SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

Allan, I'm really sorry you won't admit that you faked it and continue to do so. But if you'd like to prove your claim by identifying the language and demonstrating that you never learned it, I am certainly open to actual evidence. You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath...

Folks, this thread was dead, pretty much. What's say unless someone actually has something new to add, we let it rest? Can I get an amen?

[WordWolf]

Allan, I'm really sorry you won't admit that you faked it and continue to do so. But if you'd like to prove your claim by identifying the language and demonstrating that you never learned it, I am certainly open to actual evidence. You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath...

Folks, this thread was dead, pretty much. What's say unless someone actually has something new to add, we let it rest? Can I get an amen?

The last page has been pretty slow, but based on the dates, it hasn't "died" except for the last day,

which is what it looks like you're suggesting (which you may not be.)

I'm ok with getting recappy with some cut-and-paste of highlights from months of discussion,

for those who arrived late and are too lazy to catch up.

For just a discussion of "free vocalization", why it has that name, what it is,

and what relevance it has to our experience, we split off a discussion into

Open here:

[outandabout]

I'm SOOOO confused! I thought I was speaking in tongues all this time and now I'm wondering if I've been faking it! But it works sometimes, perfect prayer and all that.

Oh well......

Last post? To quote Jim Morrison, This the end, my friend...

[Allan]

I'm gutted too Out n About !!! To finally have it pointed out to me I was faking it all these years lol....I guess the Apostle Paul and all the first century church folk were master fakers as well ( or taught wrongly ) ?

[Steve Lortz]

...

For just a discussion of "free vocalization", why it has that name, what it is,

and what relevance it has to our experience, we split off a discussion into

Open here:

...

It's interesting that you bring up "free vocalization!"

Deuteronomy 16:10 says, "Then you shall keep the festival of weeks to the Lord your God, contributing a free-will offering in proportion to the blessing that you have received from the Lord your God."

On the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2, the blessing people received was the gift of the Holy Spirit. The people who spoke in tongues that day were offering back to God in proportion to how He had blessed them, praying by means of the Holy Spirit. Since Deuteronomy calls for a free-will offering, then free vocalization would perfectly fit the criteria called for in Deuteronomy 16:10.

If you judge me to be lying, Raf, because you lied, then you are being as presumptuous as Wierwille ever was!

Love,

Steve

[WordWolf]

I'm SOOOO confused! :confused:/> I thought I was speaking in tongues all this time and now I'm wondering if I've been faking it! But it works sometimes, perfect prayer and all that.

Oh well......

Last post? To quote Jim Morrison, This the end, my friend...

Prayer works.

What twi peddled was often at odds with what God said.

What twi peddled was often labelled as what God said-while being the opposite.

What twi taught was something atheist actors and small children do.

All twi did was slap a pious label on it and convince people it was the

same thing that was introduced at Pentecost- despite having virtually

nothing in common with it.

[WordWolf]

I'm gutted too Out n About !!! To finally have it pointed out to me I was faking it all these years lol....I guess the Apostle Paul and all the first century church folk were master fakers as well ( or taught wrongly ) ? :biglaugh:/>

See, there's 2 mistakes you're making.

1) You're "Guessing" and not EVALUATING.

When this thread began, I was firmly in the "it's the real thing" category,

but I EVALUATED and it failed to hold up under scrutiny.

I certainly didn't change my opinion out of peer pressure or anything else.

2) You're lumping the mechanical process we were taught in twi ("modern sit")

with what was done at Pentecost and by Paul ("Biblical sit.")

Stop for a few minutes and compare what the actual Scriptures say on the subject

rather than what you were told they say on the subject.

IF what you're doing is a fake compared to something real they did,

wouldn't you really want to know that sooner rather than later?

IF what you're doing is real rather than a fake, some honest scrutiny and

evaluation would only REINFORCE that rather than UNDERMINE that.

In this particular case, the thing we were taught only resembles what we were

told it was in that it was LABELLED as the same thing.

[WordWolf]

It's interesting that you bring up "free vocalization!"

Deuteronomy 16:10 says, "Then you shall keep the festival of weeks to the Lord your God, contributing a free-will offering in proportion to the blessing that you have received from the Lord your God."

On the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2, the blessing people received was the gift of the Holy Spirit. The people who spoke in tongues that day were offering back to God in proportion to how He had blessed them, praying by means of the Holy Spirit. Since Deuteronomy calls for a free-will offering, then free vocalization would perfectly fit the criteria called for in Deuteronomy 16:10.

If you judge me to be lying, Raf, because you lied, then you are being as presumptuous as Wierwille ever was!

Love,

Steve

*sigh*

Steve,

the thing was assigned the name "free vocalization" because it is spoken (vocalized) and because it is undirected

(free as in a free market, not as in free beer for all.) So, it was given that name to call it something.

The name carries no power in and of itself other than to separate it from other terms that came before and

meant different things (like "gibberish", which is what actors call it because they're not concerned with

substance or giving their exercise too much thought-but the exercise is the same.)

So, saying that it's Biblical because it's "free vocalization" is silly. If it had been given a true

placeholder name like "semprini", it would have meant exactly the same concept. Would you, then,

try to say God Almighty promised "semprini" in His Holy Word?

Yes, it is possible to assign the same word or phrase to a number of different concepts.

We don't do that because we want to communicate MORE clearly, rather than LESS, so new concepts tend to

get their own names whenever possible.

Examples of what happens when people assign one word for different concepts rather than separating them:

A) I once was talking about an old myth about faeries stealing children and replacing them in their

cribs with a faerie disguised as them. That was called a "changeling." When I explained that to

someone, as soon as he heard the word "changeling", he stopped listening to the description, and

began rewriting what I'd said already- because he knew I must have meant a shapeshifting alien like

Constable Odo from Star Trek:Deep Space 9.

B) In college, I tried to expound to a friend about "spirit" and the absence thereof as taught in twi.

He interrupted, because he was an excitable fellow who felt he had plenty of "spirit"

(as in "school spirit") so he thought there was something wrong with the explanation right there.

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

Whether or not the speaking in Acts 2 on Pentecost COULD be called "free vocalization" or not is

open to discussion-although this is the wrong thread for it.

What IS wrong is deliberately assigning it that name NOW when we're already using that phrase

specifically for something else in order to make the distinctions BETWEEN THEM clearer.

In continuing to assign them the same name, you'll end up accidentally (I hope) confusing them

one for another by default rather than actually discuss whether they might be the same thing

(they're not, not by a reasonable doubt), or whether they are actually the same thing only

performed by different people at different times (they aren't.)

The thing twi taught was not the Acts 2 speaking-it was only labelled so.

If the Acts 2 speaking-true Speaking In Tongues- is available now,

I haven't seen it- and I'd sure like to! (Seriously- it would mean a lot to me and end this

cycle once and for all.)

I know what it isn't-and that's what twi taught.

It benefits no one to confuse the two- and, if anything, provides fuel to those who think

there's no power of God in people's lives-

if glossalalia/"free vocalization" is the best anyone can offer as supposed Power of God,

I could see why some people would conclude it's all a hoax.

Just a wild guess,

but I'm betting that you just read the LINK and the opening

I posted, and didn't actually CLICK on the link and read the

(very short) thread at the other end,

is that right, Steve?

[WordWolf]

Ok, I was just going to leave the other thread as a link,

but apparently, I was expecting too much from my fellow posters

to think they'd READ SOMETHING BEFORE COMMENTING ON IT.

(Proverbs 18:13King James Version (KJV)

13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.)

So, I'll text-dump some of the contents here.

This is about the mechanics of "free vocalization", what it is and is not.

I think this is a subject worth discussing by itself- that got buried in a previous discussion

addressing a lot more. So, I've meant to start this thread for some time.

Ok, first of all, how we get the names for things.

All names, as far as it goes, are made up. Someone finds a new concept and starts using a new name.

Sometimes the new name catches on, sometimes a different name catches on, and sometimes nobody

uses it and it fades into obscurity. So, if someone has a new idea or discovers something new,

it's fair to try to come up with a decent name for it. For that matter, bad names become famous,

too- the "googol" is 1 followed by 100 zeroes, and exploring caves is "spelunking", from

"speliation" (cave studies) and a sillier ending for the word.

So, the phrase "free vocalization." It wasn't a phrase coined to promote a specific agenda.

When studying different things and discovering they were the same thing with different window dressing,

someone coined the phrase in order to discuss it better.

The name "free vocalization" refers to a speaking, thus, a vocalization. It is a speaking that is not

directed in any formal sense of speech, thus it is "free" (unguided) in the same sense as free verse.

So, what, exactly, is it?

Free vocalization is actually a pretty common practice, used under a number of

concepts. When children pretend to be speaking and pronounce nonsense syllables,

they're doing this. (No, not when babies are starting to speak- when older

children know they're not speaking a language and intentionally PRETEND to do so

to amuse themselves and their friends.)

Actors do this as well when studying acting. They will study how to move, and

how to intone, and that can be studied independent of dialogue. Much can be

portrayed by tone, movement, and gesture even if no language is held in common-

or no language is used at all. My study group surprised our acting teacher

with how complicated a concept we conveyed in such a scene-where 5 people got

together, decided the scene, and acted it out- all speaking without actual words

but with lots of speaking, intonation, movement and gestures. But that's

drifting off-topic...the point is that actors will do this very thing while

learning- as practice with other things, and it is not difficult once you get

the idea.

Some people have pointed out similarities between those practices and each other-

because they differ only in intent, and are the same activity concerning

language and cognition (thinking.)

Free vocalization was part of the training I received when I studied improvisational acting. I don't remember it actually being referred to by any particular name but, that's what it was. The process involves learning how to let go of your inhibitions, a quality that is quite valuable in ad-lib situations. I think this is why it was so easy for me to *speak in tongues* when I was introduced to it. It was sort of a reverse epiphany for me. Instead of thinking that speaking in tongues was free vocalization, I guess I thought that the free vocalization I had been doing was really speaking in tongues.

Vern Polythress:

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

"Can the average person be taught to produce free vocalization?

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

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

"Picture this...You're in improvisation class and the director hands you a prop. He says, "Make up a language and sell this to Joe." Can it be done? Yes. I've seen it and done it myself. Is it really a language? No, but, it sounds like one."

There is really no special training required. It's simply a matter of letting go of your inhibitions. Relaxation techniques might help. (close your eyes, deep breaths, etc.) That's what session 12 was about...relax and let go....Remember the first time you let go of the handlebars and rode your bike with no hands? It's kinda like that.

"Theatrical training frequently includes exercises in improvisation. In one type of improvisation, the actor invents a "language" (on the fly) and has his/her character use that language in a conversational context.

I posted an example of Andy Kaufman doing this in one of my earlier posts. It's not Biblical, it's not spiritual, it's not evidence of anything other than a latent ability of the human mind. It's not difficult to do. It can, however , present a stumbling block for participants who have inhibitions that impair their ability to do it.

That's why it's included in improvisation classes. I personally saw this being done by a wide variety of subjects, some of whom I am quite sure were not Christian. (Oy Vey! Am I being vague enough on this point?) Decidedly, not everyone can overcome their inhibitions to do it but, the possibility to do so is still there."

"Any acting student will encounter these exercises-and sooner rather than later.

(I encountered them, and my acting studies were very short-which means they're

pretty much around the beginning exercises.)

I've been in classes where it was done.

I've seen stand-up comedians do it on television.

I've seen SMALL CHILDREN do it for entertainment- which they came up with on their own.

None of them CALLED IT "free vocalization", but that's what it was.

Any acting teacher (and most students), for that matter, could set up an exercise where the students

set up a skit, setting it in a religious revival, church meeting, or whatever,

announce the holy speaker, and have the actor do free vocalization.

With enough props, it would look and sound exactly like any modern SIT church usage.

With a different setup, the same exercise would be indistinguishable from a twi meeting

complete with "manifestations."

For that matter, lots of people who do things CLAIM they do them "supernaturally."

Some of them-who are non-Christians, claim to "speak in tongues" (by that name or another)

and do free vocalization dressed up to look special and holy.

It's no different than the actors doing it-except this person MIGHT actually THINK it was

supernatural and not mundane. This doesn't make it any less mundane."

"Please note that in acting, it's referred to as "gibberish." There's no OFFICIAL, FORMAL name,

but "free vocalization" works better for discussion. Some people disagree as to the meaning

of "gibberish", and will count it as gibberish only if it is obviously nonsensical,

or meant only as a child's game, and will mean something else when discussing it.

So, it is important to know what is MEANT by a term as well as the actual word.

(It's like the word "spirit"- does the person mean an alcoholic beverage,

or emotion, or some entity?) "

So, no matter what it's called, "free vocalization" is a normal, human ability that children

can use, and adults can use-as long as they can disregard their adult hangups over looking silly.

Theater students and acting students learn to do it all the time, and any poster or lurker

hear can learn to do it as well. It is neither exotic nor unusual.

[WordWolf]

A point that can be missed is that people who insist twi had it correct

seem to be the ones saying that to question SIT IN THE TWI STYLE

is to question the Bible, Jesus Christ, etc,

and everyone else is saying it's a separate doctrine that has no bearing

on the salvation of billions of Christians in history and the present.

Whether or not there is real SIT, the assertion is that the twi style itself

was education in, and practice of, how to COUNTERFEIT the actual experience of

SIT, with social reinforcement filling in the gaps.

(We all wanted to SIT, we were told it was fantastic, we were told this is how

it's done, all our friends wanted us to SIT, we wanted to SIT, so when we

put the twi counterfeit into practice, we were eager to believe it was the

genuine and not the counterfeit, and our friends believed the same.)

Whether or not that's true, the evidence points that way.

All of that's a separate question of "Is there real SIT today that's not the

same as twi style" and "Is the Bible correct" and so on.

Those are matters for Doctrinal and best left there. I hope to chat about it with

the gang here later when there's time.The "real SIT" part, not the other part.)

[WordWolf]

Theatrical training frequently includes exercises in improvisation. In one type of improvisation, the actor invents a "language" (on the fly) and has his/her character use that language in a conversational context. I posted an example of Andy Kaufman doing this in one of my earlier posts. It's not Biblical, it's not spiritual, it's not evidence of anything other than a latent ability of the human mind. It's not difficult to do. It can, however , present a stumbling block for participants who have inhibitions that impair their ability to do it. That's why it's included in improvisation classes. I personally saw this being done by a wide variety of subjects, some of whom I am quite sure were not Christian. (Oy Vey! Am I being vague enough on this point?) Decidedly, not everyone can overcome their inhibitions to do it but, the possibility to do so is still there.

Any acting student will encounter these exercises-and sooner rather than later.

(I encountered them, and my acting studies were very short-which means they're

pretty much around the beginning exercises.)

I've been in classes where it was done.

I've seen stand-up comedians do it on television.

I've seen SMALL CHILDREN do it for entertainment- which they came up with on their own.

None of them CALLED IT "free vocalization", but that's what it was.

Any acting teacher (and most students), for that matter, could set up an exercise where the students

set up a skit, setting it in a religious revival, church meeting, or whatever,

announce the holy speaker, and have the actor do free vocalization.

With enough props, it would look and sound exactly like any modern SIT church usage.

With a different setup, the same exercise would be indistinguishable from a twi meeting

complete with "manifestations."

For that matter, lots of people who do things CLAIM they do them "supernaturally."

Some of them-who are non-Christians, claim to "speak in tongues" (by that name or another)

and do free vocalization dressed up to look special and holy.

It's no different than the actors doing it-except this person MIGHT actually THINK it was

supernatural and not mundane. This doesn't make it any less mundane.

There are, of course, undocumented and unconfirmed claims that some of THOSE people produced

an actual language they didn't understand. Hokum.

When it comes to claims of the superstitious and occult, the vast majority have been nothing

more than wishful thinking, showmanship, and gullible people seeing what they expected to see

or WANTED to see.

So, really, here's what that looks like.

"I don't want to believe we were deceived and I'm being deceived now.

I insist SIT accounts really ARE supernatural and produce languages.

Since non-Christians are supposedly doing the same thing, instead of saying it's not supernatural

in either case, I will insist it's supernatural in BOTH cases!

So, non-Christians who do that are tapping into a devil or are possessed!"

Most of us think it's more likely that:

small children, acting students, televangelists, witch doctors, and devout Christians are all doing the same mundane activity, each for different reasons,

than

small children, acting students and witch doctors are all getting possessed (or partly possessed),

while televangelists and devout Christians are tapping into God, and it looks EXACTLY THE SAME

and works EXACTLY THE SAME as the children and the acting students.

Not getting that doesn't make you more devout or steadfast.

Getting it doesn't make us any less devout.

[Human without the bean]

Ala shasta be, alonda bonacarta, vilenta, nacarta, venbona nacarsta, ocosta vileeta, no bora sodota, fomableena, nacropa suata, vable sepdona saharta, kepecka donetta, sobobwa.

[waysider]

Ala shasta be, alonda bonacarta, vilenta, nacarta, venbona nacarsta, ocosta vileeta, no bora sodota, fomableena, nacropa suata, vable sepdona saharta, kepecka donetta, sobobwa.

"Unfortunately, our interpreter overslept this morning."

[WordWolf]

Look, this is easy.

A new term is made up when someone has a concept that doesn't have a term. That's so we can discuss it.

(Examples: Astronaut, internet, computer.)

Someone was examining a phenomenon and called it "free vocalization."

The name comes from it being a vocalization, and it not following any language or formal structure.

It is unrestricted by pattern and logic. (Free as in speech, not as in beer.)

When examining different things, they share qualities with each other and all match the usage of

the phrase "free vocalization." Small children playing a game do it. Actors in training do it.

Conmen do it. Witch doctors do it. Christians who "SIT" do it.

How do we know it's the same thing?

All the things that define it, they share in common.

What is different about any of them is irrelevant to the definition.

(Age of speaker, intent of speaker, props used)

We've seen that. Many of us have seen children or actors do it personally-or been the actors.

Some of us who did "modern SIT" and seen children or actors do it have said it is the same.

How can we know they're not the same thing?

Someone would have to bring in at least one credible example that didn't match the pattern.

So far, we've seen lots of things matching the pattern, and vague anecdotes that supposedly

don't, but we can't examine them. With thousands of Christians doing it daily and more doing

it weekly, there should be a legitimate example SOMEWHERE that breaks the pattern-

IF THEY'RE NOT THE SAME.

Based on the evidence we've seen,

modern SIT IS free vocalization.

Modern SIT is free vocalization done by people who love God, want to serve God, and have been

misinformed that this act is the Biblical SIT that they would rather do.

God is still in Heaven, and appreciates their hearts, miracles happen despite these Christians

making a consistent mistake, and eventually Jesus Christ will correct all the parties involved.

Based on the evidence we've seen,

the "argument" against it goes as follows:

"The modern SIT is the same as the Biblical SIT. Its unable to be understood like the original

because its in languages of angels-despite those languages matching the patterns of languages

as studied by experts because God doesn't cooperate with experts. Sometimes it DOES produce

a spoken, earthly language- but it's incredibly rare and all accounts possible come from

unconfirmable anecdotes. Sometimes people produce real languages that exist around the earth

but are doing so by possession or devil influence- despite no linguist confirming THAT either."

I'm unclear whether today's position will be

-There's no such thing as free vocalization-it's all spirit-produced

-it's a coincidence that all accounts seem to match free vocalization

or something else.

I'm still amazed that "charlatans have faked speaking in a language" keeps getting distorted into

"there's no power of God ever, everyone's a charlatan."

It's dishonest, unfair, and damages the speaker's credibility.

But, there we go.

[WordWolf]

I'll save a minority of readers some time.

The following is a quote from Marjoe Gortner.

According to Wikipedia, he

"is a former revivalist and actor who first gained attention during the late 1940s when, aged four, he became the youngest-known ordained preacher. He then gained notoriety in the 1970s when he starred in Marjoe, an Oscar-winning behind-the-scenes documentary about the lucrative business of Pentecostal preaching. "

He did a movie about the experience. It can be seen in parts on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0B66318D2985FB0D

Ok, here's where I was going.

He gave some interviews and I'm going to quote one.

Since it was to an atheist and is posted on an atheist website,

some people will automatically dismiss it.

Those people can just scroll past to the next post.

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

"The hit song, however, is spiritual rebirth, the product of a time-tested recipe for religion to which the preacher and every member of the audience contribute some small but active ingredient. Then, according to Marjoe, the only fitting encore to the overwhelming moment of becoming saved is a personal demonstration of the power of that newfound faith. This is the motivating factor that prompts speaking in tongues, also known as the "receiving of the glossolalia." As Marjoe explained it, this well-known Evangelical tradition requires even greater audience participation on the part of the tongues recipient and the entire audience.

"After you've been saved," Marjoe continued, "the next step is what they call 'the infilling of the Holy Spirit.' They say to the new convert, 'Well, now you're saved, but you've got to get the Holy Ghost.' So you come back to get the tongues experience. Some people will get it the same night; others will go for weeks or years before they can speak in tongues. You hear it, you hear everyone at night talking in it in the church, and they're all saying, 'We love you and we hope you're going to get it by tonight.' Then one night you go down there and they all try to get you to get it, and you go into very much of a trance -- not quite a frenzy, but it is an incredible experience.

"During that moment the person forgets all about his problems. He is surrounded by people whom he trusts and they're all saying, 'We love you. It's okay. You're accepted in Christ. We're with you, let it go, relax.' And sooner or later, he starts to speak it out and go dut-dut-dut. Then everyone goes, 'That's it! You've got it!' and the button is pushed and he will in fact start to speak in tongues and just take off: dehan-dayelo-mosatay-leesaso ... and on and on."

Marjoe paused. Flo was dumbfounded by his demonstration, although he hadn't gone into the jerking, trance-like ecstasy that is commonly associated with the tongues movement. I'd seen the classic version in his movie, yet even in this restrained demonstration, Marjoe appeared to be triggering some internal releasing or babbling mechanism. I asked him how he brought it about.

"You'll never get with that attitude," he joked. Then he went on to explain the true nature of the experience. His perspective showed it to be a process that requires a great deal of effort to master.

"Tongues is something you learn," he emphasized. "It is a releasing that you teach yourself. You are told by your peers, the church, and the Bible -- if you accept it literally -- that the Holy Ghost spake in another tongue; you become convinced that it is the ultimate expression of the spirit flowing through you. The first time maybe you'll just go dut-dut-dut-dut, and that's about all that will get out. Then you'll hear other people and next night you may go dut-dut-dut-UM-dut-DEET-dut-dut, and it gets a little better. The next thing you know, it's ela-hando-satelay-eek-condele-mosandrey-aseya ... and it's a new language you've got down."

Except that, according to Marjoe, it's not a real language at all. Contrary to most religious understanding, speaking in tongues is by no means passive spiritual possession. It must be actively acquired and practiced. Although the "gift" of tongues is a product of human and not supernatural origin, Marjoe displayed tremendous respect for the experience as an expression of spirituality and fellowship.

"I really don't put it down," he said. "I never have. It's just that I analyze it and look at it from a very rational point of view. I don't see it as coming from God and say that at a certain point the Holy Spirit zaps you with a super whammy on the head and you've 'gone for tongues' and there is it. Tongues is a process that people build up to. Then, as you start to do something, just as when you practice the scales on the piano, you get better at it."

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

Me,

I still insist God Almighty is still in Heaven, Jesus is my Lord,

and people will lie to each other and themselves, whether they mean to or not.

So, even if modern SIT is all a fraud, God is still as Awesome as He always was.

I doubt this is helpful, .but, awhile ago I found a partial unpublished thesis online. It was written by someone named Larry Holton and posted on a site. I have never heard of him and am not endorsing him or the site. Make what you will of it......but, what caught my eye were the resources cited. Unfortunately, I can't link to it....it doesn't work. There are some quotes from linguists addressing a few of Chockfull's concerns. It is a poorly written paper but, what is of value IMO are the sources. If you want the sources or to read the entire article you will have to Google Larry Holton and SIT. I will cut and paste a bit. Apparently, these objections of Chockfulls are not unique and are heard from other people who SIT.

_________________________________________________________________________

Objection: Since there are nearly three thousand languages in the world linguists could not have heard every language in the world, therefore if they studied a tape-recording of glossolalia they might not know what language it was in.

Answer: A statement from William Welmers, Ph.D., in linguistics from U.C.L.A. answers this objection nicely: "That is not an entirely valid argument. Among us, we have heard many hundreds of languages. Furthermore, we have heard representative languages in virtually every group of related languages in the world. At worst we may have missed a few small groups in the interior of South America or in New Guinea. I would estimate that the chances are at least even that if a glossolalic utterance is in a known language, one of us would either recognize the language or recognize that it is similar to some language we are acquainted with." Dr. Welmers makes this challenge: "Get two recordings, one of a glossolalic utterance and the other in a real language remote from anything I have ever heard - any West Coast American Indian language would fill the bill. I'm confident that in just a few moments I could tell which is which and why I am sure of it."

Objection: The language I speak in is a dead language and there is no way a language expert could detect it.

Answer: In a letter from Herbert Stahike of Georgia State University, he states, "The problem of whether a glossolalic utterance involves the speaking of a foreign language depends heavily on your definition of a foreign language. If you mean a modern spoken language or a dead language of which we have some written record, then the claim is testable, otherwise the claim is meaningless." Bill Siemens says, "I have heard glossolalia a number of times, but in no case did it ever vaguely resemble any of the modem or ancient languages with which I am familiar in some degree."

Eugene A. Nida, Secretary of Translations for the American Bible Society and world renowned expert in linguistics, concluded from his studies that the phonemic strata indicates that the phonomes of glossolalic utterances are closely associated with the language background of the speaker's native language.

Felicitas D. Goodman made phonetic analysis of glossolalia from recordings she taped for her Master's Degree in Mexico and different sections of the United States. She concludes that the glossolalia she analyzed was not productive and noncommunicative.

James Jaquith from Washington University in his research among English speaking tongue-speakers concludes that "There is no evidence that these glossolalic utterances have been generated by constituent sub-codes of any natural language other than English."

Ernest Bryant and Daniel O'Connell of St. Louis University studied nine tapes of glossolalia taken from among their respondents. The results of their studies proved that "all glossolalic phonemes are within the normal phonemic repertoire of the native speaker of English." He says, "If a foreign language system were used a much greater divergence of phonemes would be expected, but the opposite is the case."

Dr. Donald Larson of Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota, began analyzing glossolalic samples in Toronto, Canada, in 1957. Since then he has analyzed many samples and observed glossolalic behavior in different parts of the world. His research also concludes that the phonological features of the native speaker's language carried over into his glossolalia experience.

In a letter to Dr, William Welmers of U.C.L.A., I asked him, "In your studies of modern glossolalia have you detected any known language?" His reply was, "In short, absolutely not." He goes on to say that "Glossolalic utterances are consistently in important respects unlike human languages. They are characterized by a great deal of recurrences of closely similar sequences of syllables and usually employ a restricted number of different sounds." Dr. Welmers said that the same thing is true of hundreds of other utterances studied by Christian linguistics of his acquaintance.

Dr. Samarin, by far the most thorough, says, "There is no mystery about glossolalia. Tape recorded samples are easy to obtain and to analyze. They always turn out to be the same things: strings of syllables made up of sounds taken from among all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but which nevertheless emerge as word-like or sentence-like units

[WordWolf]

(snip)

This has got to be a joke.

Look- everyone else has seen pages and pages explaining how it works.

That's what I did when I attempted to SIT.

When I meant to interpret or prophesy, I looked for a message to bless the people

at hand, something God wanted them to hear.

With no immediate revelation (in nearly every case, I think), I reached into my subconscious mind

and into my experience WITH these messages in twi

and produced ones that sounded like everyone else's.

And I never MEANT to lie or fake it. I meant to serve God. I meant to bring forth messages

at God Almighty's behest. I meant to do the right thing. Calling us "liars" when that's the

case all around is not exactly fair. I mean, all men are liars at some point but we reserve

the term for exceptional cases. The same goes for "fakers".

But you did get one thing right-

I would have been happier thinking I was doing God's will the entire time- if I actually HAD

been. I'd rather face the truth either way, but I prefer my truths to be pleasant ones that

make me look less foolish.

You've never done studies in metacognition-I have. I'm no expert, but I can follow along when

an expert explains things, and I know the basics.

(snip)

I've also done work in Theater, Human Communications, and Sociology.

I can speak on each in limited capacities-and I'm aware of what I do and don't know

in each.

As to Sociology,

any Sociologist (or competent undergrad student) could design a social structure

for an organization that would have the participants, the members, taught that

free vocalization was divine, and that if they trusted God, both syllables not

connected to any language and lacking the structure of any language would be

directly of God. They then could go on and teach the people that, if they

trusted God, the people could "interpret" that, and that the words in their own

language that immediately followed would be of God, and that God wanted them to.

Then the only things needed would be some samples to acculturate the people so

they "knew how it worked." That's exactly how the "slain in the Spirit" people

work, and the people who "dance in the Spirit." They expect God to deliver,

and they do something and expect God to provide the specifics. They sincerely

believe that's how it works.

Ok, so that's a framework that would provide the expectations. The only missing

things would be the actual utterances. Any improvisational actor can produce

free vocalization. If their instructions were clear, they could free vocalize

and speak in their language after that, insisting that was the translation.

With some preparation and samples to draw from, they could produce results

identical to the twi experience- stand up, speak without a language, then

speak in their language and sound EXACTLY like the expected interpretation.

Any adult could do the same with some training. With the proper mindset,

any adult could be taught to do that and believe it was all directly from God.

As for "prophecy", that's even simpler. They'd just need a sampling to draw

from, so they knew what it sounded like. Any improvisational actor could keep

going as long as needed or instructed. Any non-actor who was convinced it was

of God could do it all the time.

So, COULD it all have been faked?

Yes, it could all have been faked.

We were taught it was real. We had expectations it was real. We expected

that if we uttered syllables, God would provide meaning, and we had samples

of what other people's speech sounded like. (I've noticed that most modern SIT

in twi sounded the same no matter what state the speaker was from.)

As for interpretation or prophecy, yes, with expectations raised, and samples

to draw from, you'd get well-intentioned people who provided them and thought

they were from God. The speakers were primed, the listeners were primed.

Nothing was questioned, nobody WANTED to question it.

If it was real, honest scrutiny would RE-ENFORCE THIS, not THREATEN IT.

[Raf]

Steve, I can take the insult that I'm as presumptuous as Wierwille ever was, seeing as it is ad hominem and completely without basis, so it rolls off my back.

But I trust that if you cannot rebut my argument and demonstration without burying your message in a sea of equivocation and definition shifting, I must be onto something.

Challenge to everyone who claims not to be faking it: Identify the language. No excuses. No "but look at this scripture that says blah blah." You claim to speak in a language you've never learned. Identify the language. Pass go. Collect $1 million.

You can't do it, and it's not for any reason more complicated than what I have laid out in this thread.

You can compare me to Wierwille, Satan or Hitler: pick your method of demonizing me. By all means. Go for it. It does not affect me in the slightest.

Identify the language. Prove your claim, or stop criticizing me for declining to believe it.

[Raf]

The last page has been pretty slow, but based on the dates, it hasn't "died" except for the last day,

which is what it looks like you're suggesting (which you may not be.)

My personal opinion, if a thread hasn't received a new post in over a year, it's pretty much done for. Nothing against resurrecting it, if you guys want to discuss it again.

And obviously there are aspects I can no longer discuss because I no longer share a frame of reference with most of us involved in this discussion. Oh well.

[Allan]

Kind of hard for me to identify the language Raf when the Word of God says it's an unknown language isn't it ??!! Tongues of men /angels...I must say though that I've heard tongues from a person that contained words from a pacific Island language, german, Italian ( languages that I know reasonably well )all rolled into one...who says the spirit of God can't do that either ??!! TBH I couldn't care less what you think of what I think anymore than I care that you felt the need to fake it

[Steve Lortz]

Raf, how can you say that assuming I am lying simply because you did is not presumptuous?

Who is making an hominem attack on whom here?

Love,

Steve

Edited November 1, 2014 by Steve Lortz

[Allan]

I guess Jesus isn't/wasn't real either because we weren't actually there to verify it either ?

[Raf]

Kind of hard for me to identify the language Raf when the Word of God says it's an unknown language isn't it ??!! Tongues of men /angels...I must say though that I've heard tongues from a person that contained words from a pacific Island language, german, Italian ( languages that I know reasonably well )all rolled into one...who says the spirit of God can't do that either ??!! TBH I couldn't care less what you think of what I think anymore than I care that you felt the need to fake it :rolleyes:/>/>

Excuses excuses. They understood the languages in Acts. All sorts of anecdotes about people from China or the Middle East visiting and understanding the SIT and then disappearing, but suddenly, conveniently, scripture demands no one will be able to understand it. How convenient.

Listen, pick a position and stick with it. Either the Word of God says it's an unknown language (it doesn't, by the way, but you knew that) or Allan is uniquely qualified to recognize an amalgamation of a single language that contains elements of "a Pacific Island" language (name it. I thought not) German and Italian. All rolled into one.

Yeah right.

If you can't prove it's a language, you can't blame me for believing it's nothing more than free vocalizations. If you want me to believe it's more than that, it's your burden to prove it.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Raf

[Raf]

Raf, how can you say that assuming I am lying simply because you did is not presumptuous?

Who is making an hominem attack on whom here?

Love,

Steve

Comparing me to Wierwille is rude, so don't expect politeness in return.

I will tell you what I told everyone else: identify the language, or you have given no reason for ANYONE to believe you are doing anything supernatural.

You want presumptuous? "It's genuine because I say so" is presumptuous.

Wierwille was right about one thing: sincerity IS no guarantee for truth. I do not challenge anyone's sincerity. But when it looks like a counterfeit, sounds like a counterfeit, is produced in the same way as a counterfeit, and produces the same result as a counterfeit, it is not presumptuous to conclude it IS a counterfeit. It is presumptuous to insist on any other explanation without evidence to support it.

So you're the one being presumptuous here.

Want me to change my mind? Identify the language and knock off the but, but, but excuses that Allan couldn't resist for a single post.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Raf

[WordWolf]

Kind of hard for me to identify the language Raf when the Word of God says it's an unknown language isn't it ??!!

With the word "unknown" in ITALICS, the word you're relying on was added by a translator.

Even vpw said you could discount what the translator added.

(Then skipped that when it suited him.)

In a number of accounts in Acts, there were people present who understood them.

Unless Scripture is unreliable-which means you can't trust it at all and we shouldn't try to

understand it- then your understanding of the Corintians verses obviously are in error,

since they'd BLATANTLY contradict MULTIPLE accounts in Acts.

Tongues of men /angels...

The whole doctrine of "tongues of angels" upon which almost all of the modern practice

seems to hinge upon (all of it I've ever seen or heard, live or recorded) is centered around

ONE VERSE. Whenever vpw taught an entire doctrine around one verse, you should go back and

check if you were being hosed, because I've found it was common that he contradicted the

rest of the Bible with his single-verse doctrines.

The one reference was hyperbole, a legitimate figure of speech. We discussed this years ago

and I'll lay it out again simply when I have time.

I must say though that I've heard tongues from a person that contained words from a pacific Island language, german, Italian ( languages that I know reasonably well )all rolled into one...who says the spirit of God can't do that either ??!!

I'll say it- and I will be clear so that misrepresenting me will be obvious and dishonest.

I say that if you're hearing a message that is supposedly of God,

and the speaker is speaking in a melange of languages mashed together,

that the person's simply doing exactly what it looks like-

they're mashing words together from languages here and there.

"A bunch of words from a bunch of languages rolled into one sentence"

is nobody's definition of a tongue of men or "a tongue of an angel."

Frankly, I think you're strengthening the case that the person MEANT to speak

from God but the actual practice was a content-free jumble, either with bits

from things heard here or there, or bits of things cobbled together,

but all from either the hearing or the construction of the speaker.

We discussed this all at great length for months. Really, if you read it over,

you'd find some fascinating stuff.

TBH I couldn't care less what you think of what I think anymore than I care that you felt the need to fake it :rolleyes:/>

You care what SOMEBODY thinks because you're replying.

[WordWolf]

I guess Jesus isn't/wasn't real either because we weren't actually there to verify it either ? :biglaugh:/>

You've really got to stop GUESSING about the things of God- the stakes are too high,

and you're treating them glibly, flippantly, rather than as life-or-death issues.

You're using a fallacy of a False Equivalency, and it's silly.

The claim is that the supposed modern practice is the same as the Biblical practice

that actually produced LANGUAGES.

That claim was challenged- that is, it's challenged that THAT claim is invalid,

and the modern practice is not the same thing and thus never produces A LANGUAGE.

How is that proven? Very simply.

If you can speak in a LANGUAGE, then speak in a LANGUAGE in front of a linguistics expert.

They can confirm, with a sufficient sample, whether or not something is an actual language

whether or not they understand the language or can recognize it.

That's something YOU can do NOW, WHENEVER YOU WANT.

As to the historical proofs of someone we don't have in front of us now,

that's proven or disproven in a historical fashion because it's not something

that can be demonstrated now like the supposed "speaking in tongues" is.

The supposed tongues, they're supposedly here, now, for us to hear- and thus, for us

to examine. Doing so in front of a linguistics expert for an evaluation is definitely

possible now (during the week, at least.) You, supposedly, can do it.

So, rather than making casual dismissals of discussing it, go ahead and do it.

It certainly would strengthen your case once the expert comes up and says

"I've never heard this language before, but it is definitely a discrete language."