Speaking in 'tongues'

[~TW~]

Spud,

blueside, everybody agrees Daniel is talking about Antiochus. It's the claim that it was written hundreds of years earlier that makes it significant.

No "everybody" does not and, even if lots of people at least did think that, they'd still have all the logical and evidential problems associated with that belief to address.

In Daniel 11:21-35, I think you'll find most people agree that Antiochus IV fulfills it. They do not think so about verses 36 onwards.

Given your original claim above that everybody  agrees is wrong, please evidence that circa 3. 7 bn people agree with you now?

 Yes I will back that put me down as a everybody.

  ~TW~

Mmm, claiming to be legion, tw?

 Yes the Christians on here have decided to agree a lot more in combating errors on the part of atheist and others a sort of united front.

~TW

[Nearly Sane]

Whoosh!

[~TW~]

Whoosh!

 whoosh indeed can you spot the poster that has been ignored today a sort of sent to coventry.

       @~TW~

[Nearly Sane]

Whoosh!

 whoosh indeed can you spot the poster that has been ignored today a sort of sent to coventry.

       @~TW~

No. I do spot a poster who doesn't read what is said. I would suggest you go back and reread the threads you have posted on and try and consider what people are actually saying rather than what you think they are, to the extent of not realising you were replying to completely different posters until tomorrow it wax pointed out to you f the third time. Further in the middle of such exchange questioning my sanity.

[jeremyp]

I accept that it may be wrong about Herod etc. But it is interesting to read about Antiochus IV's campaign against Egypt and about what happened in Judea and Persia. Assuming Daniel is talking about Antiochus in Ch 11 and 12, the prophecy doesn't seem far off.

So, you say that what we have 'doesn't seem far off' provided you add in an assumption first: not very convincing, Spud.

Gordon, it is generally accepted (except amongst the more diehard Christians) that Daniel's prophecies refer to historical events leading up to and including the wars between the Jews and Antiochus IV and that the prophecies are pretty accurate right up until a year or two before the death of Antiochus in 164BCE. This even to the point that one historian on the In Our Time programme on the Maccabean revolt cited Daniel as a historical source.

The reason that the prophecies are so accurate is that they were written in the second century BCE and, for the most part, they talk about events that had already happened. The Wikipedia page on Daniel gives a pretty good summary of the evidence that leads us to date Daniel fairly precisely between 167 and 164BCE.

[jeremyp]

I would suggest that a preferred view would be that Daniel 11 simply illustrates in a particularly powerful way that, a) God is in control, b) He knows the end from the beginning and the future course of history and c) when He chooses so to do, He is perfectly capable of revealing the future course of history in fine detail to those who have put their trust in Him.

Only preferred amongst Christians who would prefer not to think that some of their prophecies were actually manufactured after the event.

There's no evidence that the Book of Daniel existed before 200BCE.

[~TW~]

Whoosh!

 whoosh indeed can you spot the poster that has been ignored today a sort of sent to coventry.

       @~TW~

No. I do spot a poster who doesn't read what is said. I would suggest you go back and reread the threads you have posted on and try and consider what people are actually saying rather than what you think they are, to the extent of not realising you were replying to completely different posters until tomorrow it wax pointed out to you f the third time. Further in the middle of such exchange questioning my sanity.

   Well as it goes I was questioning the sanity of BR and I have said sorry.So what do you want now blood.

 And in consideration of the crapp threads we get from you lot like these.  More Christian madness./
The Mistakes in Genesis/ Revelation
Show us the evidence /Satan is having an easy time of it!/'The Rapture' alias 'second coming'

 I think we Christians deserve medals for putting up with the rubbish you lot post.Maybe we have just woken up.Maybe the tables are turning.

                                      ~TW~

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps you should apologise to BR then?

Though I will agree with you on one thing, I think there are too many threads started by posters of all views that are simply digs at viewpoints. It happens to Christians, pagans, Muslims, Sriram, and indeed atheists. But simply indulging in the 'they started it' argument is still stuck in the playground. 

[jeremyp]

2. Since we are asked to accept that one man in every 1000 is both bald and digitally disadvantaged what is the strength of the correlation between these characteristics, how was this calculated and what was value of 'p'.

If the incidence of bald nine fingered men is 1/1000 and the probability of being bald is 1/10 and the probability of losing a finger is 1/100 then the correlation is none.

This is because the figure of 1/1000 is exactly what we would expect by chance if the two traits are independent.

For example we might observe that 1/5 of people are left handed and 1/10 people wear their watch on their right wrist. We might naively expect the number of people who are both left handed and wear their watch on their right wrist to be 1/50 but I would bet a tenner it turns out to be higher than that because the two traits are not independent.

[~TW~]

Perhaps you should apologise to BR then?

Though I will agree with you on one thing, I think there are too many threads started by posters of all views that are simply digs at viewpoints. It happens to Christians, pagans, Muslims, Sriram, and indeed atheists. But simply indulging in the 'they started it' argument is still stuck in the playground.

Well sad to say I see you as one of them.

 ~TW~

[DaveM]

There's no evidence that the Book of Daniel existed before 200BCE.

Well, not according to the infallible JP.  You should really have made that statement three times

[Brownie]

I found this topic about speaking in tongues and, as the subject is being discussed on the 'Halloween' thread, thought it might be a good idea to continue it on here.

From the most recent posts it does look as though the thread has gone off the topic a bit but earlier on there are some posts relevant to tongues.

Is the phenomena of speaking in tongues connected with the occult?  The occult meaning hidden, secret knowledge.

[Hope]

Is the phenomena of speaking in tongues connected with the occult?  The occult meaning hidden, secret knowledge.

Speaking in tongues certainly isn't connected with the occult, Brownie. 

[Brownie]

I didn't think so either, Hope, but that opinion has been flagged up which is why I thought it was worthwhile reviving this thread. 

Perhaps you'd explain how there is no connection between speaking in tongues and occult practices, which was the question.

We said quite a bit earlier on in the thread but there are new posters who may have experience or views on the subject who will have things to say.

[Hope]

Perhaps you'd explain how there is no connection between speaking in tongues and occult practices, which was the question.

I've already referred to it in terms of the posistion of the respective issues on the good/bad spectrum.

I would agree that the two concepts are related insofar as they are both supernatural in nature, but as such they are only connected in the same way that apples and peaches are connected.

[Brownie]

That's food for thought!

[Anchorman]

Wot Hope said. To those who have no experience of the phenomena, the charisma - especially tongues - may well seem to be wierd - heck, I thought as much myself. till I started using the gift in my private prayer time. On the Halloween thread, floo categorised this with the occult, and was unable to substantiate her claim despite repeated opportunities. I realise her experience of what was a rather nasty exclusive church in her childhood were deeply significant for her, but her refusal to see that not all charismatics, or indeed all Pentecostals, are as inhibiting as those of her early aquaintance, clouds her judgement.

[Brownie]

I suppose it was a gut reaction to something that the grown ups are doing which is beyond a child's understanding.  Quite scary, I would imagine.

My first encounter with speaking in tongues was when I was well into adulthood and, at the time, I really liked it. 

The singing was amazing.

Now, I am sceptical about it.

 

[Anchorman]

With me, it was a Church of Scotland weekend exploring prayer. A minister spoke about the use of the gift in private prayer time or prayer groups, not as a prophetic gift, but an aid to personal prayer and worship. I didn't think much more about it - till I quite naturally started using it in my 'quiet time'...and still do. Too many equate it with OTTT stuff such as the Toronto Blessing, which it is not. As I posted at the very start of this thread, I would avoid those who say they have no control over its' use, like the plague. Use of tongues in personal prayer is no substitute for study of Scripture or developing one's re;lationship with God; rather it should be a tool for deepening it.

[SteveH]

Again, a sweeping statement, floo.
Leaving your childhood experiences aside, have you actually studied the charismatic movement in any depth before coming to your opinion?

I don't know whether Floo has, but I have - I was a member of a charismatic anglican church for 15 years in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, to my undying shame. I left because I could no longer deny the complete lack of results from praying for healing and miracles, and the cliched, vague, self-serving rubbish served up as prophesy, usually in a silly pastiche of 17th-Century English. It is at best an irrelevance and distraction from what Christianity is really about, and is often much worse than that - snake-oil merchants like Morris Cerullo, Kenneth Copeland and Joyce Meyer getting rich by exploiting vulnerable people, and hair-raisingly right-wing politics, including uncritical support for Israel. Thank God I came to my senses in 1992, and got out.

[Brownie]

You got out of in 1992, I got into it mid-90s. Only for a couple of years.

Going to the annual Catholic charismatic conference in Norfolk in 1998 put me off for life.

Private prayer - praying in the spirit - is different to the sort of charismatic worship that you and I experienced.

It was very seductive though.  i'm quite susceptible to heightened atmosphere, or at least I was.

[Anchorman]

I don't know whether Floo has, but I have - I was a member of a charismatic anglican church for 15 years in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, to my undying shame. I left because I could no longer deny the complete lack of results from praying for healing and miracles, and the cliched, vague, self-serving rubbish served up as prophesy, usually in a silly pastiche of 17th-Century English. It is at best an irrelevance and distraction from what Christianity is really about, and is often much worse than that - snake-oil merchants like Morris Cerullo, Kenneth Copeland and Joyce Meyer getting rich by exploiting vulnerable people, and hair-raisingly right-wing politics, including uncritical support for Israel. Thank God I came to my senses in 1992, and got out.

Hi, SteveH; I agree that some of the political baggage attached to the charismatic movement is distressing - and certain elements adherance to the discredited 'prosperity Gospel' drivel a disgrace, but no-one, even in their wildest dreams, could ever accuse the Kirk of being extreme or dangerously out of kilter with the Gospel (well, not in the realms of pursuing the charisma, anyway.....there are a few issues on other matters which bear scrutiny) Whilst I have attended prayer services for healing, and other purposes, these have never been anything less than controlled, disciplined and very moving, with no mass hysteria of any description (After all, this IS the Church of Scotland!) However, like others in the Kirk, from liberal through evangelicals, we have explored personal prayer and worship, and found tounges useful as an aid. As posted, this is an aid, an adjunct to personal devotion, and at no time was I ever out of control, or not conscious of what I was doing. I use the gift not as prophesy, or a declaration of piety to which I am not entitled, but as an assist to my private or small group prayers - and simply would not do so were there others in the room who were uncomfortable with the gift. Do do so would disturb their prayer time, and that is simply bad practice.

[Sassy]

My first encounter of speaking in tongues was when someone I knew was in the psychiatric ward of a hospital in Scotland.
They telephoned me on a regular basis for prayer and whilst there met a woman who was a believer and had been battling mental illness for years. She did not understand why having had no episodes which required hospitalisation for some years God would let her return. But having met the person I knew she knew why this time. The lady whilst talking to me  whom I knew nothing about till that phone call asked could she pray for us.  It was then she started praying in tongues and in that instant I knew all about her and what God wanted her to know.  When she had finished I told her everything and she started to cry with relief.
Everything I had told her was completely correct and what she had been waiting for God to answer.
So both she and the person in hospital with her received what they needed.

I have never been aware of speaking in tongues whilst awake and I am not a person to fake anything or pretend.
I do not believe in pretending to make noises and calling it tongues.
However, one night I had been talking with God before I must have  fell asleep (don't remember doing)about this very matter of speaking in tongues. I was before God and we were talking about what was on my heart and as I awoke I was speaking a strange language and God was calling me by a different name. A name I would have when I was with him. But as I awoke speaking in that strange tongue he told me I would not remember the name because it was for then and not for this life.

When I awoke the name was gone and the language I was speaking I could not do it.

I have had no problem with not speaking in tongues since. But I have had the experience of knowing the things on someone elses heart when they prayed in tongues for me. I had seen that and I had experienced the above.

Speaking in tongues is for Believers not for the World.

[Hope]

I don't know whether Floo has, but I have - I was a member of a charismatic anglican church for 15 years in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, to my undying shame. I left because I could no longer deny the complete lack of results from praying for healing and miracles, and the cliched, vague, self-serving rubbish served up as prophesy, usually in a silly pastiche of 17th-Century English. It is at best an irrelevance and distraction from what Christianity is really about, and is often much worse than that - snake-oil merchants like Morris Cerullo, Kenneth Copeland and Joyce Meyer getting rich by exploiting vulnerable people, and hair-raisingly right-wing politics, including uncritical support for Israel. Thank God I came to my senses in 1992, and got out.

It's interesting that you mention Joyce Meyer, Steve.  I know a lot of people - many ex-missionaries - who have found her books extremely helpful in the hard task of re-integrating into their own cultures after many years abroad.  Most wouldn't even associate her with Pentecostalism, since you can be Charismatic without being Pentecostal.  I fully agree with you regarding Kenneth Copeland - but he has nothing to do with Pentecostalism and everything to do with the Prosperity Gospel movement.  Cerullo is probably the only 'Pentecostalist' amongst that group.

All that said, I would agree with some of what you say.  Historically, Pentecostalists have taught that the exercise of the 'charisma' in public are a necessary indicator of one's faith, something that many charismatics within denominations such as Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists, RC, etc. don't.

[Sassy]

My first encounter of speaking in tongues was when someone I knew was in the psychiatric ward of a hospital in Scotland.
They telephoned me on a regular basis for prayer and whilst there met a woman who was a believer and had been battling mental illness for years. She did not understand why having had no episodes which required hospitalisation for some years God would let her return. But having met the person I knew she knew why this time. The lady whilst talking to me  whom I knew nothing about till that phone call asked could she pray for us.  It was then she started praying in tongues and in that instant I knew all about her and what God wanted her to know.  When she had finished I told her everything and she started to cry with relief.
Everything I had told her was completely correct and what she had been waiting for God to answer.
So both she and the person in hospital with her received what they needed.

I have never been aware of speaking in tongues whilst awake and I am not a person to fake anything or pretend.
I do not believe in pretending to make noises and calling it tongues.
However, one night I had been talking with God before I must have  fell asleep (don't remember doing)about this very matter of speaking in tongues. I was before God and we were talking about what was on my heart and as I awoke I was speaking a strange language and God was calling me by a different name. A name I would have when I was with him. But as I awoke speaking in that strange tongue he told me I would not remember the name because it was for then and not for this life.

When I awoke the name was gone and the language I was speaking I could not do it.

I have had no problem with not speaking in tongues since. But I have had the experience of knowing the things on someone elses heart when they prayed in tongues for me. I had seen that and I had experienced the above.

Speaking in tongues is for Believers not for the World.