SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[OldSkool]

It's interesting. I find myself scared to consider SIT as we were taught by TWI is BS. Why? It was placed on such a pedestal for proving so many things. Yet, God asks us to have faith that his promises are true, not to rest in proof that speaking in tongues is assurance that his promises are true. I have to admit I have gone from being scared to being liberated from another lie propagated by Wierwille and company.

Now whether or not it's fake is still open to debate. But at least I can see past TWI's BS, and for that I am thankful to participants of this thread and to RAF for bringing up the topic in the first place.

[chockfull]

If what you produce is indistinguishable from fakery, the burden is on you to find the distinction.

Raf, I'm even involved in debate on this thread because you initiated the claim. I didn't come on here to debate my private prayer life until it was attacked. So for you to deny that you initiated the claim now, and that somehow nebulously someone else did for the sole purpose of putting yourself on the "correct" side of logical fallacy is intellectually dishonest.

[Raf]

That's very kind, OS, but you get the credit for confronting a deeply held belief.

Whether the burden of proof rests with me or with the other side is up to each individual to decide. I've made as strong a case as I can that the burden rests on those claiming SIT is real, especially considering that they have not presented me with any realistic opportunity to prove my case. If you can talk yourself out of any proof I offer, then we don't have an argument. Not a real one.

But that entitles no one to misrepresent facts. The idea that SIT cannot be shown to not be a language is factually incorrect. It has repeatedly been shown not to be a language and has never been shown to BE a language.

The idea that SIT cannot be proved true is incorrect on its face. It can be proved true by demonstrating it's a language, which it always should be.

Somehow, these two falsehoods keep resurfacing no matter how many times they are discredited.

Raf, I'm even involved in debate on this thread because you initiated the claim. I didn't come on here to debate my private prayer life until it was attacked. So for you to deny that you initiated the claim now, and that somehow nebulously someone else did for the sole purpose of putting yourself on the "correct" side of logical fallacy is intellectually dishonest.

Um, no. Intellectually dishonest is failing to recognize that no debate begins ” no you can't.”

You may shift the blame to me all you want, but you're doing so in a way that is short-sighted and myopic.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

By the way, the claim I initiated was that I lied and others did too. I did not say all others: that was a poll response.

If the last response is a thesis statement that must be proved, so are the others. Anyone claiming to SIT should prove it.

I can only prove the counterposition by presenting evidence to the contrary, no amount of which will convince you. Thus far, the only evidence presented that comes close to refuting my claim are a couple of decades-old anecdotes whose participants and details are very much in question.

[chockfull]

This is my last post on the matter or the thread. Challenge someone's perspective and boy it gets ugly. Yet, all I read on other threads is how great it is to have critical thinking skills now and gee it is great to be able to question. It is so hypocritical it is laughable.

So let me see, pointing out where you are stating your opinion as fact is "it gets ugly". Wow, there's a lot of emotion attached to someone pointing out the rules you are supposed to be playing by. That's all it takes for you to use words like "laughable", "ugly", "hypocritical". How can you possibly participate in a conversation supposed to be governed by rules? Maybe taking some time off of it IS a good idea.

I can see a little more of your challenge now. You get emotionally whipped up very easily, then shut down critical logic. It is great to have critical thinking skills. It is great to question. But having a controversial opinion, then forcing it down others throats by stating this opinion as fact is none of these. It is simply obnoxious. I am confronting that. You and Raf are doing this on this thread, and obviously both of you really, really, really don't like being called on it.

I guess even considering that there actually IS continuity throughout Acts concerning speaking in tongues is right out the window. You just dismissed a very accepted and widely understood exegesis as "my interpretation" as if that explained it away. A caviler dismissal of the obvious in favor of a perspective that supports your cherished understanding is no way to look at the scriptures, but it is a really common exegetical fallacy.

Yes there is continuity in Acts. So look at where you see tongues in Acts. Acts 2 - Pentecost, Acts 10:46; Acts 19:6. Acts 10 is the initial outpouring to the Gentiles. There is no indication in that account that it was for the purpose of language translation. Acts 19 - same thing. So of the 3 recorded instances in Acts that surround tongues, only the first one at Pentecost has anything to do with the purpose being others understanding in their own language, or a sign to unbelievers. As a matter of fact, specifically in Acts 10 the marveling is recorded by the believers who saw it happen.

I believe exactly what I said....those other accounts reveal those hearing did understand what was being said. I think we have to read into it to see otherwise.

All right then. In Acts 10 and Acts 19, please point out the verses showing those hearing understood the language. Or is it really you have to read into those accounts to interpret it as you say?

I know the Pentecostal definition for speaking in tongues.....I once believed it. Speaking to God mysterious utterances in a secret and private prayer language. Got it. I just don't think scripture supports it. And yes, I actually had to look at scripture to see this.

You label things a lot. It gets in the way of logic. There are scriptures that some consider a leap that it refers to tongues. However, I Cor. 14:15 states "I pray with my spirit I pray with my understanding". These are separate and distinct. One involves spirit (that cannot be detected by the senses). One involves normal prayer / speech / talking.

But the fact that you looked at scripture to formulate an opinion is much better than labeling and reading commentary.

If you want to believe that when tongues is used in scripture it is used to convey some mysterious and special prayer language....go ahead. Is that what is means? Then that must be exactly how the Greeks would have understood that phrase SIT. Right? We might have to ignore the Septuagint where it is used for regular human languages....but whatever.Why should its first use or where it is used in Job, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah. Esther, or Nehemiah matter to us?

Could it possibly be that the same word is used to convey to the believer that the same principles of language apply? No, that never could be it.

Although the accounts we do have were not some private prayer examples, but rather public testimony.....it shouldn't bother us. A biblical testimony is in there to ignore. The first account, which establishes it as a known human language, doesn't have to mean anything if we won't let it mean something. Unless of course, we are meant to lean on that for understanding in the subsequent accounts, then we have a problem. There were 14 different groups identified on Pentecost as hearing and understanding their specific dialect. Hard to ignore.

So on the day of Pentecost there was also a special miracle, where everyone understood. And I've heard a dozen or so firsthand accounts of tongues in a believers meeting being understood without interpretation, including one by socks on this thread. Those also would be a miracle. Those also would be hard to ignore. But hey, the "fakers" Claim X group on here are doing a great job of ignoring it anyway. Hey all you have to do is ignore firsthand accounts, ignore Acts 10 and 19, and blow up Acts 2 to the sky and you have your position in a nutshell.

Now, we have to make a leap if we are going to assume that SIT is anything other than a known human language. We have to start reading into Paul's intent in Corinthians....we must ignore hyperbole, tone, and correction. To assume Paul is advocating the private use of tongues, we would have to ignore his criticism elsewhere, really throughout the entire letter. The majority of what he writes in 1 Corinthians is negative because tongues is a problematic and pride filled gift. Yet, we are to assume he is suddenly advocating its private use after painstakingly explaining the negative connotations concerning self gratification? I don't think so, not unless he is manic.

Or you could look at his words as accurate while he is correcting the Corinthians, rather than thinking "oh he was just mad or exaggerating" when he said he would they all spoke in tongues. No, these little nuances of tone in whether or not he was reproving him are the only important thing. They needed scolding, and he was going to say whatever was necessary to scold them even if it wasn't accurate. How ludicrous.

We also have to ignore Peter's visit to the gentiles. With Cornelius they were heard to be exalting God in tongues. Someone there understood what was being said or they wouldn't have known they were exalting God. Lucky guess? Assumption? Luke uses the same expression as Acts 2 where they were speaking known languages. If it was different, we are not clued in by Luke's choice of language. Language is for communication. Peter's defense of that mission also tells us . . . . they had received the Holy Spirit just as the Apostles had. He goes on to explain more.....As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. . . . . . So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God's way.

oh yeah. have to axe Acts 10 because it doesn't line up with your interpretation. there are a number of reasons why they would have known they were exalting God, not the least which would have been that maybe many in the audience were present on the day of Pentecost. Luke doesn't say they understood the language. If you combine Acts 10 and Acts 19 with the most basic instruction from I Cor. 14, you know that Paul says if a person speaks in tongues, the other doesn't understand. So from other places in the Bible, where it defines its own terms it's really clear that they didn't understand, if you don't read into it. Oh wait. Paul was scolding the Corinthians, so we can't trust that what he was saying there was accurate, only that he was mad and they were wrong.

Color me uniformed on details, but it seems to me that Luke and Peter are going out of there way to draw parallels between the two events, not distance. It seems to me, one would have to ignore the obvious and blatant continuity to favor anything remotely like a one time event where the languages spoken and understood are a rare phenomenon. Silly me, I take these accounts into the reading of 1 Corinthians and amazingly my perspective allows for tone, hyperbole, and correction. New eyes to see those verses in Corinthians. That can't possibly be the reason they are in there can it?

It couldn't be that Pentecost was the one-time cataclysmic event for all ages introducing the new birth or anything and that's why there were special miracles attached to the event. Your perspective on Corinthians may allow for tone, but you dismiss the content as non-important from a factual perspective.

The Holy Spirit means empowerment.....for what purpose? Who or what is the focus on? Basic questions and details that must be considered when reading about gifts. Are we built up through the body or as a lone ranger? Are gifts distributed for the individual or are they for the edification of the body and then we in turn are edified by the whole? Is the empowerment of the Holy Spirit for empowerment to minister to others or some mystical way to build ourselves up? If it wasn't a known language and a sign for those who didn't believe and the purpose is self, private and merely some mysterious utterances......then we can throw out the rest of scripture and ignore all the wonderful things we should understand about one body, diversity within unity, and even what it means to pray.

For what purpose? Well, look at God's gift of life in general. Who does it benefit first? Yourself. Then others next. It's the same with the gift of eternal life. Eternal life benefits you first, then by you not dying others you may touch. It is not a stretch to think that the new birth will have those same benefits - you first - providing a connection with the Father, then others next.

It's a basic tenet of helping others that you have to help yourself first. Airline instructions tell you to put the oxygen mask over yourself first, then help the one next to you next.

If all you do is focus on others, you will not be able to provide long-term benefit for them, as each person counts for one. If your needs are unmet, then that will spill over into helping others and you will be ineffective, as the negativity from your needs not being met will project through and sabotage your efforts to help.

No, God provided a perfect gift, one that would allow connection and communication with Him, eternal life, and spiritual power. A gift where you can be sustained through quenching yourself in the eternal fountain whose water never fails, and then you can share that with others helping them to get there too.

The gift is not so that you can become a misguided martyr.

IMO.

Edited October 14, 2012 by chockfull

[chockfull]

The idea that SIT cannot be shown to not be a language is factually incorrect. It has repeatedly been shown not to be a language and has never been shown to BE a language.

This is also intellectually dishonest. The first reference posted on this thread of Polythress showed a sample space of recorded tongues, and a study by a group of linguists. No linguist understood the language, but all agreed that the tongues had elements of language as opposed to several recordings of known gibberish inserted into the sample group, which were easily detected as gibberish. There also I am giving a lot of leeway calling those recorded samples "tongues". I don't know for a fact that they were genuine tongues.

So you are misrepresenting the very studies you introduced, cherry picking parts of them that support your core belief.

This again is intellectual dishonesty. I understand what drives people to this. It's frustrating when you can't measure spirit, you faked it in TWI, and you really want to prove others did too so that your core self image survives intact.

Edited October 14, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

Please do not psychoanalyze me. You are crossing the line that made this an unpleasant conversation last time.

You are misrepresenting the studies. They are very clear that these are not languages, and the linguistic qualities they do contain are shared by fakery. So, again, all the actual evidence leans only in one direction.

[chockfull]

The idea that SIT cannot be proved true is incorrect on its face. It can be proved true by demonstrating it's a language, which it always should be.

"Proving" from a scientific basis became problematic for the ones involved. In calling something genuine scientifically they place a lot more hoops to jump through to reach that barrier. For instance, like someone SIT can have NEVER had ANY exposure to the language. There were a couple of incidents discounted because the tongue speaker had very limited exposure to the language before, so scientists said they couldn't rule it out from the subconscious.

So "cannot" prove it is too strong a term. If you have a cooperating scientist, tools to measure, people in a believers meeting, and also you have God's permission and support such that there is a guarantee that the power coming in will be there when you do the test even though you can't measure it. If you have all those things, then you can prove it.

[chockfull]

Please do not psychoanalyze me. You are crossing the line that made this an unpleasant conversation last time.

I don't mean for it to be an unpleasant conversation. But I'm unwilling to take 100% of the blame for that. With human nature there IS a natural course where things develop - that's not psychoanalyzing you. You are the one that is making a big deal out of making admissions of faking it on this thread, and how liberating that is. You were the one using "faking" and "lying" as terms earlier. You were the one attacking my private prayer life earlier.

So take the responsibility for your actions. If things are unpleasant, maybe your actions have something to do with it too.

You are misrepresenting the studies. They are very clear that these are not languages, and the linguistic qualities they do contain are shared by fakery. So, again, all the actual evidence leans only in one direction.

We went down this road earlier. I posted excerpts from the study backing up the points I was making where linguists noted elements of language in the samples, including words, sentences, phrases, etc. I posted the quote saying they could NOT rule out them being languages. This is 100% the opposite of what you stated that they could be proven as not languages. You are misrepresenting the study not me, by completely misrepresenting the conclusions arrived at from the study.

The conclusions, one more time, were basically that it could NOT be proven one way or the other.

[Raf]

Ok. I take responsibility for my part. So long as it's reciprocal and the politeness police recognize that.

[chockfull]

By the way, the claim I initiated was that I lied and others did too. I did not say all others: that was a poll response.

If the last response is a thesis statement that must be proved, so are the others. Anyone claiming to SIT should prove it.

I can only prove the counterposition by presenting evidence to the contrary, no amount of which will convince you. Thus far, the only evidence presented that comes close to refuting my claim are a couple of decades-old anecdotes whose participants and details are very much in question.

I don't have a lot invested into this "logical fallacy" idea. I think waysider was the one that brought that up. I think the whole idea of "logical fallacy" is basically to try and work towards the scientific method where you have a hypothesis, then scientific methods to prove or disprove that hypothesis. By nature there has to be a hypothesis to test. In this case the hypothesis could equally be "All people claiming to SIT are faking it", or "SIT is a genuine language from God" (at least in the most general sense of defining the hypothesis).

I think more our debate has just been discussing the topic. I don't really think either side introduced the idea as you state from a general presence perspective. You were sharing a perspective and took a poll. The poll is about exactly divided, which fuels into the debate. I think all the logical fallacy stuff is extraneous static and is just an intellectual way to call someone a name.

[chockfull]

Ok. I take responsibility for my part. So long as it's reciprocal and the politeness police recognize that.

This discussion and debate wavers between polite and not so polite as people are expressing their views and defending their points. I include myself as being polite and not polite in my posts. That's to my credit in places and I'm to be blamed in others.

Look, we all came from a cult. We all have issues. Not as many issues as those still under the authority of the cult, but still issues. All I can do is apologize where I'm wrong, forgive others as quickly as possible, and keep moving on.

[Raf]

Taking lines from Poythress and Samarin out of context when they're examining linguistics while ignoring their very clear statements that SIT does not produce real language is as intellectually dishonest as anything I've been accused us. In fact, it goes beyond intellectual dishonesty and crosses the line into deliberate misrepresentation.

Poythress and Samarin not only describe this as a human, non spiritual activity, but they each describe in recognizable detail exactly how a sincere person who has no conscious desire to fake SIT will nonetheless do so, producing the exact same thing, linguistically, as an admitted faker.

In effect, both say it looks, walks and quacks like a duck. Poythress won't call it a duck; Samarin will.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

I agree with you on burden of proof, chockfull, as far as its value in this discussion. Burden of proof sets the terms. It does not inform the actual subject matter.

[geisha779]

I think I will let this first part of your post slide. Angry Chockfull is not fun! I would rather you didn't analyze me either or assume you have clue one about my motives. You get personal so easily and when it suits you. That makes it so easy to believe you when you say we should talk to each other.

I simply made an observation to your declaration about God's purpose behind tongues. You have no problem declaring things as fact. You even seemed exasperated you had to declare it twice. It struck me as ironic reasoning. Who is the emotional one again?

I didn't ignore the other accounts Chockfull....I did tell you we would look at some of the reasons. I have plenty more, but I don't want to embarrass you or cram it down your throat. I was hoping to spark you to consideration. It is totally up to you what you investigate and how you reason. I think how burden of proof actually works might escape you. In scripture, when we have an established account like in Acts 2.....the burden of proof shifts to the person claiming the other accounts are something different. I didn't say it was for translation. I said it was a language understood by the hearers. Introducing a reason unrelated to what I said....doesn't really refute my point. If I didn't pay attention to details I might fall for that misdirection.

Since Paul frequently uses hyperbole, it is not a stretch to consider he is using it when he says "I would that ye all spake in tongues". Since he had already used it when he claimed that that he wished all men were like himself, celibate. We are now clued into how he uses exaggeration. If all men were celibate, the human race would cease to exist. No? That might be hyperbole? Same phrase, same intent. Those pesky details.

So, we actually ARE going to assume other reasons they knew those in Cornelius' house were exalting God and dismiss the obvious one? That, is not a good idea unless you are trying to make scripture say something you want to say. We don't dismiss the obvious in favor of grasping at other reasons which are not right there. Same gift, same way, same result. Someone understood what was being said. Think about it for a moment. These were gentiles, they didn't want to include them....Peter especially. It was a somewhat hostile audience. Do you think they were going to assume these gentiles were praising God? Assume it was it was the same thing as Pentecost. They didn't want the gentiles....they called them dogs. Luke does state they understood . . . by saying they were heard SIT and exalting God. Consider the details.

Corinthians IS correction and Paul IS dealing with a very carnal and immature church. Why does this bother you? Why is it so difficult to accept Paul's criticism of this church and his correction? I don't get your point at all, we are to ignore the obvious, so we can take Paul literally where it suits us?? Okay....go ahead. Are you ready to be celibate?

As you say Pentecost introduced something and then apparently God quietly changed it to something else? Okay...if you want to believe that....I don't mind.

LOL, now you are appealing to the authority of the old adage, God helps those who help themselves? That is so far removed from scriptural, I don't know what to say except you may have, missed the forest for the trees. One adage deserves another.

All those things you claim tongues are meant for, quenching thirst, eternal life, power, sustaining yourself? Wow, pretty words, but there is something missing. Let's see if you can figure out who, but, I am misguided? Tell me again your faith is not in the gift?

Geisha out this time for real....unless I decide to post again. :)

Edited October 14, 2012 by geisha779

[chockfull]

while ignoring their very clear statements that SIT does not produce real language is as intellectually dishonest as anything I've been accused us. In fact, it goes beyond intellectual dishonesty and crosses the line into deliberate misrepresentation.

I know you are but what am I

All right let's break out the quotes again I suppose. Has to be better than this dance.

Poythress and Samarin not only describe this as a human, non spiritual activity, but they each describe in recognizable detail exactly how a sincere person who has no conscious desire to fake SIT will nonetheless do so, producing the exact same thing, linguistically, as an admitted faker.

In effect, both say it looks, walks and quacks like a duck. Poythress won't call it a duck; Samarin will.

And Polythress quotes Samarin's studies and shows, like I said, elements in the recorded samples of genuine language. They used words, sentences, phrases, natural language breaks, etc. When two samples of gibberish were introduced, all linguists were able to easily identify them as different from the other samples. This is a straight paraphrase from the study - I can dig out the exact page and quotes.

The problem with your Cliff notes is you are reading into the studies. Polythress and Samarin don't really describe this as human, non spiritual activity. They just designed an experiment. In their testing groups, all performed "free vocalization". Some had religious inspiration, others not.

So even the studies on "free vocalization" are non-conclusive, admitted by both authors.

We are not even getting started on the topic of whether or not "free vocalization" and genuine SIT are the same thing.

[Raf]

True.

Rephrasing: both Poythress and Samarin explain the human capacity to do this with no effort at deception. Samarin does not address spiritual inspiration. He is, nonetheless, quite explicit about the results: linguistic qualities that the speaker brings into it through his conscious desire to produce a language, but in no uncertain terms, NOT a language.

Poythress does draw a distinction between those who fake it on purpose and those who believe themselves to really be producing SIT. The product of each is indistinguishable linguistically from the other.

Poythress does not conclude "not a language," but it is noteworthy that his refusal to draw that conclusion is made on theological grounds, not academic, not linguistic and not scientific. If he were writing for a peer-reviewed scientific journal, his refusal to draw a conclusion there would be subject to deep and severe criticism. Because he is writing for a theological journal, he is permitted the latitude.

Nonetheless, let's be clear: Samarin is as explicit as he can be that SIT is not language.

Poythress takes you right to the same place, but drops you off to take the last step on your own.

[Raf]

In other writings, Samarin refers to the linguistic qualities of SIT as superficial. Check out the links in the SIT reading room in doctrinal. You simply cannot quote Samarin to support SIT as language. He concludes the opposite in rather forceful terms.

[chockfull]

I didn't ignore the other accounts Chockfull....I did tell you we would look at some of the reasons. I have plenty more, but I don't want to embarrass you or cram it down your throat. I was hoping to spark you to consideration. It is totally up to you what you investigate and how you reason. I think how burden of proof actually works might escape you. In scripture, when we have an established account like in Acts 2.....the burden of proof shifts to the person claiming the other accounts are something different. I didn't say it was for translation. I said it was a language understood by the hearers. Introducing a reason unrelated to what I said....doesn't really refute my point. If I didn't pay attention to details I might fall for that misdirection.

I'm just saying the other accounts do NOT say others understood the tongues. And there is a place in the Bible saying that generally those speaking in tongues are not understood by others. Sorry if that "misdirects" you.

Since Paul frequently uses hyperbole, it is not a stretch to consider he is using it when he says "I would that ye all spake in tongues". Since he had already used it when he claimed that that he wished all men were like himself, celibate. We are now clued into how he uses exaggeration. If all men were celibate, the human race would cease to exist. No? That might be hyperbole? Same phrase, same intent. Those pesky details.

So since Paul uses the figure of speech hyperbole frequently, then you just can't trust the man not to exaggerate?

Even if that phrase were hyperbole, I would read it that he is confronting the problem that some people SIT and others didn't and that they probably were going around making internet threads arguing over it. Or whatever they did during that century of the sort. So he wished everyone would just do it so it wouldn't be an issue.

So, we actually ARE going to assume other reasons they knew those in Cornelius' house were exalting God and dismiss the obvious one? That, is not a good idea unless you are trying to make scripture say something you want to say. We don't dismiss the obvious in favor of grasping at other reasons which are not right there. Same gift, same way, same result. Someone understood what was being said. Think about it for a moment. These were gentiles, they didn't want to include them....Peter especially. It was a somewhat hostile audience. Do you think they were going to assume these gentiles were praising God? Assume it was it was the same thing as Pentecost. They didn't want the gentiles....they called them dogs. Luke does state they understood . . . by saying they were heard SIT and exalting God. Consider the details.

Acts 10:45-46 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God

So you are saying here that this states that the Gentiles were SIT in what language? One that they of the circumcision understood, but the Gentiles did not? What language pray tell would this be? Aramaiac was spoken by all in the region. Greek was the Gentiles primary language - Paul may have been preaching in Greek.

I don't know about that. If it was important they understood without interpretation, I think that would have been stated.

I mean you can carry the first usage way too far here. Not every time someone SIT does it need to be Pentecost.

Corinthians IS correction and Paul IS dealing with a very carnal church. Why does this bother you? Why is it so difficult to accept Paul's criticism of this church and his correction? I don't get your point at all, we are to ignore the obvious, so we can take Paul literally where it suits us?? Okay....go ahead. Are you ready to be celibate?

Why are you reading in me being bothered in this? I'm not. I can easily understand Paul was reproving and correcting the Corinthians, yet still was speaking truthfully and accurately. Why is it so hard for you to see that the man was speaking accurately inspired by God even when he was reproving them, so you can rely on his literal words, not some figure of speech meaning really he didn't want them all to SIT?

LOL, now you are appealing to the authority of the old adage, God helps those who help themselves? That is so far removed from scriptural, I don't know what to say except you may have, missed the forest for the trees. One adage deserves another.

I can see you have your UPSET filter on here. Helping those who help themselves is so far from what I was saying there it's not funny.

All those things you claim tongues are meant for, quenching thirst, eternal life, power, sustaining yourself? Wow, pretty words, but there is something missing. Let's see if you can figure out who, but, I am misguided? Tell me again your faith is not in the gift?

Yes you are very misguided. The gift opens up further access to God, to communicate spiritually, to pray "in the spirit" and "with my understanding". To enhance the relationship further. To help us communicate with God better.

It's not a Harry Potter wand.

IMO.

Edited October 14, 2012 by chockfull

[chockfull]

In other writings, Samarin refers to the linguistic qualities of SIT as superficial. Check out the links in the SIT reading room in doctrinal. You simply cannot quote Samarin to support SIT as language. He concludes the opposite in rather forceful terms.

Yeah, and Polythress quotes his exact same study while emphasizing the point I was making, that Samarin's own linguists in the study saw elements of language. He may have been citing that study to point out Samarin's forceful conclusions weren't exactly supported by his own evidence.

[Raf]

I don't think Poythress is saying what you suggest, but instead of a knee jerk response, I'll stew on it a bit and give it the consideration it deserves

[waysider]

"Stone, act, shake a leg, gyroscope, running water, fungicide."

Jibberish? No. These are real words and phrases, not random sounds that have no meaning.

Language? No again. There is no message being conveyed, no recognizable structure.

It's only my opinion. I certainly can't prove it. But, I think that maybe this is what has happened in the anecdotal examples. People have heard words they understand, maybe even whole phrases, but, the critical question remains; was there an actual message conveyed? Secondly, if there was a message, was it extemporaneous or rehearsed? I personally don't put a lot of stock in anecdotal evidence.

[Raf]

Chockfull: I honestly believe you have confused Poythress and Landry (the college kid who pulled his paper off the web.

Help? Did anyone print out Landry's paper?

[Allan]

"Stone, act, shake a leg, gyroscope, running water, fungicide."

Jibberish? No. These are real words and phrases, not random sounds that have no meaning.

Language? No again. There is no message being conveyed, no recognizable structure.

It's only my opinion. I certainly can't prove it. But, I think that maybe this is what has happened in the anecdotal examples. People have heard words they understand, maybe even whole phrases, but, the critical question remains; was there an actual message conveyed? Secondly, if there was a message, was it extemporaneous or rehearsed? I personally don't put a lot of stock in anecdotal evidence.

I can only state that before I received the holy spirit, I could not 'speak in tongues' and after I 'received' I could ! no faking, clear monosyllabic enunciated words I do not understand. Also, Raf, if I remember rightly you originally came from a Jehovah Witness background. JW's vehemently repudiate s.i.t. I wonder if there is just a tad of rose tinted glasses in your exposition ? Perhaps flirting with their church again ? I say this sincerely because for any of us to be influenced by previous twi teachings as you have said would ring true just as much as you may be from your religious background is all.

[geisha779]

Yes you are very misguided. The gift opens up further access to God, to communicate spiritually, to pray "in the spirit" and "with my understanding". To enhance the relationship further. To help us communicate with God better.

It's not a Harry Potter wand.

IMO.

The context of praying with spirit and mind is in the context of correcting corporate worship. Not private prayer. I think much of your understanding hinges on a very few scriptures and these should be considered carefully. But, do what you like.....claim what you like....read how you like......you are responsible for what you believe. I don't mind....

I did want to ask about this though.....

Further access to God? Jesus didn't get us enough access to God? We need extra? I thought the veil was rent in Jesus from the top down?

You said about SIT: God provided a perfect gift, one that would allow connection and communication with Him, eternal life, and spiritual power. A gift where you can be sustained through quenching yourself in the eternal fountain whose water never fails, and then you can share that with others helping them to get there too.

We are pretty far away from scripture now.

Can I gently remind you that it is through Jesus we have a relationship and connection with God. God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son? A perfect sacrifice and an amazing gift of love? That is His gift to us which allows us access to Him. It is Jesus who is the source of living waters and it is in Jesus we have eternal life. It is Jesus who we are to share with others. Also, it is Jesus who sustains all things, including us. We don't sustain ourselves by doing something. :(