SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

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.

Agreed.

[chockfull]

I've already said that if we do not agree that SIT is supposed to produce a language, we have nothing to discuss.

So how do you propose that we come to an agreement on this? I see two options:

1) Scripture as a common ground

2) Reading more ad hominem attacks about what it is I'm doing.

I haven't seen scripture for you on this yet. So I'm left with you either having an opinion that is based outside of scripture, or being scared, or really liking namecalling more than getting anywhere on the topic, or with me being such a bad person that I'm causing you to withdraw into your shell and not discuss your beliefs because you are so traumatized.

Since I suck as a psychoanalyst, I'm going with "I don't know Raf's scriptural reasoning for his belief that God promised us a language when SIT".

I'm not saying the topic hasn't been discussed ad nauseum, I'm saying in all that nauseum, I still have yet to find scriptural substance and reasoning. Maybe there isn't any. I don't know. I'm just asking for it, rather than overusing the word "you, you, you", complete with colorful adjectives.

[Raf]

This post is deleted because it responds to a deleted post.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

[Edited to remove reference to a deleted post] Chockfull, you will not get so much as an acknowledgment from me without an apology. Good night.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Raf

[socks]

Yeh, I get it chockful. I'm not taking exception to the analysis being done. Go for it.

[Raf]

I believe contorting the scripture so that what's plainly a language becomes some indecipherable utterance just because someone's looking at it mangles the plain reading of the text. Plenty of words could have been used to describe speaking in tongues. The word chosen was the word for languages (also the word for the physical organ of the tongue). I don't think there's a hint of unreasonableness in expecting a modern practice that claims to be a Biblical one to produce Biblically predicted results. Sorry, socks. I think reading into SIT to make it say anything other than languages is a retrofit -- an attempt to bring the Bible into conformity with what we observe, rather than bring our practices into line with what the Bible clearly teaches.

[Raf]

You know, people disagree on the identity of God and Christ, and each side belittles the other in particular times and places. No one on either side has been subjected the the barrage of "prove its" and the less-than-expert dissection of supporting material than I have endured on this thread. I'm not whining. Just stating a fact. I can take it just fine, thankyouverymuch. And the namecalling, which I have given just as much as I've gotten, long, long ago passed the point of ridiculousness.

I stopped the namecalling, but I did not stop the passion of my conviction. If you want to disagree with my position, let's go for it. I can go another 70 pages if it's an honest discussion.

But today has seen nothing constructive. One juvenile taunt after another, and my call for civility was not only ignored, but mocked. The incivility was expanded beyond its original expression. [EDITED to remove reference to a deleted post].

I am sorry my position offends some people. I am. But what I'm sorry about is the level to which we were deceived by a power hungry cult eager to bore its way into the deepest, most personal aspects of our prayer lives. I am sorry that I was ever party to such a tremendous deception, one that I KNEW was a lie, but buried because I wanted to fit in. [EDITED to remove reference to a deleted post].

As for those outside TWI, what can I say? Itching ears eager to believe a lie during a time in our history when such lies were commonplace, when the only question was "which god is producing this phenomenon?" and not "is this phenomenon what it is claimed to be?" So they spoke in tongues and, convinced it was a language, went abroad to become missionaries. They got the hard lesson that the gobbledy-gook they were spewing forth was not what they claimed it to be.

In this, God was not glorified. But instead of correcting themselves for speaking presumptuously, for pretending the babbling of man to be an expression of the power of God, they simply redefined the power of God to make it less awesome, less real. Now God promises to give you something indistinguishable from someone faking it. That's not what the Bible promises. But it's what we delivered.

This isn't about believing God or believing scientists. It's about believing God and not believing those who pretend to bring forth His power but fail to produce the results God promises, and then mock us when we call them on the LIE.

If you're not producing what He said you'll produce, then you're not doing what He wants. In this, God is not glorified.

Why do I think it's going to be a language. Please. Because it's speaking in tongues, which are languages? Because every Biblical reference to that word, when it's not talking about the physical organ, is talking about human languages spoken by other people on earth?

There is honest inquiry, and there is defensive posturing. We've seen both on this thread. Only one deserves serious consideration.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Raf

[TrustAndObey]

I'm sorry to see this discussion turn negative.. It probably would be better those who posts are negative just stop posting those things that get into these nitt picking, tit for tat squabbles. And stick to discussing with those who are willing to discuss. Anything else is probably not the best for peace, love, and all that our Lord died for.

Why I even continued reading, I don't know.. Maybe TWI installed in me a love for being tortured. Sick, eh? I'll admit I must be! Da#n this mortal body..

Both sides seem to have information, but all these squabbles are really killing the point, and even the profit of this discussion. Can we at least get back to that?

Just to add my "hopefully" 2 positive cents,

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

Is it possible chockfull that when it says "no man understandeth" that just like all could be all with distinction or all without exception, that the same could hold true for no one, no man or what ever the correct phrase might be.. So that is it possible the verse could be referring to no one "within a specific group" (like the assembled fellowship), as opposed to no man ever, anywhere, at no time, in the history of this world?

Only a guess, but I think that is what both WordWolf and Raf have mentioned but maybe not as clear? I dunno.

[socks]

I removed my last post because I don't want it to appear that's the direction I'm going in - it's not. It's part of it but not the whole or the majority. What I've posted thus far is about where I'm at.

I just don't have the time required to keep up with the discussion. And I do believe that the records IN the bible do not exclusively paint the same picture you've adopted Raf. We do disagree but I can't approach this topic in a way that would result in getting angry or abusive about it, towards anyone.

[Raf]

I'm fine disagreeing, Socks. If that is where we disagree, we have no common ground from which to argue. I just don't see where the Bible is as "squishy" with the terminology as you are being. But I have no cause to argue it with you. Honest Christians have disagreed over far more consequential things.

[Raf]

TnO, I think Paul is speaking of the norm in I Corinthians, and not making a blanket statement that amounts to a promise. We should not be surprised in a worship setting when no one understands what's spoken in a tongue. It's probably normal that no one will be there who understands the language.

But it's still a language in Corinthians. That's what "tongues" means, and in every other verse that uses that word for tongue, it either means the physical organ or a human language (the exception, I think, is tongues of fire in Acts 2, which is a figurative use to describe what the fire looked like). Never is it meaningless, or meaningful to God only. That's a retrofit. We don't produce languages today, so we force the Bible to conform with what we produce, rather than change our practice when it doesn't match the promise of God.

That it's not a promise that no man will understand is self-evident: men understood in Acts. Same word: glossa. So either Paul did not know the Acts record (yeah, right), or he was not making a blanket statement in Corinthians meant to be applied in all situations.

My opinion, for what it's worth. Disagree, and there's nothing to argue. ;)

[cman]

"no man understandeth"

this is why the man has to die before you die to understand

No man hath seen God at any time,

the only begotten Son,

which is in the bosom of the Father,

he hath declared him.

Can't remember if this thread is where i mentioned the bosom.

Edited November 6, 2012 by cman

[cman]

hm, yeah, a nother tongue thread in doctrinal

[geisha779]

How did we get from Paul imploring people who claim gifts to seek after love........ to calling people who disagree with us haters?

Edited: Not because I didn't mean it....but it is pointless.

Edited November 6, 2012 by geisha779

[Ham]

Some of my best times on GSC is when me and The Squirrel are hitting the sauce at the same time and posting utter nonsense. The best is waking up the next day and realizing that I was posting under the influence (PUI) again.

and I don't know why it is. A *tad* too much, and I don't do any much more than either go over the logical, or religious deep end.

I stand by my claim: if you consider the fourth root of unity, it includes i.

Tonight we considered the square root of i..

[Ham]

The algebra of complex numbers is only really another explanation of trignometry..

really..

along with rules for adding and multiplying vectors..

lots of other stuff..

In a "religious" sense.. trignometry is the beautiful, female deity. The algebra of complex numbers is the brute force method, only offered by the male deity..

[cman]

In a "religious" sense.. trignometry is the beautiful, female deity. The algebra of complex numbers is the brute force method, only offered by the male deity..

i couldn't have said it better Ham

in a nut shell, lol

these guys are still 1+1

although that is a base of trig

and algebra, as well, unfortunately

[Ham]

but they are married..

either is is a couple made in heaven, or in the other place..

[cman]

i think heaven and the other place are married too

[Raf]

Yesterday's derail notwithstanding, the purpose of this thread is to give people who did fake it an opportunity to come clean. Secondarily, it is about whether SIT does produce human languages.

The question of whether it SHOULD produce human languages is doctrinal, and squabbles over the answer to that question belong in Doctrinal. This thread is about what it does produce. If you started a doctrinal thread exploring, oh, say, I Corinthians 12-14, and you demand answers to questions about that subject matter, that's the place to do it.

Please keep this thread on topic.

[chockfull]

Is it possible chockfull that when it says "no man understandeth" that just like all could be all with distinction or all without exception, that the same could hold true for no one, no man or what ever the correct phrase might be.. So that is it possible the verse could be referring to no one "within a specific group" (like the assembled fellowship), as opposed to no man ever, anywhere, at no time, in the history of this world?

Only a guess, but I think that is what both WordWolf and Raf have mentioned but maybe not as clear? I dunno.

Yes, it's a guess, because I have yet to see a scripture from Raf that describes what he does believe. I see dancing around it - referring to the word "tongues" as glossa, and languages, but mostly still just attacking others beliefs.

You know VP's "all without exception" and "all without[sic] distinction" interpretation of the Greek words heteros and allos really don't stand up to language scrutiny. Those words do not mean that - they are more contextual.

Also, within the verse there is plenty of leeway to describe the tongue not being understood by those in the prayer meeting. However, the verse doesn't state it that way - it states "nobody" which is pretty absolute. So the terminology right in the verse there indicates a more absolute sense of nobody understanding.

[chockfull]

Yesterday's derail notwithstanding, the purpose of this thread is to give people who did fake it an opportunity to come clean. Secondarily, it is about whether SIT does produce human languages.

The question of whether it SHOULD produce human languages is doctrinal, and squabbles over the answer to that question belong in Doctrinal. This thread is about what it does produce. If you started a doctrinal thread exploring, oh, say, I Corinthians 12-14, and you demand answers to questions about that subject matter, that's the place to do it.

Please keep this thread on topic.

This thread's topic is SIT, TIP, Prophecy, and "Confession". Yes, we have a doctrinal forum, and yes there is a thread on I Cor 12-14 that nobody is posting on there. However, running away from a request to state a scripture backing up what you believe on SIT, TIP, Prophecy and "Confession" is not "keeping this thread on topic". It is a dishonest avoidance of the topic. It basically reflects my assessment of what's going on here, and that is you instead of having an honest discussion want to attack others beliefs. This is seen from the beginning posts on the thread calling people who don't agree with your position "liars" and "fakers"

That behavior is being a hater.

If you have nothing positive to add to the thread, then my suggestion is to refrain from posting on it until you do.

[chockfull]

I believe contorting the scripture so that what's plainly a language becomes some indecipherable utterance just because someone's looking at it mangles the plain reading of the text. Plenty of words could have been used to describe speaking in tongues. The word chosen was the word for languages (also the word for the physical organ of the tongue). I don't think there's a hint of unreasonableness in expecting a modern practice that claims to be a Biblical one to produce Biblically predicted results. Sorry, socks. I think reading into SIT to make it say anything other than languages is a retrofit -- an attempt to bring the Bible into conformity with what we observe, rather than bring our practices into line with what the Bible clearly teaches.

So this is the most recent post I see with any substantive content.

It is not "contorting" the scripture to note that the main point of I Cor. 14:2 is NOT that SIT produces a language. The main point of that scripture is to define SIT. First, it is a man speaking to God, not other men. Next, nobody understands. Next, the man SIT is speaking divine mysteries (define later).

It is possible to make a logical argument that because the word "tongues" in that verse is also used to define "languages" in addition to the human organ, that you could interpret it to mean "languages".

However, I present that this is a "stretch" to take it from there to where we are today, with somehow that meaning "a real language is promised in the Bible", thus opening it up to all of the shenanigans with "research" on the topic, and the shift in focus on what is important in that verse to something which is a complete sidetrack itself. If that was what God intended to promise, I present that He would have at least made it the main subject or predicate of a sentence in the Bible, as opposed to a prepositional phrase.

So what DOES that verse say with respect to a "real language"? When you SIT, it could be a real language, but that's not important. What IS important is that you are speaking to God, not men, and men do not understand. In a very general sense, you are speaking a "language" because you are mostly doing the same things you are when you speak to another person in your native language.

On the topic of "importance", the gist of that verse focuses your mind on the importance that you are speaking to God, and you are speaking divine mysteries. Whether or not you speaking to God takes the form of a language known on earth to linguists is so far OFF TOPIC of that verse it's not funny. You are speaking to God, and He understands. THAT'S WHAT IS EMPHASIZED in that verse. Whether "tongue" means "human language" is kind of an interesting side note, but nothing to base a belief upon, and certainly nothing that a reasonable person would find motivation in to attack other Christian's beliefs and prayer life with, saying they are liars and fakers.

No, doing that is "off topic" to the intent of scripture, to be kind.

Edited November 6, 2012 by chockfull

[OldSkool]

I dunno. By extension of logic, if speaking in tongues does not produce a real language --- then gifts of healings need not produce a real healing.

[Raf]

Sounds logical to me.

This is just another sophisticated excuse as to why the modern, phony, counterfeit practice does not produce Biblical results.

Do I really need to defend the proposition that speaking in languages should result in people speaking in languages? I mean, I need to prove this? It's a tautology, for Pete's sake. Take a verse out of context and mangle it so that languages are only languages if people looking for languages aren't listening, and you haven't discredited my argument. You've disgraced your own.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Raf