Modern Chaos: The Charismatic and Pentecostal Movements (5:35)
- Thread starter Praus
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I've heard both, probably more addressed to the congregation.
There is also this verse:
6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
If Paul wants the tongue interpreted-- not an uninterpreted tongue followed by something else, could this be a list of the types of things that speaking in tongues may be also. He also talks about praying in tongues a bit further down in the passage.
There is also this verse:
6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
If Paul wants the tongue interpreted-- not an uninterpreted tongue followed by something else, could this be a list of the types of things that speaking in tongues may be also. He also talks about praying in tongues a bit further down in the passage.
If the revelation, knowledge, prophesying, or doctrine was not in tongues, why then does he say "if I come speaking in tongues"? It's obvious in the context. Therefore, speaking in tongues is intelligible speech to someone in a human language.
Even though he mentions praying in tongues in which his mind is unfruitful, he says it is "giving thanks," which is an intelligible meaning.
So do you agree that speaking in tongues in 1 Cor. 14 is intelligible speech, at least to someone? Do you agree that "unknown" tongues does NOT mean unknown to anyone at all?
Even though he mentions praying in tongues in which his mind is unfruitful, he says it is "giving thanks," which is an intelligible meaning.
So do you agree that speaking in tongues in 1 Cor. 14 is intelligible speech, at least to someone? Do you agree that "unknown" tongues does NOT mean unknown to anyone at all?
I don't understand your question. You seem to be changing your position from your recent previous posts. If you read the whole passage, tongues needs to be interpreted for whatever the content of it to be understood by others.
He says in the church he would rather speak with his mind than in a tongue. Notice the contrast.
God understands speaking in tongues. On some occasion, the Lord may arrange that the tongue spoken aligns with a language understood by someone present as in Acts 2, but apparently that was not the norm in church meetings based on Paul's statements in the passage. The gift of interpretation is needed so that others can be edified.
'Unknown' was added by the translators of the KJV. That's why it is in italics.
He says in the church he would rather speak with his mind than in a tongue. Notice the contrast.
God understands speaking in tongues. On some occasion, the Lord may arrange that the tongue spoken aligns with a language understood by someone present as in Acts 2, but apparently that was not the norm in church meetings based on Paul's statements in the passage. The gift of interpretation is needed so that others can be edified.
'Unknown' was added by the translators of the KJV. That's why it is in italics.
I wasn't asking a question nor changing my position. I was making the point that tongues as presented in 1 Cor. 14 is an intelligible language.
In the context of 1 Cor. 14, the contrast is between speaking something understandable in church and not speaking something not understandable. If you are trying to say that there is a contrast between a gibberish tongue and an interpretation, I'd say that's not correct.
But here's my point: the tongues in 1 Cor. 14 is actual language, not gibberish. You said yourself that it's not an uninterpreted tongue, and then something else. In the same way, it's not gibberish tongues, and then the interpretation is something else out of someone's imagination - which is how it's been done in the past century, which is the experience of myself as well as everyone in all the forums I've communicated in, who have had experience with it, and say that there's something wrong with the picture. Yes, there is something wrong with the picture, and that's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of.
So this is what I was driving at: 1 Cor. 14:14 says "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." So, he speaks something he doesn't cognitively understand. But then in v. 16 he says "Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" Then what he speaks as not understandable even to himself is still a "giving of thanks" and a "bless," which is something understandable to someone in the world (besides God). The point is that the tongues in 1 Cor. 14 is an actual language, not gibberish that's done today.
God understands everything, so your point is a straw man. It appears to me that what you're trying to say is "God is the ONLY one who understands a tongue spoken," that this is what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 14. No, I disagree. Paul is talking about human languages in that passage, not gibberish, angelic languages, or any such thing imagined by P/Cs.
And the 1 Cor. 14 rebuke to the Corinthians was because what was happening there was ABNORMAL, not the norm as you imagine. Paul was trying to correct the error, but you seem to think that the error of their ways was the norm. Error of their ways is certainly the norm for P/Cs today, but that shouldn't be projected onto scripture.
No, I disagree with your assessment that the norm was gibberish tongues, and occasionally God made it human language. That's an imposition of error on the scripture.
In the context of 1 Cor. 14, the contrast is between speaking something understandable in church and not speaking something not understandable. If you are trying to say that there is a contrast between a gibberish tongue and an interpretation, I'd say that's not correct.
But here's my point: the tongues in 1 Cor. 14 is actual language, not gibberish. You said yourself that it's not an uninterpreted tongue, and then something else. In the same way, it's not gibberish tongues, and then the interpretation is something else out of someone's imagination - which is how it's been done in the past century, which is the experience of myself as well as everyone in all the forums I've communicated in, who have had experience with it, and say that there's something wrong with the picture. Yes, there is something wrong with the picture, and that's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of.
So this is what I was driving at: 1 Cor. 14:14 says "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." So, he speaks something he doesn't cognitively understand. But then in v. 16 he says "Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" Then what he speaks as not understandable even to himself is still a "giving of thanks" and a "bless," which is something understandable to someone in the world (besides God). The point is that the tongues in 1 Cor. 14 is an actual language, not gibberish that's done today.
God understands everything, so your point is a straw man. It appears to me that what you're trying to say is "God is the ONLY one who understands a tongue spoken," that this is what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 14. No, I disagree. Paul is talking about human languages in that passage, not gibberish, angelic languages, or any such thing imagined by P/Cs.
And the 1 Cor. 14 rebuke to the Corinthians was because what was happening there was ABNORMAL, not the norm as you imagine. Paul was trying to correct the error, but you seem to think that the error of their ways was the norm. Error of their ways is certainly the norm for P/Cs today, but that shouldn't be projected onto scripture.
No, I disagree with your assessment that the norm was gibberish tongues, and occasionally God made it human language. That's an imposition of error on the scripture.
When one asks this qestion below is from only one verse of the chapter where the context is 1cor chapter 12 through 14 is nothing but elticing of scriptures.
1 Cor. 14:2 "that one speaking in tongues speaks to God and not to men,"
how many interpretations have you heard total, and how many of those were speaking to God and not men? "
The qestion is asked from a false narrative. because 1cor 14:2 does say just that and therefore the context of that statement is not complete be I see a Comma and the word BUT
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
the point is, Prophesying is more effective than speaking in tongues EXCEPT there is an interpretation so the church will be EDIFIED.
So the context is,
Those who speak in tongues do not speak to man but to God. Unless there is an interpretation where all are able to be edified,
and those who speak in tongues ARE TO PRAY THAT THEY WILL INTERPRET so edification will happen.
Those who speak in tongues should know that if they are, there must be an interpretation, that is not a translation.
The rest Judge what has been said by the word of God.
1 Cor. 14:2 "that one speaking in tongues speaks to God and not to men,"
how many interpretations have you heard total, and how many of those were speaking to God and not men? "
The qestion is asked from a false narrative. because 1cor 14:2 does say just that and therefore the context of that statement is not complete be I see a Comma and the word BUT
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
the point is, Prophesying is more effective than speaking in tongues EXCEPT there is an interpretation so the church will be EDIFIED.
So the context is,
Those who speak in tongues do not speak to man but to God. Unless there is an interpretation where all are able to be edified,
and those who speak in tongues ARE TO PRAY THAT THEY WILL INTERPRET so edification will happen.
Those who speak in tongues should know that if they are, there must be an interpretation, that is not a translation.
The rest Judge what has been said by the word of God.
I wonder if you are getting me confused with other posters. My understanding for what languages speaking in tongues may be is that it may be 'the tongues of men and of angels.' Language you do not know at all sound like gibberish to you. That is true of human languages. I assume it is true of angelic languages, if men speak such things while speaking in tongues. Paul uses a similar concept when he uses the word 'barbarian' in the passage. It is believed that the Greeks used the term to describe those who did not speak Greek, because it sounded like they were saying 'bar bar bar.'
I do not know what you are trying to say with that last line, so I cannot claim credit for saying that.
I do not know what you are trying to say. What does 'something else out of someone's imagination' mean.
An interpretation conveys the meaning of what was said in the tongue/language.
Paul goes on to say that in the church he would rather speak with his mind than in a tongue-- contrasting the two types of prayer. Paul says that someone gives thanks in tongues is not a comment on whether other people understand.
My understanding of the passage is that speaking in tongues means speaking in languages. Chapter 13 suggests that may be tongues of men and of angels. I take 'no man understandeth him' to refer to those present in the assembly, the typical situation there. I do not/ take that to mean that no one on earth understands that language. Some people interpret it that way. I do not. Historically, Pentecosalism emphasized real languages, human languages. But many Pentecostals allow for tongues of angels based on i Corinthians 13. And some take 'no man understandeth him' to mean it isn't a normal human language. I do not. That is not the historical viewpoint within Pentecostalism either.
In the situation Paul described, the way things happened in the church, those present did not understand.
Paul does not specify whether the languages are human or angelic in I Corinthians 14. Acts 2 describes people hearing their own languages 'in tongues'.
It should not be projected onto me either. My reading of Paul is that speaking in tongues in church is normal. Not interpreting tongues spoken out in the congregation is the problem. It is normal, based on what Paul writes, for members of the body of Christ to sing, teach, share revelations, speak in tongues and interpret. Uninterpreted tongues do not edify others. The passage seems to imply the Corinthians were speaking in tongues in the congregation without interpreting it, possibly going on and on like that. I do not agree with that.
Some Pentecostal churches have people speaking in tongues all at the same time 'en masse.' I don't agree with that. The churches I went to growing up did not have that, or at least I don't remember it. After a tongue, someone interpreted. At least one church I went to had people who taught on this as a matter of church order and doctrine. These were Assemblies of God churches for the most part. The A/G had churches that had different practice when it comes to tongues and order, apparently.
You accused me of a straw man earlier, when I could not figure out what was supposed to be a straw man. This is a straw man. What I am saying is any language you do not understand sounds like gibberish to you. It does not sound like gibberish to others who know the language. But in the situation Paul describes in I Corinthians 'no man understandeth him' and speaking in tongues is interpreted through an interpreter. Chapter 12 lets us know that this comes through a spiritual gift. I Corinthians 14:13 tells the one who speaks in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret. I am a bi-lingual (a non-native speaker of Indonesian), and if I pray in one language, I can translate into the other. I do not have to pray for a spiritual gift to be able to do so.
I do not know what you are trying to say with that last line, so I cannot claim credit for saying that.
I do not know what you are trying to say. What does 'something else out of someone's imagination' mean.
An interpretation conveys the meaning of what was said in the tongue/language.
Paul goes on to say that in the church he would rather speak with his mind than in a tongue-- contrasting the two types of prayer. Paul says that someone gives thanks in tongues is not a comment on whether other people understand.
My understanding of the passage is that speaking in tongues means speaking in languages. Chapter 13 suggests that may be tongues of men and of angels. I take 'no man understandeth him' to refer to those present in the assembly, the typical situation there. I do not/ take that to mean that no one on earth understands that language. Some people interpret it that way. I do not. Historically, Pentecosalism emphasized real languages, human languages. But many Pentecostals allow for tongues of angels based on i Corinthians 13. And some take 'no man understandeth him' to mean it isn't a normal human language. I do not. That is not the historical viewpoint within Pentecostalism either.
In the situation Paul described, the way things happened in the church, those present did not understand.
Paul does not specify whether the languages are human or angelic in I Corinthians 14. Acts 2 describes people hearing their own languages 'in tongues'.
It should not be projected onto me either. My reading of Paul is that speaking in tongues in church is normal. Not interpreting tongues spoken out in the congregation is the problem. It is normal, based on what Paul writes, for members of the body of Christ to sing, teach, share revelations, speak in tongues and interpret. Uninterpreted tongues do not edify others. The passage seems to imply the Corinthians were speaking in tongues in the congregation without interpreting it, possibly going on and on like that. I do not agree with that.
Some Pentecostal churches have people speaking in tongues all at the same time 'en masse.' I don't agree with that. The churches I went to growing up did not have that, or at least I don't remember it. After a tongue, someone interpreted. At least one church I went to had people who taught on this as a matter of church order and doctrine. These were Assemblies of God churches for the most part. The A/G had churches that had different practice when it comes to tongues and order, apparently.
You accused me of a straw man earlier, when I could not figure out what was supposed to be a straw man. This is a straw man. What I am saying is any language you do not understand sounds like gibberish to you. It does not sound like gibberish to others who know the language. But in the situation Paul describes in I Corinthians 'no man understandeth him' and speaking in tongues is interpreted through an interpreter. Chapter 12 lets us know that this comes through a spiritual gift. I Corinthians 14:13 tells the one who speaks in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret. I am a bi-lingual (a non-native speaker of Indonesian), and if I pray in one language, I can translate into the other. I do not have to pray for a spiritual gift to be able to do so.
Eusebius quotes primary works and I don't know if all of them survive outside of Eusebius. It was a little hard to find since Google is not as good of a search engine as it used to be.
Here is a quote:
And again after a little he goes on, “For if the Montanist women succeeded to Quadratus and Ammia in Philadelphia in the prophetic gift, let them show who among them succeeded the followers of Montanus and the women, for the apostle grants that the prophetic gift shall be in all the church until the final coming, but this they could not show, seeing that this is already the fourteenth year from the death of Maximilla.”
From https://www.loebclassics.com/view/e...history/1926/pb_LCL153.485.xml?readMode=recto
And this is cessationism in regard to the gift of prophecy. Apparently some of the Montanists thought prophecy ceased with Montanus and his companions. I have read the opinion that they argued for this interpretation of I Corinthians 13. They could have been the first I Corinthians 13 type cessationists. I am not sure if they are relying on other source material or if this is a bit of conjecture based on Eusebius.
I think this is a quote from Miltiades. You can look for other quotes on the topic of Montanism. The quotes Eusebius uses show the church accepted the ongoing gift of prophecy, but the people he quoted rejected Montanus' version of it as inauthentic.
Here is a quote:
And again after a little he goes on, “For if the Montanist women succeeded to Quadratus and Ammia in Philadelphia in the prophetic gift, let them show who among them succeeded the followers of Montanus and the women, for the apostle grants that the prophetic gift shall be in all the church until the final coming, but this they could not show, seeing that this is already the fourteenth year from the death of Maximilla.”
From https://www.loebclassics.com/view/e...history/1926/pb_LCL153.485.xml?readMode=recto
And this is cessationism in regard to the gift of prophecy. Apparently some of the Montanists thought prophecy ceased with Montanus and his companions. I have read the opinion that they argued for this interpretation of I Corinthians 13. They could have been the first I Corinthians 13 type cessationists. I am not sure if they are relying on other source material or if this is a bit of conjecture based on Eusebius.
I think this is a quote from Miltiades. You can look for other quotes on the topic of Montanism. The quotes Eusebius uses show the church accepted the ongoing gift of prophecy, but the people he quoted rejected Montanus' version of it as inauthentic.
-
1
- Show all
A word or two in a certain language does not constitute speaking a language. It has been proven by linguists who have analyzed modern tongues that people are likely unconsciously remembering words they heard previously. Someone might speak a French word, or Belgian, or whatever, among the gibberish. Just because words appear in it doesn't mean they are speaking a language. It has to have language structure to convey meaning, so gibberish doesn't convey meaning.
And "sounds like gibberish" doesn't mean that it is possibly a foreign language. If it has no language structure to convey meaning, it's not a language. The same kind of gibberish that is spoken among P/Cs is done by people in other religions. It's a human ability that people wrongly attribute to divine origin.
And I continue to disagree with your assessment about "tongues of angels." Paul did not mean for that phrase to be used to justify gibberish spoken. He was using that phrase as a hyperbole to make a point. He was not teaching that people spoke in angelic tongues. He was using the phrase "tongues of angels" as an exaggerative expression to say that even if anyone did so, without love it is nothing. In the same way he used the exaggerative expression "so as to move mountains."
And "sounds like gibberish" doesn't mean that it is possibly a foreign language. If it has no language structure to convey meaning, it's not a language. The same kind of gibberish that is spoken among P/Cs is done by people in other religions. It's a human ability that people wrongly attribute to divine origin.
And I continue to disagree with your assessment about "tongues of angels." Paul did not mean for that phrase to be used to justify gibberish spoken. He was using that phrase as a hyperbole to make a point. He was not teaching that people spoke in angelic tongues. He was using the phrase "tongues of angels" as an exaggerative expression to say that even if anyone did so, without love it is nothing. In the same way he used the exaggerative expression "so as to move mountains."
-
1
- Show all
This rests solely on your opinion, and the opinion of commentators who said the same thing. It most likely developed as a reactionary interpretation. In context, giving one's body to be burned is something possible. Giving all away is possible. Moving mountains, however it is meant, is possible since Jesus said it is. If it is taken as a metaphor, it is a metaphor for something possible. These are not impossible hyperbole. These are possible 'extremes' of things that could happen. Tongues of angels is also mentioned in intertestamental literature. I also gave you a couple of examples of commentary from the early centuries of Christianity in which the commentators did not have a problem with the idea of 'tongues of angels.' Chrysostom wanted to clarify that tongues meant languages of angels and not physical tongues as a body part since he did not believe they had a corporeal form.
Since Paul suggests the possibility of tongues of angels, we should be open to it.
What you are doing is eisegesis.
Since Paul suggests the possibility of tongues of angels, we should be open to it.
What you are doing is eisegesis.
-
1
- Show all
You paint with a broad brush. You also use the word 'prove' much more liberally than a train social scientist does (or should). Social science does not really 'prove' anything. They might provide evidence using some establish standards of evidence using statistics, for example, but that is not the same as proof.
A lot of what I have read of Samarin are his opinions and explanations, drawn a bit from sociological reasoning. Some of the concerns I have read about phonemes being taken from the speaker's language also do not account for the idea that a speaker might be speaking with an accent. Accents are valid language as well. If you live abroad, it can give you a different perspective. There are millions of Filippinos that pronounce words differently. They say 'back' with the 'a' sound in the word 'father.' There are Singaporeans who speak English as their native language, but sound like they have a Chinese accent. Some of them sound a bit more British with a hint of Chinese pronunciation (an accent I prefer to the other one.) These are valid accents. Phonetic similarities are not proof that a language is not being spoken. I have read about that in linguistics literature. But I don't know if it was Samarin.
Be that as it may, I suspect some speaking in tongues may be psychologically-generated. I've been in a room overseas where I listened, and it seemed like the whole room was saying 'bababa'. Some of the groups that combine an emphasis on 'tongues as initial evidence' with pressure to try to extract speaking in tongues out of people might experience this. I was raised Pentecostal, but wasn't used to this kind of pressure and methodology. It can lead, IMO, to people blabbering for social acceptance in some cases.
On the other hand, I have heard tongues that to my, somewhat trained ears, sound like human languages. For example, I was translating for a speaker at a house church conference in Jakarta, Indonesia. One of the participants spoke in tongues. I thought it might be a prayer in some regional language like Javanese that I did not know until an interpretation came.
A fair test of Samarin's methodology would be to take linguists who use it and give them samples of tongues mixed with human languages and test their ability to identify the languages. If they have a a priori bias against speaking in tongues as genuine languages, there could be a major confirmation bias. Samarin was not even interested in xenoglosia as a lingusitic phenomenon, and considered it to be outside the domain of linguistics for the most part, except for the classical philology side of things if it were a dead language.
I am more interested in the cases of genuine xenoglossic glossalalia that people experience than a linguists assertions that utterances are not a 'real language.' Even if there are 'psychological tongues' that aren't genuine, I am more interested in the genuine than the fake.
And again, your insistence that 'tongues of angels' is just hyperbole and cannot really exist does not mean this is the case. We have no idea if angelic languages are inflected for meaning using the same variables that human languages use to convey meaning. As I have said before, speaking in tongues is unfalsifiable using linguistic criteria. A linguist might assert that an utterance is not in one single human language, but this assumes a number of things, including the idea that linguistics has sufficiently discovered the principles of universal grammar, phonetics, etc., that the linguist doing the examination properly understands these universals, and that the utterance is long enough. These assumptions render the examination inapplicable in cases where the speaker changes languages mid utterance or speaks in tongues of angels.
At least from what I read in Samarin's works is that he is not looking to see if these are languages, but trying to find linguistic patters in glossalalia, so at least for some of it, he interprets his research through the assumption that these are not xenoglossy.
That does not have much to do with the position I have taken on the issue.
[/quote]
By those standards, xenoglossic tongues spoken in Corinth, even if they were speaking in the fluent Chinese at the time. If the speaker does not understand and the listeners do not understand, then the speaker is not conveying meaning to the listener, whether it is a 'real language' or not.
I have heard that assertion, but Native American chants do not sound like speaking in tongues, typically. Buddhist monk chants are different also.
Show me some evidence for your opinion. You can insist that this is the case. That is your only evidence, that and others insisting on your interpretation. But it is possible to give all to the poor. Many early Christians sold their lands. Some may have literally given all they had. There is that verse in Luke, also, about the requirements to be Christ's disciple. Sacrificing oneself to be burned-- again a real thing. Christians would later refuse to deny their faith, be burned.
These are 'possible extremes' not 'impossible extremes.' So 'hyperbole' does not quite fit. It's a similar concept, but different. Tongues of angels shows up in the Testament of Job in intertestamental literature. The concept would likely have been familiar to some Jews at the time.
Can you show me one commentator who argued that there was no such thing as 'tongues of angels', commenting on this verse, before 'speaking in tongues' was controversial. The pre-medieval examples I showed you of commentators seemed took the idea that it meant angelic tongues on face value. Beware of reactionary 'because I said so' interpretations of scripture.
A lot of what I have read of Samarin are his opinions and explanations, drawn a bit from sociological reasoning. Some of the concerns I have read about phonemes being taken from the speaker's language also do not account for the idea that a speaker might be speaking with an accent. Accents are valid language as well. If you live abroad, it can give you a different perspective. There are millions of Filippinos that pronounce words differently. They say 'back' with the 'a' sound in the word 'father.' There are Singaporeans who speak English as their native language, but sound like they have a Chinese accent. Some of them sound a bit more British with a hint of Chinese pronunciation (an accent I prefer to the other one.) These are valid accents. Phonetic similarities are not proof that a language is not being spoken. I have read about that in linguistics literature. But I don't know if it was Samarin.
Be that as it may, I suspect some speaking in tongues may be psychologically-generated. I've been in a room overseas where I listened, and it seemed like the whole room was saying 'bababa'. Some of the groups that combine an emphasis on 'tongues as initial evidence' with pressure to try to extract speaking in tongues out of people might experience this. I was raised Pentecostal, but wasn't used to this kind of pressure and methodology. It can lead, IMO, to people blabbering for social acceptance in some cases.
On the other hand, I have heard tongues that to my, somewhat trained ears, sound like human languages. For example, I was translating for a speaker at a house church conference in Jakarta, Indonesia. One of the participants spoke in tongues. I thought it might be a prayer in some regional language like Javanese that I did not know until an interpretation came.
A fair test of Samarin's methodology would be to take linguists who use it and give them samples of tongues mixed with human languages and test their ability to identify the languages. If they have a a priori bias against speaking in tongues as genuine languages, there could be a major confirmation bias. Samarin was not even interested in xenoglosia as a lingusitic phenomenon, and considered it to be outside the domain of linguistics for the most part, except for the classical philology side of things if it were a dead language.
I am more interested in the cases of genuine xenoglossic glossalalia that people experience than a linguists assertions that utterances are not a 'real language.' Even if there are 'psychological tongues' that aren't genuine, I am more interested in the genuine than the fake.
And again, your insistence that 'tongues of angels' is just hyperbole and cannot really exist does not mean this is the case. We have no idea if angelic languages are inflected for meaning using the same variables that human languages use to convey meaning. As I have said before, speaking in tongues is unfalsifiable using linguistic criteria. A linguist might assert that an utterance is not in one single human language, but this assumes a number of things, including the idea that linguistics has sufficiently discovered the principles of universal grammar, phonetics, etc., that the linguist doing the examination properly understands these universals, and that the utterance is long enough. These assumptions render the examination inapplicable in cases where the speaker changes languages mid utterance or speaks in tongues of angels.
At least from what I read in Samarin's works is that he is not looking to see if these are languages, but trying to find linguistic patters in glossalalia, so at least for some of it, he interprets his research through the assumption that these are not xenoglossy.
That does not have much to do with the position I have taken on the issue.
[/quote]
By those standards, xenoglossic tongues spoken in Corinth, even if they were speaking in the fluent Chinese at the time. If the speaker does not understand and the listeners do not understand, then the speaker is not conveying meaning to the listener, whether it is a 'real language' or not.
I have heard that assertion, but Native American chants do not sound like speaking in tongues, typically. Buddhist monk chants are different also.
Show me some evidence for your opinion. You can insist that this is the case. That is your only evidence, that and others insisting on your interpretation. But it is possible to give all to the poor. Many early Christians sold their lands. Some may have literally given all they had. There is that verse in Luke, also, about the requirements to be Christ's disciple. Sacrificing oneself to be burned-- again a real thing. Christians would later refuse to deny their faith, be burned.
These are 'possible extremes' not 'impossible extremes.' So 'hyperbole' does not quite fit. It's a similar concept, but different. Tongues of angels shows up in the Testament of Job in intertestamental literature. The concept would likely have been familiar to some Jews at the time.
Can you show me one commentator who argued that there was no such thing as 'tongues of angels', commenting on this verse, before 'speaking in tongues' was controversial. The pre-medieval examples I showed you of commentators seemed took the idea that it meant angelic tongues on face value. Beware of reactionary 'because I said so' interpretations of scripture.
-
1
- Show all
Like I said, if you read the book I cited you might get a different opinion on the matter. He analyzed many tongues of P/Cs as well as other religions, and said they are all basically the same kind of pseudo-language that cannot convey meaning. He also said that anyone can do it if they try, and proved it by the fact that some people did it in a laboratory setting. It stands to reason, since Pentecostal doctrine states that everyone who receives the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues - the baptism with evidence they call it. It's an assumption that anyone can do it (as long as they get the Spirit, that is). It implies that anyone and everyone could do it if they try. It has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. It's a human ability.
I never said that tongues of angels didn't exist. I said that P/Cs aren't speaking it. But you claim that this is just my opinion, and this is where our paths diverge, since your interpretation is based on your opinion.
If Jesus commanded people to gouge out their eye and cut off their hand, do you think it should be done? Do you think it should be the norm? It's certainly possible to do, and according to your logic, it should be done by every Christian, because every Christian is a sinner in some way, since their eyes and hands cause stumbling.
But in regard to 1 Cor. 13, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that tongues of angels is a phrase being used as a hyperbole. Let's examine the text of v. 1-3:
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."
Can you see the point Paul is making? Can you see that he is saying that their gifts are not profiting anyone, if they are using them wrongly? And his point is emphasized by the exaggerative statements:
tongues of men and angels
gift of prophecy
understand all mysteries and all knowledge
have all faith to remove mountains
bestow all to feed the poor
give body to be burned
A hyperbole is not something impossible as you imagine. It's "obvious and intentional exaggeration, an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally."
Paul listed some things that people have done, but listed also some things that no one has ever done. It certainly doesn't justify the claim that pseudo-language is tongues of angels. And to claim that modern tongues is that, is not only eisegesis, but it is a misrepresentation of what Paul is saying.
I never said that tongues of angels didn't exist. I said that P/Cs aren't speaking it. But you claim that this is just my opinion, and this is where our paths diverge, since your interpretation is based on your opinion.
If Jesus commanded people to gouge out their eye and cut off their hand, do you think it should be done? Do you think it should be the norm? It's certainly possible to do, and according to your logic, it should be done by every Christian, because every Christian is a sinner in some way, since their eyes and hands cause stumbling.
But in regard to 1 Cor. 13, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that tongues of angels is a phrase being used as a hyperbole. Let's examine the text of v. 1-3:
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."
Can you see the point Paul is making? Can you see that he is saying that their gifts are not profiting anyone, if they are using them wrongly? And his point is emphasized by the exaggerative statements:
tongues of men and angels
gift of prophecy
understand all mysteries and all knowledge
have all faith to remove mountains
bestow all to feed the poor
give body to be burned
A hyperbole is not something impossible as you imagine. It's "obvious and intentional exaggeration, an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally."
Paul listed some things that people have done, but listed also some things that no one has ever done. It certainly doesn't justify the claim that pseudo-language is tongues of angels. And to claim that modern tongues is that, is not only eisegesis, but it is a misrepresentation of what Paul is saying.
There are also hundreds of accounts, well at least 150 or so that I know of, of people hearing their own language 'in tongues' or others recognizing a language they knew 'in tongues.' Witness testimony and historical documentation are valid forms of evidence. The testimony of witnesses is actually a Biblical form of evidence. Linguistic analysis is not the only valid form of research, either. I would not claim that everything that claims to be speaking in tongues necessarily is. I also do not believe in the 'initial evidence doctrine.' I do believe speaking in tongues is one of the gifts of the Spirit.
Samarin passed away a couple of years ago, I read, and I do not know if anyone uses his methodological approach, but again, an appropriate test would be to provide the researcher with samples of languages they do not know and samples of speaking in tongues and see if there is statistical significance between the two on certain criteria.
Another issue with this if we are using statistics and hypothesis tests, then you are expecting the Holy Spirit, Who is intelligent and aware of what you are doing, to follow some kind of distribution, a normal distribution, for example. Many things in creation are ordered that way.
Then it does not make sense to insist that when Paul said, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels"... or even if you translate it if, that it is impossible that some tongues fall into the latter category.
You seem to be flip-flopping. As I recall, you allowed for the idea that supernatural miraculous tongues may occur at times according to God's will. Is it your position that God cannot or will not do this when Pentecostals or Charismatics are involved? Do you think they just never speak in tongues of angels?
Is the teaching of I Corinthians 12 that the Spirit gives divers tongues as He wills still true or not?
Why would you claim that no Pentecostal or Charismatic in the world ever speaks in tongues of angels if you allow for the existence of tongues of angels?
No, that is not 'my logic.' That is not in a list of things that believers actually can do. I take Christ's words there to be hyperbole, or metaphorical, mainly because the literal interpretation is just so extreme. The guy in the tradition about moving the mountain in Egypt through faith about 1000 years ago under threat of the Christians being killed, Simon the Shoemaker, was said to have had one eye, btw, due to literal interpretation. Origen removed some other parts... that eunuch for the kingdom of heaven passage, and later became a proponent of allegorical interpretation.
I also heard a testimony about a preacher who bought this mountain (hill maybe.) I am pretty sure it was set in Singapore, maybe Hong Kong, but I think Singapore. He'd go there and pray and command the mountain to be moved so he could build a Bible College there. then the government approached him for a sea reclamation project to build an airport. They wanted to buy his mountain. He used the money to build a Bible college. I don't have any names-- just a story I heard in a sermon from a nearby country.
It does not take a brain surgeon to figure out that it is possible to give all one's possessions away or even to give one's body to be burned, since Christians have done both.
The only thing one might argue is not possible is the part about all faith and removing mountains. Actually removing mountains is possible because Christ said it is. If that was some kind of metaphor, then it is actually possible to remove the metaphorical mountains through faith. If it is meant literally, then it is literally possible. The only things that one could argue is impossible in the rest of this list is having 'all faith' and the parts about all mysteries and all knowledge. And if it is true that 'all does not always mean all' in Greek, then that may not be an issue. If 'all faith' means the maximum faith one can have, then that is logically possible also.
What do you have left that is impossible, and that is speaking in tongues of angels. You just acknowledged that you were not saying there was no tongue of angels. You really have nothing to rest your case on other than 'I say so' or 'This commentator says so.' That's it. This is reactionary eisegesis on your part, reactionary against Pentecostal or Charismatics suggesting some tongues could be tongues of angels.
Okay... he gets to the using them wrongly in the next chapter.
Why would 'not meant to be taken literally' be an issue here. These are hypothetical statements, but the ideas are not unreal. He doesn't say, "If I were that leprechaun on the Lucky Charms box." Speaking in tongues is a real thing. Giving all to the poor is real. Mysteries and knowledge and real. These are hypothetical statements about real things.
If he suggests speaking in the tongues of men and of angels, we should accept that it may be possible to speak in the tongues of men and of angels, given that 'divers tongues' is a gift of the Spirit.
Why should I interject the definition you pulled up for 'hyperbole' into this passage and use that as a grid to interpret the passage?
I did not say that this passage should be used to justify the claim that pseudo-languages are tongues. Linguistics cannot prove that an utterance is a 'pseudo-language' as you use the term if some of the languages could possibly be non-human angelic languages since the field does not examine angelic languages.
What I say is genuine speaking in tongues could be tongues of men or of angels. Your letting your prejudice and your agenda keep you from acknowledging a rather straightforward interpretation of the text. Interpreters of scripture did not have a problem with the idea of angelic languages before reactionary interpreters made these arguments in reaction to the Pentecostal movement or speaking in tongues in movements prior to it.
Samarin passed away a couple of years ago, I read, and I do not know if anyone uses his methodological approach, but again, an appropriate test would be to provide the researcher with samples of languages they do not know and samples of speaking in tongues and see if there is statistical significance between the two on certain criteria.
Another issue with this if we are using statistics and hypothesis tests, then you are expecting the Holy Spirit, Who is intelligent and aware of what you are doing, to follow some kind of distribution, a normal distribution, for example. Many things in creation are ordered that way.
Then it does not make sense to insist that when Paul said, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels"... or even if you translate it if, that it is impossible that some tongues fall into the latter category.
You seem to be flip-flopping. As I recall, you allowed for the idea that supernatural miraculous tongues may occur at times according to God's will. Is it your position that God cannot or will not do this when Pentecostals or Charismatics are involved? Do you think they just never speak in tongues of angels?
Is the teaching of I Corinthians 12 that the Spirit gives divers tongues as He wills still true or not?
Why would you claim that no Pentecostal or Charismatic in the world ever speaks in tongues of angels if you allow for the existence of tongues of angels?
No, that is not 'my logic.' That is not in a list of things that believers actually can do. I take Christ's words there to be hyperbole, or metaphorical, mainly because the literal interpretation is just so extreme. The guy in the tradition about moving the mountain in Egypt through faith about 1000 years ago under threat of the Christians being killed, Simon the Shoemaker, was said to have had one eye, btw, due to literal interpretation. Origen removed some other parts... that eunuch for the kingdom of heaven passage, and later became a proponent of allegorical interpretation.
I also heard a testimony about a preacher who bought this mountain (hill maybe.) I am pretty sure it was set in Singapore, maybe Hong Kong, but I think Singapore. He'd go there and pray and command the mountain to be moved so he could build a Bible College there. then the government approached him for a sea reclamation project to build an airport. They wanted to buy his mountain. He used the money to build a Bible college. I don't have any names-- just a story I heard in a sermon from a nearby country.
It does not take a brain surgeon to figure out that it is possible to give all one's possessions away or even to give one's body to be burned, since Christians have done both.
The only thing one might argue is not possible is the part about all faith and removing mountains. Actually removing mountains is possible because Christ said it is. If that was some kind of metaphor, then it is actually possible to remove the metaphorical mountains through faith. If it is meant literally, then it is literally possible. The only things that one could argue is impossible in the rest of this list is having 'all faith' and the parts about all mysteries and all knowledge. And if it is true that 'all does not always mean all' in Greek, then that may not be an issue. If 'all faith' means the maximum faith one can have, then that is logically possible also.
What do you have left that is impossible, and that is speaking in tongues of angels. You just acknowledged that you were not saying there was no tongue of angels. You really have nothing to rest your case on other than 'I say so' or 'This commentator says so.' That's it. This is reactionary eisegesis on your part, reactionary against Pentecostal or Charismatics suggesting some tongues could be tongues of angels.
Okay... he gets to the using them wrongly in the next chapter.
Why would 'not meant to be taken literally' be an issue here. These are hypothetical statements, but the ideas are not unreal. He doesn't say, "If I were that leprechaun on the Lucky Charms box." Speaking in tongues is a real thing. Giving all to the poor is real. Mysteries and knowledge and real. These are hypothetical statements about real things.
If he suggests speaking in the tongues of men and of angels, we should accept that it may be possible to speak in the tongues of men and of angels, given that 'divers tongues' is a gift of the Spirit.
Why should I interject the definition you pulled up for 'hyperbole' into this passage and use that as a grid to interpret the passage?
I did not say that this passage should be used to justify the claim that pseudo-languages are tongues. Linguistics cannot prove that an utterance is a 'pseudo-language' as you use the term if some of the languages could possibly be non-human angelic languages since the field does not examine angelic languages.
What I say is genuine speaking in tongues could be tongues of men or of angels. Your letting your prejudice and your agenda keep you from acknowledging a rather straightforward interpretation of the text. Interpreters of scripture did not have a problem with the idea of angelic languages before reactionary interpreters made these arguments in reaction to the Pentecostal movement or speaking in tongues in movements prior to it.
-
1
- Show all
No, it's what the passage actually says. Did Paul know all mysteries? Did he have all knowledge? Did he have all faith? Did he ever give away all his possessions to feed the poor? Did he ever deliver up his body to be burned? The answer to all these is no.
In this list of hypotheticals, that are obviously not real situations, why is it that tongues is the only one taken literally?
It's because of a theory looking for justification rather than true exegesis of the text.
In this list of hypotheticals, that are obviously not real situations, why is it that tongues is the only one taken literally?
-
1
- Show all
No, it's what the passage actually says. Did Paul know all mysteries? Did he have all knowledge? Did he have all faith? Did he ever give away all his possessions to feed the poor? Did he ever deliver up his body to be burned? The answer to all these is no.
In this list of hypotheticals, that are obviously not real situations, why is it that tongues is the only one taken literally?
It's because of a theory looking for justification rather than true exegesis of the text.
In this list of hypotheticals, that are obviously not real situations, why is it that tongues is the only one taken literally?
These are primarily 'possible extremes', not 'impossible extremes.' If giving ones body to be burn is the ultimate possibility here in the passage, but it is possible, and speaking in tongues of angels is the ultimate possibiility with tongues, then it may be possible.
If Paul' suggests it is possible, we should be open to it. Paul suggests the idea, so we should be open to it.
I disagree with the idea that 'speaking in tongues is the tongues of angels.' My own opinion about genuine speaking in tongues is that it is more likely to be human languages.
@TDidymas
I lost track of the post. I think it was hidden in an accidental quote. But you said Parham sent out missionaries and they could not speak in the local languages. Could you cite a source for this.
Parham's influence was limited. He influenced Seymour and visited Azusa Street, but a lot more missionaries went out from Azusa Street or circulated through the revival, visiting and going back, or later going out as missionaries.
Parham's idea, held by many cessationists today, that speaking in tongues was for evangelizing in tongues has no Biblical basis. It is eisegesis. There is no evidence in Acts 2 that the Gospel was preached 'in tongues.' The people said they heard them speaking about the wonderful works of God. Whether they were saying stuff like in the Psalms or preaching about Jesus, we just do not know. The passage does not say. Peter stood up and preached. It does not say that he preached 'in tongues.'
Some of the early Pentecostals believed this theory that they would speak in tongues then use it to evangelize the world. There were a number of occasions of people hearing their own languages in tongues at Azusa Street or elsewhere in the revival in other locations. Sometimes the interpretation was also confirmed by the person who knew the languages. I saw a video testimony about this occurring at another meeting in LA during the time of the revival. If I recall correctly, there was a testimony along these lines about Russian in Val Dez's 'Fire on Azusa', and many other recorded testimonies of people udnerstanding tongues minus the confirming the interpretation part. There is an article in the A/G's enrichment journal about a number of such cases. I believe there was a book of 80 cases or so a few years back. 'Spoken by the Spirit' in 1971 includes a number of Pentecostal cases and cases from the Charismatic movement. I know a European doctor of theology who has heard German and Hungarian speakers speak in tongues in English, one of them in KJV style English, without knowing the language. Missionary Dennis Balcombe and his daughter both testify to having heard Chinese villagers speak in tongues in English. I spoke with his daughter about this personally.
The fact that two people get the same interpretation at times is further evidence that it is supernatural. I know I have heard prophecies tell me something I was thinking. It may have been a prophecy or an interpretation in tongues that repeated back to me a prayer I had just prayed silently.
Prophecies, in particular, can be quite 'obviously supernatural.' Usually it is the personal prophecies because of their nature, but on many, many, many occasions I have witnessed prophecies tell details of someone else's life, mine or someone else's, that the speaker would not naturally know. This happens quite a bit. Slang has even been developed to describe it in the Charismatic subculture. 'He read my mail.' If someone prophesies or gets a word of knowledge that 'read your mail', that means it has these kind of details in it.
I know of one instance of a man who faked this with an earpiece and his wife reading prayer cards. But I have also brought family to a meeting where I knew they didn't know anyone there and no one there knew the detail of their lives and heard prophecies about things I knew about. I've also gotten words of knowledge about people and I knew I didn't have an earpiece. I've gotten words of knowledge about people then someone else prophesies it over them.
My wife prophesied over a young man once she did not know about how God was going to use him in ministry as a leader, and went into some detail. He contacted her back on Facebook maybe a year ago, maybe 10 or 15 years after the prophecy. At the time, he was a janitor, but over time, what she said came to pass. He was the head of a Christian yayasan/ non-profit ministry doing the very things she prophesied.
I lost track of the post. I think it was hidden in an accidental quote. But you said Parham sent out missionaries and they could not speak in the local languages. Could you cite a source for this.
Parham's influence was limited. He influenced Seymour and visited Azusa Street, but a lot more missionaries went out from Azusa Street or circulated through the revival, visiting and going back, or later going out as missionaries.
Parham's idea, held by many cessationists today, that speaking in tongues was for evangelizing in tongues has no Biblical basis. It is eisegesis. There is no evidence in Acts 2 that the Gospel was preached 'in tongues.' The people said they heard them speaking about the wonderful works of God. Whether they were saying stuff like in the Psalms or preaching about Jesus, we just do not know. The passage does not say. Peter stood up and preached. It does not say that he preached 'in tongues.'
Some of the early Pentecostals believed this theory that they would speak in tongues then use it to evangelize the world. There were a number of occasions of people hearing their own languages in tongues at Azusa Street or elsewhere in the revival in other locations. Sometimes the interpretation was also confirmed by the person who knew the languages. I saw a video testimony about this occurring at another meeting in LA during the time of the revival. If I recall correctly, there was a testimony along these lines about Russian in Val Dez's 'Fire on Azusa', and many other recorded testimonies of people udnerstanding tongues minus the confirming the interpretation part. There is an article in the A/G's enrichment journal about a number of such cases. I believe there was a book of 80 cases or so a few years back. 'Spoken by the Spirit' in 1971 includes a number of Pentecostal cases and cases from the Charismatic movement. I know a European doctor of theology who has heard German and Hungarian speakers speak in tongues in English, one of them in KJV style English, without knowing the language. Missionary Dennis Balcombe and his daughter both testify to having heard Chinese villagers speak in tongues in English. I spoke with his daughter about this personally.
The fact that two people get the same interpretation at times is further evidence that it is supernatural. I know I have heard prophecies tell me something I was thinking. It may have been a prophecy or an interpretation in tongues that repeated back to me a prayer I had just prayed silently.
Prophecies, in particular, can be quite 'obviously supernatural.' Usually it is the personal prophecies because of their nature, but on many, many, many occasions I have witnessed prophecies tell details of someone else's life, mine or someone else's, that the speaker would not naturally know. This happens quite a bit. Slang has even been developed to describe it in the Charismatic subculture. 'He read my mail.' If someone prophesies or gets a word of knowledge that 'read your mail', that means it has these kind of details in it.
I know of one instance of a man who faked this with an earpiece and his wife reading prayer cards. But I have also brought family to a meeting where I knew they didn't know anyone there and no one there knew the detail of their lives and heard prophecies about things I knew about. I've also gotten words of knowledge about people and I knew I didn't have an earpiece. I've gotten words of knowledge about people then someone else prophesies it over them.
My wife prophesied over a young man once she did not know about how God was going to use him in ministry as a leader, and went into some detail. He contacted her back on Facebook maybe a year ago, maybe 10 or 15 years after the prophecy. At the time, he was a janitor, but over time, what she said came to pass. He was the head of a Christian yayasan/ non-profit ministry doing the very things she prophesied.