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/Holy Spirit given ability to effortlessly learn to speak and be understood through real-language barriers. It is not xenoglossy (as many people incorrectly assume), nor is it the self-created non-cognitive non-language utterance of what certain Christian denominations are producing today (modern tongues-speech). Paul, by the way, was the apostle to the Gentiles - it stands to reason he would use his knowledge of foreign languages more than the average person to spread the Gospel, and thanked God for giving him the ability to do so. A frequent use of foreign languages was sort of part of his “job description”. It also stands to reason that he wished others were able to do the same - would make his job a lot easier and the message could be better spread to all corners of the known world. Paul is not speaking about, nor is he advocating here for, modern tongues-speech.
There's such a tongue. And it is given for the body for edification and evangelism. There's also a personal tongue: [1Co 14:2, 4 NKJV] 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands [him]; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. ... 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. It's one tongue, but there are different ways it can manifest.
@@thegreatharvestofficial 1Cor. 14:2 is perhaps *the* quintessential verse used by many to “evidence” modern tongues-speech in the Bible. The whole passage is talking about real, rational language. Let me use an analogy - If I attend a worship service in “East Haystack”, some remote town in the US out in the middle of nowhere, two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone speaks anything *but* English is pretty slim to nil. If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a single word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one _there_ will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at _that particular service._ In this sense, therefore, I am speaking _only to God,_ since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (as defined further below), to the people listening to me, I’m still speaking “mysteries” - i.e. even though I’m praying as I ought, no one understands me. An idiomatic expression to say that no one has a clue what I’m saying as no one speaks my language. When one looks at the original Greek, the verb which is usually translated as “understandeth/understands” is actually the verb “to hear” in the sense of understanding what you’re hearing someone say. The verb is *not* “to understand”. That part of the verse is more properly “no one hears [him] with understanding”, i.e. no one listening to him understands what he’s saying. There is _nothing_ in this passage that suggests modern tongues-speech nor is there anything that even _remotely_ suggests that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying. The Greek bears this out; it is the _listeners_ who do not understand, *not* the speaker - no matter how hard modern tongues-speakers want the speaker to also not understand…….unless the author of the text is a bad grammarian, it just isn’t there. 1 Cor. 14:4 - Yes, because he’s the only one who understands what he’s saying - no one else speaks his language; thus, he’s the only person benefiting. This is precisely what Paul does not want to happen - in his letter, he calls for clarity and understanding at a public worship such that all may benefit. If no one speaks/understands the speaker's language, he's the only one benefitting. Both passages above refer to only one type of "tongue" (from the Greek 'glôssa' - 'language') - real, rational language.
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/Holy Spirit given ability to effortlessly learn to speak and be understood through real-language barriers. It is not xenoglossy (as many people incorrectly assume), nor is it the self-created non-cognitive non-language utterance of what certain Christian denominations are producing today (modern tongues-speech).
Paul, by the way, was the apostle to the Gentiles - it stands to reason he would use his knowledge of foreign languages more than the average person to spread the Gospel, and thanked God for giving him the ability to do so. A frequent use of foreign languages was sort of part of his “job description”.
It also stands to reason that he wished others were able to do the same - would make his job a lot easier and the message could be better spread to all corners of the known world. Paul is not speaking about, nor is he advocating here for, modern tongues-speech.
There's such a tongue. And it is given for the body for edification and evangelism. There's also a personal tongue:
[1Co 14:2, 4 NKJV] 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands [him]; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. ... 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.
It's one tongue, but there are different ways it can manifest.
@@thegreatharvestofficial
1Cor. 14:2 is perhaps *the* quintessential verse used by many to “evidence” modern tongues-speech in the Bible.
The whole passage is talking about real, rational language.
Let me use an analogy - If I attend a worship service in “East Haystack”, some remote town in the US out in the middle of nowhere, two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone speaks anything *but* English is pretty slim to nil.
If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a single word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one _there_ will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at _that particular service._
In this sense, therefore, I am speaking _only to God,_ since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (as defined further below), to the people listening to me, I’m still speaking “mysteries” - i.e. even though I’m praying as I ought, no one understands me. An idiomatic expression to say that no one has a clue what I’m saying as no one speaks my language.
When one looks at the original Greek, the verb which is usually translated as “understandeth/understands” is actually the verb “to hear” in the sense of understanding what you’re hearing someone say. The verb is *not* “to understand”. That part of the verse is more properly “no one hears [him] with understanding”, i.e. no one listening to him understands what he’s saying.
There is _nothing_ in this passage that suggests modern tongues-speech nor is there anything that even _remotely_ suggests that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying. The Greek bears this out; it is the _listeners_ who do not understand, *not* the speaker - no matter how hard modern tongues-speakers want the speaker to also not understand…….unless the author of the text is a bad grammarian, it just isn’t there.
1 Cor. 14:4 -
Yes, because he’s the only one who understands what he’s saying - no one else speaks his language; thus, he’s the only person benefiting.
This is precisely what Paul does not want to happen - in his letter, he calls for clarity and understanding at a public worship such that all may benefit. If no one speaks/understands the speaker's language, he's the only one benefitting.
Both passages above refer to only one type of "tongue" (from the Greek 'glôssa' - 'language') - real, rational language.