chockfull

It probably is a fair assumption to note that the sources for Samarin and other linguists HAVE to include Pentecostals, as by far and large they (and I include Assemblies of God and the Apostolics as part of this because they generally are considered part of this) are the largest Charismatic Christian group out there. However, if you go by their research the only answer is "I don't know". Why? Because they don't provide details about the sources of the glossa samples they are writing about that I have seen. Well, I've got about 80 pages in to stopping to question so far, and am continuing to pose and answer questions.

So this is the most recent post I see with any substantive content. It is not "contorting" the scripture to note that the main point of I Cor. 14:2 is NOT that SIT produces a language. The main point of that scripture is to define SIT. First, it is a man speaking to God, not other men. Next, nobody understands. Next, the man SIT is speaking divine mysteries (define later). It is possible to make a logical argument that because the word "tongues" in that verse is also used to define "languages" in addition to the human organ, that you could interpret it to mean "languages". However, I present that this is a "stretch" to take it from there to where we are today, with somehow that meaning "a real language is promised in the Bible", thus opening it up to all of the shenanigans with "research" on the topic, and the shift in focus on what is important in that verse to something which is a complete sidetrack itself. If that was what God intended to promise, I present that He would have at least made it the main subject or predicate of a sentence in the Bible, as opposed to a prepositional phrase. So what DOES that verse say with respect to a "real language"? When you SIT, it could be a real language, but that's not important. What IS important is that you are speaking to God, not men, and men do not understand. In a very general sense, you are speaking a "language" because you are mostly doing the same things you are when you speak to another person in your native language. On the topic of "importance", the gist of that verse focuses your mind on the importance that you are speaking to God, and you are speaking divine mysteries. Whether or not you speaking to God takes the form of a language known on earth to linguists is so far OFF TOPIC of that verse it's not funny. You are speaking to God, and He understands. THAT'S WHAT IS EMPHASIZED in that verse. Whether "tongue" means "human language" is kind of an interesting side note, but nothing to base a belief upon, and certainly nothing that a reasonable person would find motivation in to attack other Christian's beliefs and prayer life with, saying they are liars and fakers. No, doing that is "off topic" to the intent of scripture, to be kind.

This thread's topic is SIT, TIP, Prophecy, and "Confession". Yes, we have a doctrinal forum, and yes there is a thread on I Cor 12-14 that nobody is posting on there. However, running away from a request to state a scripture backing up what you believe on SIT, TIP, Prophecy and "Confession" is not "keeping this thread on topic". It is a dishonest avoidance of the topic. It basically reflects my assessment of what's going on here, and that is you instead of having an honest discussion want to attack others beliefs. This is seen from the beginning posts on the thread calling people who don't agree with your position "liars" and "fakers" That behavior is being a hater. If you have nothing positive to add to the thread, then my suggestion is to refrain from posting on it until you do.

Yes, it's a guess, because I have yet to see a scripture from Raf that describes what he does believe. I see dancing around it - referring to the word "tongues" as glossa, and languages, but mostly still just attacking others beliefs. You know VP's "all without exception" and "all without[sic] distinction" interpretation of the Greek words heteros and allos really don't stand up to language scrutiny. Those words do not mean that - they are more contextual. Also, within the verse there is plenty of leeway to describe the tongue not being understood by those in the prayer meeting. However, the verse doesn't state it that way - it states "nobody" which is pretty absolute. So the terminology right in the verse there indicates a more absolute sense of nobody understanding.

So how do you propose that we come to an agreement on this? I see two options: 1) Scripture as a common ground 2) Reading more ad hominem attacks about what it is I'm doing. I haven't seen scripture for you on this yet. So I'm left with you either having an opinion that is based outside of scripture, or being scared, or really liking namecalling more than getting anywhere on the topic, or with me being such a bad person that I'm causing you to withdraw into your shell and not discuss your beliefs because you are so traumatized. Since I suck as a psychoanalyst, I'm going with "I don't know Raf's scriptural reasoning for his belief that God promised us a language when SIT". I'm not saying the topic hasn't been discussed ad nauseum, I'm saying in all that nauseum, I still have yet to find scriptural substance and reasoning. Maybe there isn't any. I don't know. I'm just asking for it, rather than overusing the word "you, you, you", complete with colorful adjectives.

Your experience and mine closely align. I also lean towards the unknown language aspect just being a general characteristic as opposed to a "promise". I wasn't trying to prove it to others either. But someone called what I do in my private prayer life being a "liar and a faker". I think a lot of the baiting language and button pushing got a bee somewhat into my bonnet. I do have a reasonable background in statistics, hence a lot of discussion on that. The curse of that is seeing issues in published research all over the place. I have a nice little old spectacled lady who taught a college class in that to thank. Ruined my views for life. Me too.

So you are volunteering that you can provide Raf's scriptural basis for the belief "I believe that the Bible promises a language?" and that's been answered over (x4)? And the Acts 2 / I Cor. 14 position too? I'm all ears.

Then post up the scripture and interpretation that YOU DO AGREE WITH. You consistently fail at this, but consistently attack my beliefs. That's you BEING A HATER. Note that name is not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be "here's Raf's position, and he is wrong because he's a hater". I'm just trying to get you to stop hating and post up substantively about your beliefs and position. So one more time, please post up a scripture backing for "I believe the Bible promises a language when SIT". And please explain the apparent contradiction in scripture between Acts 2 and I Cor 14. I've posted up both for backing for my beliefs.

The numbers seem like they fit with my observations, although the anecdotes I have heard are all that are there, never had the direct experience with someone understanding a tongue directly.

I'm sorry, I was just trying to get you to STATE YOUR POSITION clearly. So please, explain the Acts 2 I Cor 14 contradiction. And a scripture backup for your belief of "I believe that biblical SIT promises a language"???? Do you think you could possibly do that without involving me in some way? I mean I can't see any way I am wrapped up in your beliefs. Other than if attacking me ad hominem DEFINES you in some way.

Wow - socks got drawn out into our foolishness. I had a hard time deciphering this, but I think what you are saying is that "glossa" = tongue = language as a term definition that's consistent across scriptures. I'm still stuck on Raf providing ANY scripture as a basis for his beliefs so that we can discuss from a common ground outside of his ad hominems and consistent framing of the conversation to be talking about what everybody else is doing or believes and attacking it. So Raf, scriptures there buddy?

That's why I gave the HINT: about scripture. Because your typical pattern is NOT TO PROVIDE THAT OR ANY SUBSTANTIATION, but instead to engage in a further ad hominem attack on my beliefs. Like in this post. Ad hominem attack start to finish. And no substantiation for what you believe. This post is saying "you, you, you....". I mean, get over what I'm doing and what I believe. Start posting up substantiation for what YOU believe. Then you'll stop BEING A HATER.

Next, let's hear your explanation of the apparent scripture contradiction where on Pentecost they clearly understood the SIT, and your beliefs here that it would be normal for people in a worship setting not to understand the language. I already gave my explanation in detail.

Let's start there. Substantiated by scripture, or just a nice overall feeling that God should promise this? Hint: usually a question like this should be responded to with a scripture quote as opposed to an ad hominem attack on the person asking the question.

This reminds me of arguments I used to have with denominationalists over the trinity. I'd say what I believe is I Tim. 2:5. They would say "I have no problem with that scripture, I just have a problem with your belief. My response would say "my belief is simply what that scripture states clearly". 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; I would get a lot of sputtering going on after that, and people getting mad. Just like Raf is sputtering away here, and just as mad. My belief, ONCE AGAIN for those that need to read it over and over to understand is this: 1 Corinthians 14:2 or 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.

And once again, why don't you, Raf, post up WHAT YOU BELIEVE on this, and let's measure your beliefs by the same yardstick. verse, context, situation applied to, etc. You just negatively attacking others beliefs is BEING A HATER. Especially when you offer no positive alternative. I mean what your posts on I Cor. 14:2 do isn't even ignoring the context, IT'S IGNORING THE VERSE. Applying to situations? Pentecost, and prayer. In I Cor. 14, the context shifts between public prayer and a prayer meeting and private prayer, back and forth. This is because it is instructing on SIT in both settings. What's at the center of this controversy is a "testable claim" that is "testable" only if you completely ignore what the definition of SIT in the epistle dedicated to clarifying it says. "Nobody understands". Clear definition, no ambiguity, no forgery, no context problems. So Raf, your position is calling God a fraud because He won't bend his definition to allow linguists to test it and egotists to spout off unchallenged. But sometimes He will reward the less obnoxious with a special miracle.

All Charismatic Christians deal with that question being pointed out. What about Pentecost? Clearly the term is the same "speaking in tongues". Pentecost has the context including all understanding the tongue, I Cor. 14 has the context where all do not understand the tongue. So it is an apparent contradiction in scripture, not some kind of "inconsistency in my opinion or viewpoint". What to do with it? I can understand Pentecost, and various anecdotes if they are telling the truth, as something God energizes for the people that is beyond what He guarantees in scripture. This is a miracle. Other scriptural examples include turning the clock back a number of degrees, Moses tablets, and on and on. Miracles aren't guaranteed, but happen as phenomenon in life. Healings are like this. Why do you see an instantaneous healing in one case, but nothing but the medical field in another? But I suppose you could have a viewpoint on that apparent contradiction like God is finicky and defines something in one place then takes it away without saying so anywhere else (cessationist). Or that God can't do miracles, and the Pentecost record is a forgery. Or any number of possibilities. So here instead of attacking me for one post, why don't YOU post up YOUR VIEWPOINT on why Acts 2 Pentecost has everyone understanding and I Cor. 14:2 has everyone not understanding. Then let the reader judge which seems more logical and scripturally accurate. Or I suppose you could keep being a hater and post up nothing substantive other than attacking my beliefs.

My position is a simple clear reading of the verse. This is not a tough verse. It says what it means right there in the verse. You already rejected all the anecdotes, so bringing them back in to bolster your point is dishonest. You know, kind of like "acting like a hater"????? And once again, God's miracles go over and above natural laws, and how things work normally. That doesn't invalidate the definition or the natural laws in any way.

Well, the "society" with the standards here consists of you and Raf. So really what I'm saying here is I'm not going to be held to a different standard than you guys are. If your "society"'s standards are so low, then maybe look to improve yourself rather than others. Oh, and the one finger / three finger deal right back at you with the Christian compassion arguments. It's totally HILARIOUS to me how people will routinely fail to recognize problem behavior in themselves but see it in others right away. Or the term "hater" could be referring to the more modern interpretation that doesn't involve Rodney King beatings. And you and your good buddy Raf can choose to draw lines at your leisure. However, you can't draw a different line for me than you draw for yourselves. "New English" definition of "nobody" now means "one guy". I'm sorry, to me "nobody" means exactly that, and encompasses basically ALL others. You not so much. You're the king of one-liners. You don't do much name-calling.

When basically one simple verse describes my beliefs clearly, and I have others calling that "one excuse after another", I think the term "hater" applies pretty appropriately. Maybe whine a little less and tell me one more time how a verse that says "when I speak in a tongue others don't understand" supports your position that linguists should be able to prove tongues produces a language. To me it seems pretty clear-cut that in the definition or major defining verses about SIT that "others" would include scientists. But hey, maybe we can do some Wierwillian shenanigans on that verse and it will open a window for you.

And in BOTH A and B, you have one guy speaking, and others not understanding. So regardless of the way you take it, both ways of taking it convey that. Neither the A or B interpretation lead you to "linguists should be able to understand SIT by pinpointing the language and documenting it for science". I mean when you remove the Wierwille-like trickeries as you point out, it's really not that difficult of a verse to understand. But I'll leave it to you rocket scientists to come up with the interpretation of that verse that says "for one who speaks in a tongue should be able to be put in a lab with a linguist and produce a language he is able to identify". I haven't read that in a "non-haters" commentary anywhere. But back to you guys....

For example, this entire post is non-substantive, not really contributing anything to the topic of SIT, TIP, Prophecy, but just whining about things in general. In other words, this post is a perfect example of "being a hater". Offensive language, insulting adjectives - look at them all "slippery slope, fallacy, predictable, disappointing, Darwinist". No substance. "Haters are as haters do" - Forrest Gump

Haters DOES describe behavior. It describes how people are acting. It is called "being a hater". It is a common term used in conversation in todays society. And apparently it hits REALLY close to home with you. Go figure.

Haters is describing the behavior. If someone isn't acting in that fashion then they have nothing to complain about. And if the mods are going to leave this thread open and allow YOU to continue to namecall and criticize, then it also has to be open for the same from the other side. I'll live with NO namecalling, and live with moderators locking this thread OR going back and editing ALL the posts where namecalling occurs. That's fair behavior. I suppose I'd also live with you developing a thick enough skin where you can take it as well as dish it out. I will not live in a hypocritical fashion where YOU are allowed to namecall, but I am not. And mods, if you are allowing this, you are not doing your job.

Once you remove the offensive language and terms from your posts I will consider your request. Until then, I'm just going to consider it in the category of "he can dish it out but can't take it".