Reactions received by Kavik
-
NTrying not to weigh in too heavily on this one as most arguments with respect to what ‘tongues’ is or isn’t can be found on other...
-
N"Unless the person claiming to speak in "tongues" can show a reason to believe their utterances are more than simple babble, there is...
-
POne of the many reasons why the creation stories of Genesis cannot be read/taken literally.
-
NI’ve been following these threads since last I posted and it’s amazing to me the number of different versions and understandings of...
-
GAgain, a lot of interesting discussion, but almost all based upon the assumption that what Pentecostal Charismatic Christians are doing...
-
NAgain, a lot of interesting discussion, but almost all based upon the assumption that what Pentecostal Charismatic Christians are doing...
-
The Bible, curiously enough, actually records Joseph's Egyptian name - during the time he lived, the Asiatics (mainly Hebrews) in Egypt... -
The state of English today as the "koine" of modern times is essentially the same status as Greek once held within the Mediterranean... -
N"How much simpler things would be if we all spoke the same language. " True, but unfortunately due to centuries of movement and, in...
-
You beat me to it - Why would one assume them to be inherently evil? -
You have to remember that, at this time, Jews living in Judea had what is called diglossia; the use of either two separate (may or may... -
MThe story was composed probably around the 600-700's, but it was first written somewhere between 900 and 1000 AD. The confusion is that...
-
The story was composed probably around the 600-700's, but it was first written somewhere between 900 and 1000 AD. The confusion is that... -
I was wondering id you still held to the diglossia interpretation of Acts 2? That's got to be one of the worst interpretations of the... -
GThere is, unfortunately, just no instance of actual documented xenoglossy – anywhere. Clearly, this is false. You may be thinking of a...
-
NBelow is an example of "tongues" that I recently transcribed from a YouTube video - it is shown in simple IPA transcription (apologies...
-
NAnd that passage in Romans has absolutely zero to do with the modern tongues phenomenon. It's typically taken completely out of context...
-
GAnd that passage in Romans has absolutely zero to do with the modern tongues phenomenon. It's typically taken completely out of context...
-
YAnd that passage in Romans has absolutely zero to do with the modern tongues phenomenon. It's typically taken completely out of context...
-
And that passage in Romans has absolutely zero to do with the modern tongues phenomenon. It's typically taken completely out of context...
