chockfull

You know, the major tenet explained in the "inspiration vs. revelation" deal was as already mentioned that the prophecy words supposedly bypass the brain, thus the distinction. The contrast was made to revelation, that it's conscious thought. In my experience, and this is totally anecdotal and not proof related or science based, anything to me that's seemed to be revelation is not something like a major mental recognition. It has been more just logical trains of thought that seem like common sense to the brain, then when examining later, there is not sufficient evidence of all the steps being able to be arrived at through facts and mental capacities alone. I would currently be fine describing interpretation / prophecy as being "revelation". As I think that word has plenty of potential to be defined more broadly and all-inclusive than the mental gymnastics of TWI's interpretation. I'm cool investigating all he has to share, and allowing each other leeway for differing doctrinal beliefs. I'm just not going to fight with you guys any more.

Yea, a lot of mental model constructs - smacks of man making it up. IMO there is somewhat of a problematic issue with the Holy Spirit / holy spirit concept that is trying to patch over. The Trinitarian view of Holy Spirit has that entity not very well defined - just an ethereal presence that you can "pray into" meetings, or its presence can be felt, etc. Nothing very concrete I've ever heard on that one, including what the third person of the trinity is supposed to do, how to interact with it, etc. But accepting VP's / Stiles interpretation of capital HG / small hg leaves a whole lot of loose ends. The main one being you have to completely construct something like the "Great Principle" to make it logical and plausible.

His answer on mapping what he calls "sound sequences" to me is similar to Samarin's consonant maps and statistics applied to them. I'd ask him about what's in the field with computer analysis of that kind of stuff.

Starting a thread to document reading / researching up on the topic of Cessationist Theory. First - Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism In that article, the label for the opposite position is called Continuationism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuationism Next, there are the major tenets of the argument in existence between Cessationist and Continuationists here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_Continuationism NOTE: The argument article on Wikipedia is very interesting to me. IMO they get 300% further in any logical argument between sides than we have approached.

This is one of the questions I have remaining that looking at research brought up. Specifically, the idea of consonant mapping. If the consonants in a language are completely foreign to a speaker, is SIT supposed to work that God magically changes the sounds on the back end to be perfectly natively spoken? I mean it is not beyond what I see possible in scripture. At the tower of Babel, the languages were changed so they couldn't understand one another causing a scattering of the people there. That had to be immediate. Or is speaking supposed to produce a language with the known limitations of the speaker's native language? Like a bad accent? Don't know answers, just more questions. I mean it had to be that TWI interpreted it the latter to be putting in exercises to "increase fluency" - i.e. possibly develop foreign consonant sounds. The tower of Babel record brings up even more questions. First, is the whole tongues concept some kind of prophetic healing or fixing of what happened at Babel? A spiritual language that is a token of what the future holds? Revelations talks about concepts like spirit being the entire sustenance of life, like the new body seen of the resurrected Jesus. What will the language be like there? Next, the whole field of linguistics brings up even more questions. The idea of a language having attributes such that its main intent is conversational - back and forth, includes metadata, can invent new vocab words, can learn - I mean that has to be the main intent of any language. The whole bit of using TIP manifestations as a miraculous spiritual translator, that's a bit tedious. Translators are tedious in broadcasting. So any language at / after the gathering has to be new so all can understand one another. It would make no sense people running around doing the same routine to understand one another there. Is this somewhat of a spiritual short-term fix, like Babelfish / Google translate? Questions, questions, and more questions.

I'm glad you have friends.

Dude, give it a rest. You've won. My faith is between me and God and with the extent it's been under attack by you and others recently I'm not really interested in sharing it with you at this point in time. I'm sure you all will have plenty to say about it being illogical and not in accordance with scientific knowledge. I disagree. Carry on.

See my post in doctrinal. It's time to end this foolishness. It's a poor Christian witness and we are not gaining anything learning wise.

I don't find it logical that "no man understands" could mean a "normative" definition in a worship setting yet magically something different in a lab setting. That is so contrived of a definition it's laughable. My first thought was "he couldn't be serious". I'm not going to debate scriptures with you on this topic. I don't think you have much scriptural backing for your position at all. A translation of a single word "glossa" and a contrived definition to fit your desire to test it in a lab. And all I see happening over time with me defending my faith is those on the other side of the argument are getting whipped up more and more into a frenzy. This is crazy and stupid. It can't be mentally healthy. And it certainly is so far off the admonitions in I Cor. 12-14 about the one body it's not funny. Any insight we are gaining into other aspects of those verses are in my opinion completely overshadowed by the violation of all of our behavior when comparing it against the same section of scripture. So you, WordWolf, waysider, geisha - all of you can now have your victory dance. I concede. You've won the argument. After all, that's what's most important to you. It certainly isn't logic, learning, or compassion towards other Christians.

Raf I've never been arguing with you to change your mind. I'm simply defending my faith, which the further we go along this route is more under attack by more and more people, and those who share my beliefs are withholding themselves from the argument. There's an equal number of votes on both sides on the poll, yet I am the only one defending this position.

I don't find it a logical viewpoint that somehow SIT would have a "normative" definition and expectation that it would not be understood in a worship setting, yet somehow magically this definition would change if you removed the speaker and placed them in a lab setting. I don't even find this to be a doctrinal difference of opinion. It simply is illogical. And the attempts to make this illogical viewpoint seem more logical by attacking the straightforward logical explanation like it is some kind of retrofit is simply laughable. I'm sure a trained actor could set up an improve class to have people faking messages from God. I'm just more skeptical that you can do it without the participant knowing about it and effectively in a short period of time. And there's a whole lot of people doing this without trained actors involved. I've seen people go through the INT class and with next to zero instruction or coaching do very well. There is no proof involved in this, I guess it's an area where it is much more readily accepted that there is no way to prove it. I'm just including it in the discussion.

The last time I asked you to expound upon your views on scripture or to present what you believe related to this, you answered with a one word post - "No."

But of course you won't put forth an interpretation of I Cor. 14:2 that people could judge whether or not is more accurate.... socks has a claim about SIT. you have a claim about SIT. It is as equally likely that you did genuinely SIT and are now renouncing the practice due to a change in beliefs that it is that socks witnessed Asian speakers promulgating a fraud. And we should trust you and not socks because you're such a nice guy, right? If it's such a misapplication then please by all means enlighten me and provide the correct interpretation of "no man understands" and I Cor. 14:2.

The consonant mapping I saw Samarin with had promise - it was just very rudimentary. If you could plug that into computer statistical analysis such that you could run that on English samples to build up a database, then compare glossa samples consonant maps against known language consonant maps in English, with a large enough sample size of known language you could draw some more supported conclusions. Possible null hypothesis test possibility: 1) Glossa sample is the same as speakers native language - alternative hypothesis could show marked differences in the percentages of the consonant maps. NOTE: for more conclusive proof it's not enough to say the native language consonants appeared - with native samples you can project the % occurrences of the consonants too. Like playing Scrabble you know that "e" is the most commonly used vowel. Vowels are notoriously harder to distinguish, which is why they use consonant maps. You could map native language appearance consistency % against the same consistency % in the glossa.

This is a false premise. God states in I Cor. 14:2 that you are speaking to God and others won't understand. I simply believe that verse. The quote if you read it in its entirety is doing exactly what I said it was - holding you to the same standard of proof that you faked it that you are to those presenting anecdotal evidence.

So back to scripture discussion, we were doing word studies of the word "glossa" in the NT, or rather Raf was, and came up with the position that because he thought the word "glossa" meant languages that it is some kind of guarantee that linguists can understand the tongue. I see a direct scripture contradiction to this in I Cor. 14:2. Basically, it states "no man understands". This is a direct statement related to the topic. The use of the word "glossa" to indicate languages in that verse may or may not be an accurate interpretation - it also could be a figurative reference to the human organ as it is in certain places in the NT. Regardless of which way you interpret the word directly, if it does mean languages there is still no direct promise indicating it will be a language designed for use between humans and spoken on the earth currently. Indications in scripture are that it is designed for speaking to God (I Cor. 14:2), which is different than human use exclusively. So scripturally, I see the premise for testing SIT to see if it's a human language in operation today and thus disproving modern SIT as a genuine act to be a false premise.

I never asked for proof in the first place. You did, when rejecting anecdotal accounts of SIT being understood natively. Now you're struggling like a shark on a fish line when faced with living up to your own standard.

Good idea. After pages of derail by the three of you where you successfully chased off Sanguineti.

Look, you want to look at weird videos purporting to be SIT? Here's one where someone is using their mouth as a percussion section and saying it's SIT. I don't think so. But I can't prove it's not. It just sounds like a joke. I can't prove there were no ancient aborigines that did this kind of thing and invented the language all to speak with percussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdIqbaYPFqw

Nope. Holding you to the same standard of proof you introduced on the thread.

Well, looking at the fruit of what this produced, you've got a mausoleum dedicated to enshrine VP called TWI, and $52 million dollars. It's all about the Benjamins.

One more time, I'm not demanding proof. I'm holding your claims of lying and faking to the standard of proof you introduced evaluating socks anecdote. Maybe if I repeat that a few more times you'll get it. If there was a clear way to prove ANY of this we wouldn't be having this argument. God requires faith or believing for any of His power to work. We live in a time after Christ where you believe first then see.

No. I'm tired of you making this about the consistency or not of your own words. All that does is put your words in type one more time, which advances your rhetoric. Your words are not what's worth discussing. Scripture is. Scientific facts are.

I've seen weirder practices in person associated with the Pentecostals. I went to this one tent revival meeting where there was a guy making noises like a goat in the corner all by himself, people sprinting in an entire circle around the tent during the middle of the teaching, elders smacking people in the forehead, similar gibberish sounds, and a preacher at 120db shouting on the mic about someone who "got the holy ghost" and "cut his hair" - all with what kind of sounded like a ska band as a backup. That experience was so shocking I didn't even wonder about anyone SIT or not, just about how quickly I could get the h out of there. All the men? Bowl cuts. Apparently the "holy ghost" in addition to inspiring them to try and SIT also was inspiring them to use the same bowl for haircuts thus giving up their former sinful long-haired ways.

Yes, looking at Pentecostal practices that are emotional and not so decent and in order are a great scare tactic that has been used by generations by preachers against SIT. Pick the most inflammatory, like the snake handlers or this one, project guilt by association, and you have a winning mind picture. I have distant relatives that are Jehovah's Witnesses that are particularly adept at doing this to convince people that SIT is from the devil. You don't even need logic doing all that.