In article <May.11.02.38.52.1993.28313@athos.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes: >In article <May.9.05.40.36.1993.27495@athos.rutgers.edu> koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes: >>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.    I don't know either.  Truth be known, so little is known of angels to even guess.  All we really know is that angels ALWAYS speak in the nativ tongue of the person they're talking to, so perhaps they don't have ANY language of their own.  >>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.  Well, we are told to test the spirits.  While you could do this scripturally, to see if someones claims are backed by the bible, I see nothing wrong with making sure that that guy Lazarus really was dead and now he's alive.  >>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.    It's a common fallacy you commit.  The non-falsifiability trick.  How can I prove it when not all the evidence may be seen?  Answer:  I can't.  The fallacy is in assuming that it is up to me to prove  anything.    When I say it has never been proven, I'm talking about the ones making the claims, not the skeptics, who are doing the proving.  The burden of proof rest with the claimant.  Unfortunately,  (pontification warning) our legal system seems to be headed in the dangerous realm of making people prove their innocence (end pontification).  But truthfully, Corinthians was so poorly written (or maybe just so poorly translated into English) that much remains unknown about just what Paul really intended (despite claims of hard proof one way or another).  Some will see his writings in 1 cor 12-14 as saying don't do this don't do this and using sarcasm, metaphor, etc. while yet others take what he says literally sarcasms and metaphors notwithstanding.