Friends, There is an issue in the Scriptures that has always bothered me: at Pentecost, God gave diverse tongues to His disciples, to proclaim the Gospel in the languages of foreigners assembled at Jerusalem. In 1 Corinthians 14, however (which came up as the Second Lesson for Morning Prayer in Canada today), Paul speaks of the same gift of tongues as if it is something random, and needing interpreters. To sum it up: God gave the Disciples the ability to speak those languages of the various foreigners present at Jerusalem on Pentecost. Paul, on the other hand, treats this gift as if it is given to anyone, even inside a Church where they all speak the same language. Why would God give tongues at Pentecost for the edification of those who could understand their languages, and yet Paul considers Tongues to be something mysterious, needing an interpreter? Why would God use tongues at Pentecost for the understand of other men who could not speak Hebrew, and yet explain Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 as a way of praying to God, in spirit though not with understanding? Aren't Tongues for the understanding of foreigners amongst them?
Are your trying to understand the Scriptural passages or are you trying to understand the various ways in which the charismatic gift of tongues is manifest in our age, if at all?
Mark1, I am trying to understand why Luke (author of Acts) and Paul (author of 1 Corinthians) seem to have a totally different understanding of the gift of tongues. Luke presents it as a way of communicating the Gospel to foreigners in their own language. Paul presents it as a way of praying to God, in which there might be no understanding by anyone, and very disorderly if chaos is allowed to reign. One was orderly, and the other disorderly. One was for public instruction, and the other for private liturgy. In Acts, the only way to see the apparently chaotic gift of tongues in Corinth, is to read that bit about the Jews saying "they [the Christians] are drunk on new wine". If those at Pentecost seemed drunk to the Jews, the passage about insanity in 1 Corinthians seems justified; however, none of the foreigners (who heard the Gospel in their own language) called the disciples drunken, chaotic, or out of order. It seems to me that the gift of tongues described by Paul is totally different from that of Luke. Did it change? Why? This is more like scriptural exegesis & has nothing to do with the modern issue.
I remember when my brother in law took me to an Assembly of God service and the Ministers started Talking in Tongues. So being me I asked a big loud voice"why don't they give an interpretation as required by 1 Cor:14. ----------------------------------- I have always been very dubious about "Talking in tongues" may I quote from our friend Wikipedia. [Glossolalia] consists of strings of syllables, made up of sounds taken from all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but emerging nevertheless as word-like and sentence-like units because of realistic, language-like rhythm and melody That the sounds are taken from the set of sounds already known to the speaker is confirmed by others. Felicitas Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, also found that the speech of glossolalists reflected the patterns of speech of the speaker's native language. Samarin found that the resemblance to human language was merely on the surface, and so concluded that glossolalia is "only a facade of language". Humans use language to communicate, but glossolalia does not. Therefore he concluded that glossolalia is not "a specimen of human language because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives".[10] On the basis of his linguistic analysis, Samarin defined Pentecostal glossolalia as "meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead In 2006, the brains of a group of individuals were scanned while they were speaking in tongues. Activity in the language centers of the brain decreased, while activity in the emotional centers of the brain increased. Activity in the area of control decreased. There were no changes in any language areas, suggesting that glossolalia is not associated with usual language function That glossolalia can be learned is also seen in the traces left behind by teachers. An investigation by the Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn showed that the influence of a particular leader can shape a group's glossolalia: where certain prominent glossolalists had visited, whole groups of glossolalists would speak in his style of speech
Welcome to the forum! (Since I haven't meet you before) I have read this somewhere before. Somewhat interesting. To Consular: I have always been interested in this as well. I will be watching this thread closely!
Are we not talking about two totally different things here. In Acts 2 Luke is describing the time when the Paraclete as promised by Jesus would come and be with them the Paraclete came as tongues of fire and sat upon each of the believers, and they began to speak and were understood by the foreigners. This is a miracle and is not related to the Gifts of the Holy Spirit that Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 14. In 1 Corinthians 12:1-11 Paul talks about the different gifts and he clearly states that there are various type of speaking in tongues. In 1 Corinthians 14 he is talking about the type of tongues that is for the speaking to God in prayer. Refer:
Here is what someone called Dharma wrote on a forum I also write to. Unfortunately he failed to give any references so maybe treat it with some caution. "Actually, numerous blind test have been performed trying to prove this phenomenon. Samples of people "speaking in tongues" along with other samples just making nonsense sounds have been put to the test (numerous times without success I might add) by having professed religious leaders who have qualified as experts "decipher and translate" the samples. ALL of these (so called) expert translators were able to translate ALL samples (including the ones that were pure made up gibberish and in at least one case the babble of a extreme schizophrenic patient). After a period of time had passed they were asked to re-translate the samples. AGAIN they translated ALL samples (including the nonsense ones) BUT NONE OF THE SECOND TRANSLATIONS MATCHED THE ORIGIONAL TRANSLATONS. Put this one in the pile along with "people who move things with their mind", water dowsing, and fortune telling. Shear nonsense that can be dis-proven very easily with simple experiments." ------------ I think Gordon is right in his post above we are talking about two different things.