Raf

The more I understand Poythress, the more latitude I give him in his presentation. His paper is not a study in the same way Samarin's is. He's reviewing studies and presenting pastoral/theological implications. In that sense, he is being exceedingly fair and open-minded. Excessively fair, in my view, but I'm looking at the findings, not the theology. You need to recall that I had not fully read any of these before I shared them on this thread. Only through studying have we understood exactly who was saying what, and on what basis to consider it. If Poythress (who is a linguist, if I am not mistaken) were writing in his capacity AS a linguist, the things he said would be indefensible. But because he us writing as a theologian to the church, his decision to be non judgmental has to be appreciated on its own terms. I think if you pinned him down and separated the linguist from the pastor, you would see two starkly contracting conclusions.

Oh, it doesn't? Whew!

Nicely put, WW, although Chockfull has cause to dispute your analysis of the situation as applied to HIS experience. Nonetheless, you reach the correct destination. It is indeed fairly easy to break my hypothesis into segments and investigate it a piece at a time. Am I justified in throwing all SIT under the bus. Would I be justified if I exempted Pentecostal or other Christian groups from the accusation of fakery? Would it be justifiable if I only exempted TWI, CES, or some other group's practice? Or am I 100% wrong, and the only thing I can prove is that some people do indeed fake it. The premise of this thread is multilayered. It assumes there was fakery, perhaps even lots of it. I don't think anyone is arguing that point. But the poll question opens a lot of layers. All but one of the responses can be seen as a hypothesis that is subject to testing. The first, second and third have, to my satisfaction, all been disproved (which is not to say that all SIT is false, but only that if we assume it is true, it's fairly plain no one seems to have a very firm grasp on it that stands up to analysis. Best we can say is SIT is possible. The final response not only has not been proved, but cannot be. It is, in my opinion, the most in line with the observable evidence. There is a Biblical proposition that fits what the evidence shows us, but there seems to be little willingness on anyone's part to entertain that Biblical interpretation. (But I'm the proud one).

The notion that God is not cooperating may explain why linguists don't find a language, but it bolsters my argument in another, objective way. I've indicated it before, but let's get explicit about it. If God is not cooperating, then: 1. Everyone who participated, lied DURING the time observed by the experiment 2. Did not appear to realize they were lying, which teaches us that 3. There is no way for even the person SITting to tell fakery from the real thing as an experience. In effect, this would prove that it's possible to fake SIT without knowing it. We establish that the sincerity of the person claiming the experience is insufficient to establish that the experience is genuine. If God IS cooperating, we should see languages. We don't. So whether or not God cooperates, my position appears bolstered.

I actually got it the first time. Wes Craven's New Nightmare on Elm Street

When it comes to the studies, I believe that is all we have been doing in the first place, which is why I find it so amusing/frustrating that we're poring over it to look for how closely it resembles language. Ink on a counterfeit bill. If I'm right, every subject is faking it. If you're right, God is not energizing it and therefore everyone is faking it.

Tom in Doctrinal. I link to it in the reading room. Anyone know how to get a crying baby to sleep?

Correct. Glad you found it for yourself rather than stopping at def. 2 and declaring all empirical research to be my opinion.

Seriously? If SIT is not an empirical claim, nothing is. Please. I've been saying this all along. If Biblical SIT is not an empirical claim, why are we looking at studies for evidence of languages?

I promised my last post on the UFO comparison would BE my last post on that comparison, and i shall stick to my word.

Once you make an empirical claim, which SIT is, you forfeit the right to hide behind faith as an excuse for why the empirical claim does not produce what it claims to produce. I do not believe I am the one doing the fearmongering here. I say you can reject modern SIT and continue to embrace Christ. You're implying that once you do, you open the door to rejecting Christ, the new birth, the resurrection and God. Yet millions of Christians reject SIT while embracing Christ. All I'm saying.

Oh for petes sake... Chris Evans Fantastic Four Jessica Alba. There. It's not cheating anymore. Have at it!

Yes, but a certain other never-dying thread hasn't been heard from in years, so...

It need not be a slippery slope is what I'm saying. Slippery slope is another logical fallacy.

Sorry to be so blunt, but constantly bringing up doubts about the resurrection or the new birth or the existence of God is just another logical fallacy that stops people from engaging in self reflection for fear that it will get them to question God and Christ himself (or themselves: pick the theology you hold. Doesn't matter for the purpose of this discussion).

Ok, look, last time I'm going to say this. The first person accounts of people who claim to have been abducted by UFOs vastly outnumbers those who claim a true blue SIT "I heard someone else who heard someone else and recognized the language and understood it in my presence" experience. If their sincerity requires that I believe them, and they have no burden to prove their claims, then I have no more reason to reject the UFO abductions as I have to reject the fantastical tongues claims. I reject them both on the same basis. If that bothers you on a faith level, I'm sorry. It shouldn't. There are oodles of Christians who are unsatisfied with the used car salesman "you're just gonna hafta trust me on this: looks, feels, sounds and produces the same result as a phony, but take my word for it; it's real" con job posited by the modern SIT movement. This doesn't even compare to the resurrection or the new birth. The Bible describes something specific and clear. Modern SIT twists and distorts the obvious meaning of the text for the sole purpose of covering up the fact that it doesn't produce what the Bible says it should. No, I have not proved my case that it's all a lie. But more importantly, modern tongues, unsubstantiated anecdotes not withstanding, hasn't proven a single case to be true. At the very least, if we can return to the original point of this thread, fakery was widespread, and anyone who did fake it should know that it's liberating to come clean. You may have fooled quite a few people, but you never fooled to one who mattered most. I would that ye all came clean. I'd also like a pony and a winning lottery ticket.

Impreszions as they come. First up, I don't quite see the pount you're making in regards to Samarin and non Christian free vocalization. It was Poythress who said they were linguistically indistinguishable. Where did I ever make a big deal, or even a little deal, of Samarin and non Christians?

Aaaaaaaack! Make it stop! Make it stop!!!! An. Absolute. Crock. Of. Shiite.

Ok, but I suspect I will want to keep samarin's book in the end...

We have no accounts where people experienced that they were known languages. We have two accounts where people experienced that other people claimed they were known languages. But we do not know who or where these other people are. With respect to the people telling the stories, the stories themselves are unverifiable. UFO abduction accounts have greater frequency, greater identification of primary sources, and just as much verifiable credibility. You can keep citing these stories as proof, but I am on more solid ground rejecting them than you are trying to shove them back into the conversation as evidence or proof. It just ain't. If you refuse to believe Landry was a college kid at the time he wrote his piece, nothing I tell you will suffice as proof. He was. I arrived at the conclusion by comparing his resume to the date on the paper. I know, that's not enough proof for you. Because nothing is. My comment is not an attack on Landry. It is an observation that we have a quote of a quote coming to us from a person whose credibility as a researcher and presenter of research is not established. Those are facts, not opinions. I prefer to cut Landry out of it entirely and look at what Malony and Lovekin say directly.

That is not the only basis on which he rules out glossa as language. Please clarify this statement. What were the firsthand accounts, and what did they illustrate. Illustrating a point and proving it are two different things. There's no inconsistency in applying different standards to them. Madame Tussaud has a collection of figures resembling famous people. That doesn't make it them. Vincent Price, on the other hand...

First question is easy. We all agree on it. SIT is not intended to be something I say and you understand. It CAN be, but not as a rule. Second question: he's accusing me of being inconsistent. I'm a little unclear how. Elaboration please, chockfull? Third question: Denial.

Ok, put up. Please, point me to these other published papers, which started out as Samarin's own linguists (false) became other linguists criticizing Samarin (false) and are now just other authors/writers. Document your claim, please.

Nope. Read the thread. I reached my opinion before I knew who Samarin was. I'm just asking people to be honest. I only provided linguistic sources because I alluded to them and was asked to supply them. It was never my intention to get into this aspect of the debate. To me, the conversation ends with "these are not known languages." Going into detail about what they are is examining the ink on counterfeit money. Have a good time, but no amount of study will suddenly turn it into real money. I agree with you, but as he will not, he is in the right in terms of logical discourse. I am compelled to answer on the terms of the discussion. I think we've passed the border and are now undocumented immigrants.

That's quite a leap of logic. "He found languages he did not know" is an affirmative statement that requires the person making the claim to identify the languages. It is a hypothesis, not a conclusion. And the evidence does not back it up. You keep referring to Socks and Tom as providing firsthand accounts. At best, their accounts are second hand. They were not the speakers. They were not the understanders. So the best they could tell you firsthand is that the claim was made in front of them. And I can give you 10 times as many people who claim to have been abducted by UFOs. Big whoop. It's useless as proof. You believe it because you want to. I don't believe it because it's not verified in any meaningful way. You can keep repeating it, but that doesn't elevate it to proof. I get what you're saying about the 5 elements. The problem you still run into is the other elements. Let's take the first item on the list as an example: "vocal auditory channel." It's seen and it's heard. Well, hell, gibberish fits THAT definition. Lots of sneezing and burping fits that definition. Look at number 5: Complete feedback. The speaker hears himself speaking. Again, every case of made up gibberish fits that bill. In fact, when you look at the five elements that SIT does NOT fit and compare it to the ones it DOES fit, an important factor emerges: SIT fits every element that can be reproduced by fakery/free vocalization and none of the elements that cannot. Now, I have to admit, I do not know why Samarin found it necessary to run glossolalia past Hockett's design-features of language. I agree with you; it does not make sense given the nature of glossolalia in the first place. This list seems to be a way of differentiating gorilla grunts from human dialogue, so to speak. It makes no sense here. This could be our lack of understanding of a conversation that's way above our heads. It could be an errant detour of the nature of what we see in Felicitas Goodman (who makes sound linguistic observations but questionable psychological ones). Or it could be something that Samarin details in his later books. Interesting to note that Samarin calls his own application of Hockett's list "superficial" (see top of page 66). But that doesn't make glossolalia language. "It fits 11 of 16 design features of language," when we see what those features are, tells us as little about them as the fact that it's missing the 5. This finding actually surprises me. I expected something more satisfying than "the whole list is misapplied to this problem." It's my belief that this list does nothing for either of our cases. It doesn't prove any relevant point in this discussion. Your thoughts?