Tongues...probably everyone has already discussed this, but...

[Mathetes the kerux]

Here is what Jesus said about it,..



I would seek further understanding in this area outside of Mr. Hagin. According to Jesus, prayer is not an open exercise in front of people, unless you do not want your prayers answered by GOD.

If you really want to see the gifts, spend some time at a good pentecostal church where The Holy Spirit is moving in the service. You will see all three of the vocal gifts in action and in orderly fashion. Everything should match to this scripture,..

The problem though is that Jesus is saying don't pray LIKE the Pharisees who pray in public for the purpose of impressing others and not to commune with God.

There are many passages that refer to corporate prayer . . . as in 1 Cor 14.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Whoa wait a minute here, our prayer language, or the "speaking in mysteries" and "tongues of Angels" is not to be interepreted, because it is not done by The Holy Spirit, that is us stepping out in our faith and activating that gift.

I can do it at any place and anytime.

But the gift of tongues done by The Holy Spirit in a service is done by the anointing of The Holy Spirit, and the accompanying interpretation of it is by The Holy Spirit also.

Our prayer language is between GOD and us.




I'm not sure we are both on the same page here. Are you saying that our prayer language is to be interpreted somehow? If you are, I disagree.

The "mysteries" and "tongues of Angels" refer to BOTH corporate tongues (the ministry of tongues if you will) AND prayer tongues. This describes the nature of tongues.

The "personal prayer language" that most refer to, in private usage, need NOT be interpreted . . . although I have heard of this happening. The corporate usage of tongues CAN BE either a prayer or an address to the congregation . . . no matter which (to God or from God) there should be an interpretation. In this sense prayer tongues (operating in the assembly) and prophetic tongues (in the assembly as well) should BOTH be interpreted.

Tongues, as a form of expression, has the richness and depth of ANY mode of expression and communication and the same fluidity of range as other modes of expression. This being the case, tongues can operate basically the same way other "languages" do as well . . . either in expression to God or an address from God. The latter being primarily for the assembly . . . and the former being primarily for private usage, but also for corporate usage, but needing interpretation when in the corporate context (defined by Paul as when either unbelievers or ungifted men are present, or, have the potential to be).

L8R

 

[Dave01]

Actually the Greek plays out that the tongues spoken in Acts 2 were the same tongues that Paul refered to.

If you would like I can break down the Greek? The picture is that all the disciples spoke in ecstatic tongues while the listeners each heard in their own dialect.

4 (ASV) And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

They spoke in other/different tongues, not unknown tongues. The people were identified as being from Galilee by the people, yet they were speaking all the different languages that these people knew, who happen to be there, praising GOD.

Paul specifically denounces people speaking their prayer languages in front of people,..

6 ¶ (LIT) But now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you, except I speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in teaching?

9 (LIT) So also you, if you do not give a clear word through the language, how will it be known what is being said? For you will be speaking into air.

10 (LIT) So it may be many kinds of sounds are in the world, and not one is without distinct sound.

11 (LIT) If, then, I do not know the power of the sound, I will be a foreigner to the one speaking, and he speaking in me a foreigner.

12 (LIT) So also you, since you are zealots of spiritual things, seek to build up the church that you may abound.

If The Holy Spirit is not speaking through me by inspiration, ie revelation, then it is me by my own spirit speaking, and that is not allowed in the church. You can break down the greek is you desire, in fact, let's take a look at it.

 

[Dave01]

The problem though is that Jesus is saying don't pray LIKE the Pharisees who pray in public for the purpose of impressing others and not to commune with God.

There are many passages that refer to corporate prayer . . . as in 1 Cor 14.

And I don't disagree with that. If anyone is in His church praying by their spirit before people, instead of speaking by inspiration of The Holy Spirit, they are not speaking to the congregation for edification, they are praying to GOD in front of a bunch of people showing off, and that is just like the pharisees according to Jesus, no different other than they are not charging money to do it.

 

[Dave01]

The "mysteries" and "tongues of Angels" refer to BOTH corporate tongues (the ministry of tongues if you will) AND prayer tongues. This describes the nature of tongues.

The "personal prayer language" that most refer to, in private usage, need NOT be interpreted . . . although I have heard of this happening. The corporate usage of tongues CAN BE either a prayer or an address to the congregation . . . no matter which (to God or from God) there should be an interpretation. In this sense prayer tongues (operating in the assembly) and prophetic tongues (in the assembly as well) should BOTH be interpreted.

Tongues, as a form of expression, has the richness and depth of ANY mode of expression and communication and the same fluidity of range as other modes of expression. This being the case, tongues can operate basically the same way other "languages" do as well . . . either in expression to God or an address from God. The latter being primarily for the assembly . . . and the former being primarily for private usage, but also for corporate usage, but needing interpretation when in the corporate context (defined by Paul as when either unbelievers or ungifted men are present, or, have the potential to be).

L8R

Oh really?

So I'm suppose to get up in front of people and indiscrimately rattle off my prayer language sometime during a service and someone is suppose to interpret that?

Do you know I can go for roughly 16 hours in my prayer language there friend? When do I start and when do I stop? Who told me to start and stop? Is anyone going to be able to keep up with me and interpret all that mess when I'm done? And who, besides myself, is going to be edified out of all of it?

Do you see the rediculous aspects of your statements here yet?

Unless it is by inspiration of The Holy Spirit, it is only me speaking by my spirit, and there is a distinct difference here. How is the church to be edified with me speaking by my spirit?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

And I don't disagree with that. If anyone is in His church praying by their spirit before people, instead of speaking by inspiration of The Holy Spirit, they are not speaking to the congregation for edification, they are praying to GOD in front of a bunch of people showing off, and that is just like the pharisees according to Jesus, no different other than they are not charging money to do it.

True.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Oh really?

So I'm suppose to get up in front of people and indiscrimately rattle off my prayer language sometime during a service and someone is suppose to interpret that?

Do you know I can go for roughly 16 hours in my prayer language there friend? When do I start and when do I stop? Who told me to start and stop? Is anyone going to be able to keep up with me and interpret all that mess when I'm done? And who, besides myself, is going to be edified out of all of it?

Do you see the rediculous aspects of your statements here yet?

Unless it is by inspiration of The Holy Spirit, it is only me speaking by my spirit, and there is a distinct difference here. How is the church to be edified with me speaking by my spirit?

Ok I am not sure you are getting me here.

1. All tongues in essence are the same (we can cover the Greek of Acts 2 later) . . . they are ecstatic unintelligible speech inspired by the Spirit.

2. There are three primary functions alluded to in Scripture.
a. Corporate usage (BOTH a prayer to God and an address from God)
b. Private usage (usually not needing interpretation)
c. A sign (BOTH for believers and unbelievers)

Tongues, when done in the corporate setting can either be an address to the assembly (1 Cor 14:21 In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord. Obviously an address to the people), or a prayer to God (1 Cor 14:16-17, 16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. Obviously a prayer here with another person present at YOUR GIVING OF THANKS). PAUL'S PRIMARY CONCERN FOR 1 COR. 14 IS IN THE ASSEMBLY.

The primary difference between public and private tongues is the need for an interpreter . . . the secondary difference is that tongues may be an address from God OR a prayer to God.

 

[Dave01]

Ok I am not sure you are getting me here.

1. All tongues in essence are the same (we can cover the Greek of Acts 2 later) . . . they are ecstatic unintelligible speech inspired by the Spirit.

2. There are three primary functions alluded to in Scripture.

And again, I disagree on sameness of the tongue.

At any point, night or day, I can step out in faith with this gift and start speaking in tongues. That is not inspiration, that is me switching the gift on and off by my choice. I can walk the pews speaking in tongues, I could run around the church speaking in tongues, but that is not inspirational, that is me showing off.

An example of a tongue that is inspiration is The Holy Spirit coming upon a person, and that person yeilding to The Spirit and allowing The Holy Spirit to speak forth from him/her. If it is done in a service, that tongue would need interpreted for the edification of that body of Christ present. The church would receive an edification during the speaking of the tongue and also during the interpretation of it.

Btw, I often come across as brash and I'm sorry about that.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

They spoke in other/different tongues, not unknown tongues. The people were identified as being from Galilee by the people, yet they were speaking all the different languages that these people knew, who happen to be there, praising GOD.

Paul specifically denounces people speaking their prayer languages in front of people,..



If The Holy Spirit is not speaking through me by inspiration, ie revelation, then it is me by my own spirit speaking, and that is not allowed in the church. You can break down the greek is you desire, in fact, let's take a look at it.

"unknown" is NOT a word associated with tongues. It is supplied in the KJV by the translators.

The Greek says this:

One individual heard THE WHOLE GROUP OF DISCIPLES speaking in his native dialect AT THE SAME TIME that the guy next to him heard THE SAME GROUP speaking in a DIFFERENT DIALECT.

I speak in tongues in front of a Russian guy, a guy from China and an African Gent.

I am speaking unintelligible ecstatic speech WHILE EACH ONE OF THEM HEARS ME IN THEIR OWN DIALECT. They don't hear the ecstatic speech . . . the Russian hears me in Russian at the same time the Chinese guys hears me in Chinese while the African guy hears me in his dialect. I AM NOT SPEAKING AFRICAN RUSSIAN AND CHINESE ALL AT THE SAME TIME!

Rather, as the Spirit gave utterance, the Spirit also gives understanding . . . the miracle of Acts 2 is not so much the tongues (remember tongues were prevalent in the ancient world) but those who heard hearing what they did. Notice the response of those who heard the sound but not their own language . . . "Oh they're drunk!" Hardly a sensible comment if all that was going on were foreign languages.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

And again, I disagree on sameness of the tongue.

At any point, night or day, I can step out in faith with this gift and start speaking in tongues. That is not inspiration, that is me switching the gift on and off by my choice. I can walk the pews speaking in tongues, I could run around the church speaking in tongues, but that is not inspirational, that is me showing off.

An example of a tongue that is inspiration is The Holy Spirit coming upon a person, and that person yeilding to The Spirit and allowing The Holy Spirit to speak forth from him/her. If it is done in a service, that tongue would need interpreted for the edification of that body of Christ present. The church would receive an edification during the speaking of the tongue and also during the interpretation of it.

Btw, I often come across as brash and I'm sorry about that.

No problem for the brashness . . . s'okay.

The corporate tongue also has the ability to be "turned on and off" . . . as well as prophecy.

Two or at the most three . . . if there comes four . . . the prophet can hold back. The spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet. If there is NO interpreter . . . the speaker can again HOLD back.

And again . . . the ESSENCE of the tongue is the same . . . not the function. You and I, in our essential nature are the same, no? Yet we have different functions in the Church, yes? Same with prophetic and prayer tongues. The change is function not essence or nature.

Curious . . . have you ever moved in the public corporate tongue and interpretation?

 

[Dave01]

a. Corporate usage (BOTH a prayer to God and an address from God)

Agree

b. Private usage (usually not needing interpretation)

Agree

c. A sign (BOTH for believers and unbelievers) Agree

Tongues, when done in the corporate setting can either be an address to the assembly (1 Cor 14:21 In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord. Obviously an address to the people), or a prayer to God (1 Cor 14:16-17, 16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. Obviously a prayer here with another person present at YOUR GIVING OF THANKS). PAUL'S PRIMARY CONCERN FOR 1 COR. 14 IS IN THE ASSEMBLY.

The primary difference between public and private tongues is the need for an interpreter . . . the secondary difference is that tongues may be an address from God OR a prayer to God.

Ok question here, we both know that people do pray in tongues in their pulpits. I do get uneasy about it, but The Holy Spirit is not greieved within me when it happens.

Are you saying that this sort of praying in the spirit is suppose to/can be interpreted? If so, I disagree.

 

[Dave01]

No problem for the brashness . . . s'okay.

The corporate tongue also has the ability to be "turned on and off" . . . as well as prophecy.

I disagree. The Holy Spirit has to move on the congregation and switch the gift on Himself through the people He chooses.

Two or at the most three . . . if there comes four . . . the prophet can hold back. The spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet. If there is NO interpreter . . . the speaker can again HOLD back.

That would be for a prophet, and not everyone is placed in that office.

And again . . . the ESSENCE of the tongue is the same . . . not the function.

Now here, I agree with you.

You and I, in our essential nature are the same, no? Yet we have different functions in the Church, yes? Same with prophetic and prayer tongues. The change is function not essence or nature.

Again, I would agree with you.

Curious . . . have you ever moved in the public corporate tongue and interpretation?

Only prophesy so far. The operation of the gifts within our church is dictated soley by The Spirit, and there are too many people who will call you out on the carpet if you are not flowing in The Spirit with your gift.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Ok question here, we both know that people do pray in tongues in their pulpits. I do get uneasy about it, but The Holy Spirit is not greieved within me when it happens.

Are you saying that this sort of praying in the spirit is suppose to/can be interpreted? If so, I disagree.

I would say that ANY tongue can be interpreted.

The key is 1 Cor 14:16, 17. Paul clearly deliniates a usage of tongues in interpreting prayer in the congregation.

Now I must be careful here . . . but 1 Cor is a corrective letter. That means that the instruction to "interpret" is a situational instruction. Had the Corinthians never been abusing the gift . . . we would have never been instructed to interpret or limit the use to only two or three. Look at Acts. Always more than two or three . . . never an interpreter (BTW look at the content of the Acts tongues . . . praise and prayer).

 

[Dave01]

"unknown" is NOT a word associated with tongues. It is supplied in the KJV by the translators.

That is correct, I'm aware of this.

The Greek says this:

One individual heard THE WHOLE GROUP OF DISCIPLES speaking in his native dialect AT THE SAME TIME that the guy next to him heard THE SAME GROUP speaking in a DIFFERENT DIALECT.

That's incorrect. That is why I used that one particular section of scripture to point this out,...

4 (ASV) And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

This word "other" also means different or diverse.

It wasn't just one tongue they were speaking, they were speaking many, hence why we can't say they were speaking a prayer language.

I speak in tongues in front of a Russian guy, a guy from China and an African Gent.

I am speaking unintelligible ecstatic speech WHILE EACH ONE OF THEM HEARS ME IN THEIR OWN DIALECT. They don't hear the ecstatic speech . . . the Russian hears me in Russian at the same time the Chinese guys hears me in Chinese while the African guy hears me in his dialect. I AM NOT SPEAKING AFRICAN RUSSIAN AND CHINESE ALL AT THE SAME TIME!

I seen The Lord do this at times.

Rather, as the Spirit gave utterance, the Spirit also gives understanding . . . the miracle of Acts 2 is not so much the tongues (remember tongues were prevalent in the ancient world) but those who heard hearing what they did. Notice the response of those who heard the sound but not their own language . . . "Oh they're drunk!" Hardly a sensible comment if all that was going on were foreign languages.

I understand what you are saying here, but,..... all of us must be sound in our biblical approach, so we can't make assumptions on the text if it does not say that specifically.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I disagree. The Holy Spirit has to move on the congregation and switch the gift on Himself through the people He chooses.

I would agree that the impetus has to come through the Spirit . . . the unction has to be from Him first.

But look at the passage:
1 Cor 14:26-33
26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.


Paul is pretty clear . . . tongues, prophecy (and all the gifts for that matter) can be controlled.

This is actually what set apart the Christian manifestation of tongues from the pagan manifestation of tongues . . . the aspect of control.
Again the intial prompting must be the Spirit . . . but the one being used has the ability to step out or not step out . . . in particular . . . Paul says if there are no interpreters or two or three have already done so.


Hmmm . . . maybe part of the confusion comes with the difference between prayer and prophetic tongues? Prayer tongues are brought on by the Spirit but supplied by the "prayee" in particular . . . where prophetic tongues (being a message from God) are not only brought on by the Spirit but also supplied by the Spirit.

 

[Dave01]

I would say that ANY tongue can be interpreted.

Now here I can agree with you only by personal experience. There was a person on my ship when I was in the Navy who had a remarkable gift to interpret. He could interpret some of the things I was saying in my prayer language, but our prayer language is so fast he could not do it word for word, just overall aspects of it.

The problem with this, was that he was the oddball per say with this gift. He has been the only one I've seen like this with that sort of broad gift. He could not speak in tongues himself, but he could interpret, go figure.

The key is 1 Cor 14:16, 17. Paul clearly deliniates a usage of tongues in interpreting prayer in the congregation.

Now I must be careful here . . . but 1 Cor is a corrective letter. That means that the instruction to "interpret" is a situational instruction. Had the Corinthians never been abusing the gift . . . we would have never been instructed to interpret or limit the use to only two or three. Look at Acts. Always more than two or three . . . never an interpreter (BTW look at the content of the Acts tongues . . . praise and prayer).

We as a people, tend to be abusive with the things of GOD. Kind-of our nature. It is hard to remain humble, yet we must.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

That is correct, I'm aware of this.



That's incorrect. That is why I used that one particular section of scripture to point this out,...



This word "other" also means different or diverse.

It wasn't just one tongue they were speaking, they were speaking many, hence why we can't say they were speaking a prayer language.



I seen The Lord do this at times.



I understand what you are saying here, but,..... all of us must be sound in our biblical approach, so we can't make assumptions on the text if it does not say that specifically.

Dave . . . Greek is a precise language.

The Greek is clear. One individual heard the entire group at the same time that another heard the whole group.

Here (these following quotes are from other threads):
1.
The Greek is clear that each man/one (singular eiV or one [here rendered as "man" in the KJV]) heard THEM ALL (plural ekastoV a compound of the singular meaning more than one) speaking in there NATIVE (idia "one's own") language.
Greek is a very precise language as far as meaning within linguistic construction goes. It seems clear that the Cretans heard ALL OF THEM in Cretan, the Parthians heard ALL OF THEM in Parthian, Cappadocians in Cappadocian, et. al. AT THE SAME MOMENT. This would leave us with the conclusion that the miracle was not so much that they were speaking in tongues (although that was miraculous too) but that all these guys heard all those speaking in tongues AS A GROUP in their language AT THE SAME TIME as the others who were listening. Look at the other's response too . . . not one of awe but one of mockery. They didn't hear the languages . . . but rather they heard something that caused them to think that the ones speaking were DRUNK.

2.
Here is the problem that needs to be surmounted in order for a case for tongues being literal known human languages in Acts:

1) The Greek doesn't allow for a concept of a one-to-one ratio of hearing and speaking. Rather the Greek supports a one hearing all speaking.

2) The common Koine usage of "glossolalia lailien" in connection with ecstatic tongue speaking in the common world. The phrase "speaking in tongues" (in this literary form) becomes a buzz phrase, something along the lines of the contemporary usage of "pro-life," hence carrying with its usage a whole plethora of meaning that may not be known without a perusal of ancient Koine usage.

3) Luke's distinction between "glosson" (tongue) and dialektos (dialect). The disciples spoke in "tongues" but those who heard did not hear "glosson" but rather "dialektos." Luke's usage is illuminating to his meaning.

4) The purpose of the "languages" in Acts 2 is NOT common throughout the Acts' passages. The purpose of "languages" is only in Acts 2.

5) If one assumes that the "tongues" presented in Acts 2 is the same "tongues" that Paul speaks about in 1st Corn. 12-14, the context of 1st Cor. 14 is clear that the tongues in view (regardless of function or usage) is indeed ecstatic, thereby rendering the tongues of Acts 2 ecstatic as well.

These are the issues that must be answered if one desires to make the tongues of Acts 2 known foreign languages.

 

[Dave01]

I would agree that the impetus has to come through the Spirit . . . the unction has to be from Him first.

But look at the passage:
1 Cor 14:26-33
26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.


Paul is pretty clear . . . tongues, prophecy (and all the gifts for that matter) can be controlled.

This is actually what set apart the Christian manifestation of tongues from the pagan manifestation of tongues . . . the aspect of control.
Again the intial prompting must be the Spirit . . . but the one being used has the ability to step out or not step out . . . in particular . . . Paul says if there are no interpreters or two or three have already done so.

So far, agreed. The edification of the body has to come from The Holy Spirit through these means listed in 1 Cor 14:26. If it is not by The Holy Spirit, then there is no edification to the whole.

Our yeilding to The Spirit and allowing Him to speak forth from us is something we must desire before The Lord. That is a part of our obediance which adds and perfects our faith.

Hmmm . . . maybe part of the confusion comes with the difference between prayer and prophetic tongues? Prayer tongues are brought on by the Spirit but supplied by the "prayee" in particular . . . where prophetic tongues (being a message from God) are not only brought on by the Spirit but also supplied by the Spirit.

Well, prayer tongues can be supplied by The Spirit (and they are at times), it is still prayer, and that's why I'm saying that it should be handled by what Jesus mentioned. Now does everyone do that? Of course not, but if we were to be more in the strict biblical sense, we would be more careful of this.

The prophetic tongues you mentioned would be what I'm talking about in the congregation.

 

[Dave01]

Dave . . . Greek is a precise language.

The Greek is clear. One individual heard the entire group at the same time that another heard the whole group.

Here (these following quotes are from other threads):
1.
The Greek is clear that each man/one (singular eiV or one [here rendered as "man" in the KJV]) heard THEM ALL (plural ekastoV a compound of the singular meaning more than one) speaking in there NATIVE (idia "one's own") language.
Greek is a very precise language as far as meaning within linguistic construction goes. It seems clear that the Cretans heard ALL OF THEM in Cretan, the Parthians heard ALL OF THEM in Parthian, Cappadocians in Cappadocian, et. al. AT THE SAME MOMENT. This would leave us with the conclusion that the miracle was not so much that they were speaking in tongues (although that was miraculous too) but that all these guys heard all those speaking in tongues AS A GROUP in their language AT THE SAME TIME as the others who were listening. Look at the other's response too . . . not one of awe but one of mockery. They didn't hear the languages . . . but rather they heard something that caused them to think that the ones speaking were DRUNK.

2.
Here is the problem that needs to be surmounted in order for a case for tongues being literal known human languages in Acts:

1) The Greek doesn't allow for a concept of a one-to-one ratio of hearing and speaking. Rather the Greek supports a one hearing all speaking.

2) The common Koine usage of "glossolalia lailien" in connection with ecstatic tongue speaking in the common world. The phrase "speaking in tongues" (in this literary form) becomes a buzz phrase, something along the lines of the contemporary usage of "pro-life," hence carrying with its usage a whole plethora of meaning that may not be known without a perusal of ancient Koine usage.

3) Luke's distinction between "glosson" (tongue) and dialektos (dialect). The disciples spoke in "tongues" but those who heard did not hear "glosson" but rather "dialektos." Luke's usage is illuminating to his meaning.

4) The purpose of the "languages" in Acts 2 is NOT common throughout the Acts' passages. The purpose of "languages" is only in Acts 2.

5) If one assumes that the "tongues" presented in Acts 2 is the same "tongues" that Paul speaks about in 1st Corn. 12-14, the context of 1st Cor. 14 is clear that the tongues in view (regardless of function or usage) is indeed ecstatic, thereby rendering the tongues of Acts 2 ecstatic as well.

These are the issues that must be answered if one desires to make the tongues of Acts 2 known foreign languages.

The Holy Spirit within me agrees with you and how you divided the word here, so I retract my statement over this area. I will review this and ensure I'm not misunderstanding sections like this in the future.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

The Holy Spirit within me agrees with you and how you divided the word here, so I retract my statement over this area. I will review this and ensure I'm not misunderstanding sections like this in the future.

Absolutely.

Thank you for your humility brother.

Blessings upon you as you walk in the Spirit of Grace and truth!