SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

And to be clear: it is certainly common in Corinthians for no one at a worship meeting to understand the glossa. I'm not denying that. But to go from that clear statement to "no linguist will be able to detect a language if given the opportunity because it's not really a language in the traditional sense" is to inject a meaning into the scripture that is foreign to what is explicitly stated and promised. It's backtracking nonsense to assert that the normal expectation should be that no one will be capable of understanding the glossa. One more excuse to take an empirical claim and make it untestable. There is no dragon in your garage. You're not doing what they did in Acts or Corinthians. It's a fraud.

The previous paragraph is an expression of my opinion, not of the Bible, but of the fraud we've committed in its name.

[WordWolf]

If you can twist up "no man understands him" into "the speaker will not understand himself" then perhaps reading comprehension is the root of your problem.

Actually,

part of the problem is

"trusting the KJV"

and part of the problem is

"not looking it up in a common interlinear."

I've known this since the freaking 80s.

The word "him" in the KJV in I Corinthians 14:2,

the one your theology seems to be depending critically on,

supposedly is translated from the Stephens Text.

(The entire KJV is supposed to be translated from the Stephens Text.)

Any Bible student with access to a US Barnes and Noble or the like,

or a Christian bookstore, can buy a Greek-English Interlinear.

The Gordon Ricker-Berry one (published by Zondervan) is entirely

from the Stephens Text. It's what I did all my early studies with.

Any Bible student should be able to look up I Corinthians 14:2 in

it, look at the English word "him" in the verse, and see there is

no corresponding English word. In other words, the KJV forgot to

put it in italics. So, "him" completely changed the meaning of the

verse, and was added by translators. I don't put my trust in the

theology of the translators. Supposedly, you don't either. You

might want to correct that.

It's one of the reasons the NASB is a better study Bible. It has the

italics, and doesn't make many of the same mistakes. The same verse

in the NASB doesn't have "him" added to it.

You're welcome.

(snip)

So I Cor. 14:2 is saying that when you SIT, you are communicating with God, and people won't understand.

It is not making the point just because it uses the word "glossa" in it that the important part of the verse indicates that it is producing a real language spoken by someone living today. All of the argument over that verse is focusing on one word in the verse - "tongues", extracting it from its context, blowing it up out of proportion, and making the whole argument about that.

Actually,

it's about translators adding to Scripture, and someone making up

the whole argument from what the translators added. Focusing on

one word that wasn't in the verse until translators added, and

blowing it up out of proportion.

No now we're going to the same point as we were previously. Trusting scripture, and using logic. I don't need "proof" to believe the Bible. If you do, then that's not my problem.

I trust Scripture. I use logic. I don't trust the translators

any farther than I have to-they make mistakes, they add things.

(Mind you, even the worst-handled Bible, as the American Bible

Society has pointed out, still clearly lays out God's Plan of

Salvation. I keep trying to get as close to perfection as I can

manage.)

I don't need to be convinced to check the work of the translators.

As anyone can see, they make mistakes. Go on, pull your Interlinear

down off the shelf. You probably still have one, and either use it

regularly or can dust it off and use it.

If, after all this, you still insist on basing your theology on

additions to the KJV, that's not my problem.

[Raf]

But even assuming the verse is talking about the inability of the people in the same worship meeting to understand (a perfectly reasonable interpretation, given the context), it's a far cry from "what is produced isn't really a language and therefore no linguist will be able to detect it." Taking a common occurrence (no one understands) and making it into a rock solid promise that no one investigating SIT will ever be able to understand the language produced is FALSE. It is untrue. Such a position, by definition, INVALIDATES EVERY ANECDOTE where someone present DID understand. I reject it as an internally inconsistent property of the so-called Biblical argument. The problem is not what the Bible really says. The problem is twisting what the Bible says to come up with one more excuse as to why the fraud doesn't deliver the goods.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

If you think this is a challenge to the Bible, you are making a false assumption. This is not a challenge to the Bible. This is a challenge to a FRAUD, one I refuse to be a party to any longer.

My read on this is that you think the "no man understands" portion of I Cor. 14:2 somehow doesn't apply to linguists. You expect that somehow linguists SHOULD be able to understand what is spoken, and if they can't that somehow proves it can't be done today. That's faulty logic.

To me your problem is with what I Cor. 14:2 clearly states.

And of COURSE you're going to try to frame the argument and conversation such that it doesn't look like you are challenging the Bible, because that doesn't look so good.

But you ARE challenging the Bible.

It is not "faith" to take the promise of God and expect it NOT to be fulfilled at every turn.

There's your logic problem again. I do take the promise of God and expect it to be fulfilled. I communicate with God, and no man understands. That promise IS fulfilled. I don't see a promise of God stating "SIT is a language". That would be a completely pointless promise. Promises of God are something that a believer can cling to for betterment of their life.

[Raf]

By the way, didn't escape my notice that we had yet another venture into the slippery slope fallacy. Predictable. In fact, would have been disappointing if it had not been cited yet again. Watch out, people! If you admit you faked speaking in tongues, you're gonna end up being a Darwinist!

Ok. I'm challenging the Bible now. Not because I am, but because Chockfull said so.

I'm challenging a fraudulent practice. The Bible says a language will be produced. The fraud does not produce it. Bible 1, Fraud 0.

[chockfull]

Such a position, by definition, INVALIDATES EVERY ANECDOTE where someone present DID understand.

No, those are called miracles, which by definition go over and above standard definitions and behavior. Miracles also go over and above laws of physics, so no huge revelation there.

[Raf]

Where in the Bible does it say that someone understanding SIT is a miracle?

ANYTHING to make a testable claim untestable, to make an empirical claim impervious to dispassionate observation.

Excuses, excuses and more excuses, and still no dragon in the garage.

Let me do it this way instead:

Anyone who challenges the Biblical viewpoint of cessationism is challenging the Bible itself. If you don't believe in cessationism, you don't believe God.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Actually,

part of the problem is

"trusting the KJV"

and part of the problem is

"not looking it up in a common interlinear."

I've known this since the freaking 80s.

The word "him" in the KJV in I Corinthians 14:2,

the one your theology seems to be depending critically on,

supposedly is translated from the Stephens Text.

(The entire KJV is supposed to be translated from the Stephens Text.)

"no man understands" or "no man understands him" - either phrase communicates the same thing. Someone speaks in a tongue, others don't understand. I know, REAL HARD TO COMPREHEND HERE.

Nice try though.

I knew I would give the haters a good time with this one!!!!

If, after all this, you still insist on basing your theology on

additions to the KJV, that's not my problem.

So you have a different interpretation of I Cor. 14:2, where somehow it says others will understand? Please, enlighten us.

[Raf]

I am going to respectfully request that you stop using the term haters. We are in disagreement. No one is hating, and it's offensive to suggest otherwise.

[chockfull]

I am going to respectfully request that you stop using the term haters. We are in disagreement. No one is hating, and it's offensive to suggest otherwise.

Once you remove the offensive language and terms from your posts I will consider your request. Until then, I'm just going to consider it in the category of "he can dish it out but can't take it".

Edited November 5, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

No, I have tried very hard to confine my statements and criticisms to the practice. You are directing namecalling at people. There's a vast difference. You should be able to recognize it. I am asking politely. Haters crosses the line. You really ought to reconsider.

I am not asking you to go back to every post throughout the thread, nor do I think you seriously expect me to do likewise. If something I've written in the last few days strikes you as personal in nature and not directed at an argument, position or practice, I will gladly remove it and apologize. Calling people "haters" should be out of bounds. I hate nothing more than a counterfeit masked as a Biblical promise.

Your court.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

No, I have tried very hard to confine my statements and criticisms to the practice. You are directing namecalling at people. There's a vast difference. You should be able to recognize it. I am asking politely. Haters crosses the line. You really ought to reconsider.

Haters is describing the behavior. If someone isn't acting in that fashion then they have nothing to complain about.

And if the mods are going to leave this thread open and allow YOU to continue to namecall and criticize, then it also has to be open for the same from the other side. I'll live with NO namecalling, and live with moderators locking this thread OR going back and editing ALL the posts where namecalling occurs. That's fair behavior. I suppose I'd also live with you developing a thick enough skin where you can take it as well as dish it out.

I will not live in a hypocritical fashion where YOU are allowed to namecall, but I am not. And mods, if you are allowing this, you are not doing your job.

Edited November 5, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

"Haters" does not describe behavior. It describes people and is namecalling. If I am hating anything, it is a fraud. I have restricted my criticisms to arguments, positions and practices. I have ceased directing them at people.

Calling people haters is, at this point, deliberately crossing a line. I am more than happy to subject my reasoning here to the judgment of the other mods. Report my posts if you think they cross the line. I'm not reporting yours. I am politely asking you to stick to the subject.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

"Haters" does not describe behavior. It describes people and is namecalling. If I am hating anything, it is a fraud. Calling people haters is, at this point, deliberately crossing a line. I am more than happy to subject my reasoning here to the judgment of the other mods. Report my posts if you think they cross the line. I'm not reporting yours. I am politely asking you to stick to the subject.

Haters DOES describe behavior. It describes how people are acting. It is called "being a hater". It is a common term used in conversation in todays society.

And apparently it hits REALLY close to home with you. Go figure.

[WordWolf]

"no man understands" or "no man understands him" - either phrase communicates the same thing. Someone speaks in a tongue, others don't understand. I know, REAL HARD TO COMPREHEND HERE.

Nice try though.

I knew I would give the haters a good time with this one!!!!

So you have a different interpretation of I Cor. 14:2, where somehow it says others will understand? Please, enlighten us.

If you spend a little less energy on the bombastic language and style

(less sizzle) you might catch more information on the thread (more steak.)

Either phrase does NOT mean the same thing, any more than

"two of them on either side" and "two of them, on either side one"

means the same thing.

Raf already mentioned the answer, and for the sake of discussion, took the

opposite position. I didn't have to enlighten him, he got what I said from

one read, and I'd bet others did too. However, for you and any others who

either skipped over it or just didn't get it, I'll answer.

Here it is in the NASB.

"2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries."

Can be taken to mean 2 things, depending on the context.

A) Nobody understands the man when he's speaking, he's speaking mysteries to God.

B) Nobody speaking in tongues understands it- he's speaking mysteries.

Then it's up to the rest of the verses and the rest of the Bible to show

which of those grammatically-correct interpretations reflects what the verse

is meant to convey.

We had a similar problem when vpw built up an entire verse into a doctrine

saying abortion was cool with God. It was centered entirely around one verse

where the word "hagios" was translated "holy thing" and not "holy one" as it

was translated everywhere else. The same chapter put the lie to it, showing

the opposite of vpw's doctrine, which is why it's vitally important to read

ALL the verses and not just isolate one verse, or even one chapter or one

book. The whole conveys meanings, and it's easy to misunderstand a part in

the search to understand the whole. I've done that in the past without

meaning to. I'm confident I'm still doing it and hope to understand better

in the future. But if I trust wholly in my understanding, I'll stagnate and

stew in my own error. If I'd wanted to do that, I would have skipped becoming

a Christian.

[chockfull]

By the way, didn't escape my notice that we had yet another venture into the slippery slope fallacy. Predictable. In fact, would have been disappointing if it had not been cited yet again. Watch out, people! If you admit you faked speaking in tongues, you're gonna end up being a Darwinist!

Ok. I'm challenging the Bible now. Not because I am, but because Chockfull said so.

I'm challenging a fraudulent practice. The Bible says a language will be produced. The fraud does not produce it. Bible 1, Fraud 0.

For example, this entire post is non-substantive, not really contributing anything to the topic of SIT, TIP, Prophecy, but just whining about things in general.

In other words, this post is a perfect example of "being a hater". Offensive language, insulting adjectives - look at them all "slippery slope, fallacy, predictable, disappointing, Darwinist". No substance.

"Haters are as haters do" - Forrest Gump

[Raf]

Noted for all to see who was trying to be polite and who insists on namecalling.

My skin is plenty thick, thankyouverymuch. If you don't want to stop the namecalling, I'm not going to force you.

I will repeat what obviously needs repeating: there is one thing I hate, and that's when a lie is presented as God's truth. When people in all sincerity believe that lie, they are not liars. They are deceived and deluded. I have sought to awaken people from that. To a lesser extent than I would have wanted, I have been somewhat successful.

I reject your accusation of hate, Chockfull, not because I do not hate, but because I do not hate what you CLAIM I hate. If you want to accuse me of hating a fraudulent practice, then I will embrace the term. If you want to accuse me of hating the Bible, then you are bearing falsewitness against me. What I am hating is a fraudulent practice pretending to be Biblical but failing to deliver the goods. And all you have come up with is one excuse after another as to why the fraudulent practice doesn't deliver. I understand your passion. I understand your frustration. But that doesn't make me a hater of anything more than an exposed fraud.

Go ahead, report me.

For example, this entire post is non-substantive, not really contributing anything to the topic of SIT, TIP, Prophecy, but just whining about things in general.

In other words, this post is a perfect example of "being a hater". Offensive language, insulting adjectives - look at them all "slippery slope, fallacy, predictable, disappointing, Darwinist". No substance.

"Haters are as haters do" - Forrest Gump

Hmm. You cite a post in which I say that a logical fallacy was invoked (it was) and mocked the fallacy (not the person making it).

That's not hate, my friend. Sorry. Try again.

[chockfull]

Here it is in the NASB.[/b]

"2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries."

Can be taken to mean 2 things, depending on the context.

A) Nobody understands the man when he's speaking, he's speaking mysteries to God.

B) Nobody speaking in tongues understands it- he's speaking mysteries.

And in BOTH A and B, you have one guy speaking, and others not understanding. So regardless of the way you take it, both ways of taking it convey that.

Neither the A or B interpretation lead you to "linguists should be able to understand SIT by pinpointing the language and documenting it for science".

I mean when you remove the Wierwille-like trickeries as you point out, it's really not that difficult of a verse to understand.

But I'll leave it to you rocket scientists to come up with the interpretation of that verse that says "for one who speaks in a tongue should be able to be put in a lab with a linguist and produce a language he is able to identify".

I haven't read that in a "non-haters" commentary anywhere. But back to you guys....

[WordWolf]

Haters DOES describe behavior. It describes how people are acting. It is called "being a hater". It is a common term used in conversation in todays society.

And apparently it hits REALLY close to home with you. Go figure.

So, you're comfortable living down to society's standards?

Christian compassion calls us to do better that.

Do you only do the right thing when everyone else does it, and only skip

doing the wrong thing when consequences are invoked?

How about being nice for its own sake? There's heathens and publicans who do

that.

And think about what it means to actually "hate."

Nobody's coming at you with "hate."

Nobody's screaming, spewing insults, and blowing things off because they're

coming from you. Nobody's throwing out racial epithets or any other form

of objectionable language- "hate speech." People are DISAGREEING with you.

If you can't see that, you're putting WAY too much emotion into this, and

need to stop reading "hate" into things.

And apparently Raf is picking here and now to draw a line. It could have been

any objectionable phrase, but this is the one you're using. Please confine

comments to the other person's POV, not the other person. Any person can make

a foolish statement- Steven Hawking and Albert Einstein included.

(Well, when Einstein was alive.) However, that doesn't mean every person is

a fool. There's a big difference with commenting on others and objecting

to their posts or positions, and objecting to them.

[chockfull]

I reject your accusation of hate, Chockfull, not because I do not hate, but because I do not hate what you CLAIM I hate. If you want to accuse me of hating a fraudulent practice, then I will embrace the term. If you want to accuse me of hating the Bible, then you are bearing falsewitness against me. What I am hating is a fraudulent practice pretending to be Biblical but failing to deliver the goods. And all you have come up with is one excuse after another as to why the fraudulent practice doesn't deliver. I understand your passion. I understand your frustration. But that doesn't make me a hater of anything more than an exposed fraud.

When basically one simple verse describes my beliefs clearly, and I have others calling that "one excuse after another", I think the term "hater" applies pretty appropriately.

Maybe whine a little less and tell me one more time how a verse that says "when I speak in a tongue others don't understand" supports your position that linguists should be able to prove tongues produces a language. To me it seems pretty clear-cut that in the definition or major defining verses about SIT that "others" would include scientists. But hey, maybe we can do some Wierwillian shenanigans on that verse and it will open a window for you.

[waysider]

You can call me a hater. I won't be offended. I've been called much worse. What confuses me, though, is what it is you see in my posts that constitutes hate. Do your kids ask questions like, "Dad, why is the sky blue?" "How come frogs are slippery?" Does that mean they're hateful? It's not hateful to try to reason out answers, exercise our logic skills. I think we have an obligation of sorts to do at least that much.

[Raf]

When basically one simple verse describes my beliefs clearly, and I have others calling that "one excuse after another", I think the term "hater" applies pretty appropriately.

I am challenging your interpretation of that verse and definitely describing the BEHAVIOR of coming up with one excuse after another, which is a behavior. If I were namecalling, I would accuse you of qualities that result in that behavior. But I'm not. I do not hate your position or your interpretation. I disagree with it.

Why do you hate cessationists?

Maybe whine a little less and tell me one more time how a verse that says "when I speak in a tongue others don't understand" supports your position that linguists should be able to prove tongues produces a language. To me it seems pretty clear-cut that in the definition or major defining verses about SIT that "others" would include scientists. But hey, maybe we can do some Wierwillian shenanigans on that verse and it will open a window for you.

You have ripped that verse from its context (a common description of a worship setting) and used it to prove something it does not assert (that understanding the language is not humanly possible). That is not what the verse says. That is not what the verse means. I am challenging your position, not calling you names, not accusing you of poor reading comprehension. That verse is not a promise that others can't understand. If it is, all your anecdotes are herefore negated. That's a criticism of your argument. I have not called you names.

I am not a hater, and you need to knock off the namecalling.

Try again.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Raf

[WordWolf]

(snip)

Here it is in the NASB.

"2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries."

Can be taken to mean 2 things, depending on the context.

A) Nobody understands the man when he's speaking, he's speaking mysteries to God.

B) Nobody speaking in tongues understands it- he's speaking mysteries.

Then it's up to the rest of the verses and the rest of the Bible to show

which of those grammatically-correct interpretations reflects what the verse

is meant to convey.

(snip)

And in BOTH A and B, you have one guy speaking, and others not understanding. So regardless of the way you take it, both ways of taking it convey that.

(snip)

Read it again, slower, without emotion. This isn't a matter of

DISAGREEING with me, this is a matter of actually understanding what I wrote.

Wait till you get what I wrote, THEN disagree with me.

In the second case, we have one guy speaking, and one guy not understanding.

Others aren't even mentioned.

Again, you don't have to agree with me to understand my position.

(Would be nice if you did, though- I began in this thread looking for

someone to present a good reason to think Raf was in error in forming his

position, and I would have been happy to have found one in your posts.

I WANT your position to be correct. You keep missing that.

(That or you're convinced I'm lying about it.)

[chockfull]

So, you're comfortable living down to society's standards?

Christian compassion calls us to do better that.

Do you only do the right thing when everyone else does it, and only skip

doing the wrong thing when consequences are invoked?

How about being nice for its own sake? There's heathens and publicans who do

that.

Well, the "society" with the standards here consists of you and Raf. So really what I'm saying here is I'm not going to be held to a different standard than you guys are. If your "society"'s standards are so low, then maybe look to improve yourself rather than others. Oh, and the one finger / three finger deal right back at you with the Christian compassion arguments.

It's totally HILARIOUS to me how people will routinely fail to recognize problem behavior in themselves but see it in others right away.

And think about what it means to actually "hate."

Nobody's coming at you with "hate."

Nobody's screaming, spewing insults, and blowing things off because they're

coming from you. Nobody's throwing out racial epithets or any other form

of objectionable language- "hate speech." People are DISAGREEING with you.

If you can't see that, you're putting WAY too much emotion into this, and

need to stop reading "hate" into things.

Or the term "hater" could be referring to the more modern interpretation that doesn't involve Rodney King beatings.

And apparently Raf is picking here and now to draw a line. It could have been

any objectionable phrase, but this is the one you're using. Please confine

comments to the other person's POV, not the other person. Any person can make

a foolish statement- Steven Hawking and Albert Einstein included.

(Well, when Einstein was alive.) However, that doesn't mean every person is

a fool. There's a big difference with commenting on others and objecting

to their posts or positions, and objecting to them.

And you and your good buddy Raf can choose to draw lines at your leisure. However, you can't draw a different line for me than you draw for yourselves.

In the second case, we have one guy speaking, and one guy not understanding.

Others aren't even mentioned.

"New English" definition of "nobody" now means "one guy".

I'm sorry, to me "nobody" means exactly that, and encompasses basically ALL others.

You can call me a hater. I won't be offended. I've been called much worse. What confuses me, though, is what it is you see in my posts that constitutes hate. Do your kids ask questions like, "Dad, why is the sky blue?" "How come frogs are slippery?" Does that mean they're hateful? It's not hateful to try to reason out answers, exercise our logic skills. I think we have an obligation of sorts to do at least that much.

You not so much. You're the king of one-liners. You don't do much name-calling.

[chockfull]

You have ripped that verse from its context (a common description of a worship setting) and used it to prove something it does not assert (that understanding the language is not humanly possible). That is not what the verse says. That is not what the verse means. I am challenging your position, not calling you names, not accusing you of poor reading comprehension. That verse is not a promise that others can't understand. If it is, all your anecdotes are herefore negated. That's a criticism of your argument. I have not called you names.

My position is a simple clear reading of the verse. This is not a tough verse. It says what it means right there in the verse.

You already rejected all the anecdotes, so bringing them back in to bolster your point is dishonest. You know, kind of like "acting like a hater"????? And once again, God's miracles go over and above natural laws, and how things work normally. That doesn't invalidate the definition or the natural laws in any way.