I Cor 12 - 14

[Raf]

This is Doctrinal, where "a ton of scriptural references" actually BELONGS.

Someone presenting an exegesis of I Cor. 14 that they have previously worked up certainly applies, and for you to discourage it by calling it "patronizing" and "barraging" is against the purpose of this subforum and the general guidelines of this site.

I don't want to see this kind of post on this thread again. I would prefer to see that post removed, and anywhere I've quoted it I will remove the entire post and rebuttal also.

Um, no. I have no problem with him posting anything he wants. I also have no problem with informing him, you, or anyone else that assuming I am unfamiliar with these verses and somehow overlooked them in the 25 years since I first began examining them, strikes me as patronizing. I am not asking him not to quote scripture. By all means, quote what you guys want. But there was nothing inappropriate about my comment and I invite you to report it to the other mods if you think there was.

[chockfull]

Ok, I'm sorry, but as many times as this has been asserted by you and corrected, you are still making the same refuted allegation. So let me remind everyone that I never said "this has been proven." I said this has been demonstrated. I said that the evidence all leans in one direction. I stated my opinion as fact (it's called making an assertion, and everyone, including you, has done that in this conversation and others). I have never said this was proven. So I would appreciate it, deeply, if you would stop saying that I have. I have not. You listed a whole bunch of places where you claim I made that statement, but not one of the citations you listed has me saying this was proven. So please, I urge you, stop repeating the refuted and false statement that I have. I have not. Stop it. Please.

"this has been proven", "this has been demonstrated", "all the evidence leans in one direction" - all of these phrases for the general reader are going to mean the same thing, and I put forth that you are totally aware of that and banking on it to move your opinion forward.

So while I appreciate you coming forward in WordWolf's defense and clarifying that when he says "all the evidence leans in one direction" does not mean anything is proven, I don't think anyone reading the thread is going to pick up that distinction at all. And honestly, I think it wasn't until we started really digging into the detail of the scientific method that you stopped using the phrase "proven".

So my objection stands.

[Raf]

This has been proven and this has been demonstrated do not mean the...

You know what? This isn't worth it.

[chockfull]

Um, no. I have no problem with him posting anything he wants.

Actually, by calling his post "patronizing" and "barraging with scriptures", you ARE discouraging him from posting anything he wants. And I want that behavior stopped.

[chockfull]

This has been proven and this has been demonstrated do not mean the...

You know what? This isn't worth it.

I don't want to argue semantics with you either. I want this thread open to discuss I Cor. 12 - 14 in a doctrinal sense. I don't want people to be censored with what they are posting up on those verses. The fact that you did this, then WW had to come in and try and smooth things over and did so in a completely biased fashion, all that did was bring up the whole context of the evidence argument again.

I would rather not have this thread be a repeat of the other one.

Please.

[Raf]

Actually, by calling his post "patronizing" and "barraging with scriptures", you ARE discouraging him from posting anything he wants. And I want that behavior stopped.

No. Report it.

I have no problem with him posting what he wants, nor do I see a problem in posting my response to it.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

Second, I also find it patronizing, sorry, to be barraged with a ton of scriptural references with practically no difference in exposition from what we were taught in TWI, presented as though somehow, this is the first time I'm seeing this stuff.

I don't think you're coming off this way on purpose. I respect that you're genuinely surprised to hear this kind of thing coming from me. I'm just sharing my feelings on how it comes off to me. Reasonable minds may differ.

...

I am as free to disagree with you as you are with me. You are perfectly entitled here to question and challenge my beliefs, as I am yours: respectfully. So question and challenge away. But don't patronize me.

For those unwilling to go back a page or two to find the post we're discussing, here it is, with a little added emphasis to show that what I objected to was not "a barrage of scripture" but how it was received, along with a recognition that it was probably not meant that way, probably won't be interpreted that way by everyone reading it, and I added an invitation to continue challenging me. Note that I complained not one whit about a previous post in which he went over the same verses I did, in a little more detail, and came to pretty much the same conclusion I did (almost, I dare say, as though he had not read my post at all). Neither did I complain about future posts from the same poster after he took me up on my closing comment. At no point did I tell him to stop posting or to stop posting scripture.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Raf

[WordWolf]

Personally,

I see the main problem in the lack of "progress", with this,

why we circled the same handful of points ad infinitum,

was due primarily to one thing.

There are at least 3 propositions.

A) Modern SIT seems to not resemble Biblical SIT and does not seem to be supernatural at all, unlike Biblical SIT.

B) God's Power in the lives of Christians no longer applies entirely.

C) Supernatural things happen all the time, and demonic demonstrations of power are very common.

Those people who currently hold that -A- is true, disagree with -B- and disagree with -C-.

The few who've been holding forth that -A- is false have been insisting that to agree to -A-

means one AUTOMATICALLY agrees with -B-, and thus AUTOMATICALLY disagrees with -B-,

while to agree with -B- means one MUST disagree with -A- and agree with -C-.

Period.

Thus, it's not purely a discussion about -A- at all. Someone has been determined to insist

it's about -B- at times, and at other times has held that since -B- is false, there's no

way -A- can be true- and has approached the entire discussion accordingly.

In other words, no matter what the actual typed words are, the whole point of their posts,

the subtext, the reasons, the motives, have nothing to do with -A- but rather with -B-.

That makes it difficult to have a fair discussion on the subject and get places.

But watching it unfold for page after page showed me one thing:

I saw which side was making sense-and it wasn't mine.

I saw which side was making rudimentary errors about science, content, and what

everyone's posts said- and it was mine.

So, I had a LOT more information supporting the idea that I needed to change my thinking.

I'm certain that wasn't the INTENDED result.

[waysider]

"An accurate statement from the evidence seen to date would be that all the evidence is inconclusive trying to prove that SIT produces a language."

No, it's not inconclusive, it's nonexistent. There is NO (zip, zero, none) existing evidence that speaking in tongues produces a language. That's a far cry from "inconclusive".

[chockfull]

Personally,

I see the main problem in the lack of "progress", with this,

why we circled the same handful of points ad infinitum,

was due primarily to one thing.

There are at least 3 propositions.

A) Modern SIT seems to not resemble Biblical SIT and does not seem to be supernatural at all, unlike Biblical SIT.

B) God's Power in the lives of Christians no longer applies entirely.

C) Supernatural things happen all the time, and demonic demonstrations of power are very common.

The main problem with lack of "progress" lies in the fact that after an 88 page thread on the topic, the bulk of the evidence we REALLY have is "modern SIT seems to not resemble Biblical SIT". Nothing proven, nothing evidence based - but "seems" is the word used when people are being honest about the evidence.

The other main problem in lack of "progress" lies in people NOT being honest about the evidence. They state opinion as fact, and de-emphasize the details of linguists language classification efforts while at the same time crying out "evidence shows this, evidence shows this". Dishonesty hinders progress.

Those people who currently hold that -A- is true, disagree with -B- and disagree with -C-.

The few who've been holding forth that -A- is false have been insisting that to agree to -A-

means one AUTOMATICALLY agrees with -B-, and thus AUTOMATICALLY disagrees with -B-,

while to agree with -B- means one MUST disagree with -A- and agree with -C-.

Period.

Thus, it's not purely a discussion about -A- at all. Someone has been determined to insist

it's about -B- at times, and at other times has held that since -B- is false, there's no

way -A- can be true- and has approached the entire discussion accordingly.

In other words, no matter what the actual typed words are, the whole point of their posts,

the subtext, the reasons, the motives, have nothing to do with -A- but rather with -B-.

It just couldn't be that -A- doesn't have any scientific substance to it of course. No, it always has to be about something else. No, WordWolf, it's not about tying tongues being alive to the power of God. If I never spoke in tongues again for the rest of my life, God's power still would be there for me.

That makes it difficult to have a fair discussion on the subject and get places.

But watching it unfold for page after page showed me one thing:

I saw which side was making sense-and it wasn't mine.

I saw which side was making rudimentary errors about science, content, and what

everyone's posts said- and it was mine.

Wow, then having a background in theatrics it must be that you are most impressed with the theatrical manner in which one side of the argument expressed their opinion. Because it certainly isn't making sense to me from any kind of a science or logic background.

Look, very simply here is what makes sense to me. Modern SIT is the same as Biblical SIT, because God isn't fickle. People don't understand the language because God explains in I Cor. 14:2 that they won't understand it. He is the one energizing what's going on behind the scenes, so He would know. Linguists in higher education, like scientists in higher education, in general reject God and Christianity and favor Darwinism and evolution. So the popular opinion is largely against SIT being genuine in those circles. They are trying to put God in a false dilemma to try and test Him. This act runs contrary to scripture including one of the 10 Commandments. So they don't find anything. Big surprise. Charismatic Christians continue to pray to God with their understanding and by the spirit which includes speaking in tongues. And miraculously, because He is God, He hears them and understands. It could be something about Him understanding a few more languages than modern linguists. Oh, and since his resume includes the tower of Babel reference, it's legit.

That's the bottom line to the matter. Whatever people are or are not doing on these train wrecks of threads has no impact on the matter whatsoever.

No, it's not inconclusive, it's nonexistent. There is NO (zip, zero, none) existing evidence that speaking in tongues produces a language. That's a far cry from "inconclusive".

Inconclusive meaning they did not prove that it was not a language either.

And there is anecdotal evidence supporting it, where people understood a tongue in their native language.

So to say there is NO (zip, zero, none) existing evidence is simply lying. Which, one more time, is why we aren't making progress on these threads.

[WordWolf]

The main problem with lack of "progress" lies in the fact that after an 88 page thread on the topic, the bulk of the evidence we REALLY have is "modern SIT seems to not resemble Biblical SIT". Nothing proven, nothing evidence based - but "seems" is the word used when people are being honest about the evidence.

I'm conservative in my language. Science taught me that.

With everything we've seen so far, there's no resemblance. That means they seem to not resemble each other.

The other main problem in lack of "progress" lies in people NOT being honest about the evidence. They state opinion as fact, and de-emphasize the details of linguists language classification efforts while at the same time crying out "evidence shows this, evidence shows this". Dishonesty hinders progress.

Dishonesty does hinder progress. That much we agree upon.

It just couldn't be that -A- doesn't have any scientific substance to it of course. No, it always has to be about something else. No, WordWolf, it's not about tying tongues being alive to the power of God. If I never spoke in tongues again for the rest of my life, God's power still would be there for me.

Until you can see the logic flaw in equating that you just demonstrated again,

you're going to miss a lot. But thanks for laying it out for Mark and any late arrivals.

I'd rather you see it too, and if you disagreed with me, it would be on better grounds.

Wow, then having a background in theatrics it must be that you are most impressed with the theatrical manner in which one side of the argument expressed their opinion. Because it certainly isn't making sense to me from any kind of a science or logic background.

So far, I haven't seen any evidence of you having a scientific or logical background

for the evidence or the arguments to appeal TO.

So, the chances of either making sense to you from either perspective isn't so strong.

I also can see which side's relying on "theatrics" and histrionics and which is letting

the evidence speak.

Look, very simply here is what makes sense to me. Modern SIT is the same as Biblical SIT, because God isn't fickle. People don't understand the language because God explains in I Cor. 14:2 that they won't understand it. He is the one energizing what's going on behind the scenes, so He would know. Linguists in higher education, like scientists in higher education, in general reject God and Christianity and favor Darwinism and evolution. So the popular opinion is largely against SIT being genuine in those circles. They are trying to put God in a false dilemma to try and test Him. This act runs contrary to scripture including one of the 10 Commandments. So they don't find anything. Big surprise. Charismatic Christians continue to pray to God with their understanding and by the spirit which includes speaking in tongues. And miraculously, because He is God, He hears them and understands. It could be something about Him understanding a few more languages than modern linguists. Oh, and since his resume includes the tower of Babel reference, it's legit.

That's the bottom line to the matter. Whatever people are or are not doing on these train wrecks of threads has no impact on the matter whatsoever.

We agree on the last point that ultimately the subject is not affected by the posts.

However, people can read all this and make up their own minds.

I certainly did-primarily from reading the thread and following along.

BTW, thanks for summarizing your position succinctly.

It can be addressed succinctly now.

Inconclusive meaning they did not prove that it was not a language either.

That's not what it meant.

And there is anecdotal evidence supporting it, where people understood a tongue in their native language.

So to say there is NO (zip, zero, none) existing evidence is simply lying. Which, one more time, is why we aren't making progress on these threads.

Anecdotal evidence exists supporting a lot of things you dismiss casually-

like UFO abductions. It's hypocritical to say anecdotal evidence of UFOs or Bigfoot

don't carry weight, but anecdotal evidence of understood modern SIT is "evidence."

That's one reason the thread isn't completing its progress.

Mind you, I think the threads ARE making progress partly BECAUSE of the circling.

I certainly became convinced of one side and left the side I wanted to be on

after seeing the circling and the materials.

[chockfull]

I'm conservative in my language. Science taught me that.

With everything we've seen so far, there's no resemblance. That means they seem to not resemble each other.

Dishonesty does hinder progress. That much we agree upon.

Samarin shows in his study that glossa samples have the same construct as languages with respect to the cadence and linguistic breakdown into sentences, phrases, sub-phrases, and words. Samarin also finds that glossa samples meet 10 of the 16 criteria on Hoskell's language characteristic chart.

That is not "no resemblance".

Edited November 11, 2012 by Modgellan
rule violation

[waysider]

" Samarin shows in his study that glossa samples have the same construct as languages with respect to the cadence and linguistic breakdown into sentences, phrases, sub-phrases, and words."

............................................................................................

Quite the contrary. What Samarin's studies show is that glossolalia does NOT have an established syntax as would an actual language.

[WordWolf]

Samarin shows in his study that glossa samples have the same construct as languages with respect to the cadence and linguistic breakdown into sentences, phrases, sub-phrases, and words. Samarin also finds that glossa samples meet 10 of the 16 criteria on Hoskell's language characteristic chart.

That is not "no resemblance".

As to "no resemblance", I thought everyone would understand the difference between

"no resemblance beyond that of producing sound" and "no physical connections."

TECHNICALLY, yes, they produce sound, and audible languages do that.

So do car horns and cat meows. So, TECHNICALLY, they share a common trait, all of them.

As to the criteria that are met, they're ones, as has been mentioned ad nauseum,

by gibberish as well as language. If you understood language studies better, you'd

have gotten it when it was laid out in detail.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Modgellan
removed reference to previously edited post

[Freelancer]

OMG! I'm witnessing the Battle of the Titans!!!

And I'm enjoying the "back and forth".

But mostly I'm enjoying exercising my gray matter on such a provacative subject.

I don't get that very much in my everyday hohum.

I also hope Mark posts again,and the rest of you too.

But maybe put some sheaths on those spurs, fellas, don't really want a bloodbath here.

We are all just trying to figure it out. I, for one, am thankful for you all, and when I remember, I make mention of you in my prayers, in the spirit and with my understanding also. :)

[geisha779]

Really? We are going to do this again? I am just as guilty of it on this thread....and I really want to fix that.

Steve,

I truly and humbly seek your forgiveness for how I have related to you on this thread. It is true that I don't agree with much of your perspective, but you have every right to share your heart here without having to deal with my sarcasm and attitude. It is sinful to belittle or imply evil about your posts and doing so reveals more about me than about you. I hope that you can forgive me. I have been convicted and have asked God to forgive me. There comes a point in how we treat each other while discussing God's holy word that can constitute mocking God instead of honoring Him as we should. I crossed that line. I am sorry.

...................................................................................................................................................................

There is a great deal of ego and pride swirling around this thread and topic and none of us are going to come to any kind of real understanding until we are humbled a bit before God and before each other. The wheat and the tares grow up together....God allows this. We are still required to treat the tares the same way we would the brethren, unless it becomes manifest in their hurting of others.Then you had better know and understand what you are saying to them before God. He has left it to the end to sort out. If you are convinced someone is wrong, false, or just an idiot and convinced you have the real truth.....act like it. No one who stirs up contention or insists on name calling or fault finding and then insists they are in special communion with God is going to relate that or any other claim. It just ends up a mockery.

Edited November 11, 2012 by geisha779

[Modgellan]

Ok, I have had this thread shut down for a time this morning while I reviewed it. I have made a few edits in various posts which either were rule violations, references to those posts, or for clarity after being edited.

I respect that the participants feel strongly regarding the topic and it seems that you all wish to continue discussing these scriptures, HOWEVER I have no interest, nor do I desire to spend time in babysitting posters who cannot refrain from pulling out swords on each other when a considerate argument could be presented using a keyboard. There were multiple people in violation in this regard.

You all have demonstrated your abilities to present reasonable and considerate arguments to each other. Please keep doing so. I spent an hour or more of my time on this today in order to try and allow the topic to continue. I will NOT do so again. Further rule violations such as namecalling, personal characterizations, accusations about lying etc will simply be deleted and the offender will be suspended for a minimum of 3 days.

If you disagree with my edits, you can PM me, but I did the best I could to leave the topical arguments intact. Your view may vary about how successful I was, but I made every effort on both sides to do so. Trust me, I have no opinion one way or the other regarding any side of this topic and my edits were directed only to rule violations.

[Raf]

Samarin shows in his study that glossa samples have the same construct as languages with respect to the cadence and linguistic breakdown into sentences, phrases, sub-phrases, and words. Samarin also finds that glossa samples meet 10 of the 16 criteria on Hoskell's language characteristic chart.

That is not "no resemblance".

That is also not accurate. Samarin did NOT find that glossic samples met 10 of 16 criteria in Hockett's list. That is not what he reported. We went through Hockett's list item by item. You are misreporting his findings after this assertion has been refuted.

I know this is off topic for this thread, but I thought it important, considering the handful of people who are following this one and did not follow the previous one, to make the same correction here that I had to make over there.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

That is also not accurate. Samarin did NOT find that glossic samples met 10 of 16 criteria in Hockett's list. That is not what he reported. We went through Hockett's list item by item. You are misreporting his findings after this assertion has been refuted.

I know this is off topic for this thread, but I thought it important, considering the handful of people who are following this one and did not follow the previous one, to make the same correction here that I had to make over there.

Direct quote from Samarin - p. 67 Hartford Quarterly:

"Glossas, by this standard, are not human languages, primarily because they really are not systems of communication. They are not characterized by semanticity (7), arbitrariness (8), displacement (10), prevarification (14), and reflexiveness (15)".

So I count 5 of the 16 characteristics Samarin takes issue with, which leaves 11 of 16 which he does not. Also of interest is his reason WHY he does not consider glossa human languages. He adds detail here saying it is primarily because they really are not systems of communication. What does this mean? You are not going to ask your spouse to go to the store for milk in tongues and have a back and forth conversation going on about it in tongues. I completely agree with his assessment. I have seen NOWHERE that ANYONE claims that tongues are a system of communication between people, outside if you really want to stretch the concept in Acts 2 where people understood natively. And Hockett's 16 characteristics were not developed to characterize communication between a person and God that involve things like 'praying in the Spirit'.

This is what makes discussion tedious.

[Raf]

We already had the Hockett's list discussion. We went over the items on the list one by one. You know that Samarin nowhere states or implies that glossolalia meets 10 of 16 criteria on Hockett's list. We've been over this. I don't understand why you persist in making an assertion you yourself previously acknowledged is not true.

[chockfull]

We already had the Hockett's list discussion. We went over the items on the list one by one. You know that Samarin nowhere states or implies that glossolalia meets 10 of 16 criteria on Hockett's list. We've been over this. I don't understand why you persist in making an assertion you yourself previously acknowledged is not true.

I provided the exact quote. Of the items on the list, your contention is that Samarin concludes that glossolalia doesn't meet any of the criteria on the list. So for instance (I'm just doing this for one out of the 11):

1. Vocal-auditory channel: the channel for all linguistic communication is vocal-auditory.

So your contention is that Samarin finds that glossa doesn't use the vocal-auditory channel for communication.

RIDICULOUS!!!

Now you've got me occupied with dealing with your misinformation on two threads. And this one is dedicated to discussing scripture.

[Raf]

Where did i say glossolalia meets no items on the list? I never said that, nor did Samarin say it meets 10 items. The quote you cited does not say what you claim it does. If it did, you'd be claiming Samarin said it meets 11 items on the list. Basic math. Please don't ask me to prove 16-5=11.

We've been over this. You acknowledged it at the time. Why are you acting as if this discussion never took place?

Edited November 12, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Where did i say glossolalia meets no items on the list? I never said that, nor did Samarin say it meets 10 items. The quote you cited does not say what you claim it does. If it did, you'd be claiming Samarin said it meets 11 items on the list. Basic math. Please don't ask me to prove 16-5=11.

We've been over this. You acknowledged it at the time. Why are you acting as if this discussion never took place?

You are playing word games. Samarin clearly lists all 16 of Hockett's attributes of language. Then he states the six in which he feels glossa does not meet. By this he ABSOLUTELY IMPLIES that it meets the other criteria, including the very obvious example I showed.

You are presenting misinformation, then coming back saying "where did I say this?". You want to make this thread about you too. It's not about you. It's about scripture.

[Raf]

Precisely why we listed all 16 items, one by one, and showed that Samarin could not have been implying what you are inferring. Just because you inferred something doesn't mean Samarin implied it. You would have to ignore the list itself to believe that Samarin made any such implication

Go ahead, list the items, and tell us with a straight face that Samarin found glossolalia met those criteria. He didn't. HE COULDN'T have. Go ahead, pretend we haven't already been through the list. Show me where Samarin says glossolalaie meets 11 criteria, item by item. We'll see who's doing the misrepresenting of the research...

Clarification: you'll succeed with six items, tops. All consistent with made up pseudolanguage. I know this because we had this discussion already.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

Forget Hockett. Here's the essence of what Samarin said, according to your post:

"Glossas, by this standard, are not human languages, primarily because they really are not systems of communication. They are not characterized by semanticity (7), arbitrariness (8), displacement (10), prevarification (14), and reflexiveness (15)".

..................................................................

Oh, but wait. When people speak in tongues, sounds come out of their mouths. Likewise, when people speak in a known language, sounds come out of their mouths. Therefore speaking in tongues is synonymous with language.

Do we really need to reexamine why this is a fallacy? (Hint: It constitutes a false conclusion)