I need to hear more about the "ringing in the head" I have been praying and believing God for deliverance from tinnitis and praying in tongues every morning. Can you enlighten me? I appreciate you..still listening to the entirety of this message 😊
There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" - and there is only *one* type - when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); usually, but not always, unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) - it’s their native language (in some cases, it is a language the speaker has learned). _Nowhere_ in the Bible is modern tongues-speech advocated or evidenced. ‘Tongues’ (read, *‘languages’* ) - the divine gift, is the God given ability to effortlessly learn to speak and be understood through real-language barriers. It is not xenoglossy, nor is it the self-created non-cognitive non-language utterance of modern tongues-speech.
Respectfully, you must get out of your head when attempting to understand tongues. Human reasoning will stop it every time. Its biblical, and it is for us today. The 2nd chapter of Acts proves it
@@lr844 PART 1 - When it’s boiled down, most arguments for tongues at Pentecost can ultimately be said to hinge on two things; first, what the Holy Spirit actually gave the 12 apostles at Pentecost, and second, the crowd’s assumed linguistic diversity. Indeed, once can easily argue that the former completely hinges on the latter. If one carefully examines what the Greek text says the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles (yes, just 12; not 120, but that’s a story for another day) on Pentecost, and put the narrative into historical, cultural and linguistic perspective, one is compelled to conclude a very different view on the concept of “tongues” at Pentecost and, more so as “initial evidence” of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. One is also forced to rethink the actual languages and role they played in the event. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles what in the Greek text is “apophtheggesthai” - usually translated as “to give utterance”. This is, however, not the most accurate translation of this Greek word, but it’s the one that has come to be the more or less ‘de facto’ rendering. This word is from “apophtheggomai” which is best translated as “to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to” (don’t go to Strong’s and look it up - “Strong’s” is a _concordance_ , not a lexicon; there’s a _huge_ difference). It refers *not* to the content/means of the speech (i.e., the language used), but rather to the *manner* of speaking. In each instance where this word occurs in scripture, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired, and it is always, by the way, in the speaker’s native language. In short, the Holy Spirit did not give the _language_ (i.e. the means/content), it gave the _manner_ in which it was spoken. So why is it usually translated as “to give utterance”? That hinges completely on the next part… The Jews present at Pentecost, as we are told, came from three areas: Judea, the Western Diaspora and the Eastern Diaspora. “All nations under heaven” is an idiomatic expression - Acts II: 9-11 tells us where those visiting were from. We know that 1st century Judea was interesting linguistically - it illustrates a country/culture undergoing the process of Hellenization.....only Hellenization never fully happens in Judea. Greek ideas, thought and culture are prevalent, but Aramaic still wins out linguistically over Greek. Hebrew is still used as the sacerdotal language of Judaism, though, as we see in the Western Diasporan lands, Greek is actually becoming an accepted alternative to Hebrew. People speak Aramaic, worship in Hebrew, but Greek is now becoming acceptable and, it's quite possible, some educated people in larger cities such as Jerusalem spoke it over Aramaic. Merchants would have had to have at least a working knowledge of basic Greek if they wanted to conduct business beyond 'local' markets and reach more 'global' markets (such that they were in the 1st century). The land was also occupied by Rome, so Latin would have been heard, but likely not really understood. Educated Roman soldiers (as well as most upper-class Romans) would have spoken Greek, but the common soldier, likely not. In short, the average Jew from Judea spoke Aramaic, but may have had a conversational knowledge of Greek. Jews (as well as anyone else) from the Western Diaspora spoke Greek - all those lands had been Hellenized for centuries and Greek had long displaced indigenous languages. Indeed, in the Western Diaspora, and to some extent, even in larger cities in Judea, Greek was becoming an acceptable alternative to Hebrew for use in the temples and synagogues. The Eastern Diaspora was different - no Hellenization, and countries had their own languages. Though people in Jewish communities in these lands spoke the local languages in varying degrees of fluency, it was never their ‘mother tongue’. For Jews in the Eastern Diaspora, the language of ‘hearth and home’, the language “wherein they were born” was Aramaic. This language was one of the things that set them apart as being Jewish; it gave them their cultural and religious identity. Think of the Jews during the Babylonian Captivity/Exile - they did not abandon their language in favor of Babylonian; they held onto it and preserved it as part of their Jewish identity. To try and use a more modern analogy - think of the Jewish Diaspora in Central and Eastern Europe prior to WWII. Many countries, many languages, and Jewish people living in these places spoke the local language in varying degrees of fluency. But it was _never_ their native language, the language of hearth and home, the language wherein they were born - that language was Yiddish. The one language that defined them as Jews no matter where they were from. Same situation in the 1st century Eastern Diaspora, the defining language (the equivalent of my analogy’s Yiddish) was Aramaic. Many lands, many places and people, but only two languages; Aramaic and Greek; and of course, the apostles spoke both. Something to think about - In the entire Pentecost narrative, _not one_ language is ever referenced by name. Why do you suppose that is? When Peter stood up and addressed the crowd, what language do you suppose he addressed them in?? The “list of nations”, as it’s called, of Acts 2: 9-11 is simply that - a list of countries, lands and nations that tell us where these people were from; *not* what language(s) they spoke, as most people assume. Further, the idea that the “tongues” of Acts II was xenoglossy also stems from this false assumption. They spoke in “other tongues” - other than what? This phrase is found in numerous Jewish texts in which Hebrew, the “holy tongue,” is contrasted with the “foreign/other tongues” of the Gentile nations. For example, in the apocryphal book Sirach we read, “For the things translated into “other tongues,” have not the same force in them uttered in Hebrew.” The miracle of language at Pentecost was making the God of the Jews accessible to all people and moreover, not having to do so in one prescribed language; namely, Hebrew, the sacerdotal language of Judaism. Jewish religious custom and tradition demanded that any teaching, praying, reading, prophesying, etc. done from the temple (where the apostles were) be rendered _first_ in Hebrew, then followed by a translation into the vernacular. There even existed an ecclesiastical office for the individuals who did these translations (called the ‘mertugem’). On Pentecost, the apostles broke this tradition and “began to speak in ‘other’ (i.e. _other_ than Hebrew) languages (Aramaic and Greek), as the Holy Spirit kept giving a bold, authoritative, inspired manner of speaking to them. The apostles, by help and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did away with this cultural and religious tradition, and addressed the crowd in Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongue of the attendees, instead of the culturally and religiously correct, and expected tradition of Hebrew first, then translations into the vernaculars.
@@lr844 PART 2 - Hebrew was to be exclusively used during “the declaration of first fruits,” which was the sacred liturgy associated with the festival of Shavuot, or Pentecost. In other words, during this particular festival, the crowds would have expected religious services presented in the holy tongue of Hebrew. But what they ended up hearing were powerful messages in “other tongues.” Doing this from the Temple where they were, broke a slew of cultural and religious taboos. The shock to the crowd was that they did not first hear the expected and culturally correct Hebrew first, then vernaculars. May sound a bit silly nowadays, but at the time, to do such a thing was unthinkable. Further added to the crowd’s reaction was to hear Galileans (the “country bumkins” of their day) speak so boldly, completely inspired, and with such authority. To suggest, as the apostles did that the God of the Jews was now available to non-Jews and in any language, completely dispensing with Hebrew altogether was tantamount to heresy; hence also part of the crowd's reaction (i.e., they must be ‘drunk’ to dare to do such a thing). Sounds a bit ridiculous in today’s times perhaps, but there was a time when many religions had specific sacred languages ‘attached/associated’ with them, and it was heresy to veer from their usage in the prescribed manner. With regards to the concept of “initial evidence of tongues”, according to the Pentecost narrative, there were around 3,000 people who were baptized that day. If these 3,000 were 'baptized in the Spirit', I would think that at the very least, according to some Pentecostal/Charismatic beliefs, they should have starting “speaking in tongues”. Yet *nothing* of the sort is recorded. Certainly 3,000+ people “speaking in tongues" would at least merit a sentence or two in the narrative, wouldn’t it? If one argues they were not baptized in the spirit, but only in water, not only would the apostles have been violating a slew of work prohibitions on a high holy day (and would not likely have been allowed to do such a thing), considering one of the main focuses of the day was about being baptized in/receiving the Holy Spirit, that would be a rather anti-climactic ending to the narrative, wouldn’t it?
No xenoglossy, no modern tongues-speech, just real, rational language(s). There *was* a language miracle at Pentecost provided by the Holy Spirit, no argument there; just not the one most people assume. And of course, again, when the apostles received the Holy Spirit, the only tongues (read ‘languages’) spoken were their own. In short, the gift of languages was not evidenced on Pentecost - it didn’t need to be. When we put all the above together, we see that in Acts 2, the actual gift being emphasized is the fact that the Holy Spirit has empowered the disciples to _prophesy_ and to boldly proclaim the Word of the Lord, and this is exactly what we find in verse 14. According to the ESV translation, Peter lifted up his voice and _addressed_ them, but perhaps a better translation would be that he lifted up his voice and _prophesied._ We tend to think of prophecy as a kind of foretelling of future events, but in the Hebrew use, it was more often associated with _speaking forth_ the Word of the Lord. I would argue that, if looking for a gift of the Holy Spirit to assign to Pentecost, it would be more the gift of Prophesy than of Languages. This more correct historical, cultural and linguistic view negates that awkward discrepancy between the real, rational languages of Pentecost and the so-called “prayer language“ of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that tongues-speakers have skated around and explained away by instituting various “types” of “tongues”. There is only one type of “tongues” in the Bible - real rational language(s).
@@lr844 There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" - and there is only one type - when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); usually, but not always, unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) - it’s their native language (in some cases, it is a language the speaker has learned). In contrast, the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with. It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns, alliteration, assonance, and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is also interesting to note that any and all phonological rules (rules governing how sounds are put together in a given language - what is allowed and what is disallowed) governing a speaker's native language, will _also_ govern their tongues-speech. Further, this subset of phonemes mentioned above typically contains only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically. Occasionally some speakers will use two or more subsets of phonemes to generate glossolalia, producing what, to them, sounds like two (or more) distinct “tongues languages”, thus claiming to be able to speak in “divers tongues”. There is absolutely _nothing_ that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot be explained in relatively simple linguistic terms. Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely _no_ Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be one which is radically different from what you believe, or were taught. _Nowhere_ in the Bible is modern tongues-speech advocated or evidenced. “Praying in the Spirit” does _not_ refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will.
I'm not doubting or questioning the 'tongues experience'; glossolalia as the spiritual tool that it is, can be very powerful and, for many people, the experience is profound. As one commenter put it, “Speaking in tongues distracts the ego/analytical/conscious mind while leaving the subconscious (the heart) wide open to import the divine." Both the spiritual and physical benefits of using this tool are also well documented. Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually _any_ other culture that practices glossolalia. Religious and cultural differences aside, the glossolalia an Evenki Shaman in Siberia, a vodoun priestess in Togo and a Christian tongues-speaker in Alabama are producing are in no way different from each other. They’re all producing their glossolalia in the exact same way; they just have different explanations and beliefs as to why they’re doing it, and where it comes from. It is only in certain Christian denominations where is it construed as something it never was. “Tongues” is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best; non-cognitive non language utterance - the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In _some_ cases, I would argue that it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience via “tongues”.
‘Tongues’ (read, *‘languages’* ) - the divine gift, is the God given ability to effortlessly learn to speak and be understood through real-language barriers. It is not xenoglossy, nor is it modern tongues-speech. As a point of note, I’m a Linguist, and let me also add here that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ - I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”.
@@lr844 Agree with you Amen. In the bible, some speakers would speak and another would get the interpretation suggesting not every speaker knows what they are saying. Relationship with God is key. Pharisees could argue the doctrine of law and scriptures all day but didn't know the intent and will of God
![[Praying in Tongues!!!] Open Heavens | 1-Hour Soaking Music for Prayer and Relaxation](/img/n.gif)
Thank you brother for posting this God bless you 😊
Would love to speak to this amazing man of God.. Love speak to this man of God. Love from London U.K
I need to hear more about the "ringing in the head" I have been praying and believing God for deliverance from tinnitis and praying in tongues every morning. Can you enlighten me? I appreciate you..still listening to the entirety of this message 😊
Where can we find your books I cant find them
There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" - and there is only *one* type - when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); usually, but not always, unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) - it’s their native language (in some cases, it is a language the speaker has learned).
_Nowhere_ in the Bible is modern tongues-speech advocated or evidenced.
‘Tongues’ (read, *‘languages’* ) - the divine gift, is the God given ability to effortlessly learn to speak and be understood through real-language barriers. It is not xenoglossy, nor is it the self-created non-cognitive non-language utterance of modern tongues-speech.
Respectfully, you must get out of your head when attempting to understand tongues. Human reasoning will stop it every time. Its biblical, and it is for us today. The 2nd chapter of Acts proves it
@@lr844
PART 1 -
When it’s boiled down, most arguments for tongues at Pentecost can ultimately be said to hinge on two things; first, what the Holy Spirit actually gave the 12 apostles at Pentecost, and second, the crowd’s assumed linguistic diversity. Indeed, once can easily argue that the former completely hinges on the latter.
If one carefully examines what the Greek text says the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles (yes, just 12; not 120, but that’s a story for another day) on Pentecost, and put the narrative into historical, cultural and linguistic perspective, one is compelled to conclude a very different view on the concept of “tongues” at Pentecost and, more so as “initial evidence” of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. One is also forced to rethink the actual languages and role they played in the event.
At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles what in the Greek text is “apophtheggesthai” - usually translated as “to give utterance”. This is, however, not the most accurate translation of this Greek word, but it’s the one that has come to be the more or less ‘de facto’ rendering.
This word is from “apophtheggomai” which is best translated as “to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to” (don’t go to Strong’s and look it up - “Strong’s” is a _concordance_ , not a lexicon; there’s a _huge_ difference).
It refers *not* to the content/means of the speech (i.e., the language used), but rather to the *manner* of speaking. In each instance where this word occurs in scripture, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired, and it is always, by the way, in the speaker’s native language.
In short, the Holy Spirit did not give the _language_ (i.e. the means/content), it gave the _manner_ in which it was spoken.
So why is it usually translated as “to give utterance”? That hinges completely on the next part…
The Jews present at Pentecost, as we are told, came from three areas: Judea, the Western Diaspora and the Eastern Diaspora. “All nations under heaven” is an idiomatic expression - Acts II: 9-11 tells us where those visiting were from.
We know that 1st century Judea was interesting linguistically - it illustrates a country/culture undergoing the process of Hellenization.....only Hellenization never fully happens in Judea. Greek ideas, thought and culture are prevalent, but Aramaic still wins out linguistically over Greek. Hebrew is still used as the sacerdotal language of Judaism, though, as we see in the Western Diasporan lands, Greek is actually becoming an accepted alternative to Hebrew.
People speak Aramaic, worship in Hebrew, but Greek is now becoming acceptable and, it's quite possible, some educated people in larger cities such as Jerusalem spoke it over Aramaic. Merchants would have had to have at least a working knowledge of basic Greek if they wanted to conduct business beyond 'local' markets and reach more 'global' markets (such that they were in the 1st century).
The land was also occupied by Rome, so Latin would have been heard, but likely not really understood. Educated Roman soldiers (as well as most upper-class Romans) would have spoken Greek, but the common soldier, likely not.
In short, the average Jew from Judea spoke Aramaic, but may have had a conversational knowledge of Greek.
Jews (as well as anyone else) from the Western Diaspora spoke Greek - all those lands had been Hellenized for centuries and Greek had long displaced indigenous languages. Indeed, in the Western Diaspora, and to some extent, even in larger cities in Judea, Greek was becoming an acceptable alternative to Hebrew for use in the temples and synagogues.
The Eastern Diaspora was different - no Hellenization, and countries had their own languages. Though people in Jewish communities in these lands spoke the local languages in varying degrees of fluency, it was never their ‘mother tongue’. For Jews in the Eastern Diaspora, the language of ‘hearth and home’, the language “wherein they were born” was Aramaic. This language was one of the things that set them apart as being Jewish; it gave them their cultural and religious identity. Think of the Jews during the Babylonian Captivity/Exile - they did not abandon their language in favor of Babylonian; they held onto it and preserved it as part of their Jewish identity.
To try and use a more modern analogy - think of the Jewish Diaspora in Central and Eastern Europe prior to WWII. Many countries, many languages, and Jewish people living in these places spoke the local language in varying degrees of fluency. But it was _never_ their native language, the language of hearth and home, the language wherein they were born - that language was Yiddish. The one language that defined them as Jews no matter where they were from. Same situation in the 1st century Eastern Diaspora, the defining language (the equivalent of my analogy’s Yiddish) was Aramaic.
Many lands, many places and people, but only two languages; Aramaic and Greek; and of course, the apostles spoke both.
Something to think about - In the entire Pentecost narrative, _not one_ language is ever referenced by name. Why do you suppose that is?
When Peter stood up and addressed the crowd, what language do you suppose he addressed them in??
The “list of nations”, as it’s called, of Acts 2: 9-11 is simply that - a list of countries, lands and nations that tell us where these people were from; *not* what language(s) they spoke, as most people assume. Further, the idea that the “tongues” of Acts II was xenoglossy also stems from this false assumption.
They spoke in “other tongues” - other than what? This phrase is found in numerous Jewish texts in which Hebrew, the “holy tongue,” is contrasted with the “foreign/other tongues” of the Gentile nations. For example, in the apocryphal book Sirach we read, “For the things translated into “other tongues,” have not the same force in them uttered in Hebrew.”
The miracle of language at Pentecost was making the God of the Jews accessible to all people and moreover, not having to do so in one prescribed language; namely, Hebrew, the sacerdotal language of Judaism.
Jewish religious custom and tradition demanded that any teaching, praying, reading, prophesying, etc. done from the temple (where the apostles were) be rendered _first_ in Hebrew, then followed by a translation into the vernacular. There even existed an ecclesiastical office for the individuals who did these translations (called the ‘mertugem’). On Pentecost, the apostles broke this tradition and “began to speak in ‘other’ (i.e. _other_ than Hebrew) languages (Aramaic and Greek), as the Holy Spirit kept giving a bold, authoritative, inspired manner of speaking to them.
The apostles, by help and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did away with this cultural and religious tradition, and addressed the crowd in Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongue of the attendees, instead of the culturally and religiously correct, and expected tradition of Hebrew first, then translations into the vernaculars.
@@lr844
PART 2 -
Hebrew was to be exclusively used during “the declaration of first fruits,” which was the sacred liturgy associated with the festival of Shavuot, or Pentecost. In other words, during this particular festival, the crowds would have expected religious services presented in the holy tongue of Hebrew. But what they ended up hearing were powerful messages in “other tongues.”
Doing this from the Temple where they were, broke a slew of cultural and religious taboos. The shock to the crowd was that they did not first hear the expected and culturally correct Hebrew first, then vernaculars. May sound a bit silly nowadays, but at the time, to do such a thing was unthinkable. Further added to the crowd’s reaction was to hear Galileans (the “country bumkins” of their day) speak so boldly, completely inspired, and with such authority.
To suggest, as the apostles did that the God of the Jews was now available to non-Jews and in any language, completely dispensing with Hebrew altogether was tantamount to heresy; hence also part of the crowd's reaction (i.e., they must be ‘drunk’ to dare to do such a thing). Sounds a bit ridiculous in today’s times perhaps, but there was a time when many religions had specific sacred languages ‘attached/associated’ with them, and it was heresy to veer from their usage in the prescribed manner.
With regards to the concept of “initial evidence of tongues”, according to the Pentecost narrative, there were around 3,000 people who were baptized that day. If these 3,000 were 'baptized in the Spirit', I would think that at the very least, according to some Pentecostal/Charismatic beliefs, they should have starting “speaking in tongues”. Yet *nothing* of the sort is recorded. Certainly 3,000+ people “speaking in tongues" would at least merit a sentence or two in the narrative, wouldn’t it?
If one argues they were not baptized in the spirit, but only in water, not only would the apostles have been violating a slew of work prohibitions on a high holy day (and would not likely have been allowed to do such a thing), considering one of the main focuses of the day was about being baptized in/receiving the Holy Spirit, that would be a rather anti-climactic ending to the narrative, wouldn’t it?
No xenoglossy, no modern tongues-speech, just real, rational language(s). There *was* a language miracle at Pentecost provided by the Holy Spirit, no argument there; just not the one most people assume. And of course, again, when the apostles received the Holy Spirit, the only tongues (read ‘languages’) spoken were their own. In short, the gift of languages was not evidenced on Pentecost - it didn’t need to be.
When we put all the above together, we see that in Acts 2, the actual gift being emphasized is the fact that the Holy Spirit has empowered the disciples to _prophesy_ and to boldly proclaim the Word of the Lord, and this is exactly what we find in verse 14. According to the ESV translation, Peter lifted up his voice and _addressed_ them, but perhaps a better translation would be that he lifted up his voice and _prophesied._ We tend to think of prophecy as a kind of foretelling of future events, but in the Hebrew use, it was more often associated with _speaking forth_ the Word of the Lord. I would argue that, if looking for a gift of the Holy Spirit to assign to Pentecost, it would be more the gift of Prophesy than of Languages.
This more correct historical, cultural and linguistic view negates that awkward discrepancy between the real, rational languages of Pentecost and the so-called “prayer language“ of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that tongues-speakers have skated around and explained away by instituting various “types” of “tongues”. There is only one type of “tongues” in the Bible - real rational language(s).
@@lr844
There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" - and there is only one type - when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); usually, but not always, unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) - it’s their native language (in some cases, it is a language the speaker has learned).
In contrast, the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with.
It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns, alliteration, assonance, and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is also interesting to note that any and all phonological rules (rules governing how sounds are put together in a given language - what is allowed and what is disallowed) governing a speaker's native language, will _also_ govern their tongues-speech.
Further, this subset of phonemes mentioned above typically contains only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically.
Occasionally some speakers will use two or more subsets of phonemes to generate glossolalia, producing what, to them, sounds like two (or more) distinct “tongues languages”, thus claiming to be able to speak in “divers tongues”.
There is absolutely _nothing_ that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot be explained in relatively simple linguistic terms.
Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely _no_ Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be one which is radically different from what you believe, or were taught. _Nowhere_ in the Bible is modern tongues-speech advocated or evidenced.
“Praying in the Spirit” does _not_ refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will.
I'm not doubting or questioning the 'tongues experience'; glossolalia as the spiritual tool that it is, can be very powerful and, for many people, the experience is profound. As one commenter put it, “Speaking in tongues distracts the ego/analytical/conscious mind while leaving the subconscious (the heart) wide open to import the divine." Both the spiritual and physical benefits of using this tool are also well documented. Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually _any_ other culture that practices glossolalia. Religious and cultural differences aside, the glossolalia an Evenki Shaman in Siberia, a vodoun priestess in Togo and a Christian tongues-speaker in Alabama are producing are in no way different from each other. They’re all producing their glossolalia in the exact same way; they just have different explanations and beliefs as to why they’re doing it, and where it comes from. It is only in certain Christian denominations where is it construed as something it never was.
“Tongues” is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best; non-cognitive non language utterance - the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In _some_ cases, I would argue that it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience via “tongues”.
‘Tongues’ (read, *‘languages’* ) - the divine gift, is the God given ability to effortlessly learn to speak and be understood through real-language barriers. It is not xenoglossy, nor is it modern tongues-speech.
As a point of note, I’m a Linguist, and let me also add here that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ - I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”.
@@lr844 Agree with you Amen. In the bible, some speakers would speak and another would get the interpretation suggesting not every speaker knows what they are saying. Relationship with God is key. Pharisees could argue the doctrine of law and scriptures all day but didn't know the intent and will of God