There's also a great "teaching" by Dr. William J. Samarin.
Here's an excerpt from his book "TONGUES OF MEN AND ANGELS":
"It is extremely doubtful that the alleged cases of xenoglossia (miraculous speech in real languages) are real. Anytime one attempts to verify them, he finds that the stories have been greatly distorted or that the 'witness' turns out to be incompetent or unreliable from a linguistic point of view" (Tongues of Men and Angels, MacMillan, 1972, pp.112-115).
quote: "It is extremely doubtful that the alleged cases of xenoglossia (miraculous speech in real languages) are real. Anytime one attempts to verify them, he finds that the stories have been greatly distorted or that the 'witness' turns out to be incompetent or unreliable from a linguistic point of view"
Doesn't this quote belong in the Politics thread?? --> -->
This is the best description I have heard of Democrats yet!! :D--> :D--> :D-->
"It is interesting that Samarin, who examines glossolalia and "charismatic" religion from the outside as a social scientist, is also able to evaluate these movements from the inside because of a lifelong association with the Christian tradition. Quite unashamedly, he categorically relegates glossolalia to the ranks of a "pseudo-language" long used by millions of traditional Pentecostals and currently by hundreds of thousands of "neo-Pentecostals," but he does not believe that Pentecostals are "devian" in any way. This is indicative of a new approach being taken to the study of glossolalia. In chapter four, for example, Samarin describes with the pedantry of a true linguist the "form," 'meaning," and "varieties" of tongue-speech. The chapter is complete with tables and graphs and phonetic symbols, a far cry from the privately printed tracts of yesteryear which related glossolalia to a 'holy ghost language.'"
With hundreds of different languages and thousands of different dialects, no person could decipher the accuracy of tongues. Especially considering yours truly, speaks with a Swedish accent. The wind blows Geo, accept it.
"no person could decipher the accuracy of tongues."
Well, there you have it. The final word on the subject. "I believe it, therefore it must be true." No study, no evidence, no corroboration, thank you very much, just believe dammit.
You'd think maybe a trained linguist who spent several years studying the practice might be worth a glance, but no, he can be dismissed with the wave of a hand. No need to even look at his study. After all we "KNOW", don't we?
You're right Geo -- the political application can go both ways.
Now getting serious -- here is a quote I got from the Truth or Tradition site, and the IOT thread Jeff mentioned.
quote: Interpretation of tongues is not a message from God to believers. Again, 1 Corinthians 14:2 says that “anyone who speaks in tongues speaks not to men but to God.” That’s very clear, and, obviously, the interpretation of tongues follows suit: it is not to men but to God.
This is most evident in the book of Acts, 2:11b -- where it says "We hear them speak the wonderful works of God." How come the folks present then and there, never heard "My Children ......etc." ? -->
Speaking in tongues magnifies God, and the interpretation should reflect such. In other words, after one speaks in tongues, the interpretation should be a praise to God for what He has done for people individually, or mankind as a whole.
Evidently, the folks in Acts 2 did not need someone to interpret, but does that make tongue's interpretation (these days) different than what was heard back then by the other folks who needed an interpreter?? I don't think so. Tongues are not a message from God to beleivers. Tongues are a message to God thanking, and praising Him for all He has done. The interpretation should reflect such, if it is to line up biblically with what is described in Acts, the first time it happened.
And the "interpretation" doesn't need to be "word for word" to match the "tongue". Dan. 5:25-28 show this most graphically, since there are only 4 words on the wall, yet there is a longer "interpretation". Granted this is OT, and sure because of that, "it doesn't count", --> and of course -- this was long before tongues with interpretation -- so it certainly can't apply to us today. But I for one will not throw out the principal behind it.
Take a look at Acts 2 (remember the importance of first usage??), and see what speaking in tongues was all about. Then take a look at what docvic taught about interpretation, line the two up, and see if they fit.
I've got a spare hack-saw here, if anyone needs to shave some corners off of their previous thinking. :)--> (I'd loan you my personal one, but the blade is dull from over-use).
This is actually a very fascinating sounding work, Geo. From the descriptions in the linked reviews you provided, Samarin's book appears far more interesting and critically, exhaustively executed than anything I've seen coming from the Wierwillian/Lynnite camps to date.
The reviewer of the article, Watson Mills, himself edited a compilation of articles done by different scholars in a large volume entitled "Speaking in Tongues" (circ. 1975?), which I read a few years ago.
I would think that for anyone interested in a no-holds-barred investigation on the topic - believer/unbeliever/agnostic/whatever -
Samarin's work might prove more beneficial in the long-run.
As usual, no discussion from the guy who posted the link; kind of reminds me of the recorded political phone calls I find on my answering machine every day.
Well, there you have it. The final word on the subject. "I believe it, therefore it must be true." No study, no evidence, no corroboration, thank you very much, just believe dammit.
You'd think maybe a trained linguist who spent several years studying the practice might be worth a glance, but no, he can be dismissed with the wave of a hand. No need to even look at his study. After all we "KNOW", don't we?
I am not saying Geo , that it is not worth a look-see, and that I am dismissing it summarily.
All I am saying is that how can one person, know all dialects, considering differing ways people speak (New Yorkers roll there R's) and be supremely confident? I think that is an objective, lucid statement. I guess if this guy bankrolled 100 linguistists with speciaties in all phases of each language, yea , id like to see that report. ferstu?
yo jeff, is there any way i can meet john lynn face to face and show my speaking in tongues if it is real or not? I am quite prolific its manifestation~~~ I performed it according the 12th session~~~ believe me dude i spoke in tongues more than ye all~~~
I understand that back in 1972 a 'linguist' named: Dr. William J. Samarin 'studied' Speaking in tongues and considered it "other than real languages".
Having served on-board various subs as the Protestant Lay-Leader, I have attended training at the hands of Navy Chaplains and I have looked it up in their librarys (Xenoglossia, Glossolalia, pseudo-language. The 'professional' Chaplains certainly don't believe in Speaking in tongues.
I have to tell you though, of an experience that I once had.
In 1980, after one patrol, I was having doubts as to reality of Speaking-In-Tongues. I went on a roadtrip on my motorcycle for a couple weeks, during which time I spent a lot of time in prayer and Tongues. During that drive I 'developed' multiple tongues, a real fluency in multiple tongues. When I returned to my duty station, and went to a fellowship, I was called upon to Speak-In-Tongues and Interpret. I used one of my 'new' languages. One of the guys in the fellowship was crying when I finished the Interpretation. He started laughing and got up, he was terribly excited. He told us that my tongue was 'Northern Mandarin', a launguage that he knew and spoke. He gave us a word-for-word translation of what I had spoken in Mandarin, and while the Word-for-word did not match, the message did. My 'interpretation' was like a para-phrasing of the exact word-for-word.
Overall that cinched it for me. It was what I needed to really beleive that Speaking-In-Tongues is real and from G-d.
Our Heavenly Father does different things for different people. He works with each of us differently. This was how He worked with me to convince me.
So the evidence of speaking in tongues is proven by those who understand the tongues of men and not angels.
I suppose I would have to wait an angel my tounge eh~~~
How easy the seduction chants~~~ Aum
Can you prove your experience Galen? Where is this person you chose your tongue and this person understood your chosen tongue? Really Galen that is an extraordinary claim!!! I bet you can not produce the evidence you claim!!!
The experience that I relayed happened to me. It was one of my tongues that did it.
I dont know about the other people who have experienced this, I am not them.
I have heard of it happening, though I have never 'seen' it happen for anyone else.
The beleiver who translated my tongue was in our fellowship (his name was Tony) for a few years. Anyone who was in our twig-area knew him. This occured in a fellowship in Flanders Connecticut. We were all of the New London Twig area. Many of us were riding various boats out of Groton. The home in Flanders was a boarding house, where many sailors rented a bed-room.
I have lost contact with Tony, as I have lost contact with the over-whelming majority of those whom I have fellowshiped with. Being military it happens. I was stationed at one base for a few years, then at another base, etc. Some of us have bumped into each other again at other bases, some of us have not. (I was amazed a while ago when my mailman recognized me, he and I had lived on a sub together but he did not recognize me until my beard had grown out long enough that I looked the same as I had back then.)
In either case, I can not produce for you the same group of people who witnessed the event back then. My wife and I are here as witnesses. Dave Winterbottom sometimes posts here, he might recall the event. Others that we are now in contact with, will not come to GreaseSpotCafe as they find it far too negative and 'anti-beleivers'.
You say that I claim to have evidence that I can produce. I can only say that this happened to me, in a fellowship and that others were present to witness it. I have no video, I have no signed statements, I have no 'Learned and Respected Doctors of linguistics' to testify for me. I did not say that I did. I have no evidence in writing, nor on magnetic media.
You could post a recording of you speaking in your tongue. Then we could go about trying to find somebody who recogizes it as an actual language.
Yeah, I know, I know, it's not "decent and in order", huh?
You'll pardon me if I don't get real excited about relayed events that happened "one time" and everybody there "just knew". I've heard one too many of those type of testimonies over the years. God delights in being inscrutable I guess...
my son speaks Mandarin Chinese, and seeing as how "Northern Mandarin" is simply a regional dialect, I'm sure he'd be quite capable of understanding the majority of your "tongue".
how do you know the guy wasn't just bull$hitting you?
In a twig I used to attend we had a rather eventful evening one time when a certain member of the fellowship got "possessed" and started acting out - and this was a long-standing "old grad" kinda guy. Thus followed a marathon exorcism ritual where we talked to the "spirit" and commanded it out, and all sorts of fun, spiritual stuff. It was sorta scary and exciting and followed a rather accepted TWI-flavored demonic possession scenario.
Anyway, afterwards we all felt we had done great work for the Lord, and that our "brother" was now delivered from his spiritual oppression.
Problem was, he still acted exactly the same. He didn't have any remarkable improvement in his character or actions. He was still an alcoholic, still immature, and still given to violent mood swings. But he and the rest of the fellowship adamantly declared that he had been "delivered" that night and he wasn't the same man he'd been, despite the fact that none of that was true.
It wasn't done out of malice, or deviousness, or a will to deceive. We were all role-playing and just doing our part to make sure the play came out "right". I think that explains an awful lot of the "miraculous" events that happened in WayWorld. But then, I would...
Do you have some information that William Samarin is not a linguist or that there was anything wrong with his study? The reason I am asking is that you put quotes around linguist and studied - doing that indicates skepticism about the words enclosed in quotes.
How about speaking in tongues for George's son? I'd pay for the phone call.
Good one!! But you know the excuse that can be used to get around that one?
"Well, my tongue has changed." Yep. Remember how TWI taught that the tongues can change from one language to another? Hmmmmm, how convenient.
Also, is it me, or is it just about every acount of a miraculous happening, from tongues understood, to miraculous healing, to angelic appearances, all have one thing in common:
NO documented and verifiable evidence that clearly meets all legal and logical standards for proof. Evidence that can be readily seen/heard/verified well after the account has happened by anyone who wishes to investigate. Penn & Teller and James Randi have illustrated this amply!
I get the feeling that if a man were raised from the dead by someone speaking in tongues it would not be enough "proof" for you all. You would have to analyze that also.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
13
13
43
Popular Days
Nov 11
23
Nov 6
22
Nov 7
13
Oct 31
10
Top Posters In This Topic
TheInvisibleDan 13 posts
George Aar 13 posts
socks 13 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 43 posts
Popular Days
Nov 11 2004
23 posts
Nov 6 2004
22 posts
Nov 7 2004
13 posts
Oct 31 2004
10 posts
George Aar
There's also a great "teaching" by Dr. William J. Samarin.
Here's an excerpt from his book "TONGUES OF MEN AND ANGELS":
"It is extremely doubtful that the alleged cases of xenoglossia (miraculous speech in real languages) are real. Anytime one attempts to verify them, he finds that the stories have been greatly distorted or that the 'witness' turns out to be incompetent or unreliable from a linguistic point of view" (Tongues of Men and Angels, MacMillan, 1972, pp.112-115).
Here's where you can get your copy:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Doesn't this quote belong in the Politics thread??
--> 
-->
This is the best description I have heard of Democrats yet!!
:D--> 
:D--> 
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Oooo, here's a better link where you can get a copy of Samarin's book for only $7.95!
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1973/v30-3-bookreview8.htm
Here's a snippet of the review:
"It is interesting that Samarin, who examines glossolalia and "charismatic" religion from the outside as a social scientist, is also able to evaluate these movements from the inside because of a lifelong association with the Christian tradition. Quite unashamedly, he categorically relegates glossolalia to the ranks of a "pseudo-language" long used by millions of traditional Pentecostals and currently by hundreds of thousands of "neo-Pentecostals," but he does not believe that Pentecostals are "devian" in any way. This is indicative of a new approach being taken to the study of glossolalia. In chapter four, for example, Samarin describes with the pedantry of a true linguist the "form," 'meaning," and "varieties" of tongue-speech. The chapter is complete with tables and graphs and phonetic symbols, a far cry from the privately printed tracts of yesteryear which related glossolalia to a 'holy ghost language.'"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Sorry, George. That was too good to pass up!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Indeed, but, you know, it would work either way, Dems. or Reps.
Gawd knows I've grown weary of both of 'em.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Geo:
With hundreds of different languages and thousands of different dialects, no person could decipher the accuracy of tongues. Especially considering yours truly, speaks with a Swedish accent. The wind blows Geo, accept it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"no person could decipher the accuracy of tongues."
Well, there you have it. The final word on the subject. "I believe it, therefore it must be true." No study, no evidence, no corroboration, thank you very much, just believe dammit.
You'd think maybe a trained linguist who spent several years studying the practice might be worth a glance, but no, he can be dismissed with the wave of a hand. No need to even look at his study. After all we "KNOW", don't we?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
You're right Geo -- the political application can go both ways.
Now getting serious -- here is a quote I got from the Truth or Tradition site, and the IOT thread Jeff mentioned.
This is most evident in the book of Acts, 2:11b -- where it says "We hear them speak the wonderful works of God." How come the folks present then and there, never heard "My Children ......etc." ?
-->
Speaking in tongues magnifies God, and the interpretation should reflect such. In other words, after one speaks in tongues, the interpretation should be a praise to God for what He has done for people individually, or mankind as a whole.
Evidently, the folks in Acts 2 did not need someone to interpret, but does that make tongue's interpretation (these days) different than what was heard back then by the other folks who needed an interpreter?? I don't think so. Tongues are not a message from God to beleivers. Tongues are a message to God thanking, and praising Him for all He has done. The interpretation should reflect such, if it is to line up biblically with what is described in Acts, the first time it happened.
And the "interpretation" doesn't need to be "word for word" to match the "tongue". Dan. 5:25-28 show this most graphically, since there are only 4 words on the wall, yet there is a longer "interpretation". Granted this is OT, and sure because of that, "it doesn't count",
--> and of course -- this was long before tongues with interpretation -- so it certainly can't apply to us today. But I for one will not throw out the principal behind it.
Take a look at Acts 2 (remember the importance of first usage??), and see what speaking in tongues was all about. Then take a look at what docvic taught about interpretation, line the two up, and see if they fit.
I've got a spare hack-saw here, if anyone needs to shave some corners off of their previous thinking.
:)--> (I'd loan you my personal one, but the blade is dull from over-use).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
This is actually a very fascinating sounding work, Geo. From the descriptions in the linked reviews you provided, Samarin's book appears far more interesting and critically, exhaustively executed than anything I've seen coming from the Wierwillian/Lynnite camps to date.
The reviewer of the article, Watson Mills, himself edited a compilation of articles done by different scholars in a large volume entitled "Speaking in Tongues" (circ. 1975?), which I read a few years ago.
I would think that for anyone interested in a no-holds-barred investigation on the topic - believer/unbeliever/agnostic/whatever -
Samarin's work might prove more beneficial in the long-run.
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
As usual, no discussion from the guy who posted the link; kind of reminds me of the recorded political phone calls I find on my answering machine every day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
geo:
your comment:
Well, there you have it. The final word on the subject. "I believe it, therefore it must be true." No study, no evidence, no corroboration, thank you very much, just believe dammit.
You'd think maybe a trained linguist who spent several years studying the practice might be worth a glance, but no, he can be dismissed with the wave of a hand. No need to even look at his study. After all we "KNOW", don't we?
I am not saying Geo , that it is not worth a look-see, and that I am dismissing it summarily.
All I am saying is that how can one person, know all dialects, considering differing ways people speak (New Yorkers roll there R's) and be supremely confident? I think that is an objective, lucid statement. I guess if this guy bankrolled 100 linguistists with speciaties in all phases of each language, yea , id like to see that report. ferstu?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
yo jeff, is there any way i can meet john lynn face to face and show my speaking in tongues if it is real or not? I am quite prolific its manifestation~~~ I performed it according the 12th session~~~ believe me dude i spoke in tongues more than ye all~~~
what say ye jeff supporter jal?
believe me, my SIT is fluent to the nth degree
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Hey Jeff, bless you man.
I understand that back in 1972 a 'linguist' named: Dr. William J. Samarin 'studied' Speaking in tongues and considered it "other than real languages".
Having served on-board various subs as the Protestant Lay-Leader, I have attended training at the hands of Navy Chaplains and I have looked it up in their librarys (Xenoglossia, Glossolalia, pseudo-language. The 'professional' Chaplains certainly don't believe in Speaking in tongues.
I have to tell you though, of an experience that I once had.
In 1980, after one patrol, I was having doubts as to reality of Speaking-In-Tongues. I went on a roadtrip on my motorcycle for a couple weeks, during which time I spent a lot of time in prayer and Tongues. During that drive I 'developed' multiple tongues, a real fluency in multiple tongues. When I returned to my duty station, and went to a fellowship, I was called upon to Speak-In-Tongues and Interpret. I used one of my 'new' languages. One of the guys in the fellowship was crying when I finished the Interpretation. He started laughing and got up, he was terribly excited. He told us that my tongue was 'Northern Mandarin', a launguage that he knew and spoke. He gave us a word-for-word translation of what I had spoken in Mandarin, and while the Word-for-word did not match, the message did. My 'interpretation' was like a para-phrasing of the exact word-for-word.
Overall that cinched it for me. It was what I needed to really beleive that Speaking-In-Tongues is real and from G-d.
Our Heavenly Father does different things for different people. He works with each of us differently. This was how He worked with me to convince me.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
galen:
I happen to know of a similar story. A woman that I know was speaking in tongues at a crusade.
Next to her sat a some one of Indian descent who understood word for word what she had said.
This woman is a reliable source. Her former husband is a well known doctor in this area.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
So the evidence of speaking in tongues is proven by those who understand the tongues of men and not angels.
I suppose I would have to wait an angel my tounge eh~~~
How easy the seduction chants~~~ Aum
Can you prove your experience Galen? Where is this person you chose your tongue and this person understood your chosen tongue? Really Galen that is an extraordinary claim!!! I bet you can not produce the evidence you claim!!!
wow such proof undeniable a cincher~~~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
I happen to know of a similar story. A woman that I know was speaking in tongues at a crusade.
Next to her sat a some one of Indian descent who understood word for word what she had said.
This woman is a reliable source. Her former husband is a well known doctor in this area.
ahhh sky i know many a story too!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
The experience that I relayed happened to me. It was one of my tongues that did it.
I dont know about the other people who have experienced this, I am not them.
I have heard of it happening, though I have never 'seen' it happen for anyone else.
The beleiver who translated my tongue was in our fellowship (his name was Tony) for a few years. Anyone who was in our twig-area knew him. This occured in a fellowship in Flanders Connecticut. We were all of the New London Twig area. Many of us were riding various boats out of Groton. The home in Flanders was a boarding house, where many sailors rented a bed-room.
I have lost contact with Tony, as I have lost contact with the over-whelming majority of those whom I have fellowshiped with. Being military it happens. I was stationed at one base for a few years, then at another base, etc. Some of us have bumped into each other again at other bases, some of us have not. (I was amazed a while ago when my mailman recognized me, he and I had lived on a sub together but he did not recognize me until my beard had grown out long enough that I looked the same as I had back then.)
In either case, I can not produce for you the same group of people who witnessed the event back then. My wife and I are here as witnesses. Dave Winterbottom sometimes posts here, he might recall the event. Others that we are now in contact with, will not come to GreaseSpotCafe as they find it far too negative and 'anti-beleivers'.
You say that I claim to have evidence that I can produce. I can only say that this happened to me, in a fellowship and that others were present to witness it. I have no video, I have no signed statements, I have no 'Learned and Respected Doctors of linguistics' to testify for me. I did not say that I did. I have no evidence in writing, nor on magnetic media.
Galen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Galen,
You could post a recording of you speaking in your tongue. Then we could go about trying to find somebody who recogizes it as an actual language.
Yeah, I know, I know, it's not "decent and in order", huh?
You'll pardon me if I don't get real excited about relayed events that happened "one time" and everybody there "just knew". I've heard one too many of those type of testimonies over the years. God delights in being inscrutable I guess...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
BTW,
my son speaks Mandarin Chinese, and seeing as how "Northern Mandarin" is simply a regional dialect, I'm sure he'd be quite capable of understanding the majority of your "tongue".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Oh, and another thing,
how do you know the guy wasn't just bull$hitting you?
In a twig I used to attend we had a rather eventful evening one time when a certain member of the fellowship got "possessed" and started acting out - and this was a long-standing "old grad" kinda guy. Thus followed a marathon exorcism ritual where we talked to the "spirit" and commanded it out, and all sorts of fun, spiritual stuff. It was sorta scary and exciting and followed a rather accepted TWI-flavored demonic possession scenario.
Anyway, afterwards we all felt we had done great work for the Lord, and that our "brother" was now delivered from his spiritual oppression.
Problem was, he still acted exactly the same. He didn't have any remarkable improvement in his character or actions. He was still an alcoholic, still immature, and still given to violent mood swings. But he and the rest of the fellowship adamantly declared that he had been "delivered" that night and he wasn't the same man he'd been, despite the fact that none of that was true.
It wasn't done out of malice, or deviousness, or a will to deceive. We were all role-playing and just doing our part to make sure the play came out "right". I think that explains an awful lot of the "miraculous" events that happened in WayWorld. But then, I would...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Galen:
Do you have some information that William Samarin is not a linguist or that there was anything wrong with his study? The reason I am asking is that you put quotes around linguist and studied - doing that indicates skepticism about the words enclosed in quotes.
How about speaking in tongues for George's son? I'd pay for the phone call.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oak and George,
Good one!!
But you know the excuse that can be used to get around that one?
"Well, my tongue has changed." Yep. Remember how TWI taught that the tongues can change from one language to another? Hmmmmm, how convenient.
Also, is it me, or is it just about every acount of a miraculous happening, from tongues understood, to miraculous healing, to angelic appearances, all have one thing in common:
NO documented and verifiable evidence that clearly meets all legal and logical standards for proof. Evidence that can be readily seen/heard/verified well after the account has happened by anyone who wishes to investigate. Penn & Teller and James Randi have illustrated this amply!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
I get the feeling that if a man were raised from the dead by someone speaking in tongues it would not be enough "proof" for you all. You would have to analyze that also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"You would have to analyze that also."
And why not? Wouldn't that simply be the prudent thing to do?
You musta purchased a phenomenal amount of snake oil in your life, if you find simple analysis to be abhorrent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.