Raf

Well, that explains it then. Um, just one more thing...

Good question. I think he has a wikipedia entry. Full name William J. Samarin.

It's a good thing it can be an angelic or heavenly tongue, seeing as it apparently always is!

Steve, how sure are you about the 'if' translation? It plays into my belief that tongues of angels was hyperbole and not literal, but I don't want to rush to embrace it.

Thanks, Johniam.

One more thing: I'm not asking anyone to agree with me save those who, on personal reflection, recognize that, yeah, what they did was free vocalization and not xenoglossia.

I am not intentionally saying any more than that

I'm willing to say as a matter of fact that I faked it. I'm willing to say as a matter of fact that others did too (while the CES change in the content of interpretation don't prove this doctrino-practically, it is consistent with and easily explained by the They're All Faking It model). I'm willing to say as a matter of personal attempt to review available evidence that no one practicing SIT in an observable setting has been able to produce an actual example of xenoglossia as described in Acts 2. Considering that Acts 2 presents a clear example of xenoglossia, an actual language, and that Paul's reference to tongues of angels has the marking of a hyperbolic brag that he does not intend literally, I have what I think is a reasonable expectation that SIT should typically produce a human language. With no actual evidence to suggest otherwise, I conclude as a matter of opinion that people claiming SIT are engaged in a practice that is producing something other than what the Bible describes, but something very, very similar to my admitted fakery. My opinion, subject to contradiction by yet unavailable or undisclosed evidence, is that we're all faking it. If we're wrong and the Bible is describing something true, it would behoove us to seek that truth.

This got lost in the flames, but I'm not asking anyone to prove anything. I'm responding to a demand for proof. So if you're not asking me to prove my point, I am not asking you to prove yours. That brings us back to the original point of the thread: I know I wasn't alone in faking my way through it. Anyone else who did so, all I can say is that I have found fessing up quite liberating. Yes, I believe 100 percent of us fall into this category. No, I can't prove it. Won't be the first time you've disagreed with me, I'm sure. Sure as heck won't be the last. And that's ok with me.

Is it me, or has most of the discussion now turned unmistakably doctrinal?

You may be onto something there, but I'm not persuaded. It could be one of those things where honest people disagree. What Paul says is "if i speak on the tongues of men or of angels and i don't have love, i am become as sounding brass or tinkling cymbal." I think he's talking there about the effect on the congregation, not the short-circuiting of SIT. Otherwise, how to equate the first half of the analogy with the second if we're being literal (or literalish) about the second? In other words, how could you literally speak in the tongues of men or angels AND literally be making up fv at the same time? You can't. So i don't think it's quite saying what you suggest, but i could see folks interpreting that way and, subsequently, taking the rest on faith, as it were. Nice observation.

I was addressing JohnIAm on what I believe to be his terms. Not judging your contribution to the "realm" discussion either way.

So you're saying that if your method of turning coal into a diamond was invalid, you have not invalidated the truth that diamonds are produced by squeezing coal. It just means that no matter how much you believed, so to speak, what YOU unwrapped was not a diamond.

There's a leap from no one is doing it to no one CAN do it that I am not prepared to make. The Bible, to my reading, merely says it can be done. It says nothing about everyone claiming to do it should be presumed genuine until proved otherwise (or vice versa, to be fair). Believing that we, innocently, kidded ourselves should not detract from faith at all. If anything, it should inspire in the seeker a fervent quest for what SIT should be. In any event, chockfull, we're at loggerheads on the bigger, fatter claim issue. I will drop it.

P.S. Was the spiderman musical any good?

John! Well said. Except, of course, that has nothing to do with the fact that SIT is manifested in the senses realm and therefore can be observed and analyzed, unlike the resurrection, which can't. At least not today. So it is a different kind of question, despite similarities.

Vegas

Although the article I posted agrees with my conclusion, I would not have cited it in the original thread. I probably would havw gone to his sources and posted them. If Vern is somewhat biased, he at least provided useful info. This guy seems to have been on a mission. My bet is we would have spent too much time discussing why he shouldn't be ignored just because of his conclusion.

It would seem consistent to me that if the church at Corinth were exercising free vocalization under my definition, it might go a long way toward explaining why Paul felt such.a pressing need to spend time correcting them. But I suspect it would not explain the correction itself, which doesn't even seem to consider the possibility of fakery. But if you're thinking something else when you use the same term, maybe you're onto something. I can't tell.

I'm using Free Vocalization as a less abrasive synonym for lied and faked. how are you using it?

The purpose of this thread is to provide links that discuss the practice of speaking in tongues from a perspective of trying to determine what's actually taking place there. While not inherently a doctrinal discussion, it may provide resources that help us draw our conclusions in both doctrinal and practical (ie, "About the Way" or "Open") contexts. This first one agrees with me (did you think it wouldn't? Did you not see what happened when I posted something that didn't completely agree with me? heh heh heh). http://charlesdailey.net/TonguesHolton.html And yes, of course, he quotes Samarin. Shoot, if Samarin's wrong, I'll be wiping egg off my face for centuries. Oh, and feel free to post your own. A brief summary would be nice, but the only thing I request is that it's relevant.

And we're at 500 replies. Which would be considered remarkable if I didn't account for 470 of them. Anyway, I was thinking of starting a "SIT/linguistics online bibliography" where we can all post links to various studies, abstracts, and apologetics. Where would such a thing go? Not here. Doctrinal? I think that's probably the place most would look for such a thing, no? Thoughts? Then again, they all seem to just come back to Samarin. Is anyone else finding this?

Better?

I will wait until Monday and give other people a chance to participate, buuuuddddy

Roundabout?