problem related to praying in tongues

[VARob]

PART 2

The miracle of language at Pentecost was making the God of the Jews accessible to all people and moreover, not having to do so in one prescribed language; namely, Hebrew, the sacerdotal language of Judaism.

Jewish religious custom and tradition demanded that any teaching, praying, reading, prophesying, etc. done from the temple (where the apostles were) be rendered first in Hebrew, then followed by a translation into the vernacular. There even existed an ecclesiastical office for the individuals who did these translations (called the ‘mertugem’). On Pentecost, the apostles broke this tradition and “began to speak in ‘other’ (i.e. other than Hebrew) languages (Aramaic and Greek), as the Holy Spirit kept giving a bold, authoritative, inspired manner of speaking to them.

The apostles, by help and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did away with this cultural and religious tradition, and addressed the crowd in Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongue of the attendees, instead of the culturally and religiously correct, and expected tradition of Hebrew first, then translations into the vernaculars.

Hebrew was to be exclusively used during “the declaration of first fruits,” which was the sacred liturgy associated with the festival of Shavuot, or Pentecost. In other words, during this particular festival, the crowds would have expected religious services presented in the holy tongue of Hebrew. But what they ended up hearing were powerful messages in “other tongues.”

Doing this from the Temple where they were, broke a slew of cultural and religious taboos. The shock to the crowd was that they did not first hear the expected and culturally correct Hebrew first, then vernaculars. May sound a bit silly nowadays, but at the time, to do such a thing was unthinkable. Further added to the crowd’s reaction was to hear Galileans (the “country bumkins” of their day) speak so boldly, completely inspired, and with such authority.

To suggest, as the apostles did that the God of the Jews was now available to non-Jews and in any language, completely dispensing with Hebrew altogether was tantamount to heresy; hence also part of the crowd's reaction (i.e., they must be ‘drunk’ to dare to do such a thing). Again, sounds a bit ridiculous in today’s times perhaps, but there was a time when many religions had specific sacred languages ‘attached/associated’ with them, and it was heresy to veer from their usage in the prescribed manner.

With regards to the concept of “initial evidence of tongues”, according to the Pentecost narrative, there were around 3,000 people who were baptized that day. If these 3,000 were 'baptized in the Spirit', I would think that at the very least, according to some Pentecostal/Charismatic beliefs, they should have starting “speaking in tongues”. Yet *nothing* of the sort is recorded. Certainly 3,000+ people “speaking in tongues" would at least merit a sentence or two in the narrative, wouldn’t it?

If one argues they were not baptized in the spirit, but only in water, not only would the apostles have been violating a slew of work prohibitions on a high holy day (and would not likely have been allowed to do such a thing), considering one of the main focuses of the day was about being baptized in/receiving the Holy Spirit, that would be a rather anti-climactic ending to the narrative, wouldn’t it?

No xenoglossy, no modern tongues-speech, just real, rational language(s). There was a language miracle at Pentecost provided by the Holy Spirit, no argument there; just not the one most people assume. And of course, again, when the apostles received the Holy Spirit, the only tongues (read ‘languages’) spoken were their own. In short, the gift of languages was not evidenced on Pentecost – it didn’t need to be.

When we put all the above together, we see that in Acts 2, the actual gift being emphasized is the fact that the Holy Spirit has empowered the disciples to _prophesy_ and to boldly proclaim the Word of the Lord, and this is exactly what we find in verse 14. According to the ESV translation, Peter lifted up his voice and _addressed_ them, but perhaps a better translation would be that he lifted up his voice and _prophesied._ We tend to think of prophecy as a kind of foretelling of future events, but in the Hebrew use, it was more often associated with _speaking forth_ the Word of the Lord. I would argue that, if looking for a gift of the Holy Spirit to assign to Pentecost, it would be more the gift of Prophesy than of Languages.

This more correct historical, cultural and linguistic view negates that awkward discrepancy between the real, rational languages of Pentecost and the so-called “prayer language“ of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that tongues-speakers have skated around and explained away by instituting various “types” of “tongues”. There is only one type of “tongues” in the Bible – real rational language(s).

^^^ The analysis of an unbeliever, a self-admitted non-Christian.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

Literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of examples of tongues-speech have been studied and analyzed - not one was ever found to be a real, rational language...living or dead.

CHuckle!!! Then you have your satisfying "proof" don't you??

 

[Kavik]

What would that real rational language be, rationality from any language ?.

It has to be the devine eloquence spoke by angels. Paul referred to the language of tounges being the language of angels.


Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language?

Put your self in this picture your hearing Jewish being spoke.

But recieving understanding in your own language.

In the case of Pentecost - the languages are Greek and Aramaic.

In the Greek, the phrase “in their native language” modifies the verb “speaking” in verse 6, not the verb “hearing.” There was no “miracle of hearing” at Pentecost.

“Tongues of angels” is frequently used as a vehicle to posit ‘angelic speech’. That entire phrase, as well as a few others in that particular part of Paul’s letter, is 100% pure textbook hyperbole no matter how one wishes to slice and dice it. There’s just no getting around that. In all instances of angels speaking, it has always been in a real, rational language. In fact, in traditional Jewish belief, angels can only speak and understand one language; specifically, the sacred/sacerdotal language of Judaism, Hebrew. Paul, being a Jew, would have known this, which lends further support for his intentional use of hyperbole.

 

[Fundaamental]

In the case of Pentecost - the languages are Greek and Aramaic.

In the Greek, the phrase “in their native language” modifies the verb “speaking” in verse 6, not the verb “hearing.” There was no “miracle of hearing” at Pentecost.

“Tongues of angels” is frequently used as a vehicle to posit ‘angelic speech’. That entire phrase, as well as a few others in that particular part of Paul’s letter, is 100% pure textbook hyperbole no matter how one wishes to slice and dice it. There’s just no getting around that. In all instances of angels speaking, it has always been in a real, rational language. In fact, in traditional Jewish belief, angels can only speak and understand one language; specifically, the sacred/sacerdotal language of Judaism, Hebrew. Paul, being a Jew, would have known this, which lends further support for his intentional use of hyperbole.

what's this hyperbole expression of the language of angels ?. Is this your expression or something you read on the internet ?.

Is it someone's expression from Someone trying to explain.

It sounds like a copout to.

Like a scapegoat being used, because they don't want to admit they have no idea what the language of angels means.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

Literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of examples of tongues-speech have been studied and analyzed - not one was ever found to be a real, rational language...living or dead.

Studied by whom? We get into the same issue we do with healing where I doctor might go so far as to say "I've never seen this happen before" but he's not going to say it's healing because he doesn't believe in healing. There is a pastor who was healed while he was preaching, it's recorded, you can hear it for yourself. The pastor is still alive today. Something happened to his voice and he sounded similar to RFK Jr. only worse. He was, oddly enough, preaching on healing and how he didn't believe healing was for everyone. As he was speaking his voice begins to change, he stops as he notices it and begins to speak again. He realizes he is being healed and the people begin to cry and pray. Real healing. Was it on the front page news? No. Will it ever be? No. Science explains everything today and anything or anyone outside of it is 100% wrong. We found that out with the COVID foolishness. And the same with languages.

I'm really tired of people here yapping about how healing and tongues are fake. And I don't cotton to being called a fake. You're judging me personally. It is PERSONAL when you say everyone who speaks in tongues is a fake or speaking gibberish or possessed of something. The testimony of the blind man wasn't believed either and he said "This much I know, once I was blind, now I see". I personally know a pastor who has a church of over a thousand people who was saved because someone spoke in tongues, his own language, and told him how to be saved. Tell him that it's "not a real language". smh Somehow they missed him in their "studies" pretttty sure he isn't the only one. They find what they believe.If they don't believe in it, it doesn't exist.

 

[VARob]

In the case of Pentecost - the languages are Greek and Aramaic.

In the Greek, the phrase “in their native language” modifies the verb “speaking” in verse 6, not the verb “hearing.” There was no “miracle of hearing” at Pentecost.

“Tongues of angels” is frequently used as a vehicle to posit ‘angelic speech’. That entire phrase, as well as a few others in that particular part of Paul’s letter, is 100% pure textbook hyperbole no matter how one wishes to slice and dice it. There’s just no getting around that. In all instances of angels speaking, it has always been in a real, rational language. In fact, in traditional Jewish belief, angels can only speak and understand one language; specifically, the sacred/sacerdotal language of Judaism, Hebrew. Paul, being a Jew, would have known this, which lends further support for his intentional use of hyperbole.

Here's what I think... According to your profile, you are not a Christian. If you have ever said you are a man of faith, I have not seen it. I think you said you are a linguist, or at least have an interest in linguistics. Somewhere along the line you heard about speaking in tongues and it piqued your interest. You wanted to check it out. You investigated it, even learned a bit of Greek, in order to find a way to explain it away, to discredit speaking in tongues. You came up with rather radical understandings of some traditional verses (Acts 2:4; 1 Cor 14:2) that talk about speaking in tongues in order to support your position. Everyone else got it wrong, but you got it right.

For you, speaking in tongues cannot be real. You do not want it to be real.

...and so it goes.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of examples of tongues-speech have been studied and analyzed - not one was ever found to be a real, rational language...living or dead.

and generally, it's an ATHEIST [like YOU] doing the Studying. imagine that!

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of examples of tongues-speech have been studied and analyzed - not one was ever found to be a real, rational language...living or dead.

so, when you OBSERVED videos of the Apostle Paul and other Apostles plus all of the ancient Gentiles Speaking in Tongues, how are they different than TODAY?

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

7,000 known languages, and one must turn a deaf ear to not pick any of the slightest dialects within Speaking in Tongues.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

“apophtheggesthai” – usually translated as “to give utterance”. This is, however, not the most accurate translation of this Greek word, but it’s the one that has come to be the more or less ‘de facto’ rendering.

This word is from “apophtheggomai” which is best translated as “to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to” (don’t go to Strong’s and look it up – “Strong’s” is a _concordance_ , not a lexicon; there’s a _huge_ difference).

so, you're saying, LUKE, Author of the Book of Acts, Physician and Scholar, would not know the difference between to give utterance and to make it up [basically what you're saying here].

the Church Fathers, like Luke, also fluent in Greek, claim it means to give Utterance.

you are telling me that 2,000 years later, some linguist, knows better?

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

come on dude, at least make your LIES seem somewhat half way intelligent so it's not so easy to debunk.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

να εκφωνήσουν = to pronounce

that means Utterance.

but you are saying : to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to


i will buy this!

i apologize, KAVIK!

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

PART 2
This more correct historical, cultural and linguistic view negates that awkward discrepancy between the real, rational languages of Pentecost and the so-called “prayer language“ of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that tongues-speakers have skated around and explained away by instituting various “types” of “tongues”. There is only one type of “tongues” in the Bible – real rational language(s).

and there it is...

all nice and then drop this at the end, typical Snake deception Maneuver [like the Garden of Eden] hahahahaha

i knew before apologizing to YOU i should have read Part 2

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

i like how you IGNORE Paul's use of UTTERANCE:

26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.

27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Kavik, claims one time deal with 12 Apostles

Paul, claims it will happen all the time whenever the Spirit searches us and then Intercedes with Utterances.

hmmm, which one is LYING?

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

similar usage of one word broken down to inspired speech or groanings.

either way, it is the HOLY SPIRIT doing it 100%

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

cracks me up as i prove kavik wrong and suddenly he just poofs offline.

no worries, he will slither back later or in a day or 2 with something new to try.

but, i will be here watching and waiting

 

[Kavik]

I'm really tired of people here yapping about how healing and tongues are fake. And I don't cotton to being called a fake. You're judging me personally. It is PERSONAL when you say everyone who speaks in tongues is a fake or speaking gibberish or possessed of something.

I don’t recall ever stating anything about healing, or about anyone being possessed.

As to tongues being ‘fake’ or gibberish, tongues/glossolalia is not gibberish. Gibberish by its very nature does not seek to mimic language; glossolalia (‘tongues’) does. With respect to tongues being ‘fake’ – what exactly would one fake? Random free vocalization is random free vocalization; there is nothing to fake.

As far as tongues being language – that’s another story altogether. Tongues/Glossolalia lacks the minimal two features that makes utterance ‘language’. What Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are producing today is not language. As to why it is deemed self-created – one of the main things for me, is something called phonotactics – a fancy word which refers to the various phonological rules (rules governing the sounds of language and how they can be put together) of a given language. These rules vary greatly from language to language. When one is engaged in glossolalia/tongues-speaking, all of the phonological rules that govern the speaker’s native language will also govern their tongue’s speech. That alone defines tongues-speech as something which is not independent of the speaker’s native language; in other words, the speaker is creating the glossic utterance based upon the sounds and rules of their native language.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

I don’t recall ever stating anything about healing, or about anyone being possessed.

As to tongues being ‘fake’ or gibberish, tongues/glossolalia is not gibberish. Gibberish by its very nature does not seek to mimic language; glossolalia (‘tongues’) does. With respect to tongues being ‘fake’ – what exactly would one fake? Random free vocalization is random free vocalization; there is nothing to fake.

As far as tongues being language – that’s another story altogether. Tongues/Glossolalia lacks the minimal two features that makes utterance ‘language’. What Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are producing today is not language. As to why it is deemed self-created – one of the main things for me, is something called phonotactics – a fancy word which refers to the various phonological rules (rules governing the sounds of language and how they can be put together) of a given language. These rules vary greatly from language to language. When one is engaged in glossolalia/tongues-speaking, all of the phonological rules that govern the speaker’s native language will also govern their tongue’s speech. That alone defines tongues-speech as something which is not independent of the speaker’s native language; in other words, the speaker is creating the glossic utterance based upon the sounds and rules of their native language.

and if the Spirit gives Utterance and intercedes, then there should be NO features applying to Glossia/Language because one is only speaking what the Spirit is having them to speak. the Spirit speaks the Language of God. we don't. when we allow the Spirit to speak through us, it will NEVER be our own phonetics. it would be impossible to be our own. and why no linguist recognizes it.

 

[Kavik]

For you, speaking in tongues cannot be real. You do not want it to be real.

See my response (#958) above.