Raf

Correct. If I'm not mistaken, T-speech and religious free vocalization would be synonymous to Poythress.

I respect that people don't agree with me. I do. http://philosophy-religion.info/handouts/pdfs/Samarin-Pages_48-75.pdf The link starts on p. 49. Starting at the bottom of Pg 55 and going into pg 56, this addresses the number of known languages and the ability of linguists to discern them. Pg. 65 specifically addresses how someone "unknowingly faking it" (your words, I think: religious free vocalization is what Poythress would call it: chockfull, please check me on that) would be able to produce something with linguistic characteristics that distinguish the sounds produced from mere gibberish (by Samarin's definition). I don't mind disagreeing. But if we're going to look into arguments for why I'm wrong, I'm going to reserve the right to respond.

My position cannot be proved. It can be disproved. I can't believe we're back at this point of the "argument," considering that it has been effectively addressed numerous times.

You got that backwards. I can't disprove SIT in modern times is real because not everyone who practices it will agree to subject their practice to independent, unbiased observation and investigation. YOU can prove SIT is real by producing a language. But so far everyone who's tried that in a controlled, observable setting has failed. The existing evidence is on my side, but the limitation is that those who hold to SIT as real will accept nothing less than a 100 percent sample size. And even then, there's an out: God won't necessarily participate in the experiment (I Corinthians 13:1?) So I could theoretically demonstrate that everyone on Earth who practices SIT is faking it and still persuade no one. Impasse. By the way, you mentioned that someone unknowingly faking it would produce nothing but gibberish. This has been addressed on this thread and is a false assertion: someone unknowingly faking it would be highly motivated in his heart to produce a real language and will thus subconsciously inject that wish on the sounds he produces. In fact, this is what Samarin believes comprises the entirety of the samples he studied.

I respect your position, but I'll remind you that the admonition of "that would take proof" is what got this thread heated in the first place. Chockfull and I have expressed this disagreement in terms of burden of proof and the greater claim. I believe the person who claims to be speaking in tongues is making the greater claim and has the burden to prove its legitimacy. Chockfull believes the doubter is making the greater claim and has the burden to prove its illegitimacy. And I will agree: we are at an impasse.

http://charlesdailey.net/TonguesHolton.html Let me know if that link addresses your questions. And again, I'm perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me.

A crucial observation! Recall that Vern Poythress is writing about the theological implications of this stuff, not the legitimacy. He rather adamantly dodges the legitimacy question, which is his right (and which prompted me to unfairly label him laughably biased until I realized what he was really doing). I think we can agree that if something CAN be done without God (free vocalization producing some characteristics of language), the fact that the same thing is done in a religious or worship setting does not prove God's involvement. Samarin, who is not writing for a religious publication or with a view toward making sense of theology, is rather more forceful in his observations on legitimacy. He never says anything is being faked, because that's not his role. But he says unapologetically that regardless of whatever characteristics of language are being produced, it's ultimately not a language. I recognize we're rehashing, so I'll stop there.

Ok, I should not be in a position to try to articulate Steve's view because I'm not even sure HE entirely understands it, so it's a bit unfair to critique it. He's also using the same terms to mean different things than I do, which further complicates things. So I don't entirely know what to make of it. I read Steve's posts the way Geisha does (meaning becomes infused by the heart of the one doing the praying). I'm being much more simple: I believe if it's not a language, it's not SIT, end of story. The verse itself equates tongues of men and angels (a hyperbole, in my opinion) with sounding brass and tinkling cymbal. If I'm reading Paul correctly, he's saying that a genuine operation of SIT is meaningless without the proper heart behind it. He's not saying it will suddenly become meaningless: he's saying it will benefit no one but the speaker. In other words, I don't think Paul is differentiating between the sounds produced in one circumstance versus the other: it should be languages in both cases. Paul is differentiating between the possible effects: benefit or no benefit. Simply put: Paul's comment in this verse is unrelated to this thread, in my opinion. Steve appears to disagree. I'll leave it to him to speak for himself. Fair enough.

I can't. But linguists who have tried to study this "phenomenon" (for lack of a better word) seem pretty fairly convinced that the sounds produced are not languages. For this, I have no choice but to refer you back to the studies we referenced on this thread and in the "Reading Room" we set up in Doctrinal. A full answer to your post is not really possible in such a short space. I don't mean to dodge, but if you really want me to re-post, that's going to require me to do the digging through links we've already posted, and I'm not in a position to do that right now.

It is my opinion, and others may differ, that all SIT should produce an actual language. There is no promise that there will be people present who understand the language, but it should always be a language. The surprise in Acts is not that they spoke actual languages; the surprise in Acts is that the actual languages were understood by those present. "Tongues" in the Bible are languages. They are not mere sounds. What they were speaking in Corinth were languages, not meaningless sounds. I believe that we err when we retroactively force Corinthians to alter the clear meaning of the word "tongues." I disagree with Steve on his interpretation of "sounding brass and tinkling cymbals" because I believe it is inconsistent with the rest of the verse. But that's a doctrinal issue. I believe the interpretation that the sounds may or may not have earthly meaning is an ad hoc apologetic to explain why SIT doesn't produce a human language. There is a more logical explanation for why SIT does not produce a known language: it's not real, Biblical SIT.

I wasn't trying to read into anything. I was simply stating as a counterpoint that you need not be an atheist to reach the conclusion that what we did was/is not what they did in Acts and the early church. I'm not disputing your observation. It has not escaped my observation that an atheist would (naturally) come to the same conclusion. The position rises or falls on its merits, not on the beliefs of the people espousing it. "Someone praying to God to SIT, receiving no answer, and making up free vocalization to appease themselves" is also consistent with the position of one who believes that which is being prayed for is "not available," to borrow a term from Wierwille. It is consistent with the opinion of one who believes the "gift" "died with the apostles." It is consistent with one who believes simply that what is being practiced is not what is described in the Bible, and therefore a further search for Biblical truth is warranted. Etc.

Correct. The name of the first show/movie has to be at least two words. The name of the second show/movie has to be at least two words. The last word of the first show should be the same as the first word of the second (minus articles like "A" or "The"). I'm calling that the linking word (for reasons I hope are obvious).

On the contrary, I think we have addressed this, and it is the heart of this entire thread. We've addressed that there's no way for me to prove my position. I hold it, you [chockfull, Steve and others] dispute it, and we've agreed to respectfully disagree. To me, it's more logically reasonable that what we all experienced was mere free vocalization that we attributed to God. Not that what we manifested was "another spirit." I have to agree with you there. The Biblical logic is clear: if you ask God for a fish, He's not going to give you a scorpion. I'm with you on that. But if you ask God for a fish, and upon not receiving a fish, you make yourself a bowl of chili, that's neither God nor another spirit. It's just you. I contend that if what we experienced is what is described in the Bible, then the results of what we experienced should be the results described by the Bible. I see no reason to believe that has taken place. We respectfully disagree, and I'm good with that. You don't need to be atheist to admit you faked it. You just need to be honest (if you faked it: If you didn't this is not addressed to you).

My guess was way off. Ignore it.

Looked it up. I was waaaay off.

My guess: To Tell the Truth or Consequences

I have a guess. Does the linking word start with a T?

Wow. Possibly the best post ever.

Let him play!

Correct, excy. I didn't think to add an "I don't know/I'm not sure" category. In hindsight, that was very foolish of me. However, the poll is meaningless. ;)

Another vote came in. It seems now those who admit "faking it" now outnumber those who hold to TWI's version of SIT. Of course, the poll IS meaningless, but seeing as prior results subjected me to a little bit of "Rock!" throwing, I thought I'd bring it up. Sudo! Hey, look everyone! Sudo's here! Happy birthday (belated) old man!

Really? This isn't an easy one? Anyone? At the height of a very tense confrontation, Darth Vader reveals to Marty McFly that Doc Brown never told him the truth about his father. Darth Vader is George McFly!

still no. :)

Yep

How many "Get this soldier home to his mother" quotes do I need to post?