Did the Apostles speak in prayer languages on Pentecost?

[Dave Slayer]

Did the Apostles speak in private prayer languages on the day of Pentecost? Was the Jewish crowd amazed at prayer languages or known human languages that they were able to udnerstand?

 

[follower of Christ]

Clearly they were amazed that they heard in their own languages.
Oddly this is something that we NEVER see from 'Pentecostals' claiming that very gift. ;)

And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
(Act 2:7-11)

 

[Dave Slayer]

Clearly they were amazed that they heard in their own languages.
Oddly this is something that we NEVER see from 'Pentecostals' claiming that very gift. ;)

So they were known foreign languages that were being spoken? Is that what's Biblical?

 

[follower of Christ]

[quote="follower of Christ":3l7gav9h]Clearly they were amazed that they heard in their own languages.
Oddly this is something that we NEVER see from 'Pentecostals' claiming that very gift. ;)

So they were known foreign languages that were being spoken?[/quote:3l7gav9h]

And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
(Act 2:7-11)

They apparently heard in their own language.
Regardless of how it happened what IS clear is that they UNDERSTOOD what was being said.

 

[Dave Slayer]

[quote="Dave Slayer":3f6q9viv][quote="follower of Christ":3f6q9viv]Clearly they were amazed that they heard in their own languages.
Oddly this is something that we NEVER see from 'Pentecostals' claiming that very gift. ;)

So they were known foreign languages that were being spoken?[/quote:3f6q9viv]

And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
(Act 2:7-11)

They apparently heard in their own language.
Regardless of how it happened what IS clear is that they UNDERSTOOD what was being said. [/quote:3f6q9viv]

Good point. It says "wherein we were born". Clearly these were indeed foreign languages then and not a private prayer language. If the Apostles spoke in privater prayer languages, then it was no longer "private" since everyone heard them.

But if the tongues here are known languages, why does it switch to private prayer languages at Corinth? Has the definition of "tongues" changed? If so, why didn't Paul make a distinction between a foreign language and a prayer language?

 

[follower of Christ]

Good point. It says "wherein we were born". Clearly these were indeed foreign languages then and not a private prayer language. If the Apostles spoke in privater prayer languages, then it was no longer "private" since everyone heard them.

But if the tongues here are known languages, why does it switch to private prayer languages at Corinth? Has the definition of "tongues" changed? If so, why didn't Paul make a distinction between a foreign language and a prayer language?

Another point is that when we see 'unknown tongue' the word 'unknown' does not appear in the greek but is added. The word is typically this

G1100
γλῶÃÃα
glÃ…Âssa
Thayer Definition:
1) the tongue, a member of the body, an organ of speech
2) a tongue
1a) the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations

This 'unknown' tongue by the actual intent of the Greek is seemingly just a human language or dialect, not some literally 'unknown', otherworldly language.

 

[Dave Slayer]

Another point is that when we see 'unknown tongue' the word 'unknown' does not appear in the greek but is added.

Why was it added?

 

[follower of Christ]

But if the tongues here are known languages, why does it switch to private prayer languages at Corinth? Has the definition of "tongues" changed? If so, why didn't Paul make a distinction between a foreign language and a prayer language?

Stepping out on a limb here, I believe they were just flat out faking.
Why ?
Look at how Paul chastised the Corinthians over their behavior.
Do we actually believe that the Holy Spirit would have been presenting Himself so greatly in a bunch of immature, disobedient, carnal children ?
I seriously doubt that their tongues WAS actually any real gift but was just as we see in many charismatic churches today...
I dont believe they actually were speaking in real tongues and I believe this is why Paul set up the 'trap' that he did for them. The ultimate test of their tongues...demanding an interpreter.

NO one would KNOW before hand if there would be an interpreter after they spoke tongues aloud. So by making the interpretation a separate gift, and requiring that interpreter, I believe Paul, by Gods wisdom, was making it so the faker wouldnt just start babbling because he wouldnt be able to know if someone else was going to interpret or not. Only if the Holy Spirit were actually giving the tongues could the tongues speaker be certain that there would be.

But I see Paul being very clever in a number of areas in the NT, so this one doesnt surprise me much

 

[follower of Christ]

[quote="follower of Christ":1a48xh3a]Another point is that when we see 'unknown tongue' the word 'unknown' does not appear in the greek but is added.

Why was it added?[/quote:1a48xh3a]
Ive never bothered to research that particular point

 

[Dave Slayer]

[quote="Dave Slayer":17h8zc40][quote="follower of Christ":17h8zc40]Another point is that when we see 'unknown tongue' the word 'unknown' does not appear in the greek but is added.

Why was it added?[/quote:17h8zc40]
Ive never bothered to research that particular point [/quote:17h8zc40]

I tend to believe it was added because the KJV translators thought it would help understand the context better. If someone speaks in a tongue that us "unknown" to the hearers in the assembly, how is that edifying? I wonder what would have happened had that word "unknown" never been added?

 

[follower of Christ]

I tend to believe it was added because the KJV translators thought it would help understand the context better. If someone speaks in a tongue that us "unknown" to the hearers in the assembly, how is that edifying? I wonder what would have happened had that word "unknown" never been added?

Most probably you are right.
Id think that they werent pushing otherworldly tongues given what I do know about the KJV translators, but I wouldnt want to speak for them. The KJV certainly doesnt seem to be written in any manner that pushes the sign gift of tongues.

 

[Imagican]

But if the tongues here are known languages, why does it switch to private prayer languages at Corinth? Has the definition of "tongues" changed? If so, why didn't Paul make a distinction between a foreign language and a prayer language?

Stepping out on a limb here, I believe they were just flat out faking.
Why ?
Look at how Paul chastised the Corinthians over their behavior.
Do we actually believe that the Holy Spirit would have been presenting Himself so greatly in a bunch of immature, disobedient, carnal children ?
I seriously doubt that their tongues WAS actually any real gift but was just as we see in many charismatic churches today...
I dont believe they actually were speaking in real tongues and I believe this is why Paul set up the 'trap' that he did for them. The ultimate test of their tongues...demanding an interpreter.

NO one would KNOW before hand if there would be an interpreter after they spoke tongues aloud. So by making the interpretation a separate gift, and requiring that interpreter, I believe Paul, by Gods wisdom, was making it so the faker wouldnt just start babbling because he wouldnt be able to know if someone else was going to interpret or not. Only if the Holy Spirit were actually giving the tongues could the tongues speaker be certain that there would be.

But I see Paul being very clever in a number of areas in the NT, so this one doesnt surprise me much

You're not actually 'steping out on a limb', you just haven't dwelt as DEEPLY into the study as possible.

There is a 'good chance' that 'unknown tongues' ARE inspired. The difference is that it is inspired by a 'different god'.

We can see that such 'gibberish' IS used in OTHER religions. Santa Ria, Voodoo. In these religions it is quite common for those that are 'caught up in the moment' to fall down, flop around and speak in unintelligible gibberish. What it appears like is POSSESSION. And that is MOST LIKELY what it IS.

We have the account offered that Christ was asked by a boy's father to help him. What is the description of the 'behavoir' that was described? The boy was POSSESSED and the demon was causing the boy to fall down, fall into a fire, etc............

So, while those that practice such behavior claim that it is the Holy Spirit with which they are possessed, I BELIEVE that it is a 'different spirit'. One that has absolutely NO relatiionship to The Spirit.

While it would certainly be difficult for one BELIEVING ONE THING to accept the other is without doubt. But the truth bears itself out.

The apostles were 'gifted' with the 'gift of tongues'. The TRUE 'gift of tongues'. This was the ability to speak and be understood by those of different languages. This is not only apparent but outright STATED. And when we study the rules of tongues we see that 'tongues were for a sign, not to them that BELIEVE, but for them that BELIEVE NOT. The ONLY way that this FITS is that these 'tongues' WERE languages. For HOW ELSE is one going to offer a 'sign' to another that DOES NOT BELIEVE. For IF these 'tongues' were gibberish, Paul plainly stated that this would be NO SIGN. Those witnessing 'gibberish' would think the one speaking such would be 'like a BARBARIAN. Now that wouldn't be a 'good sign' would it?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[follower of Christ]

So, while those that practice such behavior claim that it is the Holy Spirit with which they are possessed, I BELIEVE that it is a 'different spirit'. One that has absolutely NO relatiionship to The Spirit.

As far as this 'slain in the spirit' thing is concerned, Id say we are in complete agreement. I never have believed that to be anything but either immaturity and emotionalism and bordering on possession.