From: DWILKINS@ucrac1.ucr.edu
Date: Wed Apr 10 1996 - 23:19:49 EDT
Gary S. Shogren wrote:
>I wonder on the face of it if this isn't an unwarranted restriction of
>meaning. And, besides, doesn't it prejudge whether glossalalia is supposed
>to be human language (articulate speech that is not understood because it's
>alien) or ecstatic utterance (inarticulate? speech that is not understood
>because it's inarticulate).
Actually, my point in part is that making LALEW refer to spiritual communi-
cation in the NT would be the (unwarranted) restriction of meaning. We can
take it at its ususal meaning and interpret the context to be spiritual
language or an alien (but real) language or even ecstatic utterance, with-
out arguing that LALEW therefore assumes a narrower, specialized meaning in
the NT. When I used the word "inarticulate" I should have clarified that this
is but one possibility, and that LALEW could refer to a foreign language
that is articulate but perceived as gibberish by those who do not understand
it. I probably allowed my interpretation of tongues as sign gifts to show
through (i.e. I don't support the ecstatic utterance view) but LALEW would
not serve either side of that debate very well.
Don Wilkins
UC Riverside
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:40 EDT