Acts 2:8-11 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, (of foreign origin; a Parthian, i.e. inhabitant of Parthia:--Parthian.) and Medes,(inhabitant of Media:--Mede.) and Elamites,(of Hebrew origin (5867); an Elamite or Persian:--Elamite.) and the dwellers in Mesopotamia,(as lying between the Euphrates and the Tigris; compare 0763), a region of Asia:--Mesopotamia.) and in Judaea,( a region of Palestine:--Judaea.) and Cappadocia, in Pontus,(a sea; Pontus, a region of Asia Minor:--Pontus. and Asia,( (usually) only its western shore:--Asia. Phrygia,( and Pamphylia, in Egypt,(Ægyptus, the land of the Nile:--Egypt.) and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene,(Cyrene, a region of Africa:--Cyrene) and strangers ((be) dwelling (which were) there, stranger.)of Rome, Jews and proselytes, (an arriver from a foreign region, i.e. (specially), an acceder (convert) to Judaism) Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.The Medes مادها were an Iranian people, The figures include Persians, Elemites and Medes followed by Arabs, Egyptians, Armenians, Ethiopians, Sagartians, Cappadocians, and many more, Mesapotamia: Fertile Crescent is on a narrow strip of land between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The Greeks later called this region Mesopotamia, which means between the rivers. This is generally Iraq, Phrygia: part of modern Turkey, Arabs and Africans, and strangers.
Their native tongue was that of Galilee, a somewhat barbarous dialect of the common language used in Judea, the Syro-Chaldaic. It is possible that some of them might have been partially acquainted with the Greek and Latin, as both of them were spoken among the Jews to some extent;
You ask, "where did I get these Ideas from?!?"The History of the Origins of Christianity. Book II. The Apostles. Chapter VI. The Conversion of Hellenistic Jews and of Proselytes.byErnest Renan CHAPTER VI.THE CONVERSION OF HELLENISTIC JEWS AND OF PROSELYTES.http://www.ccel.org/ccel/renan/apostles.ix.htmlExcerpt: "The primitive nucleus of the Church at Jerusalem had been composed wholly and exclusively of Hebrews; the Aramaic dialect, which was the language of Jesus, was alone known and employed there. But we see that from the second or third years after the death of Jesus, Greek was introduced into the little community, where it soon became dominant. In consequence of their daily relations with the new brethren, Peter, John, James, Jude, and in general the Galilean disciples, acquired the Greek with much more facility than if they had already known something of it. An incident, of which we are soon to speak, shows that this diversity of tongues caused at first some divisions in the community, and that the relations of the two factions were not of the most agreeable kind. After the destruction of Jerusalem, we shall see the Hebrews, retire to beyond Jordan, to the heights of Lake Tiberias, and form a separate Church, which had a separate destiny. But in the interval, between these two events, it does not appear that the diversity of 60languages was of any consequence in the Church. The Orientals have a great facility for learning languages; in the cities everybody invariably speaks two or three tongues. It is then probable that those of the Galilean apostles who played an active part, acquired the practise of speaking Greek; and came even to make use of it in preference to the Syro-Chaldaic, when the faithful, speaking Greek, became the much more numerous. The Palestinian dialect came, therefore, to be abandoned from the day in which people dreamed of a wide-spread propaganda. A provincial patois, which was rarely written, and which was not spoken beyond Syria, was as little adapted as could be to such an object. Greek, on the contrary, was necessarily imposed on Christianity. It was at the time the universal language, at least for the eastern basin of the Mediterranean. It was, in particular, the language of the Jews who were dispersed over the Roman empire. At that time, as in our day, the Jews adopted with great facility the tongues of the countries in which they resided. They did not pique themselves on purism; and this is the reason that the Greek of primitive Christianity is so bad. The Jews, even the most instructed, pronounced badly the classic tongue. Their sentences were always modelled upon the Syriac; they never got rid of the unwieldiness of the gross dialects which the Macedonian conquest had imported."In Christ: Phillip
In consequence of their daily relations with the new brethren, Peter, John, James, Jude, and in general the Galilean disciples, acquired the Greek with much more facility than if they had already known something of it.
Again: By Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible.Began to speak with other tongues. In other languages than their native tongue. The languages which they spoke are specified in @Ac 2:9-11.As the Spirit gave them utterance. As the Spirit gave them power to speak. This language implies plainly that they were now endued with a faculty of speaking languages which they had not before learned. Their native tongue was that of Galilee, a somewhat barbarous dialect of the common language used in Judea, the Syro-Chaldaic. It is possible that some of them might have been partially acquainted with the Greek and Latin, as both of them were spoken among the Jews to some extent; but there is not the slightest evidence that they were acquainted with the languages of the different nations afterwards specified. Various attempts have been made to account for this remarkable phenomenon, without supposing it to be a miracle. But the natural and obvious meaning of the passage is, that they were endowed by the miraculous power of the Holy Ghost with ability to speak foreign languages, and languages to them before unknown. It does not appear that each one had the power of speaking all the languages which are specified, (Ac 2:9-11,) but that this ability was among them, and that together they could speak these languages; probably some one, and some another. The following remarks may perhaps throw some light on this remarkable occurrence:I guess selective is tolerant to ones own mind set. In Christ: Phillip
Barnes is making the same presumption that the content of what was heard on the Day of Pentecost through 'tongues' was the preaching of the gospel. This is unsupported by the text, where verbs for 'preaching' and 'proclaiming' are absent and the simple word for 'speaking' is used.
And your assumption holds no more truth than his or mine. I guess it does take black and white to make gray. Only one can make black, white. I'll just have to keep trusting Him. If I am to speak in and unknown Language to save a foreigner, I am sure it will happen, but to speak in an unknown tongue, that no one understands, leave me out.I cannot understand a word of what B. H. says except when he is lying to the crowd or giving 1000 $ tips to the waiter for room service in his 4000 $ a night suite.In Christ: Phillip
I cannot understand a word of what B. H. says except when he is lying to the crowd or giving 1000 $ tips to the waiter for room service in his 4000 $ a night suite.
If I am to speak in and unknown Language to save a foreigner, I am sure it will happen
""I hope you don't associate all contemporary 'tongues speakers' with his aberrations.""I don't associate with believers that speak in either unknown or praying in tongues. Not because of any reason other than I don't have fellowship with any person that speak in tongues at this time in my life. I attended a tongue speaking church for about a year and the only tongues I observed were self seeking embellishment of, look at me I am speaking in tongues. No one ever interpreted the gibberish that I heard and I did not understand anything they were saying. I have only heard one person speak as you say in tongues that I am close to. He was my neighbor, he was from an African American Pentecostal Church, he was one of my closest prayer partners. We shared Christ in you the Hope of Glory and prayed for each other's family and others we were led to pray for. He would speak in tongues I did not understand or recognize and then he would pray in our language. The prayers were always flowery with gracious lifting up of God in great wonderful phrases that really sounded uplifting toward God. I ask him if he knew what he was praying when he spoke what he called a heavenly language, he said he did not know. He always listened to Morris Cerelo's radio and TV programs, whom I never understood either. We did this for 3 years and I had to move. We are still friends but don't have much prayer together anymore. I never understood what he was saying before the common language was spoken. I even prayed, Father if this is the gift of tongues you are speaking of in The Word, allow me to understand what you are saying through him, it never happened. I have ask God if I needed to pray in tongues to have a deeper understanding of what the Holy Spirit was teaching me, allow me to receive the gift. I even waited upon God for 3 hours in tears and asking, I think I forced some sound from within me and did not feel anything except anguish. The Holy Spirit has always dealt with me in teaching from the Word and memory of scripture. It always aligns with the whole of scripture when I study the thoughts that come into my mind. I also believe that prayer is conversing with God in thought and speech, in thought I believe that I have the Mind of Christ, that being so my prayer is as Paul says, "Pray without ceasing", that is 24-7 my mind is in communion with the Mind of Christ and all that I do, I do seeking and listening to Him, even when my mind is not consciously seeking and listening He is still there, and our fellowship is never apart from each other. Colossians 3:22-24 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.All the study I have done on tongues, which is extensive, has always come back to Languages of the earth that one speaks that is not naturally learned. I have seen this once. It was one speaking in a language he did not know, the person he was speaking to understood in his own tongue naturally learned from his nationality which was East Indian, a Sikh. I did not understand what was being said. The East Indian was saved. I must be one of those that is the, "do all speak in tongues?", that Paul speaks about in 1 Cor 12. If speaking in tongues (languages of earth that are not naturally learned( is the least gift and to prophesy is the greatest gift, which is bringing forth the truth of The Word of God, why would anyone want to speak in a tongue that does not build up the Body of Christ.1 Corinthians 14:8-10 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Maybe you can understand where I am coming from on this subject. Yet, I will not put God in a box, but I will test what I hear, and I have not been able to get a passing grade when it comes to unknown tongues or praying in an unknown tongue. In Christ: Phillip
I attended a tongue speaking church for about a year and the only tongues I observed were self seeking embellishment of, look at me I am speaking in tongues. No one ever interpreted the gibberish that I heard and I did not understand anything they were saying.
I even waited upon God for 3 hours in tears and asking, I think I forced some sound from within me and did not feel anything except anguish.
Maybe you can understand where I am coming from on this subject. Yet, I will not put God in a box, but I will test what I hear, and I have not been able to get a passing grade when it comes to unknown tongues or praying in an unknown tongue.