• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Tongue Speaking not needed today

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
He refers to himself as having MORE languages then them. Not a singular so-called "spiritual" language.
First, I reject what you cite as authoritative on the subject. It would be like me quoting the Good News Bible as a translation, whereas as it's simply a paraphrase. Secondly, when he says "I speak in tongues more than you all", I very much hear that as him saying that he experiences glossolalia more than them all. He elsewhere very clearly speaks of having mystical state experiences. So what he is saying here to these people is, "Don't imagine you're more spiritual than me. I speak in tongues more than all of you. And yet I do not boast. So neither should you. Love is the greatest gift." And so forth. That's the context.

Speaking in actual known foreign languages makes no sense here. What's more, why? Why should that be a "spiritual gift", the miraculous acquisition of foreign languages. It makes absolutely no sense. There is no purpose for it! They all shared a common language. There was no need for it. If you wanted a "miracle sign", then why not levitate?!? Now THAT would garner some attention!! Why the "sign" of tongues when every other religion was already doing that?!? :)

No, all you need do is look at all the religions of the world, and you see it happening in history down through today. It's a common religious experience. Occam's razor. "The simplest explanation is usually the right one". The simplest explanation is they were having a common religious experience, not "miracle foreign language learning in 0 seconds!". :) That's mythology. Paul was having mystical experiences, just like the other religions. The rest is "gobbledygook", layers of myth to make it seem different because he believed it was because he thought his experiences were "different" somehow.

Thirdly, why does this matter to you so much?
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
First, I reject what you cite as authoritative on the subject. It would be like me quoting the Good News Bible as a translation, whereas as it's simply a paraphrase. Secondly, when he says "I speak in tongues more than you all", I very much hear that as him saying that he experiences glossolalia more than them all. He elsewhere very clearly speaks of having mystical state experiences. So what he is saying here to these people is, "Don't imagine you're more spiritual than me. I speak in tongues more than all of you. And yet I do not boast. So neither should you. Love is the greatest gift." And so forth. That's the context.

The Greek doesn't read that way.

Speaking in actual known foreign languages makes no sense here. What's more, why? Why should that be a "spiritual gift", the miraculous acquisition of foreign languages. It makes absolutely no sense. There is no purpose for it! They all shared a common language. There was no need for it. If you wanted a "miracle sign", then why not levitate?!? Now THAT would garner some attention!! Why the "sign" of tongues when every other religion was already doing that?!? :)

They were to go out and teach the "known" world, - which had many languages. Supposedly the gift is to instantly speak languages. That would definitely be a miraculous gift.

No, all you need do is look at all the religions of the world, and you see it happening in history down through today. It's a common religious experience. Occam's razor. "The simplest explanation is usually the right one". The simplest explanation is they were having a common religious experience, not "miracle foreign language learning in 0 seconds!". :) That's mythology.

I have no problem with other religions' ecstatic experiences. But in this case it doesn't actually say "spiritual" language, and what they now do is just strange. Even other Christian churches have looked at the original texts and decided it does not mean what they are now doing, - but instead instant miraculous real languages, that were needed to spread Christianity.

Thirdly, why does this matter to you so much?

We have a conversation going - thus it is a two way street. :D

Plus, I was originally answering the OP whom appears to be a Christian, and also thinks the meaning is real languages.

*
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
Christ has warned us, “Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many”. — Matthew 24:4-5. One of the deception of today, is tongue speaking.

You've grossly taken that passage out of context. He is talking about people who will claim to be Christ Himself, which has nothing to do with the Church operating in one of the scripturally recognized gifts of the spirit:
1 Corinthians 12:10
1 Corinthians 12:30

The disciples only spoke their native language, and were not fluent in other languages or tongues. God knew this, and made provision through the holy spirit. Thus the holy spirit gave them utterance or the ability to speak other languages, so that other may hear the gospel and be saved.
1 corinthians 13:1 - Paul talks about speaking in the tongues of both men and angels. You don't need to preach the Gospel to angels.

1 Corinthians 14 also makes it very clear that not every tongue is understood by the people around the speaker, but it requires interpretation by the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 13:8
Why do you think couldn't God do the same things today He did in Acts?

How about today, do we need this gift? Is language a barrier as it was in the time of the disciples? The answer is no.

There exist innumerable testimonies over the last century of Christians speaking in an earthly language they don't know, by the Holy Spirit, which leads unbelieving people coming to salvation. 1 Corinthians 14:22 - Tongues are a sign to the unbeliever.

I personally know people who have spoken by the Holy Spirit in a language they didn't understand, but someone else nearby understood with their natural ear what was being said.

Just one example of this happening undermines your entire theory of today's tongues being nothing but meaningless babble. So what are you going to do with experience like that?
Although you are of the opinion that it is not necessary, real experience of the Holy Spirit's works shows that God disagrees with you.

How about those who speak tongue in their churches, is it genuine? Sadly the answer is no. Why is that? Simply because during the experience at Pentecost, every man heard the disciples speaking their native language, and not another man interpreting it for them. Acts 2:6-8. The tongue speaking that's going on in the church today, is what scripture calls vain babblings, which leadest onto ungodliness. 2Timothy 2:16 & 1 Timothy 6:20. This is also an indicator thay you need to leave that church! Those who claim that they speak in tongue, first deceive themselves, and others. They have not the truth, and those who follow them are blind, and are being lead by blind leaders!

As I pointed out, 1 corinthians 14 clearly shows us that we should not expect every tongue will be understood by the natural ear, but requires supernatural interpretation by those present.
Notice that Paul does not say their tongue speaking is false. He affirms that such tongues are genuine by calling for them to be accompanied with interpretation. The purpose of his correction is to say that it must be accompanied by interpretation so that the church can benefit from hearing the prophetic message contained in the tongues.

You are also taking those passages in Timothy grossly out of context.

Look at the way various translations handle this passage and it will help you to understand why you are taking it out of context:
Avoid pointless discussions.
avoid worldly and empty chatter,
avoid profane chatter,
avoid irreverent, empty speech,
Avoid worthless, foolish talk
But from irreligious and frivolous talk hold aloof,
Avoid godless chatter

The context of this passage makes it very clear; this verse is talking about discussions that can be understood, but which contain ungodly content, which if entertained eventually leads to embracing ungodly ideas and behavior.

Your assertion about this passage makes no sense; because if you cannot understand what someone is saying then you cannot entertain what they are saying to embrace ungodly ideas and behavior. You would be trying to suggest that just listening to random sounds has the power to make people ungodly, which makes no sense and is not even in line with the context of those chapters.
 
Last edited:

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
You've grossly taken that passage out of context. He is talking about people who will claim to be Christ Himself, which has nothing to do with the Church operating in one of the scripturally recognized gifts of the spirit:
1 Corinthians 12:10
1 Corinthians 12:30


1 corinthians 13:1 - Paul talks about speaking in the tongues of both men and angels. You don't need to preach the Gospel to angels.

1 Corinthians 14 also makes it very clear that not every tongue is understood by the people around the speaker, but it requires interpretation by the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 13:8
Why do you think couldn't God do the same things today He did in Acts?



There exist innumerable testimonies over the last century of Christians speaking in an earthly language they don't know, by the Holy Spirit, which leads unbelieving people coming to salvation. 1 Corinthians 14:22 - Tongues are a sign to the unbeliever.

I personally know people who have spoken by the Holy Spirit in a language they didn't understand, but someone else nearby understood with their natural ear what was being said.

Just one example of this happening undermines your entire theory of today's tongues being nothing but meaningless babble. So what are you going to do with experience like that?
Although you are of the opinion that it is not necessary, real experience of the Holy Spirit's works shows that God disagrees with you.



As I pointed out, 1 corinthians 14 clearly shows us that we should not expect every tongue will be understood by the natural ear, but requires supernatural interpretation by those present.
Notice that Paul does not say their tongue speaking is false. He affirms that such tongues are genuine by calling for them to be accompanied with interpretation. The purpose of his correction is to say that it must be accompanied by interpretation so that the church can benefit from hearing the prophetic message contained in the tongues.

You are also taking those passages in Timothy grossly out of context.

Look at the way various translations handle this passage and it will help you to understand why you are taking it out of context:
Avoid pointless discussions.
avoid worldly and empty chatter,
avoid profane chatter,
avoid irreverent, empty speech,
Avoid worthless, foolish talk
But from irreligious and frivolous talk hold aloof,
Avoid godless chatter

The context of this passage makes it very clear; this verse is talking about discussions that can be understood, but which contain ungodly content, which if entertained eventually leads to embracing ungodly ideas and behavior.

Your assertion about this passage makes no sense; because if you cannot understand what someone is saying then you cannot entertain what they are saying to embrace ungodly ideas and behavior. You would be trying to suggest that just listening to random sounds has the power to make people ungodly, which makes no sense and is not even in line with the context of those chapters.

Speaking in so-called "tongues" today, - makes the speaker look like an evil spirit has hold of them, or they have had a psychotic break, - and chasses off logical people, and scares off many others.

Many Christian churches believe what is being called "tongues" today - is baloney.

"Faithful adherence to the text of Sacred Scripture makes it obligatory to reject those opinions which turn the charism of tongues into little more than infantile babbling (Eichhorn, Schmidt, Neander), incoherent exclamations (Meyer), pythonic utterances (Wiseler), or prophetic demonstrations of the archaic kind (see 1 Samuel 19:20, 24.) The unalloyed charism was as much an exercise of the intelligence as of the emotions. Languages or dialects, now kainais (Mark 16:17) for their present purpose, and now spontaneously borrowed by the conservative Hebrew from Gentile foreigners (eteroglossois, cheilesin eteron, 1 Corinthians 14:21,) were used as never before. But they were understood even by those who used them. Most Latin commentators have believed the contrary, but the ancient Greeks, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and others who were nearer the scene, agree to it and the testimony of the texts as above studied seems to bear them out...." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14776c.htm

http://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/speaking-in-tongues-the-real-story/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/tongues5.htm

*
 

Onyx

Active Member
Premium Member
touch.png
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
At the risk of annoying him, I summon our resident expert in Biblical Greek to thread... @lovemuffin

Good.

1Co 14:18 ευχαριστω τω θεω μου παντων υμων μαλλον γλωσσαις λαλων

1Co 14:18 ευχαριστω τω θεω μου, - παντων υμων, - μαλλον γλωσσαις λαλων

1 Co 14:18 I am Grateful to the Theos that I, - of all of you, - more tongues/languages/ speak.

The structure of the sentence - with - more tongues/languages/ speak, - at the end - gives it the meaning of speaks more languages, - not experiences glossolalia more than them.

*
 

lovemuffin

τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
First things first, I'm not actually an expert.

In any case, I did a bit of reading and poking about in a few lexicons (Perseus is useful), and I'll try to add something useful. The question I was directly asked about is whether or not 1 Cor 14:18 intends to say that Paul speaks more human languages (meaning languages that really exist) or that he engages in glossolalia more than his audience. I'll deal with that in a moment, but I think to some extent the question shouldn't be answered without trying to understand the entire chapter and what it means by "speaking in tongues." On that, I think there is enough ambiguity in the language that it's not clear to me that it can be settled purely by an appeal to the plain Greek. So before dealing with verse 18, a few thoughts on the meaning of "tongues":

γλῶσσα is the noun for "tongue". First as in the actual organ of the body, and then metaphorically it is used to indicate speech, language, talking, and other such usages. It can certainly sometimes mean actual spoken languages or dialects of language, as in Acts 2:4-8:

καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύματος ἁγίου, καὶ ἤρξαντο λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις καθὼς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐδίδου ἀποφθέγγεσθαι αὐτοῖς. Ἦσαν δὲ ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ κατοικοῦντες Ἰουδαῖοι, ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν· γενομένης δὲ τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης συνῆλθε τὸ πλῆθος καὶ συνεχύθη, ὅτι ἤκουον εἷς ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ λαλούντων αὐτῶν· ἐξίσταντο δὲ καὶ ἐθαύμαζον λέγοντες· Οὐχ ἰδοὺ πάντες οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ λαλοῦντες Γαλιλαῖοι; 8 καὶ πῶς ἡμεῖς ἀκούομεν ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ ἡμῶν ἐν ᾗ ἐγεννήθημεν;​

"And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?" (ESV)​

The author of Acts uses the word διαλέκτος (dialektos) in a way that certainly indicates -- from both the context and also the word choice -- an actual spoken language and not glossolalia, but he also uses γλῶσσαις (a plural form) synonymously when describing the apostles "speaking in other tongues." Outside of Acts, forms of διαλέκτος don't appear. So it's at least possible that in 1 Cor. 14 Paul uses γλῶσσα to mean an actual language, but the context is not as clear as in Acts.

Beginning in 1 Cor 14:2:

ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ θεῷ, οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια·

"For the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one hears, but he speaks mysteries in the spirit." (a fairly literal translation)​

"For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit." (ESV)​

First we could ask about ἀκούει, which means literally to hear (same root as acoustic in english), but metaphorically to understand. Does Paul mean

(a) that literally no one hears the person speaking in a tongue because there's no one around, i.e they are just "speaking to God" in private?

(b) that no one understands because the one speaking is not using a real language? i.e glossolalia?

(c) that a real language is being spoken but no one understands because they don't speak that particular language?​

The word choice by itself doesn't supply a direct answer. Because the rest of the chapter draws a contrast between prophecy and teaching (which is understood by the audience) and the form of "speaking in tongues" being practiced, and especially because it's focused on practice that occurs in public (see v. 16), it seems the answer has to be (b) or (c), and that's why the ESV translates ἀκούει as "understands", but throughout the rest of the chapter it's hard to distinguish (b) and (c) as options.

In verse 4:

θέλω δὲ πάντας ὑμᾶς λαλεῖν γλώσσαις, μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε· μείζων δὲ ὁ προφητεύων ἢ ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσαις, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ, ἵνα ἡ ἐκκλησία οἰκοδομὴν λάβῃ.​

"Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up. (ESV)"​

Is there anything here that indicates whether "speak in tongues" means to speak an actual (but unknown to the audience) language or glossolalia? The only possible answer would seem to be in the phrase "unless someone interprets" (ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ), but the verb for "interpret", is still ambiguous. It is formed from the prefix διὰ and the verb ἑρμηνεύω, from which we get the word hermeneutics. It can mean to translate (in the sense of an actual language), but the more primary meaning involves interpretation and explanation. It doesn't really help us.

Verse 10 might seem to yield a clue:

τοσαῦτα εἰ τύχοι γένη φωνῶν εἰσιν ἐν κόσμῳ, καὶ οὐδὲν ἄφωνον· ἐὰν οὖν μὴ εἰδῶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς φωνῆς, ἔσομαι τῷ λαλοῦντι βάρβαρος καὶ ὁ λαλῶν ἐν ἐμοὶ βάρβαρος.​

"There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. (ESV)​

The fact that he's bringing up languages in the world might be taken to mean that the previous discussion of speaking in tongues refers to speaking actual languages that are merely unknown to the listener, but there are two potential issues I see: the first is that "many different languages" actually doesn't use the word γλῶσσα, but φωνη, literally "sound" or "voice". Again potentially metaphorically synonymous, but it's not clear what the change of word choice indicates. I think it may indicate that Paul is just drawing an analogy and means the previous usages of "speaking in tongues" not to mean the speaking of some actual language but really glossolalia. I'm not especially confident in that conclusion though. My feeling is the distinction between (b) and (c) is difficult to be certain of, whereas it's very clear that in either case Paul doesn't think the activity is useful unless someone can "interpret" or "translate" what is said and render it meaningful.

***

So, finally then we arrive at verse 18, which is the one I was actually asked about:

εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ, πάντων ὑμῶν μᾶλλον γλώσσαις λαλῶ·​

"I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you." (ESV)​

The ESV, NASB, and NIV all render the passage in a way that suggests a comparative of degree ("I speak in tongues more than all of you") rather than indicating directly the quantity of languages ("I speak more languages than all of you"), but it's not entirely clear to me that this is demanded by the Greek. This is where you might need an actual expert.

The problem is trying to decide whether μᾶλλον, which never changes forms in the way other Greek words change to indicate their grammatical usage, is intended as part of an implied prepositional phrase with γλώσσαις or not. Part of the problem is the preposition is left out of the actual Greek. γλώσσαις is in a form called the dative, which implies the word "in", that is "I speak in tongues" instead of just "I speak tongues". If it were possible for μᾶλλον to change forms and also be in the dative, we could be sure it meant "I speak in more languages" and not "I speak in languages more", but μᾶλλον can't change forms to tell us. Alternatively, if the preposition ἐν (in) was actually included in the sentence, λαλῶ ἐν μᾶλλον γλῶσσαις, then I would also feel more confident from the word order that "I speak in more languages" was a better rendering.

Because the Greek doesn't give us any help, I think there is at least some ambiguity. It may be the case that the ESV, NASB, and NIV all favor the comparative of degree, and thus agree with Windwalker, as much because they think the glossolalia reading of the entire chapter makes more sense as because they think the Greek demands it. Or, they may reason that μᾶλλον more frequently is used to denote comparison of degree than comparison of quantity. Along those lines, they may be making some assessment about the use of μᾶλλον as an adverb instead of some form of πλείων which would more directly indicate quantity (but the sentence would have to be written differently I think). Another wrinkle is that according to the apparatus of the Nestle Aland Greek test (which is what ESV uses), there are some manuscripts which make "tongues" singular, γλώσσῃ instead of γλώσσαις. In other words, those manuscripts have "I thank God that I speak in tongue more than all of you." It would be hard to argue that this rendering indicates a greater quantity of languages since "language" is no longer pluralized.

So, based on all of the above, I would probably favor Windwalker's reading of that particular verse, but I'd allow room for uncertainty. I also think that it's significant that all of ESV, NASB, and NIV use that translation. They would know better than I do.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
There is no reason for them to take the texts as meaning they should speak gobbldy-gook that other people can't understand,

There is plenty of reason to believe spoken tongues won't always be understood in the natural ear by the people present.

1 Corinthians 13:1
1 Corinthians 14:2
1 Corinthians 14:13 - You wouldn't need to pray for interpretation of a tongue if it was only an earthly foreign language that someone nearby was expected to be able to understand naturally.

and that makes them look ridiculous.

...

Speaking in so-called "tongues" today, - makes the speaker look like an evil spirit has hold of them, or they have had a psychotic break, - and chasses off logical people, and scares off many others.

1 Corinthians 18-19
1 Corinthians 1:22-25
1 Corinthians 1:27
John 6:60-61
John 6:66
Acts 2:13-2:16
1 Corinthians 2:14

Anyone would be a fool to judge what is or is not of God based on their personal perspective of what seems ridiculous and what doesn't.
Truth is discerned by the Spirit of God, not the natural mind.

One of my significant others had to go to one of these churches as a child. They babbled nonsense, tore off their clothing, and rolled around the floor.

I've been in many pentecostal churches that operate in the gift of tongues, and have not seen that happen in a single one yet.

Most Latin commentators have believed the contrary, but the ancient Greeks, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and others who were nearer the scene, agree to it and the testimony of the texts as above studied seems to bear them out...."

Let's talk about what those who were closest to the time of the apostles had to say about tongues:

Ireneous. Against Heresies; Book 5, Chapter 6
“For this reason does the apostle declare, “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,” [1 Corinthians 2:6] terming those persons “perfect” who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used Himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual.”

Ireneous. Quoted by Eusebius. Church History, Chapter 7.
“As also we hear that many brethren in the Church possess prophetic gifts, and speak, through the Spirit, with all kinds of tongues, and bring to light the secret things of men for their good, and declare the mysteries of God.”

Tertullian. Against Marcion, Book 5, Chapter 8.
"Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart; let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer -- only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him; let him show to me also, that any woman of boastful tongue in his community has ever prophesied from amongst those specially holy sisters of his. Now all these signs (of spiritual gifts) are forthcoming from my side without any difficulty, and they agree, too, with the rules, and the dispensations, and the instructions of the Creator; therefore without doubt the Christ, and the Spirit, and the apostle, belong severally to my God. Here, then, is my frank avowal for any one who cares to require it. "

Novatian. Treatise Concerning the Trinity. Chapter 29.
"they were henceforth armed and strengthened by the same Spirit, having in themselves the gifts which this same Spirit distributes, and appropriates to the Church, the spouse of Christ, as her ornaments. This is He who places prophets in the Church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works, often discrimination of spirits, affords powers of government, suggests counsels, and orders and arranges whatever other gifts there are of charismata; and thus make the Lord’s Church everywhere, and in all, perfected and completed."

Augustine. City of God.
"We shall do what the apostles did when they laid hands on the Samaritians and called down the Holy Spirit on them by the laying on of hands. It is expected that new converts speak with new tongues."





Here's my take on it. What they were doing in the NT was no different than what you see in all the other religions of the world where glossolalia is practiced. What you see in modern Pentecostal/Charismatic churches is the same phenomena you see in with the Zulu tribe in Africa, Voodoo, etc.

Exodus 7:11
Exodus 8:18
2 Thessalonians 2:9
Matthew 24:24
Matthew 7:16
John 4:2-6

Everything that is valuable has those who will attempt to counterfeit it.
A pattern in scripture is that Satan often tries to counterfeit the genuine things of God, mixing lies in with truth, in order to bring people into bondage to satan.

It is not surprising then that you have other religions practicing a form of this, but lacking the genuine power of the Holy Spirit behind it.

In Paul's exhortation, he is trying to establish order in the church services, where people engaging in forms of ritual ecstasies (which tongues is) was not appropriate.Paul's idea of church was not about raising energies and mystical experiences.

This is an unsupported assumption on your part. There is nothing in the scripture to suggest that they were practicing states of ecstatsy. It is possible, and common, to speak in tongues and prophesy without experiencing ecstasies of any sort.

That was too much like the pagans, and he wanted his church to look "different" (ingrained in his Jewish roots, no doubt about being "separate"). Rather Paul's idea of church was a place where everyone taught each other and didn't leave people feeling left out, no going off into ecstasies and trances and whatnot in the congregation like they did in the pagan temples.

This is also an baseless speculation on your part. There is nothing in scripture or early church history to suggest that Paul had such motives.

It is plainly clear from the scripture itself that the kind of order Paul was bringing was to require translation of tongues in a public setting so that everyone could benefit from it.
He recognized the value of individual tongue speaking as a way to build up the individual, but stressed that a corporate gathering is for the purpose of building up the corporate church body.

This is consistent with the fact that the main purpose of the gifts of the Spirit is to be used to benefit other people, building up the church body into maturity.
1 Corinthians 14:12
Ephesians 4:11-13

At Corinth, they weren't building up the Church if all they did was speak in tongues while they assembled.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
If "tongues" were a thing, like any language, there would be some kind of pattern. It would be possible to decipher it with a relatively small sample size. For instance, in English, you have a lot of use of works like "the", "a", "I", "you", "and", so on and so forth.

To someone who has never heard English, or any language remotely like it, they would still be able ti discern certain patterns in the speech. Certain sounds would pop up regularly, in similar contexts.

That is, in fact, exactly what happens when you listen to genuine tongue speakers.
Some people speak in the same kind of tongue a lot, and when you listen to them while praying will eventually notice some words and phrases that repeat, which are specific to that person. I've noticed it in myself and others.

Perry Stone tells an account of a friend who for years would pray a particular word over and over without knowing what it was. Until one day while in Israel at the Western Wall, Perry heard an orthodox Jew say that word while praying. He asked someone what that word meant, and was told it was an archaic Hebrew word for "Holy".

He has also told accounts of a man in West Virigina, around the 1930 and 40s, who would evangelize all the eastern european immigrants that came there to work in the coal mines - speaking in their language directly to them by the Holy Spirit, even though he only had a 3rd grade education.
There are many times it's very obvious someone is speaking in what sounds like a real language, even if no one around can understand it. It's structure is well developed, it's sounds detailed and varied, and english speakers are utilizing sounds that are common to other kinds of languages but are normally difficult for them to pronounce if they try to do it on their own.

"Tongues" has literally none of that. There is no pattern. There is no rhyme or reason. It is just gibberish, and it always has been.

I would ask you what is the basis for your claim? What's your analytical experience in this field? How many pentecostal prayer meetings have you sat in on, with the same people, to determine whether or not you can discern patterns and structure in the languages?




Tongues was actually pretty cool at first. Which is why it seemed so appealing as this was something that traditional denominations didn't do.

Depends what you mean by "traditional". Traditional American protestant denominations that go back several hundred years? Yes. But they also tend to reject that any gifts of the Spirit continue to operate. Only in the last few decades has their position started to soften on miracles happening today, and some are openly embracing all of the Spirit's gifts.

The Greek Orthodox church is about as traditional as you can get, tracing it's roots back to the original apostalic churches, and they never abandoned the idea that tongues are a gift of the Spirit still in operation today.

In the Roman Catholic church, there is a history of saints moving in the gifts of the Spirit, including tongues. One example being Saint Anthony of Padua. The Roman Catholic church has no position against tongues, and since 1960 there has been a movement of "Charismatic Catholics" who regularly speak in tongues.

That is, until you eventually discover that speaking in tongues and interpretation varies greatly among person to person talking about the same thing! Oh boy. *grin*
It sounds like you have some erroneous assumptions about what tongues and interpretation is.

Speaking in tongues is suppose to vary between people because everyone is speaking different languages, whether they be known or unknown.

As for the interpretations being different, there's a couple factors you have to consider.
First:
1 Conrithians 14:29.
1 Corinthians 13:9
The New Testament pattern for operating in the prophetic is for a word to be judged communally by all who have the Holy Spirit. The assumption here is that sometimes people miss the mark, either getting information wrong or only getting partial information and then jumping to wrong conclusions about what they got.
Experience has shown that the more seasoned someone is at hearing from God, and the more they have become like Jesus in their heart, the less likely this is to happen. Errors are more common as someone is learning to hear the voice of God and developing this gift.

Second:
Interpretation is, by definition, does not imply that everyone who gives an accurate interpretation of the same tongue will use the exact same wording to do so. They may recieve the information, but recieve it in different ways, and communicate it in different words. The content and message can be the same even if the delivery is different between two individuals.

I really felt like an early Christian in tune with a living god while the rest of the world seemed spiritually zombified.
You didn't feel that way by chance. Paul said tongues edifies (builds us up) us even if we can't understand it. 1 Corinthians 14:4. Romans 8:26.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
That is, in fact, exactly what happens when you listen to genuine tongue speakers.
Some people speak in the same kind of tongue a lot, and when you listen to them while praying will eventually notice some words and phrases that repeat, which are specific to that person. I've noticed it in myself and others.
Linguistic research has been done on this for a century or more, and there are no observed examples of it being anything more than gibberish.

Perry Stone tells an account of a friend who for years would pray a particular word over and over without knowing what it was. Until one day while in Israel at the Western Wall, Perry heard an orthodox Jew say that word while praying. He asked someone what that word meant, and was told it was an archaic Hebrew word for "Holy".
Anecdotes do not an argument make.

He has also told accounts of a man in West Virigina, around the 1930 and 40s, who would evangelize all the eastern european immigrants that came there to work in the coal mines - speaking in their language directly to them by the Holy Spirit, even though he only had a 3rd grade education.
There are many times it's very obvious someone is speaking in what sounds like a real language, even if no one around can understand it. It's structure is well developed, it's sounds detailed and varied, and english speakers are utilizing sounds that are common to other kinds of languages but are normally difficult for them to pronounce if they try to do it on their own.
See the above.


I would ask you what is the basis for your claim? What's your analytical experience in this field? How many pentecostal prayer meetings have you sat in on, with the same people, to determine whether or not you can discern patterns and structure in the languages?
I do not have to, there are reams of papers written on this subject for quite a long time. It is hardly a new phenomena, and nor is it exclusive to Christianity or even the Abrahamic faiths. I do not doubt that 99.9% of the people who do this believe it wholly. They are not lying or trying to fool anyone. But belief alone is worthless, and if you need proof of that, find a schizophrenic.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
The author of Acts uses the word διαλέκτος (dialektos) in a way that certainly indicates -- from both the context and also the word choice -- an actual spoken language and not glossolalia, but he also uses γλῶσσαις (a plural form) synonymously when describing the apostles "speaking in other tongues."

Glossolalia is defined as speaking in an unknown language. It's still a real language, it's just unknown to those who hear it.

Based on scripture it doesn't have to be an earthly language; it could be either an angelic language, or a language that only God can understand:
1 Corinthians 13:1
1 Corinthians 14:2
Romans 8:26

1 Corinthians 14:10 also suggests that all languages have a meaning, by definition, otherwise we wouldn't call them languages. The implication is that there's no genuine tongue we can be speaking in by the Holy Spirit that does not have the ability to be interpreted.

Pentecostal experience also tells us people sometimes speak in ancient dead languages. We know this because there are accounts of people being told by historians/archeologists that they were speaking in ancient forms of middle eastern languages that nobody knows outside of scholarly circles.
It can be assumed, then, that some people could also be speaking in ancient dead languages that aren't even known today.

First we could ask about ἀκούει, which means literally to hear (same root as acoustic in english), but metaphorically to understand. Does Paul mean

(a) that literally no one hears the person speaking in a tongue because there's no one around, i.e they are just "speaking to God" in private?

(b) that no one understands because the one speaking is not using a real language? i.e glossolalia?​

(c) that a real language is being spoken but no one understands because they don't speak that particular language?


Mark 4:9
Revelation 2:29

It was obviously a common idiom to equate not hearing with not understanding.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Ooo, another glossolalia zombie thread. This should be entertaining to watch. A Christian internecine grudge match. I'm going to get some popcorn.

Don't worry about what your New Testament says about how disagreements among yourselves should be settled in private. The non-Christians won't think less of the one you profess to serve. Or will they?

Wheeeeeee
I will look up what internecine means... This dispute is has gone on for a long time, and there are plenty of books about it. My own family quibbled about this. Some family members read books to try and convince others of this and that. In the end they decided not to argue.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
First things first, I'm not actually an expert.

In any case, I did a bit of reading and poking about in a few lexicons (Perseus is useful), and I'll try to add something useful. The question I was directly asked about is whether or not 1 Cor 14:18 intends to say that Paul speaks more human languages (meaning languages that really exist) or that he engages in glossolalia more than his audience. I'll deal with that in a moment, but I think to some extent the question shouldn't be answered without trying to understand the entire chapter and what it means by "speaking in tongues." On that, I think there is enough ambiguity in the language that it's not clear to me that it can be settled purely by an appeal to the plain Greek. So before dealing with verse 18, a few thoughts on the meaning of "tongues":

γλῶσσα is the noun for "tongue". First as in the actual organ of the body, and then metaphorically it is used to indicate speech, language, talking, and other such usages. It can certainly sometimes mean actual spoken languages or dialects of language, as in Acts 2:4-8:

καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύματος ἁγίου, καὶ ἤρξαντο λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις καθὼς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐδίδου ἀποφθέγγεσθαι αὐτοῖς. Ἦσαν δὲ ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ κατοικοῦντες Ἰουδαῖοι, ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν· γενομένης δὲ τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης συνῆλθε τὸ πλῆθος καὶ συνεχύθη, ὅτι ἤκουον εἷς ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ λαλούντων αὐτῶν· ἐξίσταντο δὲ καὶ ἐθαύμαζον λέγοντες· Οὐχ ἰδοὺ πάντες οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ λαλοῦντες Γαλιλαῖοι; 8 καὶ πῶς ἡμεῖς ἀκούομεν ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ ἡμῶν ἐν ᾗ ἐγεννήθημεν;​

"And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?" (ESV)​

The author of Acts uses the word διαλέκτος (dialektos) in a way that certainly indicates -- from both the context and also the word choice -- an actual spoken language and not glossolalia, but he also uses γλῶσσαις (a plural form) synonymously when describing the apostles "speaking in other tongues." Outside of Acts, forms of διαλέκτος don't appear. So it's at least possible that in 1 Cor. 14 Paul uses γλῶσσα to mean an actual language, but the context is not as clear as in Acts.

Beginning in 1 Cor 14:2:

ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ θεῷ, οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια·

"For the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one hears, but he speaks mysteries in the spirit." (a fairly literal translation)​

"For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit." (ESV)​

First we could ask about ἀκούει, which means literally to hear (same root as acoustic in english), but metaphorically to understand. Does Paul mean

(a) that literally no one hears the person speaking in a tongue because there's no one around, i.e they are just "speaking to God" in private?

(b) that no one understands because the one speaking is not using a real language? i.e glossolalia?

(c) that a real language is being spoken but no one understands because they don't speak that particular language?​

The word choice by itself doesn't supply a direct answer. Because the rest of the chapter draws a contrast between prophecy and teaching (which is understood by the audience) and the form of "speaking in tongues" being practiced, and especially because it's focused on practice that occurs in public (see v. 16), it seems the answer has to be (b) or (c), and that's why the ESV translates ἀκούει as "understands", but throughout the rest of the chapter it's hard to distinguish (b) and (c) as options.

In verse 4:

θέλω δὲ πάντας ὑμᾶς λαλεῖν γλώσσαις, μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε· μείζων δὲ ὁ προφητεύων ἢ ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσαις, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ, ἵνα ἡ ἐκκλησία οἰκοδομὴν λάβῃ.​

"Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up. (ESV)"​

Is there anything here that indicates whether "speak in tongues" means to speak an actual (but unknown to the audience) language or glossolalia? The only possible answer would seem to be in the phrase "unless someone interprets" (ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ), but the verb for "interpret", is still ambiguous. It is formed from the prefix διὰ and the verb ἑρμηνεύω, from which we get the word hermeneutics. It can mean to translate (in the sense of an actual language), but the more primary meaning involves interpretation and explanation. It doesn't really help us.

Verse 10 might seem to yield a clue:

τοσαῦτα εἰ τύχοι γένη φωνῶν εἰσιν ἐν κόσμῳ, καὶ οὐδὲν ἄφωνον· ἐὰν οὖν μὴ εἰδῶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς φωνῆς, ἔσομαι τῷ λαλοῦντι βάρβαρος καὶ ὁ λαλῶν ἐν ἐμοὶ βάρβαρος.​

"There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. (ESV)​

The fact that he's bringing up languages in the world might be taken to mean that the previous discussion of speaking in tongues refers to speaking actual languages that are merely unknown to the listener, but there are two potential issues I see: the first is that "many different languages" actually doesn't use the word γλῶσσα, but φωνη, literally "sound" or "voice". Again potentially metaphorically synonymous, but it's not clear what the change of word choice indicates. I think it may indicate that Paul is just drawing an analogy and means the previous usages of "speaking in tongues" not to mean the speaking of some actual language but really glossolalia. I'm not especially confident in that conclusion though. My feeling is the distinction between (b) and (c) is difficult to be certain of, whereas it's very clear that in either case Paul doesn't think the activity is useful unless someone can "interpret" or "translate" what is said and render it meaningful.

***

So, finally then we arrive at verse 18, which is the one I was actually asked about:

εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ, πάντων ὑμῶν μᾶλλον γλώσσαις λαλῶ·​

"I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you." (ESV)​

The ESV, NASB, and NIV all render the passage in a way that suggests a comparative of degree ("I speak in tongues more than all of you") rather than indicating directly the quantity of languages ("I speak more languages than all of you"), but it's not entirely clear to me that this is demanded by the Greek. This is where you might need an actual expert.

The problem is trying to decide whether μᾶλλον, which never changes forms in the way other Greek words change to indicate their grammatical usage, is intended as part of an implied prepositional phrase with γλώσσαις or not. Part of the problem is the preposition is left out of the actual Greek. γλώσσαις is in a form called the dative, which implies the word "in", that is "I speak in tongues" instead of just "I speak tongues". If it were possible for μᾶλλον to change forms and also be in the dative, we could be sure it meant "I speak in more languages" and not "I speak in languages more", but μᾶλλον can't change forms to tell us. Alternatively, if the preposition ἐν (in) was actually included in the sentence, λαλῶ ἐν μᾶλλον γλῶσσαις, then I would also feel more confident from the word order that "I speak in more languages" was a better rendering.

Because the Greek doesn't give us any help, I think there is at least some ambiguity. It may be the case that the ESV, NASB, and NIV all favor the comparative of degree, and thus agree with Windwalker, as much because they think the glossolalia reading of the entire chapter makes more sense as because they think the Greek demands it. Or, they may reason that μᾶλλον more frequently is used to denote comparison of degree than comparison of quantity. Along those lines, they may be making some assessment about the use of μᾶλλον as an adverb instead of some form of πλείων which would more directly indicate quantity (but the sentence would have to be written differently I think). Another wrinkle is that according to the apparatus of the Nestle Aland Greek test (which is what ESV uses), there are some manuscripts which make "tongues" singular, γλώσσῃ instead of γλώσσαις. In other words, those manuscripts have "I thank God that I speak in tongue more than all of you." It would be hard to argue that this rendering indicates a greater quantity of languages since "language" is no longer pluralized.

So, based on all of the above, I would probably favor Windwalker's reading of that particular verse, but I'd allow room for uncertainty. I also think that it's significant that all of ESV, NASB, and NIV use that translation. They would know better than I do.

Very good piece.

But of course I don't agree with you on 18. :D

Plus the structure is different, and it doesn't end with, - "more than all of you.

*
 

lovemuffin

τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
Plus the structure is different, and it doesn't end with, - "more than all of you.

Word order doesn't have the same meaning or importance in Greek as it does in English, and it's strictly necessary to move things around to get a translation that is proper English. After all, "I thank God all of you more in tongues I speak" doesn't make a very good English sentence, even though that's the word order in Greek. Basically, saying that it's a problem that the words are in the wrong order simply misunderstands how Greek is translated.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
Linguistic research has been done on this for a century or more, and there are no observed examples of it being anything more than gibberish.
Correction: None that you were aware of.
You've made another sweeping statement that probably isn't even true, because it assumes you've actually been exposed to every study ever undertaken on this subject over the past hundred years throughout the world, and not just the ones that conform to your pre-existing conclusions.
http://www.charismanews.com/culture...-shows-the-science-behind-speaking-in-tongues

Yet, regardless, whether or not your statement is true is ultimately irrelevant in light of real world experience that contradicts your claims. Of which I've given you some examples.

But belief alone is worthless, and if you need proof of that, find a schizophrenic.

I'm not talking about simple belief. I'm talking about instances where the tongue is verifiable as being a real language.
For example: I personally know someone that has spoken in a tongue they did and it was understood by someone from Africa who was in the room, saying he was speaking in their native language.

You can find thousands upon thousand of accounts just like this over the past century of pentecostalism.

Unless you want to accuse everyone of lying, those factual events don't just disappear.
 

lovemuffin

τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
Glossolalia is defined as speaking in an unknown language. It's still a real language, it's just unknown to those who hear it.

It is my understanding that modern linguistics research concludes that glossolalia as practiced in the modern Church is not a practice in which any actual human language is spoken. I don't think any appeal to the Bible is useful here, particularly because it is the interpretation of biblical texts which is in question to begin with. It's not clear to me that Paul is even distinguishing between "real language unknown to the audience" and "pseudo-language", but at least insofar as modern people practice glossolalia and how the word is normally used, it refers to pseudo language. Cf. Speaking in Tongues: A Cross Cultural Study of Glossolalia
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Glossolalia is defined as speaking in an unknown language. It's still a real language, it's just unknown to those who hear it.

Based on scripture it doesn't have to be an earthly language; it could be either an angelic language, or a language that only God can understand:
1 Corinthians 13:1
1 Corinthians 14:2
Romans 8:26

1 Corinthians 14:10 also suggests that all languages have a meaning, by definition, otherwise we wouldn't call them languages. The implication is that there's no genuine tongue we can be speaking in by the Holy Spirit that does not have the ability to be interpreted.

Pentecostal experience also tells us people sometimes speak in ancient dead languages. We know this because there are accounts of people being told by historians/archeologists that they were speaking in ancient forms of middle eastern languages that nobody knows outside of scholarly circles.
It can be assumed, then, that some people could also be speaking in ancient dead languages that aren't even known today.

Mark 4:9
Revelation 2:29

It was obviously a common idiom to equate not hearing with not understanding.

Did you notice that 1 Co 12:28-30 separates miracles - from mundane things like speaking in tongues/languages, and interpreting?

1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

1Co 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

*
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
It is my understanding that modern linguistics research concludes that glossolalia as practiced in the modern Church is not a practice in which any actual human language is spoken.

As I already pointed out, scripturaly it doesn't have to be a known human language in order to be a real language.

Experientialy, as I also pointed out, it is know in pentecostal churches that people have spoken in existing human languages through tongues.

How you define gossollalia might differ from person to person. Some dictionaries will say it's a nonexistant language, others just an unknown language - But ultimately the only definition that really matters is what the Bible gives us for tongues; which implies that it's all a language if genuine tongues, but it's not all meant to be understood by the natural human ear.

I don't think any appeal to the Bible is useful here, particularly because it is the interpretation of biblical texts which is in question to begin with. It's not clear to me that Paul is even distinguishing between "real language unknown to the audience" and "pseudo-language",

The problem with your reasoning is you're trying to distinguish in the scripture a difference between "real language" and "pseudo-language" when the truth is there is no reason to assume such a distinction has to be made at all. Scripturally all tongues can be said to be a real language, even if it's not understood by the hearer.

The problem here is that ybut at least insofar as modern people practice glossolalia and how the word is normally used, it refers to pseudo language.

And I'm pointing out that from a pentecostal, Biblical, perspective, no such distinction between "pseudo language' and "language" exists. It's all regarded as true language, whether understood by man or not.

Of course you're going to have problems trying to find a difference in the scripture between the two if no such difference existed in the mind of the writer.
 
Top