Can someone explain how tongues ended up being a “language” that is un-intelligible versus intelligible? As far as I can see in scripture, tongues in the books: Acts, I Corinthians, and Romans are of the “intelligible” species. Even if tongues can correlate literally to the tongues of Angels, the only examples we have of Angel talk in the scriptures, again, are intelligible. The only passage that might be able to construe tongues as “un-intelligible,” legitimately is I Corinthians 14; where Paul says (paraphrase): “if the unconverted come in and hear the church speaking in tongues, they might think they are crazy,” but this still does not demonstrate that tongues are of the “un-intelligible” kind. For example, in Acts 2 and Pentecost (the tongues of fire), many of the “unconverted” believed the saints (new and old) to be “drunk,” or crazy-talking—this case of tongues, as all examples, as far as I can see, are intelligible languages. Anyway, I could try to argue some more, but the question still stands, . . . can someone explain how tongues ended up being a “language” that is un-intelligible versus intelligible?

Advertisements