Speaking in tongues

[garee]

I have no problem with Bible verses you use. I do see you using verses in ways that are different from what they mean in the passages you quote, and wresting certain religious phrases about of scriptures and stringing them together in ways that do not match what they mean in the passages you quote. I have given you several examples of this over the years.

Hi thanks for the reply.

I think you meant according to your interpretation you say certain passages I use do not match.

One is using 'walk by faith and not by sight' to mean that believing in or operating in certain miracles or certain spiritual gifts are unbiblical. That is what you appear to be saying. The way you phrase sentences, sometimes, requires some assumptions as to your meaning, but I've read enough of your posts that I think I get a sense of what you are trying to say. Sometimes you try to extract some broad principle by misinterpreting a passage of scripture, but your broad principle contradicts specific teachings of scripture. Your interpretation of 'we walk by faith and not by sight' is an example of this.

I think all spiritual gifts are biblical. Making them in a sign that must be sought after seems to be one place we do have our differences. Walking by faith aids us in interpreting the parables . It would seem you literalize many things . Yet Christ said without parables he spoke not.. hiding the unseen spiritual understanding .Called hidden Mana in Revelation, according to His signified language. Again using the things seen the temporal in parables to represent the things not seen the eternal law of faith

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.2 Cor.4:18

It helps us to separate the things of men seen the temporal from the things of God not seen, the eternal . We are shown a good example of when men try and make it all one things in Mathew 16:22-23. it shows us the things attributed to men offend the things of God. In those passages Peter is shown blaspheming the things of God not seen (faith) by those of men seen, no faith.

Study to find the difference between the things of men seen and those of God not seen the faith principle. today blasphemy will not be forgiven as it was with Peter.

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the "things that be of God", but "those that be of men".Mathew 16:22-23

There are things that had roots in Old Testament times, such as having elders, baptism, the laying on of hands, prayer, that are still valid, ongoing practices in the church that we are not to do away with. You are lumping the laying on of hands into a category of things you consider to be for the past, when the author of the same book you are quoting lists it among the basic principles of the doctrine of Christ.

Can you prove that and elaborate on it.

Shadows never become the substance they point to it. The laying on of hands like all ceremonial law is simply a shadow or a desire that God's will be done on earth as it is loosened from heaven . We are no better off laying on hands then if we did not. It like many attempts to turn into a sign gifts and attribute to the outward work that we must seek after .It would seem to escape the warning that its an evil generation natural man no faith that does seek after a sign and wonders gospel . The faithless Jew turning things upside down made Jesus into a circus seal in that way . Show us a sign create a miracle that we might see and them we will believe.

Jesus taught His disciples.
Mark 11:24Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

He also told Lazarus sister that if she believed, she would see the glory of God. He told people things like 'according to your faith be it unto you.' There are a number of passages like this in the gospels.

I would agree with those verses .It does not say if you lay your hands on it ye shall have it. or if you fall back as slain in the spirit when someone lays on a hand then we know we are heard on high

It seems to me that you think that those who believe God to actually heal are really just wanting to see a healing so that they will believe God, or to confirm they have a gift. If you think people just pray and ask God to heal so they can get confirmation they have a gift, in most cases, I would think you are attributing the wrong motives to people.

I would say its the wrong approach to seek after signs signs are designed for those who belive not prophecy .Prophecy is for those who do believe as they exercise their faith. Christ working in them not of their own selves.

There are multitudes of Christians out there, and may someone somewhere has the motives you are imagining. But praying and hoping God will heal out of a motive to confirm that one has a gift is probably a very rare thing, and it does not, IMO.

Charismatics is founded on walking by sight. Not rare to them but the norm . I have attended a few service with a friend. Its the whole show. Lay a on a hand be slain in the spirit . make sounds without meaning even what is called holy laughter as a new innovation for the show. The slain in the spirt falling back as a sign just like the sign of tongues shows they do not believe prophecy as a sign against them

If your religion is not the same one as presented in the New Testament, you have a problem. The New Testament shows people believing God and receiving from God. The New Testament shows people believing Jesus and receiving healing, deliverance from demons for a loved one, etc.

I have no problem with people believing prophecy . When they attribute the work of God to the hands of the Apostles is where I disagree.

Someone performing a miracle--believing God to do it and seeing the power of God work through him-- and seeing the results before his very eyes is not contrary to walking by faith. The apostles did such things, and this does not mean that their faith was nonexistent or that it was inferior to yours.

They had the same mutual faith of Christ that God come God as any person .Not of their own selves) It would seem the word apostles as to its meaning has been added to as if they were supper saints .If we would have the miracles performed in respect to the apostles it would mean their faith is inferior to the faith of God . We defend His faith as it works in us to defend us.

If I understand you right, I believe you are using 'walk by sight' wrongly, interpreting it to mean something that it does not mean in scripture-- something contrary to what the scriptures teach about the apostles and other miracles workers.

God alone is the miracle maker. When men attribute the work of Christ faith unseen that he works in individual to the apostles seen. The Pagan world that must walk by sight(no faith) is quick to include them as gods in the likeness of men .Making it all about the things of men which again offends the things of God not seen

Acts 14:10-12 King James Version (KJV)Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.

They were probably looking for a conquering king on a horse to come in and set up a kingdom on earth. The restoration of the kingdom of Israel is for some time Christ did not reveal to the apostles, but the kingdom came in a way they were not expecting. Nevertheless, Jesus said if He cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Jesus called casting out demons a sign or miracle (depending on the translation).

Jesus casting out demons and doing miracles was not contrary to the kingdom of God. It was not 'walking by sight.'

If men claimed to see demons it would be walking by sight

If the kingdom of God came by observation or walking by sight and not faith according to 2 Corinthian 4:18 . Then we would have to assume what is called the abomination of desecration is standing in the Holy unseen place reserved for our Holy Father not seen .

The kingdom of God is not of this temporal world neve was never could be, that is if we were walking by the faith of Christ that works in us to both will and do His good pleasure as a imputed righteousness

 

[Dino246]

I think all spiritual gifts are biblical. Making them in a sign that must be sought after seems to be one place we do have our differences.

Paul wrote, "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy."

I don't claim that they are a sign for anything other than what Scripture states. I don't claim they "must" be sought after; that's your word. I simply follow Paul's instruction: "eagerly desire".

 

[garee]

Paul wrote, "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy."

I don't claim that they are a sign for anything other than what Scripture states. I don't claim they "must" be sought after; that's your word. I simply follow Paul's instruction: "eagerly desire".

Amen

But we still have the sign to contend with. Eagerly desire prophecy or the sign that confirms those who will not hear prophecy in any tongue or language and for all that they still refuse to believe the word of God even in their own Hebrew tongue? So then God as a sign against them mocks those who mock Him as he brings prophecy in all the language or tongues of the world to show the unbelieving Jew that their flesh profits for nothing . Oral tradition that make the word of God to no effect are no different coming for a outward Jew that has no faith just as the oral traditions of the Gentiles that have no faith .Both are classified as forward nations that must walk by sight after the things seen the temporal .

Deuteronomy 32:20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.

 

[Dino246]

Amen

But we still have the sign to contend with. Eagerly desire prophecy or the sign that confirms those who will not hear prophecy in any tongue or language and for all that they still refuse to believe the word of God even in their own Hebrew tongue? So then God as a sign against them mocks those who mock Him as he brings prophecy in all the language or tongues of the world to show the unbelieving Jew that their flesh profits for nothing . Oral tradition that make the word of God to no effect are no different coming for a outward Jew that has no faith just as the oral traditions of the Gentiles that have no faith .Both are classified as forward nations that must walk by sight after the things seen the temporal .

Deuteronomy 32:20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.

Actually, I think it is you who needs to deal with the "sign". You are playing Paul against Isaiah.

 

[Kavik]

Finally getting back as time allows – a few replies…..

Presidente – post 3,795

A woman spoke in a language, maybe Swedish, while in a trance

Yes, I’m familiar with the “Swedish” example. It was found that an American housewife exhibited a male personality of a Swedish farmer “Jensen Jacoby”. Her vocabulary consisted of about 100 words and she spoke in a very limited context giving mostly one or two-word answers. The conclusion was that at some earlier point in her life, she had been exposed to a minimal amount of the language and was simply recalling it subconsciously.

This is one of three “famous” cases – the other two were of a woman speaking German and a young girl in India speaking Bengali (I think she was a native speaker of Marathi, a related language).

Agnes Ozman's speaking in Chinese was identified by a Chinese person who worked in a Chinese laundry.

I highly doubt Agnes Ozman’s Chinese was ever identified as actual Chinese. Take a look at her writing examples.

There were a lot of similar such claims made during that time – I believe one of the things that prompted Parham to send out missionaries without any language training. Everything from Hindi to Zulu was supposedly ‘confirmed’.

If xenoglossia shows up in an academic journal of another field, and there are historical source materials to back it up, it's is false to say there are no documented cases of it.

Well, the three cases mentioned above, for example, did not originally occur in any linguistic or academic journals (at least not in linguistic journals). These three cases, the best known and strongest ‘cases’ ever to surface to support xenoglossy, were well documented; however, upon closer examination were not found to be what was originally thought (true xenoglossy).

I want to know if naturalistic, non-supernatural type interpretations appeal to you in general?

No, not really – I’m a definite believer in the supernatural; however, I do believe that a given situation/case must be looked at and analyzed from every angle/perspective, as it were, before jumping to conclusions and assuming it’s automatically supernatural.

In the case of Biblical ‘tongues’ there just isn’t anything at all that supports something of a supernatural nature happening. Given the demographic make-up of Corinth (and Ephesus, for that matter), it’s just describing real language issues in a multi-cultural environment.

I would argue that if this were written in some sort of general text/account of the period rather than something appearing in the Bible, no one would give it a second thought as anything but referring to typical real-rational language situations in a multi-cultural/linguistic environment.

I’ve mentioned this before, but it may be reasonable to suggest that Paul’s letter was in reply to a letter he received from someone in the church of Corinth. It’s too bad that this original letter of ‘complaint’ or ‘please advise’ letter does not exist – I suspect if it did, that within 10 minutes of reading it, the entire “tongues” issue would be over.

 

[cv5]

Finally getting back as time allows – a few replies…..

Presidente – post 3,795

A woman spoke in a language, maybe Swedish, while in a trance

Yes, I’m familiar with the “Swedish” example. It was found that an American housewife exhibited a male personality of a Swedish farmer “Jensen Jacoby”. Her vocabulary consisted of about 100 words and she spoke in a very limited context giving mostly one or two-word answers. The conclusion was that at some earlier point in her life, she had been exposed to a minimal amount of the language and was simply recalling it subconsciously.

This is one of three “famous” cases – the other two were of a woman speaking German and a young girl in India speaking Bengali (I think she was a native speaker of Marathi, a related language).

Agnes Ozman's speaking in Chinese was identified by a Chinese person who worked in a Chinese laundry.

I highly doubt Agnes Ozman’s Chinese was ever identified as actual Chinese. Take a look at her writing examples.

There were a lot of similar such claims made during that time – I believe one of the things that prompted Parham to send out missionaries without any language training. Everything from Hindi to Zulu was supposedly ‘confirmed’.

If xenoglossia shows up in an academic journal of another field, and there are historical source materials to back it up, it's is false to say there are no documented cases of it.

Well, the three cases mentioned above, for example, did not originally occur in any linguistic or academic journals (at least not in linguistic journals). These three cases, the best known and strongest ‘cases’ ever to surface to support xenoglossy, were well documented; however, upon closer examination were not found to be what was originally thought (true xenoglossy).

I want to know if naturalistic, non-supernatural type interpretations appeal to you in general?

No, not really – I’m a definite believer in the supernatural; however, I do believe that a given situation/case must be looked at and analyzed from every angle/perspective, as it were, before jumping to conclusions and assuming it’s automatically supernatural.

In the case of Biblical ‘tongues’ there just isn’t anything at all that supports something of a supernatural nature happening. Given the demographic make-up of Corinth (and Ephesus, for that matter), it’s just describing real language issues in a multi-cultural environment.

I would argue that if this were written in some sort of general text/account of the period rather than something appearing in the Bible, no one would give it a second thought as anything but referring to typical real-rational language situations in a multi-cultural/linguistic environment.

I’ve mentioned this before, but it may be reasonable to suggest that Paul’s letter was in reply to a letter he received from someone in the church of Corinth. It’s too bad that this original letter of ‘complaint’ or ‘please advise’ letter does not exist – I suspect if it did, that within 10 minutes of reading it, the entire “tongues” issue would be over.

You present a very interesting perspective on 1 Cor 14 etc. and easy to frame in those passages given the time and place.
Acts ch2 on the other hand is a very tough nut to crack. More so given the context.

 

[presidente]

What do you propose to do?

I propose for churches to folliw scripture.

 

[Kavik]

Acts ch2 on the other hand is a very tough nut to crack. More so given the context.

Yes, with Corinthians, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a virtual “no-brainer” – real language issues happening, real language solutions offered by Paul (or at least as best he knew how to deal with the situation).

Acts 2 presents a slightly different scenario. The ‘list of nations’, as it’s called, does not represent linguistic diversity; it’s just that – a list of places where the Jews gathered in Jerusalem came from (excluding those already living there of course). It represents the Diasporan lands. If we look at what languages Jews in those countries spoke as their “mother tongue”, it’s really only two; Greek and Aramaic.

Rather than a long post – see: https://christianchat.com/blogs/?starter_id=253767 Specifically, “Another Understanding of “Tongues” at Pentecost” (Parts 1-4).

As far as the list itself goes, the most prevalent school of thought by far is that the list was placed in the narrative for political reasons (with Syria purposely omitted, and the nations/territories listed in a specific order). It was put there to make a statement. Lists such as this were commonly used by the Romans for lands they had conquered. Indeed, this list from Luke, as one writer puts it, “is anti-Roman political propaganda witch advocates kenotic politics at its finest.” There are several well written articles on the subject. One of the better ones may be found here: https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2000_b_01_Hengel_IoudaiaGeography.pdf

 

[presidente]

Presidente – post 3,795

A woman spoke in a language, maybe Swedish, while in a trance

Yes, I’m familiar with the “Swedish” example. It was found that an American housewife exhibited a male personality of a Swedish farmer “Jensen Jacoby”. Her vocabulary consisted of about 100 words and she spoke in a very limited context giving mostly one or two-word answers. The conclusion was that at some earlier point in her life, she had been exposed to a minimal amount of the language and was simply recalling it subconsciously.

Ido bot tecall this being a Christian example. But this conclusion based on evifence or was it a solution proposed out of the author's world view?

Agnes Ozman's speaking in Chinese was identified by a Chinese person who worked in a Chinese laundry.

I highly doubt Agnes Ozman’s Chinese was ever identified as actual Chinese. Take a look at her writing

I never heard if her writing samples. I had a few conversations with a historian who earned his doctorate from UGA and ounded the field of Pentecostal History as an academic history. He told e they wrote in 'their papers' that it had been confident as Chinese by omeone who worked in a Chinese laundry. We had another issue to discuss, bit tgat question popped in my ead and I igure if anyone would know, he would so I asked him.

There were a lot of similar such claims made during that time – I believe one of the things that prompted Parham to send out missionaries without any language training. Everything from Hindi to Zulu was supposedly ‘confirmed’.

This sort of thing was based on doctrinal assumption about tongues not taught in scripture.

I want to know if naturalistic, non-supernatural type interpretations appeal to you in general?

No, not really – I’m a definite believer in the supernatural; however, I do believe that a given situation/case must be looked at and analyzed from every angle/perspective, as it were, before jumping to conclusions and assuming it’s automatically supernatural.

In the case of Biblical ‘tongues’ there just isn’t anything at all that supports something of a supernatural nature happening. Given the demographic make-up of Corinth (and Ephesus, for that matter), it’s just describing real language issues in a multi-cultural environment.

I would argue that if this were written in some sort of general text/account of the period rather than something appearing in the Bible, no one would give it a second thought as anything but referring to typical real-rational language situations in a multi-cultural/linguistic environment.

I’ve mentioned this before, but it may be reasonable to suggest that Paul’s letter was in reply to a letter he received from someone in the church of Corinth. It’s too bad that this original letter of ‘complaint’ or ‘please advise’ letter does not exist – I suspect if it did, that within 10 minutes of reading it, the entire “tongues” issue would be over.

That contains a quote from me and your response.

t foes seem to me that you have an anti-supernatural bias. Your average reader or scholar is not going to Acts 2 and come away with the diglossia theory, which rests on unlikely assumptions about the cultural context. If we agreed with those assumptions it would be a contrived and counterintuitive interpretation of the passage.
Many Christians read I Corinthians in light of Acts 2. Again, a straightforward interpretation of the passage indicates hat Paul's spirit spoke these languages ut not his mind. Divers tongues and interpretation are listed among a list of supernatural manifestations of the Spirit like healing and he working if miracles in chapter 12.

It seems like YOU want to se Occam's razor, but ow that is used depends on worldview. If someone with an antisupernatural bias used Occam's razor saw Jesus raise Lazarus He might conclude Lazarus was in a coma or that it was a trick. But someone who elieved Jesus did miracles and raised the dead would conclude that the simplest, most realistic explanation was that our Lord had raised him from the dead.

 

[presidente]

It represents the Diasporan lands. If we look at what languages Jews in those countries spoke as their “mother tongue”, it’s really only two; Greek and Aramaic.

IMO, this is an extremely silly conclusion, and one that would scarcely appeal to someone from outside of a minolingual culture like some of the English speaking cultures are (or were until recently). The Greeks did not wipe out Greek and Hebrew in the Levant, so why would possible less culrurally oppressive Greeks have done so in North Africa? Most languages were probably not written. There were also prostelytes in the group.

Historically with all the Hellenist synagogues using a Greek Bible translation with Greek teaching in synagogues it is unlikely that Greek or Aramaic preaching would have even shocked anyone. And even if it would that is a hyper counterintuitive interpretation to the least?

Rather than a long post – see: https://christianchat.com/blogs/?starter_id=253767 Specifically, “Another Understanding of “Tongues” at Pentecost” (Parts 1-4).

As far as the list itself goes, the most prevalent school of thought by far is that the list was placed in the narrative for political reasons (with Syria purposely omitted, and the nations/territories listed in a specific order). It was put there to make a statement. Lists such as this were commonly used by the Romans for lands they had conquered. Indeed, this list from Luke, as one writer puts it, “is anti-Roman political propaganda witch advocates kenotic politics at its finest.” There are several well written articles on the subject. One of the better ones may be found here: https://www66ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2000_b_01_Hengel_IoudaiaGeography.pdf

 

[RickyZ]

Ido bot tecall this being a Christian example. But this conclusion based on evifence or was it a solution proposed out of the author's world view?



I never heard if her writing samples. I had a few conversations with a historian who earned his doctorate from UGA and ounded the field of Pentecostal History as an academic history. He told e they wrote in 'their papers' that it had been confident as Chinese by omeone who worked in a Chinese laundry. We had another issue to discuss, bit tgat question popped in my ead and I igure if anyone would know, he would so I asked him.


This sort of thing was based on doctrinal assumption about tongues not taught in scripture.



That contains a quote from me and your response.

t foes seem to me that you have an anti-supernatural bias. Your average reader or scholar is not going to Acts 2 and come away with the diglossia theory, which rests on unlikely assumptions about the cultural context. If we agreed with those assumptions it would be a contrived and counterintuitive interpretation of the passage.
Many Christians read I Corinthians in light of Acts 2. Again, a straightforward interpretation of the passage indicates hat Paul's spirit spoke these languages ut not his mind. Divers tongues and interpretation are listed among a list of supernatural manifestations of the Spirit like healing and he working if miracles in chapter 12.

It seems like YOU want to se Occam's razor, but ow that is used depends on worldview. If someone with an antisupernatural bias used Occam's razor saw Jesus raise Lazarus He might conclude Lazarus was in a coma or that it was a trick. But someone who elieved Jesus did miracles and raised the dead would conclude that the simplest, most realistic explanation was that our Lord had raised him from the dead.

It feels like I'm reading tongues in your responses. English may not be your native language, but this is ridiculous. If you don't care enough about accuracy to do even a cursory spell and grammar check, how are we supposed be believe you care enough about accuracy in your positions to have done at least a cursory check of your info?

 

[Dino246]

Finally getting back as time allows – a few replies…..

In the case of Biblical ‘tongues’ there just isn’t anything at all that supports something of a supernatural nature happening. Given the demographic make-up of Corinth (and Ephesus, for that matter), it’s just describing real language issues in a multi-cultural environment.

This would be a reasonable explanation if "tongues" were not discussed in the context of other miraculous activities. Nobody can prophesy (accurately) except by the Holy Spirit, but non-Christians can learn and translation languages other than their native tongue. We need to keep the larger context in mind when examining the phenomenon of tongues. When we divorce it from its context of Spirit-enabled abilities, it becomes an academic discussion that is not specific to the Christian Church.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

Since spiritual gifts are not *acquired* but given by the Holy Spirit according to His will, don't bother.

But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. (1 Cor 12:11).

Modern tongues are called "prayer language", and are not actual existing languages.

The bible says there is no unknown language........ergo no "prayer" language.
If your tongue is running away with you, you don't know if you are adoring or cursing God.

 

[presidente]

It feels like I'm reading tongues in your responses. English may not be your native language, but this is ridiculous. If you don't care enough about accuracy to do even a cursory spell and grammar check, how are we supposed be believe you care enough about accuracy in your positions to have done at least a cursory check of your info?

Sorry. I do not have spellcheck on my phone. I have big thumbs and small keys. Sometimes I hit the keys but the phone annot keep up. Anyway i apologize for the poor typing.

 

[Dino246]

The bible says there is no unknown language........ergo no "prayer" language.

Paul wrote, "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding." The context clearly indicates praying in a tongue unknown to Paul. "Unknown" is relative to the one speaking and those hearing, rather than being an absolute adjective.

If your tongue is running away with you, you don't know if you are adoring or cursing God.

If you are praising God with your mind, heart, and natural language, and you switch to tongues, which makes more sense... adoring or cursing?

 

[Kavik]

Modern tongues are called "prayer language", and are not actual existing languages.

The term "Prayer Language" first came about in the early 1900's by the early Pentecostal church when it quickly discovered that what people were producing with respect to 'tongues' was not xenoglossy as expected. The result was a complete redefinition of 'tongues' in an attempt to explain what it was that they were producing (since xenoglossy obviously wasn't it). This redefinition as "prayer language" also allowed the experience (in their eyes anyways) to be "proofed" in the narrative of scripture (despite the overwhelming lack of anything remotely akin to it).

 

[cv5]

Yes, with Corinthians, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a virtual “no-brainer” – real language issues happening, real language solutions offered by Paul (or at least as best he knew how to deal with the situation).

Acts 2 presents a slightly different scenario. The ‘list of nations’, as it’s called, does not represent linguistic diversity; it’s just that – a list of places where the Jews gathered in Jerusalem came from (excluding those already living there of course). It represents the Diasporan lands. If we look at what languages Jews in those countries spoke as their “mother tongue”, it’s really only two; Greek and Aramaic.

Rather than a long post – see: https://christianchat.com/blogs/?starter_id=253767 Specifically, “Another Understanding of “Tongues” at Pentecost” (Parts 1-4).

As far as the list itself goes, the most prevalent school of thought by far is that the list was placed in the narrative for political reasons (with Syria purposely omitted, and the nations/territories listed in a specific order). It was put there to make a statement. Lists such as this were commonly used by the Romans for lands they had conquered. Indeed, this list from Luke, as one writer puts it, “is anti-Roman political propaganda witch advocates kenotic politics at its finest.” There are several well written articles on the subject. One of the better ones may be found here: https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2000_b_01_Hengel_IoudaiaGeography.pdf

Thank you. You have achieved a remakably elevated state of scholarship. May I ask if you have been professionally trained?
I will examine the links you provided in the coming days.

 

[presidente]

Modern tongues are called "prayer language", and are not actual existing languages.

The term "Prayer Language" first came about in the early 1900's by the early Pentecostal church when it quickly discovered that what people were producing with respect to 'tongues' was not xenoglossy as expected. The result was a complete redefinition of 'tongues' in an attempt to explain what it was that they were producing (since xenoglossy obviously wasn't it). This redefinition as "prayer language" also allowed the experience (in their eyes anyways) to be "proofed" in the narrative of scripture (despite the overwhelming lack of anything remotely akin to it).

I came across the writings if a theologian pre-1900 who believed tongues was what you call glossalalia. It is my impression that a significant number of Pentecostals believed in tongues as 'real language' until the Charismatic movement and many early Charismarics believed that as well what changed was the Biblically unsupported notion that if one spoke in tongues it would automatically be in the language of some target people group.

Someone may use the term 'prayer language' and believe tongies is, or can be, a real human language. When I was in the A/G in the 1980s the mission director Charles Greenoway, told a testimony of a missionary who preached in tongues in the target language of the people group he was ministering to while waiting for an interpreter. I heard that from him at least twice in two different churches in two states. Another Bible college professor told of hearing a tongue in a language, maybe Burmese, and lowong enough of the language o recognize it asbeing about the Bread of Life, then hearing the interpretation of tongues about the Bread of Life. You may dismiss tesitimony if this sort as being evidence. But this is the largest Pentecostal denomination and I am pretty sure they se the term 'prayer language' too.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

Paul wrote, "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding." The context clearly indicates praying in a tongue unknown to Paul. "Unknown" is relative to the one speaking and those hearing, rather than being an absolute adjective.


If you are praising God with your mind, heart, and natural language, and you switch to tongues, which makes more sense... adoring or cursing?

sing? What bible is that?

Really don't care to split hairs over what it might mean or what it might NOT mean.......Its historic fact that sign gifts ceased with the apostles.

 

[Dino246]

sing? What bible is that?

Really don't care to split hairs over what it might mean or what it might NOT mean.......Its historic fact that sign gifts ceased with the apostles.

NIV, 2011 edition. NASB says the same thing, as does the KJV. Which version are you reading?

You believe in a different set of "historical facts" than I do.