waysider

"An accurate statement from the evidence seen to date would be that all the evidence is inconclusive trying to prove that SIT produces a language." No, it's not inconclusive, it's nonexistent. There is NO (zip, zero, none) existing evidence that speaking in tongues produces a language. That's a far cry from "inconclusive".

"I don't know who waysider studied under." I served an apprenticeship with a well known Equity company. (Which means I exchanged my services in the set shop for an opportunity to study under the tutelage of veteran actors and play bit parts.) BTW...Dinner is served.

I have the book......somewhere. I personally think the author was full of turnip greens and pinto beans.

Are you telling me you can't string together something like, "My little children, look neither left nor right but keep your eyes on me for I am the Lord thy God, your sufficiency in all."?........I find that difficult to believe.

Easy or not, if you're able to do it at all, it proves the point.

~removed~

"Suffice it to say that the extent that languages have mathematical structures that can be charted and verified is debatable and questionable." Seriously? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? The only one "debating and questioning" that is you. Languages have structure. Period. That has nothing to do with the Bible. It's just a matter of fact.

"In my opinion, there is way too little time when people are practicing in a worship meeting between when they SIT and when they interpret for them to completely construct the sentences in the interpretation." Who said they construct complete sentences during the short span of time between the tongue and the interpretation? Do you seriously not understand what it means to "fake it" or are you being contrary? Just for shirts and girdles, why don't you bring forth a "word of prophesy" on the spot. See for yourself how easy it is to extemporaneously recall portions of scripture that are lodged in your memory and arrange them into some semblance of a message. Oh, wait. I forgot. Mr. Wierwille said that wouldn't be decent and in order.

Check out this "excellor session".

If today's SIT is not the same as the SIT in Acts 2 and further described in I Cor., why would anyone want to continue to do it? Wouldn't it make more sense to want to do the same thing that was being done in Acts/Cor.?

Aw, shucks!

An alien? Oh, lordy, I thought I heard it all. Now, not only could it be a language from an angel or a dead civilization, it might even be something spewing forth from . :o

"Yes, tongues could be considered or described as a language." Except.....It has no identifiable structure to qualify it as a language (any language). "It could also be described as a "means of communication". With tongues via the Spirit in ones private prayer life, a means of communication with God in prayer and praise." Except.....There is no discernible message being communicated. Genuine languages (be they human or animal) have mathematical structures that can be charted and verified. There is no mathematical structure to what we were exposed to in The Way and have been calling "speaking in tongues". When speaking in tongues was witnessed on The Day of Pentecost, people understood, messages were conveyed. If we are to believe the record, they must have had a definitive structure or no one would have understood. Therefore, it would appear to me that what we, today, call speaking in tongues is not the same thing referenced in Acts 2.

Why? It doesn't meet any structural criteria that would qualify it as a language, understood or otherwise.

No, I'm not offering to speak as anyone's representative. My point was that if you haven't seen those questions answered somewhere in the last ~1600 posts, you haven't been paying attention or just want to keep stirring the pot.

Those questions have been answered over and over and over and over....Is something going to change if they are answered again?

Don't take this the wrong way but, this sort of approach sounds very similar to how people in The Way used to respond to probing questions. The standard one-size-fits-all response was, "You don't understand it because it's spiritual." Well, the problem with that is that it removes any possibility of using critical thinking skills. Toss them out the window. They don't apply to anything "spiritual". Now here's the cruel irony. The antidote to this problem was.....speaking in tongues more... the very thing that the brain scan studies show diminishing critical thinking activity.

You can call me a hater. I won't be offended. I've been called much worse. What confuses me, though, is what it is you see in my posts that constitutes hate. Do your kids ask questions like, "Dad, why is the sky blue?" "How come frogs are slippery?" Does that mean they're hateful? It's not hateful to try to reason out answers, exercise our logic skills. I think we have an obligation of sorts to do at least that much.

Haters? I don't think of myself as a hater. What is it about asking questions and seeking logical explanations that makes one a hater?

Something that has puzzled me about anecdotes: People hear the tongue speakers use a language that is native to them and they are amazed. Why? Would you, as a new attendee, be amazed if you heard someone speak in English? I'm just sayin'.

I've been there, as well, and didn't notice any security. Did I mention it was in 1959? edit: I was mistaken. It was The Glass Church I was thinking of.

"Fellow Laborers weren't controlled much at first" ................................... I think that is relative to the state you were in. I graduated from the Ohio program. (FLO #4/1975-1977) It was highly controlled. Our azzes belonged to The Way from 5AM until the lights went out at Midnight.

"Always an excuse as to why the promised result won't be found. Never a hint of expectation that it will be." Like an Elusive Butterfly.

This whole conversation reminds me of the old song, .You can twist the logic thirteen ways till Thursday but when the dust settles, you're still not your own Grandpaw.

"By the definition in the Bible of SIT, you can include extinct languages." ...................................................................... That's quite a stretch from the record in Acts where the listeners understood the speakers. How did they understand if the languages being spoken were extinct?