". . . but nothing happened until they released His supernatural power by speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. They released it, and the church was born in that split second. Peter received the interpretation and preached it."

There are several difficulties with his statement above:
(1) The language that the people spoke was not a special spiritual prayer language, but is defined in the Scripture itself:

"And they were all filled with the Holy spirit and began to speak with other tongues [languages], as the Spirit was giving them utterance. Now therefore when this sound [vs. 2] occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, 'Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language [dialect] to which we were born? Parthians, and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God,'" Acts 2:6-11 (NAS).

The Scriptural narrative defines the languages spoken as existing, known human languages that were understood by the people who were from the areas where those languages were spoken. Oral Roberts' claim to a spiritual communication system prayer language is found to be false.

(2) The language spoken was not Oral Roberts' communication system language by which God gave a revelation to the participants which the apostle Peter "translated" and preached. There is no such statement made in the Scriptural narrative. No such special revelation was received through the use of tongues and no such translation was made. The foreigners heard the believers themselves speak in the language of the foreigners native countries, not a translation of a spiritual prayer language, ". . . and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language," Acts 2:6 (NAS). Again, Oral Roberts presents a false claim in relation to what the Scripture says, because there was no "translation" of a spiritual prayer language message performed by the apostle Peter.

". . . but nothing happened until they released His supernatural power by speaking with other tongues."

(1) Oral Roberts' claim that, ". . . nothing happened . . ." is patently absurd, because something did happen, even before the believes spoke in tongues. (a) There was a noise like a rushing wind from heaven, (b) The noise filled the entire house, (c) Tongues of fire appeared, (d) The fire rested on the head of each believer, (e) The believers were all filled with the Holy Spirit, Acts 2:1-4.

The Holy Spirit came, not as a result of anything that the believers did or said, or as a result of speaking in a prayer language, but He came at the good pleasure of God, according to His timetable and was completely unexpected by the assembled believers. Just as the Holy Spirit's appearance was unexpected, the manifestation of tongues was also unexpected was given by the power of the Holy Spirit and not by the will or desire of the believers.

(2) Oral Roberts is consumed with his concept that believers can "release" certain powers, such as "releasing" the Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues or "releasing" faith by giving money to his ministry in order to obtain healing. In relation to Acts, he claims that after the believers received the Holy Spirit, they released his power by speaking in tongues and that resulted in the birth of the church:

"Notice, though, the church was not birthed from the infilling of the Spirit; the church was birthed when they released the Spirit by speaking in tongues and interpreting."

However, what he is saying is that the tongues with which the believers spoke were the "new communication system" languages that were given by God through which believers pray to God and the Holy Spirit speaks regarding the deep needs of believers ". . . with groanings too deep for words," (NAS). Of course, nothing is stated in Acts 2 regarding the believers praying in their new "prayer language" and that the language was communicating the needs of the believers to God or that speaking in tongues was a means to release the power of the Holy Spirit in order to birth the church or that the Holy Spirit was "released" by means of believers speaking in tongues.

Oral Roberts infers that the believers at the Day of Pentecost could have received the Holy Spirit, but if they had refused to speak in tongues, then the Holy Spirit would not have been "released" and the church would have not been born on that day. Oral Roberts preoccupation with the concept of "releasing" is a manifestation of his belief that human beings can control the actions of God. They can force God to heal or grant the desires of believers if those believers "release" their faith. God is unable to refuse to respond to a proper application of faith by a believer. How does a believer obtain this faith that they can "release"? Well, the best way in Oral Roberts' theology is to give a "Seed Faith" offering to Oral Roberts ministries - the biggest offering that a person can possible give - and then God will respond to their needs.

'There is going to be a rebirth in the church today just as there was in those days. You're beginning to understand the power of being able to talk to me and to hear Me talk back to you. You're learning to communicate with Me, not in your own language which is limited, but in the language of the Holy Spirit."

What Oral Roberts is claiming, is that God defines speaking in tongues as the same as the occurrence on the Day of Pentecost, which is said to be the use of a special prayer language by means of which the Holy Spirit speaks to God through the speech of believers. The problem with Oral Roberts' claim is that it is not supported in the Scripture. The manner in which tongues was used on the Day of Pentecost and the definition that the is provided in Acts 2 reveals the problem in relation to what Oral Roberts claims to have received as a revelation from God. The book of Acts does not say the same thing as what Oral Roberts claims that God revealed to him.