Raf

To clarify, there is nothing in I Corinthians to support the notion that SIT will result in something undetectable as a language. The Bible is clear in every instance of SIT that a language is produced. While it was common for no one to understand the language uttered (hence the need for interpretation) nothing in the verses indicate that God works supernaturally to have speakers produce utterances that will defy human attempts to verify that languages are, in fact, being produced. It is not something Paul would have anticipated or addressed. Frankly, it's an excuse for why linguistics never picks up a language. Want to talk about K.I.S.S.? Ok, let's. The simple reason linguistics never picks up a language is that languages are not being produced. No supernatural explanation required. Simple, stupid. Occam's Razor 1, Apologetic Excuse Making 0.

You can lie to yourself about what you do all you want. But you can't lie about what the Bible says. Your interpretation was analyzed, dissected and debunked pages and pages ago. Go on and continue lying about what it says. But you're fooling no one. Not even yourself.

Cliffhanger Sylvester Stallone The Expendables (any)

Here's a better question: ever wonder why it says "languages" even though what you're doing doesn't produce one?

No one said the tongues were understood by the people present in every instance. It was so in Acts 2. But that just proves they were languages, not bits and pieces of a mishmash of several languages you heard once while flipping channels in Indonesia. Employing a straw man is a sign of lack of confidence in your argument. Or lack of intelligence. I will assume A

Go ahead

Traxx!

I love how the person who claims to be tapping into the power of the Almighty Creator of the universe, Who is personally concerned with his inability to articulate a prayer request so He intervenes by personally performing an otherwise impossible feat, getting the person to speak in a language so secret that no one can detect it (even though the whole POINT of the feat is to demonstrate a power that could only be attributed to God)... Thinks I'm conceited.

Boooogerrrrr

If I say you are faking it when you pretend the sounds coming from your mouth are another language, and you tell me I am wrong, then it is evident that you want me (or anyone reading this) to believe you. That's about as safe a presumption as anyone can make. To say you don't want me to believe you is a lie. People who don't care whether I believe them don't post here on this thread. Haven't for months. Feel free to continue SIT and TIP. Doesn't affect me in any way. I think you're faking it. You've shown me nothing to believe otherwise. In fact, you twist yourself into knots to redefine and redefine and redefine the experience until it cannot be subjected to pesky questions like "Can you prove what you're doing is what you claim you're doing?" The simple answer is, you can't prove it because you are faking it. Not you guys. You turn a simple thing like Biblical SIT, which is empirically testable (and fails every time) and turn it into the worst kind of Rube Goldberg contraption: complicated, inefficient, filled with unnecessary steps... and doesn't even work. You're faking it. I've demonstrated how in natural terms that describe the practice and fit ALL the documentable evidence. You CLAIM you're doing something that cannot be explained in natural terms. In order for me (or anyone reading this) to accept your claim, you need to demonstrate how what you practice defies natural explanation. The Bible is not evidence. It is the claim. You may accept it as evidence. Go right ahead. But no one else is obliged to accept it as evidence. In fact, those who DO accept the Bible as evidence are not obliged to accept that what you practice is the same thing as Biblical SIT. Biblical SIT produces a language. What you practice does not. They are not the same thing. If you want me to believe otherwise, identify the language. If you don’t care whether I believe you, stop demonstrating that you DO care. Pretty simple, I would think.

Fascinating. You do know that you didn't name a language, right?

Yes

With a little help from his luck dragon, a little boy reading a fantasy book helps a married couple realize whether they belong together.

I Would DO ANything For Love (But I won't do that)

However, if you'd like to discuss the Christ Myth theory (which I'm familiar with but don't subscribe to), I'm game. I'll start a thread in Questioning Faith. You're welcome to join it.

People don't realize that evolution says nothing at all about the origin of life. Only its development. They are separate issues. Science has no solid explanation for how life actually began. "God did it" is not an answer. It's a decision to stop seeking an answer.

Yes

Comparing me to Wierwille is rude, so don't expect politeness in return. I will tell you what I told everyone else: identify the language, or you have given no reason for ANYONE to believe you are doing anything supernatural. You want presumptuous? "It's genuine because I say so" is presumptuous. Wierwille was right about one thing: sincerity IS no guarantee for truth. I do not challenge anyone's sincerity. But when it looks like a counterfeit, sounds like a counterfeit, is produced in the same way as a counterfeit, and produces the same result as a counterfeit, it is not presumptuous to conclude it IS a counterfeit. It is presumptuous to insist on any other explanation without evidence to support it. So you're the one being presumptuous here. Want me to change my mind? Identify the language and knock off the but, but, but excuses that Allan couldn't resist for a single post.

Excuses excuses. They understood the languages in Acts. All sorts of anecdotes about people from China or the Middle East visiting and understanding the SIT and then disappearing, but suddenly, conveniently, scripture demands no one will be able to understand it. How convenient. Listen, pick a position and stick with it. Either the Word of God says it's an unknown language (it doesn't, by the way, but you knew that) or Allan is uniquely qualified to recognize an amalgamation of a single language that contains elements of "a Pacific Island" language (name it. I thought not) German and Italian. All rolled into one. Yeah right. If you can't prove it's a language, you can't blame me for believing it's nothing more than free vocalizations. If you want me to believe it's more than that, it's your burden to prove it.

The main character of the parent series was male. The main character of the spinoff was female. The male did not need eyeglasses. The female did not need a hearing aid.

Oh, give it to him.

My personal opinion, if a thread hasn't received a new post in over a year, it's pretty much done for. Nothing against resurrecting it, if you guys want to discuss it again. And obviously there are aspects I can no longer discuss because I no longer share a frame of reference with most of us involved in this discussion. Oh well.

Steve, I can take the insult that I'm as presumptuous as Wierwille ever was, seeing as it is ad hominem and completely without basis, so it rolls off my back. But I trust that if you cannot rebut my argument and demonstration without burying your message in a sea of equivocation and definition shifting, I must be onto something. Challenge to everyone who claims not to be faking it: Identify the language. No excuses. No "but look at this scripture that says blah blah." You claim to speak in a language you've never learned. Identify the language. Pass go. Collect $1 million. You can't do it, and it's not for any reason more complicated than what I have laid out in this thread. You can compare me to Wierwille, Satan or Hitler: pick your method of demonizing me. By all means. Go for it. It does not affect me in the slightest. Identify the language. Prove your claim, or stop criticizing me for declining to believe it.

You are in the majority. Nice to see you.

It is.