praying in tongues glossolia

[LinkH]

Acts 2:4-8
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and wondered, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?

'Other Tongues'......'Other Languages'....why?

To spread the Gospel.

This is one of those posts that makes one want to say, "Duh..."

Not to the Bible verses, but to your conclusion. Read the whole chapter. Where is the evidence that Peter preached in tongues. This is unlikely considering the passage. Peter preached, most likely in a common language they all understood.

It seems like you want to accuse others of misunderstanding possibly without even bothering to sit down and carefully read the passages in question. Maybe you just have not carefully considered if there is any evidence at all for your assumptions. You are engaging in what is known as eisegesis.

 

[swordsman1]

You are saying:
1. The Corinthians spoke thanksgiving mysteries to God in a human language that was unknown to anyone in the church. Well how would they know this? If no one knows the language, how would Paul know?

How would he know this any better if it was a non-human language?

2. That speaking in another human language edifies the person speaking, even though no one else understands them, and they don't even understand themselves. How is this so different to the speaking in tongues that I have defined? How do you know EVERYONE who speaks in tongues isn't speaking in a human language that no-one who hears knows?

So you are now saying that modern tongues is a human language that we just don't know about?

3. Is speaking in a different human language like speaking in distinct or indistinct notes?

If the hearer doesn't understand it, yes.

4. Does my spirit know another human language of the world even though my mind doesn't?

That's what it says. Your spirit would pray in a language you have never previously learned, but your mind would be unfruitful.

5. Is changing the language blessing and giving thanks in a very different and better way to the speaking in tongues I have described (even if no-one hears the speaking in tongues)?

Not sure I follow.

6. Paul says he speaks in tongues more than them all, NEVERTHELESS IN PUBLIC ... meaning he speaks in tongues in private. But you are saying he speaks in another human language that he doesn't even know himself?

It doesn't say Paul spoke tongues in private. If he did it would be a misuse as spiritual gifts are supposed to be for the benefit of others (1 Pet 4:10, 1 Cor 12:7). Where else apart from in the church was tongues legitimately practiced? In public places full of foreigners as at Pentecost, where it no doubt would have been a great help in Paul's missionary endeavors.

 

[Goatee]

So that's all you can say!! Would you care to try and explain why I am "off the mark", this would be very interesting indeed.

The Apostles spoke in tongues. Why? What was the 'ministry' given to the Apostles?

To preach the Gospel. To go out and save men. To spread the good news. This is why they were given the gift of speaking in tongues!

Acts 2:4-8
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and wondered, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?

You just want to think and believe that the gibberish that you and others experience is from God! Only the Apostles were given the gift. To preach. To teach.

You say you are praying? Jesus said this:

Matthew 6:5-6
5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Sorry if the word 'gibberish' upsets you but i do not know of another word to describe what i have heard!

 

[Goatee]

This is one of those posts that makes one want to say, "Duh..."

Not to the Bible verses, but to your conclusion. Read the whole chapter. Where is the evidence that Peter preached in tongues. This is unlikely considering the passage. Peter preached, most likely in a common language they all understood.

It seems like you want to accuse others of misunderstanding possibly without even bothering to sit down and carefully read the passages in question. Maybe you just have not carefully considered if there is any evidence at all for your assumptions. You are engaging in what is known as eisegesis.

I have read the whole passage. How do you know that Peter was not able to preach in other Languages? If not, then maybe it was tasked to the others to do this.

How do you know that what comes out of your mouth is not blaspheme when you 'speak in tongues?' You would have no way of knowing!

 

[Goatee]

Really:

 

[swordsman1]

You made a comment implying that two interpreters do not give the same interpretation of tongues. I wouldn't be surprised if someone had tried this 'experiment' on some occasion and got different interpretations. Not all interpretations are genuine. But do you have any evidence that anyone has performed a large scale experiment of this type?

No I don't know of any studies where recorded tongues have been played to 2 different interpreters, although there is no shortage of recorded samples on YouTube. I doubt very much if any tongues interpreters would be willing to partake with such a study - I would bet my bottom dollar the test would fail.

I've heard several stories of foreign people speaking their native language during a tongues session and someone interpreting it as something completely different to what they spoke. And stories of 10 minutes worth of tongues being translated into 1 minutes worth of interpretation, and vice versa.

 

[swordsman1]

So the glossa of Acts 2:4 is from the perspective of the Christian and the dialektos of Acts 2:8 is from the perspective of those who heard what they heard.

In Acts 2:11 'glossa' is from the perspective of those who heard. So I'm afraid that theory fails.

The problem here is that Paul is adamant that within the congregational meeting that no man will ever be able to understand

Paul does not say "no man will ever be able to understand". He said no one in the congregation understands a language they are unfamiliar with.

 

[Goatee]

In Acts 2:11 'glossa' is from the perspective of those who heard. So I'm afraid that theory fails.



Paul does not say "no man will ever be able to understand". He said no one in the congregation understands a language they are unfamiliar with.

Agreed 100%

 

[Biblicist]

I have read the whole passage. How do you know that Peter was not able to preach in other Languages? If not, then maybe it was tasked to the others to do this.

Now seriously, if Peter was able to preach the Gospel to over a dozen different language groups where he could keep the attention of over 3000 people then this would have undoubtedly been the greatest part of the Day of Pentecost. If such a strange thing were to have occurred, don't you think that Luke would have recorded what could of very well been the most incredible spectacle that probably anyone could wittness?

And don't forget, he was not speaking to people groups who knew nothing of Aramaic as verse 5 tells that he was speaking to Jews who were living (or at least were resident) within Jerusalem, so he would have spoken in his native Aramaic.

How do you know that what comes out of your mouth is not blaspheme when you 'speak in tongues?' You would have no way of knowing!

Here's the difference between you and me it seems, where you appear to be unable to trust the Father to do what is right, I am more than confident that the Spirit of God will never allow a demon to impersonate him.

 

[Biblicist]

In Acts 2:11 'glossa' is from the perspective of those who heard. So I'm afraid that theory fails.

Yes, and the sun also rises in the west and when we fall of a bench we fall upwards and not down.

 

[LinkH]

I have read the whole passage. How do you know that Peter was not able to preach in other Languages? If not, then maybe it was tasked to the others to do this.

How do you know that Peter wasn't blue and 18 feet tall? The Bible doesn't say that he was or that he wasn't, but we shouldn't read such ideas into the Bible either.

The Bible never hints that 'speaking in tongues' was used to evangelize in other languages. We have no examples of this. The disciples did speak the wonderful works of God. This got people's attention. Then Peter actually preached to them, presumably the 'normal way'.

How do you know that what comes out of your mouth is not blaspheme when you 'speak in tongues?' You would have no way of knowing!

Why didn't Paul say such a thing to the Corinthians if it were not a concern. Jesus said, if ye being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask Him?

 

[swordsman1]

Yes, and the sun also rises in the west and when we fall of a bench we fall upwards and not down.

Acts 2:11 "Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues (glossa)”

 

[Biblicist]

Acts 2:11 "Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues (glossa)”

Yep that's right . . . but the question was about Peter and not the other 120.

 

[Goatee]

Now seriously, if Peter was able to preach the Gospel to over a dozen different language groups where he could keep the attention of over 3000 people then this would have undoubtedly been the greatest part of the Day of Pentecost. If such a strange thing were to have occurred, don't you think that Luke would have recorded what could of very well been the most incredible spectacle that probably anyone could wittness?

John 21:25
25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

 

[Goatee]

Yep that's right . . . but the question was about Peter and not the other 120.

Seems to me you are 'clutching at straws' to make what you do seem right and correct.

Be wary of false Prophets!

Jesus said that many would come in his name, saying they are he! Beware!!

 

[Biblicist]

John 21:25
25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

It seems to be that you are maybe trying to have a bit of fun on this thread; of course, if you would like to go down this particular track maybe Peter had the 120 writing down translations of his Aramaic evangelistic address on scrolls where they then handed them out to the crowd.

 

[Biblicist]

Seems to me you are 'clutching at straws' to make what you do seem right and correct.

Be wary of false Prophets!

Jesus said that many would come in his name, saying they are he! Beware!!

That's your reply!!

 

[swordsman1]

Yep that's right . . . but the question was about Peter and not the other 120.

Your original assertion was that Luke used dialektos in Acts 2:8 and 11, saying that dialektos was used from the perspective of the hearer. That was wrong, v11 is glossa.

 

[Biblicist]

Your original assertion was that Luke used dialektos in Acts 2:8 and 11, saying that dialektos was used from the perspective of the hearer. That was wrong, v11 is glossa.

Okay, I thought you were connecting your post to Antletems statement about Peter.

Wait a minute, I was about to say; "You know what, you are correct as I had stupidly swapped the transliteration of glossa for the secondary meaning from within BW9 - oh how I hate such stupid errors". But then I realised that I had quoted verses 4 & 8 so my point stands - but you did give me a momentary shock.

 

[Goatee]

It seems to be that you are maybe trying to have a bit of fun on this thread; of course, if you would like to go down this particular track maybe Peter had the 120 writing down translations of his Aramaic evangelistic address on scrolls where they then handed them out to the crowd.

Seems to me you are not happy with these genuine quotes that show what you have written to be wrong!