Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rostau · 11-22-2004, 11:34 PM

I was sitting at a dentist yesterday idly flipping through their copy of the the New Testament (on the pile with all the other frivolous reading matter), and I started reading the Book of Acts. The passage about Pentecost particularly interested me, because when the disciples spoke in tongues, the effect was that people from other countries heard them speaking in their own languages. This seems very different from what modern evangelicals do, which is basically prattle on inanely in made-up words that aren't lexical in any known language. So I was wondering how modern Christians reconcile their abstract babbling with the the very different 'speaking in tongues' of the early Church?

Toto · 11-23-2004, 12:16 AM

The last thread on speaking in tongues did not resolve this.

Paul mentions speaking in tongues as if it resembled the modern phenomenon. The story in Acts does not represent literal history.

Follower of Christ · 11-23-2004, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rostau

I was sitting at a dentist yesterday idly flipping through their copy of the the New Testament (on the pile with all the other frivolous reading matter), and I started reading the Book of Acts. The passage about Pentecost particularly interested me, because when the disciples spoke in tongues, the effect was that people from other countries heard them speaking in their own languages. This seems very different from what modern evangelicals do, which is basically prattle on inanely in made-up words that aren't lexical in any known language. So I was wondering how modern Christians reconcile their abstract babbling with the the very different 'speaking in tongues' of the early Church?

Yes it did happen that way.
And it WAS literal languages of the time on Pentecost.

I think theyre may be a prayer language. but Im totally suspicsious of this seeming babbling that goes on.

I have tried to listen and analyze the ''tongues'' then the interpretation.

One time I heard a guy go on for a few minutes.....he kept repeating the same stuff over and over.....so when the interpretation came, youd expect some repetitiveness.....but nope......
So I concluded that this man may have faked it.

My thoughts are Pauls....dont forbid tongues...but dont let it disrupt the regular teachings.
If it is from God, something will come thru it.
If its not, well at least we havent stifled the real learning ...

Tongues had a purpose.
Pentecost was foretold along wth the tongues.

Quote:

It has been written in the Law, "By other languages" and "by other lips" "I will speak to this people," "and even so they will not hear" Me, says the Lord. Isa. 28:11, 12 So that tongues are not a sign to those believing, but to those not believing. But prophecy is not to those not believing, but to those believing.
(1Co 14:21-22)

Just like the Jew was given their Messiah and they wouldnt listen (for the most part).....they were then given this great sign of togues, and still arent.
(as a whole, anyway)

In my opinion, based on that passage and others, I believe tongues was just a sign for the unbelieving Jew. They seemed to always want a sign...and they got one.

My conclusion is that a big part of the apostolic types are faking it.
Sorry

Chili · 11-23-2004, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Follower of Christ

My conclusion is that a big part of the apostolic types are faking it.
Sorry

How can they be "faking it" when tongues is non-rational language wherein no convention is introduced at the Adam's-apple. To fake is to consciously pretend and that requires intelligence while tongues is and always was non-rational speech wherein the stream of words flow over the dam at the speed of too many syllables per second.

Clivedurdle · 11-23-2004, 08:02 AM

Interesting links here,

Walk away discussion

Clivedurdle · 11-23-2004, 08:09 AM

From linguistic link above,

Quote:

Basically, the finding was that the native language of the speaker was a pretty good predictor of the kinds of sounds that would occur in
glossolalia; one general pattern was that sounds perceived as generally
marking "foreign" speech (whatever that may mean) would occur, while sounds perceived as typical of the native language would not. Thus, for American English speakers, /r/ would be rendered as the alveolar trill, never as the American retroflex; on the other hand, these speakers would not include the low front vowel in their glossolalia, /ae/-as-digraph, because that's perceived as a typically "American" sound for some reason.

On the other hand, truly exotic sounds--those not typical of the native language, but that don't happen to be familiar to speakers of the language--would tend not to occur: American English speakers don't produce clicks in their glossolalia.

And yes, the inventory of sounds is very simple and the sequence is
repetitive.

----------------------------------------------------------------
As a former church-goer myself who believed I had the ability to speak
in tongues, I used to wonder a lot about the repetitive (and 'primitive'?) nature of the sounds that I produced and heard from others
around, and also at the way people within a particular church tended to
sound like one another (but slightly different from people attending a
different church)... a case of unconscious 'copying'?

----------------------------------------------------------------

I was told by one observer that I keep my British accent when I sing in
tongues; other people tell me this is not so. To my own ears, the sounds I
produce are not like any language I know but they do occur in recurring
patterns. I think they have predominantly l's, s's and vowels.

The most articulate (as distinct from hagiographic) evaluation I received was that there are two continental charismatic traditions - a French one
concentrating on melodious spontaneous song and a German/English one
concentrating on speech.

Follower of Christ · 11-23-2004, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

How can they be "faking it" when tongues is non-rational language wherein no convention is introduced at the Adam's-apple. To fake is to consciously pretend and that requires intelligence while tongues is and always was non-rational speech wherein the stream of words flow over the dam at the speed of too many syllables per second.

Tongues, as it applies to Pentecost, is an human language that is unknown to the speaker.

Some of this gibberish that some spout out is being faked by a lot of folks.
Ive watched men speak in "tongues", right at the same time they were secretly embezzling money from the church, no less.

Remember what happened to Ananias and his wife?
Think the Holy Spirit was part of their deception?
What would make me think that this man was truely speaking in tongues under the power of the Spirit of a Holy God, all the while stealing from Gods own church?

There ARE fakers out there......like it or not.
Thats not to say that all are.
Paul said not to forbid tongues, and I wont.
But I wont take part in something when the evidence says its false.

Jedi Mind Trick · 11-23-2004, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The last thread on speaking in tongues did not resolve this.

Paul mentions speaking in tongues as if it resembled the modern phenomenon. The story in Acts does not represent literal history.

Doesn’t that lend credence to the idea that Paul was influenced by the mystery religions? From what I understand they used Glossolalia in the same manner as Paul describes.

http://www.seekgod.ca/universaltongues.htm

http://www.meta-religion.com/Linguis...lossolalia.htm

Chili · 11-23-2004, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Follower of Christ

Tongues, as it applies to Pentecost, is an human language that is unknown to the speaker.

Don't be so gullible. "A human language that is unknown to the speaker" nor anybody else, I must add. At least a hypnotist can make you talk like a chicken.

I know tongues, don't worry. It is the first and least of the gifts of the HS but should be the second after discernment.

rostau · 11-23-2004, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Don't be so gullible. "A human language that is unknown to the speaker" nor anybody else, I must add. At least a hypnotist can make you talk like a chicken.

I'm not sure I fully understand this, Chili. If it is a human language, then it must be known to someone. Otherwise it can't conceivably be a human language. Unless you're being sarcastic and I'm dense?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

I know tongues, don't worry. It is the first and least of the gifts of the HS but should be the second after discernment.

The HS? What's next? The JC? The God Guy? Jeez and the Hip 12? :-)

Seriously, though, is it the opinion of modern Christians that what happened at Pentecost was a unique event and *not* 'speaking in tongues'? Because in Paul, speaking in tongues appears to be glossolalia the way we know it today, ie random, meaningless babbling. Of course, the practitioners don't believe it is meaningless, but it certainly appears meaningless to non-believers, whereas what happened at Pentecost had the precise opposite characteristic...

11-22-2004, 11:34 PM	#1
rostau Banned Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The People's Collective of Azania Posts: 741	Tongues I was sitting at a dentist yesterday idly flipping through their copy of the the New Testament (on the pile with all the other frivolous reading matter), and I started reading the Book of Acts. The passage about Pentecost particularly interested me, because when the disciples spoke in tongues, the effect was that people from other countries heard them speaking in their own languages. This seems very different from what modern evangelicals do, which is basically prattle on inanely in made-up words that aren't lexical in any known language. So I was wondering how modern Christians reconcile their abstract babbling with the the very different 'speaking in tongues' of the early Church?

11-23-2004, 08:02 AM	#5
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Sit Interesting links here, Walk away discussion

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-23-2004, 12:16 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The last thread on speaking in tongues did not resolve this. Paul mentions speaking in tongues as if it resembled the modern phenomenon. The story in Acts does not represent literal history.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.