Search results

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...

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...

Ok, since it clearly states in 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?

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?

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

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...

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...

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...

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.

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...

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 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...

If you read his book, you'll see why there is a difference between language and pseudo-language. I suppose that he asked questions like an investigator, because lots of people helped him with recordings. So out of 170 accounts you're talking about, is there enough evidence that would pass...

I bought the book used about 5 years ago. It could be in a library. But I disagree that my conclusion is illogical or ridiculous. It seems to me that 10 million cessationists in the US would heartily agree with it. And I didn't say it was proof. I said it's the only reasonable conclusion that...

I don't have to prove it's all fake. I gave plenty of evidence that everything analyzed so far is pseudo-language. It's perfectly logical. No, I disagree. It's hyperbole. People are fallible.

And who is "we"? This argument is not convincing. It was long before known that those languages were languages because they saw the patterns of it. It sounded to me like you were using the term to claim that pseudo-language was "divers tongues," as many P/Cs do. I was merely clarifying what...

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...

No, look at v. 4. It says the apostles SPOKE those languages. The reason why the crowd heard their languages is because the apostles SPOKE them. It was a speaking miracle, not a hearing miracle.

I don't go for alternate interpretations. They are a feeble attempt at legitimizing errors. In 1 Cor. 14, "unknown" means that it was unknown in that congregation, not unknown to anyone. So, he is not talking about pseudo-language there, but rather about real languages. What's your point? My...

Someone propagating an untruth is lying, regardless of how sincere they are and how bold their belief. It's not that they intentionally lied. Urban legends are started by people who poke guesses at something, then they eventually all agree and believe it to be true. This is how I read the...