Are Tongues Real?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I actually don't think they heard unintelligible babbling, but somehow awkwardly tried to explain it away as if they had some new wine.

Please show us how the unrighteous awkwardly explained away people speaking in known foreign languages as being inebriated? Words slur as the individual becomes intoxicated. In antiquity it was known that people speaking foreign languages were referred to as Barbarians "Gentiles." If I hear someone who I never believed could speak Spanish, or Greek, my first thought wouldn't be that they were inebriated. But, more importantly is the why? Why, are the unrighteous trying to explain away people speaking in their own birth language? No one is given any religious view prior to their statement of "these men are drunk" Therefore, the statement of inebriated apostles isn't a refutation to an alternative religious view. The religious reason and mention of Joel 2:28 come directly after the accusation of drunkenness. My view is that the unrighteous "others" mocking, is merely because they couldn't understand the babbling, yet, a compatriot right next to them could hear the language clearly. I hope all is well with you and your family, and thank you in advance for your thoughts.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Yes, we will keep you in prayer. We believe with you!

Thank you Brother Blume, the hurricane is increasing as it makes landfall.
Sadly already they are trying to politicize this storm and will do so more after the storm is gone. We already had a tornado hit a supermarket early this morning. We are currently under tornado watch because we are on the dirty side of the storm as it makes landfall in Fort Meyers Florida.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Please show us how the unrighteous awkwardly explained away people speaking in known foreign languages as being inebriated? Words slur as the individual becomes intoxicated. In antiquity it was known that people speaking foreign languages were referred to as Barbarians "Gentiles." If I hear someone who I never believed could speak Spanish, or Greek, my first thought wouldn't be that they were inebriated. But, more importantly is the why? Why, are the unrighteous trying to explain away people speaking in their own birth language? No one is given any religious view prior to their statement of "these men are drunk" Therefore, the statement of inebriated apostles isn't a refutation to an alternative religious view. The religious reason and mention of Joel 2:28 come directly after the accusation of drunkenness. My view is that the unrighteous "others" mocking, is merely because they couldn't understand the babbling, yet, a compatriot right next to them could hear the language clearly. I hope all is well with you and your family, and thank you in advance for your thoughts.

It says they were mocking. We read this as well:

Acts 17:32.. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

I think it's more in those tones of mockery.

We read things about the Lord in the same sort of vein.

Matthew 11:19.. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

They accused Jesus of having a devil when he cast out devils.

And called him a devil and a Samaritan.

John 8:47-48.. He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. ..(48).. Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

But the main point is that such a huge thought of claiming that a miracle happened in the listeners, with one person hearing gibberish and another hearing actual different speech altogether, such as an actual known language, is far too important an issue to not have been spelled out for us by narration. The narration should have at least said something such as, "And God's Spirit caused a wonder to occur by having each listener hear their own language while others heard nonsense."

Narration and what it mentions are very important. In order for the narration to only include the miracle and wonder of the speakers being given utterance, and nothing more than that said about the miraculous, I think we must conclude that the idea that a miracle ALSO occurred in the hearers distinct from the speakers did not occur. That aspect of the picture is simply not explained in narration. The ONLY miracle that occurred was the 120 being given utterance, period

A man made that popular years ago in a book he wrote as a journalist who allegedly had recordings of people speaking in tongues, entitled "They Speak With Other Tongues," if memory serves me well. He said linguists analyzed the recorded tongues as gibberish, while people present claimed they actually heard foreign languages that they understood. So, he concluded that it was a miracle in the listeners as Esaias said. I could never accept that, personally.

I simply think the KJV English throws people off and it appears to say what Esaias claims, but without the narration spelling it out in explanation, that conclusion falls short.

Thank you Brother Blume, the hurricane is increasing as it makes landfall.
Sadly already they are trying to politicize this storm and will do so more after the storm is gone. We already had a tornado hit a supermarket early this morning. We are currently under tornado watch because we are on the dirty side of the storm as it makes landfall in Fort Meyers Florida.

It seems you were spared compared to Sarasota. That was a great thought you mentioned about praying it goes somewhere else. Blessings, brother!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It says they were mocking. We read this as well:

Acts 17:32.. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

I think it's more in those tones of mockery.

We read things about the Lord in the same sort of vein.

Matthew 11:19.. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

They accused Jesus of having a devil when he cast out devils.

And called him a devil and a Samaritan.

John 8:47-48.. He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. ..(48).. Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

But the main point is that such a huge thought of claiming that a miracle happened in the listeners, with one person hearing gibberish and another hearing actual different speech altogether, such as an actual known language, is far too important an issue to not have been spelled out for us by narration. The narration should have at least said something such as, "And God's Spirit caused a wonder to occur by having each listener hear their own language while others heard nonsense."

Narration and what it mentions are very important. In order for the narration to only include the miracle and wonder of the speakers being given utterance, and nothing more than that said about the miraculous, I think we must conclude that the idea that a miracle ALSO occurred in the hearers distinct from the speakers did not occur. That aspect of the picture is simply not explained in narration. The ONLY miracle that occurred was the 120 being given utterance, period

A man made that popular years ago in a book he wrote as a journalist who allegedly had recordings of people speaking in tongues, entitled "They Speak With Other Tongues," if memory serves me well. He said linguists analyzed the recorded tongues as gibberish, while people present claimed they actually heard foreign languages that they understood. So, he concluded that it was a miracle in the listeners as Esaias said. I could never accept that, personally.

I simply think the KJV English throws people off and it appears to say what Esaias claims, but without the narration spelling it out in explanation, that conclusion falls short.

Why give us narration when we see the two groups interacting clearly? On the flip side, where do we find in history that people speaking foreign languages were called drunks? They were called barbarians, not drunks. The righteous understood Jesus, the unrighteous didn't and thought He was being used of the devil. Concerning the resurrection, the "others" are unrighteous, while those who wanted to hear more of the matter you can say were righteous, but even if you didn't want to label either crowd, you have to say they are different. In Pentecost tongues and interpretation is as common as old sister Mae's Oatmeal box beehive. The miracle was the tongues only being interpreted by the devout, and the others being cut off from the message of God. Do Pentecostals speak in known languages?

Originally Posted by mfblume

It seems you were spared compared to Sarasota. That was a great thought you mentioned about praying it goes somewhere else. Blessings, brother!

The west coast got hammered. We pray for these storms not to touch us, but the storm is going to touch someone. It didn't hit me, but it hit my family on Pine Island, Port Charlotte, and Arcadia. The prayers that all are safe, that everyone comes out alive.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Why give us narration when we see the two groups interacting clearly? On the flip side, where do we find in history that people speaking foreign languages were called drunks? They were called barbarians, not drunks. The righteous understood Jesus, the unrighteous didn't and thought He was being used of the devil. Concerning the resurrection, the "others" are unrighteous, while those who wanted to hear more of the matter you can say were righteous, but even if you didn't want to label either crowd, you have to say they are different. In Pentecost tongues and interpretation is as common as old sister Mae's Oatmeal box beehive. The miracle was the tongues only being interpreted by the devout, and the others being cut off from the message of God. Do Pentecostals speak in known languages?

Sorry, I cannot agree. If we question the need for narration, then why was there any at all saying that God gave the speakers utterance? There would be no utterance given to the speakers if the miracle was in the listeners. But because the narration DOES say this, then that would be the time to likewise speak of the "other" alleged. miracle. I personally say we cannot base a conclusion like this on such a foundation where something is not plainly spelled out for us.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sorry, I cannot agree. If we question the need for narration, then why was there any at all saying that God gave the speakers utterance? There would be no utterance given to the speakers if the miracle was in the listeners. But because the narration DOES say this, then that would be the time to likewise speak of the "other" alleged. miracle. I personally say we cannot base a conclusion like this on such a foundation where something is not plainly spelled out for us.

Each man heard them speaking in his own language.

Looks pretty spelled out to me.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Each man heard them speaking in his own language.

Looks pretty spelled out to me.

Same here, also every other person I have ever known.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sorry, I cannot agree. If we question the need for narration, then why was there any at all saying that God gave the speakers utterance? There would be no utterance given to the speakers if the miracle was in the listeners. But because the narration DOES say this, then that would be the time to likewise speak of the "other" alleged. miracle. I personally say we cannot base a conclusion like this on such a foundation where something is not plainly spelled out for us.

When you speak in tongues, is it a known language?