SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[chockfull]

Aside from not being part of the Ten Commandments (seriously, do you just make stuff up and hope no one will notice?) "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" is a rebuke against Israel for demanding a miracle from God that He had not promised. To apply it to SIT is to say we should not expect God to live up to His Word, which is quite a different proposition. You may not expect God to live up to His Word, but when you claim to be doing what His Word says, I expect His Word's results. Modern SIT doesn't pass this test. On this basis, I doubt the modern practice, not the Scripture.

Thanks for making my point for me so clearly.

Israel demanding a miracle from God that He had not promised = Raf demanding a miracle from God such that linguists in a lab understand SIT when He says "no man understands".

You made a perfect case for the rebuke in that commandment applying directly to you. Your response to the rebuke, however, is not so admirable. You call it "making up excuses", etc.

And to answer your personal attack question about whether or not I make stuff up and no one will notice, no I don't. I don't have to. Between a few simple scriptures, and your logic, it kind of all writes itself.

[Raf]

LOL. Nice.

So expecting God to be faithful to His Word is tempting God. Ok. Whatever you say. Our disagreement is doctrinal. Kindly take your argument there.

[chockfull]

LOL. Nice.

So expecting God to be faithful to His Word is tempting God. Ok. Whatever you say. Our disagreement is doctrinal. Kindly take your argument there.

And your attempt to frame the conversation so that you don't have to face logical opposition on what you want to consider "your thread" is transparent. The discussion on this thread involves functional AND doctrinal elements, and has so since the beginning. Otherwise you would have no basis to discount "modern SIT" or compare it with anything.

God IS faithful to His Word. People SIT aren't going to be understood by others, outside of a special miracle.

If you think your interpretation of I Cor. 14:2 means you can test SIT, then explain your logic, rather than avoiding questions, personally attacking other posters and trying to redirect opposing viewpoints to a thread nobody is reading or participating on.

Edited November 7, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

I've already discredited your argument scripturally. You act as though I have not. Then, proceeding from that assumption, you draw conclusions based on your misinterpretation of scripture. Nothing obliges me to entertain that.

I have still not received an apology from you for your unspeakable rudeness the other day. I vowed to stop engaging you, and clearly should have kept to my word. So if you don't mind (or even if you do), I'm going to go back to ignoring you. Not because I'm avoiding your "logic," but because arguing with you has repeatedly proven to be fruitless. When I refute your "logic," you simply declare that I haven't and barrel your way through the discussion anyway. I have no obligation to address that. I've changed minds. You have not. That alone should tell you who's making the stronger logical argument. Good day.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

I have still not received an apology from you for your unspeakable rudeness the other day.

Raf, your incessant snide remarks and namecalling bring these types of responses on all by themselves. I have received no apology from you for them, and I see more of those types of comments in your posts today indicating you are NOT sorry about your behavior. I refuse to be held to a different standard than other posters on this thread. The picture I posted yesterday that you either moderated and removed yourself (because you have shown you WILL do that kind of stuff) or whined about and got another mod to remove was a perfect depiction of a face of someone who is whining and pouting. You refused to state your point biblically. That's dishonest to the other posters who ARE stating their points biblically. You come off to me that you don't want your views or logic challenged, but just want to put out your opinion as rhetoric and have it believed and accepted unquestioned.

"Unspeakable rudeness" - I mean pull in your lower lip. You can sure dish it out but you can't take it.

I vowed to stop engaging you, and clearly should have kept to my word. So if you don't mind (or even if you do), I'm going to go back to ignoring you. Not because I'm avoiding your "logic," but because arguing with you has repeatedly proven to be fruitless. When I refute your "logic," you simply declare that I haven't and barrel your way through the discussion anyway. I have no obligation to address that. I've changed minds. You have not. That alone should tell you who's making the stronger logical argument. Good day.

And my assessment is that whenever you get to where your logical position is challenged and there is a point involved, rather than continuing a logical and objective discussion you fall back on more namecalling and whining. You then try to make the argument about how badly you are being treated. That's a logical fallacy, along with the fact that anyone can read your personal attack statements, which makes it hypocritical as well.

My prediction is that you will not ignore me. You have a logical argument posed out there that the reason linguists can't find a "real language" in modern SIT is that God defined SIT to be such that others hearing it will not understand. You keep namecalling that position too - calling it "contorting scripture". We now have a KJV and a NASB interpretation of that verse up in the thread. I'll post a few other translations. Then I'll let the audience determine if I am "contorting scripture" to expect that when God says "nobody understands" that it means "nobody understands". I mean WOW - it's such a magical contortion of scripture that all you have to do is read the words right where they stand.

ASV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

BBE 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he who makes use of tongues is not talking to men but to God; because no one has the sense of what he is saying; but in the Spirit he is talking of secret things.

DBY 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaks with a tongue does not speak to men but to God: for no one hears; but in spirit he speaks mysteries.

DRA 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man heareth. Yet by the Spirit he speaketh mysteries.

ESV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

GNV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For hee that speaketh a strange tongue, speaketh not vnto men, but vnto God: for no man heareth him: howbeit in the spirit he speaketh secret things.

KJV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For 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.

NAB 1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to human beings but to God, for no one listens; he utters mysteries in spirit.

NAS 1 Corinthians 14:2 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.

NAU 1 Corinthians 14:2 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.

NIB 1 Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no-one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.

NIV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.

NJB 1 Corinthians 14:2 Those who speak in a tongue speak to God, but not to other people, because nobody understands them; they are speaking in the Spirit and the meaning is hidden.

NKJ 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

NLT 1 Corinthians 14:2 For if your gift is the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking to God but not to people, since they won't be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious.

NRS 1 Corinthians 14:2 For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God; for nobody understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit.

RSV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

WEB 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an {unknown} language, speaketh not to men, but to God: for no man understandeth {him}; yet in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

[OldSkool]

If I had to trace Wierwille's roots of learning that topic, it would be primarily Oral Roberts.

It seems Oral Roberts had his roots in the Pentecostal denomination as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Roberts

[chockfull]

I've already discredited your argument scripturally. You act as though I have not.

Can someone else please chime in on their opinion on whether or not Raf has "discredited my argument scripturally"???

I see no scripture quoted, no discussion of scripture quoted, and just basically a lot of reasoning within himself of how he thinks that it SHOULD be logical that SIT produce languages (no argument from me there) and his conclusion that IF it is logical then God should allow it to be tested (big argument from me there supported scripturally).

I am not "acting as though you have not". You simply have not.

I'm asking for others opinion on this because it's clear to me by Raf's incessant snide comments and namecalling to me that he would not receive it from me no matter how true it is.

[cman]

rather than continuing a logical and objective discussion you fall back on more namecalling and whining

yeah,

that and these rules

making disparaging remarks about fellow posters' character, motives, intelligence, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), or life outside these forums

Implying negatives about fellow posters is also not acceptable

We disapprove of comments that stifle discussion or label a particular viewpoint as unwelcome. Such comments hinder thoughtful and open discussions.

Do not challenge a fellow poster's personal recollections of his/her TWI experience. People deserve the freedom to share how TWI affected their lives and should not have to fear interrogation or feel pressured to "prove the unprovable."

man's "logic" will never figure out tongues-EVER

[OldSkool]

I see no scripture quoted, no discussion of scripture quoted, and just basically a lot of reasoning within himself of how he thinks that it SHOULD be logical that SIT produce languages (no argument from me there) and his conclusion that IF it is logical then God should allow it to be tested (big argument from me there supported scripturally).

Beloved, every spirit believe not, but prove the spirits, if of God they are, because many false prophets have gone forth to the world;

- Youngs Literal Bible

To me, if what is taught regarding modern day SIT is true it should stand up to scrutiny. God not only tells us "to prove the spirits," but also to prove him. Therefore, since we are talking something tangible as followers producing a language, I think that whatever language it is should stand or fall as a language - whether or not it's in use or not.

I am beginning to think that what I have been taught by Wierwille was nothing more than rehashed Pentecostalism. Since I know little of Pentecostals, I need some time to understand them a little better. I just hope their roots did not begin with another false prophet.

[chockfull]

It seems Oral Roberts had his roots in the Pentecostal denomination as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Roberts

I think the "American Methodist" Pentecostals is more mainstream. "Pentecostal" carries a negative connotation to many mainstream Christians. I know of several non-profit Christian organizations that will not employ Pentecostals but will accept a laundry list of other denominations. There's a long list of reasons why, but basically it boils down to questionable practices surrounding TIP with at least some churches under that heading, to include snake handling, trances, smacking people in the head like Benny Hinn, out of control behavior to include falling down, making animal sounds, dancing and running in aisles, and many other shady practices. I've literally seen a bunch of that by choice - I wasn't raised Pentecostal my early church experiences were Presbyterian.

Oral wanted to reach more people and didn't want to be hindered by that connotation. So he separated himself and made a new org (fancy that).

This kind of brings up another point and another side to this argument. In a day where Pentecostals were exhibiting all sorts of questionable behavior surrounding this, TWI probably did people a service in teaching this in a way that didn't involve "receiving the Holy Ghost" like Benny Hinn does. I feel they went overboard on Pharisee-like legalism with how they taught the excellor stuff in the INT class, but I'm also trying to remain objective and not throw the baby out with the bath water.

I mean rather than the result we see here, where about 50% of the people that experienced that teaching now reject SIT across the board and say they were lying or faking in TWI, we all could be writhing around on the floor and smacking people in the head. That would be worse.

[Raf]

Keeping a thread on topic and directing a doctrinal discussion to the doctrinal forum is not stifling conversation, cman.

I am sorry my view of scripture is not accepted by everyone, but that is a doctrinal discussion and it's not my fault that people decide to ignore their very own threads and instead insist on having doctrinal debates in a non-doctrinal thread. This thread assumes a doctrinal position and proceeds from there. If you want to debate the doctrinal assumption, and you started a thread in doctrinal to have such a debate, I recommend holding the doctrinal discussion there and request that you stop trying to derail this thread.

CMan, I am not calling anyone names. I have characterized a particular conversation with a particular poster as fruitless, and have explained why I came to that conclusion. No namecalling here. No rules violation here. Nice try.

OldSkool, I agree with you wholeheartedly. There's a difference between demanding from God a promise he doesn't give and proving MAN's CLAIMS by holding MAN's CLAIMS to a Biblical standard, which is all I have done on this thread.

[chockfull]

To me, if what is taught regarding modern day SIT is true it should stand up to scrutiny. God not only tells us "to prove the spirits," but also to prove him. Therefore, since we are talking something tangible as followers producing a language, I think that whatever language it is should stand or fall as a language - whether or not it's in use or not.

OK. How do you account for the "nobody understands" in I Cor. 14:2 with the specific way you are supposed to prove it?

Proving Him could carry many connotations, including proving Him by SIT yourself.

Also, what's the explanation of the apparent contradiction in scripture between the commandment "thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" and "prove me now herewith" in your view? That's a little finer grained cut, but it must be doable if scripture doesn't put us in a non-winning predicament.

And your opinion about Raf having "discredited my argument scripturally", and me "acting as if he had not"????

[cman]

from post #1

Does anyone else?

I see that question being explored.

And you sending those who are exploring it away from this thread.

It's not your thread. Nor do you even know much about the topic.

I will post or listen to others as I choose in this thread and others.

[Raf]

Feel free. If you're on topic, I may even respond. But I've entertained the doctrinal digression long enough. It's not my fault people want to ignore their own threads.

[geisha779]

To me, if what is taught regarding modern day SIT is true it should stand up to scrutiny. God not only tells us "to prove the spirits," but also to prove him. Therefore, since we are talking something tangible as followers producing a language, I think that whatever language it is should stand or fall as a language - whether or not it's in use or not.

I am beginning to think that what I have been taught by Wierwille was nothing more than rehashed Pentecostalism. Since I know little of Pentecostals, I need some time to understand them a little better. I just hope their roots did not begin with another false prophet.

Don't get your hopes up too high.....the modern Pentecostal movement has very questionable origins and if you want a good lesson in the proponents of tongues.......watch TBN. That is not to say all Pentecostals are bad....but, it is a mine field for the seeking. If you want to read some good Pentecostal leaning teachers, I would recommend Gordon Fee or Wayne Grudem. Gordon Fee came out heavily against the word of faith theology but retained his pentecostal roots. He is well liked and respected.....even my favorite teacher, DA Carson is a tiny bit pentecostal friendly. He catches some heat for that....but, I understand him not wanting to alienate the seeking.

I would be interested in what you learn and how you come to understand the movement if you ever want to share.Or dare. I have been so impressed by your attitude.

Just a thought about tempting God....there is more than one way to tempt God. How we speak of a holy God and his word and how we relate and treat others concerning the things of God speaks as much about how we understand God's holy nature as what we say.

[chockfull]

I am beginning to think that what I have been taught by Wierwille was nothing more than rehashed Pentecostalism.

Well, your post on J.E. Stiles and info from that site gives a lot of insight. He was a Pentecostal that split with his church and felt his mission was to lead many into SIT. So he did. I think Stiles writing in his book was groundbreaking and a clear distinction and break from mainstream Pentecostal teachings of his day. He could arguably have had a genuine ministry like BG Leonard that Wierwille glommed onto and plagiarized for himself.

Since I know little of Pentecostals, I need some time to understand them a little better. I just hope their roots did not begin with another false prophet.

Hmmm. No makeup, long dresses, bowl haircuts for the guys, women can't speak in the church, a sound system that involves turning the minister's mic up to about 120 decibals, and a crappy band as backup. And all their repressed out of control behavior being expressed "in the spirit". Once you understand them, what's not to like?

Edited November 7, 2012 by chockfull

[WordWolf]

Can someone else please chime in on their opinion on whether or not Raf has "discredited my argument scripturally"???

I see no scripture quoted, no discussion of scripture quoted, and just basically a lot of reasoning within himself of how he thinks that it SHOULD be logical that SIT produce languages (no argument from me there) and his conclusion that IF it is logical then God should allow it to be tested (big argument from me there supported scripturally).

I am not "acting as though you have not". You simply have not.

I'm asking for others opinion on this because it's clear to me by Raf's incessant snide comments and namecalling to me that he would not receive it from me no matter how true it is.

He did.

This thread's gone on for as long as it has partly because it's gone in circles.

Raf posted something, and you disagreed. He explained, and you claimed to not get it.

Any study was skipped over and parsed for things to jump on, not legitimate points to discuss.

(If someone spent several paragraphs on a point, then made one sentence that was obvious in

context but sounded like it went in the opposite direction, you jumped all over the sentence.)

Just going from his posts, I'd say he's tired of repeating himself.

Raf's claimed to have addressed everything (I'd add more than once.)

You're claiming he hasn't addressed major points.

Both of you are going to keep saying that.

Both of you are going to keep meaning that.

By definition, at least one of you is wrong.

I'd have liked it to have been Raf. Yes, I've known him a long time- but the double-edged sword

is that I hold him to a higher standard than I hold you. So, if he leaves matters unspoken,

I'm more likely to call him on it, and would at least bring it up when asked.

You asked now- he addressed everything. He's under no compulsion to keep on re-addressing it.

You're also in error that HIS comments are "snide" or "namecalling."

If you thought he was being rude, you could easily have complained.

If I thought he was, I WOULD have complained.

Earlier, I thought his tone was harsh, although I wouldn't say he was "namecalling."

I mentioned it to him. Later, he was (as I perceive it) less harsh, so I dropped it.

Later, I noted you were pushing things, while he was going out of his way NOT to.

And I said so. I posted about it and let it go at that. Adults should be able to police

themselves when they are asked. (I can be moderated effectively by simply being ASKED

to be nicer and being reasoned with. That's why I don't get kicked out of places, and

keep being offered moderation or staff positions on boards nearly everywhere I go.)

[Raf]

There's no question that I have been rude and I have been called on it. Of late, I have tried mightily to cut that out, and I am well aware that I am being closely watched in that regard. I have done my best to restrict my criticisms to arguments and positions, not to people. If people take those criticisms and apply them to themselves instead of their arguments, that's their business and not my problem. Your positions and arguments are fair game, as are mine.

I explained my position using scripture and its context to back it up. People are free to disagree with that and free to discuss that. I will not entertain it here any longer. Complaining that this thread is doctrinal when it is not, that it belongs in Soap Opera when it does not, and then fulfilling that prophecy by namecalling and non-productive posts or insisting on a doctrinal discussion and continuing to bicker over the same issues as though they were never addressed, is not something I need to feed into. Taunting me for refusing to engage your "logic" will be unproductive. You're wasting your breath. I'm not even reading your posts anymore.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

Hmmm. No makeup, long dresses, bowl haircuts for the guys, women can't speak in the church, a sound system that involves turning the minister's mic up to about 120 decibals, and a crappy band as backup. And all their repressed out of control behavior being expressed "in the spirit". Once you understand them, what's not to like?

Hey, I'm ready to hit a revival!

[WordWolf]

(snip)

This kind of brings up another point and another side to this argument. In a day where Pentecostals were exhibiting all sorts of questionable behavior surrounding this, TWI probably did people a service in teaching this in a way that didn't involve "receiving the Holy Ghost" like Benny Hinn does. I feel they went overboard on Pharisee-like legalism with how they taught the excellor stuff in the INT class, but I'm also trying to remain objective and not throw the baby out with the bath water.

I mean rather than the result we see here, where about 50% of the people that experienced that teaching now reject SIT across the board and say they were lying or faking in TWI, we all could be writhing around on the floor and smacking people in the head. That would be worse.

Well, it's something new to discuss and consider, at least.

People exhibit crazy behaviour all the time. Many attribute it to religion- or write their religion around crazy behaviour.

There were devout people in the Appalachias who handled snakes and sipped poison as part of their religious practices-

and some still do.

Lots of people know that, and lots have looked into it. Very few people signed on.

There were sincere people who thought the Hale-Bopp comet was the signal a spaceship was going to pick them up.

Their leader called himself "Do" (Japanese for "way", like in TaeKwonDO or AikiDO, which made me suspicious

he was claiming he was some sort of Messiah, the way, truth and life.) Out of all the people they tried to

recruit, relatively few signed up. That means relatively few committed suicide, expecting their spirits or

souls or whatever to be beamed up to the mother ship or whatever.

Manson claimed to be the Messiah, too, as did Jim Jones. People killed for them or committed suicide for

them- but most people would have just walked or ran the other direction.

Not everybody who got into twi would have been ripe for "throw yourself on the floor" Christianity. I certainly

would have run the other way- even further from Christianity than I was. I needed a SENSIBLE approach, one that

showed there was a LOGIC to Christianity that I'd never heard of before. (Other people had seen it, I had not,

not that I had a wide range of experience.) Many others would have ignored it, too. My family for sure, and

nearly everyone I ever invited to a Bible fellowship.

At least a FEW people might have gone for it, though. SOMEBODY's doing the "smack in the head" and stuff.

[Raf]

One of the mistakes researchers like Goodman made was connecting glossolalia itself with the aberrant behavior that accompanied it in certain religious circles. Samarin deserves a lot of credit, I think, for cutting through that so-called connection early in his study of glossolalia. Although he didn't use the specific terms, he recognized that correlation does not equal causation, and called other researchers on their failure to note the difference.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

He did.

This thread's gone on for as long as it has partly because it's gone in circles.

Raf posted something, and you disagreed. He explained, and you claimed to not get it.

Any study was skipped over and parsed for things to jump on, not legitimate points to discuss.

(If someone spent several paragraphs on a point, then made one sentence that was obvious in

context but sounded like it went in the opposite direction, you jumped all over the sentence.)

Just going from his posts, I'd say he's tired of repeating himself.

I was still looking for a verse that backs up the position that modern SIT producing a language is a promise of God, like he states. Do you have one that you think he supports? I understand the roundabout reasoning of the word tongues being translated the same as language. However, I see that as a secondary thing in ANY of the verses.

Maybe there is no clear verse stating that promise. I'm not thinking of all the verses, and OldSkool brought another one up about proving God that I hadn't thought about until he did. If so, then I'd like someone to state that. All Raf ever does is say "I've already refuted you" when he's never discussed the point of whether he feels there IS a clear verse on the subject stating the promise and where it is. Or that there is not a clear verse on the subject, and his position is that "glossa" should be translated "languages" everywhere, not the physical organ of the tongue, which it IS translated in certain places.

I'm just looking for substance on the argument and coming up way short. And Raf is too emotionally involved at this stage to give me a straight answer.

You're also in error that HIS comments are "snide" or "namecalling."

If you thought he was being rude, you could easily have complained.

If I thought he was, I WOULD have complained.

I don't know, I took offense at the snide comment most recently asking if I was just "making this stuff up and expecting everyone to believe it" when I stated a clear verse, a direct reading of the verse, and an applicable one of the 10 Commandments. And I take offense at all those similar comments. And if he is not going to cut that out, there are times where I am going to throw that cr@p back at him. I mean do you literally think that I made up one of the 10 Commandments? Or is that a BS statement and a snide comment?

He is being rude. And I am complaining. But rather than waiting for another's resolution on it, I'm handling it myself by confronting him on it. And I am responding in kind. One thing I did way too often in TWI is not stand up for myself. People would attack, and I would just internalize and eat it, then it would build up. That's a great recipe for a lack of physical and mental well being. So I'm handling things as they come up.

Earlier, I thought his tone was harsh, although I wouldn't say he was "namecalling."

I mentioned it to him. Later, he was (as I perceive it) less harsh, so I dropped it.

Later, I noted you were pushing things, while he was going out of his way NOT to.

And I said so. I posted about it and let it go at that. Adults should be able to police

themselves when they are asked. (I can be moderated effectively by simply being ASKED

to be nicer and being reasoned with. That's why I don't get kicked out of places, and

keep being offered moderation or staff positions on boards nearly everywhere I go.)

It has kind of fluctuated. Been worse and better. Usually gets better for a while after it gets confronted, then emerges later along with frustration at logical arguments.

[OldSkool]

OK. How do you account for the "nobody understands" in I Cor. 14:2 with the specific way you are supposed to prove it?

Linguistics is the scientific study of human language. Linguistics can be broadly broken into three categories or subfields of study: language form, language meaning, and language in context.

from Wikipedia. Linguistics

It would seem you are taking language meaning (that nobody understands SIT) and ignoring the rest of what can be known from a very broad scientific field of study.

[OldSkool]

Mind you, I am not convinced that modern day SIT is BS. However, I am starting to view it as highly suspect. So I am not in a position to be an advocate for either you or RAF, or step in to validate/refute the arguments between you two.

[Raf]

Don't get your hopes up too high.....the modern Pentecostal movement has very questionable origins and if you want a good lesson in the proponents of tongues.......watch TBN. That is not to say all Pentecostals are bad....but, it is a mine field for the seeking...

Modern SIT began in the same pseudo-spiritual, paranoid, gullible atmosphere that brought widespread belief in the power of the occult. This was an age in which supposed mediums and spiritists and the like flourished, even though a great many of them were later debunked. This was an age in which supposed photographs of real-honest-to-goodness fairies gained notoriety, when a trio of sisters faked an ability to communicate with the dead and were passionately defended by spiritists and excoriated by Christianity -- with the affirmation and condemnation continuing even after one of them revealed the hoax and explained exactly how it was done.

Many of these hucksters were exposed as frauds. Harry Houdini was adept at pointing out the fraud and died without ever seeing a paranormal experience he could call genuine. Fraud was rampant.

It was in this era of our history that the modern practice of SIT emerged, the "genuine" "Christian" alternative to these Satanic "displays" of "power" (most of which were explicitly proved fraudulent). It was believed (based on sound scriptural expectations) that what was produced was actually a language. So firm was this belief that the people who produced SIT went out to become missionaries in the countries whose languages they were convinced (based on WHAT?) they were producing. Didn't work out too well for them. So they switched gears and started calling it a spiritual language. Make a provable claim unprovable, and who could discredit it?

If I claimed to heal by the power of God, you would demand evidence of healing.

If I claimed to work miracles by the power of God, you would demand evidence of miracles.

If I claimed I could walk on water by the power of God, you would demand to see me walk on water.

You claim to produce a language by the power of God. "No man understands" in the Bible is set in the context of a typical worship meeting, not a blanket prohibition against inquiry. OldSkool is right: the Bible tells us to prove the spirits (inspired utterances, in some translations). It cannot be against His will to do exactly what He asks us to do. SIT is a testable claim. The Bible sets the expectation. SIT fails to meet it. It is not the practice the Bible describes. Either the Bible is wrong or the modern practice is wrong. I know which proposition gets my vote.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Raf