Although the article I posted agrees with my conclusion, I would not have cited it in the original thread. I probably would havw gone to his sources and posted them. If Vern is somewhat biased, he at least provided useful info. This guy seems to have been on a mission. My bet is we would have spent too much time discussing why he shouldn't be ignored just because of his conclusion.
Here's a link to page 2 of Steve L's thread on Acts 2. Here GSer Tom relates his account of attending a meeting where a speaker with no background in Aramaic began speaking in tongues and producing something close enough to Aramaic that Aramaic speakers present verified it.
Interestingly, not only does he cite Samarin, but he also cites Rev. Vern and Landry!
Ok, I'm kidding. He doesn't cite Landry (who, after all, was a college kid writing an undergrad paper). He does, however, cite at least one of the sources cited by Landry. So kudos to Landry for choosing respected sources! ;)
This is an out of print book published I think in 1972. It's reviews call it "devastating to Pentecostals" so I am gathering that it negates SIT scientifically. Reviews also state that the psychology portion of it is very insightful and has been established w more since then.
There are a few names that keep popping up. His is one of them. Malony and Lovekin are others. The psychological angle doesn't interest me as much as the sociological does.
I posted this in the About the Way thread on SIT earlier today.
Needless to say, I don't put a lot of stock in it, but it would be dishonest not to include it.
Of particular importance to our conversation is the section that deals with John Sherrill (hit Control F, look for Sherrill, and go to the third occurrence of the word).
Reminder: I consider all such mental gymnastics to be a post-hoc apologetic effort designed to explain why modern SIT does not produce human languages, which a clear reading of the Bible tells you it will produce. Obviously, I can't put it past God to pull this stunt, but it's not what the Bible describes.
I'm reading this now. No idea what it concludes. I've read maybe three sentences and can already see that it's worth posting. For all I know, it shoots me down.
I found a copy of Malony and Lovekin's book at my local library. Didn't check it out.
No Samarin and no Sherrill, unfortunately. Samarin has a book called "Tongues of Men and Angels" that I'd love to get my hands on. Sherrill has a book called "They Speak with Other Tongues" that I am not willing to spend a red cent on. But I would have checked either out.
One interesting thing to note is in the billiography, it references 4 of Samarin's books, of which he wrote all in 1972-1973. The one we have a reference to in our thread:
NOTE: Regarding Samarin, for me personally it is a little more difficult to get a handle on his work when we don't really have an online version of any of his full published books. Many of our quoted sources refer to him.
Fortunately, the Hartford Quarterly article contains LOTS for us to chew on. Unfortunately, it's not as complete as his books presumably would be, and we may find more of use in those books, which appear at a glance to have been written later, after considerably more research.
One thing I like about Samarin is the effectiveness with which he challenges and ultimately rejects key findings of Felicitas Goodman, whose psychological conclusions prevent me from taking her work seriously. Goodman basically makes the case that tongues speakers are nuts or in a trance/euphoric/hypnotic state, all of which we know firsthand to be untrue. It makes the rest of her findings difficult to swallow.
By the way, the article you posted was one of the three original links I provided back on the SIT thread (the other two were Samarin and Poythress). For some reason, we ignored the Religious Tolerance article and instead elevated Landry (which I did not cite: Waysider did).
Fortunately, the Hartford Quarterly article contains LOTS for us to chew on. Unfortunately, it's not as complete as his books presumably would be, and we may find more of use in those books, which appear at a glance to have been written later, after considerably more research.
I'm going to try and pick up a copy of his main book on the topic. That may take a while, as it's out of print and coming from used bookstores. If I can do that, I will read it first and then I would like to offer to mail it to you so you can read it. We have enough of a different viewpoint on Samarin I don't want to put you in the position of accepting my take on it on initial reading.
Actually, I was thinking of picking up Samarin and having you get Sherrill, which you might find more affirming. Plus, Sherrill's like a third of the price.
Actually, I was thinking of picking up Samarin and having you get Sherrill, which you might find more affirming. Plus, Sherrill's like a third of the price.
Either way is fine. The most expensive is $31. Do your suggestion first and we can do a book club exchange after a month or so when done reading.
Respectfully, Kit, that assertion is very much in question.
I contend that these books will all contain sections on SIT because the authors falsely believe SIT to be what you describe. And each of us has stated an opinion.
Really, I'm surprised anyone has ever believed in Jesus Christ, beyond the original people who knew Him - if there were people and they did have someone to meet.
None of it's measurable from us today. Every once in awhile someone sees Jesus in their toast or in a cloud formation but other than that He's not walking around handing out PFAL books. Or free pita bread.
Even if I take the most reasonable documentation out side of the Bible itself I don't have many recognitions of a son of God quality savior.
The Way tried to construct a kind of Uber Super Man, created by God as only He could, to be His Son. With that kind of DNA, it only makes sense He'd be walkin' and talkin' tall. But that seems lacking in the kind of detail that other parts of the New Testament talk about.
In any case - I've long contended that the limitations of the physical universe as it's known and understood today don't allow for the kind of irrefutable undeniable proofs and evidence of our collective existence that we'd like to have. We just don't - it's in the fabric of - h ell , it's just the way it is. The present moment in non-repeatable. It can't be accessed from any other point, past or future. EXCEPT through memory. We work in a world that is reliant on some very sketchy residual artifacts. WE may know we mowed the lawn, or filled the car with gas or eaten an apple - but to anyone else - who knows?
"Life is but a dream"..........has some truth to it. Considering how much time we spend involved in realities that either don't exist anymore or haven't existed yet - it's kind of weird how such a small fraction of time actually ever really exists in a completely usable fashion.
Subjective or Objective? What works and when?
Okay - sorry for the derail. To maintain some semblance of relationship to the thread I'd suggest Henri Bergson's "Memory and Matter", and maybe Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene", the one from 1976. :)
Recommended Posts
waysider
http://www.skepdic.com/glossol.html
Nicholas Spanos notes: "Typically, the interpretation supports the central tenets of the religious community."
.....................................
http://andrewnewberg.com/pdfs/2006/TonguesPaper.pdf
scientific look at the cerebral activity involved
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Although the article I posted agrees with my conclusion, I would not have cited it in the original thread. I probably would havw gone to his sources and posted them. If Vern is somewhat biased, he at least provided useful info. This guy seems to have been on a mission. My bet is we would have spent too much time discussing why he shouldn't be ignored just because of his conclusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Here's a link to page 2 of Steve L's thread on Acts 2. Here GSer Tom relates his account of attending a meeting where a speaker with no background in Aramaic began speaking in tongues and producing something close enough to Aramaic that Aramaic speakers present verified it.
I cite and link without commentary:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm actually in the middle of reading this one, and don't know where it's going.
This writer tries to tackle tongues from a historical, Biblical and linguistic perspective.
Who wants to lay a bet that he quotes Samarin?
http://markmoore.org/resources/essays/tongues.shtml
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yeah, he does.
Interestingly, not only does he cite Samarin, but he also cites Rev. Vern and Landry!
Ok, I'm kidding. He doesn't cite Landry (who, after all, was a college kid writing an undergrad paper). He does, however, cite at least one of the sources cited by Landry. So kudos to Landry for choosing respected sources! ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Geisha posted this one in the I Corinthians thread. I thought it would be worth putting up here.
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/giftoftongues.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
The First Epistle to the Corinthians, CK Barrett.
I have this book and have found it very helpful in answering some of the question that have come up in the SIT thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Thanks for posting this...read the whole thing and then ordered the book, Fanning the Flame: Probing the Issues in Acts
http://www.amazon.co...
I am excited to read it and if any one else is interested I would be happy to pass my copy along when I am done!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I ran across another reference - The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues by John Kildahl:
http://www.amazon.ca/psychology-speaking-tongues-John-Kildahl/dp/B000GRFWIW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1350325467&sr=8-2
This is an out of print book published I think in 1972. It's reviews call it "devastating to Pentecostals" so I am gathering that it negates SIT scientifically. Reviews also state that the psychology portion of it is very insightful and has been established w more since then.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
There are a few names that keep popping up. His is one of them. Malony and Lovekin are others. The psychological angle doesn't interest me as much as the sociological does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think this article sums up Kildahl.
http://www.bible411.com/glossolalia/chapter4.htm
But it's a pretty judgmental article. Not one I would use overall to buttress my argument.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I posted this in the About the Way thread on SIT earlier today.
Needless to say, I don't put a lot of stock in it, but it would be dishonest not to include it.
Of particular importance to our conversation is the section that deals with John Sherrill (hit Control F, look for Sherrill, and go to the third occurrence of the word).
http://kenady.150m.com/chapel/bhs/glossolalia.pdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Another attempt to change "speaking in tongues" to "speaking in code," using Poythress as a backdrop.
http://www.oswaldsobrino.com/2008/12/another-dart-bites-dust.html
Reminder: I consider all such mental gymnastics to be a post-hoc apologetic effort designed to explain why modern SIT does not produce human languages, which a clear reading of the Bible tells you it will produce. Obviously, I can't put it past God to pull this stunt, but it's not what the Bible describes.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm reading this now. No idea what it concludes. I've read maybe three sentences and can already see that it's worth posting. For all I know, it shoots me down.
http://greatcommandmentseminar.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/mark-cartledge-ch-10-7-4-10-1.pdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I found a copy of Malony and Lovekin's book at my local library. Didn't check it out.
No Samarin and no Sherrill, unfortunately. Samarin has a book called "Tongues of Men and Angels" that I'd love to get my hands on. Sherrill has a book called "They Speak with Other Tongues" that I am not willing to spend a red cent on. But I would have checked either out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Here is a reference that has collected thoughts from many sources - and has a decent bibliography:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/tongues5.htm
One interesting thing to note is in the billiography, it references 4 of Samarin's books, of which he wrote all in 1972-1973. The one we have a reference to in our thread:
http://philosophy-religion.info/handouts/pdfs/Samarin-Pages_48-75.pdf - "The Linguisticality of Glossalalia", which was an article written for the Hartford Quarterly
is not one of them.
NOTE: Regarding Samarin, for me personally it is a little more difficult to get a handle on his work when we don't really have an online version of any of his full published books. Many of our quoted sources refer to him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Fortunately, the Hartford Quarterly article contains LOTS for us to chew on. Unfortunately, it's not as complete as his books presumably would be, and we may find more of use in those books, which appear at a glance to have been written later, after considerably more research.
One thing I like about Samarin is the effectiveness with which he challenges and ultimately rejects key findings of Felicitas Goodman, whose psychological conclusions prevent me from taking her work seriously. Goodman basically makes the case that tongues speakers are nuts or in a trance/euphoric/hypnotic state, all of which we know firsthand to be untrue. It makes the rest of her findings difficult to swallow.
By the way, the article you posted was one of the three original links I provided back on the SIT thread (the other two were Samarin and Poythress). For some reason, we ignored the Religious Tolerance article and instead elevated Landry (which I did not cite: Waysider did).
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I'm going to try and pick up a copy of his main book on the topic. That may take a while, as it's out of print and coming from used bookstores. If I can do that, I will read it first and then I would like to offer to mail it to you so you can read it. We have enough of a different viewpoint on Samarin I don't want to put you in the position of accepting my take on it on initial reading.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually, I was thinking of picking up Samarin and having you get Sherrill, which you might find more affirming. Plus, Sherrill's like a third of the price.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Either way is fine. The most expensive is $31. Do your suggestion first and we can do a book club exchange after a month or so when done reading.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, but I suspect I will want to keep samarin's book in the end...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
"70 Reasons for Speaking in Tongues" Your own built in spiritual dynamo by Dr Bill Hamon, Parsons Publishing House, Safford Virginia.
Books on prayer by charismatics will all include speaking in tongues because speaking in tongues is perfect prayer, praise, supplication, and worship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Respectfully, Kit, that assertion is very much in question.
I contend that these books will all contain sections on SIT because the authors falsely believe SIT to be what you describe. And each of us has stated an opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Really, I'm surprised anyone has ever believed in Jesus Christ, beyond the original people who knew Him - if there were people and they did have someone to meet.
None of it's measurable from us today. Every once in awhile someone sees Jesus in their toast or in a cloud formation but other than that He's not walking around handing out PFAL books. Or free pita bread.
Even if I take the most reasonable documentation out side of the Bible itself I don't have many recognitions of a son of God quality savior.
The Way tried to construct a kind of Uber Super Man, created by God as only He could, to be His Son. With that kind of DNA, it only makes sense He'd be walkin' and talkin' tall. But that seems lacking in the kind of detail that other parts of the New Testament talk about.
In any case - I've long contended that the limitations of the physical universe as it's known and understood today don't allow for the kind of irrefutable undeniable proofs and evidence of our collective existence that we'd like to have. We just don't - it's in the fabric of - h ell , it's just the way it is. The present moment in non-repeatable. It can't be accessed from any other point, past or future. EXCEPT through memory. We work in a world that is reliant on some very sketchy residual artifacts. WE may know we mowed the lawn, or filled the car with gas or eaten an apple - but to anyone else - who knows?
"Life is but a dream"..........has some truth to it. Considering how much time we spend involved in realities that either don't exist anymore or haven't existed yet - it's kind of weird how such a small fraction of time actually ever really exists in a completely usable fashion.
Subjective or Objective? What works and when?
Okay - sorry for the derail. To maintain some semblance of relationship to the thread I'd suggest Henri Bergson's "Memory and Matter", and maybe Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene", the one from 1976. :)
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.