Private vs. Public Use of Tongues

• Private Use: Building up oneself.
  • Paul notes that speaking in tongues privately edifies the individual spirit (1 Cor 14:4).
  • It serves as a direct communication between the believer and God (1 Cor 14:2).
  • It does not require translation because it is meant for personal devotion, prayer, and singing.
• Public Use: Building up the church.
  • Paul argues that public tongues without an interpreter are useless to the congregation (1 Cor 14:6).
  • Listeners cannot understand or say "Amen" to a prayer they do not comprehend (1 Cor 14:16).
  • In public, Paul prefers five understandable words to ten thousand words in a tongue (1 Cor 14:19).

Paul's Rules for Public Church Services
To maintain order, Paul establishes specific guidelines for corporate worship later in the chapter:

• Limit Numbers: Only two or three people should speak in tongues per service.
• Take Turns: Speakers must go one at a time, not all at once.
• Require Interpretation: Someone must interpret the tongue so the church can be edified.
• Stay Silent: If no interpreter is present, the speaker must keep quiet and speak only to themselves and God.

Here are the specific verses from 1 Corinthians 14 where Paul establishes the rules for using tongues in a public church service.

1 Corinthians 14:27-28 (KJV)

"If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."

My question: Is the interpretation a natural ability or a miraculous manifestation

AI response: The interpretation of tongues is a miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit, not a natural ability or learned language skill.

Biblical Evidence for a Miraculous Manifestation

• Listed as a Spiritual Gift: In 1 Corinthians 12:10, Paul lists the "interpretation of tongues" directly alongside other supernatural gifts like prophecy, working of miracles, and gifts of healing, attributing them all to the same Holy Spirit.
• Supernatural Source: The scripture states that these gifts are given as the Spirit wills, meaning it is an immediate, divine enablement rather than a product of academic study or linguistic training.
• Requires Prayer to Receive: In 1 Corinthians 14:13, Paul instructs, "Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret." If interpretation were a natural talent (like being bilingual), a person would not need to pray for a miraculous enablement to do it.

Why It Is Not a Natural Ability

• The Tongues are Unlearned: Because the tongue itself is described as an unknown, spiritual utterance (or a language the speaker never learned), the interpretation must also be supernaturally given to reveal the meaning.

• Interpretation vs. Translation: In the original Greek context, the gift functions to explain or declare the meaning of the spiritual message, rather than a word-for-word literal translation that a human linguist performs.

 

[Roger316]

I noticed your response is AI generated.

As I tell others, the thoughts are my own. All the AI does for me is act as my professional writer. I want to be as clear and concise as I can. So I ask the AI to write my thoughts using correct grammar and spelling.

I think we would have a better discussion if you responded to and engaged with the ideas I present.

The way in which AI responds depends upon your exact question. Note how AI responded to my unbias direct questions:

Sometimes the AI is wrong. Remember, the AI is simply repeating what it learned from published commentaries, which are written by human beings. Therefore, since commentaries can be wrong, sometimes AI is wrong. And your AI is wrong about 1 Corinthians 14. I will respond to this post using my own wording.

My question: Does this scripture indicate the writer prays and sings in tongues?
"This passage (1 Corinthians 14:14-19) indicates the writer (the Apostle Paul) both prays and sings in tongues.
He explicitly states: "I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also," followed by, "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all," confirming it is a frequent part of his personal spiritual life."

The commentators and the AI are wrong because they fail to understand Paul's statements in context. Paul's purpose in writing 1 Corinthians 14 is to teach the Corinthians how to distinguish true from false tongues.

Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14:2—“the one who speaks in a tongue…no one understands”—is not his endorsement of a private, heavenly prayer language but his diagnosis of the Corinthian problem. He deliberately takes *their* use of the term “tongue” as they practiced it and shows why it fails the biblical standard: it produces speech with no intelligible content. In Acts and in Paul’s theology, the genuine gift of speaking in tongues is real communication that can be understood, translated, and edifies the church. The Corinthian version, however, was glossolalia—ecstatic, content‑less utterance—and Paul exposes its emptiness by pointing out that “no one understands.” Many Christians misread Paul here because they assume he is describing the authentic gift, when in fact he is critiquing the Corinthian counterfeit to redirect them toward intelligible, Spirit‑given speech.


Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 14:14–15 hinges on a hypothetical: “For if I pray in a tongue…” He is not describing his own practice but exposing the emptiness of the Corinthian version of tongues. In their glossolalic style of prayer, the speaker’s spirit may feel active, but the mind produces nothing—no meaning, no content, no edification. Paul immediately contrasts that hypothetical with what he actually does: “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the mind also.” His point is that true spiritual speech—true speaking in tongues—always engages both spirit and mind because it is real linguistic communication. Praying “with the spirit only” corresponds to glossolalia, which is precisely what Paul rejects. Praying and singing with both spirit and mind is the authentic pattern of Christian worship and the only form of speech that qualifies as genuine, intelligible tongues.

My question: Is the interpretation a natural ability or a miraculous manifestation

AI response: The interpretation of tongues is a miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit, not a natural ability or learned language skill.

I reject the notion that the Spiritual gift of interpretation is a natural ability. I never said it was. I maintain that the Spiritual gift of interpretation is NEVER used to interpret the Spiritual gift of tongues. The TRUE gift of tongues is intelligible speech.

 

[Wansvic]

As I tell others, the thoughts are my own. All the AI does for me is act as my professional writer. I want to be as clear and concise as I can. So I ask the AI to write my thoughts using correct grammar and spelling.

I think we would have a better discussion if you responded to and engaged with the ideas I present.

Sometimes the AI is wrong. Remember, the AI is simply repeating what it learned from published commentaries, which are written by human beings. Therefore, since commentaries can be wrong, sometimes AI is wrong. And your AI is wrong about 1 Corinthians 14. I will respond to this post using my own wording.


The commentators and the AI are wrong because they fail to understand Paul's statements in context. Paul's purpose in writing 1 Corinthians 14 is to teach the Corinthians how to distinguish true from false tongues.

Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14:2—“the one who speaks in a tongue…no one understands”—is not his endorsement of a private, heavenly prayer language but his diagnosis of the Corinthian problem. He deliberately takes *their* use of the term “tongue” as they practiced it and shows why it fails the biblical standard: it produces speech with no intelligible content. In Acts and in Paul’s theology, the genuine gift of speaking in tongues is real communication that can be understood, translated, and edifies the church. The Corinthian version, however, was glossolalia—ecstatic, content‑less utterance—and Paul exposes its emptiness by pointing out that “no one understands.” Many Christians misread Paul here because they assume he is describing the authentic gift, when in fact he is critiquing the Corinthian counterfeit to redirect them toward intelligible, Spirit‑given speech.


Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 14:14–15 hinges on a hypothetical: “For if I pray in a tongue…” He is not describing his own practice but exposing the emptiness of the Corinthian version of tongues. In their glossolalic style of prayer, the speaker’s spirit may feel active, but the mind produces nothing—no meaning, no content, no edification. Paul immediately contrasts that hypothetical with what he actually does: “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the mind also.” His point is that true spiritual speech—true speaking in tongues—always engages both spirit and mind because it is real linguistic communication. Praying “with the spirit only” corresponds to glossolalia, which is precisely what Paul rejects. Praying and singing with both spirit and mind is the authentic pattern of Christian worship and the only form of speech that qualifies as genuine, intelligible tongues.



I reject the notion that the Spiritual gift of interpretation is a natural ability. I never said it was. I maintain that the Spiritual gift of interpretation is NEVER used to interpret the Spiritual gift of tongues. The TRUE gift of tongues is intelligible speech.

I was just making a point. But I have to say you are too funny. When you use AI it gives correct information. When I do it's wrong.

I do wonder, however, has God ever manifested either the Spiritual gift of tongues or interpretation through you?

 

[Roger316]

I was just making a point. But I have to say you are too funny. When you use AI it gives correct information. When I do it's wrong.

I do wonder, however, has God ever manifested either the Spiritual gift of tongues or interpretation through you?

You misunderstood what I said. We are not comparing what our AI's teach about 1 Corinthians 14. I didn't ask Bing AI what Paul meant. I do my own study and draw my own conclusions.

I gave you good reasons in support of my position on Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 12-14. My position agrees with Acts 2 and how Paul communicates with the Corinthian church.

At this point I should say something in regard to personal experience since you asked about it. Personal experience is not an infallible confirmation of our interpretation of Biblical passages. We must be cautious to understand our experience in the light of God's word. Paul's letters are holy scripture and we should allow Paul to guide us through our Christian walk.

As for my personal experience I will say this. When I first became a Christian I thought I spoke in tongues but I can't say for sure. Now that I know what it is, I doubt it. But that is not to say that the Holy Spirit has left me alone. Quite the opposite. I see the Holy Spirit's influence every time I come to understand a Bible passage, understand the meaning of a Greek word, or gain insight into the meaning and significance of Jesus Christ. I have learned that chasing the ecstatic experience is a fool's errand.

Finally, as we grow in Christian maturity, certain truths become stable and steady guideposts, God doesn't need me. Charismatics often say that God needs a willing vessel to do his work. In fact, he doesn't need anything. He can make the stones cry out. Charismatics also say that God will give me spiritual gifts if only I would ask. But we find out that God already knows what we need and he gives generously. God would rather have my church pray for each other, help each other with resources, act patiently, kindly, and respectfully toward each other than speak in tongues or prophesy the future.

 

[Wansvic]

You misunderstood what I said. We are not comparing what our AI's teach about 1 Corinthians 14. I didn't ask Bing AI what Paul meant. I do my own study and draw my own conclusions.

I gave you good reasons in support of my position on Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 12-14. My position agrees with Acts 2 and how Paul communicates with the Corinthian church.

At this point I should say something in regard to personal experience since you asked about it. Personal experience is not an infallible confirmation of our interpretation of Biblical passages. We must be cautious to understand our experience in the light of God's word. Paul's letters are holy scripture and we should allow Paul to guide us through our Christian walk.

As for my personal experience I will say this. When I first became a Christian I thought I spoke in tongues but I can't say for sure. Now that I know what it is, I doubt it. But that is not to say that the Holy Spirit has left me alone. Quite the opposite. I see the Holy Spirit's influence every time I come to understand a Bible passage, understand the meaning of a Greek word, or gain insight into the meaning and significance of Jesus Christ. I have learned that chasing the ecstatic experience is a fool's errand.

Finally, as we grow in Christian maturity, certain truths become stable and steady guideposts, God doesn't need me. Charismatics often say that God needs a willing vessel to do his work. In fact, he doesn't need anything. He can make the stones cry out. Charismatics also say that God will give me spiritual gifts if only I would ask. But we find out that God already knows what we need and he gives generously. God would rather have my church pray for each other, help each other with resources, act patiently, kindly, and respectfully toward each other than speak in tongues or prophesy the future.

Thank you for responding.

It is obvious that our understanding of Scripture differs. I also agree that personal experience, by itself, is not infallible confirmation of truth. However, faith is strengthened when Scripture and experience consistently align over time. Paul's teaching concerning the spiritual gifts confirms what I have witnessed throughout more than 40 years of serving God.

I also agree that God does not need us. However, I believe you're missing an important point: while God is completely self-sufficient, He has chosen to work through people to reveal His power, His glory, and His purposes.

Throughout Scripture, God repeatedly uses willing individuals as instruments of His work. He preached through human voices, healed through human hands, spoke through prophets, and distributed spiritual gifts through members of the body of Christ. None of this is because He is dependent upon us, but because He has ordained that His power would be manifested through those who yield themselves to Him. As Paul wrote, "we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us" (2 Corinthians 4:7).

So the issue is not whether God needs people, but that He has chosen to use them to reveal His power and majesty for His glory.

Regarding your statement that God would rather have the church pray for one another, help one another with resources, and treat one another with patience, kindness, and respect than speak in tongues or prophesy, I wholeheartedly agree that those qualities are essential. They are the fruit of a life surrendered to Christ. However, I don't believe Scripture presents this as an either/or choice. Paul certainly elevated love above every spiritual gift in 1 Corinthians 13, but in the very next chapter he instructed believers to "follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather (especially) that ye may prophesy" (1 Corinthians 14:1). He also concluded by saying, "forbid not to speak with tongues" (1 Corinthians 14:39).

The point Paul makes is not that love replaces the gifts or that the gifts replace love. Rather, both are necessary. Love governs the use of the gifts, and the gifts edify the body when exercised according to God's order. A church that truly reflects the New Testament will be characterized by both Christlike love and the genuine operation of the Holy Spirit. We should never have to choose between the fruit of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit, because the same Spirit produces both.

 

[Roger316]

Thank you for responding.

It is obvious that our understanding of Scripture differs. I also agree that personal experience, by itself, is not infallible confirmation of truth. However, faith is strengthened when Scripture and experience consistently align over time. Paul's teaching concerning the spiritual gifts confirms what I have witnessed throughout more than 40 years of serving God.

I also agree that God does not need us. However, I believe you're missing an important point: while God is completely self-sufficient, He has chosen to work through people to reveal His power, His glory, and His purposes.

Throughout Scripture, God repeatedly uses willing individuals as instruments of His work. He preached through human voices, healed through human hands, spoke through prophets, and distributed spiritual gifts through members of the body of Christ. None of this is because He is dependent upon us, but because He has ordained that His power would be manifested through those who yield themselves to Him. As Paul wrote, "we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us" (2 Corinthians 4:7).

So the issue is not whether God needs people, but that He has chosen to use them to reveal His power and majesty for His glory.

Regarding your statement that God would rather have the church pray for one another, help one another with resources, and treat one another with patience, kindness, and respect than speak in tongues or prophesy, I wholeheartedly agree that those qualities are essential. They are the fruit of a life surrendered to Christ. However, I don't believe Scripture presents this as an either/or choice. Paul certainly elevated love above every spiritual gift in 1 Corinthians 13, but in the very next chapter he instructed believers to "follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather (especially) that ye may prophesy" (1 Corinthians 14:1). He also concluded by saying, "forbid not to speak with tongues" (1 Corinthians 14:39).

The point Paul makes is not that love replaces the gifts or that the gifts replace love. Rather, both are necessary. Love governs the use of the gifts, and the gifts edify the body when exercised according to God's order. A church that truly reflects the New Testament will be characterized by both Christlike love and the genuine operation of the Holy Spirit. We should never have to choose between the fruit of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit, because the same Spirit produces both.

I understand your point of view, and we certainly have far more common ground than disagreement. You mentioned your forty years of serving the Lord, and naturally the next step would be to explore your experience. But experience—especially spiritual experience—is something I cannot and should not cross‑examine. Once someone’s experience becomes its own authentication, there’s no fair or fruitful way to evaluate it from the outside. So forgive me for bowing out at this point. I’ve appreciated the exchange, and I’m grateful for the clarity it brought to the Scriptures we both hold dear.

 

[Wansvic]

I understand your point of view, and we certainly have far more common ground than disagreement. You mentioned your forty years of serving the Lord, and naturally the next step would be to explore your experience. But experience—especially spiritual experience—is something I cannot and should not cross‑examine. Once someone’s experience becomes its own authentication, there’s no fair or fruitful way to evaluate it from the outside. So forgive me for bowing out at this point. I’ve appreciated the exchange, and I’m grateful for the clarity it brought to the Scriptures we both hold dear.

I too, appreciated the cordial discussion.

 

[LTL]

I too, appreciated the cordial discussion.

It is okay to hold hands now.

 

[presidente]

That isn't true. He didn't say that he prays and sings in tongues. He is arguing that if he did that, his mind would be unfruitful.

This is not true either. The gift of interpretation is not meant to interpret the gift of tongues.

Of course not, because the gift of tongues is in the ear of the listener, not in the mouth of the speaker.

A lot of people speak in an unknown tongue. Spanish people speak Spanish; French people speak French, and if they did so at my church, their language would be unknown to most of them. It doesn't mean they are speaking by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Again, the man speaking should pray that HE interpret.

Acts 2

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.
(NKJV)

Look at what it says here. It says they were speaking in tongues in verse 4...that they were speaking, not that others merely heard or perceived them speaking something they weren't speaking.

And then in verse 6, it says everyone heard them speak in his own language... not that they spoke one language and everyone heard some other different language that they weren't speaking.

 

[Wansvic]

It is okay to hold hands now.

We are supposed to love one another. It should be a good example for people, not something to ridicule.

 

[LTL]

We are supposed to love one another. It should be a good example for people, not something to ridicule.

Just joking with you. Not in a bad way.

 

[Roger316]

Acts 2

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.
(NKJV)

Look at what it says here. It says they were speaking in tongues in verse 4...that they were speaking, not that others merely heard or perceived them speaking something they weren't speaking.

And then in verse 6, it says everyone heard them speak in his own language... not that they spoke one language and everyone heard some other different language that they weren't speaking.

Why were the multitudes confused?

 

[presidente]

Why were the multitudes confused?

They marveled at Galileans speaking their languages and dialects.

 

[Roger316]

They marveled at Galileans speaking their languages and dialects.

I really don't see what is amazing about someone speaking another person's language. Is that so incredible? Isn't it more incredible if Peter spoke normally, while the crowd each heard their own language all at the same time?

 

[presidente]

I really don't see what is amazing about someone speaking another person's language. Is that so incredible? Isn't it more incredible if Peter spoke normally, while the crowd each heard their own language all at the same time?

That doesn't even match the account in the passage.

And they were amazed that they heard Galileans speaking in their dialects, and mentioned they were from Galilee. This was before Peter preached to them. It doesn't say they were amazed at any linguistic aspect of Peter's preaching. It doesn't say that he preached 'in tongues.' He may have preached in Aramaic, Greek, or even Hebrew.

 

[Inquisitor]

Give us scripture. Because it's also written in the NT, "That though I speak in tongues of angels." and yet another one, some are given the gifts of tongues, while others are given the gift of interpretation, but there are different gifts. And that not everyone will have both. But show me the scriptures so I can see it.

The gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit are the Lord's commandment.

On Church Order (1 Corinthians 14:37): Paul concludes his instructions on orderly worship and the use of spiritual gifts
by stating, "If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am
writing to you is the Lord’s command".

1 Corinthians 14:39
Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:1
Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.

The vast majority of Christian churches reject the gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit.

AI gives a reasonable summary of the different types of tongues in the N.T.

In the New Testament, "tongues" generally appear in four primary operations: the proof tongue (known human languages),
the personal tongue (private prayer languages or mysteries to God), and the prophetic tongue (corporate messages requiring interpretation for the church assembly). [1, 2, 3, 4]

Here are the specific types and expressions of tongues found in the New Testament:

1. The Proof Tongue (Foreign/Human Languages)

• Scripture: Acts 2:4–11
• Details: On the Day of Pentecost, the disciples spoke in languages they had never learned. The diverse crowd of
• foreigners miraculously understood them declaring the "mighty works of God" in their own native tongues.
• This served as a supernatural sign. [1, 2, 3]

2. The Personal Tongue (Prayer Language & Mysteries)

• Scripture: 1 Corinthians 14:2, 14:4, 14:14
• Details: Paul describes a private prayer language used to edify oneself. When an individual speaks in this type of tongue,
• they are speaking mysteries directly to God rather than to other people. [1, 2]

3. The Prophetic Tongue (Corporate Tongues)

• Scripture: 1 Corinthians 14:26–28
• Details: Used within a corporate church gathering, this expression functions as a prophetic message to the congregation.
• Paul instructs that this type of tongue must be followed by an interpretation so that the entire church body can be edified.
• If there is no interpreter, the speaker must remain silent in the church and speak only to God privately. [1, 2, 3]

4. Tongues of Angels

• Scripture: 1 Corinthians 13:1
• Details: Paul uses this phrase metaphorically or hyper-dimensionally ("Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels...") to illustrate that spiritual gifts are meaningless without love. [1, 2, 3]

End AI.

This is a very tough subject for nearly every Christian to address.

Will I obey the Lord's commandment or will I follow church tradition?

 

[Roger316]

That doesn't even match the account in the passage.

And they were amazed that they heard Galileans speaking in their dialects, and mentioned they were from Galilee. This was before Peter preached to them. It doesn't say they were amazed at any linguistic aspect of Peter's preaching. It doesn't say that he preached 'in tongues.' He may have preached in Aramaic, Greek, or even Hebrew.

Really? Were they amazed to hear Galileans speaking in their dialects? What is so amazing about that? I've heard plenty of foreigners speaking English. I'm never amazed about that. Why would I be?

Suppose you were at a dinner party and you walked up to a group of people and they were all speaking your language. Would you be impressed? I don't see why? It wouldn't cross your mind that they might be from somewhere else.

Suppose you were on vacation in a foreign country and you heard a street preacher speaking in your language, would you be amazed? I'm not sure, maybe you would, but I wouldn't.

Now suppose that the tourist next to you said, "His French was pretty good." You might say, "What do you mean? He was speaking in English."

 

[presidente]

Really? Were they amazed to hear Galileans speaking in their dialects? What is so amazing about that? I've heard plenty of foreigners speaking English. I'm never amazed about that. Why would I be?

Suppose you were at a dinner party and you walked up to a group of people and they were all speaking your language. Would you be impressed? I don't see why? It wouldn't cross your mind that they might be from somewhere else.

When any foreigner speaks English, I am not generally amazed. But when foreigners speak Indonesian, even in Indonesian, Indonesians are amazed. I don't remember if I guessed or if something tipped me off, but I asked an Indonesian working in a Chinese restaurant in a small mountain town in the US about the shrimp in Indonesian. He answered me at first in Indonesian. A second or two into it, he said in Indonesian, "Woah! You speak Indonesian!"
There are those who say that Galileans were considered to be country bumpkins, also.


Again, the passage says they said them heard them speaking in their languages, not that they heard them speaking in a language they were not speaking.

[/QUOTE]