I didn't want to throw this into an existing thread, where it might be lost, but I [i]did
Some years ago, a German girl came to the UK to learn English - by training as a nurse. She had been accepted by a school of nursing, and was soon (first week) invited by a Christian to a church nearby, famous locally for being both Baptist and allowing the operation of the gifts in its Sunday services.
This girl came from a Catholic background, but had become an atheist, and had arrived in the UK as an atheist. Her acceptance of the invitation to church reflected her lonliness, rather than a desire to meet with God.
During the service, someone gave a word in tongues, of which she understood every word - God speaking to her personally - but, she was simultaneously aware the tongue was not being given in German.
I put forward this testimony as the explanation of the verse below, because I've been amazed on SI to meet for the first time, people who are genuinely sceptical about the validity of tongues, many of whom have no idea how the gift works, nor of how God gives the interpretation to someone (sometimes the person with the word in tongues), often [i]not[i]nothing[i]everything[i]not
Please read this verse carefully. It [u]does not say[u]spoke
Acts 2 (KJV)
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not [u]all these which speak Galilaeans
8 And how [u]hear
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, [u]we do hear them speak in our tongues
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
It seems to me there is an assumption in the minds of people who read these verses, that the Galileans were speaking the other languages - because we [i]assume[u]not
Maybe it requires a little lateral thinking, but, I find it perfectly accptable for God to be able to open the ears of the hearers to His words to each of them individually, just as He scrambled what was coming out of people's mouths at the tower of Babel, so that people could [u]not[i]each other
I'm sort of surprised I haven't seen this point raised in previous threads (except, perhaps, by me), because the 'interpretation' of the verses which mention 'hear' and 'hearer', do not insist the speakers were [i]speaking
Is this a fair comment? Do you see what I mean?
