Are prayer languages Biblical?

No. it’s not. It clearly says in the Bible that those things would go away after the death of the 12 Apostles. (1 Corinthians 13:8)

What’s more, the “gift of tongues” that miraculously occurred, as record in the Acts of the Apostles, helped them to speak in the tongues of those present, in order to teach them about Jesus. (Acts 2:4,8)

Those who claim to “speak in tongues” today oftentimes speak gibberish (1 Corinthians 14:27, 28), or, on the occasion that it is a specific language, it is very often very vulgar speech. It would be more consist with what constitutes demonic activity. (1 Corinthians 14:26)

sigsby flbbbtt dsflting fdsau. scoobdoq rruims fdsa.parksfn dsssloogmi yyhargossth beoojf nertiin.

loosely translates to: Yes.

I also thought it was a one time thing, but would get shouted down in Sunday School, so I just kept my mouth shut. I was raised in that tradition, and I came to the conclusion at about 10 that it was simply a lot of gibberish, but what with the emotional group frenzy of the parishioners, became meaningful to them. For a lot of them, it was the only time in their week that they could really get super emotional with no consequences.

I was never considered “saved” by the congregation since I couldn’t get myself to do it. You really have to shed your inhibitions to scream, cry, throw oneself over benches, “dance in the spirit” and speak in tongues like that and I never could.

I believe there are scriptures referencing it. I’ve never done it myself, and it’s certainly not a requirement for salvation smh

No, its not, most orthodox catholics do but no. Any prayer will do brother.

@pats04fan—Ive never seen or heard of Catholics speaking in tongues. Generally evangelicals and their ilk.

Now it is hard to find an Orthodox catholic church in my town,I a don’t know about yours, but they have always spoke Latin.

Praying in Latin is one thing, but actuall Prayer Languages, in which the person appears to be speaking gibberish. Is that Biblical? Everyone seems so split on the teaching.

A prayer is a prayer, it’ll be hears no matter what language. If you cannot speak in other languages, it is okay, because it has nothing to do with getting into Heaven of not.

The OP is referring to “speaking in tongues” not Latin, as is often used in Catholic religious ceremonies.

Though one might point out that Latin was used by the Church to keep people from reading the Bible and knowing what was actually said, as opposed to what they wanted people to believe.

The way you use the word biblical is interesting. If I had to guess, I would imagine you are wondering whether the Bible prescribes speaking in tongues or prayer languages for you, dausonlovi.

The way I generally use the word “biblical,” your question is not one to be debated. In my mind, biblical refers to the accounts of scripture, i.e. the stories and letter, or the mindset of the people of the Bible. So genocide is biblical, but I don’t think it’s a prescription for what you should do. Biblically, the sun moves and the earth is flat.

Anyway, speaking prayer languages is clearly in the Bible, and it is your decision whether you would benefit from its practice. Despite eponymoushipster’s response, plenty of people do continue to speak in tongues, and if you feel better for it, then do it. If the Bible says anything, I think it says you should not judge others for something like speaking in tongues.

Finally, at @eponymoushipster: how does 1 Cor 14:27–28 speak about people speaking gibberish today? it was not clear that Paul was saying glossolalia would stop after the death of the apostles to me, how do you gather that? Finally, the Roman Catholics spoke Latin because it was, at one point, the most common language that was most widely understood. The Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible, comes from the Latin for vulgar which means “common.” So Latin was also used by the church to allow more people to read the Bible and to let them know what it did say, instead of forcing them to learn Greek and Hebrew. Be fair.

@toleostoy those gifts of the spirit would cease upon the death of the Apostles, when, as Jesus foretold, apostasy would rise and spread.

As for the Vulgate, it was the “common translation”, not the “common language”. It was commissioned by the Pope as a definitive translation. And if everyone could readily have and read it, why were people burnt at the stake for owning one or attempting to translate it?

When I say Biblical I mean is the doctrine of praying in tongues found in the doctrinal teachings of the Bible. I guess I would assume that’s where the doctrine of the Christian movement would come from. The question is, is this practice doctrinal according to the scriptures?

Some might think that that baptisms for the dead is scriptural and should be practiced because of the one reference made to it in the the Corinthians- but that doesn’t mean it’s so. The same applies to the idea of speaking in tongues.

I had no idea this was going to be such a split topic. This is very interesting.

@dausonlovi regarding baptism of the dead, what scripture are you referring to?

1 Corinthians 15:29

@dausonlovi you’re correct regarding baptism of dead people. that verse does not apply to such a matter, but rather to a course of faithfulness up to and including one’s death. After that death, then they could receive their reward. A similar verse makes mention of being baptized “into Christ’s death” (Rm 6:3), highlighting that they need to follow Christ’s actions, including a faithful death.

@eponymoushipster I never even thought of it that way but you’re right.

@eponymoushipster: you did not answer how Paul is claiming speaking in tongues will stop when the apostles die. You only repeated your original claim—that speaking in tongues will stop when the apostles die.

@dausonlovi: doctrine is not a consistent idea or ideas that run straight from scripture into practice. doctrine is part of various traditions’ interpretations of the Bible. So speaking in tongues is considered by some as doctrinal and others as not. For epony, it seems not to be doctrinal. For others, it is, which is why they do it. Also, Paul spoke in tongues more than anyone according to 1 Cor 14. Paul wasn’t an apostle, so why would he suddenly stop when the apostles die, or why would he be able to tell others speaking in tongues would stop when other people died? Why would he say he wished everyone would speak in tongues if he expects it to stop (1 Cor 14:5)

Finally, the way Paul talks about it, speaking in tongues is a gift that some have and others do not. Why stress about it? If you feel moved by the spirit to speak, you should probably do as the spirit leads. If you are not moved by the spirit, then don’t do it, and don’t judge others by their gifts.

@toleostoy
The gift of tongues proved very helpful to first-century Christians in preaching to those who spoke other languages. It was actually a sign to unbelievers. However, Paul, in writing to the Christian congregation at Corinth, directed that when meeting together, not all should speak in tongues, as strangers and unbelievers entering and not understanding would conclude that they were mad. He also recommended that the speaking in tongues “be limited to two or three at the most, and in turns.” However, if no one could translate, then the person speaking in a tongue was to remain silent in the congregation, speaking to himself and to God. (1Co 14:22–33) If no translating took place, his speaking in a tongue would not result in upbuilding others, for no one would listen to his speech because it would be meaningless to those unable to understand it.—1Co 14:2, 4.

If the person speaking in a tongue was unable to translate, then he did not understand what he himself was saying nor would others who were not familiar with that tongue, or language. Hence, Paul encouraged those having the gift of tongues to pray that they might also translate and thereby edify all listeners. From the foregoing, it can readily be seen why Paul, under inspiration, ranked speaking in tongues as a lesser gift and pointed out that in a congregation he would rather speak five words with his mind (understanding) than 10,000 words in a tongue.—1Co 14:11, 13–19.

@eponymoushipster: I don’t want to belabor the point, but here I go:

I still don’t think you are answering my questions. You said nothing about glossolalia stopping with the death of the apostles. Furthermore, even though you explained Paul’s explanation for speaking in tongues in church, you made no mention of private prayer languages spoken alone and why it should not be practiced. It seems that in your last post, if one person was speaking at a time with a translator, that would be okay if moved by the spirit because it is, in fact, a spiritual gift which is contrary to all that you have said before. I have read the Corinthian passages and the experience in Acts. Please give your thoughts and why you think glossolalia is wrong.

@toleostoy sorry, i’m firm in my belief. the supposed speaking in tongues that people in some charismatic churches today does not correspond to that of the first century Christians.

At that time, it was necessary in order to speed up the spread of the preaching activity, when a relatively small group was tasked with preaching “to the entire inhabited Earth.” That is not necessary today, since there are Christians in a majority countries, speaking in their own language.

I appreciate you have a different viewpoint, but I’m quite sure of mine. Thank you.