Plenty of people believe the Bible is true but modern SIT is not. I am not among them, so it would be dishonest of me to weigh in, except in trying to see what the Bible says on an intellectual level. I'm not averse to that. BUT at that point we're no longer questioning faith and it's a purely doctrinal question. An atheist view, I've found, is not welcome in such discussions.
Yes yes, but there's common courtesy. You don't really want me venturing into every thread in doctrinal and saying "you know this was all made up by iron age goat herders who didn't know where the sun goes at night, don't you?" I mean, even I would get bored. Plus it's rude.
Yes yes, but there's common courtesy. You don't really want me venturing into every thread in doctrinal and saying "you know this was all made up by iron age goat herders who didn't know where the sun goes at night, don't you?" I mean, even I would get bored. Plus it's rude.
I'm not convinced Holden Caulfield would have seen it that way.
Raf, the reason... and namely, the effect of it... is for my private prayer and relationship with the Lord. It is not, nor have I ever seriously thought of it as, anything but that. And if it has never failed in serving that purpose for over 40 years, I could care less whether you or anyone else thinks its a "language" that was or can be known by any man. Matter of fact, it's so "out there" on the scale of oddity, I'd be surprised if anyone (that's ever heard it) has ever thought it were a language, much less anyone being able to prove it was. So aside from what it does for and means to me... yeah, it's useless babble. Powerful... yet apparently useless. What a conundrum.
The reason I STILL do the "modern SIT" at times is because it is not 100% useless. Like many other things, it can be used as a focusing aid. If you want to clear your thoughts quickly, you need a focus and some practice. "Modern SIT" fits both criteria. Once you're focused, you can do whatever secular activity you needed focusing for, or engage in whatever prayer activity you needed focusing for. There's examples in the Bible of people doing things like walking, listening to music, and so on, just to get focused the same way. Since then, there have been a number of methods people have used, around the world and down the centuries, all for focusing. Raking a garden, chopping wood, carrying water, gardening, and so on. None of those, in and of themselves, are some sort of spiritual or supernatural activity. But if you are prepping FOR a supernatural activity, one of them might be your tool of choice to use FIRST.
Going back to the original topic, you are asking for evidence that isn't required by anyone in the bible on SIT. There is nothing in the bible to indicate that you have to prove you are speaking in a language to know you are speaking in tongues. (snip)
Not phrased precisely that way, no. However, without identifiable languages, both the incidents in Acts 2 (Pentecost) and Acts 10 (household of Cornelius and the first Gentile converts) would be forgotten moments in history where some people prayed and then went their separate ways.
So you think when paul said he will pray with understanding and also with the spirit, by spirit he is saying a language that he doesn't understand yet is a known language? If hes saying he will pray with understanding then it follows that praying in the spirit means praying without understanding whats hes saying. We have only one example of SIT where people could understand what people SIT were saying. But I don't see any verse or the way paul talks about speaking in tongues in the epistles to think that it must be a decode able known language or fit under known language rules.
You really don't seem to be able to have a discussion on this topic without thinking someone is attacking you, yet most of your posts are just attacks on others and you take offense at the tiniest slight which is just a disagreement but no intention to offend you. Lower your defense mechanisms, and a reasonable discussion can be had here, but until you do, you are just going to create a hostile environment where you think everyone is attacking you so you attack a perceived threat that doesn't actually exist.
It's embarrassing that this point still has to be made, when even vpw made it one of the most basic ones. The Biblical SIT was unintelligible TO THE SPEAKER. He trusted that God provided an utterance, and God responded by providing an utterance in a language the speaker did not speak. In Acts 2, the Jewish eyewitnesses were rather clear that they understood the meaning of what those Galileans were saying, in a variety of languages, and that they were confused because they didn't think it was perfectly normal for them to have known more than a dozen represented languages, which they were speaking correctly. So, Paul was clear that HE didn't understand tongues when he prayed alone. (Potentially, if someone eavesdropped on his private prayer, they might have understood every word-providing the utterances were provided in a language they knew but Paul did not.)
If you don't want Raf to think anyone's attacking him, stop making personal attacks on him. That should improve his mood considerably. Making the thread about him is just another smokescreen. BTW, in case I haven't repeated it enough, I'm a Christian who is now fully persuaded that the "SIT" we were taught is nothing like the Biblical example- but I'd sure like to find the real thing if it's actually out there here and now.
If I'm right about SIT AND Christianity is true, then Christians need to decide the consequences on their understanding of scripture. I've already outlined three possibilities: I'm right, SIT is not available. I'm right, SIT IS available but what we did ain't it. I'm wrong but no one's proved it.
I'm not asking you to join me in believing the Bible is not true. The way I see it, that leaves you with three choices. The fourth, in my opinion, is to redefine Biblical SIT. You see how much patience I have with that.
Based on what I've seen, the stuff I've seen/done in twi/ in the twi style bears little real resemblance to the Biblical practice. That means I have neither seen nor done the Biblical practice. I am open to the idea that it is still "available", but I'm not going to just run up and embrace the next new thing as actually that. I'm going to give it a long, hard look and see if it can pass for the Biblical thing before forming an INFORMED OPINION. So, you can call me "agnostic" as to whether it CAN be done now. I say the twi-style thing is NOT it. If it's practiced elsewhere in the correct manner, that would be WELCOME NEWS to me-which I would examine very, very closely because the stakes are too high to just leap to another conclusion.
I don't think SIT is impressive to anyone who doesn't believe it is possible or believe in what the bible says about it. If I am christian who does not speak in tongues but heard about it and believe it has power behind it then I would be impressed by people who can do it. However if I am a person who knows nothing about SIT or doesn't believe it has any relevance then it wouldn't be impressive.
To be clear, as someone who does not believe the Bible and doesn't think this stunt is possible, if you were to SIT and produce a language you had not previously learned, the only problem I would have with the word "impressed" is that it would be a PROFOUND understatement.
Free vocalization doesn't impress me. Likewise, chewing gum doesn't impress me. I mean, nothing that anyone can do impresses me.
And that was why we had practice sessions.... to enhance our theatrical presentation. The more you practiced, the better you got at delivering a persuasive presentation.
like in the video above . . . You could argue . . . if you are good and throwing sounds around to fake language . . . you can be good at throwing points around in English to sound like you are being logical . . . and making points . . . as in a teaching in TWIG . . . jumping from verse out of context to verse out of context . . . but with enthusiasm . . . en theos . . . you know what I'm sayin' . . .
like in the video above . . . You could argue . . . if you are good and throwing sounds around to fake language . . . you can be good at throwing points around in English to sound like you are being logical . . . and making points . . . as in a teaching in TWIG . . . jumping from verse out of context to verse out of context . . . but with enthusiasm . . . en theos . . . you know what I'm sayin' . . .
The reason I STILL do the "modern SIT" at times is because it is not 100% useless. Like many other things, it can be used as a focusing aid. If you want to clear your thoughts quickly, you need a focus and some practice. "Modern SIT" fits both criteria. Once you're focused, you can do whatever secular activity you needed focusing for, or engage in whatever prayer activity you needed focusing for. There's examples in the Bible of people doing things like walking, listening to music, and so on, just to get focused the same way. Since then, there have been a number of methods people have used, around the world and down the centuries, all for focusing. Raking a garden, chopping wood, carrying water, gardening, and so on. None of those, in and of themselves, are some sort of spiritual or supernatural activity. But if you are prepping FOR a supernatural activity, one of them might be your tool of choice to use FIRST.
The inference is, of course, that you don't have or see any uses for it aside from that. Which (as you already likely know), is not the same "effect" or benefits that I spoke of. However, I've given up trying to steer any further discussion of this towards a consideration of what effect or benefits Paul might have written in scripture about SIT. (None here appear to have any interest in or concern about that, as long as there's no "proof" of a language.)
As stated once in a doctrinal thread (over a year ago), I believe it's an issue of hermeneutics. I don't know how to link to these posts over in the doctrinal side, but here they are:
On 2/20/2016 at 7:28 AM, TLC said:
The issue at hand here is one of hermeneutics.
If the approach to understanding SIT is one that demands objectivity and objective proof, which appears to me to run contrary to its very design and divine intent, then any effort to interpret the scripture referencing it will inevitably lead one away from its truth. However, if God had reason and use for it [SIT] in the early first century, why would He not also have reason and use for it now? Unless, or until, someone can offer a sincere, sensible and honest answer to at least that one question, I think all of this "language" stuff is going to continue spinning in circles.
And the following post never received a response (that I know of):
On 2/6/2016 at 9:29 AM, TLC said:
What is the actual point or purpose of it? (I'm referring to speaking in tongues.)
The purpose of Speaking in Tongues is to loosen people minds, or, reduce critical thinking enough that they will accept TWI doctrine and direction. It aids in building non-coherency.
It is a sign to the unbeliever, to walk away, now.
Listen, listing the benefits of SIT without establishing that what you're doing is SIT is your business. I could make a similar list of the benefits of meditation. The benefits of free vocalization. The benefits of sitting in a corner repeatedly running your index finger over your lips and saying "budibbidabubbidadibbidabubbida" until just after midnight, and you may actually EXPERIENCE those benefits. But those benefits don't define what you're doing as a manifestation of the spirit.
That doesn't mean you're not experiencing the benefits. But name one benefit that is not subjective, that is not a feeling in your gut, a fire in your belly. Name one benefit that cannot be explained in natural terms.
Speaking in tongues is, in the Bible, a manifestation of the spirit. The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, ... etc. So if you have the spirit and live by it, you should see the benefits of love, joy, peace, etc. in your life.
But it doesn't work in reverse. You can have love, joy, peace, patience, etc... and neither have nor claim to have "spirit."
So the benefits do not prove anything. More power to you if you experience them. That's great. But we're just not talking about a "manifestation of the spirit."
Speaking in tongues. What IS it? Biblically, what are we talking about? Languages. You speak, and a language comes out. You, the speaker, do not understand the language. But it's a language. If it's not, if what you produce is indistinguishable from what I produce when I fake it, then how is it a manifestation of the spirit? It's not. It's only distinguishable if we produce different outcomes. I produce sounds that may bear some superficial resemblance to language, while you produce French, Guyanese, Swahili, German, Cantonese. Point is, you don't know it when you're speaking it, but it's a language, every time.
Now, when you say you speak in tongues, that is a claim you are making. It is different from the claim I am making about what I produced. So how do we tell a fake from the real thing? The benefits? Nope. We've already established that the benefits can be achieved without the act, so the presence of the benefits do not prove... anything. But, if you claim to be doing something I am not, then you should be producing something I am not. And the Bible tells us what that something is: a language.
So, what's the language you're producing?
Now, you don't want to go in that direction. Fine. Then, I humbly submit, it's on you to stop arguing the point. Really. Just stop. I have not asked a single person for proof who is not engaging me in this discussion. Every single time you insist you're not faking it, I'm going to ask you to identify the language.
"But I get spiritual insight into..." What language do you produce?
"But I get a sense of inner peace that..." What language do you produce?
"But I experience..." What. Language. Do. You. Produce?
Because you can get "spiritual insight," inner peace and all those other wonderful qualities without SIT, and I contend you are. But you can't produce a language without SIT. So what language do you produce?
"Well, just because you faked it doesn't mean..." No, you're right. It doesn't. But when I was faking it, I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles yay high that I wasn't, that it was real, darnit. That it was the power of God. Because I fooled myself into believing that. And when you fool yourself, it takes an awful lot to admit it. Your unwillingness to admit it is proof of just how much it takes. Why, some of you would rather assassinate my character than admit I've got you pegged.
Yes, we can disagree on premises. Sure, the Bible doesn't really mean "languages" when it says "speaking in languages." Tongues of angels is literal. Blah blah blah. Ok. Fine. Whatever you'd like.
But in doing so, you concede something significant: You're not producing anything, ANYTHING distinguishable from what I produced when I faked it.
This is a link to the doctrinal thread the previous comments were posted in (around page 8 or 9.), which is likely the better place for any sort of (biblical) continuation.
" However, I've given up trying to steer any further discussion of this towards a consideration of what effect or benefits Paul might have written in scripture about SIT. (None here appear to have any interest in or concern about that, as long as there's no "proof" of a language.) "
If we were discussing the Gifts of Healings, and you came in, and insisted they referred to the miraculous deliverance that occurred after bed-rest and drinking fluids, we wouldn't consider that an appropriate direction to "steer" the discussion. There's a demonstrable difference between an instant miracle of healing (or a healing in seconds rather than days, say) and what anyone else can do. And if the mundane was labelled "The Gifts of Healings" by your favorite teacher, the only real connection between them would be the label that was added to the mundane. It does a disservice to the supernatural. It is an insult to the miraculous. And if it's the best you can do if someone's looking to discuss something GENUINELY miraculous, then it certainly makes it look like you've got squat rather than a divine connection.
TLC, if you could tell me what number I'm thinking of right now, I would consider that a decent demonstration of word of knowledge. I'll send it to Chockfull in a private message. Chockfull and I are in disagreement, but I trust Chockfull to be honest and not disclose the number to you. So I will send Chockfull the number and you can, by word of knowledge, ask God to tell you what that number is, you tell us, and Chockfull will tell you whether it's right or wrong. Do we have a deal?
Oh, word of knowledge doesn't work that way? (Here we go again, folks!)
Ok, let's try gifts of healings. You, me and 100 evangelicals on one side, one cancer ward on the other. And... go!
Oh, That doesn't work that way either? Shoot. I'm running out of manifestations.
Ok, let's try...
Look, SIT is a testable claim in a way that word of knowledge is not. TWI sold "word of intuition" as "word of knowledge." And it's selling free vocalization as SIT.
Look, SIT is a testable claim in a way that word of knowledge is not.
According to who or what ...PFAL? ...Hoyle? ...Raf?
You have but one (and only one) criteria that you have all your trust and efforts pinned to. And anyone that is not a very highly trained expert in the field or art of linguistics essentially has no chance whatsoever at knowing or recognizing what is or isn't "genuine" aside from putting their complete trust and faith in another "more intelligent" man than themselves and becoming reliant on them to confirm (or deny) the truth and reality of it.
Yeah, man.. that sure fits with the way God has operated throughout all history...
The Bible. Language. According to common sense. According to the Biblical definition of speaking in tongues and reasonable inferences drawn from that definition.
You make a testable claim, you're bound by it. That goes for me and for you and for the Bible.
Assuming the Bible to be true, SIT produces a language. That's not according to me. that's according to the Bible.
So you can try to turn it back to me all you want. You can say that I am requiring something unfair. But all I'm doing (unlike you) is taking the Bible at its word and you at your word. If you're not faking it, you're producing what the Bible says you will produce. The Bible says you will produce a language, according to the Bible. So... what language do you produce?
I thought not.
This whole "Raf is being unfair by setting arbitrary criteria" trope is really, REALLY old by now. You really ought to stop embarrassing yourself by resurrecting it only to watch it get debunked every single time.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
95
23
22
27
Popular Days
Mar 23
59
Mar 14
36
Mar 20
32
Mar 13
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 95 posts
WordWolf 23 posts
waysider 22 posts
chockfull 27 posts
Popular Days
Mar 23 2017
59 posts
Mar 14 2017
36 posts
Mar 20 2017
32 posts
Mar 13 2017
16 posts
Popular Posts
Bolshevik
The purpose of Speaking in Tongues is to loosen people minds, or, reduce critical thinking enough that they will accept TWI doctrine and direction. It aids in building non-coherency. It is a sig
Bolshevik
I had thought for a time people who'd never heard SIT would be impressed. Isn't that why we're trying to get them to TWIG? To be wowed by what we take for granted? . . . what? . . . THAT didn'
Raf
It's almost impossible to believe this is an honest question. What good would it do to objectively prove the supernatural? He seriously asked that question. First off, it would win the
Raf
Plenty of people believe the Bible is true but modern SIT is not. I am not among them, so it would be dishonest of me to weigh in, except in trying to see what the Bible says on an intellectual level. I'm not averse to that. BUT at that point we're no longer questioning faith and it's a purely doctrinal question. An atheist view, I've found, is not welcome in such discussions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Atheists should not be excluded from doctrinal discussions, especially when it comes to dissecting finer academic points.
A book discussion group can have a valid discussion of a fictional novel while recognizing that the characters in it aren't real people.
For example, What do you think Holden Caulfield (The Catcher in the Rye) meant when he said blah, blah, blah?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yes yes, but there's common courtesy. You don't really want me venturing into every thread in doctrinal and saying "you know this was all made up by iron age goat herders who didn't know where the sun goes at night, don't you?" I mean, even I would get bored. Plus it's rude.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm not convinced Holden Caulfield would have seen it that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Big phony.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The reason I STILL do the "modern SIT" at times is because it is not 100% useless. Like many other things, it can be used as a focusing aid. If you want to clear your thoughts quickly, you need a focus and some practice. "Modern SIT" fits both criteria. Once you're focused, you can do whatever secular activity you needed focusing for, or engage in whatever prayer activity you needed focusing for. There's examples in the Bible of people doing things like walking, listening to music, and so on, just to get focused the same way. Since then, there have been a number of methods people have used, around the world and down the centuries, all for focusing. Raking a garden, chopping wood, carrying water, gardening, and so on. None of those, in and of themselves, are some sort of spiritual or supernatural activity. But if you are prepping FOR a supernatural activity, one of them might be your tool of choice to use FIRST.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Not phrased precisely that way, no. However, without identifiable languages, both the incidents in Acts 2 (Pentecost) and Acts 10 (household of Cornelius and the first Gentile converts) would be forgotten moments in history where some people prayed and then went their separate ways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's embarrassing that this point still has to be made, when even vpw made it one of the most basic ones. The Biblical SIT was unintelligible TO THE SPEAKER. He trusted that God provided an utterance, and God responded by providing an utterance in a language the speaker did not speak. In Acts 2, the Jewish eyewitnesses were rather clear that they understood the meaning of what those Galileans were saying, in a variety of languages, and that they were confused because they didn't think it was perfectly normal for them to have known more than a dozen represented languages, which they were speaking correctly. So, Paul was clear that HE didn't understand tongues when he prayed alone. (Potentially, if someone eavesdropped on his private prayer, they might have understood every word-providing the utterances were provided in a language they knew but Paul did not.)
If you don't want Raf to think anyone's attacking him, stop making personal attacks on him. That should improve his mood considerably. Making the thread about him is just another smokescreen. BTW, in case I haven't repeated it enough, I'm a Christian who is now fully persuaded that the "SIT" we were taught is nothing like the Biblical example- but I'd sure like to find the real thing if it's actually out there here and now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Based on what I've seen, the stuff I've seen/done in twi/ in the twi style bears little real resemblance to the Biblical practice. That means I have neither seen nor done the Biblical practice. I am open to the idea that it is still "available", but I'm not going to just run up and embrace the next new thing as actually that. I'm going to give it a long, hard look and see if it can pass for the Biblical thing before forming an INFORMED OPINION. So, you can call me "agnostic" as to whether it CAN be done now. I say the twi-style thing is NOT it. If it's practiced elsewhere in the correct manner, that would be WELCOME NEWS to me-which I would examine very, very closely because the stakes are too high to just leap to another conclusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
To be clear, as someone who does not believe the Bible and doesn't think this stunt is possible, if you were to SIT and produce a language you had not previously learned, the only problem I would have with the word "impressed" is that it would be a PROFOUND understatement.
Free vocalization doesn't impress me. Likewise, chewing gum doesn't impress me. I mean, nothing that anyone can do impresses me.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Challenge Accepted
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I stand corrected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Reincarnation of Professor Irwin Corey?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
like in the video above . . . You could argue . . . if you are good and throwing sounds around to fake language . . . you can be good at throwing points around in English to sound like you are being logical . . . and making points . . . as in a teaching in TWIG . . . jumping from verse out of context to verse out of context . . . but with enthusiasm . . . en theos . . . you know what I'm sayin' . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Absolutely!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
The inference is, of course, that you don't have or see any uses for it aside from that. Which (as you already likely know), is not the same "effect" or benefits that I spoke of. However, I've given up trying to steer any further discussion of this towards a consideration of what effect or benefits Paul might have written in scripture about SIT. (None here appear to have any interest in or concern about that, as long as there's no "proof" of a language.)
As stated once in a doctrinal thread (over a year ago), I believe it's an issue of hermeneutics. I don't know how to link to these posts over in the doctrinal side, but here they are:
And the following post never received a response (that I know of):
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The purpose of Speaking in Tongues is to loosen people minds, or, reduce critical thinking enough that they will accept TWI doctrine and direction. It aids in building non-coherency.
It is a sign to the unbeliever, to walk away, now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, I'll bite.
Listen, listing the benefits of SIT without establishing that what you're doing is SIT is your business. I could make a similar list of the benefits of meditation. The benefits of free vocalization. The benefits of sitting in a corner repeatedly running your index finger over your lips and saying "budibbidabubbidadibbidabubbida" until just after midnight, and you may actually EXPERIENCE those benefits. But those benefits don't define what you're doing as a manifestation of the spirit.
That doesn't mean you're not experiencing the benefits. But name one benefit that is not subjective, that is not a feeling in your gut, a fire in your belly. Name one benefit that cannot be explained in natural terms.
Speaking in tongues is, in the Bible, a manifestation of the spirit. The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, ... etc. So if you have the spirit and live by it, you should see the benefits of love, joy, peace, etc. in your life.
But it doesn't work in reverse. You can have love, joy, peace, patience, etc... and neither have nor claim to have "spirit."
So the benefits do not prove anything. More power to you if you experience them. That's great. But we're just not talking about a "manifestation of the spirit."
Speaking in tongues. What IS it? Biblically, what are we talking about? Languages. You speak, and a language comes out. You, the speaker, do not understand the language. But it's a language. If it's not, if what you produce is indistinguishable from what I produce when I fake it, then how is it a manifestation of the spirit? It's not. It's only distinguishable if we produce different outcomes. I produce sounds that may bear some superficial resemblance to language, while you produce French, Guyanese, Swahili, German, Cantonese. Point is, you don't know it when you're speaking it, but it's a language, every time.
Now, when you say you speak in tongues, that is a claim you are making. It is different from the claim I am making about what I produced. So how do we tell a fake from the real thing? The benefits? Nope. We've already established that the benefits can be achieved without the act, so the presence of the benefits do not prove... anything. But, if you claim to be doing something I am not, then you should be producing something I am not. And the Bible tells us what that something is: a language.
So, what's the language you're producing?
Now, you don't want to go in that direction. Fine. Then, I humbly submit, it's on you to stop arguing the point. Really. Just stop. I have not asked a single person for proof who is not engaging me in this discussion. Every single time you insist you're not faking it, I'm going to ask you to identify the language.
"But I get spiritual insight into..." What language do you produce?
"But I get a sense of inner peace that..." What language do you produce?
"But I experience..." What. Language. Do. You. Produce?
Because you can get "spiritual insight," inner peace and all those other wonderful qualities without SIT, and I contend you are. But you can't produce a language without SIT. So what language do you produce?
"Well, just because you faked it doesn't mean..." No, you're right. It doesn't. But when I was faking it, I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles yay high that I wasn't, that it was real, darnit. That it was the power of God. Because I fooled myself into believing that. And when you fool yourself, it takes an awful lot to admit it. Your unwillingness to admit it is proof of just how much it takes. Why, some of you would rather assassinate my character than admit I've got you pegged.
Yes, we can disagree on premises. Sure, the Bible doesn't really mean "languages" when it says "speaking in languages." Tongues of angels is literal. Blah blah blah. Ok. Fine. Whatever you'd like.
But in doing so, you concede something significant: You're not producing anything, ANYTHING distinguishable from what I produced when I faked it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
This is a link to the doctrinal thread the previous comments were posted in (around page 8 or 9.), which is likely the better place for any sort of (biblical) continuation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
" However, I've given up trying to steer any further discussion of this towards a consideration of what effect or benefits Paul might have written in scripture about SIT. (None here appear to have any interest in or concern about that, as long as there's no "proof" of a language.) "
If we were discussing the Gifts of Healings, and you came in, and insisted they referred to the miraculous deliverance that occurred after bed-rest and drinking fluids, we wouldn't consider that an appropriate direction to "steer" the discussion. There's a demonstrable difference between an instant miracle of healing (or a healing in seconds rather than days, say) and what anyone else can do. And if the mundane was labelled "The Gifts of Healings" by your favorite teacher, the only real connection between them would be the label that was added to the mundane. It does a disservice to the supernatural. It is an insult to the miraculous. And if it's the best you can do if someone's looking to discuss something GENUINELY miraculous, then it certainly makes it look like you've got squat rather than a divine connection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So is word of knowledge. Do you likewise think that some kind of objective proof exists or is required for it to be valid?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
TLC, if you could tell me what number I'm thinking of right now, I would consider that a decent demonstration of word of knowledge. I'll send it to Chockfull in a private message. Chockfull and I are in disagreement, but I trust Chockfull to be honest and not disclose the number to you. So I will send Chockfull the number and you can, by word of knowledge, ask God to tell you what that number is, you tell us, and Chockfull will tell you whether it's right or wrong. Do we have a deal?
Oh, word of knowledge doesn't work that way? (Here we go again, folks!)
Ok, let's try gifts of healings. You, me and 100 evangelicals on one side, one cancer ward on the other. And... go!
Oh, That doesn't work that way either? Shoot. I'm running out of manifestations.
Ok, let's try...
Look, SIT is a testable claim in a way that word of knowledge is not. TWI sold "word of intuition" as "word of knowledge." And it's selling free vocalization as SIT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
According to who or what ...PFAL? ...Hoyle? ...Raf?
You have but one (and only one) criteria that you have all your trust and efforts pinned to. And anyone that is not a very highly trained expert in the field or art of linguistics essentially has no chance whatsoever at knowing or recognizing what is or isn't "genuine" aside from putting their complete trust and faith in another "more intelligent" man than themselves and becoming reliant on them to confirm (or deny) the truth and reality of it.
Yeah, man.. that sure fits with the way God has operated throughout all history...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
According to...
The Bible. Language. According to common sense. According to the Biblical definition of speaking in tongues and reasonable inferences drawn from that definition.
You make a testable claim, you're bound by it. That goes for me and for you and for the Bible.
Assuming the Bible to be true, SIT produces a language. That's not according to me. that's according to the Bible.
So you can try to turn it back to me all you want. You can say that I am requiring something unfair. But all I'm doing (unlike you) is taking the Bible at its word and you at your word. If you're not faking it, you're producing what the Bible says you will produce. The Bible says you will produce a language, according to the Bible. So... what language do you produce?
I thought not.
This whole "Raf is being unfair by setting arbitrary criteria" trope is really, REALLY old by now. You really ought to stop embarrassing yourself by resurrecting it only to watch it get debunked every single time.
Edited by RafLink 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.