Raf

There is a reason I ignored this, and a reason I am not the one who has been bringing up the linguistic qualities of glossalalic utterances in the first place. There's a reason I am not obsessing over just how good an approximation of real language glossolalia is. And that reason is simply stated thus: They are not human languages. We're not dealing with xenoglossy. If we were, there'd be no need to argue or discuss anything. I'd be proved wrong and we'd be done. The fact that SIT does not produce human languages is enough for me to make my point. You can try to pry all you want out of what it does produce, but you can't argue that it produces a known, human language. The best you can do is reach for a "tongues of angels" type of argument, and the best Samarin can do, on a good day, is rule that out (and I think pointing out that the tongues of angels -- that is, the glossolalia he actually studied and catalogued -- is far less sophisticated than a human language argues against the tongues of angels theory anyway). So you can revel in the linguistic qualities that DO exist, you can chide him for how he dismisses the qualities that don't exist, but what you are left with remains an utterance that is indistinguishable from uninspired, Godless free vocalization. And (I hesitate to repeat myself) if what you're producing in glossolalia is indistinguishable from what an uninspired free vocalization can produce, then the only difference is the setting in which it is produced! That's not a difference. If you're not obligated to articulate and prove the difference between free vocalization and SIT, then I'm not obligated to believe that there is one. I know, repetitious, right? But unrefuted.

I just wanted to say hello to Rosalie and congratulate her on her ascension to the top of The Way International hierarchy. Well done. As any good president knows, you would not be where you are today if not for the shoulders of the giants on which you stand, so let's give a hand to all those giants, shall we? Craig Martindale! John Lynn! Chris Geer! Vince Finnegan! Mike Tracy! Walter Cummins! Johnny Townsend! Earl Burton! Ralph Dubofsky! Let's give them all a BIG hand! Tough room.

Hey, we finally got a CES-sympathetic vote in the poll. I was wondering where those guys all disappeared to. Chockfull's latest post illustrates in a way I probably never could what I said earlier on this thread: I cannot prove my case because you won't let me, or God won't let me. I cannot prove my point because I don't have a 100 percent sample size. I cannot prove my point because even if I had a 100 percent sample size and showed every single case of SIT to produce "linguistic nonsense," you still have the "God won't let it be tested" fallback. It is your fallback position, not merely the evidence, that makes my case impossible to prove. Fine. But don't get on me for not proving my point. That would be like judging a fish on its ability to climb a tree.

Even if we were to assume the communication is to God and that man could not pick up on it, the bottom line that it is never a case of actual xenoglossia has been given short shrift on this thread. We've been poring over what the experts say about the counterfeit to determine how closely it resembles the genuine precisely because no cases of the genuine exist to study. Oh, except 40 years ago, in Alaska. Or California, sorry. And it involved Arabs. Or Asians. I keep getting it mixed up. But it's proof I tell you! Right, skyrider? I mean socks?

Ok. You forget the point of citing linguistic studies on this thread in the first place. I only alluded to them. You are the one who asked for them and then started posting snippet quotes outside of their contexts to prove they were reaching conclusions 180 degrees removed from what they were actually saying. I do understand and always have said that if God won't cooperate with the studies, we have nothing to discuss. What you cannot do is have it both ways: mine the material for proof of linguistic content in SIT, then dismiss the capacity for linguistics to even study the issue because of the non-cooperation of God. I don't care which side you pick, but you gotta pick one! If, for the sake of argument, you are going to allow for the idea that glossolalia can be studied by a linguist, then you have to allow also for the fact that the linguist may know a little more about his subject matter than you do. You don't have to accept Samarin's findings. I'm fine with that. But citing his report and disagreeing with his conclusion is rather disingenuous: you are not better qualified to interpret his findings than he was. And the fact that every named linguist who has studied the same thing has reached the same conclusion is a testament to that fact. Now, we do have unnamed linguists provided by Sherrill. But accepting their word is problematic on a number of fronts. 1. We don't know who they are. 2. We don't know that their findings are accurately reported. 3. Assuming they are credible and the reports accurate, we obliterate the notion that God won't cooperate with a study. This is a problem, because their findings appear impossible to duplicate, often a clear indication that their conclusions are flawed. [unless, of course, they studied the only known genuine samples of the real thing]. You keep getting on me for repeating myself, and I suppose that's ok. But how different is it from the opposite position, which demands acceptance on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, distorts the clear meaning of scripture to make a testable premise untestable, and retreats to "you gotta take it on faith" whenever its back is against the wall? You can repeat THAT litany as many times as you like, and it doesn't validate SIT one whit. I don't believe Socks' story. I don't believe Tom's story in doctrinal. I invite them both to prove it. But if you want me to accept that this miracle took place, you're going to have to do a little better than unnamed speakers and unnamed hearers removed from the present by 40 years and a continent or two. "I heard someone speak, who wasn't me. Someone else, who wasn't me, says they understood what was spoken. We were all amazed. I can't name any of them and couldn't find them with a detective kit and a Yahoo map." That would NOT be accepted in a court of law to establish the truth of what happened, and if we can't agree on that, then you don't know the slightest thing about the court system. The evidence for UFO abduction is just as reliable and a heck of a lot more widespread. Apologies to Socks: you didn't present your story as proof, did not ask me to accept it or judge it. I am only doing so now because someone else is faulting me for not accepting it as proof.

You and I acknowledge that, but others do not. And regardless of how we describe or define modern SIT, our concern in THIS thread is with Biblical SIT. Was Paul or was he not acknowledging and accepting the use of SIT in private prayer. I'm talking about THEN, not now. I'm talking about Corinthians, not Azuza Street. And while I could very well be wrong, I think Paul at the very least allows for SIT in private prayer. (oops: you really kind of addressed what I'm saying here. Sowwy).

One more point on Samarin and the idea of "faking it." I've been quite judgmental on the matter, but Samarin has been less so, and I think the difference ought to be clarified. Samarin finds nothing in glossolalia that cannot be attributed to human creativity, and he makes that point several times in several ways. But he never comes right out and says people who claim to SIT are faking it. The question doesn't concern him. It does concern Poythress, who goes on to say that Samarin's findings don't prove SIT is faked. Poythress allows for the genuine nature of SIT based not on the analyses, but by the possibilities that the analyses could not cover. In other words, Poythress tells us that you cannot rule out the genuine nature of SIT on purely scientific grounds because the theological grounds for continuing to believe in it may, in fact, confound the ability of science to investigate it properly and reach a conclusion. Poythress chides Samarin (not by name, but by implication) for exceeding his expertise in this regard (by attributing to human creativity that which Poythress feels may also be attributable to God). It should be abundantly clear that I don't agree with Poythress on this matter. He relies on an extra-biblical hypothesis of SIT as some kind of undecipherable code that only God can break. In my view, Poythress takes the Biblical presentation of SIT, which as described is quite testable and falsifiable, and distorts the possibilities to make the end result neither testable nor falsifiable. That distortion, he claims, is within God's prerogative, and we go too far when we seek to put Him in a box, as it were. Me, I don't believe I'm putting God in a box. I am holding Him to His Word, and if what I do does not produce that which His Word promises, then I have to question what I'm doing. (Questioning His Word is another approach, but not one that is necessary and not one I am promoting).

Fortunately, the Hartford Quarterly article contains LOTS for us to chew on. Unfortunately, it's not as complete as his books presumably would be, and we may find more of use in those books, which appear at a glance to have been written later, after considerably more research. One thing I like about Samarin is the effectiveness with which he challenges and ultimately rejects key findings of Felicitas Goodman, whose psychological conclusions prevent me from taking her work seriously. Goodman basically makes the case that tongues speakers are nuts or in a trance/euphoric/hypnotic state, all of which we know firsthand to be untrue. It makes the rest of her findings difficult to swallow. By the way, the article you posted was one of the three original links I provided back on the SIT thread (the other two were Samarin and Poythress). For some reason, we ignored the Religious Tolerance article and instead elevated Landry (which I did not cite: Waysider did).

I think at the very least that Corinthians strongly implies the use of SIT for private prayer. That's not to say it suddenly becomes non-language, a private code that no one on the planet would be able to decipher. That explanation seems to me to be a convenient way to explain precisely why SIT today is NOT producing a language. I believe it is inconsistent with the text. Honest Christians disagree.

"We'd better get back, because it'll be dark soon, and they mostly come at night. Mostly." Hope that's easy enough.

Long, boring post alert. You've been warned. As I was re-reading yesterday’s flurry of posts, I noticed a few items that slipped past me the first time. I’d like to take a moment to address them. I wrote: To which Chockfull responded: I think we’re confusing terms here, because my reasoning is certainly not circular. I believe Biblical tongues are always human languages. If that is what you disagree with, fine. But you seem to be defining “real” language in a technical sense that’s different from what I mean. If I were to speak in English in the middle of a city in Zaire, there’s a better than even chance that no one will have the slightest idea what I’m saying. That doesn’t mean it’s not a language on the basis that it is not successfully understood and therefore not useful for communication. This is what Paul describes: if you speak in tongues (a real human language, albeit one understood by no one present), you are a barbarian to them. He’s not saying what you’re speaking is not a language. He’s criticizing its uselessness in a worship setting without interpretation. But the underlying implication is that it is still a real human language being spoken. I see nothing in I Corinthians 14 that suggests SIT produces anything other than a human language, unless one retroactively imposes that meaning on the verses to account for the fact that modern SIT isn’t producing any. It’s a convenient rationalization, not an interpretation of the plain meaning of the text. My opinion. Again, if we disagree, there’s really not a whole lot else to discuss. *** On a different front, I think I have more than adequately defended my use of the $2 bill analogy, which Chockfull challenged early on but appears to have grasped better as the dialogue continued. *** What Samarin says about xenoglossia: If someone speaking in tongues were to speak an actual language, the linguist has nothing to study. At that point, we would have something real for someone else to look at. I think it’s sufficient to say that if I suddenly started speaking in the language of the indigenous peoples of South America, that would qualify to Samarin as a demonstration of knowledge of that language (even though I myself would not have any understanding of what I’m saying). The linguist would stop at identifying the language and pass it off to experts in other fields to determine what the bejeezus just happened (that’s my word, not Samarin’s). Here’s how Samarin puts it: Let’s take a step back and look at what he’s really saying there, because he leaves out a lot. If I spoke in tongues in front of Samarin, and I produced Turkish (is Turkish a language? Let’s assume it is for this discussion), Samarin may be fascinated, but not as a linguist. He’d say, “That’s Turkish. Have you been exposed to Turkish?” I’d say no. He’d say, “Then how did you learn Turkish?” I’d say “God. I’m producing a language in accordance with the Word of God. I don't know what I'm saying. I only know it's Turkish because you're telling me. By the way, do you have James Randi's number? He owes me $1 million.” And Samarin, as a linguist, would say, “Cool. We’re done here. My expertise as a linguist can contribute no further to determining what's going on here. There’s some people I’d like for you to talk to. And who's Randi?” And he’d introduce me to the psychologist who might probe to make sure I had no prior exposure to Turkish that might be resurfacing in what I allege is genuine SIT. Once he suggests paranormal research, he has left the realm of science and ventured into the realm of faith. I submit at this point you would have already won, assuming all natural explanations to be exhausted. Neither Samarin nor any other named linguist has been presented with or reported a single such case. I would consider it a refutation of my position that it’s ALL fake if Samarin had just one case that could not be explained by natural means. He didn’t. That doesn’t prove my case. It merely fails to disprove it. (By extension, it fails to prove the proposition that any SIT is genuine). But one thing has been disproved: Every sample of SIT he reviewed has failed to pass muster as an existing, real, human language. It’s not a known language. It’s not a previously undiscovered language. It’s not a language in any real sense of the term. It bears some similarity to language, attributable to the motivation of the speaker to produce a language. But [let’s bring Poythress in right here] it bears no linguistic difference from a case of someone free vocalizing in a non-religious context, faking it on purpose, as it were. Which is my point. If SIT produces the exact same thing, linguistically, as free vocalization uninspired by God… What’s the blooming difference? You may not feel obliged to articulate or express or even find the difference. And that’s fine. Go in peace. But understand that if you’re not obliged to find a difference between what you do and free vocalization uninspired by God, then I’m not obliged to believe that there is one. That examines SIT on the merits, in my opinion. I am not drawing a theological or doctrinal conclusion. That's a related but different discussion. I hope I haven’t used a strawman fallacy in presenting this, but I’m sure I’ll hear it if I did (and possibly be accused of it even if I didn’t. ;)

WordWolf is indeed correct.

A lone juror tries to convince the rest that Agents J and K are really protecting us from aliens.

A Time To Kill a Mockingbird

And there's no z in brassiere! Nice quotes, George.

No one is a number, Chockfull. I was trying to make a sweeping generalization that no one intended to practice any kind of deception, even assuming I'm right. That includes you, even if my typical history missed you by a mile. Ham, it was not the bet: it was the self reflection. It should have happened a lot sooner, but you know how Allan could never SIT before he was saved? (yes he could, but why would anyone who's not saved try it?) Same thing. I never saw any reason to confront my SIT so long as I was continually encouraged and reinforced in my own self deception. It took a catalyst to get me to question it. The rest is really not much more than projection and extrapolation based at first on a presumption that no one was producing real languages and now on a tad more evidence.

I think my description of first time SIT was typical of the TWI experience, as little as it applies to you, chockfull.

We're not really disagreeing much. I'll let it go. It's an indicator. By itself, it proves nothing. Frank Purdue had a terrific Spanish vocabulary and a lousy accent. But you knew it was Spanish. If all these tongues speakers were producing languages, Samarin would have had nothing to study. If any produced a real language, I think it's reasonable to suggest he would have mentioned it while he was laying down the difference between xenoglossy and glossolalia. Instead, he observes (after study, not before) that all glossolalia samples he reviewed were not language.

Joking aside, I want to be clear I am accusing no one of being evil or even of deliberately lying. I think we all got sold a bill of goods and we all were talked out of a reasonable skepticism at the earliest possible stage. We wanted to believe it. We believed it was God's Will. We were encouraged by everyone around us (whether they were literally around us or there "in spirit") and we were actively discouraged from doubting. We supported each other, congratulated each other, fed off each other. (Now who's doing the psychoanalyzing? Sue me). But when I knew I could walk down the street and speak in tongues and get $1 million from a guy who was looking for proof of the supernatural, the jig was up. I knew I'd never see a dime because I knew in my heart what I had done and, these many years later, I finally confronted it. That's my experience. I knew all along, but I could always avoid the confrontation because, after all, who was confronting me? No one. I had to confront myself. So if I'm wrong, and this free vocalization really is Biblical SIT... Crap, I'm out $1 million!

The problem that I have is that Biblical SIT is a real human language and what's produced today is not. Disagree with me on either side of that, and there's nothing to debate because we can't agree on a basic foundation. Clearly Chockfull and I disagree on the first premise (real SIT is a real human language) and likely we disagree on the second (what's produced today is not). He's being polite enough to examine the second without addressing the first, which is at heart a doctrinal premise. In my opinion, SIT has the meaning you bring to it: no objective meaning. There is nothing to interpret. Interpretations are from the heart of the speaker, and seeing as there's no way to prove or disprove divine inspiration there, it's not really worth debating. Widespread but not universal fakery has already been admitted by most on this thread on both sides of the debate. Glad we could keep it civil this time, Chockfull.

It's not that you can remember the language itself or the words. Just remembering the sounds is enough to give you something to inject into your SIT experience. I do not use the CH sound as in Chanukkah in my normal vocabulary, but I could use it in tongues because I've been exposed to the sound. I don't even know how to spell the Arabic sounds I heard, but I heard them enough to imitate them, and as long as I could do that, I could use them in tongues. It's supernatural proof of absolutely nothing. But ask me to repeat what I heard in Mongolian today (I don't know if that's the name of their language), and I couldn't do it. Expose me to it a few more times and I might. My ability to turn around and use it in SIT would not validate the SIT. Only my creativity. I see the page you're talking about as far as English and accents. It should be noted that he put the word "accent" in quotes and he did not mean it in the same way as you and I talk about British accents or Southern accents. He was speaking there as a linguist: the use of exclusively English phonemes gives him away as a native English speaker. He's talking about one guy. The section where he talks about other language phonemes talks hypothetically, and quite reasonably I think, about how someone may come to the table with more than one set of phonemes to work with.

Samarin studied samples of glossolalia from all around the world, so naturally he would find phonemes from the various languages represented by the speakers. Not sure I'm getting your objection there. SITters are derivative in their use of basic sounds but innovative in how they combine them: exactly what I would expect of someone making up something with the intent of making it sound like a language. Am I missing something? That is not a leap at all! It is a perfectly logical explanation. As a tongues speaker, I had the following to work with: English, Spanish, smatterings of French, Hebrew and Greek (not a lot, as little as the rest of us had through TWI exposure) and Arabic (not any knowledge of the actual language, but an ability to imitate sounds made by the workers at various stores near where I lived and worked). All of those could inform my tongues language. It really doesn't take much. Today I met a bunch of Mongolians. The sounds that came from their mouths as they spoke their native language was NOTHING like ANYTHING I ever heard in SIT. But, if it makes you feel any better, it sounded like gibberish to me. ;)

By the way, tell me if I'm mistaken here, but he discredits all the xenoglossia claims presented to him.

That's a pretty big assumption that he made up his mind prior to his research. But there may be SOME merit to that. Nonetheless, had he found xenoglossia, he would have noted it. I mean, why go into a page or two of really small type on the distinction between xenoglossia and glossolalia and fail to point out that 0.5 percent of the samples you studied were xenoglossic? Makes no sense. He didn't do it because he didn't find any such examples. I finally understood what he meant by xenoglossia not being interesting to the linguist: If a tongues speaker produced an actual language, the linguist has nothing to study. He simply declares it Swahili and leaves it to someone else to figure out what the devil just happened. Glossolalia gives him something to study. And what he's studying appears very much to be the end product of free vocalization. As for his xenoglossia examples, I don't think he's making anywhere near the leap you're making. No sample of SIT that he studied produced a language. That's as far as we can take Samarin, as far as I ever intended to take him.

Ah, NOW you're talking! Here's the thing: if he said it was LIKE real language in limited ways, that it shared some characteristics with language, but did not articulate what those ways and characteristics were, would you not fairly criticize him for holding back? [Poythress, if you read him carefully, holds back some stuff that might have proved helpful to your argument. It's impossible to tell where he was going with it, and I'm trying to find it myself when I have time. You'll have to trust me on that]. Thing is, I think he DOES explain why the phonetics don't lead him to conclude it's a language. The limited number of phonemes, the fact that they all come from the speaker's native language, the fact that they are lacking in variety compared to real languages (but have much more variety than gibberish). I think you're selling him short.