Are Tongues Real?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Some scholars believe that if a Roman approached any given tongue talker, that speaker would immediately begin speaking to the man in Latin. If a Greek approached the speaker, that same person would change and speak Greek, etc.

I think that's more reasonable.

It is not "more reasonable" to insert things into the text that don't exist, are not mentioned, and which would be impractical anyway.

Acts 2:6 KJV
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Every man - singular, each individual visitor.

Them - plural, the disciples who were speaking with other tongues.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It is not "more reasonable" to insert things into the text that don't exist, are not mentioned, and which would be impractical anyway.

Acts 2:6 KJV
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Every man - singular, each individual visitor.

Them - plural, the disciples who were speaking with other tongues.

What is not mentoned is a miracle of God performing the interpretation in foreign ears with foreign languages of the hearers that the speakers did not actually speak. What I see as more reasonable is the miracle happening in the speakers, and not the hearers. I cannot see how the speakers spoke in "tongues" if the miracle was in the hearers where their personal "tongues" were actually inserted into their ears that were tongues that weren't actually coming from the speakers' mouths to have spoken those actual languages. Acts 2 attributes the miracle to the Spirit giving utterance for the speakers to speak in tongues, and says nothing about a miracle happening instead in the ears of the hearers.

Consider this, also. There is a gift of interpretation of tongues. Why have that gift, if people can speak after God performed a miracle of interpretation in the ears of the hearers in Acts 2? All the way around, it seems off to say the miracle happened in the hearers. One might say the miracle was still seeing the speakers speak unknown languages. But the only miracle mentioned is God giving utterance to the speakers to speak in tongues, not anything God did in the ears of the hearers that was like ANOTHER additional miracle. To say a miracle of making the hearers hear words that the actual lips of the speakers did not speak, distances the tongues that the speakers spoke from the language the hearers heard.

[Esaias]

I am simply saying what the text says:

Acts 2:6 KJV
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Every man (each one, considered singularly) heard them (the disciples, a plurality) speak in his (each visitor's) own language.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What is not mentoned is a miracle of God performing the interpretation in foreign ears with foreign languages of the hearers that the speakers did not actually speak. What I see as more reasonable is the miracle happening in the speakers, and not the hearers. I cannot see how the speakers spoke in "tongues" if the miracle was in the hearers where their personal "tongues" were actually inserted into their ears that were tongues that weren't actually coming from the speakers' mouths to have spoken those actual languages. Acts 2 attributes the miracle to the Spirit giving utterance for the speakers to speak in tongues, and says nothing about a miracle happening instead in the ears of the hearers.

Consider this, also. There is a gift of interpretation of tongues. Why have that gift, if people can speak after God performed a miracle of interpretation in the ears of the hearers in Acts 2? All the way around, it seems off to say the miracle happened in the hearers. One might say the miracle was still seeing the speakers speak unknown languages. But the only miracle mentioned is God giving utterance to the speakers to speak in tongues, not anything God did in the ears of the hearers that was like ANOTHER additional miracle. To say a miracle of making the hearers hear words that the actual lips of the speakers did not speak, distances the tongues that the speakers spoke from the language the hearers heard.

The devout ( Acts 2:5 ) heard their own languages, and the "others" ( Acts 2:13 ) heard babbling as if the disciples were drunk.

Also keep us in prayer for we just got notified for a tornado watch for Broward and Dade counties.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The devout ( Acts 2:5 ) heard their own languages, and the "others" ( Acts 2:13 ) heard babbling as if the disciples were drunk.

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

Also keep us in prayer for we just got notified for a tornado watch for Broward and Dade counties.

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

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I am simply saying what the text says:

I believe that I am doing the same thing.

Acts 2:6 KJV
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Every man (each one, considered singularly) heard them (the disciples, a plurality) speak in his (each visitor's) own language.

When you mentioned something not being explained, it made me think of your explanation which was not explained and requires an explanation of a miracle happening apart from the tongue talkers, when all that we read is that the Lord gave utterance to the speakers not "hearing" to the hearers, as if there was a miracle in their hearing.

I personally think it's of no real concern either way, but we should not add explanations that the text itself does not add. I think it's safest to take all the options and realize that if a Roman approached any given tongue talker, that speaker would immediately begin speaking to the man in Latin. If a Greek approached the speaker, that same person would change and speak Greek, etc. Least hoops to leap thorugh. Brother OCCAM at work. lol

[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!

[diakonos]

Everyone heard someone speak in his language. Is how I’ve always read it.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Everyone heard someone speak in his language. Is how I’ve always read it.

That's what I believe, since I first read it for face-value reading.