Raf

Quick (hopefully) doctrinal digression: TnO, Looking at the rest of your post, I think the heart of your question is doctrinal. From that perspective, it's still a struggle to answer in a way that will satisfy you, because I assume you are familiar with all the same scriptures as we. So reminding you that Paul said those who SIT do edify themselves (he doesn't say how, but excludes the understanding) only reminds you of something you seem to be rejecting anyway. If God says you're edified but doesn't say how, why is it not good enough to know He says you're edified? Going further than your post: I'm not trying to reverse my main argument here. I believe it's clear that what Paul wrote applies to the people Paul wrote it to, but I'm not convinced we today are doing or have done the same thing those people did, so its application to me is moot. Likewise, when Paul wrote "I would that ye all spake with tongues," was he writing to the church at Corinth or to every Christian everywhere for all time (or at least until The Return)? And if to every Christian everywhere for all time, why no instruction on how to do it? Why no instruction on how to interpret or prophesy? We used to say that tongues, interpretation and prophecy are by inspiration, not by revelation. Not only is that distinction nowhere to be found in the Bible, but it seems to be flat out contradicted by I Cor. 14:29-31. Any plain reading of that text tells you that words of prophesy come by revelation. Have you ever been in a meeting where one person delivering a word of prophecy was interrupted by someone else who said, "Stop! God has a word to deliver from me. Here it goes..."? I'm not saying it never has happened. For all I know, it has, but it would be exceedingly rare. Has anyone witnessed this in TWI or offshoots? I'm sure some may argue that these verses refer to people with the gift ministry of a prophet, not to people manifesting the word of prophecy that is one of the nine manifestations, but where is that distinction said or even implied in the verse or its context? The context of the whole passage is manifestations, not gift ministries. He just spent verse after verse after verse telling us how profitable prophecies are to the congregation. Are we to believe that when he finally gets to talking about prophets speaking in a worship setting, all of a sudden, without a word of warning, he's talking about something OTHER than the manifestation of prophecy? My point is that we do not see instruction in the Bible on HOW to speak in tongues. We see what it looked like, and we emulate what it looked like, but we're not producing the same thing (my assertion) that they did, so it follows we're not actually DOING the same thing. There's an instruction that seems to be missing, in my opinion. Likewise, aside for "pray that you may interpret," there's no instruction on how to do it. And the only thing approaching instruction on prophecy seems to be that the person prophesying receives a revelation and starts speaking, even though he may be interrupting someone else by doing so. Is there an offshoot that practices this? All these are doctrinal questions, and I do not pretend to know every answer. Was hoping the doctrinal threads that popped up would feature some exploration of these issues, but unfortunately, they have not gone that way. Maybe Mark Sanguinetti's studies answer some of these issues already, but he starts with a presumption I no longer share, which is that modern SIT and Biblical SIT are identical.

A socially (but not racially) diverse group of high school students is forced to serve Saturday detention at a Caribbean resort run by Robin Williams.

If anyone can find out whether she personally needs anything, or whether we can direct donations to help those close to her, please post here. I don't know where she lives, and don't know her personally, but if I can help in any way, I will.

"I can make it. I know I can. You broke the boy in me, but you won't break the man."

Actually, we do see evidence that the overthrow doctrine didn't last more than a couple of years, so I'm not surprised to hear the old prophecies came back.

In keeping with Socks' request, I have removed my reference to his story from my post.

Rain Man For All Seasons

But this is We Didn't Start the Fire, by Billy Joel.

Here was something interesting: Have you ever heard, in interpretation or prophecy, the message brought forth that "God chose us before the foundation of the world"? I did, lots of times. And it was a staple of messages on those Gartmore Weekly Tapes, too. At one point, Chris Geer had a dramatic shift in his doctrinal stance. I won't go into detail except to say that he now interpreted those "foundation of the world" verses to be the "overthrow of the world," corresponding to the Greek word katabole. God didn't choose us before the foundation of the world, which would have required a foreknowledge of the fall of Lucifer and of Adam. No, he chose us before the overthrow of the world, which would correspond to the period between the time Adam sinned and the time God cursed the ground and cast Adam and Eve out of Eden. Guess what happened? Come on, guess. Right. OVERNIGHT, references to God's calling us from before the foundation of the world disappeared from the interpretations and prophecies of everyone who adopted this doctrine. Gone from Gartmore Weekly Tapes. Gone from many (though not all) of the fellowship and branch meetings I attended in New York. You could tell who had heard and accepted the new teaching from those who had either not heard it or not accepted it just by the fact that the reference vanished from their interpretation and prophecy permanently. Proof? No, not proof. Illustration. Demonstration. FAKERY.

Actually, WordWolf, my belief on what glossa is is rather consistent. It is a language in a worship setting whether anyone there understands it or not (and it's certainly possible someone could understand it [Acts 2], Biblically. It just wasn't the norm). And it's a language when it's done in any other setting. It's always a language. My view is wholly consistent. It is the alternate view that "magically" changes glossa into non-language whenever anyone unbiased is listening. I guess it's fair game now to call another person's interpretation of scripture "laughable." So I will do so here: the notion that SIT is language when no unbiased researcher is listening, but magically becomes non-language when a linguist is looking into its veracity, based on a verse that is talking about something else entirely... is laughable.

Those are guesses, WordWolf. No one has any way of knowing, and I have steadily acknowledged that proving or disproving interpretation and prophecy is impossible. It is an untestable premise, unlike SIT. However, I was asked to explain how I faked lengthy messages. I believe I have answered that question to the satisfaction of the unbiased reader. Improv is not hard. Actors don't require PhD's to learn the trade. They're not smarter than the rest of us. They're simply taught techniques for improvisation -- identical to what we were taught in the Intermediate Class. The difference is, we weren't told it was improv. We were told it was a manifestation. And everyone got the same character: God. It's really easy, once you recognize what happened. But I can't prove it, nor can anyone "prove" their messages were really divinely inspired. The natural explanation makes more sense to me than the supernatural. Did anyone find the Biblical instructions on the manifestations of interpretation and prophecy? I mean the actual how-to instructions?

I have decided that it is against the interest of a constructive conversation to continue even reading certain posts. I tried to continue responding in the hopes that a dialogue could be saved and readers would see a healthy discussion of the issues. I do not believe that is what is now taking place, nor has it been for a very long time. Thank you for those who have followed this far. I'll keep reading, or you can DM me if you have questions you'd like me to address privately.

Don't get me wrong: repeat the verse all you want. But we disagree on it, and we're not going to change each other's minds. So by all means, cite any scripture you want, including this one. Just don't pretend I haven't addressed it.

I just posted this in the doctrinal thread. I believe the subjects of both threads have converged on this point, so I am reposting here: Clearly there is disagreement on whether I Cor. 14:2 is a blanket statement that covers all situations (making SIT untestable) or whether it is, in context, the normative expectation of a worship meeting experience. I hold the latter view and believe it to be consistent with a plain reading of scripture. The former view, in my opinion, is a retrofit designed to explain why the people on earth best educated in the classification and identification of language have been unable to identify a language in any sample of modern SIT or to even classify modern SIT as language. This is a difference of doctrinal opinion. Endlessly repeating this verse, by either side, is fruitless. It is here that our impasse is unresolvable. At the risk of violating rules, I will make a statement that looks to the future instead of the past, including the recent past: any future assertion that I have not addressed this verse or provided an alternative explanation for the one offered above by Chockfull is a blatant, bald-faced, intentional LIE.

Clearly there is disagreement on whether I Cor. 14:2 is a blanket statement that covers all situations (making SIT untestable) or whether it is, in context, the normative expectation of a worship meeting experience. I hold the latter view and believe it to be consistent with a plain reading of scripture. The former view, in my opinion, is a retrofit designed to explain why the people on earth best educated in the classification and identification of language have been unable to identify a language in any sample of modern SIT or to even classify modern SIT as language. This is a difference of doctrinal opinion. Endlessly repeating this verse, by either side, is fruitless. It is here that our impasse is unresolvable. At the risk of violating rules, I will make a statement that looks to the future instead of the past, including the recent past: any future assertion that I have not addressed this verse or provided an alternative explanation for the one offered above by Chockfull is a blatant, bald-faced, intentional LIE.

I just meant, asking me for what I think of I Cor. 14:2 as if I never addressed it before... I'm sorry, I know the rules of the forum, but how can he say that with a straight face? I mean, that's just a bald-faced... It's just... How can anyone ask for that as if I hadn't provided it on this thread repeatedly? And on the other thread... I mean... Seriously, how do I address this without breaking rules? Someone tell me, please.

Are you serious?

Why should anyone believe you will accept a scientific test after you JUST SAID you are going to retreat to your convenient misapplication of I Cor. 14:2 when you don't like the results?

I do not accept your interpretation of I Cor. 14:2. Your demand for proof suddenly became figurative when I started asking you for a standard you would accept. Your failure to see a qualitative difference between an allegation that someone witnessed a miracle versus someone admitting he faked it is your failure alone. Everyone else can see the difference but you. What you claim about holding me to a consistent standard is demonstrably false.

I can meet my standard. My standard accepts free vocalization as the mechanism and accepts the capacity of the field of linguistics to determine whether what I'm producing is a language. I cannot meet YOUR standard, because you have not provided one. Tell us again how you never asked me to prove anything.

Sanguinetti's a big boy. After my post (111), which you claim chased him off, he posted again (117, 120). So your accusation that I chased him off was actually... false. Everything I've written in this thread that's off topic has been in response to you. You are free to return to the topic anytime you want. I'm not stopping you.

Right. ANYthing can be a language to you, so linguistics is out as an arbiter of who's faking. So what's IN? How do I prove I'm faking it, which you asked me to do? Whatever answer YOU come up with, BOTH our glossolalia can be subject to. Or are you going to admit that you were never serious when you asked for proof in the first place?

Then again I ask, tell me what standard of proof YOU will accept as proof of fakery, and I will subject my glossolalia AND YOURS to the same standard. I can do this all day.

I will take that as an admission that you knew when you asked me for proof that there was no proof you would accept, and that you were just playing games with the thread topic.

I'll take that as an admission that you cannot find any instance of me saying or supporting the "no resemblance" line. Which makes sense, because the accusation was false. Thank you. And I'm MORE than tired of you trying to catch me in my own words and making an issue of them and then retreating when I demand documentation for the things you falsely claim I said. No one's stopping you from returning this thread to the subject of scripture.