Raf

There's no need to carry on with aspects of the conversation that have been beaten to death. Enough other people seemed interested in the doctrinal segue that has been taken, so I decided to address those questions on their own, doctrinal terms. If anyone disagrees with that, there's really nothing to debate. My argument is based on SIT producing languages. An interpretation of scripture that argues the phenomenon cannot be studied by its very nature, while not an argument that I agree with and not an argument I believe is consistent with the Bible's teaching on SIT, is also not an argument I can counter because there is no common ground there. So we part in peace. That argument is doctrinal. This thread is not. I have been grateful over the past few days to receive private e-mails from people who reflected on their experience and recognized that the behavior I described matches their own experience. They have freed themselves of the delusion that invaded their own lives, and to me, any growth that sheds dishonesty and embraces truth is a positive step. Whether I am right that it's ALL a fake or not, the reality is that many, many people faked it, more than are willing to admit it, and this thread can give them the impetus to unburden themselves of a practice that was, at least for them, completely fraudulent.

The post above this one does not reflect edits I made to the post quoted. I am responsible for any discrepancies.

I'm not sure it squelches that particular argument, OldSkool. Not disagreeing with you, just not making the same connection you are. Wierwille and today's Pentecostalism may have a common source, but the areas in which they diverge may be relevant. Or not. Who knows?

OldSkool, Yes, Samarin included Pentecostals in his research, among others.

The contention has been made, repeatedly, that I Corinthians 14:2 contains an "absolute" statement that "no man understands." Whether the verse itself applies to the speaker or the audience is irrelevant, for even if one were to concede that it applies to the audience as well as the speaker, I contend the verse itself is still in the context of the average worship service and cannot be extrapolated to cover all situations. The Biblical support for my belief as it applies to the Biblical practice has been previously cited as Acts 2, where men did understand. I agree that Acts 2 is an unusual situation in which God saw to it that the languages spoken were actually understood by those present. I Corinthians tells us that there's no guarantee this will be the case in all instances of SIT. But it does NOT say that the languages spoken will themselves be unknown by any other human. The Biblical definition of speaking in languages is self-defining: speaking in LANGUAGES. (WordWolf's recent comment on these same lines had not been posted as I was originally writing this). It bears repeating that if I Corinthians 14:2 is "absolute" in its assertion that "no man understands," that would by definition discount any modern instance in which someone present DID in fact understand. How can people understand what was spoken if "no man understands" is absolute? It is not. The fact remains that the person who speaks in languages will produce a language that CAN be understood by man, but typically is not understood in a worship setting. That is the clear reading of the verse. Contorting it to say otherwise is a retrofit: interpreting the scripture in light of our experience rather than allowing the scripture to define and predict our experience. If our experience fails to meet Biblical expectations, we should change our experience, not the scripture! The notion that "no man understands" contains a blanket prediction that others will not understand, as an absolute, is without merit both in scripture and by the defense of the modern practice. If "no man understands" is absolute, then cases where people did understand are not of God! But it's not absolute. It's in a context. And that context does not negate the testable claim that speaking in languages will produce languages. Paul never contemplated the field of linguistics. Paul knew darned well that the SIT he was writing about produced real human languages (as every other use of that word in the Bible, when not referring literally or metaphorically to the physical tongue, indicates a real language, including in I Corinthians 14:9, where the language IS spoken with the understanding: same word in the same context, but no distinction between what it produced insofar as it being a language is concerned). I continue to contend that using this verse to absolve SIT of the burden of independent examination is a cop out, one more excuse to make a testable claim untestable, one more excuse as to why the modern practice of SIT does not produce Biblically predicted results. I accept that people disagree with my position here. But I believe my position is in full keeping with the Scripture on the subject. If you disagree, our disagreement is doctrinal and the discussion belongs there. I do not believe the Bible promises an experience indistinguishable from fakery except to the faithful. I believe the Bible makes a testable assertion that modern SIT fails to meet.

Thanks. Now that we're all reminded, let us all continue on that course.

Good hint. Can't remember the name, though. Something like: Finding A Date for the End of the World. Close enough?

Part BG Leonard, part JE Stiles. Don't know their sources, other than the Bible. The GS site rules, including what's not permitted, are posted for all to see.

When it comes to the rules of this forum, everyone is told what they can and cannot say. You're no different. Neither am I.

Imagine that. Listen, cman, you are being unnecessarily confrontational and deliberately rude. I'm asking you politely to knock it off. You are obviously capable of staying on topic without making things personal. I ask that you continue on that course. Yes, I am hung up on the word language. Why that should be controversial, I have no idea. Manufactured excuses as to why language suddenly doesn't mean language anymore don't impress me as easily as they seem to impress others. If God promised to give me something that was indistinguishable from its counterfeit, I'd feel a little let down.

I keep trying to return the thread to the topic. I answered your question with an on topic response. You answered with a patronizing dismissal that did not contribute to the discussion but instead made it personal. So I ask you to please stop.

I answered a specific question that you asked about what the verse In question is saying, and I applied it to the context of this thread. No need for you to get snippy about it, cman.

I think the context is clear that neither the speaker nor the audience understands the LANGUAGE that is brought forth. I think the context is clear that the audience being spoken of is a typical worship service. I think the verse is clear that what is produced IS a language. No, it's not a major point. Rather, it's a given. Speaking in languages produces languages. The verse cannot be "absolute" and apply to all gatherings, or it would contradict Acts 2. Modern tongues speakers cannot believe it is "absolute" or applies to all gatherings, or they would be compelled to dispense with their precious anecdotes. But to believe that God confounds linguists so that they can't detect languages in glossolalia is to introduce an element of hocus pocus that is foreign to the text. The bottom line is that SIT remains, at its core, a very testable claim. If you're producing a language, then you're doing what the Word promises. If you're not, then you're doing something else. You're doing something else.

By the way, "different" kinds of tongues is not the word heteros OR allos. It's in italics. Heteros is in the term "to another," which is a reference to either the people receiving the gift or the profit of the manifestation, depending on your theology. It has nothing to do with the language.

Ah, of course. To another, diverse kinds of tongues. It's still languages, no matter how you slice it. It's different from the language of the speaker. It's not different from human language.

I don't see where heteros and allos even come into play in this discussion. Is there a verse someone is pointing to where that distinction is important?

Which words?

Cheating to move it along Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Alan Rickman Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves

Sounds logical to me. This is just another sophisticated excuse as to why the modern, phony, counterfeit practice does not produce Biblical results. Do I really need to defend the proposition that speaking in languages should result in people speaking in languages? I mean, I need to prove this? It's a tautology, for Pete's sake. Take a verse out of context and mangle it so that languages are only languages if people looking for languages aren't listening, and you haven't discredited my argument. You've disgraced your own.

If I can put on the modhat without switching ID's: Whether Rocky has a valid point or not is for skyrider to consider. Whether that point is related to this thread or not is a separate issue. So without judging the content of Rocky's post for its validity, without judging whether or not it's good advice that skyrider should heed, I think a strong case can be made that it's off-topic for this thread. No warnings, no reprimands. Just a gentle nudge back on topic, please.

Yup

Yesterday's derail notwithstanding, the purpose of this thread is to give people who did fake it an opportunity to come clean. Secondarily, it is about whether SIT does produce human languages. The question of whether it SHOULD produce human languages is doctrinal, and squabbles over the answer to that question belong in Doctrinal. This thread is about what it does produce. If you started a doctrinal thread exploring, oh, say, I Corinthians 12-14, and you demand answers to questions about that subject matter, that's the place to do it. Please keep this thread on topic.

TnO, I think Paul is speaking of the norm in I Corinthians, and not making a blanket statement that amounts to a promise. We should not be surprised in a worship setting when no one understands what's spoken in a tongue. It's probably normal that no one will be there who understands the language. But it's still a language in Corinthians. That's what "tongues" means, and in every other verse that uses that word for tongue, it either means the physical organ or a human language (the exception, I think, is tongues of fire in Acts 2, which is a figurative use to describe what the fire looked like). Never is it meaningless, or meaningful to God only. That's a retrofit. We don't produce languages today, so we force the Bible to conform with what we produce, rather than change our practice when it doesn't match the promise of God. That it's not a promise that no man will understand is self-evident: men understood in Acts. Same word: glossa. So either Paul did not know the Acts record (yeah, right), or he was not making a blanket statement in Corinthians meant to be applied in all situations. My opinion, for what it's worth. Disagree, and there's nothing to argue. ;)

I'm fine disagreeing, Socks. If that is where we disagree, we have no common ground from which to argue. I just don't see where the Bible is as "squishy" with the terminology as you are being. But I have no cause to argue it with you. Honest Christians have disagreed over far more consequential things.

You know, people disagree on the identity of God and Christ, and each side belittles the other in particular times and places. No one on either side has been subjected the the barrage of "prove its" and the less-than-expert dissection of supporting material than I have endured on this thread. I'm not whining. Just stating a fact. I can take it just fine, thankyouverymuch. And the namecalling, which I have given just as much as I've gotten, long, long ago passed the point of ridiculousness. I stopped the namecalling, but I did not stop the passion of my conviction. If you want to disagree with my position, let's go for it. I can go another 70 pages if it's an honest discussion. But today has seen nothing constructive. One juvenile taunt after another, and my call for civility was not only ignored, but mocked. The incivility was expanded beyond its original expression. [EDITED to remove reference to a deleted post]. I am sorry my position offends some people. I am. But what I'm sorry about is the level to which we were deceived by a power hungry cult eager to bore its way into the deepest, most personal aspects of our prayer lives. I am sorry that I was ever party to such a tremendous deception, one that I KNEW was a lie, but buried because I wanted to fit in. [EDITED to remove reference to a deleted post]. As for those outside TWI, what can I say? Itching ears eager to believe a lie during a time in our history when such lies were commonplace, when the only question was "which god is producing this phenomenon?" and not "is this phenomenon what it is claimed to be?" So they spoke in tongues and, convinced it was a language, went abroad to become missionaries. They got the hard lesson that the gobbledy-gook they were spewing forth was not what they claimed it to be. In this, God was not glorified. But instead of correcting themselves for speaking presumptuously, for pretending the babbling of man to be an expression of the power of God, they simply redefined the power of God to make it less awesome, less real. Now God promises to give you something indistinguishable from someone faking it. That's not what the Bible promises. But it's what we delivered. This isn't about believing God or believing scientists. It's about believing God and not believing those who pretend to bring forth His power but fail to produce the results God promises, and then mock us when we call them on the LIE. If you're not producing what He said you'll produce, then you're not doing what He wants. In this, God is not glorified. Why do I think it's going to be a language. Please. Because it's speaking in tongues, which are languages? Because every Biblical reference to that word, when it's not talking about the physical organ, is talking about human languages spoken by other people on earth? There is honest inquiry, and there is defensive posturing. We've seen both on this thread. Only one deserves serious consideration.