K

There are several here that have claimed the ability to speak in tongues. This has always fascinated me because it doesn't seem to follow the example of speaking in tongues from the Bible.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Doesn't the Biblical account of speaking in tongues have the apostles speaking their own language, but each member of the crowd around them receiving the message in his or her own language?

From what I understand about the current practice of speaking in tongues, people make gibberish sounds and have no idea what they are supposedly saying in a different language. If they were truly speaking in tongues as the apostles were purported to have, wouldn't they just speak in their native tongue? In other words in an English speaking church, wouldn't speaking in tongues mean that the congregation would speak in English and the message they speak would be receive by those around them in English!?!

Has anyone ever performed a test by letting someone speak in tongues to two individuals who don't share a language in common with the speaker or each other? If the speaker is really speaking in tongues, shouldn't the two get the same message?

Like I said, I don't know much about the practice. Maybe someone can shed some light on it.

Tony99

In the Pentecostal/Evangelical churches I have been in, they are rattling of gibberish. They pick up on the gibberish others are spewing out and make up their own...voila...speaking in tongues.
I think the speaking in tongues by the apostles referred to in Acts was supposed to act as a witness to new comers.
The Apostles were speaking in a foreign language to them, but to their out of town guests it was in their own language.
Ideally the holy ghost is supposed to know what foreigners are in the congregation and give you the gift of speaking in their native tongue so they will marvel at the power of the holy spirit.
Of course this is never the case...it's all gibberish and maybe by luck you stumble on a foreign word here and there.

Tony99

Edited...double post.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Tony99 ]</p>

agapeo

Originally posted by K:
Ok.
You're wrong.
According to 1 Corinthians those who speak in tongues are speaking in the tongues of men and/or angels. I'm not sure about the language of angels sounding like gibberish but can you really say that if it's a tongue of men that it's gibberish?
As pointed out in 1 Corinthians speaking is tongues is unknown to the one who speaks. It may be (if it's the tongue of men) known by someone present at the time. If it's the tongue of angel, well who knows if they're present.
See above. The primary purpose of speaking in tongues according to 1 Corinthians is for the benefit of the individual speaking, not so that those who might hear can get their ears "tickled".
Never heard of one being done. But even if attempted it must be taken into account that God is the one who choses the exact language and words spoken by those that speak in tongues.
The speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost and those present understanding what was spoken was a phenomenon. It's not guaranteed that every time one speaks in tongues in a congregation that those present (if they're foreigners) will understand what has been spoken.
How was that?

frostymama

It is complete and utter BS. I started speaking in tongues in church when I was 5. In all of those years of active participation I can honestly say that I did nothing but string nonsense sounds together (in spite of what everyone around me said that it meant). It was expected that I would do it... so I did.

Amos

Speaking tongues is non rational langauge. It is when no convention (reason or intelligence) is added to our string of words at the adams apple.

It is the langauge of man because man is a non-rational animal and our humanity is the rational condition of man. The angelic influence is when it is spontaneous instead of initiated by the faculty of reason.

The angelic version is never satanic while the rationally induced version can easy be satanic.

K

agapeo:

Thanks for clearing it up. Sure enough from your references you appear to be correct. It does make it sound even crazier to me.

It does make an easy test available. Let someone with the gift of speaking in tongues write down a message and speak it in tongues. Let someone with the gift of interpreting tongues write down the message they get and see if the two match.

By the way do people with the gift of interpreting tongues generally work as translators? I think someone could promote a lot of peace on this earth if they used their gift in that manner.

agapeo

Originally posted by K:
You're welcome.
Could be, but I'm sure some of my Christian brethren will disagree with me.
I think it's stated in 1 Corinthians 14 that those who entered into a congregation speaking in tongues would consider them all mad/crazy unless it's interpreted. So you have a point!
That's not the way it works. So no test can be done. Either a person believes in tongues or they don't. So there's no directive to prove it to someone who doesn't.
No. Interpretation of tongues is the gist of that which has been spoken in a tongue. Not a word by word translation.
That would be nice, but again that's not what it's for. According to 1 Corinthians again, it's only for the benefit (comfort, exhortation, and edification) of those present.

Boro Nut

It's obvious then why they have dropped this hole line. It would prove conclusivley that the babel fish existed, and by definition, that god didn't.

Boro Nut

Tony99

Most have dropped that whole speaking in tongues thing all together due to the vagueness of it's purpose. Some churches say it's a language that only god understands, some say it should only be used privately in prayer, some say it should only be followed by an interpretation. IMO it's a badge that evangelicals wear as to their exclusive relationship with god.

It's not guaranteed that every time one speaks in tongues in a congregation that those present (if they're foreigners) will understand what has been spoken.

This seems to defeat the purpose of the "witness" of the holy spirit. If a "foreigner" or non-christian walks into a church where tongues are being spoke it would cause confusion and turn the person away. God is not the author of confusion. If the non-christian was addressed in their native tongue by non speakers of their language....what a conversion tool.