chockfull

Well, looking at the fruit of what this produced, you've got a mausoleum dedicated to enshrine VP called TWI, and $52 million dollars. It's all about the Benjamins.

One more time, I'm not demanding proof. I'm holding your claims of lying and faking to the standard of proof you introduced evaluating socks anecdote. Maybe if I repeat that a few more times you'll get it. If there was a clear way to prove ANY of this we wouldn't be having this argument. God requires faith or believing for any of His power to work. We live in a time after Christ where you believe first then see.

No. I'm tired of you making this about the consistency or not of your own words. All that does is put your words in type one more time, which advances your rhetoric. Your words are not what's worth discussing. Scripture is. Scientific facts are.

I've seen weirder practices in person associated with the Pentecostals. I went to this one tent revival meeting where there was a guy making noises like a goat in the corner all by himself, people sprinting in an entire circle around the tent during the middle of the teaching, elders smacking people in the forehead, similar gibberish sounds, and a preacher at 120db shouting on the mic about someone who "got the holy ghost" and "cut his hair" - all with what kind of sounded like a ska band as a backup. That experience was so shocking I didn't even wonder about anyone SIT or not, just about how quickly I could get the h out of there. All the men? Bowl cuts. Apparently the "holy ghost" in addition to inspiring them to try and SIT also was inspiring them to use the same bowl for haircuts thus giving up their former sinful long-haired ways.

Yes, looking at Pentecostal practices that are emotional and not so decent and in order are a great scare tactic that has been used by generations by preachers against SIT. Pick the most inflammatory, like the snake handlers or this one, project guilt by association, and you have a winning mind picture. I have distant relatives that are Jehovah's Witnesses that are particularly adept at doing this to convince people that SIT is from the devil. You don't even need logic doing all that.

No, just suggesting a scriptural solution for the dilemma you are expressing. You are free to take it or leave it. Let me see - the "mechanism by which people fake SIT". That would be "the mouth" for $500 Alex. I'm not so big on people making up fake scientific words for using the mouth and then trying to use their own definitions as proof. That's kind of like nailing your foot to the floor and trying to run a mile. And linguists are free to call any gloss sample "non-language" - it's a free country and expressing their opinion in print is their right. I even understand when some of them explain what they mean by "non-language" is that it isn't considered in the same categories as conversational language. I don't consider it in the same category as conversational language either. And since it's a free country, I'm free to examine their methods on language determination, compare it to known methods for proving things when people are talking about what is "proven", and note the differences. I don't think for one second any of that consists of proof that people SIT are not producing languages though. The evidence is simply lacking for that. And lastly, I simply don't understand chaining yourself to the spotted owl habitat tree over whether or not real human languages are produced every time someone "prays in the spirit" or not. To me I can't find one scripture where that is important, and the exegesis I've examined on I Cor. 14:2 to date which contains the phrase "nobody understands" and other scriptures I find ample ground for considering the definition to be talking about a figurative representation of the human organ - at least as much ground there as I do defining the definition "languages". Even if I was 100% sure on the "language" definition, I don't see where that makes a huge difference. I guess it must be instrumental to rejecting the entire body of teaching or something.

The "ridiculous standards" were introduced by you when not accepting anecdotes of accounts where tongues were natively understood in modern times. I'm sorry you find your own standards unreasonable when applied to you too. I could recommend some word studies on "love without hypocrisy" if that would help you feel better.

And PRESTO, after confronting them, now magically misinformation stops and we have returned full circle to where we were days or weeks ago. SIT resembles human language. Samarin notes it's different from a human language in that it's not primarily used for communication (between humans). He notes exceptions to Hockett's rules, doesn't really need to say he concluded glossa meets criteria in the other 10, like using the vocal-auditory channel, as it is SO OBVIOUS only an idiot could conclude differently. So a few pages ago, we have "SIT bears no resemblance to human language". You either said it or supported WordWolf saying it - I'm not playing your word games. Now we have "I have always conceded that SIT resembles human language".

It's a bunch of people excited about something on a video. I have no idea what they are excited about because other than hymns at the end there is really no detail about what's happening. So I respectfully submit nobody has a way of determining whether or not it is genuine. But I'm glad you're having such a great time at my expense ridiculing the practice those people are involved in and laughing at my beliefs. Or more likely he believed what he was doing then, has since changed his beliefs to doubt the experience, and now feels it was a lie. Kind of like you. So if you have anything to share besides ridicule and profanity, like how possibly you could prove that you were faking back then, I'm all ears. Or I guess you could go back to the laughing hyena action. That behavior looks so good on you.

To you maybe. I have no way of verifying your claims about faking. Neither do any other thread readers. And I would hate to be accused by you of naivety for accepting claims without proof. I already clearly refuted this as a "basic human capacity" by inventing a word called "self mouthnoiseization". I enacted the exact same logical fallacy and showed how it plays out. For the readers wondering about this, by defining a word to be the meaning of what you are trying to prove is a logical fallacy. It proves nothing other than your creativity for defining terms. All language is a "code". You understand a message if you understand the language, the key to the code. This is very ably documented in the movie "Wind Talkers". If language was not a code, then it couldn't have been used to encrypt transmissions in WWII that couldn't be detected by the enemy. I don't know one way of the other. I was just using the same terms regarding the group Samarin did. My experience as it relates to being an untrained actor is not irrelevant. And I find it hilarious that you're accusing me of being the improv technique trainer when I myself couldn't fake a 6 sentence improv of TIP to make it sound believable at all. Next up is me teaching people to be concert pianists when I can't play.

Drop it per modgellan. I don't have the energy to go and clean up all the places I'm accused of being a liar on the other thread or report those posts. Good. I'll take this as your official retraction of the statement about SIT bearing no resemblance to language then. As I see you admitting matching Hockett criteria. I'll also consider this as your admission that the statement that SIT bears no resemblance to language is misinformation. I still don't understand how you justify blanket statements like "modern SIT bears no resemblance to language" when you readily admit there are points of resemblance. I guess you don't care about (to put this as diplomatically as I can without violating rules) being truthful and accurate in these blanket statements being made.

Let me simplify this for you. socks made a claim. you made a claim. you imposed a burden of proof on socks. that burden of proof then applies to you by proxy to keep things fair. Understand yet? Ah yes, the old "define the terms as a mechanism of fakery" to prove fakery. That's the problem with that logical fallacy. When you remove the term, the proof is gone. I remain optimistic about the field of linguistics. I enjoyed reading about the substance of how they try to identify languages through consonant maps and measuring statistics. I saw far too few studies with that level of detail. I saw one on brain waves that had a good scientific research writeup. They bit off a small chunk and proved it, as opposed to biting off a large chunk, not proving it, and expressing a lot of opinionated conclusions. I'm still waiting for the following to see in linguistics around this topic: 1) Someone putting together an organized database of glossa samples that multiple research articles could access and use for research. 2) More statistical analysis like Samarin started in the '70's that utilizes some of the modeling and compute power we have today. 3) Other language identification methods in use and the detail of them. It is true that a coded message using language as a vehicle is a very effective encryption tool, as shown by the movie "Wind Talkers", depicting the use of the Navajo language for WWII transmissions that was never broken throughout the duration of the war, despite the continued efforts of linguists and cryptologists. Well, the conversations with mediums if included in the same category would be a proof its possible to fake. And possibly trained actors could fake TIP. I find it not impossible, but improbable that the common man with the instruction I've seen given could fake as well as I see happening.

Oh snap?

Well, you guys have been doing a pretty good job of that with all the research ever since we started the thread discussion.

And why your logic is a fallacy is that I did not present a conclusion at all. I'm beginning to understand what my problem is with you guys. You are used to people summing up a lot of detail into one opinionated bottom line statement. And you call that a "conclusion". I like to look through detail and expand my knowledge. At this point I have many more questions about this topic than I ever have. What little knowledge I have is far exceeded by how much I don't know. Yes many of Hockett's attributes are superficial. As you would expect for linguists to detail out what makes a language. But all those superficial details are what makes the one big bottom line ststement you guys want to make either a lie or the truth. Glossa "bears no resemblance to language". LIE. Glossa "has a superficial resemblance to language phonetically, and the message content cannot be determined to meet other criteria or not until it can be successfully decoded or understood natively". TRUTH. Or if you need a shorter version "glossa has some similarities and some differences with natural languages". Just thought I'd post up the truth out there in case there might be someone that would recognize it.

The OTHER records (note the plural there) in Acts do not indicate the tongues were understood natively, but needed interpretation. Thus the need for instruction on what consists of interpretation of tongues and prophecy in I Cor. 14. People today are NOT trying to replicate Pentecost, insomuch as they are trying to live the instruction given in I Cor. 14. Pentecost was the initial outpouring of the gift of HS, and had special miracles going on like pictures of tongues like fire and all the audience understanding the speech in their native languages. Not without interpretation. Even in Bible times. The letters to Corinth were circulated 53-56AD. Here's a link to Paul's chronology for reference - http://www.bombaxo.com/paulchron.html So interpretation of tongues was in practice in Corinth in that timeframe.

You are playing word games. Samarin clearly lists all 16 of Hockett's attributes of language. Then he states the six in which he feels glossa does not meet. By this he ABSOLUTELY IMPLIES that it meets the other criteria, including the very obvious example I showed. You are presenting misinformation, then coming back saying "where did I say this?". You want to make this thread about you too. It's not about you. It's about scripture.

I provided the exact quote. Of the items on the list, your contention is that Samarin concludes that glossolalia doesn't meet any of the criteria on the list. So for instance (I'm just doing this for one out of the 11): 1. Vocal-auditory channel: the channel for all linguistic communication is vocal-auditory. So your contention is that Samarin finds that glossa doesn't use the vocal-auditory channel for communication. RIDICULOUS!!! Now you've got me occupied with dealing with your misinformation on two threads. And this one is dedicated to discussing scripture.

But that isn't what is happening - taking one or two verses like scorpion for an egg or bread for s stone and ripping them from context. What is happening is people are constructing entire belief systems based upon the entire topic in scriptures, then when acting on their beliefs they are comforted by some simple clear verses in scripture to encourage them. For example, I Cor. 12 - 14. People are working those scriptures and applying them, coming to conclusions about gifts and manifestations. At least they are on the affirmative side of the argument that SIT works as the Bible describes. On the other side of the argument where people believe that SIT is human faking and lying, I mostly see people avoiding discussing those verses, and avoiding them altogether. They focus on problems in the Corinthian church, they focus on that Corinthians is a reproof epistle, they focus on scientific studies purporting to show fraud, they focus on anything besides looking at those scriptures directly and living them in their personal modern lives like they describe. In my opinion they are doing this because of a superstitious premise that SIT died with the apostles, or what is sometimes commonly termed "cessationist theory" in Christianity. However, when you ask them for detail like "what changed?" there seems to be no answer. People seem to gravitate towards that theory also because of abusive practices in TWI, some of them related to this practice. To me that seems a lot shakier ground to stand on than being comforted by a couple simple scriptures assuring you that God answers prayer.

It makes me sad too. Hearing that story reminds me of friends and stories related to trying to keep marriages intact while leaving TWI. There are many fears related to this people deal with. Definitely the questions about the future. "Will my spouse leave me because I'm leaving the church?" Also making me sad are the memories of leaders in TWI getting in the middle of marriages and splitting them up. Just the look on the faces of certain people - a sadness and a look like they are just lost and don't know what to do. Like they sacrificed their marriage and kids, but are still "standing on the Word". Those leaders and clergy in TWI splitting up marriages and doing that to people deserve a special piece of judgment.

Direct quote from Samarin - p. 67 Hartford Quarterly: "Glossas, by this standard, are not human languages, primarily because they really are not systems of communication. They are not characterized by semanticity (7), arbitrariness (8), displacement (10), prevarification (14), and reflexiveness (15)". So I count 5 of the 16 characteristics Samarin takes issue with, which leaves 11 of 16 which he does not. Also of interest is his reason WHY he does not consider glossa human languages. He adds detail here saying it is primarily because they really are not systems of communication. What does this mean? You are not going to ask your spouse to go to the store for milk in tongues and have a back and forth conversation going on about it in tongues. I completely agree with his assessment. I have seen NOWHERE that ANYONE claims that tongues are a system of communication between people, outside if you really want to stretch the concept in Acts 2 where people understood natively. And Hockett's 16 characteristics were not developed to characterize communication between a person and God that involve things like 'praying in the Spirit'. This is what makes discussion tedious.

I'd be especially interested to hear how acting and theater training help those people who never had any background in it fake TIP manifestations in TWI after 90 minutes of hands-on instruction. That should really be informative.

Samarin shows in his study that glossa samples have the same construct as languages with respect to the cadence and linguistic breakdown into sentences, phrases, sub-phrases, and words. Samarin also finds that glossa samples meet 10 of the 16 criteria on Hoskell's language characteristic chart. That is not "no resemblance".

The main problem with lack of "progress" lies in the fact that after an 88 page thread on the topic, the bulk of the evidence we REALLY have is "modern SIT seems to not resemble Biblical SIT". Nothing proven, nothing evidence based - but "seems" is the word used when people are being honest about the evidence. The other main problem in lack of "progress" lies in people NOT being honest about the evidence. They state opinion as fact, and de-emphasize the details of linguists language classification efforts while at the same time crying out "evidence shows this, evidence shows this". Dishonesty hinders progress. It just couldn't be that -A- doesn't have any scientific substance to it of course. No, it always has to be about something else. No, WordWolf, it's not about tying tongues being alive to the power of God. If I never spoke in tongues again for the rest of my life, God's power still would be there for me. Wow, then having a background in theatrics it must be that you are most impressed with the theatrical manner in which one side of the argument expressed their opinion. Because it certainly isn't making sense to me from any kind of a science or logic background. Look, very simply here is what makes sense to me. Modern SIT is the same as Biblical SIT, because God isn't fickle. People don't understand the language because God explains in I Cor. 14:2 that they won't understand it. He is the one energizing what's going on behind the scenes, so He would know. Linguists in higher education, like scientists in higher education, in general reject God and Christianity and favor Darwinism and evolution. So the popular opinion is largely against SIT being genuine in those circles. They are trying to put God in a false dilemma to try and test Him. This act runs contrary to scripture including one of the 10 Commandments. So they don't find anything. Big surprise. Charismatic Christians continue to pray to God with their understanding and by the spirit which includes speaking in tongues. And miraculously, because He is God, He hears them and understands. It could be something about Him understanding a few more languages than modern linguists. Oh, and since his resume includes the tower of Babel reference, it's legit. That's the bottom line to the matter. Whatever people are or are not doing on these train wrecks of threads has no impact on the matter whatsoever. Inconclusive meaning they did not prove that it was not a language either. And there is anecdotal evidence supporting it, where people understood a tongue in their native language. So to say there is NO (zip, zero, none) existing evidence is simply lying. Which, one more time, is why we aren't making progress on these threads.

That makes absolutely no sense. Session 12 of PFAL, people like prayed in tongues out loud once or twice together. INT class, they got 3 practice sessions in doing worship manifestations. The first one, they practiced SIT only and new mouth sounds. The second two, they practiced interpreting and prophesying in a prayer meeting. The entire duration of these 3 sessions is about 90 minutes. Somehow, a "culturization" occurs in this process whereby people are able to perform extemporaneously and make up large volumes of prayer speech on the fly? If that's true, then the Way is totally missing its target market for the Int. Class. They should sell the cr@p out of that to aspiring Hollywood actors. After all, just one short class and you can immediately perform under pressure not only delivering memorized lines, but making up new ones on the fly perfectly extemporaneously. All this with about 90 minutes of hands-on training.