Tongues???

Fredoheaven,

I am not sure exactly what your stance is from that last post. I believe that the type of speaking in tongues Paul is referring to in the passage is not naturally understood by either the speaker or the hearer and requires a supernatural gift of interpretation for what is spoken to be understood. But 'unknown' as added to the KJV of the text to make it readable or more understandable in the opinion of the translators, which is signified by italics, possible because the KVJ translators understood the tongue to be 'unknown' based on clues from the context which we can all read.

I don’t get what you’re trying to say – the word ‘glossolalia’ has only been around since the late 1800’s; it’s a fairly new word and its definition is essentially echoed in the term ‘non-cognitive non-language utterances’. Are you confusing the word with the Greek ‘glossa’ – “language”?

Again, I’m not getting the point - if a person was speaking Tocharian B with and American accent, they’d still be speaking what would be recognized as real language, regardless of accent.

I think you’re misunderstanding – I’m not saying Hebrew was the language of Jerusalem; Hebrew was the ecclesiastical language of Judaism; the language used in the temples and in teaching, etc. On a daily basis, people spoke Aramaic, or in some cases, Greek. It also seems that by the first century, Greek was gaining ground as an acceptable ecclesiastical language for Judaism within the western Diaspora and also a bit in larger cities such as Jerusalem. This use of Greek however does not seem to have been the norm; Hebrew was by far the ‘correct’ language to use.

“I also notice you don't deal in detail with the narrative of Acts 2, particularly with the parts that contradict your theory.” – Not sure what parts those are.

The text quoted re Paul’s use of hyperbole is not mine – I can’t argue all the points; I merrily included it as it gives a more in-depth explanation than I can. Here’s another take on it from a different article:

“Consider a similar use of this figurative expression in the apostle’s letter to the Galatians. He wrote:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8; emphasis added).

The apostle is not suggesting that an angel actually is likely to proclaim a different gospel; the point is one of emphasis. Even if an angel were to preach a different gospel, there would be no validity in it, and he would fall victim to divine wrath.

So similarly, in 1 Corinthians 13:1, Paul is not indicating that some Christians speak an “angelic” (ecstatic) language. Rather, he is merely saying that even if one could ascend to a new height, and communicate on the level of angels, if he did not exercise love by speaking in an understandable fashion, he still would be nothing but a distracting noise. The apostle’s argument does not hint of a mysterious, unintelligible utterance; in fact, it reflects just the opposite.

If it can be established that the term “tongues,” when employed with reference to men, has to do with intelligent communication (and such can be demonstrated), then it must be conceded that the word “tongues,” when used of angels, similarly signifies an understandable language.

In order for the “Pentecostal” view to be valid, there would have to be some compelling contextual evidence to indicate that the term “tongues” is used in two different senses in this passage, and there simply is none.”

Four Hindi words and your post above was three in Portuguese - not sure what your point is.

Where is your evidence? I can point to Edersheim. Greek may have been more common as a liturgical language in synagogues, at least outside of the holy land, maybe almost universally used. Where is the evidence that it was shocking to use Greek in Jerusalem? How did the Romans communicate with the priests? How did the masses of Hellenistic Jewish imigrants communicate?

The parts I quoted, where it says they spoke in other languages, and the part where it says those who came heard them speak in their own languages.

So is your argument that if one reference to angels contained hyperbole, they all most. It's not outside of the realm of possibility that something claiming to be an angel from heaven might preach a false gospel. Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

There are other things in Paul's list that are possible, even if extreme, in I Corinthians 13. If there is no airtight case for saying Paul is speaking of 'impossibilities' why argue for it.

What evidence is there that angels were ecstatic? Why would angelic languages have to be spoken in an ecstatic state any more than human languages?

Calling speaking in tongues 'ecstatic utterances' is typically inaccurate, and not something generally used by Pentecostals in my experience. One need not be in an ecstatic state to speak in tongues any more than he need to be in such a state to prophesy, preach, or pray in his native language.

Read chapter 14. Paul is dealing with utterances that are mysterious in that others do not understand what is spoken. Paul says, 'he speaks mysteries with his spirit. So yes, he is talking about mysterious languages (in that sense.) The utterance is unintelligible to others, hence the part about barbarians and the parts about the need to interpret the tongues so others will understand.

Intelligent communication is not inherent in the meaning of the word 'language' in English. And it is not inherent in the meaning of the word 'glossa' in Greek.

If someone started speaking to you in Tahitian, and you didn't know the language, you might tell someone about it and say, "I do not know what language he was speaking, but I didn't understand it." Native speakers of English will use the word 'language' in that case even though there was no intelligent communication going on. If you read those Hindi quotes above, didn't know what they said before you typed them into Google, and mentioned them to someone else, you might say, "I want to figure out what language this is. Again, no intelligent communication required, not from the perspective of the speaker or listener necessary. It is enough that the words are used for intelligent communciation by someone for it to be a language. .

I Corinthians 14 deals with language, glossa, tongues spoken by individuals where no communication is going on, but the word glossa is still used.

No, there doesn't. If angels communicate with language, then what they use can be called 'language' whether we understand it or not. The same applies to human languages that we do not know.

Btw, what do you think the Pentecostal view is? I'd say the Pentecostal view is 'real languages', since that is the historical Pentecostal view. It seems to be the view of the A/G, the largest Pentecostal denomiantion, as well, given the number of testimonies recorded of people who understood speaking in tongues on the mission field (e.g. as source material for 'Spoken by the Spirit' by Paul Harris, or in Charles Greenoways sermons in the 1980s.)

Hmmm, they looked like gibberish to me. Just typing out whatever my tongue was inscribing on the air. Since you can interpret, interpret for me if it pleases you.

Here are a few links to articles by Zerhusen with respect to diglossia and the ‘problem languages’ of Corinth.

A New Look At Tongues | Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

The Problem of Tongues in I Corinthians 14 | Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

Kavik,

I started reading through the first paper, then skimming. I've been on an international trip and didn't have time to really read it. I am wondering if I am going to read it or not.

The problem with the theory he's promoting is that it just flat out contradicts the text. Pointing out that the passage that refers to the crowds who understood speaking in tongues did not list languages but only the regions in which the languages they heard were spoken, and trying to spin that into some kind of argument that the disciples weren't actually speaking these languages. That foundation is so flawed, building a paper with tons of quotes from theological and other journals isn't going to fix the flawed premise.

There is a reason this interpretation is not a historical interpretation of the passage. Can you help me out? Does the author offer us any evidence at all for his 'diglossia' theory? Does he present some historical documentation that either it was forbidden to speak in Greek or other languages in the streets of Jerusalem?

His theory runs contrary to what I have read of the era, that there was a form of Judaism we know as Hellenistic Judaism. They read the Torah in the Septuagint (LXX), Greek translation, which they considered to be inspired by God, translated the same independently by 70 elders working independently. There were early Christians who inherited this view of that translation as well. The Hellenistic Jews discussed and debated the LXX in their synagogues, treating the Greek like the Judaistic Jews treated the Hebrew text, making doctrinal points out of the slightest detail of the translation.

It would seem possible that many these Hellenistic Jews never even spoke Hebrew, and conducted their church services and prayers in Greek.

From Alfred Edersheim's Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. <https://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes.txt>
"More probably, however, the former would be the case, since
both Hebrew manuscripts, and persons qualified to read them, would be
difficult to procure. At any rate, we know that the Greek Scriptures
were authoritatively acknowledged in Palestine, [129] and that the
ordinary daily prayers might be said in Greek. [130]"



And since there was at least one Hellenistic synagogue in Jerusalem, probably more, it would seem Greek-speaking Jews were tolerated in the holy city. And if everyone had to speak Hebrew or Aramaic in the city, why would there be a distinction between the Hellenistic Jewish widows and other widows in Jerusalem in Acts? The Hellenistic Jews comprised a distinct group. No doubt this was associated by their use of the Greek, 'Hellenistic' language.

Does he present any evidence at all for a ban on languages other than Hebrew or Hebrew and Aramaic in the city? Is there a reference to a decree from the Sanhedrin or the high priests? What is the evidence? If we want to jump to such a bizzare and unhistorical interpretation that the passage about those present from various regions hearing the apostles speak in the languages where they were born just means speaking in Greek and or Latin or Aramaic, languages the apostles presumably knew, wouldn't we have some strong evidence to for it?

I've spent many years in Indonesia. Indonesia has a linga franca, Indonesian. I have met people who lived in different regions who knew the language of that region even though they weren't from the people-group associated with that region. I know a half Chinese, part Java-Sunda woman who speaks Padang and Batak, in addition to whatever else she speaks. Padang people can speak Indonesian, but she picked up the regional dialect. She lives in a city, too.

The first article argues that the Jews lived in Greek cities and wouldn't have known these dialects. The second article argues how widespread foreign languages would have been in Corinth, because it is a port city, a Greek city in the heart of Greece, surrounded by Greek-speaking regions. This seems somewhat contradictory. If Corinth, right in Greek, would have had foreign languages, how much more Greek cities in the middle of areas where other languages were spoken. There is also the possibility that Hellenistic synagogues would have had husbands married to local women who converted to Judaism, and taught their kids the local dialect. There were also proselytes. And some Jewish communities had been there for hundreds of years.

The theory seems to be written from the perspective of someone who lived in a monolingual environment, who doesn't realize that people who live in multi-lingual environments may learn multiple languages to some extent. Why would merely 'diglossia' be the case with Jews from Jewish communities? Where is the evidence that any of these Hellensitic Jews performed prayers in Hebrew? This is before Judaistic Pharisees took over the religion, before the temple was destroyed? The Torah readings, from what I've read, in these synagogues were in Greek. It is unclear if Hebrew played a role.

We can't assume the situation was the same in every synagogue. There could have been all-Greek liturgies, but from what I've read, they may not have been that uniform. And Jews from one city might have known the local dialect while Jews in another city spoke one Greek, or only Greek and Hebrew.

Hebrew was also apparently in a living language in places outside of Jerusalem, where it was a studied holy language. Some Hellenistic Jews may have had little idea of what was being said in the temple. They may have gotten along in Greek in town. They apparently had at least one Greek synagogue to go to, possibly more.

Stephen may have been a Hellenistic Jew, chosen with other Hellenistic Jews and a proselyte, to feed widows fairly without excluding the Hellenistic Jewish ones. The Synagogue of the Libertines whose members he debated with could have been a synagoague full of Greek-speakers. It's a likely scenario.

There is also good evidence right in the Bible that many Jews of the Dispersion could speak local languages besides Greek:

Acts 2
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

Trying to argue they didn't speak multiple languages is quite frankly a ridiculous interpretation.

Saying there were more regions than apostles is also not a valid argument, since one person can conceivably offer utterances in more than one language, and there were actually 120 people in the upper room, not just 12.

Presidente Hi!

I think what I am dealing with is the italicized word “unknown” and how are they important. They are words of God in English text. Yes, they were SUPPLIED as they fit the meaning of the context. The demonstration of removing italics in the passage as an example is truly unnecessary and they are there for clarity and readability. Here are my reasons why we need the italicized word “unknown” or any other italicized words in the KJV.

1. For one thing, you cannot always translate one language to another language literally or word for word. “ Para sa isa bagay, mo di-maari palagi isalin isa wika sa isa pa wika ng literal o salita sa salita.” Now this is an example of a literal translation that makes no sense, indeed this is a bad translation from English to Tagalog of my point No.1. Here I think is a good translation:
“Sa isang bagay, hindi mo maaaring palaging isalin ang isang wika sa ibang wika sa pamamagitan ng literal o di kaya’y sa salitang ayon sa kanyang pagkasunod-sunod.”

2. Without the italicized word, the Bible would have contradicted itself. As an example of this is’ Who killed Goliath?” Without the italicized word “brother” would contradict who killed Goliath either David or Elhannan. (See I Samuel 17 cp. 2 Sam. 21:19)

3. Of course italicized words were not a mere opinion but rather precision of translation. I don’t think the KJ translators are to be taken lightly. As far as their ability as bible translator is concerned, I bet no one in today’s bible scholars or bible linguist be able to equate or surpass them. Some may hold the degree knowing 7 languages or say 10 languages and that’s outstanding but imagine, Lancelot Andrewes, one of the KJ Translators has at least mastered 15 languages during his lifetime. As he worked towards his Bachelor’s Degree (B.D,), he learned Arabic, Aramaic(Chaldee) and Syriac.

King James Bible Translators

So if the italicized word unknown is to be believed as words of God in the English text, then we can properly distinguished or understand what Paul is saying to the Corinthian believers.

God bless…

fredoheaven,

Are you a KJVonlyist?

Most of those 15 languages would probably not be very relevant in translating the KJV.

I don't know Tagalog, so I don't get your point. You could try and example from Indonesian or Malaysian or Spanish if it isn't too complicated, and maybe I'd get that.

presidente,

I am a Bible believer.

I am just simply about to report the credibility of one of the KJ translators as read online.

Forget Tagalog just giving a simple illustration of translating my first point into literal or word for word which is indeed not a sound translation. Similar fashion, we cannot translate Gk into English literal or word for word.

Phenomenally busy work week – will try and post a reply in the next week or so as time allows.

I still think there’s some confusion – the use of Hebrew did not apply to Jerusalem in general, it was limited to ecclesiastical usage (the language of the temple, teaching, prophesy, etc., etc.). There were likely certain sects or classes of individuals who would have still used Hebrew to converse with one another on a daily basis, but such usage was limited and not widespread.

The argument is not that people in Jerusalem were only allowed to speak Hebrew or that the visiting Jews from the Diaspora could not speak the local language of where they were from, but rather that Hebrew was the language of the temple, teaching, education, and prophesying. There were indeed places where Greek was just as accepted as Hebrew and was probably the norm, but the language people were expecting to hear at Shavuot in Jerusalem was Hebrew – the holy language of Judaism.

It’s certainly reasonable to assume that people could speak the local languages of where they were from, but these were not their mother tongues. I’m specifically referring here to the eastern Diaspora – the western Diaspora was virtually all Greek speaking.

Evidence seems to suggest people lived in close knit communities as many immigrants do today and learned the language of where they were living as a second (or even third) language. Aramaic was the language at home, ‘X’ (local vernacular) was the language outside of the home/community.

I agree in that the view presented is hinged upon the concept of ecclesiastical diglossia with Hebrew being the “high” language; the proper and expected language of the temple, etc. by the majority of Jews. I say majority because as previously mentioned, Greek was gaining strong ground as an acceptable alternative.

I am trying to find additional documents which better support the concept of ecclesiastical diglossia in first century Palestine/Judea, but I suspect I’ll find more that deal with Aramaic vs. Greek than I will with Hebrew vs. “all other languages”.

Unfortunately, if we can suppose for a moment that this Hebrew diglossia was the norm and was commonplace and expected, chances are it’s going to be difficult to find anything specifically written about it. It’s somewhat analogous to trying to find contemporary written proof that Jesus spoke’ X’ as his native language; not likely to be found as it was simply common knowledge for the time.

I should add that there are some interesting schools of thought as to why the list in Acts 2 was included and its significance - really nothing at all to do with languages; more political - I'll try and post a few of those as well.

There is some evidence for Hebrew as a living language. I don't know how you could measure how widespread it was. Hebrew languages likely continued to be living languages for 'the people of the land' and some of those from the surrounding nations during the captivity until Ezra returned with a group of Babylonians who rebuilt the walls of the city. Many of the Jews that settled outside the city and spent time with the 'people of the land' may have picked up Hebrew.

I pointed out that Jewish scholars allowed for the prayers to be done in Greek. It is possible many of the Hellenistic Jews read Torah in Greek, debated it in Greek, prayed, and even went to Greek synagogues in Jerusalem. I'm not seeing any evidence for your diglossia theory. And your argument doesn't fit what the text actually says in Acts 2.

We are also talking about people speaking in languages in an upper room, maybe eventually spilling over into the streets, not teaching in the temple.

Read Edersheim. In the synagogues, one might preach in Hebrew, while another translated into Aramaic. Even in the time of Ezra, we see evidence of this. The existence of Targums gives evidence for how they used Aramaic to explain the text. So why would you believe that Hebrew was excluviely used for teaching at this time.

Probably, but they may have known the local languages as well or have been familiar enough with them to recognize them.
The men they called 'rabbis' had rules that allowed for women who married Jewish men to convert to Judaism. Some of them may have taught their children their native language that was spoken where there family lived. There is no reason to think Jews would all not have known the local language.

Is there any evidence for the western diaspora speaking Aramaic at home?

If you haven't encountered evidence for the idea that it would be shocking for individuals, outside of the temple, in Jerusalem to speak in other languages by natural means, why believe in the theory in the first place? In Acts 2, the disciples were speaking in other languages. The diaspora were surprised to see Galileans speaking in the languages of the regions where they were born. Your theory doesn't fit the text. Their surprise was at Galileans speaking those languages, not that they spoke Greek or Aramaic rather than Hebrew.


So the theory is based on supposing it is true? It still doesn't fit what the passage says. How about discard the theory, at least as far as this passage is concerned.

Interpreting the Bible is a holy thing. You are interpreting it through the lens of some theory you can't support with evidence which runs contrary to a plain reading of the text and interpretations of the passage throughout history.

What do Jewish scholars have to do with the word of God.?

Jewish scholars through their oral traditions allowed many things that were already in play. God who knows the heart of all men knows the answer before we ask Him.

The language ones speaks does not change the fact that it is God who interprets one language into other languages so that any man can hear the gospel, called prophecy.
A person would first have to define Torah. The Torah can include the use of oral traditions of men as they try and make their thoughts equal to the inspired word of God making it to no effect..We are not to go above that which is written

It shows God miraculously interpreting one language into another and vise versa as to two people having a complete conversation back and forth.

1Co 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.

garee,

I don't think you are following the conversation. I referred to Jewish lawyers from that time period to present evidence for points of history. Kavik's theory doesn't fit your theory either.


Acts 2 doesn't say that. The passage you quote, above, doesn't say that either. If the speakers understood each other supernaturally, why would Paul have written the verse you just quoted? And why would there need to be a gift of interpretation of tongues? The interpretation comes through another individual or else the same individual interpreting using another utterance (v. 13, 28).

If anyone would like to read an even handed book on the gift that is by an Assemblies of God teacher, Donald Gee. Has a few books, but, Concerning Spiritual Gifts and Spiritual Gifts: in the work of the ministry today, are good books to read. They are not a bunch of hype, they are very well written if you're Pentecostal/Charismatic you will love these books, if you're not they will give you insight into how the Azusa Street Revival brought in some good Baptist teachers. Two of which were Guy P. Duffield & Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, who wrote, Foundation of Pentecostal Theology from the Four Square/ Assemblies of God prospective. Then you have J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology it's a newer work than the Duffield & Van Cleave book. Then from a Reformed Charismatic viewpoint there is Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, who's book is used in what's called the New Calvinism. Grudem as books on the gifts and prophecy.

I believe in the gifts for today, where I'm beginning to see how the baptism of the Spirit, being filled with the Spirit and how it's a second encounter with the Spirit. Here's what seems to be why we need the filling, baptism of the Spirit. The Spirit makes us alive, makes us alive so we can see/understand the kingdom or the need for salvation, so we place our faith in Christ. The second act (for leak of a better term) of the Spirit is like our faith after we are born again. That faith takes us through to the end of the regeneration of our bodies, this is how we walk ninth Spirit. At least that where it seems to be taking me.

Other than the Spirit of Christ that lived in Paul, moved Paul?

1Co 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.

Two way conversation.It would be like you speaking in a language that I did not understand .And me speaking to you in a language you have no understanding of . Like the tower of babel , confusion, misunderstanding, no gospel.

So that men could hear prophecy as God interprets it in a language they could understand. Remember it is Christ who works in us to both will and do His good pleasure.

We certainly do not accredit the first part of the gift to Paul as if he was in the place of God .All of his gifts are two fold, as he blesses the one by giving them words of prophecy, the hearing of faith is given to the other. Its always by the faith of Christ that mutually works in two people or two thousand

Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you. Rom 1:10

By the will of God, not Paul’s will... the first part of the gift. It gets the person to place where they can use it or establish it..

For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faithboth of you and me Rom 1:11 .....(the faith of Christ not of Paul or the one that hears the interpretation.)
Yes the interpretation comes through Christ. He alone is accredited with the words of prophecy.

The word unknown was added . It’s not unknown to the speaker.

1Co 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

I see it more like below.

Wherefore let him that speaks in an tongue pray that the one spoken to may interpret, as God works in the person to both will and do His good pleasure therefore giving the understanding..

1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

If the Spirit of Christ does not interpret it he should silent. Can’t convince a person of the gospel if he is not given the understanding from the one who wrote it. Will they not say that the person is mad if they hear babbling?

It was possible for someone to speak in tongues without interpretation. Paul would later instruct the one who spoke in tongues to be silent in the church if there were no interpreter. Why would Paul make the point about the barbarian if it were not possible for someone to speak in tongues without no one else understanding.

The analogy regarding the barbarian is about a conversation that does not take place. When someone teaches or prophesies, does he typically have a 'conversation.' One could teach in a conversational manner, but there is no basis for assuming tongues and interpretation were in the form of some kind of conversation as opposed to addressing the assembly.

The lack of understanding is the reason Paul gives instructions regarding the interpretation of tongues. It is obvious from the passage that speaking in tongues without interpretation is possible. Paul was not opposed to praying in tongues, but in the context of the assembly, it does not edify others.

I do not recall anyone on the thread arguing that the ability to genuinely speak in tongues comes from the person speaking in tongues (though I am not sure about the recent diglossia theory posts.)

The verse you quote below argues against that idea. Paul's understanding was 'unfruitful' if he prayed in tongues.

I speak English and I speak Indonesia. I can interpret using my mundane learned abilities.

But that is not what the verse says. In verse 13, Paul tells the one who speaks in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret. It doesn't say to pray that someone else might interpret. That's allowed in verse 28. But it is not in verse 13.

The interpreter understands, or receives a message whereby he understands what is spoken in tongues. He shares that interpretation with the assembly.

PE News | Holy Spirit Confirms God's Love for Teen

A testimony of teenaged immigrant to North America who hears speaking in tongues in Karen, his native language.

Tongues is the sign of receiving Holy Ghost. So praying in tongues is praying in the Holy Ghost.