I remember taking spanish in 5th & 6th grade & absolutely flunking both attempts (they were nice and gave me a C I thinkLOL..but in my mind I just couldn't grasp it)
So 9 years when I spoke in tongues, even though I had no instruction in it..I simply had heard someone do it & told God I wanted it..& presto..there I am rattling away with this "drop dead gorgeous language.." well if thats NOT supernatural..then I wonder what it is.. The language has changed on me three separate times(over the years)..due to ??.. As one would think if I were pondering what to speak,,it wouldn't be THAT different 3 times..LOL..so yeh its a manifestation (evidence) for us while on the planet & I believe Jude l ;20..along with several other verses that are about others..like perfect intercession.. thats my opinion & belief of course..you're entitled to yours & me to mine right??
I remember taking spanish in 5th & 6th grade & absolutely flunking both attempts (they were nice and gave me a C I thinkLOL..but in my mind I just couldn't grasp it)
So 9 years when I spoke in tongues, even though I had no instruction in it..I simply had heard someone do it & told God I wanted it..& presto..there I am rattling away with this "drop dead gorgeous language.." well if thats NOT supernatural..then I wonder what it is.. The language has changed on me three separate times(over the years)..due to ??.. As one would think if I were pondering what to speak,,it wouldn't be THAT different 3 times..LOL..so yeh its a manifestation (evidence) for us while on the planet & I believe Jude l ;20..along with several other verses that are about others..like perfect intercession.. thats my opinion & belief of course..you're entitled to yours & me to mine right??
mmph
mmmpphh mmmmmphhh
mmmmphhh!!!!!!!!
MMMPH!!!!
You are indeed entitled to your opinion and belief.
You are not entitled to make assertions of fact without anyone challenging the assertion.
Prove you produced a language. "It sounded like one to me" is not proof.
You don't have to "ponder" what to speak to fake a language. In fact, you have to NOT, surprisingly enough. We discussed this ad nauseum in another thread. Feel free to explore it. It got a little out of hand at times (mea culpa) but the gist of the thread holds up.
Maybe he’s totally FOS? Self-delusion, especially Messianic Complex types, is clinically obvious, but worse, the Elmer Gantry con-man spiel to cover-up gross hypocrisy is on rampant display. This guy is dangerous, especially to women. Be careful ladies!
I don't think one has to be a con man to have fooled himself into thinking he has spoken in tongues. To the contrary, I believe that every last one of us fooled ourselves into thinking we did it. It wasn't because we were liars or dishonest. It was because we:
1. genuinely wanted to do what we felt the Bible said was possible for us to do.
2. sincerely believed we were taught a method for doing it.
3. Basked in the mutual encouragement that congratulated each other for doing it once we got over hump of letting the sounds out.
4. Sincerely believed our teachers when they said not to believe that "Satanic" voice in the backs of our heads saying this was "just us."
We talked ourselves into it. And we did it for SO MANY YEARS that to this day, some of us are unwilling to admit that we fooled ourselves as readily as we tried to fool each other. At no point do I believe this is a matter of malice. It was "wanna" beefed up by massive doses of "God said it, that settles it."
But ask them what language they produced, and then sit back and wait for the excuses to fly.
But ask them what language they produced, and then sit back and wait for the excuses to fly
After 30 odd years, I’m still trying to sort out speaking in tongues. My question is the following: There are about 7,100 *known* languages in the world today. How would I or anyone else be able to produce to someone what *unknown* language I’m speaking with that many *known* languages in the world?
I hope I’m being clear. I’m sincerely looking for an answer. Who would believe they are actually speaking in an *unknown* language, then actually seek out a language expert to verify that they are actually speaking a *known* language?
Did I hear people speak in tongues before I did? Yes. Does my tongue even sound remotely like theirs? No. Is it one of the *known* languages in the world. No friggin’ idea.
Again, thanks for your response Raf, or anyone else that chooses to contribute.
I'm just going to fall back on "we discussed this ad nauseum" and leave it at that. Feel free to DM me, WordWolf (for a believer who agreed with me) or Chockfull (for a believer who disagreed with me) if you'd like a recap. That goes for anyone reading.
I'm just going to fall back on "we discussed this ad nauseum" and leave it at that. Feel free to DM me, WordWolf (for a believer who agreed with me) or Chockfull (for a believer who disagreed with me) if you'd like a recap. That goes for anyone reading.
Thanks Raf. I’ll just search through the previous discussion(s) and go from there.
I'm just going to fall back on "we discussed this ad nauseum" and leave it at that. Feel free to DM me, WordWolf (for a believer who agreed with me) or Chockfull (for a believer who disagreed with me) if you'd like a recap. That goes for anyone reading.
To be a bit more specific, when we began the discussionS, I disagreed with him, period, not the least for his approach. As the discussions unfolded, I followed what was said, and considered all the posts as well as all the responses I could make to every post. As it turned out, I was unable to refute the points made for one side, and attempts to refute it tended to center around fuzzing issues and obscuring them- the opposite of actually ANSWERING them, as I saw it. In short, the position advanced by twi and BGL had squat. (That was highlighted when I pointed out I had been hoping to see a post that brought up even one thing I had never considered, and was asked to post an example of something I had never considered, which is a lot like asking someone for an example of something they've forgotten.) So, I REVERSED positions on this issue. I don't have to LIKE truth to FACE truth, and that had been one of my core beliefs for a very long time. So, I'd be a believer who disagreed with him initially but later reversed positions to agree with him. (I didn't start the discussions agreeing with him.)
It should also be noted that I was a believer when I came to this conclusion, so abandoning Christianity is absolutely not necessary to reach the same conclusion I reached.
My question is the following: There are about 7,100 *known* languages in the world today. How would I or anyone else be able to produce to someone what *unknown* language I’m speaking with that many *known* languages in the world
Long answer made really, really short: Genuine languages have identifiable structural components. A linguist does not have to identify a particular language in order to know if it fulfills the structural requirements. S.I.T. has never been shown to meet that threshold.
It should also be noted that I was a believer when I came to this conclusion, so abandoning Christianity is absolutely not necessary to reach the same conclusion I reached.
The other way, it could have been taken to mean that we all started the discussions on our respective "sides", and stayed there. I reversed my position based on the discussions (and my own thoughts concerning the subject and the discussions), so obviously there was something there to get me to at least think about changing positions.
Oh, and if anyone thought that this is an all-or-nothing deal- as someone suggested once- that someone either has to swallow what we were taught and say that was supernatural, or abandon the concept that God Almighty exists and works mightily in ANY supernatural ways ("false dilemma" which was a silly reason to hang onto a position), I say "No you don't- I'm right here!"
Long answer made really, really short: Genuine languages have identifiable structural components. A linguist does not have to identify a particular language in order to know if it fulfills the structural requirements. S.I.T. has never been shown to meet that threshold.
Yes. For further discussion, please go back a page in this thread and follow the links to your threads of choice for the discussions of choice.
The other way, it could have been taken to mean that we all started the discussions on our respective "sides", and stayed there. I reversed my position based on the discussions (and my own thoughts concerning the subject and the discussions), so obviously there was something there to get me to at least think about changing positions.
Oh, and if anyone thought that this is an all-or-nothing deal- as someone suggested once- that someone either has to swallow what we were taught and say that was supernatural, or abandon the concept that God Almighty exists and works mightily in ANY supernatural ways ("false dilemma" which was a silly reason to hang onto a position), I say "No you don't- I'm right here!"
We did not discuss interpretation and prophecy as extensively, but the answer there is extraordinarily simple.
In those so-called "manifestations," we relied on our own languages, so we can't just say "wow, how did I do that?"
We did it very simply.
"Extemporaneous speech" is when we are able to relate something that is unrehearsed. If you have a general idea what you are going to say but NOT a general idea of each word you are going to employ when you are going to say it, then you have engaged i extemporaneous speech.
"Interpretation" and "prophecy" are, quite simply, examples of extemporaneous speech. You know ahead of time that you will speak words of edification, exhortation and comfort. You don't need to think it out ahead of time (you've likely heard dozens upon dozens of examples before you tried). You just need a general idea. Go.
There is absolutely, positively nothing supernatural about this.
"But I never made it up!" SURE you never made it up.
"But how could I have known....?" You didn't. You made an educated guess based on available information which is, not surprisingly, quite extensive.
He's relying on you to do his will and spread his word.
He will never leave you.
He will never forsake you.
He is good. Always. He is love.
He will back up his word.
Don't be afraid.
Do not doubt.
He is stronger than those who would stand against him
He is your Lord and Father. He will always love you with a deep and everlasting love.
It is NOT HARD at all to rattle off an interpretation or prophecy, especially after you spend a few hours in a class telling you what it should and should not sound like! What? No "muck and mire"? Check! And suddenly No One utters those words ever. WOW!
Long answer made really, really short: Genuine languages have identifiable structural components. A linguist does not have to identify a particular language in order to know if it fulfills the structural requirements. S.I.T. has never been shown to meet that threshold.
“Never”? How would anyone know how many people tried to identify their “tongue” with a certified, MA, or doctoral linguist?
This falls into the category of "been discussed ad nauseum."
Many people have tried. No linguist who has ever studied SIT has actually identified a language produced.
A number have concluded "this sounds like it might be..." but no follow up was ever done to nail it down. Important to note: they did not "study" it. They listened to a sample and expressed their initial thoughts.
So "never" is accurate, but it doesn't quite go far enough for us doubters.
That said (as I mentioned in another thread), you really have a serious burden of proof issue here that has to be addressed: Do I have to prove what you're producing is not a language, or do YOU have to prove it is? Technically, the answer is neither. You can be speaking in tongues and I have a trained linguist who carefully takes notes, studies your output for a year, can't find a language and, in the end, reaches the conclusion that he/she cannot say with any certainty that a language was produced. That's the problem on my side: I can NEVER prove to YOUR satisfaction that what YOU are producing is NOT a language.
BUT!!!!!!!!!
You can prove to my satisfaction that it is. Fine, we can't identify yours? We have 100,000 other people who have been through PFAL as of 1988. Surely ONE of them can produce an identifiable language in front of an objective linguist. Any takers? No? It only takes ONE PERSON producing ONE LANGUAGE to demonstrate that there is something supernatural taking place. ONE.
Recommended Posts
jim jack
I remember taking spanish in 5th & 6th grade & absolutely flunking both attempts (they were nice and gave me a C I thinkLOL..but in my mind I just couldn't grasp it)
So 9 years when I spoke in tongues, even though I had no instruction in it..I simply had heard someone do it & told God I wanted it..& presto..there I am rattling away with this "drop dead gorgeous language.." well if thats NOT supernatural..then I wonder what it is.. The language has changed on me three separate times(over the years)..due to ??.. As one would think if I were pondering what to speak,,it wouldn't be THAT different 3 times..LOL..so yeh its a manifestation (evidence) for us while on the planet & I believe Jude l ;20..along with several other verses that are about others..like perfect intercession.. thats my opinion & belief of course..you're entitled to yours & me to mine right??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
mmph
mmmpphh mmmmmphhh
mmmmphhh!!!!!!!!
MMMPH!!!!
You are indeed entitled to your opinion and belief.
You are not entitled to make assertions of fact without anyone challenging the assertion.
Prove you produced a language. "It sounded like one to me" is not proof.
You don't have to "ponder" what to speak to fake a language. In fact, you have to NOT, surprisingly enough. We discussed this ad nauseum in another thread. Feel free to explore it. It got a little out of hand at times (mea culpa) but the gist of the thread holds up.
SIT is obscenely easy to fake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe it's an ancient tongue . You know, back before language required syntax and grammar.
(Do I need to say this is sarcasm?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Maybe he’s totally FOS? Self-delusion, especially Messianic Complex types, is clinically obvious, but worse, the Elmer Gantry con-man spiel to cover-up gross hypocrisy is on rampant display. This guy is dangerous, especially to women. Be careful ladies!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't think one has to be a con man to have fooled himself into thinking he has spoken in tongues. To the contrary, I believe that every last one of us fooled ourselves into thinking we did it. It wasn't because we were liars or dishonest. It was because we:
1. genuinely wanted to do what we felt the Bible said was possible for us to do.
2. sincerely believed we were taught a method for doing it.
3. Basked in the mutual encouragement that congratulated each other for doing it once we got over hump of letting the sounds out.
4. Sincerely believed our teachers when they said not to believe that "Satanic" voice in the backs of our heads saying this was "just us."
We talked ourselves into it. And we did it for SO MANY YEARS that to this day, some of us are unwilling to admit that we fooled ourselves as readily as we tried to fool each other. At no point do I believe this is a matter of malice. It was "wanna" beefed up by massive doses of "God said it, that settles it."
But ask them what language they produced, and then sit back and wait for the excuses to fly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayDee
After 30 odd years, I’m still trying to sort out speaking in tongues. My question is the following: There are about 7,100 *known* languages in the world today. How would I or anyone else be able to produce to someone what *unknown* language I’m speaking with that many *known* languages in the world?
I hope I’m being clear. I’m sincerely looking for an answer. Who would believe they are actually speaking in an *unknown* language, then actually seek out a language expert to verify that they are actually speaking a *known* language?
Did I hear people speak in tongues before I did? Yes. Does my tongue even sound remotely like theirs? No. Is it one of the *known* languages in the world. No friggin’ idea.
Again, thanks for your response Raf, or anyone else that chooses to contribute.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm just going to fall back on "we discussed this ad nauseum" and leave it at that. Feel free to DM me, WordWolf (for a believer who agreed with me) or Chockfull (for a believer who disagreed with me) if you'd like a recap. That goes for anyone reading.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayDee
Thanks Raf. I’ll just search through the previous discussion(s) and go from there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
To be a bit more specific, when we began the discussionS, I disagreed with him, period, not the least for his approach. As the discussions unfolded, I followed what was said, and considered all the posts as well as all the responses I could make to every post. As it turned out, I was unable to refute the points made for one side, and attempts to refute it tended to center around fuzzing issues and obscuring them- the opposite of actually ANSWERING them, as I saw it. In short, the position advanced by twi and BGL had squat. (That was highlighted when I pointed out I had been hoping to see a post that brought up even one thing I had never considered, and was asked to post an example of something I had never considered, which is a lot like asking someone for an example of something they've forgotten.) So, I REVERSED positions on this issue. I don't have to LIKE truth to FACE truth, and that had been one of my core beliefs for a very long time. So, I'd be a believer who disagreed with him initially but later reversed positions to agree with him. (I didn't start the discussions agreeing with him.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Did not mean to imply otherwise.
It should also be noted that I was a believer when I came to this conclusion, so abandoning Christianity is absolutely not necessary to reach the same conclusion I reached.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Long answer made really, really short: Genuine languages have identifiable structural components. A linguist does not have to identify a particular language in order to know if it fulfills the structural requirements. S.I.T. has never been shown to meet that threshold.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The other way, it could have been taken to mean that we all started the discussions on our respective "sides", and stayed there. I reversed my position based on the discussions (and my own thoughts concerning the subject and the discussions), so obviously there was something there to get me to at least think about changing positions.
Oh, and if anyone thought that this is an all-or-nothing deal- as someone suggested once- that someone either has to swallow what we were taught and say that was supernatural, or abandon the concept that God Almighty exists and works mightily in ANY supernatural ways ("false dilemma" which was a silly reason to hang onto a position), I say "No you don't- I'm right here!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Yes. For further discussion, please go back a page in this thread and follow the links to your threads of choice for the discussions of choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Agreed on all points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
We did not discuss interpretation and prophecy as extensively, but the answer there is extraordinarily simple.
In those so-called "manifestations," we relied on our own languages, so we can't just say "wow, how did I do that?"
We did it very simply.
"Extemporaneous speech" is when we are able to relate something that is unrehearsed. If you have a general idea what you are going to say but NOT a general idea of each word you are going to employ when you are going to say it, then you have engaged i extemporaneous speech.
"Interpretation" and "prophecy" are, quite simply, examples of extemporaneous speech. You know ahead of time that you will speak words of edification, exhortation and comfort. You don't need to think it out ahead of time (you've likely heard dozens upon dozens of examples before you tried). You just need a general idea. Go.
There is absolutely, positively nothing supernatural about this.
"But I never made it up!" SURE you never made it up.
"But how could I have known....?" You didn't. You made an educated guess based on available information which is, not surprisingly, quite extensive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
God loves you.
He needs you.
He's relying on you to do his will and spread his word.
He will never leave you.
He will never forsake you.
He is good. Always. He is love.
He will back up his word.
Don't be afraid.
Do not doubt.
He is stronger than those who would stand against him
He is your Lord and Father. He will always love you with a deep and everlasting love.
It is NOT HARD at all to rattle off an interpretation or prophecy, especially after you spend a few hours in a class telling you what it should and should not sound like! What? No "muck and mire"? Check! And suddenly No One utters those words ever. WOW!
You made it up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayDee
“Never”? How would anyone know how many people tried to identify their “tongue” with a certified, MA, or doctoral linguist?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This falls into the category of "been discussed ad nauseum."
Many people have tried. No linguist who has ever studied SIT has actually identified a language produced.
A number have concluded "this sounds like it might be..." but no follow up was ever done to nail it down. Important to note: they did not "study" it. They listened to a sample and expressed their initial thoughts.
So "never" is accurate, but it doesn't quite go far enough for us doubters.
That said (as I mentioned in another thread), you really have a serious burden of proof issue here that has to be addressed: Do I have to prove what you're producing is not a language, or do YOU have to prove it is? Technically, the answer is neither. You can be speaking in tongues and I have a trained linguist who carefully takes notes, studies your output for a year, can't find a language and, in the end, reaches the conclusion that he/she cannot say with any certainty that a language was produced. That's the problem on my side: I can NEVER prove to YOUR satisfaction that what YOU are producing is NOT a language.
BUT!!!!!!!!!
You can prove to my satisfaction that it is. Fine, we can't identify yours? We have 100,000 other people who have been through PFAL as of 1988. Surely ONE of them can produce an identifiable language in front of an objective linguist. Any takers? No? It only takes ONE PERSON producing ONE LANGUAGE to demonstrate that there is something supernatural taking place. ONE.
Nope. Not one. No one's ever done it.
In THAT sense, "never" is absolutely accurate.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
DWBH, "Crock of ages?!" LMAO!!
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.