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

First, you seem to be rejecting God's Word, which identifies angelic language as one type of speaking in tongues.
Second, since you don't speak "angel," you beg the question of whether glossolalia sometimes expresses angelic speech.
Third, most of the time Pentecostal churches lack the members with muli-lingual expertise sufficient to identify human languages among the various "tongues."
Fourth, you have no idea whether modern speaking in tongues is any different than the eruption of uninterpreted and unknown tongues in Cornelius's house (Acts 10:44-47) and at Ephesus (19:5-6).
And, fifth, I have already expressed my discernment that about 90% of modern glossolalia is of the flesh. It is the genuine 10% that is so edifying and life-changing. But, as a non-Pentecostal, you lack the discernment to separate the genuine from the spurious.

Speaking in tongues is a controversial subject largely, I think, because of its widespread counterfeit manifestations sparked by modern short attention spans and the resulting need for instant gratification, which in turn leads to an unconscious attitude that the Holy Spirit must jump when we crack our whip! This thread will begin with a focus on the powerful spiritual impact of the authentic gift.

(1) To that end, I will first post a video on one of the most impactful revivals of all time, the Azusa Street revival that began in 1908, which has ultimately led to the conversion of 600 million Pentecostal and Charismatic converts globally or 1/4 of the world's Christian population!.

William Seymour was the central figure in that revival. He was the son of a Black slave and had been fired in his first pastorate within a week. That failure led to a heroic prayer vigil that ignited the revival, making William Seymour the most spiritually influential Black Christian who ever lived. Yet in my first 21 years in a Pentecostal church, I had never heard of Seymour! Unwitting racist attitudes seem to be the reason why few Pentecostals had heard of Seymour until recent decades. Seymour and his core group of African Americans sparked that revival, only to be forgotten in the aftermath as white leadership took over most of the fledgling Pentecostal movement. Here, then is the documentary on Seymour's role in the Azusa Street Revival:

azusa street revival documenary - Bing video

In subsequent posts, I will share (2) my own experience of Spirit baptism and then (3) my experience-based perspective on the best way to receive the gift of speaking in tongues. (4) Only then will I embark on a detailed defense of the need to strive for spiritual gifts, including speaking in tongues. This defense will include a discussion of the role this gift is intended in the private devotional life of believers and a refutation of common counter-arguments.

garee: "I think because tongues, which is simply the word of God's prophecy is used to convert one's soul one at a time as in a personal work of God ."
(1) No, tongues is not normally "the word of God's prophecy." The tongues in Acts 2 is the exception because they expressed the languages of the spectators and in that sense could be deemed prophesying (2:11, 17). The other cases of tongues in Acts are neither understood nor interpreted and therefore can't be presumed to be human languages.

(2) You forget that there are "various types of tongues (1 Corinthians 12:10), one of which is a message in tongues for the corporate body, which must be interpreted (14:13).
The first type is a message in tongues for the church, which must be interpreted (14:13, etc.).
The 2nd type is praying in tongues (14:14-15), which is addressed to God, not the congregation, and must be reserved for private devotions (14:4, 28).

to your 1. Point. How then Peter can witness to the jews in jerusalem if he did not know what happend with Cornelius and his house? If they spoke in any not human language.
Peter was witness of acts 2 and could say that acts 10 was the same. Otherwise he could not say this.

(1) First, there is not a shred of evidence that the eruption of tongues in either Cornelius's house or at Ephesus was either understood or interpreted. So as in the case of most modern glossolalia, we have no idea whether those 2nd and 3rd eruptions of tongues expressed human languages.
(2) Second, for that very reason Peter's linkage of the tongues in Acts 2 and with that in Cornelius's house need mean no more than the simple fact that in both cases a manifestation of glossolalia occurred.
(3) Third, whereas Peter identifies the tongues of Acts 2 as prophesying, Luke carefully distinguishes the tongues at Ephesus from the prophesying that also erupted there, thus further confirming that the Ephesian outburst of tongues was neither understood nor interpreted. Indeed, Paul carefully distinguishes the gift of prophecy from the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14.

To your First point. Why you then presumed that Acts 10 and 19 where not human Language, if their is no evidence was it was?
So its an assumption from your Side. But not an knowing what it was.

To your First point. Why you then presumed that Acts 10 and 19 where not human Language, if their is no evidence was it was?
So its an assumption from your Side. But not an knowing what it was.

First, there is no mention anywhere in Acts that anyone interpreted any message in tongues.
Second, Luke distinguishes the Ephesian glossolalia from the prophesying there. That suggests that the glossolalia was understood neither by the ecstatic speakers nor by the ers present. On the other hand, Luke identifies the glossolalia at Pentecost as prophesying, obviously because it was comprehensible as languages familiar to the spectabible

Third, Luke tells us that the glossolalia in Acts 2 was understood by the spectators. So the burden of proof lies with those who claim that the tongues spoken in Cornelius's house and at Ephesus were either comprehensible as human languages or interpreted. Absent that, there is no more reason to construe those instances as human languages than there is for modern uninterpreted tongues.

to your 1. Point. How then Peter can witness to the jews in jerusalem if he did not know what happend with Cornelius and his house? If they spoke in any not human language.
Peter was witness of acts 2 and could say that acts 10 was the same. Otherwise he could not say this.

In response to Post #50 -

Despite modern tongues being non-cognitive, non-language utterance and particularly given that there are no known provable cases of xenoglossy, the Pentecostal/Charismatic community is rife with examples of ‘tongues’ coming out as real, rational language(s).

The all to common ‘standard’ seems to be Hebrew/Aramaic – the tale told is virtually the same in every instance: an individual (usually a preacher) starts to speak in tongues. Very conveniently in the crowd there always seems to be this one random Jewish guy (or lady) who, of course, recognizes the ‘tongue’ as Hebrew/Aramaic and comments to the pastor afterwards, the pastor having, of course, no clue he was speaking in said language.

As the saying goes, if I had a dollar for every version and variation of this story I have heard…...

The ‘story’ is problematic and rather dubious on several levels: Why a person of the Jewish faith (presumably a practicing Jew) would be found attending a Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian meeting/service in the first place just begs a slew of questions. Most practicing Jews, unless from Israel, typically only have a cursory knowledge of (Biblical) Hebrew and even less Aramaic.

Hebrew and Aramaic are only used in prayers which are usually learned by rote; the same way pre-Vatican II Catholics learned common prayers in Latin. Many Jews I personally know can read Hebrew (they learnt to do so for their bar/bat mitzvahs) but have no clue what they’re actually reading/saying.

These “tongues being realized as Hebrew/Aramaic” stories are frankly, rather sketchy at best. As one of the foremost Aramaic Scholars and Linguists, Steve Caruso, describes it, “I also submit as evidence of oddness the fact that over the 15 years that I was translating Aramaic as my primary profession, over a hundred folks of Pentecostal persuasion came to me to translate their "tongues" because they were told "by the Spirit" (directly or through others, including pastors) that they were Aramaic.

Every case but one was not.

The one that was, I translated from English the year prior and someone was being deceptive with it.

That rather large sample and outcomes -- along with how most "tongues" are completely anemic -- to me, is fairly conclusive.”

Such examples have to be almost be automatically dispensed with as perpetuating what has become nothing more than urban legend.

With respect to tongues coming out as other languages, it is interesting to note that it always seems to be some more obscure, lesser known (or better put, more unverifiable by multiple speakers) language; it is never a more common language like German, French, or Spanish (though there have been a few cases of Spanish reported).

In all such cases, the evidence is anecdotal at best - if such claims are to ever be taken seriously, they need to be considerably more well documented than what amounts to just hearsay as this just serves to hype up the validity of tongues, but I’m not sure the nature of glossolalia/xenoglossia would allow for a controlled study as the speaker would need to produce the language more or less on the spot.

“Acts records 4 cases in which believers receive the Holy Spirit. In 3 of the 4 cases, speaking tongues is cited as the initial evidence for receiving the Spirit.”

I would disagree – they are examples of people, when receiving the Holy Spirit, are simply reacting in their native languages – unknown to those listening/hearing (as with the home of Cornelius and the group in Ephesus), but the native language of those speaking. Though Greek was the “English” of its day, when people initially react to something spontaneously, it’s always in their native language; never their second language (in this case said second language being the common lingua franca – Greek).

When it comes to something spoken, there are no references to ‘tongues’ in the Bible that do not refer to real, rational language(s). It’s just not there.

In regards to speaking in tongues, I will never forget when my friend (who previously attended an Assemblies of God church) went to a Bible study at his Pastor's house once a week and sometimes the Pastor would speak in tongues during their Bible study. My friend worked with a woman who was a Baptist and was terrified of being around people who spoke in tongues, yet my friend convinced her to come to the Bible study to see for herself that she has nothing to fear. When his lady friend showed up at the Bible study, as soon as she walked in the door, the Pastor began speaking in tongues very loudly with his hands high in the air, then he fell backwards to the floor! My friend said that even he was freaked out by the incident and when he turned around, his lady friend was running for the hills!

do you forget Peter's tendency to back down from the truth because of fear and a desire for the respect of others?

he denied Christ 3'x, was restored by Christ Himself, was given a vision that nothing was unclean any longer....meaning ACCEPT the Gentile conversions BUT still had to be reprimanded by Paul when he attempted to instruct Gentile converts to physical cutting of the flesh when what God desires is a circumcision of the HEART

that is the only organ that matters and that is something no physical instrument can accomplish

let's incorporate ALL of scripture into our understanding rather than just the parts that support what we think might be true

it is quite eye opening and that is one of the purposes of the Holy Spirit ... to open our understanding, which needs to be spiritual and not flesh. the flesh is AGAINST what the spirit reveals

Wolfwint: "To 2. In acts 10 (peter and the jews) and in acts 19 they (Paul and others) could understand what they sayed in tongues. In acts 10 it was praising God. (How could they know this if they dont understand) and in acts 19 prophecying ( it was understandable. How else they could now it is prophecy?)"

"They heard them speaking in tongues and (Greek: "kai") praising God (Acts (10:46)."
The text does NOT say that they praised God through speaking in tongues; it says that they did 2 distinct acts--speaking in tongues and praising God

"They (12) spoke in tongues and (Greek: "kai") prophesied." .
The text does not say that they prophesied by speaking in tongues; it says they did 2 distinct acts--speaking in tongues and prophesying. Paul carefully distinguishes speaking in tongues from prophecy. Ernst Haencken expresses the scholarly consensus in his great commentary on Acts: "There is no question of "foreign languages" here (in 10:46); as in 19:6 only ecstatic utterance is in mind (p. 354).

Wolfwint: "To 3: whats are modern tongues? I cant find this term in the bible."
Thanks for nicely teeing up my next planned post which will detail why cessationism is a heresy and why we are meant to speak in tongues today.

In regards to speaking in tongues, I will never forget when my friend (who previously attended an Assemblies of God church) went to a Bible study at his Pastor's house once a week and sometimes the Pastor would speak in tongues during their Bible study. My friend worked with a woman who was a Baptist and was terrified of being around people who spoke in tongues, yet my friend convinced her to come to the Bible study to see for herself that she has nothing to fear. When his lady friend showed up at the Bible study, as soon as she walked in the door, the Pastor began speaking in tongues very loudly with his hands high in the air, then he fell backwards to the floor! My friend said that even he was freaked out by the incident and when he turned around, his lady friend was running for the hills!