Raf

It was Asians.

Does anyone have an interpretation? I do not recognize this tongue.

I suspect this conversation has reached a natural ending point. While I welcome further discussion, I don't intend to spur it along. Thanks for hearing me out.

No offense taken

Maybe they're all SITting around and waiting for an invitation. (Ducking)

;)

I never said stupid or asinine!

I think I'll move away from even sounding like I'm trying to prove or disprove anything. It wasn't how I started this thread, and I think we'll all agree it's been explored ad nauseum. I'll concede (as I always have) that I cannot prove my point. Your account fits in with the type of account I've previously addressed. If you or anyone else draw value from that, far be it from me to stop you. As long as you're not demanding I account for it (and it looks like you're not), I see no need to demand that you prove it. We're good. On the issue of Acts 2, we're in some pretty firm disagreement. I don't see anything in Acts or Corinthians to suggest that SIT should result in anything other than a human language save a hyperbolic, hypothetical statement by Paul that there's such a thing as "tongues of angels" that SIT can produce. Like "faith that moves mountains," I believe "tongues of angels" was posited as an Nth degree kind of possibility (which is to say, not possible). That's my opinion; take it or leave it. Other statements in Corinthians seem to indicate that the people present generally won't know what language is being produced, but I don't see any indication that it's presumed to be non-language. WHAT is being said is a mystery because it's not interpreted, not because it's not a language. Could I be wrong? Of course I could be wrong. But I think I'm looking at a plain reading of Acts and Corinthians rather than an apologetic that seeks to answer why SIT is not producing a language. I propose a simpler answer: what we did is not producing a language because it's not SIT. It's free vocalization. With that reading (I'm looking at you, chockfull), the question is not "what changed between the first century and today?" The appropriate questions become "what did they do that we're not doing? Can we do what they did? And how?" And I have no answer to that.

Point of amusement: the poll is meaningless, but the last vote was another confessor (welcome) and the one before that thinks it works the way Pentecostals say. And CES has zero votes

Amen, socks

I do not wish to be disrespectful here, so let me just say that i have explained my skepticism regarding such accounts before and that Samarin offers a disapproving explanation for them in his study, cited on this thread. Consider this a blanket statement on my part to absolve me of any need to venture into the distasteful position of policing other people's experiences. In other words, i'm going to shut up in the intetest of politeness. Don't read into it.

Nice. Guess what? ;)

Well, maybe not "embracing." ;)

;) I may meet Randi this week.

I didn't realize I was a master of skepticism. I respectfully withhold judgment on the first person account provided here, for reasons I've expressed on another thread. If this makes me a master of skepticism, then guilty as charged.

Thank you. And thank you all for entertaining the logical consequences of agreeing with me, even though you disagree with me. It is noble.

By 42, i mean an Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. I don't have anything to propose that covers all the bases. Cessation theory would answer every practical question, assuming i'm correct, but does it stand up to Biblical, doctrinal scrutiny?

I don't know if anything changed, and if something did change, what it was. Maybe the cessationists are right? That would be consistent with the Bible being true but the current practice being false, wouldn't it? I don't know. I did my best to distinguish what i know from what i conclude as a matter of opinion. But i do not have a 42 on this.

Dude, Where's My Car 54, Where Are You? Oh my goodness. Certified lunatics are running ad campaigns, and if i put my ear on the steps, i can hear them!

Never meant to imply you were on trial, Tom. Just saying while I remain skeptical, I could see where you or others would find affirmation or confirmation of SIT in your account. Me, I've heard it before, always second or third hand,... And I'm off topic and will stop there. Good morning.

Actually...

How does he explain Paul thanking God that he speaks in tongues more than anyone in the church at Corinth (the more reasonable interpretation of the verse, seeing as I doubt he bragged about SITting more than ALL of them combined). Very confused about where you're headed with this, Steve. Not to make too much of it. Are you suggesting that the process of free vocalization, complete with its failure to produce a bona fide human language, IS what they were doing in the first century church? In effect, that God is instructing people to engage in free vocalization as a form of worship which, on a rare occasion, he will interject by inspiring an actual language as the rare exception and not the rule? If so, I submit as a preliminary response that such an interpretation would have floored Paul. Again, preliminary.

Yeah, he does. Interestingly, not only does he cite Samarin, but he also cites Rev. Vern and Landry! Ok, I'm kidding. He doesn't cite Landry (who, after all, was a college kid writing an undergrad paper). He does, however, cite at least one of the sources cited by Landry. So kudos to Landry for choosing respected sources! ;)

I'm actually in the middle of reading this one, and don't know where it's going. This writer tries to tackle tongues from a historical, Biblical and linguistic perspective. Who wants to lay a bet that he quotes Samarin? http://markmoore.org/resources/essays/tongues.shtml

Here's a link to page 2 of Steve L's thread on Acts 2. Here GSer Tom relates his account of attending a meeting where a speaker with no background in Aramaic began speaking in tongues and producing something close enough to Aramaic that Aramaic speakers present verified it. I cite and link without commentary: