speaking in tongues

[TK]

Hi Homer-

that explanation seems too simple. Why would not have Paul just said "Don't speak Hebrew if everyone else only knows Greek?"-- or something along those lines.

Is Peoples suggesting that the "gift" of tongues is simply a talent for learning languages?

TK

[SamIam]

Paul says he speak in tongues all the time... but not in church. When, then, is he doing this speaking in tongues?

Perhaps, like the occurance of languages in Acts 2, Paul spoke in different languages in evangelistic settings.

And why would he do so, if not to edify himself?

Perhaps Paul spoke in languages for evangelistic purposes. (Perhaps in spoke in different languages in order to communicate. Perhaps he spoke in languages as a sign in rebuke of unbelieving Jews.) In 1 Corinthians, when Paul says the one who speaks in languages edifies himself, he is not necessarily commending the practice.

The gist I get is that speaking in tongues should be more of a private thing, or with a few like minded believers, but not in the general assembly.

Notice that Paul does not instruct them to speak in languages in private settings. He tells them that if there is no interpreter they are to be silient in the assembly. It is a jump in logic to conclude that the lanuages are to be a private thing.

[TK]

What language. other than Greek, would Paul have had to speak for "evangelistic purposes?"

TK

[SamIam]

Maybe the Lycaonian language (Acts 14:8-18).

[TK]

Nah... they understood Greek just fine. But it was evident that Paul didnt understand Lycaonian.

TK

[Homer]

What language. other than Greek, would Paul have had to speak for "evangelistic purposes?"

Could have been very many. In Acts 2:8 we see that on the day of Pentecost there were people there, who heard the apostles, from Libya all the way around to Rome. And it appears Luke mentions at least a dozen languages and dialects. And even Galilleans were bilingual. Koine Greek was the general language but indigenous languages were still legal and in use in the Roman empire. So its easy to imagine someone praying or prophesying at Corinth in an unknown (to some or all others) language or dialect. Perhaps Paul meant that unless an interpeter is there, then Koine Greek, the common language, should be spoken.

[Paidion]

I understand the passage in I Cor 14 as you do, TK.

But it is also the case that a person can be inspired to speak an earthly language he does not know. Here are two cases, one which I personally observed, and another related to me by my sister.

1. I attended a meeting in Thunder Bay, Ontario. A woman got up and spoke in a tongue. I recognized the language as Greek. I am not familiar with spoken Greek, but while she spoke, I recognized the phrase "λεγει ὁ κυριος" repeated a number of times. I counted them. After she spoke, she gave the translation herself (or "interpretation" if you insist). I listened to see how many times she said, "The Lord says". But she actually said, "Thus saith the Lord", and the number of times seemed to correspond to the number of times she uttered the Greek phrase. How I wished I had had a tape recorder so that I could listen to the Greek a few times and try to translate it.

Later I had lunch with my aunt who had also attended the meeting. I told her what I heard. She said, "I'm sure Mrs. ----- doesn't know GREEK!"

As far as I know, no one present understood the Greek message. I could see no reason why the Lord spoke through her in Greek other than to increase my faith.

2. My sister used to go to a particular church in Winnipeg. One time when she was present, a man stood up and spoke in a tongue. When he was finished, for some reason he remained standing. The pastor asked, "Is there an interpretation?" — silence. Then the pastor said, "Brother, you are out of order. Sit down!" He did so, and the meeting proceeded in the usual way. After it was finished, a man, who was ethnically Chinese, approached the pastor and asked, "Who was that man who was speaking Chinese?"

"What??? When???" the pastor asked.

"You know... earlier in the meeting, a man got up and spoke Chinese."

Then the pastor understood. He got the "tongues speaker" together with the Chinese man and himself. It seems the man had given the gospel in Chinese. As they talked together, the man of Chinese origin became a Christian. At a later meeting, the pastor apologized to the congregation relating to them the whole story and saying that he had made a serious error in telling the man who had given the gospel in Chinese, that he was out of order.

[TK]

I hope I am not giving the impression that i think the tongues spoken in Acts 2 were not actual languages- I DO think that- it seems obvious.

I just believe that Paul is talking about something different in 1 Cor 14, given the context. 1 Cor 14 is a somewhat difficult passage, and some of it does not make a lot of sense.

For example, in regard to 1 Cor 14:22, JB Phillips has a footnote in his translation: "This is the sole instance of the translator's departing from the accepted text. He felt bound to conclude, from the sense of the next three verses, that we have here either a slip of the pen on the part of Paul, or, more probably, a copyist's error."

He translates this verse as follows:

"That means that tongues are a sign of God's power, not for those who are unbelievers but to those who already believe."

I personally believe Mr. Phillips is correct. I never could understand the "accepted" versions of this verse.

TK

[Paidion]

I hope I am not giving the impression that i think the tongues spoken in Acts 2 were not actual languages- I DO think that- it seems obvious.

I don't think you gave that impression. However, I don't think it is obvious that they were not actual languages. Many people think that the apostles spoke in their own language, but that most of the hearers were given the gift of interpretation or understanding, so that they HEARD in their own language. These people think that the miracle was not in the speaking, but in the hearing.

For example, in regard to 1 Cor 14:22, JB Phillips has a footnote in his translation: "This is the sole instance of the translator's departing from the accepted text. He felt bound to conclude, from the sense of the next three verses, that we have here either a slip of the pen on the part of Paul, or, more probably, a copyist's error."

He translates this verse as follows:

"That means that tongues are a sign of God's power, not for those who are unbelievers but to those who already believe."

I personally believe Mr. Phillips is correct. I never could understand the "accepted" versions of this verse.

I am not sure how Phillips's translation differs subtantially from the "accepted" versions. How does it differ, for example, from the ESV and the RSV which read:

"Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers."

The only significant difference I can see is that Phillips has added the phrase "of God's power", a phrase which is not found in the Greek. But that does not seem to give the statement a different meaning. Please explain why other versions don't make sense to you, whereas the Phillips version does.

[verbatim]

I had notice that nobody has ever mentioned 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 wherein Paul reveal that he knew a man whether in the body, or whether out of the body who was caught up to the third heaven and heard unspeakable words, that are not lawful for a man to utter.

I think that it was the same words that John hear in Revelation 10:3-4 wherein seven thunder uttered their voices and John heard a voice saying "Seal up those things that which the seven thunder uttered and write them not.

It is also parallel of John 12:27-30 when Jesus is worshiping the Father and ask the Father to glorify His name, then came a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it , and will glorify it again. But the people that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered; others said, An angel spake to him.

So, it is a mystery or hyperbole that intended not to reveal the true words that it means that clearly reveal the right or pure words on how to praise the Holy name of God.

The truth that it was not written in the Holy Scripture but it was given to believers who loves and fear in the name of the LORD as has been written in Malachi 3:16 Then that they feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, it and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.

So, this is assumed to be a heavenly tongues which is unspeakable being not lawful for a man to utter. This will comply in
1Corinthians 14:15 What is then? I will pray by the spirit, and I will pray by the understanding also. I will sing by the spirit
and I will sing with the understanding also.

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in unknown tongues speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in spirit he speaketh in mysteries.