How "LIMITED" is your thinking on Other Tongues?

[Paul Christensen]

If you have the maturity to read something all the way through, carefully and slowly, without judging, you might like this article.
If you lack that ability, don't bother opening this. (It isn't being placed here to listen to arguments about how you "know" what is correct. It's probably too long for you, anyway. LOL)

A New Look At Tongues

I read enough of the article to determine that these respected scholars are trying to explain with human wisdom, what was a straight miracle. There were 120 people who got filled with the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, and there is nothing to say that the crowd heard just 12 people speaking in tongues. Whether the 120 actually spoke the languages, or the people from different regions heard their own language is not conclusive.

Also it is quite true that the pilgrims were either Jews from other regions or gentile "God-fearers" who had converted to Judaism. So the Jewish ones would understand Hebrew and Aramaic, and the gentile ones would understand Greek, as well as their own regional dialects which did not disappear when Alexander the Great introduced Koine Greek to those regions. It is the same in New Zealand where English was introduced by the first British colonists, but the indigenous NZ Maori language is still widely spoken as an official NZ language alongside English. Similarly, English and Spanish are side by side languages in California and other states bordering Mexico. Canada has English and French spoken side by side in certain provinces. Switzerland has people speaking English, French, and German, with some children speaking a mixture of these languages without knowing! Nothing out of the ordinary there. Therefore it is quite possible that in the regions listed by Luke, Latin, Greek and regional dialects would be spoken.

So it is quite possible that when the 120 were heard speaking in tongues, persons from each of the listed regions could well have heard their own dialects spoken and not Hebrew or Greek, and it is significant that these ones were amazed because they knew that the 120 were "uneducated Galilieans". The pilgrims from the regions knew that these Galileans could never have known their regional dialects, and that is what amazed them. If the 120 were speaking just Hebrew or Greek, then the crowd would not have been amazed at all.

 

[Willie T]

Yeah, I didn't think you had really read it. LOL

 

[Paul Christensen]

You didn't even read what I wrote, did you? In your haste, you missed an important part...… take another look. (I deliberately set it off in commas so you wouldn't miss it.)

I concur with you that the example of "tongues" you set off in commas is not genuine tongues at all. It all depends on why people speak in tongues. I believe that public speaking in tongues without the intention of having them interpreted to edify the other members is of the flesh and not the Spirit - because that kind of public speaking is contrary to Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 14. The Holy Spirit will support only what is written and taught in the Scriptures. If it isn't in the Scriptures or contrary to them in any way, the Holy Spirit does not support it.

But the genuine speaking in tongues is the speaking of a definite, articulate and expressive language inspired by the Holy Spirit to express His mind to God through the believer. It is a way to praise and magnify God at an expressive level that the limitations of our ordinary language could never achieve.

The Scripture says that there are various types of tongues, although Paul does not go to any lengths to specify exactly what those types are, so a lot of guesswork could be involved there.

Of course, those who teach that there is only one type of tongues - for speaking in church for interpretation, are ignoring Paul's statement about various types of tongues. Perhaps that is more by design than by accident because these people would not want to know that there are various types because that would weaken their assertion about tongues.

It is interesting that those who make the Bible say what they want it to say tend to cobble together verses that agree with their assertion, but miss out verses that don't. Or they take one isolated verse, or part of one, to construct their doctrine. For example, Kenneth Copeland takes one isolated verse, out of context, to teach that we are gods, not realising, or ignoring that the Psalmist was referring to those who were rejecting the true God and being their own gods instead; and that Jesus was being sarcastic to the Jewish scribes and pharisees when He quoted that Psalm to them.

Cult leaders usually quote Bible verses out of context and twist them around to support their false doctrines.

Those who believe that tongues is exclusively for use in the church forget about elementary school comprehension when they gloss over Paul saying, "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all, but in the church, I would rather speak words in language that others understand". (my paraphrase). These ones interpret "but in the church" as "only in church meetings along with interpretation", thereby putting their own words into Paul's mouth that he did not speak at all. Perhaps these ones needs to obtain an elementary school English comprehension text book and relearn comprehension 101 all over again.