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)
And why your logic is a fallacy is that I did not present a conclusion at all. I'm beginning to understand what my problem is with you guys. You are used to people summing up a lot of detail into one opinionated bottom line statement. And you call that a "conclusion". I like to look through detail and expand my knowledge. At this point I have many more questions about this topic than I ever have. What little knowledge I have is far exceeded by how much I don't know.
Yes many of Hockett's attributes are superficial. As you would expect for linguists to detail out what makes a language. But all those superficial details are what makes the one big bottom line ststement you guys want to make either a lie or the truth. Glossa "bears no resemblance to language". LIE. Glossa "has a superficial resemblance to language phonetically, and the message content cannot be determined to meet other criteria or not until it can be successfully decoded or understood natively". TRUTH. Or if you need a shorter version "glossa has some similarities and some differences with natural languages".
Just thought I'd post up the truth out there in case there might be someone that would recognize it.
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.
(snip)
First of all, the phrase "ABSOLUTELY IMPLIES" is a contradiction in terms,
like "IRONCLAD RUMOR." Someone's IMPLICATION can't be ABSOLUTE because to make
something clear, let alone ABSOLUTE requires direct speaking, which is the
antithesis of IMPLICATION.
Second of all, the error there is obvious. He speaks specifically of 6.
He says nothing of the rest there.
In and of itself, this tells us nothing of what he thought about the other criteria.
So, then we look at the other criteria.
When we look at them, we see they don't tell us much.
They don't match some. They match a few that also match gibberish.
This really should surprise nobody who read the other thread because all the
criteria were itemized and addressed at one point. In numerical order.
I believe Modgellan specifically admonished against accusing each other of lying, by the way.
Not to be a nitpicker or anything. But still. Lying is an accusation against another person's intent. Accusing someone of being mistaken, or misreporting something... Not quite the same as lying because it only reflects outcome, not intent.
So let us agree either to drop that word from the discussion or to consider it fair game. Either way is fine by me.
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.
I am not presenting misinformation. Samarin DOES list all 16 items on Hockett's list. Then he states FIVE (not six, and not "the six" or "the five") which glossa does not meet. He discounts glossa as language PRIMARILY on the absence of those features. HE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE OTHER FEATURES. In no way, shape or form did I ever say glossa meets no items on the list. In fact, in the other thread, I specifically outlined which items glossa clearly meets, so to say I have claimed glossa meets NO items on the list, after I specifically outlined which items glossa DOES meet, is (to put it as diplomatically as I can without violating rules) demonstrably and documentably untrue.
So let us agree either to drop that word from the discussion or to consider it fair game. Either way is fine by me.
Drop it per modgellan.
I don't have the energy to go and clean up all the places I'm accused of being a liar on the other thread or report those posts.
First of all, the phrase "ABSOLUTELY IMPLIES" is a contradiction in terms,
like "IRONCLAD RUMOR." Someone's IMPLICATION can't be ABSOLUTE because to make
something clear, let alone ABSOLUTE requires direct speaking, which is the
antithesis of IMPLICATION.
Second of all, the error there is obvious. He speaks specifically of 6.
He says nothing of the rest there.
In and of itself, this tells us nothing of what he thought about the other criteria.
So, then we look at the other criteria.
When we look at them, we see they don't tell us much.
They don't match some. They match a few that also match gibberish.
This really should surprise nobody who read the other thread because all the
criteria were itemized and addressed at one point. In numerical order.
Good. I'll take this as your official retraction of the statement about SIT bearing no resemblance to language then. As I see you admitting matching Hockett criteria.
I am not presenting misinformation. Samarin DOES list all 16 items on Hockett's list. Then he states FIVE (not six, and not "the six" or "the five") which glossa does not meet. He discounts glossa as language PRIMARILY on the absence of those features. HE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE OTHER FEATURES. In no way, shape or form did I ever say glossa meets no items on the list. In fact, in the other thread, I specifically outlined which items glossa clearly meets, so to say I have claimed glossa meets NO items on the list, after I specifically outlined which items glossa DOES meet, is (to put it as diplomatically as I can without violating rules) demonstrably and documentably untrue.
I'll also consider this as your admission that the statement that SIT bears no resemblance to language is misinformation. I still don't understand how you justify blanket statements like "modern SIT bears no resemblance to language" when you readily admit there are points of resemblance. I guess you don't care about (to put this as diplomatically as I can without violating rules) being truthful and accurate in these blanket statements being made.
Clearly you take anything the way you want to, so you just go right ahead.
But for the record, I never said that in the first place. Rather, I have always conceded that SIT resembles human language.
The resemblance is superficial. It's spoken and heard, and people pause as they speak it. Big whoop. It's not a human language. It's made up, by you. Through free vocalization. Which exists.
In the meantime, I will take the facts as your admission that you're being less than accurate in falsely insinuating that I said SIT meets none of the characteristics on Hockett's list. I will also interpret your silence on the matter to mean you could not find any indication that Samarin concluded glossolalia meets 10 items on the list (or 11, depending on your ability to count).
Clearly you take anything the way you want to, so you just go right ahead.
But for the record, I never said that in the first place. Rather, I have always conceded that SIT resembles human language.
The resemblance is superficial. It's spoken and heard, and people pause as they speak it. Big whoop. It's not a human language. It's made up, by you. Through free vocalization. Which exists.
In the meantime, I will take the facts as your admission that you're being less than accurate in falsely insinuating that I said SIT meets none of the characteristics on Hockett's list. I will also interpret your silence on the matter to mean you could not find any indication that Samarin concluded glossolalia meets 10 items on the list (or 11, depending on your ability to count).
And PRESTO, after confronting them, now magically misinformation stops and we have returned full circle to where we were days or weeks ago. SIT resembles human language. Samarin notes it's different from a human language in that it's not primarily used for communication (between humans). He notes exceptions to Hockett's rules, doesn't really need to say he concluded glossa meets criteria in the other 10, like using the vocal-auditory channel, as it is SO OBVIOUS only an idiot could conclude differently.
So a few pages ago, we have "SIT bears no resemblance to human language". You either said it or supported WordWolf saying it - I'm not playing your word games. Now we have "I have always conceded that SIT resembles human language".
And PRESTO! Something I've said all along, I say again, and it's treated as though it's some kind of new, earth-shattering admission!
I have always said SIT resembles human language in superficial ways. Superficial. It's spoken out loud. The speaker hears the message. There are pauses consistent with what sounds like commas and periods. I have said this all along. Modern SIT resembles human language in every way THAT CAN BE FAKED.
So a few pages ago, we have "SIT bears no resemblance to human language". You either said it or supported WordWolf saying it - I'm not playing your word games. Now we have "I have always conceded that SIT resembles human language".
Show me where, or apologize for the misrepresentation. I'm tired of the games YOU'RE playing.
Show me where, or apologize for the misrepresentation. I'm tired of the games YOU'RE playing.
No. I'm tired of you making this about the consistency or not of your own words. All that does is put your words in type one more time, which advances your rhetoric. Your words are not what's worth discussing. Scripture is. Scientific facts are.
I'll take that as an admission that you cannot find any instance of me saying or supporting the "no resemblance" line. Which makes sense, because the accusation was false. Thank you.
And I'm MORE than tired of you trying to catch me in my own words and making an issue of them and then retreating when I demand documentation for the things you falsely claim I said.
No one's stopping you from returning this thread to the subject of scripture.
Sanguinetti's a big boy. After my post (111), which you claim chased him off, he posted again (117, 120). So your accusation that I chased him off was actually... false.
Everything I've written in this thread that's off topic has been in response to you. You are free to return to the topic anytime you want. I'm not stopping you.
So back to scripture discussion, we were doing word studies of the word "glossa" in the NT, or rather Raf was, and came up with the position that because he thought the word "glossa" meant languages that it is some kind of guarantee that linguists can understand the tongue.
I see a direct scripture contradiction to this in I Cor. 14:2. Basically, it states "no man understands". This is a direct statement related to the topic. The use of the word "glossa" to indicate languages in that verse may or may not be an accurate interpretation - it also could be a figurative reference to the human organ as it is in certain places in the NT. Regardless of which way you interpret the word directly, if it does mean languages there is still no direct promise indicating it will be a language designed for use between humans and spoken on the earth currently. Indications in scripture are that it is designed for speaking to God (I Cor. 14:2), which is different than human use exclusively.
So scripturally, I see the premise for testing SIT to see if it's a human language in operation today and thus disproving modern SIT as a genuine act to be a false premise.
Ok, too many quote-marks to preserve, so I'll add the post#s to make them easy to find.
They're all from pages 7-9 from this thread.
post 133.
(snip)
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.
(snip)
['chockfull' 11 November 2012 - 12:50 AM]post 135.
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".
(snip)
[/]
post 136.
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.
(snip)
['chockfull''11 November 2012 - 01:48 AM']post 137.
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".
[/]
How about that....
I was rather specific about Biblical SIT vs modern SIT.
chockfull joined me on the subject, even quoting me.
Then suddenly, what I said was suddenly about something else!
(Which he was also wrong about and was corrected,
but that's something else.)
I was specifically ONLY bringing up Biblical SIT vs modern SIT.
['chockfull''12 November 2012 - 07:12 PM']post 154.
(snip)
Glossa "bears no resemblance to language". LIE.
(snip)
[/]
Notice there's no direct link back to a post where someone is being
quoted as having SAID that. That's because chockfull did a little
sleight-of-hand, changing one post's words into something the poster
never said. I wrote about Biblical SIT and modern SIT and said they seem
not to resemble each other- which transformed into an entirely different
subject-which chockfull then attacked. Easy to attack things other
people ever said...
['chockfull'13 November 2012 - 01:10 PM']post 160.
(snip)
Good. I'll take this as your official retraction of the statement about SIT bearing no resemblance to language then. As I see you admitting matching Hockett criteria.
I'll also consider this as your admission that the statement that SIT bears no resemblance to language is misinformation. I still don't understand how you justify blanket statements like "modern SIT bears no resemblance to language" when you readily admit there are points of resemblance. I guess you don't care about (to put this as diplomatically as I can without violating rules) being truthful and accurate in these blanket statements being made.
[/]
Here chockfull's repeating his invented claim of something I said.
He's determined to put words in my mouth and refute them.
Amazing.
Furthermore, now he includes Raf in inventing posts they never made.
post 161.
Clearly you take anything the way you want to, so you just go right ahead.
But for the record, I never said that in the first place. Rather, I have always conceded that SIT resembles human language.
The resemblance is superficial. It's spoken and heard, and people pause as they speak it. Big whoop. It's not a human language.[/u] It's made up, by you. Through free vocalization. Which exists.
(snip)
Raf catches him on his invention.
['chockfull''13 November 2012 - 04:15 PM']post 162.
(snip)
So a few pages ago, we have "SIT bears no resemblance to human language". You either said it or supported WordWolf saying it - I'm not playing your word games. Now we have "I have always conceded that SIT resembles human language".
[/]
chockfull's trying it again...
post 164.
Show me where, or apologize for the misrepresentation. I'm tired of the games YOU'RE playing.
...and is called on it.
['chockfull''13 November 2012 - 05:05 PM' ']post 165.
No. I'm tired of you making this about the consistency or not of your own words. All that does is put your words in type one more time, which advances your rhetoric. Your words are not what's worth discussing. Scripture is. Scientific facts are.
[/]
chockfull's challenged to prove his claim of posts that say what he CLAIMS they said,
but don't say.
chockfull refuses to present any evidence-big surprise.
But he also refuses to apologize for his MISTAKE.
post 166.
I'll take that as an admission that you cannot find any instance of me saying or supporting the "no resemblance" line. Which makes sense, because the accusation was false. Thank you.
And I'm MORE than tired of you trying to catch me in my own words and making an issue of them and then retreating when I demand documentation for the things you falsely claim I said.
No one's stopping you from returning this thread to the subject of scripture.
Since there was no such claim, it was hard for Raf to "support" it,
I Cor. 14:2 [The word unknown is not in the text. The person doing it is speaking to God, not men, IN A LANGUAGE the speaker does not know. It's still a tongue, and the meaning of that word has not changed. That "no man understands" is to be expected in an ordinary worship setting, which is the context of this verse. This says nothing about any other setting. It does not bar anyone from understanding in any setting. It is merely describing the normative, worship experience. It has no bearing on the language produced; only on the extreme unlikelihood of anyone in a worship setting understanding it. What is produced is still a human language].
Clearly there is disagreement on whether I Cor. 14:2 is a blanket statement that covers all situations (making SIT untestable) or whether it is, in context, the normative expectation of a worship meeting experience. I hold the latter view and believe it to be consistent with a plain reading of scripture. The former view, in my opinion, is a retrofit designed to explain why the people on earth best educated in the classification and identification of language have been unable to identify a language in any sample of modern SIT or to even classify modern SIT as language.
This is a difference of doctrinal opinion. Endlessly repeating this verse, by either side, is fruitless. It is here that our impasse is unresolvable.
At the risk of violating rules, I will make a statement that looks to the future instead of the past, including the recent past: any future assertion that I have not addressed this verse or provided an alternative explanation for the one offered above by Chockfull is a blatant, bald-faced, intentional LIE.
Don't get me wrong: repeat the verse all you want. But we disagree on it, and we're not going to change each other's minds. So by all means, cite any scripture you want, including this one. Just don't pretend I haven't addressed it.
Don't get me wrong: repeat the verse all you want. But we disagree on it, and we're not going to change each other's minds. So by all means, cite any scripture you want, including this one. Just don't pretend I haven't addressed it.
Raf I've never been arguing with you to change your mind. I'm simply defending my faith, which the further we go along this route is more under attack by more and more people, and those who share my beliefs are withholding themselves from the argument. There's an equal number of votes on both sides on the poll, yet I am the only one defending this position.
Clearly there is disagreement on whether I Cor. 14:2 is a blanket statement that covers all situations (making SIT untestable) or whether it is, in context, the normative expectation of a worship meeting experience. I hold the latter view and believe it to be consistent with a plain reading of scripture. The former view, in my opinion, is a retrofit designed to explain why the people on earth best educated in the classification and identification of language have been unable to identify a language in any sample of modern SIT or to even classify modern SIT as language.
This is a difference of doctrinal opinion. Endlessly repeating this verse, by either side, is fruitless. It is here that our impasse is unresolvable.
I don't find it logical that "no man understands" could mean a "normative" definition in a worship setting yet magically something different in a lab setting. That is so contrived of a definition it's laughable.
My first thought was "he couldn't be serious".
I'm not going to debate scriptures with you on this topic. I don't think you have much scriptural backing for your position at all. A translation of a single word "glossa" and a contrived definition to fit your desire to test it in a lab.
And all I see happening over time with me defending my faith is those on the other side of the argument are getting whipped up more and more into a frenzy. This is crazy and stupid. It can't be mentally healthy. And it certainly is so far off the admonitions in I Cor. 12-14 about the one body it's not funny. Any insight we are gaining into other aspects of those verses are in my opinion completely overshadowed by the violation of all of our behavior when comparing it against the same section of scripture.
So you, WordWolf, waysider, geisha - all of you can now have your victory dance. I concede. You've won the argument. After all, that's what's most important to you. It certainly isn't logic, learning, or compassion towards other Christians.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
127
53
47
49
Popular Days
Feb 12
24
Feb 8
22
Feb 20
22
Feb 19
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 127 posts
Steve Lortz 53 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 49 posts
Popular Days
Feb 12 2016
24 posts
Feb 8 2016
22 posts
Feb 20 2016
22 posts
Feb 19 2016
21 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
A Word About A Word Tolerance is necessary for articulation. A hinge is an articulated device. One plate attaches to the door, the other plate attaches to the doorjamb, the two plates are joined tog
geisha779
Is 1 Corinthians 14:4 an instruction, a passing comment, or a commendable endeavor? Or . . . . is it smack dab in the middle of correction and juxtaposed to the demeanor that Paul wanted the Corinthi
waysider
Ummmmm.......You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?
Posted Images
waysider
First century:
People hear languages they understand and interpret expound on them for people who don't understand them.
Today:
People hear "languages" they DON"T understand and "interpret" them for other people who also don't understand them.
Am I sensing a discrepancy here?
......................................................
Is that more what you had in mind?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Not sure I agree with that breakdown, waysider.
Even after the edit...
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
And why your logic is a fallacy is that I did not present a conclusion at all. I'm beginning to understand what my problem is with you guys. You are used to people summing up a lot of detail into one opinionated bottom line statement. And you call that a "conclusion". I like to look through detail and expand my knowledge. At this point I have many more questions about this topic than I ever have. What little knowledge I have is far exceeded by how much I don't know.
Yes many of Hockett's attributes are superficial. As you would expect for linguists to detail out what makes a language. But all those superficial details are what makes the one big bottom line ststement you guys want to make either a lie or the truth. Glossa "bears no resemblance to language". LIE. Glossa "has a superficial resemblance to language phonetically, and the message content cannot be determined to meet other criteria or not until it can be successfully decoded or understood natively". TRUTH. Or if you need a shorter version "glossa has some similarities and some differences with natural languages".
Just thought I'd post up the truth out there in case there might be someone that would recognize it.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"glossa has some similarities and some differences with natural languages".
Yes, that's true. Then again, you could say the same of a comparison of elephants and jelly beans
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Oh snap?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
First of all, the phrase "ABSOLUTELY IMPLIES" is a contradiction in terms,
like "IRONCLAD RUMOR." Someone's IMPLICATION can't be ABSOLUTE because to make
something clear, let alone ABSOLUTE requires direct speaking, which is the
antithesis of IMPLICATION.
Second of all, the error there is obvious. He speaks specifically of 6.
He says nothing of the rest there.
In and of itself, this tells us nothing of what he thought about the other criteria.
So, then we look at the other criteria.
When we look at them, we see they don't tell us much.
They don't match some. They match a few that also match gibberish.
This really should surprise nobody who read the other thread because all the
criteria were itemized and addressed at one point. In numerical order.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I believe Modgellan specifically admonished against accusing each other of lying, by the way.
Not to be a nitpicker or anything. But still. Lying is an accusation against another person's intent. Accusing someone of being mistaken, or misreporting something... Not quite the same as lying because it only reflects outcome, not intent.
So let us agree either to drop that word from the discussion or to consider it fair game. Either way is fine by me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I am not presenting misinformation. Samarin DOES list all 16 items on Hockett's list. Then he states FIVE (not six, and not "the six" or "the five") which glossa does not meet. He discounts glossa as language PRIMARILY on the absence of those features. HE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE OTHER FEATURES. In no way, shape or form did I ever say glossa meets no items on the list. In fact, in the other thread, I specifically outlined which items glossa clearly meets, so to say I have claimed glossa meets NO items on the list, after I specifically outlined which items glossa DOES meet, is (to put it as diplomatically as I can without violating rules) demonstrably and documentably untrue.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Drop it per modgellan.
I don't have the energy to go and clean up all the places I'm accused of being a liar on the other thread or report those posts.
Good. I'll take this as your official retraction of the statement about SIT bearing no resemblance to language then. As I see you admitting matching Hockett criteria.
I'll also consider this as your admission that the statement that SIT bears no resemblance to language is misinformation. I still don't understand how you justify blanket statements like "modern SIT bears no resemblance to language" when you readily admit there are points of resemblance. I guess you don't care about (to put this as diplomatically as I can without violating rules) being truthful and accurate in these blanket statements being made.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Clearly you take anything the way you want to, so you just go right ahead.
But for the record, I never said that in the first place. Rather, I have always conceded that SIT resembles human language.
The resemblance is superficial. It's spoken and heard, and people pause as they speak it. Big whoop. It's not a human language. It's made up, by you. Through free vocalization. Which exists.
In the meantime, I will take the facts as your admission that you're being less than accurate in falsely insinuating that I said SIT meets none of the characteristics on Hockett's list. I will also interpret your silence on the matter to mean you could not find any indication that Samarin concluded glossolalia meets 10 items on the list (or 11, depending on your ability to count).
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
And PRESTO, after confronting them, now magically misinformation stops and we have returned full circle to where we were days or weeks ago. SIT resembles human language. Samarin notes it's different from a human language in that it's not primarily used for communication (between humans). He notes exceptions to Hockett's rules, doesn't really need to say he concluded glossa meets criteria in the other 10, like using the vocal-auditory channel, as it is SO OBVIOUS only an idiot could conclude differently.
So a few pages ago, we have "SIT bears no resemblance to human language". You either said it or supported WordWolf saying it - I'm not playing your word games. Now we have "I have always conceded that SIT resembles human language".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
And PRESTO! Something I've said all along, I say again, and it's treated as though it's some kind of new, earth-shattering admission!
I have always said SIT resembles human language in superficial ways. Superficial. It's spoken out loud. The speaker hears the message. There are pauses consistent with what sounds like commas and periods. I have said this all along. Modern SIT resembles human language in every way THAT CAN BE FAKED.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Show me where, or apologize for the misrepresentation. I'm tired of the games YOU'RE playing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
No. I'm tired of you making this about the consistency or not of your own words. All that does is put your words in type one more time, which advances your rhetoric. Your words are not what's worth discussing. Scripture is. Scientific facts are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'll take that as an admission that you cannot find any instance of me saying or supporting the "no resemblance" line. Which makes sense, because the accusation was false. Thank you.
And I'm MORE than tired of you trying to catch me in my own words and making an issue of them and then retreating when I demand documentation for the things you falsely claim I said.
No one's stopping you from returning this thread to the subject of scripture.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Good idea. After pages of derail by the three of you where you successfully chased off Sanguineti.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Sanguinetti's a big boy. After my post (111), which you claim chased him off, he posted again (117, 120). So your accusation that I chased him off was actually... false.
Everything I've written in this thread that's off topic has been in response to you. You are free to return to the topic anytime you want. I'm not stopping you.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So back to scripture discussion, we were doing word studies of the word "glossa" in the NT, or rather Raf was, and came up with the position that because he thought the word "glossa" meant languages that it is some kind of guarantee that linguists can understand the tongue.
I see a direct scripture contradiction to this in I Cor. 14:2. Basically, it states "no man understands". This is a direct statement related to the topic. The use of the word "glossa" to indicate languages in that verse may or may not be an accurate interpretation - it also could be a figurative reference to the human organ as it is in certain places in the NT. Regardless of which way you interpret the word directly, if it does mean languages there is still no direct promise indicating it will be a language designed for use between humans and spoken on the earth currently. Indications in scripture are that it is designed for speaking to God (I Cor. 14:2), which is different than human use exclusively.
So scripturally, I see the premise for testing SIT to see if it's a human language in operation today and thus disproving modern SIT as a genuine act to be a false premise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ya know, the moon could fall out of the sky tonight and flatten my neighbor's potting shed. It's possible.....but not very likely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, too many quote-marks to preserve, so I'll add the post#s to make them easy to find.
They're all from pages 7-9 from this thread.
['chockfull' 11 November 2012 - 12:50 AM]post 135.
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".
(snip)
[/]
['chockfull''11 November 2012 - 01:48 AM']post 137.
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".
[/]
How about that....
I was rather specific about Biblical SIT vs modern SIT.
chockfull joined me on the subject, even quoting me.
Then suddenly, what I said was suddenly about something else!
(Which he was also wrong about and was corrected,
but that's something else.)
I was specifically ONLY bringing up Biblical SIT vs modern SIT.
['chockfull''12 November 2012 - 07:12 PM']post 154.
(snip)
Glossa "bears no resemblance to language". LIE.
(snip)
[/]
Notice there's no direct link back to a post where someone is being
quoted as having SAID that. That's because chockfull did a little
sleight-of-hand, changing one post's words into something the poster
never said. I wrote about Biblical SIT and modern SIT and said they seem
not to resemble each other- which transformed into an entirely different
subject-which chockfull then attacked. Easy to attack things other
people ever said...
['chockfull'13 November 2012 - 01:10 PM']post 160.
(snip)
Good. I'll take this as your official retraction of the statement about SIT bearing no resemblance to language then. As I see you admitting matching Hockett criteria.
I'll also consider this as your admission that the statement that SIT bears no resemblance to language is misinformation. I still don't understand how you justify blanket statements like "modern SIT bears no resemblance to language" when you readily admit there are points of resemblance. I guess you don't care about (to put this as diplomatically as I can without violating rules) being truthful and accurate in these blanket statements being made.
[/]
Here chockfull's repeating his invented claim of something I said.
He's determined to put words in my mouth and refute them.
Amazing.
Furthermore, now he includes Raf in inventing posts they never made.
Raf catches him on his invention.
['chockfull''13 November 2012 - 04:15 PM']post 162.
(snip)
So a few pages ago, we have "SIT bears no resemblance to human language". You either said it or supported WordWolf saying it - I'm not playing your word games. Now we have "I have always conceded that SIT resembles human language".
[/]
chockfull's trying it again...
...and is called on it.
['chockfull''13 November 2012 - 05:05 PM' ']post 165.
No. I'm tired of you making this about the consistency or not of your own words. All that does is put your words in type one more time, which advances your rhetoric. Your words are not what's worth discussing. Scripture is. Scientific facts are.
[/]
chockfull's challenged to prove his claim of posts that say what he CLAIMS they said,
but don't say.
chockfull refuses to present any evidence-big surprise.
But he also refuses to apologize for his MISTAKE.
Since there was no such claim, it was hard for Raf to "support" it,
no matter what chockfull said.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Clearly there is disagreement on whether I Cor. 14:2 is a blanket statement that covers all situations (making SIT untestable) or whether it is, in context, the normative expectation of a worship meeting experience. I hold the latter view and believe it to be consistent with a plain reading of scripture. The former view, in my opinion, is a retrofit designed to explain why the people on earth best educated in the classification and identification of language have been unable to identify a language in any sample of modern SIT or to even classify modern SIT as language.
This is a difference of doctrinal opinion. Endlessly repeating this verse, by either side, is fruitless. It is here that our impasse is unresolvable.
At the risk of violating rules, I will make a statement that looks to the future instead of the past, including the recent past: any future assertion that I have not addressed this verse or provided an alternative explanation for the one offered above by Chockfull is a blatant, bald-faced, intentional LIE.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Don't get me wrong: repeat the verse all you want. But we disagree on it, and we're not going to change each other's minds. So by all means, cite any scripture you want, including this one. Just don't pretend I haven't addressed it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Raf I've never been arguing with you to change your mind. I'm simply defending my faith, which the further we go along this route is more under attack by more and more people, and those who share my beliefs are withholding themselves from the argument. There's an equal number of votes on both sides on the poll, yet I am the only one defending this position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I don't find it logical that "no man understands" could mean a "normative" definition in a worship setting yet magically something different in a lab setting. That is so contrived of a definition it's laughable.
My first thought was "he couldn't be serious".
I'm not going to debate scriptures with you on this topic. I don't think you have much scriptural backing for your position at all. A translation of a single word "glossa" and a contrived definition to fit your desire to test it in a lab.
And all I see happening over time with me defending my faith is those on the other side of the argument are getting whipped up more and more into a frenzy. This is crazy and stupid. It can't be mentally healthy. And it certainly is so far off the admonitions in I Cor. 12-14 about the one body it's not funny. Any insight we are gaining into other aspects of those verses are in my opinion completely overshadowed by the violation of all of our behavior when comparing it against the same section of scripture.
So you, WordWolf, waysider, geisha - all of you can now have your victory dance. I concede. You've won the argument. After all, that's what's most important to you. It certainly isn't logic, learning, or compassion towards other Christians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.