SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

Let me retract what I said about Landry's sources, because I think I misread a page. At least one of his sources, the Malony-Lovekin study, does not appear to be linguistic in nature at all, but I'm not sure what it WAS since I can't find much more than citations and an availability of their book on Amazon. I'd order it, but I'm not entirely sure my interest level is all that high.

I don't mean to be picking on Landry, but his paper seems to quote one book that quotes a lot of other studies, making the research he's presented simultaneously second and third hand. It makes it difficult to analyze.

I'll put his work down for now. I wouldn't want strangers dissecting my college papers. They were dreadful.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

You know, chockfull, you need to go back and check what you wrote regarding Samarin. You severely misrepresented his work.

[Steve Lortz]

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

Thanks, waysider! I will check those out!

Love,

Steve

[Raf]

Steve, I'm sure a google search of non Christian SIT or pre Christian SIT would be faster and more efficient than waiting for Waysider or relying on any one link. Just a thought.

[Raf]

Chockfull, I am truly alarmed at the dishonest manner in which you cite these studies and portray their findings, particularly when it comes to Samarin, and the depths to which you stoop to discredit me. It is, I would have thought, beneath you.

[chockfull]

Did I mention it was laughably biased?

Wow. A paper that is pretty much down the center line of the two sides of this argument, and you find it "laughably biased"??!? And by proxy it seems you are saying that he completely misrepresented Samarin, as that is where I was quoting from? That's quite a distorted view.

I haven't read all of Samarin's work, so I didn't reference his ultimate conclusions. Yet he was quoted accurately in that paper, and the scientific portion of his findings support exactly what I said they did.

Yet you find this "alarming and dishonest"?

From my perspective you have quite an emotional attachment to your viewpoint on this topic. That isn't healthy. You might want to look at that.

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.

I wasn't commenting on how complete a spiritual reference I found it - just that from a complete logic perspective it covers all the basis, where the more emotionally charged scholars are blind to possibilities of the other side.

I'll check out DA Carson - I haven't read his commentary yet. Thanks for the reference.

[chockfull]

Reading through some more of Samarin's work. You know, the one Raf is crying hard about me seemingly misrepresenting?

Here's and abstract from another of his works:

Variations and Variables in Religious Glossolalia

Psychopathological explanations oversimplify religious glossolalia. An analysis of the use of glossolalia reveals that the speaker manipulates linguistic variables with considerable delicacy in response to role, purpose of the speech act, and setting of the speech act. Examined from a cultural point of view, glossolalia is another 'language' in the Pentecostalists' linguistic repertoire. (Glossolalia, Pentecostalism, speech pathologies, paralinguistics, language of religion.)

So Samarin calls glossolalia a 'language' - direct quote.

Maybe Raf needs to actually read the writings of his sources as opposed to crying so hard about it?

[waysider]

Examined from a cultural point of view, glossolalia is another 'language' in the Pentecostalists' linguistic repertoire

Chock

Two things strike me about this sentence.

1.) He qualifies it.

(...from a cultural point of view)

2.) He puts quotes around the word.

(...glossolalia is another 'language')

This second devise is one I personally use frequently when the word or expression doesn't literally fit the typical definition and/or has a proprietary meaning. For example, if I were talking about my FellowLaborer experience, I might say something like...."Every morning at 5:30, we 'ran to the tree and back'." That expression has a nuanced meaning to anyone who was in the program.

Edited September 20, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

This kind of deliberately dishonest quotation is impossible to argue against.

Samarin's distinction between xenoglossia (it's really a language) and glossolalia (it's not a language, but it has some characteristics of language because that is how the speaker manufactures it) is deeply instructive and utterly ignored by chockfull. Even the fact that they put the word "language" in quotes is ignored, when it seems rather obvious to the reader who is NOT trying to call me names that the use of quotes there is equivalent to "so-called." Glossolalia is a "language" the way Victor Paul Wierwille was a "man of God."

Look! Raf called Wierwille a man of God!

What are you, 12?

An objective reading of Samarin forces you to conclude that when he writes of glossolalia, he is studying the stuff the speaker made up. He specifically distinguishes it from any real language and instead says we can learn something about the development of language by observing how people manufacture glossolalia. The "words" and "phrases" in glossolalia exist only insofar as the speaker seems to have attached meaning and deliberately broken up "sentences." Forget that he's already ruled out glossolalia as a real language, forget that he specifically describes how and why the speaker makes it up, forget the fact that Samarin accounts for why this made up stuff is going to have some characteristics of language, and it's easy to celebrate a victory when he makes a reference to so-called "language" and say SEE! A linguist says it's a language!

Yeah, no he didn't. Better to call his methodology Satanic than to force him to say the opposite of what he's saying.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

I apologize. I should not have said deliberately dishonest. I have no idea whether it was deliberate.

[geisha779]

I wasn't commenting on how complete a spiritual reference I found it - just that from a complete logic perspective it covers all the basis, where the more emotionally charged scholars are blind to possibilities of the other side.

I'll check out DA Carson - I haven't read his commentary yet. Thanks for the reference.

I am not sure one can logically conclude anything without all the relevant information and within such a narrow corridor. Things like this make me uncomfortable and I am unwilling to read anything for more than it can legitimately offer. Which is why I directed you to Carson, who not only examines other doctrine, but linguistics, social anthropology, history, psychology, and geography. He does this so that he can draw rational conclusions.

Don't do that to me Chockfulll... appeal to nameless, faceless, and "emotionally charged" scholars and imply that they are blind to a side. You may not like the conclusions some draw....but, I hope you really are judging them on the merits of their scholarship and not on the basis of a preconceived and emotionally invested theology. Especially one with "sides" and one which may largely be based on a personal and mystical experience. I read a HUGE amount of varied theology and if I found someone so emotionally vested in an issue that it reflects in their scholarship......I would not read them. Personally, I have yet to find a true scholar in theological circles....who does this. In that world....they don't really fair to well.....although polite about it....theologians do not suffer fools easily.

[Raf]

I'm going to try to review chockfull's allegations one by one, which may take some time considering the lengths undertaken to label me a crying politician (because namecalling really helps prove your point).

All right, here we go. Here's what the source says at http://www.matthewclandry.com/Glossolalia.pdf

(quote)

Raf says this is stating the determination was that the forty recordings were not a language. WRONG!!!!! The determination was that they did not profess to hear a language that they could identify. Raf is reading in what he wants to into scientific studies.

I'm going to kind of agree there. It was no language that they could identify, and I should have said as much. Of course, if it WAS a language they could identify, we'd be done here, wouldn't we. But it never seems to be a language anyone can identify. Wonder why that is.

Next point. Sherrill, who provided 40 recordings of glossolalia, slipped in two recordings that were not professed to be glossolalia, but were indeed gibberish. The linguists easily picked out the "made up gibberish" as distinctly different than the glossolalia recording.

Raf's conclusion? THE LINGUISTS DETERMINED THE GLOSSALALIA TAPES WERE GIBBERISH.

Raf, you are wasting your talents here in scientific analysis.

Here the pot calls the kettle black. Let's remember that we are reviewing here an undergraduate term paper, without access to the sources documented by the future geologist, and making judgments about words like "glossolalia" and "gibberish" without regard to the meanings of those words as used by the researchers. Samarin distinguishes between gibberish and glossolalia in his study (which the undergrad cites and which, thankfully, we DO have access to), so that the conclusion "glossolalia is not gibberish" is actually self-defined. This is rather critical to our purposes here: if you define away the difference between glossolalia and gibberish at the outset, you pre-determine their differences. In gibberish, the speaker is making no effort to produce anything that sounds like a language. In glossolalia, the speaker IS making an effort to produce something that sounds like a language. Therefore, to the linguist, the difference between gibberish and glossolalia becomes clear because one displays that conscious or subconscious effort and the other does not.

Key realizations: regardless of what you believe glossolalia to be, you have to admit that it's not any known language, which eliminates it under the Biblical definition of speaking in tongues at least insofar as they are the "tongues of men" as described in Acts 2 and I Corinthians 13. Glossolalia are NOT tongues of men by any definition, and none of the researchers we are considering concluded that they are. Not one.

Samarin is explicit on this, as we shall see later.

[Raf]

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.

That's galling. I mean unmitigated gall. Let's explore why.

Chockfull quotes Landry (the undergrad whose grade on this paper we still don't know), who quotes Malony and Lovekin quoting Samarin. Whew. (Hey, are you getting the impression that Samarin is a rather respected and recognized authority on this issue? Not that appealing to authority is a valid logical tactic, but it IS interesting).

Ok, so what does Samarin say in this quoted quote: Hmm. Glossolalia and gibberish are different.

Hold the phone. Are we clear on what Samarin even MEANS by glossolalia yet? Oh, we're not? Well, let's find out to arrive at the truth of what Landry says:

A definition of glossolalia that would be useful to the linguist in the widest context is one like the following: a meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead. [italics his].

What does this tell us about Samarin? Well, I think it clearly differentiates between real language and stuff made up by the speaker that SOUNDS like real language but has "no systematic resemblance to ANY LANGUAGE LIVING OR DEAD." This definition needs to be recalled whenever we read Samarin's references to glossolalia: He has already ruled it out as a language and is now fascinated not by "what is glossolalia NOT," but "what IS glossolalia" (having already ruled it out as an existing or extinct language).

To take Samarin and conclude, from one quote of a quote, that "linguists conclude that the patterns in glossolalia support the possibility that it is a language" is an error at best, a blatant lie at worst. Fortunately, we HAVE a substantial writing sample from Samarin to compare against the undergrad's quote of a quote to get to what he's REALLY saying.

When Samarin says glossolalia is not gibberish, what he is saying is that the speaker has invented out of whole cloth something that looks and sounds languagish but clearly is not. By the way, that's not my interpretation of Samarin. It's what he says (I've already quoted this with more context, so don't go accusing me of taking this quote out of context):

...The speaker is subconsciously motivated to produce a new language. To do this, he must make it as different from his own as he possibly can..."

You may not take that to mean "the speaker makes that s#1% up," but I do, and if we're at odds here, Godspeed.

Back to chockfull:

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]!

If you're going to steal my joke, I would appreciate it if you were at least a little funny. That you should call your approach "the scientific method and common sense" should humiliate you, considering your contempt for a truly scientific approach to this question.

See, if you were REALLY interested in a scientific approach in keeping with common sense, you would [censored by the Committee to Protect the Faith From A Scientific Approach And Common Sense Already Dismissed as the Methodology of SATAN!]

You see? THAT's funny.

[Raf]

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.

This conclusion, that you cannot really prove or disprove tongues, has been discussed on this thread ad nauseum. It is one of the reasons I characterized the Right Rev's article on the subject as laughably biased. For those just joining us: If SIT produced a verified language from a speaker who had no prior experience with or exposure to that language, it would pretty much PROVE SIT as a legitimate experience. Let's agree that you can't disprove it everywhere in all cases. But to say you can't prove it is to agree, pretty much, that "speaking in tongues" and producing the tongues of men as recorded in Acts 2 and expected in I Corinthians 13 is something no one can do. Because if someone could do it, you would not be hiding behind the lie that "it can't be proved."

So is the Right Rev's paper "honest scientific research"? Clearly not. It doesn't even make rhetorical sense on that critical point. The paper DOES make some interesting points, but seeing as he exposes his bias, the only value I would draw from him is when he presents something that is objectively verifiable or reaches a conclusion that runs counter to his expressed bias (in favor of the possibility that there may be something genuine going on here, and his refusal to allow the evidence to rule it out).

Edited September 20, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

A quick detour on the bias of Vern Poythress, which I picked up on just by reading the article, not even realizing that although he has taught linguistics, his primary field is, in fact, religious. Interestingly (for what it's worth), his Wikipedia entry lists him first as a Calvinist philosopher, theologian and New Testament scholar.

Do you suppose such a person might be predisposed to believe that tongues can't be proved or disproved?

He studied linguistics and Bible translation at the Summer Institute of Linguistics at the University of Oklahoma in 1971 and 1972, and he enrolled at Westminster Theological Seminary, earning an M.Div. (1974) and a Th.M. in apologetics (1974).

Apologetics? Yeah, that's the field where your primary goal is to argue in favor of the Christian faith.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's the opposite of unbiased. Just as I would never expect Richard Dawkins to conduct a study that validates SIT, I would never expect Poythress to conduct a study that invalidates it. He can't. It's literally not his job. So he tells us that it "can't" be proved or disproved, ignoring the obvious fact that it can be proved quite easily: the moment someone DOES speak in tongues and produce a verified language, you watch how fast the SITters jump up and say AHA! We PROVED it!

Let's not neglect at a couple of things he is willing to say DESPITE this bias.

The scientific approach, insofar as it demands results and evidence acceptable to and reproducible by non-Christians, can rise no higher than the position of the “natural man,” who is unable to penetrate the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:10–16). Hence, the scientific approach is condemned to inconclusive results at the outset.

This is not the statement of an unbiased researcher. It is wholly consistent with an apologetic who does not want the results of a scientific study to be perceived as an attack on an article of faith.

Still, he IS able to describe free vocalization (which is by his own definition made up by the speaker without any... wait, let me not characterize it. Let's have Vern do it:

In short, it seems that the capacity for free vocalization is a normal, God-given human capacity. The person who was unable to do it would be unusual. We regard free vocalization as abnormal only because, in our modern Western cultural milieu, people usually cease to do it after childhood.

I think it's self-evident that he is not at this point describing a supernatural phenomenon, but something that anyone can do. In fact, he says, it would be unusual to find someone who cannot do it! Earlier he says the following:

Can the average person be taught to produce free vocalization?

Yes. Learning to free vocalize is easier than learning to ride a bicycle. As with the bicycle, the practitioner may feel foolish and awkward at first. But practice makes perfect. Moreover, though at first a person may feel self-conscious, after he has learned he may sometimes forget that he is doing it. It is something that he can start or stop at will without difficulty.

One easy way for a person to learn is to pretend that he is speaking a foreign language. He starts speaking, slowly and deliberately producing syllables. Then be speeds up, consciously trying to make it sound like a language would sound. Once he is doing well, he just relaxes and does not worry any longer about what comes out.

Again, Vern here is NOT describing any supernatural process that requires God to energize or inspire the utterances that come forth. He is explicit about that.

By the way, you'll be forgiven if the above description reminds you at all of session 12, because it is precisely how we were taught to fake SIT. It is also, practically speaking, indistinguishable from what we read earlier in Samarin. The only difference is that Samarin introduces the motive of the speaker to produce a real language. Practically speaking, mechanically, they are describing the exact same thing. That's why I find Vern's discussion here highly instructive.

Now it is time to pay some attention to the question of how modern-T-speech (glossolalia with its specifically Christian associations) differs from other instances of free vocalization.

If it differs, it's not the same thing.

Now watch this, because it is central to what we discuss:

How does nonreligious free vocalization differ linguistically from T-speech?

Most of the time, we cannot distinguish the two linguistically. At least two experiments have shown this. In one, Al Carlson of the University of California recorded speech samples from T-speakers and from volunteers told to speak unknown language. The samples were then rated by T-speakers. The nonreligious free vocalization actually received better ratings. In a second experiment, Werner Cohn at the University of British Columbia took students to Pentecostal meeting, asked them to imitate T-speakers in the laboratory, and received approving evaluations of the recorded samples from T-speakers.

Wait, what? Lemme read that again: Most of the time, linguistically speaking, a person speaking in tongues produces something that's indistinguishable from someone who is free-vocalizing while deliberately trying to make it sound like a language.

What conclusion does Vern draw from the observations he's describing (as it seems clear that he's not the one doing the studying, by the way: he is strictly describing other studies with the ultimate goal of producing an apologetic response TO those scientific analyses.

These facts—especially the fact that free vocalization is so easy to produce and that most T-speech is not a natural language — have become one of the main grounds for a certain amount of debunking on the part of social scientists. To them, it appears that T-speech has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. But, as I hope to show, this conclusion will follow only if one makes certain nontrivial theological assumptions about the work of the Holy Spirit. What the research does show is that free vocalization is not an intrinsically miraculous and therefore infallible sign of the working of the Holy Spirit.

Any unbiased scientist reading that paragraph in 1912 would probably STILL be laughing. A scientific conclusion that SIT, which produces utterances that are linguistically indistinguishable from open fakery, IS itself fake... is only possible if you don't know how God works.

That conclusion is theologically understandable, but it's a joke, scientifically speaking. That he has the professionalism to admit that free vocalization is not indisputable proof of the presence and the power of the Hholy Sspirit is commendable. That he lacks the professionalism to admit that both examined speakers are clearly faking, but only one is admitting it, is disappointing.

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.

This sounds impressive, but is really self evident. Unless you analyze all SIT, you can never prove that it's ALL fake. You can only prove those you've analyzed are fake. Apparently a failure to distinguish between SIT and admitted fakery is insufficient evidence to conclude that SIT IS fakery. Because God.

You can't argue with that logic. No, I mean that. You can't argue with it. There's nothing to argue with.

I should note that Vern later goes into an extensive discussion about the possibility of SIT as a "coded" language, but seeing as I do not see Paul talking about speaking the tongues of men, angels and secret agents, I am choosing not to delve into that part of his discussion. It appears, at best, a desperate attempt to rescue SIT (or what Vern calls "T-speech") from utter debunking.

I mean no disrespect to the Rev. Vern. He is clearly a brilliant man and quite the Christian apologist. But this paper, for what it's worth, is not a work of research, per se, and cannot be treated as such.

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.

At this point it becomes clear that you are not even reading these reports but merely looking for reasons to insult me. Had you read them, you would see that the incidents of xenoglossia were NOT samples of people exercising SIT. They were claiming past life regression, reincarnation and the like. So... no.

Please read Samarin's report before you embarrass yourself any further.

[geisha779]

This is a sincere question....and quite away from the intelligent and detailed debate going on here. I am simple folk.....but, I am still curious why we thought we could improve, perfect, expand or excel in an unknown language. Anybody? And if we participated in trying to improve on the quality and fluency of a language supposedly unknown to us...... stepping back and genuinely reflecting.....doesn't that strongly imply we were really faking it?

I can exhibit a pretty good sized ego...some vanity and definitely pride, but even I understand my limitations. I can't excel in something completely foreign to me. I can't improve on something I genuinely don't understand at all.....and I can't increase my fluency in a language I don't know.

Sessions to excel seem a pretty ego based practice to me. Now, doctrinal issues are not central to my question, but if it is an ego based practice, then it appears to run at cross purposes with the instruction manual. No? I am sincere not ironic here.

Yet, I am asked to believe (Not directed at you Chockfull) it was a genuine experience with a tongue. I am starting to believe genuine tongues may have ceased.Without the evidence of an experience like that in Acts where the language was understood and it related a specific message.....I am now seriously questioning ALL modern accounts of SIT. Not just TWI.

I would actually love to be wrong.

Edited September 20, 2012 by geisha779

[Raf]

Wow. A paper that is pretty much down the center line of the two sides of this argument, and you find it "laughably biased"??!? And by proxy it seems you are saying that he completely misrepresented Samarin, as that is where I was quoting from? That's quite a distorted view.

I haven't read all of Samarin's work, so I didn't reference his ultimate conclusions. Yet he was quoted accurately in that paper, and the scientific portion of his findings support exactly what I said they did.

Thou shalt not bear falsewitness against thy neighbor.

That is not what I said. It is not what I meant. And it is not what he did, as I believe he cited Samarin accurately.

What do the studies agree on:

SIT, as examined thus far, has failed to produce a single instance of a speaker producing a known language that was unknown to the speaker but identifiable to other human beings.

Does this bother no one? If what you were doing was reproducing what Paul promises in the Bible, wouldn't you expect MOST SIT to produce a known language? Ok, not most. Many! Ok, not many. Some! Ok, not some: ONE?!?

The alternatives are tongues of angels and code (a non-Biblical copout that, if we're being honest here, should not even be considered).

Edited September 20, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

I compare Samarin to an agricultural biologist studying the solid, post-digestive byproduct of the species bos taurus to determine its potential uses in farming or other potential application. The results will vary based on any number of issues, from the diet of the animal to the climate in which it was raised. Numerous different conclusions can be drawn about its content, consistency and application.

But in the end, the agricultural biologist knows that what he's studying is bulls hit, and so does Samarin.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

I am not sure one can logically conclude anything without all the relevant information and within such a narrow corridor. Things like this make me uncomfortable and I am unwilling to read anything for more than it can legitimately offer. Which is why I directed you to Carson, who not only examines other doctrine, but linguistics, social anthropology, history, psychology, and geography. He does this so that he can draw rational conclusions.

Don't do that to me Chockfulll... appeal to nameless, faceless, and "emotionally charged" scholars and imply that they are blind to a side. You may not like the conclusions some draw....but, I hope you really are judging them on the merits of their scholarship and not on the basis of a preconceived and emotionally invested theology. Especially one with "sides" and one which may largely be based on a personal and mystical experience. I read a HUGE amount of varied theology and if I found someone so emotionally vested in an issue that it reflects in their scholarship......I would not read them. Personally, I have yet to find a true scholar in theological circles....who does this. In that world....they don't really fair to well.....although polite about it....theologians do not suffer fools easily.

I was simply contrasting what I read in Poythress, which to me exhibited a more complete coverage of logical possibilities, with other theologians I have read on the topic. Other theologians either exhibit a viewpoint that comes to the conclusion it died with the apostles, or come to the conclusion that it is similar to like we experienced in TWI, that it is alive and well and make claims as to it being necessary for proof of the new birth.

I've read 4 or 5 commentaries now, and Carlson will make another. Maybe stating they are emotionally invested is an overstatement, but if it isn't then why do you think it is they go completely one way or the other on the topic? As I stated, Christianity is pretty divided over this, so I'm not making any revolutionary new observations.

Raf seems to be identifying people's backgrounds for sources on this thread and either poking fun at them, or talking about how their positions in the theological world affect their bias. In some ways this is valid - you can't just consider a source without knowing something about them.

Thou shalt not bear falsewitness against thy neighbor.

That is not what I said. It is not what I meant. And it is not what he did, as I believe he cited Samarin accurately.

Do you really have that hard of a time finding the exact post where you claimed Landry was, and I quote "laughably biased"????

Yes you said that. No, me pointing that out and questioning it is not bearing false witness against thy neighbor.

Now who is it that you are saying is in the 12th grade in debate tactics? Let the readers decide.

[Raf]

More bearing falsewitness.

Go ahead. Find the quote. I'll wait for your apology.

(If I said it about Landry, by the way, it was a typo, because I meant it about Vern).

By the way, remember Sherrill, the guy who did the review of the 40 different samples of glossolalia? Look him up. REAL "unbiased" stuff there:

A classic that has inspired millions of readers worldwide, They Speak with Other Tongues is the story of one man's encounter with the Holy Spirit. John Sherrill, a young reporter for Guideposts magazine, set out to gather information about a strange new occurrence happening all over the country. A skeptic when it came to speaking in tongues and the baptism with the Holy Spirit, Sherrill was determined to retain his objectivity while digging out the facts. What he found would change his life.

As John Sherrill relates the biblical and historical background for speaking in tongues, examines contemporary events, and shares his personal experience, he gives life-changing insight into this still-for-today gift of the Holy Spirit. This book is textbook reading for any Christian seeking to better understand the Holy Spirit or walk in the power of the Spirit day by day.

http://www.amazon.ca/They-Speak-Other-Tongues-Sherrill/dp/0800793595/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348156477&sr=1-1

Here's my original reference to "laughably biased," by the way.

I'll repeat that I haven't taken the time to really examine linguistic studies, so I'm on shaky ground when I speak of them. That said, I have no problem complying with your request.

Here is a summary of studies that are instructive, but presented in a laughably biased manner:

http://www.frame-poythress.org/linguistic-and-sociological-analyses-of-modern-tongues-speaking-their-contributions-and-limitations/

In this study I found the section on "free vocalization" of particular interest, as I believe it IS what we were all instructed to do in PFAL (and has no spiritual/miraculous implications whatsoever).

Overall, I think the author of this piece bends over backward to validate what the evidence before him discredits. But your opinion may differ.

[insert: This was before I even knew who Vern was. I was judging the work, not respecting the person].

Edited September 20, 2012 by Raf

[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?

Read that carefully: I did not call Landry laughably biased. I made a reference to Landry, then changed the subject to the OTHER article, Vern's identifying it as the one I had previously referred to as laughably biased.

So I retract my statement. You did not bear falsewitness. You did not mean to lie about me. You were mistaken, and the subsequent statement you made in reference to that mistake was untrue, but sincere.

Kinda like the whole SIT experience we've been hoodwinked into accepting.

[Raf]

This is a sincere question....and quite away from the intelligent and detailed debate going on here. I am simple folk.....but, I am still curious why we thought we could improve, perfect, expand or excel in an unknown language. Anybody? And if we participated in trying to improve on the quality and fluency of a language supposedly unknown to us...... stepping back and genuinely reflecting.....doesn't that strongly imply we were really faking it?

I can exhibit a pretty good sized ego...some vanity and definitely pride, but even I understand my limitations. I can't excel in something completely foreign to me. I can't improve on something I genuinely don't understand at all.....and I can't increase my fluency in a language I don't know.

Sessions to excel seem a pretty ego based practice to me. Now, doctrinal issues are not central to my question, but if it is an ego based practice, then it appears to run at cross purposes with the instruction manual. No? I am sincere not ironic here.

Yet, I am asked to believe (Not directed at you Chockfull) it was a genuine experience with a tongue. I am starting to believe genuine tongues may have ceased.Without the evidence of an experience like that in Acts where the language was understood and it related a specific message.....I am now seriously questioning ALL modern accounts of SIT. Not just TWI.

I would actually love to be wrong.

just repisting this because I didn't want it to get buried.

[waysider]

The thing that bothers me is this:

If "speaking in tongues is proof in the senses realm of the internal presence...."....well, you know...

How's come it's also been practiced by so many Non-Christian people for thousands of years, even before the "internal presence" and all that stuff was known about?

It seems like there ought to be some sort of clue in there that addresses the subject at hand.

[geisha779]

I was simply contrasting what I read in Poythress, which to me exhibited a more complete coverage of logical possibilities, with other theologians I have read on the topic. Other theologians either exhibit a viewpoint that comes to the conclusion it died with the apostles, or come to the conclusion that it is similar to like we experienced in TWI, that it is alive and well and make claims as to it being necessary for proof of the new birth.

I've read 4 or 5 commentaries now, and Carlson will make another. Maybe stating they are emotionally invested is an overstatement, but if it isn't then why do you think it is they go completely one way or the other on the topic? As I stated, Christianity is pretty divided over this, so I'm not making any revolutionary new observations.

Well, no actually. I am not sure what you have been reading....but, that is not a very fair rendering of the conclusions many theologians draw at all. Chockfull, I hope you do start reading more on this particular topic, because what many, many theologians do is look at these scriptures in light of the genuine and counterfeit . Paul is sorting out a carnal church in gross error where both the real and genuine were in play. Oh my....... It is certainly not as simple as the two conclusions you say they draw and I don't know too many Christians(outside of Pentecostals) that say tongues is necessary for proof of the new birth. That runs contrary to faith, . . . . a sign to Israel yes....proof of salvation...no. . . . because I don't know of any theologians outside of my Way world that actually believe all Christians have all the gifts or operate them at their will. That is a radical departure from the consensus and a fringe belief.

I can give you a pretty long list of CHRISTIAN theologians who would say to flee from the tongues as we learned them from VP.....but not many, if any, that would conclude tongues is pretty much similar to what we did in TWI. VP was a cult leader....not a Christian.

I really don't want to antagonize you or have contention. I want to encourage you to keep expanding out with some sound resources. I love that you are looking into these things. I think it is great. I look forward to hearing what you think as you consider at least, more theology. :)

[Raf]

Ok, quick clarification: chockfull, you confused me by accusing me of calling Landry laughably biased. Clearly I said Vern and you meant Vern. You just wrote Landry.

But to the original point, I never accused Vern of misquoting or misrepresenting Samarin. THAT was your false accusation against me.