SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[chockfull]

If a speaker can "inject" those words, why should we assume he can't inject others?

And, how are we to sort out which words are "injected" and which are not?

This is a dilemma. You have to assume a speaker could inject words, and I don't see how it would be easily accomplishable to sort them out.

Interestingly, reading up on "Continuationism" - which is the label on those who believe that SIT / gifts continue on to be available today, in general they acknowledge that "prophecy" could have inaccuracies and to compare the prophecies against scripture to confirm. Scripture has the utmost authority, then what they call "canonical prophets" - basically scripture authors, after that "non-canonical prophets" - which would be the person prophesying that could have injected words. So they just label a "non-canonical" prophecy as less reliable than others and needing to be checked to ensure accuracy.

[waysider]

Using that as a criteria, I don't see how anyone could make a definitive pronouncment on the previously mentioned "muck and mire" example.

[Raf]

I understand your objection to free vocalization, but I do believe it is misplaced. Perhaps if it is presented in a different way, you can better see the point that is being made:

1. Free vocalization is a label that Poythress put on man's ability to string a bunch of sounds together to create something that, to outward appearances, has a superficial resemblance to a real language. Samarin describes the same ability, but doesn't call it free vocalization. He doesn't call it anything, in fact (well, he calls it glossolalia, but that's begging the question for the purpose of our discussion. You've called it circular reasoning. Most folks don't realize that begging the question IS circular reasoning. But I'm straying from the point). The ability to free vocalize is there. Poythress didn't just make it up. He just called it something that, in my view, facilitates discussion about it. Anyone can perform this action. It's just a matter of getting over the inhibition of sounding silly.

I had a recent conversation about this with an atheist. I told him anyone could do it, and he told me he could not. So I accused him of not being an atheist. I explained: for an atheist, free vocalization describes all SIT by definition. To conclude that a Christian can free vocalize but an atheist can't is to concede a supernatural energizing of SIT. Within minutes, he was "speaking in tongues." That is, he was free vocalizing. He's never been a Christian. I simply told him to pretend he was a foreign prime minister giving a speech in front of the United Nations. Boom. It was that easy. It doesn't take great training. All it takes is a lowering of inhibitions.

Poythress would likely conclude that was free vocalization but not glossolalia (and everyone in heaven and earth would have to agree).

2. SIT is claimed by Christians today. Linguistic analyses have failed to find any distinction between what people produce when they SIT and what other people produce in free vocalization. That was the conclusion of Poythress after reviewing linguistic studies. He found the connection so strong, in fact, that he calls SIT a form of free vocalization that is only distinguishable in two respects: its setting, and the hypothetical possibility that it is energized by God, which he declines to dismiss. Because Poythress defines that hypothetical possibility in terms that are impossible to test (by his own assertion), it creates problems for both our views.

The problem in my view is that it redefines SIT to make it untestable, which I contend is unbiblical. You disagree with me on that, and our disagreement here is doctrinal: what should SIT produce? I've said all along that if we can't agree on that question, we have nothing to argue.

The problem Poythress creates for you is that by lumping SIT with free vocalization and not finding any testable distinction, Poythress creates the "guilt by association" that has troubled you.

I can easily resolve my problem with Poythress by attributing it to a doctrinal disagreement on what SIT should produce. The problem for you is greater when looking at the evidence (if setting and an untestable hypothesis that relies on faith are the only things distinguishing SIT from free vocalization, then the evidence will always favor the argument that there really is no distinction). But the problem for you is lessened by "taking it on faith." One aspect of that faith will have to be that SIT is not testable: You would consider it a fulfillment of I Cor. 14:2 every time a linguist failed to find language in SIT! That is a premise I do not accept. We are at an impasse here.

But I don't think anyone has said or claimed that "SIT is free vocalization" is something that's proved. It is not proved. It is more accurate to say, if anything, linguistics has not identified a distinction between them. As such, "SIT is free vocalization" is an assertion, not a claim that this link is proved.

3. Some people have claimed non-Christian, pagan, spiritualist, psychic xenoglossia. In certain cases that we have been discussing, those people actually gave enough information to evaluate their claim. What they produced was not the foreign language they claimed it to be. In fact, to put it in Poythress' terms, what they produced seems very consistent with free vocalization.

So it's not that free vocalization was created as an umbrella label to capture these disparate phenomena -- it's that free vocalization exists independently, and the claims of these other phenomena fail to show any distinction from what we know free vocalization produces.

Now, I'm not sure Poythress actually says that last sentence. He might. It's been a while since I read his article. But the conclusion is inescapable of you read Samarin and adjust what he says using Poythress' language. When Samarin concludes that Helene Smith and Albert Le Baron actually produced glossolalia, we, as educated readers, need to recognize that what he's really saying is that he sees no distinction between what they produced and what Poythress would later label free vocalization.

I am confident that Samarin would have appreciated the "free vocalization" framework that Poythress provided. It surely would have made his articles and his book a heck of a lot more readable, in my opinion.

There is no need, in my view, to be concerned with what a person claims to produce via his psychic connections, spirit guides, etc. when all they are producing is free vocalization. I would be far more concerned if they produced actual languages. But they didn't. So I call them con men.

I don't say the same of Christians claiming to produce SIT. In some cases, like mine, the fakery is recognized at the outset and suppressed. I really, really wanted to believe this is what I was doing. But I knew all along it wasn't. In previous threads, I've come thisclose to admitting it. But I never took that last step of saying, "Ok, I faked it."

But in most cases, I think we were fooled. We may or may not have known this was "just us" at the outset, but the positive reinforcement easily drowned out the doubts we may have had (sure helps to call that doubt "the devil trying to talk you out of it").

Naturally, you have little use for the preceding two paragraphs. I can live with that.

In any event, Poythress manages to believe in the possibility of SIT even while recognizing that free vocalization exists as an innate human ability. I don't think it's that great a leap to believe in the reality of SIT while recognizing free vocalization as an innate human ability.

I believe SIT is free vocalization and nothing more. You disagree.

I believe an unbiased analysis of output would reveal any difference between the two. You disagree.

These disagreements are impossible for us to resolve without one or the other changing our minds on the Biblical presuppositions we hold. Stalemate.

And I'm good with that outcome if it's on doctrinal grounds.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

I don't see any fair way to conclude that the "muck and mire" line was inappropriate in any way. It is inconsistent to say that following this method will produce a word of prophecy, then dismiss what that person produced using that method because it didn't sound Biblical enough to the hearer. If God can make up an undetectable language out of your glossolalia to produce something that's a language to Him and to no one else in the universe, I can think of no good reason God would not use those words in that context to resonate with that particular audience. The criticism was made up, pure and simple.

What was happening in the Intermediate Class was improv training, pure and simple. We spent several nights learning how to manufacture these messages on the spot. We were told what those messages would sound like (this doesn't even mention the "pre-training" that consisted of however many meetings we attended before the Intermediate class: Let's put the number at 20, a ridiculously low estimate that accounts for those who decided to take PFAL and TIP back when it was one class and assumes they did so after only a handful of fellowship meetings). That's quite a few live examples, fresh in the minds of the new Intermediate Class students, of what TIP should sound like, followed by several nights of instruction and strong social reinforcement.

This "training" exceeds the training given to aspiring actors. Improv is a technique taught to beginners in acting schools, and they're taught to handle far more complicated situations than "What do you think God would tell the people in this room right now? Go!"

I think both sides have conceded that it would be impossible to prove or disprove that a prophecy was really a prophecy. Even if the speaker never contradicted the Bible, that would show his/her competence with the Bible.

Nothing about the anecdotal evidence serves to prove or disprove the veracity of prophecy as taught by TWI. Stumbling is to be expected, either way. Growing ability and confidence is to be expected either way. The occasional mistake is to be expected either way. That people would be impressed with the quality is to be expected either way. Give CES credit for this much: by injecting the notion of "personal prophecy" into the mix, they boldly asserted something that was actually testable. They fell flat on their face and exposed that particular doctrine to be a flat-out embarrassing lie, in my opinion, but it was bold and confident. One might say cocky.

Personally, I am coming to the belief that when a natural and a supernatural explanation exist to explain or describe the same phenomenon, I am inclined to believe the natural unless the supernatural asserts itself in a way that cannot otherwise be explained. Thus, a prophecy that says "I am God. I love you and will always be there for you. I will never leave you nor forsake you," really, really doesn't make the case for supernatural inspiration. On the other hand, "I am God. The wallet you can't find is behind the couch. You're welcome," would impress the heck out of me (only, of course, if that's where my wallet was, and the person who uttered the prophecy wasn't the one who hid my wallet in the first place, after taking the cash).

You know what would have impressed me in prophecy? "I am God. Heed my words this night. Martindale was a really, really bad choice to lead a ministry that purports to do my will. Get out. Get out now. Also, you guys worry a lot more about gay people than I do. Let me handle them, k?"

THAT would impress me.

Instead we got one prophecy after another that, more often than not, seemed to attempt to out-Ephesians the epistle to the Ephesians.

So yes, I think it was all improv. No, I can't prove it, nor do I think anyone can "prove" it was real.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Personally, I am coming to the belief that when a natural and a supernatural explanation exist to explain or describe the same phenomenon, I am inclined to believe the natural unless the supernatural asserts itself in a way that cannot otherwise be explained. Thus, a prophecy that says "I am God. I love you and will always be there for you. I will never leave you nor forsake you," really, really doesn't make the case for supernatural inspiration. On the other hand, "I am God. The wallet you can't find is behind the couch. You're welcome," would impress the heck out of me (only, of course, if that's where my wallet was, and the person who uttered the prophecy wasn't the one who hid my wallet in the first place, after taking the cash).

I personally am waiting for the one that says "I am God. You know that roll of hundred dollar bills you lost with the rubber band around it? I found the rubber band. Ha ha ha."

[chockfull]

I understand your objection to free vocalization, but I do believe it is misplaced. Perhaps if it is presented in a different way, you can better see the point that is being made:

1. Free vocalization is a label that Poythress put on man's ability to string a bunch of sounds together to create something that, to outward appearances, has a superficial resemblance to a real language. Samarin describes the same ability, but doesn't call it free vocalization. He doesn't call it anything, in fact (well, he calls it glossolalia, but that's begging the question for the purpose of our discussion. You've called it circular reasoning. Most folks don't realize that begging the question IS circular reasoning. But I'm straying from the point). The ability to free vocalize is there. Poythress didn't just make it up. He just called it something that, in my view, facilitates discussion about it. Anyone can perform this action. It's just a matter of getting over the inhibition of sounding silly.

I do see the point that the definition was made to facilitate linguists studies. And I do acknowledge that human beings have an ability to use their organs of speech to make various types of noises, random and patterned. And I still think throwing in SIT into that mix and calling it by that label can be done, but that after doing that to then try to use it to prove they are the same thing is not really what most people in the science world would call a proof. You can't have elements of your hypothesis in the definition of the premise. That's where the circular reasoning comes in. It's defining something as a proof.

But anyway, as I said for now, I'd like to see how far the linguists are able to take this in terms of language identification or statistical analysis showing similarity or whatever.

I had a recent conversation about this with an atheist. I told him anyone could do it, and he told me he could not. So I accused him of not being an atheist. I explained: for an atheist, free vocalization describes all SIT by definition. To conclude that a Christian can free vocalize but an atheist can't is to concede a supernatural energizing of SIT. Within minutes, he was "speaking in tongues." That is, he was free vocalizing. He's never been a Christian. I simply told him to pretend he was a foreign prime minister giving a speech in front of the United Nations. Boom. It was that easy. It doesn't take great training. All it takes is a lowering of inhibitions.

Poythress would likely conclude that was free vocalization but not glossolalia (and everyone in heaven and earth would have to agree).

That seems to fit your definition there. And it is a display of an innate human ability to make vocal noises or mouth noises. Now why you would do that to a poor atheist is an entirely separate question :biglaugh:/>

2. SIT is claimed by Christians today. Linguistic analyses have failed to find any distinction between what people produce when they SIT and what other people produce in free vocalization. That was the conclusion of Poythress after reviewing linguistic studies. He found the connection so strong, in fact, that he calls SIT a form of free vocalization that is only distinguishable in two respects: its setting, and the hypothetical possibility that it is energized by God, which he declines to dismiss. Because Poythress defines that hypothetical possibility in terms that are impossible to test (by his own assertion), it creates problems for both our views.

To me that is a little convenient. A bunch of sound samples superficially look the same on the outside, so they are lumped together. A new term is made up for them called "free vocalization". SOME analysis is done on these samples. The most detailed I saw in write-ups of what the analysis was that was done was Samarin. He did consonant mapping and attempted to show statistical correlation between a speakers native language and the sound byte. He saw a trend, but stopped short of any proof. Other authors referenced "linguistic analysis", but didn't provide any details so it is impossible to verify their data and studies. Poythress reviewed other studies, then wrote up his thoughts. That's what makes him difficult. He's kind of a theological apologist to science in his approach - trying to include common linguistic viewpoints and yet stopping short of offending the Fundamentalists.

The problem in my view is that it redefines SIT to make it untestable, which I contend is unbiblical. You disagree with me on that, and our disagreement here is doctrinal: what should SIT produce? I've said all along that if we can't agree on that question, we have nothing to argue. The problem Poythress creates for you is that by lumping SIT with free vocalization and not finding any testable distinction, Poythress creates the "guilt by association" that has troubled you.

Yes we disagree on this. The testability of SIT by definition I would label as a caveat to any study results if I were doing the study. But I'm not using that as a reason to discourage trying to test it.

Whenever you are discussing or debating the similarities and differences between two things, there is depending upon perspective the complete ability for someone to say "those are exactly the same", and someone else to say "those are completely different". It's just a matter of what you are focusing on at the moment the reflection is stated. The root of my trouble there lies in the fact that the spirit, power, or energy of God is undetectable to scientists. There is no way scientifically to measure the difference between a born-again man and an atheist (outside of each having a different level of irritation at Raf making them perform free vocalization). So to lump things together and call them the same, and then to have known issues with measuring differences, I'd say that's mostly the problem it makes for me.

I can easily resolve my problem with Poythress by attributing it to a doctrinal disagreement on what SIT should produce. The problem for you is greater when looking at the evidence (if setting and an untestable hypothesis that relies on faith are the only things distinguishing SIT from free vocalization, then the evidence will always favor the argument that there really is no distinction). But the problem for you is lessened by "taking it on faith." One aspect of that faith will have to be that SIT is not testable: You would consider it a fulfillment of I Cor. 14:2 every time a linguist failed to find language in SIT! That is a premise I do not accept. We are at an impasse here.

Yes we are different here. I honestly never gave it much thought as to what SIT should produce. To me it's been I'm just praying to God and when words fail I had something more to sustain. That's been a staple of prayer life since close to my beginnings as a Christian. The scriptures I've studied tie in to what I experience to me in my viewpoint. My "take it on faith" attitude has been a naieve child-like approach in prayer - that's all. I don't mind learning more either on scientific or scriptural sides. But yes, there is an element of impasse there.

But I don't think anyone has said or claimed that "SIT is free vocalization" is something that's proved. It is not proved. It is more accurate to say, if anything, linguistics has not identified a distinction between them. As such, "SIT is free vocalization" is an assertion, not a claim that this link is proved.

3. Some people have claimed non-Christian, pagan, spiritualist, psychic xenoglossia. In certain cases that we have been discussing, those people actually gave enough information to evaluate their claim. What they produced was not the foreign language they claimed it to be. In fact, to put it in Poythress' terms, what they produced seems very consistent with free vocalization.

So it's not that free vocalization was created as an umbrella label to capture these disparate phenomena -- it's that free vocalization exists independently, and the claims of these other phenomena fail to show any distinction from what we know free vocalization produces.

Sure - I can live with that.

Now, I'm not sure Poythress actually says that last sentence. He might. It's been a while since I read his article. But the conclusion is inescapable of you read Samarin and adjust what he says using Poythress' language. When Samarin concludes that Helene Smith and Albert Le Baron actually produced glossolalia, we, as educated readers, need to recognize that what he's really saying is that he sees no distinction between what they produced and what Poythress would later label free vocalization.

The mediums IMO added nothing to the study and would have been better left out for clarity.

I don't say the same of Christians claiming to produce SIT. In some cases, like mine, the fakery is recognized at the outset and suppressed. I really, really wanted to believe this is what I was doing. But I knew all along it wasn't. In previous threads, I've come this close to admitting it. But I never took that last step of saying, "Ok, I faked it."

But in most cases, I think we were fooled. We may or may not have known this was "just us" at the outset, but the positive reinforcement easily drowned out the doubts we may have had (sure helps to call that doubt "the devil trying to talk you out of it").

Naturally, you have little use for the preceding two paragraphs. I can live with that.

Well in the cessationist theory arguments, a lot of this comes back to the extent of Sola Scriptura you can live with. If it's a high level you require, then you would rule out personal anecdotes of any type. This would include yours and socks experiences. If you have more of a tolerance for information outside of Sola Scriptura then God doing things individually for individuals becomes more acceptable. Honestly post TWI I am probably less of an absolutist w/r to Sola Scriptura than previously. I rely upon personal relationship type experience with God in addition to scriptures.

The drawback to tolerating less Sola Scriptura is that there is less of a measurable standard for all and more of a need to accept God working with individuals according to their personal needs.

In any event, Poythress manages to believe in the possibility of SIT even while recognizing that free vocalization exists as an innate human ability. I don't think it's that great a leap to believe in the reality of SIT while recognizing free vocalization as an innate human ability.

As a preacher, he would not have wanted to discount that possibility IMO.

I believe SIT is free vocalization and nothing more. You disagree.

I believe an unbiased analysis of output would reveal any difference between the two. You disagree.

I believe they are different. I would like to see an unbiased analysis, and although I have reservations on what I predict this will show due to doctrinal beliefs in SIT definitions, I am not against seeing the evidence and don't think this a reason not to test. If results present incongruities in my beliefs I'll need to address it at that time.

We have differences in doctrinal approach and personal experience. But a still greater responsibility to live a Christian example with one another than those without differing doctrinal beliefs. So I am continuing to explore without arguing.

[Raf]

Going to try, and fail to limit myself to things I haven't already said.

I do see the point that the definition was made to facilitate linguists studies. And I do acknowledge that human beings have an ability to use their organs of speech to make various types of noises, random and patterned. And I still think throwing in SIT into that mix and calling it by that label can be done, but that after doing that to then try to use it to prove they are the same thing is not really what most people in the science world would call a proof. You can't have elements of your hypothesis in the definition of the premise. That's where the circular reasoning comes in. It's defining something as a proof.

At what point are you going to realize that you're the only person who thinks that assertion has been presented as "proven"? I haven't said it's proven. I believe it. I assert it. But I never said it was proven, and neither has anyone else. I don't mean to be snide in pointing this out, and please accept my apology if that's how it's coming off. I mean you have been getting on me over and over and over again for calling my assertion proven, and I never have.

And it is a display of an innate human ability to make vocal noises or mouth noises. Now why you would do that to a poor atheist is an entirely separate question :biglaugh:/>/>/>/>/>

Semi-serious answer: if he couldn't do it, it would give me an indication (though by no means proof) that free vocalization is NOT an innate human ability. Just a little easy experiment.

To me that is a little convenient. A bunch of sound samples superficially look the same on the outside, so they are lumped together. A new term is made up for them called "free vocalization". SOME analysis is done on these samples. The most detailed I saw in write-ups of what the analysis was that was done was Samarin. He did consonant mapping and attempted to show statistical correlation between a speakers native language and the sound byte. He saw a trend, but stopped short of any proof. Other authors referenced "linguistic analysis", but didn't provide any details so it is impossible to verify their data and studies. Poythress reviewed other studies, then wrote up his thoughts. That's what makes him difficult. He's kind of a theological apologist to science in his approach - trying to include common linguistic viewpoints and yet stopping short of offending the Fundamentalists.

Do you realize that you accept SIT as language on FAR less evidence than we assert SIT as free vocalization?

The mediums IMO added nothing to the study and would have been better left out for clarity.

I agree. Go back over the thread (if you'd like) and see who was the first to bring mediums and psychics into our discussion. I'll give you a hint: his name does not rhyme with "Laugh," but it does rhyme with "Tockpull."

Nothing else new to add.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Raf

[WordWolf]

Ah! Now I see. Thank you.

TWI did not teach that it bypasses your mind. If I recall correctly, what TWI taught was "The Great Principle," which in sum says that God's spirit teaches your spirit, your spirit teaches your mind, and you speak it forth. This Great Principle is clearly articulated in the Bible verse... in the verse... CARP! I know I left that verse around here somewhere!

TWI taught that SIT bypasses the mind. The others don't-according to them.

The so-called Great Principle stated:

"God, who is Spirit, teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit, and your spirit teaches

your mind. Then it becomes manifested in the senses realm as you act."

Can't delete that file even if I tried.....

Naturally, this contradicts the Foundational Class when vpw says that

God is Spirit, and can only communicate with what He is.

As Raf pointed out once, if Spirit can only communicate with spirit,

then "our spirit" COULD NOT communicate with our mind to teach it.

[WordWolf]

(snip)

On a different note, I've been thinking about EB's Improv... I mean, Intermediate Class. Anyone else remember the part where they analyzed an interpretation or prophecy that included the expression "muck and mire of the world"? Burton (I think it was him) taught that this was an example of the speaker's injection of his own words into the prophecy, and that we should ignore it.

WHAT? Can anyone give me one solid reason why God can't use that expression in a particular setting where and when it will resonate with those present? I keep thinking about that poor guy, who probably followed every instruction given to him in the TIP class, only to have his word of prophecy cruelly and disingenuously dissected as an example of what NOT to do in prophecy, based on NOTHING.

Just thinking out loud.

In the same class, EB taught what vpw taught in other places and times-

that the vocabulary of the speaker affected the phrasing but not the content-

which is why Amos, a shepherd, was less poetic than educated John's poetic Gospel opening.

So, if Amos used a phrase like "muck and mire" rather than, say, "filth", vpw and EB

would have endorsed it.

Also in this class was EB playing the recording and saying that we can tell which

were the interpretations with additions, because they took extra time.

The idea was-if the words in tongues took 11 seconds (for example), then the interpretation

into English (for example) should take 11 seconds (for example.)

Someone who's multilingual reminded me to just tell people to pull out any set of instructions

anybody has, for some electronic device. Look for where the instructions are in different

languages. Compare the lengths of the sets against each other. Those are all supposedly

real words in real languages all saying the same thing.

Myself, I found a particular "I Love Lucy" episode as a good example.

("Paris At Last".) At the end of the episode, Lucy is in Paris, and trying to explain where

some counterfeit French francs came from. The Police Desk Sergeant only spoke French.

One of his officers spoke French and German, and was socializing with a tourist who spoke

German and Spanish. So, Ricky arrived, and translated from Spanish to English to tell

Lucy what the Desk Sergeant said. Lucy replied- which was translated to Spanish, to

German, then to French. (I watched it with someone who understood some of each language,

who confirmed it was all correct.) The scene is funny, and plays out with each person

passing along emotion and tone along with the translation.

Watch the scene, and pay attention to how long each set takes as it passes each person.

Languages like German are a LOT briefer than languages like French, so the first step

often shows a BIG gap between the "tongue" of French and the "interpretation" in German.

BTW, Raf?

Did the atheist control group of 1 have any theatrical training or experience?

[Allan]

Soooo...what if...s.i.t. IS another name for free vocalisation ? Maybe, possibly, being filled with the holy spirit is a fast, shortcut to it ? Remember the statement, "it is NOT something one does to be saved, but something one CAN do after being saved/born-again/ filled with power from on high." Maybe an 'atheist' and a born-againer free vocalising/s.i.t. is simply a proof that there was/is/will one day again be ONE language ? Maybe for an atheist and an unbelieving believer it is nothing more than a clanging cymbal, but to someone operating agape, it is a powerful weapon ? Maybe they are the same thing BUT with differn't purposes and uses for the user ? ( I'm just in a maybe mood )

[Raf]

WordWolf,

No. An actor never would have said he couldn't do it.

[waysider]

WordWolf,

No. An actor never would have said he couldn't do it.

Actors never want to admit there's something they can't do.

I think that's one of the things that made Joey Tribbiani's character so funny and gave rise to so many crazy scenarios.

Joey, can you ride a horse?

Sure.

Joey, can you ice skate?

Sure.

Joey, can you pilot the space shuttle?

uhmmm.....Sure.

Edited November 18, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

Allan,

If that's what SIT is, then it was misnamed. It should have been called speaking in noises or sounds. No one would argue that sounds are not produced. Besides, if SIT is SUPPOSED to be free vocalization, then how is it a manifestation of holy spirit? Is walking a manifestation of holy spirit? How about holding your breath for 20 seconds? Jumping jacks? It's not a manifestation of holy spirit of anyone can do it WITHOUT holy spirit.

[OldSkool]

but to someone operating agape

How does someone operate agape?

[Raf]

Thinking more about WordWolf's post. Yes, TWI did seem to mix viewpoints that rendered their approach to Tongues with Interpretation confusing, to be charitable.

On the one hand, we were told it was an interpretation rather than a translation, a "gist" or "sum and substance" rather than a word-for-word or phrase-for-phrase message. But then they had us comparing the length of the tongue with the length of the interpretation as a guide to whether the interpretation "went too far," for lack of a better term.

The problen is, if someone from Malaysia were speaking in tongues and said, in English, "don't cry over spilled milk," the interpretation in their own language could well be: "there are times when the mistakes of the past cannot be repaired. Don't wallow in the mistake." The interpretation is considerably longer than the "tongue," but it is a fair interpretation.

And what was the explanation if someone "went too far" with an interpretation? Why, you started prophesying, of course. Unless you used words like "muck and mire," in which case you let your understanding get in the way.

The notion that 100% of it is made up extemporaneously by the speaker is never even briefly entertained. Convenient.

[Raf]

:offtopic:/> How does someone operate agape?

I think you need a license for that. Not sure.

[OldSkool]

I think you need a license for that. Not sure.

I know, right? I'm not trying to be overly picky with semantics, it's just that I think the terminology takes something God is, love, and makes it sound like machinery or an automobile. But I am sincerely interested in knowing how it is operated.

And how does this change modern SIT into Biblical SIT? If I understood the list of maybes correctly from Allen.

[waysider]

And how does this change modern SIT into Biblical SIT?

[Raf]

Now, now.

Certainly if man has an innate ability, there's nothing wrong with God energizing man's ability to produce something extraordinary. In my view, the extraordinary thing promised is a language. The mechanism could easily be the same. The output, however, in my view, should be different -- a human language versus a string of linguistically meaningless sounds. My argument remains: if God is energizing free vocalization to make it speaking in tongues, then where are the tongues (which is to say, where are the languages)? To borrow a term used by someone else (a term I have also used in this discussion), it is too convenient to assert that it's simple free vocalization whenever someone is looking into it objectively, but languages when no one can verify it.

But obviously there is disagreement on that point.

In any event, let's not mock the alternative viewpoint.

[chockfull]

At what point are you going to realize that you're the only person who thinks that assertion has been presented as "proven"? I haven't said it's proven. I believe it. I assert it. But I never said it was proven, and neither has anyone else. I don't mean to be snide in pointing this out, and please accept my apology if that's how it's coming off. I mean you have been getting on me over and over and over again for calling my assertion proven, and I never have.

okay fine. I did read a lot of "conclusions" written by article authors. IMO there has been a lot of mixing of this with stating things as fact on this thread. If it's redundant to state the lack of proof in the definition then sorry. I'm just generally stating my issues with the "free vocalization" term and that's involved.

Do you realize that you accept SIT as language on FAR less evidence than we assert SIT as free vocalization?

what I personally accept as evidence is not something I would expect you to. Some of this would be in the form of personal anecdote. I have incidents that to me seem miraculous in nature over my life in conjunction with my relationship with God. But beyond that there is an element in faith of believing in the things that cannot be seen.

Me accepting SIT as language. I guess I would describe that more as me accepting SIT as a spiritual message encoded in some sort of construct resembling language or using language to encode the message. If that is the same thing then OK. But I do see things like in that movie I keep referring to "Wind Talkers" where there was also a figurative encoding of the message in addition to the Navajo language encoding it. A tank division would be described as a herd of buffalo or something.

I agree. Go back over the thread (if you'd like) and see who was the first to bring mediums and psychics into our discussion. I'll give you a hint: his name does not rhyme with "Laugh," but it does rhyme with "Tockpull."

If I brought it in it was from reading it in Samarin's article. I did print that thing out to make it easier to read. It was not in a searchable .pdf format.

[chockfull]

Certainly if man has an innate ability, there's nothing wrong with God energizing man's ability to produce something extraordinary. In my view, the extraordinary thing promised is a language. The mechanism could easily be the same. The output, however, in my view, should be different -- a human language versus a string of linguistically meaningless sounds. My argument remains: if God is energizing free vocalization to make it speaking in tongues, then where are the tongues (which is to say, where are the languages)? To borrow a term used by someone else (a term I have also used in this discussion), it is too convenient to assert that it's simple free vocalization whenever someone is looking into it objectively, but languages when no one can verify it.

Well, I would expect that if whatever is going on is energized by God, then for it to be some kind of language to me seems like a reasonable assumption. The assumption that if it is language that someone on earth can understand and decode it is another assumption. That's the one I can't agree with. I see the basic definition of SIT to state others won't understand. Thus that would be my expectation, rather than assuming you should be able to understand it. But since I can read in the Bible instances where it is understood, and have heard anecdotes stating the same, I'm not ruling that out.

[Raf]

I haven't seen Wind Talkers, so I am at the mercy of your summary. You noted in an earlier message that linguists could not break the code that was contained in the messages.

Again, having not seen the movie and being unfamiliar with the true story behind it, I would be curious to know whether the linguists who tried to break the code concluded that there was none.

[geisha779]

I know, right? I'm not trying to be overly picky with semantics, it's just that I think the terminology takes something God is, love, and makes it sound like machinery or an automobile. But I am sincerely interested in knowing how it is operated.

Phileo and agape can often be used interchangeably.......Amnon's relationship with his sister Tamar .... incestuous relationship. . . . is considered agape love. Guess we wouldn't want to encourage that operation of it.

[chockfull]

I haven't seen Wind Talkers, so I am at the mercy of your summary. You noted in an earlier message that linguists could not break the code that was contained in the messages.

Again, having not seen the movie and being unfamiliar with the true story behind it, I would be curious to know whether the linguists who tried to break the code concluded that there was none.

Here's a more detailed writeup of the movie - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windtalkers

The movie is well done if you ever run across it cheap on DVD like I did.

Here's a military fact sheet on the Navajo Code Talkers - http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq61-2.htm

[waysider]

"Johnston believed Navajo answered the military requirement for an undecipherable code because Navajo is an unwritten language of extreme complexity. Its syntax and tonal qualities, not to mention dialects, make it unintelligible to anyone without extensive exposure and training."

............................................................................

What we see here is that it had syntax and complexity (structure). That the syntax and structure were virtually unknown does not negate their existence..

Phrased a bit differently: They didn't understand it's structure but acknowledged its existence.

Edited November 19, 2012 by waysider