Can anyone explain to us the phenomena of 'Speaking in Tongues' ? (Buddhism, disciples)

[Cruithne]

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

What it means is that I know what the Biblical standards are. And nothing I've ever seen comes close. Real tongues means speaking in an actual language, not babbling. And if one speaks in tongues, there must be an interpreter. Never seen it.

Ok, then it wouldn't be speaking in tongues then would it?


If it was an actual language that two or more people could understand - one person saying the words and the other interpreting, it would just be a language. It wouldn't be speaking in tongues.

[RomulusXXV]

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

What it means is that I know what the Biblical standards are. And nothing I've ever seen comes close. Real tongues means speaking in an actual language, not babbling. And if one speaks in tongues, there must be an interpreter. Never seen it.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

Ok, then it wouldn't be speaking in tongues then would it?

If it was an actual language that two or more people could understand - one person saying the words and the other interpreting, it would just be a language. It wouldn't be speaking in tongues.

See . . .THIS is where appalling ignorance comes into play. It's the very word 'tongues' that has taken on an aura of mystique by some that was never intended by the author/s of the Bible. There is absolutely NOTHING mysterious about 'tongues'. A 'tongue' is simply 'a language'. 'Tongues' are simply 'languages'. 'Tongue' and 'Tongues' are simply the word choices (albeit initially in their OWN 'native tongue' ) of the Bible author/s when referring to 'language' or 'languages'. Actually, this > γλῶσσα < is the word they used.

Do people REALLY not know this already without it having to be explained to them??

Anyway, Strong's Concordance (which we shouldn't need since our brain should suffice) tells us that:

* the 'tongue' is, of course, a member of the body, the organ of speech.

* a 'tongue' is the language used by particular people of other nations.

* 'tongues' (languages) serve to designate or identify people of various nations.

* to speak with other than one's native 'tongue' means the ability to speak in a foreign language.

* to speak with new tongues is speaking a language that the speaker has not learned previously.

* "They speak mysteries" means that the hearer does not understand the foreign language being spoken.

* an 'unknown tongue' is a (foreign) language that is unfamiliar to the hearer.

* 'tongues of angels' as used by Paul is merely hyperbole. Apparently, Paul spoke in other foreign languages but 'angel speak' was not one of them.

SO, dear reader, whenever the word 'tongue' or 'tongues' appears in the Bible simply replace the word or words with 'language' or 'languages' and 'the mystery' will ''poof", simply disappear never to return. It will undoubtedly throw a wrench into the cherished mechanics of Pentecostalism, but there ya go.

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by Cruithne

Ok, then it wouldn't be speaking in tongues then would it?


If it was an actual language that two or more people could understand - one person saying the words and the other interpreting, it would just be a language. It wouldn't be speaking in tongues.

That is what it meant in the original story of Pentecost, though, minus the interpreters. In the Bible story the Holy Spirit comes upon the apostles, and they begin speaking in tongues--languages that they did not previously know but which were understood by the foreigners who can hear them.

Not people rolling around on the floor babbling incoherently.

I have never actually witnessed the former, but I've seen the latter. Hard not to laugh.

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

No. I'm not going to go out of my way to provide evidence to have you dismiss it. Anyone with an open mind will see it in short time just by paying attention. The fact that you have to ask now demonstrates you don't care to.

As you wish. I was just hoping from all there to consider what you deem most convincing and why. If you don't care to elaborate for whatever your reasons, no one can force you, but I was genuinely interested. The fact that I asked demonstrated that interest far as I'm concerned. Sincerely -- the opposite of I don't care to consider your point of view and opinion. Disappointing.

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by RomulusXXV

See . . .THIS is where appalling ignorance comes into play. It's the very word 'tongues' that has taken on an aura of mystique by some that was never intended by the author/s of the Bible. There is absolutely NOTHING mysterious about 'tongues'. A 'tongue' is simply 'a language'. 'Tongues' are simply 'languages'. 'Tongue' and 'Tongues' are simply the word choices (albeit initially in their OWN 'native tongue' ) of the Bible author/s when referring to 'language' or 'languages'. Actually, this > γλῶσσα < is the word they used.

Do people REALLY not know this already without it having to be explained to them??

Anyway, Strong's Concordance (which we shouldn't need since our brain should suffice) tells us that:

* the 'tongue' is, of course, a member of the body, the organ of speech.

* a 'tongue' is the language used by particular people of other nations.

* 'tongues' (languages) serve to designate or identify people of various nations.

* to speak with other than one's native 'tongue' means the ability to speak in a foreign language.

* to speak with new tongues is speaking a language that the speaker has not learned previously.

* "They speak mysteries" means that the hearer does not understand the foreign language being spoken.

* an 'unknown tongue' is a (foreign) language that is unfamiliar to the hearer.

* 'tongues of angels' as used by Paul is merely hyperbole. Apparently, Paul spoke in other foreign languages but 'angel speak' was not one of them.

SO, dear reader, whenever the word 'tongue' or 'tongues' appears in the Bible simply replace the word or words with 'language' or 'languages' and 'the mystery' will ''poof", simply disappear never to return. It will undoubtedly throw a wrench into the cherished mechanics of Pentecostalism, but there ya go.

Not sure this is the most important learning for the "dear reader," but maybe some people need to learn all you've gone to the trouble to explain here. Interested to learn more about what I consider "the wrench" with regard to these "cherished mechanics of Pentecostalism," I did a little digging and after a fair amount of reading about speaking in tongues, I found this in Wikipedia...

"Speakers of glossolalia are capable of speaking in tongues on cue, contrary to the claim that it is a spontaneous event.

Analysis of glossolalics reveals a pseudo-language that lacks consistent syntax, semantic meaning, usually rhythmic or poetic in nature and is similar to the speaker's native tongue. Samples of glossolalia shows a lack of consistency needed for meaningful comparison or translation. It also is not used to communicate between fellow glossolalia speakers, although the meaning is usually translated by the leader involved, in line with and supportive of whatever message or teaching had been given that day, in some way giving divine legitimacy to what is said."

AKA bullarky.

[Cruithne]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

That is what it meant in the original story of Pentecost, though, minus the interpreters. In the Bible story the Holy Spirit comes upon the apostles, and they begin speaking in tongues--languages that they did not previously know but which were understood by the foreigners who can hear them.

Not people rolling around on the floor babbling incoherently.

I have never actually witnessed the former, but I've seen the latter. Hard not to laugh.

Okay thanks for that clarification.


So going by your explanation, the only authentic demonstration of someone speaking in tongues would be:
A person starts speaking in a completely unknown language that nobody else had ever heard before, and all the listeners in, would miraculously also completely understand everything that they were saying.

(preumably with the 'Holy Spirit' - whatever that is - also being present)


In other words, the IS NO authentic speaking in tongues.

[mensaguy]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

That is what it meant in the original story of Pentecost, though, minus the interpreters. In the Bible story the Holy Spirit comes upon the apostles, and they begin speaking in tongues--languages that they did not previously know but which were understood by the foreigners who can hear them.

Not people rolling around on the floor babbling incoherently.

I have never actually witnessed the former, but I've seen the latter. Hard not to laugh.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

Okay thanks for that clarification.


So going by your explanation, the only authentic demonstration of someone speaking in tongues would be:
A person starts speaking in a completely unknown language that nobody else had ever heard before, and all the listeners in, would miraculously also completely understand everything that they were saying.

(preumably with the 'Holy Spirit' - whatever that is - also being present)


In other words, the IS NO authentic speaking in tongues.

No, that's not it at all. What MQ is saying is that a person begins speaking in a language that they do not know, but which is known to their audience.

For example, a Spanish speaker goes to China and begins speaking, but the words come out in Chinese so the audience can understand.

We could assume the Apostles spoke Aramaic, so it would be a case of one of them traveling to India and speaking, but the words coming out in Hindi so the locals can understand.

[eddie gein]

Originally Posted by Cruithne

Okay thanks for that clarification.


So going by your explanation, the only authentic demonstration of someone speaking in tongues would be:
A person starts speaking in a completely unknown language that nobody else had ever heard before, and all the listeners in, would miraculously also completely understand everything that they were saying.

(preumably with the 'Holy Spirit' - whatever that is - also being present)


In other words, the IS NO authentic speaking in tongues.

In the Pentecost story the apostles spoke in the language of the foreigners who were around...

I don't think there was any indication that people were miraculously understanding language. Just speaking it.

Today, the "heavenly language" (babbling/glossolalia) is reserved for here in the good 'ole USA...

But your Pentecostals will still tell stories of foreign missionaries who speak the languages while in other countries via the gift of tongues. You get a lot of miraculous healing stories from abroad as well since Pentecostals also believe in healing.

Seems like the one 'gift' that we get fairly frequently here at home is the gift of "prophecy". Lots of prophets to be found in local churches.

/

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by mensaguy

No, that's not it at all. What MQ is saying is that a person begins speaking in a language that they do not know, but which is known to their audience.

For example, a Spanish speaker goes to China and begins speaking, but the words come out in Chinese so the audience can understand.

We could assume the Apostles spoke Aramaic, so it would be a case of one of them traveling to India and speaking, but the words coming out in Hindi so the locals can understand.

[arleigh]

Acts 2:4,- 15, -39,

The anointing of the Spirit is also on the hearers-the message is intended for.
I have witnessed this many times.

While it is true that some abuse this, it is all the more important to have ones own personal walk with God, solid.