SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[waysider]

Don't take this the wrong way but, this sort of approach sounds very similar to how people in The Way used to respond to probing questions. The standard one-size-fits-all response was, "You don't understand it because it's spiritual." Well, the problem with that is that it removes any possibility of using critical thinking skills. Toss them out the window. They don't apply to anything "spiritual".

Now here's the cruel irony. The antidote to this problem was.....speaking in tongues more... the very thing that the brain scan studies show diminishing critical thinking activity.

Edited November 5, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

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.

I'm not bringing up the anecdotes to bolster my point. I'm bringing it up merely to point out the inconsistency in yours. You can't cite a verse promising no one will understand it and then point to anecdotes is which men understood it. You're being inconsistent. The very clear verse has a very clear context in which it is talking about what's common, not what's possible. Unless understanding of the glossa is possible, your anecdotes are worthless. So you need to make a choice.

You can keep accusing me falsely of being a hater, but it is a false accusation. Have at it.

[chockfull]

I'm not bringing up the anecdotes to bolster my point. I'm bringing it up merely to point out the inconsistency in yours. You can't cite a verse promising no one will understand it and then point to anecdotes is which men understood it. You're being inconsistent. The very clear verse has a very clear context in which it is talking about what's common, not what's possible. Unless understanding of the glossa is possible, your anecdotes are worthless. So you need to make a choice.

You can keep accusing me falsely of being a hater, but it is a false accusation. Have at it.

All Charismatic Christians deal with that question being pointed out. What about Pentecost? Clearly the term is the same "speaking in tongues". Pentecost has the context including all understanding the tongue, I Cor. 14 has the context where all do not understand the tongue.

So it is an apparent contradiction in scripture, not some kind of "inconsistency in my opinion or viewpoint".

What to do with it?

I can understand Pentecost, and various anecdotes if they are telling the truth, as something God energizes for the people that is beyond what He guarantees in scripture. This is a miracle. Other scriptural examples include turning the clock back a number of degrees, Moses tablets, and on and on. Miracles aren't guaranteed, but happen as phenomenon in life. Healings are like this. Why do you see an instantaneous healing in one case, but nothing but the medical field in another?

But I suppose you could have a viewpoint on that apparent contradiction like God is finicky and defines something in one place then takes it away without saying so anywhere else (cessationist). Or that God can't do miracles, and the Pentecost record is a forgery. Or any number of possibilities.

So here instead of attacking me for one post, why don't YOU post up YOUR VIEWPOINT on why Acts 2 Pentecost has everyone understanding and I Cor. 14:2 has everyone not understanding. Then let the reader judge which seems more logical and scripturally accurate.

Or I suppose you could keep being a hater and post up nothing substantive other than attacking my beliefs.

Edited November 5, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

It is precisely like TWI, waysider. It clings to a verse, ignores the context, applies it to situations it has no business being applied to, and utterly ignores and avoids the fact that at the very center of this controversy is a very testable claim that fails every test because it is a fraud masquerading as a Biblical truth.

I am not denying or challenging scripture. I am denying and challenging YOUR TAKE on it. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Sorry to break it to you.

[chockfull]

It is precisely like TWI, waysider. It clings to a verse, ignores the context, applies it to situations it has no business being applied to, and utterly ignores and avoids the fact that at the very center of this controversy is a very testable claim that fails every test because it is a fraud masquerading as a Biblical truth.

And once again, why don't you, Raf, post up WHAT YOU BELIEVE on this, and let's measure your beliefs by the same yardstick. verse, context, situation applied to, etc.

You just negatively attacking others beliefs is BEING A HATER. Especially when you offer no positive alternative.

I mean what your posts on I Cor. 14:2 do isn't even ignoring the context, IT'S IGNORING THE VERSE. Applying to situations? Pentecost, and prayer. In I Cor. 14, the context shifts between public prayer and a prayer meeting and private prayer, back and forth. This is because it is instructing on SIT in both settings.

What's at the center of this controversy is a "testable claim" that is "testable" only if you completely ignore what the definition of SIT in the epistle dedicated to clarifying it says. "Nobody understands". Clear definition, no ambiguity, no forgery, no context problems. So Raf, your position is calling God a fraud because He won't bend his definition to allow linguists to test it and egotists to spout off unchallenged.

But sometimes He will reward the less obnoxious with a special miracle.

Edited November 5, 2012 by chockfull

[chockfull]

I am not denying or challenging scripture. I am denying and challenging YOUR TAKE on it. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Sorry to break it to you.

This reminds me of arguments I used to have with denominationalists over the trinity. I'd say what I believe is I Tim. 2:5. They would say "I have no problem with that scripture, I just have a problem with your belief. My response would say "my belief is simply what that scripture states clearly".

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

I would get a lot of sputtering going on after that, and people getting mad. Just like Raf is sputtering away here, and just as mad.

My belief, ONCE AGAIN for those that need to read it over and over to understand is this:

1 Corinthians 14:2 or he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

[Raf]

Once again, the false choice arises.

Here's what I believe: I believe the Bible promises a language. I do not believe the Bible says this claim will crumble upon examination. I believe the Bible says it will be normal in a worship setting for people not to understand what was spoken, but that has nothing to do with the glossa itself being a language or not. That is an independent, testable claim.

If your practice is what the Bible promises, you'd be producing what the Bible promises. I am challenging the fraudulent, counterfeit practice, not the Bible.

And frankly, as many times as I've had to say that TODAY ALONE, I think you've sunk to a new low in ad hominem attacks, even for this thread.

[chockfull]

I believe the Bible promises a language.

Let's start there. Substantiated by scripture, or just a nice overall feeling that God should promise this? Hint: usually a question like this should be responded to with a scripture quote as opposed to an ad hominem attack on the person asking the question.

[Raf]

False analogy. You ripped the verse from Corinthians out of its context and are applying it to situations it is not discussing. You are as competent with the scripture as you are with the research we've been reviewing. Which is to say, not at all.

Oh please. Glossa doesn't mean language now? You've spent the whole day engaged in namecalling and have the gall to accuse ME of an ad hominem attack?

[chockfull]

Here's what I believe: I believe the Bible promises a language. I do not believe the Bible says this claim will crumble upon examination. I believe the Bible says it will be normal in a worship setting for people not to understand what was spoken, but that has nothing to do with the glossa itself being a language or not. That is an independent, testable claim.

Next, let's hear your explanation of the apparent scripture contradiction where on Pentecost they clearly understood the SIT, and your beliefs here that it would be normal for people in a worship setting not to understand the language.

I already gave my explanation in detail.

[socks]

I was going to wait for the dust to settle from the free vocalization topic (as opposed to the for-hire vocalizations) to bring that point back up chockful.

I don't think it's a Wayfer method ways'.

That's what the bible says - that should factor into my profile of understanding what speaking in tongues is. Or isn't.

I would suggest that it applies to all contexts of speaking in tongues - not because that supports a conclusion I want it to, but simply because it would reflect the simplest of all definitions - to include that as a characteristic of speaking in tongues.

All SIT? No.

ALL or any SIT ALL the time? No.

All private or all public? No.

Rather a characteristic of what it is to speak in tongues, applicable to all of the above, at times.

My own observation and study over the past 43 years leads me to conclude that and it' s not based on any other biblical references than have been posted here to there's not much value in dissecting them, we know them.

I have only a half dozen instances of SIT's being a known or understood language. That's equal to 6 days out of what - about 16000, rounded up, give or take? 16000 opportunities for something to occur, times hours in the days, times people available to participate - my head hurts. That's a very very small small small percentage. And most of those I know who have similar experiences would calculate out somewhere in that range, I don't know of anyone who has ever said publicly that the majority of what they've heard is a miraculous event of a known language - say, French, being spoken by someone who doesn't know French and it being the 'wonderful works of God' by any description, when heard or interpreted.

I think that's just the way it is, facts is the facts. So if that were compiled with others and scaled up for verrrrrrry general estima-guesstations -

I think that IF speaking in tongues is "done" today at all - and I do -

It's not going to fit the profile of a known recognizable language, to those speaking and hearing it, at that time and place.

I AM accepting SIT as real, (but not because of this language information). And so, accepting it, this is one of the things that it appears to "be". Or not be, whichever way you look at it.

I would also suggest another descriptor for discussion - "recognizable", in addition to unknown. A thing can be knowable but not recognized by those examining it at that time. That would cover some of the ground being tossed here. Just a thought.

[chockfull]

False analogy. You ripped the verse from Corinthians out of its context and are applying it to situations it is not discussing. You are as competent with the scripture as you are with the research we've been reviewing. Which is to say, not at all.

Oh please. Glossa doesn't mean language now? You've spent the whole day engaged in namecalling and have the gall to accuse ME of an ad hominem attack?

That's why I gave the HINT: about scripture. Because your typical pattern is NOT TO PROVIDE THAT OR ANY SUBSTANTIATION, but instead to engage in a further ad hominem attack on my beliefs.

Like in this post. Ad hominem attack start to finish. And no substantiation for what you believe.

This post is saying "you, you, you....". I mean, get over what I'm doing and what I believe. Start posting up substantiation for what YOU believe. Then you'll stop BEING A HATER.

[Raf]

I am distinguishing biblical SIT from modern SIT, which is a phony counterfeit of what's described in the Bible. For the last time, I am not challenging the Bible. Impeaching my position by making it sound like there's a conflict in my position between Acts and Corinthians is frankly unintelligent and beneath you, Chockfull.

In Acts they understood the languages. In Corinthians, according to you, that's impossible. If anyone here has a discrepancy that challenges the authenticity of the Acts record, it's you, pal.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

That's what the bible says - that should factor into my profile of understanding what speaking in tongues is. Or isn't.

I would suggest that it applies to all contexts of speaking in tongues - not because that supports a conclusion I want it to, but simply because it would reflect the simplest of all definitions - to include that as a characteristic of speaking in tongues.

Wow - socks got drawn out into our foolishness.

I had a hard time deciphering this, but I think what you are saying is that "glossa" = tongue = language as a term definition that's consistent across scriptures.

I'm still stuck on Raf providing ANY scripture as a basis for his beliefs so that we can discuss from a common ground outside of his ad hominems and consistent framing of the conversation to be talking about what everybody else is doing or believes and attacking it. So Raf, scriptures there buddy?

[chockfull]

I am distinguishing biblical SIT from modern SIT, which is a phony counterfeit of what's described in the Bible. For the last time, I am not challenging the Bible. Impeaching my position by making it sound like there's a conflict in my position between Acts and Corinthians is frankly unintelligent and beneath you, Chockfull.

In Acts they understood the languages. In Corinthians, according to you, that's impossible. If anyone here has a discrepancy that challenges the authenticity of the Acts record, it's you, pal.

I'm sorry, I was just trying to get you to STATE YOUR POSITION clearly. So please, explain the Acts 2 I Cor 14 contradiction. And a scripture backup for your belief of "I believe that biblical SIT promises a language"????

Do you think you could possibly do that without involving me in some way? I mean I can't see any way I am wrapped up in your beliefs. Other than if attacking me ad hominem DEFINES you in some way.

Edited November 5, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

No. Chockfull. I have no ad hominem attack for you. I disagree with your interpretation of scripture. I am trying (and failing) not to sink into the gutter with you in making this personal. I have no ad hominem attack to level at you. Your position is what I have a problem with. The only person leveling ad hominem attacks today has been you.

[chockfull]

I have only a half dozen instances of SIT's being a known or understood language. That's equal to 6 days out of what - about 16000, rounded up, give or take? 16000 opportunities for something to occur, times hours in the days, times people available to participate - my head hurts. That's a very very small small small percentage. And most of those I know who have similar experiences would calculate out somewhere in that range, I don't know of anyone who has ever said publicly that the majority of what they've heard is a miraculous event of a known language - say, French, being spoken by someone who doesn't know French and it being the 'wonderful works of God' by any description, when heard or interpreted.

The numbers seem like they fit with my observations, although the anecdotes I have heard are all that are there, never had the direct experience with someone understanding a tongue directly.

[chockfull]

No. Chockfull. I have no ad hominem attack for you. I disagree with your interpretation of scripture. I am trying (and failing) not to sink into the gutter with you in making this personal. I have no ad hominem attack to level at you. Your position is what I have a problem with. The only person leveling ad hominem attacks today has been you.

Then post up the scripture and interpretation that YOU DO AGREE WITH. You consistently fail at this, but consistently attack my beliefs.

That's you BEING A HATER. Note that name is not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be "here's Raf's position, and he is wrong because he's a hater". I'm just trying to get you to stop hating and post up substantively about your beliefs and position.

So one more time, please post up a scripture backing for "I believe the Bible promises a language when SIT". And please explain the apparent contradiction in scripture between Acts 2 and I Cor 14. I've posted up both for backing for my beliefs.

[Raf]

No.

[socks]

Hmmm, kinda sorta chockful.

I'm not interested in the gloss-any lia discussion. I don't know anything about that, I've read some of what's here, I'm familiar with the general idea, I know what it's meant to be.

I don't use that kind of terminology - I'm not into this for the gloss -a's, I'm into this for the speaking in tongues and only that because I was "led", ie taught about it years ago. It was something that I would describe as "waiting" to come out though, it wasn't contrived or required extreme effort on my part, it seemed very natural and normal. I never had a forced moment, never felt like duh, wassat? It simply wasn't like that, at all.

All I'm saying is what you've said a few times - the "unknown" language aspect of SIT is, IMO, a general characteristic of what SIT is. Requiring it to fit Acts 2 or a few verses is wrong, IMO. It can be known but the actual operation, manifestation, doing of it, call it what you will, isn't required to be a language that any of us understand when we hear it.

I know - that sounds so conveeenient.

But I'm not trying to prove it to anyone else, as I stated early on. I'm just describing what I understand and believe. There's more to it than that but it's useless to this discussion which has focused on glossalalia, known, unknown languages, etc. etc. I know this is important to you guys and I'm not trying to be demeaning, but I'm tired of talking about it already, don't know how you do it but I can appreciate that it's an important area for you all to delve into. I have clearly formulated thoughts and opinions on the topic, but I just don't have a bee in my bonnet on it. Not yet anyway. .

I would contend that the overall profile of the records in the N.T. are not a match or equal to what occured in the record of Acts 2, rather that Acts specifically was a miraculous event, where the SIT was understood as described there in 2 with Peter and the boys.

That's all. :)

[waysider]

Those questions have been answered over and over and over and over....Is something going to change if they are answered again?

[chockfull]

Those questions have been answered over and over and over and over....Is something going to change if they are answered again?

So you are volunteering that you can provide Raf's scriptural basis for the belief "I believe that the Bible promises a language?" and that's been answered over (x4)?

And the Acts 2 / I Cor. 14 position too?

I'm all ears.

[Raf]

Look, if the Bible promised Babblalia, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I've already said that if we do not agree that SIT is supposed to produce a language, we have nothing to discuss. Now, 70 pages later, I have to defend the obvious? Look, if TWI promised you that when you practiced SIT it would produce linguistically meaningless prattle, you wouldn't have done it. Any schmo can produce linguistically meaningless prattle. If you think that's God, more power to you. But that's not the position I'm contesting.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

So you are volunteering that you can provide Raf's scriptural basis for the belief "I believe that the Bible promises a language?" and that's been answered over (x4)?

And the Acts 2 / I Cor. 14 position too?

I'm all ears.

No, I'm not offering to speak as anyone's representative. My point was that if you haven't seen those questions answered somewhere in the last ~1600 posts, you haven't been paying attention or just want to keep stirring the pot.

[chockfull]

I'm not interested in the gloss-any lia discussion. I don't know anything about that, I've read some of what's here, I'm familiar with the general idea, I know what it's meant to be.

I don't use that kind of terminology - I'm not into this for the gloss -a's, I'm into this for the speaking in tongues and only that because I was "led", ie taught about it years ago. It was something that I would describe as "waiting" to come out though, it wasn't contrived or required extreme effort on my part, it seemed very natural and normal. I never had a forced moment, never felt like duh, wassat? It simply wasn't like that, at all.

Your experience and mine closely align.

All I'm saying is what you've said a few times - the "unknown" language aspect of SIT is, IMO, a general characteristic of what SIT is. Requiring it to fit Acts 2 or a few verses is wrong, IMO. It can be known but the actual operation, manifestation, doing of it, call it what you will, isn't required to be a language that any of us understand when we hear it.

I know - that sounds so conveeenient.

I also lean towards the unknown language aspect just being a general characteristic as opposed to a "promise".

But I'm not trying to prove it to anyone else, as I stated early on. I'm just describing what I understand and believe. There's more to it than that but it's useless to this discussion which has focused on glossalalia, known, unknown languages, etc. etc. I know this is important to you guys and I'm not trying to be demeaning, but I'm tired of talking about it already, don't know how you do it but I can appreciate that it's an important area for you all to delve into. I have clearly formulated thoughts and opinions on the topic, but I just don't have a bee in my bonnet on it. Not yet anyway. .

I wasn't trying to prove it to others either. But someone called what I do in my private prayer life being a "liar and a faker". I think a lot of the baiting language and button pushing got a bee somewhat into my bonnet.

I do have a reasonable background in statistics, hence a lot of discussion on that. The curse of that is seeing issues in published research all over the place. I have a nice little old spectacled lady who taught a college class in that to thank. Ruined my views for life.

I would contend that the overall profile of the records in the N.T. are not a match or equal to what occured in the record of Acts 2, rather that Acts specifically was a miraculous event, where the SIT was understood as described there in 2 with Peter and the boys.

Me too.