SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[chockfull]

from Wikipedia. Linguistics

It would seem you are taking language meaning (that nobody understands SIT) and ignoring the rest of what can be known from a very broad scientific field of study.

OK I'll take that criticism.

To me its been interesting to dig into the broad scientific study to see what I can learn from language form and context (not language meaning as its not understood). I've learned more about the detail in linguistics than I ever knew before. I guess I still hold the viewpoint that if a scripture speaks clearly on a subject that it is going to outweigh man's observations about the subject. But I'm still interested to read the observations, if nothing more than to further my education on it.

I thought I was posting up plenty of commentary on the substance of that broad field of study and all the research we are reading, even if I didn't agree with them.

I thought that wasn't ignoring it. But since I'm arguing one side of an argument, I guess I'll take the "I'm ignoring the research" observation instead of the "I'm disagreeing with the research". But I really don't think I'm ignoring it.

[chockfull]

Feel free. If you're on topic, I may even respond. But I've entertained the doctrinal digression long enough. It's not my fault people want to ignore their own threads.

Get over yourself. You "may even respond"????? You've "entertained it long enough"???? Who died and made you king? You are not posting your doctrinal assertions on that doctrinal thread, and others aren't either. The only "doctrinal digression" going on here is you writing the word "NO" when asked for your doctrinal position on this topic.

Condescending tone. Assumption you "own" the thread and the argument. Talking about fictional "digressions" when the topic of your main post HAS to include a doctrinal assumption. Of course any discussion challenging your assumptions on this topic is ON TOPIC. You are just dishonestly trying to frame the conversation in a way that interests only you. You aren't the only person on this website.

[OldSkool]

OK I'll take that criticism.

I'm largely ignorant of all things Linguistics. I am willing to learn, especially in this case where my ignorance may have been taken advantage of.

I am more than willing to SIT and send anyone interested a .mp3 to do with as you see fit.

[chockfull]

OldSkool, I agree with you wholeheartedly. There's a difference between demanding from God a promise he doesn't give and proving MAN's CLAIMS by holding MAN's CLAIMS to a Biblical standard, which is all I have done on this thread.

OK, so for doctrinal position this is the first substantive post I see from Raf on this. To summarize, his position unless he wants to refute it is that God doesn't give a promise in scripture that "SIT is a language".

My point is substantiated. Raf isn't interested in investigating this from a truth perspective, just to attack people's beliefs.

Of course, I'm still left with the question of what exact Biblical standard he is referring to here, as it takes an act of God to even get him to admit ANY kind of Biblical position with scriptures AT ALL.

[Raf]

I'm largely ignorant of all things Linguistics. I am willing to learn, especially in this case where my ignorance may have been taken advantage of.

I am more than willing to SIT and send anyone interested a .mp3 to do with as you see fit.

As a researcher, I would reject the submission as being tainted by this argument. But do what you will. If it comes back "not a language," it will surprise no one and change no minds. If it comes back a language, I'd be proved wrong, plain and simple.

[OldSkool]

As a researcher, I would reject the submission as being tainted by this argument. But do what you will. If it comes back "not a language," it will surprise no one and change no minds. If it comes back a language, I'd be proved wrong, plain and simple.

I'm trying to prove myself wrong, or right.

[Raf]

Go right ahead! I have no doubt what you will find, but if you prove me wrong, you can settle this once and for all.

[Raf]

Any person on any thread has the right to choose which posts and posters to respond to. I am excluding certain posts and posters from future responses based on my dissatisfaction with how previous encounters were handled. I've made my practical case and explained its doctrinal foundation, but this thread is not about the doctrinal argument. It presumes a doctrinal foundation, and if you want to debate that foundation, I would suggest the doctrinal forum is the place to do that. If you'd like to raise your questions here, I can't stop you. But I have no obligation to answer it, here or anywhere else, especially after I have already done so. That my answers have not satisfied some people is their problem, not mine.

[chockfull]

Any person on any thread has the right to choose which posts and posters to respond to. I am excluding certain posts and posters from future responses based on my dissatisfaction with how previous encounters were handled. I've made my practical case and explained its doctrinal foundation, but this thread is not about the doctrinal argument. It presumes a doctrinal foundation, and if you want to debate that foundation, I would suggest the doctrinal forum is the place to do that. If you'd like to raise your questions here, I can't stop you. But I have no obligation to answer it, here or anywhere else, especially after I have already done so. That my answers have not satisfied some people is their problem, not mine.

And one more time, Raf has NOT made his points on the doctrinal foundation of his point, either here OR in the doctrinal forum, and there are valid concerns with that which I have raised and that have NOT been answered. What are these concerns?

1) No scriptural verse backing what Raf says is a "promise" that "modern SIT will produce languages".

2) Rejecting that I Cor. 14:2 says "no man understands", yet using the same verse to try and prove SIT is guaranteed to produce a human language.

3) No response at all for "no man understands", yet that is CORE to the premise of his whole foundation.

[chockfull]

I'm largely ignorant of all things Linguistics. I am willing to learn, especially in this case where my ignorance may have been taken advantage of.

Samarin is the one study that I've seen that has linguistics terms and discussion in it. We've discussed this already on the thread - he goes into 16 characteristics of a language, and consonant mapping. Those were the two tools I saw where linguists were trying to get at kinds of knowledge of a language or utterance they couldn't understand.

I am more than willing to SIT and send anyone interested a .mp3 to do with as you see fit.

If people were honestly pursuing knowledge on this topic I would say save it, write a paragraph about your language background, and put it up on a file share site somewhere that you could later give someone access to.

But I don't see any evidence of a lot of wanting to pursue knowledge on the topic. All I see is a continual bashing of beliefs that don't line up with what the thread starter has already decided, and the main goal of trying to convert people to admit they were lying and faking in TWI.

[OldSkool]

If people were honestly pursuing knowledge on this topic I would say save it, write a paragraph about your language background, and put it up on a file share site somewhere that you could later give someone access to.

Well, I'm game and have the mic right next to my computer. Some of you that are reading along know me personally. I "learned" how to "manifest" speaking in tongues via the way international's teachings. I had never considered the possibility of their teachings being false when it came to SIT until now, though I remain unconvinced. Whatever, nothing I could ever produce will prove everyone wrong or right on the subject and would no doubt be subject to failing some research standard or another. Whatever. I'm still game. It's either a language or not.

[chockfull]

Modern SIT began in the same pseudo-spiritual, paranoid, gullible atmosphere that brought widespread belief in the power of the occult. This was an age in which supposed mediums and spiritists and the like flourished, even though a great many of them were later debunked. This was an age in which supposed photographs of real-honest-to-goodness fairies gained notoriety, when a trio of sisters faked an ability to communicate with the dead and were passionately defended by spiritists and excoriated by Christianity -- with the affirmation and condemnation continuing even after one of them revealed the hoax and explained exactly how it was done.

Another way of stating this extremely biased paragraph is to note that people in general were starting to be interested again in spiritual matters. Some of this interest was diverted into occult practices - the Ouija board was invented by wives of WWII veterans with this interest. The interest in spiritual matters also resulted in a new interest in the "gifts of the spirit", where that had not been considered for centuries. The Pentecostal movement developed in this timeframe. Along with genuine spiritual interest, the frauds developed cons to take advantage of this interest. Does the existence of con artists prove that the whole thing was a fraud? Or just that whenever the genuine power of God comes into view, the frauds will be there to counterfeit and take attention away from the power of the true God.

When Moses and Aaron performed the miracles in front of the Pharoah of Egypt, immediately after the miracles Pharoah's spiritual advisors, the con artists, discounted the miracles and also performed huckster tricks to try and duplicate the miracles to convince Pharoah not to believe Moses and Aaron. Where did that lead for the hard-heads?

Many of these hucksters were exposed as frauds. Harry Houdini was adept at pointing out the fraud and died without ever seeing a paranormal experience he could call genuine. Fraud was rampant.

Fraud is ALWAYS rampant. All you need is something genuine, then the frauds will be there to try and duplicate it. This is why money counterfeiters fake $20 bills, not $3 bills.

It was in this era of our history that the modern practice of SIT emerged, the "genuine" "Christian" alternative to these Satanic "displays" of "power" (most of which were explicitly proved fraudulent). It was believed (based on sound scriptural expectations) that what was produced was actually a language. So firm was this belief that the people who produced SIT went out to become missionaries in the countries whose languages they were convinced (based on WHAT?) they were producing. Didn't work out too well for them. So they switched gears and started calling it a spiritual language. Make a provable claim unprovable, and who could discredit it?

As a history teacher, don't quit your day job. Of course at that time, just like today, there were misguided people. Misguided in scriptures, misguided in testing SIT, misguided in trying to dictate to God which language would be produced. There was no "switching gears and start calling it a spiritual language". Basically, like today, you had people trying to squeeze some EXTRA meaning out of verses trying to push them to say that you could PROVE that SIT is a language. To squeeze any of those verses there is a fraud and a con involved. What you have to do is IGNORE clear verses saying that when someone SIT, others do not understand. Then, once you've ignored that verse, you can't come up with another verse directly that says linguists can understand it. No, what you have to do is argue that when it says tongues, that implicitly means languages. Oh, and not "spiritual languages", no they have to be real human languages. That you can test God with, demanding that God ensure that the language spoken when you SIT is one that can be understood without interpretation by others, even though the Bible explicitly states that when you are SIT outside your private prayer life, you believe for an interpretation.

If I claimed to heal by the power of God, you would demand evidence of healing.

If I claimed to work miracles by the power of God, you would demand evidence of miracles.

If I claimed I could walk on water by the power of God, you would demand to see me walk on water.

You claim to produce a language by the power of God. "No man understands" in the Bible is set in the context of a typical worship meeting, not a blanket prohibition against inquiry. OldSkool is right: the Bible tells us to prove the spirits (inspired utterances, in some translations). It cannot be against His will to do exactly what He asks us to do. SIT is a testable claim. It fails the test. It is not the practice the Bible describes. Either the Bible is wrong or the modern practice is wrong. I know which proposition gets my vote.

In the day in which we live, after the return of Christ, I would NOT "demand evidence" in the case of healing. How obnoxious is that. I'm in a prayer meeting, someone prays for another person, they stand up and declare "I'm healed - praise be to God". I stand up and say "I don't believe it. I demand evidence". What a Debbie Downer it would be to do that in a meeting. Or I sit there like a lump with a skeptical look on my face.

The context of I Cor. 14 is spiritual matters, and defining practices for them. This includes both in the context of a typical worship meeting as well as outside of the context of a worship meeting. It is clear it includes both, as there are certain phrases in I Cor. 14 that include the words "in the church" to distinguish that phrase as pertaining only to the context of the worship meeting as opposed to inclusive of other contexts.

There is no "blanket prohibition against inquiry". There is a simple definition that people can choose to note or ignore. If you ignore what God says there is a world of foolishness out there awaiting you. God doesn't issue blanket prohibitions against banging your head against the wall either.

[Raf]

Can you make it downloadable? I'd like to send it to a linguist in an e-mail.

[chockfull]

Adding that Raf posted up his complete doctrinal position in the analysis of the word tongues in the Doctrinal section. Or at least something that is close to his complete doctrinal position. He is laying out the case for what he feels means "languages" in I Cor. 14:2.

So I withdraw my objection that Raf has not stated his beliefs doctrinally. He has as of now. And I will discuss those points in doctrinal. And as of now, I'll stop calling Raf a "hater". Because the behavior changed, that word is no longer accurate to me.

[Raf]

That word was never accurate and never appropriate to this discussion. It was beneath you and remains so. It was namecalling whether I posted an answer or not. It was a vile and despicable act of taunting and bullying, and that you continued to do so even after this was pointed out to you was reprehensible. So, with respect, go ahead and keep calling me whatever you want, because your opinion means nothing to me.

Gonna stop calling me a hater. Like he's doing me a favor. Puh-leease.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

That word was never accurate and never appropriate to this discussion. It was beneath you and remains so. It was namecalling whether I posted an answer or not. It was a vile and despicable act of taunting and bullying, and that you continued to do so even after this was pointed out to you was reprehensible. So, with respect, go ahead and keep calling me whatever you want, because your opinion means nothing to me.

Gonna stop calling me a hater. Like he's doing me a favor. Puh-leease.

Whatever. I've been sick of your name-calling and snide comment BS for about 40 pages now, so you've brought it on yourself by your demeanor and words to others. And I call things how I see them, regardless of whether or not knuckleheads get offended. If you offer no position of belief, and avoid questioning along the lines of what you believe, but all you do is attack others who do offer positive positions of belief, then that is being a hater. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with seeking your approval or disapproval.

You know, sometimes I read the adjectives in your posts and they are like so extreme that I have to wonder - "never accurate", "never appropriate", "beneath you", "vile and despicable act", "taunting and bullying", "reprehensible". I mean, that level of emotion is not normal in communication. It sounds like you're about to burst a blood vessel. I really hope it's just you being dramatic and not a genuine problem. It's not good to get mad on the internet.

[Ductape]

I have tried several times to read this thread so I might learn something new. But one side has been just to nasty from the beginning. So I will stick with personal experience. My "tongue" started very guttural and choppy so I set out comparing spiritual things to spiritual the best I could. Over the years not only has my "tongue" changed and evolved, but as the spirit gives the utterance I have a few "tongues".

[Raf]

More power to you.

[TrustAndObey]

I'm just going to go on record here to say that I think you both, Raf and Chockfull, are being way over emotional, negative, and clearly a hindrance to this conversation, and a terrible example of Christ's love, peace, and long-suffering. Galations 5.. Fruit of the spirit.. Let's see that in action please!

Might I suggest some time off this subject?

[OldSkool]

But one side has been just to nasty from the beginning. So I will stick with personal experience.

Really, that's an excuse. I've managed to sift through all the arguing to consider and learn what has been studied/said on the subject. Doing otherwise is shortchanging yourself, IMO.

so I set out comparing spiritual things to spiritual the best I could.

May I ask what that means in this context? To me it seems too many times people use that phrase to disengage from what confronts their beliefs. If the belief is true then it should stand to reasonable scrutiny.

Just my 3 cents.

[Raf]

I'm just going to go on record here to say that I think you both, Raf and Chockfull, are being way over emotional, negative, and clearly a hindrance to this conversation, and a terrible example of Christ's love, peace, and long-suffering. Galations 5.. Fruit of the spirit.. Let's see that in action please!

Might I suggest some time off this subject?

Thank you, TnO, but I have over the past few days made a concerted effort to restrict my criticisms to arguments and positions rather than direct them at people. I stopped the namecalling and asked multiple times that this action be reciprocated. Instead, the namecalling continued and intensified. Now, a decision to finally drop the namecalling is presented as though it were some kind of favor to me for writing a post? No, I do not need a time out. What has been directed at me these past few days is retaliatory, and while I recognize that, I do not have to accept it, put up with it, or reward it. Happy to review any issues you'd like to review. But suggesting I cool down after I have already done so misses the point.

I call it like I see it, too.

[Raf]

With respect to DuctTape, I don't think anyone should have to consider this issue who doesn't want to. He's entitled to dismiss my point of view on any grounds he wants. I have no argument with him.

[OldSkool]

I have no argument with him.

I don't either, just giving unsolicited advice. Def. not trying to argue his point of view. Raf on the other hand...well...not trying to argue either...just a lame attempt at humor.

[chockfull]

I'm just going to go on record here to say that I think you both, Raf and Chockfull, are being way over emotional, negative, and clearly a hindrance to this conversation, and a terrible example of Christ's love, peace, and long-suffering. Galations 5.. Fruit of the spirit.. Let's see that in action please!

Might I suggest some time off this subject?

TnO, this isn't the thread for Christ's love, peace, and long-suffering. If you want one of those, please feel free to make one and comment away on it to your heart's desire. :) I'm joking.

But in all seriousness, TnO on this thread you have a low contribution rate and a high demand rate. Just to fill you in on what you're not understanding because you haven't been participating, this is somewhat of a challenging topic for many post TWI. Those of us who are way over emotional, negative, and a hindrance to others are also the ones doing about 98% of the work on this thread to dig out materials, evaluate research, learn linguistics as a science, and communicate with other Christians and experts in the community. At times all this extra work could wear us out to the point we are a little less than cordial.

So my suggestion to you is to possibly lift a little of the load to spread to contribute and be a little more tolerant of those who are.

As pertains to your suggestion of taking time off - I try and do that whenever things get heated or I perceive an imbalance in my life situations. It's not good to be mad on the internet, and I don't have a responsibility to correct people if they are wrong on the internet.

But for you, Theodore Roosevelt has a great quote to consider starting with "it's not the critic that counts". It's one that you might enjoy reading when you are at the decision point of criticizing others or making valid substantive contribution to the topic yourself.

[geisha779]

Since we are discussing....discussion.....I want to apologize for my part in the contentious nature of this conversation. I was convicted and am ashamed I got caught up in it. Please forgive me.

I think the manner and attitude that we have concerning the things we claim.... speaks loudly to the genuine nature of what we are defending. It all factors in. There are real reasons Christians are admonished over and over to guard our tongue. If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.

Socks apparently understands this as he wrote: We do disagree but I can't approach this topic in a way that would result in getting angry or abusive about it, towards anyone. To me, that one lines speaks volumes about Sock relationship to the nature of what is being defended.

Just a consideration though.....something I think gets missed. Raf, is speaking about something he believes is fake. He is not speaking of a genuine biblical phenomenon, but something that we were persuaded of by a false teacher. Something false that permeated our personal relationship with God and effected our communication with Him as well as our understanding of Him. What is the appropriate response and attitude?