I am just currious as to what everyones thoughts on this matter most commenly taught in the moderen day “Pentecostal” denominations, also found in certain Cathlic sects and also among the Mormon denomination. I personaly, do not believe in the present day teaching of it, as I do not feel it coincides with Biblical teaching, as Biblical tongues ceased around the year of 100AD and the present day tonges did not begin untill around the year 1830 in small Mormon groups, then, it realy caught on mainstream around the year 1913 in Church of God denominations.
I know some do not want to here this, but I am just wondering everyones oppinion on the matter, as well as the teaching of being “slain in the spirit” and other occurances that go hand in hand with Glossalalia.
Downhome…
I don’t think it jibes with the Biblical teaching either, chiefly because in the Bible it seems the idea was speaking in tongues specifically meant you could be understood by anybody, no matter what language they spoke. Everyone would hear you speak in his own language. Speaking in tongues currently seem to mean you can be understood by nobody, speaking in a language no one has ever spoken.
On the other hand, speaking in tounges and being slain in the spirit seem to belong to the ancient and venerable tradition of religious ecstacy. Behaving like an idiot because you have been touched by God. Which is always hard to tell from just behaving like an idiot. But then nothing in life is easy.
Basically, Biblical mention of speaking in tongues occurs in two different instances in the Bible in two non-related ways. The first, mentioned in Acts 2, describes an event where men from diverse language backgrounds could understand one another as a gift from the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:6 is the most relevant verse, stating “Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speaking his own language.” The second mentioned primarily in 1 Corinthians 14 by Paul, states that those who use glossolalia are speaking directly to God and cannot be understood without an interpreter. In this chapter, Paul also mentions that only two or three in any church should speak in tongues and asserts that glossolalia is inferior to natural speech, points which are often dismissed within glossolalic churches.
These two instances seem to be describing different phenomenon, and it is with the verses in 1 Corinthians that glossolalia is most often referenced. Also frequently cited is Romans 8:26, which asserts that the Holy Spirit will assist those unable to pray with “groanings which cannot be uttered.” Non-glossolalist churches do not deny the validity of glossolalia in Biblical times, but instead maintain that these as well as the other gifts of the Holy Spirit (these include interpretation and prophecy; a list is found in 1 Corinthians 12) were no longer given after the era of the Apostles.
There’s another verse in Mark, but it’s generally considered to be one that was added on a long time after the chapter was written.
I’ve done quite a bit of research and review on the literature and studies on glossolalia. From a linguistic perspective, it’s not a language. This is for several reasons:
-it’s untranslatable
-it’s not standardized
-it is generally confined to altered states of consciousness
More about translation: Kildahl (Psychological Observations in Speaking in Tongues: A guide to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Mills) discusses how when given the same glossolalic speech, different “translators” (that is, those who claim the gift of interpretation, which are fewer than those who speak in tongues) interpret the speech differently. He also cites a case:
In some churches, it serves a religious purpose. Linguistically, however, it’s not a language.
The noise which accompanied the arrival of the Holy Spirit to Jesus’s disciples drew together a diverse crowd, and as would be necessitated at the beginning, this spiritual gift was manifested to prome the immediate spreading of the gospel into diverse tongues. If this gift is not as common now that may be because it is not as urgently needed. Of course, if you ever met someone with this gift you wouldn’t know it, as you would hear such a person in your own language and not know it.
The sole support is the middle of 1st Corinthians 14: “Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning.”
But this is in a larger context which I suppose those with fundamentalist leanings may easily ignore, which ends with the admonishment: “Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.”
The whole passage there is difficult to understand – I find the Worldwide English translation of 1 Cor 14 to be clear in it’s explanation that Paul meant only that people should be clear in their explanations – but if that isn’t circles inside of circles I don’t know what is!
But wouldn’t this then be like a bad kung-fu movie where their mouth doesn’t match their words? Kind of the same flaw that, say, the universal translator (or whatver it is called) on Star Trek should have? I’m able, as I would imagine most people are, to tell when the sounds coming out of a mouth in a movie are off by even the slightest amount. Or does god tweak physics too and make the face appear correct to everyone watching? And what happens if they use a word that doesn’t have a suitable translation in another language (for instance, “dodgy” or “cheeky” from the Brits, which - in my opinion - don’t have an exact match in American English and can only best be “described” - I really had to experience the words to know what they meant).
My first exposure to speaking in tongues was channel flipping and seeing the exposed crook Robert Tilton babbling incoherently with one hand in the air and a goofy grin (almost a “I can’t believe I’m doing this!” grin) on his face. Even if I hadn’t been a Catholic back then (atheist now), that whole dog-and-pony show kind of ruined it for me.
However, I still enjoy trotting out the lines from Corinthians when my Christian friends tell me they speak in tongues… just to see if they’re following the rules. In general, they’re not. Oops.
Oh – I don’t think you’d be able to speak more than one language at a time. I’m hardly a scholar of the ancient world, but in Acts 2 “they” is either the twelve apostles or the total of 120 remaining followers being understood by:
So I’d be curious exactly how many languages that totals to, as opposed to what we’d call nationalities. More than twelve? Certaintly not more than 120, but then it says all those speaking in tongues were Galileans, so does it only mean the twelve? Were all the apostles Galileans? OTOH, these peoples given might just be a list of all the peoples of the known world. Some one around here probably knows.
I don’t know why you believe Mormons practice glossalia. In the 1830’s the gift of tongues were present, but it was not a wholesale speaking of an entire congregation. Joseph Smith was quite clear in teaching that if there were no interpreter of what someone was saying, then let that someone keep silent (1 Cor 14:27-28).
I don’t know current practices in groups that call themselves “Mormon” but are not associated with the Utah-HQ’ed church. I do know that the gift of tongues is still manifest today, however it typically shows up in missionary situations when a language is poorly known by someone, etc. It is not the case the someone stands up in a weekly meeting and starts shouting unintelligible syllables.
Downhome, you won’t last long here telling other people to do your research when they question something you said.
I suspect you may have got your information from Neal Stephenson’s ‘Snow Crash’, which dealt with the subject. You seem to have lifted your OP almost word-for-word from the novel. It’s a good book, but I would not trust Mr. Stephenson’s word alone without doing a bit of research of your own. After all, he admits to having made several mistakes in that book (including saying that BIOS meant ‘Built In Operating System’).
I have never heard of “Snow Crash” I believe is what you stated. The info. that I gotten was derived from…“The Companion Bible-KJV” and also basic Historical records, as well as speaking with local Mormon Churches…I didn’t make all of this up, this is just facts that I have discovered in my on-going reasearch, and I don’t appriciate the fact that you have already started issuing put-downs…but, I suppose that is expected with a subject such as this…
…Downhome…
I never said, hey, I’m right and your wrong and that’s the end of it. I just said I myself found it to be true through research…and if others research it, they could see what I’m talking about. That is all…now, this is the last I’m posting anything in this thread concerning “It’s true, it’s true”, This is about Speaking in Tongues and your beliefs on it.
…Downhome…
If you claim to have done ‘research’ on a topic, you should be able to at least name the sources that told you these ‘facts’. I just find it suspicious that I read almost every single claim you made in a fairly popular science fiction novel (and doubted their truth then too, that’s why I remembered it). You’ll find people will take you more seriously if you can say where you read that…
A) The modern Church of Latter-Day Saints that ‘teaches’ glossolia (sp?)
B) That it was unknown between 100 AD and 1830 AD (I’m trying to recall the name of the Spanish missionary who practiced speaking in tongues in the 17th or 17th century, but I can’t)
C) That modern Catholic sects practice it - actually I think this might be true, but I’m personally curious as to which ones do it.
Also, this is the Great Debates forum, I’m not sure this is an appropriate place for a ‘what is your opinion on speaking in tongues’ post. That’s not exactly a debate. ‘Do you think that glossolia is heretical, and if so, why?’ might be closer. In that case, you’d still be asked for cites on those claims, because for a real debate you have to start with some truths accepted by both sides, and your OP is full of misinformation.
