chockfull

Get over yourself. You "may even respond"????? You've "entertained it long enough"???? Who died and made you king? You are not posting your doctrinal assertions on that doctrinal thread, and others aren't either. The only "doctrinal digression" going on here is you writing the word "NO" when asked for your doctrinal position on this topic. Condescending tone. Assumption you "own" the thread and the argument. Talking about fictional "digressions" when the topic of your main post HAS to include a doctrinal assumption. Of course any discussion challenging your assumptions on this topic is ON TOPIC. You are just dishonestly trying to frame the conversation in a way that interests only you. You aren't the only person on this website.

OK I'll take that criticism. To me its been interesting to dig into the broad scientific study to see what I can learn from language form and context (not language meaning as its not understood). I've learned more about the detail in linguistics than I ever knew before. I guess I still hold the viewpoint that if a scripture speaks clearly on a subject that it is going to outweigh man's observations about the subject. But I'm still interested to read the observations, if nothing more than to further my education on it. I thought I was posting up plenty of commentary on the substance of that broad field of study and all the research we are reading, even if I didn't agree with them. I thought that wasn't ignoring it. But since I'm arguing one side of an argument, I guess I'll take the "I'm ignoring the research" observation instead of the "I'm disagreeing with the research". But I really don't think I'm ignoring it.

I was still looking for a verse that backs up the position that modern SIT producing a language is a promise of God, like he states. Do you have one that you think he supports? I understand the roundabout reasoning of the word tongues being translated the same as language. However, I see that as a secondary thing in ANY of the verses. Maybe there is no clear verse stating that promise. I'm not thinking of all the verses, and OldSkool brought another one up about proving God that I hadn't thought about until he did. If so, then I'd like someone to state that. All Raf ever does is say "I've already refuted you" when he's never discussed the point of whether he feels there IS a clear verse on the subject stating the promise and where it is. Or that there is not a clear verse on the subject, and his position is that "glossa" should be translated "languages" everywhere, not the physical organ of the tongue, which it IS translated in certain places. I'm just looking for substance on the argument and coming up way short. And Raf is too emotionally involved at this stage to give me a straight answer. I don't know, I took offense at the snide comment most recently asking if I was just "making this stuff up and expecting everyone to believe it" when I stated a clear verse, a direct reading of the verse, and an applicable one of the 10 Commandments. And I take offense at all those similar comments. And if he is not going to cut that out, there are times where I am going to throw that cr@p back at him. I mean do you literally think that I made up one of the 10 Commandments? Or is that a BS statement and a snide comment? He is being rude. And I am complaining. But rather than waiting for another's resolution on it, I'm handling it myself by confronting him on it. And I am responding in kind. One thing I did way too often in TWI is not stand up for myself. People would attack, and I would just internalize and eat it, then it would build up. That's a great recipe for a lack of physical and mental well being. So I'm handling things as they come up. It has kind of fluctuated. Been worse and better. Usually gets better for a while after it gets confronted, then emerges later along with frustration at logical arguments.

Well, your post on J.E. Stiles and info from that site gives a lot of insight. He was a Pentecostal that split with his church and felt his mission was to lead many into SIT. So he did. I think Stiles writing in his book was groundbreaking and a clear distinction and break from mainstream Pentecostal teachings of his day. He could arguably have had a genuine ministry like BG Leonard that Wierwille glommed onto and plagiarized for himself. Hmmm. No makeup, long dresses, bowl haircuts for the guys, women can't speak in the church, a sound system that involves turning the minister's mic up to about 120 decibals, and a crappy band as backup. And all their repressed out of control behavior being expressed "in the spirit". Once you understand them, what's not to like?

OK. How do you account for the "nobody understands" in I Cor. 14:2 with the specific way you are supposed to prove it? Proving Him could carry many connotations, including proving Him by SIT yourself. Also, what's the explanation of the apparent contradiction in scripture between the commandment "thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" and "prove me now herewith" in your view? That's a little finer grained cut, but it must be doable if scripture doesn't put us in a non-winning predicament. And your opinion about Raf having "discredited my argument scripturally", and me "acting as if he had not"????

I think the "American Methodist" Pentecostals is more mainstream. "Pentecostal" carries a negative connotation to many mainstream Christians. I know of several non-profit Christian organizations that will not employ Pentecostals but will accept a laundry list of other denominations. There's a long list of reasons why, but basically it boils down to questionable practices surrounding TIP with at least some churches under that heading, to include snake handling, trances, smacking people in the head like Benny Hinn, out of control behavior to include falling down, making animal sounds, dancing and running in aisles, and many other shady practices. I've literally seen a bunch of that by choice - I wasn't raised Pentecostal my early church experiences were Presbyterian. Oral wanted to reach more people and didn't want to be hindered by that connotation. So he separated himself and made a new org (fancy that). This kind of brings up another point and another side to this argument. In a day where Pentecostals were exhibiting all sorts of questionable behavior surrounding this, TWI probably did people a service in teaching this in a way that didn't involve "receiving the Holy Ghost" like Benny Hinn does. I feel they went overboard on Pharisee-like legalism with how they taught the excellor stuff in the INT class, but I'm also trying to remain objective and not throw the baby out with the bath water. I mean rather than the result we see here, where about 50% of the people that experienced that teaching now reject SIT across the board and say they were lying or faking in TWI, we all could be writhing around on the floor and smacking people in the head. That would be worse.

Can someone else please chime in on their opinion on whether or not Raf has "discredited my argument scripturally"??? I see no scripture quoted, no discussion of scripture quoted, and just basically a lot of reasoning within himself of how he thinks that it SHOULD be logical that SIT produce languages (no argument from me there) and his conclusion that IF it is logical then God should allow it to be tested (big argument from me there supported scripturally). I am not "acting as though you have not". You simply have not. I'm asking for others opinion on this because it's clear to me by Raf's incessant snide comments and namecalling to me that he would not receive it from me no matter how true it is.

Raf, your incessant snide remarks and namecalling bring these types of responses on all by themselves. I have received no apology from you for them, and I see more of those types of comments in your posts today indicating you are NOT sorry about your behavior. I refuse to be held to a different standard than other posters on this thread. The picture I posted yesterday that you either moderated and removed yourself (because you have shown you WILL do that kind of stuff) or whined about and got another mod to remove was a perfect depiction of a face of someone who is whining and pouting. You refused to state your point biblically. That's dishonest to the other posters who ARE stating their points biblically. You come off to me that you don't want your views or logic challenged, but just want to put out your opinion as rhetoric and have it believed and accepted unquestioned. "Unspeakable rudeness" - I mean pull in your lower lip. You can sure dish it out but you can't take it. And my assessment is that whenever you get to where your logical position is challenged and there is a point involved, rather than continuing a logical and objective discussion you fall back on more namecalling and whining. You then try to make the argument about how badly you are being treated. That's a logical fallacy, along with the fact that anyone can read your personal attack statements, which makes it hypocritical as well. My prediction is that you will not ignore me. You have a logical argument posed out there that the reason linguists can't find a "real language" in modern SIT is that God defined SIT to be such that others hearing it will not understand. You keep namecalling that position too - calling it "contorting scripture". We now have a KJV and a NASB interpretation of that verse up in the thread. I'll post a few other translations. Then I'll let the audience determine if I am "contorting scripture" to expect that when God says "nobody understands" that it means "nobody understands". I mean WOW - it's such a magical contortion of scripture that all you have to do is read the words right where they stand. ASV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. BBE 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he who makes use of tongues is not talking to men but to God; because no one has the sense of what he is saying; but in the Spirit he is talking of secret things. DBY 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaks with a tongue does not speak to men but to God: for no one hears; but in spirit he speaks mysteries. DRA 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man heareth. Yet by the Spirit he speaketh mysteries. ESV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. GNV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For hee that speaketh a strange tongue, speaketh not vnto men, but vnto God: for no man heareth him: howbeit in the spirit he speaketh secret things. KJV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. NAB 1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to human beings but to God, for no one listens; he utters mysteries in spirit. NAS 1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. NAU 1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. NIB 1 Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no-one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. NIV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. NJB 1 Corinthians 14:2 Those who speak in a tongue speak to God, but not to other people, because nobody understands them; they are speaking in the Spirit and the meaning is hidden. NKJ 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. NLT 1 Corinthians 14:2 For if your gift is the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking to God but not to people, since they won't be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious. NRS 1 Corinthians 14:2 For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God; for nobody understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit. RSV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. WEB 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an {unknown} language, speaketh not to men, but to God: for no man understandeth {him}; yet in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

And your attempt to frame the conversation so that you don't have to face logical opposition on what you want to consider "your thread" is transparent. The discussion on this thread involves functional AND doctrinal elements, and has so since the beginning. Otherwise you would have no basis to discount "modern SIT" or compare it with anything. God IS faithful to His Word. People SIT aren't going to be understood by others, outside of a special miracle. If you think your interpretation of I Cor. 14:2 means you can test SIT, then explain your logic, rather than avoiding questions, personally attacking other posters and trying to redirect opposing viewpoints to a thread nobody is reading or participating on.

Wierwille, being an older man, preyed on young minds. He controlled the frame of the conversation. You were either "my kids" or a "cop out". And people were so whipped up by their Christian excitement and desire to serve that those two terms defined young people's existence. A wolf in sheep's clothing. Quite obviously to us now, selecting a different Christian church to attend other than Wierwille's should not produce traumatic psychological trauma, or shunning, or hate speech from TWI leadership. All of those things display non-Christian fruit.

Thanks for making my point for me so clearly. Israel demanding a miracle from God that He had not promised = Raf demanding a miracle from God such that linguists in a lab understand SIT when He says "no man understands". You made a perfect case for the rebuke in that commandment applying directly to you. Your response to the rebuke, however, is not so admirable. You call it "making up excuses", etc. And to answer your personal attack question about whether or not I make stuff up and no one will notice, no I don't. I don't have to. Between a few simple scriptures, and your logic, it kind of all writes itself.

WW, just so you know, I am very familiar with the word "him" after understandeth being from a Greek word that only appears in the Stephens text, but not the other 6 major critical Greek textualists. My contention is that it makes little to no difference to the overall meaning of the verse. For instance, as related to my beliefs, I am perfectly comfortable with the NASB and other modern translations of that verse where it does not appear. It doesn't change my beliefs in the least.

Nobody is "using" this verse to try and move any agenda along except you. I am just reading it and contrasting it with people's opinion. If you don't like the verse that much, take it up with the Author. You know, the one that made the commandment on the tablets He miraculously wrote on Mt. Sinai, which included the commandment "thou shalt not tempt (test) the Lord thy God" ??????

If I had to trace Wierwille's roots of learning that topic, it would be primarily Oral Roberts. Oral was teaching that stuff during that time, and in VP's account where he first SIT (in the book "The Way Living in Love") he attended an Oral Roberts meeting where they attempted to lead him into SIT. He tells the story of how he faked them out, then met J.E. Stiles in a coffee shop. Oral was not Pentecostal. J.E. Stiles was an "Assembly of God" minister, which IS Pentecostal. RHST, which is plagiarized from Stiles book, would be Pentecostal. During that time period (what 1965 for filming of PFAL???) Oral was the primary person teaching that doctrine, and the Pentecostals were about the only charismatic movement around. The charismatic Catholics came later, and other groups. So I would say Wierwille doctrine is probably an amalgamation of Oral Roberts and Pentecostal teachings. I think the record in Luke about "praying for a fish and not getting a stone" (horrible paraphrase but in a hurry) is a Pentecostal emphasized verse on this topic. Fair assessment, except IMO the Intermediate class with all the word formulation practice isn't a Pentecostal practice. That's more like the punch line to a joke. What do you get when you cross a Pharisee with a Pentecostal?

Well you would be safer considering "no man understands" as an "absolute" statement in that verse than you are considering just because they word "tongues" is used in the verse that means it is an "absolute" statement that a language will be produced. But in reality it is a general rule for what occurs in SIT unless God initiates a miracle, like in Acts 2, or potentially other anecdotal situations. I don't even think you can go that far for the use of the word "tongues" in the verse. It's not a general rule, it's not an absolute statement, it's just a hanging prepositional phrase that includes the word "tongues". I don't disagree that it is a logical position that "tongues" means "language". I just disagree with extracting that one word out of the context of the verse, blowing it up to the sky, and making ALL of SIT now about that one word as opposed to the main idea the scripture is communicating. And that is EXACTLY what you are doing on this thread. Well, in a strict definition sense it can't be "absolute" because Acts 2 contradicts it. Also, if any anecdotal evidence is true on other miraculous accounts they also would contradict the "absolute" definition sense. But you are mistaken that I Cor. 14:2 is speaking ONLY about a worship setting. The overall topic of I Cor 14 is TIP in the church, but in the detail of the verses involved there is a CONTRAST set up between speaking in the church and speaking outside of the church (i.e. private prayer life). Consider the WHY behind the fact that the believer is told they are speaking to God not men and no man understands. This has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in the church. If the church ONLY was what was spoken about there, then it matters not whether you are speaking divine mysteries to God, only that God is inspiring edifying words for the church. Speaking divine mysteries to God only becomes important in private prayer. So the understanding of this is not "absolute", it is the definition of how SIT works generally outside of a miraculous event initiated by God. But it still serves to invalidate all of man's foolishness trying to measure it. Unless there was a miraculous event initiated by God in a lab, then linguists will NOT understand the tongue. This really isn't that difficult of a concept. Outside of the nice little speculation on what "Paul knew darned well", if it didn't mean that people would not understand it, then it would not have stated that. I mean it's a complete farce to take the word "tongues" in that verse and try to make it mean that a linguist can test God's fulfillment of SIT by understanding the language, when it clearly says "nobody understands". Picking on the one loophole in the Biblical definition of that, where God can initiate a special miracle doesn't give that line of logic any more legs to stand on. And I say that using this verse to extract the word "tongues" and use that as some kind of guarantee that a linguist will understand SIT when the verse says that the linguist will NOT understand the verse is in error. And the discussion happens where the discussion is happening. Nobody died and made you king of moderation, and as I stated before you being involved in ANY moderation related to this topic is COMPLETELY DISHONEST. I respectfully disagree on your Biblical views and have different ones. I don't believe the Bible makes a testable assertion, simply by reading one common phrase - "no one understands". It is a complete leap of logic to think that verse means that those IN the prayer meeting will not understand but those OUTSIDE the prayer meeting will. That makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE from the intent of those gifts or manifestations.

It probably is a fair assumption to note that the sources for Samarin and other linguists HAVE to include Pentecostals, as by far and large they (and I include Assemblies of God and the Apostolics as part of this because they generally are considered part of this) are the largest Charismatic Christian group out there. However, if you go by their research the only answer is "I don't know". Why? Because they don't provide details about the sources of the glossa samples they are writing about that I have seen. Well, I've got about 80 pages in to stopping to question so far, and am continuing to pose and answer questions.

So this is the most recent post I see with any substantive content. It is not "contorting" the scripture to note that the main point of I Cor. 14:2 is NOT that SIT produces a language. The main point of that scripture is to define SIT. First, it is a man speaking to God, not other men. Next, nobody understands. Next, the man SIT is speaking divine mysteries (define later). It is possible to make a logical argument that because the word "tongues" in that verse is also used to define "languages" in addition to the human organ, that you could interpret it to mean "languages". However, I present that this is a "stretch" to take it from there to where we are today, with somehow that meaning "a real language is promised in the Bible", thus opening it up to all of the shenanigans with "research" on the topic, and the shift in focus on what is important in that verse to something which is a complete sidetrack itself. If that was what God intended to promise, I present that He would have at least made it the main subject or predicate of a sentence in the Bible, as opposed to a prepositional phrase. So what DOES that verse say with respect to a "real language"? When you SIT, it could be a real language, but that's not important. What IS important is that you are speaking to God, not men, and men do not understand. In a very general sense, you are speaking a "language" because you are mostly doing the same things you are when you speak to another person in your native language. On the topic of "importance", the gist of that verse focuses your mind on the importance that you are speaking to God, and you are speaking divine mysteries. Whether or not you speaking to God takes the form of a language known on earth to linguists is so far OFF TOPIC of that verse it's not funny. You are speaking to God, and He understands. THAT'S WHAT IS EMPHASIZED in that verse. Whether "tongue" means "human language" is kind of an interesting side note, but nothing to base a belief upon, and certainly nothing that a reasonable person would find motivation in to attack other Christian's beliefs and prayer life with, saying they are liars and fakers. No, doing that is "off topic" to the intent of scripture, to be kind.

This thread's topic is SIT, TIP, Prophecy, and "Confession". Yes, we have a doctrinal forum, and yes there is a thread on I Cor 12-14 that nobody is posting on there. However, running away from a request to state a scripture backing up what you believe on SIT, TIP, Prophecy and "Confession" is not "keeping this thread on topic". It is a dishonest avoidance of the topic. It basically reflects my assessment of what's going on here, and that is you instead of having an honest discussion want to attack others beliefs. This is seen from the beginning posts on the thread calling people who don't agree with your position "liars" and "fakers" That behavior is being a hater. If you have nothing positive to add to the thread, then my suggestion is to refrain from posting on it until you do.

Yes, it's a guess, because I have yet to see a scripture from Raf that describes what he does believe. I see dancing around it - referring to the word "tongues" as glossa, and languages, but mostly still just attacking others beliefs. You know VP's "all without exception" and "all without[sic] distinction" interpretation of the Greek words heteros and allos really don't stand up to language scrutiny. Those words do not mean that - they are more contextual. Also, within the verse there is plenty of leeway to describe the tongue not being understood by those in the prayer meeting. However, the verse doesn't state it that way - it states "nobody" which is pretty absolute. So the terminology right in the verse there indicates a more absolute sense of nobody understanding.

So how do you propose that we come to an agreement on this? I see two options: 1) Scripture as a common ground 2) Reading more ad hominem attacks about what it is I'm doing. I haven't seen scripture for you on this yet. So I'm left with you either having an opinion that is based outside of scripture, or being scared, or really liking namecalling more than getting anywhere on the topic, or with me being such a bad person that I'm causing you to withdraw into your shell and not discuss your beliefs because you are so traumatized. Since I suck as a psychoanalyst, I'm going with "I don't know Raf's scriptural reasoning for his belief that God promised us a language when SIT". I'm not saying the topic hasn't been discussed ad nauseum, I'm saying in all that nauseum, I still have yet to find scriptural substance and reasoning. Maybe there isn't any. I don't know. I'm just asking for it, rather than overusing the word "you, you, you", complete with colorful adjectives.

Your experience and mine closely align. I also lean towards the unknown language aspect just being a general characteristic as opposed to a "promise". I wasn't trying to prove it to others either. But someone called what I do in my private prayer life being a "liar and a faker". I think a lot of the baiting language and button pushing got a bee somewhat into my bonnet. I do have a reasonable background in statistics, hence a lot of discussion on that. The curse of that is seeing issues in published research all over the place. I have a nice little old spectacled lady who taught a college class in that to thank. Ruined my views for life. Me too.

So you are volunteering that you can provide Raf's scriptural basis for the belief "I believe that the Bible promises a language?" and that's been answered over (x4)? And the Acts 2 / I Cor. 14 position too? I'm all ears.

Then post up the scripture and interpretation that YOU DO AGREE WITH. You consistently fail at this, but consistently attack my beliefs. That's you BEING A HATER. Note that name is not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be "here's Raf's position, and he is wrong because he's a hater". I'm just trying to get you to stop hating and post up substantively about your beliefs and position. So one more time, please post up a scripture backing for "I believe the Bible promises a language when SIT". And please explain the apparent contradiction in scripture between Acts 2 and I Cor 14. I've posted up both for backing for my beliefs.

The numbers seem like they fit with my observations, although the anecdotes I have heard are all that are there, never had the direct experience with someone understanding a tongue directly.

I'm sorry, I was just trying to get you to STATE YOUR POSITION clearly. So please, explain the Acts 2 I Cor 14 contradiction. And a scripture backup for your belief of "I believe that biblical SIT promises a language"???? Do you think you could possibly do that without involving me in some way? I mean I can't see any way I am wrapped up in your beliefs. Other than if attacking me ad hominem DEFINES you in some way.