Yet ANOTHER Thread on Speaking in Tongues

[MRAP]

This is possible because the Spirit, instead of our unregenerate minds, gives us the words to speak.

You don't need spirit to speak in tongues. It's done by Non-Christians as well as Christians. Speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, not spirit. History and science demonstrate this to be the case.

waysider, I do agree in part to the fact that your mind can get in the way (or as you ascertain, is the way you speak) especially when not SITing out loud. I would invite comment to what I have to say. When speaking silently, there is seemingly way too much rendition of words but when out loud, numerous words and the syntax of structure.

[MRAP]

Not responding to anyone here specifically but during this thread, I am not sure what is and what is not appropriate to discuss. It's looking like this doctrinal forum has a bit of anti-SIT rather than discuss SIT, it is about speaking in tongues, right? What the Bible says about the subject is pretty clear, so far as, it's avialable and do it. If someone wants to oppose that, than just say the Bible is hooey and if that is the case, why are you in this forum, except to save us from ourselves. Just sit (good use of a verb) and read.

Hey,if you don't SIT, I don't care about your opinion (but would/and have, read them with interest) - these questions are only for the folks who actually SIT.

Now, back to same original questions (I HAVE). Do those of you who do SIT, what % of time do you do it silently vs out loud and do you get more gratification from the manifestation doing it aloud as opposed to silently or visa/versa.

If you have a need to pray for someone, do you SIT for them by keeping them/their situation in your mind and SITing (yes, mind must do multiple things).

Just a note: when I first heard SIT, it really turned me on to learning more about the Bible but for most folks, SIT don't mean Jack. Clue: SIT does not lead folks to GOD, it's God's means to commo with his off-spring.

Now, just because a person SIT's or wants to discuss the positive aspects of SITing it does not mean they are a TWI defender - SIT was around long before TWI.

If this thread is about: "SIT-BAD" and that's what you want to hear, make it clear and I will get off this thread with appologies for stepping into the SIT bashing.

[Raf]

MRAP, regardless of a person's views on or practice/non practice of SIT, YOU do not get to tell people whether or where they can post. If you need clarification on someone's position, ask. Or poke around. This particular subject has been discussed at length.

Please read the threads pinned to the top of this forum: ANYONE is allowed to post on ANY thread regardless of their views on the Bible, as long as the posts are on topic.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Raf

[Raf]

The doctrinal forum has and will continue to play host to a wide variety of opinions, doctrines and favorite theologians. Non-Christians, including atheists, agnostics, and Satanists (yeah, really) are welcome here.

That being said, please keep the discussions on-topic. While discussing the existence of God, God's motives, the origin or reliability of the bible or the relatives merits of various religions and philosophies is certainly appropriate, consider the context of your discussion. Does your contribution add to or derail/detract from the discussion at hand? The flip side of this is that non-Christians have every right to weigh in on these threads. While it may be your opinion that a Buddhist or an Atheist doesn't belong in an argument about the Trinity or Predestination or answered prayer, the position of this board is that anyone may participate.

[waysider]

" SIT does not lead folks to GOD, it's God's means to commo with his off-spring."

Well, that's not what the scripture says in I Corinthians 14:22

(Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not...)

[Mark Sanguinetti]

Below is more information on 1 Corinthians chapter 14, where Paul teaches and explains Speaking in tongues. This chapter as taught by Paul clearly explains that Paul spoke in tongues as part of this private prayer and praise to God life, but also explained that speaking in tongues out loud without interpretation in the language of the people present did not help them and they could just be considered a foreigner to them as chapter 14, verse 11 states. Here again is the link to my teaching commentary on 1 Corinthians chapter 14.

And the below explains verse 22 in context following a quote from the Old Testament. Without reading this in context this can be easily misunderstood.

1 Corinthians 14:18-19

18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

King James Version

A great summary written by Paul. Paul thanks God that he speaks in tongues, at this time, perhaps more than all the people of the church in Corinth. Nevertheless, in church Paul would rather speak out loud five words that will teach and edify others than ten thousand words in a tongue (gloossa) that is not known by the people that are present and listening to him.

Then in the next verses Paul quotes from the Old Testament. Paul was highly educated as a Jewish Pharisee. He likely knew the Old Testament better than any other Christian of his day. Paul often quotes from the Old Testament, also referred to as Old Covenant or law, in his New Testament or Covenant teachings. Here Paul quotes from Isaiah 28:11.

1 Corinthians 14:20-21

20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature. 21 In the law it is written:

"With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me," says the Lord.

New Kings James Version

At this time Isaiah, a prophet of God, was not being listened to by the people of the nation of Israel even though he was speaking the truth. The nation of Israel had previously gotten divided into two nations. The ten tribes to the north called themselves the nation of Israel, while the two southern tribes called themselves Judah. Later, the ten tribes of Israel were conquered by the Assyrian empire. The people of Israel were then taken and forced to leave their land and live in other parts of the Assyrian empire. With this, foreign people of the Assyrian empire came and lived in the Israel geographic area of Samaria. These people mixed together by language, childbirth, and religiously. Part of what occurred is stated here. The Lord God says with other tongues (languages), He will speak to the children of Israel, yet they still will not listen and obey God.

1 Corinthians 14:22

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not…

King James Version

In other words a foreign unknown language, like Israel had with the Assyrians are not words that will cause people to believe in God and His word. Rather a foreign tongue or language differentiates one people or nation from another.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Mark Sanguinetti

[waysider]

I guess I don't understand, Mark. How can the tongues be a sign of ANYTHING if they are simply a foreign language the hearer does not understand. That happens on the subway all the time. I don't think anyone on the subway considers it a sign.

[Mark Sanguinetti]

I guess I don't understand, Mark. How can the tongues be a sign of ANYTHING if they are simply a foreign language the hearer does not understand. That happens on the subway all the time. I don't think anyone on the subway considers it a sign.

Waysider, the one verse that you have chosen to study and read from, from chapter 14, verse 22 is the least clear and most difficult to understand verse in this chapter. Even for me a student and teacher of the bible this takes time for analysis. If you are interested in this then simply read the context and see this is quoted directly after a law in the Old Testament is quoted. This verse pertains to this. My understanding of this is with my logic when it deals with unclear scripture. For more clarity read my commentary quoted in my previous post. Here are the scriptures before and after this verse to also help with clarity.

1 Corinthians 14:18-25 (Young's Literal Translation (YLT))

18 I give thanks to my God -- more than you all with tongues speaking --

19 but in an assembly I wish to speak five words through my understanding, that others also I may instruct, rather than myriads of words in an [unknown] tongue.

20 Brethren, become not children in the understanding, but in the evil be ye babes, and in the understanding become ye perfect;

21 in the law it hath been written, that, `With other tongues and with other lips I will speak to this people, and not even so will they hear Me, saith the Lord;'

22 so that the tongues are for a sign, not to the believing, but to the unbelieving; and the prophesy [is] not for the unbelieving, but for the believing,

23 If, therefore, the whole assembly may come together, to the same place, and all may speak with tongues, and there may come in unlearned or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

24 and if all may prophecy, and any one may come in, an unbeliever or unlearned, he is convicted by all, he is discerned by all,

25 and so the secrets of his heart become manifest, and so having fallen upon [his] face, he will bow before God, declaring that God really is among you.

And Waysider, your logic on this is fine. The context also agrees with your logic or as this chapter says that an unknown tongue when heard will not help the listener, but only primarily the speaker. In fact, the listener of any tongue regardless of whether this is from God or not from God, when spoken in an unknown language out loud with a listener not knowing this is something that should be for the speakers private prayer and praise to God, would not see any helpful effects at all. They might even think the speaker is crazy. This is why Paul clearly states in this chapter that tongues from the Spirit of God should be for private speech or prayer/praise to God and not done out loud. Obviously, if I or another person only SIT's silently to oneself then this will have no negative effect on you or other people. Anytime SIT is done in a gathering of people it should also be followed with the interpretation in the language of the people present in order to have any possibility of a helpful effect on the hearers of the tongue.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Mark Sanguinetti

[Steve Lortz]

" SIT does not lead folks to GOD, it's God's means to commo with his off-spring."

Well, that's not what the scripture says in I Corinthians 14:22

(Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not...)

Actually, waysider, I Corinthians 14:22 does NOT say that SIT leads people to God, it says "Therefore, tongues serve as a sign not to the speakers who are confident, but to the speakers who lack confidence..."

I've been away for a while but it's good to be back, and it's good to see all of the input from my friends here at Greasespot, and I do count you all as good friends, whether we understand and agree with each other or not! I finished what I have come to consider my rough draft for What does the Bible really say (and really NOT say) about speaking in tongues? right after New Year's, and turned it over to one of my professors to critique. He pointed out some scholarly weaknesses in it, and I set it aside to rework over this coming summer. My time has been consumed with two heavy duty classes, Literature and History of the Old Testament and Literature and History of the New Testament. Both of my professors are young rising stars in the Society of Biblical Literature, and they are holding us to professional standards in writing our exegesis papers. It is exacting work.

But a couple of weeks ago, I came down with pneumonia and spent eight days in the hospital. I took a medical withdrawal from my current classes, and will complete them when they are offered again next year. Meanwhile, I have a few weeks before my summer classes start, so I'm going to putter around with WDTBRS(ARNS)ASIT? some more.

My wife and I have been jointly seeing a clinical psychologist on a regular basis for quite some time. I have been diagnosed with the mild form of bipolar mood disorder, and my wife is a regular potpourri of mental difficulties. Our counselor wrote his doctoral dissertation on "vicarious resilience", how counselors can draw resilience from their patients as well as vicarious trauma, in order to avoid burning out. Our sessions are not conventional. Our counselor comes from an active Quaker background. I gave him a copy of my paper on tongues to read, and he says it has produced a paradigm shift in the way he has viewed tongues. So, now I've got a trained clinical psychologist checking my work on tongues, as well as professional biblical scholars!

Welcome, MRAP!

All for now...

Love,

Steve

[TLC]

You don't need spirit to speak in tongues. It's done by Non-Christians as well as Christians. Speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, not spirit. History and science demonstrate this to be the case.

What sort of assumptions as to what "spirit" is (or isn't) are you making?

(After all, didn't TWI teach that anything that had life in and of itself was spirit?)

Regardless of whether there is any uncertainty as to what the truth and reality is or isn't (concerning SIT, for instance), it appears that one of the vestiges of TWI's impingement upon thinking are the suppositions being made (or that remain) as to what is (and/or isn't) the right way to do "biblical research." Consequently, it becomes very easy to think or say that something is "plainly written," or presumed to be true, when in fact, it really isn't. It merely "fits" nicely with an accepted (and relatively common) way to analyze and promote the validity of one's "research" or basis for reality.

For instance, consider the word "tongue." Remove it from the context of any sentence, and what comes to mind? The thing that runs about inside your mouth. (This isn't rocket science.)

Now, consider what happens when this same word is used in a sentence. If it now means ANYTHING other that what came to mind when thought of by itself, then there must be an interpretation of meaning involved, and axiomatically, should no longer be referred to as something that is "plainly written," even if no other interpretation is thought possible. In other words, if I write that Kilroy had a "running off at the mouth" at the party last night, what I mean is not plainly written, even if we all generally know or understand what is meant by it. Furthermore, a translation into another language just might have a bit of trouble with it.

Can spirits speak? It's been suggested elsewhere that angels can't, so there is only a hyperbolic meaning to "tongues of angels." Yet, it appears elsewhere that angels have a voice of some kind, else there would be no "voice of the archangel," nor any words that they spake. There are many kinds of voices in the world, none of which are without significance. History and science may not be able to demonstrate it, nor understand the significance of many... but this is a doctrinal thread, and all of these things are written in the Bible.

[waysider]

What sort of assumptions as to what "spirit" is (or isn't) are you making?

(After all, didn't TWI teach that anything that had life in and of itself was spirit

I think we both know what kind of spirit I meant...small h, small s, yadda, yadda. If you want to pursue the "all life has spirit" angle, be prepared for a lengthy discussion regarding "Man as a Three Fold Being", as taught in The Way, and how, without "holy spirit", man is an empty shell, devoid of the missing part that makes him complete. The simple fact is this: The glossolalia-type speaking in tongues we were taught in The Way is not unique to Christianity.

Regardless of whether there is any uncertainty as to what the truth and reality is or isn't (concerning SIT, for instance), it appears that one of the vestiges of TWI's impingement upon thinking are the suppositions being made (or that remain) as to what is (and/or isn't) the right way to do "biblical research." Consequently, it becomes very easy to think or say that something is "plainly written," or presumed to be true, when in fact, it really isn't. It merely "fits" nicely with an accepted (and relatively common) way to analyze and promote the validity of one's "research" or basis for reality.

For instance, consider the word "tongue." Remove it from the context of any sentence, and what comes to mind? The thing that runs about inside your mouth. (This isn't rocket science.)

Now, consider what happens when this same word is used in a sentence. If it now means ANYTHING other that what came to mind when thought of by itself, then there must be an interpretation of meaning involved, and axiomatically, should no longer be referred to as something that is "plainly written," even if no other interpretation is thought possible. In other words, if I write that Kilroy had a "running off at the mouth" at the party last night, what I mean is not plainly written, even if we all generally know or understand what is meant by it. Furthermore, a translation into another language just might have a bit of trouble with it.

Can spirits speak? It's been suggested elsewhere that angels can't,

That's somewhat of a misrepresentation of what was said. What fell into question was the nature of "tongues of angels", whether they would constitute a genuine language, whether the reference was hyperbole, whether they were relevant to glossolalia, etc..

so there is only a hyperbolic meaning to "tongues of angels." Yet, it appears elsewhere that angels have a voice of some kind, else there would be no "voice of the archangel," nor any words that they spake. There are many kinds of voices in the world, none of which are without significance. History and science may not be able to demonstrate it, nor understand the significance of many... but this is a doctrinal thread, and all of these things are written in the Bible.

Lots of things are written in the Bible. Some are true, some are not. Some that are blatantly erroneous are contorted to make them appear to say the opposite of what is written. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need for a doctrinal forum. We could simply say "It's written in the Bible" and leave it at that.

*color and size adjusted by poster for emphasis.*

[Raf]

Quick comment: There is no indication that when angels speak in the Bible, they speak in anything other than human languages. If there is such a thing as "languages of angels," then it is conceivable that a person speaking in languages could produce an angelic language. I do not believe that to be the case, but that is my opinion only.

What is NOT likely by any logical stretch is that every attempt made by a disinterested third party to identify the language produced when someone speaks in languages will be an example of an angelic language, therefore not identifiable. It is perfectly fair to suggest this will happen in some cases. I don't agree, but it is not important to me that it can or cannot happen. It is NOT perfectly fair to suggest that this happens every single time someone speaks in tongues in a setting where other people are present.

You may disagree with me there. Fine. We have nothing to argue.

I think "tongues of angels" is hyperbole. But I hope I have never asserted that as anything more than my opinion.. I think I have a sound basis for it, but it is not central to anything I've suggested.

Remember, in ALL of these discussions, it takes ONE person practicing SIT to produce an identifiable language in front of a disinterested third party to prove me wrong. One. For my part, that one example has to be rock-solid documentable to be trusted. None of this "it happened to my third cousin's wife's best friend in Zimbabwe once." None of this "it happened right in front of me, but everyone involved is now dead, missing or living somewhere in Northsouthern Europe." If I am going to handicap my position so that no SIT can be disproved as language, then I think it's perfectly fair that I can set a really high standard for proving the product of someone's SIT is a language.

That took longer than I wanted. Sorry.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Raf

[waysider]

If angels spoke in a language that was not a human language, it would suggest, though not prove, there is contradiction in the Bible. In the records where they spoke to humans, the humans understood them. So, either the humans understood angelic language or the angels were speaking in a human language. It allows for the possibility, though the possibility is slim and unnecessarily confusing, in my opinion.

[TLC]

I think we both know what kind of spirit I meant...small h, small s, yadda, yadda.

Sure. But why accept anything of what TWI taught on that as being right?

Not that I'm saying everything taught was wrong. I'm only suggesting not to be bound by it.

The simple fact is this: The glossolalia-type speaking in tongues we were taught in The Way is not unique to Christianity.

I'm not disregarding the probability that what (or how) it was taught didn't always have the best (i.e., genuine) results.

But, I'm also not inclined to think that all of what resulted was disingenuous or counterfeit.

That's somewhat of a misrepresentation of what was said.

Not by much, if it is.

Lots of things are written in the Bible. Some are true, some are not.

That's an opinion, of course, which I'd agree to disagree on.

Some that are blatantly erroneous are contorted to make them appear to say the opposite of what is written. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need for a doctrinal forum. We could simply say "It's written in the Bible" and leave it at that.

*color and size adjusted by poster for emphasis.*

Even if there were no appearance of errors (...which I'm not saying is possible, but IF it were...), there still would be (and are), because of its spiritual nature, multiple possible interpretations that would need to be sorted out.

Edited February 29, 2016 by TLC

[TLC]

What is NOT likely by any logical stretch is that every attempt made by a disinterested third party to identify the language produced when someone speaks in languages will be an example of an angelic language, therefore not identifiable.

Agreed.

It is perfectly fair to suggest this will happen in some cases.

Perhaps, but I'm actually more inclined to think it makes carries more impact in 1Cor 13 as an hyperbole.

I don't agree, but it is not important to me that it can or cannot happen.

Doesn't matter much to me either.

It is NOT perfectly fair to suggest that this happens every single time someone speaks in tongues in a setting where other people are present.

And I've not said as much, unless you're equating the spirit within a man with an angel (which, I suppose might think, or there might be some basis for. I can't say that I've thought it through all that carefully from that particular angle. It'd probably become entangled with a definition of spirit, and more specifically, what exactly it does or doesn't refer to in the context of "my spirit" prayeth.)

You may disagree with me there. Fine.

Oh, we disagree on plenty alright. But maybe not in ways presumed.

Remember, in ALL of these discussions, it takes ONE person practicing SIT to produce an identifiable language in front of a disinterested third party to prove me wrong.

And I'm inclined to think there's some pretty sound reasoning for not producing the kind of proof you seem to want or need or prefer prior to believing. Proof (of every kind and variety) never seemed to do Israel very much good for hundreds of years, including on (and shortly after) the day of Pentecost. But that train don't run on some folks tracks. (Wrong side of the mirror, I guess.)

If angels spoke in a language that was not a human language, it would suggest, though not prove, there is contradiction in the Bible.

If angels spoke in a language that was not a human language, do you really think that it could be identified or defined as a language? And even if it could at one particular time or instance, does that guarantee that it could or should be every time or instance? How different is a "shout" from the voice of the archangel or the trump of God? As mentioned previously, it seems there are many kinds of voices in the world, none of which are insignificant.

Rev.4:1.

Was it the voice of a human language, or the noise like that of a trumpet speaking that he understood?

Besides, no one ever did care to discuss (or address) the (at the time seemingly irrelevant) question of how the serpent spoke to Eve in the garden.

[Raf]

We are still waiting for the relevance of the serpent speaking to Eve.

Thank you for your observations on my post. I did not mean to direct any comment at you specifically. I'm sure you knew that.

I have to say that to date, I find disagreeing with you to be quite agreeable. Your diplomacy certainly exceeds mine, and I appreciate it.

No more me, seeing as my particular argument is specifically not the thread topic. I just wanted to clarify a point.

[TLC]

I'm sure you knew that.

of course.

Your diplomacy certainly exceeds mine, and I appreciate it.

Given my obvious deficiencies there, it seems you must not think that highly of your own. (I'd never make it as a politician.)

We are still waiting for the relevance of the serpent speaking to Eve.

Well, the questions really weren't rhetorical in nature, they were Socratic (even as I warned elsewhere was part of my genetic nature.) As such, neither was it my earlier intention to answer them. If there was (or is) no interest or curiosity in discussing them, then I didn't presume or suppose that there was any point in belaboring the issue.

[TLC]

As I see it, there are different perspectives that some number of things that are written in scripture might be viewed or considered from:

1. Is it simply communicating what occurred and could have been observed using the five senses? Or,
   
2. Is it trying to explain the spiritual reason or cause for what occurred or was observed? Or,
   
3. Is it attempting to communicate a spiritual truth or reality, written in the language and terms of what is or might be either experienced, or understood, by our carnal (five physical senses oriented and conditioned) mind? Or,
   
4. Is it attempting to communicate additional information about the same spiritual truth or reality which is written using different words or in a different way that it is elsewhere in scripture.? Or,
   
5. Is it attempting to communicate something about the relationship between similar (or different) spiritual realities (all of which are expressed in the language and terms that our carnal minds might comprehend)?
   

While this probably isn't a complete or comprehensive list, perhaps it's sufficient to illustrate how (or why) whatever is written can be interpreted to mean different things, depending on "which perspective" it's viewed from or on what light it appears in.

For the record, while I do believe that the serpent speaking to Eve is something that really happened (some might refer to this as taking it to be "literal", though that probably is neither the best nor the most accurate way to express it), I do not believe that the serpent speaking to Eve is a record of something that can be understood from either perspective #1 or #2. Therefore, I see the reality of their communication outweighing how or by what means (or "language") they did (or didn't) use. When it comes to understanding how spiritual things fit or work in relationship to each other, as difficult or as impossible as it might sound, it seems to me that they may need to be "tracked" independent from the way we have all been conditioned to think - utilizing only the information that is known to us by, or through use of, our five senses. Perhaps this helps explain why the "intelligent" mind doesn't generally equate to (and rarely relates) to things intended or designed to be insync with that which is "spiritual."

My apologies if this is long, confusing, or about as clear as mud, as it is not easy for me to express myself in a better or more concise way on difficult to understand issues such as this. But any effort to shorten it would seem to oversimplify what is, from any angle, a hard to understand point.

[chockfull]

Just one quibble:

Again, emphasis mine.

And again, I defy you or anyone else to produce this "evidence." The studies that have been done, that have failed to detect known languages, are all of Pentecostals, not of TWI people. The evidence that exists indicates that Pentecostals are not producing languages. So to say I am rejecting SIT because of Wierwille's chicanery is actually 180 degrees incorrect. The only evidence there is to examine is of Pentecostals, not Wierwillites. (And it should be clear that I am not counting unsubstantiated anecdotes as "evidence").

I don't see an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of speaking in tongues. In fact, I don't see evidence at all. 100 percent of the evidence that we can substantiate supports the proposition that SIT is nothing more than free vocalization, with no supernatural element to it at all.

I'm not going to argue about what you believe versus what I believe. That's between you and your God. But when you start talking about "the evidence," you step outside the realm of personal faith and into the realm of what can be objectively shown.

So I'm going to chime in here because I think that what "evidence" has shown is a little different than what you are projecting here. If I recall correctly, the "failed to detect known languages" part of your statement is correct. However, to jump to the conclusion from there that "the evidence that exists indicates that Pentecostals are not producing languages" is 100% false.

The linguistic examination showed that what was being spoken was "similar to" known languages in that constructs could be seen such as sentences and paragraphs as opposed to just uttering gibberish. And that's where it ends. Not provable either way.

[Raf]

Fair enough, Chockfull.

I tried to use the word "indicates" to distinguish from "proved," because if you're following this conversation over various threads, you know that I agree that nothing has been or can be proved. I can use words like "suggests" or something similar, but I concede I cannot use "proved" or "proves."

Edited March 3, 2016 by Raf

[WordWolf]

(snip)

The linguistic examination showed that what was being spoken was "similar to" known languages in that constructs could be seen such as sentences and paragraphs as opposed to just uttering gibberish. And that's where it ends. Not provable either way.

A) Did I miss something?

The constructs were conclusively shown to actually have a structure of sentences

and paragraphs?

B) "as opposed to just uttering gibberish" doesn't follow from

"it was organized into sentences and paragraphs."

Gibberish can be organized into sentences and paragraphs,

and we're trying not to use the word "gibberish" because it's a loaded

term with pejorative connotations. So, I'm unsure what YOU mean by it.

(Another reason to avoid it-usage is INCONSISTENT.)

[Raf]

Samarin observed a superficial similarity between SIT and lantuage, including the apparent breakdown of utterances into sentences and paragraphs. In no way did he suggest that these actually WERE sentences and paragraphs; only that they sounded like them.

[waysider]

Samarin observed a superficial similarity between SIT and lantuage, including the apparent breakdown of utterances into sentences and paragraphs. In no way did he suggest that these actually WERE sentences and paragraphs; only that they sounded like them.

Making them sound like sentences and paragraphs was the purpose of excellor sessions. Why else would we have needed these sessions other than to enhance their theatrical-like presentation?