Raf

It should be noted that each sample would probably match more than one inventory unless the samples are large enough to rule out others. The principle would remain the same. Instead of matching the utterance to one phonemic inventory, it would be compared to all of them to see whether any of the languages are produced. The point is that the inventory narrows down the candidates.

For the sake of argument, let's say a linguist was presented with four samples of utterances. They would have to be lengthy enough for him to draw a conclusion. You and I know the languages are French, Chinese, Hebrew and pseudolanguage (the product of free vocalization making no pretense at being an actual language). But our hypothetical linguist does not know that. How would he go about identifying the languages? The answer is not as difficult as it sounds. Each language has a unique phonemic inventory. This is the set of sounds that are produced when the language is spoken. An easy example is, in English, we do not have the "Ch" sound present in the Hebrew word "Chanukah." That sound just isn't present in our phonemic inventory. Without knowing the languages at the outset, our hypothetical linguist can separate the utterance samples by cataloguing the sounds that are produced and keeping a chart of the four phonemic inventories. The French utterance would match the phonemic inventory of the French language. The Chinese utterance would match the phonemic inventory of Chinese. The Hebrew utterance would match the phonemic inventory of Hebrew. And the free vocalization would most likely match the phonemic inventory of the native language of whoever produced it. If the speaker in this case is familiar with more than one language, then it is conceivable that he will produce a phonemic inventory that blends several languages but in all likelihood doesn't actually match another one. Phonemic inventories are not complicated. Still assuming our linguist is not familiar with the languages in question, his next task would be to compare the samples with the actual languages for which the phonemic inventories match. It would not take long before he ascertains that the French utterance is indeed French, the Chinese is Chinese, and the Hebrew is Hebrew. But when he got to the fourth one, he'd hit a block. Is it English? The phonemic inventory would suggest it is, but the actual utterance doesn't match any English words or sentences. If it's a blend, he might not even know to compare it to English. It wouldn't match anything, or if by some chance it DID match another language's phonemic inventory (which would be a neat trick), it still wouldn't match the other language itself. The fourth language would have to be labeled inconclusive (a linguist might go so far as to say it is indeed pseudolanguage, but for the purpose of our larger discussion, we are conceding that nothing can be demonstrated to be absolutely non-language). There is a study underway by a professor at Rutger's University cataloguing the phonemic inventories of samples of glossolalia. The linguists working on that study should, hypothetically, be able to match the phonemic inventories that are produced with actual languages and compare the utterances to the languages they match. If a participant in that study is producing a known language, this is the most likely way to discover it. Again, for the purpose of our broader discussion, a failure to match an utterance to a language would not prove the utterance is a language, but a success would be pretty hard to explain!

I don't think there has been such a discussion, but I invite you to explore it here or start a new thread with a title that reflects the broader scope.

He did. That's his point.

I see your point. What's say we lock this thread and if someone wants to post about the audacity of a group wanting to come up with its own Bible, they can start their own damn thread? P.S. it's not about you getting a pass. It's about the difference between letting conversations flow freely v. letting them get out of hand.

Bless me"? Do you know what God did for me? He threw an 18-wheeled truck at me and bounced me into nowhere for five years! When I woke up, my girl was gone, my job was gone, my legs are just about useless... Blessed me? God's been a real sport to me!

It was a recent movie, and because of tge controversy it generated, it had little-to-no play in theaters.

You get certain leeway when it's your own thread.

To be consistent, he would have to argue that the personality is contained within the soul, and the spirit going back to God has nothing to do with the person's memories, personality, etc. Just like the body returning to the dirt, the spirit goes to God. But the personality dies until the resurrection (or rising. Because a resurrection is not a rising, stupid. I think that's how he put it).

Once again, this thread has two possible interpretations. 1. What does the Bible say about body, soul and spirit? 2. Is there evidence that there is any such thing as soul and spirit? Question 1 belongs in doctrinal. Question 2 belongs in questioning faith. I'll leave it here in doctrinal for now, and will move it depending on any answers received. Please feel free to answer the way you want to (as if question 1 OR 2). Whether and where to move the thread will be a later decision. Thanks. Raf (too lazy to switch to my mod login).

It's showtime...

That's two mentions. One more and he shows up. Like Beetlejuice. Kidding aside, since we are in doctrinal, and there is a separate subforum for discussing issues from a perspective of doubt, it's assumed that we are talking about whether the Bible teaches a Trinity, and that's the only relevant question. Arguing against the existence of God or the lordship of Jesus Christ would be off-topic.

Let me be clear, pal. You are only here because I made it available for new people to register after GSC's registration process became overrun with spambots. You ASKED to join us. I did not quiz you on your views. I did not quiz you on your loyalty to Wierwille or your antagonism toward him. I did not quiz you on which offshoot you felt an affinity toward. I asked you one question and one question only: what's your interest in our forum? And just like that, you were in. I think the problem is, you thought you were doing us a favor. You were rude. You were condescending. And, shockingly, when one of our favorite posters got tired of you and behaved rudely toward you, we stood up to him on your behalf. And for THAT you gave us grief. You can whine and complain all you want about ticking off the regulars, but we stood up to the regulars on your behalf because we expect members of GSC to play nice. Oh yeah, but we play favorites here. You are welcome to stay. You are welcome to post. We deeply apologize for not offering you whatever it is you never asked us for. On behalf of the entire GSC, I aplogize for not presuming to know what you wanted or needed from us. You asked us what we thought of the REV. Some of us gave our opinions. But you want an unbiased analysis. Why? An unbiased analysis of a Bible translation conceived in bias? We are not trained seals, MRAP. If you don't get the answer you want on a subject, move onto another subject. Or don't. We're not going to lose sleep either way. But I do ask one favor: if you're going to make a gigantic holier-than-though spectacle of how you're just too open-minded snd spiritual for this place, or how we just don't deserve to have you around, kindly follow up on it my actually leaving. No one's throwing you out, mind you. That's your call entirely. It's just... well... I'm not going to miss you. And I really do bid you peace, but if you don't believe me, I can't honestly say I give a rat's foot. You're not the first "spiritual" "Christian" who was "too good" for the GSC, but if you're the last, I have to say it would be quite gratifying. The decision to stay and be a part of this online community remains yours, as does the decision whether to be a twit about it.

I don't care what you believe MRAP. Toodloo!!!

The only reason you insist that glossa can mean something other than language is: Because you need it to. The only reason you need it to is: You cannot identify the language you are producing. To accuse us of waybrain for showing a consistent Biblical usage of a term, which we have done, is not just poor debating, it's raging hypocrisy. You simply would not tolerate it if the tables were turned. But you go ahead and accuse me of being waybrained again. The absolute NERVE of me letting the Biblical usage of the word speak for itself! Don't I know people have experiences to protect!?! If your doctine and practice don't line up with what the Bible teaches, you have two choices. You can either change your doctrine and practice, or you can change what the Bible teaches. You have chosen the latter. It's transparent. You have access to actual Bible scholars. Why aren't you asking them what glossa means? Not that it matters. The Bible is already clear on what it means. But let's go speculating. Could Paul have meant something else? Yes. Paul could have been talking about the meaningless prattle produced by free vocalization. That's why it needs an interpretation... Why on EARTH would something that's not a language need an interpretation? Oh, I'm being too Wierwillian. You do realize those accusations don't refute anything, don't you? You asked me why I'm wasting my time. I'll tell you. I'm wasting my time because I am not dealing with somebody who is approaching the material with humility, which is ironic as hell coming from me. You're supposed to conform your doctrine and practice to the Word, not the other way around! If this were any other claim by any other religion, you would see it clearly. But it's your claim for how you practice your religion. Well, sorry it stings, but the Bible does not say what you wildly speculate it does. It says language. It says nothing more complicated or enigmatic than that. There's no mysterious hidden meaning to glossa that you need to lift the veil fo the text to detect. But you have to, not because the text demands it, but because you have a doctrine and practice to protect. That's not honest scholarship. You KNOW honest scholars. Ask them what glossa means. I'd be interested in hearing what they have to say.

You may leave whenever you'd like. I bid you nothing but peace.

Calling the REV a piece of propaganda developed by completely biased researchers with an agenda to promote a specific theology but insufficient academic credentials, who lacked to professional integrity to subject their proposed "translations" to disinterested, competent scholars in the field IS objective. All of the above is true, indisputably. But interestingly, none of it discredits the REV. To discredit the REV, you need someone who knows a thing or two about translations and can explain if/why the REV is wrong about a translation (and "it disagrees with my theology" is not a sufficient reason to call it wrong).

So that was a great article, WW, but after a while it became impossible to take him seriously because of his partisanship. I mean, imploring people to be fair with Sarah Palin is valid. Implying as he did that criticism directed at her was less than totally deserved is not valid.

Deleted. WordWolf said it better.

I don't have to prove your interpretation of your experience is wrong. YOU have to "prove" your practice, and what it produces, lines up with scripture. To date, in my opinion, you have done little more than adjust scripture to conform to what you are producing (presumably. I contend you won't get your SIT tested by a linguist for the same reason I never did, even with $1 million on the line). But despite your attempts and insistence, you have done nothing to demonstrate that glossa in the Bible is anything other than a normal language spoken by some people somewhere and somewhen on earth. That's what speaking in languages is. That's the underlying claim behind Biblical SIT. If modern SIT is Biblical SIT, then modern SIT will produce what Biblical SIT promises. A language. A real, human language, just like glossa means in every other relevant instance in the Bible, as previously demonstrated. LOL. I suspect he made up the interpretation. But it could be one of those instances where the hearer falls down and reports God is in you of a truth.

I. Am. Not. Trying. To. Prove. Your. Interpretation. Of. Your. Experience. Is. Wrong. I. Am. Waiting. For. You. To. Prove. It. Is. Genuine. And. I. Am. Frustrated. At. Your. Constant. Attempt. To. Redefine. The. Biblical. Practice. To. Conform. To. What. You. Are. Producing. Instead. Of. Conforming. Your. Doctrine. And. Practice. To. What. The. Bible. Actually. Promises. Which. Is. A. Language. Not. Meaningless. Prattle. Now, at this point, I think I have made it clear that I am not trying to disprove anything or prove that your interpretation of your experience is wrong. If you accuse me of that one more time, it becomes an active lie and I reserve the right to call it such. I am trying to demonstrate that your interpretation of the scripture, equating language (glossa) with non-language, is wrong. It's got eff-all to do with your interpretation of your experience, and I am THROUGH responding to that false accusation. Beyond patience, I am willing to write it off as a mistaken accusation until now. But enough is enough.

TLC: your position is denial of what the Bible actually says to the point that you're willing to twist it out of desperation to fit your doctrine and practice instead of humbly conforming your doctrine and practice to what the Bible actually teaches. There. Clear enough for you? Or does that need an interpretation?

And let's say the activity was levitation. And people were jumping up and down, which anyone can do, and saying "See?! Just like the I Cualquierians predicted!" Interpretation of tongue: "cualquier" is phonetic, Spanish for "whatever." If we were discussing any book other than the Bible, the failure of the activity to match the claim would have been so obvious that it wouldn't be worth discussing. Note the number of threads we have on this forum debunking Mormon claims about pre-Colombian American history. Exactly.

I think it would be best if you stopped addressing me entirely and referred only to the argument I'm making. Describing this as a debate over hermeneutics is not exactly a shocking revelation. More like condescending. Likewise, referring back to points that are not in dispute and don't actually advance the discussion strikes me as an unnecessary exercise in reading comprehension. At least Steve tried to make a Biblical case for languages as not-languages. Why is my stand on what the Bible teaches stubborn, but an interpretation that contorts the scripture to say the opposite of what it plainly says with the explicit goal of getting the scripture to match a doctrine and practice instead of the other way around is perfectly acceptable? I'm myopic for letting the Bible speak for itself. You're open-minded for twisting it to say what you wish it said instead of what it actually does say. I tell you, I am through the looking glass.

P.S. there's nothing about the verse in Isaiah that even remotely hints tongues will not be a normal language as opposed to meaningless prattle. Either Paul translates it from the original or carries it over from the Septuagint, "heteroglossos." Another language. Nothing poetic about it that suddenly makes it not-language. I'd be interested in seeing a word study of the Hebrew word for tongue, but we already know what it meant to Paul. Another language. Nothing more cryptic than that.