• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dave01

Guest
Absolutely.

Thank you for your humility brother.

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

That's no problem. My zeal and confidence is easily viewed as arrogance at times, so it is best that I put myself aside here when I feel "I'm" being shown instead of Christ.

But one thing did happen though. When I excused myself from this thread, The Holy Spirit was grieved inside of me, and I was surprised. I thought you were correct in your outline, so I thought that maybe my actions had grieved Him. That was not the case. I just woke up here and the first thing on my mind from The Lord is this particular exchange of ideas here between you and I, and The Lord wanting me to look this up more.

My problem is I don't read greek, and sometimes I'm too quick to accept anothers usage of the greek over the leading of The Holy Spirit at times because of that. But also, I have caught others utilizing the greek incorrectly at times for their own doctrine.

Now here is the problem:

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.

That word "all" you put in there is not in the greek and no one translates it this way. Here is a snapshot of my online bible program page,..
6 (AV) Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. {was…: Gr. voice was made confounded: or, troubled in mind}

6 (ASV) And when this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speaking in his own language.

6 (Darby) But the rumour of this having spread, the multitude came together and were confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own dialect.

6 (Douay) And when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded in mind, because that every man heard them speak in his own tongue.

6 (EMTV) And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because they were hearing each one speaking in his own language.

6 (ESV) And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language.

6 (GUV) But after this rumour {GENITIVE ABSOLUTE} has arisen, {GENITIVE ABSOLUTE} the multitude {SUBJECT} came together and were confounded; because each one {SUBJECT} was hearing them {DIRECT OBJECT} who are speaking {SUBSTANTIVE} in his own language. {MANNER}

6 (IGNT) genomenhv de {BUT HAVING ARISEN} thv {THE} fwnhv {RUMOUR} tauthv {OF THIS,} sunhlyen {CAME TOGETHER} to {THE} plhyov {MULTITUDE} kai {AND} sunecuyh {WERE CONFOUNDED,} oti {BECAUSE} hkouon {HEARD} eiv {ONE} ekastov {EACH} th {IN} idia {HIS OWN} dialektw {LANGUAGE} lalountwn {SPEAKING} autwn {THEM.}

6 (Lamsa) And as the sound took place, all the people gathered together, and they were confused because every man heard them speak in his own language.

6 (LIT) But this sound occurring, the multitude came together and were confounded, because they each heard them speaking in his own dialect.

6 (Murdoch) And when that sound occurred, all the people collected together; and they were agitated, because they every one heard them speaking in their own languages.

6 (Nas) And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because they were each one hearing them speak in his own language.

6 (NKJV) And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.

6 (Noyes) And when this sound took place, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because every one heard them speaking in his own language.

6 (Philips) When they heard this sound a crowd quickly collected and was completely bewildered because each one of them heard these men speaking in his own language.

6 (Rotherham) And this sound occurring the throng came together and was thrown into confusion, because each one severally heard in his own language them who were speaking;

6 (RSV) And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

6 (RWebster) Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because every man heard them speak in his own language. {was…: Gr. voice was made confounded: or, troubled in mind}

6 (TRC) When this was noised about, the multitude came together {to gether} and were astonied, because that every man heard them speak his own tongue.

6 (WEY) So when this noise was heard, they came crowding together, and were amazed because everyone heard his own language spoken.

6 (WTNT) When this was noised about, the multitude came to gether and were astonied, because that every man heard them speak his own tongue.

6 (YLT) and the rumour of this having come, the multitude came together, and was confounded, because they were each one hearing them speaking in his proper dialect,

As you see, no one adds that word "all" in there. If we say that interpretation was automatically being given to the crowd, then we place the gift upon the people instead of the disciples, and that is not so, as a few commentators have said,..

Clark:
Every man heard them speak in his own language. Use may naturally suppose that, as soon as any person presented himself to one of these disciples, he, the disciple, was immediately enabled to address him in his own language, however various this had been from the Jewish or Galilean dialects. If a Roman presented himself, the disciple was immediately enabled to address him in Latin—if a Grecian, in Greek—an Arab, in Arabic, and so of the rest.

Gill:
because that every man heard them speak in his own language; which shows, what has been before observed, that one spake in one language, and another in another language; or the same person sometimes spoke one language, and sometimes another; so that in course, all languages were spoken by them; whence it appears, that it was not one language only which was spoken by the apostles, which men of different languages heard and understood, as if it was their own; for then the miracle must have been in the hearers, and not in the speakers; and the cloven tongues, as of fire, should rather have sat on them, than on the disciples; and these men be said to be filled with the gifts of the Holy Ghost, rather than they.

Poole:
Every man heard them speak in his own language; probably, not that the same words spoken by the apostles were diversified according to every one’s understanding, for then the miracle had been wrought in their auditors, and not in the apostles; but that the apostles did speak to every one in their proper and most intelligible language: and this was the gift of tongues, which for some time after also was continued in the church.

I'll address you observations next post.
 
Upvote 0
D

Dave01

Guest
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.

Let's go through each one,..

1) Not true and most likely a personal interpretation of the greek here. If this was the understanding of the greek, then english translations would point out this meaning, and as was shown, none seem to. Greek scholars would not comment with the opposite view either. This has the people being endowed with the gifts instead of the Disciples. This also has GOD working through fallen man's spirit somehow.

2) Not true. This does not take in account The Holy Spirit's functions through believers to provide understanding of GOD's word and wisdom.

3, 4, 5) Not true. The word "tongues" is plural and these statements do not take into account the varied workings and operations of this gift by GOD. It leaves one with the view there is but one type of tongue and one operation of the gift and no other. This view would not agree with scripture,...

4 (LIT) And there are differences of gifts, but the same Spirit;

5 (LIT) and there are differences of ministries, yet the same Lord.

6 (LIT) And there are differences of workings, but the same God is working all things in all.

7 (LIT) And to each one is given the showing forth of the Spirit to our profit.
 
Upvote 0

bithiah2

Jah is my strength and song!
Jun 12, 2006
2,143
299
metro
✟26,264.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Dinsight said:


I respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions. Especially this one, for it is opposite of what the word says!

1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

This verse does not agree with your conclusion about praying with your spirit. There is no other scriptural definition about how our spirit prays.

1 Corinthians 14:15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

Praying with the spirit is praying in tongues!! Paul said he would pray with his spirit, and also pray with his understanding! Then he added the singing!

1 Corinthians 14:16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? 17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.

If all we did was pray with our spirit it would be a mess and there would be no amens! Once again confirming praying in tongues is praying with our spirit! If you are praying in tongues (our spirit prays) no one can understand. Both types of prayer must be allowed in our services! BALANCE!! One extreme is no tongues in church; the other extreme is all tongues in church! Balance!!

1 Corinthians 14:18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

It seems to me Paul prayed with his spirit (unknown tongue) more outside the church than inside. Which is how we arrive at a personal prayer language!

It is all from the Holy Spirit! Tongues, tongues and interpretation, tongues for the unbeliever. Balance!

We can not ignore the threefold witness that when people receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit they can pray with their spirit!

Acts 2:4
Acts 10:44-46
Acts 19:6

2 Corinthians 13:1 This will be the third time I am coming to you. "By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established."

We can not ignore the truth that when one prays in a tongue his spirit prays! There is no other Biblical definition!

John 4:21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 "You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
:amen:
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
47
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Let's go through each one,..

1) Not true and most likely a personal interpretation of the greek here. If this was the understanding of the greek, then english translations would point out this meaning, and as was shown, none seem to. Greek scholars would not comment with the opposite view either. This has the people being endowed with the gifts instead of the Disciples. This also has GOD working through fallen man's spirit somehow.

2) Not true. This does not take in account The Holy Spirit's functions through believers to provide understanding of GOD's word and wisdom.

3, 4, 5) Not true. The word "tongues" is plural and these statements do not take into account the varied workings and operations of this gift by GOD. It leaves one with the view there is but one type of tongue and one operation of the gift and no other. This view would not agree with scripture,...
I will respond when I have a moment.

But suffice the Greek is clear . . . and so is the English.

"Each one" is singular in the Greek . . . "them" is plural in the Greek (as well as the English). Look up the terms in any lexicon (Strong, Kittle, etc). This means one heard all.

Commentators are giving their interpretation . . . and so are translators.

Not to mention that each commentator that you refer to no doubt bounds presupposition in their rendition . . . I doubt they believe in the charisma . . . may even be cessationists.

I once was in a debate . . . I had made a propositional contention that I hadn't actually done the study on myself. The Spirit was all over me and kept me restless . . . I had a hard time sleeping. Anyway . . . the Spirit wasn't persuing me because I was wrong . . . but because He wanted me to search out the issue on my own. When I did . . . He then granted me peace.

Lastly . . . quickly . . . the move of the Spirit in the ears of the hearers was in those who would believe and be baptized shortly after . . . the miracle of hearing wasn't in the ears of the mockers. So . . . just as God moves in our hearts first (then we respond) to regenerate us . . . so God moves first here.

Not to mention the anecdotal evidence . . . take Jack Hayford . . . he recounts a story about a time in an airplane when he sat next to a Native American gentleman. Somewhere in the conversation the topic of tongues was broached and the gentleman wanted Pastor Hayford to demonstrate for him. Jack didn't want to but felt a release from the Spirit. So he spoke in tongues. Now Jack spoke in the ecstatic prayer tongue that he always spoke in . . . BUT THE MAN HEARD IN HIS OWN NATIVE AMERICAN DIALECT about the great chief Jesus etc.

There are TONS of stories like this. Now is the chance that non-charismatic commentators with no experience on the gifts are wrong? Yes indeed. Remember tongues wasn't very prevalent since the first cent. until the 20th cent.; that is 19 cent.s of non experiential understanding.
 
Upvote 0
D

Dave01

Guest
I will respond when I have a moment.

But suffice the Greek is clear . . . and so is the English.

"Each one" is singular in the Greek . . . "them" is plural in the Greek (as well as the English). Look up the terms in any lexicon (Strong, Kittle, etc). This means one heard all.

Commentators are giving their interpretation . . . and so are translators.

Not to mention that each commentator that you refer to no doubt bounds presupposition in their rendition . . . I doubt they believe in the charisma . . . may even be cessationists.

I once was in a debate . . . I had made a propositional contention that I hadn't actually done the study on myself. The Spirit was all over me and kept me restless . . . I had a hard time sleeping. Anyway . . . the Spirit wasn't persuing me because I was wrong . . . but because He wanted me to search out the issue on my own. When I did . . . He then granted me peace.

Lastly . . . quickly . . . the move of the Spirit in the ears of the hearers was in those who would believe and be baptized shortly after . . . the miracle of hearing wasn't in the ears of the mockers. So . . . just as God moves in our hearts first (then we respond) to regenerate us . . . so God moves first here.

Not to mention the anecdotal evidence . . . take Jack Hayford . . . he recounts a story about a time in an airplane when he sat next to a Native American gentleman. Somewhere in the conversation the topic of tongues was broached and the gentleman wanted Pastor Hayford to demonstrate for him. Jack didn't want to but felt a release from the Spirit. So he spoke in tongues. Now Jack spoke in the ecstatic prayer tongue that he always spoke in . . . BUT THE MAN HEARD IN HIS OWN NATIVE AMERICAN DIALECT about the great chief Jesus etc.

There are TONS of stories like this. Now is the chance that non-charismatic commentators with no experience on the gifts are wrong? Yes indeed. Remember tongues wasn't very prevalent since the first cent. until the 20th cent.; that is 19 cent.s of non experiential understanding.


There is also a problem with your idea here that GOD moved this gift only upon certain hearers also. I think I gathered this correctly out of your posts, that there were certain people that heard this and others didn't.

If this was the case, are you then saying that GOD only opened this gift of salvation up to those whom HE wanted and not to everyone?
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
47
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There is also a problem with your idea here that GOD moved this gift only upon certain hearers also. I think I gathered this correctly out of your posts, that there were certain people that heard this and others didn't.

If this was the case, are you then saying that GOD only opened this gift of salvation up to those whom HE wanted and not to everyone?
I am saying that the hearts that would be responsive God allowed to soften. There was a group that gathered at the sound (phone [fon-ay]). Within that group you have those who heard the glories of God in their native dialects . . . whom responded "what does this mean?" and the others who heard the sound with no understanding and accused the disciples of being drunk.
 
Upvote 0
D

Dave01

Guest
I am saying that the hearts that would be responsive God allowed to soften. There was a group that gathered at the sound (phone [fon-ay]). Within that group you have those who heard the glories of God in their native dialects . . . whom responded "what does this mean?" and the others who heard the sound with no understanding and accused the disciples of being drunk.

No, that is not what I'm talking about, this is what you said first,...

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

Now if this was the case, you're saying that the hearer was dependant upon GOD to open the understanding of that spiritual language up to them, elsewise they were not going to understand it unless GOD was going to make that happen.

This poses certain problems here.
 
Upvote 0

dkbwarrior

Favoured of the Lord
Sep 19, 2006
4,186
511
60
Tulsa, Oklahoma
✟29,349.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Let me intrude...

I understand what MtK is saying, but I 'm with Dave01 on this one.

If this was the only story or instruction that we had about the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, then such an interpretation would have merit, but we are not operating in a vaccum here. We have other examples as well as specific instruction about tongues to draw from.

In regards to what was heard, the text says that "...every man heard them speak in his own language." It did not say that 'every man heard every one of them...'; it also did not say that 'every man heard some of them...'. While it could mean 'every one of them', it could also mean 'some of them'. There is no additional evidence within the immediate context to support either interpretation. Not to mention that the possiblity seems to fly in the face of what we know about the spiritual gifts in that there is no gift of 'manifold ears' as one writer described the interpretation that you are defending.

In regards to who heard, the text says that "...every man heard...". Here the scripture is very specific about who heard, and that was every man. I don't even see what there is to discuss on this point.

Peace...
 
Upvote 0
D

Dave01

Guest
Let me go through this,..

I will respond when I have a moment.

But suffice the Greek is clear . . . and so is the English.

"Each one" is singular in the Greek . . . "them" is plural in the Greek (as well as the English). Look up the terms in any lexicon (Strong, Kittle, etc). This means one heard all.

You're adding that word "all" in there, as if each one heard all of them speaking just their one particular language. That is not true according to scripture,..

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

That particular word there means other/different/diverse,..not just a singular language, so we have scripture pointing this out also. I don't think I have much more to elaborate on here with scripture being this particular about it.

Commentators are giving their interpretation . . . and so are translators.

Not to mention that each commentator that you refer to no doubt bounds presupposition in their rendition . . . I doubt they believe in the charisma . . . may even be cessationists.

That can be seen in some commentators, but not always. Some commentators go strickly by the greek. You see, I can't just accept your understanding alone here, my victory is in a multitude of witnesses since I can't read greek. The final say-so on the matter is what The Holy Spirit witnesses in my spirit as true.

Lastly . . . quickly . . . the move of the Spirit in the ears of the hearers was in those who would believe and be baptized shortly after . . . the miracle of hearing wasn't in the ears of the mockers. So . . . just as God moves in our hearts first (then we respond) to regenerate us . . . so God moves first here.

This is an assumption here that there is but one tongue spoken by a believer, but the gift is titled "gift of tongues" plural.

Not to mention the anecdotal evidence . . . take Jack Hayford . . . he recounts a story about a time in an airplane when he sat next to a Native American gentleman. Somewhere in the conversation the topic of tongues was broached and the gentleman wanted Pastor Hayford to demonstrate for him. Jack didn't want to but felt a release from the Spirit. So he spoke in tongues. Now Jack spoke in the ecstatic prayer tongue that he always spoke in . . . BUT THE MAN HEARD IN HIS OWN NATIVE AMERICAN DIALECT about the great chief Jesus etc.

There are plenty of experiences by believers. I personally have spoken many natural languages at times in my prayer tongue, and I see that as the manifold operation here of the gift, as the word says,.

4 (LIT) And there are differences of gifts, but the same Spirit;

5 (LIT) and there are differences of ministries, yet the same Lord.

6 (LIT) And there are differences of workings, but the same God is working all things in all.

7 (LIT) And to each one is given the showing forth of the Spirit to our profit.

There are TONS of stories like this. Now is the chance that non-charismatic commentators with no experience on the gifts are wrong? Yes indeed. Remember tongues wasn't very prevalent since the first cent. until the 20th cent.; that is 19 cent.s of non experiential understanding.

Well, the idea you're promoting here is that none of them could be right. That is really what the overall message is.
 
Upvote 0

dkbwarrior

Favoured of the Lord
Sep 19, 2006
4,186
511
60
Tulsa, Oklahoma
✟29,349.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I am saying that the hearts that would be responsive God allowed to soften. There was a group that gathered at the sound (phone [fon-ay]). Within that group you have those who heard the glories of God in their native dialects . . . whom responded "what does this mean?" and the others who heard the sound with no understanding and accused the disciples of being drunk.


Yes, but if the disciples were speaking in 'other tongues' (plural here) and 'every man' was hearing some of 'them' speak in his own language, and some of 'them' speaking in other languages that their neighbors understood but sounded like gibberish to them, this would also explain what happened, and be much more consistent with what we know about tongues from the balance of the biblical text.

Peace...
 
Upvote 0

Woman4Virtue

Member
Feb 14, 2007
7
1
✟22,632.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Your questioned you posted is something that alot of people have trouble understanding. But the bible say that tongues is a gift that every christian should have. It is how you speak with God with the Holy Spirit. Because there will come a time when you will not know what to say or how to pray and when you speak with your tongue that is the Holy Spirit speaking directly to God. As far as interpeting that is another gift that is given to us from God. When you speak in a tongue out loud to others they have no idea what you are saying so they can not be edifyed. But if there is someone there to interpet what you said then all is edifyed.

I hope this helps you alittle. Just know that if you yourself would like more understanding then pray to God and ask Him to reveal to you what you just said in tongues and He will reveal it to you .

Be blessed
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
47
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Let me go through this,..



You're adding that word "all" in there, as if each one heard all of them speaking just their one particular language. That is not true according to scripture,..



That particular word there means other/different/diverse,..not just a singular language, so we have scripture pointing this out also. I don't think I have much more to elaborate on here with scripture being this particular about it.



That can be seen in some commentators, but not always. Some commentators go strickly by the greek. You see, I can't just accept your understanding alone here, my victory is in a multitude of witnesses since I can't read greek. The final say-so on the matter is what The Holy Spirit witnesses in my spirit as true.



This is an assumption here that there is but one tongue spoken by a believer, but the gift is titled "gift of tongues" plural.



There are plenty of experiences by believers. I personally have spoken many natural languages at times in my prayer tongue, and I see that as the manifold operation here of the gift, as the word says,.





Well, the idea you're promoting here is that none of them could be right. That is really what the overall message is.
I got a sec.

Every word must have an antecedant.

"them" has as its antecedant "matheton/ai" (the disciples). The text does not distinguish the disciples into smaller groups . . . it only speaks of the disciples as ONE group . . . all of them. It doesn't break down the group into any smaller categories. Hence, "them" being plural, refers to what Luke has been speaking about the whole time . . . the WHOLE (which means ALL) group of disciples.

Luke does however distinguish the hearers. There is the group that hears the sound and doesn't understand (like Paul's companions on the road to Damascus), there is the group that hears the sound and is perplexed because they do understand, and then there is each one within the latter group who hear in their own dialect.

Again the Greek is clear. Each man (singular) heard them (a plural pronoun with its antecedant being the disciples) as a cohesive unit. There is no getting around it.

The fact that tongues is plural means nothing. Singular and plural are interchangable with respect to glosson/glossais . . . evidenced by Paul's usage in 1 Cor 12-14. Besides, phone (sound) is singular. So while the disciples spoke in tongues (which really makes no difference anyway) . . . the crowd gathered at the sound . . . not sounds. Interesting is that they are both in the feminine declinsion . . . making their connection inevitable.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.