Pros and Cons Speaking in Tongues

[Roughsoul1991]

[h=1]1 Corinthians 14Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)[/h][FONT=&quot]6 But now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in other languages, how will I benefit you unless I speak to you with a revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? 7 Even inanimate things that produce sounds—whether flute or harp—if they don’t make a distinction in the notes, how will what is played on the flute or harp be recognized? 8 In fact, if the trumpet makes an unclear sound, who will prepare for battle? 9 In the same way, unless you use your tongue for intelligible speech, how will what is spoken be known? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different kinds of languages in the world, and all have meaning. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner[c] to the speaker, and the speaker will be a foreigner to me. 12 So also you—since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, seek to excel in building up the church.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13 Therefore the person who speaks in another language should pray that he can interpret.

27 If any person speaks in another language, there should be only two, or at the most three, each in turn, and someone must interpret.28 But if there is no interpreter, that person should keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God.[/FONT]
[h=1]1 Corinthians 12Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)[/h][FONT=&quot]7 A demonstration of the Spirit is given to each person to produce what is beneficial:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]8 to one is given a message of wisdom
through the Spirit,
to another, a message of knowledge
by the same Spirit,
9 to another, faith by the same Spirit,
to another, gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
10 to another, the performing of miracles,
to another, prophecy,
to another, distinguishing between spirits,
to another, different kinds of languages,
to another, interpretation of languages.
[/FONT]
[h=1]1 Corinthians 14New Living Translation (NLT)[/h][FONT=&quot]2 For if you have the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking only to God, since people won’t be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious. 3 But one who prophesies strengthens others, encourages them, and comforts them.4 A person who speaks in tongues is strengthened personally, but one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.

Bottom line speaking in tongues is a spiritual gift but one must be able to interpret the believer speaking. If no one can then he should keep it to himself. [/FONT]

[/FONT]

 

[garee]

1Co 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual ( not seen) gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

Spiritual gifts "not seen", are simply just that....”spiritual” ( not seen).

Christians I believe are informed as a perfect law not subject to change; signs are for those who believe not. There is no outward sign that is evidence a person has the Spirit of Christ the anointing Holy Spirit of God.. .

The two fold, dual purpose law below that from my experience in most cases is totally ignored. ...two classes of people . Those who have the faith that alone comes from hearing God, to believe God and those who look to their own flesh as evidence of salvation.

1Co 14:22 (1.) Wherefore tongues "are for a sign", not to them “that believe:, but to them that believe not: but (2) prophesying "serveth not" for them that believe not, but for "them" which believe.

If any man has not the Holy Spirit that does the witness to our spirit, they simply are not a Christian. We walk by the faith that comes from hearing God not by sight after our own experiences as did the unbelieving Jew.. After their own experiences, like hearing words coming from ones own mouth that have no understanding to the speaker. ..Speaking or making noise into the air. It would be totally mysterious like a parable with no spiritual understanding.

2 For if you have the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking only to God, since people won’t be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious. 1 Corinthians 14 :2

Those are people who are not given the understanding from God in there own language .

To begin with I would offer it is not speaking in tongues as another language as that in which the speaker does not know.

This is where much confusion comes in, I believe.(just make a noise that has no meaning and it is evidence a person has the Holy Spirit.

The spiritual gift is to “hear” in another language called the “hearing of faith” as to the hearing the gospel of one’s salvation. Not speaking, again hearing..

It was used as a direct revelation from God .This is when He was still bringing new prophecy by any manner, before the closing of His book having put his seal on it till the end of time. And added a warning not to add or subtract from the whole book after any manner which would include a tongue.

The two fold gift is not after the person who speaks in their native tongue like Peter did.. You could compare tongues to a parable where the spiritual meaning is hid from one, while revealed to another. Otherwise like above verse you offered it will be all a mystery.

The ones that received the interpretation from God as prophecy and therefore believed God (not the person speaking in their own language , when God was still bringing new revelations does not hear in mysteries .The gospel is made clear as God gives His spiritul understanding from heaven .

A person who speaks in his native language is strengthened personally as in all manner of prophecy seeing it is God who works in the prophets putting His words on their lips , it as prophecy strengthens the entire church.

But if no one understands because God has not interpreted it into their language .They will simply be sounds with no meaning.It would be like speaking into the air.I would say at the most the idea of a gift seen... it could produce false pride.

No such thing as a spiritual (not seen) sign gift. We as Christian walk by faith never by sight after our own experiences.. as the three avenues the father of lies does his best work of deceiving the nations.

1John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

 

[wolfwint]

Sorry for the long delay, I've been on the road.

You make a good point that a hand is not a foot, and I've reconsidered my stand on the 'interchangeability' of the gifts. They are not as freely passed around as I proposed. You are right on that one.

But that does not mean there is no crossover. 99% of the gifts God has used me to deliver have been words of wisdom and knowledge. That is the gift God calls upon me to work in. But that doesn't mean that a time or two in the past God hasn't used me to deliver a healing, because He has. But you're right, that has been a rare exception to the rule.

I guess what I should be saying is that, God will choose you as viaduct of one particular gift, and that is the gift you should seek to operate in. But don't close the door to Him being able to work something else in a particular situation. Does that make more sense?

You have also made me realize that my descriptors of the difference between a gift and an office is off too. Perhaps that should be more, that an office is a position in church leadership designed to bring a certain gift to the assembly, whereas a gift is something God gives thru individuals to individuals in the body.



Wow, did I just change an opinion in the face of a good argument, here at CC ? It seems so out of place lol



Tongues are unique among the gifts. Yes they are the least to be desired, yet the most to be debated. I think that's because they are seen more often in the assembly than the other gifts, for both good and bad reasons. If I speak in a tongue it's pretty obvious to anyone around me. But if the Spirit delivers a healing, that's more between just I and the receiver (and God).

It's confusing that tongues have 2 forms, which lends to misunderstanding and thus debate. There's the prayer tongue that's private between you and God, and there's the prophetic tongue that is between you, an interpreter, and the assembly. It's not always clear which of the two is being talked about - yet the difference between them and their uses presents a very clear line.

Every single gift except prayer tongues is given thru you to someone else. If I am used for healing, it is not I that (primarily) benefits but the person God has brought me to/to me. Prophetic tongues are not for the ones giving and interpreting, but for the listening assembly. Words of wisdom don't guide the giver, they guide the receiver. Every gift you receive from the Holy Spirit, save one, is given thru you to edify someone else.

Save prayer tongues. Prayer tongues are the one and only gift that primarily edifies the individual, the 'user'.

Zeph. 3:9 is where you find God restoring a pure language - For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent (KJV). I think there's another in Isaiah but it escapes me at the moment. The point is, that a single pure language was something we all had, we all lost, and will all have again. Every single one of us. Paul wished that every single one of us would speak in prayer tongues. All that and the fact that it is for our own edification, I have to believe Paul was implying that we all have the potential for prayer tongues. But not prophetic tongues.

But even tho it may edify us, and Paul wished us all to do it, he still says it is the last in importance of the gifts. Why would this curious juxtaposition be? Because, simply, we are to serve others before ourselves. So we should first seek the gifts that serve others around us, before we seek the one that serves to recharge us. That is one (one) reason I'm not much a fan of the charismatic thing, they do put it on a pedestal and make it the most important thing of all. Frankly, if they're not healing/enlightening/prophesying et al, they shouldn't be bragging about their 'gift'.

Hi RickyZ, I would agree with the most of what you and others have written about speaking in tongues, if i would live in the time of 1. Corinthians.

What I can not agree with is the thing, that 110 ore 115 years ago a movement claims to have the right faith and teaching the baptising with the Holy Spirit and as evidence speaking in tongues. COG, COGIC and Assemblies of God all claim to have their roots in Azusa Street revival 1906, and even today are much more different groups (including the charismatic movements) are existing. Yes, today this is the fast growing christian movement. But in bible i found the princip that mostly the minority was right.
This teaching with baptising of the Holy Spirit and as evidence speaking in tongues was not taught in the churchhistorie and also not in the bible. If so, then it means all christians before 1901 had to struggle without the Holy Spirit and his gifts for the church and for edifying church ore believer.
Following I quote a statement from Chrisitian Assemblies International which started in germany in the 70ties.

"In JOHN 3:6 Jesus told Nicodemus that, "that which is born of flesh is flesh." When a natural child is born, it breathes natural air and makes a natural sound - ask any mother. He added that, "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." When a supernatural child is born (brought forth) it takes a breath of "supernatural air" and makes a supernatural sound: TONGUES - the voice of the Spirit.


There is no ambiguity in God's Word about this matter; when a person is bornagain, born from above, regenerated, filled with the Spirit, receives the Spirit, is endued with power, baptised in the Holy Spirit, etc., etc.

HE SPEAKS IN TONGUES - NO EXCEPTIONS:

• No tongues - no Holy Spirit.
• No tongues - no regeneration (just a spiritual stillbirth). source: Christian Asseblies International "

I know some denominations see it not as need for salvation, but some do!

Following a quote from Wikipedia:

"In the early 1890s, R.C. Horner, a Canadian holiness evangelist, introduced a theological distinction that would be important for the development of Pentecostalism. He argued in his books Pentecost (1891) and Bible Doctrines (1909) that the baptism in the Holy Spirit was not synonymous with the second blessing but was actually a third work of grace subsequent to salvation and sanctification that empowered the believer for service.[SUP][36][/SUP] Charles Fox Parham would build on this doctrinal foundation when he identified speaking in tongues as the Bible evidence of Spirit baptism.[SUP][37] [/SUP]
source: Wikipedia: Baptism with the Holy Spirit "

Sorry, only if you missinterpret the scripture you can come to the doctrine of beiing baptised with the Holy Spirit and as evidence the speaking of tongues. And the churchhistorie proofes it.

 

[Kavik]

I'm responding a bit late to a slightly older thread, but.....

PART 1 –

Due to the subject matter, this will admittedly be a rather long post. Though I’ve tried to summarize it as much as possible, it still has to be presented in several parts.

Let me first state a few things –

What follows is not written with any deliberate intention of offending anyone who practices glossolalia (a/k/a ‘speaking in tongues’).

I am neither a so-called cessationist nor a continuationist (I’ve never heard the two terms until just late last year), nor am I an atheist. The views offered below are not derived from any particular religious context, view, or slant, but ones based on a more in depth reading of the two main sources cited as evidence for modern ‘tongues’: the Pentecostal narrative of Acts, and in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.

Since I am a Linguist, these texts have been viewed primarily through the lens of linguistics.

Before getting specifically into tongues, I think two things need to be first discussed; the first is the Babel narrative of Genesis. Many people link this event as somehow being related to ‘tongues’, but as will be seen, it is not related to the modern phenomenon in the least. The second is the concept of language in many cultures being seen as a gift to human beings from the gods. This concept seems to have also existed in the culture of the early Habiru (Hebrews/Jews).

Let me start with the Babel narrative…

The Tower of Babel story is quite interesting from a linguistic viewpoint; however, a few things must be defined in order to begin any type of linguistic analysis.

First, one must put into context the concept of what would have been considered “the whole world” to the original redactor(s) of the Babel narrative. The answer to this is rather simple and straightforward: to a person or people living in what we know call the Middle East several thousand years ago, the "whole world" would have been just that; a small part of what we now call the Middle East. There would not have been the concept of the world existing beyond the lands these people were already familiar with and inhabited. It’s quite reasonable to believe they had no idea, for example, that lands beyond the Mediterranean Sea even existed.

In taking the narrative in historical context therefore, the “whole world” was not as we understand it today, but must be understood to mean a very small part of the modern Middle East.

What about what language or languages would have been spoken in that area? Was there, or could there have indeed been a common language spoken by “all mankind” (again, with the understanding that “all mankind” in this context refers to that small portion of the current Middle East discussed above)?

The answer is, well, yes – and no.

Linguists recognize that almost all languages of what are today the Middle East and parts of North Africa derive from one parent tongue: Proto Afro-Asiatic. This proto-language, due to several factors including the migration and isolation of people from each other, split off into several dialects, one of which was what is called Proto-Semitic; the parent tongue of all Semitic languages. The general consensus seems to be that Proto-Semitic had its ultimate origins in Arabia, Mesopotamia or perhaps even Africa and spread westward.

Proto-Semitic subsequently splintered off and developed into the various Semitic languages found in the ancient Middle East. This again was due to several factors including the migration of peoples to other areas and the general isolation of these peoples from one another over time. It should be noted that in ancient times, there were many Semitic languages. Only a few of these have survived into modern times.

In turning back to the Babel narrative, and taking into context the concept of “the whole world” as discussed above; it is safe to conclude that the common language referred to as “spoken by all mankind” was indeed in all likelihood what we today know as Proto-Semitic.


What is fascinating is the fact that even back in those times it was recognized that there must have been at one time some parent language, some “common tongue” for the various languages people encountered in their “world”. The (somewhat) mutual intelligibility between these languages, or at the very least the similarity in vocabulary, surely must have been recognized.

As just one example, the word for 'god' is essentially the same word in Hebrew "el" as it is in Arabic "allah" as it is in Assyrian and Babylonian (a/k/a Akkadian) "ilu", Phoenician 'l, and Ugaritic 'il. Surely people even back then would have recognized the similarity and further realized they all must have come from the same source language, some ‘parent tongue’ (in this case, the Proto Semitic *'il).

This concept seems to have been preserved in the oral tradition of the Habiru/Hebrew people in their oral tradition via the Babel narrative.

To these people however, the reasons for the various related languages they encountered would not have been known. They would have no concept of the ‘hows and whys’ of the splintering off of Proto-Semitic; they just knew there was obviously one parent language at one time, and now there were several distinct (but related) languages.

How did they account for this “confounding” of languages?

As with many things not clearly understood by ancient man, the reasons were usually attributed to a deity, an “act of God”, if you will.

Such must have been the case here as well. The confounding of languages was simply attributed to an act of God.

This does however beg the question of “Why would God have done such a thing?”

I would argue that the narrative of the Tower is pure allegory/metaphor – the intentional creation of a “back story”, if you will, to explain the reason for the current situation and to have a vehicle by which to attribute the event as an “act of God”. Simply put, it was a story that was easy to understand. To ancient man, this split in languages was an instantaneous thing and possibly viewed as something quite miraculous and mysterious (and as a result of ‘something bad’ that mankind did) – there was no concept of languages changing and diverging very slowly over long periods of time.

In fact, it is important to note that, while the Babel account does indicate a common original language, it does not claim that said language was Hebrew (as many people think) or that God necessarily used a supernatural process in confounding the languages. Further, what many people don’t realize is that the account doesn’t even claim that this diversification of languages was an immediate event (though most people interpret it as such).


The Babel narrative is also interesting in that it relates that these original speakers came from the East. This is generally regarded as the “migration route” of Proto-Semitic, i.e. the original Sprachgebiet (language area) was to the east of what is now Israel and the surrounding countries and moved westward.

The Babel narrative as we have it today is also really quite fascinating in that it is one of very few ancient accounts of a people remembering the history of their language(s) - told of course in a religious context.

If, however, the religious context is extracted, the result is a fairly accurate historical account of what happened - speakers of Proto Semitic migrated towards the west and as they migrated and became isolated nations, groups, etc., their languages eventually splintered off into what would have been at first just dialects of P-Semitic, but over time, separate but a very closely related group of languages (a “confounding” of languages).

If one wishes to include the religious context, the notion commonly assumed is that God used the confounding of languages to scatter the people, however, it may be argued, as Dallin Oaks states in his article “The Tower of Babel: A Linguistic Consideration”, that God scattered the people to cause a confusion of languages. i.e. God scattered the people so that various languages could develop (naturally) and come about.

An interesting take on the narrative as it fits more closely with what actually happened historically.


Language as a Gift from the Gods –

The *gift* of tongues in the Bible is, I believe, the gift of language(s); that is, the ability to speak (and presumably also translate) a language or languages that are not the speaker’s own native tongue (notice I used the word ‘tongue’ here to clearly mean ‘language’ – same as what’s done in the Bible).

What this seems to hinge upon is the concept that language/speech (and in some cases writing systems) was perceived by many ancient people/cultures to be somehow connected to the ‘gods’ in that it was a gift given to mankind from the ‘gods’. Thus, language ability was equated with the idea of a ‘divine gift’.

It seems this perception also existed in the Semitic world as well; In Genesis (Gen 2:1-20), God essentially tells Adam to name everything, thus giving him the “gift” of human language, i.e. language is seen as something God-given, a “gift from God”.

What’s also interesting is that in many cultures people who had the ability to speak and translate in multiple languages were held in rather high esteem; they were seen as having been given a divine gift.

There’s no place in the Bible that states specifically that tongues is the ability to learn real languages, but given that in cultures that have this concept of language as being a divine gift, there is no reason to assume that the “gift of tongues” is simply the gift of ‘(real) language ability’.

Even today we speak of someone who has a ‘knack’ for a certain thing as having a “gift”; particularly if the person is extremely good at it. “She’s a gifted musician; you should hear her play this Bach piece!”, “He’s a truly gifted mathematician”, etc.

So, from the above we can draw a few conclusions –

The Babel narrative has nothing to do with modern tongues – modern tongues are not “Babel reversed” or a “reversal of Babel” as some suggest.

Language was from the earliest times considered a divine gift by many cultures including Semitic culture as seen by the account in Genesis where God gives Adam ‘language’ (albeit in the form of the ability to name things).

 

[Kavik]

PART 2 –

Okay, now we can turn to tongues –

There are some views expressed below which at first may seem rather radical, and their explanations are rather lengthy> Because I’m introducing a few concepts that most people are not at all familiar with, they need an appropriate explanation (which takes up a lot of space). The concepts themselves are rather simple and straightforward.

There are volumes that can be written on the subject of “tongues” – the below is an attempt at a brief two-part summary on the phenomenon as viewed and studied through the lens of linguistics.

When it comes to “tongues”, there are two separate issues at hand; ‘tongues’ as described in the Bible, and the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic practice/understanding of ‘tongues’. With the latter, we may also include ‘tongues’/glossolalia as practiced by many non-Christians in their various cultural traditions. The first issue (Biblical tongues) is, contrary to how many view it, in no way mutually inclusive with the latter two; they are totally different phenomenon.

I am strongly of the opinion that Biblical ‘tongues’ are simply real languages, perhaps unknown (i.e. foreign) to those listening to them, but known by the speaker (typically his/her native language). Further, all Biblical references to tongue(s) (‘glossa’) describes one of two things: the physical organ in the mouth, or real language(s).

Let’s take a look at both Acts and Corinthians with respect to ‘tongues’. I’ll start with Acts.

In general, there are many “misreadings” (for lack of a better term) that most people don’t even think about when reading both Acts and Corinthians. Many people tend to gloss over things that are critical to fully understanding the context of the text, or assume one thing means something else entirely. These misreadings have resulted in many misinterpretations of the texts.

What do I mean by a misreading? Perhaps the best example is the “list” in Acts 2:9-11 – the common belief and assumption is that it is a list of languages. But look closely at that list again…..what do you notice? It’s not a list of languages, is it? It’s a list of geographic locations and ethnic groups. Is there any sort of relevance to these places referenced in the list? Well, yes indeed; upon closer inspection, we discover that they are specifically those lands and areas of the Jewish Diaspora (Cyprus and Syria are missing – perhaps due to copyist errors over time). Both the Western and Eastern Diaspora are included which is significant, but we’ll get to this later.

So what about the languages involved here? Read the entire narrative again carefully. Did you notice anything? It may not be apparent at first, but it’s there. Not one place in the entire Pentecostal narrative is even one language ever referenced by name…not one. Further, nowhere in the entire narrative does it suggest or imply that communication was even a problem to begin with! For me, this would send up a few red flags if I were to postulate modern Pentecostal/Charismatic tongues for those of Acts.

So if communication was not the issue, what was the problem?

The Pentecostal narrative, contrary to how many interpret it, does not describe xenoglossy (the ability to speak a language one has never been exposed to in any way shape or form), nor does it describe a miracle of hearing one’s own language when someone is speaking another (a phenomenon called “akolalia” by some); What then were these “other languages”?? They were simply Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongues (sic!) of those local Jews, as well as those of the Diaspora, visiting Jerusalem for Shavuot.

With respect to the Diaspora, again to try and keep it brief and without several pages of explanation, Jews of the western Diaspora spoke Greek as their native language; those of the eastern Diaspora spoke Aramaic. They would have been familiar with the local languages of these places (particularly the eastern Diaspora), but would not have spoken them as their first/primary language. Jews already in Judea would have spoken Aramaic as well, though some possibly grew up with Greek.

So, wait a second – only two languages? Why are they referred to as “other languages”? Other than what??

The answer lies in an overlooked aspect of Judaism; ecclesiastical diglossia. Diglossia very briefly is the use of one language/dialect over another in certain social/cultural situations. In many cultures, the use of the incorrect language/dialect is seen as a major taboo/a cultural faux pas, if you will; it’s simply not done.

The rules of ecclesiastical diglossia of the time demanded that teaching, evangelization, religious instruction, etc. such as what occurred at Pentecost be done in Hebrew (though Greek was slowly gaining influence as an acceptable alternative). The Jews gathered there expected to hear Hebrew, the culturally (and religiously) correct language to use in this situation and on this occasion – instead they heard the apostles speaking in their native languages of Greek and Aramaic; both of which the apostles would have spoken. The result was amazement, wonder, astonishment and even ridicule at such an obvious breach of cultural “etiquette”. These men were Galileans after all; they should know better!

What I believe we are witness to here is the breaking of a cultural barrier that was necessary in order to spread the message of Christianity to the world. Indeed, the real miracle of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost may simply have been to give the disciples the courage and spiritual strength to “spread the word” and, most importantly, to dispose of the cultural necessity to do so in one (or two) language(s) (i.e. observe strict adherence to ecclesiastical diglossia). That cultural barrier would now be broken without fear of any reprise and local vernaculars would be used to teach the people. With this cultural barrier now broken, the disciples, one could almost say, “paved the way” for what became the quick spreading of a new religion called Christianity.

Let’s quickly get back to our list for a moment. Was there any significance to specifically name the lands of the Jewish Diaspora? As we have just discussed, it certainly does not appear to have been to represent and demonstrate linguistic diversity since we’re only talking about two languages. Indeed, it could very well be argued that Luke’s purpose in presenting this list (with Cyprus and Syria missing) may strongly suggest that the first apostolic ministry was to the Jewish Nation as a whole (Diaspora included).

So a third alternative of the traditional views of languages at Pentecost - no modern concept of ‘tongues’, no xenoglossy, no akolalia, no language miracle needed or necessary here folks; simply Greek and Aramaic instead of the culturally correct and expected Hebrew; the dispensing of a long standing cultural necessity of having to use a single language to teach and spread the message of Christianity. It could now be done in any language.

 

[Kavik]

PART 3 –

Let’s turn now to Corinthians.

First, and I think foremost, it is critical to understand that Corinth was a multi-cultural, linguistically diverse city on not one, but two ports. As a major seaport city, one would expect to find a constant influx and varied mix of visitors, travelers, transients, freedman and slaves. Though Greek was the language of Corinth, as well as the ‘English of its day; i.e. almost everyone in the Mediterranean basin was familiar with it to some degree, communication in general between people from different lands and countries must have been difficult at best as it would have had to be conducted in Greek; a language, not everyone knew equally well.

A church, any organization really, tends to reflect its environment. Since Corinth was multilingual, one would also expect to see this diversity reflected in its church and other social/religious organizations.

At first glance, Corinthians presents what at first may seem like a slew of evidence for tongues-speech (T-speech), most people focus on two passages: 1 Cor. 14:2, and 1 Cor. 14:13-14.

Many use 1 Cor. 14:2 as “proof” of tongues being spiritual language(s) – but upon closer examination, it simply describes real language, though a foreign one to the “hearers”. Note that nowhere does the passage state that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying.

To explain it further, as one writer put it, “Think of it this way; if I showed up at a Bible study and began to speak in German, but no one else in the room could speak German, I might impress a few people, but no one would understand me. So if I speak in a language that no one else in the room can speak, I am in fact not speaking to men, but to God (who alone can understand all languages). Anything I say would be a mystery to those in the room. That is what Paul was trying to convey” by people speaking a foreign language at a public worship.

Another way to look at it is this: if I attend a worship service in ‘East Haystack’, Alabama two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone in East Haystack speaks anything but English is pretty slim to nil. If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a bloody word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one there will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service. So it ends up being a “real language no one understands” (within that given context). To the people listening to me, I am speaking ‘mysteries” in the Spirit (i.e. I’m praying earnestly from my heart and from deep within my being = praying ‘in the spirit’).


Corinthians 14:13-14 seems to present a problem with respect to asserting that ‘tongues’ here is meant as real language(s). “Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.”

Or to paraphrase the first part, “If a person speaks in a foreign language (as his first language), let him pray that he can adequately translate what he’s saying into the language of Corinth (Greek)”. It seems somewhat odd at first, but when you take into consideration the intricacies of translating (even something that appears easy and straightforward at first glance), it’s really no wonder that Paul admonishes the person to pray for guidance that he may translate it (adequately and correctly) into Greek.

As an example, I have translated a simple four line ‘meal’s grace’ into several local Native American languages of northern New England and can attest that what seems so simple at first; four simple lines, can be maddeningly difficult – it’s not just the grammar, it’s also the cultural aspect – what you say, or the way you say something, in language X, may not be anything like how it needs to be said in language Y, particularly in a religious context. In light of the intricacies involved in translating, I don’t see verse 13 as being an issue with respect to real language.

With respect to verse 14, I am going to quote from an article (A New Look At Tongues Part II) by Robert Zerhusen who explains it much better than I can:

“1 Corinthians 14:14 is probably the main text used to argue that the language speaker did not understand his language. Paul says that if he should speak in a language (without translation), "my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful [akarpos]." Lenski takes akarposas passive: "my nous or understanding" is inactive and thus akarpos--"barren," "unfruitful," producing no distinct thoughts".

Paul could also be using akarpos in the active sense:

A decision upon its meaning centers in akarpos ("unfruitful") whether the adjective is passive in sense, meaning the speaker himself receives no benefit, or active in sense, meaning his nous (understanding) provides no benefit to others...The view that assigns akarpos a meaning of "produces nothing, contributes nothing to the process"... is not convincing, because akarpos does not mean "inactive." It is a word for results and does not apply to the process through which the results are obtained. The present discussion does not center on the activity or nonactivity of the tongues speaker's mind, but rather on potential benefit derived by listeners.

The whole context of 1 Corinthians 14 is the effect upon the hearers of untranslated languages.
Paul’s concern is the edification of the group. Therefore, 14:14 should be taken as "My spirit prays but my mind does not produce fruit [in others]." This says nothing about whether or not the speaker understood his own utterance.”

In fact, you’re not going to find anywhere where it specifically indicates that the speaker either does or does not understand what he is saying. It’s simply never definitively stated. It has to be inferred from context. If you adhere to T-speech, then the speaker does not understand what he’s saying. With real languages, he does.

We can quickly dismiss 1 Cor. 13:1 with respect to modern tongues/prayer language/heavenly language, etc. as it’s simply pure hyperbole. Further, even if it were not, in traditional Jewish belief (and also commented upon in the Mishnah), angels spoke only one language, and a real one at that: Hebrew. It was a common belief that if you wanted your prayers to go directly to God and bypass the angels who, as their name suggests, were the messengers by which prayers were delivered to God, one “bent the rules” so to speak, and prayed in Aramaic – angels could not understand it.

With that passage in Corinthians (14:13-14) as well as verses 27-28, what one has to keep in mind is that this is simply a letter. Paul is not writing a religious treatise here; he’s just responding to (presumably) a letter written to him describing the situation in Corinth where the writer is simply asking his advice on how to handle the language situation in Corinth.

Throughout this entire section of his letter Paul’s main concern is clarity, understanding, and intelligibility during a public worship service such that everyone there can benefit, not just one or two people.

How do you establish this when you’re in the middle of a huge multi-cultural and linguistically diverse city where everyday communication can be a challenge?

I would definitely posit that, in this case, Paul seems to state the phenomenally obvious solution (though in an extremely elaborate and eloquent way). To paraphrase – “Make sure people can understand each other in a public worship so everyone has an opportunity to benefit from what’s being said. If you have some guy come in and start speaking his native language and no one understands it, it’s not doing anyone any good but him – everyone needs to have the opportunity to benefit, so…best case scenario is to have him learn enough Greek so he can translate what he’s saying, but obviously this isn’t going to happen overnight, so in the meantime either have him find a translator or, if no translator can be found, better for him to not say anything at all so as not to add to or create any further confusion.”

I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that; real language issue, real language solution to the issue.

Yes, when paraphrased in a very blunt manner as above (i.e. “have the dude learn some Greek but in the meantime, tell him to either get a translator or keep quiet), Paul seems to be having a “Captain Obvious moment”, but it sounds like perhaps the obvious needed to be stated in this instance. In fact, I’ve often wondered if Paul wasn’t even a bit irritated with the issue and gave (in a very eloquent manner) an intentionally blunt remark (“read between the lines”, so to speak). I think many times these passages are interpreted by certain religious groups to fit their understanding and practice of modern tongues (T-speech).

Given the demographic make-up of Corinth, and the common everyday issues such cultural and linguistic diversity bring, to postulate anything here but real language being referenced just doesn’t stand up to the reality of the situation. Not everything in the Bible needs to be divine or miraculous; sometimes it just describes common everyday issues; in this case here, one of clarity and communication in a place where those two things were difficult to achieve at best.

 

[Kavik]

PART 4 –

Let’s now turn to modern Pentecostal/Charismatic ‘tongues’. These are completely different from Biblical ‘tongues’. It’s simply the Christian form of glossolalia. A phenomenon practiced by many other cultures and religions. It’s all done essentially the same way.

Glossolalia itself being simply composed of random free vocalization – essentially “playing with language”, There is another term for modern tongues that I think offers a better summation of the phenomenon: as Robert Zerhusen, a pastor and theologian whose interests include the application of cultural anthropology and linguistics to NT studies, terms it, “non-cognitive non-language utterances” (NC-NLU’s). NC-NLU’s is a term which I think better hits the nail on the head.

Due to the nature of glossolalia, the language producing centers of the brain (particularly the area controlling grammar) are not overly engaged when one practices it, as a study done by the University of Pennsylvania (2010), using SPECT imaging, demonstrated.

As a Linguist, I have studied glossolalia and my findings concur with other previous studies done.

Let’s look at some facts regarding glossolalia/tongues - Glossolalia consists of only those sounds found in the speaker’s native language (and any language they may have been exposed to) ,though typically the phonemic inventory (set of sounds) that any given speaker will use is considerably less than what occurs in his/her native language.

Anyone can learn to produce glossolalia relatively easily in a matter of minutes. Further, ‘word’ stress and general accent are typically those of the speaker’s native language. A person from Georgia is going to sound like a person from Georgia when “speaking tongues”, i.e. there’s no “foreign accent”, so to speak, in glossolalia.

Glossolalia (NC-NLU’s) exhibit simple syllables all of which are almost exclusively ‘open’ syllables. There is no grammar, thus no syntax to speak of.

Concerning sounds, American speakers do however typically trill their r’s when “speaking in tongues” (with some it’s more a what’s called a ‘flap’ – the ‘t’ in “water” – than an actual trilled ‘r’) – it makes the glossic utterance sound more “foreign”.

All of the preceding also applies to the so-called “singing in the Spirit”; it is simply sung glossolalia rather than spoken.

The above, as well as many additional features too lengthy to explain in detail here, demonstrate that ‘tongues’ fail as language on virtually any criteria by which ‘language’ is defined.

Incidentally, just because the sound or tone of someone’s glossolalia/tongues does not match your preconceived idea of what a ‘tongue’ is supposed to sound like, does not make it inherently “demonic”. Further, there is no such thing as “faking tongues” – the question is “faking what?” Faking the fluent production of syllables? To produce syllables fluently is to produce syllables fluently. I would posit a definition of “faking tongues” as the ‘conscious effort of a speaker to produce glossolalia’ as opposed to the natural flowing of syllables as is normally produced by the subconscious.

Glossolalia as practiced in most other cultural and/or faith traditions around the world typically entails a petitioner seeking aid in the emotional and/or spiritual healing process, who is helped by the practitioner (minister, priest, shaman, healer – whatever s/he is called in that culture). It is rarely, if ever, the petitioner him/her self who is engaging in the actual glossolalia; it’s almost always involves a third party.

In these instances glossolalia is used as a tool to establish a ‘connection’ to the divine, a message is received (either directly or indirectly via an interpreter) that is extremely pertinent to this third party’s situation and, as a result, with the message delivered, the petitioner may begin the process of emotional/spiritual healing.

Though this more ‘correct”, if I may call it that, use of glossolalia does occur the context of Christianity, from all accounts I have read or been told about, instances of this are exceedingly rare. Whether or not it is rare because most people do not practice glossolalia ‘correctly’ (due to a misconception of what it actually is) is a matter for further study/debate. In addition, whether or not Christian practitioners realize that glossolalia is simply the tool used to enter into the process (not the means) may also be a matter for debate.

The bottom line is that by far the more common practice used by Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians seems to be one of interpreting Scripture to fit the modern practice/connotation of what glossolalia is perceived to be. The only praying going on with tongues is the deep subconscious praying of the individual (in whatever their native language happens to be); inspired, of course, by their deep faith and beliefs. There is nothing divine or miraculous going on here. There is nothing being done that can’t be explained in natural terms. If you really stop and think about it, the Holy Spirit (being one of three aspects of God, if you subscribe to the concept of the Trinity) does not need to inspire people on how to pray to itself.


Interpretation may again also be inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs, but the relatively generic messages of most interpretations do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. This is clearly evidenced in that if one gives the same glossic string to ten different people who can interpret tongues, one will get ten different interpretations typically non-related to each other. In this respect, glossolalia fails even the most basic criteria which define communication itself.

The all too common come-back to this issue of ‘multiple interpretations’ is that God/the Holy Spirit simply gives different interpretations to different people. As one on-line writer quips (and I couldn’t have said it better myself), “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for glossolalia in the first place.”

Another internet writer puts it rather bluntly - “People who claim to speak in tongues need to understand that they are making a testable claim. The claim has been tested, numerous times. And the tongues speakers have failed the test, every single time.”

This same writer further goes on to say: “You want this to be real. You’ve convinced yourself it’s real. The only reason it sounds like a language is that you want it to sound like a language. But it’s not. It’s meaningless. You’re not producing a language. It's a purely manufactured experience initially created by psychological manipulation (all the praise music and the sort of altered state that it puts you in to begin with... and the emotional frenzy of the service before that) as well as intense pressure to perform from those standing around you.”

The above is admittedly a somewhat harsh statement from a former tongues speaker, but it begs the question of just how accurate the above paragraph really is. I suspect more than most practitioners would care to admit.

Glossolalia mimics language, but upon further closer examination, it is simply a façade of language.

If T-speech met the criteria of language and had a definite lexicon, structure and grammar, I’d be the first to say, “Hey, you’re on to something here that’s supernatural and really needs to be looked at more closely and studied”, but tongues simply isn’t that. Neither are modern tongues xenoglossy – there are, in fact, no known provable cases of xenoglossy…anywhere.

Despite this fact however, Pentecostal and Charismatic communities are rife with reported examples. Unfortunately, none are backed by any substantial proof; it amounts to essentially hearsay whereby virtually nothing is known of the speaker, his/her background, possible exposure to the purported languages, or the linguistic background of many the ‘hearers’. Are they hearing actual language or something that just “sounds” like ‘language X’? I have to discount reports of non-English speakers speaking in English – it’s just too common a language for people, even in remote areas of the world, not to pick up either consciously or subconsciously. That some tongues are examples of xenoglossy would be a relatively easy thing to test/prove (in theory at least), but to date this has not been attempted.

Aramaic and Hebrew seem to be the “go to” languages for these supposed examples – to the point of taking on the status of “urban legend” to the point of becoming cliché. As the saying goes, if I had a dollar for every variation and version of this story I’ve heard……..

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.”

The subconscious mind can do some incredible things – who hasn’t struggled with learning a foreign language (the conscious mind at work) only to find that they are able to dream in the language….and, in the dream, speak it flawlessly (the subconscious mind at work).

Let me ask if you have ever heard someone speak in tongues and thought “That doesn’t sound like tongues” or “That sounds demonic”. What was your basis for thinking that? What was it that made you doubt the ‘authenticity’ of their tongues as opposed to yours? I’d be curious to know.

Next time you speak tongues, take out your phone; put it on voice recorder, and record yourself for about a minute. Then play it back and take a listen, truly listen to the utterances – play the recording back over and over and write them down and look at them. Can you see the patterns, the play on sounds, repetitions of syllables, predictability of syllable structures, the constant use of particular vowels over others – then ask yourself, is this language or simply something that mimics it and is only a façade of language? Next, listen to the tongues/glossolalia of say a Shaman from Siberia and you’ll notice he’s producing his tongues the same exact way you are. They may even sound like something you’ve heard before – are his ‘tongues’ any less divine than yours?

As a Linguist who has studied the phenomenon, my take on it is that tongues/glossolalia is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience, but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best – the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In *some* extreme cases, it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience.

One of the questions of the day seems to be – ‘Have “tongues” ceased?’ My answer to that is simple – Since Biblical tongues in all cases refer to real languages, no, of course not –we still speak languages today. If you mean the modern concept of “tongues” (glossolalia)– they’ve only existed in the context of Christianity for about 150 years and obviously, people still “speak in tongues”.

I am not condoning glossolalia; particularly if it is a way for the speaker to strengthen his/her own spiritual path, but understand what it really is and, perhaps just as importantly (indeed, if not more importantly), ……understand what it is not.

 

[Kavik]

As an aside, for those who may have never seen a ‘tongue’ transcribed; below is an example taken right off of a YouTube video of a legitimate pastor speaking a ‘tongue’ – here’s a transcription of what the person is saying:

Káyntay háychee, háychee kéeho hóro. /kénte héči, héči kího hóro/
Máhcha keetáy lah mócho, /máča kité la móčo/
rána mahcháy nay keetáh lau. /rána mačé ne kitá lau/
Réhnah shay kée nah máhto. /rɛ’na še kí na máto/

Essentially you read the above as if it were English – the only convention I have used is to put an accent over the syllable in the ‘word’ that receives the main stress. The ‘ay’ here is the ‘ay’ in “day”, and of course, don’t forget to trill your R’s. The ‘word’ divisions and punctuation written is an assumption only and is based solely on the speaker’s intonation and phrasing. What is in between the slashes is simply a basic International Phonetic Alphabet transcription of the phrase before it (for those who may be familiar with IPA).


What is interesting with T-speech is that it is spoken only; other than in linguistic analyses and the like, I have never seen it “written” – indeed, speakers typically cannot even repeat what they’ve just said, let alone try to write it out.

That said, a language does not need to have a written form; there are quite a few languages today that are not committed to writing and most Native American languages were not committed to writing until the arrival of the Europeans.

This kind of begs a few questions; if a passage such as the above were read aloud to someone who ‘interprets’ tongues, would they be able to give an interpretation? Would they be able to simply read it for themselves (either aloud or not) and be able to offer an interpretation or would they need to hear it spoken by another speaker (or would it depend on the person doing the interpretation)?

An argument for tongues as not being real languages (i.e. a heavenly/angelic language of some sort) is that they cannot be “translated”, but rather must be “interpreted”. I would argue that this is yet another criteria why tongues fail as language in general; with language, each word can be broken down into its various components, but this does not hold true with tongues (therefore, tongues are not language, heavenly or otherwise).

Further, I would argue that where one encounters the word ‘interpretation’ in the Bible with respect to ‘tongues’, it is to be understood as “translation”. Both mean the same thing: ‘to render language X into language Y’. The difference between the two words is more a thing of semantics and a bit nit-picky at that. Without getting into details, ‘translation’ implies something written, whilst interpretation implies something spoken. For example a “German language translator’ though it can refer to the spoken word, typically carries the meaning of translating something written. “German language interpreter” on the other hand, typically implies someone who translates the spoken word.

With Biblical tongues being real languages, interpretation should be understood to mean simply a translation of the spoken word; translating a person’s spoken native language (whatever it may be) into the vernacular (typically Greek).

 

[RBA238]

There are Two kinds of Tongues in the Bible
"TONGUES" AND "UNKNOWN TONGUES"
Tongues in itself could be speaking in a Foreign
Language the one talking is not normally familiar with that language..I have witnessed it.
A lady in our Church an African-American Spoke Fluent Tagolog (Philippines) and my wife from the Philippines interpreted it to The Church. It was a message to The Church all good it is a sign from The Lord. "Unknown Tongues" is Speaking in a Heavenly Language not normally spoken on earth. It is the normal kind of Speaking on Tongues.

 

[Kavik]

There are no “unknown” tongues – the word ‘unknown’ was added in the KJV of the Bible (not sure about others) and was never in the original text. As a result of it being inserted, it’s been picked up and misinterpreted by many to refer to ‘heavenly/angelic’ languages.

What you describe about Tagalog is called ‘xenoglossy’. The thing is though is that, what is known about the speaker’s experience with the language - has she ever been exposed to it in the past? Something like that begs a lot of questions with respect to previous experience with the target language (in this case, Tagalog). Unfortunately, there are no known provable cases of xenogossy; in every case that has ever been studied (not that there have been a lot of them), the speaker had been exposed in some way to the language they were speaking. Fluency varied considerably in these cases, but the cases describe non-religious xenoglossy, so entire lengthy conversations were happening day after day, not just a few phrases spoken one time as in most cases reported in the Pentecostal/Charismatic community.

Kapayapaan.

 

[stonesoffire]

You are speaking about a language of the spiritual man or woman and trying to understand it by a natural mind.

No cons...only pros.

 

[Kavik]

But that's just it; there is nothing regarding tongues that can not be explained in natural terms. Speaking non-cognitive non-language utterances / free vocalization is not "spiritual language". Glossolalia can (and is in most cultures) used as a tool by which to 'connect to' and establish a 'link', if you will, to the divine. Christian glossolalia is no different; I'm not sure if I'm saying this the way I mean it, but it's the tool used to accomplish the link/connection, not the actual connection/link itself. You could just as well be reciting a Tibetan chant to accomplish the same thing; by that I mean that the glossic utterances themselves (the means) are essentially irrelevant to accomplish the ends.

As far as interpretation goes, I would submit that the glossic utterance is, again, not at all related/relevant to the message being received; the two are independent, but closely related phenomenon, to each other. The slew of various interpretations for the same glossic string seems to evidence this.

 

[Kavik]

Something else to consider with ‘tongues’ is that when Paul in 1 Cor. 12:10 refers to “different (divers) kinds of tongues”, the original Greek as “heteros genos glôssa”. The word glôssa refers to real languages. One of the ways of knowing this is by the use of ‘genos’, rather than ‘eidos’ to describe them.

“Eidos” is the sort of generic word for ‘kinds (of)’, but Paul doesn’t use that word; he uses ‘genos’.

“Genos” refers to ‘kind in the sense of a “family, race, nation”. In this case a language family. Real languages belong to language families.

Are we to assume that were there such a thing as 'spiritual languages', that they would be classified as belonging to various language families? Why would there be a need for more than one spiritual language; what would be the purpose of having multiple ‘spiritual languages’? Even if they did exist, and there were multiple ones, how could one account for them developing the same way real human languages do in the sense of belonging to various language families??

Paul in Corinthians seems to be clearly referring to real languages here.

 

[joaniemarie]

Something else to consider with ‘tongues’ is that when Paul in 1 Cor. 12:10 refers to “different (divers) kinds of tongues”, the original Greek as “heteros genos glôssa”. The word glôssa refers to real languages. One of the ways of knowing this is by the use of ‘genos’, rather than ‘eidos’ to describe them.

“Eidos” is the sort of generic word for ‘kinds (of)’, but Paul doesn’t use that word; he uses ‘genos’.

“Genos” refers to ‘kind in the sense of a “family, race, nation”. In this case a language family. Real languages belong to language families.

Are we to assume that were there such a thing as 'spiritual languages', that they would be classified as belonging to various language families? Why would there be a need for more than one spiritual language; what would be the purpose of having multiple ‘spiritual languages’? Even if they did exist, and there were multiple ones, how could one account for them developing the same way real human languages do in the sense of belonging to various language families??

Paul in Corinthians seems to be clearly referring to real languages here.

I look at your many words of intense and logical human reason as they try to justify how the workings of the Spirit don't figure out with the workings of the human understanding. How humanly speaking that in itself should relinquish God's truth in our lives. (God laughs at human wisdom)

Some words for you Kavik.... God's ways are always higher than our ways, His thoughts always higher than our thoughts. The only thing we can do in response is submit to His ways and be utterly thankful He has included us in His wonderful plan. When you do., the Joy of the Lord will be your strength.

 

[Kavik]

Yes, I agree that God's thoughts are beyond ours.

That said however, there is absolutely nothing spiritual going on with the actual production of tongues/glossolalia. The spiritual aspect comes into play when glossolalia is used as a tool as described above (post 352).

As I've said, next time you speak tongues, take out your phone (or other recording device); put it on voice recorder, and record yourself for about a minute. Then play it back and take a listen; truly listen to the utterances – play the recording back over and over and write them down and look at them. Can you see the patterns, the play on sounds, repetitions of syllables, predictability of syllable structures, the constant use of particular vowels over others – then ask yourself, is this language or simply something that mimics it and is only a façade of language?

Then, listen to the tongues/glossolalia of say a Shaman from Siberia and you’ll notice he’s producing his tongues the same exact way you are. His 'tongues'/glossolalia may even sound like something you’ve heard before – are his ‘tongues’ any less divine than yours?

 

[notuptome]

You are speaking about a language of the spiritual man or woman and trying to understand it by a natural mind.

No cons...only pros.

I look at your many words of intense and logical human reason as they try to justify how the workings of the Spirit don't figure out with the workings of the human understanding. How humanly speaking that in itself should relinquish God's truth in our lives. (God laughs at human wisdom)

Some words for you Kavik.... God's ways are always higher than our ways, His thoughts always higher than our thoughts. The only thing we can do in response is submit to His ways and be utterly thankful He has included us in His wonderful plan. When you do., the Joy of the Lord will be your strength.

Classic example of claiming superiority by placing the subject into the realm of the ethereal. You poor dumb man to question what the hyper spiritualist alone can possess. This is like saying how can you claim to be saved if you do not know how spiritual this activity is for those who possess it.

Tongues are a sign to the Jew of Gods judgment. There will be a unification of human languages in the kingdom of God but until then we live under the judgment rendered on mankind and the tower of Babel.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[RBA238]

Well Sir, you of course are entitled to beleive what you want...In the case of the American (Black) who.Spoke in my wife's native language; II have known this Saint of God for 30 years. She has never been around Filipinos except my wife, nor does she not have any experience speaking Tagolog just that once..She is a College Graduate and a Full time School Teacher in Special Education..

 

[notuptome]

Well Sir, you of course are entitled to beleive what you want...In the case of the American (Black) who.Spoke in my wife's native language; II have known this Saint of God for 30 years. She has never been around Filipinos except my wife, nor does she not have any experience speaking Tagolog just that once..She is a College Graduate and a Full time School Teacher in Special Education..

Without biblical purpose and scriptural support there is no reason to attribute this to biblical tongues.

As you say you are entitled to believe what you want. You at least have attributed tongues to human languages which is a credit to your thinking. Many attribute them to unknowable utterances.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[joaniemarie]

Classic example of claiming superiority by placing the subject into the realm of the ethereal. You poor dumb man to question what the hyper spiritualist alone can possess. This is like saying how can you claim to be saved if you do not know how spiritual this activity is for those who possess it.

Tongues are a sign to the Jew of Gods judgment. There will be a unification of human languages in the kingdom of God but until then we live under the judgment rendered on mankind and the tower of Babel.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

No superiority here Roger. More like someone who actually lives in "NY" verses someone who has never been to "NY" and writes a fact sheet about it. Just because some of us live here in "NY" and have a viewpoint of it doesn't mean we are "hyper NYers" We simply live here and do have an opinion too. Don't be angry because we do something here in NY you don't understand and would never do yourself.