chockfull

Suffice it to say that the extent that languages have mathematical structures that can be charted and verified is debatable and questionable. The most we have seen on any published research to date is the practice of consonant mapping (taking the consonant letters of a language and trying to map sounds of an unknown segment of speech against it), and Hockett's 16 rules of language (what consists of a language). Language is like a code. If you understand the code and can speak it, it makes sense. If you do not, it does not make sense. One example of this is the movie "Wind Talkers". That movie is very interesting with respect to the topic on this thread and other similar ones. In that movie, WWII enemy code crackers were breaking the codes normally used in communications in the Army, and obtaining an advantage. So a code was constructed out of Navajo soldier's native language, and a figurative representation of certain words being code within the native language for troop configurations and movement. The code was not broken throughout the duration of the war. The men involved were honored as heros, and a movie was made out of it. To me this represents how easy it is to encode a message within a language and have it be undetected. Your understanding expressed in this paragraph to me just shows how effective one side of the argument has been here in convincing others to blindly accept the opinion of researchers without questioning their methods.

The angle on this that struck my mind reading through Raf's succinct detailing out of the scriptures with the word glossa in them was that of the three definitions, are we ABSOLUTELY SURE that glossa in I Cor. 14:2 means "languages" when used in the format "speaking in tongues" as opposed to a more figurative interpretation of metaphorically representing the physical organ itself? Could it be a "tongues like as of fire" reference? Could there be more to understanding the metonymy FOS with the tongue being stated for the language it produces? Could this metonymy be a clever play on words by God portraying that you take the action in the physical realm with the organ itself and God responds in the spiritual realm with a language? These are just thoughts, nothing proven, nothing cemented into belief, just considering the implications and reading scripture. Probably doesn't do anything for proof for either side of the argument either, but it's an interesting consideration.

Let the convo flow. I don't have time to police every post to nag people to stay very narrowly on a specific topic. Plus I'm working on what interests me on the topic so hopefully that's a better effort than policing anyway. If I need to find something in the midst of static I can use Search. I say if it's related doctrinally in your perception to the I Cor 12-14 section in any way it's fair game here, so feel free to bring it up. There's another interesting sidetrack here. You mention the ease of making up a new language. Well, computer science has hundreds of languages, and a new one is made up almost every year. Is that completely different? Or are there similarities? Ruling out possibilities related to this field is very, very hard.

TnO, this isn't the thread for Christ's love, peace, and long-suffering. If you want one of those, please feel free to make one and comment away on it to your heart's desire. :) I'm joking. But in all seriousness, TnO on this thread you have a low contribution rate and a high demand rate. Just to fill you in on what you're not understanding because you haven't been participating, this is somewhat of a challenging topic for many post TWI. Those of us who are way over emotional, negative, and a hindrance to others are also the ones doing about 98% of the work on this thread to dig out materials, evaluate research, learn linguistics as a science, and communicate with other Christians and experts in the community. At times all this extra work could wear us out to the point we are a little less than cordial. So my suggestion to you is to possibly lift a little of the load to spread to contribute and be a little more tolerant of those who are. As pertains to your suggestion of taking time off - I try and do that whenever things get heated or I perceive an imbalance in my life situations. It's not good to be mad on the internet, and I don't have a responsibility to correct people if they are wrong on the internet. But for you, Theodore Roosevelt has a great quote to consider starting with "it's not the critic that counts". It's one that you might enjoy reading when you are at the decision point of criticizing others or making valid substantive contribution to the topic yourself.

Yeah, I remember working that a while ago. I don't remember all the details but I remember the impression I had of Wierwille's "laleo" being suspect, and can confirm that trying to apply it across the board gets you quickly baffled. I don't know if "laleo" makes a difference or not, I've not yet re-evaluated that word study post-TWI. In I Cor. 14:9, I'm not sure if the utter by tongue is referring to SIT, or if the entire phrase "unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to understood" is a conditional clause that stands on its own describing a separate possible act of communication.

Whatever. I've been sick of your name-calling and snide comment BS for about 40 pages now, so you've brought it on yourself by your demeanor and words to others. And I call things how I see them, regardless of whether or not knuckleheads get offended. If you offer no position of belief, and avoid questioning along the lines of what you believe, but all you do is attack others who do offer positive positions of belief, then that is being a hater. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with seeking your approval or disapproval. You know, sometimes I read the adjectives in your posts and they are like so extreme that I have to wonder - "never accurate", "never appropriate", "beneath you", "vile and despicable act", "taunting and bullying", "reprehensible". I mean, that level of emotion is not normal in communication. It sounds like you're about to burst a blood vessel. I really hope it's just you being dramatic and not a genuine problem. It's not good to get mad on the internet.

Thanks for the analysis. And it does seem that your doctrinal position centers completely on the word tongue to carry the definition "languages" in I Cor. 14:2. To summarize, there are 3 definitions for glossa: 1) the organ 2) the organ used to represent something else metaphorically 3) languages (this use could be the figure of speech metonymy - or a substitution of the tongue for what it produces) The Corinthians uses could possibly also be either metaphoric or metonymy (just posing the question, not in my beliefs currently).

Adding that Raf posted up his complete doctrinal position in the analysis of the word tongues in the Doctrinal section. Or at least something that is close to his complete doctrinal position. He is laying out the case for what he feels means "languages" in I Cor. 14:2. So I withdraw my objection that Raf has not stated his beliefs doctrinally. He has as of now. And I will discuss those points in doctrinal. And as of now, I'll stop calling Raf a "hater". Because the behavior changed, that word is no longer accurate to me.

Another way of stating this extremely biased paragraph is to note that people in general were starting to be interested again in spiritual matters. Some of this interest was diverted into occult practices - the Ouija board was invented by wives of WWII veterans with this interest. The interest in spiritual matters also resulted in a new interest in the "gifts of the spirit", where that had not been considered for centuries. The Pentecostal movement developed in this timeframe. Along with genuine spiritual interest, the frauds developed cons to take advantage of this interest. Does the existence of con artists prove that the whole thing was a fraud? Or just that whenever the genuine power of God comes into view, the frauds will be there to counterfeit and take attention away from the power of the true God. When Moses and Aaron performed the miracles in front of the Pharoah of Egypt, immediately after the miracles Pharoah's spiritual advisors, the con artists, discounted the miracles and also performed huckster tricks to try and duplicate the miracles to convince Pharoah not to believe Moses and Aaron. Where did that lead for the hard-heads? Fraud is ALWAYS rampant. All you need is something genuine, then the frauds will be there to try and duplicate it. This is why money counterfeiters fake $20 bills, not $3 bills. As a history teacher, don't quit your day job. Of course at that time, just like today, there were misguided people. Misguided in scriptures, misguided in testing SIT, misguided in trying to dictate to God which language would be produced. There was no "switching gears and start calling it a spiritual language". Basically, like today, you had people trying to squeeze some EXTRA meaning out of verses trying to push them to say that you could PROVE that SIT is a language. To squeeze any of those verses there is a fraud and a con involved. What you have to do is IGNORE clear verses saying that when someone SIT, others do not understand. Then, once you've ignored that verse, you can't come up with another verse directly that says linguists can understand it. No, what you have to do is argue that when it says tongues, that implicitly means languages. Oh, and not "spiritual languages", no they have to be real human languages. That you can test God with, demanding that God ensure that the language spoken when you SIT is one that can be understood without interpretation by others, even though the Bible explicitly states that when you are SIT outside your private prayer life, you believe for an interpretation. In the day in which we live, after the return of Christ, I would NOT "demand evidence" in the case of healing. How obnoxious is that. I'm in a prayer meeting, someone prays for another person, they stand up and declare "I'm healed - praise be to God". I stand up and say "I don't believe it. I demand evidence". What a Debbie Downer it would be to do that in a meeting. Or I sit there like a lump with a skeptical look on my face. The context of I Cor. 14 is spiritual matters, and defining practices for them. This includes both in the context of a typical worship meeting as well as outside of the context of a worship meeting. It is clear it includes both, as there are certain phrases in I Cor. 14 that include the words "in the church" to distinguish that phrase as pertaining only to the context of the worship meeting as opposed to inclusive of other contexts. There is no "blanket prohibition against inquiry". There is a simple definition that people can choose to note or ignore. If you ignore what God says there is a world of foolishness out there awaiting you. God doesn't issue blanket prohibitions against banging your head against the wall either.

Samarin is the one study that I've seen that has linguistics terms and discussion in it. We've discussed this already on the thread - he goes into 16 characteristics of a language, and consonant mapping. Those were the two tools I saw where linguists were trying to get at kinds of knowledge of a language or utterance they couldn't understand. If people were honestly pursuing knowledge on this topic I would say save it, write a paragraph about your language background, and put it up on a file share site somewhere that you could later give someone access to. But I don't see any evidence of a lot of wanting to pursue knowledge on the topic. All I see is a continual bashing of beliefs that don't line up with what the thread starter has already decided, and the main goal of trying to convert people to admit they were lying and faking in TWI.

And one more time, Raf has NOT made his points on the doctrinal foundation of his point, either here OR in the doctrinal forum, and there are valid concerns with that which I have raised and that have NOT been answered. What are these concerns? 1) No scriptural verse backing what Raf says is a "promise" that "modern SIT will produce languages". 2) Rejecting that I Cor. 14:2 says "no man understands", yet using the same verse to try and prove SIT is guaranteed to produce a human language. 3) No response at all for "no man understands", yet that is CORE to the premise of his whole foundation.

OK, so for doctrinal position this is the first substantive post I see from Raf on this. To summarize, his position unless he wants to refute it is that God doesn't give a promise in scripture that "SIT is a language". My point is substantiated. Raf isn't interested in investigating this from a truth perspective, just to attack people's beliefs. Of course, I'm still left with the question of what exact Biblical standard he is referring to here, as it takes an act of God to even get him to admit ANY kind of Biblical position with scriptures AT ALL.

Get over yourself. You "may even respond"????? You've "entertained it long enough"???? Who died and made you king? You are not posting your doctrinal assertions on that doctrinal thread, and others aren't either. The only "doctrinal digression" going on here is you writing the word "NO" when asked for your doctrinal position on this topic. Condescending tone. Assumption you "own" the thread and the argument. Talking about fictional "digressions" when the topic of your main post HAS to include a doctrinal assumption. Of course any discussion challenging your assumptions on this topic is ON TOPIC. You are just dishonestly trying to frame the conversation in a way that interests only you. You aren't the only person on this website.

OK I'll take that criticism. To me its been interesting to dig into the broad scientific study to see what I can learn from language form and context (not language meaning as its not understood). I've learned more about the detail in linguistics than I ever knew before. I guess I still hold the viewpoint that if a scripture speaks clearly on a subject that it is going to outweigh man's observations about the subject. But I'm still interested to read the observations, if nothing more than to further my education on it. I thought I was posting up plenty of commentary on the substance of that broad field of study and all the research we are reading, even if I didn't agree with them. I thought that wasn't ignoring it. But since I'm arguing one side of an argument, I guess I'll take the "I'm ignoring the research" observation instead of the "I'm disagreeing with the research". But I really don't think I'm ignoring it.

I was still looking for a verse that backs up the position that modern SIT producing a language is a promise of God, like he states. Do you have one that you think he supports? I understand the roundabout reasoning of the word tongues being translated the same as language. However, I see that as a secondary thing in ANY of the verses. Maybe there is no clear verse stating that promise. I'm not thinking of all the verses, and OldSkool brought another one up about proving God that I hadn't thought about until he did. If so, then I'd like someone to state that. All Raf ever does is say "I've already refuted you" when he's never discussed the point of whether he feels there IS a clear verse on the subject stating the promise and where it is. Or that there is not a clear verse on the subject, and his position is that "glossa" should be translated "languages" everywhere, not the physical organ of the tongue, which it IS translated in certain places. I'm just looking for substance on the argument and coming up way short. And Raf is too emotionally involved at this stage to give me a straight answer. I don't know, I took offense at the snide comment most recently asking if I was just "making this stuff up and expecting everyone to believe it" when I stated a clear verse, a direct reading of the verse, and an applicable one of the 10 Commandments. And I take offense at all those similar comments. And if he is not going to cut that out, there are times where I am going to throw that cr@p back at him. I mean do you literally think that I made up one of the 10 Commandments? Or is that a BS statement and a snide comment? He is being rude. And I am complaining. But rather than waiting for another's resolution on it, I'm handling it myself by confronting him on it. And I am responding in kind. One thing I did way too often in TWI is not stand up for myself. People would attack, and I would just internalize and eat it, then it would build up. That's a great recipe for a lack of physical and mental well being. So I'm handling things as they come up. It has kind of fluctuated. Been worse and better. Usually gets better for a while after it gets confronted, then emerges later along with frustration at logical arguments.

Well, your post on J.E. Stiles and info from that site gives a lot of insight. He was a Pentecostal that split with his church and felt his mission was to lead many into SIT. So he did. I think Stiles writing in his book was groundbreaking and a clear distinction and break from mainstream Pentecostal teachings of his day. He could arguably have had a genuine ministry like BG Leonard that Wierwille glommed onto and plagiarized for himself. Hmmm. No makeup, long dresses, bowl haircuts for the guys, women can't speak in the church, a sound system that involves turning the minister's mic up to about 120 decibals, and a crappy band as backup. And all their repressed out of control behavior being expressed "in the spirit". Once you understand them, what's not to like?

OK. How do you account for the "nobody understands" in I Cor. 14:2 with the specific way you are supposed to prove it? Proving Him could carry many connotations, including proving Him by SIT yourself. Also, what's the explanation of the apparent contradiction in scripture between the commandment "thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" and "prove me now herewith" in your view? That's a little finer grained cut, but it must be doable if scripture doesn't put us in a non-winning predicament. And your opinion about Raf having "discredited my argument scripturally", and me "acting as if he had not"????

I think the "American Methodist" Pentecostals is more mainstream. "Pentecostal" carries a negative connotation to many mainstream Christians. I know of several non-profit Christian organizations that will not employ Pentecostals but will accept a laundry list of other denominations. There's a long list of reasons why, but basically it boils down to questionable practices surrounding TIP with at least some churches under that heading, to include snake handling, trances, smacking people in the head like Benny Hinn, out of control behavior to include falling down, making animal sounds, dancing and running in aisles, and many other shady practices. I've literally seen a bunch of that by choice - I wasn't raised Pentecostal my early church experiences were Presbyterian. Oral wanted to reach more people and didn't want to be hindered by that connotation. So he separated himself and made a new org (fancy that). This kind of brings up another point and another side to this argument. In a day where Pentecostals were exhibiting all sorts of questionable behavior surrounding this, TWI probably did people a service in teaching this in a way that didn't involve "receiving the Holy Ghost" like Benny Hinn does. I feel they went overboard on Pharisee-like legalism with how they taught the excellor stuff in the INT class, but I'm also trying to remain objective and not throw the baby out with the bath water. I mean rather than the result we see here, where about 50% of the people that experienced that teaching now reject SIT across the board and say they were lying or faking in TWI, we all could be writhing around on the floor and smacking people in the head. That would be worse.

Can someone else please chime in on their opinion on whether or not Raf has "discredited my argument scripturally"??? I see no scripture quoted, no discussion of scripture quoted, and just basically a lot of reasoning within himself of how he thinks that it SHOULD be logical that SIT produce languages (no argument from me there) and his conclusion that IF it is logical then God should allow it to be tested (big argument from me there supported scripturally). I am not "acting as though you have not". You simply have not. I'm asking for others opinion on this because it's clear to me by Raf's incessant snide comments and namecalling to me that he would not receive it from me no matter how true it is.

Raf, your incessant snide remarks and namecalling bring these types of responses on all by themselves. I have received no apology from you for them, and I see more of those types of comments in your posts today indicating you are NOT sorry about your behavior. I refuse to be held to a different standard than other posters on this thread. The picture I posted yesterday that you either moderated and removed yourself (because you have shown you WILL do that kind of stuff) or whined about and got another mod to remove was a perfect depiction of a face of someone who is whining and pouting. You refused to state your point biblically. That's dishonest to the other posters who ARE stating their points biblically. You come off to me that you don't want your views or logic challenged, but just want to put out your opinion as rhetoric and have it believed and accepted unquestioned. "Unspeakable rudeness" - I mean pull in your lower lip. You can sure dish it out but you can't take it. And my assessment is that whenever you get to where your logical position is challenged and there is a point involved, rather than continuing a logical and objective discussion you fall back on more namecalling and whining. You then try to make the argument about how badly you are being treated. That's a logical fallacy, along with the fact that anyone can read your personal attack statements, which makes it hypocritical as well. My prediction is that you will not ignore me. You have a logical argument posed out there that the reason linguists can't find a "real language" in modern SIT is that God defined SIT to be such that others hearing it will not understand. You keep namecalling that position too - calling it "contorting scripture". We now have a KJV and a NASB interpretation of that verse up in the thread. I'll post a few other translations. Then I'll let the audience determine if I am "contorting scripture" to expect that when God says "nobody understands" that it means "nobody understands". I mean WOW - it's such a magical contortion of scripture that all you have to do is read the words right where they stand. ASV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. BBE 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he who makes use of tongues is not talking to men but to God; because no one has the sense of what he is saying; but in the Spirit he is talking of secret things. DBY 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaks with a tongue does not speak to men but to God: for no one hears; but in spirit he speaks mysteries. DRA 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man heareth. Yet by the Spirit he speaketh mysteries. ESV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. GNV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For hee that speaketh a strange tongue, speaketh not vnto men, but vnto God: for no man heareth him: howbeit in the spirit he speaketh secret things. KJV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. NAB 1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to human beings but to God, for no one listens; he utters mysteries in spirit. NAS 1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. NAU 1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. NIB 1 Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no-one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. NIV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. NJB 1 Corinthians 14:2 Those who speak in a tongue speak to God, but not to other people, because nobody understands them; they are speaking in the Spirit and the meaning is hidden. NKJ 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. NLT 1 Corinthians 14:2 For if your gift is the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking to God but not to people, since they won't be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious. NRS 1 Corinthians 14:2 For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God; for nobody understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit. RSV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. WEB 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an {unknown} language, speaketh not to men, but to God: for no man understandeth {him}; yet in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

And your attempt to frame the conversation so that you don't have to face logical opposition on what you want to consider "your thread" is transparent. The discussion on this thread involves functional AND doctrinal elements, and has so since the beginning. Otherwise you would have no basis to discount "modern SIT" or compare it with anything. God IS faithful to His Word. People SIT aren't going to be understood by others, outside of a special miracle. If you think your interpretation of I Cor. 14:2 means you can test SIT, then explain your logic, rather than avoiding questions, personally attacking other posters and trying to redirect opposing viewpoints to a thread nobody is reading or participating on.

Wierwille, being an older man, preyed on young minds. He controlled the frame of the conversation. You were either "my kids" or a "cop out". And people were so whipped up by their Christian excitement and desire to serve that those two terms defined young people's existence. A wolf in sheep's clothing. Quite obviously to us now, selecting a different Christian church to attend other than Wierwille's should not produce traumatic psychological trauma, or shunning, or hate speech from TWI leadership. All of those things display non-Christian fruit.

Thanks for making my point for me so clearly. Israel demanding a miracle from God that He had not promised = Raf demanding a miracle from God such that linguists in a lab understand SIT when He says "no man understands". You made a perfect case for the rebuke in that commandment applying directly to you. Your response to the rebuke, however, is not so admirable. You call it "making up excuses", etc. And to answer your personal attack question about whether or not I make stuff up and no one will notice, no I don't. I don't have to. Between a few simple scriptures, and your logic, it kind of all writes itself.

WW, just so you know, I am very familiar with the word "him" after understandeth being from a Greek word that only appears in the Stephens text, but not the other 6 major critical Greek textualists. My contention is that it makes little to no difference to the overall meaning of the verse. For instance, as related to my beliefs, I am perfectly comfortable with the NASB and other modern translations of that verse where it does not appear. It doesn't change my beliefs in the least.

Nobody is "using" this verse to try and move any agenda along except you. I am just reading it and contrasting it with people's opinion. If you don't like the verse that much, take it up with the Author. You know, the one that made the commandment on the tablets He miraculously wrote on Mt. Sinai, which included the commandment "thou shalt not tempt (test) the Lord thy God" ??????