Are Tongues Real?

[james34]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I don't think it's an either/or phenomena.

Clearly what Esaias has written is correct. The text is unambiguous: "they heard them".

However, the text describes an interesting occurrence:

Some heard the disciples of Christ declaring the wonderful works of God. Others heard merely the garbled mutterings of the intoxicated.

Why did some hear in their own language the disciples praising God and others, not hearing a language at all, dismissed them as drunken sots?

Well, keep in mind that Simon Peter said the following regarding the Holy Spirit:

Acts 2:33 (ESV),



It's not just that the crowd heard them speaking in heterais glossais (Acts 2:4), they also saw the movements of their mouths.

Those who responded well to the stimulus were thus able to hear the disciples declare the wonderful works of God. Those who responded poorly, accused them of being full of new wine.

So, what makes for the difference? The difference is, what are you primed to hear? What is your predisposition?

We know that later on in Acts 2, there were still two categories of people in the crowd: those who gladly received Simon Peter's words and agreed to baptism, and everyone else.

This shows that some were open to the miraculous move of the Holy Spirit, and others were obstinate of heart.

In not so many words, the Acts 2 account is describing a very interesting auditory effect not too dissimilar to the Brainstorm or Green Needle phenomena, recently made famous through social media a couple of years ago. Have a look below in the video below.

If you watch and listen to the video, depending on which of the two phrases you visually encounter first, or focus on, you will hear that phrase in place of the other. But if you refresh your focus and come back to the video, attending to the other phrase, you will hear that one instead.

But the audio is the same no matter which phrase you happen to hear.

I submit it's similar to speaking with other tongues. The Holy Spirit gives the utterance. The "language" as it were, is not a known language of human origin. It is supernatural in derivation, of the heavenly realm, i.e. the "tongues...of angels", as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:1.

And, depending upon one's predisposition, they will, in effect, "hear what they want to hear".

In Acts 16:4, we read of Lydia, and how the Lord had already opened her heart, making her ready to hear what Paul would come to preach. So, for those whose hearts have been opened by the Lord, when they encounter someone speaking with other tongues, they will be amazed, impressed, certain that it is the work of God. But for those whose hearts remain closed, if or when they hear someone speak with other tongues, they will disclaim it as aberrant, abhorrent, even of the devil.

In this, then, the miracle occurs in the speaker, but the effect of the miracle takes place in the hearer, depending on the tenderness or hardness of the heart. Pharoah comes to mind. The Lord hardens whom He hardens and has mercy on whom He will have mercy.

Yep whatever happened on Pentecost doesn’t seem to be happening in modern day Apostolic/Pentecost churches.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by james34

Yep whatever happened on Pentecost doesn’t seem to be happening in modern day Apostolic/Pentecost churches.

Quite the opposite, actually, so how you inferred that from what I wrote makes no sense to me.

[james34]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I don't think it's an either/or phenomena.

Clearly what Esaias has written is correct. The text is unambiguous: "they heard them".

However, the text describes an interesting occurrence:

Some heard the disciples of Christ declaring the wonderful works of God. Others heard merely the garbled mutterings of the intoxicated.

Why did some hear in their own language the disciples praising God and others, not hearing a language at all, dismissed them as drunken sots?

Well, keep in mind that Simon Peter said the following regarding the Holy Spirit:

Acts 2:33 (ESV),



It's not just that the crowd heard them speaking in heterais glossais (Acts 2:4), they also saw the movements of their mouths.

Those who responded well to the stimulus were thus able to hear the disciples declare the wonderful works of God. Those who responded poorly, accused them of being full of new wine.

So, what makes for the difference? The difference is, what are you primed to hear? What is your predisposition?

We know that later on in Acts 2, there were still two categories of people in the crowd: those who gladly received Simon Peter's words and agreed to baptism, and everyone else.

This shows that some were open to the miraculous move of the Holy Spirit, and others were obstinate of heart.

In not so many words, the Acts 2 account is describing a very interesting auditory effect not too dissimilar to the Brainstorm or Green Needle phenomena, recently made famous through social media a couple of years ago. Have a look below in the video below.

If you watch and listen to the video, depending on which of the two phrases you visually encounter first, or focus on, you will hear that phrase in place of the other. But if you refresh your focus and come back to the video, attending to the other phrase, you will hear that one instead.

But the audio is the same no matter which phrase you happen to hear.

I submit it's similar to speaking with other tongues. The Holy Spirit gives the utterance. The "language" as it were, is not a known language of human origin. It is supernatural in derivation, of the heavenly realm, i.e. the "tongues...of angels", as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:1.

And, depending upon one's predisposition, they will, in effect, "hear what they want to hear".

In Acts 16:4, we read of Lydia, and how the Lord had already opened her heart, making her ready to hear what Paul would come to preach. So, for those whose hearts have been opened by the Lord, when they encounter someone speaking with other tongues, they will be amazed, impressed, certain that it is the work of God. But for those whose hearts remain closed, if or when they hear someone speak with other tongues, they will disclaim it as aberrant, abhorrent, even of the devil.

In this, then, the miracle occurs in the speaker, but the effect of the miracle takes place in the hearer, depending on the tenderness or hardness of the heart. Pharoah comes to mind. The Lord hardens whom He hardens and has mercy on whom He will have mercy.

Isaiah 28
1 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear

This is the way it was prophesied, and this is how it happened. It was a known language spoken by Galileans who did not know the language. It was done in the presence of Jewish people who would not have given ear to the Gospel, were it not for a notable miracle such as the gift of tongues.
The idea that they didn’t hear ( believe the report / the gospel ) was due to unbelief and hardness of heart. It was not an inability to understand the tongue, they did understand it, ( yet for all this they will not hear) The hard hearted Jews rejected the gospel , even though they witnessed a notable miracle.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Quite the opposite, actually, so how you inferred that from what I wrote makes no sense to me.

Welcome to the club.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I don't think it's an either/or phenomena.

Clearly what Esaias has written is correct. The text is unambiguous: "they heard them".

However, the text describes an interesting occurrence:

Some heard the disciples of Christ declaring the wonderful works of God. Others heard merely the garbled mutterings of the intoxicated.

Why did some hear in their own language the disciples praising God and others, not hearing a language at all, dismissed them as drunken sots?

Well, keep in mind that Simon Peter said the following regarding the Holy Spirit:

Acts 2:33 (ESV),



It's not just that the crowd heard them speaking in heterais glossais (Acts 2:4), they also saw the movements of their mouths.

Those who responded well to the stimulus were thus able to hear the disciples declare the wonderful works of God. Those who responded poorly, accused them of being full of new wine.

So, what makes for the difference? The difference is, what are you primed to hear? What is your predisposition?

We know that later on in Acts 2, there were still two categories of people in the crowd: those who gladly received Simon Peter's words and agreed to baptism, and everyone else.

This shows that some were open to the miraculous move of the Holy Spirit, and others were obstinate of heart.

In not so many words, the Acts 2 account is describing a very interesting auditory effect not too dissimilar to the Brainstorm or Green Needle phenomena, recently made famous through social media a couple of years ago. Have a look below in the video below.

If you watch and listen to the video, depending on which of the two phrases you visually encounter first, or focus on, you will hear that phrase in place of the other. But if you refresh your focus and come back to the video, attending to the other phrase, you will hear that one instead.

But the audio is the same no matter which phrase you happen to hear.

I submit it's similar to speaking with other tongues. The Holy Spirit gives the utterance. The "language" as it were, is not a known language of human origin. It is supernatural in derivation, of the heavenly realm, i.e. the "tongues...of angels", as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:1.

And, depending upon one's predisposition, they will, in effect, "hear what they want to hear".

In Acts 16:4, we read of Lydia, and how the Lord had already opened her heart, making her ready to hear what Paul would come to preach. So, for those whose hearts have been opened by the Lord, when they encounter someone speaking with other tongues, they will be amazed, impressed, certain that it is the work of God. But for those whose hearts remain closed, if or when they hear someone speak with other tongues, they will disclaim it as aberrant, abhorrent, even of the devil.

In this, then, the miracle occurs in the speaker, but the effect of the miracle takes place in the hearer, depending on the tenderness or hardness of the heart. Pharoah comes to mind. The Lord hardens whom He hardens and has mercy on whom He will have mercy.

Excellent explanation! You said it better than I did.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by james34

Isaiah 28
1 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear

This is the way it was prophesied, and this is how it happened. It was a known language spoken by Galileans who did not know the language. It was done in the presence of Jewish people who would not have given ear to the Gospel, were it not for a notable miracle such as the gift of tongues.
The idea that they didn’t hear ( believe the report / the gospel ) was due to unbelief and hardness of heart. It was not an inability to understand the tongue, they did understand it, ( yet for all this they will not hear) The hard hearted Jews rejected the gospel , even though they witnessed a notable miracle.

Isaiah 28:11-12 is not used in the context of Pentecost, or in any other instance in Acts when someone or a group of people receive the Holy Spirit, so it's not correct to use that text and relate it to what happened in Acts 2.

(Paul, however, makes use of Isaiah 28:11-12 in 1 Corinthians 14 regarding the proper use of the gifts* of the Spirit when the church comes together, indicating strongly that a diverse tongue must be interpreted by someone endowed by the Holy Spirit with that special gifting, or else, it is confusing and out of order and not according to the decency God intends when His people meet. And yet, no one with that special gifting by the Holy Spirit interprets any instances of speaking with or in other tongues in the Book of Acts, chapter 2 or otherwise.)

So, the correct prophecy one should focus on, when dealing with Pentecost in Acts 2, is from Joel 2:28-32, which Simon Peter quotes, if one wants to stay within context.

*It should, and in fact, must be noted that when Simon Peter mentions "the gift of the Holy Spirit" and when Paul writes about the "gifts of the Spirit", their respective uses of gift and gifts are different Greek words, and so, have no real bearing, the one upon the other.

Acts 2:38, the Greek word is δωρεὰν (dōrean).

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/2-38.htm

1 Corinthians 12:1, the Greek word is πνευματικῶν (pneumatikōn).

1 Corinthians 12: 4, 9, 28, 30, and 31, the Greek words are:

(4) χαρισμάτων (charismatōn)

(9) χαρίσματα (charismata)

(28) χαρίσματα (charismata)

(30) χαρίσματα (charismata)

(31) χαρίσματα (charismata)

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/12.htm

1 Corinthians 14:1, the Greek word is πνευματικά (pneumatika)

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/14.htm

[diakonos]

Did you just prove that the gift (evidence) and the gift are not one and the same?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Excellent explanation! You said it better than I did.

Some years ago, you were the first person to ever point out to me the argument/position, right here on AFF. So, thank you. I've considered its merits and find it to be the correct interpretation.

[james34]

If Joel is used, then what are the dreams , visions, and prophecy he speaks of? Are they evidence of the Holy Ghost or gifts of the Holy Ghost?

Paul did quote Isaiah, this is correct. He pointed out that tongues were for a sign to the “unbeliever”. How do you not see this as having taken place at Pentecost? So you say the tongues at Pentecost were not a “gift”, but an “evidence tongue”. If so, then the evidence we profess must match that at Pentecost, and it must be understood by those around who hear us. If it is not this way then you have something different than what happened at Pentecost, which is, the people around them understood them. Don’t try to make it fit like some cheating on a jigsaw puzzle, and “if the right person were present , they would be able to understand the tongue”. On the day of Pentecost , the right people were present , so to claim the same experience we must follow suit!

[loran adkins]

Originally Posted by james34

If Joel is used, then what are the dreams , visions, and prophecy he speaks of? Are they evidence of the Holy Ghost or gifts of the Holy Ghost?

Paul did quote Isaiah, this is correct. He pointed out that tongues were for a sign to the “unbeliever”. How do you not see this as having taken place at Pentecost? So you say the tongues at Pentecost were not a “gift”, but an “evidence tongue”. If so, then the evidence we profess must match that at Pentecost, and it must be understood by those around who hear us. If it is not this way then you have something different than what happened at Pentecost, which is, the people around them understood them. Don’t try to make it fit like some cheating on a jigsaw puzzle, and “if the right person were present , they would be able to understand the tongue”. On the day of Pentecost , the right people were present , so to claim the same experience we must follow suit!

And yet I have known of several people who have sought for the gift of the holy ghost by speaking in tongues for more than a year, that manifested more of a Godly spirit during that time than many that claimed to have the holy ghost by speaking in tongues, the only reason they were told that they did not have the holy ghost was because as yet they did not speak in tongues.