Raf

I believe contorting the scripture so that what's plainly a language becomes some indecipherable utterance just because someone's looking at it mangles the plain reading of the text. Plenty of words could have been used to describe speaking in tongues. The word chosen was the word for languages (also the word for the physical organ of the tongue). I don't think there's a hint of unreasonableness in expecting a modern practice that claims to be a Biblical one to produce Biblically predicted results. Sorry, socks. I think reading into SIT to make it say anything other than languages is a retrofit -- an attempt to bring the Bible into conformity with what we observe, rather than bring our practices into line with what the Bible clearly teaches.

First appearance was in The Spy Who Loved Me. The second was Moonraker, from which those quotes were lifted.

[Edited to remove reference to a deleted post] Chockfull, you will not get so much as an acknowledgment from me without an apology. Good night.

This post is deleted because it responds to a deleted post.

Agreed.

Look, if the Bible promised Babblalia, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I've already said that if we do not agree that SIT is supposed to produce a language, we have nothing to discuss. Now, 70 pages later, I have to defend the obvious? Look, if TWI promised you that when you practiced SIT it would produce linguistically meaningless prattle, you wouldn't have done it. Any schmo can produce linguistically meaningless prattle. If you think that's God, more power to you. But that's not the position I'm contesting.

No.

No. Chockfull. I have no ad hominem attack for you. I disagree with your interpretation of scripture. I am trying (and failing) not to sink into the gutter with you in making this personal. I have no ad hominem attack to level at you. Your position is what I have a problem with. The only person leveling ad hominem attacks today has been you.

I am distinguishing biblical SIT from modern SIT, which is a phony counterfeit of what's described in the Bible. For the last time, I am not challenging the Bible. Impeaching my position by making it sound like there's a conflict in my position between Acts and Corinthians is frankly unintelligent and beneath you, Chockfull. In Acts they understood the languages. In Corinthians, according to you, that's impossible. If anyone here has a discrepancy that challenges the authenticity of the Acts record, it's you, pal.

False analogy. You ripped the verse from Corinthians out of its context and are applying it to situations it is not discussing. You are as competent with the scripture as you are with the research we've been reviewing. Which is to say, not at all. Oh please. Glossa doesn't mean language now? You've spent the whole day engaged in namecalling and have the gall to accuse ME of an ad hominem attack?

Once again, the false choice arises. Here's what I believe: I believe the Bible promises a language. I do not believe the Bible says this claim will crumble upon examination. I believe the Bible says it will be normal in a worship setting for people not to understand what was spoken, but that has nothing to do with the glossa itself being a language or not. That is an independent, testable claim. If your practice is what the Bible promises, you'd be producing what the Bible promises. I am challenging the fraudulent, counterfeit practice, not the Bible. And frankly, as many times as I've had to say that TODAY ALONE, I think you've sunk to a new low in ad hominem attacks, even for this thread.

It is precisely like TWI, waysider. It clings to a verse, ignores the context, applies it to situations it has no business being applied to, and utterly ignores and avoids the fact that at the very center of this controversy is a very testable claim that fails every test because it is a fraud masquerading as a Biblical truth. I am not denying or challenging scripture. I am denying and challenging YOUR TAKE on it. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Sorry to break it to you.

I'm not bringing up the anecdotes to bolster my point. I'm bringing it up merely to point out the inconsistency in yours. You can't cite a verse promising no one will understand it and then point to anecdotes is which men understood it. You're being inconsistent. The very clear verse has a very clear context in which it is talking about what's common, not what's possible. Unless understanding of the glossa is possible, your anecdotes are worthless. So you need to make a choice. You can keep accusing me falsely of being a hater, but it is a false accusation. Have at it.

I am challenging your interpretation of that verse and definitely describing the BEHAVIOR of coming up with one excuse after another, which is a behavior. If I were namecalling, I would accuse you of qualities that result in that behavior. But I'm not. I do not hate your position or your interpretation. I disagree with it. Why do you hate cessationists? You have ripped that verse from its context (a common description of a worship setting) and used it to prove something it does not assert (that understanding the language is not humanly possible). That is not what the verse says. That is not what the verse means. I am challenging your position, not calling you names, not accusing you of poor reading comprehension. That verse is not a promise that others can't understand. If it is, all your anecdotes are herefore negated. That's a criticism of your argument. I have not called you names. I am not a hater, and you need to knock off the namecalling. Try again.

Noted for all to see who was trying to be polite and who insists on namecalling. My skin is plenty thick, thankyouverymuch. If you don't want to stop the namecalling, I'm not going to force you. I will repeat what obviously needs repeating: there is one thing I hate, and that's when a lie is presented as God's truth. When people in all sincerity believe that lie, they are not liars. They are deceived and deluded. I have sought to awaken people from that. To a lesser extent than I would have wanted, I have been somewhat successful. I reject your accusation of hate, Chockfull, not because I do not hate, but because I do not hate what you CLAIM I hate. If you want to accuse me of hating a fraudulent practice, then I will embrace the term. If you want to accuse me of hating the Bible, then you are bearing falsewitness against me. What I am hating is a fraudulent practice pretending to be Biblical but failing to deliver the goods. And all you have come up with is one excuse after another as to why the fraudulent practice doesn't deliver. I understand your passion. I understand your frustration. But that doesn't make me a hater of anything more than an exposed fraud. Go ahead, report me. Hmm. You cite a post in which I say that a logical fallacy was invoked (it was) and mocked the fallacy (not the person making it). That's not hate, my friend. Sorry. Try again.

"Haters" does not describe behavior. It describes people and is namecalling. If I am hating anything, it is a fraud. I have restricted my criticisms to arguments, positions and practices. I have ceased directing them at people. Calling people haters is, at this point, deliberately crossing a line. I am more than happy to subject my reasoning here to the judgment of the other mods. Report my posts if you think they cross the line. I'm not reporting yours. I am politely asking you to stick to the subject.

No, I have tried very hard to confine my statements and criticisms to the practice. You are directing namecalling at people. There's a vast difference. You should be able to recognize it. I am asking politely. Haters crosses the line. You really ought to reconsider. I am not asking you to go back to every post throughout the thread, nor do I think you seriously expect me to do likewise. If something I've written in the last few days strikes you as personal in nature and not directed at an argument, position or practice, I will gladly remove it and apologize. Calling people "haters" should be out of bounds. I hate nothing more than a counterfeit masked as a Biblical promise. Your court.

I am going to respectfully request that you stop using the term haters. We are in disagreement. No one is hating, and it's offensive to suggest otherwise.

Where in the Bible does it say that someone understanding SIT is a miracle? ANYTHING to make a testable claim untestable, to make an empirical claim impervious to dispassionate observation. Excuses, excuses and more excuses, and still no dragon in the garage. Let me do it this way instead: Anyone who challenges the Biblical viewpoint of cessationism is challenging the Bible itself. If you don't believe in cessationism, you don't believe God.

By the way, didn't escape my notice that we had yet another venture into the slippery slope fallacy. Predictable. In fact, would have been disappointing if it had not been cited yet again. Watch out, people! If you admit you faked speaking in tongues, you're gonna end up being a Darwinist! Ok. I'm challenging the Bible now. Not because I am, but because Chockfull said so. I'm challenging a fraudulent practice. The Bible says a language will be produced. The fraud does not produce it. Bible 1, Fraud 0.

But even assuming the verse is talking about the inability of the people in the same worship meeting to understand (a perfectly reasonable interpretation, given the context), it's a far cry from "what is produced isn't really a language and therefore no linguist will be able to detect it." Taking a common occurrence (no one understands) and making it into a rock solid promise that no one investigating SIT will ever be able to understand the language produced is FALSE. It is untrue. Such a position, by definition, INVALIDATES EVERY ANECDOTE where someone present DID understand. I reject it as an internally inconsistent property of the so-called Biblical argument. The problem is not what the Bible really says. The problem is twisting what the Bible says to come up with one more excuse as to why the fraud doesn't deliver the goods.

And to be clear: it is certainly common in Corinthians for no one at a worship meeting to understand the glossa. I'm not denying that. But to go from that clear statement to "no linguist will be able to detect a language if given the opportunity because it's not really a language in the traditional sense" is to inject a meaning into the scripture that is foreign to what is explicitly stated and promised. It's backtracking nonsense to assert that the normal expectation should be that no one will be capable of understanding the glossa. One more excuse to take an empirical claim and make it untestable. There is no dragon in your garage. You're not doing what they did in Acts or Corinthians. It's a fraud. The previous paragraph is an expression of my opinion, not of the Bible, but of the fraud we've committed in its name.

I don't need proof to believe the Bible. I need proof to believe that the counterfeit we were taught to produce is Biblical. If you think this is a challenge to the Bible, you are making a false assumption. This is not a challenge to the Bible. This is a challenge to a FRAUD, one I refuse to be a party to any longer. It is not "faith" to take the promise of God and expect it NOT to be fulfilled at every turn. So far, you have accused me of hate and questioned my reading comprehension. What else do you have in store for me today?

mmh hmm. We're critics and haters now. The verse in I Corinthians indicates that the speaker will not understand himself. It still asserts that what is spoken is a glossa, a language. Only one side in this argument is expecting the practice to hold up to the Biblical promise, and it's not the side that's still embracing the phony, counterfeit practice. I guess we're now going to point to the inability of linguists to detect a language as proof that the Biblical promise IS being kept. A dramatic turnabout from the clear promise of scripture to excuses for the failure of the counterfeit to deliver on that promise.

"Why did you break up the encounter with my pet python?" "I discovered it had a crush on me." *** "You know him?" "Not socially. His name is Jaws. He kills people."