Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Tongues

There's a special way to test if a language or code is authentic or a made-up decoy. I think it works on the principle of counting how many times a certain word appears and in which order the words appear in throughout a paragraph. I was just wondering if anyone ever thought to apply the test to tongues.

P.S. If anyone knows the name of this test could they please tell it to me.

Glassolalia is the technical term for "speaking in tongues."

It has been studied - http://linguistlist.org/issues/6/6-385.html

I think it's just called "linguistic analysis" in general.

It's gibberish.

Speaking in tongues is the work of the human mind when a decent dose of an antipsychotic would be appropriate.

Amazing how religions, since the beginning of time, have embraced the mentally ill, the psychotic, as representing the god(s).

And, of course, how appropriate too.

There is a clear difference between Biblical accounts of xenoglossia where people talked in languages they did not know and native speakers of that language understood them, and the modern charismatic nonsense called glossolalia.

Blacknad.

True. In the biblical case we have no evidence that it ever happened.

I wouldn't say you're predictable Dan, but I actually saw that response coming

Regards,

Blacknad

And the reason you saw it coming is that you knew, in your heart, it was just another story like Jonah and the whale for which the evidence is essentially non-existant.

Dear DA,

You said...True. In the biblical case we have no evidence that it ever happened.

My answer...The Bible is the evidence, and whether you believe the Bible or not is purely Opinion.

Once again you show how you are right without proving that you are right. If you say I never prove myself right, my answer to that is...I don't have to, because your opinion is really none of my concern except where your opinions are about my opinions. Let us agree to disagree.

p.s. DA, have you studied your Bible lately? How about the Iliad? Or how about Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, by Newton? Who was one of those crazy God Believers that you hate so much.

Closeminded is as Closeminded does.

I think to much I think.
rlb60123

rlb wrote:
"The Bible is the evidence, and whether you believe the Bible or not is purely Opinion."

Lets examine your statement.

1. Who wrote the bible? Name please.
2. When precisely did this person write it?
3. In what language?
4. Who translated it into the language(s) you read?
5. What evidence do you have that the translations were 100% faithful and accurate?
6. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the Latin Volgate?
7. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the Torah of the Jews?
8. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the version of every other Chrisitian denomination whose version is different from your?

So what you have, as evidence, is an authorless book, with not a single known original text, written in a language you could never have read, mistranslated into other language you could never have read, mistranslated multiple times into English of which you accept only a single version.
Wouldn't get you out of a parking ticket now would it?

rlb wrote:
"Once again you show how you are right without proving that you are right."

I will presume this translates into something meaningful and respond accordingly. The burden is not upon me to prove that your authorless book is the true and perfect work of the deity that created the heavens and the earth. I'm not the one making that claim.

rlb wrote:
p.s. DA, have you studied your Bible lately?

Yes. But have you ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh from which it was plagiarized?

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/

Well it is about time you did.

Your Bible is as much of a work of fiction copied from a heathen mythology as Santa Claus is Christmas and the Easter Bunny is the resurrection.

1. "Who wrote the Bible? Name please."

About 40 authors total are credited with writing the 66 books of the Bible. The writers include people at all walks of life, from fishermen to physicians to royalty.

2. "When precisely did this person write it?"

The Bible was written over a span of approximately 1500 years.

3. "In what languages?"

Ancient Hebrew, Koine Greek, and (possibly) Aramaic.

4. "Who translated it into the language(s) you read?"

Many scholars of the Greek and Hebrew language.

5. "What evidence do you have that the translations were 100% faithful and accurate?"

Well we can still compare our translations to the ancient texts, but there are also manuscripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls that confirm that the books of the Bible have been accurately preserved.

6. "Why is the version you read more authoritative than the Vulgate?"

It's not necessarily "more authoritative," but considering the Latin language is no longer spoken, we prefer to read the Bible in our own vernacular.

7. "Why is the version you read more authoritative than the Torah of the Jews?"

It's not. lol

8. "Why is the version you read more authoritative than the version of every other Christian denomination whose version is different from yours?"

Each Christian denomination does not have its own version. The main reason multiple translations were developed is so modern readers could more easily understand the Bible.

"Yes. But have you ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh from which it was plagiarized?"

Actually, there are many versions of the Flood story from all over the world (It's quite an interesting study). Not all take place in Mesopotamia.

"Your Bible is as much of a work of fiction copied from a heathen mythology as Santa Claus is Christmas and the Easter Bunny is the resurrection."

Heh. You should learn something about the Bible before you declare the whole thing a "work of fiction." Take some time to hear what educated people with opposing viewpoints have to say (even if only to know your enemy). But don't make ridiculously ignorant statements like the ones above. Educate yourself in the Judeo-Christian faith, its history and its doctrine, if you plan on discrediting it.

That's all.

The point I know I can take issue with is the statement you made regarding differing versions. The Jehovah's Witnesses are still adding to and changing the Bible, King James of the King James Version fame had it reinterpreted, Mormons have their own bible, Catholics only read a set cycle that repeats every five years of certain stories in their mass ( I was Catholic so I know).

The Bible has been changed throughout the history of Chrisitanity so although there are some parts that may still be accurate to the original texs, but there are many parts that are not. By the way, the Catholic Church does not like the mention of the Dead Sea Scrolls as it speaks about Jesus in ways the hierarchy of the Church does not like.

Let's also speak of the Apochryphal texts as well, things that were removed from the Bibles because human authors did not like them

The Bible has always been a document that is easily interpreted, by the way are we talking New or Old testament as the rules to follow and punishments that are handed out for breaking those rules vary widely between the two. After all, anyone who eats fish on Fridays is going to hell right?

I don't try to discredit the Bible, I let it's followers do it for me. Every act of hypocrisy, violence, bigotry and evil that is carried out in God's name without God seeming to take obvious offense discredits the idea that there is an all knowing being who loves us.

Web Wombat: Many is not an answer.

Wombat wrote:
"Well we can still compare our translations to the ancient texts"

Actually you can't because there are not ancient texts. There is not a single original copy of any fragment of the book: Not one. It is all make-believe.

Wombat wrote:
"The main reason multiple translations were developed is so modern readers could more easily understand the Bible."

And you think all of the different translations of the 10 Commandments, some with reordering, some with commandments missing is to help modern readers? Are you serious? Are modern readers incapable of handling 10 simple declarative sentences?

But what is most precious about your response is that you immediately jump to the conclusion that I disagree with you because I am not "educated." The word you are looking for is brain-washed and I am extremely knowledgeable about the writings of all of the major religions.

Which is why I find them so laughable and the victims so tragic.

A challege for Wombat:

Post the 10 commandments used by your specific church.

Surely you can do that.

No Blacknad ... you are not allowed to giggle yet.

"The Jehovah's Witnesses are still adding to and changing the Bible."

The vast majority of Christians believe the Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult. Their New World Translation is not true to the original Scriptures, and the people that rendered it were not language scholars. In fact, many "real" scholars the Watchtower Society claims support the NWT have, in actuality, spoken out against it.

"King James of the King James Version fame had it reinterpreted."

I don't know about this. I haven't looked into it, but that's a another good reason to have many versions - so that no one can privately interpret the text. It's also handy to have a concordance.

"Mormons have their own bible."

Mormons (also believed by a majority of Christians to be a cult) have many texts, most of which were written by Joseph Smith. The LDS Church traditionally uses the King James Version Bible, though.

"Catholics only read a set cycle that repeats every five years of certain stories in their mass (I was Catholic so I know)."

I'm not too well versed in Roman Catholic orthopraxy (I am a Protestant). Could you please expound on that?

"The Bible has been changed throughout the history of Chrisitanity so although there are some parts that may still be accurate to the original texs, but there are many parts that are not."

Could you please list a few examples?

"By the way, the Catholic Church does not like the mention of the Dead Sea Scrolls as it speaks about Jesus in ways the hierarchy of the Church does not like."

As I said, I am a Protestant. One of the reasons for the Reformation was to escape what Renaissance Christians believed was a corrupt Church hierarchy.

"Let's also speak of the Apochryphal texts as well, things that were removed from the Bibles because human authors did not like them."

Catholicism and some Eastern denominations have their own deuterocanonical texts. Jews have never considered them authoritative and neither do Protestants. The "Apocryphal" books seem to conflict with the Bible on some issues, and although they may be fine for historical reference, we do not accept them as canon.

"The Bible has always been a document that is easily interpreted, by the way are we talking New or Old testament as the rules to follow and punishments that are handed out for breaking those rules vary widely between the two."

There are two forms of law in the Torah: moral law and ceremonial law. Christians believe that ceremonial law is no longer necessary because of Christ's ultimate sacrifice. Moral law, however, is how we believe God would like us to live - now and always. The reason the two Testaments appear to differ is because of their themes. The Old Testament's theme is justice. The New Testament's theme is mercy. And one thing we believers find wonderful about the Bible is that God is able to show His love and mercy without compromising His perfect justice. I hope this helps you understand.

"After all, anyone who eats fish on Fridays is going to hell right?"

Eh? lol No, no one is reprobate for eating fish. ~.^ I'm not familar with a passage that condemns people for doing so on the Sabbath. It was, however, forbidden to eat fish without scales (on account of the toxins).

"What is most precious about your response is that you immediately jump to the conclusion that I disagree with you because I am not 'educated.' The word you are looking for is brain-washed and I am extremely knowledgeable about the writings of all of the major religions."

YOU are educated in the writings of ALL major religions? Then why were you asking questions like "Who wrote the Bible? When did this person write it? In what language?" Either you were playing dumb or you honestly didn't know. I assumed you were actually looking for answers. Forgive me if you were only being facetious.

"Which is why I find them so laughable and the victims so tragic."

Good grief. Another bitter atheist (I assume you're not an agnostic... Not many agnostics are this "mean."). Look, I believe everyone is entitled to their own views. You apparently do not. I'd be happy to have a civilized, intelligent discussion with you, but I don't appreciate the offensive, patronizing blather. I didn't come here to argue or even debate, just to give my input and perhaps answer a few questions someone might have. If you want a flame war, you're barking up the wrong tree.

"A challenge for Wombat: Post the 10 commandments used by your specific church."

I don't have any "specific" to my church. Here are the Ten Commandments summarized, if this is what you're looking for:

1. Do not put any other gods before Me.
2. Do not make for yourself any graven image (idol) to worship.
3. Do not take the name of God in vain.
4. Remember to set aside a day of rest (Sabbath) and keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. Do not murder.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not bear false witness against someone (commit perjury).
10. Do not covet another person's possessions.

I know where you'd like to take this. Yes, there are "variants" of the Ten Commandments taken from those passages in the Book of Exodus. Jews and Protestants agree on how they're defined. The Catholic version varies slightly.


**And I apologize. This has really gotten off-topic.

And the actual commandments:

You wrote:
1. "Do not put any other gods before Me."

Actual:
ho-tsei-ti-kha a-sher 'e-lo-hey-kha Adonai 'a-no-khi 'a-va-dim mi-beit mitz-ra-yim ma-e-retz
"brought you out who your God Adonai I am from the house of bondage from the land of Egypt."

Not a good match.

You wrote:
2. "Do not make for yourself any graven image (idol) to worship."

Actual:
'al-pa-nai 'a-che-rim 'e-lo-him yih-yeh-le-kha lo'
"before me other gods you shall have Not."

Do you see anything about worshiping images in there? I don't.

Decent rendering of the other 8. I'm surprised you were this close. But the point really is that if even one is wrong ... then one must ask where the black line is between the word of god and the word of man.

No need to apologize. Nothing at SAGG is on of off topic, especially not in the Origins forum, as the moderators seemingly don't desire to put chlorine into the pool no matter how often they are urged to do so.

Maybe I can finally finish the comment I started 3 hours ago....

The short version this time. I kept getting moved at work.

In short, your entire rebuttal validates mine and DA's arguments as to the inablility of any religion to claim validity and that they hold the truth of God's words.

If the JWs and the Mormons are considered cultists by the rest of the Christian sects yet they believe they are correct, what right do we have to say they are incorrect?

You admit that there human agencies have edited the word of God as it contradicted what was already in the Bible. My question is what mortal, human agency has the right to decide what is contradictory? The Old and New Testament are completely different in tone - eye for an eye versus forgiveness, who are we to say that one is more correct then the other?

Let me ask you and Blacknad, if Jesus appeared today who would believe it was really him and not some insane person babbling to be the Son of God reborn? What would it take to prove to you who believe in Christ that it was Him? How do you decide who is and who is not a false prophet?

I firmly believe that if Christ reappeared on Earth he would be put in an insane asylum, given strong drugs and that would be the end of it. No one, not even the Christians would believe him.

Lillith wrote:
"The Old and New Testament are completely different in tone - eye for an eye versus forgiveness, who are we to say that one is more correct then the other?"

Well you see God used to sleep on the left side of the bed and it was kind of lumpy and uncomfortable and he woke up an awful vengeful grouch who liked to commit genocide and do horrible things to innocent children like drown them.

Then about 2,000 years ago he rolled onto the other side of the bed, found it all warm and snuggly and became a good guy who thought warm and loving thoughts like the best way to communicate with humans was a crucifixion and threatening them with armageddon.

The sad truth is that if Jesus appeared today he would likely be precisely what he was the first time: A Jew. He would go to synagogue and wonder who the hell these nut cases are that followed a corrupted biography of his life. One in which he never sought to create a new religion and one that has brought the worst bloodshed and torture to the planet in its history while congratulating itself on the pittance of its labours actually performing worthwhile deeds.

The cultures the Jews came into contact with created statues and images and prayed to and worshipped them as gods.

That was the context it was written in and makes perfect sense to translate it as such.

Blacknad.