Featured Babbling against Speaking in Tongues

John of Japan: "frankly, you must be cut off from the academic world, because Kittel are [sic!] rare since he was soundly debunked by Barr and Silva so thoroughly debunked his semantics method, which was based on etymology rather than contemporary usage."

First, Kittel is only the editor; the articles are written by many different scholars.
Second, I own Barr's "The Semantics of Biblical Language." Barr has had little impact on modern exegesis.
Third, you overlook the relevance of the Kittel artice, I. e. classic examples of "Tongues" as incoherent gibberish in need of interpretation.
Fourth, as I already mentioned the Latin equivalent of "stenagmoi alaletai" in Rom 8:26 is used to refer to the gibberish of the Delphic pythia that needs coherent interpretation. My Harvard professors acknowledged that I established that point.

John of Japan: "And by the way, the typical Charismatic "tongues" has been examined by numerous linguists;;;, and found to be without syntactic structure or discernable semantic content.
Yes, I did a research paper on that claim at Princeton that focuses on Samarin, et al.Your comment is irrelevant for 2 reasons:
(1) If you read what I said, you'd realize that I consider 90% of modern glossolalia to be "of the flesh."
(2) I have encountered 3 thrilling cases in which Pentecostal glossolalia is confirmed as human language. Of course, there are seldom linguists present in such services who know enough languages to recognize which human languages are being spoken. In any case, it is the transforming power and impact of the tongues, not their semantics that matters.

John of Japan: "So "the tongues of angels" view is out. Tongues are usually just gibberish."

Well, Paul and the Corinthians thought their tongues was angelic language (1 Cor 13:1; 14:12--note Paul's phrase "zealots of spirits' = angels (see Hebrews 1;7)). But it did seem like gibberish to them and it is possible that their realization that tongues were no discernible human language prompted them to opt for the common Jewish view that humans can speak and interpret angelic tongues. That's how respectable exegesis works--it uses contemporary cultural interpretive models to fill in exegetical gaps. I'm confident that Corinthian glossolalia was basically the same motor reaction as modern glossolalia. After all, they broke Paul's principle of interpretations for tongues in services attended by outsiders. So the offending glossolia could not have been Spirit-inspired.

John of Japan: "I've actually been trained in Greek exegesis at the grad level (have you? ),"

Yes, I was Prof. Zeph Stewart's Teaching Fellow in the Harvard Classics dept. and graded his students exams and papers. I also took advanced Greek at Harvard and taught Masters level biblical courses at a Catholic university.

John of Japan: "Why then do you need tongues?"

Paul wants us all to speak in tongues and thanks God that He speaks in tongues more then all of us (1 Cor 14:5, 18) and Paul repeated commands us to imitate his example. So I guess Paul is authoritative for my spiritual practice, and besides, I don't believe the Holy Spirit's gifts are dispensible rubblish. In fact, I'd bet my life that if you experienced what I did at age 16, your glossolalic experience would be by far the most edifying highlight of your life, as it was for me.

 

I assume that you mean "charisma" by "chasima." Here you are guilty of a bibliolatry that neglects what matters most: a living vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ that includes His guidance and the spiritual gifts that allow believers to experience an intimate personal relationship with Him and make His power relevant to daily living.

What many Baptist here don't get is Luke's assurance in Acts about the "gift of the Holy Spirit:"
"The promise is for you, for your children, and for many who are far off [in the distant future], everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Him (Acts 2:39)." Shockingly Luke makes no mention in Luke-Acts of the regenerative work of the Spirit, not even in his summary of sermons by Paul and Peter. What he means by the promise of the Spirit is what he illustrates in his reports--an outpouring of the Spirit that inspires ecstatic utterance like tongues and empowers witnessing. At least that is included and because it is included speaking in tongues must be viewed as a gift intended for the church through the ages.

Cessationists play into the skeptic's narrative that if God can't or won't do it today, there is no reason to believe He could or would have done it back in the apostolic age. Historical logic proceeds on the basis of the principles of analogy and causality. But my God is the same yesterday, today, and forever!

 

Calminian: "Problem is, I don't know anyone who is claiming to have these gifts, even among the most Charismatic churches. So it appears they've ceased for now."

You just need to get out more and leave the myopic confines of your severely limited Baptist Ghetto. Don't project the paucity of miracles in your church on Charismatic Spirit-filled believers! Our little prayer group has produced miracles on a par with apostolic miracles--e. g. instant healing of life-threatening huge blood clots and a dramatic healing of an elderly blind woman so that she could read a doctor's eye chart. Pentecostal services, like ancient Corinthians services, are rarely attended by multi-lingual visitors. But there are compelling cases of Charismatics speaking in a later verified unknown human language with great power and miraculous impact.

Caminian: "No, that's not was Paul is saying. Praying is the Spirit has nothing to do with speaking gibberish."

God's Word refutes your claim: "I will pray in the Spirit, but I will pray with the mind also (1 Cor 14:15)."
The context demonstrates speaking in tongues as the way he prays in the Spirit. In fact, he celebrates such praying in tongues: "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all (14:19) and adds," I want you all to speak in tongues (14:5)." His preference for prophesying is simply based on his desire to avoid offending outsiders with ecstatic gibberish (tongues) that is not interpreted.

If you read my thread carefully, you would realize that the Greek expression "stenagmoi alaletai" ("groans too deep for words") precisely refers to speaking in tongues in Paul's day. The meaning of experiential Greek words is determined by their use in the contemporary culture. Every respected Bible scholar recognizes this and my 5 Harvard New Testament professors approved of my parallel cultural examples in which this expression refers to ecstatic gibberish, which is in fact a veiled message in need of interpretation.

Calminian: "Yeah, says the group that can't duplicate it. You have no choice but to say that because you can't do anything that was done at Pentecost (in regard to miracles). So, you move the goal posts."

 

Modern speaking in tongues can at times express modern languages. (a) In his book "Jesus in Beijing," NYT reporter David Aikman reports a message in tongues in Hebrew in a Pentecostal church in Amonte, CA. The preacher's wife who gave the message didn't know Hebrew, but the message was understood by a visiting American Jew. It called Dennis Balcombe to be a missionary to China. By the time Balcombe had finished his secret ministry in China there were 80 million new Chinese Charismatic Christians attending house churches. As on the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit sometimes simply fell on these Chinese seekers and induced glossolalia without anyone laying hands on them or praying with them.

Every Christian should watch the video documentary posted below on how God used Willian Seymour, the son of a slave, to ignite a great revival that has now led to 600 million Pentecostals worldwide. Unfortunately, the central role of minorities in this great awakening seems to have been suppressed due to racism:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...4F82351216ACB7DFDB194F82351216ACB7D&FORM=VIRE

Christians struggle to understand Jesus' claim that His disciple would be better off without His physical presence (John 14:12) and would do "greater works" than Him (John 16:7) after His departure through the power of the Holy Spirit. Dennis Balcombe's unprecedented missionary effectiveness is surely one example of what Jesus had in mind.

(b) I traveled with Loren Cunningham, founder of Youth with a Mission. He was given a message in tongues in the language of a remote Amazon tribe his team was visiting. The result was a great witness and healing of a woman with a severe cataract problem.

(c) A family in Saskatchewan received a message in tongues in Swahili, the language of the remote tribe where their daughter had been very sick, but could not be contacted. An African present in the meeting confirmed that the message in tongues was in Swahili. It confirmed that the daughter was OK and would return home soon. Such examples could be multiplied.

(

 

The online article "Stuff Fundies Like" contains the quotes cited below form John R. Rice,​

Speaking in Tongues. Despite Rice's prolific writing career, he is no scholar and I cite him only because he is your grandfather.​

Rice: "Well, first of all, as far as I know these gifts [in 1 Cor 12:8-10, including tongues] are still available today. I do not mean available in the sense that you can ask for whatever you want about these gifts. The Bible never does teach that one can decide for himself what gifts to have....Now, are these gifts for today? They probably are."

His concession that tongues are for today insults the Holy Spirit because he opposes Pentecostal abuse of this gift, while failing to take seriously a similar abuse by the Corinthians. The Holy Spirit doesn't inspire junk! The counterfeiting of precious gifts of the Spirit does not mean that defeat should be conceded and Pentecostals should desist their glossolalic practice!

I'm amused by your compulsion to set up straw men so you can avoid the Spirit's miraculous work in the most blessed Christian movement in the world (600 million charismatics globally!). Can you say "Westside Baptist Church?" Notice that I haven'tstooped to drawing your attention to the countless Baptist kooks out there!


Rice: "We are expressly taught to seek to prophesy. That means speak for God, witness for God, in the power of the Holy Spirit."
Rice has in mind: "You can all prophesy one by one (1 Cor 14:31)" and "I would like...even more for all of you to prophesy (14:5)." Set aside for the moment that he has no clue as to what the gift of prophesy entails.

Rice: "We are supposed to “covet earnestly the best gifts,” but we are never taught to covet the gift of tongues."

What Rice doesn't get are 2 points:
(1) Paul twice urges us to strive for spiritual gifts (12:31; 14:1) and both times he immediately discusses the gifts of tongues and prophecy. Nor is he alert to the significance of Paul's desire," I want you all to speak in tongues (14:5), a desire that implies this gift is for everyone, especially when Paul proceeds to encourage the Corinthians with the celebratory remark: "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all (14:18)."
(2) The gift of tongues is not the least of the gifts. It can be listed last only because of Corinthian abuse in allowing uninterpreted tongues in meetings frequented by outsiders. If prophecy is the best gift, tongues are its equal when interpreted (14:5).

They probably are. You would have to remember that they are not very often manifested even in the New Testament times. There is only one clear-cut case of talking in tongues in the Bible and that is in Acts, chapter 2. There are two other cases where languages are mentioned, but the Bible doesn’t say a gift of languages, and maybe it was and maybe it was not...