Raf

Hint: the second movie starred William Kaat, also known as the Greatest American Hero. It was also one of those movies with a subtitle, which I am including as the name of the movie for the purposes of this thread (Kind of like how you can refer to "Superman IV" or "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace."

No. Report it. I have no problem with him posting what he wants, nor do I see a problem in posting my response to it.

This has been proven and this has been demonstrated do not mean the... You know what? This isn't worth it.

Um, no. I have no problem with him posting anything he wants. I also have no problem with informing him, you, or anyone else that assuming I am unfamiliar with these verses and somehow overlooked them in the 25 years since I first began examining them, strikes me as patronizing. I am not asking him not to quote scripture. By all means, quote what you guys want. But there was nothing inappropriate about my comment and I invite you to report it to the other mods if you think there was.

Ok, I'm sorry, but as many times as this has been asserted by you and corrected, you are still making the same refuted allegation. So let me remind everyone that I never said "this has been proven." I said this has been demonstrated. I said that the evidence all leans in one direction. I stated my opinion as fact (it's called making an assertion, and everyone, including you, has done that in this conversation and others). I have never said this was proven. So I would appreciate it, deeply, if you would stop saying that I have. I have not. You listed a whole bunch of places where you claim I made that statement, but not one of the citations you listed has me saying this was proven. So please, I urge you, stop repeating the refuted and false statement that I have. I have not. Stop it. Please.

If our notifications at the bottom of the GSC home page are correct, today is John A. Lynn's birthday. I hope he is happy and healthy.

New rule/request, to avoid this kind of thing in the future: If you don't recognize the actor, you're entitled to request a pic. At that point, either the original poster or someone who agrees to stay out of the round can post the pic. Here's our kid:

Since we're talking about spoken language, the notion of written language is separate. "Glossographia" would be much easier to analyze than glossolalia, for reasons that should be obvious. I think the Bible is clear about what speaking in tongues is, and what it produces, from its first usage on, and the modifier "in tongues" is added to differentiate between that and the normal speech of the speaker. In my long post, I think I sometimes used the word "metaphorically" when a better word would have been "firguratively," which is what I meant. I apologize if that caused any confusion, but I think you caught on: "metaphorically" and "by metonymy" cannot mean the same thing. "Figuratively" and "by metonymy" can, and the latter is what I intended to convey. I'm not concerned particularly with WHAT the figure of speech is; just that a figure of speech is being employed. Your posts suggest you understood that, but I feel obliged to clarify anyway.

Reasonable minds may differ on which movie is well known and which is ridiculously well known. My thinking: the comedy is well known, and he plays a featured but not crucial character. The fantasy is ridiculously well known, and he is one of the key characters. The lesser known is a run of the mill, dime a dozen coming of age comedy, and as I didn't see it, I don't know how crucial he is to the plot. His signature line in the third movie is, jubilantly delivered, "I can't feel my legs!"

Kind of easy, if you remember the second movie at all. Ted Danson, Steve Gutenberg and Tom Selleck star as happy-go-lucky bachelors whose lives are turned upside-down when they suddenly have to take care of a small, recently discovered brontosaurus.

The Madness of King George of the Jungle

Al Pacino Dick Tracy Charlie Korsmo Charlie was "The Kid" in Dick Tracy. He was in at least one other ridiculously well known movie, one other very well known movie, and appeared as a teenager in another lesser known but still identifiable flick.

I agree. The King James is a little confusing because it uses "Though" in the first word of that sentence. Other translations make the conditional nature of what Paul is saying much more clear, just by translating "though" as "if." When I read that sentence, my takeaway is: "I don't care what language you speak when you speak in tongues -- if you don't have love, it doesn't really matter." The idea of "tongues of angels" is entirely speculative, since it is not defined in the Bible and only presented as a hypothetical in I Cor. 13:1. We cannot assume that spirit beings require a system of communication that is literally like human communication. When God talks to Gabriel and Michael, does He use words? Does my brain use words when it communicates with my hands to type on this keyboard? Fact of the matter is, we have no idea how angels communicate, and this verse does not answer that question. Jesus says a little bit of faith can cause you to tell a mountain to jump into the sea and have the mountain obey. No one, including Jesus, ever tested that, and we know why: it is not a literal truth. It's a hyperbole. The reality behind what's said here is that faith (in God) is powerful. I believe tongues of angels falls into that category. It doesn't seem to me to be presented as a literal possibility, but as a highly exaggerated expression of what SIT does produce. There is PLENTY of Biblical evidence (all documented in my prior post) to support that "tongues of men" is literal in that same verse. Just my opinion.

I think, in fairness to TWI, that there is some kind of balance to be worked out here. As a fellowship coordinator, I could see myself getting quite frustrated if people were constantly interrupting with questions or going off into their own conversations while I (or someone else) was trying to teach. While I don't see myself saying "this is not a social hour," I certainly could see myself saying something equivalent, in that specific context. It's a matter of respect, not only for what's being taught, but for the work that the person did in putting that teaching together. If what you are saying, John, is broader than that context, then let me apologize immediately for my misunderstanding. Obviously, I agree that TWI was an oppressive, legalistic regime (I neither know nor care what it is now). I'm just not sure about that specific example as a demonstration of it.

Naked Gun 2.5?

I'm going to say two quick things and leave it at that for doctrinal. First, I am not joking, and it strikes me as a little patronizing to suggest that I am. Second, I also find it patronizing, sorry, to be barraged with a ton of scriptural references with practically no difference in exposition from what we were taught in TWI, presented as though somehow, this is the first time I'm seeing this stuff. I don't think you're coming off this way on purpose. I respect that you're genuinely surprised to hear this kind of thing coming from me. I'm just sharing my feelings on how it comes off to me. Reasonable minds may differ. It's not the Bible or Paul I am questioning. It is a practice, a modern practice that fails to yield what i believe are Biblically predicted results. The Bible is the sole arbiter of what Biblically predicted results are. I laid out my case using nothing but scripture. With respect, I believe the response to my case about Biblically predicted results uses nothing but conjecture. A fervent defense of Biblical SIT does nothing to bolster claims of modern SIT, for it is the very equation of the modern practice as the Biblical that is in question. I am as free to disagree with you as you are with me. You are perfectly entitled here to question and challenge my beliefs, as I am yours: respectfully. So question and challenge away. But don't patronize me.

Mark, I'm grateful for the right to disagree on this. I'm just going to leave it at that and bid you goodnight. Peace.

Y'all odd. I know that's namecalling, but still. Odd.

Mark, there is a thread in About the Way that this thread is an offshoot of. I will disregard the assertion that those who don't speak in tongues disagree with Paul. We disagree with a practice that claims to be Biblical but does not, in our opinion, yield Biblical results. This thread, appropriately in doctrinal, is currently exploring what those Biblical results should be. You are obviously free to disagree with me, as I am to disagree with you. But we are disagreeing with each other. I am only disagreeing with Paul if you are correct about modern SIT being the same as Biblical SIT. Honest Christians disagree about this issue today, and while you're perfectly entitled to SAY I am disagreeing with Paul, I am equally at liberty to dismiss that assertion. It is very much in question.

Well, that the message would not be discernible by the speaker or the average listener is to be expected, scripturally, so that really isn't saying anything. I agree that it's not a language, but if we are to expand the definition of language to include as much as has been included on this thread, then I contend that the clear terms of scripture are being abandoned in favor of extra-Biblical claims of what glossa means. I am perfectly content to recognize Mark's (and Chockfull's) right to disagree with me in this regard. I just don't think I would get away with expanding the definition of glossa while offering theological support but no scriptural support for such an expansion. I mean, when you consider the demand for scriptural support that glossa means human language in the first place, which brought me back to this thread, you have to wonder why scriptural support for the vast expansion of its meaning has not been demanded as well. No disrespect intended, Mark.

But then, what is?

Nice.

Noticing a pattern (not that there's anything wrong with it) that WordWolf's clues always seem to describe the second movie first. Just an observation.

I was even wrong after cheating! ;)

To be clear, I was referring to Waysider's contribution and not Mark's. But if you're good with both, then so be it. Personally, while I have no problem with Waysider's contribution, I question its placement here. But again, if you're good with it, far be it from me to complain.