WordWolf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language "Human language has the properties of productivity, recursivity, and displacement, and relies entirely on social convention and learning. Its complex structure affords a much wider range of expressions than any known system of animal communication." All right, we were clear language wasn't as limited as animal communication. As for the rest, let's get some plain English for the laymen. "productivity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_(linguistics) "In linguistics, productivity is the degree to which native speakers use a particular grammatical process, especially in word formation." "In standard English, the formation of preterite and past participle forms of verbs by means of ablaut (for example, sing–sang–sung) is no longer considered productive. Newly coined verbs in English overwhelmingly use the 'weak' (regular) ending -ed for the past tense and past participle (for example, spammed, e-mailed). Similarly, the only clearly productive plural ending is -(e)s; it is found on the vast majority of English count nouns and is used to form the plurals of neologisms, such as FAQs and Muggles. The ending -en, on the other hand, is no longer productive, being found only in oxen, children, and the now-rare brethren." ================================================= "recursivity"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursivity (Discussed as "recursion") "Recursion is the process of repeating items in a self-similar way." " A sentence can have a structure in which what follows the verb is another sentence: Dorothy thinks witches are dangerous, in which the sentence witches are dangerous occurs in the larger one. So a sentence can be defined recursively (very roughly) as something with a structure that includes a noun phrase, a verb, and optionally another sentence. This is really just a special case of the mathematical definition of recursion. This provides a way of understanding the creativity of language—the unbounded number of grammatical sentences—because it immediately predicts that sentences can be of arbitrary length: Dorothy thinks that Toto suspects that Tin Man said that.... Of course, there are many structures apart from sentences that can be defined recursively, and therefore many ways in which a sentence can embed instances of one category inside another. Over the years, languages in general have proved amenable to this kind of analysis." "Recursion plays a crucial role not only in syntax, but also in natural language semantics. The word and, for example, can be construed as a function that can apply to sentence meanings to create new sentences, and likewise for noun phrase meanings, verb phrase meanings, and others. It can also apply to intransitive verbs, transitive verbs, or ditransitive verbs. In order to provide a single denotation for it that is suitably flexible, and is typically defined so that it can take any of these different types of meanings as arguments. This can be done by defining it for a simple case in which it combines sentences, and then defining the other cases recursively in terms of the simple one." ================================================ "displacement"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(linguistics) "In linguistics, displacement is the capability of language to communicate about things that are not immediately present (spatially or temporally); i.e., things that are either not here or are not here now. In 1960, Charles F. Hockett proposed displacement as one of 13 design features of language that distinguish human language from animal communication systems (ACSs): Man is apparently almost unique in being able to talk about things that are remote in space or time (or both) from where the talking goes on. This feature—"displacement"—seems to be definitely lacking in the vocal signaling of man's closest relatives, though it does occur in bee-dancing." "Honeybees use the waggle dance to communicate the location of a patch of flowers suitable for foraging. The degree of displacement in this example remains limited when compared to human language. A bee can only communicate the location of the most recent food source it has visited. It cannot communicate an idea about a food source at a specific point in the past, nor can it speculate about food sources in the future.[2] In addition, displacement in the waggle dance is restricted by the language's lack of creativity and productivity. The bees can express direction and distance, but it has been experimentally determined that they lack a sign for "above". It is also doubtful that bees can communicate about non-existent nectar for the purpose of deception.[3] Consequently, in honeybee communication, the potential for displacement is limited, but it is there insofar as they have the ability to communicate about something not currently present (i.e., something that is spatially removed)." ================================================== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language "Human language is unique in comparison to other forms of communication, such as those used by non-human animals. Communication systems used by other animals such as bees or apes are closed systems that consist of a finite, usually very limited, number of possible ideas that can be expressed.[21] In contrast, human language is open-ended and productive, meaning that it allows humans to produce a vast range of utterances from a finite set of elements, and to create new words and sentences. This is possible because human language is based on a dual code, in which a finite number of elements which are meaningless in themselves (e.g. sounds, letters or gestures) can be combined to form an almost infinite number of larger units of meaning (words and sentences).[22] Furthermore, the symbols and grammatical rules of any particular language are largely arbitrary, so that the system can only be acquired through social interaction.[23] The known systems of communication used by animals, on the other hand, can only express a finite number of utterances that are mostly genetically determined.[24]" Human languages also differ from animal communication systems in that they employ grammatical and semantic categories, such as noun and verb, present and past, which may be used to express exceedingly complex meanings.[25] Human language is also unique in having the property of recursivity: for example, a noun phrase can contain another noun phrase (as in "[[the chimpanzee]'s lips]") or a clause can contain another clause (as in "]").[2] Human language is also the only known natural communication system whose adaptability may be referred to as modality independent. This means that it can be used not only for communication through one channel or medium, but through several. For example, spoken language uses the auditive modality, whereas sign languages and writing use the visual modality, and braille writing uses the tactile modality.[26] Human language is also unique in being able to refer to abstract concepts and to imagined or hypothetical events as well as events that took place in the past or may happen in the future. This ability to refer to events that are not at the same time or place as the speech event is called displacement, and while some animal communication systems can use displacement (such as the communication of bees that can communicate the location of sources of nectar that are out of sight), the degree to which it is used in human language is also considered unique.[22]" "

I looked over all the usages of that Hebrew word. It's consistent with the usage of "glossa" in Greek, "lengua" in Spanish and "tongue" in English. (I'll waste the time going over the usages later in an appropriate format.) It's easier to follow in a more modern version like the NASB than the KJV. I expect the KJV's usage of words with usages less common since 1611 can lead (accidentally or not) to false conclusions from meaning changes. (The opposite of "incline" was "decline", so when told not to "decline" to the behavior of a sinner, it meant "don't lower yourself to their level," not "if you are offered the chance to sin, don't refuse.")

This is obviously "Patch Adams." Just kidding, I have no freaking idea.

"What"?"

Your link redirected. If you'd put the band name, I could have found it faster among various "You Can't Sit Down"s. I did a search with the lyrics and got The Dovells. (Who? Who? Who? Quiet down, owls!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB1XqnyI65o

Here's the adult version of "Yo mama!" Again. Skipped all the content, labeled what I said as not just "Wierwillian word-games" in the vain hope it will produce a KNEE-JERK reaction and not a logical response? Hey, guys! This is SUPPOSED to be a DOCTRINAL thread, about what the Bible actually says and what we should take from that if we believe it. It's not supposed to be about making a doctrine of your experiences, nor a referendum on how disbelieving what wierwille taught equals disbelieving the Bible as a whole (which it does not, for most Christians with faith.) How about we try to return to discussing the Bible, its content, and its meaning here, and skip all the personal experiences, insults, insinuations and personal attacks? Granted, it would slow the posting on this thread to a crawl, but it would be a crawl of content actually worth reading. There are other threads to discuss all the separate issues- like personal experience (2 active threads) and what language means outside of the Bible (1 active thread.) If you really think those are important issues, why are you skipping the threads like they've got the zika virus?

If I were "heated up", it might be about the sad attempt to dismiss what I say by skipping the content, and slapping a dishonest label on it, like that it's the result of being "heated up." (BTW, still not "heated up.") http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics "1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with calling your opponent a name that is relevant and objectively defined. The most common example of name calling against me is “negative;” in coaching, the critics of coaches are often “college professors” and the word “professor” is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being “too intense,” a common but undefined put-down of successful youth and high school coaches. People who criticize their former employer are dishonestly dismissed as “disgruntled” or “bitter.” These are all efforts to distract the audience by changing the subject because the speaker cannot refute the facts or logic of the opponent. “Womanizer” and “price gouger” and “exploiter” are other name-calling names that cannot be objectively defined." ======================================= Or, in this case, the debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by saying it's the result of being "heated" and not actually demonstrating the logic it demonstrates. [i'll address plenty of other things later. Life's banging on the door.]

Steve, we went through this for MONTHS and really explored all sides of this. You're repeating stuff that was already discussed to death. But, I'll be nice and try to walk you through a brief, concise form of everything. One thing: I started from a position similar to, or identical to, your own before this all started. A) I found one side made sense-and it wasn't the side I WANTED to agree with B) I found this didn't challenge MY FAITH-just my faulty understanding So, if you actually come off and claim I'm biased- I actually WANT your side to be correct. I changed positions because it did not. I reserve the right to change back-HAPPILY AND EAGERLY- if you SOMEHOW present something that was overlooked and is unassailable. ======================================== "Raf, your interpretion of your experience is that when you were speaking in tongues, you were faking it." His "interpretation of his experience" is that he produced "free vocalization", which he was TOLD was "speaking in tongues", but it actually was not. ==================================================== "My interpretation of my experience is that when I speak in tongues I am genuinely speaking in tongues in accordance with 1 Corinthians 12-14." You're completely disregarding ACTS when discussing Biblical "speaking in tongues." You're focusing on I Corinthians- and where your understanding of I Corinthians contradicts the rather straightforward reading of Acts, you're choosing to disregard Acts 2 rather than re-examine your presuppositions to see how you ended up supposedly agreeing with one Scripture and rather clearly and blatantly DISagreeing with another. ================================================ "You say that when I speak in tongues, it is not in accordance with 1 Corinthians 12-14 because I do not produce a language." No, that's not what he said. If you're supposedly "speaking in tongues", Acts said it should be in a language that CAN be understood- it's a LANGUAGE. Languages are meant to do that- they're all made in order to communicate ideas and concepts. If you're saying that the same act in Acts- that produced languages that bystanders were able to understand, and often did- and that it's NEVER supposed to be understood by ANY bystander, EVER, then you have an obvious problem. Either I Corinthians contradicts Acts, or your understanding of both contradict. Acts is VERY straightforward about people understanding in more than one instance. To insist your theology and understanding is correct and Acts is in error is to prioritize your understanding and theology over Scripture. If that's what you MEAN to do, at least be honest that it's what you MEANT to do. Me, I absolutely refuse to do that, no matter HOW much I like my theology. So, he and I would say that you're not "speaking in LANGUAGES" as described in Acts 2 because that produces a LANGUAGE every time. Addressing I Corinthians is separate, if only because there needs to be discussion to explain why I Corinthians makes sense in light of Acts 2, which was already very straightforward. (Explain the few difficult in light of the many clear, not vice versa.) ================================================== "I gave the definition of a language, a system of verbal communication that exhibits double articulation and syntax." You posted that-and left no explanation for what that should mean, what a layman should understand from that, or even any indication YOU understood it as opposed to just a cut-and-paste you didn't understand when you pasted it. You also didn't include a source. (When I posted one, it was relatively clear of jargon AND included a link back to a much longer article with explanations.) "When I speak in tongues, I produce a system that exhibits double articulation and syntax." No you don't. Sounds like you DIDN'T understand what you posted. First of all, you don't "produce a SYSTEM." The development of an entire language is the production of a system. If you're developing a language on your own, then you are definitely doing it and not God Almighty passing along words in an already-existing language. If you read a speech aloud in a language you didn't speak (but existed), you wouldn't "produce a system" then either-you would reproduce words pre-existing in a previously-produced system. Second of all, for you to speak in a real language, let's stipulate that it would ACCURATELY demonstrate "double articulation" and "syntax", as well as fill the more basic requirements of productivity, recursivity and displacement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language It has been demonstrated, many times over, that many people who have CLAIMED to have produced the Biblical "speaking in languages" over time have had their alleged "languages" recorded and studied by linguistic experts-people who spend their lives studying languages, their properties, their characteristics, and so on. What was found? So far, in every single case, the supposed "tongues" producer was NOT producing a language- they were not demonstrating any "system" nor any of the characteristics we described. They were definitely SPEAKING, and producing sounds. Those sounds often RESEMBLED the sounds of actual languages that DID demonstrate all the aforementioned properties. So, anyone-especially someone who earnestly WANTS to believe he can produce an "unknown tongue" can be convinced they heard themself pronounce words in a real language with real language characteristics. However, so far, all CLAIMS of such have produced well-intentioned people who produced content-less, language-less examples of vocalization. Is it possible that ALL of those people were producing the counterfeit, and you're The Great Exception that can produce a real language? Well, there's only one way to support that claim, and it's not by repeating it a lot or with more volume. Simply let an expert linguist record a few hours of the supposed "speaking in languages" you do, then review it. An EXPERT LINGUIST would have no difficulty in going over such a large sample and determining with certainty whether or not this was a real language (whether or not the linguist can recognize WHICH language), or yet another example of content-less vocalization. Have you done that already? Of course you haven't- which is why you can fairly say that you BELIEVE you speak in such a language, or you THINK you speak in such a language. However, since you're not a linguistics expert, you're not qualified to judge the results. So, your bald claim that you're producing ANY of the specific qualities is without merit because it proceeds from conviction, not evidence. ============================================ "Then you did a word study that shows Paul was writing about "language/s."" If you're not clear that "tongues" is the same word as "languages", both in Greek and other languages (like modern Spanish and early modern English with some expressions still in use today), then I don't know how you're going to participate in this discussion. Raf went through the usages of the Greek word IN THE BIBLE. IN THE BIBLE, it was demonstrated to be consistent with what we SHOULD expect if we've studied language- that the usages of "glossa" in the Bible- just like "tongue" in English or "lengua" in Spanish- refers to a LANGUAGE as well as the physical organ that's used to articulate the language. It was pretty straightforward. Everything was easy to follow, with the possible exception of I Corinthians, which suggests that A) I Corinthians needs extra attention B) I Corinthians' usages need to be understood in light of the others, not the other way around. And he covered I Corinthians also. ============================================ "BUT, the test you propose for whether or not the thing we call tongues today is genuine or not is if the speaker produces a specific, identifiable language." You misunderstand, and that was made clearer in your next sentence. "There is NOTHING in 1 Corinthians 12-14 that indicates a person speaking in tongues MUST produce a specific, identifiable language." Based on your usage of "identifiable", you're using it to mean "Ah-he's speaking Etruscan, she's speaking Guaranee, and he's speaking Romansch." That is, a language that can be positively identified by name as a specific, pre-existing language. The challenge, which is easy to understand and was explained in exhaustive detail, is that expert linguists can identify the elements of language in their sleep- so if they're exposed to a lengthy sample of a supposed language, they can identify which elements the sample actually demonstrates rather than RESEMBLING. IF you produced a known language, but the linguist didn't recognize it (like Guaranee or Romansch), the linguist could still recognize which elements of speech that language demonstrated-whatever language it was. IF you produces an actual language that NOBODY had ever heard, then the linguist could still recognize which elements of speech that language demonstrated- whatever language it was. So, the challenge is, let an expert linguist collect an extensive sample of the supposed language, then go off and examine it. IF it's a real language, the linguist would know it was a real language-whether or not they recognized or understood it. I saw a sample of this with a NON-EXPERT. Someone wrote a comic strip series, and in the series, some characters spoke a Hungarian dialect with a few slang words added to it. The writer gave NO indication this was so-it would have given away a later surprise. The same editor proof-read all the episodes. At one point, he sent a note back about one panel in the unknown language. He asked the writer if he used the wrong word, and if a different word was used instead-and gave the word. THE EDITOR WAS CORRECT. Despite not knowing there WAS a consistent language for sure, not knowing WHICH language it was, and having NO background in Hungarian nor linguistics, after a SMALL sampling of the language, he was working out what some of the words meant to the point he spotted a legitimate type. Experts can do MUCH better than that when exposed to MUCH bigger examples. ============================================ "The only requirement 1 Corinthians 12-14 puts on speaking in tongues is that the speaker MUST NOT understand what she is saying." Incorrect-it also includes that the speaker speaking in languages is actually SPEAKING A LANGUAGE- AND that language must be one the speaker does not understand. So, the person MIGHT be speaking in a tongue if they said the following and had no understanding of what was said: "Ọlọrun le ti wa ni gbẹkẹle ati ki o jẹ olóòótọ. Ti o ba ti rẹ eniyan ni o wa olóòótọ, wọn yoo ni anfaani." The same person would rather obviously not be speaking in a tongue if they said the following and had no understanding of what was said: "Moo, moo-moo-moo. Moo-moo, moo-MOO-moo-moo, moo-moo-Moo-MOO, Moo-moo-moo-MOO." Mind you, any actor worthy of the name could read either aloud, and do so with demonstrated conviction and deep emotions and gravitas. However, in the first case, that's an actual language, and in the second case, that's obviously NOT an actual language by any sane linguist's standards. =================================== Here, you continue making the same mistake, but I'm pasting it to include the entire post. "When you NARROW the definition of glossa down to "a specific, identifiable language" you are doing the same kind of violence to the text that Wierwille used to do. You are changing the language of the text, the word glossa from multivocal, polysemic, multuivalent (tolerant of imperfection, capable of using ambiguity to communicate meaning)... to absolute (without imperfection), for the purposes of "proving" something that by its very nature CANNOT be proven OR disproven, "proving" that your interpretation is correct, and ALL OTHERS are wrong. Is it accurate for you to say that a person speaking in tongues must produce a language to be in accordance with 1 Corinthians 12-14? Yes, it is! Is it accurate for you to say that a person MUST produce a specific, identifiable language to be in accordance with 1 Corinthians 12-14? No, it is not!" I see no reason to repost everything I just said about it. This was all already addressed-by me- in this reply. ====================================== "And concerning whether or not speaking in tongues seems to be "supernatural"..." Actually, it's a secondary consideration to whether or not it's producing a LANGUAGE. Nobody cares about the origin of a string of nonsense syllables 2 hours long that RESEMBLE the sound of speech-because it is devoid of meaning. First, is an actual LANGUAGE being produced? Second, is that language one the speaker already knows? If it's not an actual language, then anyone can do it. If it's a language the speaker already knows, then anyone who knows that language can do it. In neither case does a claim of the supernatural sound sensible. IF an example is found where the speaking results in an actual language, AND the language is one the speaker does not know, THEN we've got something worth discussing. Since the Bible, however, we haven't FOUND such an example. Oh, we've found CLAIMS of such, but any attempt to CONFIRM the claims always falls down, and we either end up with something proven NOT to be a language, OR a language that was known to the speaker, or simply a CLAIM and no way to test the claim. If that level of evidence was enough to convince, we'd all believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Voodoo, UFO grey aliens, etc, etc. ==================================== "I Corinthians 14:22 says that tongues are a sign... " Producing a real language that the speaker doesn't know but the hearer does, I'm confident that would be a very convincing sign to many people, who might want to hear more and become Christians. In other words, real tongues are a sign-but for those that don't believe. For example: Raf claims to no longer be a Christian. Produce, demonstrably and beyond possibility of faking, an extensive sample in an actual language that you yourself don't speak, and I guarantee you will have his attention. In fact, you might get him to reverse his convictions, declare himself a Christian, and repudiate his current claims. That's what happens when a sign for those that believe not is demonstrated to those that believe not. ============================== "Romans 4:11 says that Abraham received the sign of circumcision... How "supernatural" was THAT? He cut the end of his own member off! And that was a sign to him because it reminded him every time he used his member, that God had made a promise that had not yet come to pass, about what was going to come out of that member." That was a sign specifically for Abraham-who believed. (Later, for others who believed as Abraham did.) That was NOT a sign specifically for those who believed not. =============================== "Philippians 3:3 says, "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." Speaking in tongues served the same purpose in the lives of the first Christians that circumcision served in the lives of the Jews." How the HECK did you get THAT from Philippians 3:3? =============================== "Every time we decide to use our mouths to utter what seems to our flesh to be nonsense, in accordance with 1 Corinthians 12-14, we are reminding ourselves that God has made a promise that has not yet come to pass about what IS going to come out of our mouths." Nice sentiment-but that "reminder" business is your opinion, which you're reading into the text. I've seen similar readings-into based on the significance of the shape of the cross-as a lowercase "t" shape, and trying to get a camel through the eye of a needle and a supposed gate to Jerusalem by that name. All sounded pious, but all added meanings not directly supported by the text- and the examples I gave were demonstrably false. (Is it possible that yours was also a well-intentioned error like the others?) ================================= Something I'm curious about, Steve. In the interest of making the information easy to find- because, IMHO, it's both relevant and important- I took the data about "free vocalization" and separated it out into a short thread all its own. Any chance you read that little thing? You should-it's got some important information...

I think Cardinals get their titles included. In practice, "Monsignor" can be appended for a lot of people, but I've only heard it used for the truly venerable (that is, he was really, really old.) I read here that letters to "the Teacher" went to the Research Department. I don't know if that was only after several years, or if all the letters went there as soon as he set up the department. But they occasionally DID get answers. Back when I thought he'd been issued a doctorate from a respected institution of learning, I referred to him as "DOC." I bought into his "humble, aw-shucks" public facade and thought he would find it needlessly high-faluting to use a formal title. My lack of actually knowing his character (who he was when the microphones were off) led me to fall for his carefully-crafted public image. Plus, since I was trustworthy, I saw no reason for him to be otherwise, and expected he was equally trustworthy. (The logical errors are very obvious in hindsight.)

Um, Adolf Hitler? Can I get Benito Mussolini in as a second guess?

For corn's sake, that's not what he just said. He posted a theoretical, asking what Raf believed, with a separate issue being whether it was a CORRECT belief. "..... Do you feel like Wierwille pulled the wool over our eyes, that you had the wool pulled off of yours, and you care enough about me to try to pull the wool off of my eyes also, but I'm just too stubborn and set in the ways I learned in PFAL to seriously consider that your argument might be right?"

I'm not him, but he probably sees the same point I do. I will illustrate it a different way. Right by the Port Authority in Manhattan is a store. I used to see it every time I took a Greyhound Bus leaving the Port Authority. It sold Greek stuff. I found it interesting because the store also had a sign that said something in Greek. Based on my modest attempts at Koine Greek, I was able to recognize the letters. The Greek text read "Ellanikon." Now, I knew the Greeks don't call their country "Greece"- they call it "Hellas." I knew the suffix "-tikos" from I Corinthians 12. Whenever I covered I Corinthians 12 with anybody, I used to explain that "pneumatikos" was the plural form, with "pneuma" as the root, and that it could properly be translated as "spiritual matters" "spiritual things" "spiritual stuff", depending on the translator's whims, since that was all effectively synonymous. So, I knew this store sold "Greek stuff." A digression into possible alternative meanings of "spirituals" without properly addressing it as "pneumatikos" and completely leaving out what "-tikos" means to the word-other than a plural- is about as honest as vpw explaining in detail what the significance is of using the word "replenish" in early Genesis while completely ignoring that the Hebrew word meant "to fill" and rendering it "replenish" in the first place injected meanings into the word that it never had in the first place. Even if it matched my theology perfectly, I would not want to be that dishonest, that sloppy with my work. I find that it becomes FAR too easy to ascribe all sorts of things to texts that have a clear, direct meaning, simply because one WANTS to see something other than the clear, direct meaning (at least in cases where there is a clear, direct meaning that makes sense by itself.) Ockham's Razor would strongly suggest we skip the verbal gymnastics. I don't know if thats what Raf meant, but he might have.'

"Chico was born in El Barrio. Spent much of his time in the streets. His mind hungry for knowledge, his belly for something to eat. Times are tough. Chico and the Man." A later episode explained that Chico DIED, but the original explanation given was his moving back to Mexico- with Ed Brown apparently using that answer so he wouldn't have to deal with Chico's death.

Got it in one!

Goodfellas Joe Pesci Lethal Weapon 2

"It's a nice day for a [TITLE.] It's a nice day to start again."

"A specific act of transferring intention from one being to another is communication. The means of doing so... ANY means... is a language." No, actually, that's lumping a lot of things together into "language" that are NOT languages. A dog growling at a human or another dog is not using a "language" but he IS communicating aggression. If it were a language, it would be a LOT easier to determine if the growl was meant in self-defense, or in guarding food or a cub, or a warning he wants to attack a specific person, or so on. There would be no need to consult experts, just a study of the animal's "language" and confusion would fade. It would be like Han Solo responding to Chewbacca. Animal sounds, and a human responding with the other 1/2 of a conversation. (Whether or not the animal understood our half.) Every night, in bars and nightclubs around the world, there's singles all over who either want company or don't want company, and non-singles who want the same. Before a stranger approaches one, their body movements and positions- nicknamed "body language" by those who have no knowledge of non-verbal communication-tell quite a bit, and the first few seconds of contact tell even more. There's no "language" but certain signals will indicate whether someone is welcome or intruding, or if neither is decided. (When I say "body language" is a complete misnomer, I mean that actual studies of it do not refer to it as "body language." In textbooks and classrooms, it's "non-verbal communication" that's studied. There was a book that circulated, decades ago, with the name "Body Language." It was VERY rudimentary as an introduction, and its author later wrote a book with some substantial content called "Subtext." So, I can blame Julius Fast for people thinking the subject was that easy and should also be called a "language" despite lacking the requirements for a language. Then again, if a "hot dog" can also be called a "tube steak" even when it's made of mystery meat and contains NO STEAK, then "body language" can be called that- among those willing to be obviously inaccurate.)

Now, I've noticed that some people seem confused, and conflate all COMMUNICATION with LANGUAGE. Let's look at an example I've studied-wolves. Now, wolves are canines, social, and fairly intelligent (for animals.) As they are social, they DO communicate, but there's no LANGUAGE and thus no VOCABULARY. If an alpha wolf is present with his pack, he declares his status in the way he stands, the position of his ears, and the position of his tail. Other pack members will acknowledge this status relative to theirs with different stances and positions. Furthermore, their interactions with each other will make that transparent for those who actually observe animals with understanding. If one means to challenge the alpha, he simply has to present an alpha stance and positions, and the current alpha will either step aside (unlikely), or assume an aggressive stance and growl at the challenger, acknowledging the challenge and escalating the situation-if the challenger wants to back out, this is their only chance. Right after that is a fight to a submission, where the loser submits to the authority of the winner, all through actions. Wolves, furthermore, can resolve chords in their howls. They can call their pack together, they can warn of danger, they can convey urgency. However, with no LANGUAGE and no VOCABULARY, they are unable to have a DISCUSSION. There are no discussions about whether or not it's a good idea to assemble at a certain discovered roadkill, or what it means to the pack that human developers are considering construction across from their home, or anything else. They can communicate SIGNALS but not conversations. They can use various sounds, and various movements of ears, tail, and so on, and even limited pheromonal deposits, but there's no conversation. ============================================= Animals communicate simple signals to each other, and do NOT have conversations. Some of these are NOT hard if someone's trying to understand. I've seen videos of cute animals on YT where the animal is clearly expressing a signal, and the people are either ignoring it, or don't care the animal is communicating- whether fear, or aggression, or a general plea for help.

Steve, it sounded to me like you were saying the ONLY mention of "tongues of angels" in the Bible didn't mean people were actually speaking in "tongues of angels." I agree. As someone else mentioned at some point, humans started with one language and divided into many through their divisive human nature. Angels, at most, should have one language for the loyal adherents to God, and one (or more) for the failed rebellion and the rebels thereof. So, angels wouldn't need "tongues", plural. At most, one "Angelese" would be more than enough. (Hm-that would be a shocker. "You can speak in tongues of angels-but only the tongues of the ones who are known as devils. You can do this by the power of God." No, doesn't even work as a ridiculous joke. Never mind.)

This is NOT a Doctrinal discussion. It seems some people aren't aware that there's specific defintions about what a language IS, what a language is NOT, and often it's used- incorrectly- synonymously with SIMILAR words that are not synonyms (communication, code). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language "Language is the ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so, and a language is any specific example of such a system. The scientific study of language is called linguistics." To make basic distinctions, Communication experts have pointed out that humans have 4 basic categories in how they communicate with each other. 2 are languages, 2 are not. The distinctions are whether they are VOCAL and whether they are VERBAL. VOCAL indicates sound from the person's mouth and vocal cords. VERBAL indicates whether or not actual WORDS are involved. So, we can have communication that is verbal and vocal (spoken speech), verbal and non-vocal (writing, how we're communicating now), non-verbal and vocal (using tone and sounds to pass simple concepts like blowing a whistle to signal "STOP!") non-verbal and non-vocal (using hand-signals and body position to convey simple concepts like "wait for my signal" and "you're not getting past me and this door without showing the required ID") For all but the most simple concepts, it is required for humans to communicate, in one form or another, using WORDS- thus, using a LANGUAGE. Those of you who doubt the ability to convey SIMPLE concepts without words can see lots of examples right now. Simply go to YouTube or another video-hosting site and look for videos of "Shaun the Sheep" or "Timmy Time." All of those videos are cartoons without any kind of WORDS. (The cinema full-length film of "Shaun the Sheep" had a few words written, but almost none, and all the cartoons use NO words.)

Sometimes it's easier to spot who's having a discussion, and who's skimming entire posts and cherry-picking sentences to find something to disagree to in order to prop up their current belief system. As part of a much longer post, I wrote this: So, we started with the example of languages. "All[accounts before this showed a demonstration of languages that someone recognized, and someone present understood- which made them not only human languages, but CURRENT languages spoken LOCALLY by SOMEONE if not many people." The reply I got ignored the rest of the post- which used VERY sound reasoning, and I suspect it was ignored because it was unassailable- and focused in in arguing with this sentence AND MISUNDERSTANDING IT. "Say what? Who's imagination fabricated this? If it's plainly written that no man understandeth (ICor.14:2), why the contradiction with scripture?" Nice insult-while failing to read what is written. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/account "Account"- a description of facts, conditions, or events : report, narrative <the newspaper account of the fire> The ACCOUNTS of Speaking in Languages are all through Acts, which is authored by God Almighty, not "imagined" nor "fabricated"-at least to those of us Christians who respect it- and they show people who spoke languages, and other people present knew they spoke languages, and understood them well enough to know the content. (I know a few words of French or German. I could identify the languages, but not understand the content.) An entirely separate question is: why does I Corinthians appear to contradict numerous accounts in Acts? The Acts accounts are unimpeachable-for Christians who respect the Bible. Why does the description in I Corinthians APPEAR to say the Acts accounts are impossible? Is this an actual contradiction, or do we misunderstand the description in I Corinthians?