[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Personal opinion:
This results from misunderstanding of words, and use of the King James Version by people who don’t truly understand the English of that period.
If in each of the Scriptures in question, they simply read “other languages” and especially if they understood that in each case when the apostles or others were described as speaking in other languages, these were real languages which the hearer understood, I think it would be a different matter.
And of course, in Elizabethan English “tongues” MEANT “languages.”
For example in the preface to the KJV, it reads “Translated out of the original tongues.”
Not something mysterious: translated out of the original languages. In this case, Hebrew and Greek.
Now, if someone speaks another real language that they did not know, to a hearer that understands it, for a purpose such as communicating the Gospel we could correctly, IMO, call this the same thing the Bible is talking about.
But with the word “tongues,” oh, that could be something mysterious.
Notice how they don’t even try to call it other languages, because it’s obviously not.
But other languages is exactly what the Bible is talking about.
As for exposure to it: I have often heard it due both to having a pastor once that liked being invited to speak at other churches and was fascinated by Pentecostalism and often attended when he preached there, or from having been in these churches in music ministry in the past.
Now, I used to live in New York City and therefore have heard very many other languages.
Real other languages have a complexity to them. There is something about them. You can’t just make up gibberish on the spot and have it sound like a real foreign language.
I have NEVER heard “tongues” that remotely sounded like a real language. Only made-up gibberish. And in many cases, highly repetitive and predictable made-up gibberish.
In many cases I came to know the inevitable phrases of particular persons. I kid you not, the Church of God pastor that my ex-pastor most often spoke at had as his one phrase, “La-ta-ta, la-ta-ti-DAH.”
Really. Every time, exactly that.
Not a language. Oh, a “tongue” by the Pentecostal definition, but not by what the KJV translators meant by tongue or any reader of the period, or by what language means today, as the Greek is now translated.)
Yes, others were a little more complex. Some had different things rather than always the same. But that is an example, the only one that I remember.
I do believe the proponents are sincere. I expect that one can get oneself into a state where the mind can generate gibberish. And if taught that this is a spiritual experience, a person could well sincerely believe it.
It harms no one, so it is their own business to be sure.
That is, in a church that practices it.
I have a different opinion regarding those who do it in churches who view it as gibberish and not in fact a spiritual gift. There are people who do it to show off spiritual superiority (in their mind) and this is offensive. It is also objectionable to be disruptive.[/quote]
Second
Just curious.