Speaking in Tongues Continued

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
DHK: //Tongues was a sign to the Jews. The sign happened on the
day of Pentecost when they heard Gentiles speaking in other languages.//

IMHO one errs to call the miracle of the day of Pentecost 'tongues'.
The 'unknown tongues', 'tongue', and 'tongues of 1 Corinthians 14
is NOT the miracle of the Day of Pentecost, it is speaking in an
unlearned/unused-by-other language. I prefer the term 'miracle
of hearing' instead of 'tongues' to describe the miracle of the
Day of Pentecost.

Then you disagree with the Bible.
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
--The whole event of Pentecost centers around the miracle of the 120 speaking in foreign languages. That is what happened to get everyone's attention. The "how" every man heard the 120 speak in their own langauge is left to your imagination. We don't want your speculation and imagination Ed. We want the facts of the Bible. The Bible says that "they spoke with other languages. That is what happened. There is no miracle in the hearing. It doesn't say that. Only some people wronly assume it. It does say, however, that they spoke with other languages. Therefore believe what the Biblical account so plainly tells us.

In Acts 2:8 the 'tongue' used is the Greek word 'dialektos' from which
we get 'dielect' NOT the same word used in 1 Cor 14.

In Acts 2:4 the word glossa is used, a word which means language. They spoke with other languages. The Holy Spirit records this event in Acts 2:4.
And then the word dialect is rightyly used in verse 8 because that is what they were hearing.

Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
--They were hearing each language in their own (dialectos) yes we get our word dialect from this Greek word, but the lexicon also translates it as tongue or language. It was an emphatic word used to show that it was their very own language that they were hearing.

In Acts 2:26 Peter in his sermon quotes King David using 'tongue',
the same Greek word 'glossa' used in 1 Cor 14.

What is your point here? The same word is used in Acts 2:4.

DHK: //The fallacy in your post is that the canon was "finalized" in 98 A.D. when John wrote the book of Revelation, the last book of the Bible to be written.//

Yes, John wrote the book of Revelation in 98AD. It was not generally
accepted that Revelation was canocial until the Council of Nicea in 325AD.
Thus my statement is correct.

Your statement is not correct. The Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible. The early church preserved it. I will not bow to that absured idea that the Catholic Church is the author of our Bible. That is what you are proposing. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with our Bible. The early church knew far before that time which books were inspired. Are you suggesting that the Apostles, and all the believers up until 325 did not have the Word of God?? Isn't this the same as a KJVO position, except they stretch the date to 1611? Not much difference. Your belief remains the same as theirs. People before such and such a date (325) didn't have the Word of God. The Ruckmanite Catholics had to come along and inspire it first.

BTW and IMHO the we Baptists are Catholic, the problem is not with
'catholic' = universal church, but with "Roman Catholic Church".
The Roman Catholic Church hardly existed until 1054 when the Metropolitans
of the Easter Church (who according to the Bible call no man father (or
Poppa, or 'Pope') expelled the Biship of Rome from the Church.
The Original Church is what we would call 'Eastern Orthodox'

The Catholic Church, per se, started with Constanntine in the early part of the fourth century when Constantine made "Christianity" a state religion, and began to paganize it. That form of Christianity became the Catholic Church. Baptists were never universal in any senese of the word. We have a strong belief in the autonomy of the local church.

DHK: "Give the apostles and early credit more hoonor than the Catholic Church for knowing what our canon was. "

You lead by example. Please don't follow the RCC propaganda.
You should know that the East Syrian Church expanded East to China
and into India. In the 8th century (0701-0800) the East Syrian Church
was the biggest Christian Church in the World (bigger than the proto-RCC).
It remains so and will killed in Western & Central Asia by the
rising tide of the Muslims. Yet the RCC propaganda dismisses this
whole MAJOR CHRISTIN CHURCH with the name of 'heriticial Nestorians'.

Don't buy the RCC propaganda that Christians are only Catholic (i.e. RCC)
or Protestant. Some even see the 'two witnesses' of Revelation 11
as 'catholic' and 'protestant'.

There are four great branches (sperated by geography) of Christianity
until the formation of the RCC in 1054:
1. RCC
2. Eastern Orthodox (the Metropolitian Sees"
3. Eastern Syrian (AKA: Nestorian)
4. Coptic (

Pardon me, dates and spellings may need minor adjustment, I'm typing
this off the top of my head (my memory ain't what it used to be,
as near as I can remember).

I said give the apostles and early believers credit--not the followers of false gospels and unbelievers.
DHK

 

[Ray Berrian]

Paul lists the gifts of the Holy Spirit twice in 1Cor.12; tongues is one of them. Either they had this gift at Pentecost or they did not. If they did not, then what they had must have been of the devil? No?? Then what is your belief? I thought you were the one that kept on saying that the gifts and calling of God were without repentance, meaning without change. God doesn't change the nature of the gift. Speaking in a foreign language remains speaking in a foreign language. The only time it changed to an ecstatic utterance is when it was used in a pagan cult, a demon possessed person, or in the modern day gibberish started at the beginning at the twentieth century--a phenomena completley foreign to Christianity up until that time. Not even the apostles had ever known about this except to recognize it as a pagan practice.

Your references to pagans speaking in tongues is worlds apart from Paul's explanations in I Corinthians 12 & 14.

You are a saved man but just because two or three in your church say they are Christian and then live like the Devil, does not discount your genuine experience in the Lord through your faith trust in Jesus. So to with pagans speaking in tongues. The god of this world, Satan, always has a counterfeit that confused true Christians.

I never said that the experience on the Day of Pentecost was a 'gift of the Spirit' it was a once for all phenemon showing the world that something new was breaking forth among Christians. We recall the 3,000 saved on one day through the preaching of Peter. Pentecost is not thought of as one of the typical 'gifts of the Spirit' as mentioned in 12 & 14. Pentecost was a mighty blessing on the faithful but not a gift of the Spirit although all were filled with the Holy Spirit [Acts 2:4]. This one Heavenly language was heard by pagans from each country and the Spirit miraculously caused them to hear in their native language.

The apostle had more to worry about than false tongues. They had problems with Gnostics, Pharisee, Sadduccees, the scribes and Jews that hated the cause of Christ. Then there were the run of the mill --false teachers. False, tongues is not recorded, to my knowledge, in the Corinthian letters.

Ecstatic utterance is found both in I Corithians 12 & 14 but in church Paul required an 'interpretation' so the congregation could understand the meaning of the message sent directly from the Lord God. Remember, sometime Paul's churches did not have one manuscript sent to their town, like Colossians. Sometimes one manuscript was passed one to say the church of Ephesis. No church had all of the N.T. books that we read today for the edification of our souls.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:

Ecstatic utterance is found both in I Corithians 12 & 14 but in church Paul required an 'interpretation' so the congregation could understand the meaning of the message sent directly from the Lord God. Remember, sometime Paul's churches did not have one manuscript sent to their town, like Colossians. Sometimes one manuscript was passed one to say the church of Ephesis. No church had all of the N.T. books that we read today for the edification of our souls.

An ecstatic utterance is just that: ecstatic--gibberish. It cannot be translated. Nonsense syllables run together do not make sense by anyone and therefore are impossible to translate. If it was ecstatic, it was not of God. It could not be translated, unless Satan gave some false translation. There is no such thing as a Biblical ecstatic tongue. It doesn't exist except in your mind. You have yet to to provide any Scripture for this idea of yours. Every Scripture there is on tongues points to a known language. The very word for "tongues" means language; just as in "mother tongue," meaning "native language." The terms are synonymous. Tongue and language are used interchangeably. This can be seen quite plainly be reading Acts chapter 2.
The miraculous work or gift of speaking in tongues--a foreign language in Acts 2 was the same thing that happend in Acts 10 and in Acts 19, and in 1Cor.14. They were always foreign languages.
Foreign languages need interpretation.
Gibberish cannot be interpreted. It is not of God.
DHK

 

[Phillip]

Good post DHK.

Another interesting point is how the Assy of God churches latched on to a gift that Paul was negative about and had to correct the Corinthian church for their abuse of.

He put so many restrictions on it, that it was essentially worthless to the church. The entire point was, if there aren't people you can talk to in another language in your church, then you are wasting your time and you certainly better have a translator since nobody can understand you.

Funny, that the Assy of God churches do NOT follow the rules of Paul in their entirety when they mumble on.

I also think it is interesting that they use tongues to prove Baptism of the Holy Spirit, when it is admitted that not all people get the gift.

Tongues, in the first century, was quite a miracle. It was wonderful that people could listen to the gospel in their own language.

 

[Ed Edwards]

The Baptist Faith and Message passed by the Southern Baptist Convention
i 2000 say this:

VI. The Church

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

This 'church', the universal bride of Christ and universal
body of Chirst, in paragraph 2 is often called 'the catholic church'.
Southern Baptists believe they are 'catholic' (i.e. part of the universal
church of the Living Christ). By contrast, the 'Roman Catholic Church' (AKA RCC)
denotes the apostate church under the control of the Bishop of
Rome, falsely known as 'the Pope, Christ's substitute on earth'.

I hereby rebuke the adheering to the RCC History of Christianity.
Roughly here is the propaganda of the RCC:

There is one true RCC formed by the perpetual abstainer Pope Peter
In 1054 the RCC expelled the apostate church of the East (AKA:
Eastern Orthodox, ha 'orthodox'!) and in the 14th century the
apostate churches of the Protestants.

I've already given a more 'Baptist' view of Christian history:

There are four great branches (sperated by geography) of Christianity
until the formation of the RCC in 1054:
1. RCC
2. Eastern Orthodox (the Metropolitian Sees"
3. Eastern Syrian (AKA: Nestorian)
4. Coptic (Egyption)

If you choose to reject my history, and accept the history (propaganda)
of the RCC - doesn't that make you more of a RCC than a Baptist?

DHK: //The Catholic Church, per se, started with Constanntine in the early part of the fourth century when Constantine made "Christianity" a state religion, and began to paganize it. //

Roman propaganda, the RCC (not the catholics) is still evolving.
The Papal Inffalibility Doctrine of the RCC didn't appear until the
19th century (1801-1900).
In the Nicean council of 325AD there were representatives of what would
later become the RCC, Easter Orthodox, Eastern Syrian, and Coptic churches.
That was when Christianity was still 'catholic' (i.e. the universal body of
Christ) and not divided asunder as it is today.

BTW, guess which three branches of Christianity practice estatic utterances.
Here is the answer:
2. Eastern Orthodox (the Metropolitian Sees"
3. Eastern Syrian (AKA: Nestorian)
4. Coptic (Egyption)

But hey, RCC folks don't want that known in the pew, their folks might
start praying in tongues and quit praying to Mary.

 

[Ed Edwards]

At this site it says what follows:

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/Norval/pease.htm

How did this new approach to worship fare after Jesus left His followers? The first meeting of His immediate followers after His ascension was marked by "prayer and supplication," and a business meeting to fill a vacancy. The second meeting included the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, a sermon by Peter, who gave his testimony regarding the risen Lord, and a mass baptism. The new fellowship continued, we are told, "in breaking of breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2:42.)

The believers also worshiped in the Temple and in private homes, and their worship included a great deal of praise and personal testimony.

Sermons were preached in strange places—before the Sanhedrin, prior to a public stoning, in synagogues, in houses, in chariots, in jails—wherever the need of the moment demanded. The emphasis was on bearing testimony to the resurrected Christ. The Lord's Supper was observed—sometimes in an improper manner. There were Scripture readings, singing, offerings, prayers, ecstatic utterances, baptisms, and church trials.

BTW, 'ecstatic utterances' is NOT speaking
to multiple people at one time each
one hearing in their own language.

If all the people understood what was
said in their own language, it is not what
Paul spake of in 1 Corinthians chapter 14
where it was commanded

1Co 14:13 (KJV1611 Edition):
Wherefore let him that speaketh
in an vnknowen tongue, pray that
he may interprete.

There is no need to 'interpret' when
one hears in ones own languages.

Two different things:
1. The miracle of the Day of Pentacost,
a miracle of HEARING
2. the non-miracle of speaking with
ecstatic utterances (AKA: unknown tongues)

 

[tamborine lady]

quote
This is what Ray said:

Due tell us what quasi-theologian told you this erring view first. We all want to blacken his name for such a virus placed in the Word of God--the Bible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tam says,

First of all Ray did not say God was a quasit-theologian, you put words in his mouth! He was not attacking the Bible or God!! He was asking where the theology that you preach came from.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHK then said:

Here's Ray's original quote in response to Hope of Glory:

quote:

Hope of Glory,

You said, 'But, the signs of the spirit aren't outward signs. The sign-gifts were given for a specific reason and that specific reason went away about 69 AD.'

Rays answer was:

Please, give us the month, day and hour when the 'gifts of the Spirit' winged their way back to God's Heaven. Let's guess that it is connected to the Fall of Jerusalm in 70 A.D. Just think we Gentiles and all other Jews that have ever lived after that time--70 A.D. are deprived of these gifts because of those obstreperous Jews.

Due tell us what quasi-theologian told you this erring view first. We all want to blacken his name for such a virus placed in the Word of God--the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The doctrine which he is attacking is a straightforward interpretation of 1Cor.14:21, a quote of Isa.28:11,12, which has not been refuted on this board. His argument is with Scripture and with God. Instead of calling names, then present your arguement to the Scripture from whence it comes. The argument or debate has not been addressed yet toward this point. It is irrefutable. Tongues was a sign to the Jews. The sign happened on the day of Pentecost when they heard Gentiles speaking in other languages. They realized at that time when that sign occured that judgement was imminent. They knew that this was the sign. Judgement came as was prophesied. It came in 70 A.D. If you can refute this fine. Then do so. Otherwise don't call God, the author of Scripture a liar or quasi-theologian when he fulfills his promises, and you cannot refute what he says. Understood?
DHK

The scripture you refer to is :

1 Cor 14-21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

# 1, I think the scripture speaks for itself. It is clear as a bell. If you cannot see it then there is no use explaining it to you.

# 2,And again, the bold part of your answer shows that you are taking answers out of context. Nobody is calling God a lier.

BTW, that scripture by itself does not in any way show that tongues have ceased!!

Peace,

Tam

 

[Ed Edwards]

http://hem.bredband.net/arenamontanus/Mage/Egypt/Chorus.html

The Muslim choristers have had much contact with the Ahl-I-Batin, which they have sometimes struggled, sometimes supported. While the chorus have concentrated on the umma (congregation) and its people, the batini have sought their own insights on the fringes of religion, sometimes overstepping its bounds (like the case of Al- Hallaj, who was crucified in Baghdad for his blasphemous and ecstatic utterances). In general they have been tolerant of other faiths while working towards a balanced society guided by the truths of the Quran.

Uh, Muslims don't like ecstatic utterances.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Uh, Muslims don't like ecstatic utterances.

I am not familiar with who you are quoting from Ed, but I do know that your conclusion is wrong. I have lived in Muslim countries. Their "pirs" are well respected, some involved in politics, and other activities. Nevertheless they are Muslim mystics that do have "the gift of tongues," that is they speak ecstatic utterances just as modern day tongues-speakers do today. It is well accepted by mnany Muslim societies, and not frowned upon.

Keep in mind that in Islam, their are approximately 87 different sects of Muslms. So what sect are you referring to that disapproves of ecstatic tongues? It is not the majority.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by tamborine lady:

# 1, I think the scripture speaks for itself. It is clear as a bell. If you cannot see it then there is no use explaining it to you.

# 2,And again, the bold part of your answer shows that you are taking answers out of context. Nobody is calling God a lier.

BTW, that scripture by itself does not in any way show that tongues have ceased!!

Peace,

Tam

But it does show that tongues have ceased Tam. And if the Scripture so plainly speaks for itself, please elaborate on how that is so when you cannot seem to tell us how it does that. I have explained that Scripture many times (how it speaks so plainly for itself.) Then if so, why do you reject the plain sense of the Scripture?
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
BTW, 'ecstatic utterances' is NOT speaking
to multiple people at one time each
one hearing in their own language.

If all the people understood what was
said in their own language, it is not what
Paul spake of in 1 Corinthians chapter 14
where it was commanded

1Co 14:13 (KJV1611 Edition):
Wherefore let him that speaketh
in an vnknowen tongue, pray that
he may interprete.

The answer to your question is: No, that is not what Paul meant. Tongues were always foreign languages. Please learn that. If a person spoke in a foreign language without an interpreter there would be no understanding, therefore he had to speak with an interperter or keep silence. If I spoke Arabic to you, you no doubt wouldn't understand, unless I had an interpreter. It would only result in confusion and chaos. Thus the command to be silent. However, in Paul's day, the one who had the gift of tongue could pray that in certain situations God would also give him the gift of interpretation ss well--as in the verse you quoted. Thus I could pray that if I had the gift of speaking in Arabic God would give me the gift of interpretation, that I would be able to interpret the message into English so that you would be able to understand it as well. Thus you see how the gift of tongues was so miraculous. It was a foreign language unknown to the speaker.

There is no need to 'interpret' when
one hears in ones own languages.

That depended on the situation. Often the need for iterpretation was dependent on the Jews. Remember it was a sign to the Jews. It is very possible that the interpretation was back in the Hebrew language for the sake of the Jews.

Two different things:
1. The miracle of the Day of Pentacost,
a miracle of HEARING
2. the non-miracle of speaking with
ecstatic utterances (AKA: unknown tongues)

There is nowhere in Scripture where it says there was a miracle of hearing.
There is no where in Scripture where it says they spoke in ecstatic tongues.
You are wrong on both accounts.
The Bible specifically says that they spoke in other languages. Why do you fail to accept what the Bible plainly says in Acts 2:4. It also says that they heard these languages in their own language. Obviously some spoke one language, and others spoke other languages. They spoke with other languages--different languages. Read your Bible.
DHK

 

[Ray Berrian]

DHK,

Muslims have a holy book--the Koran a prophet--Mohammad and you say 'tongues.' What does that have to do with anything.

Christians have the Holy Bible, our O.T. prophets and 'the gift of tongues.' Our religion/faith is right; we are blessed.

 

[DHK]

The important point is this, Ray.
The Biblical gift of tongues is always confined to speaking a real genuine foreign language, unknown to the speaker, but known to the hearer.

Pagan religions speak in ecstatic utterances. If Christians believe that speaking in ecstatic utterances is of God, or a gift of the Holy Spirit, they are wrong. This is what pagan religions do. It is not a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is Satan's counterfeit of the genuine gift. God does not speak gibberish.
DHK

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by DHK:
But it does show that tongues have ceased Tam. And if the Scripture so plainly speaks for itself, please elaborate on how that is so when you cannot seem to tell us how it does that.

Paul in 1 Cor never says that tongues has ceased. What he does it to attempt to control it and when it is controlled it will cease partly because there is no need for it. Tongues does not edify the body. It only edifies self. So in the body there is no need for tongues.

To say tongues has ceased is absolutely wrong. It is to add an interpretation that Paul never taught. It has even been documented that non-believers have spoken in tongues.

Any reputable lexicon or theological dictionary on the word glossolalia teaches that tongues includes ecstatic utterances. If one studies the history of Corinth he will find it is ecstatic utterances.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Any reputable lexicon or theological dictionary on the word glossolalia teaches that tongues includes ecstatic utterances. If one studies the history of Corinth he will find it is ecstatic utterances.

That is what Paul rebuked. He never encouraged the such. Everything had to be done decently and in order. All such ecstatic utterances had to stop. They could not be interpreted. One could not speak in tongues unless they did have an interpreter, and an ecstatic tongue is impossible to interpret. This fraudulent so-called gift, Paul was rebuking and putting an end to.
The only Biblical gift of speaking in tongues was speaking in a foreign language unknown to the speaker, but known to some one hearing it.
DHK

 

[Ed Edwards]

DHK: //The Biblical gift of tongues is always
confined to speaking a real genuine foreign language, unknown to the speaker, but known
to the hearer.//

Your wrong definition of 'tongues' colors all your derived logic and
leads to continuial error.

The Miracle of Hearing on the Day of Pentcost is NOT
the same as the 1 Cor chapter 14 'unknown tongues'.

Paul even goes so far as to DEFINE 'unknown tongues' in 1 Corinthians 14:2
(KJV1611 Edition):

For he that speaketh in an vnknowen tongue,
speaketh not vnto men, but vnto God:
for no man vnderstandeth him:
howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Which part of NO MAN UNDERSTANDS HIM are you having problems with?
it is not some other language, for people of that language would
understand him. No man understands him because it is an UNKNOWN
tongue.

BTW, unknown tongues is NOT a miracle.
It is so easy to do that I taught it once to a 5-year-old.
He thought he was pretending to read the words
he really couldn't read.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
DHK: //The Biblical gift of tongues is always
confined to speaking a real genuine foreign language, unknown to the speaker, but known
to the hearer.//

Your wrong definition of 'tongues' colors all your derived logic and
leads to continuial error.

The Miracle of Hearing on the Day of Pentcost is NOT
the same as the 1 Cor chapter 14 'unknown tongues'.

You cannot demonstrate through Scripture that there was any miracle of hearing. But the Bible definitely says they spoke with other languages. Why not believe the Bible instead of your own imagination?

Acts 2:4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit gave them the ability to speak. (WEB)

Paul even goes so far as to DEFINE 'unknown tongues' in 1 Corinthians 14:2
(KJV1611 Edition):

For he that speaketh in an vnknowen tongue,
speaketh not vnto men, but vnto God:
for no man vnderstandeth him:
howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Which part of NO MAN UNDERSTANDS HIM are you having problems with?
it is not some other language, for people of that language would
understand him. No man understands him because it is an UNKNOWN
tongue.

No man could understand him because he spoke without interpretation, which Paul condemned. The verse is a rebuke. As you have capitalized: "No man understands him." Why? No interpretation! It was a real language that was not interpreted. That was going directly contrary to the will of God.

BTW, unknown tongues is NOT a miracle.
It is so easy to do that I taught it once to a 5-year-old.
He thought he was pretending to read the words
he really couldn't read.

The gift of speaking in an unknown tongue (language, as the word means) was a miracle. If God gave me the language of Hindi, instead of me having to learn it, that would be miraculous. But if I go to the nation of India, I would be forced to learn the language if I am to reach the people living in the villages that don't know English. I don't have the gift of tongues. I am forced to learn the languages.

How can you teach your child an unknown language if it is unknown to you??
DHK

 

[Ed Edwards]

1Co 14:18-19 (KJV1611 Edition):
I thanke my God, I speake with tongues more then you all.
19 Yet in the Church I had rather speake fiue words
with my vnderstanding, that by my voyce I might teach others also,
then ten thousand words in an vnknowen tongue.

I guess like Paul, I speak with tongues more than you all.
But I'm the head bouncer in my local church. I'd bounce any one
who starts outloud talking in unknown tongue. (By rules of
our church, nobody there can interpert an unknown tongue).
Fortunately in 32 years nobody spoke in an unkown tongue.
(Some folk started going to the AoG church across town).

Yes, I'd rather teach in English, which all but one of
my Sunday School Class members speak (but he can hear
English just fine).

DHK: // ... an ecstatic tongue is impossible to interpret ... //

Oh, I recon it can, if God gives a person the gift of the Spirit
of interpreting tongues.

1 Corinthians 12:5-11 (KJV1611 Edition):

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diuersities of operations, but it is the same God, which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the spirit, is giuen to euery man to profit withall.
8 For to one is giuen by the spirit, ... to another diuers kindes of tongues,
to another the interpretation of tongues.
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfe same spirit, diuiding to euery man seuerally as he will.

Sorry, interpretation of unknown tongues (glossia, escatic utterances, etc.)
is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

The ability to interpret one language into another language
you know is a common human ability. To bad we tend to neglect
that ability in the USofA

 

[Ed Edwards]

DHK: //You cannot demonstrate through Scripture that there was
any miracle of hearing. But the Bible definitely says they spoke
with other languages. Why not believe the Bible instead
of your own imagination?//

Of course, using the same scriputre you used:

Acts 2:4-6 And they were all filled with the holy Ghost,
and began to speake with other tongues,
as the spirit gaue them vtterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Hierusalem Iewes,
deuout men, out of euery nation vnder heauen.
6 Now when this was noised abroad,
the multitude came together, and were confounded,
because that euery man heard them speake in his own language.

What kind of human language is heard by all who hear it in their
own langugae? Must have been an OTHER TONGUE.
The miracle of pentacost is NOT talking, the maracle was THE HEARING.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
DHK: //You cannot demonstrate through Scripture that there was
any miracle of hearing. But the Bible definitely says they spoke
with other languages. Why not believe the Bible instead
of your own imagination?//

Of course, using the same scriputre you used:

Acts 2:4-6 And they were all filled with the holy Ghost,
and began to speake with other tongues,
as the spirit gaue them vtterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Hierusalem Iewes,
deuout men, out of euery nation vnder heauen.
6 Now when this was noised abroad,
the multitude came together, and were confounded,
because that euery man heard them speake in his own language.

What kind of human language is heard by all who hear it in their
own langugae? Must have been an OTHER TONGUE.
The miracle of pentacost is NOT talking, the maracle was THE HEARING.

They spoke with other tongues (plural)
And then you contradict what the Bible plainly says, and what you just quoted, by saying:
"Must have been an OTHER TONGUE
That is a direct contradiction of verse four where tongues is mentioned in the plural. There wasn't just one tongue or language. There were many. Why are you denying what the Bible says so plainly?
DHK