Modern Chaos: The Charismatic and Pentecostal Movements (5:35)

[peldom10]

I had not read anything about it. I thought it was gas, though, not oil.

I used a more generic term.......I think you are correct...natural gas.

 

[TDidymas]

All I have seen of Samarin are academic articles. I have had a look at a few of them in the past few days. I have not read his book that you refer to. Looking at this article from Samarin, https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/69110/1/The linguisticality of glossolalia.pdf

it would seem unlikely that Samarin was analyzing these samples to determine if they were real languages, but would assume they were not real languages and analyze them for what he thought were characteristics of glossalalia. Samarin even rights that xenoglossia, speaking in real languages one does not know, is not of interests to linguists unless it is a dead language, which would allow linguists to know the pronunciation of ancient languages. His paper makes it sound like his focus was different from what you seem to be arguing for. is the book different?

And for Samarin, 'glossalalia' does not mean what the component parts of the word mean in the text of the New Testament. For Samarin, 'glossa' is not a language like it is in scripture, but a kind of regressive speech. 'Glossalalia' is made from words that show up in Acts 2 and I Corinthians 14, but in the jargon used in this subset of sociolinguistics.

For me the more interesting experiment would be to take samples of speaking in tongues and samples of naturally spoken not-well-known human languages and have linguists analyze both and determine which ones are just examples of natural speech. I think taking that sound at least superficially like human languages to include in the samples of speaking in tongues would be appropriate. Also, the natural language samples could be taken from people praying from the same faith-communities the 'tongues' samples were taken from. This might produce two samples with similarities of tone and style.

The book is much more extensive and analyzes many transliterated glossa. His conclusion is that glossa is a pseudo-language. That is, it sounds like a language, but doesn't convey meaning as a language does. Like I said before, part of the book is sympathetic to it, saying it has social and religious value. But he concludes that it is neither miraculous nor language as we know it. It just seems to me that there needs to be cases of xenoglossia documented and analyzed, for the purpose of apologetics.

 

[TDidymas]

brief response here just to state what you say above is not factual

Paul first corrected the misuse of tongues in the Corinthian church (and tongues was far from the only item needing correction) BUT did he say stop it just stop it you are all just blabbering around? NO he did not. rather, he said this:

14 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

Paul speaks of UNKNOWN languages that are identified as mysteries by the Spirit (of God). He say they are NOT speaking to people...as identified in the book of Acts

You're interpreting Paul with a Pentecostal bias. No, I disagree. The "unknown" meant unknown to the Corinthian assembly. There is no reason in the text to assume he meant unknown to anyone in the world, and to claim that is unreasonable and is not indicated in the text. They were mysteries to the Corinthian hears because there was no interpreter. Once there is an interpretation (or translation), the mystery is solved. It's the pattern of Acts 2.

Paul says he would have everyone speak in tongues and states he does so more than anyone. do we read of Paul on his missionary journeys speaking in tongues to the people he preached to? no we do not because that was not the norm for preaching the gospel in the beginning of the church...yet it seems you and those with whom you agree, would have all tongues be as they were on the day of Pentecost and there is nothing in scripture to suggest that is so

I disagree. Biblical precedent is a proper rule of hermeneutics. If something is mentioned in scripture, it is to be interpreted the same as the first instance of it.

so Paul is referring to the use of tongues in prayer...for the individual believer...in prayer, to edify and build up

don't ignore the above. this is actually the basic and most common use of tongues for the believer

I never said that tongues didn't edify the speaker. But Paul was rebuking them for it because it was being done in church for selfish reasons. Yet, I've asked tongue-talkers how it edifies them, and haven't gotten a clear or Biblical answer yet. I've had the answer "I don't know, I just assume it edifies me because the Bible says it does." But this also is based on the assumption that modern tongues is the same thing as Paul was talking about, which I question.

and of course, we have tongues in church given for the edification of all gathered but if there is no interpreter, then no one should be speaking in tongues out loud

so there is an answer for you... no anger or dismissal and this type of response you will find in many threads but those who do not accept what is plainly taught in the Bible seem to just gloss it over and repeat ad infinitum. that all tongues should be interpreted and further. should be known languages only

the above short passage states otherwise and indicates a very different reality

I disagree with your conclusion, based on my answer above.

do people abuse tongues? yes they do. not all that much has changed from when Paul corrected the Corinthians, but the other side of the coin, is often an appearance of godliness but without the power given by God to make it acceptable before Him. work that is done in the flesh is not acceptable to God, no matter how glorious it might appear to those who do not seem able to grasp that truth

I agree with you on this. However, I want to qualify it by saying that I think the worst abuse is assuming that modern glossa is language when it's not, and that those speaking it assume it is of divine origin, and I question that. I've said before, maybe some people actually spoke real languages unknown to them, but in my studies on this subject, it's few and far between among the testimonies. The vast majority of glossa is pseudo-language that conveys no meaning, according to my reading.

 

[TDidymas]

pardon for my quoting only a paragraph of your post. I did read the rest of your post but just want to comment on the above

what you and others miss is the different use of tongues in scripture and the fact that tongues are both a gift and a sign

tongues are also for private use...Paul states praying in tongues edifies the one doing so

the response to questions such as the one in your paragraph, are ALWAYS answered but said answers are often just stepped over with the responder relegated to a nuisance

the heart of the issue is not tongues or those who are blessed with the actual blessing of God, but rather those who interpret certain passages of scripture to suit their own pre-conceived thoughts and or teaching. All so called modern tongues have not been evaluated.

Do you think it is necessary to evaluate ALL modern tongues? You don't think that the hundreds so far evaluated is enough to make a statistical conclusion about it?

But it is obvious that you are presuming that modern tongues is the same thing as NT tongues. This is what I question.

you can call tongues whatever you want, but don't cross the line like MacArthur and state all who speak in tongues do so by a demonic spirit

I don't agree with some of what MacArthur says about it. But according to my reading and research and many conversations with others I've had, I'm convinced that most of modern tongues is not language, not miraculous, and not of divine origin. It's a human ability and human phenomenon. And it's even implied in Pentecostal/Charismatic dogma by the fact that it is assumed, expected, and exhorted that "everyone who receives the Spirit will speak in tongues." It's been proven that non-Christians can do it, and reasonably concluded that anyone can do it if they try hard enough.

your report of the response you say you receive from those who speak in tongues is not factual. we have many threads on tongues here and perhaps avail yourself of some by using the search feature. you will see that people have been long in patience responding to people like yourself who desire to negate what they think is not of God

I'm not going to argue this with you. It's my experience.

 

[ResidentAlien]

2 Thessalonians is not about the Rapture but about the Antichrist. So why would anyone reference that passage?

LOL Okay.

 

[presidente]

The book is much more extensive and analyzes many transliterated glossa. His conclusion is that glossa is a pseudo-language. That is, it sounds like a language, but doesn't convey meaning as a language does.

You could say that about 'xenoglossy', real languages the speaker does not know if no one else knows it.

 

[presidente]

2 Thessalonians is not about the Rapture but about the Antichrist. So why would anyone reference that passage?

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

 

[TDidymas]

You could say that about 'xenoglossy', real languages the speaker does not know if no one else knows it.

Bible translators are figure out unknown languages all the time. See here: https://www.wycliffe.org.uk/about/our-impact/#modal-close
Languages have structure and vocabulary, which can be figured out and translated.

The problem with modern tongues is that no tongue-talker wants it evaluated.

 

[presidente]

Bible translators are figure out unknown languages all the time. See here: https://www.wycliffe.org.uk/about/our-impact/#modal-close
Languages have structure and vocabulary, which can be figured out and translated.

The problem with modern tongues is that no tongue-talker wants it evaluated.

Samarin had a lot of people willing to have tongues evaluated in the 1960's. I suspect things have not changed much in that regard. That would be an individual decision.

I went to church with some SIL/Wycliff folks for several years. I volunteered at one of their related national agencies for a while, also.

These people actually go out and learn the language with some context there. They interact with the people. They don't just get transcriptions or audio recordings in a vacuum with nothing going on and no translation of the language to work with.

 

[SophieT]

Do you think it is necessary to evaluate ALL modern tongues? You don't think that the hundreds so far evaluated is enough to make a statistical conclusion about it?

But it is obvious that you are presuming that modern tongues is the same thing as NT tongues. This is what I question.


I don't agree with some of what MacArthur says about it. But according to my reading and research and many conversations with others I've had, I'm convinced that most of modern tongues is not language, not miraculous, and not of divine origin. It's a human ability and human phenomenon. And it's even implied in Pentecostal/Charismatic dogma by the fact that it is assumed, expected, and exhorted that "everyone who receives the Spirit will speak in tongues." It's been proven that non-Christians can do it, and reasonably concluded that anyone can do it if they try hard enough.


I'm not going to argue this with you. It's my experience.

well then you are saying that your human experience trumps the word, which I posted for your benefit and which is as plain as day but due to your experience with mankind, you will not look into it further nor will you go to God with it in prayer

love how you dropped the exchange like a hot potato after saying it is those who speak in tongues that do that

as per you request, I will leave you to it and will not engage you again even though YOU are the one who said they wished to talk abot it

the hypocrisy is real and not my burden

 

[SophieT]

You're interpreting Paul with a Pentecostal bias. No, I disagree. The "unknown" meant unknown to the Corinthian assembly. There is no reason in the text to assume he meant unknown to anyone in the world, and to claim that is unreasonable and is not indicated in the text. They were mysteries to the Corinthian hears because there was no interpreter. Once there is an interpretation (or translation), the mystery is solved. It's the pattern of Acts 2.


I disagree. Biblical precedent is a proper rule of hermeneutics. If something is mentioned in scripture, it is to be interpreted the same as the first instance of it.


I never said that tongues didn't edify the speaker. But Paul was rebuking them for it because it was being done in church for selfish reasons. Yet, I've asked tongue-talkers how it edifies them, and haven't gotten a clear or Biblical answer yet. I've had the answer "I don't know, I just assume it edifies me because the Bible says it does." But this also is based on the assumption that modern tongues is the same thing as Paul was talking about, which I question.


I disagree with your conclusion, based on my answer above.


I agree with you on this. However, I want to qualify it by saying that I think the worst abuse is assuming that modern glossa is language when it's not, and that those speaking it assume it is of divine origin, and I question that. I've said before, maybe some people actually spoke real languages unknown to them, but in my studies on this subject, it's few and far between among the testimonies. The vast majority of glossa is pseudo-language that conveys no meaning, according to my reading.

oh one more thing

I am not Pentecostal

I am also not Charismatic

and you are blowing the truth away and will remember doing so when when you least expect it

and I am going to ignore you as per your request.

 

[presidente]

TDidymas,

Since Paul suggested the possibility of tongues of angels, if a linguist could show that an utterance in tongues does not meet some criteria believed to explain 'universal grammar', morphology, phonology, phonetics, etc., this is still something unfalsifiable. If we assume we know all the variables for inflection for meaning in human languages, we have no clue how this works with angelic languages. As far as I know, linguists have not studied these languages.

 

[TDidymas]

Samarin had a lot of people willing to have tongues evaluated in the 1960's. I suspect things have not changed much in that regard. That would be an individual decision.

I went to church with some SIL/Wycliff folks for several years. I volunteered at one of their related national agencies for a while, also.

These people actually go out and learn the language with some context there. They interact with the people. They don't just get transcriptions or audio recordings in a vacuum with nothing going on and no translation of the language to work with.

I hear you saying that it's easier said than done. I can see that.

Yet, I also hear you trying to defend pseudo-language as a real language, albeit "cannot be translated." So the scenario is depicted this way: What I'm speaking is a prayer to God, and no one can possibly understand it, only God does, and so what is prayed is never revealed to anyone, except in a public setting, it requires an interpretation so that other people with be edified by the understanding of it.

Is this close to what you believe about it?

 

[TDidymas]

well then you are saying that your human experience trumps the word, which I posted for your benefit and which is as plain as day but due to your experience with mankind, you will not look into it further nor will you go to God with it in prayer

love how you dropped the exchange like a hot potato after saying it is those who speak in tongues that do that

as per you request, I will leave you to it and will not engage you again even though YOU are the one who said they wished to talk abot it

the hypocrisy is real and not my burden

Your response proves that what I've said is true: hostility, false conclusions, misrepresentation of what I said. You should take a long look in the mirror concerning every judgment you've made here. It has all the earmarks of a sacred cow. That is, someone who thinks of a religious practice as sacred, and someone else exposing it as counterfeit or false. When people get hostile about an issue, the motive is one of two things: either their ego has been jabbed, or their sacred cow has been exposed. Ok, if you don't want to engage further, that's your prerogative. At least I've laid my cards on the table for all to see.

 

[TDidymas]

oh one more thing

I am not Pentecostal

I am also not Charismatic

and you are blowing the truth away and will remember doing so when when you least expect it

and I am going to ignore you as per your request.

Your defense of modern tongues puts you in the P/C category because you hold to that doctrine. I'm talking about a movement, not a particular denomination.

And "blowing the truth away"? What truth am I "blowing away"? I'm writing the truth based on my reading of scripture. Anyone who reads what I write about it (my interpretation) can see that I've done my homework on the subject.

But in regard to your statement that I "will remember" - are you purporting to be a prophet now?

So you want to end the conversation, it's your prerogative. But you said I requested that? Isn't this proof that you read things into what I write that isn't there? And if you so easily do it here, you're also doing it with scripture.

 

[presidente]

I hear you saying that it's easier said than done. I can see that.

Yet, I also hear you trying to defend pseudo-language as a real language, albeit "cannot be translated." So the scenario is depicted this way: What I'm speaking is a prayer to God, and no one can possibly understand it, only God does, and so what is prayed is never revealed to anyone, except in a public setting, it requires an interpretation so that other people with be edified by the understanding of it.

Is this close to what you believe about it?

That does not really describe what I think. My understanding/opinion are that genuine speaking in tongues may be tongues of men or of angels. If they are human languages, then as someone with some linguistic training I would expect the languages to follow the patterns of human language. If they are angelic languages, I do not know whether angelic languages follow the same 'rules' as human languages or not. Generally, when tongues are used in a church setting 'no man understandeth him'. The gift of interpretation is required to interpret the message into human languages. On occasion, the Lord may enable someone to speak in tongues in a language that someone present understands.

 

[TDidymas]

That does not really describe what I think. My understanding/opinion are that genuine speaking in tongues may be tongues of men or of angels. If they are human languages, then as someone with some linguistic training I would expect the languages to follow the patterns of human language. If they are angelic languages, I do not know whether angelic languages follow the same 'rules' as human languages or not. Generally, when tongues are used in a church setting 'no man understandeth him'. The gift of interpretation is required to interpret the message into human languages. On occasion, the Lord may enable someone to speak in tongues in a language that someone present understands.

So then, you believe that tongues/interpretation as they are practiced today are genuine Holy Spirit inspired messages?

 

[presidente]

So then, you believe that tongues/interpretation as they are practiced today are genuine Holy Spirit inspired messages?

I believe some speaking in tongues is genuinely from the Holy Spirit. I cannot say that everyone who claims to speak in tongues operates in the genuine gift. I would say the same about interpretations of tongues and prophecies.

 

[TDidymas]

I believe some speaking in tongues is genuinely from the Holy Spirit. I cannot say that everyone who claims to speak in tongues operates in the genuine gift. I would say the same about interpretations of tongues and prophecies.

Ok, you say "some" speaking in tongues - In your experience and assessment, what percent (approx.) of what you've seen do you think is authentic?

 

[presidente]

Ok, you say "some" speaking in tongues - In your experience and assessment, what percent (approx.) of what you've seen do you think is authentic?

I would not venture to guess. I don't sit around judging people's tongues. When I've heard it in a church meeting, I probably paid more attention to the interpretation.