waysider

False prophet sounds a bit lofty. Maybe charlatan would be a more appropriate word.

Oh, O.K......

How about some music while we're on hold?

I think what he's saying is something along these lines: I give a message in English, which is my native language Someone who only understands Spanish hears me and understands my message as if I had delivered it in Spanish. Is that what you are saying cman? ............................................... It still fails to explain why there is no organized structure to the message.

I think, in a manner of speaking, it's just another way of saying "What goes 'round comes 'round."

A living death....not really on topic, I suppose.

Those TWI knuckleheads wouldn't know compassion if it bit them on the azz.

Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once......Julius Caesar (Wm. Shakespeare)

Experts estimate that half of all the languages in use today will be extinct by the beginning of the next century. One thing won't change, though. Whatever languages remain will serve the same purpose language has always served. They will communicate messages and knowledge and do so in a structured manner..

In The Pentecostal Movement in the Catholic Church, (Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press 1971) E D O'Connor claims several cases of xenoglossia. Sumrall (1993:126) gives an example of a man who spoke in tongues after a sermon. Another man interpreted his message. "When they had finished, a young man walked to the front and spoke in a foreign language to the one who had given the message. The brother answered: 'I'm sorry, sir, but I don't understand any other language.' The man replied: 'But you spoke my language beautifully. I am Persian.' . the brother answered: 'No, it was the spirit who spoke to you. it was God talking to you, not me.' " It's an unverifiable anecdote. "Free vocalization" is a made up term. I'm finding that it causes confusion using it, as I'm not sure whether it is talking about people SIT, people faking it, or a medium talking to his spirit guide Who's confused by it? I submit that if someone has exercised due diligence in reading the contents of this thread, there should be no confusion what the term means.

Sorry, chockfull, that sounds like pretzel logic to my ears.

One documented example of someone producing what is presented in the Acts incident doesn't seem too unreasonable a request. That's my opinion.

What the heck does this mean?

I see we've returned to the "burden of proof" dilemma. There seems to be more energy wasted on meta discussion than the actual subject. Pity.

...

Theatrical training frequently includes exercises in improvisation. In one type of improvisation, the actor invents a "language" (on the fly) and has his/her character use that language in a conversational context. I posted an example of Andy Kaufman doing this in one of my earlier posts. It's not Biblical, it's not spiritual, it's not evidence of anything other than a latent ability of the human mind. It's not difficult to do. It can, however , present a stumbling block for participants who have inhibitions that impair their ability to do it. That's why it's included in improvisation classes. I personally saw this being done by a wide variety of subjects, some of whom I am quite sure were not Christian. (Oy Vey! Am I being vague enough on this point?) Decidedly, not everyone can overcome their inhibitions to do it but, the possibility to do so is still there.

Fifty nine pages in and still no explanation of how Non-Christians are able to speak in tongues or why the practice predates Christ by a thousand years. Unless, of course, the answer lies in Man's innate ability to perform free vocalization. Could it really be that simple? I, for one, think so.

You give a guy/gal who is skilled in carpentry some materials and tools and they can build something..... a doghouse, a birdhouse, a breadbox, a coffin for your dead dog Rover. If it's a familiar object, you can identify it. If it's not, you can't identify it.... but, you know it's SOMETHING. On the other hand, you give a guy/gal who is ignorant of carpentry the same materials and tools and you never know what you'll get. Suppose they cut the boards up into random sizes and start pounding nails and attaching hinges willy-nilly until they run out of parts. What is it? Who knows? It's got boards. I recognize those. Nails... ditto. Hinges... ditto. So, I recognize the parts but not the finished product because it hasn't been assembled in a conventional manner. Now consider tongues. The person starts speaking. "Leche", he says, as your ears pick up. And then there's a "pimiente" sprinkled in. Something that sounds remotely like "caliente" randomly finds it's way into the mix. Hmmmmmm....His tongue must be Spanish. Well, sure, those are Spanish words but, they aren't arranged in any logical sequence. So, he has put together parts that you may be able to identify individually but it's all randomly assembled so, even though he said SOMETHING, it hasn't communicated the message, "Hey, look at me! I'm a birdhouse!" Language communicates messages. Even if you don't understand the actual message, you should be able to understand that there is some sort of message being conveyed, just as you may not understand what it is the carpenter built but, you will recognize that it is SOMETHING..

I'm not so sure it's too much to ask for....but it might be too much to expect.

Wiki is a handy place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax

You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", ....don't you?

SIT is not a "language". Why not? It's not because no one understands it. That point is moot. Rather, it's not a "language" because it fails to meet the critical criteria of syntax. A language must have syntax. There is no discernible syntax associated with SIT. That's not my opinion. That's the straightforward reality of the issue.

There are many types of sign language. They, for the most part, are not interchangeable. People using American Sign Language don't understand people using German Sign Language who don't understand people using British Sign language who don't understand people using Australian Sign Language and so on. So, my question is this: Can someone who speaks American Sign Language, "speak in tongues" in Argentinian Sign Language? If it was real, doesn't that sound plausible? edited for spelling

D.C. al Fine