Search results

Yes, I know, but there's really no way to condense this much further.

PART 2 - Something to think about - In the entire Pentecost narrative, _not one_ language is ever referenced by name. Why do you suppose that is? When Peter stood up and addressed the crowd, what language do you suppose he addressed them in?? The “list of nations”, as it’s called, of Acts...

Thought I already commented on that, but guess not...apologies for the long post. Due to length, looks like I have to do it in 2 posts. PART 1 - When it’s boiled down, most arguments for tongues at Pentecost can ultimately be said to hinge on two things; first, what the Holy Spirit actually...

This one's also been done ad nauseum - This one could easily take a few pages to explain properly, but I'll try and sum it up as briefly as possible..... Again, you have to go to the Greek. This passage hinges on the Greek word “akarpos” – which can be used in two different ways: in an active...

Except that they don't. That notion comes from a misreading of the Pentecost narrative in Acts. The Holy Spirit didn't give the utterance (i.e., the language/words), it gave the manner in which it was uttered.

Yes, because no one understands a bloody word he's saying - no one speaks/understands his language. Again, unless the author of the text is a bad grammarian, there's no way to posit the speaker has no clue what he's saying. It just isn't there.

Tongues of men and of angels has been explained ad nauseum - “Tongues of angels” is frequently used as a vehicle to posit ‘angelic speech’. That entire phrase, as well as a few others in that particular part of Paul’s letter, is 100% pure textbook hyperbole no matter how one wishes to slice...

There's no natural language - it's all textbook tongues-speech. Examples 1,2,3 and 5 - speakers were native American English speakers. Example 4, speaker's native language was (I believe) a Bantu language.

Here are five examples of transcribed tongues-speech (sorry, it's all in a loosely done IPA, so if you're not familiar with IPA, it may not help much). Tongues-speech is not written; however, it can be transcribed. (1)/kɪtní níɛ tu xutúnum ɛníɛ kí niɛ’ túnunu məša:tí néɛta:/ /kununú šɛtí...

Yes, because no one at that public gathering speaks/understands that particular language; thus, the only one benefitting is the speaker. Paul calls for understanding and clarity at a public gathering such that all may benefit - hence his admonition that the speaker should try and secure a...

That is the only thing 'tongues' is (when referring to somehting spoken, at any rate). Nowhere in the Bible is modern tongues-speech (the tongues of today's Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians) evidenced or advocated.

I think you need to do a grammar re-check re literary hyperbole.

Both were reported to be 'Chinese' - one of the very few instances where "tongues" were written. I suspect Ms. Ozman may have seen Chinese writing and attempted to imitate it in her writing. The first example inspired perhaps by Chinese calligraphy on a painting, the second by regular block...

No, it was called "glôssa" - meaning "language" (i.e. real, rational speech)

Indeed - people tend to forget that Corinth was a large multi-cultural, multi-lingual city situated on two seaports. Imagine New York city around the turn of the last century.

Correct - it's entirely the speaker. There's no secondary voice being used.

There are a number of studies out there, but many are journal-type papers. For actual books, I would start with William Samarin (Tongues of Men and Angels - the Religious Language of Pentecostalism) and Felicitas Goodman (Speaking in Tongues - A Cross-Cultural Study of Glossolalia). Samarin was...

All “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with.

See my response (#958) above.

I don’t recall ever stating anything about healing, or about anyone being possessed. As to tongues being ‘fake’ or gibberish, tongues/glossolalia is not gibberish. Gibberish by its very nature does not seek to mimic language; glossolalia (‘tongues’) does. With respect to tongues being ‘fake’ –...