If 99% of modern tongues is 'meaningless glossalalia' and the rest is genuine xenoglossic glossa lalien, then based on your won description above, aren't you lying? You have made some rather broad blanket statements.
No, you're assuming I said that all tongues are meaningless glossolalia, which I never said. Can you point to where I said that? I actually said that all the ones evaluated so far, and shown on youtube are all pseudo-languages. If they weren't, there would be translations of them. I'm still hoping I see some evidence of real tongues beyond peoples' claims. Can you at least show me a link to a youtube video of tongues (for example), where someone commented "hey, this is the ----- language." That could be very helpful.
Considering that, according to the Bible, 'divers tongues' is a genuine gift of the Spirit distributed as He wills, you need to leave some room in your belief system for the Spirit actually giving this gift to some individuals. Urban legends generally cannot be traced back to an individual source and verified as accurate. There are specific accounts of individuals speaking in tongues in known languages. I mentioned a documented at Concordia Seminary. I haven't gone to their library to check it out. But there are things to check out out there. If you were so inclined and had whatever time, effort and resources necessary, you could research the cases described in this article, which might be excerpts from a book:
https://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/Is...q2fPu-lz1aXUEnBdznUW468xu4Z36axSUg0qabw_ug0hE
I have met one of individuals in that article. I heard him preaching on the radio in the 1980's. I went to a Bible study led by a pastor who had gone to Asbury with Rutland. My dad knows him, probably not well, but has spoken to him a number of times.
The way these testimonies are written, simply matter-of-fact, without flowery language, and almost no religious jargon, they appear more credible than any other testimonies I've heard or read about.
I'd like to make some observations: firstly, they sound like sparse occasional miracles that God does actually do sometimes. That doesn't validate pseudo-language practiced regularly. Secondly, in the conclusion they make the typical assumption that the pseudo-language is unknown to anyone, quoting 1 Cor. 14:2 out of context. I understand that men are fallible, and people have their pet ideas.
How is not making room in your worldview for the Spirit doing something the scripture teach the Spirit does 'conservative'? Do you mean theologically conservative.
I mean strict interpretation, not interpreting based on experience. The way I see P/C interpretation is that they have to read their experience into the text. Because if the text is read and interpreted solely on textual observance, it conflicts with P/C experience and doctrine. Case in point: Paul makes it clear that not all speak in tongues, and yet P/Cs not only expect everyone to do it, it's in their dogma. "The baptism of the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues" is not a Biblical teaching.
If eyewitness testimony does not fit your worldview, then it is just an 'urban legend'?
In 25 years of fellowship with P/Cs I've heard so many urban legends that weren't true, it still makes me sick thinking about it. Even some P/Cs acknowledge that 80% of prophecies never come true. Yes, I think it justifies calling them urban legends until proven otherwise.
First of all, if Jesus meant moving mountains as some kind of metaphor, what he said was quit possible. And talking about 'the history of mankind', look up the Egyptian Orthodox tradition of St. Simon the Shoemaker, who, according to their tradition, performed a miracle of moving the Mokkatam Mountain after the Calif threatened to wipe them out if they didn't move a mountain. There is at least a historical claim it happened.
Do you actually believe that happened? No, I don't think so. I think your argument is a straw man. God can do anything, so anything is possible. That doesn't make pseudo-language angelic or anything else having meaning.
As far as interpretation of the passage goes, it is very possible to give all to the poor and to give ones body to be burned. So insisting that just 'tongues of men and of angels'... or just the angels part is hyperbole gets no support from the context. It rests on the fact that the interpreter insists it must be hyperbole. This shows up in a list of mostly, if not all, possible 'extremes' that believer might do. Hand I think we would agree that speaking in tongues of men is possible. If you do not agree, just read this out loud.
Our paths diverge here. We aren't reading the text the same. Paul is not teaching the Corinthians to speak in tongues even of men, nor is he teaching them to speak in tongues of angels. He said "if" which is a logical argument. No, he is teaching them that they are wrong to practice tongues as they are. He's telling them shut up if there is no interpreter. He's telling them to love others by edifying them and stop being self-centered. This is what he is teaching. He is not teaching them that their tongues is angelic.
The concept of angelic languages also shows up in intertestamental literature, the Testament of Job. It might have another occurrence in the Dead Sea Scrolls but my memory is fuzzy on that point.
Like I said before, angelic languages is not random syllables with no language structure. To suggest so is unreasonable.
Do you think it is impossible to give all to the poor? Is it possible to allow oneself to be burned to death for sake of the gospel? I am thinking of the Christians Nero called 'human candles', and also of John Huss.
Something being possible doesn't make the norm. But the norm today is pseudo-language. Do you think that pseudo-language is possible?
It was over $100 at a used site. I would definitely be considering interlibrary loan or something similar if I were to read this book.
