Search results

Holly, Ivy, and Mistletoe - sacred plants of the pre-Christian Celts were given Christian symbolism and completely woven into Christmas traditions. While the "pagen-ness" has been completely bred out of their usage for centuries, their ultimate origins cannot be written off as a Christian...

Wesley founded what is today the Methodist Church; not Pentecostalism.

Sources?? There were movements in the 1800's that led to the eventual development of Pentecostalism, but 1700's in Eastern Europe and Africa??

Yes, interpretation of tongues may also be said to be a sort of self-created phenomenon. When you really look at it, it’s a ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs, isn't it. Interpretations are typically characterized by being inordinately longer than the actual...

I'm not a cessationist (or a continuationist) - I do not identify with either term and had never heard of either until just a few years ago.

“…speaking to God in an unknown tongue” – if put into something a bit more modern and getting rid of that pesky added ‘unknown’ – “…..speaking to God in a language”. I generally find that English, or any other real, rational language I may choose, seems to work just fine. Modern tongues-speech...

I did; however, I can find only one (from which I paraphrase from) - see: https://charlesasullivan.com/761/unknown-tongues-english-bible/#easy-footnote-4-761 Already covered this with the discussion on 1 Cor. 14:14-15

In many cases, yes, it does; however, unknown to the listener, not the speaker.

Yep, it is, sine the 1500's, but agree with it or not; that's where the "unknown" before tongues originated from. And, yes, it's painfully obvious that many denominations have ignored that fact for years. Indeed, it's been completely forgotten about.

You’re still using “understandeth” – that’s not what is written; it’s ‘to hear (in the sense of understanding what you’re hearing someone say)’; not ‘to understand’. Get rid of the archaic ‘tongue’ and replace it with the more modern “language”. Yes, the language is indeed unknown to the...

I should have added that the usage predates King James, but his Bible cemented its usage to this day.

I've already addressed this in the discussion on the passive vs. active use of of the word. Passive "my understanding produces no fruit (in/for me):, active "my understanding produces no fruit (for/in others)"

A better translation would be to get rid of the "understands/understanding/understandeth" - the verb used here is "to hear (with the sense of 'to hear with understanding)", not "to understand", so; "no one hears [him] with understanding", i.e. no one understands what he's saying (as they do not...

Yes - most people have no clue as to why the "unknown" got put there in the first place. It has zero to do with religion and 100% to do with the politics of King James. The phrase unknown tongues, of the English Bible has a tradition that dates back to the earliest days of the Reformation...

I'm seeing "your sons and daughters shall prophesy"; not "your sons and daughters shall prophesy and speak in tongues". The two are not mutually inclusive. One can prophesy without doing so via tongues.

Yes, it's a phenomenon found across the globe and encompasses many different cultures and belief systems. The "mechanics", if you will, of its production do not differ markedly from culture to culture - it's all essentially produced the same way and typically draws on the speaker's native...

Perhaps you would be so kind as to record yourself speaking in tongues for about a minute or so and post it here for analysis. I'll wait as well.

It doesn't bother me at all - just merrily pointing out the mechanics, so to speak, of the modern phenomenon. The bottom line is very simple - there just isn't anything you're producing that cannot be explained in light of relatively simple linguistics. If tongues-speech had a morphology, a...

Regardless of the source, when you put the spoken word from X to Y, it's called 'interpretation'. If it were something written, putting it from X to Y is called 'translation'. Granted, these days, the concept of interpretation allows for some degree of going off on tangents, but essentially...

Interpretation equates to translation - the difference in English is not overly obvious; one typically "interprets" the spoken word, but "translates" the written. I would respectfully argue that in that part of the text, Paul is addressing real language issues facing a multi-cultural and...