Raf

Important to recall that the Bible addresses Speaking in Tongues, which are languages. If it mentioned speaking in languagishes, you might have a stronger point. The simple fact that these are not languages is being overlooked in the hopes of extracting enough value from the minutiae to get Samarin to somehow report the exact opposite of what he concludes. Samarin states it explicitly the way you claim he does not!

Sure. Let me just note that it is impossible for Sherrill to have quoted Samarin as you describe, considering Sherrill published 7 years before Samarin. So clearly and unambiguously, you are mistaken. You're thinking of Landry quoting Malony and Lovelin, who in turn quote Samarin. Samarin is polite enough to note the distinction between gibberish and glossolalia insofar as glossolalia contains characteristics of language which are superficial and which Samarin attributes to human ingenuity, not actual language features. I submit it would be unfair to hold that as evidence this really is a language, considering he has already ruled it out as language before getting to a description of what it is. In other words, the examination of a counterfeit $2 bill and its resemblance to real money may be instructive for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't make it real money.

You are correct, sir

Yes, sir

"You're 5 foot nothin', 100 and nothin', and you have barely a speck of athletic ability. And you hung in there with the best college football players in the land for 2 years. And you're gonna walk outta here with a degree from the University of Notre Dame. In this life, you don't have to prove nothin' to nobody but yourself. And after what you've gone through, if you haven't done that by now, it ain't gonna never happen."

The hiring of a new drummer brings flash-in-the-pan success to a music group struggling with race relations in the neighborhood surrounding a Brooklyn pizzeria

Interesting anecdote from a fairly well-known Christian whose disillusionment with SIT did not shake his faith in the Bible one whit. http://formercharismatic.blogspot.com/2008/02/rc-sproul-my-involvement-in-charismatic.html "I began to see that anyone who is uninhibited enough can utter unintelligible sounds while in a posture of prayer. I don't doubt anyone's experience of praying in such a fashion, but I am concerned it is not a supernatural event and is not the same as what was experienced in the early church." Turns out he writes a LOT. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_6?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=sproul+r.c&sprefix=Sproul%2Caps%2C232

Wow. I did mention at the outset that articles (The and A) didn't have to count as words for the purpose of this thread, so while you are correct that you used a two-word link, it's still in keeping with the original thread rules. ;) Anyway, I'll come up with something in a bit.

Just having a little fun with your sunglasses reference. I know what you meant.

You haven't met anyone who can. Snide comments are a poor substitute for reasoned discussion. But whatever floats your boat, as they say.

Looking at it as cynically as possible (and this may be going too far even for me), imagine this: How far can I push "my people." Would they be willing to lie to themselves and each other about something as deeply personal as the most secret and private part of their prayer lives? Because if I can get them to do THAT, I can get them to do ANYTHING. Sinister, right? Knowing what we now know about VPW, do you put it past him? [That, of course, has no bearing at all on SIT outside TWI. But in my most cynical, I can't rule it out within TWI]. As far as striking TWI in the backbone of its doctrine, what can I say? They struck us in the backbone of our private prayer lives. I say we still owe them a few strikes.

Ocean's Eleven

I had another one of those moments where I drafted a lengthy exposition and realized just before posting that I wasn't saying anything new. I believe promoting free vocalization and pretending it was genuine, Biblical SIT was indeed in TWI's best interest. They used it to lord their superiority over us. It wasn't the only thing. Just another weapon in their arsenal. To this day, I would imagine there are some unwilling to leave TWI because TWI taught them "the Word" and proved it in a way no one else could by leading them into SIT. How hard is it to just leave that? I know, THAT doesn't apply to everyone. And, of course, it assumes I'm correct. I think the people at the top have always known it's a crock.

Mostly guessing: Mom and Dad Save the World According to Garp

I have reservations about Goodman on a couple of fronts, not having examined her work in the same detail as we've been privileged to review Samarin and Poythress. It seems to me that she draws linguistic conclusions in a psychological study. I'm not sure of her qualifications to do so. Not saying she's wrong: in fact, I think she's right. But I can't rely on her because I cannot retrace her steps with the limited information I have. There are psychological conclusions she draws that I think give a clear indication that she did not observe SIT in the kinds of settings with which we are all familiar. She talks of altered mental states and "trances" as though they are the norm or even necessary to the tongues speaker. We know otherwise, firsthand. Like my observations on Sherrill, these observations are based on a severely limited exposure to Goodman's work. My questions and doubts are enough to limit my reliance on her findings, as much as I agree with them on the details relevant to this thread.

Back to a computer and an ability to review Chockfull's post in a little more depth: We agree that this is a doctrinal problem. Your question has two "if" clauses, one of which we can address. IF you can do everything Paul and the Bible instructs regarding SIT... What if you can't? That knocks down the premise of your question, invalidating the conclusion. So if I'm right that all modern SIT is unbiblical (that is, it's not producing the same result and therefore cannot be the same thing) it is plausible to suggest we've all been mistaken on the pivotal question of "what is available?" I know that's a Wierwillian question, but it's a good one that stands up to reason. What if SIT today is not available and we've all been erroneously led to believe that it is? There is a widespread, mainstream interpretation known as cessationist theory that holds exactly that position. If that position is correct, it explains why I am right (presuming I am, which you obviously don't). A deeper question. I believe you can still trust scripture while questioning the validity of your interpretation of scripture. Again, cessationist theory may be your Biblical answer. I keep bringing that up, so let me be clear: I am not advocating cessationism. I am merely pointing out that it is out there as a plausible Biblical view that we've all dismissed as a matter of course. Are you at least open to the possibility that it may be the Biblically correct view? Again, a doctrinal question, as you correctly label it. Well, the key difference is that Peter and the others spoke real languages and modern SITters are not (if I'm right). So that's a pretty big distinction to overlook. I can only answer half of it: you're not producing saltwater. You're producing sweet water. Where do you find salt? Is there salt to find? I do not know. But my inability to answer that question does not make your sweet water salty. (Again, this response presumes I'm right, which you do not). Again, deep questions that have no direct bearing on the question we're considering. The fact (assuming it's a fact) that I'm wrong about my interpretation of one section or subject of scripture need not call into question my understanding or acceptance of other sections of scripture. Many people here used to believe Jesus is God. Just about all of us turned away from that belief. Some of us have gone back to that belief. If you can vacillate on the person of Jesus Christ, the central question of Christianity, and not lose faith in the Bible as a whole, why is it so much more difficult to vacillate on the question of SIT without casting the entirety of scripture into doubt? Previously addressed: I am unsure of the basis of your claim. I'll look for it, but I don't think Samarin's work says what you say it says. I could be wrong, but the last time I tried to check that claim, it led me to Sherrill and not Samarin. And my jury is out on Sherrill (to put it politely and give him benefit of consideration). This article, while one-sided in my view, does show that the finding of SIT not producing a language is not limited to Samarin. I'm not asking you to accept the findings of this article as a whole. I'm presenting it strictly for the purpose of showing Samarin is far from alone: http://charlesdailey.net/TonguesHolton.html In contrast, I have yet to see a named linguist identify a language produced by SIT. Still waiting for that. On your post addressed to Geisha, I agree with you that Moore's analysis of interpretation is flawed because it relies on a definition of interpretation that is inconsistent with our understanding of how that manifestation operates. At best, he can say that he has discredited the most commonly held view of interpretation (our view is not the most commonly held: we are vastly outnumbered in that regard). But the people who hold that view and who practice interpretation that way are most certainly sincere and hungry to do the things of God to the best of their ability and will all the fervor of their faith. As Wierwille would put it (correctly), their sincerity is no guarantee for truth. Clearly, if five people were tested and all five gave different interpretations, at least four were lying (or, more charitably, incorrect. Or even more charitably, prophesying). As noted earlier on this thread, there is no conceivable way to test prophecy or interpretation in itself. The best we can say is that if SIT is fake, so is interpretation. But that doesn't prevent interpretation from being prophecy in disguise. The premise is quite untestable. Thanks for permitting me such a lengthy response.

Chockfull asks a series of probing questions about the doctrinal implications of all modern SIT being false. Does it mean the Bible is not reliable? Does it mean God is a respecter of persons? I submit that those questions, valid though they may be, have no bearing on the validity of modern SIT. Modern SIT is valid or invalid strictly on its merits. Does it produce what the Bible describes? If not, you have just cause to question whether what you are doing is Biblical. What does the Bible describe? That is a fair and necessary question to answer that has a direct bearing on our ability to determine whether modern SIT is even testable, much less verifiable or disprovable. But the questions Chockfull raises have no bearing. They're important for different reasons, but no matter what their answers are, they will not make modern SIT any more false or true.

Chockfull, you keep mentioning that Samarin uses linguists who don't draw the same conclusion he does. On what are you basing that statement? The last time we tried to track that down, it led us to Sherrill. I do not see in Samarin the ambiguity you are suggesting among his peers. Seems the only linguists I've read about who disagree with Samarin are those whose talents were employed by Sherrill. Conveniently, we do not have the luxury of their names or their firsthand observation. They come to us anonymous and second hand from an evangelical SIT promoter. That doesn't make it wrong, but it raises my suspicion.

Rapture David Duchovny Evolution

Did you deliberately mean to speak in tongues because it was in the Bible? Why doubt that you succeeded? Were you just goofing around making up a phony language? It was free vocalization. Personally, I don't think there's a difference. But I'm not going to make that connection for you. Between you and God.

And.... checking in on our poll, the "I lied about its" are even with the "It's real and I've done its." I wonder if anyone, after going through this thread, would change their vote.

I've only been glancing at Chockfull's ongoing dispute with geisha on the various threads, so forgive me if this has been covered. Chockfull, I think it might be possible that you might maybe be giving the concept of hyperbole a bit of short shrift in explaining the statement "I would that you all spoke in tongues." (Did I couch that enough?) I think Paul is very clearly expressing reproof over the abuse of tongues in this congregation. When he says "I would that you all spoke in tongues," he could be expressing a literal desire without expressing a realistic possibility. "I would that you all spoke in tongues, won the lottery and married the hottie next door." It doesn't mean everyone can or will. And it certainly doesn't mean that in the context of a gathering of the church (but you knew that). It means he wishes everyone could. Wierwille made (what I think was) the mistake of suggesting that "I" was a reference to God, not Paul. If it's God saying He wants us all to speak in tongues, then the mandate is pretty clear. But if it's Paul, then it's not a mandate. It's wishful thinking. Just a thought. I'm not sure it holds water. It strikes me that you had a group of people where everyone wanted to stand out as special, and Paul seems to be discouraging this. I don't think he's forbidding tongues, obviously. The last verse in ch. 14 seems pretty clear on that point. But I don't think "I would that you all spoke in tongues" is a doctrinal statement that compels the interpretation that all believers can. Other verses might make that point, but I'm not sure this one does. Anyway, I offer the preceding as a thought, not a doctrine and not even a formed belief on my part.

I found a copy of Malony and Lovekin's book at my local library. Didn't check it out. No Samarin and no Sherrill, unfortunately. Samarin has a book called "Tongues of Men and Angels" that I'd love to get my hands on. Sherrill has a book called "They Speak with Other Tongues" that I am not willing to spend a red cent on. But I would have checked either out.

I think it's Earth and not World, and I think you're correct.