chockfull

There could be a lot of room to look at that. Samarin if you read the linked article from p. 61 to 65 does some pretty interesting stuff statistically speaking that I would have to think would be largely without the computational power in 1972 that we have today. I mean, that was when a computer bug literally was a roach in a vacuum tube. Our iPhones today have more compute power. May be something to this.

Hmmm. Doesn't sound familiar. SIT first in a denominational church where 80% of the congregation didn't believe in it or accept it. Naturally occurred as a flow after being born again. Didn't learn many verses or have much teaching on it till later. TWI's BS corrupted it. Now trying to get back to the pure water. As a psychoanalyst, Raf, don't quit your day job. How much you want to bet that guy has had someone try to collect $1M doing this, but because nobody could prove the interpretation they didn't win. The only way to win $1M from him is a Pentecost type of miracle. And if you believe God will back that, you need to be praying for the right numbers to enter in Lotto instead of wasting your time there!!!!

I think voice recognition has its roots in ngrams mathematically. That's a bit different conceptually than statistical analysis or OR.

And just to think, all you would have to do to turn this paragraph from rhetoric into accuracy is replace the word "languages" with "known languages".

Could you tell me some stories about half-baked abusive alcoholics on nicotine to distract my mind from the pain of linguistics terminology?

Just trying to put a little rational objectivity behind the "innovative" conclusion of his study. I might find it reasonable to think that a guy who spoke Swedish in his home for years growing up might reproduce some sounds. But going from there to a logical leap of ANYTHING you've ever heard? A bit much for me. I mean if that's true I really need to tap into the power of that subconscious. I mean I could be getting 100's on every test I take, and so much more!!!!! I mean with a subconscious that powerful what's next? The Secret? The example he gives is the English aspirated sound after the P in Paul, as opposed to the French language not having that. You know, kind of like my Spanish sounds to the natives in Cozumel? Gringo? I'm sure if God can't get past my accent and make my tongue be a perfect representation of the language with absolutely no trace of Gringo, then I absolutely must be faking it, right?

All of Samarin's works I saw were published in 1972. After reading through the one article I have access to, he is very impressive on the linguistics side. I have to look up a lot of words when reading him. I mean, he was the Professor of Linguistics at Toronto University. The examples he gave on the exposure to language were more like a guy with a Swedish surname in the study, if they had access to him they would ask if Swedish was spoken in the home as a youth. If so, then they could logically add Swedish sounds to look for in the glossa. Not really unreasonable, and definitely not unlearned. Really good overall, and I might spend $31 to try and find an out of print copy of his main work on the topic. Just because I point out inconsistencies and don't agree with his conclusions don't mean I don't respect his work.

Read that page one more time. To prove languages were "derivative" he did consonant maps of English speakers doing glossa. Then he noted all their glossa consonants were English, missing only 6 of all available. Then he noted that the English consonant map applied to "several other native languages". Then he ignored that and concluded that was an indication they were all making it up. Wow, and just to think - now we have a Shazam app that you can play music into and it finds the band!!!!! That has a certain "gen se qua" element to it, doesn't it? Now if only we would have a "Babelfish" app that you could do that with to tongues. Then we could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that either it is a language or that your software needs updating!!!! But I'm sure it makes complete sense that somewhere in the depths of my unlimited subconscious mind, that I have a full range of the Haitian dialect of those guys that used to put up the tents at the ROA, to be pulled up by my horribly evil faking subconscious mind all when I'm trying to focus on something else and pray. I've got to watch that subconscious. I mean, who knows when I might be daydreaming about a steak while driving and it takes over and kills 3 pedestrians and then cusses out the cops. It's evil I tell you. EVIL

By all indications Paul had been previously married and had a son. These were requirements for his position in the Sanhedrim prior to his conversion. At this stage in his life, he was either traveling without them or was a widower with no desire to get married again. Unique circumstances Paul was noting. Not really about celibacy as a choice. Maybe it occurred naturally with the new birth, and it didn't need to be addressed until there were all sorts of complicating issues such as those surrounding the immaturity of the Corinthian church? Then due to that it needed to be spelled out step by step so that people could live it correctly? Oh and nice touch ignoring my request to update that link. I feel rebuffed.

He thinks it is all fake. I personally think that if someone's spirit guide is into Santeria, and speaks fluent Spanish, and interprets it into English, that it might be possible that the spirit guide actually might have taken up residence in Juan from Columbia previously. Thus its not really the person exhibiting xenoglossalalia, it's his spirit guide. So is he really faking it, or not? Or did the devil make him do it? Hmmmmmm. Questions to ponder.......

That section is linguistically challenging to follow all the terms. He covers it being "derivative" and "innovative". Taking him on face value him stating that glossa is "all" using nothing but English consonants sounds like damning evidence. Until he states that "that chart above, which would fit at least in part several other natural languages of the world". So in other words, the consonants he is mapping linguistically could come from "several other natural languages of the world" that Samarin knows about. Come on, now Sam!!!!!! I also have personal evidence (no you cannot record me) that I have heard consonants in tongues when I am praying that do not map to English consonants. And I couldn't guarantee you'd hear it if you did record me - it changes. "Innovative" features he highlights as borrowed sounds, simplification of syllable structure, increasing frequency of words, and borrowing from other languages. He states people "have had contact with" a different language. So to me he really, really, really wants to find out that people are making it up. So he extends his rationale to say if a person ever heard someone else use a consonant sound not in English, then they can mock it in tongues. That's quite a logical leap there, Sam!!!!! ix-nay on the abberwocky-jay But I can still feel the emotion in Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

And thus, Samarin exposes his preconception prior to all his research. He's pre-disposed to think people are making it up. And maybe some of them are. Or maybe every single one of his samples that he examined are. I don't know. I don't have the samples, or the background write-ups of the speakers. But to me he comes off as finding what he wants to find. His xenoglossalalia examples that I've seen pretty much are all mediums writing messages from their spirit guides. So someone's spirit guide speaks Spanish and is into Santeria? And somehow that means I'm making up SIT?

I remember them. So do one in English. Now do one in a language you don't understand. The comparisons make a lot of sense right? If they do, you could be Samarin's research assistant

Well, I guess it's after work now in most parts of the US, so we're bickering realtime My issue with his conclusions is he says it's not a natural language, then the sentence after that says a main feature of it is it has the phonological components of a natural language. Now if this was a research paper and I was his research advisor, I would tell him to make up his mind and present a unified message. Or explain away why it was after all of his research he feels the components of the phonetic side of language don't contribute at all to his overall conclusion.

In that case maybe AA is his church, and maybe a better one than sitting in a pew somewhere. That's the one thing I do love to see. When the shackles of the Way fall off, all things are possible!!!!

I think I'm on a roller coaster ride without a parachute or ejection seat. I guess partially I'm investigating my own past and SIT - which happened before TWI simply, beautifully, and clearly between myself and the Father. No PFAL or excellor sessions involved. Raf kept telling me I was faking it and lying to myself and repeated it enough times it finally got me going. Now I'm having to learn linguistics terminology. I'm sure this thread all looks like a huge trainwreck. I guess I like to read too. My fault. Perfect storm. And you can call it fake and a counterfeit $2 bill all you want but that doesn't make it so. Just trying to get equal billing for the opposite viewpoint. His conclusions are inconsistent. To me it's like this. Research comes up with 2 + 2. Conclusion states 5 as the answer. That's the inconsistency. The degree of similarity and difference in natural languages and glossa are in question.

The fact that he defines xenoglossalalia as knowledge of a language not studied and glossolalia as speaking a language not studied has absolutely nothing to do with the inconsistencies I'm pointing out in his research. Which is why I'm speaking in detail about the similarities and differences, so people can consider and arrive at their own conclusions. Similarities: Phonetic structure - both use sentences, phrases, words, sub-expressions, and variance in tone and inflection. Differences: Speaking with a native accent, mathematically mapping consonants in tongue to native language produces inconclusive consistencies, messages are simpler and more repetitive Haven't evaluated those in detail yet. AT this point the only thing I'm noting is multiple authors challenging the consistency of Samarin's 4 books and Hartford article. Do they have a point? I don't know. I see some inconsistencies that I'm pointing out. Coincidence? Don't know yet. Well Samarin after looking into in detail in the one article is definitely a linguist himself. And he had enough interest in the topic to publish 4 books on it. I don't know of another author like that with linguist credentials. Maybe there are none. But that still doesn't mean his conclusions are right. Obviously there are many who don't agree with him.

I don't feel I'm reading into it. I addressed this in the section that lists elements of a language and the areas where Samarin found differences in glossa. Every single one of those differences had to do with the fact the message was not understood, therefore it could not fulfill those elements.

Agreed you noted it. But not addressed - why do you have people publishing papers pointing out Samarin's inconsistencies? I think you have a mistaken idea of Samarin's definition of xenoglossia. He defines it as the KNOWLEDGE of a language to which the speaker has no previous exposure or knowledge. His example was non Arabic speakers citing the Koran they've never read. P. 50. I absolutely disagree with this, as part of the definition used in defining a "real language" is circular logic. Meaning it's a real language if it involves communication with and understanding by others. The nature of tongues is different in private. It has similarities in public, but is not the same thing. This is clearly stated in I Cor. 14. Nice extemporaneous speech there. Not really relevant to actual material in Samarin, other than a loose paraphrase interjected with your personal beliefs. Searched for it in the "Linguistics" article. Didn't come up. Overall search produced this: "He defined glossolalia as "unintelligible babbling speech that exhibits superficial phonological similarity to language, without having consistent syntagmatic structure and that is not systematically derived from or related to known language." (William J. Samarin, "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia," Language in Society, ed. Dell Haymes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972 pgs. 121-130)" I don't have that work. It looks like in other writings he does divorce the phonological elements from other elements of language. I would have to read that work to see if he presents additional research to substantiate that statement there. That you wanted it to sound like a language adds zero value quantitatively or qualitatively on whether or not it actually was. Listen, I'm only dealing with Samarin with the references I do have, not the 4 books that I don't have. And I find internal logic issues with his research. I actually see more evidence of Samarin starting with a preconceived conclusion and fitting his research into his beliefs. Kind of like my impression of a lot of what you are doing on this thread. I see him saying in the paper I do have that glossa has the same overall constructs of language that natural language does. And I see him making distinctions in little things like consonant maps, accents, and repetition. The more I see him drill into detail, the less I see his conclusions supported. Apparently in other works, he extends his view on phonetics as not being an important relation to language but only being a superficial similarity. OK. Well the only two real ways you have to evaluate language are by 1) phonetics and 2) meaning. I'm sorry that my review of his research points out his internal inconsistencies in his conclusions. But that is not getting him to say the opposite of what he's saying. Apparently I'm not alone in this. People publish papers on it.

It is taught that Pentecost was a special miracle. In addition to the tongues, God used it as a special sign on that day that everyone understood without interpretation. I have heard anecdotes of about 5 or 6 incidents of similar occurrences where in a prayer meeting attendees understood the tongue directly. socks provided an anecdote like this on the thread. I'll look but maybe another thread in Doctrinal - Non-Christian Glossalalia? Until proven I am going to have to treat this as no different than personal anecdotes about the topic. No friggin idea. Maybe with all their sexual problems they had inappropriate Freudian attachments to their mothers?

Hmmm. Now I'm beginning to see the root of our differences, beyond the fact that you are implying you like to argue but in a fashion to make it palatable to most readers. So of all those terms - Jesus being God incarnate, God in the flesh, Son of God, and in Him the Father is revealed. All of those terms do not preclude the Trinity. The only one that does is "eternal not created".

Link doesn't work. Can you update? But rather that you prophesy. So if tongues wasn't available to the people he was speaking to, or not all of them, then by logic neither would prophecy be. So by that logic, it would be like Paul saying "I wish you were all billionaires, but if you can't do that, I'd rather you all be millionaires". What about the people eating government cheese who could be neither? They are SOL, and now are more discouraged.

Yeah, maybe if you use the words "making up" as many times as you can, the sheer volume of use will convince people that your viewpoint is right. When Samarin first talks about the phonetic similarities, he says nothing of the similarity to the native language of the speaker. He simply is evaluating the glossa messages, and notices that they have the same phonetical constructs as a real language - sentences, words, phrases, sub-phrases, etc. He literally states in the opening section of his paper - p. 51 P3. "This definition specifies three features that appear to be necessary in any definition of the phenomenon: (a) a phonological structure (that is, the kind of patterning of sound generally typical of real languages), which distinguishes it from gibberish. Later on in the paper - p.65 P3 - under heading "Compared with the speakers' native languages" he states: "When a glossa is compared with the native language of its speaker, it is seen to be both derivative and innovative. It is derivative because both its inventory of sounds and its prosodic patterns (means like a speaker's accent) are taken from his first language. This fact is illustrated below, where the consonant phonemes of one glossa are superimposed in boldface on an articulatory chart of the distinctive consonant sounds of English (see chart). In other words, all of the consonants which occur are those which occur in English, and only six English phonemes are not represented by this glossa. The chart above, which would fit at least in part several other natural languages of the world.... " (next he describes that English glossa people have an English accent). So to me, this is not compelling proof. First he labels glossa consonants as derivative from English, but notes that they also would apply to "several other natural languages of the world". Next, he describes how people doing glossa would have an English accent. From Biblical understanding, God does not "take over" vocal chords when SIT. In every occurrence of SIT, the noun in the sentence is the person doing it, not God doing it through them, for them, etc. So a person speaks, and God provides the words in a language through spiritual power. So the mere cataloging of sounds and numbers is not compelling. I also have personal anecdotes with this one. I know the tongues in my prayer life produce sounds that are outside of English consonants/vowels. And they are different from any exposure to a known language I am aware of. And they change.

I want to obviate something that I'm having a challenge with in this discussion. I really, really, really want to distance myself from TWI doctrine, in the spirit of what Jesus taught about "beware the leaven of the Pharisees". In this discussion I find myself more on TWI's side of teaching than against it. I am not comfortable with that at all. The last thing I would ever want to do is start another splinter group teaching basically the same thing as TWI does but saying they "didn't do it in love" kind of like CFF and Lynn and others do. I would rather do nothing. TWI doctrine needs to die, not have a whole bunch of bastard children running around for decades. With that said, I've still got to continue to pick up the pieces of my life, understand the Bible, develop my relationship with God further, and move ahead. I just mean that most of leadership in TWI was about theatrics and believability. So it's not surprising the classes followed suit.

It was a Stepford activity in a Stepford world.