Raf

Any reason to believe the speaker had or had not been exposed to Aramaic?

Please don't think Randi talked me out of what I did. I want to be clear that the only thing his challenge did was inspire introspection. My recognition that I was faking it was entirely internal and from my heart. I guess the best way to put it is, my realization was neither doctrinal nor practical. It was personal. There is no way for me to approach the doctrinal or practical issues with complete honesty if I am not being completely honest about what I am/was doing. As such, I am fascinated by what honest people who disagree with me will conclude. I'm also reluctant to weigh in too much because I know anything I say will be immediately suspect. As such, I am approaching this thread and Steve's from the role of a troubleshooter. Or maybe a troublemaker. Bottom line, anything I post should be taken at face value: agree or disagree, but document it. It should strengthen your argument even if I'm wrong. It may or may not change your mind if I'm right.

You could knock me over with a feather. And maybe a dictionary.

Bullets Over Broadway Chazz Palmentiri A Bronx Tale

I'm not going to challenge what you experienced at meetings if you accept my right to remain skeptical. With no info about the hearer who recognized the language, his proficiency in that language, the person who brought forth the language or that person's prior exposure to that language, I really have nothing to go on except your word that two people made this combined claim. Having lied about SIT and TIP for years, with all outward sincerity and zero malice, i would not put it past anyone else, especially second or third hand. My apologies if that sounds harsh. It just occurred to me that this line of discussion hijacks the thread and makes it non doctrinal. LOL

I do not believe that is the presupposition of this thread. I do invite you to the thread i started in About The Way, if you care to participate

FYI, Tom Hulce played the title role in Amadeus

I believe Steve handled that verse in another thread. It doesn't quite say that tongues of angels is a real option.

A very good doctrinal question. But assuming there is a correct answer, that does not mean what you're currently doing is genuine. If God wants you to speak in tongues and you're faking it, aren't you cheating yourself twice? First, by imagining that there's some benefit to lying to yourself and to Him. Second, by not pursuing whatever it is He really wants? If you're not faking, you don't have to answer.

Parenthood Steve Martin Roxanne

There was no one big thing, but let me tell you this much. There's a skeptic named James Randi. You may have heard of him. Something of a magician. Constantly on the hunt for supernatural and other hoaxes to debunk. I always make sure we call him for comment whenever we write our inevitable haunted hotel stories for Halloween. I guess I should mention that he's local. His foundation HQ was walking distance from my office. So this guy, The Amazing Randi, has a standing offer of $1 million to anyone who could provide conclusive proof of the supernatural. So I'm figuring ot would be so easy to go in, speak in tongues and collect, right? And I froze. I didn't want to be tested, not because God wouldn't allow it, but because I knew I was not being honest. I knew there was nothing coming out of my mouth that was divinely directed. And I thought back on other people: Karl K, who literally wrote the book on the rise and fall of TWI. Here's a guy who never believed in the resurrection. Spoke in tongues more than ye all. And that hot Goth chick I dated in college. Found out she was a PFAL grad. This was in the early 90s, when my heart was very much with TWI and its offshoots. I practiced SIT daily. Goth chick said,matter of factly, oh I faked it. My whole family faked it. These were folks who had nothing at all against Wierwille. In fact, they were sad to learn he had died. For years, I suppressed this. Randi's wager made it easy for me to finally confront the issue, at least for myself.

I I disagree. I think to consider that Paul is talking about anything other than human languages is to inject something into the text that isn't there.

I'm wrong. No bio. I'd be interested if anyone can find one.

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.