Are Tongues Real?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shag

and Elizabeth was filled with the Holyghost. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!


Trying not to add to or take away….

Then we can't say she did, and we can't say she didn't.

[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.

[good samaritan]

There where 120 people in the upper room. They where all speaking in tongues and people heard them speak in their native tongue. It seems unlikely that “them” means each man heard all 120 speaking in Unison in their tongue. The sign was given of speaking in tongues and not of hearing other tongues.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

There where 120 people in the upper room. They where all speaking in tongues and people heard them speak in their native tongue. It seems unlikely that “them” means each man heard all 120 speaking in Unison in their tongue. The sign was given of speaking in tongues and not of hearing other tongues.

The BIBLE says:

Each man heard THEM speak in HIS own tongue.

To you this is "unlikely", just like the Virgin Birth is "unlikely" to a lot of people's minds.

[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?

[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 Esaias

The BIBLE says:

Each man heard THEM speak in HIS own tongue.

To you this is "unlikely", just like the Virgin Birth is "unlikely" to a lot of people's minds.

Amen in Jesus name.

[james34]

This is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel, in the last days I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh.



Is this “hearing in a different language”, now a manifestation of the spirit as well as the other gifts?
Or is the hearing a gift that is manifested just in the unbeliever?
Actually, TONGUES”, are for a sign to them that believe not.
-If someone spoke in their native language and a bystander of a different language heard them in his own language, the gift would not be of the tongue , but of the hearing. But the scripture plainly says , “ Tongues are for a sign to them that believe not”!
(and the tongues are exercised by the believer, given as a sign to convince the unbeliever) )…. Which is more of a reason to accept that the miracle on Pentecost was tongues! You would be in agreement with Paul.
Is this “hearing”, part of the outpouring that Joel was talking about?

Question…
If the gift were of the speaking sort ( and men spoke in an unlearned language) and you heard them ( and knew this was not a learned tongue) you might ask the question, how do I hear them speak in my own tongue. This would not indicate a miracle of hearing, it is the expected reference that one would make from the position of a bystander, who heard people speak a language they did not formally know!

If you think it was in the hearing still, is God now granting the gifts of the spirit to the unrepented and unbelieving sinners, which manifestations and gifts are a by product of having received the baptism of the Holy Ghost?
So have these ( the hearer’s ) received the Holy Ghost who have not repented?





He hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear