chockfull

Then by this logic, your assessment of Samarin should be he has no accounts of non-Christian free vocalization. He used 2 mediums as one example, and 2 personal accounts as his other examples. But it's not. Illogical. The people involved with the incidents absolutely knew who the other people were. The fact that you don't know them is somewhat irrelevant. It is nobody's burden of proof to demonstrate this to you. I have heard about a half a dozen accounts similar to this, and have known a few of these accounts where people were in them in the same fellowship. So I know at least one of the stories I heard the facts were corroborated by two separate people. I'm sure the people making the claims on this thread could track down some information, or maybe they couldn't. Either way, they don't seem to feel motivated or compelled to have to do that for YOU. I'm sure you'll take this to mean it's not proven. That is a very egocentric definition of proof. It has been proven TO OTHERS. The fact it has not been proven TO YOU is not really relevant to everyone else. They determine on their own whether or not they will believe the accounts. The only difference is that most will not state their beliefs in terms of "absolutes" and "facts" assumed to be incontrovertible. You have done this page after page. You see this is where I start to divurge from the whole scientific proof thing. It's kind of like whether or not people want to believe Jesus was raised from the dead. There is no conclusive proof. There's no proof of the ascencion. There's no proof of the new birth. And you have sincere people vehemently arguing against each one of these things. Yet God leaves it up to each individual's freedom of will to prove it to themselves, to believe it for themselves, to pursue it for themselves.

Now that looks like a video illustration of Raf's counterfeit $2 bill example. This is the guy that changed what interpretation meant - and magically all followers of his little cult also changed there. No, this couldn't be an example of someone faking it? Everything about this guy is fake.

Actually one of the most problematic areas of designing a statistical experiment like a hypothesis test is the sample space. In other words, do the people or examples I decide to take a sample of and study accurately represent a statistical sample of the entire population that I am expecting my hypothesis to apply to? In that respect, tongues in a natural setting where the speaker was unaware they are being recorded are probably the cleanest. Depending on how you want to model the study, you might divide the samples into "church" settings where there also was interpretation / prophecy going on for all to hear, and possibly private prayer life examples too and run the statistics on both sets to see if they present any differences mathematically. I noted a couple problematic inclusions in Samarin's sample space - both of which were the recording of a medium's conversation with their spirit guide, where there was a different language involved. His inclusion of Christian and non-Christian groups is fine, especially as he is endeavoring to illustrate a non-detectable difference there. The mediums were in his non-Christian samples. I don't have access to his other resources to be able to vet other non-Christian samples. I understand what Samarin was doing there - simply collecting any available samples of known recordings of people speaking in a language they never learned. With the medium examples, though, there is never a claim of glossa going on there, simply a recorded conversation with a spirit guide. So they should be excluded from any hypothesis test. You talked to this author and confirmed this? Or is this just an ad-hominem attack?

Reposting from where I made this point previously: No, the conversation ends with you with "these are not known languages" plus "I do not believe the accounts presented where people experienced that they were known languages". And you two have the right to dismiss anything you want, including two firsthand accounts (yes Raf, someone who THEMSELF WAS THERE OBSERVING consists of a firsthand account whether or not they did the speaking despite your attempt to categorize it as something different). I'm sure I could call both of you some really nice names too. Let me so, so far we have that I'm bordering on the absurd, I have hubris, and a bunch of other nice little snide comments. Let me ask you this, in your emphasis in and continued magnification of the maturity in I Cor. 14, where exactly does your name-calling fit into this?

Either way is fine. The most expensive is $31. Do your suggestion first and we can do a book club exchange after a month or so when done reading.

That is all I'm pointing out - glaring inconsistencies. Like: 1) Ruling out glossa as a language based on 5 characteristics of a language that pertain to conversational communication when glossa is not conversational by design 2) Criticizing and rejecting some sources like firsthand accounts of tongues being understood because he wasn't there and couldn't question all the people involved, then in his paper using two personal firsthand accounts to illustrate his point. 3) Saying glossa bears NO resemblance to a language in his "defining terms" opening of his paper, then in the very next sentence saying it has phonetic resemblance. Also, discrediting me for pointing these out might be a little easier if we don't have other published papers out there pointing out some of the same things.

He found languages he did not know. He was evaluating whether or not he would consider them languages based upon 14 characteristics linguists agree on that constitute a language. He found 5 of those characteristics not present. My contention is that is simply because those 5 characteristics constitute the conversational aspect of language, of which tongues is not designed for conversation. No, where we found human languages that are known are on the two firsthand accounts given. You know, the ones you refuse to believe?

So I presented a series of posts where Samarin compares SIT to elements of known languages. He himself concedes that of the 14 presented, he finds differences on only 5. I presented in those posts a rebuttal of his 5 differences. This discussion and the facts surrounding it are key to Samarin's findings on whether or not SIT are languages. You refuse to discuss this, retreating back to repeating over and over again "SIT does not produce known languages. That's a fact, not my opinion". Who are you trying to convince here, yourself? In the second example, it is God's energizing of tongues that's being tested.

The other rationale would be that if tongues is designed for 2 purposes: 1) private prayer life 2) prayer meeting / meeting where interpreted Then using it outside of those purposes, for example, in a test to prove whether or not they are languages, is not using it according to how it is contractually promised. Thus that use may not involve God energizing it.

1) So Rosalie, in yours and Donna's relationship is it true that you wear the pants? 2) How is it exactly that you have a Biblical "Research, Teaching, and Fellowship" ministry with one part-time employee in the Research department? 3) Do you think that more accurately when you present that Corps graduation certificate, that it should be a "Doctorate of Micromanagement" rather than an Associate of Theology? 4) Why do all of you walk around looking like you have a stick up your butt and your nose in the clouds? 5) Has the experiment ever been repeated in the ministry where someone has a Drambuie-based hallucination of snow in summer? 6) Rosalie, how is it since you have taken sailing lessons that you still can't find your butt in the dark with both hands? 7) Are the artists still around that can do "Planet of the Apes" stick figures like the ones on your previous annual theme posters? I hear they are making a sequel to the movie and if you'd let them off-grounds or approve their vacation, they may be able to do some real good there.

The rationale would be that testing would be a form of tempting God. In Jesus temptations he was encouraged to throw himself off a cliff to prove that God would catch him.

I'm going to try and pick up a copy of his main book on the topic. That may take a while, as it's out of print and coming from used bookstores. If I can do that, I will read it first and then I would like to offer to mail it to you so you can read it. We have enough of a different viewpoint on Samarin I don't want to put you in the position of accepting my take on it on initial reading.

IMO where Paul is saying it is the least of the gifts that is because in the context he is encouraging the Corinthians to grow up and focus on others rather than being selfish. In that context, tongues does absolutely nothing for others, except for: 1) If it's a miracle like Pentecost and others understand in their own language - then that would be a sign, and the actual words would build them up 2) If it's in a prayer meeting where interpreted 3) If you are praying for someone else and do so while SIT, then that is not a selfish endeavor So any other of the gifts/manifestations all do things for others. I know in this response I am circling back and picking up a lot of geisha's point. However, she was using that to try and reach the conclusion that it was wrong to use it in private prayer or not available any more. My only conclusion is that it does less for others than many other things you could be doing. So although I believe it's available today, my conclusion is it's a whole lot less important than other things.

I don't know if I'm trying to have it both ways. I am investigating scientific research out there on the subject to see what light it shines on the topic. I think it's a dishonest scientific approach to not present the consideration that when trying to measure God, He may not cooperate. If that limitation is not presented in the research it has a major flaw. I do have a side, I am just evaluating sources and trying to be objective about what they say. I do allow that a linguist like Samarin knows more than I do about linguistics. However, that does not necessarily mean that Samarin knows more than me about designing standard statistical proof type hypothesis testing experiments or evaluating them or finding flaws in them. I wouldn't know that for a fact without meeting with him, but I suspect from what I see in his studies that he may have not had a great deal of formal training in that aspect of research. Just because a man is adept and educated in one area does not mean that automatically translates to all areas. But beyond credentials, research is intended to be presented to and evaluated by an interested audience. It is not beyond reproach - that is an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. It is intended to be evaluated. And Samarin's work in the one article I read I find some flaws in. And it's interesting to note that I am not alone. We have others publishing papers citing his work and saying similar things - that his conclusions are incongruent with his findings. The problem I have with Samarin is not his findings. His work on attempting statistical analysis on p. 61-66 is I feel ahead of his time. He brings up many valid points, and many valid considerations. My issue with Samarin is the conclusions he draws from his findings. They are simply not supported. That is not disingenuous at all. To me that is pointing out the obvious. You aren't doing him any favors. All you have been doing in the last 10 pages or so is calling me disingenuous for pointing out flaws, and continuing to repeat again and again your opinion that glosssa "is not a language" and that people were "faking it", or more PC terms. If you think Samarin's work should stand on its own, then maybe instead of saying just "OK" for the main detail point of discussion you should try and dig into it and see whether what I brought up seems to hold water or not. That's that part you should be discussing, not another long diatribe on your opinion on the matter. I think by now if anyone reading this thread is not familiar with your opinion on the matter, then they may never be. If it's OK I'll get back to Sherrill in a bit. I need to reread. Well, I for one don't demand your acceptance of tongues. I'm trying to research some of the scientific sources with you to see what we can learn from them. I don't feel I'm distorting clear meaning of scripture. I have a position on my beliefs related to scripture, and that is not universally held by all. I'm comfortable with that. To me, since the premise of tongues involves what just about everyone says is either a "spiritual gift" or "spiritual manifestation" with the key word there being spiritual, then there is an element that probably is not measurable by senses realm scientific tools. My opinion on the matter is that I can only prove SIT to myself. And I can share experiences, dig in to science, discuss etc. I am not trying to force you to accept those accounts as proof. I am just pointing out that we are reading research from people who are citing sources that are no more substantiated than either of those stories. So as such, they have to be treated with equal weight. Samarin's friend he talked to is not in a different category. And I'm sorry that for you firsthand testimony doesn't carry the same weight it does with everyone else. There is really no logical response or scientific response that I can present for a "I don't believe it" response. That is in the same category as the "take it on faith" argument. There is a reason you ignored this? And your reason is to restate your opinion as fact? Come on, now. If it really is fact, then it will hold up to the same scrutiny you are asking people with the other side's opinion on to subject tongues to. There is absolutely nothing about restating your opinion on a matter that refutes anything at all.

No you missed the point. Samarin uses 14 points linguists use to identify something as a language. This was among the only series of my posts that you ignored. In those 14 points he declares glossa to be not compliant on a handful. That handful I clearly highlighted as only applicable to conversational communication aspects of language, which clearly doesn't apply to the basic definition and intent of glossa. So it's circular logic Samarin is using. It's not a language because it's not understood. Well duh. I find Samarin's obtuse handling of points like this to pretty much invalidate and waste all of the work and talent the man has in linguistics. You mean God isn't cooperating with being tested by man? Shocking. However, we do have anecdotal evidence by a handful of people experiencing just this. We even have an example on this thread, posted by socks who doesn't have any interest in arguing with you. This account is of no less value than any of Samarin's subjects. It especially is no less valid than 50% of the examples Samarin quotes from his own personal experience related to xenoglossalalia. Yet you poo poo it. I call BS. Firsthand experience is admissible in court and cannot be ruled out because a linguist writing a study was not in the audience. And it certainly is a lot more credible than the continued repetition of opinion / rhetoric from you on the topic.

I for one can detect an improvement in this thread brought on by beer and a reduction in Gaussian noise.

Thanks. I watched it this time. (Didn't last time - don't scold me ) The branch of mathematics is called Information Theory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory I am unfamiliar with it. How about our squirrely friend? And yet, I still am not a number.

There could be a lot of room to look at that. Samarin if you read the linked article from p. 61 to 65 does some pretty interesting stuff statistically speaking that I would have to think would be largely without the computational power in 1972 that we have today. I mean, that was when a computer bug literally was a roach in a vacuum tube. Our iPhones today have more compute power. May be something to this.

Hmmm. Doesn't sound familiar. SIT first in a denominational church where 80% of the congregation didn't believe in it or accept it. Naturally occurred as a flow after being born again. Didn't learn many verses or have much teaching on it till later. TWI's BS corrupted it. Now trying to get back to the pure water. As a psychoanalyst, Raf, don't quit your day job. How much you want to bet that guy has had someone try to collect $1M doing this, but because nobody could prove the interpretation they didn't win. The only way to win $1M from him is a Pentecost type of miracle. And if you believe God will back that, you need to be praying for the right numbers to enter in Lotto instead of wasting your time there!!!!

I think voice recognition has its roots in ngrams mathematically. That's a bit different conceptually than statistical analysis or OR.

And just to think, all you would have to do to turn this paragraph from rhetoric into accuracy is replace the word "languages" with "known languages".

Could you tell me some stories about half-baked abusive alcoholics on nicotine to distract my mind from the pain of linguistics terminology?

Just trying to put a little rational objectivity behind the "innovative" conclusion of his study. I might find it reasonable to think that a guy who spoke Swedish in his home for years growing up might reproduce some sounds. But going from there to a logical leap of ANYTHING you've ever heard? A bit much for me. I mean if that's true I really need to tap into the power of that subconscious. I mean I could be getting 100's on every test I take, and so much more!!!!! I mean with a subconscious that powerful what's next? The Secret? The example he gives is the English aspirated sound after the P in Paul, as opposed to the French language not having that. You know, kind of like my Spanish sounds to the natives in Cozumel? Gringo? I'm sure if God can't get past my accent and make my tongue be a perfect representation of the language with absolutely no trace of Gringo, then I absolutely must be faking it, right?

All of Samarin's works I saw were published in 1972. After reading through the one article I have access to, he is very impressive on the linguistics side. I have to look up a lot of words when reading him. I mean, he was the Professor of Linguistics at Toronto University. The examples he gave on the exposure to language were more like a guy with a Swedish surname in the study, if they had access to him they would ask if Swedish was spoken in the home as a youth. If so, then they could logically add Swedish sounds to look for in the glossa. Not really unreasonable, and definitely not unlearned. Really good overall, and I might spend $31 to try and find an out of print copy of his main work on the topic. Just because I point out inconsistencies and don't agree with his conclusions don't mean I don't respect his work.

Read that page one more time. To prove languages were "derivative" he did consonant maps of English speakers doing glossa. Then he noted all their glossa consonants were English, missing only 6 of all available. Then he noted that the English consonant map applied to "several other native languages". Then he ignored that and concluded that was an indication they were all making it up. Wow, and just to think - now we have a Shazam app that you can play music into and it finds the band!!!!! That has a certain "gen se qua" element to it, doesn't it? Now if only we would have a "Babelfish" app that you could do that with to tongues. Then we could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that either it is a language or that your software needs updating!!!! But I'm sure it makes complete sense that somewhere in the depths of my unlimited subconscious mind, that I have a full range of the Haitian dialect of those guys that used to put up the tents at the ROA, to be pulled up by my horribly evil faking subconscious mind all when I'm trying to focus on something else and pray. I've got to watch that subconscious. I mean, who knows when I might be daydreaming about a steak while driving and it takes over and kills 3 pedestrians and then cusses out the cops. It's evil I tell you. EVIL