From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 60

In article <May.9.05.40.36.1993.27495@athos.rutgers.edu> koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:
>There seem to be many points to the speaking in tongues thing which
>are problematic.  It's use as prayer language seems especially troubling
>to me.  I understand that when you pray in tongues, the spirit is doing
>the talking.  And when you pray, you pray to God.  And the Spirit is
>God.  So, the Spirit is talking to Himself.  Which is why I only go
>by the Pentecost use where it's an actual language.

What is wrong with "the Spirit talking to Himself."  Jesus intercedes
for us, and Romans 8:26-27 tell of how the Spirit intercedes for
us before God.  That is no theological problem.  Tounges as a prayer
language finds support in I Corinthians 14:14-18.


>Moreover, the phrase "though I speak with the tongues of men and angels"
>used by Paul in I Cor. is misleading out of context.   Some would then
>assume that there is some angelic tongue, and if when they speak, it
>is no KNOWN language, then it is an angelic tongue.

Its true that this could be (and has been) used as a rug to sweep
any difficulties under.  But it is a valid point.  Paul does mention
angelic tounges in the verse. 


>Hmmm...in the old testament story about the tower of Babel, we see how
>God PUNISHED by giving us different language.  Can we assume then that
>if angels have their own language at all, that they have the SAME one
>amongst other angels?  After all, THEY were not punished in any manner.

If the languages we sepak are the result of Babel, then it stands to
reason that angels would speak a different language from us.  You do 
have a valid point about multiple angelic languages.  But angelic
beings maybe of different species so to speak.  maybe different species
communicate differently.  

>Trouble is, while such stories abound, any and all attempts at
>verification (and we are to test the spirit...) either show that
>the witness had no real idea of the circumstances, or that outright
>fabrication was involved.  The Brother Puka story in a previous post
>seems like a "friend of a friend" thing.  And linguistically, a two
>syllable word hardly qualifies as language, inflection or no.

I have heard an eyewitness account, myself.  Such things are hard to prove.
They don't lend themselves to a laboratory thing very well.  I don';t
know if it is a very holy thing to take gifts into a laboratory anyway.

>Much as many faith healers have trouble proving their "victories" (since
>most ailments "cured" are just plain unprovable) and modern day
>ressurrections have never been validated, so is it true that no
>modern day xenoglossolalia has been proved by clergy OR lay.

That's an unprovable statement.  How can you prove if somethings been proved?
There is no way to know that you've seen all the evidence.  Once I 
saw an orthodontists records complete with photographs showing how one of
his patients severe underbite was cured by constant prayer.  

John G. Lakes once prayed for someone and saw them healed in a laboratory,
according to "Adventures in God."  Its an interesting book.

Link