Search results

It would take too long to get into in detail, but his person does not have a good grasp of some basic linguistic theory; particularly phonetics. Given the construction of glossolalia (it's syllable structure, phonemic make-up, etc.), and the fact that most speakers will use a subset of the...

Thanks for the insight. I agree with most of it. Here's the thing with "interpretation" - Interpretations are typically characterized by being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance, rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple...

Really? What is this person's name, may I ask. There is no linguist in the world worth his/her salt that is going to call modern tongues-speech 'language'; human or otherwise. You're free to choose to believe whatever you wish.

Then there are myriad of insincere people including pastors out there! In you're opinion, it's something sacred and not to be shared via media. Okay, that's one opinion. and I thank you for that. Curious to see what others say.

Again, no clue what you're getting at - I believe I've already stated I am a linguist and I assure you nothing has been "made up".

So, here are three links to random tongues videos pulled off of YT - curious if any of these would be considered, in you the reader's opinion, as legit 'tongues' - if so why? If not, why not? What makes them legit, what makes them not legit?? Does it boil down to a matter of personal opinion...

Again, no idea what/who you're referring to. Modern tongues-speech is not language; human or otherwise.

Not sure what you're getting at? What paper did I acknowledge?? And, yes, she is quite correct to state that modern tongues speech is not language (human or otherwise); it does not meet the universal criteria for 'language'. The modern phenomenon is as I have described in post #705 above...

Because that's not at all what he said - 1Cor. 14:2 is perhaps the quintessential verse used by many to “evidence” modern tongues-speech in the Bible. Let’s paraphrase this verse into a more modern English. To do this, you need to get rid of the added “unknown”, use a more accurate...

I have zero clue what you're talking about in the first paragraph. Because when it comes to something spoken, there are no references to "tongues" in the Bible that do not refer to, nor that cannot be explained in light of, real, rational language(s). Nowhere in the Bible is modern...

Precisely! At some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief...

I'm not speaking about miracles, but rather something very tangible and concrete. There's a huge difference here. Yes, Paul would rather people pray to God in their native language than not at all; even though no one else listening to the speaker may understand his language. I don't believe...

Yes – true, despite that 1 Cor. 14:2 does not evidence modern tongues-speech; it’s just real, rational language(s) – understood by the speaker, but not the audience. That’s always been my argument as well (again, despite that “tongues of angels” is 100% hyperbole). Yes - a practice...

Perhaps a better approach would be for me to post a few videos and ask whether people would call these 'legitimate' tongues or not - if so, why, if not, why not?

This is exactly what I'm looking for - examples of what are deemed/percieved to be "real" tongues" - i.e. no one's doing it for money, fame, etc. - just people who believe that are speaking legitimate tongues. I have no intention of posting any "results" for studying these - as I said, it's...

Yeah, I've seen this one - to put it bluntly, it's got to be an embarrassment to Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians.

Interesting observation - but it begs the question of what then is the point of the sounds in the first place? A vehicle by which to channel the Holy Spirit; thus what's being uttered is, in a sense, irrelevant?

This is kind of more what I'm driving at - what determines what is perceived as "real" as opposed to those perceived as "fake" - modern tongues-speech is essentially random free vocalization - what is there to fake?

Which in and of itself speaks volumes. As I think I already stated in another post - for people who have such a strong belief in what they are producing with respect to tongues, the reluctance to have it looked at in depth is somewhat telling. You're not throwing it in anyone's face, and to...

There are many things in religion that must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved nor disproved - "tongues" is not one of these things. It is something very tangible and concrete. "Tongues" can and have been studied for decades with all studies yielding the same conclusions.