Parthian is a North Western Iranian language...written in a script derived from Aramaic.
...support of the old system by the Greeks kept the use of 'bureaucratic' Aramaic side by side with the Greek.
Before the Arsacid dynasty, Parthian was spoken only in a small region but, as a state language of the Parthian Empire (together with Greek), it later spread throughout Iran, Mesopotamia and Armenia, and was widely used in Central Asia. The oldest Parthian documents found include the economic documents from Nisa (1st century B.C.) and there are as well rock inscriptions dating back to the 3rd century B.C. They are written in Parthian script with additions of Aramaic ideograms.
refers to the region now occupied by modern Iraq, eastern Syria, and southeastern Turkey.
Scholars have suggested that the Akkadian term biritum/birit narim ...coined at the time of the Aramaicization of the region[1]
The earliest written language in Mesopotamia was Sumerian, a language isolate. Later a Semitic language, Akkadian, came to be the dominant language, although Sumerian was retained for administrative, religious, literary, and scientific purposes. Different varieties of Akkadian were used until the end of the Neo-Babalonian period. Then Aramaic, which had already become common in Mesopotamia, became the official language of the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Akkadian fell into disuse, although both it and Sumerian were still used in temples for some centuries.
It seems that Aramaic was widespread. The languages that were the "native" languages, or the languages of the birthplaces, of the people who were gathered in Jerusalem at the time, many times - or at least in the cases of Mesopotamia & Parthia (covering widespead areas at times in their histories - I don't know about in Acts 2; although, apparently large enough for mention) seem to have been relegated to the ranks of official political, legal, economic, or religious purposes in favor of Aramaic being the commonly spoken language.
So, the 12 speaking the great things of God would have been remarkable & someone or some collections of people (as opposed to everyone hearing all 12 in their own language at the same time) in the audience would understand the particular language being spoken by an individual apostle.
And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven
one may want note that these were all jews
from every nation under heaven
Interesting
Acts 2:5 ...devout men, from every nation under the sky.
7 They were all amazed...
12 They were all amazed...
13 Others, mocking, said, “They are filled with new wine.”
Others is heteros, others of a different kind. They were not believers. They were not receiving the words of the 12 apostles concerning the great things that God was doing.
BTW, I don't think it was some vague words about how wonderful God is; I think, at this time, with the new birth, God, through Jesus Christ's sacrificial death, resurrection, & NOW, giving of the gift was doing the greatest, most wonderful thing ever, and THAT'S what specifically the wonderful works of God were that were spoken in tongues.
But the "others" didn't hear the words - perhaps they didn't understand any of the languages being spoken - just wondering. But, at that point, Peter was inspired just to lay it all out in a language that everyone understood at the same time together.
Italics supplied to emphasize who is being addressed by Peter.
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke out to them...
15 For these aren't drunken, as you suppose...
22 Men of Israel[Peter has changed who he is talking to here, I think], hear these words!
Thanks Danny, this is how I view research. People contributing out of the treasures of their hearts.
Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old
I would like to remind ourselves that the Holy Spirit gave the 'utterance'.
Would that be the same as toungues of angels that Paul speaks of?
Sorry for not contributing more.
Beem busy, but it's on my mind.
Thanks for the kind words.
About the Holy Spirit giving the utterance - are not both the tongues of men & of angels as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance?
1 Corinthians 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
1 Corinthians 13:1 ¶Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
"Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old"
Just a couple brief examples from the Thanksgiving Hymns, Hymn 3 (The Dead Sea Scrolls, p.173, Wise, Abegg, Cook):
"by the spirits which you have given me..."
(Hymn 4) "You have spread [Your] holy spirit over Your servant..."
cf. to Paul, 1 Cor.14:12 "seeing that you are zealous for spirits" (not lit. "spirituals" as many translations); consider also the well known "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" in the same chapter.
The Testament of Job ch.48-50 (estimated to have been written circ. first century, p.829, 833, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, James A. Charlesworth, ed.):
"...when the one called Hermera arose, she wrapped around her own string as her father had said. And she took another heart - no longer minded toward earthly things - but she spoke ecstatically in the angelic dialect, sending up a hymn to God in accord with the hymnic style of the Angels. And as she spoke ecstatically, she allowed the Spirit to be inscribed on her garment.
And Kasia bound hers on and had her heart changed so she no longer regarded worldly things. And her mouth took on the dialect of the archons and she praised God for the creation of the heights...
And another also, named Amalthia's Horn, bound on her cord. And her mouth spoke ecstatically in the dialect of those on high, since her heart was also changed, keeping aloof from worldly things. For she spoke in the dialect of the cheribum..."
BTW, I don't think it was some vague words about how wonderful God is;
Sorry, "vague" sounds harsher than I meant to, it wasn't intended as a judgement about the actual words; perhaps "unspecified" wonderful works of God as opposed to the specifically recorded words of Peter later in the chapter. :)
Sorry, "vague" sounds harsher than I meant to, it wasn't intended as a judgement about the actual words; perhaps "unspecified" wonderful works of God as opposed to the specifically recorded words of Peter later in the chapter. :)
Thanks for the clarification - I needed it. Actually, my comment about vague words sounded harsher than I intended it to. But if I've got what you're saying right now, it's not that the words spoken were vague, but that the Word's record of them doesn't specify what was spoken. If so, okay; I got it.
So, no contradiction here between what I'm saying & what you said. I was just thinking that the praise, the wonderful works of God that were being spoken were a lot more to the point - hitting the nail on the head so to speak than we normally give them credit for - than we normally saw in TWI. Not that TWI was not correct or was uninspired (although I don't doubt that it was completely uninspired sometimes), but there are degrees of inspiration - all of which may be truly inspired.
For example, the amazing prophecies given by Mary & Elizabeth concerning Jesus before he was born are very pointed, to the point that we, with our lack of vision, might consider them to be the prophecy of those with the ministry of a prophet - revelation from the Holy Spirit, exceptionally powerful, new. But there is nothing new in their words of prophecy, nothing that they didn't already know previously from angels, or from revelation from Holy Spirit, or from the Word. It was nothing new, just God cooking all that inside their spirit until it boiled over - the same kind of prophecy that we do. So, what was the difference? For one thing, Mary & Elizabeth were superlatively focussed on what Holy Spirit was doing at that point in time & place. But certainly, what happened on the day of Pentecost was no less stupendous, no less powerful, no less wonderful. And I think that is what came out when the apostles spoke the wonderful works of God - even though they didn't understand what they were saying - no less stupendous than what Peter said.
What matters more is the realization that what happened on the day of Pentecost is no less of a happening today than it was then. Our words of inspired prophecy (not revelation prophecy, but poor ole lowly inspiration prophecy) may be as Mary's was. It is all dependent upon how focussed we are on what HAS BEEN REVEALLED TO US about what the Holy Spirit is doing today where we are.
I don't think that Mary or Elizabeth consciously differentiated between what they knew from revelation & from the Word. They just knew what God was doing, were inspired by it,
Thanks for the clarification - I needed it. Actually, my comment about vague words sounded harsher than I intended it to. But if I've got what you're saying right now, it's not that the words spoken were vague, but that the Word's record of them doesn't specify what was spoken. If so, okay; I got it.
So, no contradiction here between what I'm saying & what you said.
You got it Tom; we are saying pretty much the same thing.
My “vague” comment was directed at another poster who was suggesting that
The 12 were really speaking Aramaic when they were speaking in tongues
The multitude understood the Aramaic as their own native tongues, actually “hearing” it as Parthian, etc
Peter was still speaking in tongues later in the same chapter during the section that we often refer to as his “first sermon”.
Fascinating idea, but I wasn’t seeing how it was backed up by what was written.
And by the way, you're making some good points, like this one:
I don't think that Mary or Elizabeth consciously differentiated between what they knew from revelation & from the Word. They just knew what God was doing, were inspired by it,
"William Samarin, professor of anthropology and linguistics at the University of Toronto, wrote the first comprehensive book-length study of speaking in tongues [Tongues of Men and Angels, New York: Macmillan, 1972]. In this work he takes Christian charismatic glossolalia – the common contemporary practice of speaking in unknown and unintelligible speech, which Samarin distinguishes from what he calls xenoglossia [the miraculous gift of tongues in which the speaker communicates in an unlearned human language] – and the "tongues" of other religions [including healers, occultists, and shamans] and compares them with known human languages. He concludes from his linguistic analysis that "glossolalia is a perfectly human, perfectly normal [albeit anomalous] phenomenon"
Did Samarin have any examples of xenoglossia that he studied in the book? Does he consider xenoglossia to still be speaking in tongues?
"Did Samarin have any examples of xenoglossia that he studied in the book? Does he consider xenoglossia to still be speaking in tongues?"
I cannot answer either of these questions – I referenced Samarin's book as it was quoted in a Systematic Theology book. There are some links below that would indicate Samarin may fall into a cessation's viewpoint.
From what I read of Samarin in those links, he says the speaking in tongues in the bible was xenoglossia and the practice of tongues that he studied was glossalalia. Its curious that he and others found no difference in the glossalalia practiced in the churches and that practiced in other non-christian cultures. VP taught that SIT could not be counterfieted, thats why it was the proof in the senses realm of the internal reality of being born again. But that would make it a practice unique to Chritianity.
We could have been practicing an innate ability of the human mind all along thinking we were so special.
From what I read of Samarin in those links, he says the speaking in tongues in the bible was xenoglossia and the practice of tongues that he studied was glossalalia. Its curious that he and others found no difference in the glossalalia practiced in the churches and that practiced in other non-christian cultures.
VP taught that SIT could not be counterfieted, thats why it was the proof in the senses realm of the internal reality of being born again. But that would make it a practice unique to Chritianity.
He taught that in the foundational class, but contradicted himself in the advanced class, in fact, he tells us of a time when he himself counterfeited tongues: when he was in Tulsa and "quoted John 1:1-2 and Genesis 1:1" in Greek and Hebrew respectively.
We could have been practicing an innate ability of the human mind all along thinking we were so special
VP taught that SIT could not be counterfieted, thats why it was the proof in the senses realm of the internal reality of being born again.
My understanding of this is that speaking in tongues cannot be counterfeited because it is more than just a language spoken that the individual didn't learn. Even Wierwille said that devils have a version of tongues in which they move people's mouths, lips, vocal cords, etc, & make them speak a language - so that can't be the sense in which he was saying tongues cannot be counterfeited.
When people get prophecy from devils, it really is prophecy.
When people get revelation from devils, it really is revelation.
When devils heal, people really do get healed.
The sense in which the above three are counterfeit is that they are energized from the wrong source.
THAT, devils can't counterfeit, when it comes to speaking in tongues. The devil's version of "speaking in tongues" is NOT really speaking in tongues at all. There is no intercession going on, no spiritual energizing of spiritual realities, no building of potential from the devil spirit world.
It's just a language being forced through the mouth by devil spirits. If THAT'S as deep as your definition of speaking in tongues, then, sure, THAT can be counterfeited. But THAT is not speaking in tongues.
I've seen Christians speak in tongues who weren't aware that was what they were doing - it really is a simple affair technically (on the part of humans - hell, the spirit is giving the utterence; what could be easier?). And the holy spirit is not the harsh qualifier he is made out to be). But I've never seen someone who is not a Christian speak in tongues; although, I have seen the hokey "counterfeit." Perhaps it should be called a counterfeit counterfeit to differentiate it from real, but devilish revelations, healings, etc.
BTW, I suppose that I should add that I do not believe the majority of exway who believe their tongues weren't real were fooled by a hokey devilish counterfeit, but by the simplicity of the genuine. They thought "they" were doing it - which of course they were. Or they thought they were supposed to feel or experience something more. Or, I suppose, there may be a fairly healthy percentage who never really did anything.
I think the comfort of what Wierwille was saying about devils not being able to counterfeit tongues was that one didn't have to be afraid that if he did the speaking a devil spirit would take over or he would be "cursing Jesus" or something like that.
Its no surprise that Dr. would have contradicted himself as to whether tongues could be counterfieted.
Here we have another Dr., Samarin, who put in a lot of effort studying glosalalia, which he distinguished from the phenomena of xenoglossia, and observed the same practice in both Christian and non-Christian settings. He determined that this was not even genuine language. His explanation of what it was sure fits well with what I observed going on in the ministry. I'm confident that he was studying the same thing we practiced in the ministry. I am willing to accept that he observed the same thing outside of a Christian setting. I'm not willing to conclude that, because it was outside of a Christian setting, there must have been devil spirits counterfieting a genuine article so well that the counterfiet could only be exposed by "revelation" that there were devil spirits involved.
Of course, there is still the possibility that the speaking in tongues in the Bible was not glossalalia as we see practiced today. In fact there is some evidence that it should be labeled xenoglossia, although you run into problems in Corinthians then.
I still enjoy doing it once in a while, if I feel moved to do so. I don't think it harms you any more than meditation or any other way of altering the consciousness as long as it is not taken to extremes. Everything in moderation. A time for everything in its season.
"…I've seen Christians speak in tongues who weren't aware that was what they were doing - it really is a simple affair technically (on the part of humans - hell, the spirit is giving the utterence; what could be easier?). And the holy spirit is not the harsh qualifier he is made out to be). But I've never seen someone who is not a Christian speak in tongues; although, I have seen the hokey "counterfeit." Perhaps it should be called a counterfeit counterfeit to differentiate it from real, but devilish revelations, healings, etc…"
[ To see the word "hell" used as an exclamation while talking about words from the Holy Spirit is pretty funny – maybe it's just my quirky sense of humor…]
From what you're saying - someone seeking this speaking in tongues experience has a lot of things to consider/check out/determine: 1. It could be from God. 2. It could be from the devil. 3. It could be something their mind made up…In my opinion this represents a very subjective and confusing process. What criteria would be used to determine these things?…Just some thoughts here about the book of Acts days: Was there that much of an issue of speaking in tongues being counterfeit? Was speaking in tongues a key "selling point" of Christianity? Does it appear to be a core element of their preaching?
As a Christian and firm believer in the Bible being God's Word – I still have to admit I believe the assurance promised to believers is a very personal – subjective thing. I don't think it's a "Signs, Miracles and Wonders-on-demand" feature that God offers to believers who really want to be in the know.
I think VPW had a bad habit of deciding to believe something beforehand - then twisting Scripture to support it. In TWI I've heard the following two verses used to prove the validity of TWI's speaking in tongues experience: In John 7:17 Jesus said, "…If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." And in I John 3:24 "Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us."
Two people can read both those verses and come away with two different meanings. It comes down to personal viewpoint. Someone else may say the verses can be used to validate the speaking in tongues experience. From my viewpoint [and experience] I gather the verses are talking about something – perhaps almost indescribable – that happens to me at a very deep and personal level of my consciousness as I obey Scripture – and according to those verses God is somehow involved in the experience. This is something that is subjective – it can't be proved or argued about in a debate. But it is a very real and solid aspect of my belief system – and in my opinion something based on a process that honors God and energizes this Christian thing called "faith."
Sorry – I tend to go on a rant when I think about the basis for TWI's confidence – VPW's interpretation on select verses. I have a real problem with his sloppy methodology. In the two verses I cited above the crux of the matter is really over a simple question: What was Jesus' "teaching" in John 7:17 and what were "his commands" in I John 3:24? The systematic theology books and commentaries I've read that get into these verses do so through methods very familiar to PFAL grads, Bullinger fans, and really anyone who is proficient at reading a book like a normal person. Where VPW's sloppy methodology becomes evident to me is where he ignored the basic rules of interpretation in favor of his viewpoint. So a verse with the word "spirit" in it can become a reference to speaking in tongues – as we've argued before over Romans 8:26. Instead of the Scriptures being the criteria for determining if the experience is genuine - TWI typically used experience to validate their interpretation of Scripture.
Tom
"BTW, I suppose that I should add that I do not believe the majority of exway who believe their tongues weren't real were fooled by a hokey devilish counterfeit, but by the simplicity of the genuine. They thought "they" were doing it - which of course they were. Or they thought they were supposed to feel or experience something more. Or, I suppose, there may be a fairly healthy percentage who never really did anything.
I think the comfort of what Wierwille was saying about devils not being able to counterfeit tongues was that one didn't have to be afraid that if he did the speaking a devil spirit would take over or he would be "cursing Jesus" or something like that."
As DrtyDzn said, "VP taught that SIT could not be counterfeited, that's why it was the proof in the senses realm of the internal reality of being born again." What Scripture references did VPW use to back this up?
What I find alarming in the phrase "...the comfort of what Wirewille was saying…" is how that attitude can lull the critical mind to sleep. And especially knowing the tendency of fallen man towards self-deception! Jeremiah 17: 9 "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure…" Proverbs 14: 12 "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Just a few thoughts here: It seems to me the really important stuff in the Bible is stated very plain and leaves little room for doubt as to what it means. Is there any question that adultery or murder is wrong? Is there any question as to whether or not the Bible portrays Jesus Christ as the Savior of mankind? And after considering the fact that VPW thought nothing wrong with committing adultery nor saw the importance of keeping Jesus Christ as the focal point of his ministry - I really don't trust anything he says about things in the Bible that aren't so clear.
Its no surprise that Dr. would have contradicted himself as to whether tongues could be counterfieted.
Here we have another Dr., Samarin, who put in a lot of effort studying glosalalia, which he distinguished from the phenomena of xenoglossia, and observed the same practice in both Christian and non-Christian settings. He determined that this was not even genuine language. His explanation of what it was sure fits well with what I observed going on in the ministry. I'm confident that he was studying the same thing we practiced in the ministry. I am willing to accept that he observed the same thing outside of a Christian setting. I'm not willing to conclude that, because it was outside of a Christian setting, there must have been devil spirits counterfieting a genuine article so well that the counterfiet could only be exposed by "revelation" that there were devil spirits involved.
Of course, there is still the possibility that the speaking in tongues in the Bible was not glossalalia as we see practiced today. In fact there is some evidence that it should be labeled xenoglossia, although you run into problems in Corinthians then.
I still enjoy doing it once in a while, if I feel moved to do so. I don't think it harms you any more than meditation or any other way of altering the consciousness as long as it is not taken to extremes. Everything in moderation. A time for everything in its season.
Jerry
I know I'm going to regret this, but hey; it won't be the last thing I regret.
Here we have another Dr., Samarin, who put in a lot of effort studying glosalalia [yeah, 20 hours a day, day after day, week after week; yeah, well, maybe - I'm a little jaded about people's products promoting themselves], which he distinguished from the phenomena of xenoglossia
I am a little curious to know how he distinguishes between the two, one of them "not having happened for hundreds of years."
He determined that this was not even genuine language. His explanation of what it was sure fits well with what I observed going on in the ministry. I'm confident that he was studying the same thing we practiced in the ministry.
"He determined that this was not even genuine language." Then how was I talking with someone a few weeks ago who spoke in tongues in a meeting & had a newcomer come up to him & ask where he had learned his native language?
"His explanation of what it was sure fits well with what I observed going on in the ministry."
Your perception, I can't argue with it.
"I'm confident that he was studying the same thing we practiced in the ministry."
We? We who? I admitted I don't know what you know. Perhaps you might consider that you may not know what others have known, especially when it comes to their spiritual lives.
I'm not willing to conclude that, because it was outside of a Christian setting, there must have been devil spirits counterfieting a genuine article so well that the counterfiet could only be exposed by "revelation" that there were devil spirits involved.
I don't know what he observed either inside or outside a "Christian" setting, but I don't get your logic about counterfeiting "a genuine article so well that the counterfiet could only be exposed by 'revelatiion' that there were devil spirits involved." The qualifications for being considered genuine according to the other Doctor's study & the present discussion, apparantly, is simply that it is a language. What's the "so well" about it?
Either devils can control people's organs of speech or they can't. Either people can speak in tongues or they can't. And, OMG, "revelation?" The audacity to think not only that it might require revelation to tell the genuine from the counterfeit, but that moi can hear from God! Well, I'm sorry, but if none of that is real, I'm just going to go pop a beer, & watch a movie, maybe commit some adultery.
I still enjoy doing it once in a while, if I feel moved to do so. I don't think it harms you any more than meditation or any other way of altering the consciousness as long as it is not taken to extremes. Everything in moderation. A time for everything in its season.
Jerry
"Everything in moderation. A time for everything in its season." Sheesh, you sound like my mother! Hey, maybe I should pay more attention. Just messing with you, okay?
[ To see the word "hell" used as an exclamation while talking about words from the Holy Spirit is pretty funny – maybe it's just my quirky sense of humor…]
Hey, don't you go taking credit for MY quirky sense of humor :). Glad it tickled your funny bone, T-Bone.
Not to ignore your points, but I have to go take down hurricane shutters while it's not raining. Clarification of some of my points forthcoming. I apparently appear to come off from a place other than your own in more ways than I actually do. Differences are cool; I have no problem with that. But not when they are differences perceived via impositions on our perceptions imposed by others rather than real differences. Artificial kaka despoiling the water of life! I'm sorry I mentioned Wierwille's name. Ah, but there it is.
TOM -I am a little curious to know how he distinguishes between the two, one of them "not having happened for hundreds of years."
I think he just classified the occurance of spontaneously speaking in an unlearned language as xenoglossia because it was different from what he observed going on in the churches. Whether he ever observed it, I don't know, but he must have considered it something different because of its rarity.
TOM -"He determined that this was not even genuine language." Then how was I talking with someone a few weeks ago who spoke in tongues in a meeting & had a newcomer come up to him & ask where he had learned his native language?
"His explanation of what it was sure fits well with what I observed going on in the ministry."
Your perception, I can't argue with it.
"I'm confident that he was studying the same thing we practiced in the ministry."
We? We who? I admitted I don't know what you know. Perhaps you might consider that you may not know what others have known, especially when it comes to their spiritual lives.
In my 10+ years of being involved with the ministry, I never saw an example of someone who spoke in tongues and someone else understood the language. That would have been cool. Even more cool if I had done it. Of course I would have probably been crazy enough to see if I could duplicate the phenomena. I did stuff like speak in tongues with a French accent and immitate someone elses tongue that I had heard often enough to be able to copy.
TOM -Either devils can control people's organs of speech or they can't. Either people can speak in tongues or they can't. And, OMG, "revelation?" The audacity to think not only that it might require revelation to tell the genuine from the counterfeit, but that moi can hear from God! Well, I'm sorry, but if none of that is real, I'm just going to go pop a beer, & watch a movie, maybe commit some adultery
Pop one for me !LOL The point is not whether the devils can counterfiet speaking in tongues, its whether its an innate ability of the human mind or something special only to those born again. If its only human, who needs to get devils involved?
You are lucky to have an eyewitness to someone who understood someone speaking in tongues.
…I am a little curious to know how he distinguishes between the two, one of them "not having happened for hundreds of years."
DrtyDzn
…I'm confident that he was studying the same thing we practiced in the ministry. I am willing to accept that he observed the same thing outside of a Christian setting…
Tom
…We? We who? I admitted I don't know what you know. Perhaps you might consider that you may not know what others have known, especially when it comes to their spiritual lives….
I think the two terms indicate a distinction that some see between the two experiences. Xenoglossia referring to the instances of speaking in tongues in the Bible – which I think were genuine – in other words having God as their source. Glossolalia referring to the current practice among Charismatic churches and other groups – which Samarin and other linguistic experts have concluded is a language made up by the speaker.
You bring up a good point, Tom – how can we compare the two? I guess there weren't any scientific/linguistic studies conducted on speaking in tongues during the book of Acts period. However there is the testimony of the audience on the day of Pentecost saying they understood what was said - that it was real languages. So, that is what my mind keeps going back to in searching for any criteria by which to judge... I can't say I know for a fact exactly what the believers back then thought, believed, or what happened in the spiritual dimension of their lives… What data comes out of these current linguistic experts' studies concurs with what some of us on this thread have expressed about our experiences. For me – it broadens the gap between glossolalia and xenoglossia.
I for one want to make a distinction between the current day practice of glossolalia and the xenoglossia in the New Testament. Because I want to believe that what occurred in the Bible was genuine. As I said in post #128 on this thread – it would be great if some Charismatic group would submit a recording of their speaking in tongues and interpretation to a panel of linguistic experts. If people are going to claim what they do today is exactly what was done back then – how about we try to establish some standards or criteria for a legitimate claim?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
45
26
26
69
Popular Days
Jun 26
28
Jul 3
20
Jun 27
18
Aug 12
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 45 posts
Oakspear 26 posts
T-Bone 26 posts
dancing 69 posts
Popular Days
Jun 26 2006
28 posts
Jul 3 2006
20 posts
Jun 27 2006
18 posts
Aug 12 2006
17 posts
Tom
A few more notes:
I think that most of the people would likely understand Aramaic. I can't speak for all the places referenced, but for a couple, maybe.
Parthian: http://www.parthia.com/parthia_arts.htm#Language
Parthian is a North Western Iranian language...written in a script derived from Aramaic.
...support of the old system by the Greeks kept the use of 'bureaucratic' Aramaic side by side with the Greek.
Before the Arsacid dynasty, Parthian was spoken only in a small region but, as a state language of the Parthian Empire (together with Greek), it later spread throughout Iran, Mesopotamia and Armenia, and was widely used in Central Asia. The oldest Parthian documents found include the economic documents from Nisa (1st century B.C.) and there are as well rock inscriptions dating back to the 3rd century B.C. They are written in Parthian script with additions of Aramaic ideograms.
Mesopotamia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia
refers to the region now occupied by modern Iraq, eastern Syria, and southeastern Turkey.
Scholars have suggested that the Akkadian term biritum/birit narim ...coined at the time of the Aramaicization of the region[1]
The earliest written language in Mesopotamia was Sumerian, a language isolate. Later a Semitic language, Akkadian, came to be the dominant language, although Sumerian was retained for administrative, religious, literary, and scientific purposes. Different varieties of Akkadian were used until the end of the Neo-Babalonian period. Then Aramaic, which had already become common in Mesopotamia, became the official language of the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Akkadian fell into disuse, although both it and Sumerian were still used in temples for some centuries.
It seems that Aramaic was widespread. The languages that were the "native" languages, or the languages of the birthplaces, of the people who were gathered in Jerusalem at the time, many times - or at least in the cases of Mesopotamia & Parthia (covering widespead areas at times in their histories - I don't know about in Acts 2; although, apparently large enough for mention) seem to have been relegated to the ranks of official political, legal, economic, or religious purposes in favor of Aramaic being the commonly spoken language.
So, the 12 speaking the great things of God would have been remarkable & someone or some collections of people (as opposed to everyone hearing all 12 in their own language at the same time) in the audience would understand the particular language being spoken by an individual apostle.
Edited by TomLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Interesting
Acts 2:5 ...devout men, from every nation under the sky.
7 They were all amazed...
12 They were all amazed...
13 Others, mocking, said, “They are filled with new wine.”
Others is heteros, others of a different kind. They were not believers. They were not receiving the words of the 12 apostles concerning the great things that God was doing.
BTW, I don't think it was some vague words about how wonderful God is; I think, at this time, with the new birth, God, through Jesus Christ's sacrificial death, resurrection, & NOW, giving of the gift was doing the greatest, most wonderful thing ever, and THAT'S what specifically the wonderful works of God were that were spoken in tongues.
But the "others" didn't hear the words - perhaps they didn't understand any of the languages being spoken - just wondering. But, at that point, Peter was inspired just to lay it all out in a language that everyone understood at the same time together.
Italics supplied to emphasize who is being addressed by Peter.
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke out to them...
15 For these aren't drunken, as you suppose...
22 Men of Israel[Peter has changed who he is talking to here, I think], hear these words!
etc.
PEACE and LOVE
Tom
Edited by TomLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Good points Tom,
I would like to remind ourselves that the Holy Spirit gave the 'utterance'.
Would that be the same as toungues of angels that Paul speaks of?
Sorry for not contributing more.
Beem busy, but it's on my mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Angels were indeed regarded the intermediate source behind these "tongues".
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Thanks Danny, this is how I view research. People contributing out of the treasures of their hearts.
Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Thanks for the kind words.
About the Holy Spirit giving the utterance - are not both the tongues of men & of angels as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance?
1 Corinthians 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
1 Corinthians 13:1 ¶Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
"Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old"
What a beautiful verse!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Just a couple brief examples from the Thanksgiving Hymns, Hymn 3 (The Dead Sea Scrolls, p.173, Wise, Abegg, Cook):
The Testament of Job ch.48-50 (estimated to have been written circ. first century, p.829, 833, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, James A. Charlesworth, ed.):
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Yeah, tongues of men and angels. We are to be fishers of men. So both will mix. And the hungry will see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Thanks for the clarification - I needed it. Actually, my comment about vague words sounded harsher than I intended it to. But if I've got what you're saying right now, it's not that the words spoken were vague, but that the Word's record of them doesn't specify what was spoken. If so, okay; I got it.
So, no contradiction here between what I'm saying & what you said. I was just thinking that the praise, the wonderful works of God that were being spoken were a lot more to the point - hitting the nail on the head so to speak than we normally give them credit for - than we normally saw in TWI. Not that TWI was not correct or was uninspired (although I don't doubt that it was completely uninspired sometimes), but there are degrees of inspiration - all of which may be truly inspired.
For example, the amazing prophecies given by Mary & Elizabeth concerning Jesus before he was born are very pointed, to the point that we, with our lack of vision, might consider them to be the prophecy of those with the ministry of a prophet - revelation from the Holy Spirit, exceptionally powerful, new. But there is nothing new in their words of prophecy, nothing that they didn't already know previously from angels, or from revelation from Holy Spirit, or from the Word. It was nothing new, just God cooking all that inside their spirit until it boiled over - the same kind of prophecy that we do. So, what was the difference? For one thing, Mary & Elizabeth were superlatively focussed on what Holy Spirit was doing at that point in time & place. But certainly, what happened on the day of Pentecost was no less stupendous, no less powerful, no less wonderful. And I think that is what came out when the apostles spoke the wonderful works of God - even though they didn't understand what they were saying - no less stupendous than what Peter said.
What matters more is the realization that what happened on the day of Pentecost is no less of a happening today than it was then. Our words of inspired prophecy (not revelation prophecy, but poor ole lowly inspiration prophecy) may be as Mary's was. It is all dependent upon how focussed we are on what HAS BEEN REVEALLED TO US about what the Holy Spirit is doing today where we are.
I don't think that Mary or Elizabeth consciously differentiated between what they knew from revelation & from the Word. They just knew what God was doing, were inspired by it,
and said so.
Let the redeemed of the Lord say so.
SO...
Edited by TomLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
My “vague” comment was directed at another poster who was suggesting that
Fascinating idea, but I wasn’t seeing how it was backed up by what was written.
And by the way, you're making some good points, like this one:
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
[quote name='T-Bone' date='Jul 8 2006, 11:59 AM' post='251144']
T-Bone post #47 June 26 2006 9:19 PM:
"William Samarin, professor of anthropology and linguistics at the University of Toronto, wrote the first comprehensive book-length study of speaking in tongues [Tongues of Men and Angels, New York: Macmillan, 1972]. In this work he takes Christian charismatic glossolalia – the common contemporary practice of speaking in unknown and unintelligible speech, which Samarin distinguishes from what he calls xenoglossia [the miraculous gift of tongues in which the speaker communicates in an unlearned human language] – and the "tongues" of other religions [including healers, occultists, and shamans] and compares them with known human languages. He concludes from his linguistic analysis that "glossolalia is a perfectly human, perfectly normal [albeit anomalous] phenomenon"
Did Samarin have any examples of xenoglossia that he studied in the book? Does he consider xenoglossia to still be speaking in tongues?
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I cannot answer either of these questions – I referenced Samarin's book as it was quoted in a Systematic Theology book. There are some links below that would indicate Samarin may fall into a cessation's viewpoint.
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1973/v30-3-bookreview8.htm
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Glossolalia
http://www.religioustolerance.org/tongues1.htm
http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/speakingtongues.htm
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
From what I read of Samarin in those links, he says the speaking in tongues in the bible was xenoglossia and the practice of tongues that he studied was glossalalia. Its curious that he and others found no difference in the glossalalia practiced in the churches and that practiced in other non-christian cultures. VP taught that SIT could not be counterfieted, thats why it was the proof in the senses realm of the internal reality of being born again. But that would make it a practice unique to Chritianity.
We could have been practicing an innate ability of the human mind all along thinking we were so special.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"We could have been practicing an innate ability of the human mind all along"
That's been my conclusion for quite some time now.
All those years of devoting ourselves to some bogus MLM for Jeezus, simply because we fell for a parlor trick. Isn't that just special?
Ah well, there's worse that we could have done...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
My understanding of this is that speaking in tongues cannot be counterfeited because it is more than just a language spoken that the individual didn't learn. Even Wierwille said that devils have a version of tongues in which they move people's mouths, lips, vocal cords, etc, & make them speak a language - so that can't be the sense in which he was saying tongues cannot be counterfeited.
When people get prophecy from devils, it really is prophecy.
When people get revelation from devils, it really is revelation.
When devils heal, people really do get healed.
The sense in which the above three are counterfeit is that they are energized from the wrong source.
THAT, devils can't counterfeit, when it comes to speaking in tongues. The devil's version of "speaking in tongues" is NOT really speaking in tongues at all. There is no intercession going on, no spiritual energizing of spiritual realities, no building of potential from the devil spirit world.
It's just a language being forced through the mouth by devil spirits. If THAT'S as deep as your definition of speaking in tongues, then, sure, THAT can be counterfeited. But THAT is not speaking in tongues.
I've seen Christians speak in tongues who weren't aware that was what they were doing - it really is a simple affair technically (on the part of humans - hell, the spirit is giving the utterence; what could be easier?). And the holy spirit is not the harsh qualifier he is made out to be). But I've never seen someone who is not a Christian speak in tongues; although, I have seen the hokey "counterfeit." Perhaps it should be called a counterfeit counterfeit to differentiate it from real, but devilish revelations, healings, etc.
Edited by TomLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
BTW, I suppose that I should add that I do not believe the majority of exway who believe their tongues weren't real were fooled by a hokey devilish counterfeit, but by the simplicity of the genuine. They thought "they" were doing it - which of course they were. Or they thought they were supposed to feel or experience something more. Or, I suppose, there may be a fairly healthy percentage who never really did anything.
I think the comfort of what Wierwille was saying about devils not being able to counterfeit tongues was that one didn't have to be afraid that if he did the speaking a devil spirit would take over or he would be "cursing Jesus" or something like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
Its no surprise that Dr. would have contradicted himself as to whether tongues could be counterfieted.
Here we have another Dr., Samarin, who put in a lot of effort studying glosalalia, which he distinguished from the phenomena of xenoglossia, and observed the same practice in both Christian and non-Christian settings. He determined that this was not even genuine language. His explanation of what it was sure fits well with what I observed going on in the ministry. I'm confident that he was studying the same thing we practiced in the ministry. I am willing to accept that he observed the same thing outside of a Christian setting. I'm not willing to conclude that, because it was outside of a Christian setting, there must have been devil spirits counterfieting a genuine article so well that the counterfiet could only be exposed by "revelation" that there were devil spirits involved.
Of course, there is still the possibility that the speaking in tongues in the Bible was not glossalalia as we see practiced today. In fact there is some evidence that it should be labeled xenoglossia, although you run into problems in Corinthians then.
I still enjoy doing it once in a while, if I feel moved to do so. I don't think it harms you any more than meditation or any other way of altering the consciousness as long as it is not taken to extremes. Everything in moderation. A time for everything in its season.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
[
To see the word "hell" used as an exclamation while talking about words from the Holy Spirit is pretty funny – maybe it's just my quirky sense of humor…]
From what you're saying - someone seeking this speaking in tongues experience has a lot of things to consider/check out/determine: 1. It could be from God. 2. It could be from the devil. 3. It could be something their mind made up…In my opinion this represents a very subjective and confusing process. What criteria would be used to determine these things?…Just some thoughts here about the book of Acts days: Was there that much of an issue of speaking in tongues being counterfeit? Was speaking in tongues a key "selling point" of Christianity? Does it appear to be a core element of their preaching?
As a Christian and firm believer in the Bible being God's Word – I still have to admit I believe the assurance promised to believers is a very personal – subjective thing. I don't think it's a "Signs, Miracles and Wonders-on-demand" feature that God offers to believers who really want to be in the know.
I think VPW had a bad habit of deciding to believe something beforehand - then twisting Scripture to support it. In TWI I've heard the following two verses used to prove the validity of TWI's speaking in tongues experience: In John 7:17 Jesus said, "…If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." And in I John 3:24 "Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us."
Two people can read both those verses and come away with two different meanings. It comes down to personal viewpoint. Someone else may say the verses can be used to validate the speaking in tongues experience. From my viewpoint [and experience] I gather the verses are talking about something – perhaps almost indescribable – that happens to me at a very deep and personal level of my consciousness as I obey Scripture – and according to those verses God is somehow involved in the experience. This is something that is subjective – it can't be proved or argued about in a debate. But it is a very real and solid aspect of my belief system – and in my opinion something based on a process that honors God and energizes this Christian thing called "faith."
Sorry – I tend to go on a rant when I think about the basis for TWI's confidence – VPW's interpretation on select verses. I have a real problem with his sloppy methodology. In the two verses I cited above the crux of the matter is really over a simple question: What was Jesus' "teaching" in John 7:17 and what were "his commands" in I John 3:24? The systematic theology books and commentaries I've read that get into these verses do so through methods very familiar to PFAL grads, Bullinger fans, and really anyone who is proficient at reading a book like a normal person. Where VPW's sloppy methodology becomes evident to me is where he ignored the basic rules of interpretation in favor of his viewpoint. So a verse with the word "spirit" in it can become a reference to speaking in tongues – as we've argued before over Romans 8:26. Instead of the Scriptures being the criteria for determining if the experience is genuine - TWI typically used experience to validate their interpretation of Scripture.
As DrtyDzn said, "VP taught that SIT could not be counterfeited, that's why it was the proof in the senses realm of the internal reality of being born again." What Scripture references did VPW use to back this up?
What I find alarming in the phrase "...the comfort of what Wirewille was saying…" is how that attitude can lull the critical mind to sleep. And especially knowing the tendency of fallen man towards self-deception! Jeremiah 17: 9 "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure…" Proverbs 14: 12 "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Just a few thoughts here: It seems to me the really important stuff in the Bible is stated very plain and leaves little room for doubt as to what it means. Is there any question that adultery or murder is wrong? Is there any question as to whether or not the Bible portrays Jesus Christ as the Savior of mankind? And after considering the fact that VPW thought nothing wrong with committing adultery nor saw the importance of keeping Jesus Christ as the focal point of his ministry - I really don't trust anything he says about things in the Bible that aren't so clear.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I know I'm going to regret this, but hey; it won't be the last thing I regret.
I am a little curious to know how he distinguishes between the two, one of them "not having happened for hundreds of years."
"He determined that this was not even genuine language." Then how was I talking with someone a few weeks ago who spoke in tongues in a meeting & had a newcomer come up to him & ask where he had learned his native language?
"His explanation of what it was sure fits well with what I observed going on in the ministry."
Your perception, I can't argue with it.
"I'm confident that he was studying the same thing we practiced in the ministry."
We? We who? I admitted I don't know what you know. Perhaps you might consider that you may not know what others have known, especially when it comes to their spiritual lives.
I don't know what he observed either inside or outside a "Christian" setting, but I don't get your logic about counterfeiting "a genuine article so well that the counterfiet could only be exposed by 'revelatiion' that there were devil spirits involved." The qualifications for being considered genuine according to the other Doctor's study & the present discussion, apparantly, is simply that it is a language. What's the "so well" about it?
Either devils can control people's organs of speech or they can't. Either people can speak in tongues or they can't. And, OMG, "revelation?" The audacity to think not only that it might require revelation to tell the genuine from the counterfeit, but that moi can hear from God! Well, I'm sorry, but if none of that is real, I'm just going to go pop a beer, & watch a movie, maybe commit some adultery.
"Everything in moderation. A time for everything in its season." Sheesh, you sound like my mother! Hey, maybe I should pay more attention. Just messing with you, okay?
Peace - & other altered states of consciousness,
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Hey, don't you go taking credit for MY quirky sense of humor :). Glad it tickled your funny bone, T-Bone.
Not to ignore your points, but I have to go take down hurricane shutters while it's not raining. Clarification of some of my points forthcoming. I apparently appear to come off from a place other than your own in more ways than I actually do. Differences are cool; I have no problem with that. But not when they are differences perceived via impositions on our perceptions imposed by others rather than real differences. Artificial kaka despoiling the water of life! I'm sorry I mentioned Wierwille's name. Ah, but there it is.
Gotta go - I'm cut short.
Later & love,
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
TOM -I am a little curious to know how he distinguishes between the two, one of them "not having happened for hundreds of years."
I think he just classified the occurance of spontaneously speaking in an unlearned language as xenoglossia because it was different from what he observed going on in the churches. Whether he ever observed it, I don't know, but he must have considered it something different because of its rarity.
TOM -"He determined that this was not even genuine language." Then how was I talking with someone a few weeks ago who spoke in tongues in a meeting & had a newcomer come up to him & ask where he had learned his native language?
"His explanation of what it was sure fits well with what I observed going on in the ministry."
Your perception, I can't argue with it.
"I'm confident that he was studying the same thing we practiced in the ministry."
We? We who? I admitted I don't know what you know. Perhaps you might consider that you may not know what others have known, especially when it comes to their spiritual lives.
In my 10+ years of being involved with the ministry, I never saw an example of someone who spoke in tongues and someone else understood the language. That would have been cool. Even more cool if I had done it. Of course I would have probably been crazy enough to see if I could duplicate the phenomena. I did stuff like speak in tongues with a French accent and immitate someone elses tongue that I had heard often enough to be able to copy.
TOM -Either devils can control people's organs of speech or they can't. Either people can speak in tongues or they can't. And, OMG, "revelation?" The audacity to think not only that it might require revelation to tell the genuine from the counterfeit, but that moi can hear from God! Well, I'm sorry, but if none of that is real, I'm just going to go pop a beer, & watch a movie, maybe commit some adultery
Pop one for me !LOL The point is not whether the devils can counterfiet speaking in tongues, its whether its an innate ability of the human mind or something special only to those born again. If its only human, who needs to get devils involved?
You are lucky to have an eyewitness to someone who understood someone speaking in tongues.
Jerry
Edited by DrtyDznLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think the two terms indicate a distinction that some see between the two experiences. Xenoglossia referring to the instances of speaking in tongues in the Bible – which I think were genuine – in other words having God as their source. Glossolalia referring to the current practice among Charismatic churches and other groups – which Samarin and other linguistic experts have concluded is a language made up by the speaker.
You bring up a good point, Tom – how can we compare the two? I guess there weren't any scientific/linguistic studies conducted on speaking in tongues during the book of Acts period. However there is the testimony of the audience on the day of Pentecost saying they understood what was said - that it was real languages. So, that is what my mind keeps going back to in searching for any criteria by which to judge... I can't say I know for a fact exactly what the believers back then thought, believed, or what happened in the spiritual dimension of their lives… What data comes out of these current linguistic experts' studies concurs with what some of us on this thread have expressed about our experiences. For me – it broadens the gap between glossolalia and xenoglossia.
I for one want to make a distinction between the current day practice of glossolalia and the xenoglossia in the New Testament. Because I want to believe that what occurred in the Bible was genuine. As I said in post #128 on this thread – it would be great if some Charismatic group would submit a recording of their speaking in tongues and interpretation to a panel of linguistic experts. If people are going to claim what they do today is exactly what was done back then – how about we try to establish some standards or criteria for a legitimate claim?
Edited by T-BoneLink 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.