chockfull

By all indications Paul had been previously married and had a son. These were requirements for his position in the Sanhedrim prior to his conversion. At this stage in his life, he was either traveling without them or was a widower with no desire to get married again. Unique circumstances Paul was noting. Not really about celibacy as a choice. Maybe it occurred naturally with the new birth, and it didn't need to be addressed until there were all sorts of complicating issues such as those surrounding the immaturity of the Corinthian church? Then due to that it needed to be spelled out step by step so that people could live it correctly? Oh and nice touch ignoring my request to update that link. I feel rebuffed.

He thinks it is all fake. I personally think that if someone's spirit guide is into Santeria, and speaks fluent Spanish, and interprets it into English, that it might be possible that the spirit guide actually might have taken up residence in Juan from Columbia previously. Thus its not really the person exhibiting xenoglossalalia, it's his spirit guide. So is he really faking it, or not? Or did the devil make him do it? Hmmmmmm. Questions to ponder.......

That section is linguistically challenging to follow all the terms. He covers it being "derivative" and "innovative". Taking him on face value him stating that glossa is "all" using nothing but English consonants sounds like damning evidence. Until he states that "that chart above, which would fit at least in part several other natural languages of the world". So in other words, the consonants he is mapping linguistically could come from "several other natural languages of the world" that Samarin knows about. Come on, now Sam!!!!!! I also have personal evidence (no you cannot record me) that I have heard consonants in tongues when I am praying that do not map to English consonants. And I couldn't guarantee you'd hear it if you did record me - it changes. "Innovative" features he highlights as borrowed sounds, simplification of syllable structure, increasing frequency of words, and borrowing from other languages. He states people "have had contact with" a different language. So to me he really, really, really wants to find out that people are making it up. So he extends his rationale to say if a person ever heard someone else use a consonant sound not in English, then they can mock it in tongues. That's quite a logical leap there, Sam!!!!! ix-nay on the abberwocky-jay But I can still feel the emotion in Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

And thus, Samarin exposes his preconception prior to all his research. He's pre-disposed to think people are making it up. And maybe some of them are. Or maybe every single one of his samples that he examined are. I don't know. I don't have the samples, or the background write-ups of the speakers. But to me he comes off as finding what he wants to find. His xenoglossalalia examples that I've seen pretty much are all mediums writing messages from their spirit guides. So someone's spirit guide speaks Spanish and is into Santeria? And somehow that means I'm making up SIT?

I remember them. So do one in English. Now do one in a language you don't understand. The comparisons make a lot of sense right? If they do, you could be Samarin's research assistant

Well, I guess it's after work now in most parts of the US, so we're bickering realtime My issue with his conclusions is he says it's not a natural language, then the sentence after that says a main feature of it is it has the phonological components of a natural language. Now if this was a research paper and I was his research advisor, I would tell him to make up his mind and present a unified message. Or explain away why it was after all of his research he feels the components of the phonetic side of language don't contribute at all to his overall conclusion.

In that case maybe AA is his church, and maybe a better one than sitting in a pew somewhere. That's the one thing I do love to see. When the shackles of the Way fall off, all things are possible!!!!

I think I'm on a roller coaster ride without a parachute or ejection seat. I guess partially I'm investigating my own past and SIT - which happened before TWI simply, beautifully, and clearly between myself and the Father. No PFAL or excellor sessions involved. Raf kept telling me I was faking it and lying to myself and repeated it enough times it finally got me going. Now I'm having to learn linguistics terminology. I'm sure this thread all looks like a huge trainwreck. I guess I like to read too. My fault. Perfect storm. And you can call it fake and a counterfeit $2 bill all you want but that doesn't make it so. Just trying to get equal billing for the opposite viewpoint. His conclusions are inconsistent. To me it's like this. Research comes up with 2 + 2. Conclusion states 5 as the answer. That's the inconsistency. The degree of similarity and difference in natural languages and glossa are in question.

The fact that he defines xenoglossalalia as knowledge of a language not studied and glossolalia as speaking a language not studied has absolutely nothing to do with the inconsistencies I'm pointing out in his research. Which is why I'm speaking in detail about the similarities and differences, so people can consider and arrive at their own conclusions. Similarities: Phonetic structure - both use sentences, phrases, words, sub-expressions, and variance in tone and inflection. Differences: Speaking with a native accent, mathematically mapping consonants in tongue to native language produces inconclusive consistencies, messages are simpler and more repetitive Haven't evaluated those in detail yet. AT this point the only thing I'm noting is multiple authors challenging the consistency of Samarin's 4 books and Hartford article. Do they have a point? I don't know. I see some inconsistencies that I'm pointing out. Coincidence? Don't know yet. Well Samarin after looking into in detail in the one article is definitely a linguist himself. And he had enough interest in the topic to publish 4 books on it. I don't know of another author like that with linguist credentials. Maybe there are none. But that still doesn't mean his conclusions are right. Obviously there are many who don't agree with him.

I don't feel I'm reading into it. I addressed this in the section that lists elements of a language and the areas where Samarin found differences in glossa. Every single one of those differences had to do with the fact the message was not understood, therefore it could not fulfill those elements.

Agreed you noted it. But not addressed - why do you have people publishing papers pointing out Samarin's inconsistencies? I think you have a mistaken idea of Samarin's definition of xenoglossia. He defines it as the KNOWLEDGE of a language to which the speaker has no previous exposure or knowledge. His example was non Arabic speakers citing the Koran they've never read. P. 50. I absolutely disagree with this, as part of the definition used in defining a "real language" is circular logic. Meaning it's a real language if it involves communication with and understanding by others. The nature of tongues is different in private. It has similarities in public, but is not the same thing. This is clearly stated in I Cor. 14. Nice extemporaneous speech there. Not really relevant to actual material in Samarin, other than a loose paraphrase interjected with your personal beliefs. Searched for it in the "Linguistics" article. Didn't come up. Overall search produced this: "He defined glossolalia as "unintelligible babbling speech that exhibits superficial phonological similarity to language, without having consistent syntagmatic structure and that is not systematically derived from or related to known language." (William J. Samarin, "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia," Language in Society, ed. Dell Haymes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972 pgs. 121-130)" I don't have that work. It looks like in other writings he does divorce the phonological elements from other elements of language. I would have to read that work to see if he presents additional research to substantiate that statement there. That you wanted it to sound like a language adds zero value quantitatively or qualitatively on whether or not it actually was. Listen, I'm only dealing with Samarin with the references I do have, not the 4 books that I don't have. And I find internal logic issues with his research. I actually see more evidence of Samarin starting with a preconceived conclusion and fitting his research into his beliefs. Kind of like my impression of a lot of what you are doing on this thread. I see him saying in the paper I do have that glossa has the same overall constructs of language that natural language does. And I see him making distinctions in little things like consonant maps, accents, and repetition. The more I see him drill into detail, the less I see his conclusions supported. Apparently in other works, he extends his view on phonetics as not being an important relation to language but only being a superficial similarity. OK. Well the only two real ways you have to evaluate language are by 1) phonetics and 2) meaning. I'm sorry that my review of his research points out his internal inconsistencies in his conclusions. But that is not getting him to say the opposite of what he's saying. Apparently I'm not alone in this. People publish papers on it.

It is taught that Pentecost was a special miracle. In addition to the tongues, God used it as a special sign on that day that everyone understood without interpretation. I have heard anecdotes of about 5 or 6 incidents of similar occurrences where in a prayer meeting attendees understood the tongue directly. socks provided an anecdote like this on the thread. I'll look but maybe another thread in Doctrinal - Non-Christian Glossalalia? Until proven I am going to have to treat this as no different than personal anecdotes about the topic. No friggin idea. Maybe with all their sexual problems they had inappropriate Freudian attachments to their mothers?

Hmmm. Now I'm beginning to see the root of our differences, beyond the fact that you are implying you like to argue but in a fashion to make it palatable to most readers. So of all those terms - Jesus being God incarnate, God in the flesh, Son of God, and in Him the Father is revealed. All of those terms do not preclude the Trinity. The only one that does is "eternal not created".

Link doesn't work. Can you update? But rather that you prophesy. So if tongues wasn't available to the people he was speaking to, or not all of them, then by logic neither would prophecy be. So by that logic, it would be like Paul saying "I wish you were all billionaires, but if you can't do that, I'd rather you all be millionaires". What about the people eating government cheese who could be neither? They are SOL, and now are more discouraged.

Yeah, maybe if you use the words "making up" as many times as you can, the sheer volume of use will convince people that your viewpoint is right. When Samarin first talks about the phonetic similarities, he says nothing of the similarity to the native language of the speaker. He simply is evaluating the glossa messages, and notices that they have the same phonetical constructs as a real language - sentences, words, phrases, sub-phrases, etc. He literally states in the opening section of his paper - p. 51 P3. "This definition specifies three features that appear to be necessary in any definition of the phenomenon: (a) a phonological structure (that is, the kind of patterning of sound generally typical of real languages), which distinguishes it from gibberish. Later on in the paper - p.65 P3 - under heading "Compared with the speakers' native languages" he states: "When a glossa is compared with the native language of its speaker, it is seen to be both derivative and innovative. It is derivative because both its inventory of sounds and its prosodic patterns (means like a speaker's accent) are taken from his first language. This fact is illustrated below, where the consonant phonemes of one glossa are superimposed in boldface on an articulatory chart of the distinctive consonant sounds of English (see chart). In other words, all of the consonants which occur are those which occur in English, and only six English phonemes are not represented by this glossa. The chart above, which would fit at least in part several other natural languages of the world.... " (next he describes that English glossa people have an English accent). So to me, this is not compelling proof. First he labels glossa consonants as derivative from English, but notes that they also would apply to "several other natural languages of the world". Next, he describes how people doing glossa would have an English accent. From Biblical understanding, God does not "take over" vocal chords when SIT. In every occurrence of SIT, the noun in the sentence is the person doing it, not God doing it through them, for them, etc. So a person speaks, and God provides the words in a language through spiritual power. So the mere cataloging of sounds and numbers is not compelling. I also have personal anecdotes with this one. I know the tongues in my prayer life produce sounds that are outside of English consonants/vowels. And they are different from any exposure to a known language I am aware of. And they change.

I want to obviate something that I'm having a challenge with in this discussion. I really, really, really want to distance myself from TWI doctrine, in the spirit of what Jesus taught about "beware the leaven of the Pharisees". In this discussion I find myself more on TWI's side of teaching than against it. I am not comfortable with that at all. The last thing I would ever want to do is start another splinter group teaching basically the same thing as TWI does but saying they "didn't do it in love" kind of like CFF and Lynn and others do. I would rather do nothing. TWI doctrine needs to die, not have a whole bunch of bastard children running around for decades. With that said, I've still got to continue to pick up the pieces of my life, understand the Bible, develop my relationship with God further, and move ahead. I just mean that most of leadership in TWI was about theatrics and believability. So it's not surprising the classes followed suit.

It was a Stepford activity in a Stepford world.

I will say regardless of what people hold as the truth on this topic, the way we handled it in TWI was horrible. Referring to a refrigerator magnet may very well have been the only redeeming quality of that class. Yes we would hate for any new posts on this thread to languish around for hours until you are able to get to them.

So you are saying you believe SIT is a "languish" ??

The whole idea behind excellor session was basically ego and control. And it probably had to do more with expanding the hold over the cult member than anything else. The whole PFAL class (and BG Leonard's class where it was plagiarized from) was one class. Then split up into 3 classes. The middle class had to take up space. So IMO TWI took a lot of liberty with these things and designed another form of control - excellor sessions. For me, the jury is still out on nonreligious people. Samarin I note gave 4 examples - two of them by mediums/psychics speaking to their spirit guide, and the other two were personal incidents that were uncorroborated thus I can't give them any more weight than my own or socks experience on this thread where attendees in the meeting understood the tongue in their own language. Raf, no offense, but I just took the time to post a couple pages of direct references to Samarin. If you want to refute me, why do you expect everyone to hold to your opinion on the work rather than the work itself? The Bible addresses the topic. It is quite easy to see through basic common sense that if the elements of a language involve a person understanding the language directly, and someone does not understand the language, then it's pretty much plain ignorance to reach the conclusion it's not a language. That would be like a foreign exchange student coming to my house from France, and me saying since I don't understand French that he is illiterate.

OK. Suffice it to say that if there are a number of authors who quote Samarin simply to point out that his research and his conclusions are incongruent, that merits consideration. I mean I would have to have a lot of motivation to take the time to write an article to publish doing that. I completely disagree. Samarin, as a trained linguist, notes that glossa PHONETICALLY resembles a language. Now it may be your assessment that the relationship between phonetics and language are superficial, but it is not mine, and Samarin never states it that way. The only conclusion I'll draw from it is the same that Samarin notes in the detail of his article - that phonetically linguists find little to no difference between glossa and a natural human language. That is accurate. And it's pretty much in opposition to your $2 bill example.

Samarin continued: Next, Samarin delves into the meat of things - linguists / phonetics specialists definitions of attributes of a language. I don't want to retype all of them - they are found on p. 66 of the Samarin article - http://philosophy-religion.info/handouts/pdfs/Samarin-Pages_48-75.pdf I'll list the attributes for discussion sake (read the article for more detail): 1. Vocal-auditory channel 2. Directional reception 3. Rapid fading 4. Interchangeability 5. Complete feedback 6. Specialization 7. Semanticity 8. Arbitrariness 9. Discreteness 10. Displacement 11. Openness 12. Tradition 13. Duality (of patterning) 14. Prevarication 15. Reflexiveness 16. Learnability Samarin writes regarding glossa and these criteria ( I am typing out the references where he says glossa does NOT meet the criteria for a language): "Glossas, by this standard, are not human languages, primarily because they are not systems of communication. They are not characterized by semanticity (7), arbitrariness (8), displacement (10), prevarication (14) and reflexiveness (15). Semanticity - linguistic signals function in correlating and organizing the life of a community because there are associative ties between signal elements and features in the world Arbitrariness - the relationship between a meaningful element in a language and its denotation is independent of any physical or geometrical resemblance between the two. Displacement - Linguistic messages may refer to things remote in time or space, from the site of the communication Prevarification - Linguistic messages can be false, and they can be meaningless in the logician's sense. Reflexiveness - In a language, one can communicate about communication." First of all, if you take SIT at face value as for private prayer ("I pray with understanding, I pray in the spirit") then as described scripturally from my perspective it is NOT a system of communication between humans. It is human to God. So OK, Samarin, it's not a "human" language in that respect, as it doesn't function in correlating and organizing the life of a community like a native language does. For pretty much all of his other reasons listed, the sole reason they are valid is because whatever the language is spoken is NOT understood. If a tongue is not understood (and the other is not edified unless interpreted - as I Cor. 14 states), then how can you be certain scientifically whether or not the attributes of arbitrariness, displacement, prevarification, or reflexiveness are being met or not? How can you scientifically ascertain those elements not to be met unless you understood the content of the message? Or is Samarin simply running down a checklist to automatically say NO to those elements because he himself doesn't understand the tongue? To me that is NOT a rigorous or logical conclusion from a scientific perspective. It would be a more honest conclusion to say "unless or until the language is understood, we cannot ascertain whether it meets these criteria". Three things I'm starting to get as far as a picture of Samarin from reading: 1) The guy really is a linguist - he breaks down concepts and examples very well in terminology of his field 2) He really has a predisposition against SIT 3) I should nickname him "Captain Obvious" Well, read the next post of mine. It's circular logic. It doesn't meet the structural criteria because it's not understood. The elements of the structural criteria Samarin states it doesn't meet cannot be met unless the language is understood. I mean, for example - displacement - linguistic messages may refer to things remote in time or space. SIT never contains a reference to God? Never talk about the hope? Never refer to abstract concepts like love? Only if you don't believe the interpretation of those messages is genuine. http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0026068206/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used $31 for Samarin's main work on the topic. Used. I don't know - maybe next paycheck if I'm still so inclined...

Another thing Samarin notes where glossas are different from language: Repetition. He states "on close examination glossas are different from natural language by being simple and repetitious". I'm not so sure that SIT messages being "simple and repetitious" are any indication that they are not a language. There are plenty of "simple and repetitious" messages present within the use of almost any language. Look at advertisements for example. Possibly the nature of the intended message is simple and repetitious? Like an uplifting message or praise, possibly repeated for emphasis?

More Samarin "If a glossa is meaningless, this does not mean it's gibberish. There is something onomatopoetic about the word 'gibber' that makes it incompatible with glossolalic utterances. The principal linguistic feature that distinguishes them from gibberish is the remarkable number of phonological units at various levels. Starting with the highest level, one finds macro segments (comparable to sentences), micro segments (comparable to words), syllables, and sound units (comparable to phonemes). The micro segments are separated from each other by pauses of greater or lesser duration and are characterized by certain configurations consisting of stress and pitch. ... (gives linguistic example) In other words, glossic syllables are not simply spewed out in a haphazard sort of way; there is in each glossa a kind of microsegmental syntax similar to natural languages" So when you dig into Samarin's scientific findings as a linguist, he finds that SIT / glossa pretty much has phonetically all the characteristics of a language. His conclusions seem to me to be that "it resembles a language, but it's not a language because nobody understands it". Samarin after all this research seems to me to state a whole lot of the obvious.

Next, getting to Samarin's main point. He states that glossolalia is "meaningless", and that is one of the big sources of his conclusions. By "meaningless" in his writings, he is mostly referring to the concept that the person speaking doesn't understand the words being said. This he uses as evidence that it is not a language.