Raf

Let's examine that: The point of an analogy is to create a parallel sturcture to compare similar ideas. "I have a dragon in my garage" = "the actual audible production of something exhibiting double articulation and syntax, not understood by the speaker." (I would argue that "exhibiting double articulation and syntax" overly complicates something that, Biblically speaking, is much more simple. It's a human language. Think the way THEY did when they wrote it, not when centuries of linguistic studies turned it into a scholarly examination. We all know darned well what they meant when they wrote glossa, and we've examined every single verse where it's relevant. We're talking about languages. Not "codes." Not anagrams. Not computer codes. Nobody in Acts 2 burst into speaking in BASIC or HTML. But the analogy is holding up so far. You have a claim on either side. "If I claimed there could be a dragon in my garage, all I would have to do to prove it would be TO STAND IN MY GARAGE! I AM a Golden Dragon! I can't tell you when I became one, because for us, the day that the POGY crossed the International Date Line NEVER EXISTED!" Um, but you're not a dragon. You can SAY you're a dragon all you'd like, but you have to twist and distort the meaning of dragon into a pretzel to force the conclusion that you're an actual dragon. Now, you COULD wear a white robe with a white mask covering your face and a white pointy hat, wearing a pin that says "HRIC" (for Head Racist In Charge) and explain that you're a GRAND dragon. See? You've proved your point. But we weren;t talking about a Grand Dragon of the KKK. So in reality, all you proved is that you're a master of equivocation, because we all know what was meant when the claim "I have a dragon in my garage" was made. Now, of course, I'm not saying you're a racist or KKK member. It's just an example for the sake of exploring the analogy. Um, but you don't speak in tongues. You can SAY you speak in tongues all you'd like, but you have to twist and distort the meaning of "tongues" into a pretzel to force the conclusion that the sounds coming out of your mouth are "tongues." Now, you COULD say it's an indecipherable code known only to you and God, but we weren't talking about indecipherable codes. So in reality, all you've proved is that you're a master of equivocation, because we all know what was meant when the claim "I DO speak in tongues" was made (Biblically). Now, I'm not saying you actually DID produce an indecipherable code. It's just an example for the sake of exploring the analogy. This analogy is holding up rather well.

Ok, one LAST time. My thesis cannot be proven by linguists' observations. I never said it could. What I said, repeatedly, is that my thesis can be DISPROVED by linfuists' observations. It only takes ONE person practicing SIT to produce an identifiable language to disprove my thesis. I discount anecdotal accounts because they are insufficient for that purpose. The stories are usually second or third hand, and the actual participants are uniformly unavailable to document the claim. Anecdotal accounts are NOT evidence; they are CLAIMS. Using a claim to prove a claim is begging the question. Any linguist can study thousands of samples of SIT and never identify a language, and it would still not prove my point. I NEVER SAID IT COULD, and if I did say that, I would be mistaken. I have made that concession multiple times. Your citation of the opening post on this thread does establish that my personal experience and testimony is technically off topic on this thread, so let's stick with what the Bible says about SIT and glossa. I still find it ironic that I'm the only one who has tried to do that. By the way, your use of the dragon in the garage analogy does not refute my use of it. It validates my use of it.

Yeah. It was.

Flash is somehow getting better. Arrow is getting worse. And Legends of Tomorrow is... less than impressive. Captain Cold is.the.MAN. But I think DC is messing up on a villain that could/should be a formidable enemy of the entire Justice League. Supergirl is pretty good. The most recent episode was the best. And did you catch all the Easter Eggs in the latest Flash? Jonah Hex!

She IS Lana Turner! L.A. Confidential

It is odd. I'd be willing to bet Thomas Jefferson fell in this category. My regret isn't in what I meant, it's in how I articulated myself, which unnecessarily put people on the defensive. I'm glad you got my point (and from my recollection, you got it early). But not everyone did. I mean, here we have Steve asking me for a clarification just yesterday! As a communicator, I am responsible for anticipating how people will respond to my words, and avoiding undue misunderstanding if possible. I failed. I'm not in a tizzy about it, but I want to be clear I'm not hiding from it either.

TLC makes a correct observation. My account is out of place in this forum, for which I apologize. It was, however, a direct answer to a direct question that provides significant context for my role in initiating and participating in this discussion. So in the "meta" sense, it's on topic. But let's not allow it to distract us from trying to explore what the Bible actually says about SIT. Reading other responses and reserving the right to comment further.

Halloween H2O LL Cool J Deep Blue Sea

nce.

Source: http://www.cortright.org/sit.htm

So, if I'm hearing you right, you don't want someone to just drop the list right into the middle of a sente The Benefits of Speaking In Tongues: To edify you - 1 Corinthians 14:4, Jude 20 To speak to God divine secrets - 1 Corinthians 14:2 To speak the wonderful works of God - Acts 2:11 To magnify God - Acts 10:46 To pray perfectly - Romans 8:26,27 To give thanks well - 1 Corinthians 14:17 To have the Spirit bearing witness with our spirit - Romans 8:16 To know you are a joint-heir with Christ - Romans 8:17 To strengthen you with might in your inner man - Ephesians 3:16 To be a sign to unbelievers - 1 Corinthians 14:22; Mark 16:17 Rest to the soul - Isaiah 28:11,12; 1 Corinthians 14:21

Really? That's your takeaway from the story? Just wow.

Well, now, someone HAS to post it now!

I had to dig up my copy of The Cult That Snapped by Karl Kahler, one of the best biographical treatments of TWI out there (because it blends a reporter's gathering of information with his personal experiences). It had to be 2000 or 2001 when I got the book. p.28 (his first time taking PFAL) p. 54 Reading those words, and later conflating them (though I'm certain Karl would agree that such a conflating of ideas was a valid expression of his point), convicted me, as some Christians would say. "You make it all up." Back when I was in elementary school, I pretended to speak a foreign language once. I knew I was making it up, but it was harmless. More than a decade later, I was being led into SIT for the first time. Nothing was coming out. I kept waiting, and nothing. Finally, I started speaking. And it felt exactly the same as when I'd made up that language in elementary school. I was faking it. I knew it. "Don't let the devil talk you out of it," my 'coach' said. Those weren't his exact words, but I'm sure he'll agree that he said something along those lines. And I eventually convinced myself it was real. It was what the Bible promised. It was available. And it worked for so many other people. This was real. This was real. This was real. And suddenly I was confronted with this book: someone who never believed in the resurrection spoke in tongues. And admitted making up interpretations and prophecies. He wasn't a Christian. Not by any logical definition of the term. He tried. But he never believed. He should not have been able to speak in tongues, but he did. How? He faked it. Just like I did. No! I didn't. My experience was sincere. And it lined up with the Word. A few years later, I learned about renowned skeptic James Randi and his offer of $1 million for proof of the supernatural. Weren't we taught that SIT was that proof? I knew that I could walk to James Randi's headquarters from my office (it was that close), speak in tongues in front of a linguist, and collect my check. I never did it. I never tried. Because I knew what the result would be. I knew I was faking it all along. The knowledge I buried came roaring out, and I would never recover. "No one would ever admit it..."). To myself, I finally admitted it. I never spoke in tongues again without knowing it was a fake. I never spoke in tongues while praying. I just stopped. I don't think anyone meant to lie. I didn't mean to lie. I meant to claim the promise of God. But looking back, I recognize that I faked it from day one. I taught others to fake it. I suspected we all faked it. It wasn't until I was challenged to prove everyone faked it that I gathered the evidence to present my case in a systematic way. The Bible's claim about SIT is pretty clear to me (I'm done arguing about that. If you guys don't see it the same way, we have nothing to discuss. But I will restate that it seems odd I'm the only one allowing the Bible to speak for itself on the subject). I can't prove everyone is faking it, but anyone can prove me wrong by producing a language. Poythress and Samarin provided articulation of the mechanism for "faking it" (as I call it. They use different terms). The more I studied, the more the hard evidence fell into place. There is no dragon. So, in short answer to your question, Steve, yes, you misunderstood me. Part of that is my fault because of the words I chose to use ("lies," for example). But part of it is because you did not carefully read what I originally wrote. It was an emotional thread, and again, MY fault for choosing inflammatory words that inspired defensiveness. You say you DO speak in tongues. Fine. From where I sit, you have not established that you produce anything different from what I produced when I faked it, and until you do, I see no reason to believe your claim. Your sincerity was never in doubt. I don't think you are lying or deliberately faking it. But until you produce a language, I have no reason to believe you're not. Nothing personal. When two people hold mutually exclusive positions on a statement of fact/truth, one of them has to be wrong. I don't think you're a liar. I don't think any of you are liars. I think you're wrong. I've explained in excruciating detail how you can be wrong and still think you're right. You think I'm wrong. The difference between you and me? I can't prove you're wrong. But you can prove I am. Document the language. Until then, I think I'm a few years past done arguing about it.

You're thinking of the Benefits of PFAL list, WW. They're talking about SIT: What It Is For...

Yes. We have discussed that on this board many times. Wierwille got "all author exception v. all without distinction" from Bullinger, among other ideas.

Not discussed, and I wouldn't agree with that statement. For a claim to be testable, it has to be falsifiable. That is, you have to come up with a set of criteria that, if true, would invalidate the claim. I suppose you could run all sorts of studies comparing hte overall health of people who SIT to people who don't, but so many other factors come into play with health that it would be impossible to pin anything on the presence or absence of SIT in someone's life. "When I speak, it will be a language" is testable. You're either producing a language or you're not. We can argue (and OH WE DID) about whether the language can be detected for any number of reasons, but somewhere along the line, someone's got to be able to produce a language and put the matter to rest. My position, "it's all faked," is also testable. There's an obvious criteria that makes it falsifiable: produce an identifiable language. Boom. Our work here is done. "Enhances your physical and mental abilities"? I don't know how we can test for that.

Then you see why there was some reluctance to resurrect the thread after all this time. ;)

Don't you miss these chats we used to have, chockfull?

TLC, Don't be hesitant to chime in. The reason for this thread is to bring you, MRAP and any other interested parties a chance to catch up on the previous discussion without having to sift through 100 pages of back-and-forth that turned vitriolic from time to time (although there was a truckload of substance in there that gets lost in the summary, I'd wager that little of it is necessary for any purpose other than to point out we had indeed considered numerous different angles). It's practically an invitation for you to weigh in.

Permission granted.

Thanks, chockfull. We were posting at the same time. My one quibble with your recap, and it's just a quibble, is that Samarin was not a theologian. He was a linguist. Other than that, I think you have accurately summed up your part of the argument. It was 100 pages. We both left things out. Here's another one: Terminology became an issue because we could not agree on what various things meant, and we were all over the map about it. "Biblical SIT," "modern SIT," "free vocalization" and "glossolalia" were the terms in dispute. It didn't help that Poythress used "free vocalization" in ways that made perfect sense to him but became confusing when we tried to apply it to this conversation. For example, strip SIT (as we practiced it) of any spiritual claims, and Poythress calls it "free vocalization." Add the spiritual angle, and he calls it "T-speech." He demonstrates, I think, that T-speech is free vocalization practiced in the context of worship. They are, he claims, the same thing, mechanically. But he leaves open the idea of whether they produce different results, leaning toward saying "yes, they produce the same thing" but stopping short because to do otherwise would be to deny the possibility of God's intervention. It starts to look like "free vocalization" is a term he made up to deny SIT. That would make sense if he denied SIT, but he didn't. "Glossolalia" is what linguists call SIT. They're supposed to be synonymous. But linguists, not being bound by Biblical definitions, are free to apply the term to non-Biblical practices. So it became a little confusing for us, because we needed to be sure that linguists were talking about the same things we were. I do think we ended up agreeing on Samarin's distinction between SIT/free vocalization/glossolalia and "gibberish" [the former aim to approximate what a language should sound like; the latter does not].

I really feel underqualified to recap the other side of this argument, but I'll give it a shot. 1. Calling us all "liars" was offensive and out of line. [Conceded]. Making a blanket declaration that we all faked it overstepped the bounds of what I could possibly "know," and to state it as fact is, by implication, calling us all liars no matter how nicely I try to put it. [Conceded to a point: Calling someone a "liar" is accusing them of deliberate dishonesty. I do not believe there was anything deliberate about it. I think it was a combination of a lot of factors, including peer pressure and a genuine hunger to produce what we believed the Bible promises]. 2. "Testing" the claims of SIT assumes I am right about the claim being testable. I don't think we ever reached consensus on that. There are verses that indicate SIT will not be understood by those present, and those verses do not make exceptions for linguists. So the failure of linguists to identify languages in SIT does not prove that languages are not being produced. [All true, but I sincerely believe the claim is testable. Again, this part of the argument gave rise to the doctrinal threads, where we discussed what SIT was Biblically and whether the claim really is testable. Because it's a doctrinal difference, I concede that we cannot reach objective agreement about whether I am right about the claim being testable. The "no one understands" verse/verses were also a point of continued disagreement: there are other verses where people who witnessed SIT did understand what was spoken, so a verse that says "no one understands" cannot be applied in a blanket fashion. Understanding SIT would have to be possible, but not universal. We failed to reach agreement on this question]. 3. The value of anecdotal evidence remains in dispute. We have all heard of instances in which someone did understand what was spoken during SIT. That's evidence. [My position: that is not evidence. That is a claim that requires evidence to prove it. What we find in these anecdotes, almost universally, is that the people involved typically vanish, making confirmation impossible. Again, I believe we failed to reach consensus on this]. 4. Subjecting SIT to a test belittles God's flexibility in giving us languages that will evade detection. Many languages have gone "extinct," and we have no way of knowing what they sounded like. Even the best linguist would not be able to detect it. [My counterargument was that this could account for many instances of SIT, but could not account for all of them, and it only takes one to disprove my position. I'm sure I left some good points out.

I am totally humming the music to Les Miserables right now.

You can claim it all you want, and as long as you don't expect me to believe it, we're cool. You want to claim it by faith? I can't argue with that. But the moment you change "I can" to "I DO," you venture from a statement of faith to a statement of fact. It's not a fact. It's a claim. A testable one. And no amount of redefining speak, redefining tongues or redefining language can change the fact that the claim you're making is testable. The only thing you guys accomplish when you deny the testability of the claim (by coming up with all sorts of excuses as to why a language won't be detected) is demonstrate a profound lack of confidence that you're producing a language. But a language is what the Bible promises. That's the point of the dragon analogy: starting with a testable claim and then resorting to all sorts of mental gymnastics to make it untestable.