Proof and analysis of Biblical end time accuracey [Synnegi]

Phatboy Why do you not question things? Obviously the person you heard this from cannot have knowledge of it being more than incomprehensible babble since we have already estasblished this,so the person who stated such has some other reason to do so. This is the same situation with the writer of corinthians.His statement cannot be something he could have verified as he is supposerdly incapable as are the rest of us.

---

A centipede was happy quite, until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg comes after which?'
This raised his doubts to such a pitch
He fell distracted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.

umliak My point exactly! The writer of corinthians could have no knowledge of the very claim he is trying to establish in exactly the way he says none of us can.And what is the basis for your claim that it is a real language? How is any of that make the least bit of sense? God speaks in a laguage you cannot understand? If I were to tell you something vitally important in Swahili how is that of any value? How would you judge its worth?It is no different from hearing nothing at all. So you say.There is no way you can attribute that to speaking in tongues since as you say you cannot understand what is being said. And by what means do I determine it is true or just you fooling yourself? Of course not since I can test the validity of the understanding because I have the animal here to examine. I have no such thing with your glossolia.

---

A centipede was happy quite, until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg comes after which?'
This raised his doubts to such a pitch
He fell distracted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.

But all I said is that I speak in tongues. It's a statement of fact.

And what shows that those lyrics aren't gibberish? The Boy Scouts had an "International Scout Song" composed for world jamborees so everyone could sing it. It went:gin gang gooly gooly gooly watshat
gin gang gool gin gang gool
gin gang gooly gooly gooly watshat
gin gang gool gin gang gool
hay la hay la sha la
hay la shay la hay la oo
shallawatty shallawatty shallawatty
ompa (and repeat)No one is claiming that is an actual language. Why would you say that song is unless it really does have syntax, structure and meaning that I cannot find, not being a linguist.Quoting a song proves nothing.

If you mean that you spout gibberish when you are moved to, that I accept. If your claiming that you are speaking a language unknown to you, I would say that you are gravely mistaken and would have to see some proof before I would believe it.

No - I don't mean any of that. I'll repeat what I first said;I speak in tongues.I don't have to prove this, because, well - I do this, and know I do.Thanks.

Examining that link, I found only a brief description of research done, but what was there never stated or even implied that glossolalia is a real language. In fact it defeined the phenomena as "Glossolalia (i.e., speaking in tongues) is vocalization that sounds language like but is devoid of semantic meaning or syntax." In other words, gibberish.It went on to say that glossolalia was a learned behavior, not a special altered state of mind. The researchers never said that an actual language had been learned, just a behavior. One passage, using the word "fluent(?)" in reference to it, may have been deceptive but a reading of the entire text shows the writers actual intent. By the way, the question mark is from the original text.What they meant was that people subjected to recordings of glossolalia, 20% could reproduce it immediatley and 70% with little effort. This study does nothing to support the idea that this is a divinely inspired event, rather the opposite. Also, shaz misread the text. The 70% was of the total 60 subjects, not the 20% that could replicate the sounds immediatley.

That's fine for you, but if you want anyone else to believe it, you're going to have to give us more then your word.

Well, I've never got anyone to believe anything I say in the past two years of forum activity anyway. I don't expect you to believe me. To you - it should be nonsense or irrelevant. Personal experience cannot in anyway prove anything to anyone else.It's like with my prayers - I consider them answered, but that will only ever be personal evidence to the individual.

Baba {the glossaliac formerly known as mike the wiz} Why would you bring forth a statement concerning the speaking in tongues when it is a meaningless statement devoid of both concept and evidence? That a person can speak gibberish and it is considered a conduit to god and not an abberation of the person's personality convinces only those who do not raise their bullshit radar.Oh and BTW it is not fact it is opinion until you offer verification Baba.

I'm afraid it is a fact that I speak in tongues.

U seem to be angry at me. R u considering that I was just mentioning tongues as a personal reality?Y must I be bull****ing? Y r u so cynical against mikey?

That's exactly right. Your personal unverified expierence will never be evidence.By the way, speaking of evidence, I would like to renew my call for Umliak to provide good evidence for his claims about speaking in tongues or withdraw the claim.

MTWI am not angry mike I am concerned. You need not be bullshitting however you may well be deluding yourself. I am not cynical I am critical of your lack of willingness to properly question your "gift".This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-31-2004 12:15 AM

look i'm sorry. you don't have to believe me.