Raf

The short answer is, it keeps conversations focused. The fact that I faked it, and my belief that others did too, has nothing to do with what the Bible teaches about speaking in tongues.

WordWolf, stop reading. WordWolf, stop reading. WordWolf, stop reading. WordWolf, stop reading. WordWolf, stop reading. A Legion ring. A glimpse of Supergirl, a version of Green Arrow that looked a little off, Jonah Hex, John Wesley Shipp's Flash (THAT was awesome). I also liked the numbers on Barry's speed dial, but why would he know these people, and why would they be on his speed dial, if he's not the Flash in Earth 2? Diana, Bruce, Hal. Why would Earth-2's Barry Allen know these people? Speaking of which, on Earth-2, Zoom is NOT: Ronnie, Cisco, Harrison Wells, Barry or Joe. Other possibilities? Eddie Thawne and... shudder... Henry Allen!

Ok, but the issue of proving it is actually ancillary to what the Bible actually says it is and what it produces. I think that was the original purpose of this thread. I suppose questions about whether it's still available or possible for believers today would also be on topic here, as long as we stick to "what does the Bible say?" as the criteria. But "prove you're doing it" or "disprove I'm doing it" is a discussion for elsewhere. As I said, I was answering a question. Then again, no one seems to be complaining about incorporating that question here. As a mod, if someone were to complain about it, I would have to agree that such discussions are out of bounds here. They're fair game elsewhere.

No. It would, at best, give you a philosophical foundation for believing in said dragon. But it would not be evidence-based.

Word Wolf, don't we owe that guy money? I mean, he never asked for it, but morally?

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.