Raf

Interesting take, but I quickly lost count of the number of times I was disagreeing with this guy. I feel like I went from New York to Los Angeles by taking a Concord jet for a two or three hour flight, where he went from New York to Los Angeles by taking a boat to England, a train to France, a bicycle to Yemen, a camel to Afghanistan, walking to Pakistan, a prop plane to Hong Kong, a pogo stick to Beijing, a slingshot to Tokyo and swimming to Los Angeles. Sure, we reached the same place. But dang.

Thank you for pointing that out, Geisha, because it has been repeatedly asserted that what I am attacking is the Bible itself, which is NOT TRUE. I am attacking what I believe to be a phony, counterfeit practice, which is why I placed this thread in About the Way and not in Doctrinal in the first place. Yes, there is a doctrinal assumption, and Doctrinal is the place to argue that. Yes, there are doctrinal implications, and Doctrinal is the place to argue that. But I am not attempting here to argue with the Bible. I am attempting to argue from it. If the Bible says an action will have a result, you take an action and fail to produce that result, then the logical conclusion is not that the Bible is wrong, but that the action you took was not the action described in the Bible. It is and remains a false accusation that this thread attacks the Bible's integrity. This thread takes the Bible at its Word. It does not take the modern practice of SIT at ITS word. I think most Christian readers of this thread are sharp enough to know the difference, especially now that it's spelled out.

The discussion in Doctrinal is underway, where it should be. I laid out my reasoning with pounds of scriptural reference, and it seems to be understood now that I base my doctrinal assumption on the fact that glossa in the Bible is always a reference to either the physical organ of the tongue (literally or figuratively) or a human language. I apologize to readers here if I was unclear about that the first 7,000 times I said it. In any event, there's one participant new to the discussion who asserts that language is something God has creative control over and that He can make up any language He likes to bestow on us as we SIT. No scripture to back up that this is what's happening or to be expected in SIT, but I suppose demands for scriptural documentation only apply when one is questioning a modern practice that's not living up to Biblical expectations. In any event, I can't argue it. In terms of logical debate, this is known as an appeal to probability or, more specifically in this case, an appeal to possibility. This is when an argument concludes something is true or likely merely because it is possible. I'm not arguing that it's impossible. I'm arguing that it's non-scriptural, a doctrinal difference. To defend the practice, an argument not made in scripture is asserted to bolster the practice and bring our experience in line with the Bible -- by changing what the Bible clearly predicts, in my opinion. Thus, I can only point out that the scripture, when speaking for itself, does not appear to be making any such assertion. Rather, it fits my view that this is a retrofit designed to explain why modern SIT isn't producing human languages (my opinion stated as fact, yet to be contradicted by objective analysis and only contradicted by unverified and unverifiable anecdotes I haven't even been asked by the tellers to believe). So we're back to square one: If you do not agree that SIT is supposed to produce human languages, we do not have a common ground and we disagree with each other on doctrinal grounds. You are free to think I'm wrong based on our disagreement in scripture, and I bid you nothing but peace. I am free to think you're faking it based on no human language being produced (see note above) and the perfectly natural, non-spiritual, human capacity for free vocalization, which seems to me the far more likely explanation for what we did, and you have no grounds to disagree with me other than the doctrinal assumption. There is no more need for you to be offended by my conclusion than there is for me to be offended by yours. I believe I have approached the scripture honestly and at face value. I believe SIT in the Bible produces human languages. I believe modern SIT does not. I believe free vocalization perfectly describes what people do when they say they're speaking in tongues. I conclude modern SIT is free vocalization and not Biblical SIT. I dispute the injection of "code," "secret language" and other such interpolations into what I think is the clear, Biblical meaning of glossa, and I respect the right of others to disagree with me on that. Hey, if you're going to do everything you can to make SIT unprovable, I can't stop you. Nor can you demand I prove you're wrong, for the disagreement is no longer on terms that have a common ground. TnO, your admonition was well-considered and well-voiced. I deeply appreciate it and intend to take it to heart. I see no reason why you should not issue such a firm, Biblically based critique of the tone of this conversation and its participants. If you'd like to contribute actively to the conversation, by all means, do so. If you'd rather just read along, that's your privilege too. And if you feel the tone of the conversation has hindered the content, you have every right to point that out. It did not fall on deaf ears.

I was thinking of Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, but since I got no words right, that's obviously not the answer. I THINK I know now, after cheating, but even then I'm not really sure.

We're not in agreement, but hey, can't argue with you.

Chockfull will need to decide for himself whether we're going off topic here. I just wanted to clue Mark in as to where i was coming from. I have no need or want to challenge him. If he didn't join the other thread, it was for a reason.

I do not believe it can be a language no one has ever used. That is beyond the clear meaning of scripture. Thanks for your input, Mark. I no longer believe SIT is a manifestation of anything more than human creativity and our hunger to fit in. But I do not begrudge anyone the right to disagree with me.

With respect to DuctTape, I don't think anyone should have to consider this issue who doesn't want to. He's entitled to dismiss my point of view on any grounds he wants. I have no argument with him.

Thank you, TnO, but I have over the past few days made a concerted effort to restrict my criticisms to arguments and positions rather than direct them at people. I stopped the namecalling and asked multiple times that this action be reciprocated. Instead, the namecalling continued and intensified. Now, a decision to finally drop the namecalling is presented as though it were some kind of favor to me for writing a post? No, I do not need a time out. What has been directed at me these past few days is retaliatory, and while I recognize that, I do not have to accept it, put up with it, or reward it. Happy to review any issues you'd like to review. But suggesting I cool down after I have already done so misses the point. I call it like I see it, too.

More power to you.

A related question: does "laleo" make a difference? Wierwille taught that "laleo" means speaking without reference to the words that are spoken. That definition simply does not hold water, Biblically. Any concordance will give you a list of verses in which that word or related words are used. You will find that if you tried to apply Wierwille's definition across the board, you will very quickly be baffled. It doesn't fit. In fact, Wierwille's blunder on laleo was one of the Actual Errors from the old PFAL thread. Laleo is the word used most often in connection with SIT. The word used in I Corinthians 14:9 is NOT laleo, but dote, which means to give. If "utter by the tongue" in THAT verse equals "speak in tongues" in the surrounding verses, then the Bible clearly indicates that speaking in tongues can, in some instances, be understood by those present. I don't feel strongly enough about it to make that bold an assertion, but I hold that it is very possible. With no explicit reason to believe that IS what Paul is saying, and no explanation for why a change in the terminology showed up out of the blue, I have little choice but to stand by the explanation I gave above. Going to continue looking at the verse and those particular words to see if I learn more.

That word was never accurate and never appropriate to this discussion. It was beneath you and remains so. It was namecalling whether I posted an answer or not. It was a vile and despicable act of taunting and bullying, and that you continued to do so even after this was pointed out to you was reprehensible. So, with respect, go ahead and keep calling me whatever you want, because your opinion means nothing to me. Gonna stop calling me a hater. Like he's doing me a favor. Puh-leease.

Can you make it downloadable? I'd like to send it to a linguist in an e-mail.

I made numerous attempts, all of which were ignored, to direct the doctrinal assumption behind my assertion about modern SIT to this thread, which is properly placed in the doctrinal forum. Although I did lay out my reasoning in the other thread, I am laying it out here in greater detail for anyone who chooses to look for it. I think it's a fair question. What are tongues in the Bible? To begin with, I'm going to set the verses in I Corinthians 12-14 aside. Saving them for last, as it were. The word "glossa" appears in the following verses: Mark 7:33 [refers to the physical organ] Mark 7:35 [refers to the physical organ] Mark 16:17 [considered by many scholars to be a fraudulent insertion into the original gospel of Mark, those who accept it as canonical agree that "new tongues" is a reference to existing languages new to the speaker, not to the planet]. Two uses in Luke refer to the physical organ. Acts 2:3 [the word appears as a physical description of the fire that appeared on the heads of the apostles. Has nothing to do with speaking or language]. Acts 2:4 [the context clearly states that the "other tongues" were known, human languages. Unless the Mark 16 verse is accepted, this is the first use in the New Testament of tongues as a language, and it is specifically in reference to the manifestation of speaking in tongues]. Acts 2:11 [this verifies that the tongues in v. 4 are real, human languages]. Acts 2:21 [a metaphorical reference to the actual tongue, where the tongue is put for the speech of the speaker. Good news made him happy and he said so]. Acts 10:46 [a reference to the manifestation. No reason to assume it's referring to anything other than a human language, whether or not those present understood the utterance. Peter is present at this incident and surmises it to be the same as what he experienced in Acts 2, which was known human languages. How did he know? Either he understood it (not likely), or the same God who gave Him profound revelation to get him to this location in the first place revealed it to him]. Acts 19:6 [Again, the manifestation, and again, no reason to believe the meaning of tongues changed for the writer, Luke, who for no reason failed to tell us about the change. It's a human language, regardless of whether anyone around understood]. Romans 3:13 [physical organ] Romans 14:11 [likely a metaphorical reference to the physical organ, with the tongue put for the person speaking. Every knee shall bow + every tongue shall confess = God will be honored in the deeds and words of those of whom He is speaking]. Skipping I Corinthians... Philippians 2:11 [same as Romans 14:11] Five references in James, all dealing with the physical organ, literally or metaphorically. I Peter 3:10 [metaphorical reference to the physical tongue]. I John 3:18 [tongue is put for the words of the speaker: not a reference to language, but speech]. Revelation 5:9 [human languages] Revelation 7:9 [human languages] Revelation 10:11 [human languages] Revelation 11:9 [human languages] Revelation 13:7 [human languages] Revelation 14:6 [human languages] Revelation 16:10 [physical organ] Revelation 17:15 [human languages] It should be noted that the in the references in Revelation, the languages stand in for the people who speak them. But the underlying reality of human language is rather rightly taken as a given. So we see, then, that outside of I Corinthians 12-14, tongues has two meanings: the physical organ, either literally or metaphorically, or human languages. In no verse is there even a hint that tongues might be referring to something else. Let's look at one other verse, since it has come up in conversation: Romans 8: 26-27 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. I'm going to ignore the argument over whether to interpret this verse under a Trinitarian framework or a Biblical Unitarian view, because it's not particularly relevant. Is this verse speaking about SIT? I'm pretty sure it is. Not 100 percent, but SIT makes perfect sense as the subject matter to me. What does "groanings which cannot be uttered" mean? Does it mean sounds that are not a human language? I highly doubt that was the intent of the writer (or the Author). After all, if the sounds are not a human language, then the infirmity is not just ours, but the Sspirit's as well! I believe the clearest explanation for this verse, the one most in line with what the Bible teaches, is that the infirmity is the believer's, and it is the believers who find it impossible to put their "groanings" into words. The spirit has no trouble with this, and SIT, if applied here, corrects our infirmity. In light of the clear verses identifying SIT as producing human languages, this view makes the most sense to me. This verse does not change SIT from a language to a linguistically meaningless utterance. It changes our inability to express ourselves in words to an ability to express ourselves in words through the Sspirit's intervention. So let's move back to I Corinthians. I Corinthians 12:10 [kinds of tongues/interpretation of tongues: still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages, consistent with every other verse in the Bible in which this word does not refer literally or metaphorically to the physical organ]. I Cor. 12:28 [diversities of tongues: still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages] I Cor. 12:30 [still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages. It's the same manifestation and there's nothing in the text to signify a change of meaning]. I Cor. 13: 1 [tongues of men and angels: tongues of men is presented as normal, tongues of angels as a hyperbole. Tongues is still languages here. Is "tongues of angels" literal and not hyperbole? I think not, but honest Christians disagree. So be it. I still think it's a huge stretch to suggest that somewhere between Acts and Corinthians, tongues of angels became the norm. The apparent tone of the discourse Paul is in the middle of strongly suggests tongues of angels is, in fact, hyperbole. It's also being put down in comparative value to love]. I Cor. 13:8 [A reference to the manifestation, which produces human languages unless you take tongues of angels to be both literal and the norm, neither of which seems justified by the context]. I Cor. 14:2 [The word unknown is not in the text. The person doing it is speaking to God, not men, IN A LANGUAGE the speaker does not know. It's still a tongue, and the meaning of that word has not changed. That "no man understands" is to be expected in an ordinary worship setting, which is the context of this verse. This says nothing about any other setting. It does not bar anyone from understanding in any setting. It is merely describing the normative, worship experience. It has no bearing on the language produced; only on the extreme unlikelihood of anyone in a worship setting understanding it. What is produced is still a human language]. I Cor. 14:4 [still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages] I Cor. 14:5 [twice: still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages] I Cor. 14:6 [still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages] I Cor. 14:9 [this appears NOT to be a reference to the manifestation, but a reference to speaking in a known language with the understanding. The tongue here is either a metaphorical reference to the physical organ or a reference to a known language itself. If the former is true, it affects neither my position nor those who disagree with me. If the latter is true, we have an explicit statement of what I've been taking as a given: tongues are languages, period. Alas, I think the former explanation makes the most sense. In context, however, I think the use of that word here indicates that tongues are simply languages, and there's nothing complicated about it]. Nine more references in I Cor. 14. In all of them, they are talking about the manifestation, the same manifestation described in Acts, which produced human languages and never, not once, indicated that something else was being produced. There is ZERO evidence that SIT produces anything other than a human language, UNLESS one takes I Cor. 13:1 literally and ignores the rather obvious hyperbole Paul is employing. He did not claim to speak in the tongues of angels, or even that there IS such a thing. He merely says IF HE DID, it would still not be as valuable to him as love. That SIT is tongues of men is a given. It's tongues of men in every other Biblical usage that does not refer, literally or figuratively, to the physical organ. The original writer and readers of Paul's letter would have been utterly baffled by the assertion that they were doing anything other than producing human languages. It runs counter to every other use of that word in the Word. It is, as I have called it, a retrofit designed to explain why people who SIT today are NOT producing languages. Suddenly, 2,000 years later, the Bible isn't promising human languages. Sorry, I don't buy it. That's my doctrinal position. If you disagree with it, there is no need to argue with me on the conclusions I draw from it. We're simply not going to agree, and that's that.

Any person on any thread has the right to choose which posts and posters to respond to. I am excluding certain posts and posters from future responses based on my dissatisfaction with how previous encounters were handled. I've made my practical case and explained its doctrinal foundation, but this thread is not about the doctrinal argument. It presumes a doctrinal foundation, and if you want to debate that foundation, I would suggest the doctrinal forum is the place to do that. If you'd like to raise your questions here, I can't stop you. But I have no obligation to answer it, here or anywhere else, especially after I have already done so. That my answers have not satisfied some people is their problem, not mine.

Go right ahead! I have no doubt what you will find, but if you prove me wrong, you can settle this once and for all.

As a researcher, I would reject the submission as being tainted by this argument. But do what you will. If it comes back "not a language," it will surprise no one and change no minds. If it comes back a language, I'd be proved wrong, plain and simple.

Modern SIT began in the same pseudo-spiritual, paranoid, gullible atmosphere that brought widespread belief in the power of the occult. This was an age in which supposed mediums and spiritists and the like flourished, even though a great many of them were later debunked. This was an age in which supposed photographs of real-honest-to-goodness fairies gained notoriety, when a trio of sisters faked an ability to communicate with the dead and were passionately defended by spiritists and excoriated by Christianity -- with the affirmation and condemnation continuing even after one of them revealed the hoax and explained exactly how it was done. Many of these hucksters were exposed as frauds. Harry Houdini was adept at pointing out the fraud and died without ever seeing a paranormal experience he could call genuine. Fraud was rampant. It was in this era of our history that the modern practice of SIT emerged, the "genuine" "Christian" alternative to these Satanic "displays" of "power" (most of which were explicitly proved fraudulent). It was believed (based on sound scriptural expectations) that what was produced was actually a language. So firm was this belief that the people who produced SIT went out to become missionaries in the countries whose languages they were convinced (based on WHAT?) they were producing. Didn't work out too well for them. So they switched gears and started calling it a spiritual language. Make a provable claim unprovable, and who could discredit it? If I claimed to heal by the power of God, you would demand evidence of healing. If I claimed to work miracles by the power of God, you would demand evidence of miracles. If I claimed I could walk on water by the power of God, you would demand to see me walk on water. You claim to produce a language by the power of God. "No man understands" in the Bible is set in the context of a typical worship meeting, not a blanket prohibition against inquiry. OldSkool is right: the Bible tells us to prove the spirits (inspired utterances, in some translations). It cannot be against His will to do exactly what He asks us to do. SIT is a testable claim. The Bible sets the expectation. SIT fails to meet it. It is not the practice the Bible describes. Either the Bible is wrong or the modern practice is wrong. I know which proposition gets my vote.

One of the mistakes researchers like Goodman made was connecting glossolalia itself with the aberrant behavior that accompanied it in certain religious circles. Samarin deserves a lot of credit, I think, for cutting through that so-called connection early in his study of glossolalia. Although he didn't use the specific terms, he recognized that correlation does not equal causation, and called other researchers on their failure to note the difference.

There's no question that I have been rude and I have been called on it. Of late, I have tried mightily to cut that out, and I am well aware that I am being closely watched in that regard. I have done my best to restrict my criticisms to arguments and positions, not to people. If people take those criticisms and apply them to themselves instead of their arguments, that's their business and not my problem. Your positions and arguments are fair game, as are mine. I explained my position using scripture and its context to back it up. People are free to disagree with that and free to discuss that. I will not entertain it here any longer. Complaining that this thread is doctrinal when it is not, that it belongs in Soap Opera when it does not, and then fulfilling that prophecy by namecalling and non-productive posts or insisting on a doctrinal discussion and continuing to bicker over the same issues as though they were never addressed, is not something I need to feed into. Taunting me for refusing to engage your "logic" will be unproductive. You're wasting your breath. I'm not even reading your posts anymore.

Feel free. If you're on topic, I may even respond. But I've entertained the doctrinal digression long enough. It's not my fault people want to ignore their own threads.

Keeping a thread on topic and directing a doctrinal discussion to the doctrinal forum is not stifling conversation, cman. I am sorry my view of scripture is not accepted by everyone, but that is a doctrinal discussion and it's not my fault that people decide to ignore their very own threads and instead insist on having doctrinal debates in a non-doctrinal thread. This thread assumes a doctrinal position and proceeds from there. If you want to debate the doctrinal assumption, and you started a thread in doctrinal to have such a debate, I recommend holding the doctrinal discussion there and request that you stop trying to derail this thread. CMan, I am not calling anyone names. I have characterized a particular conversation with a particular poster as fruitless, and have explained why I came to that conclusion. No namecalling here. No rules violation here. Nice try. OldSkool, I agree with you wholeheartedly. There's a difference between demanding from God a promise he doesn't give and proving MAN's CLAIMS by holding MAN's CLAIMS to a Biblical standard, which is all I have done on this thread.

I've already discredited your argument scripturally. You act as though I have not. Then, proceeding from that assumption, you draw conclusions based on your misinterpretation of scripture. Nothing obliges me to entertain that. I have still not received an apology from you for your unspeakable rudeness the other day. I vowed to stop engaging you, and clearly should have kept to my word. So if you don't mind (or even if you do), I'm going to go back to ignoring you. Not because I'm avoiding your "logic," but because arguing with you has repeatedly proven to be fruitless. When I refute your "logic," you simply declare that I haven't and barrel your way through the discussion anyway. I have no obligation to address that. I've changed minds. You have not. That alone should tell you who's making the stronger logical argument. Good day.

LOL. Nice. So expecting God to be faithful to His Word is tempting God. Ok. Whatever you say. Our disagreement is doctrinal. Kindly take your argument there.

Aside from not being part of the Ten Commandments (seriously, do you just make stuff up and hope no one will notice?) "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" is a rebuke against Israel for demanding a miracle from God that He had not promised. To apply it to SIT is to say we should not expect God to be faithful to His promise, which is quite a different proposition. You may not expect God to live up to His Word, but when you claim to be doing what His Word says, I expect His Word's results. Modern SIT doesn't pass this test. On this basis, I doubt the modern practice, not the Scripture.