Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Tongues of fire

Tim Challies interviewed John MacArthur, and Denny Burk plugged the same interview. On a related note, Justin Taylor did a post on John Owen. For some reason, Challies shut down the thread, after less than a day. Is he protecting MacArthur? Does he think MacArthur needs handlers?

In any event, I'm going to post some comments I left at their blogs, and/or some intelligent remarks by some other commenters.

steve hays November 5, 2013 at 12:32 pm #

“[JMac] The book of Acts depicts the gift of tongues as producing real human languages (Acts 2:9–11), and nothing in 1 Corinthians redefines tongues as irrational babble. ”
Since 1 Cor was written prior to Acts, how are continuationists “redefining” tongues if they take 1 Cor as their frame of reference? If 1 Cor is the earlier source, how is it redefining the phenomenon to begin with an earlier source as your frame of reference? When scholars begin with Mark rather than Matthew or Luke (assuming Markan priority), are they guilty of “redefining” what Mark describes?
steve hays Tim Challies • a day ago
I notice that cessationists typically deploy two contradictory arguments.
i) On the one hand, they say continuationism is falsified by church history. They say church history doesn't bear out the continuation of the charismata. So historical experience disproves continuationism.
ii) On the other hand, when examples of ongoing charismata are cited, they say that's an illicit appeal to experience.
So which is it? Isn't (i) an argument from experience as well? Don't you think cessationists need to be consistent?

steve hays Mike Riccardi • 10 hours ago
i) In standard theological usage, "extraordinary providence" is a synonym for "miracles."
ii) Apropos (i), MacArthurite cessationists need to educate themselves on the concept and definition of miracles, which is both philosophically and biblically broader than their narrow, ad hoc definition. For instance:
David J. Bartholomew, Uncertain Belief: Is It Rational to Be a Christian? (Oxford University Press, USA, July 13, 2000), chapter 4.
David Basinger, "What is a Miracle"? Graham H. Twelftree, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Miracles (Cambridge University Press, 2011), chapter 1.
Winfried Corduan, Reasonable Faith (B&H, 1993), 157-58.
David Corner, "Coincidence Miracles," §9, "Miracles," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
J. P. Moreland & William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Faith (2003), 566.
iii) Apropos (ii), MacArthurite cessationists are guilty of special pleading when they begin with the position they oppose, then devise an ad hoc definition of miracles to exclude the opposing position. The proper procedure would be to begin with a fairly systematic list of Biblical miracles, try to abstract a lowest common denominator, then base their definition on that inductive sample group.
iv) Apropos (ii-iii), Riccardi is cherry-picking a few NT miracles to use as the standard of comparison. But by that arbitrarily selective criterion, many other Biblical miracles don't count as real miracles. Riccardi thereby eliminates modern charismatic miracles at the cost of eliminating many Biblical miracles. Unfortunately MacArthurite cessationists seem to hate continuationism more than they love Scripture.

steve hays Mike Riccardi • 9 hours ago
"So I think the visions that were being spoken about in the original post fit into the realm of God's providence rather than revelation."
Providence is a causal mode by which things happen. Revelation is content. To claim it's providential is not a logical alternative to saying it's revelatory, for revelation isn't antithetical to providential means.
"If God is revealing something to me, whether by dreams, whispers, or impressions, then divine authority accompanies that revelation. But if we limit ourselves to referring to such things as what they are (i.e., the providence of God), it becomes much more difficult to stamp our impressions, for example, with the authority of God / the Holy Spirit."
Since the Holy Spirit is the agent of providence and revelation alike, the former would be just as "authoritative" as the latter–assuming we should cast the issue in terms of authority.

steve hays Michael Coughlin • a day ago
Unfortunately, that's the kind of argument that atheists use to debunk prayer. Christians think God answers prayer, but that's just sample bias. We remember the examples of (apparent) answered prayer but forget all the unanswered prayers. So the "answered prayers" are just a statistical coincidence. Odds are, that will happen at random every so often.

steve hays Michael Coughlin • a day ago
i) You're using an idiosyncratic definition of answered prayer, so that if a Christian got what he asked for, God answered his prayer–and if a Christian didn't get what he asked for, God still answered his prayer. If you wish to define answered prayer in such vacuous terms, that's your prerogative.
ii) You also have a simplistic view of "revelation." To begin with, visionary revelation isn't the same thing as propositional revelation. Strictly speaking, only propositions are correct or incorrect. Visionary revelation consists of images (sometimes supplemented by auditions). Images aren't correct or incorrect. Images don't assert something to be the case. So it's a question of translating the imagery into what it refers to.
iii) Likewise, some revelatory dreams are allegorical. They depict people and events in symbolic imagery. That would be analogically rather than univocally true or false. It's a question of determining what the picturesque metaphors stand for.
iv) As for your statement that "we are not saying God cannot or doesn't do the miraculous, simply that when he does that doesn't prove continuationism as it is understood for the post above," I didn't say anything about that one way or the other, so you're just going off on a tangent.

steve hays Michael Coughlin • a day ago
"For the purpose of defending prayer to an atheist, yes, my terms are sufficient as the relevancy of the atheistic argument is the problem, not my terminology. The fact that God doesn't answer every prayer doesn't mean that I can't know God answered 'a prayer' is not relevant to the atheist's statistical argument - because I am correct and he is wrong. The fact that he accuses me of the same fallacy you do does not make it an analogous argument."
Except that it is analogous. You originally said:
"I wonder how many dreams and thoughts your friend has had? It would be interesting to see the % of them which resulted in fulfilled prophecy or that would be called revelatory information. (I'm guessing it would be really low), but we tend to focus on the little items that jump out at us, like the person who won't ride in a plane because they were in an accident - instead of the person who still rides in a plane because of the 99 times they flew safely."
Well, that's how atheists explain away answered prayer. Chances are, if you pray every day, some outcomes will dovetail with your prayers. You tally the few hits and conveniently discount or forget all the misses.
If, on the other hand, you say God "answers all prayers," regardless of the outcome, then a modern "prophet" could invoke the same unfalsifiable standard of fulfillment. No matter what happens, or the contrary, it's true by definition.
"I have a simplistic view of revelation from God. I'm not sure that is an argument for anything."
It's an argument against you're using a single yardstick to measure continuationism.
"I also have a simplistic view of salvation and baptism. I don't see a problem with that."
Simplistic is not a synonym for simple. A simple view can be true, but a simplistic view oversimplifies the issues. That's the problem.
"Maybe the complex view isn't de facto the right one...?"
I didn't merely assert my claim. I gave examples to illustrate the truth of my claim.
"How do you determine what the picturesque metaphors stand for apart from divine inspiration? If you use the Word of God to interpret them, great, that should be the authority. Are you allowed to be wrong about them? Maybe some examples of how God has directed you this way would help me understand since I've never known at the time I had a vision or thought for certain that is was divine revelation."
I didn't make any claims about my personal experience.
A stock example would be a premonitory dream. And it could be allegorical. We have examples in Scripture, as well as outside of Scripture.
That's not the same thing as a divine command, or the "word of the Lord."
Either it comes true or it doesn't. Whether or not it comes true also depends on the specificity of the imagery, and the clarity (or not) of the symbolism.
"As folks like you create red herrings (for example, nonbelievers getting special dreams from God) you detract from the point of the discussion which is about spiritual gifts GIVEN TO BELIEVERS continuing beyond the age of the apostles."
Actually, it's an a fortiori argument. If even some unbelievers have revelatory dreams, would we expect God to do less for believers?
In addition, cessationism is broader than the cessation of the charismata. Cessationisits also distinguish between direct and indirect miracles, affirming the continuation of the former, but denying the continuation of the latter. That's not a believer/unbeliever distinction, but a direct/indirect miracle distinction.

steve hays Michael Coughlin • 18 hours ago
"Steve - The burden of accuracy for "getting prayers answered" is not 100% - which would be the burden of accuracy needed to conclude you are getting sweet extra-biblical revelation. Again - not analogous. God gets it right 100% of the time and his prophets are certain it is His Word."
You're not following the logic of your own argument. The comparison is not between the rate of answered prayers and the accuracy of alleged extrabiblical revelations. Rather, the comparison, as you yourself put it, involves dismissing an apparently revelatory (extrabiblical) dream because "we tend to focus on the little items that jump out at us, like the person who won't ride in a plane because they were in an accident - instead of the person who still rides in a plane because of the 99 times they flew safely."
According to your own comparison, an apparently revelatory dream is just a random coincidence, analogous to one plane crash out of 99 safe rides.
By parity of argument, same thing with the apparently answered dreams in proportion to the many prayers which go unanswered.
(Incidentally, I guess that means you wouldn't thank God if you just missed boarding the ill-fated plane because you happened to be late to the airport. After all, it's just a lucky coincidence.)
"If you don't have personal experiences to share with me of the dreams and visions you've received, then please find some you can share which support the point 'iii' above. I find that to be your most intriguing argument and would like to learn more of what you meant and how we are to properly interpret these things when they come."
I've given examples on my blog.
"I understand your a fortiori argument and I reject it for the reasons Mike Riccardi stated below and the lack of scriptural argument or evidence for the same."
Actually, there's Scriptural precedent for God giving revelatory dreams to unbelievers. Try again.
"God also supplies many nonbelievers with riches and joy and children - I would contend it does not follow that he certainly will do even more for believers, as a matter of fact."
You're shifting the issue from spiritual blessings to material blessings. Try again.

steve hays JD • 10 hours ago
i) The continuation/cessation of the charismata is broader than tongues.
ii) Since I don't speak in tongues, I don't have a dog in this fight.
iii) I'm not vouching for what commonly passes for glossolalia in charismatic churches. It's my impression that this is often coached or imitative.
There are, however, hundreds of millions of charismatics, so it's easy to overgeneralize.
iv) The standard cessationist argument defines glossolalia as foreign languages, based on their understanding of Acts 2, then uses that as an interpretive grid for 1 Cor 12-14. Now, it's not even a sure thing that glossolalia in Acts 2 is zenoglossy. It could be a miracle of hearing rather than speaking–although I incline to think it's a miracle of speaking. In any case, 1 Cor 12-14 must be interpreted on its own terms. And although it's possible that Paul is describing foreign languages, if that's what he has in mind, he has an odd way of expressing himself.
v) In any case, this is a red herring so far as the cessationist/continuationist debate is concerned. Cessationism posits a universal negative. Even if glossolalia, as practiced by most charismatics, is bogus, that by no means disproves continuationism. Let's stipulate that NT glossolalia is xenoglossy. It only takes one example to disprove a universal negative. Both Vern Poythress and Craig Keener cite modern examples of xenoglossy. That's sufficient to falsify cessationism. Cessationists need to do some serious study instead of blindly relying on hostile sources for all their information.
vi) In addition, the modern occurrence or nonoccurence of xenoglossy does nothing to disprove the continuance of other charismata, such as healers, miracle workers, or revelatory dreams and visions. The evidence for or against that is independent of the evidence for or against modern glossolalia.

Nick • a day ago

I was interested in MacA's response in regard to Muslim experiences of dreams. I'm happy enough to chalk it up to providential God-action as opposed to charismatic gifts (although I still find the connection of dreams and prophecy in 'that' prophecy from Joel interesting in that respect), but I'm not sure I agreeing with him rejecting them as potential fact out of hand, in order to service his own argument. 
Again, there's this subtle feature of MacA's language that seems to strawman features of the other position. Even at simply a rhetorical level, I would love for him to leave out the 'third or fourth hand story', or 'they exaggerated', or 'they lied' assertions made without evidence . Am I to assume he has had no experience with people who make such claims himself? The article he links to certainly doesn't seem to be based on any first hand study, and basically picks a couple of proven falsehoods only loosely related to the issue, and some of which weren't even begun or perpetuated by converts from Islam, but it seems Westerners! I would welcome him proceeding as if he were facing the best argument mustered on those grounds, unless he can make a non-a priori argument as to why it is flawed. I think he does above to some extent, but you have to wade through a lot of suspect rhetoric and potential strawman debris before you get to his biblical/textual argument. 
For the record, I have spoken personally to three different men who came from Muslim backgrounds who dreamed/visioned Christ (or a figure they understood to be representing Christ) , in two cases saying something theological ('repent and believe'), in the third, giving direction to a church. None belong to churches that practice tongues or prophecy as per the kinds of Pentecostal denominations MacA takes issue with. 
What is interesting is that none of these three cite that dream as the moment of conversion. In fact, all of them have tended to downplay that story. One guy said it took him another couple of years after his vision before he believed. The other two converted through readings God's word or meeting with other Christians, with the vision mostly a catalyst for action. They did not get magically converted by a vision, but were simply prompted or convicted in cultures where there is no visible church. I mean, Paul was finally converted and became a Christian more properly at the house of Annanias, rather than on the road, right? ;) 
But I'm happy to agree with MacA about the core thrust of what he's saying - the preaching and reading of God's word is essential to all conversion, the vision cannot be the foundation, etc. But, and dare I say it, yet again, MacA's argument is such that it is often possible to agree with him on such points, but disagree with his argumentation, and the all encompassing nature of his thesis. I wonder what difference it would make to the discussion if one were to argue that yes, the exercise of the gifts of the spirit as personal gifts have ceased, but dreams, prophecy, healing etc at NT levels of miraculous do continue to occur spontaneously. Would that just create the same problem, for all the talk of God being able to use whatever means to preach the gospel? I'm genuinely curious.

Nick • a day ago

Oh, and was not technically John the last to see Jesus in the canon, while on Patmos? I know it was addressed above, but MacA's exesesis of 1 Cor 15 seems to make Paul say something that the common sense reading would say he isn't. 
He is obviously talking about the order of people who saw Jesus up to the point in which Paul wrote 1 Cor 15, 'last' does not have to mean 'last ever', it just means last in the list of people Paul was recounting at the time. It would be a bit like me going to the dodge'em cars late in the evening, only to be told they had already had the last ride. It would be ludicrous for me to assume at that point that it was the last ride EVER - in the context, it would make most sense that it was the last ride in a specific set of data (i.e. that day). 
Of course, Paul is mixing is 'appearances' together a little anyway - John would likely have seen Jesus in the flesh (certainly the other disciples did), not in a visionary experience a la Paul, so it's hard to be clear, even if I did accept the interpretation of 'last of all', whether Paul would be precluding visions, physical experiences, etc. Is he saying no one will see Jesus in any shape or form after the Damascus road? Clearly not! 
Seems to me that the common sense reading of 1 Cor 15 makes John's apocalyptic experience on Patmos irrelevant to what Paul is talking about, and thus is of no help in ruling post-Pauline visions or dreams of Jesus in or out. MacA has simply stretched the text too far to service his argument, I fear.

Kirk Crager • a day ago
I appreciate much of John's comments even if I believe his presuppositions block him from seeing certain argumentations that scripturally support certain supernatural works that God might employ in bringing the gospel to people. Every time I read a cessationist on the issue of Muslims having dreams and visions in the process of them coming to know Jesus, they seem to conveniently not mention the narrative of Cornelius & Peter in the book of Acts i chapters 9-10. I believe this narrative gives precedent for a way in which God not only can work, but did work, and does work. Whilst I understand John's concern about 2nd hand information, we could say the same about almost any story from the pulpit etc. that drives a truth home. I do have a close personal friend who currently languishes in a Middle Eastern jail who came to Christ through the gospel, but aided by a vision (not seeing him personally) of Jesus. This man has become a movement leader in the underground church in the Middle East, helping to plant hundreds of churches where Muslims come to know Jesus and is enduring harsh persecution while holding to the gospel. I find it harder to believe pastor John than this dear brother to be frank.

November 9, 2013 at 2:55 pm
What does Owen mean by new revelation? Does this view of prophecy as new revelation a la Scripture accurately and fully represent the full range of what constitutes prophecy in both the Old and New Testaments? Or is it, as you indicate, predicated on the Quakers’ understanding of the role of prophecy as “new revelation?” 
Different examples of prophecy in Scripture: 
1) The Lord said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain and wait there, that I may give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction.” (Exodus 24:12 ESV) 
2) Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to [Moses], and took some of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. And as soon as the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied. But they did not continue doing it. (Numbers 11:25 ESV) 
3) “Happy are you, O Israel! Who is like you, a people saved by the Lord, the shield of your help, and the sword of your triumph! Your enemies shall come fawning to you, and you shall tread upon their backs.” (Deuteronomy 33:29 ESV) 
These are generally the three forms of prophecy in the Bible. All three occur in the Old Testament AND the New Testament. 
1) The first is what I think Owen and most cessationists have in mind. The words of God given to the man of God for the purpose of doctrine and instruction in righteousness. This is “Scriptural” revelation, though it is very important that we recognize that this was spoken as well as written. Most of the time, these things are spoken long before they are written. So at the time of Exodus 24, the Scriptures technically comprised only the Ten Commandments. This form of prophecy occurs throughout the OT in the national instruction given by the prophets to kings, elders, priests, and the people (not all of whose words made it into Scripture). 
2) The second is a curious form, because it doesn’t comprise instruction at all. Instead, it is a sudden, uncontrollable, temporary occurrence. It happens first in Numbers 11 to the seventy elders. What’s more curious is the way in which this is directly connected to the Spirit. And while it doesn’t comprise instruction, it does seem to signify anointing for giving instruction. Of particular note is that this happens once, and these men are not considered prophets.This is the same sort of prophecy that Saul engaged in when he met with the company of prophets in 1 Samuel. 
But, Moses says this about this form: “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord ’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!” (Numbers 11:29 ESV) How is this in the New Testament? 
But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; (Acts 2:16, 17 ESV) 
Peter interprets Pentecost as a fulfillment of Joel 2 (Jesus had probably told them this). But, Joel 2 appears to be an answer to Moses’ request in Numbers 11. The sort of prophesy that Moses and Joel request is not the prophecy that predicts the future or gives divine instruction. Rather, it’s the form of prophesy that is Spirit-led and consists of praise to God, and indicates one who is guided by the Holy Spirit. Since Acts 2 relies on Joel 2, it is apparent that Luke views speaking in other languages AS prophecy. Paul, it is clear, doesn’t view it as prophecy, at least not the prophecy that matters. 
3) The third form of prophecy is what Joseph and Daniel and David and the Prophets do: foretelling the future on the basis of visions and dreams and direct words from the LORD. Some times these are clearly connected to instruction, but they do comprise something different than instruction. Most of the Prophetic words concerning the future of Israel and the world are found in Scripture, but there are other, minor prophecies such as Nathan prophesying the death of David’s son, or Agabus prophesying the famine during Claudius’ reign. These two appear in Scripture, but other minor prophecies (minor in that they don’t pertain to salvation-history) may not necessarily have been included. If much of Jesus’ words don’t make it into Scripture, why should we assume that every prophetic word made it? 
It’s clear that the first and third forms are what we mostly think about, and what Paul himself regards as prophecy. As such, it is very interesting that Paul STILL regards this non-apostolic prophecy as prophecy worthy of being included in Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, and Thessalonians. It’s the only gift that repeatedly shows up.  
But the second one shows up in Numbers and Samuel and Joel and then in Acts in a different way. It is prophecy in the OT (in the Hebrew language). It’s speaking in tongues in Acts. Paul doesn’t regard it as prophecy. But it should be noted that in every case, it isn’t revelation; it’s adoration. Which is why it then falls under the category of worship, and not in the context of teaching. This would explain why Paul says it shouldn’t be forbidden, but it should also be relegated to the lowest place, unless it is prophetic (which would then require interpretation). 
This lengthy comment is so that someone can explain why only the first form is considered when talking about prophecy or speaking in tongues or anything else, rather than the other two, which have little to do with new Scriptural revelation.


  1. I agree with McArthur on this one - the tongues of Acts 2 are clearly real human languages and the miracle was in the speaking - verse 4 - "they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance."

    verse 8 - language = dialecto - διαλεκτω

    I Corinthians 14:10-11 - and 1 Cor. 14:21 (the quote from Isaiah 28:11ff shows it was a real foreign language of the Assyrians and prophesy of the coming Assyrian invasion, etc. )

    Those three verses seem clearer to help us interpret verses 2 and 4, which are usually the ones that Charismatics use to say that modern tongues can be gibberish (in his spirit he speaks mysteries) that no one can understand and that "edifies himself".

    The emphasis seems to be on edifying others in the church, not oneself. (all through chapters 12, 13, and 14)

    John R. W. Stott wrote, "surely there must be at least some degree of irony in what Paul writes, for the phrase is almost a contradiction in terms. Self-edification is simply not what edification is all about in the New Testament." (p. 148-149, Baptism and Fullness, IVP, 2006)

    Overall, the argument is in favor of the cessationist position, with allowing for exceptions on the mission field as the gospel goes out to nations that have not yet heard.

    1. I agree with you that in Acts 2, glossolalia is probably xenoglossy. However, your appeal to the Isaian reference in 1 Cor 14 is counterproductive to your overall argument. As one commentator notes:

      "The message in 28:10 is made up of a series of monosyllables repeated several times…Isaiah is saying that their babbling nonsensical repetition of words sounds like the gibberish of babies. The words should just be transliterated in the English text and given no meaning, demonstrating it as meaningless chatter," Gary Smith, Isaiah 1–39 (B&H 2007)), 481-82.

    2. I don't know who the commentator is - he seems to be commenting on the words alone, in the verse, it seems, rather than also taking into account the historical context and the same warning in Deut. 28:49 and along with Isaiah 33:19 - seems clear it means the Assyrian invasion.

      so, I respectfully disagree - when you look at Deuteronomy 28:49 and Isaiah 33:19 - it seems clear that it is a reference to God's judgement on Israel by allowing the Assyrians and other nations to attack them, because they did not obey the law and they were not a holy people, a good model for the nations around them.

      So, the case for the modern gibberish is really weak, IMO.

    3. Here's who he is:


  2. Challies nearly always turns off comments once they reach 100ish. There are 101 comments on that post. So I doubt he is trying to protect MacArthur.

  3. Steve,

    You mentioned that Vern Poythress has cited modern examples of xenoglossy - could you point me to where?


    1. 22 Interestingly, some published instances of xenoglossia, where the language is identified as a known human language by some listener, involve teaching content based on Scripture. See Harold Bredesen and Pat King, Yes, Lord (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1972) 68-69, 199; David M. Howard, By the Power of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1973) 117. Because the content is based on Scripture, there can be no threat here to the sufficiency of Scripture or the completeness of the biblical canon.


    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. Okay, this is the 4th time trying to post this, sorry.

      Speaking of Harold Bredesen, he related the following story (assuming it's the same Bredesen and that the difference between "Harold" and "Harald" is a misspelling). The following quote is from John L. Sherrill's book "They Speak With Other Tongues"

      ...At last one morning while he was standing outside the cabin praying aloud, a stillness seemed to settle over the hills. Every fiber of Bredesen’s body tensed, as if his whole being were entering into a new plane of awareness. He stopped speaking for a moment. And when he began again, out of his mouth came, and here are his words as I wrote them down that day: ‘…. The most beautiful outpouring of vowels and consonants and also some strange, guttural syllables. I could not recognize any of it. It was as though I was listening to a foreign language, except that it was coming out of my own mouth’.

      Amazed, curious, and a bit frightened, Bredesen ran down the mountain, still talking aloud in this tongue. He came to the edge of a small community. On the stoop of a cabin sat an old man. Bredesen continued to speak in the tongue which was coming so easily and naturally from his lips. The man answered, talking rapidly in a language which Bredesen did not know. When it became obvious that they were not communicating, the old man spoke in English. ‘How can you speak Polish but not understand it?’ the man asked.

      ‘I was speaking in Polish?’

      The man laughed, thinking that Bredesen was joking. ‘Of course it was Polish’, he said.

      But Bredesen wasn’t joking. As far as he could recall he had never before heard the language.
      EN QUOTE

      Text copied from this link HERE

      ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
      Here's a link to another testimony in the same book that's even more intriguing. But It's too lengthy to post in this blog: HERE
      ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

      Some more testimonies of claimed instances of xenoglossy (though not all of the testimonies are of xenoglossy), HERE

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.