chockfull

I do see the point that the definition was made to facilitate linguists studies. And I do acknowledge that human beings have an ability to use their organs of speech to make various types of noises, random and patterned. And I still think throwing in SIT into that mix and calling it by that label can be done, but that after doing that to then try to use it to prove they are the same thing is not really what most people in the science world would call a proof. You can't have elements of your hypothesis in the definition of the premise. That's where the circular reasoning comes in. It's defining something as a proof. But anyway, as I said for now, I'd like to see how far the linguists are able to take this in terms of language identification or statistical analysis showing similarity or whatever. That seems to fit your definition there. And it is a display of an innate human ability to make vocal noises or mouth noises. Now why you would do that to a poor atheist is an entirely separate question :biglaugh:/> To me that is a little convenient. A bunch of sound samples superficially look the same on the outside, so they are lumped together. A new term is made up for them called "free vocalization". SOME analysis is done on these samples. The most detailed I saw in write-ups of what the analysis was that was done was Samarin. He did consonant mapping and attempted to show statistical correlation between a speakers native language and the sound byte. He saw a trend, but stopped short of any proof. Other authors referenced "linguistic analysis", but didn't provide any details so it is impossible to verify their data and studies. Poythress reviewed other studies, then wrote up his thoughts. That's what makes him difficult. He's kind of a theological apologist to science in his approach - trying to include common linguistic viewpoints and yet stopping short of offending the Fundamentalists. Yes we disagree on this. The testability of SIT by definition I would label as a caveat to any study results if I were doing the study. But I'm not using that as a reason to discourage trying to test it. Whenever you are discussing or debating the similarities and differences between two things, there is depending upon perspective the complete ability for someone to say "those are exactly the same", and someone else to say "those are completely different". It's just a matter of what you are focusing on at the moment the reflection is stated. The root of my trouble there lies in the fact that the spirit, power, or energy of God is undetectable to scientists. There is no way scientifically to measure the difference between a born-again man and an atheist (outside of each having a different level of irritation at Raf making them perform free vocalization). So to lump things together and call them the same, and then to have known issues with measuring differences, I'd say that's mostly the problem it makes for me. Yes we are different here. I honestly never gave it much thought as to what SIT should produce. To me it's been I'm just praying to God and when words fail I had something more to sustain. That's been a staple of prayer life since close to my beginnings as a Christian. The scriptures I've studied tie in to what I experience to me in my viewpoint. My "take it on faith" attitude has been a naieve child-like approach in prayer - that's all. I don't mind learning more either on scientific or scriptural sides. But yes, there is an element of impasse there. Sure - I can live with that. The mediums IMO added nothing to the study and would have been better left out for clarity. Well in the cessationist theory arguments, a lot of this comes back to the extent of Sola Scriptura you can live with. If it's a high level you require, then you would rule out personal anecdotes of any type. This would include yours and socks experiences. If you have more of a tolerance for information outside of Sola Scriptura then God doing things individually for individuals becomes more acceptable. Honestly post TWI I am probably less of an absolutist w/r to Sola Scriptura than previously. I rely upon personal relationship type experience with God in addition to scriptures. The drawback to tolerating less Sola Scriptura is that there is less of a measurable standard for all and more of a need to accept God working with individuals according to their personal needs. As a preacher, he would not have wanted to discount that possibility IMO. I believe they are different. I would like to see an unbiased analysis, and although I have reservations on what I predict this will show due to doctrinal beliefs in SIT definitions, I am not against seeing the evidence and don't think this a reason not to test. If results present incongruities in my beliefs I'll need to address it at that time. We have differences in doctrinal approach and personal experience. But a still greater responsibility to live a Christian example with one another than those without differing doctrinal beliefs. So I am continuing to explore without arguing.

I personally am waiting for the one that says "I am God. You know that roll of hundred dollar bills you lost with the rubber band around it? I found the rubber band. Ha ha ha."

This is a dilemma. You have to assume a speaker could inject words, and I don't see how it would be easily accomplishable to sort them out. Interestingly, reading up on "Continuationism" - which is the label on those who believe that SIT / gifts continue on to be available today, in general they acknowledge that "prophecy" could have inaccuracies and to compare the prophecies against scripture to confirm. Scripture has the utmost authority, then what they call "canonical prophets" - basically scripture authors, after that "non-canonical prophets" - which would be the person prophesying that could have injected words. So they just label a "non-canonical" prophecy as less reliable than others and needing to be checked to ensure accuracy.

The Wikipedia articles introduce the argument between Cessationist and Continuationist. They claim that of those claiming those beliefs, the concept of "Sola Scriptura" for the article's purpose has to be in play. This concept is more of the "Martin Luther" reform type of stance, where everything within the church and related to God has to be subject to scripture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura Of interest to note among the Cessationist/Continuationist argument, that there are many who do NOT hold to Sola Scriptura - where scripture is only one thing among many that governs belief. Those of the Sola Scriptura persuasion are largely described to be Reformists, which originated most of the mainstream denominations in existence today, like Lutheran, Baptist, Reformed, other Protestants. Many times this group is also termed to be "Fundamentalist". Note that to me this is important in that Fundamentalism / Sola Scriptura is totally based upon scripture, and human experience is not of value. TWI is pretty much in that category, as are offshoots. Most ex-TWI members also would be of the Fundamentalist / Sola Scriptura persuasion.

OK, so reflecting on the "free vocalization" definition that I've taken issue with. The reason I have taken issue with it is that there seems to me like elements of that definition that incorporate defining any seeming non-language mouth noise by that term, and then using it to prove people SIT are doing the same thing. I STILL see logical issues with that. IF people are faking it, then the definition would be applicable across the board. IF they are not, though, and something categorically different is going on like energizing of God, then I find the term to be more of a condemnation by association type of thing. However, looking at it from a linguistics perspective, I see why those topics are lumped together for study purposes. It's mostly convenience - get all the xenoglossia samples, glossa samples, and any other all-inclusive samples of people claiming similar things - to be speaking a different language. Then do analysis. I'm going to suspend any issues I have with that term for the time being to see what we can learn from it.

You know, the major tenet explained in the "inspiration vs. revelation" deal was as already mentioned that the prophecy words supposedly bypass the brain, thus the distinction. The contrast was made to revelation, that it's conscious thought. In my experience, and this is totally anecdotal and not proof related or science based, anything to me that's seemed to be revelation is not something like a major mental recognition. It has been more just logical trains of thought that seem like common sense to the brain, then when examining later, there is not sufficient evidence of all the steps being able to be arrived at through facts and mental capacities alone. I would currently be fine describing interpretation / prophecy as being "revelation". As I think that word has plenty of potential to be defined more broadly and all-inclusive than the mental gymnastics of TWI's interpretation. I'm cool investigating all he has to share, and allowing each other leeway for differing doctrinal beliefs. I'm just not going to fight with you guys any more.

Yea, a lot of mental model constructs - smacks of man making it up. IMO there is somewhat of a problematic issue with the Holy Spirit / holy spirit concept that is trying to patch over. The Trinitarian view of Holy Spirit has that entity not very well defined - just an ethereal presence that you can "pray into" meetings, or its presence can be felt, etc. Nothing very concrete I've ever heard on that one, including what the third person of the trinity is supposed to do, how to interact with it, etc. But accepting VP's / Stiles interpretation of capital HG / small hg leaves a whole lot of loose ends. The main one being you have to completely construct something like the "Great Principle" to make it logical and plausible.

His answer on mapping what he calls "sound sequences" to me is similar to Samarin's consonant maps and statistics applied to them. I'd ask him about what's in the field with computer analysis of that kind of stuff.

Starting a thread to document reading / researching up on the topic of Cessationist Theory. First - Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism In that article, the label for the opposite position is called Continuationism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuationism Next, there are the major tenets of the argument in existence between Cessationist and Continuationists here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_Continuationism NOTE: The argument article on Wikipedia is very interesting to me. IMO they get 300% further in any logical argument between sides than we have approached.

This is one of the questions I have remaining that looking at research brought up. Specifically, the idea of consonant mapping. If the consonants in a language are completely foreign to a speaker, is SIT supposed to work that God magically changes the sounds on the back end to be perfectly natively spoken? I mean it is not beyond what I see possible in scripture. At the tower of Babel, the languages were changed so they couldn't understand one another causing a scattering of the people there. That had to be immediate. Or is speaking supposed to produce a language with the known limitations of the speaker's native language? Like a bad accent? Don't know answers, just more questions. I mean it had to be that TWI interpreted it the latter to be putting in exercises to "increase fluency" - i.e. possibly develop foreign consonant sounds. The tower of Babel record brings up even more questions. First, is the whole tongues concept some kind of prophetic healing or fixing of what happened at Babel? A spiritual language that is a token of what the future holds? Revelations talks about concepts like spirit being the entire sustenance of life, like the new body seen of the resurrected Jesus. What will the language be like there? Next, the whole field of linguistics brings up even more questions. The idea of a language having attributes such that its main intent is conversational - back and forth, includes metadata, can invent new vocab words, can learn - I mean that has to be the main intent of any language. The whole bit of using TIP manifestations as a miraculous spiritual translator, that's a bit tedious. Translators are tedious in broadcasting. So any language at / after the gathering has to be new so all can understand one another. It would make no sense people running around doing the same routine to understand one another there. Is this somewhat of a spiritual short-term fix, like Babelfish / Google translate? Questions, questions, and more questions.

I'm glad you have friends.

Dude, give it a rest. You've won. My faith is between me and God and with the extent it's been under attack by you and others recently I'm not really interested in sharing it with you at this point in time. I'm sure you all will have plenty to say about it being illogical and not in accordance with scientific knowledge. I disagree. Carry on.

See my post in doctrinal. It's time to end this foolishness. It's a poor Christian witness and we are not gaining anything learning wise.

I don't find it logical that "no man understands" could mean a "normative" definition in a worship setting yet magically something different in a lab setting. That is so contrived of a definition it's laughable. My first thought was "he couldn't be serious". I'm not going to debate scriptures with you on this topic. I don't think you have much scriptural backing for your position at all. A translation of a single word "glossa" and a contrived definition to fit your desire to test it in a lab. And all I see happening over time with me defending my faith is those on the other side of the argument are getting whipped up more and more into a frenzy. This is crazy and stupid. It can't be mentally healthy. And it certainly is so far off the admonitions in I Cor. 12-14 about the one body it's not funny. Any insight we are gaining into other aspects of those verses are in my opinion completely overshadowed by the violation of all of our behavior when comparing it against the same section of scripture. So you, WordWolf, waysider, geisha - all of you can now have your victory dance. I concede. You've won the argument. After all, that's what's most important to you. It certainly isn't logic, learning, or compassion towards other Christians.

Raf I've never been arguing with you to change your mind. I'm simply defending my faith, which the further we go along this route is more under attack by more and more people, and those who share my beliefs are withholding themselves from the argument. There's an equal number of votes on both sides on the poll, yet I am the only one defending this position.

I don't find it a logical viewpoint that somehow SIT would have a "normative" definition and expectation that it would not be understood in a worship setting, yet somehow magically this definition would change if you removed the speaker and placed them in a lab setting. I don't even find this to be a doctrinal difference of opinion. It simply is illogical. And the attempts to make this illogical viewpoint seem more logical by attacking the straightforward logical explanation like it is some kind of retrofit is simply laughable. I'm sure a trained actor could set up an improve class to have people faking messages from God. I'm just more skeptical that you can do it without the participant knowing about it and effectively in a short period of time. And there's a whole lot of people doing this without trained actors involved. I've seen people go through the INT class and with next to zero instruction or coaching do very well. There is no proof involved in this, I guess it's an area where it is much more readily accepted that there is no way to prove it. I'm just including it in the discussion.

The last time I asked you to expound upon your views on scripture or to present what you believe related to this, you answered with a one word post - "No."

But of course you won't put forth an interpretation of I Cor. 14:2 that people could judge whether or not is more accurate.... socks has a claim about SIT. you have a claim about SIT. It is as equally likely that you did genuinely SIT and are now renouncing the practice due to a change in beliefs that it is that socks witnessed Asian speakers promulgating a fraud. And we should trust you and not socks because you're such a nice guy, right? If it's such a misapplication then please by all means enlighten me and provide the correct interpretation of "no man understands" and I Cor. 14:2.

The consonant mapping I saw Samarin with had promise - it was just very rudimentary. If you could plug that into computer statistical analysis such that you could run that on English samples to build up a database, then compare glossa samples consonant maps against known language consonant maps in English, with a large enough sample size of known language you could draw some more supported conclusions. Possible null hypothesis test possibility: 1) Glossa sample is the same as speakers native language - alternative hypothesis could show marked differences in the percentages of the consonant maps. NOTE: for more conclusive proof it's not enough to say the native language consonants appeared - with native samples you can project the % occurrences of the consonants too. Like playing Scrabble you know that "e" is the most commonly used vowel. Vowels are notoriously harder to distinguish, which is why they use consonant maps. You could map native language appearance consistency % against the same consistency % in the glossa.

This is a false premise. God states in I Cor. 14:2 that you are speaking to God and others won't understand. I simply believe that verse. The quote if you read it in its entirety is doing exactly what I said it was - holding you to the same standard of proof that you faked it that you are to those presenting anecdotal evidence.

So back to scripture discussion, we were doing word studies of the word "glossa" in the NT, or rather Raf was, and came up with the position that because he thought the word "glossa" meant languages that it is some kind of guarantee that linguists can understand the tongue. I see a direct scripture contradiction to this in I Cor. 14:2. Basically, it states "no man understands". This is a direct statement related to the topic. The use of the word "glossa" to indicate languages in that verse may or may not be an accurate interpretation - it also could be a figurative reference to the human organ as it is in certain places in the NT. Regardless of which way you interpret the word directly, if it does mean languages there is still no direct promise indicating it will be a language designed for use between humans and spoken on the earth currently. Indications in scripture are that it is designed for speaking to God (I Cor. 14:2), which is different than human use exclusively. So scripturally, I see the premise for testing SIT to see if it's a human language in operation today and thus disproving modern SIT as a genuine act to be a false premise.

I never asked for proof in the first place. You did, when rejecting anecdotal accounts of SIT being understood natively. Now you're struggling like a shark on a fish line when faced with living up to your own standard.

Good idea. After pages of derail by the three of you where you successfully chased off Sanguineti.

Look, you want to look at weird videos purporting to be SIT? Here's one where someone is using their mouth as a percussion section and saying it's SIT. I don't think so. But I can't prove it's not. It just sounds like a joke. I can't prove there were no ancient aborigines that did this kind of thing and invented the language all to speak with percussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdIqbaYPFqw

Nope. Holding you to the same standard of proof you introduced on the thread.