Raf

Dr. Strangelove ?

What's an escalope? And I think I'll take the tunnel on the way back from the store. The bridge looks like a bad idea.

No apology needed, Socks. I neglected in all this discussion to include on this thread a link to Samarin's article and Poythress' article, which have dominated the other discussion. Here's Poythress: http://www.frame-poythress.org/linguistic-and-sociological-analyses-of-modern-tongues-speaking-their-contributions-and-limitations/ Here's Samarin: http://philosophy-religion.info/handouts/pdfs/Samarin-Pages_48-75.pdf

Dogma Jason Mewes Scream 3 (Mewes and his frequent on-screen ally had a cameo in Scream 3, apparently in character as Jay and that other guy).

Yeah, we're not on new ground here. A little more detail on old ground. But not on new ground.

It will be interesting to see how you tie that into this discussion.

Tower Heist Alan Alda The Aviator

So if God does what you describe, WordWolf, could that explain why SIT is not deciphered by linguists? (I don't buy it, myself. It's not what the Bible describes. I consider that an ad hoc argument designed to explain why modern SIT doesn't produce what the Bible clearly describes, Chockfull's caveats considered).

Arthur Fonzarelli becomes a racecar driver and charms the pants off Nicole Kidman

No intent to recycle the same arguments. Thanks for clarifying, chockfull.

The Taking of Pelham One, Two, Three Musketeers

Not baiting. Trying to articulate what Allen might have meant, synthesizing some of the other aspects of our discussion. But I don't think I was trying to suggest this was Chockfull's position. Chockfull's position appears to be that I am mistaken in insisting that SIT produces a real human language. It may, on occasion, if God wills it, but it may also produce a linguistic code that no one but God can break. Thus, no surprise that a linguist cannot find a language in it. May not even be able to decipher a code. But God knows it's there.

Let me play Angel's advocate: If I'm free vocalizing and I know I'm faking it, it's just free vocalizing. If Chockfull is free vocalizing out of sincere love for God and desire to do His will, then God intervenes and what Chockfull produces is consistent with what the Bible says he will produce. If Chockfull does the SAME THING in an effort to have the product of SIT tested, that is not acting in agape, and he will be free vocalizing. A linguist would not pick up a language because none is there. It feels the same to Chockfull, but it's different because God's not energizing it. So no objective test will ever work, because anyone who submits to an objective test has stepped out of agape and is, instead, tempting God.

This kind of feeds into what I was thinking about the Bible calling it "speaking in tongues" rather than "speaking in code." To accept the latter possibility, you have to adopt a view of SIT that, in my view, far exceeds its description in scripture. The Bible simply does not define glossa in such a wide way as to incorporate this kind of utterance that does its best to defy human comprehension. If anyone wants to interpret I Cor. 14:2 to allow for such a definition, I can't stop them. I can only point out that it exceeds the clear meaning of the text. But we disagree on that.

I haven't seen Wind Talkers, so I am at the mercy of your summary. You noted in an earlier message that linguists could not break the code that was contained in the messages. Again, having not seen the movie and being unfamiliar with the true story behind it, I would be curious to know whether the linguists who tried to break the code concluded that there was none.

Now, now. Certainly if man has an innate ability, there's nothing wrong with God energizing man's ability to produce something extraordinary. In my view, the extraordinary thing promised is a language. The mechanism could easily be the same. The output, however, in my view, should be different -- a human language versus a string of linguistically meaningless sounds. My argument remains: if God is energizing free vocalization to make it speaking in tongues, then where are the tongues (which is to say, where are the languages)? To borrow a term used by someone else (a term I have also used in this discussion), it is too convenient to assert that it's simple free vocalization whenever someone is looking into it objectively, but languages when no one can verify it. But obviously there is disagreement on that point. In any event, let's not mock the alternative viewpoint.

I think you need a license for that. Not sure.

Thinking more about WordWolf's post. Yes, TWI did seem to mix viewpoints that rendered their approach to Tongues with Interpretation confusing, to be charitable. On the one hand, we were told it was an interpretation rather than a translation, a "gist" or "sum and substance" rather than a word-for-word or phrase-for-phrase message. But then they had us comparing the length of the tongue with the length of the interpretation as a guide to whether the interpretation "went too far," for lack of a better term. The problen is, if someone from Malaysia were speaking in tongues and said, in English, "don't cry over spilled milk," the interpretation in their own language could well be: "there are times when the mistakes of the past cannot be repaired. Don't wallow in the mistake." The interpretation is considerably longer than the "tongue," but it is a fair interpretation. And what was the explanation if someone "went too far" with an interpretation? Why, you started prophesying, of course. Unless you used words like "muck and mire," in which case you let your understanding get in the way. The notion that 100% of it is made up extemporaneously by the speaker is never even briefly entertained. Convenient.

Ghost Story Alice Krige Star Trek: First Contact

But of course. Next...

Allan, If that's what SIT is, then it was misnamed. It should have been called speaking in noises or sounds. No one would argue that sounds are not produced. Besides, if SIT is SUPPOSED to be free vocalization, then how is it a manifestation of holy spirit? Is walking a manifestation of holy spirit? How about holding your breath for 20 seconds? Jumping jacks? It's not a manifestation of holy spirit of anyone can do it WITHOUT holy spirit.

WordWolf, No. An actor never would have said he couldn't do it.

Going to try, and fail to limit myself to things I haven't already said. At what point are you going to realize that you're the only person who thinks that assertion has been presented as "proven"? I haven't said it's proven. I believe it. I assert it. But I never said it was proven, and neither has anyone else. I don't mean to be snide in pointing this out, and please accept my apology if that's how it's coming off. I mean you have been getting on me over and over and over again for calling my assertion proven, and I never have. Semi-serious answer: if he couldn't do it, it would give me an indication (though by no means proof) that free vocalization is NOT an innate human ability. Just a little easy experiment. Do you realize that you accept SIT as language on FAR less evidence than we assert SIT as free vocalization? I agree. Go back over the thread (if you'd like) and see who was the first to bring mediums and psychics into our discussion. I'll give you a hint: his name does not rhyme with "Laugh," but it does rhyme with "Tockpull." Nothing else new to add.

Waysider, I think chockfull can clear up your misreading (if I'm right) by explaining what he means by "this group." i think he meant TODAY's Sola Scriptura proponents, not Lutherans.

Read carefully. That's not what he's saying.