SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[chockfull]

Next, what does Landry conclude?

In regards to grammar and syntax, Samarin concluded that “the principle feature that distinguishes glossolalia from gibberish was the number of phonological units at various levels.”

Glossolalics do not speak in a mixed up mishmash fashion. They organize their verbiage into productions that include macrosegments (comparable to sentences), microsegments (comparable to words), and phonemes (sound units). Thus tongue speakers are speaking what sounds like a language with grammar and syntax. (Samarin, 1968)

(Malony and Lovekin 33)

Glossolalia includes words that appear over and over, vocal intonations, pause for breath, rhythm cadence, and the grouping of phrases into words. Malony and Lovekin conclude that these patterns support the possibility that glossolalia is a language even though this language is private at best. Three types of evidence that support the claim that glossolalia could perhaps be a language include “comparisons of consonants and vowels between individuals, comparisons of speeches of the same individual on different occasions, and comparison of the speeches of individuals who claim to speak in different tongues on different occasions.” (Malony and Lovekin 34)

What is the non SuperPac translation? LINGUISTS CONCLUDE THAT THE PATTERNS IN GLOSSALALIA SUPPORT THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT IS A LANGUAGE. The supportable evidence? Like a language, there are sentences, words, sound units. IT SOUNDS LIKE A LANGUAGE WITH GRAMMAR AND SYNTAX.

How did they arrive at this? They observed comparisons of consonants and vowels, and speeches on different occasions.

So Raf makes claims that linguists all have examined recorded evidence and dismissed all of them as not a language. Yet the very first supporting study posted to this thread makes exactly the opposite claim. Although they are not familiar with the language, linguists examining 40 recordings of glossolalia conclude that THE PATTERNS SUPPORT THE POSSIBILITY OF IT BEING A LANGUAGE.

So Raf, science seems to be failing you here, bro. But hey, on the positive side for you, you could always snip a few quotes from the paper out of context, and say 100% the opposite of what your source is saying. Because, you know, most of the people reading the thread won't read your entire source anyway.

Back to you... [the remainder of this sentence has been censored by the committee to defend the faith against the scientific method and common sense]!

Edited September 20, 2012 by chockfull

[chockfull]

Next up, Raf's source he posted: http://www.frame-poythress.org/linguistic-and-sociological-analyses-of-modern-tongues-speaking-their-contributions-and-limitations/

The general consensus here, like most of the sources that use any means of unbiased scientific method based study, is that you cannot conclusively prove or disprove tongues. There are known instances of faking, conscious and / or subconscious.

Interestingly enough, this scientific study brings up exactly the point I've been making about the power of God and scientific analysis:

The number of cases in which linguists have endeavored to obtain documentation is considerable. But of course it is far less than the total number of instances of T-speech. The truth is, then, that the possibility of T-speech in a nonrecalled foreign language can never be conclusively excluded by these methods. Moreover, it could be argued that the Holy Spirit is unlikely to work a miracle in controlled conditions for the convenience of the linguists, just as Jesus did not work a miracle in “controlled conditions” for the convenience of the Pharisaical seekers after signs (Mark 8:11–12).17

T-speech here refers to SIT as a practice.

Wow. These scientists must be deluding themselves. I mean, to think that the Holy Spirit would be unlikely to work a miracle in controlled conditions for the convenience of linguists.

Apparently, the scientists are well able to obviate the limitations in their study. But Raf, not so much. In fact, Raf gets so offended at the idea that he comes up with cute little bracketed statements about censoring statements to prevent Satan.

Really, really adept political type maneuvering there. But honest scientific research? Not so much.

Edited September 20, 2012 by chockfull

[waysider]

How do we explain Non-Christian incidents of the practice, some predating Christ by thousands of years?

[Raf]

"prove me wrong"

"ok, put your claim to the test."

"I can't. God won't let me."

And I'm the born politician?

The problem I see in these studies is a false distinction between what they term glossolalia and gibberish. When I use the term gibberish, I do not mean the same thing they do. It's unfortunate, but not an obstacle over which much time should be wasted. The bottom line is that no language was detected.

Clearly, if you read the studies, particularly the one o cited at greater length, we see that the speaker on glossolalia makes a deliberate attempt to produce something that sounds like a language. What is produced, by that very definition, is not gibberish because gibberish does not make an attempt to sound like any language. Gibberish is random. Glossolalia is not.

But what they both have in common is that they are utterly invented by the speaker.

I have to confess that I had not read the study provided by Waysider. I do not know who wrote it. I made a statement about what I took away from a particular quote. So, in fairness, I'm gonna go read the rest...

[chockfull]

I am speaking og Paul's writings. How are they discredited?

We could discuss that on Lortz' thread in doctrinal. That is if I can make it through all the intricacies of what happens at his house after work.

[Ham]

Raf, I did not vote in the pole. If you had a "I dunno" option, I would have taken it..

I've had several "I dunno" experiences, one big one since leaving twi..

during sober moments (not drug or otherwise induced).

there are logical options:

1. The brain burped the right chemicals at the right(?) time.

2. Maybe what I saw was real enough..

3. Maybe I'm just, plain nuts (maybe the more likely explanation)

so it goes with tongues.

Was I faking? I dunno. I don't think so at the time.

Was it meaningful? I dunno. Maybe at one time it was.

Was I just plain nuts, and self-deluded? Possibly.

Too many I dunno's for me to say much more, at least as to my own experience.

[Raf]

Well, for starters, the darn thing looks like a term paper. I wonder what grade he got? What was the school? Etc.

Let's see what we can learn from his sources, which he had the decency to document.

[chockfull]

Clearly, if you read the studies, particularly the one o cited at greater length, we see that the speaker on glossolalia makes a deliberate attempt to produce something that sounds like a language. What is produced, by that very definition, is not gibberish because gibberish does not make an attempt to sound like any language. Gibberish is random. Glossolalia is not.

No, the studies are only examining the results, not "clearly the speaker makes a deliberate attempt". Where evidence is found of the speaker having a previous exposure to the language identified (OH YOU MEAN THEY IDENTIFIED LANGUAGES IN SIT? NOOOOOOOOOO) they discredit it as a byproduct of the subconscious.

But what they both have in common is that they are utterly invented by the speaker.

You mean like what most of your posts on the topic have in common? Big fat claims, purported to be supported by scientists and linguists, but are not? And you say people who SIT are making things up? You've certainly got a head start on all of them.

I have to confess that I had not read the study provided by Waysider. I do not know who wrote it. I made a statement about what I took away from a particular quote. So, in fairness, I'm gonna go read the rest...

I'm working my way through references as well.

[waysider]

A lot of the supposition we have seen here is that speaking in tongues has a spiritual significance.

Picture this...You're in improvisation class and the director hands you a prop. He says, "Make up a language and sell this to Joe." Can it be done? Yes. I've seen it and done it myself. Is it really a language? No, but, it sounds like one. It sounds just like what we used to do in our excellor sessions. Maybe that's why this stuff seemed so easy to me when I became involved with The Way. But, where is the spiritual significance? Where does God figure into the whole thing? (By the whole thing, I mean the improvisation class exercise.)

Edited September 20, 2012 by waysider

[chockfull]

Well, for starters, the darn thing looks like a term paper. I wonder what grade he got? What was the school? Etc.

Let's see what we can learn from his sources, which he had the decency to document.

He looks to be a geographer. Who wrote a paper from documented research, and documented his sources. He's miles ahead of Wierwille in scholarship there.

A lot of the supposition we have seen here is that speaking in tongues has a spiritual significance.

Picture this...You're in improvisation class and the director hands you a prop. He says, "Make up a language and sell this to Joe." Can it be done? Yes. I've seen it and done it myself. Is it really a language? No, but, it sounds like one. It sounds just like what we used to do in our excellor sessions. Maybe that's why this stuff seemed so easy to me when I became involved with The Way. But, where is the spiritual significance? Where does God figure into the whole thing?

The context probably would determine the spiritual significance. One thing I think we have proven on this thread, both from people's experience and the scientific research, is that people can produce a counterfeit that has nothing to do with anything spiritual.

[Ham]

Your pole is good enough..

in statistics they taught us the "no opinion" option sometimes skews the data, i.e. gives the respondent a way out of answering a difficult question.

my response would be "I think something happened, I'm just not quite so sure what it was.."

sowy for the Squirrelish diversion here..

[geisha779]

How do we explain Non-Christian incidents of the practice, some predating Christ by thousands of years?

Or, in the Corinthian church for that matter....it was part Pagan and part Christian.... a kind of a hybrid from what I can tell. So, not only do you have it predating Christ and I believe that it does.....you also have it mixed right in there with Christianity in the 1st century church.

[Raf]

I have no evidence that Landry is anything more than a college kid in a theology class.

As for the article I described as laughably biased, I agree, it says exactly what you say it does.

Did I mention it was laughably biased?

[geisha779]

The context probably would determine the spiritual significance. One thing I think we have proven on this thread, both from people's experience and the scientific research, is that people can produce a counterfeit that has nothing to do with anything spiritual.

I think a counterfeit does have spiritual significance...... which is why it bothers me so much and really is the bottom line of why I care one way or the other.

Edited September 20, 2012 by geisha779

[chockfull]

Full disclosure on Raf's first quoted source - Vern Polythress. Here's his bio - http://www.frame-poythress.org/about/vern-poythress-full-bio/

He has a PhD in Math and multiple Doctorates in Theology. He is a teaching professor at Westminster Theological Seminary and a recognized leader in the Presbyterian Church.

The guy is probably smarter and more educated than anyone posting on this thread.

Here's another one of his articles: http://www.frame-poythress.org/the-nature-of-corinthian-glossolalia-possible-options/

Now that one, IMO is probably the best thing I've ever read in rationally and scientifically examining the possibilities associated with this.

[waysider]

Genuine, counterfeit, fake.......

If there is no such thing as a genuine $7 bill, there can be no counterfeit but, there can be a fake.

Counterfeit implies the genuine exists.

Edited September 20, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

It would not be counterfeit, necessarily, but faked. If we're using those terms interchangeably, then fine, counterfeit.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting no samples exist. Plenty exist, and insofar as they have been examined by competent linguists, they have all been dismissed as non-languages (not archaic, not angelic, not foreign, not languages).

I do believe there have been some apparent instances of someone purporting to speak in a language that they haven't learned, but further examination revealed a prior exposure to the language (and the messages did not fit the description of what tongues would be provided in either TWI or the Bible).

But I'm basing the above on a cursory Google search of a handful of studies, so I'm not resting too much on them. I'm looking for the study that says "Holy Cow, this farmer from Ohio just spoke in a language that has not been seen on earth since the days of ancient Egypt!"

Let me re-emphasize the part I put in bold, because it belies the claims YOU say I'm making about these studies.

Polythress, Lord bless him, has produced a review of studies that I will again say is laughably biased. I'll grant him his doctorate, though. Impressive. But he started with a conclusion and arranged his evidence to fit it. Not impressive in the slightest.

But yes, Landry did cite his sources. I haven't gotten to them yet.

[waysider]

Steve had mentioned that he would like some sources for his current project. I supplied these studies and noted that they provide an abundance of citation to investigate.

[Ham]

But he started with a conclusion and arranged his evidence to fit it.

sometimes that I how I solve mathematical problems. But if my pre-supposed "solution" is not correct, the evidence ends up in a far removed place from my proposed solution.

[geisha779]

Here's another one of his articles: http://www.frame-poy...ssible-options/

Now that one, IMO is probably the best thing I've ever read in rationally and scientifically examining the possibilities associated with this.

Chockfull,

He left out huge amounts of relevant theology and although it was a rational approach....it was short-sighted and very shallow. It amazes me, that within such narrow parameters, he felt comfortable drawing any conclusions....let alone the ones he did. Where was the make-up and morality of the church.....its geographical location is absolutely relevant . . . . why were they seeking the gift of tongues? Oh my goodness.... I can point you to some far more detailed and reasonable approaches to 1 Corinthians. That was not impressive at all IMO.

Read Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians, 12- 14. by DA Carson. He actually agrees with you that SIT is for private prayer. It is excellent and I really think you would seriously enjoy it. :) It supports some of your theology and also challenges some.

[Raf]

Bingo on Landry. At the time he wrote this, he was studying for a philosophy/religious studies degree at Louisiana State University.

He's not a linguist. He was a college kid writing a term paper.

His conclusion is nice, though. Made me feel warm and fuzzy inside. But I would not have provided that article as anything of value to this discussion.

I'm sure he's very smart and nice.

Polythress is a religious man who is, in many ways, preaching to the choir. I question the validity of his research on the grounds of bias.

Without a doubt, he is smarter than I am. But he's not presenting an argument based on linguistics or science. He's like the brilliant priest with advanced degrees who argue for belief in transubstantiation. Not impressive.

Where I will give Polythress credit is in his recognition of the process of free vocalization. It NAILS the process we were taught in TWI. If one were seeking to find a difference between the free vocalization and what we were taught to do in TWI, one would be hard pressed indeed.

Just my opinion, of course.

Did I miss the part where you dissected Samarin?

[waysider]

Beep Beep Beep Boop Boop Boop

(Is it real or Memorex?)

[Steve Lortz]

How do we explain Non-Christian incidents of the practice, some predating Christ by thousands of years?

THOSE are the citations I wanted. What evidence do we have actually from antiquity that glossalalia (literally, tongue-talking) occurred before Pentecost? Remember the Bible itself never associated the phrase "ecstatic utterance" with tongue-talking. Bacchants' speech was not comprehensible because the purpose of Bacchanalia was to get drunk. Peter expressly says that those tongue-talking on the day of Pentecost were not drunk.

I spent six years in the Navy. I have spoken incomprehensibly as a result of alcoholic consumption (most often, beer, but ocassionally vodka and hard cider, and some vile fluids we concocted from Kool-Ade and yeast). I speak in tongues. I know the difference.

Do we have ANY descriptions dating from antiquity of ANY of the mystery cults that contain descriptions of tongue-talking? If so, I NEED 'em!

Love,

Steve

Edited September 20, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[Raf]

He looks to be a geographer. Who wrote a paper from documented research, and documented his sources. He's miles ahead of Wierwille in scholarship there.

Well, yeah, he's a geographer NOW. But at the time he was a college junior looking for a good grade while working toward his degree in philosophy/religion. I think his sources are of more interest to me, but unfortunately, I am having trouble actually finding their work online. What I have found seems to indicate that they were interested in this as a behavioral issue (ie, are tongues speakers psychotic?). There's more to be researched there. As for extensively quoting Landry, for the purposes you and I are describing, either of us should be almost embarrassed to quote him as any authority. As someone who agrees with you (or with me), fine. But you wanted an academic study, and I doubt you meant an undergraduate essay.

The context probably would determine the spiritual significance. One thing I think we have proven on this thread, both from people's experience and the scientific research, is that people can produce a counterfeit that has nothing to do with anything spiritual.

We'll agree there. Break out the champagne!

[waysider]

Steve

Is this enough to get you started?

Ecstatic language was a common form of worship in pagan temples.i It was well established in Ancient Byblos (1100 BC). Plato (429-347 BC) mentions it as a phenomenon in his time. He tells us that a person under divine possession received utterances and visions that the receiver did not understand.

These utterances were sometimes accompanied by physical healing of people present. Virgil (70-19 BC) tells us that the Sibylline priestess, when in prayer, united her spirit with the god Apollo and spoke in strange tongues.ii

SOURCE