chockfull

Your post carried a side tone insinuating that word studies such as the ones we did in TWI were wrong, and that you "rely on the experts" to do your language study for you instead of doing word studies. I simply have and expressed a different opinion. And I also pointed out that to us, Wierwille was an expert at one time, so at least to me that merits caution as to which expert I want to rely on, and a preference for checking experts work myself. As far as controversial or argument, at this point on this thread, if I express an opinion there are at least 3 people (you, waysider, wordwolf) who will take it the wrong way, immediately contradict it and try to draw me into an argument. Raf has refrained from this lately. I'm not arguing with you guys. I tend to go beyond simple sound judgement and discernment in association to teachers - in my experience, the teacher's position is one of power and there are many teachers, not just TWI ones, that succumb to this and make poor judgements which creep into their teachings. So I prefer to listen to experts, yet check their work myself. If you have a different opinion, great, but my expectations are a lack of personal attack or snide comments, and behavior commensurate with a Christian person in discussion. If that's too much of a problem for you, I don't really have to post on this thread ongoing. Valid observation.

There is nothing harmful about looking up the Greek words dechomai and lambano in lexicons and concordances. I can do that without subscribing to anyone's theology.

How about it?

Yes, I've heard this TWI line before. This is used to justify paying overqualified staff members minimum wage or just over "on a need basis". I just recently read a study that was trying to correlate money to happiness. The interesting results were that the correlation disappeared once the income rose a percentage above the poverty line. So the one thing left out in that analogy is that it's also possible to not have any money, and lack a lot of things. Actually, that is common sense. If your baseline needs are not being met or if meeting them consumes all of your energy, then you are going to lack a lot of things. Once you get into the middle class range, there's a lot more leeway. TWI causes the problem by their lack of care for their own people, then uses rote clichés to convince people the problem is with them, and all prosperity, satisfaction, happiness requires is to adjust their attitude and obey their cruel taskmasters. This is evil, this is using people, and this by any just means SHOULD cause TWI to lose followers. And it is. It just takes a little more time to manifest what with all the lies propounded in their public position. It's even more evil when they pay their leadership position people better - so the people tasked with fielding the complaints and keeping people happy themselves aren't experiencing the problem and have an unspoken threat hanging over them such that if they aren't 100% compliant that their positions and salaries will be busted back to the minimum wage range.

I absolutely agree with you that the approach of TWI is to lay out a theology and mask it in "literal translations according to usage". However, the underlying encouragement to search the scriptures was a good thing. What they meant by search - not so much - God doesn't need us reading the blue book over and over again for hours trying to extract some deeper meaning from it. In mainstream Christianity there is a wide variance to people's approach to and attitude on scripture study. And again, post-TWI people have to make a conscious decision on which way they want to go there. As far as "word studies", to me this is no different than what I do in reading - look up words unfamiliar to me in a dictionary. It expands my understanding and connection with the author. I don't really see a way in which this would be a harmful recommendation.

Me too, but as the proverb says don't let the hypocrites keep you from church, and don't let the megalomaniac cult leaders shoddy research keep you from Bible study!!! I don't want to nitpick words here with you. I was responding to a comment that stated in so many words that Bible study isn't the way to make scriptures speak deep meaning to us. My point was that no Bible study certainly isn't a better way to accomplish that.

Studying scripture, involving looking at original languages, and utilizing tools such as lexicons which are like a dictionary for a dead language like Koine Greek, is not something that is anywhere near unique to TWI, as much as you would like to tie those two together. Ignoring study, and trying to figure out which "expert" to follow, IMO is not a better recipe for "making scripture speak deep meaning to us". Following the wrong person is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Many scholars don't give the LXX - Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament the same kind of weight or nuance translation that they feel was given to New Testament Greek translations said to be done by Timothy and Paul. Just pointing this out because the OT records of Amnon and Tamar and the agape word translation there would be from the LXX. It would be generally more accurate to work with the Hebrew in these records as that language in the OT was protected by the jot and tittle notation.

To me the whole point of the sidetrack on ciphers was just to note possibilities. My approach on what God would or would not do is more scriptural.

At this point I am viewing this as a possibility of why SIT would not be deciphered by linguists, but as far as direct evidence to support this, all I see is the I Cor. 14:2 indicating others won't understand. I would consider it a stretch to try and extrapolate from that verse any kind of proof or conclusion that God would be using encryption techniques on the tongues language He would be energizing. I just leave it as a possibility that if He states in scripture others won't understand that He has some kind of means of ensuring that is true. So for anything research or write up related to me it would be a footnote. My blend of logic and scripture. Yours may differ.

So out of those four things, two of them basically are just using a different language to mask a message. This is EXACTLY the same as SIT. As far as your point #3, I think they actually used native Navajo terms to describe military terms. So instead of inventing a new term not existent in Navajo, they would use the Navajo word for "mountain" to describe a military term of some sort, then there was a one-page description of those terms. I've seen that sheet somewhere. I'll link to it if I find it. Cryptography is an interesting study. Null ciphers and substitution ciphers are the most basic, both in use in Julius Caesar's time. There have been noted advancements in computer cryptography as well, including the current standard AES. Here's a writeup - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography I think if an actual Navajo was recruited to listen to the messages they would get the code terms. It would sound like "The big red bull is under the sun eating" or something like that. Without knowing what military terms were represented by "bull, sun, and eating" they wouldn't be able to decipher the exact message. I also think part of the appeal of the Navajo language was that like most other native American languages, it would be much harder to find someone that uses that language outside of the US. Yes there was additional encryption of word substitution going on. The only point I was making about this is that if man can come up with fairly effective means of encrypting messages using languages, that it shouldn't be too hard for God to do the same thing to uphold the integrity of what He seems to be instructing people to do in I Cor. 14, to circle this sidetrack back around to dealing with the topic at hand.

No its not my position. SIT has a normal interpretation of language in scriptures if that is not a figurative reference to the tongue, which we have discussed has possibilities. So I'm OK with a general description of languages. However, in I Cor. 14:2 I see a scripture that indicates when a person SIT, others hearing the message do not understand. I do not really trust in the interpretation of that which indicates only the people present don't understand, but others studying the tapes may understand it. I think it means directly what it says clearly in the verse. I also to this point haven't seen clear evidence that linguists have ruled out languages in the messages. And after reading the tower of Babel record I wouldn't put it beyond what God could do to ensure that SIT couldn't be tested. One easy way would be to energize dead or extinct languages. Then no scripture would be contradicted if someone understood. Unless there was a specific miraculous occurrence where it was understood. All the code references indicate to me is that language that is not understood makes an effective encryption tool that wasn't broken by experts in WWII.

Yeah. That argument doesn't exactly represent my views there. Plus, it smells like bait.

Here's a more detailed writeup of the movie - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windtalkers The movie is well done if you ever run across it cheap on DVD like I did. Here's a military fact sheet on the Navajo Code Talkers - http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq61-2.htm

Well, I would expect that if whatever is going on is energized by God, then for it to be some kind of language to me seems like a reasonable assumption. The assumption that if it is language that someone on earth can understand and decode it is another assumption. That's the one I can't agree with. I see the basic definition of SIT to state others won't understand. Thus that would be my expectation, rather than assuming you should be able to understand it. But since I can read in the Bible instances where it is understood, and have heard anecdotes stating the same, I'm not ruling that out.

okay fine. I did read a lot of "conclusions" written by article authors. IMO there has been a lot of mixing of this with stating things as fact on this thread. If it's redundant to state the lack of proof in the definition then sorry. I'm just generally stating my issues with the "free vocalization" term and that's involved. what I personally accept as evidence is not something I would expect you to. Some of this would be in the form of personal anecdote. I have incidents that to me seem miraculous in nature over my life in conjunction with my relationship with God. But beyond that there is an element in faith of believing in the things that cannot be seen. Me accepting SIT as language. I guess I would describe that more as me accepting SIT as a spiritual message encoded in some sort of construct resembling language or using language to encode the message. If that is the same thing then OK. But I do see things like in that movie I keep referring to "Wind Talkers" where there was also a figurative encoding of the message in addition to the Navajo language encoding it. A tank division would be described as a herd of buffalo or something. If I brought it in it was from reading it in Samarin's article. I did print that thing out to make it easier to read. It was not in a searchable .pdf format.

So what are thoughts on Sola Scriptura vs. Fundamentalism? Are they the same? Different? What's the perception?

Yes this is absolutely the way TWI functions. For example, the motto of the Way Corps was "It Is Written". This produced some real heart-felt Bible-thumping sermons. Yet in reality the way TWI functions is "It Is Position". It matters little what scripture says, but matters greatly the rank of the person saying it. Yes, again the labels thing - not sure if I'm applying them correctly. Stereotypically TWI and ex TWI members are fundamentalist and republican because that's the slant of the thinking, but you're right - plenty others do diverse things.

I'm just summarizing Wikipedia articles as I'm reading them in case it might lead others to read the same links. In modern Christianity there are a TON of labels. I don't really know if I'm getting them all correct and keeping them all straight. This may be a "similarities" and "differences" conversation. I'd say if you lump in Lutherans with all other Protestants, compared to Catholics they would be considered fundamentalist. I don't know if the strict label applies at all. And Raf, I'm not sure where all of this is leading currently. I'm just reading, investigating, and writing down some notes. And trusting God it will lead somewhere but I don't know where currently.

Hahaha. It seems to me that man is trying to mimic God's performance at the tower of Babel with the Tax Code!!!! And for your "Stop That" event, if there is indisputable proof that doves cry, does that mean the artist formerly named Prince will be performing?

I do see the point that the definition was made to facilitate linguists studies. And I do acknowledge that human beings have an ability to use their organs of speech to make various types of noises, random and patterned. And I still think throwing in SIT into that mix and calling it by that label can be done, but that after doing that to then try to use it to prove they are the same thing is not really what most people in the science world would call a proof. You can't have elements of your hypothesis in the definition of the premise. That's where the circular reasoning comes in. It's defining something as a proof. But anyway, as I said for now, I'd like to see how far the linguists are able to take this in terms of language identification or statistical analysis showing similarity or whatever. That seems to fit your definition there. And it is a display of an innate human ability to make vocal noises or mouth noises. Now why you would do that to a poor atheist is an entirely separate question :biglaugh:/> To me that is a little convenient. A bunch of sound samples superficially look the same on the outside, so they are lumped together. A new term is made up for them called "free vocalization". SOME analysis is done on these samples. The most detailed I saw in write-ups of what the analysis was that was done was Samarin. He did consonant mapping and attempted to show statistical correlation between a speakers native language and the sound byte. He saw a trend, but stopped short of any proof. Other authors referenced "linguistic analysis", but didn't provide any details so it is impossible to verify their data and studies. Poythress reviewed other studies, then wrote up his thoughts. That's what makes him difficult. He's kind of a theological apologist to science in his approach - trying to include common linguistic viewpoints and yet stopping short of offending the Fundamentalists. Yes we disagree on this. The testability of SIT by definition I would label as a caveat to any study results if I were doing the study. But I'm not using that as a reason to discourage trying to test it. Whenever you are discussing or debating the similarities and differences between two things, there is depending upon perspective the complete ability for someone to say "those are exactly the same", and someone else to say "those are completely different". It's just a matter of what you are focusing on at the moment the reflection is stated. The root of my trouble there lies in the fact that the spirit, power, or energy of God is undetectable to scientists. There is no way scientifically to measure the difference between a born-again man and an atheist (outside of each having a different level of irritation at Raf making them perform free vocalization). So to lump things together and call them the same, and then to have known issues with measuring differences, I'd say that's mostly the problem it makes for me. Yes we are different here. I honestly never gave it much thought as to what SIT should produce. To me it's been I'm just praying to God and when words fail I had something more to sustain. That's been a staple of prayer life since close to my beginnings as a Christian. The scriptures I've studied tie in to what I experience to me in my viewpoint. My "take it on faith" attitude has been a naieve child-like approach in prayer - that's all. I don't mind learning more either on scientific or scriptural sides. But yes, there is an element of impasse there. Sure - I can live with that. The mediums IMO added nothing to the study and would have been better left out for clarity. Well in the cessationist theory arguments, a lot of this comes back to the extent of Sola Scriptura you can live with. If it's a high level you require, then you would rule out personal anecdotes of any type. This would include yours and socks experiences. If you have more of a tolerance for information outside of Sola Scriptura then God doing things individually for individuals becomes more acceptable. Honestly post TWI I am probably less of an absolutist w/r to Sola Scriptura than previously. I rely upon personal relationship type experience with God in addition to scriptures. The drawback to tolerating less Sola Scriptura is that there is less of a measurable standard for all and more of a need to accept God working with individuals according to their personal needs. As a preacher, he would not have wanted to discount that possibility IMO. I believe they are different. I would like to see an unbiased analysis, and although I have reservations on what I predict this will show due to doctrinal beliefs in SIT definitions, I am not against seeing the evidence and don't think this a reason not to test. If results present incongruities in my beliefs I'll need to address it at that time. We have differences in doctrinal approach and personal experience. But a still greater responsibility to live a Christian example with one another than those without differing doctrinal beliefs. So I am continuing to explore without arguing.

I personally am waiting for the one that says "I am God. You know that roll of hundred dollar bills you lost with the rubber band around it? I found the rubber band. Ha ha ha."

This is a dilemma. You have to assume a speaker could inject words, and I don't see how it would be easily accomplishable to sort them out. Interestingly, reading up on "Continuationism" - which is the label on those who believe that SIT / gifts continue on to be available today, in general they acknowledge that "prophecy" could have inaccuracies and to compare the prophecies against scripture to confirm. Scripture has the utmost authority, then what they call "canonical prophets" - basically scripture authors, after that "non-canonical prophets" - which would be the person prophesying that could have injected words. So they just label a "non-canonical" prophecy as less reliable than others and needing to be checked to ensure accuracy.

The Wikipedia articles introduce the argument between Cessationist and Continuationist. They claim that of those claiming those beliefs, the concept of "Sola Scriptura" for the article's purpose has to be in play. This concept is more of the "Martin Luther" reform type of stance, where everything within the church and related to God has to be subject to scripture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura Of interest to note among the Cessationist/Continuationist argument, that there are many who do NOT hold to Sola Scriptura - where scripture is only one thing among many that governs belief. Those of the Sola Scriptura persuasion are largely described to be Reformists, which originated most of the mainstream denominations in existence today, like Lutheran, Baptist, Reformed, other Protestants. Many times this group is also termed to be "Fundamentalist". Note that to me this is important in that Fundamentalism / Sola Scriptura is totally based upon scripture, and human experience is not of value. TWI is pretty much in that category, as are offshoots. Most ex-TWI members also would be of the Fundamentalist / Sola Scriptura persuasion.

OK, so reflecting on the "free vocalization" definition that I've taken issue with. The reason I have taken issue with it is that there seems to me like elements of that definition that incorporate defining any seeming non-language mouth noise by that term, and then using it to prove people SIT are doing the same thing. I STILL see logical issues with that. IF people are faking it, then the definition would be applicable across the board. IF they are not, though, and something categorically different is going on like energizing of God, then I find the term to be more of a condemnation by association type of thing. However, looking at it from a linguistics perspective, I see why those topics are lumped together for study purposes. It's mostly convenience - get all the xenoglossia samples, glossa samples, and any other all-inclusive samples of people claiming similar things - to be speaking a different language. Then do analysis. I'm going to suspend any issues I have with that term for the time being to see what we can learn from it.