Search results

As what other posters have indicated - Biblical unicorn = rhino; a single horned animal. More common in rivers in the ancient Middle East/North Africa than it is today. Not so much in Europe so when texts were translated they went with an animal they knew, even if it was just mythical.

While “Queen of Heaven” was a title given to many sky goddesses in the ancient Mediterranean and ancient Near East, including Isis, Nut, Astarte, Innana, Asherah, and Ishtar, Mary, on the other hand, is called “Queen of Heaven” because her son, Jesus, is the heavenly king. In the Davidic...

No, it doesn't make sense. The passage so often quoted from Romans (Rom. 8:26) has absolutely nothing to do with “tongues”. As one writer puts it (better than I can)…. “The burden of the text is that the Spirit counterbalances the handicap of believers in prayer by interceding for them in...

Most of these stories are very anecdotal at best. Thousands, indeed if not tens of thousands, of examples of tongues-speech have been studied. Not one was ever found to be a real rational language, living or dead. Despite this, the tongues-speaking community is rife with such examples. The...

No, you won't find the term - prior to 1879, the term ‘glossolalia’ did not exist – it is a word coined by English theologian, Frederick Farrar (Dean of Canterbury) in 1879 in one of his publications.

As a linguist, I’m very familiar with the study done by the Univ. of PA using SPECT imaging. The results are exactly what one would expect. The reason why the language producing centers of the brain are not overly active in the production of glossolalia (tongues-speech ) is because it is not...

That's a completely incorrect reading of the text. No, he isn't speaking to other people - no one there understands his language - he's speaking just to God. There is absolutely no where in that passage that remotely suggests the speaker does not know what he's saying. Unless, of course, the...

1Cor. 14:2 is perhaps *the* quintessential verse used by many to “evidence” modern tongues-speech in the Bible. The whole passage is talking about real, rational language. Let me use an analogy - If I attend a worship service in “East Haystack”, some remote town in the US out in the middle...

The first half of your comment refers to all spiritual gifts; not just 'tongues'/languages. The first half of the second part is the whole cessationist/continuationist issue. I do not identify with either but will say you will find good and compelling arguments for either camp. The third...

‘Tongues’ (read, *‘languages’* ) – the divine gift, is the God given ability to effortlessly learn to speak and be understood through real-language barriers. It is not xenoglossy (as many people incorrectly assume), nor is it the self-created non-cognitive non-language utterance of modern...

No, Halloween, contrary to what you read/see on the internet, has no ties to an ancient pagan past. Most people try to attach it to Gaelic Samhain, but other than a common date and perhaps a "feeling", there's no connection. When we celebrate Halloween, we are definitely participating in a...

Many assert that the establishment of All Hallows' Eve, All Saint’s Day and All Souls Day (collectively, 'Hallowtide') was the early church’s attempt to “Christianize the Gaelic Samhain” or co-opt some of its customs, but this not at all the case nor does it stand to reason. Think about this...

Cloven tongues, I believe, is just a description of the 'fire' - If you've ever been at a campfire or have a wood burning fireplace, you'll see small "tongues" of flames that can appear as if split down the middle. I don't really see this as any more than a physical description of a "typical"...

No, the message could be read easily enough - it was in Aramaic. If anything, Daniel translated it to Akkadian. It's not so much that what was written couldn't be read (it could), as much as no one knew what it meant. The message was rather cryptic.

It was written in a real rational language that any one who knew how to write Aramaic could read. Not exactly a 'heavenly' language. It was written in a language people could understand.

They knew what it said; they could read it, they just didn't know what was meant by it.

Tell that to the myriad tongues-speakers who frequently use it as 'evidence' of a heavenly language (i.e. tongues-speech).

See posts 1,112 and1,113

See posts 1,112 and 1,113

Grab a good lexicon (and that wouldn't be Strong's - that's a concordance) and look the word up.