Speaking in 'tongues'

[Brownie]

That was a very moving post from Sassy.

[Spud]

I wondered how many people have had experience of people speaking in so called 'tongues', or have actually indulged in it themselves?

It was a Sunday morning feature of my childhood. Two members of the congregation of the Elim Pentecostal church we attended, would suddenly feel impelled to spout gobbledegook, often during a prayer or the sermon! It was totally crazy and many of us tried to stifle giggles, including my mother.

As you would expect I am of the opinion that this nonsense is an aberration of the human brain and nothing to do with any deity, unless it enjoys watching people make total cretins of themselves. The notorious 'Toronto Blessing' where people actually barked liked dogs just goes to prove how totally idiotic this activity is.

1 Corinthians 14:22 says that 'tongues' are a sign for unbelievers. If a Chinese person who had no previous knowledge of English, came to you and said, "God loves you floo". How would you react?

It seems that this is what was going on in the first century church when it talks about speaking in tongues. If Acts 2:4-13 is true, then the people present witnessed something miraculous, and it enabled them to believe. Paul talks quite a bit about the importance of interpreting the sounds that come out so that people can understand them. It sounds like Sassy had this experience.

[2Corrie]

I know of an evangelist who, when time was running short, delivered the gospel in fluent Spanish; a language which he does not speak. God still uses this miracle.

[BeRational]

I know of an evangelist who, when time was running short, delivered the gospel in fluent Spanish; a language which he does not speak. God still uses this miracle.

Did that make it quicker or just ensure that no one could understand him?

[Brownie]

I would say the evangelist that you spoke of, 2Corrie, probably did speak Spanish, or maybe he learned a bit of Spanish earlier in life and it was in his subconscious - perhaps even a worship song.  Presumably other people were there who did speak the language and verified that it was Spanish that he spoke.

The reason I say the above is that we all have bits of knowledge tucked away that will occasionally come to the fore.  Like most of us, I learned French and Latin at school and I wasn't very good at either, quite nervous in fact, yet I can understand and read bits of both and at times remember things about the languages, including verse (I also occasionally think and dream in shorthand but that's another tale :-) ).  I'm not being cynical about your story because, honestly, I don't know how it happened, just putting forward a possible explanation.

[ekim]

Speaking in tongues is for Believers not for the World.


It is for people in LA! LA! land!

Funny you should say that.  I believe the Greek word translated as 'speaking in tongues' is glossolalia which I understand has an element of incomprehension about it.  If I remember correctly, there is another word - glossolego - meaning 'speaking with intelligence' which would be better for communication purposes.

[Brownie]

Glossolalia can come about, so I understand, by hysteria and situations where there is heightened emotion - rapture even (with small r) - in a group of people.  It isn't always a religious phenomenon.  It happens, the same way that a group of people can all feel ill with the same symptoms even if there is nothing wrong with them.  The former is releasing and pleasant, the latter is horrible.  We are complex beings.

[Brownie]

Indeed, I knew some who subscribed to the 'Toronto' phenomenon - which was brought here, initially to Holy Trinity, Brompton, and spread to other churches.  The people I knew quite well, three of them, went to Toronto to have first hand experience and then top ups.  It all seems very odd now but they were nice people, intelligent etc, and I just accepted they had experienced something beyond my knowledge.

Which led me to the charismatic wing of the Catholic Church...

[ippy]

Well I suppose taking up religion in the first place shows a certain amount of gullibility and there we go, making strange noises connects and makes sense to others, scubi do bee dobi and then you theists wonder why us so called atheists want no part of it?

ippy   

[Brownie]

You have a choice to be part of it, or not.  Or do something else entirely.  That's one advantage of living here and now.
(Bamalamalamaloo.)

[Spud]

I know of an evangelist who, when time was running short, delivered the gospel in fluent Spanish; a language which he does not speak. God still uses this miracle.

What do you think about the "gobbledegook" type of 'tongues'? Is that what Paul is talking about here: "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit." 1 Cor 14:2 ?
It seems there is both that type, which I have come across only once, and which is said to edify the speaker only (unless he is able to interpret it); as well as the Acts 2 type?

[Spud]

So complete GOBBLEDEGOOK

Acts 2 says the Spirit enabled the disciples to speak in 'tongues' - languages known not to the speaker but known to foreigners in the crowd - so that they could tell them the gospel. My question is, can the word 'tongue' in the NT also refer to something that is not a known language (you refer to this as gobbledegook)? I don't know if this has been answered earlier in the thread?

[ippy]

You have a choice to be part of it, or not.  Or do something else entirely.  That's one advantage of living here and now.
(Bamalamalamaloo.)

I have to admit I find the fact religion is still around with so many followers fascinating; it's certainly intriguing the ways so many are taken in by such obviously man made nonsense that is completely lacking anything that could be taken as viable evidence that might, if any was found, support it. Yabadoblydo.

ippy

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

My question is, can the word 'tongue' in the NT also refer to something that is not a known language

1 Corinthians 13 starts, "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, ...". I'm not sure what the or of angels means exactly, but it would seem to imply not a known language?

[ippy]

1 Corinthians 13 starts, "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, ...". I'm not sure what the or of angels means exactly, but it would seem to imply not a known language?

Since there is no evidence to say whether this Corinthians bit is fictitious or not, more than likely it's fictitious, so what are you bothering about Sword?

ippy

[Brownie]

Acts 2 says the Spirit enabled the disciples to speak in 'tongues' - languages known not to the speaker but known to foreigners in the crowd - so that they could tell them the gospel. My question is, can the word 'tongue' in the NT also refer to something that is not a known language (you refer to this as gobbledegook)? I don't know if this has been answered earlier in the thread?

What the Bible says and what is factual is probably at odds in many cases!

Spud was wondering if 'tongue' could refer to a language that was not known, ie not known to anyone other than those speaking it.
Communities do develop their own language/patois/dialect, that would be incomprehensible to others but which they would understand.

It's an idea though I'd have thought it would have taken many more years for a dialect to develop.  Possible though.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Since there is no evidence to say whether this Corinthians bit is fictitious or not, more than likely it's fictitious, so what are you bothering about Sword?

Spud may be interested in the answer. I can't help it if you are not.

Actually, tell you what: I'll stop bothering about it when you can demonstrate that what is said is fictitious.

[ippy]

Spud may be interested in the answer. I can't help it if you are not.

Actually, tell you what: I'll stop bothering about it when you can demonstrate that what is said is fictitious.

Sorry Sword I completly forgot that you're into the magical and mystical, so it's become even more important than ever for you all to support your fellow believers since these outmoded ideas are declining at such a rate of knots, oh yes, I'm sure I said "more than likely fictitious", I doubt you'd get very goods on any of it turning out to have any factual base, any of it.

Like I said why bother with it?

ippy

[Sassy]

1 Corinthians 13 starts, "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, ...". I'm not sure what the or of angels means exactly, but it would seem to imply not a known language?

Languages.. I think the bible makes it clear that when the disciples first spoke in tongues it was a language that was universal and all people hearing it understood it. Whatever language people spoke who had angels speak to them, hear it in their own language.

The men from East the wise men probably spoke a different language but always everything from God comes to the person in their own language. There are the fruit and the gifts of the Spirit. The fruit everyone will have but the gifts can be different for each individual. I believe the disciples had all the gifts and I see no reason given what Christ said why believers today should not have all the powerful gifts and abilities Christ has.

[Hope]

I think that it should be pointed out that, whilst gifts such as speaking in tongues and prophecy are mentioned on a number of occasions in the Pauline epistles, prophecy is considered to far more of a 'public' gift than tongues.  More often than not, the use of tongues is referred to as a personal, individual process - between God and the believer.  It may be that a congregation is invited to speak in tongues during a service, as part of the process of worship, but it is still a two-way (God/believer) form of worship.  It isn't meant to be between the believer, God and other believers.  I have to admit that I do not speak in tongues, but that doesn't make me feel 'second-class' in any way.

Prophecy, on the other hand, is meant to be shared with others and, as such, should be in a comprehensible format.  Such a prophecy might be in the form of a verbal picture - which might or might not need interpretation; it might be very clearly directed at a given person (but in my understanding prophecy of that sort ought to be mediated through the pastor or an elder so as not to be misunderstood; it might be a general encouragement or warning to the congregation as a whole, or to certain members of the congregation.  That is why a church needs to be careful about their use and their interpretation - be that what is being said or whom it is directed to.

[Hope]

Some such prophecies, may be.  By no means all.

I can think of one that wasn't passed on to the individual concerned at the time, but which was as clear as you could wish, and proceeded to occur.  I won't give all the details, but the individual concerned had recently lost a loved one, and the prophecy was that they would lose a second person very close to them within a week.  The pastor felt that passing this on at a time that they were already very fragile would be bad practice, if not unethical.  The person lost a second person - not related in any way to the first one - 5 days later.

I can also think of people whose lifes have been changed dramatically as a result of prophecy.  A friend of us was a very successful businessman, and - whilst interested in the work of missionaries - had not plans to become one himself.  Someone prophesied that the Lord had plans for his life that were different to his then work - and 3 or 4 years later he decided to offer himself for ordination, quoting said prophecy as part of the reason behind the development.  It had got him thinking about what God wanted him to do with his life and he is now a pastor in a city centre church that serves several business areas and financial institutions.  He was recently asked to become the chaplain to some of these institutions; again, largely on the strength of his business background.

[ekim]

Some such prophecies, may be.  By no means all.

I can also think of people whose lifes have been changed dramatically as a result of prophecy.  A friend of us was a very successful businessman, and - whilst interested in the work of missionaries - had not plans to become one himself.  Someone prophesied that the Lord had plans for his life that were different to his then work - and 3 or 4 years later he decided to offer himself for ordination, quoting said prophecy as part of the reason behind the development.  It had got him thinking about what God wanted him to do with his life and he is now a pastor in a city centre church that serves several business areas and financial institutions.  He was recently asked to become the chaplain to some of these institutions; again, largely on the strength of his business background.

That could be a self fulfilling prophesy brought about by the previously implanted suggestion.

[ippy]

If it was one person or a few tens of people believing these religious ideas whoever they were would probably be kept in a safe place for their own good; but this doesn't happen due to the large numbers taken in by it.

As if religious belief wasn't as ludicrous enough as it is, then someone leans on the the derision lever a and pushes it on a little further to include speaking in tongues?

I wonder how well speaking in tongues would hold up to a serious investigation, I feel sure it would fall into an exactly similar position that water divining has when it was put to the test.

ippy

[Hope]

If it was one person or a few tens of people believing these religious ideas whoever they were would probably be kept in a safe place for their own good; but this doesn't happen due to the large numbers taken in by it.

Evidence to support your claim that people are 'taken in by it', please ippy

As if religious belief wasn't as ludicrous enough as it is, then someone leans on the the derision lever a and pushes it on a little further to include speaking in tongues?

Using your understanding of life, science is no less ludicrous, ippy.  After all, like religion, it is trying to make sense of something that I believe you've suggested has no sense or meaning.  (If I've muddled you with one or more other posters, I apologise).

I wonder how well speaking in tongues would hold up to a serious investigation, I feel sure it would fall into an exactly similar position that water divining has when it was put to the test.

You would probably need to compare it with something in a comparable ballpark - such as the special language and tones that lovers will sometimes use to each other.   I assume that you have results of research into this kind of thing to compare with.

[Spud]

1 Corinthians 13 starts, "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, ...". I'm not sure what the or of angels means exactly, but it would seem to imply not a known language?

Hi SotS,

I had a look at a few online commentaries, and admittedly I was looking for one that went with the view that the word 'tongue' in the NT does not refer to something that is not a known language.

Barnes takes such a view, from what I can see. He says,

And of angels - The language of angels; such as they speak. Were I endowed with the faculty of eloquence and persuasion which we attribute to them; and the power of speaking to any of the human family with the power which they have. The language of angels here seems to be used to denote the highest power of using language, or of the most elevated faculty of eloquence and speech.

I think he means that an angel might say something eloquent, like, "Greetings, Sword Of the Spirit..." but he would address you in your own language. I don't think we can deduce from what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 13:1 that glossolalia is the language of angels.

Paul also says in 1 Cor 14:2,

"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries"

Barnes says about this verse,

But unto God - It is as if he spoke to God. No one could understand him but God. This must evidently refer to the addresses "in the church," when Christians only were present, or when those only were present who spoke the same language, and who were unacquainted with foreign tongues. Paul says that "there" that faculty would be valueless compared with the power of speaking in a manner that should edify the church. He did not undervalue the power of speaking foreign languages when foreigners were present, or when they went to preach to foreigners; see 1 Corinthians 14:22. It was only when it was needless, when all present spoke one language, that he speaks of it as of comparatively little value.

For no man understandeth him - That is, no man in the church, since they all spoke the same language, and that language was different from what was spoken by him who was endowed with the gift of tongues. As God only could know the import of what he said, it would be lost upon the church, and would be useless.

One view, which I think I agree with, is that modern glossolalia is not the same as what the New Testament describes, but is something akin to whistling or humming, and it can be done to God's glory but is not a so-called 'gift of the Spirit'.