Raf

Interesting analogy, Chockfull. I'll stew on it. In the meantime, let me try a sillier analogy. Pretend you have no prior experience with the very common adjectives and nouns I'm about to use. Just for the sake of argument. *** Suppose the Apostle Paul took a white, granular substance and put it in a cup of water. He drank it and declared it to be salty. 2,000 years later, a bunch of people decide to reproduce Paul's experiment. They take a white, granular substance and put it in a glass of water and declare it to be salty. Everyone who tries to reproduce Paul's experiment succeeds, and declare the result to be salty. Along comes the researcher. He has you reproduce the experiment. You do it. You drink the water. You declare it to be salty. The researcher then tests the water. He determines that it does not conduct electricity, as salt water would. Its ionic content is not the same as saltwater. It bears a superficial resemblance to saltwater. It's clearly water. It's obviously not poisonous. The researcher saw you put the white, granular substance in there. But every single time the researcher subjects the experiment to a test, no matter who is performing the experiment, it always, without fail, comes out without the known qualities of saltwater, even though the subject is declaring it to be salty and identical to what the Apostle Paul produced. Why would that happen? Well, maybe Paul used a cup while we used a glass. But the result of the experiment should be the same, shouldn't it? So we try a different approach: we redefine the word "salty" to include the taste but no other qualities of saltwater. After all, you're doing what Paul did, so the result must be the same. If you put a white, granular substance in a cup of water, just like Paul did, then the result of your actions MUST be the same as Paul's: salty water. It's so because Paul said it was so. After a while, one of the practitioners realizes something's not right and becomes a skeptic. He confesses: I used sugar. He can't find evidence of anyone reproducing the experiment and producing actual saltwater. All the samples are consistent with sugary water. All of them. A few other people also come forward and admit to using sugar. Just as many insist that it's saltwater, but they are reluctant to submit their drink for testing. We just have to take their word for it. Well, your skeptic can't go back in time and re-drink the water everyone else drank to prove it's ALL sugary. But every single time the experiment is done in a controlled setting, the end product is consistent with sugary water that is inconsistent with saltwater. What are we to make of this? Well, your skeptic might look at his own practice as well as those who have agreed to be tested and determined, to whatever degree of certainty that he can, that the white, granular substance Paul used was salt, and the white granular substance we've all been using today is actually sugar! This does not call into doubt anything Paul experienced or reported. It doesn't deny that the people who are seeking to reproduce Paul's experiment are actually doing something, not just drinking plain water. It only means that the people who are doing it today are not doing the same thing Paul did. This alternative explanation, we're using sugar where Paul used salt, explains every objectively observed case. That it doesn't explain every unobserved case is due to the impossibility of observing every case in the first place. Is it possible someone is getting it right? Sure it is. But the more we observe the experiment and test it, the less reasonable that possibility becomes. You could prove the skeptic wrong by producing saltwater. But every time you try it, it doesn't work. It's always sweet. *** I'm not denying that those who SIT are sincere. I'm not here suggesting that Paul was wrong or that Acts is wrong. I'm merely stating, plainly as I can, that we are not producing the same thing they described, and therefore we are not doing the same thing they did. Now, my silly analogy falls apart because salt and sugar are so abundant in our culture. But you get the idea. At some point, you need to stop re-defining salt to incorporate sugar into the definition and just recognize that you're not doing the same thing Paul did. Tongues MEANS languages. When you SIT, you should be producing a language. I don't know that you're not, but isn't it something that every single time SIT is tested, it's not a language? Maybe you're the exception. But the more I look at the objective research, the less convinced I am that anyone is doing what the Bible describes.

Ok, how's aboot: "You can't disprove it, therefore you have not convinced me that it isn't so."

One thing I appreciate about Chockfull is that you're keeping me honest and looking for holes in my logic. Let me say a few things to clarify matters: If I'm wrong about SIT in the Bible being human languages, then my hypothesis fails in a way that cannot be tested or proved. Those who disagree with me are entitled to that position. If I'm wrong on "code" as described by Poythress and those following his lead, then my hypothesis fails in a way that cannot be tested or proved. Those who disagree with me are entitled to that position. If I'm wrong on "tongues of angels" as a viable and widespread alternative, then my hypothesis fails in a way that cannot be tested or proved. Those who disagree with me are entitled to that position. If people are producing languages on a regular basis, but not when objective analysts attempt to bear it out because God doesn't want this experience to be tested, then my hypothesis fails in a way that cannot be proved. Those who disagree with me are entitled to that position. If Sherrill is telling the truth, despite my misgivings, then my hypothesis fails in a way that HAS been tested and proved. I believe the burden here is on validating Sherrill, but I don't know how possible or likely that is given the context of this thread. I'll look for his book in a public library, but if someone else gets to it first, please share what you learn. It occurs to me that every refutation of my hypothesis except the last one requires a "you can't disprove it, therefore it's so" conclusion. I am not satisfied with that. I liken it to the invisible, non-corporeal, non-thermal fire-breathing dragon in the garage. YOU present a hypothesis that can't be tested (modern SIT is real, there's a dragon in my garage) and when I deny it, my inability to disprove it is taken as evidence that your premise is so. I object. I can't prove my hypothesis (ie, disprove yours) because you won't let me. Or God won't let me. We're stuck there. Of course, that last refutation, if verified by objective, independent observers, would be quite satisfactory. But there we are expected to believe that an objective, unbiased linguist did not recognize the language of a glossolalia sample but was somehow able to catch the emotional content of a message and declare it to be "a hymn of love" (!!!!!!!!) that was "beautiful." You don't mind if I, at least in theory, question that linguist's objectivity, do you?

I'm going to assume I'm right, unless AHAT comes back and tells me otherwise... Arthur Dent is kidnapped by alien Ford Prefect, who has mistaken him for the starship captain he plays on TV and wants him to do battle with a real alien menace.

Jack Warden The Presidio Meg Ryan

Ok, now that I'm back on a computer instead of on my phone, I can look at this a little more systematically. Convenient is an interesting word choice. I find it convenient that where the Bible is clear on the meaning of SIT as producing an actual language, in the modern practice (where we have the luxury of a field of study called linguistics that has the capacity to recognize actual languages) suddenly the offered definition of SIT not only includes more than actual languages, but actually all but excludes actual languages. Tongues speakers have taken something that, as described in the Bible, is quite testable, and redefined it for the sole purpose of making it as untestable as possible. How's THAT for "convenient"? I'm not offering a Biblical refutation. That would be a doctrinal debate. I am offering a practical refutation. Tongues speakers, when subjecting their experience to objective examination, are not producing languages. (I'm still putting Sherrill to the side here: I am skeptical of his findings and suspect he's full of it, but still do not know enough to dismiss the findings outright). As for the scientific analysis, if you have seen nothing to debunk the modern day practice of SIT, I submit you are not looking very hard. It would be more fair to say you cannot produce scientific evidence to support it. (I believe the brain wave studies are inconclusive for reasons I have described: they don't compare SIT to admitted fakery, so they can't rule fakery out as an explanation). Again, Sherrill may be key here, but I believe my critique of his presentation thus far has been quite fair. Still not dismissing him: he's the best you've got in terms of scientific analysis. You may find him persuasive where I don't, and I'm happy to disagree there. I have no reason to accept this statement. I have no basis to believe you ever tried to SIT before becoming born again, and every reason to believe that if you had tried to free vocalize, you could have. Further, you made a later statement that you struggled with SIT even (presumably) after being saved. Seems to me you owe your ability to SIT more to a bottle of beer than you do to your salvation, but I might be reading into that. ;) Not funny? Ok, let me put it this way: if you never tried to speak in tongues before getting saved, you have no basis to conclude that you could not. Therefore, I have doubt as to the basis of your contrast: "I couldn't speak in tongues before, but I could after I was saved." Why should I believe that? I couldn't drive a car before I turned 24, but after I turned 24 I could. True story. It's not because I was incapable of driving before that. I was just a New Yorker. I didn't need a car. When I needed a car, I learned to drive. Turning 24 had nothing to do with it. Free vocalization is something anyone can do. You could have done it before you got saved, and if I'm right, you excelled at it after you got saved. I have no reason to believe that you, I, or anyone else on this thread or in TWI did it as a matter of a prideful heart or mindset. Rather, I believe it was most often done in the utmost sincerity, hunger and thirst for righteousness. My initial choice of words is unfortunate and puts you and others on the defensive. I apologize for that. If I had at my disposal a more diplomatic terminology, as I now do, I would have taken the more diplomatic course. My belief is that SIT is free vocalization. They work the same way. They produce the same thing. The only thing different about them appears to be the setting in which the practices are undertaken. You are free to disagree with me. I won't lose sleep over that.

I'm reading this now. No idea what it concludes. I've read maybe three sentences and can already see that it's worth posting. For all I know, it shoots me down. http://greatcommandmentseminar.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/mark-cartledge-ch-10-7-4-10-1.pdf

Another attempt to change "speaking in tongues" to "speaking in code," using Poythress as a backdrop. http://www.oswaldsobrino.com/2008/12/another-dart-bites-dust.html Reminder: I consider all such mental gymnastics to be a post-hoc apologetic effort designed to explain why modern SIT does not produce human languages, which a clear reading of the Bible tells you it will produce. Obviously, I can't put it past God to pull this stunt, but it's not what the Bible describes.

Ok, so you figured out how to free vocalize while drunk. ? I asked how you knew you couldn't speak on tongues BEFORE being born again. (PS: You could. You just never tried. Because why would you. But if I gave you the same instruction, minus the pressure and spiritual implications, not only would you have done it, but the results would have been indistinguishable from what you're doing now. The preceding is my opinion). It should be a given that by the time we get to session 12, you could SIT. I mean, from a Biblical standpoint, nothing was stopping you. Well, maybe that little voice inside your head that told you it was just you... Oh, wait, that was the devil trying to talk you out of it.

I understand. Take as much time as you need. Did you ever try to SIT before you were born again? Curious to know your basis for concluding you couldn't. Karl Kahler spoke in tongues while never having believed in the resurrection. Last I checked, you can't be born again without that belief. Google Poythress and free vocalization for the source of the term as used on this thread.

One thing that all scientists do is publish their raw data so that others who are investigating the same phenomenon can review the data and determine whether the conclusions drawn are valid. I don't know that we have that in any of the studies we've considered. I would be surprised if Samarin did not do this. I would be astonished if Sherrill (who is not a scientist) did. But that's my bias showing. Samarin's work is peer-reviewed. Sherrill's is not: it's presented in guideposts and in his own book, which has the same value for this discussion as anything written by Wierwille, Hagin or Jimmy Swaggart. If anyone, as a result of this conversation, decides to order Sherrill's book, I would be deeply interested in whether he provides further documentation of his effort at linguistic analysis of glossolalia. I'm not spending a dime on it. http://www.amazon.com/They-Speak-Other-Tongues-Sherrill/dp/0800793595/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350335257&sr=8-1&keywords=john+sherrill

I posted this in the About the Way thread on SIT earlier today. Needless to say, I don't put a lot of stock in it, but it would be dishonest not to include it. Of particular importance to our conversation is the section that deals with John Sherrill (hit Control F, look for Sherrill, and go to the third occurrence of the word). http://kenady.150m.com/chapel/bhs/glossolalia.pdf

Robin Wright Forrest Gump Sally Field

Re-quoting: Were these experts unaware of how far off they were in the number of languages and dialects? Or did we discover another 3,000 to 4,000 between 1964 (the time of this experiment) and 1972 (the time of Samarin's publication)? Yeah, but were they languages? Name the international language specialists. Who were these people? What were their findings (not their findings as reported by the good minister: their actual, reported findings. ... chirp... chirp... chirp... Awesome! Name them. Let's have a chat with them. ... chirp... chirp... chirp...

I think this article sums up Kildahl. http://www.bible411.com/glossolalia/chapter4.htm But it's a pretty judgmental article. Not one I would use overall to buttress my argument.

There are a few names that keep popping up. His is one of them. Malony and Lovekin are others. The psychological angle doesn't interest me as much as the sociological does.

I agree with Moore's conclusion that a plain reading of Acts and Corinthians compels us to believe that the tongues spoken of in Acts and Corinthians are human languages. I accept that this position is not universally held.

I don't think he's constructing a straw man so much as he's making a concerted effort at looking at this from all angles and deciding which one is correct. Keep reading. I don't agree with everything he says either (for example, I do not believe SIT opens you up to a Satanic influence).

Wow! I have been debunked! Or... Who were the linguists? What are their names and qualifications? How were they chosen? I mean, yes, they gathered at a "University of Columbia," but were they students or professors? Is that the same thing as Columbia University? Has anyone heard of the University of Columbia? Details, please, if you have them. Did Sherrill seek these linguists out at the college or did he stumble across one or two at church? Have they reviewed and affirmed Sherrill's report? This review of Sherrill's work tells us too little about the linguists to allow for much confidence in their professionalism. I have no reason to doubt them, true. Ok, not true. I have reason to doubt them. When anonymous scientists are cited by a religious writer who then uses their findings to prove a theological point, I think the reader is entitled to question the validity of the source. It's a question, not a conclusion. I'm not dismissing them. I just want more data. Not to mention: the expertise of a linguist is language. I have reservations about any linguist who claims to have "caught the emotional content" of a message and who subsequently labels such a thing "beautiful." I submit "beautiful emotional content" is not an unbiased, linguistic, analytic conclusion. And how does the writer here make the leap from "none of the tongues were recognized as a language" to "that these were true languages and not just gibberish was certain." Certain? Certain? Ahem: unless they could ID the language, certain is a strong word. The only thing "certain" is that this crop of linguists didn't know how many languages there are. They were off by more than 100 percent! What was the gibberish? Was any genuine effort made to make the gibberish sound like a real language? You know, like the stunt I pulled in TWI, which blessed sooooo many people? We don't know. Samarin makes the point that glossolalia is not gibberish, but unlike this report, Samarin is quite clear in defining his terms. With Samarin, gibberish does not contain the quality of effort to produce a real language present in glossolalia. Is Sherrill hitting on the same thing here? We don't know. What we do know is this: Sherrill and the writer of this piece made their presentations before Samarin's study was presented, so they must be forgiven for not referring back to his work. Sherrill was a writer for a religious publication who went on to become an avid tongues-speaker and who wrote a book on the subject. The title of his book was, in all likelihood, NOT: "I'm Faking Tongues: Here's How You Can, Too!" His objectivity is very much subject to debate. Hmm. Dismiss him? I don't have enough to dismiss him yet. After all, I'm biased too, but I hope you're not dismissing what I say because of it. Why doesn't Poythress cite Sherrill? You would think that if linguists studied glossolalia and determined they were "certainly" languages, someone as open-minded as Poythress would find it worth mentioning. No? Samarin, whose study was published three years after this paper and seven years after Sherrill's book, doesn't even mention him. Why? Why does no one writing after Sherrill cite him as a credible source? And if Sherrill did conduct an unbiased study, why couldn't the results be replicated? Shouldn't Samarin have shown the same results? Shouldn't every linguist who studies glossolalia reach the same conclusion? Did Sherrill happen to have a recording of the only genuine SITters on earth? Results of real scientific studies can be replicated. That is, in fact, the mark of a genuine finding. If I boil water and determine that the boiling point is 212 degrees F, when you independently boil water, the temperature should be 212 degrees F. Have Sherrill's findings been replicated? And dare I ask how his finding of certainty in language content squares with God not participating in the studies? It's intriguing stuff, though, I must say.

This one is a bit more up the alley of my opponents on this page. A search for the name "Sherrill" (cited by Landry and Moore) will save you time. Look for the third occurrence of Sherrill's name. http://kenady.150m.com/chapel/bhs/glossolalia.pdf Personally, I put no more stock in this paper than I do in Wierwille's RTHST, but it's worth putting out there for those looking for ammo against me. :)

For the record, my life goals are to make gold valuable and to popularize the use of water for thirst-quenching.

The article you just promised to read should satisfy your request for documentation from Waysider. I picked that article, incidentally, because it cites some of the same sources that Landry cited, perhaps allowing for a bit more insight into what the cited linguists were saying. That said, I do not know who Mark Moore (the writer) is or what his credentials are, so reader beware. I do think his article is better-written than Landry's paper.

Bringing this up without comment, only to recover what we can of Landry's paper.

By the way, I urge you to read this: http://markmoore.org/resources/essays/tongues.shtml It weighs heavily, though not entirely, in favor of my hypothesis, but there are many things I think you can glean from it to challenge my view.

Chockfull: this is my fault, but there's no L in Poythress. I think I was the first to make that mistake, and I've stuck you with it. I don't want to dismiss Landry just because he was a college student writing a paper for class. That would be ad hominem. But a couple of things need to be noted. One, I cannot vouch for the quality of his analysis, not having seen his primary sources (aside from Samarin). Two, I am reasonably confident that Landry was, at the time, an evangelical kid who set out to write something supportive of SIT, not a cold analysis of what SIT actually produces (I could easily be wrong about this. I'm basing it on his concluding paragraph, which you were kind enough to quote earlier in this thread: That last paragraph does not withstand academic scrutiny). In any event, what Landry writes about other linguistic analyses should stand on its own. It is not false because Landry had an agenda. It is not true because Landry did not have an agenda. Landry has nothing to do with it. It's just that where I would cite Samarin as an authority, I would not do the same for Landry. I doubt that would upset him. So my jury on the statements you made regarding his analysis of Samarin is still out.