Christ provided a way of disproving his claims
backspace
<sawireless2000@yahoo.com>Tongues.
Visit my site at http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
And download my Glossolalia at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Tongue12feb.ogg
As I listen to myself speaking in tongues I write down the words I
sort of can make out. This allows a linguist to falsify my belief that
I am speaking in a supernatural language by the power of the Holy
Spirit. The Lord Jesus who gave me this language at age 12 said in
Mark 16:16 "... they shall speak in new tongues..." He thus gave a
falsification test for his claim of being God. He provided a way of
disproving his claim of being God in the flesh. None of the other
mainstream religions in the world had a human being on this earth
actually claiming to be God. Only this man Jesus whos historical
existance is beyond dispute actually claimed to be God.
John 1:1 :In the beginnig was the Word(Logos), and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God. Genes for example are not like a language -
it is a language. And thus what sort of "hint" or "sign" would be more
appropriate for the God of this universe to give to this planet than
something related to language? With the tools of linguistics such a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29 ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonetics and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax
a language can be analised to a high degree of accuracy. Language and
language like structures are inherently open for linguistic and
scientific analysis and hence can be falsified.
Some Hindu God for example has eight arms. How am I supposed to
disprove that this God doesn't have eight arms? What falsification
test is given?
When you walk on the grass, you are walking on language. We are
surrounded by trillions and trillions of code structures. If God is
really God, then would he not give some sort of "language like" sign
for his existance? Even Paul said: " ... tongues is a sign to the
unbeliever." Christianity is the only religion that makes an attempt
at giving a falsification test for its claims. The rubbish Rodney
Howard Brown speaks ofcourse is not tongues - it is a scam.
There is virtually no Christian that can speak in tongues today.
Perhaps no more than 10 brother or sisters in the Lord. That falling
down you see on television is auto suggestive hypnosis. Nowhere was
such an experience in the Bible - it is not from God. Benny Hinn and
his ilk can't speak in tongues for example. Modern day Glossolalia
isn't apparent nonsense - it is nonsense. Just meaningless babble. As
I speak I lookup the words on http://www.google.com in real time and
then bookmark them. I don't go back and look at what I have spoken
though so as not remember these words with my mind.
I can read a book and speak in tongues at the same time. I have never
been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slain_in_the_Spirit, hypnotised or
been in a trance. "....In most cases, their fall is broken by deacons,
catchers, ushers or orderlies behind them to prevent injury." If these
falling down experiences were really from God then why do the people
need to be caught? And the fact that women have to covered by blankets
because they lie on the ground in "compromising" positions obviously
means God had nothing to do with it.
I don't smoke nor drink and have never been drunk in my life. I can
speak for hours on end non-stop by the power of God Almighty. I am a
fundamentalist, protestant, YEC, King James Only Christian,
heartbroken over the apostisation of the Church and general lunacy
like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_blessing scam.
TongueSpeaker 12:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>On Mar 13, 5:23 pm, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jesus Christ provided a way of disproving his claims: Speaking in
> Tongues.
> Visit my site athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
> And download my Glossolalia athttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Tongue12feb.ogg
>
> As I listen to myself speaking in tongues I write down the words I
> sort of can make out. This allows a linguist to falsify my belief that
> I am speaking in a supernatural language by the power of the Holy
> Spirit. The Lord Jesus who gave me this language at age 12 said in
> Mark 16:16 "... they shall speak in new tongues..." He thus gave a
> falsification test for his claim of being God. He provided a way of
> disproving his claim of being God in the flesh. None of the other
> mainstream religions in the world had a human being on this earth
> actually claiming to be God. Only this man Jesus whos historical
> existance is beyond dispute actually claimed to be God.
>
> John 1:1 :In the beginnig was the Word(Logos), and the Word was with
> God, and the Word was God. Genes for example are not like a language -
> it is a language. And thus what sort of "hint" or "sign" would be more
> appropriate for the God of this universe to give to this planet than
> something related to language? With the tools of linguistics such ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneticsandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax
> a language can be analised to a high degree of accuracy. Language and
> language like structures are inherently open for linguistic and
> scientific analysis and hence can be falsified.
>
> Some Hindu God for example has eight arms. How am I supposed to
> disprove that this God doesn't have eight arms? What falsification
> test is given?
>
> When you walk on the grass, you are walking on language. We are
> surrounded by trillions and trillions of code structures. If God is
> really God, then would he not give some sort of "language like" sign
> for his existance? Even Paul said: " ... tongues is a sign to the
> unbeliever." Christianity is the only religion that makes an attempt
> at giving a falsification test for its claims. The rubbish Rodney
> Howard Brown speaks ofcourse is not tongues - it is a scam.
>
> There is virtually no Christian that can speak in tongues today.
> Perhaps no more than 10 brother or sisters in the Lord. That falling
> down you see on television is auto suggestive hypnosis. Nowhere was
> such an experience in the Bible - it is not from God. Benny Hinn and
> his ilk can't speak in tongues for example. Modern day Glossolalia
> isn't apparent nonsense - it is nonsense. Just meaningless babble. As
> I speak I lookup the words onhttp://www.google.comin real time and
> then bookmark them. I don't go back and look at what I have spoken
> though so as not remember these words with my mind.
>
> I can read a book and speak in tongues at the same time. I have never
> beenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slain_in_the_Spirit, hypnotised or
backspace
<sawireless2000@yahoo.com>> I'm sorry if I missed anything, but how does that disprove his claims?
He gave a falsification test. If we take the chaos in modern day
Christianity with scams like Howard Brown, Copeland going
ba-ba-ba and shandala then Jesus Christ has basically had His claims
of being the Son of God falsified.
If my language can be shown to be rubbish words strung together and
not an actuall language then for me in my faith Christs claims would
be
falsified. If we take that there probably is not a single Christian
than can speak an an actual supernatural language which can be proved
by linguists as being a
language then we have a serious crises in Christianity on our hands.
This is because the followers of Jesus must actually demonstrate the
power of God as Christ said they would. Instead what we have today is
a
demonstration of banality, chaos and general mental illness. Because
millions of Christians have somehow convinced themselves that they can
speak a
language when they obviously can't. As I posted on Wikipedia: You
are either pregnant or not, you can either speak a supernatural
language than can be looked
up on Google or you can't It is just that simple.
Kippers
<robin@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>What tests can be performed to determine if a language is supernatural
or not?
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>they don't speak the same language.
What I don't understand is how can you show that the proof provided in
the story was a fraud.
ALLARA ADAM
<allaraadam@yahoo.com>backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Kippers
<robin@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>> For example, if all people around can understand it perfectly even if
> they don't speak the same language.
>
If someone approached you and said something in a language you did not
know but you thought you understood what they were saying would you
then presume they must be speaking in a supernatural language?
orbisomnis
<orbisomnis@msn.com>in the book of Acts. Please refer to Acts to get the real meaning and
purpose of this Gift.
orbis
On Mar 13, 10:23 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jesus Christ provided a way of disproving his claims: Speaking in
> Tongues.
> Visit my site athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
> And download my Glossolalia athttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Tongue12feb.ogg
>
> As I listen to myself speaking in tongues I write down the words I
> sort of can make out. This allows a linguist to falsify my belief that
> I am speaking in a supernatural language by the power of the Holy
> Spirit. The Lord Jesus who gave me this language at age 12 said in
> Mark 16:16 "... they shall speak in new tongues..." He thus gave a
> falsification test for his claim of being God. He provided a way of
> disproving his claim of being God in the flesh. None of the other
> mainstream religions in the world had a human being on this earth
> actually claiming to be God. Only this man Jesus whos historical
> existance is beyond dispute actually claimed to be God.
>
> John 1:1 :In the beginnig was the Word(Logos), and the Word was with
> God, and the Word was God. Genes for example are not like a language -
> it is a language. And thus what sort of "hint" or "sign" would be more
> appropriate for the God of this universe to give to this planet than
> something related to language? With the tools of linguistics such ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneticsandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax
> a language can be analised to a high degree of accuracy. Language and
> language like structures are inherently open for linguistic and
> scientific analysis and hence can be falsified.
>
> Some Hindu God for example has eight arms. How am I supposed to
> disprove that this God doesn't have eight arms? What falsification
> test is given?
>
> When you walk on the grass, you are walking on language. We are
> surrounded by trillions and trillions of code structures. If God is
> really God, then would he not give some sort of "language like" sign
> for his existance? Even Paul said: " ... tongues is a sign to the
> unbeliever." Christianity is the only religion that makes an attempt
> at giving a falsification test for its claims. The rubbish Rodney
> Howard Brown speaks ofcourse is not tongues - it is a scam.
>
> There is virtually no Christian that can speak in tongues today.
> Perhaps no more than 10 brother or sisters in the Lord. That falling
> down you see on television is auto suggestive hypnosis. Nowhere was
> such an experience in the Bible - it is not from God. Benny Hinn and
> his ilk can't speak in tongues for example. Modern day Glossolalia
> isn't apparent nonsense - it is nonsense. Just meaningless babble. As
> I speak I lookup the words onhttp://www.google.comin real time and
> then bookmark them. I don't go back and look at what I have spoken
> though so as not remember these words with my mind.
>
> I can read a book and speak in tongues at the same time. I have never
> beenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slain_in_the_Spirit, hypnotised or
The Belly Bionic
<bellybionic@gmail.com>which my partner (DreadGeekGrrl) talks about back when she was a
fundamentalist, evangelical christian, and spoke in tongues. Everyone
in her church was so impressed with how she was so filled with the
spirit. People in the congregation "translated", because they claimed
to be able to understand what she was saying.
She was completely full of shit. She was not speaking in tongues, she
was speaking gibberish. She is now a staunch atheist. Because
speaking in tongues is complete bullshit.
On Mar 13, 8:23 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jesus Christ provided a way of disproving his claims: Speaking in
> Tongues.
> Visit my site athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
> And download my Glossolalia athttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Tongue12feb.ogg
>
> As I listen to myself speaking in tongues I write down the words I
> sort of can make out. This allows a linguist to falsify my belief that
> I am speaking in a supernatural language by the power of the Holy
> Spirit. The Lord Jesus who gave me this language at age 12 said in
> Mark 16:16 "... they shall speak in new tongues..." He thus gave a
> falsification test for his claim of being God. He provided a way of
> disproving his claim of being God in the flesh. None of the other
> mainstream religions in the world had a human being on this earth
> actually claiming to be God. Only this man Jesus whos historical
> existance is beyond dispute actually claimed to be God.
>
> John 1:1 :In the beginnig was the Word(Logos), and the Word was with
> God, and the Word was God. Genes for example are not like a language -
> it is a language. And thus what sort of "hint" or "sign" would be more
> appropriate for the God of this universe to give to this planet than
> something related to language? With the tools of linguistics such ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneticsandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax
> a language can be analised to a high degree of accuracy. Language and
> language like structures are inherently open for linguistic and
> scientific analysis and hence can be falsified.
>
> Some Hindu God for example has eight arms. How am I supposed to
> disprove that this God doesn't have eight arms? What falsification
> test is given?
>
> When you walk on the grass, you are walking on language. We are
> surrounded by trillions and trillions of code structures. If God is
> really God, then would he not give some sort of "language like" sign
> for his existance? Even Paul said: " ... tongues is a sign to the
> unbeliever." Christianity is the only religion that makes an attempt
> at giving a falsification test for its claims. The rubbish Rodney
> Howard Brown speaks ofcourse is not tongues - it is a scam.
>
> There is virtually no Christian that can speak in tongues today.
> Perhaps no more than 10 brother or sisters in the Lord. That falling
> down you see on television is auto suggestive hypnosis. Nowhere was
> such an experience in the Bible - it is not from God. Benny Hinn and
> his ilk can't speak in tongues for example. Modern day Glossolalia
> isn't apparent nonsense - it is nonsense. Just meaningless babble. As
> I speak I lookup the words onhttp://www.google.comin real time and
> then bookmark them. I don't go back and look at what I have spoken
> though so as not remember these words with my mind.
>
> I can read a book and speak in tongues at the same time. I have never
> beenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slain_in_the_Spirit, hypnotised or
braden.jennifer@gmail.com
<braden.jennifer@gmail.com>thing. But Paul, though he has been quoted to be speaking for the use
of tongues, has also spoken against the over use of them in the
faith. If you look closely at scripture, Paul is really seen to be a
supporter in not the tongues aspect of the Holy Spirit, but in the
deeper fruit. The Love. This is where we receive one of the most
beautiful biblical statements on the power of Love in the entire
bible. Love is the most powerful fruit of the spirit biblically. Not
speaking in unknown tongues. Though useful only when understood,
these tongues do occur, but with less real frequency than most
preachers would like to admit.
On Mar 13, 10:23 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jesus Christ provided a way of disproving his claims: Speaking in
> Tongues.
> Visit my site athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
> And download my Glossolalia athttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Tongue12feb.ogg
>
> As I listen to myself speaking in tongues I write down the words I
> sort of can make out. This allows a linguist to falsify my belief that
> I am speaking in a supernatural language by the power of the Holy
> Spirit. The Lord Jesus who gave me this language at age 12 said in
> Mark 16:16 "... they shall speak in new tongues..." He thus gave a
> falsification test for his claim of being God. He provided a way of
> disproving his claim of being God in the flesh. None of the other
> mainstream religions in the world had a human being on this earth
> actually claiming to be God. Only this man Jesus whos historical
> existance is beyond dispute actually claimed to be God.
>
> John 1:1 :In the beginnig was the Word(Logos), and the Word was with
> God, and the Word was God. Genes for example are not like a language -
> it is a language. And thus what sort of "hint" or "sign" would be more
> appropriate for the God of this universe to give to this planet than
> something related to language? With the tools of linguistics such ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneticsandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax
> a language can be analised to a high degree of accuracy. Language and
> language like structures are inherently open for linguistic and
> scientific analysis and hence can be falsified.
>
> Some Hindu God for example has eight arms. How am I supposed to
> disprove that this God doesn't have eight arms? What falsification
> test is given?
>
> When you walk on the grass, you are walking on language. We are
> surrounded by trillions and trillions of code structures. If God is
> really God, then would he not give some sort of "language like" sign
> for his existance? Even Paul said: " ... tongues is a sign to the
> unbeliever." Christianity is the only religion that makes an attempt
> at giving a falsification test for its claims. The rubbish Rodney
> Howard Brown speaks ofcourse is not tongues - it is a scam.
>
> There is virtually no Christian that can speak in tongues today.
> Perhaps no more than 10 brother or sisters in the Lord. That falling
> down you see on television is auto suggestive hypnosis. Nowhere was
> such an experience in the Bible - it is not from God. Benny Hinn and
> his ilk can't speak in tongues for example. Modern day Glossolalia
> isn't apparent nonsense - it is nonsense. Just meaningless babble. As
> I speak I lookup the words onhttp://www.google.comin real time and
> then bookmark them. I don't go back and look at what I have spoken
> though so as not remember these words with my mind.
>
> I can read a book and speak in tongues at the same time. I have never
> beenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slain_in_the_Spirit, hypnotised or
Stephen
<stephen.p.craig@gmail.com>On Mar 14, 2:26 pm, "The Belly Bionic" <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you look back through the archives, I think you'll find a thread in
> which my partner (DreadGeekGrrl) talks about back when she was a
> fundamentalist, evangelical christian, and spoke in tongues. Everyone
> in her church was so impressed with how she was so filled with the
> spirit. People in the congregation "translated", because they claimed
> to be able to understand what she was saying.
>
> She was completely full of shit. She was not speaking in tongues, she
> was speaking gibberish. She is now a staunch atheist. Because
> speaking in tongues is complete bullshit.
S: There is an interesting editorial edition to Mark, which states
"And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they
will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick
up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will
not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and
they will get well." (Mark 16:17-18)
For those Christians who think this is the actual word of God, please
do not attempt this falsification test. Having beliefs does not make
you immune to deadly poison or snake venom. I do wonder if there have
been any historical confirmations of believers being immune to deadly
poison, however?
>
> On Mar 13, 8:23 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Jesus Christ provided a way of disproving his claims: Speaking in
> > Tongues.
> > Visit my site athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
> > And download my Glossolalia athttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Tongue12feb.ogg
>
> > As I listen to myself speaking in tongues I write down the words I
> > sort of can make out. This allows a linguist to falsify my belief that
> > I am speaking in a supernatural language by the power of the Holy
> > Spirit. The Lord Jesus who gave me this language at age 12 said in
> > Mark 16:16 "... they shall speak in new tongues..." He thus gave a
> > falsification test for his claim of being God. He provided a way of
> > disproving his claim of being God in the flesh. None of the other
> > mainstream religions in the world had a human being on this earth
> > actually claiming to be God. Only this man Jesus whos historical
> > existance is beyond dispute actually claimed to be God.
>
> > John 1:1 :In the beginnig was the Word(Logos), and the Word was with
> > God, and the Word was God. Genes for example are not like a language -
> > it is a language. And thus what sort of "hint" or "sign" would be more
> > appropriate for the God of this universe to give to this planet than
> > something related to language? With the tools of linguistics such ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
> > a language can be analised to a high degree of accuracy. Language and
> > language like structures are inherently open for linguistic and
> > scientific analysis and hence can be falsified.
>
> > Some Hindu God for example has eight arms. How am I supposed to
> > disprove that this God doesn't have eight arms? What falsification
> > test is given?
>
> > When you walk on the grass, you are walking on language. We are
> > surrounded by trillions and trillions of code structures. If God is
> > really God, then would he not give some sort of "language like" sign
> > for his existance? Even Paul said: " ... tongues is a sign to the
> > unbeliever." Christianity is the only religion that makes an attempt
> > at giving a falsification test for its claims. The rubbish Rodney
> > Howard Brown speaks ofcourse is not tongues - it is a scam.
>
> > There is virtually no Christian that can speak in tongues today.
> > Perhaps no more than 10 brother or sisters in the Lord. That falling
> > down you see on television is auto suggestive hypnosis. Nowhere was
> > such an experience in the Bible - it is not from God. Benny Hinn and
> > his ilk can't speak in tongues for example. Modern day Glossolalia
> > isn't apparent nonsense - it is nonsense. Just meaningless babble. As
> > I speak I lookup the words onhttp://www.google.cominreal time and
Devout_Atheist
<wulffie@ameritech.net>could an atheist "speak in tongues"?
I think it would be a kewl experiment.
Maybe we can ask the poster below if the female former christian
turned atheist can still speak in tongues.
D_
A
On Mar 13, 11:23 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jesus Christ provided a way of disproving his claims: Speaking in
> Tongues.
> Visit my site athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
> And download my Glossolalia athttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Tongue12feb.ogg
>
> As I listen to myself speaking in tongues I write down the words I
> sort of can make out. This allows a linguist to falsify my belief that
> I am speaking in a supernatural language by the power of the Holy
> Spirit. The Lord Jesus who gave me this language at age 12 said in
> Mark 16:16 "... they shall speak in new tongues..." He thus gave a
> falsification test for his claim of being God. He provided a way of
> disproving his claim of being God in the flesh. None of the other
> mainstream religions in the world had a human being on this earth
> actually claiming to be God. Only this man Jesus whos historical
> existance is beyond dispute actually claimed to be God.
>
> John 1:1 :In the beginnig was the Word(Logos), and the Word was with
> God, and the Word was God. Genes for example are not like a language -
> it is a language. And thus what sort of "hint" or "sign" would be more
> appropriate for the God of this universe to give to this planet than
> something related to language? With the tools of linguistics such ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneticsandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax
> a language can be analised to a high degree of accuracy. Language and
> language like structures are inherently open for linguistic and
> scientific analysis and hence can be falsified.
>
> Some Hindu God for example has eight arms. How am I supposed to
> disprove that this God doesn't have eight arms? What falsification
> test is given?
>
> When you walk on the grass, you are walking on language. We are
> surrounded by trillions and trillions of code structures. If God is
> really God, then would he not give some sort of "language like" sign
> for his existance? Even Paul said: " ... tongues is a sign to the
> unbeliever." Christianity is the only religion that makes an attempt
> at giving a falsification test for its claims. The rubbish Rodney
> Howard Brown speaks ofcourse is not tongues - it is a scam.
>
> There is virtually no Christian that can speak in tongues today.
> Perhaps no more than 10 brother or sisters in the Lord. That falling
> down you see on television is auto suggestive hypnosis. Nowhere was
> such an experience in the Bible - it is not from God. Benny Hinn and
> his ilk can't speak in tongues for example. Modern day Glossolalia
> isn't apparent nonsense - it is nonsense. Just meaningless babble. As
> I speak I lookup the words onhttp://www.google.comin real time and
> then bookmark them. I don't go back and look at what I have spoken
> though so as not remember these words with my mind.
>
> I can read a book and speak in tongues at the same time. I have never
> beenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slain_in_the_Spirit, hypnotised or
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>- Fill a room with people, each of them speaking a different language,
non have any common language.
- Make them listen to the speaker of tounges (make sure he is not
cheating)
- If each of the people describe the same speech, that means all of
them understood him.
backspace
<sawireless2000@yahoo.com>> or not?
Well the first thing you have to determinei is: Is it a langauge with
semantics,grammar,phonetics, intonation, vowels and consonants?
And we will get into the theological discussions later. Firts things
first.
You people are getting ahead of yourselfs. Did you for example look at
the firefox bookmarkings I provided? The language I speak from the
google pages are from Polish, Latvian, Swedish, Spanish, Serbian etc.
And did you even listen to the actual recording?
What would be now more of a miracle speaking 300 000 words , with
words from all the languages on Google or just speaking Russian for
example.
Where Russian would then be an unknown tongue to me? How could I
possibly be able to memorise 1hour of multiple words from multiple
languages and
efortlessly string them together into what is recognizable as a
language: Just listen to the recording, none of the commenters around
here has actually done that.
The whole point of my post is that I am claiming to probably be only 1
of 10 Christians who can actually speak a language. The study of
linguistics is for
example to discover new languages that nobody has heard. What is
clouding your judgement now is the fact that I am saying I am a
fundamentalist King James
Only Christian. Seperate the issues please. And mark 16 is in the King
James, the only translation we have in english that is the word of
God.
If you don't except the KJV or it doesn't matter to you as you read
the corrupted NIV, RSV , then you are not even saved.
The question ofcourse is am I not a fake like Marjoe Gortner? Well
that is a distinct possibility. But you can't fake a language, which
is why it so
devestating to see people deceive themselves speaking in tongues when
they are obviously speaking rubbish. This has led to many loosing
their faith apon realising
they we were deceiving themselves.
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>On Mar 14, 7:49 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:28 pm, "Kippers" <r...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > What tests can be performed to determine if a language is supernatural
> > or not?
>
> Well the first thing you have to determinei is: Is it a langauge with
> semantics,grammar,phonetics, intonation, vowels and consonants?
> And we will get into the theological discussions later. Firts things
> first.
>
Why is this the first step?
Everyone can invent a new language (although it's not an easy job),
and certainly everyone can pretend to speak in a new languae.
But since the claim is that the language is not only new but also
supernatural, starting to check that unique aspect seems like the
right first step.
I don't think there is anything supernatural about your recording, nor
do you claim it is, so what exactly does it prove?
Stephen
<stephen.p.craig@gmail.com>S: That is one of the more bizarre claims I've heard from the KJV-only
crowd... only they are saved! I have a feeling that you also think
those who do not speak in tongues are not saved either. Can you please
clarify?
Now, for a skeptical take on glossolalia, you could check out
http://skepdic.com/glossol.html
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>> S: That is one of the more bizarre claims I've heard from the KJV-only
> crowd... only they are saved! I have a feeling that you also think
> those who do not speak in tongues are not saved either. Can you please
> clarify?
I guess that puts on the same side then (at least in his mind). ;-)
The Belly Bionic
<bellybionic@gmail.com>now thinks it's embarrassing that she ever did such a thing), she can
be persuaded to do it at parties, resulting in much hilarity.
> > something related to language? With the tools of linguistics such ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
> > a language can be analised to a high degree of accuracy. Language and
> > language like structures are inherently open for linguistic and
> > scientific analysis and hence can be falsified.
>
> > Some Hindu God for example has eight arms. How am I supposed to
> > disprove that this God doesn't have eight arms? What falsification
> > test is given?
>
> > When you walk on the grass, you are walking on language. We are
> > surrounded by trillions and trillions of code structures. If God is
> > really God, then would he not give some sort of "language like" sign
> > for his existance? Even Paul said: " ... tongues is a sign to the
> > unbeliever." Christianity is the only religion that makes an attempt
> > at giving a falsification test for its claims. The rubbish Rodney
> > Howard Brown speaks ofcourse is not tongues - it is a scam.
>
> > There is virtually no Christian that can speak in tongues today.
> > Perhaps no more than 10 brother or sisters in the Lord. That falling
> > down you see on television is auto suggestive hypnosis. Nowhere was
> > such an experience in the Bible - it is not from God. Benny Hinn and
> > his ilk can't speak in tongues for example. Modern day Glossolalia
> > isn't apparent nonsense - it is nonsense. Just meaningless babble. As
> > I speak I lookup the words onhttp://www.google.cominreal time and
backspace
<sawireless2000@yahoo.com>>Everyone can invent a new language (although it's not an easy job),
>and certainly everyone can pretend to speak in a new languae.
>I don't think there is anything supernatural about your recording, nor
>do you claim it is, so what exactly does it prove?
Do a test just for yourself. Memorise 300 words in polish, 300
latvian, Spanish and all the other languages on Google.
Now try to mix them all in and speak them fluently in a new created
language. What sort of a genius will be able to do this? Certainly not
somebody like
me with backwards English grammar and spelling mistakes. English is
not even my first language it is Afrikaans. I am bilingual.
Click on the firefox bookmarkings and look at the words that I have
returned. Now listen to the language. I presume Kippers that you are
not a student
of linguistics. In Linguistics, linguists specifically seek out
Glossolalia to test prod and probe the language that the tongue
speakers are speaking. They then
draw up a formal report going into detail on the phonetics, grammar
etc. In all the cases they have concluded that nobody spoke a
language. But this is a formal
finding. They can't just like you are stating: "... there is nothing
supernatural about your recording". They have to motivate it.
I have such a report right here in my hands by Felicitas D. Goodman:
Speaking in Tongues
They actually do masters thesis on Glossolalia, which means that they
would have to analise my language word for word. Not just dismiss it
with a wave of the
hand. It precisely the fact that I could be faking this that they must
formally determine - this is how science is done. And no you
specifically can't pretend to
speak a new language. The linguists are beyond the point of
exasperation with the Pentecostals, the more they explain to them that
the rubbish
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/MarjoeGortner spoke is obviously not
a language. Once you are conversent with the basics of linguistics it
is trivially easy to
understand why the Pentecostals are not speaking in tongues.
Lets look p.153 of F.D Goodman's book:".... Shamaizing begins by the
shaman placing himself into dissociation by monotonous souds,
drumbeats, rattling and
dancing." Which is what goes on a rock concert and this devils music
has entered the church. Modern church services aren't praise to a Holy
God but a circus
with drums. What basically goes on in modern day Pentecostal services
is a coercion of people to receive the Holy Spirit using witchcraft
llike methods.
And yes I do claim that my language is supernatural. And because it is
a language it would be trivial to falsify: That is what linguistics is
all about!
On Mar 14, 9:27 am, "Stephen" <stephen.p.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 3:49 pm, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> S: That is one of the more bizarre claims I've heard from the KJV-only
> crowd... only they are saved! I have a feeling that you also think
> those who do not speak in tongues are not saved either. Can you please
> clarify?
>
> Now, for a skeptical take on glossolalia, you could check outhttp://skepdic.com/glossol.html
Dear Stephen was born again at 10 and received the Holy Spirit at age
12, so obviously I would not have such a view.
And I agree with 99% of thrust of the argument given by your link:
"...glossolalia consists of strings of meaningless syllables made up
of sounds taken from those familiar to the speaker and put together
more or less haphazardly .... Glossolalia is language-like because the
speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like. Yet in spite of
superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language
(Nickell, 108)."
That is what I have been saying the whole time - I agree with you.
There are millions of Christians saying "meaningless syllables". But I
ask one more time.
Why don't you listen to my recording and decide for yourself wether my
language is "meaningless syllables"?
backspace
<sawireless2000@yahoo.com>To be able to answer the question we first need to know a few things
published in peer reviewed journals on Glossolalia
For example:
"The linguisticallity of glossolalia. Hartford Quarterly 8 (4):49-75
in 1968 by William T. Samarin
Now Samarin has tried his best to explain to the Pentecostals that
they are speaking nonsense, but without much success.
Benny Hinn, Copeland and all the other sheisters just keep right on
and on and on, conning, deceiving and scamming money out of people
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>On Mar 13, 10:49 pm, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:28 pm, "Kippers" <r...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > What tests can be performed to determine if a language is supernatural
> > or not?
>
> Well the first thing you have to determinei is: Is it a langauge with
> semantics,grammar,phonetics, intonation, vowels and consonants?
It's a real pity that you do not have an alphabet or script for this
alleged supernatural language.
Then you could be writing in it instead of English.
braden.jennifer@gmail.com
<braden.jennifer@gmail.com>See? I can type in unknown tongues! The above statement reads:
Jesus will burn you in Hell and notice the evil smiley face at the
end? I didn't even plan it...no really it just came to me...by the
power of the holy spirit.
lawrey
<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>How fools make fools of fools! Speaking in tongues. In order to
accomplish this imaginary craft, one would need someone to
be able to respond to it, which is also a craft and I mean craft!
The craft of gobledigoop!! giberish!
The ability to speak tongues has been established as having the
ability
to speak in a different language, since many of the meetings in those
days
were frequented by people from foriegn parts who did not understand
the
language of the local population, so the ability to speak tongues,
(foriegn
languages) was very much welcomed, in order to facilitate
interpretation
of what was being said, and or preached. In the same way as a visitor
from another country will come to England and seek someone who can
interpret what he or she is saying to his or her audiance; he or she
speaks in their tongue and the interpreter translates for the benefit
of
those who do not have an understanding of that particular tongue.
Vai Jus saprotat? ...Verstehen Sie?...Vi ponjalji?...Do you savvy?
Vi sobrazaitje?... oday ouyay nderstanduay?
Get it?
Lawrey.
boombayoot
<boombayoot@hotmail.com>>
> John 1:1 :In the beginnig was the Word(Logos), and the Word was with
> God, and the Word was God.
My response to the use of the scripture to prove Jesus is God:
Dear Sir, Bear in mind that this part of the Bible was originally
written in Greek. Later, translators rendered the Greek text into
other languages. A number of Bible translators, though, did not use
the phrase "the Word was God." Why not? Based on their knowledge of
Biblical Greek, those translators concluded that the phrase "the Word
was God" should be translated differently. How? Here are a few
examples: "The Logos [Word] was divine." (A New Translation of the
Bible) "The Word was a god." (The New Testament in an Improved
Version) "The Word was with God and shared his nature." (The
Translator's New Testament) According to these translations, the Word
is not God himself. Instead, because of his high position among God's
creatures, the Word is referred to as "a god." Here the term "god"
means "mighty one."
(John 1:14) So the Word[Jesus] became flesh and resided among us, and
we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-
begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and
truth.
Then also consider
(John 1:18) 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god
who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has
explained him.
The apostle John clearly makes it know that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God, the first creation of His Father, Jehovah, and ultimately a
mighty god, but Jesus is never described in Greek or Hebrew as the
ALMIGHTY, only Jehovah is defined as that.
If you wish to learn more on the facts about Jehovah and His Son,
Jesus and how they are not a part of a Trinity, write me at
boomb...@hotmail.com for Scriptural proof in over 500 texts. Please
do not use spurious scriptures that were added in the King James
version.
> >>>>>There is virtually no Christian that can speak in tongues today.
- This is true, The Bible record reveals that when any miraculous gift
of the spirit was transmitted, at least one of the 12 apostles or the
apostle Paul was present. The first of 3 recorded instances of
speaking in tongues occurred among 120 of Jesus' disciples gathered in
Jerusalem at Pentecost 33 C.E. as recorded at Acts 2:1-4. Three and a
half years later, while a group of uncircumcised Italians were
listening to Peter preach, they received the spirit and began
"speaking with tongues and magnifying God." which you can read at Acts
10:44-48. 19 years after Pentecost, about 52 C.E., Paul spoke to a
group in Ephesus and laid his hands upon 12 disciples. They too "began
speaking with tongues and prophesying."-Acts 19:6.
Just before he ascended to heaven, Jesus told his followers: "You will
receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon you, and you will be
witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and . . . to the most distant part
of the earth." (Acts 1:8) Notice that he thus gave indication of just
how this monumental witness work would be accomplished-with the
assistance of the holy spirit.
Modern communication technology that enables us to send messages earth
wide in many languages did not exist back then. The good news had to
be spread primarily by word of mouth, and in this the miraculous gift
of speaking in foreign tongues would prove very helpful. Such was the
case as first-century Christians preached to Jews and proselytes in
Jerusalem at Pentecost 33 C.E. Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Cretans,
Arabians, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, and
the district of Asia, as well as sojourners from Rome, heard "the
magnificent things of God" in their own language and understood what
was said. Three thousand quickly became believers.-Acts 2:5-11, 41.
An oft-overlooked fact is that speaking in tongues was just one of the
nine operations of the holy spirit that the apostle Paul mentioned in
his letter to the Christians in Corinth. Although Paul viewed speaking
in tongues as a lesser gift, it was valuable to the early congregation
in spreading the good news about the heavenly Kingdom of God. It was
one of the "gifts" that contributed to the numerical growth and
upbuilding of the infant congregation of Christians.-1 Corinthians
12:7-11; 14:24-26.
The various operations of the holy spirit in the first century,
including speaking in tongues, were also a visible evidence that God
was no longer using the 1,500-year-old congregation of Israel as his
special people. Unquestionably, his approval now rested with the new
Christian congregation, established by his only-begotten Son.-Compare
Hebrews 2:2-4.
These manifestations of the spirit were key building blocks in
establishing the young Christian congregation and helping it to grow
to adulthood. Paul explained that after having served their purpose,
these miraculous gifts would cease: "Whether there are gifts of
prophesying, they will be done away with; whether there are tongues,
they will cease."-1 Corinthians 13:8.
Yes, the Bible is clear that the gift of tongues would cease. But
when? Acts 8:18 reveals that the gifts of the spirit were received
"through the laying on of the hands of the apostles." Evidently, then,
with the death of the last apostle, the passing on of the gifts of the
spirit would stop-including speaking in tongues. Hence, when those who
had received these gifts from the apostles also passed off the earthly
scene, the miraculous gift would cease. By then the Christian
congregation would have had time to become well established and would
have spread to many lands.
The present-day resurgence of speaking in tongues has been "regarded
by some as the emotional extravagance of unstable exhibitionists,
while others regard it as identical with the phenomenon of speaking
with tongues of Apostolic times." In modern-day church gatherings
where speaking in "unknown tongues" occurs, it usually involves an
ecstatic outburst of unintelligible sounds. Accordingly, one person
confessed: "I use my gift of tongues mostly in private for my own
meditation. . . . I feel a little embarrassed in front of other
people." Another related: "I hear my own words, I don't understand
them, but I keep feeling my tongue pushed to talk."
What information of real value is conveyed by such unknown tongues,
and what about an interpretation? Those who claim to interpret this
speech have offered different explanations of the same unintelligible
utterances. Why different? They explain away such a disparity by
saying that "God gave to one person one interpretation of the speech
and to another person another interpretation." One individual
acknowledged: "I have noted occasions where the interpretation was not
of the accurate type." D. A. Hayes, in his book The Gift of Tongues,
referred to an instance where a man refused to interpret the speech of
a woman who spoke in an unknown tongue because "the language was the
vilest of the vile." What a contrast that is to the speaking in
tongues that existed in the first century and that was actually for
building up the congregation!-1 Corinthians 14:4-6, 12, 18.
Some today do claim to have heard wonderful interpretations, and they
may sincerely believe that God uses this gift when he "wishes to give
a direct message to the people." But what message from God do we need
today that Jesus Christ and the apostles did not supply for us? Paul,
who was himself gifted with holy spirit, said: "All Scripture is
inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving,
for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that
the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every
good work."-2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
The fact is, the Christian congregation is no longer in its infancy,
and thus divine revelations or miraculous gifts of the spirit are no
longer needed to confirm its role. The Bible cautions: "Even if we or
an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something
beyond ["at variance with," The New English Bible] what we declared to
you as good news, let him be accursed."-Galatians 1:8.
Miraculously speaking in tongues is no longer necessary, and there is
no Biblical basis for believing that it is part of true Christianity
today. Now that the Bible is complete and widely available, we have
what we need in the Word of God. It allows us to gain an accurate
knowledge of Jehovah and his Son that leads to everlasting life.-John
17:3; Revelation 22:18, 19.
Even in the first century, the apostle Paul was compelled to write the
congregation in Corinth to correct their view of why the gift of
tongues was given to early Christians. Seemingly, some had become
fascinated with the gift of tongues, and they were acting like little
children, spiritually immature. Too much importance was being attached
to "tongues." (1 Corinthians 14:1-39) Paul emphasized that not all
Christians in the first century spoke in miraculous tongues. It was
not necessary to their salvation. Even back then when it existed, the
gift of tongues was secondary to miraculous prophesying. Speaking in
tongues was not, and is not, a requirement for Christians to gain
everlasting life.-1 Corinthians 12:29, 30; 14:4, 5.
Some believe that the driving force behind today's tongue-speakers is
charismatic church leaders who prompt members of their flock to
acquire this ability. In some cases it is brought on by emotionalism
and imbalance. Cyril G. Williams, in Tongues of the Spirit, says it
has become "in many instances a badge of elitism within the group" and
gives a person "stature and authority in the sight of the group and
also in their own eyes." The motivation, therefore, could be a desire
to belong to the superior unknown-tongue group.
Then Loyola University president Donald P. Merrifield noted that
"tongues could be a hysterical experience, or, according to some, a
diabolical one." Clergyman Todd H. Fast said: "Tongues is
controversial. The devil has many ways of working at us." The Bible
itself warns that Satan and his demons are able to influence people
and control their speech. (Acts 16:17, 18) Jesus acted against a
demonic spirit that had moved a man to shout and fall to the floor.
(Luke 4:33-35) Paul warned that 'Satan would transform himself into an
angel of light.' (2 Corinthians 11:14) Those today who seek the gift
of tongues that God no longer bestows on his people are really opening
themselves to deception by Satan, who, we are warned, would use "every
powerful work and lying signs and portents."-2 Thessalonians 2:9, 10.
The first-century Christians who received the gift of speaking in
tongues used it to explain the magnificent things of God. Stress was
laid on the need to interpret clearly the message conveyed in tongues
so that it could be understood by all and result in the edification of
many. (1 Corinthians 14:26-33) Paul admonished: "Unless you through
the tongue utter speech easily understood, how will it be known what
is being spoken? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air."-
1 Corinthians 14:9.
While the spirit of God granted early Christians the gift of tongues,
it did not cause them to speak unintelligible or untranslatable
gibberish. In harmony with Paul's counsel, the holy spirit provided
speech that resulted in the good news being more quickly "preached in
all creation that is under heaven."-Colossians 1:23.
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>Good post lawrey .
Nice to read something rational
psychonomist
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>Why would any rational person believe that the bible is more than
primitive superstition ?
You have proved nothing . You have not established that the concept of
a god thing
Is valid . Without quoting biblical religiobable give us some
verifiable data substantiating
It's existence .
Psychonomist
> boombay...@hotmail.com for Scriptural proof in over 500 texts. Please
> itself warns that ...
>
> read more »
backspace
<sawireless2000@yahoo.com>On Mar 15, 5:30 am, "boombayoot" <boombay...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > John 1:1 :In the beginnig was the Word(Logos), and the Word was with
> > God, and the Word was God.
Most of what have posted just has a slight problem. Jesus Christ gave
a falsification test 2000 years ago in Mark16 (King James version).
You have basically removed the falsification test. If tongues were not
valid today then you have just made it impossible to falsify
Christianity.
> D. A. Hayes, in his book The Gift of Tongues,
> referred to an instance where a man refused to interpret the speech of
> a woman who spoke in an unknown tongue because "the language was the
> vilest of the vile." What a contrast that is to the speaking in
> tongues that existed in the first century and that was actually for
> building up the congregation!-1 Corinthians 14:4-6, 12, 18.
I agree 99% of all tongues today is vile nonsense .... sigh ....
>Speaking in tongues was not, and is not, a requirement for Christians to gain
> everlasting life.-1 Corinthians 12:29, 30; 14:4, 5.
Ofcourse not, I has made this clear.
> Some believe that the driving force behind today's tongue-speakers is
> charismatic church leaders who prompt members of their flock to
> acquire this ability. In some cases it is brought on by emotionalism
> and imbalance. Cyril G. Williams, in Tongues of the Spirit,
I agree which is why I denouce copeland, Hagin, Hinn, Rodney Howard
as scoundrels and evil beasts.
> Then Loyola University president Donald P. Merrifield noted that
> "tongues could be a hysterical experience, or, according to some, a
> diabolical one." Clergyman Todd H. Fast said: "Tongues is
> controversial. The devil has many ways of working at us."
Absolutely, did you even riead my site at http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
?
The devils is working at us. Just turn on http://www.tbn.org to see
him in action.
> While the spirit of God granted early Christians the gift of tongues,
> it did not cause them to speak unintelligible or untranslatable
> gibberish. In harmony with Paul's counsel,
Again did you even attempt to listen to the recording? Is it
gibberish? The book by F.D. Goodman: Speaking in Tongues
I have infront of me went through 170 pages to establish the the
Glossialists she was studying making the following sounds:
"galala, dalalala, handala, huntala" are speaking rubbish. Did you
look at the Firefox bookmarkings? Are the 108 words I listed there
rubbish?
I presume you are not a liguist. All I am asking is that a liguist
analyse it at http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
Is it really this difficult to comprehend?
Stephen
<stephen.p.craig@gmail.com>> Absolutely, did you even riead my site athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
> ?
> The devils is working at us. Just turn onhttp://www.tbn.orgto see
> him in action.
>
> > While the spirit of God granted early Christians the gift of tongues,
> > it did not cause them to speak unintelligible or untranslatable
> > gibberish. In harmony with Paul's counsel,
>
> Again did you even attempt to listen to the recording? Is it
> gibberish? The book by F.D. Goodman: Speaking in Tongues
> I have infront of me went through 170 pages to establish the the
> Glossialists she was studying making the following sounds:
> "galala, dalalala, handala, huntala" are speaking rubbish. Did you
> look at the Firefox bookmarkings? Are the 108 words I listed there
> rubbish?
>
> I presume you are not a liguist. All I am asking is that a liguist
> analyse it athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
> Is it really this difficult to comprehend?
S: Quick question: can you drink deadly poison too?
backspace
<sawireless2000@yahoo.com>On Mar 15, 8:38 am, "Stephen" <stephen.p.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 3:41 pm, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> S: Quick question: can you drink deadly poison too?
The Holyrollers handling snakes is ofcourse ridiculous. They are
handling tame snakes. They won't
pull a stunt like that with a wild cobra. The Word says that we should
not tempt God by deliberatly
engaging in something dangerous. Their meetings looks more like a
circus than anything else. Paul said let
each exercise his spiritual gift one by one. The Sacha Cohen video
with the sendup of Kazakstan
is an example of the absurdity in churches today. No ofcourse I did'nt
go and watch such a Godless film, I watched
the YouTube clip, but only halfway - I could'nt bare the rest. You had
people running infront of the church for
example. Paul said let everything be done orderly. Let only one speak
in tongues. But nobody in that church in the
clip could speak in tongues in anycase. We have a terrible crises on
our hands in Christianity. Where is the power of God?
Falsify my tongues:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
Simpleton
<human@whoever.com>On Mar 14, 2:49 pm, "braden.jenni...@gmail.com"
<braden.jenni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> d@##%^&&(P>>{"++__>:UIOUY*>YIOY>Tm<P>:>
>
> See? I can type in unknown tongues! The above statement reads:
> Jesus will burn you in Hell and notice the evil smiley face at the
> end? I didn't even plan it...no really it just came to me...by the
> power of the holy spirit.
>
Good thing you translated, for I was certain that it meant
"If John Stamos was really the AntiChrist, then why would he pretend
to be a notary public and eat shellfish with a half a chopstick?"
Hey wait, Jesus does not burn anyone in Hell, it is the OT god who
seems to have a flair for violence and torture.
Nice try, Jen.
Stephen
<stephen.p.craig@gmail.com>S: Since you believe that Mark 16:17-18 is actually part of the Bible
and not an editorial edition, and you furthermore think that it
provides falsification tests to Jesus claims, then are you prepared to
go further than just demonstrate your ability to speak in tongues
(which non-Christians have been able to do?) It seems like a far more
conclusive case if you could take a normally-lethal dose of
polonium-210 and survive.
In fact, this would be such a strong falsification test that you're
likely to become a very successful evangelist. Either that, or God
will take you to be with him for eternity. It's a win-win
situation ;-)
Okay, to address your question a little more. Your falsification test
is not really a falsification test. Firstly, non-Christians have the
ability to fool others into thinking they have the ability to speak in
tongues. Secondly, there have already been tests done on glossolalia
on 'true believers' which has failed to pass basic linguistic tests.
(Why should we believe that the number of true believers is so rare?).
Thirdly, even once we demonstrate the languages you are speaking are
not known languages, you will still be able to claim "that's because
they are heavenly languages". Even if we could show you that the
sounds you make do not follow the "laws of grammar", or some Chomskian
measure of "language", you can still claim that the rules of
linguistics are flawed.
Essentially, you are looking for someone trained in linguistics who
can perform the appropriate tests. There's probably a fairly
straightforward falsification test, get someone to speak to you in a
language you do not understand, and then attempt to translate. If you
can do this for a number of languages, then you will get our
attention.
backspace
<sawireless2000@yahoo.com>> straightforward falsification test....
t seems the atheists on this forum biases are clouding their
judgement. F.D. Goodman writes on p.123 "We are not concerned with
what speakers believe about glossolalia. The belief system vary from
culture to culture and are the domain of the group's theology". (I am
listening to Teleman as I write this. He was a friend of Bach. There
is just something incredably beautiful about classical music... People
who listen to pop music have the cultural refinement of a baboon. And
baboon music can't be sacrificed to a Holy God.)
Article in http://www.slate.com/id/2153947 "Thinking in Tongues What
can we learn from a babbling brain?" ".....But in a certain sense, a
set of blank scans could be far more interesting. What would it mean
if someone had an intense emotional experience that didn't show up on
a brain image? Even Andrew Newberg (http://www.andrewnewberg.com)
admits that "the most interesting result from a brain scan of someone
in prayer would be to find no significant change in the brain,"
especially at the moment of the most profound spiritual experience.
Believers might take a negative result in the glossolalia study as
proof of divine intervention....."
Well lets attempt to provide a further hurdle for my Glossolalia to
overcome: Reading something entirely at random and speaking in togues
at the same time and then immediatly giving the gist of what I have
just read. I can speak in tongues while reading a book or attempting
to parachute jump for the first time. I would be able to concentrate
on the instructor and speak in tongues at the same time and make
certain that I don't kill myself while jumping from the plane.
As stated I am bilingual. My mother tongue is http://en.wikipedia.org/Afrikaans
and my second language English. I can't read a book in English and
speak in Afrikaans at the same time. I have stop reading speak in
English and then continue reading in Afrikaans. And the same goes for
English. I can read English but not speak in Afrikaans at the same
time. So these are all things that a Linguist can use as he attempts
to falisfy my tongues.
1. Do an MRI scan of my brain while reading a book but keeping
silent.
2. Do MRI while I read English and try to speak Afrikaans at the
same time.
3. Do MRI while reading Enlish and speaking in tongues at the same
time.
4. Do MRI while reading Afkikaans and speaking in tongues at the
same time.
5. Do MRI while only speaking in Tongues.
6. Do MRI while listening to Handel and speaking in Tongues at the
same time.
7. Do MRI while listening to Lou Dobbs and speaking in Tongues at
the same time.
Dr. Newberg asks the question on his website: "Where do our beliefs
come from, and why do we hold on to some of them even if there is
evidence to the contrary? Why, for example, do we continue to be
fascinated by God ...."
A fascinating question. In trying to answer you Dr. Newberg we must
first ask ourselves what are our assumptions? Isn't there perhaps a
fundamental flaw in everybodies thinking, a fissure in the structure
of our though that cuts across ideological and metaphysical lines
wether YEC, Progressive Creationists, Atheist, ID'sts or New Age?
On this thread http://groups.google.as/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38df9a9a127281a8/3ea2bc6338bc0db4
I have made the case that the reason why 99% of our culture suffers
from a collective global mental illness is because we are using
phrases, words and conecpts which are not defined or established. I
asked the question:"Natural Selection is a form of linguistic
terrorism. What naturaled and who did the selecting?" and even Dr.
Wilkins was kind enough to participate in the debate.
Getting the right answers means asking the right questions and
language provides this conceptual framework in which we must ask the
questions. The question is not where did the first cell come from: It
is where did language come from. What was in the beginning? The bible
says: The Word and Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
When both http://www.answersingenesis.org and Dawkins can declare: "We
believe in Natural Selection" then you know there is something
seriously wrong with our language itself. I made the case that the
word "Selection" became undefined with Darwin's Origin of Species:
What Naturaled and Who did the Selecting? And YEC, Id'sts and Atheists
are locked in a meaningless, fruitless debate because the very
concepts they are discussing: Micro Evolution, Macro, Decent with
Modification, Evolve are undefined and not established in the same
sense that Kepler established http://en.wikipedia.org/Astronomia_nova.
Nobody knows what "evolve" means and thus nobody can confirm or deny
that something evolved. By using these undefined phrases, YEC,
http://www.icr.org, Atheists and http://www.uncommondescent.com in a
sense as though they have been formally defined these groups are
engaging in a form of LANGUAGE TERRORISM.
Everytime http://www.pandasthumb.org, http://www.icr.org and
http://www.uncommondescent.com use these words "evolve" "natural
selection" they are engaging in language terror. And this language
terror is the primary reason why there is no faith in God anymore. How
could you believe that Jesus Christ is the Word if you also believe in
the "Nature Selection Force", like Ken Ham does?
Joshua
<threatjkl@hotmail.com>special, to be one of, was it 10 Christians in the world? Yeah, you're
that special sunshine. No-one's biases are clouding their judgement, I
concede i haven't listened to your recordings, I tried - but tech
stuff I don't understand got in the way. Really mate, to go to all the
trouble you have to try and show the world you're so unique, is soooo
unbalanced. Good stuff trying to find a falsification test for
Christianity, but this ain't one. And dude... you're not God's chosen
one. Get over yourself.
On Mar 16, 12:27 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 9:22 am, "Stephen" <stephen.p.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 5:09 pm, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Essentially, you are looking for someone trained in linguistics who
> > can perform the appropriate tests. There's probably a fairly
> > straightforward falsification test....
>
> t seems the atheists on this forum biases are clouding their
> judgement. F.D. Goodman writes on p.123 "We are not concerned with
> what speakers believe about glossolalia. The belief system vary from
> culture to culture and are the domain of the group's theology". (I am
> listening to Teleman as I write this. He was a friend of Bach. There
> is just something incredably beautiful about classical music... People
> who listen to pop music have the cultural refinement of a baboon. And
> baboon music can't be sacrificed to a Holy God.)
>
> Article inhttp://www.slate.com/id/2153947"Thinking in Tongues What
> can we learn from a babbling brain?" ".....But in a certain sense, a
> set of blank scans could be far more interesting. What would it mean
> if someone had an intense emotional experience that didn't show up on
> a brain image? Even Andrew Newberg (http://www.andrewnewberg.com)
> admits that "the most interesting result from a brain scan of someone
> in prayer would be to find no significant change in the brain,"
> especially at the moment of the most profound spiritual experience.
> Believers might take a negative result in the glossolalia study as
> proof of divine intervention....."
>
> Well lets attempt to provide a further hurdle for my Glossolalia to
> overcome: Reading something entirely at random and speaking in togues
> at the same time and then immediatly giving the gist of what I have
> just read. I can speak in tongues while reading a book or attempting
> to parachute jump for the first time. I would be able to concentrate
> on the instructor and speak in tongues at the same time and make
> certain that I don't kill myself while jumping from the plane.
>
> As stated I am bilingual. My mother tongue ishttp://en.wikipedia.org/Afrikaans
> On this threadhttp://groups.google.as/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38df9...
> I have made the case that the reason why 99% of our culture suffers
> from a collective global mental illness is because we are using
> phrases, words and conecpts which are not defined or established. I
> asked the question:"Natural Selection is a form of linguistic
> terrorism. What naturaled and who did the selecting?" and even Dr.
> Wilkins was kind enough to participate in the debate.
>
> Getting the right answers means asking the right questions and
> language provides this conceptual framework in which we must ask the
> questions. The question is not where did the first cell come from: It
> is where did language come from. What was in the beginning? The bible
> says: The Word and Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
>
> When bothhttp://www.answersingenesis.organd Dawkins can declare: "We
> believe in Natural Selection" then you know there is something
> seriously wrong with our language itself. I made the case that the
> word "Selection" became undefined with Darwin's Origin of Species:
> What Naturaled and Who did the Selecting? And YEC, Id'sts and Atheists
> are locked in a meaningless, fruitless debate because the very
> concepts they are discussing: Micro Evolution, Macro, Decent with
> Modification, Evolve are undefined and not established in the same
> sense that Kepler establishedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/Astronomia_nova.
> Nobody knows what "evolve" means and thus nobody can confirm or deny
> that something evolved. By using these undefined phrases, YEC,http://www.icr.org, Atheists andhttp://www.uncommondescent.comin a
> sense as though they have been formally defined these groups are
> engaging in a form of LANGUAGE TERRORISM.
>
> Everytimehttp://www.pandasthumb.org,http://www.icr.organdhttp://www.uncommondescent.comuse these words "evolve" "natural
backspace
<sawireless2000@yahoo.com>> Backspace. I think you need mental help ....
Scientific American March 2003 "Bugs in the Brain" Robert Sapolsky p.
73: "... most of the deeply entrenched idea that evolution is
directional and progressive: invertebrates are more primitive than
vertebrates, mammals are the most evolved of vertebrates ... Some of
my best students fall for that one, no matter how much I drone on in
lectures. If you buy into that idea big-time, you're not just wrong,
you're not all that many steps away from a philosophy that has humans
directionally evolved as well, with the most evolved being northern
Europeans with a teste for schnitzel and goose-stepping."
Prof. Sapolsky says that evolution is not directional. Then why do
other professors talk about "Directional Selection"? And if
"Selection" is not directional then what is it. Who has defined
"Selection" as not being directional? It just language and mental
Falun Gong like confusion we have. And this brainwashing process
starts are primary school when the teacher writes on the board: Micro
Evolution ...... And this language intimidation is so powerful that
even http://www.icr.org are trying to refute Evolution and nobody
knows what it means.
Mental help is what Creationists, YEC, Dembski, Scordova, PZ Meyers
needs when their language gets messed up like the Falun Gong has done
in China. Because the Chinese have no absolute reference frame - God,
they have lost all sense of spiritual direction. And in this void
sects like Falun Gong give people false hope. Parents complain that
their children are learning a sort of new language that makes it
impossible for them to communicate with their kids.
And about 99% of all Evolutionists, Creationists and ID'sts are
suffering from Falun Gong like language and mental confusion. Your
premises and assumptions dictates what you believe to be the "Truth".
We all assume that our language is not confused. All I am asking is
why don't you challenge that assumption.
A whole new language set has been invented since 1856: Directional
selection, fitness, Sexual selection, evolve, mutate. And nobody has a
clue what these words really means, everybody repeats it because it
makes you part of the smart set. And without this language set you are
not allowed at Harvard, Yale or Bob Jones University. Yes, I say Bob
Jones because even they force you to do a course in Evolution where
the premises are that all these phrases actually have some sort of
meaning.
By way of analogy lets presume that the Falun Gong "secret language"
becomes part of Chinese culture, and 150 years later everybody wether
Christian or Atheist must attend a course where they are now forced to
use this FG new invented language to either refute or confirm FG
doctrine.
And this is what the Creationists just don't seem to understannd: Our
language is so fundamentally confused that everybody is suffering from
a form of mental illness. What http://www.icr.org needs to address is
not dinosaur bones "evolving" but asking themselves: What does evolve
mean? Jonathan Wells said on CNN interviewed by Lou Dobbs: " ... for
some it means change over time. And I don't know of anybody who would
disagree with that defenition of evolution". Well, Dr. Wells I would
actually disagree by asking: Says who? Who has formally defined that
it means change over time? And who could possibly deny that there is
change over time. Its like defining a rock in terms of rock. What
needs to be done is to independantly specify a rock in terms of its
silica atoms and how this relates to the periodic table. What is Life?
Telling me evolve means change over time is like telling me Life is
Life. Ofcourse you have change over time. Just imagine a universe
where there is no change over time. You are suffering from language
confusion Dr. Wells and you are one of the most intelligent persons on
this planet with perfect SAT scores .....
Christians are to afraid to say: Jesus is the Truth, Way and the Life,
because it is not "science". And what is science? Just like enthropy,
nobody really knows. Yet everybody throws these phrases around as
though they are explaining some deep mystical wisdom. And any attempt
at refuting a concept defiined in terms of the very concept itself is
doomed to failure. The concept must be independantly specified and you
can't do this if our anguage like that of Falun Gong is fundamentally
confused.
Please Falsify my Tongues: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
Michael E.
<ewartmj@gmail.com>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_%28TV_series%29
On Mar 16, 12:05 pm, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 4:48 am, "Joshua" <threat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Backspace. I think you need mental help ....
>
> Scientific American March 2003 "Bugs in the Brain" Robert Sapolsky p.
> 73: "... most of the deeply entrenched idea that evolution is
> directional and progressive: invertebrates are more primitive than
> vertebrates, mammals are the most evolved of vertebrates ... Some of
> my best students fall for that one, no matter how much I drone on in
> lectures. If you buy into that idea big-time, you're not just wrong,
> you're not all that many steps away from a philosophy that has humans
> directionally evolved as well, with the most evolved being northern
> Europeans with a teste for schnitzel and goose-stepping."
>
> Prof. Sapolsky says that evolution is not directional. Then why do
> other professors talk about "Directional Selection"? And if
> "Selection" is not directional then what is it. Who has defined
> "Selection" as not being directional? It just language and mental
> Falun Gong like confusion we have. And this brainwashing process
> starts are primary school when the teacher writes on the board: Micro
> Evolution ...... And this language intimidation is so powerful that
> evenhttp://www.icr.orgare trying to refute Evolution and nobody
> a form of mental illness. Whathttp://www.icr.orgneeds to address is
Stephen
<stephen.p.craig@gmail.com>On Mar 16, 4:05 pm, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 4:48 am, "Joshua" <threat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Backspace. I think you need mental help ....
>
> Scientific American March 2003 "Bugs in the Brain" Robert Sapolsky p.
> 73: "... most of the deeply entrenched idea that evolution is
> directional and progressive: invertebrates are more primitive than
> vertebrates, mammals are the most evolved of vertebrates ... Some of
> my best students fall for that one, no matter how much I drone on in
> lectures. If you buy into that idea big-time, you're not just wrong,
> you're not all that many steps away from a philosophy that has humans
> directionally evolved as well, with the most evolved being northern
> Europeans with a teste for schnitzel and goose-stepping."
>
> Prof. Sapolsky says that evolution is not directional. Then why do
> other professors talk about "Directional Selection"? And if
> "Selection" is not directional then what is it. Who has defined
> "Selection" as not being directional? It just language and mental
> Falun Gong like confusion we have. And this brainwashing process
> starts are primary school when the teacher writes on the board: Micro
> Evolution ...... And this language intimidation is so powerful that
> evenhttp://www.icr.orgare trying to refute Evolution and nobody
> a form of mental illness. Whathttp://www.icr.orgneeds to address is
> not dinosaur bones "evolving" but asking themselves: What does evolve
> mean? Jonathan Wells said on CNN interviewed by Lou Dobbs: " ... for
> some it means change over time. And I don't know of anybody who would
> disagree with that defenition of evolution". Well, Dr. Wells I would
> actually disagree by asking: Says who? Who has formally defined that
> it means change over time? And who could possibly deny that there is
> change over time. Its like defining a rock in terms of rock. What
> needs to be done is to independantly specify a rock in terms of its
> silica atoms and how this relates to the periodic table. What is Life?
> Telling me evolve means change over time is like telling me Life is
> Life. Ofcourse you have change over time. Just imagine a universe
> where there is no change over time. You are suffering from language
> confusion Dr. Wells and you are one of the most intelligent persons on
> this planet with perfect SAT scores .....
>
> Christians are to afraid to say: Jesus is the Truth, Way and the Life,
> because it is not "science". And what is science? Just like enthropy,
> nobody really knows. Yet everybody throws these phrases around as
> though they are explaining some deep mystical wisdom. And any attempt
> at refuting a concept defiined in terms of the very concept itself is
> doomed to failure. The concept must be independantly specified and you
> can't do this if our anguage like that of Falun Gong is fundamentally
> confused.
>
> Please Falsify my Tongues:http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
S: I have read that those who speak in tongues are more at risk of
schizophrenia. From reading your posts, you may be at risk.
Now, if you can perform an actual experiment that demonstrates the
veracity of your claims, then I can assure you that you will find an
audience. Until then, there does not appear to be anything
supernatural about your abilities.
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>His dumb ass belief is no more crazy than yours .
Psychonomist
backspace
<sawireless2000@yahoo.com>> On Mar 16, 4:48 am, "Joshua" <threat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A whole new language set has been invented since 1856: Directional
> selection, fitness, Sexual selection, evolve, mutate. And nobody has a
> clue what these words really means, everybody repeats it because it
> makes you part of the smart set. And without this language set you are
> not allowed at Harvard, Yale or Bob Jones University. Yes, I say Bob
> Jones because even they force you to do a course in Evolution where
> the premises are that all these phrases actually have some sort of
> meaning.
What is your conceptual framework?
What is a rock? How do you evaluate this question. What is our
conceptual framework.
It will chiefly be the periodic table. The concept of an atom
referenced via the periodic
table provides us at least with some sort of conceptual framework.
The question before modern pysics and chemistry could therefore not be
answered.
There was no way to even formulate the question. What does Evolve
mean? What is our conceptual framework?
Evolve is popularly described by reference to breeding and survival.
Describing it in these terms would be like pre science society
describing a rock in terms
of "hardness" - they can't even formulate the question.
Ofcourse a rock is "hard" it is obvious that it is hard. Ofcourse
cats,dogs and humans breed and survive. If humans didn't survive or
breed
we wouldn't be here now would we? And if a rock isn't hard, it
would'nt be a rock. Talking of survival and breeding means that we
can't even formulate the question.
These are effects like hardness is effect an obvious quality of a
rock. But you can't use hardness to describe or explain why a rock is
hard. This needs to be independantly specified. We need some way of
independantly specifying what is Life. Because breeding and surviving
on a superficial level is simply life. If humans did'nt breed there
would be no humans and no life in a sense.
The fundamental question is: What is Life and consciousness? Somebody
wrote that the only reason the mountains even exist is because
somebody is consciouss of it. The author stated that without
consiousness there would be no matter. The only religion that answers
this question. The only person who claimed to be God
manifested in the form of a human body is the Lord Jesus Christ. This
single individual who has profoundly altered the course of history
claimed to be the Truth, the Way ,the LIFE and the Word. Of whom the
fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily. Only the Bible claims that the
creator of this universe resides inside of a human body made of flesh
and bones that he transformed himself into and that the Creator
visited his creation 2000 years ago, was killed by his those whom he
made and rose from the dead.
What ever your beliefs concerning Christ, you must admit that this
individual is the most talked about, loved, hated , despised and
honoured historical figure in the existance of mankind. For millions
he is their only hope, rest and beacon in life. For others like
Anthony Flew who rejected his saviour at age 15 because somebody told
him he "Evolved" he will be their eternal judge. And of all the
religions, of all the holy men, of everybody who has ever claimed to
be God
only this man gave a falsification test: They shall speak with other
tongues.
Think about this for a few moments ....
Joshua
<threatjkl@hotmail.com>way, whilst reading it.
On Mar 18, 7:33 pm, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 8:05 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 16, 4:48 am, "Joshua" <threat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > A whole new language set has been invented since 1856: Directional
> > selection, fitness, Sexual selection, evolve, mutate. And nobody has a
> > clue what these words really means, everybody repeats it because it
Yes, new language sets may have been invented since any year. The
words are not confusing though. Except maybe to you.
> > makes you part of the smart set. And without this language set you are
> > not allowed at Harvard, Yale or Bob Jones University. Yes, I say Bob
> > Jones because even they force you to do a course in Evolution where
> > the premises are that all these phrases actually have some sort of
> > meaning.
Yes without showing knowledge of certain things, you are not allowed
to universities (I'm Aussie, never heard of Bob Jones). You need to
know certain words to show that knowledge. Of course they have
meaning. Quite clear actually.
> What is your conceptual framework?
Ummm... the millions of scientists who have contributed over millenia.
>
> What is a rock? How do you evaluate this question. What is our
> conceptual framework.
> It will chiefly be the periodic table. The concept of an atom
> referenced via the periodic
> table provides us at least with some sort of conceptual framework.
> The question before modern pysics and chemistry could therefore not be
> answered.
One way to evaluate this question. Before modern physics and
chemistry, would have been - something hard that people didn't make.
> There was no way to even formulate the question. What does Evolve
> mean? What is our conceptual framework?
Evolve means when a mutant - an offspring with DNA altered from it's
parent(s) - is able to re-produce. The conceptural framework, if I
understand that phrase correctly, is all to do with DNA science -
which I'm only familiar with at a chemist's level - and those
thousands of scientitsts have been working at it for decades with peer-
reviewed journals and all that science stuff (repeatability,
robustness, predictability). Before modern physics and chemistry,the
work of Darwin and others like him were the conceptural framework,
thousands of hours (collectively) at least, of observations of the
natural world.
> Evolve is popularly described by reference to breeding and survival.
> Describing it in these terms would be like pre science society
> describing a rock in terms
> of "hardness" - they can't even formulate the question.
Yeah they could. "This one's harder than this one, let's use it
instead."
> Ofcourse a rock is "hard" it is obvious that it is hard. Ofcourse
> cats,dogs and humans breed and survive. If humans didn't survive or
> breed
> we wouldn't be here now would we? And if a rock isn't hard, it
> would'nt be a rock. Talking of survival and breeding means that we
> can't even formulate the question.
> These are effects like hardness is effect an obvious quality of a
> rock. But you can't use hardness to describe or explain why a rock is
> hard. This needs to be independantly specified. We need some way of
> independantly specifying what is Life. Because breeding and surviving
> on a superficial level is simply life. If humans did'nt breed there
> would be no humans and no life in a sense.
What the hell are you on about???
>
> The fundamental question is: What is Life and consciousness? Somebody
Not my fundamental question. But it seems to me to be brain stuff - oh
no, you need scientists again...
> wrote that the only reason the mountains even exist is because
> somebody is consciouss of it. The author stated that without
> consiousness there would be no matter. The only religion that answers
> this question. The only person who claimed to be God
How did you make that leap?
> manifested in the form of a human body is the Lord Jesus Christ. This
> single individual who has profoundly altered the course of history
> claimed to be the Truth, the Way ,the LIFE and the Word. Of whom the
> fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily. Only the Bible claims that the
> creator of this universe resides inside of a human body made of flesh
> and bones that he transformed himself into and that the Creator
> visited his creation 2000 years ago, was killed by his those whom he
> made and rose from the dead.
How do you Christians read that: "the creator of this universe resides
inside of a human body made of flesh and bones that he transformed
himself into and that the Creator visited his creation 2000 years
ago, was killed by his those whom he made and rose from the dead." -
and think it is even possible? Let alone probable?
> What ever your beliefs concerning Christ, you must admit that this
> individual is the most talked about, loved, hated , despised and
> honoured historical figure in the existance of mankind. For millions
Perhaps, but I think armies are the reason why.
> he is their only hope, rest and beacon in life. For others like
> Anthony Flew who rejected his saviour at age 15 because somebody told
> him he "Evolved" he will be their eternal judge. And of all the
Do you think he rejected his saviour because of what somebody told
him? I don't think I'd reject much at all if anyone "told me". I think
anyone who "rejects their saviour" is doing so based upon evidence and
lack thereof, not because someone told them anything.
> religions, of all the holy men, of everybody who has ever claimed to
> be God
> only this man gave a falsification test: They shall speak with other
> tongues.
>
> Think about this for a few moments ....
And you think talking jibberish is somehow proving this statement?
Your jibberish, no matter how much it may sound like some words of
other languages, is just jibberish dude. You make it up as it comes
out your mouth. You alluded to a colleague/friend? somewhere (either
on here or your website), a linguist, who wouldn't touch your theory,
saying something like it would be the end of his short linguistics
career: there's a great reason for that.
backspace
<sawireless2000@yahoo.com>On Mar 18, 11:28 am, "Joshua" <threat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ok. Thought about it. But several problems were dogging me along the
> way, whilst reading it.
>
> On Mar 18, 7:33 pm, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 16, 8:05 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 16, 4:48 am, "Joshua" <threat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Evolve means when a mutant - an offspring with DNA altered from it's
> parent(s) - is able to re-produce. The conceptural framework, if I
> understand that phrase correctly, is all to do with DNA science -
> which I'm only familiar with at a chemist's level - and those
> thousands of scientitsts have been working at it for decades with peer-
> reviewed journals and all that science stuff (repeatability,
> robustness, predictability). Before modern physics and chemistry,the
> work of Darwin and others like him were the conceptural framework,
> thousands of hours (collectively) at least, of observations of the
> natural world.
This whole paragraphs is more of a rhetorical polemic than attempting
to adress the issues clearly. Fourier established the Fourier
transform not
thousands of scientists, but an individual.
Darwin used the word "mutation". What did he mean by it and what does
Dr.Lee Spetner mean by it.
"... Evolve means when a mutant - an offspring with DNA altered from
it's parent(s) - is able to re-produce ...."
And if the organism did'nt reproduce then it would not exist in the
first place. You have just defined a Trueism. It can't possibly not be
true, and
is just a different way of saying What survives, survives.
The cause of a creatures existance needs to be indendantly specified.
And how else would it exist if its parents did'nt reproduce in the
first place.
This is an obvious quality of a creature like hardness is an obvious
quality of a rock. But stating that a rock is hard doesn't explain to
me why it is hard.
dgp
<vorax.pye@gmail.com>On Mar 14, 12:49 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:28 pm, "Kippers" <r...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > What tests can be performed to determine if a language is supernatural
> > or not?
>
> Well the first thing you have to determinei is: Is it a langauge with
> semantics,grammar,phonetics, intonation, vowels and consonants?
> first.
Google Klingon and/or Vulcan -- also made up and also not holy. Heck
my fiancee and her sister invented a language as kids and still speak
it today, they can talk about anything in it and do when they want to
plan without us guys knowing. It's really not that hard.
>
> You people are getting ahead of yourselfs. Did you for example look at
> the firefox bookmarkings I provided? The language I speak from the
> google pages are from Polish, Latvian, Swedish, Spanish, Serbian etc.
Not hard again, you can easily for example try to sound russian and
actually end up making words that can confuse a russian speaking
person because they are similar, can do the same thing with any
language, including english... if you were more absentiant you would
realize that.... (absentiant of course, I just made up...sounds like a
word though doesn't it...say out load, you can probably even come up
with a meaning related to intelligence du to "sentiant" being very
close to "sentient").
> And did you even listen to the actual recording?
Nope, no need, I can listen to my fiance or make it up myself.
>
> What would be now more of a miracle speaking 300 000 words , with
> words from all the languages on Google or just speaking Russian for
> example.
If you didn't know russian, and spoke it for an hour with real
clarity, that would be something to behold and though I wouldn't think
it was a miracle, I would beleive you to be a genius lingquist.
> Where Russian would then be an unknown tongue to me? How could I
> possibly be able to memorise 1hour of multiple words from multiple
> languages and
> efortlessly string them together into what is recognizable as a
> language: Just listen to the recording, none of the commenters around
> here has actually done that.
Can easily be done...see above.
>
> The whole point of my post is that I am claiming to probably be only 1
> of 10 Christians who can actually speak a language. The study of
> linguistics is for
> example to discover new languages that nobody has heard. What is
> clouding your judgement now is the fact that I am saying I am a
> fundamentalist King James
> Only Christian. Seperate the issues please. And mark 16 is in the King
> James, the only translation we have in english that is the word of
> God.
Umm...King James, like all the other versions is very edited -- the
closest you can get is a direct translation of the Dead Sea scrolls --
which King James isn't.
> If you don't except the KJV or it doesn't matter to you as you read
> the corrupted NIV, RSV , then you are not even saved.
>
> The question ofcourse is am I not a fake like Marjoe Gortner? Well
> that is a distinct possibility. But you can't fake a language,
Yes you can fake a language...kids trying to speak will string
together entire paragraphs that make no sense, but sound like
talking...my 3 year old was doing this up until a couple of months ago
- I'm certain he thought he was saying something tho.
>which
> is why it so
> devestating to see people deceive themselves speaking in tongues when
> they are obviously speaking rubbish. This has led to many loosing
> their faith apon realising
> they we were deceiving themselves.
Or maybe they just realized they were kidding themselves when they
thought there was anything devine about making up a language.
backspace
<sawireless2000@yahoo.com>>From all the nonsense you just wrote it is clear that you are not
trained in linguistics. A PHD in Linguistics infact have
listend to my language - he is a Glossolalia researcher. He told me in
confidence that he simply can't help me further with my language
because it will impact on his career. He neither confirmed nor denied
anything. My tongues places the linguists in a very difficult
position.
If they let their Atheist biases cloud their judgement and say it is
rubbish then they will look very silly, because I am obviously
speaking a language.
The Klingon and Vulcan nonsense you just posted about shows how
clueless you really are. You are engaging in handwaving, sarcasm and
condescension. Wikipedia states that you must present a NPOV. Do a
search of Glossolalia under Pubmed to see the Journal articles on
Glossolalia.
There are 26 letters in the alphabet. Getting just one word with six
letters that generates only one Google hit as my site indicates means
26x26x26x26x26x26 = 308 000 000 probability bound. Or a chance of one
out of 308 000 000 possibilities.
I can speak for eternity non-stop. But let me speak non-stop for one
hour, generating say 200 words a minute or 12000/hour. Winston
Churchill for example
knew 15000 words in the English language. A person should know at
least 4000 of a language to be conversent in it.
Now how is any person no matter how versed in Klingon, Vulcan or
Elvish going to generate 12000 words and memorise (not all of them
unique, some words will repeat) nearly all of them searchable on
Google , string them together and create a fluent new language? What
sort of genius can do something like that?
To complicate it further I can read a book at the same time.
So getting say 1000 words with 6 letters each means 26 raised to the
power 6000. To put this number into perspective , there are 10 to the
power 80 atoms
in the whole universe. Really sir , just from my grammar alone it
should be obvious that I can't possibly create this language out of my
mind alone.
Ofcourse I concede that I might be lying and engaging in some sort of
elaborate Hoax here. The PHD researcher I dealt with doesn't think so.
And yet I offered to
him repeatedly that he should put me under one of those lie detector
tests that has about a 99.99% accuracy rate. I have seen science
programs on this, where
they use expensive MRI imaging techniques to determine if the
candidate is lying. I read about a story in the newspaper today that
they can now even predetermine
your next action and thus a 100% foolproof MRI based lie detector is
just around the corner.
I will actually pay to go under one of these machines. You can Prod
me, Probe me, interview me and and do a full scientific linguistic and
physciatric, MRI
evaluation and scan to determine how on earth I am speaking this
language. I am I lying? This is ofcourse a distinct possibility. But
in contrast to Benny Hinn
I am doing everything in my power to help you gentlemen falsify my
tongues. I am not trying to insulate my faith from destruction, I am
trying to help you
in disproving it and thus ruining my life, my faith my hope my only
reason for even wanting to live : Jesus Christ.
The fact is that the Linguists are speachless. They don't know what to
say. Because either way they loose. If they confirm it is a language,
well then what they essentially confirm is that those YEC people
Assimov called "public enemy number" one are actually correct. If they
rant and rave and engage in character assasination, ad-hominim attacks
instead of doing a factual linguistic unbiased assesment of my tongues
then they will look downright silly. So instead they are silent. They
simply can't afford to say anything. I don't know about the tenured
professors though. I don't know how to get hold of Samarin. Andybody
around here perhaps get hold of him?
The other possibility is that I am some sort of astounding mental
genius. I can assure you that the friends and family who know me
personally will fall of chairs
laughing if you were to tell them I am some sort of intelleqtual
giant. The people who know you, obviously will know if you are some
sort of Einstein.
You can't have this both ways: If I am "stupid", then it proves even
more that I can't possibly fake this.
Michael E.
<ewartmj@gmail.com>sounds or words you speak and you get hits. What exactly do you mean
by this? If you are getting hits, then you must be speaking a known
language, and you must know what that language is. Or am I
misunderstanding something?
Joshua
<threatjkl@hotmail.com>language'. Made up sounds may sound like words of different languages
every time anyone makes them up. There's not that many sounds our
mouth can make, and millions of words in the world. I don't think
you're crazy, or stupid. Your religious thinking has clouded your
judgement even more than atheist thinking ever could, and you have
come to believe you're doing something, that plainly you're not. Good
luck mate, whatever you decide to do...
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>Hey I have a great Idea . Lets all record our farts , analyze them
and see if it leads to a life that is not so shitty .
LOL
psychonomist
On Mar 13, 8:23 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jesus Christ provided a way of disproving his claims: Speaking in
> Tongues.
> Visit my site athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
> And download my Glossolalia athttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Tongue12feb.ogg
>
> As I listen to myself speaking in tongues I write down the words I
> sort of can make out. This allows a linguist to falsify my belief that
> I am speaking in a supernatural language by the power of the Holy
> Spirit. The Lord Jesus who gave me this language at age 12 said in
> Mark 16:16 "... they shall speak in new tongues..." He thus gave a
> falsification test for his claim of being God. He provided a way of
> disproving his claim of being God in the flesh. None of the other
> mainstream religions in the world had a human being on this earth
> actually claiming to be God. Only this man Jesus whos historical
> existance is beyond dispute actually claimed to be God.
>
> John 1:1 :In the beginnig was the Word(Logos), and the Word was with
> God, and the Word was God. Genes for example are not like a language -
> it is a language. And thus what sort of "hint" or "sign" would be more
> appropriate for the God of this universe to give to this planet than
> something related to language? With the tools of linguistics such ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneticsandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax
> a language can be analised to a high degree of accuracy. Language and
> language like structures are inherently open for linguistic and
> scientific analysis and hence can be falsified.
>
> Some Hindu God for example has eight arms. How am I supposed to
> disprove that this God doesn't have eight arms? What falsification
> test is given?
>
> When you walk on the grass, you are walking on language. We are
> surrounded by trillions and trillions of code structures. If God is
> really God, then would he not give some sort of "language like" sign
> for his existance? Even Paul said: " ... tongues is a sign to the
> unbeliever." Christianity is the only religion that makes an attempt
> at giving a falsification test for its claims. The rubbish Rodney
> Howard Brown speaks ofcourse is not tongues - it is a scam.
>
> There is virtually no Christian that can speak in tongues today.
> Perhaps no more than 10 brother or sisters in the Lord. That falling
> down you see on television is auto suggestive hypnosis. Nowhere was
> such an experience in the Bible - it is not from God. Benny Hinn and
> his ilk can't speak in tongues for example. Modern day Glossolalia
> isn't apparent nonsense - it is nonsense. Just meaningless babble. As
> I speak I lookup the words onhttp://www.google.comin real time and
> then bookmark them. I don't go back and look at what I have spoken
> though so as not remember these words with my mind.
>
> I can read a book and speak in tongues at the same time. I have never
> beenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slain_in_the_Spirit, hypnotised or
> been in a trance. "....In most cases, their fall is broken by deacons,
> catchers, ushers or orderlies behind them to prevent injury." If these
> falling down experiences were really from God then why do the people
> need to be caught? And the fact that women have to covered by blankets
> because they lie on the ground in "compromising" positions obviously
> means God had nothing to do with it.
>
> I don't smoke nor drink and have never been drunk in my life. I can
> speak for hours on end non-stop by the power of God Almighty. I am a
> fundamentalist, protestant, YEC, King James Only Christian,
> heartbroken over the apostisation of the Church and general lunacy
> like thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_blessingscam.
> TongueSpeaker 12:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
backspace
<sawireless2000@yahoo.com>Yes, I am just as amazed. It is just incredable. I listen to this
language flowing from me and just like you would listen to say Russian
and
pick up say every 20th word and sort of being able to write it down, I
do it with my tongues. I don't have even the remotest clue of what I
am
saying. For me it is exactly the same as I would listen to somebody
speak Serbian and then writing down every 30th word, due to the
complexity
of the language. A trained linguist would be able to transcribe
virtually every single word. I am not a linguist and thus the
difficulty in writing down what
I hear.
This is what a linguists does by the way. Transcribe an entirely new
language. It is a rigurous scientific process and not a handwaving,
sarcastic, condescending
enterprise like some of the posters around here, but a strict logical
rational process independant of whatever your religious belief system
might be. The words I speak are'nt even remotely related to Afrikaans
or English, the two languages I am fluent in. And it is important to
note this, because a defining characteristic of modern day Glossolalia
chaos in the church world are that the tongues of the speaker sounds
approximatly like the languages he is fluent in.
Rodney Howard Brown babbliing in Glossolalia after Copeland caught him
ofguard is a classic example of this. Just look for it on Youtube.
backspace
<sawireless2000@yahoo.com>> Your religious thinking has clouded your judgement even more than atheist thinking ever could, and you have
> come to believe you're doing something, that plainly you're not.
Which is ofcourse a distinct possibility. And thus http://www.esnips.com/web/TongueSpeaker
provides a 6min audio file in MP3 format where
I read an article in The Economist and speak in tongues at the same
time, thus helping a linguist in falsifying my language.
And not just the linguists our muslim friends have been demanding that
a Christiain demonstrate this falsification test as asked here
http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp8.htm to which sir
I humbly oblige.
.
dgp
<vorax.pye@gmail.com>On Mar 20, 4:00 pm, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 5:02 am, "Joshua" <threat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Your religious thinking has clouded your judgement even more than atheist thinking ever could, and you have
> > come to believe you're doing something, that plainly you're not.
>
> Which is ofcourse a distinct possibility. And thushttp://www.esnips.com/web/TongueSpeaker
> provides a 6min audio file in MP3 format where
> I read an article in The Economist and speak in tongues at the same
> time, thus helping a linguist in falsifying my language.
>
> And not just the linguists our muslim friends have been demanding that
> a Christiain demonstrate this falsification test as asked herehttp://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp8.htm to which sir
> I humbly oblige.
>
> .
don't know what you are saying (I listened) you might as well be
making gibberish noises that sound similar to language. As an
experiment I am doing while typing this message. It is somewhat
distracting but I am still able to type fairly well and hopefully my
message will be coherrant.
Do this: Contact an impartial third party and ask them to contact a
skeptic and have them describe what you do to the skeptic. Have the
skeptic gather 50 people who've never had contact with you, speak your
language or never even heard of you (preferably from a country FAR
away from you) bring them to an empty gym in yet another country that
doesn't speak your language. Have you stand behind a curtin to speak
in tounges to the crowd - say nothing before or after to the crowd and
get on a plan. Ask that the skeptic to gather two video crews from
competing companies to record the entire thing.
If even 50% of the people in the room have general agreement after
individually writing down their thoughts in isolation, THEN I will
consider your test valid and scientific.
Do you have anything like this? If not, get it THEN you may start
convincing us scientific types.
I listen to music and sing along to it, while I program and/or read at
the same time -- infact I do it all day long almost every day --
perhaps I have a gift as well?
Joshua
<threatjkl@hotmail.com>derived from much Pali and Sanskrit, however, Thai people (including
scholars) will tell you that 'true' Thai words are one syllable long.
Sawatdii for example is hello, Thai's consider this a derived word,
Nom (milk) is considered 'true Thai'. Now Thai has five tones: Low,
High, Rising, Falling and Neutral. Like most languages, there is at
least one word for nearly everything. Thai utilises most sounds I've
ever heard a human make from their mouth, noticably absent are the
'hocking up' noises like in Arabic, and the 'sh' sound in English.
Given the number of options of sounds, if you steer clear of 'sh' and
hocking up; Anyone could blabber any sounds at all, and they would be
recognisable Thai words, maybe sometimes sentences.
You answer these kind of problems with "Perhaps. Perhaps I'm wrong, I
just think I'm doing this magical stuff...." Blah blah blah. No dude.
You're not, and it's not even worth investigating - it's so bad. I
can't believe you've spent so much time on it. Glossolia, Intelligent
Design, What's the difference?
And I don't think linguists study 'new' languages. I thought you knew
one? Don't they study existing languages (because there are hardly any
new ones) and their relationship to the rest of the world they exist
in?
I'm not being condescending mate, I think you need to get on with your
life. I'll give you this, I reckon you're probably a unique
individual.
On Mar 21, 8:00 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 5:02 am, "Joshua" <threat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Your religious thinking has clouded your judgement even more than atheist thinking ever could, and you have
> > come to believe you're doing something, that plainly you're not.
>
> Which is ofcourse a distinct possibility. And thushttp://www.esnips.com/web/TongueSpeaker
> provides a 6min audio file in MP3 format where
> I read an article in The Economist and speak in tongues at the same
> time, thus helping a linguist in falsifying my language.
>
> And not just the linguists our muslim friends have been demanding that
> a Christiain demonstrate this falsification test as asked herehttp://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp8.htm to which sir
> I humbly oblige.
>
> .