Raf

Exploring more is fair game. Restating that which has already been addressed and refuted is not. If "no man understands" is a blanket statement, then Acts 2 is a lie and all anecdotal evidence is Biblically invalid. It's not a blanket statement. There. Said it AGAIN. Who needs it said an umpteen and first time?

You think this is a bar room brawl? Hahahahaha!

I'm just going to inject one thought. To ask about I Corinthians 14:2 is to admit not having read the thread. It gets tiresome answering the same questions repeatedly. In the same vein, an observation was made about certain posts being off-topic. That observation was made in a way that made it clear the observer had not read the thread. THAT is a good answer to WHY SO TESTY? And it us not Directed at you, TLC. At least, I don't think it is.

Clarification: my "coach" and does not remember saying the words I attributed to him the first time I spoke in tongues. We agree that either he or I can be mistaken. So I present it as memory that may be flawed, not as fact.

The correct thing to do when you have never heard of a term is look it up, not dismiss it. There is more evidence for "spiritual anuse" than there is for spirits.

I think my ability to keep my cool is just about at a non-functional level, so I will be bowing out for the time being. If it's temporary (I AM exhausted), I'll be back soon. Otherwise, see you when you've documented a language. Djbp!

Context of the cited quote: "The "words" that the Holy Spirit breathes into our hearts are not in any human language. It is as we translate/interpret/articulate those feelings (dabarim) into the language we were taught as children that the "words" become linguistic artifacts." The problem with that, of course, is the Bible talks about speaking in TONGUES, and TONGUES in the Bible are languages, not spirit-imprints on our hearts that get articulated in otherwise meaningless sounds. If you didn't say codes, fine. Someone did, either here or on another thread. Paul's readers would have dropped dead of shock if someone tried to say glossa meant something other than language. I went through every usage in the Bible to document this, and we're still arguing about it. I said it before, and I'll say it again: the only way you can make modern SIT genuine is to distort the Biblical meaning of glossa so that it no longer means what it obviously does now and obviously did then. If we disagree, FINE. We disagree ON DOCTRINE. And that's not something I will waste another pixel arguing.

"This is how speaking in tongues can genuinely be speaking by the Spirit of God even if it DOES NOT PRODUCE a recognizable human language." You wrote that on another thread, Steve. There is not a scrap of BIBLICAL support for that statement.

No matter how hard you try to get glossa To refer to something other than a human language, even going to the extent of accusing me of distorting what Paul wrote, you will never be able to demonstrate that it is anything other than a human language while still resorting to the Bible. The Bible's use of the term is consistent.

I first heard "Easter Egg" as an item on a movie's DVD that wasn't on the menu. You would literally have to hunt for it, click on exactly the right spot, and BOOM! a hidden video. There are some great ones in the Lord of the Rings extended edition DVDs.

Probably because they were going for funny, not convincing. I agree that some overlap is unavoidable, and I recognize that we are dealing with the revival of long-dormant threads. But Doctrinal was set up to protect doctrinal discussions from this kind of digression, and to protect other threads from a doctrinal digression. No harm done. No one is complaining. But if someone did, he would be right.

The short answer is, it keeps conversations focused. The fact that I faked it, and my belief that others did too, has nothing to do with what the Bible teaches about speaking in tongues.

WordWolf, stop reading. WordWolf, stop reading. WordWolf, stop reading. WordWolf, stop reading. WordWolf, stop reading. A Legion ring. A glimpse of Supergirl, a version of Green Arrow that looked a little off, Jonah Hex, John Wesley Shipp's Flash (THAT was awesome). I also liked the numbers on Barry's speed dial, but why would he know these people, and why would they be on his speed dial, if he's not the Flash in Earth 2? Diana, Bruce, Hal. Why would Earth-2's Barry Allen know these people? Speaking of which, on Earth-2, Zoom is NOT: Ronnie, Cisco, Harrison Wells, Barry or Joe. Other possibilities? Eddie Thawne and... shudder... Henry Allen!

Ok, but the issue of proving it is actually ancillary to what the Bible actually says it is and what it produces. I think that was the original purpose of this thread. I suppose questions about whether it's still available or possible for believers today would also be on topic here, as long as we stick to "what does the Bible say?" as the criteria. But "prove you're doing it" or "disprove I'm doing it" is a discussion for elsewhere. As I said, I was answering a question. Then again, no one seems to be complaining about incorporating that question here. As a mod, if someone were to complain about it, I would have to agree that such discussions are out of bounds here. They're fair game elsewhere.

No. It would, at best, give you a philosophical foundation for believing in said dragon. But it would not be evidence-based.

Word Wolf, don't we owe that guy money? I mean, he never asked for it, but morally?

Let's examine that: The point of an analogy is to create a parallel sturcture to compare similar ideas. "I have a dragon in my garage" = "the actual audible production of something exhibiting double articulation and syntax, not understood by the speaker." (I would argue that "exhibiting double articulation and syntax" overly complicates something that, Biblically speaking, is much more simple. It's a human language. Think the way THEY did when they wrote it, not when centuries of linguistic studies turned it into a scholarly examination. We all know darned well what they meant when they wrote glossa, and we've examined every single verse where it's relevant. We're talking about languages. Not "codes." Not anagrams. Not computer codes. Nobody in Acts 2 burst into speaking in BASIC or HTML. But the analogy is holding up so far. You have a claim on either side. "If I claimed there could be a dragon in my garage, all I would have to do to prove it would be TO STAND IN MY GARAGE! I AM a Golden Dragon! I can't tell you when I became one, because for us, the day that the POGY crossed the International Date Line NEVER EXISTED!" Um, but you're not a dragon. You can SAY you're a dragon all you'd like, but you have to twist and distort the meaning of dragon into a pretzel to force the conclusion that you're an actual dragon. Now, you COULD wear a white robe with a white mask covering your face and a white pointy hat, wearing a pin that says "HRIC" (for Head Racist In Charge) and explain that you're a GRAND dragon. See? You've proved your point. But we weren;t talking about a Grand Dragon of the KKK. So in reality, all you proved is that you're a master of equivocation, because we all know what was meant when the claim "I have a dragon in my garage" was made. Now, of course, I'm not saying you're a racist or KKK member. It's just an example for the sake of exploring the analogy. Um, but you don't speak in tongues. You can SAY you speak in tongues all you'd like, but you have to twist and distort the meaning of "tongues" into a pretzel to force the conclusion that the sounds coming out of your mouth are "tongues." Now, you COULD say it's an indecipherable code known only to you and God, but we weren't talking about indecipherable codes. So in reality, all you've proved is that you're a master of equivocation, because we all know what was meant when the claim "I DO speak in tongues" was made (Biblically). Now, I'm not saying you actually DID produce an indecipherable code. It's just an example for the sake of exploring the analogy. This analogy is holding up rather well.

Ok, one LAST time. My thesis cannot be proven by linguists' observations. I never said it could. What I said, repeatedly, is that my thesis can be DISPROVED by linfuists' observations. It only takes ONE person practicing SIT to produce an identifiable language to disprove my thesis. I discount anecdotal accounts because they are insufficient for that purpose. The stories are usually second or third hand, and the actual participants are uniformly unavailable to document the claim. Anecdotal accounts are NOT evidence; they are CLAIMS. Using a claim to prove a claim is begging the question. Any linguist can study thousands of samples of SIT and never identify a language, and it would still not prove my point. I NEVER SAID IT COULD, and if I did say that, I would be mistaken. I have made that concession multiple times. Your citation of the opening post on this thread does establish that my personal experience and testimony is technically off topic on this thread, so let's stick with what the Bible says about SIT and glossa. I still find it ironic that I'm the only one who has tried to do that. By the way, your use of the dragon in the garage analogy does not refute my use of it. It validates my use of it.

Yeah. It was.

Flash is somehow getting better. Arrow is getting worse. And Legends of Tomorrow is... less than impressive. Captain Cold is.the.MAN. But I think DC is messing up on a villain that could/should be a formidable enemy of the entire Justice League. Supergirl is pretty good. The most recent episode was the best. And did you catch all the Easter Eggs in the latest Flash? Jonah Hex!

She IS Lana Turner! L.A. Confidential

It is odd. I'd be willing to bet Thomas Jefferson fell in this category. My regret isn't in what I meant, it's in how I articulated myself, which unnecessarily put people on the defensive. I'm glad you got my point (and from my recollection, you got it early). But not everyone did. I mean, here we have Steve asking me for a clarification just yesterday! As a communicator, I am responsible for anticipating how people will respond to my words, and avoiding undue misunderstanding if possible. I failed. I'm not in a tizzy about it, but I want to be clear I'm not hiding from it either.

TLC makes a correct observation. My account is out of place in this forum, for which I apologize. It was, however, a direct answer to a direct question that provides significant context for my role in initiating and participating in this discussion. So in the "meta" sense, it's on topic. But let's not allow it to distract us from trying to explore what the Bible actually says about SIT. Reading other responses and reserving the right to comment further.

Halloween H2O LL Cool J Deep Blue Sea

nce.