Raf

I don't fully agree with you, Waysider, but you make a point that needs to be expanded upon: In other places, Samarin calls the utterances "word-like" and "sentence-like." Again, these findings are consistent with the explanation that the speaker WANTS it to sound like a language and injects those qualities into the utterance. It proves nothing as to actual language content. Samarin is impressed by human creativity, not by the "language" that's produced. He says so explicitly more than once.

Yeah, this has become the Chockfull and Raf examine Samarin show, hasn't it. But I appreciate the challenge and I think Chockfull does, too, wherever it may lead either of us.

You edited before I posted. My original reply: Fair enough. But we can't say that Samarin is calling it a real $2 bill just because he's impressed by the quality of the ink. We have to agree that his findings are his findings. I can't address your challenge to his bias. But I don't think it's fair or right to suggest that his conclusions are inconsistent with the linguistic qualities of glossolalia when he explicitly accounts for them. My edited reply: Naturally, I do not agree that Samarin is concluding 5 as the sum of 2+2. That oversimplifies his work. He's saying it's good ink, good paper, good artistry. You might even pass it off to an untrained cashier. But it's still not a real $2 bill.

THAT one qualifies!

Duly noted, and I think you've been clear about that all along. As far as SIT, we're debating on the merits. As far as Interpretation and Prophecy, the dynamic is a little more interesting: even though there's simply no way on God's green earth to either validate or discredit a spiritual energizing of either practice, we still have a consensus that fakery was widespread, though no consensus that it was faked every time by everyone. Truly unprovable and untestable and not even worth asserting for that reason. Just because you call them inconsistencies doesn't make them inconsistencies. They're not. He says they're not languages and they're only like languages in limited ways with some characteristics. He explains those ways and characteristics. That's consistent. It doesn't change the conclusion that it's not a genuine $2 bill. You can CALL it inconsistent all you want, but that don't make it so.

You keep calling Samarin inconsistent. That is not true. Samarin is wholly consistent. He tells you, for example: When he articulates those very limited ways and some of the characteristics, some opportunistic apologists point to it as proof it really IS some kind of language and accuse him of being inconsistent. He never said glossolalia has no linguistic qualities. That doesn't make it a $2 bill. It needs to be noted that Lovekin (of Malony and Lovekin) was (is?) a tongues speaker. That he would take a quote from Samarin out of context to have him say the opposite of what he is clearly saying doesn't necessarily surprise me. But not having read their book, I can't pick it apart any more than that. They're also, if I recall correctly, not linguists. So I'm still looking for a single case of a linguist disputing Samarin's findings (we went from his own linguists disagreeing with him to Sherrill quoting him unfavorably to, now, no linguists challenging him. Let me know when you find one, or if I'm mistaken about Malony and Lovekin). Then we're in disagreement, but I submit it's not pivotal to either of our cases. Agree?

Actually, we're both reading into this a bit. When I read into it, I see Samarin saying that glossolalia reveals the subconscious effort of the speaker to produce a language, where gibberish does not. Interestingly, earlier in his study he appears to reject a sample of SIT as NOT glossolalia because it was clearly gibberish, although he doesn't quite say it that way (I'm referring to page 51, in case you want to know what I'm referring to).

Jumping ahead to address this one specifically: the unusual thing about Acts was not that it was a human language, but that it was human languages spoken and understood by those present. Nothing in Acts or Corinthians indicates that the word "tongues," which means "languages," suddenly means something more cryptic that becomes the norm rather than the exception. I have seen efforts to reinterpret the scriptures in this regard to broaden the definition to include "unknown" languages and exclude "known" languages, but I see no reason to force this view onto scripture written 2,000 years earlier. It seems to me more like a retroactive attempt to explain why SIT always fails to produce a real language. In effect, we're broadening the definition of salt to include sugar and exclude salt.

I think you're simplifying him in a manner that is not entirely accurate. I do believe he is referring to the quality of the language itself, and not merely the usage by the speaker. He writes: He goes on to explore the issue in depth on page 59 and 60, and I believe the upshot of what he says is that it conveys whatever meaning the speaker wants it to convey. Read the section and tell me if you disagree. The words themselves don't mean anything in the objective sense, but the speaker may impart such meanings while thinking of or recalling certain things, people or ideas (ie, "Could you speak in tongues for me? I'm going through a rough time.") The fact that we are able to do this has exactly zero supernatural implications and remains consistent with the entire experience being a case of sincere free vocalization carried out in a worship setting.

There's plenty of work out there on non-Christian glossolalia to keep you busy. Clearly it's not the same thing we're talking about in terms of worship. But here's an interesting question to consider, with no bearing on the questions raised by this thread: ever wonder where the Corinthians got so many bad ideas about what to do with glossolalia in the first place?

Ok, back at a computer. I'm going to tackle this a few pieces at a time because a comprehensive response would be overwhelming. I do have a job. ;) Already noted: this is not true. Sherrill did not quote Samarin. Landry did. That is correct. But it's also significant to note that Samarin specifically distinguishes glossolalia from xenoglossia, the speaking of an actual language to which the speaker has no previous exposure or knowledge. This is significant to us because it is the heart of my position: all SIT should be xenoglossia. That is, it should produce an actual language. I have stated before that if we do not agree there, a meaningful discussion becomes rather moot. Clearly, we do not agree there, so in a lot of ways this conversation ended before it began. I believe the Bible is very clear that the expectation would be a real language, not something with language-like features that can be generated subconsciously by a speaker free-vocalizing on the spot. You are entitled to disagree with my expectation there, so long as we're clear on it. Everything Samarin says about glossolalia is colored by the finding that it is not xenoglossia: not an actual existing language. When he examines glossolalia, he is no different from an expert in the field examining the characteristics of a counterfeit $2 bill. No matter how much he praises the artistry, ink or paper, he is already certain he is not dealing with the genuine article. It's a fake. How good a fake is it? How good is the ink? How good is the paper? How much does it resemble the real thing? All worth reviewing, but the answers don't suddenly make this stuff money. Then immediat You left out the part where he makes it quite clear that these resemblances to real language are superficial (that's HIS word, not mine). Just Google Samarin and Superficial, and the references pop up all over the place: (all emphases are mine) He is not merely writing about the speaker's communicative intent. He's discussing the utterance in a systematic, qualitative way. It's not a language. Back to chockfull: Yes, a superficial resemblance brought to the glossa by the speaker. Nothing remarkable there: When I spoke in tongues, I wanted it to sound like a language. Samarin tells us that we succeed at producing something that has a superficial resemblance to language. That doesn't make it a language! It makes us creative. Again, false. Sherrill did no such thing. And the only thing I can say about Landry's use of Malony and Lovekin's quote of Samarin is that it appears to be cherry-picking of the highest order. You cannot talk about Samarin's findings of the linguistic qualities of glossolalia while divorcing it from his findings that it's not language and that it only resembles language in superficial ways. Ah! If you want to question his bias, I can't stop you there. It's more than just questionable. It is fundamentally not language. Again, I credit Samarin with putting his work out there for all to see, review and critique. But I don't agree that the examination should be used to get him to say the opposite of what he's saying. Another Samarin quote, emphasis mine again: I don't know the setting of that quote, but it does appear that he sets aside the politeness with which he delicately separates glossolalia from gibberish.

I do not believe you are accurately reflecting what they're saying. But more detail later. And where do the phonetic similarities come from? The native language of the SITter. He's talking about the quality of the stuff we're making up, not declaring it to be a hidden, unknown or secret language

I'd say your argument is languishing. ;) Seriously, I'm on my phone again. Will answer at greater length later

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.