Leaderboard

Long, boring post alert. You've been warned. As I was re-reading yesterday’s flurry of posts, I noticed a few items that slipped past me the first time. I’d like to take a moment to address them. I wrote: To which Chockfull responded: I think we’re confusing terms here, because my reasoning is certainly not circular. I believe Biblical tongues are always human languages. If that is what you disagree with, fine. But you seem to be defining “real” language in a technical sense that’s different from what I mean. If I were to speak in English in the middle of a city in Zaire, there’s a better than even chance that no one will have the slightest idea what I’m saying. That doesn’t mean it’s not a language on the basis that it is not successfully understood and therefore not useful for communication. This is what Paul describes: if you speak in tongues (a real human language, albeit one understood by no one present), you are a barbarian to them. He’s not saying what you’re speaking is not a language. He’s criticizing its uselessness in a worship setting without interpretation. But the underlying implication is that it is still a real human language being spoken. I see nothing in I Corinthians 14 that suggests SIT produces anything other than a human language, unless one retroactively imposes that meaning on the verses to account for the fact that modern SIT isn’t producing any. It’s a convenient rationalization, not an interpretation of the plain meaning of the text. My opinion. Again, if we disagree, there’s really not a whole lot else to discuss. *** On a different front, I think I have more than adequately defended my use of the $2 bill analogy, which Chockfull challenged early on but appears to have grasped better as the dialogue continued. *** What Samarin says about xenoglossia: If someone speaking in tongues were to speak an actual language, the linguist has nothing to study. At that point, we would have something real for someone else to look at. I think it’s sufficient to say that if I suddenly started speaking in the language of the indigenous peoples of South America, that would qualify to Samarin as a demonstration of knowledge of that language (even though I myself would not have any understanding of what I’m saying). The linguist would stop at identifying the language and pass it off to experts in other fields to determine what the bejeezus just happened (that’s my word, not Samarin’s). Here’s how Samarin puts it: Let’s take a step back and look at what he’s really saying there, because he leaves out a lot. If I spoke in tongues in front of Samarin, and I produced Turkish (is Turkish a language? Let’s assume it is for this discussion), Samarin may be fascinated, but not as a linguist. He’d say, “That’s Turkish. Have you been exposed to Turkish?” I’d say no. He’d say, “Then how did you learn Turkish?” I’d say “God. I’m producing a language in accordance with the Word of God. I don't know what I'm saying. I only know it's Turkish because you're telling me. By the way, do you have James Randi's number? He owes me $1 million.” And Samarin, as a linguist, would say, “Cool. We’re done here. My expertise as a linguist can contribute no further to determining what's going on here. There’s some people I’d like for you to talk to. And who's Randi?” And he’d introduce me to the psychologist who might probe to make sure I had no prior exposure to Turkish that might be resurfacing in what I allege is genuine SIT. Once he suggests paranormal research, he has left the realm of science and ventured into the realm of faith. I submit at this point you would have already won, assuming all natural explanations to be exhausted. Neither Samarin nor any other named linguist has been presented with or reported a single such case. I would consider it a refutation of my position that it’s ALL fake if Samarin had just one case that could not be explained by natural means. He didn’t. That doesn’t prove my case. It merely fails to disprove it. (By extension, it fails to prove the proposition that any SIT is genuine). But one thing has been disproved: Every sample of SIT he reviewed has failed to pass muster as an existing, real, human language. It’s not a known language. It’s not a previously undiscovered language. It’s not a language in any real sense of the term. It bears some similarity to language, attributable to the motivation of the speaker to produce a language. But [let’s bring Poythress in right here] it bears no linguistic difference from a case of someone free vocalizing in a non-religious context, faking it on purpose, as it were. Which is my point. If SIT produces the exact same thing, linguistically, as free vocalization uninspired by God… What’s the blooming difference? You may not feel obliged to articulate or express or even find the difference. And that’s fine. Go in peace. But understand that if you’re not obliged to find a difference between what you do and free vocalization uninspired by God, then I’m not obliged to believe that there is one. That examines SIT on the merits, in my opinion. I am not drawing a theological or doctrinal conclusion. That's a related but different discussion. I hope I haven’t used a strawman fallacy in presenting this, but I’m sure I’ll hear it if I did (and possibly be accused of it even if I didn’t. ;)