SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

This kind of feeds into what I was thinking about the Bible calling it "speaking in tongues" rather than "speaking in code." To accept the latter possibility, you have to adopt a view of SIT that, in my view, far exceeds its description in scripture. The Bible simply does not define glossa in such a wide way as to incorporate this kind of utterance that does its best to defy human comprehension. If anyone wants to interpret I Cor. 14:2 to allow for such a definition, I can't stop them. I can only point out that it exceeds the clear meaning of the text. But we disagree on that.

[OldSkool]

Now, now.

I was serious in my question. How does this operation of agape actually work and why would it change modern SIT into the real thing?

[Raf]

Let me play Angel's advocate:

If I'm free vocalizing and I know I'm faking it, it's just free vocalizing.

If Chockfull is free vocalizing out of sincere love for God and desire to do His will, then God intervenes and what Chockfull produces is consistent with what the Bible says he will produce.

If Chockfull does the SAME THING in an effort to have the product of SIT tested, that is not acting in agape, and he will be free vocalizing. A linguist would not pick up a language because none is there. It feels the same to Chockfull, but it's different because God's not energizing it.

So no objective test will ever work, because anyone who submits to an objective test has stepped out of agape and is, instead, tempting God.

[OldSkool]

Let me play Angel's advocate:

If I'm free vocalizing and I know I'm faking it, it's just free vocalizing.

If Chockfull is free vocalizing out of sincere love for God and desire to do His will, then God intervenes and what Chockfull produces is consistent with what the Bible says he will produce.

If Chockfull does the SAME THING in an effort to have the product of SIT tested, that is not acting in agape, and he will be free vocalizing. A linguist would not pick up a language because none is there. It feels the same to Chockfull, but it's different because God's not energizing it.

So no objective test will ever work, because anyone who submits to an objective test has stepped out of agape and is, instead, tempting God.

This can't be a serious argument. If you guys are serious putting it forth you should probably reconsider. I can think of not a single verse of scripture to support this, if we are being Biblical in describing what God does and does not do. Really, extend the argument to miracles and healings. Jesus healed a man born blind. The proof of what he did was the man could see. God didn't strike him with blindness when people were investigating what happened to him. So why would he make a non-language a language and vice versa because a linguist is involved?

[chockfull]

This can't be a serious argument. If you guys are serious putting it forth you should probably reconsider. I can think of not a single verse of scripture to support this, if we are being Biblical in describing what God does and does not do. Really, extend the argument to miracles and healings. Jesus healed a man born blind. The proof of what he did was the man could see. God didn't strike him with blindness when people were investigating what happened to him. So why would he make a non-language a language and vice versa because a linguist is involved?

Yeah. That argument doesn't exactly represent my views there. Plus, it smells like bait.

[Raf]

Not baiting. Trying to articulate what Allen might have meant, synthesizing some of the other aspects of our discussion. But I don't think I was trying to suggest this was Chockfull's position.

Chockfull's position appears to be that I am mistaken in insisting that SIT produces a real human language. It may, on occasion, if God wills it, but it may also produce a linguistic code that no one but God can break. Thus, no surprise that a linguist cannot find a language in it. May not even be able to decipher a code. But God knows it's there.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Raf

[TrustAndObey]

I was serious in my question. How does this operation of agape actually work and why would it change modern SIT into the real thing?

Did someone say that 'SIT' would not be the "real deal" without agape? Or that somehow it transforms modern SIT into the real thing? I'm lost on that..

I do see the verse in Cor 13 about without agape it being just noise.. And I "think" the context to that, is that these things are to be a help a guide a benefit to others. "One" definition of agape is basically to give or to help meet a need. If we speak these languages "of men or of angels" without the view towards trying to help, benefit, or bless others, it's just noise.. To them.. I don't think that means it's not really speaking in a language "of men or angels", but that it's pointless. The same thing said in Cor 14 with the context again being benefit to the assembled body. Anything we do, if it's godly, ir's done with agape, else it's a work of man and doesn't profit. Kinda like saying if it's not done with agape(with a view to give or help), it's not agape (a help a benefit), and that should be our focus. To be that image of God for others to see, the image of Christ, that image which we were created in, which at it's root is agape.

[chockfull]

Chockfull's position appears to be that I am mistaken in insisting that SIT produces a real human language. It may, on occasion, if God wills it, but it may also produce a linguistic code that no one but God can break. Thus, no surprise that a linguist cannot find a language in it. May not even be able to decipher a code. But God knows it's there.

No its not my position. SIT has a normal interpretation of language in scriptures if that is not a figurative reference to the tongue, which we have discussed has possibilities. So I'm OK with a general description of languages. However, in I Cor. 14:2 I see a scripture that indicates when a person SIT, others hearing the message do not understand. I do not really trust in the interpretation of that which indicates only the people present don't understand, but others studying the tapes may understand it. I think it means directly what it says clearly in the verse. I also to this point haven't seen clear evidence that linguists have ruled out languages in the messages. And after reading the tower of Babel record I wouldn't put it beyond what God could do to ensure that SIT couldn't be tested. One easy way would be to energize dead or extinct languages. Then no scripture would be contradicted if someone understood. Unless there was a specific miraculous occurrence where it was understood. All the code references indicate to me is that language that is not understood makes an effective encryption tool that wasn't broken by experts in WWII.

[Ham]

Maybe that is a *tad* bit extreme. but a good point.. a "language" that defies mathematical analysis..

there was only one language that stepped up to the plate in WW2 that resisted all such analysis.. what were they called.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windtalkers

[Ham]

If it makes any difference here, I love listening to the wind..

when I can get the other humans here to shut off the damned TV. It is such useless noise.. useless distraction..

[Raf]

No intent to recycle the same arguments. Thanks for clarifying, chockfull.

[WordWolf]

(snip)

All the code references indicate to me is that language that is not understood makes an effective encryption tool that wasn't broken by experts in WWII.

That's only a PARTIAL description of the code-talkers.

The code was DESIGNED to be hard to break.

They did FOUR things to do this.

1) They used English as the base language

2) They used direct translation into Navajo

3) They invented new terms not existent in Navajo specifically to confuse things

4) They also used a "null cipher" on top of that.

Just going from plain English to a null cipher can conceal a lot of information.

That's when a code is used where most of the text is NOT the message, and a part IS.

That's why, in this case, an actual Navajo listened to the messages,

and had NO IDEA what was being said. He could pick up individual words in Navajo,

but they seemed jumbled. They didn't form sentences like I'm doing now.

So, the code-talkers used deliberately concealing translation, new, unfamiliar phrases,

and an actual code ON TOP of the languages. Just knowing Navajo was not enough to

"break the code."

[Raf]

So if God does what you describe, WordWolf, could that explain why SIT is not deciphered by linguists?

(I don't buy it, myself. It's not what the Bible describes. I consider that an ad hoc argument designed to explain why modern SIT doesn't produce what the Bible clearly describes, Chockfull's caveats considered).

[Steve Lortz]

Hi! I'm only stopping by briefly. My internet access is limited right now (no... I'm not in jail! :) )I've got some things to post later about my presentation on I Corinthians 8:6, which is tangential to this discussion, but I wanted to say "Hi!"

I am arriving at the conviction that there is NO doctrine that is not potential heresy, and there is NO "faith community" that is not a potential cult...

Love,

Steve

[Raf]

It will be interesting to see how you tie that into this discussion.

[WordWolf]

So if God does what you describe, WordWolf, could that explain why SIT is not deciphered by linguists?

(I don't buy it, myself. It's not what the Bible describes. I consider that an ad hoc argument designed to explain why modern SIT doesn't produce what the Bible clearly describes, Chockfull's caveats considered).

God CAN do whatever He wants.

It is POSSIBLE for God to take, say, ancient Etruscan, do a substitution with it,

and make an "unbreakable" code. If anyone COULD speak Etruscan, they'd translate

to something like "nitwit oddment blubber tweak", but the cipher would switch

the words to something in sentences.

I don't buy it either, but that's how it would have to work.

==============

A few words on codes/ciphers.

Codes/ciphers fall into 2 basic categories: substitution and null. (Or uses both.)

A substitution cipher switches one letter for another (A means B, B means C),

or a number for a letter (1 means A, 2 means B), or one word or phrase for

another ("IRS" means "vampire", "hitler" means "boss").

A null cipher is a LOT longer than the original message. The original message is

relatively short, but is surrounded by information that is NOT part of the message

to hide the message. The result can be a jumble and incoherent, or can look like

something NOT a secret code.

One example of both is a song I've heard. The title is a null cipher,

and the lyrics are a substitution cipher, where each PHRASE is substituting for

another PHRASE. (In each case, the same phrase.) The song is about something

simple, but gets past the censors all the time because it's not in plain English.

However, we should all be able to break the code.

The title is "Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo."

For the sensibilities of the classier posters here, I'll just link to the lyrics.

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bloodhoundgang/foxtrotuniformcharliekilo.html

I was working on an example of a null cipher and accidentally deleted my work.

I'll redo it later.

[chockfull]

That's only a PARTIAL description of the code-talkers.

The code was DESIGNED to be hard to break.

They did FOUR things to do this.

1) They used English as the base language

2) They used direct translation into Navajo

3) They invented new terms not existent in Navajo specifically to confuse things

4) They also used a "null cipher" on top of that.

So out of those four things, two of them basically are just using a different language to mask a message. This is EXACTLY the same as SIT. As far as your point #3, I think they actually used native Navajo terms to describe military terms. So instead of inventing a new term not existent in Navajo, they would use the Navajo word for "mountain" to describe a military term of some sort, then there was a one-page description of those terms. I've seen that sheet somewhere. I'll link to it if I find it.

Cryptography is an interesting study. Null ciphers and substitution ciphers are the most basic, both in use in Julius Caesar's time. There have been noted advancements in computer cryptography as well, including the current standard AES. Here's a writeup - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography

That's why, in this case, an actual Navajo listened to the messages,

and had NO IDEA what was being said. He could pick up individual words in Navajo,

but they seemed jumbled. They didn't form sentences like I'm doing now.

I think if an actual Navajo was recruited to listen to the messages they would get the code terms. It would sound like "The big red bull is under the sun eating" or something like that. Without knowing what military terms were represented by "bull, sun, and eating" they wouldn't be able to decipher the exact message. I also think part of the appeal of the Navajo language was that like most other native American languages, it would be much harder to find someone that uses that language outside of the US.

So, the code-talkers used deliberately concealing translation, new, unfamiliar phrases,

and an actual code ON TOP of the languages. Just knowing Navajo was not enough to

"break the code."

Yes there was additional encryption of word substitution going on. The only point I was making about this is that if man can come up with fairly effective means of encrypting messages using languages, that it shouldn't be too hard for God to do the same thing to uphold the integrity of what He seems to be instructing people to do in I Cor. 14, to circle this sidetrack back around to dealing with the topic at hand.

Edited November 21, 2012 by chockfull

[chockfull]

So if God does what you describe, WordWolf, could that explain why SIT is not deciphered by linguists?

(I don't buy it, myself. It's not what the Bible describes. I consider that an ad hoc argument designed to explain why modern SIT doesn't produce what the Bible clearly describes, Chockfull's caveats considered).

At this point I am viewing this as a possibility of why SIT would not be deciphered by linguists, but as far as direct evidence to support this, all I see is the I Cor. 14:2 indicating others won't understand. I would consider it a stretch to try and extrapolate from that verse any kind of proof or conclusion that God would be using encryption techniques on the tongues language He would be energizing. I just leave it as a possibility that if He states in scripture others won't understand that He has some kind of means of ensuring that is true. So for anything research or write up related to me it would be a footnote.

My blend of logic and scripture. Yours may differ.

[Raf]

Yeah, we're not on new ground here. A little more detail on old ground. But not on new ground.

[WordWolf]

That's only a PARTIAL description of the code-talkers.

The code was DESIGNED to be hard to break.

They did FOUR things to do this.

1) They used English as the base language

2) They used direct translation into Navajo

3) They invented new terms not existent in Navajo specifically to confuse things

4) They also used a "null cipher" on top of that.

Just going from plain English to a null cipher can conceal a lot of information.

That's when a code is used where most of the text is NOT the message, and a part IS.

That's why, in this case, an actual Navajo listened to the messages,

and had NO IDEA what was being said. He could pick up individual words in Navajo,

but they seemed jumbled. They didn't form sentences like I'm doing now.

So, the code-talkers used deliberately concealing translation, new, unfamiliar phrases,

and an actual code ON TOP of the languages. Just knowing Navajo was not enough to

"break the code."

So out of those four things, two of them basically are just using a different language to mask a message. This is EXACTLY the same as SIT.

You're really oversimplifying the process of just moving back and forth

between 2 languages. The words often don't directly correspond, so the

translations often have to change a lot or they won't translate correctly.

Example 1:

English has the expression "man and wife."

Spanish has an expression "marido y senora", "husband and lady."

The idea is much the same but the wording is different to get there.

Example:

I met someone who spoke almost no English. They wanted to ask how old

my grandmother was. They said "How many years does she have?"

That's how you ask the same question in Spanish-"How old is she?"

So, they DIDN'T do that, the code-talkers. They translated WORD FOR WORD

even when that made little sense-because their goal WAS to be confusing

to listeners.

As far as your point #3, I think they actually used native Navajo terms to describe military terms. So instead of inventing a new term not existent in Navajo, they would use the Navajo word for "mountain" to describe a military term of some sort, then there was a one-page description of those terms. I've seen that sheet somewhere. I'll link to it if I find it.

The new phrases were not new WORDS, they were new PHRASES-

"iron fish" for "submarine" and "black street" for "squad." The phrases

were new, but composed of existing words. That's right from the military

link you posted.

Cryptography is an interesting study. Null ciphers and substitution ciphers are the most basic, both in use in Julius Caesar's time. There have been noted advancements in computer cryptography as well, including the current standard AES. Here's a writeup - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography

I think if an actual Navajo was recruited to listen to the messages they would get the code terms. It would sound like "The big red bull is under the sun eating" or something like that. Without knowing what military terms were represented by "bull, sun, and eating" they wouldn't be able to decipher the exact message. I also think part of the appeal of the Navajo language was that like most other native American languages, it would be much harder to find someone that uses that language outside of the US.

Perhaps that's how it was in the movie-but Hollywood changes things.

Again, from the military link, they explained how a Navajo listener

wouldn't hear anything like that-which happened (according to the

Wikipedia link, a Navajo POW was unable to make sense of a recording.)

Here's what the military link says:

"When a Navajo code talker received a message, what he heard was a string of seemingly unrelated Navajo words. The code talker first had to translate each Navajo word into its English equivalent. Then he used only the first letter of the English equivalent in spelling an English word. Thus, the Navajo words "wol-la-chee" (ant), "be-la-sana" (apple) and "tse-nill" (axe) all stood for the letter "a." One way to say the word "Navy" in Navajo code would be "tsah (needle) wol-la-chee (ant) ah-keh-di- glini (victor) tsah-ah-dzoh (yucca)."

Most letters had more than one Navajo word representing them."

Yes there was additional encryption of word substitution going on. The only point I was making about this is that if man can come up with fairly effective means of encrypting messages using languages, that it shouldn't be too hard for God to do the same thing to uphold the integrity of what He seems to be instructing people to do in I Cor. 14, to circle this sidetrack back around to dealing with the topic at hand.

The simple translation from English to Navajo would not have been an

unbreakable code. What made the code so hard to break was the 2 steps

of coding- both substitution AND null ON TOP of translating.

If God wants to make a cipher of each message, He can easily do so.

If you think He would do so, and does do so, that's your business.

I think many things He CAN do, He won't do, and this is one of them.

[WordWolf]

For fun, I thought an example of a null cipher would illustrate what happens.

What would you think if someone had this shopping list in his pocket when he was

picked up for questioning, under suspicion of being a terrorist?

dill pickles

yams (1 can)

nectarines (1 bag)

apples (1 bag)

mangoes (2 bags)

ice cream (preferably Neapolitan)

toaster strudel

eggs (1 dozen)

bacon (Canadian if available)

relish

instant ramen

dates (1 pack)

granny smith apples (if in season)

egg nog

tahini

oranges (1 bag)

niguri (if fresh)

instant coffee

tomato paste

escalopes

[Raf]

What's an escalope? And I think I'll take the tunnel on the way back from the store. The bridge looks like a bad idea.

[WordWolf]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalopes

"Escalopes (also spelled as escallopes) are pieces of boneless meat which have been thinned out using a mallet, rolling pin or beaten with the handle of a knife, or alternative, combined with, or merely 'butterflied'. The mallet breaks down the fibers in the meat, making it more tender, while the thinner meat cooks faster with less moisture loss, producing a dish that that cooks faster and is moister and more tender."

"The most famous recipe using veal escalope is "Veal Cordon Bleu"".

It wasn't the hardest null cipher to crack, but I did want to make an example.

Back when I used to read a magazine that had puzzles, they included ciphers

of different types, including a page of null ciphers once. The format and

coded message here was one they used, but I made it a bit more obvious.

For those who really want a hard cipher, I'd recommend looking into Baconian

ciphers. They even hid one of those into an illustration on the page containing

Baconian ciphers. One reader figured it out and sent a reply illustration

based on theirs. The rest of us had no idea there was a message TO find.

[waysider]

[chockfull]

If God wants to make a cipher of each message, He can easily do so.

If you think He would do so, and does do so, that's your business.

I think many things He CAN do, He won't do, and this is one of them.

To me the whole point of the sidetrack on ciphers was just to note possibilities. My approach on what God would or would not do is more scriptural.