Raf

Mark, I think you misunderstood me. I wrote: "I actually agree with Mark there. We're talking about what the Bible says, not anyone's unsubstantiated claims to have reproduced it." You apparently thought I meant "not anyone's unsubstantiated claims to have reproduced what the Bible says." Your post makes sense if that was your understanding of my comment. But what I intended to convey was, "not anyone's unsubstantiated claims to have reproduced the practice of speaking in tongues as described in the Bible." I was agreeing with you (at least, I think I was) that questioning your practice of SIT, indeed questioning ANYone's practice of SIT, is off-topic on this thread. It is on topic for me to ask you whether you believe Biblical SIT produces a language. It is off-topic for me to challenge YOUR practice of SIT. You say you do it. That's fine. In doing so, you are saying that you produce a language when you SIT. (That is a logical extension: "The Bible says SIT produces a language. My practice of SIT is consistent with the Bible. Therefore, when I SIT, I'm producing a language.") If anyone wants to challenge that assertion, this thread by design is not the place to do it. My point is, I wasn't trying to comment on the accuracy of the modern translations of the Bible. I was merely agreeing with you concerning drawing the on-topic/off-topic line.

MRAP: Over the years I grew particularly fond of the American Standard Version (I think), which I found accessible to modern readers. I was grateful that it largely retained the use of italics to signify when words were added that were not part of the original text. Most of the time, the inclusion of such words was an innocent attempt to clarify what the verses meant to say. Are they biased? Sure. They assume the inclusion of the added words provides greater clarity, which is a judgment call. All judgment calls are subjective by definition. Having said that, I'm curious to know what you think of the REV. Perhaps if we start looking at particular verses and translations, we'll get a better conversation going. For example, do we really think the writer of John 1 intended to use the pronoun "it" throughout the chapter rather than "he"? There are multiple ways to approach that question. First and foremost, we need to analyze the language itself. What word is used? Is there room to make that change (from "he" to "it") while being faithful to the text and not reading into it? Is it fair to impose the Biblical Unitarian Christology on a text that was written nearly 2,000 years ago? What is John really meant "he"? Does that signify that non-Trinitarians are wrong? Or does it open the door to the Jehovah's Witness interpretation (that Jesus existed as an angel before his birth, but was never God)? The REV makes no apologies for the fact that the bias of the "translators" played a role in the translation. In that, I think they're just being honest where previous translators have feigned objectivity. But what would an unbiased translation look like? Please share some of your thoughts? And I'm certain others would love to chime in. P.S. There's a fine line between seeking to understand the original intent of the writers of the Bible and calling its divine inspiration into question. I am deliberately not addressing the matter of divine inspiration. Getting at what the writers originally intended to convey is one thing. Getting to whether they were correct in the grand scheme of things is quite another.

This came up in the SIT confession thread. The way I see it, Biblical SIT makes a testable claim. But practitioners bend over backwards to make it untestable. They get emphatic that the Bible says NO ONE understands. But at the same time they want you to believe their brother's third cousin did it in front of some people visiting from the Congo, and they understood it. That's PROOF! Suddenly the No Man Understands requirement doesn't apply. It only applies when the Man seeking to understand is a linguist.

Brian Cox XMEN 2 Ian McKellan

Yes. And the misspelling of Nitti was an autocorrect Expendables, Cliffhanger, over the top, Capone, Demolition Man.

Nope. Frank Nitty John Spartan

Except snipes wasn't in major league 2.

Just an observation from another thread: am I the only one who finds it amusing that we're not supposed to draw any conclusions from the 100 percent failure rate of linguists to detect a language in SIT, but we are supposed to trust that there's value in a friend of the speaker with no training in linguistics who says "sounds like a language to me!"?

Mark has already said that Biblical SIT produces languages. I agree with him. Steve clearly intended for this thread not to question the validity of modern claims of SIT. I would love to honor that.

I actually agree with Mark there. We're talking about what the Bible says, not anyone's unsubstantiated claims to have reproduced it.

With that big fat clue dropped in front of your face?

Nope

MRAP, you say you've been speaking in tongues since 1972 and you follow up with a question: if the Bible says it's a manifestation, then is it real? Your question presumes that what you're doing is, in fact, what the Bible describes as speaking in tongues. As far as I'm concerned, until you prove that point, I am not obliged to answer your question. You don't speak in tongues. You only claim to. You're sincere about it, but a self-serving man claiming to be wise once said... If, when you speak in tongues, you produce a language, then I have little choice but to concede your practice is genuine. But that determination is based on you producing the results the Bible predicts. Otherwise, it's just a claim, of no more merit than the warmth in the bosom of the sincere Mormon.

We realized early on that there was a need to distinguish between discussions about our experiences in and out of TWI versus the doctrines espoused by TWI and others. Sometimes it's a huge challenge to draw the line. But if you want to talk about what people think of The Word, the Doctrinal section is generally the place to go. Discussing the REV in the CES/STFI section makes sense too. That's a toss-up, but doctrinal makes a little more sense.

Look Who's Talking Too Bruce Willis Die Hard 2: Die Harder

Well, I was going to condense it, but... Christianity in general and TWI in particular teaches people how to fake speaking in tongues. There's nothing genuine about it. You can only establish that your SIT is genuine by demonstrating that you have in fact produced a language. Until you do, you are merely making a claim. The claim I make, that you're faking it, has gobs of evidence to support it. The only evidence you can provide to support your claim is... a language.

MRAP, I think if you look at the time stamps, you'll find that this is mostly a site of people who HAVE moved on, people who barely post snymore, but whose recollections and warnings endure. You can dismiss them all you want, but to continue in the mindset that we long ago recognized as cultic and abandoned while simultaneously accusing us of being unable or unwilling to move on...? We HAVE moved on. Will you move out? ;)

MRAP asked: "Hey Raf and Kermitt (Waysider, don't mind if I call you Kermitt - any parts of you smell like pork) All aside, here's my question: I have been speaking in tongues since 1972 (what's that, 40 some years) and my tonuge/s change quite frequently and have done so over the years and decades. I SIT alot, often outloud when alone, sometimes just at the lips and more often, prior to making it that far. I do "hear" the words in the ol'e noggin (no, not hearing voices). So,if the Bible says that it is a manifesttion than is it real? Now, I do remember all about those "starter words" and that is a mind thing; I recall how many folks started their tongues the same way that VP did (la shanta). I spoke in tongues prior to completing the PFAL class; that's another story. So, do either of you still SIT, I think I know that answer, in part. I have not read this whole thread but just needed to ask, maybe had I read the whole thing I would have gotten my answer." I'll answer later

No, not sorry I gave you access. You're arriving here way past this site's heyday. Your views are welcome, but be advised that the forum is open to all views, including those who do not consider the Bible to be The Word anymore. There is a subsection of the Doctrinal forum called Questioning Faith. In it, there is a thread on Questioning SIT. Your question belongs there.

MRAP, your question is not appropriate for this particular thread (which is not supposed to be arguing about whether SIT is real).

Who was the writer who wanted to play John Stewart?

Barney Ross Gabe Walker Lincoln Hawk

The Jack Black rumor reminds me of Green Lantern, but the rest of it baffles me.

Take Me With U The Bird Jungle Love

So Mark, Steve, are you guys agreed that Biblical speaking in tongues will produce an actual language every time?