Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | biblical reason for todays mondern toung | 1 Cor 1:7 | Scribe | 63319 | ||
I am answering this question over a year after it has been posted. It is very unlikely that the original poster will read it but I am going to address it carefully with biblical evidence as the poster requested in an effort to help build this wonderful database of biblical interpretations from fellow believers from all over the world. Looking at the text tecnotrog is referencing we see a peculiar scene... Acts 2:4-13 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 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. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. Several things are obvious here at first glance.. one is that more than the 12 were speaking, since more than 12 languages are mentioned. Most commentaries I look at agree that outpouring of the Spirit was upon the entire 120 and not just the 12 apostles (Acts 1:15...number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) most also agree that all of them were doing the speaking in tongues. However some commentators and many modern christians say that they think that only the 12 did the public speaking in tongues when the crowds gathered. In reading the passage we see that there are more than 12 nations that heard them speak in their own language. Therefore if it were only the 12 speaking then they must have had such a gift of speaking in tongues that one or more of them could move from one known language to another as the Spirit willed. Or another possibility would be that the hearers were having the miracle upon their ears so that it would not matter how many nations were gathered 17 or 200 they would have all heard their own language. Some have suggested this and let us take it up for a moment. If it did not matter how many nations had gathered, that they would still have heard their own language, then the question would have to be asked which language was coming out of the speaker? One particular language or whatever the Lord wanted at the time? If the miracle happened upon the ear of the hearer than it does not seem fair to conclude that one could know which language the speaker was speaking. One could say he was speaking Arabic, but another that just walked up says nay he is speaking my tongue which is of Egypt. Who is right? And if this be the case then how can you know when you hear a tongue whether it is a known language or not. Here are two from another country both hearing their own language from the same speaker. Now if that is not the case then you must say that one of the 12 was able to speak one language and then instantly start speaking another. If we limit it to only the 12 then one of these two scenarios must be correct, 1) that the miracle occurred on the ear of the more than 12 nations that gathered, or 2) that the speaker could switch tongues, because more than more 12 nations heard their tongue. The other possibility of course is that all 120 were speaking and not just the 12 in which case one could then make an argument for their stand that authentic speaking in tongues is always in a known language, while siting this passage as their biblical evidence. Now we consider the verse.. Acts 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. What are the possibilities here? 1) these men heard them speak in languages that were known, the disciples having never learned them in language school.. and said “they are drunk” Instantly we see how illogical that view would be. The last thing I am going to think if I see you speak in a language you have never taken the time to learn, (and especially if I hear them speak in more than one language they had never learned), is that you are drunk. I might think you are a genious, nay more than a genious, a superman, one with intellect beyond any man that had ever been before.. but I am not going to think your inebriated with alcohol. SEE PART 2 |
||||||
2 | biblical reason for todays mondern toung | 1 Cor 1:7 | Scribe | 63320 | ||
PART TWO 2) another possibility would be that these mockers these “others” than the ones that did hear their own languages, did not understand the language, because they were not from the country of the language being spoken, and so instead of understanding that Peter was speaking in Egyptian they though Peter was just babbling meaningless words. This would of course give them reason to say “they are drunk.” And on this note, some have said that Peter and the apostles were addressing the crowd as in a preaching mode, and they were speaking to them in their own language. The text says they were speaking of the wonderful works of God. Comparing this passage to the others in Acts it would seem they were praising God and in a state of addressing God not the people but that we can take up another time, suffice it to say for now that if they addressing the people in a preaching style of body language (looking at the people and declaring the wonderful works of God to them) and speaking in their own language and a group came up and heard them speaking in this manner, calling them drunk would not fit and would rather make the mockers appear drunk it is so out of context with the scene. Just because the mockers could not understand the language, it would not have been a sight that would make them think the speaker was drunk. Certainly they had heard others in this international time of holiday speaking to groups in languages other than the mockers understood. Did they go about calling anyone they heard speaking in a language they did not understand “drunk?” and if they did would not the mockers be the ones people would say were drunk. No it would fit much better if we understood that the mockers not only did not understand the language being spoken but that they saw that the disciples were speaking this tongue to the heaven lies in praise to God. Then it would fit as they would think this display of emotionalism to be that of those filled with too much new wine. 3) And we have not yet exhausted this idea of why the mockers did not understand the language if that be the case. a) either the mockers did not understand the language and they saw the emotionalism of praising God with unknown tongues and called the men drunk, or b) he mockers heard the language understood it and yet called them drunk because they were saying things that they did not agree with on a religious basis. This does not seem to fit either. We know that Paul and Jesus were accused of being mad by those that did not agree with their theology, but they did not associate it with being drunk. To be drunk one looses their coherent senses so that they do not do well in constructing sentences and one thing that normally gives away a drunk man is the fact that you notice that he is not making sense. It seems far more logical that the reason they were mocking was because the disciples were showing emotionalism of Praising God maybe with hands uplifted which was a common method of the Jew and that they were loudly praising God .. and these mockers not understanding the language said they were beside themselves with emotionalism because they were drunk even to the point of pretending they could speak in a language they did not know. c) If the mockers could not understand the language. Then the question must be asked Why not? 16 or 17 nations were mentioned, were these mockers of a nation that was excluded from the Grace of God? That could not be since the message was to go out to all the world. Were these individuals of a nation that was mentioned but the miracle did not occur on their ears? Was this due to some predestined plan of God that these particular men should not get the chance to understand the message? NOW READ CAREFULLY… If these mockers were of a nation that was listed, but they did not understand the language so that they accused the disciples of babbling and being drunk.. Could it be that the speaking in tongues by the disciples might sound as a known language to one hearer and as vain babbling to the next? Looking at this passage only for biblical evidence that the speaking in tongues was not always a known language to those that heard is clear by this text. |
||||||