Do Pentecostals really speak in Languages? The Research

Daniel Marsh · Nov 29, 2016

Why do tongue speakers always uses phonemes of his or her native language?

Jezmeyah · Nov 29, 2016

In the interest of as short as possible reply, some portions have been snipped.

Daniel Marsh said:
glossolalia language research
11-25-16, 02:00 PM
Basically, get a copy of scripture in a language that is not likely to be known in your area. Play it for all those who claim the gift of interpretation. You will not find a single person who gets the interpretation correct. This is a linguistic fact.

For every Christian who has interpreted spoken tongues, it was not likely of a known human language. That is why it's called 'interpretation'.. and not 'translation'.

The Holy Spirit utterance is obviously not a language as we know of human languages. Who said that it was anything like a human language when the Bible states that it is a Holy Spirit given utterance.

The 'gift of interpretation' as you call it, does not work in regard to hearing a known human language, and being able to know what is said.. but the ability to interpret only functions regarding a Holy Spirit utterance for the purpose of ministry in edifying believers.

If everyone who spoke in tongues and has interpreted before, then heard a tongue, why is it that only one is able to interpret it? Shouldn't they all be able to interpret it? No, that's not how it works.

It is the same regarding one who speaks prophecy by the Holy Spirit. Of all believers who've given a prophecy before, not all will speak the same thing at once in the known language. Because the Holy Spirit divides severally as He will. Because God is not a God of confusion. The operation of the ministry gifts are to function in an orderly way.

However, the individual use of speaking in tongues in an assembly is acceptable during a time of worship and praise unto God. Because God does not get confused when many are praising Him audibly, each saying individual things.

Moving on to address the next thing, just for the sake of argument, because I don't think that anyone who has respect for God and His gifts would in good moral conscience do such a thing as this..
Any Christian who has at some time interpreted unknown tongues and volunteers to listen to a recorded known language, they aren't going to be able to translate it.

Because 'interpretation' and 'translation' are different things. Not only that, but they can't make the 'gift of interpretation' work whenever they want to.

And because God did not make the 'gift of interpretation' available for the purpose of such a clinical testing because someone is suspicious that it isn't really of God.

Daniel Marsh said:
Kildahl (1975) points out that:
"There are no reported instances of a glossolalist speaking a language which was then literally translated by an expert in that language…"

Malony & Lovekin (1985:5) conclude:

"Although tongue speakers often claim that their new language is French or Italian or Spanish, and so on – languages they never knew before – scientific studies to date have not confirmed their claims."

The claims will not be confirmed scientifically because it's not intended to be scrutinized in that way.

All things of God are to be discerned spiritually., and not be subject to the wisdom of men.

Again, it must be said, that speaking in a known language by utterance of the Holy Spirit is not according to the will of the believer. So your clinical people will be waiting for a very long time to be able to get satisfaction on that kind of study.

Or perhaps they do it by lifting examples of recorded speaking in tongues off the internet.

Daniel Marsh said:
On Youtube: Creationist Study, Disproves Glossolalia As Language.

By human standards, it is not a language as such. But as far as God is concerned it is a divine means of communication.

Daniel Marsh said:
Why did Jesus forbid prayer with babbling/long repetitions if he was going to give it as a special gift?

“And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition (battalogeó/battalogēsēte) as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.” (Mat 6:7)

Answer: because the verse in Mat.6:7 and every verse regarding speaking in tongues is/are not addressing the same thing.

The verse in Mat.6:7 is not talking about speaking in tongues, it's talking about the unsaved who speak in their learned human language in praying to their idol gods. They speak meaningless repetition to a stone statue that can't hear them. That is why Jesus called their religious devotion and however pious petitions, a futile thing to do.

In the matter of repetition.. if that's wrong, the Psalms in particular violate that quite a bit.

However, there is no verse of scripture that states that speaking in tongues is meaningless babble, except to state that that is what a barbarian calls it.

Daniel Marsh said:
If modern tongues are the same as those in Acts, why is there no verifiable xenoglossy?

“devout men from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5) around the first tongue speakers clearly stated “we hear them in our own tongues” (Acts 2:11).

If glossolalia is a real language, why are different interpretations given for the same phrase?

I personally have not been present when there were different interpretations given for the same phrase.

Who could remember that? And it's unfortunate that you cannot give any particulars concerning it.

However, there are any number of examples that can be given concerning interpreting certain scripture verses, the same verse can be interpreted with a different angle of meaning. As has been demonstrated above concerning Mat.6:7.

Daniel Marsh said:
“Interpretations do in fact take place, but they are usually pious exhortations in the language of the group where the glossic utterances are made. They are often strikingly longer or shorter than the glossic utterance.” (1)

I have heard a similar thing occur when a foreign speaker says something, and then the English speaker translates it. The latter in some cases was shorter, and also longer in number of words than that of the foreign speaker.

There is nothing unusual about that. It depends greatly on how the translator decides to translate it. And would no doubt be different if another translator translated it according to their vocabulary and use of slang or common speech. However, the translation is never a word for word rendering.

Daniel Marsh said:
“I have heard the same glossolalic phrases repeated by the same glossolalist in different services, but each time the identical glossolalic utterances are given a different translation.“ (4)

“the interpreters gave different meanings to identical words in the same set of words. When confronted with this inconsistency, the interpreters simply said, ‘God gave different interpretations.'” (14, 23)

Why is Priming the Pump needed in Pentecostal training? I once visited Happy Church in Denver, CO. They hearded non-tongue speakers into a room and said, repeat after me. I asked what this this all about and they called it priming the pump.
I have met many people who have had the same thing happen to them in different churches in different cities.

That is a very poor example to imply that it is done in every church to anyone who is seeking to be baptized in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues.

I have many times been present when the infilling of the Holy Spirit is ministered to many believers at a time, the preacher gives scriptural basis to bring faith to the seekers, then leads them in a prayer of receiving in faith, then he encourages them to allow the utterance given of the Holy Spirit to come out their mouth, then the minister speaks in tongues to further encourage them to speak it out. But He never says "repeat after me" (to speak the tongues that he speaks). That wouldn't be by utterance of the Holy Spirit within the individual believer, it wouldn't be coming from within them. The direction is from within, out.. not, from outside to inside.

That is why all of the clinical analysis is so incorrect in comparing the Holy Spirit utterance with that of pagan voodoo.

It intends to imply that the Christians who speak in tongues are not doing so by the Holy Spirit, but rather that it is of the devil.

There is no Bible scripture verse to indicate that. But on the contrary the Bible assures that the speaking in tongues of the new testament is and will always be from God when the believer asks of God for the gift of the Holy Spirit, see Luke 11:9-13.

By the clinical studies comparing the Holy Spirit speaking in tongues with voodoo based entirely on how it sounded, if they are right, then that would have to mean that all the new testament believers who spoke in tongues would also be suspect of being of the devil.

No Christian of today is willing to believe that it was.

Daniel Marsh said:
1 Timothy 6:20,
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings…”

There is no indication that "vain babblings" means speaking in tongues, there is no scripture that would call the speaking in tongues gift of God 'vain babblings'. Neither would the apostle Paul who himself taught about speaking in tongues, and said in 1 Cor.14:18 that he speaks in tongues more than those Corinthian believers.

By your interpretation of what the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, you are making the apostle Paul speak in a disparaging way of the speaking in tongues that he practices. But indeed it is you who is speaking disparagingly of the Holy Spirit within the apostle Paul and within every believer of the new testament who also spoke in tongues.

Daniel Marsh said:
1 Corinthians 14:19-20 “Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. 20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.”

The operative word in verses 19-20 is "teach". Concerning teaching them, Paul speaks the known language for their benefit whereby they are properly taught how to operate in speaking in tongues within the assembly. However, in his own time of prayer seeking wise direction from God, and praise to God, as he said in verse 18, speaks in tongues more than any of them.

The apostle Paul in no place discouraged them, or even forbad them from speaking in tongues. Yet, it seems that your post is full of discouraging and forbidding to speak in tongues.

swordsman1 · Nov 29, 2016

Jezmeyah said:
The Holy Spirit utterance is obviously not a language as we know of human languages. Who said that it was anything like a human language when the Bible states that it is a Holy Spirit given utterance.

In Acts 2:4-11 the disciples spoke in foreign human languages at Pentecost. I don't see anywhere in scripture where tongues is redefined as something else.

Jezmeyah said:
Because 'interpretation' and 'translation' are different things.

The word 'interpret' in relation to tongues in 1 Corinthians is the greek word diermēneuō, which in the context of languages means to translate. The same word appears in Acts 9:36 "Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which translated in Greek is called Dorcas)"

Daniel Marsh · Nov 29, 2016

'interpretation' and 'translation go hand in hand. One can not translate until they have interpreted the text.

in·ter·pre·ta·tion
inˌtərprəˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun

the action of explaining the meaning of something.
"the interpretation of data"
synonyms: explanation, elucidation, expounding, exposition, explication, exegesis, clarification More
- an explanation or way of explaining.
  plural noun: interpretations
  "this action is open to a number of interpretations"
  synonyms: meaning, understanding, construal, connotation, explanation, inference
  "they argued over interpretation"

Definition of translation

1: an act, process, or instance of translating: asa : a rendering from one language into another; also : the product of such a rendering

http://blog.lionbridge.com/travel-hospitality/files/2012/07/Lionbridge-FAQ-Interp-vs-Translation.pdf

I did ask them to put their interpretation into writing, and they did take the time to revise it a few times each and yet none of them ever came close to what the recordings really meant. The processes are similar enough in everyday language. Also, if the interpretation was from God it would be very accurate, thus close to a translation.

The article I posted above lists five differences.

But, if God is interpreting would not those be accurate?

Alithis · Nov 29, 2016

I tire of the spiels of unbelief .. what i do know is at Corinth Paul is writing to them some 20+ years later . tongues was the most common (and still is ) evidence of a person being filled with the spirit of God . it does not validate everything person does .a person can speak in tongues and be living an utterly sin filled life ..they will not be saved because they speak in tongues . but by repentance faith and obedience-all of which are inseparable .

do they need coaching .. (priming ?) nope .i'm not sure what it occurs except in some cases it comes from the doubts of the one praying for it not the ones receiving .

here is what occurred on our lounge 3 weeks ago ... at the end of the story , lady sat on the couch and we prayed for her to be baptized in the holy Spirit .. she had repented earlier and had a demon cast out of her ..it too is a spirit and it made unintelligible sounds also then screamed and came out of her .
she was then baptized in water by obedience and on her own faith .

at the point that she surrendered to the holy Spirit she began to cry out in other tongues .
there were three of us present by her side, No one coached or primed .we prayed and waited in faith .
my self and my friend heard her speak in tongues
my wife heard her speak in English- !
at the same time the same words that were unintelligible to us 2 ,were English to my wife.

so when the book of acts says they each heard the speaking in their own tongue.it means exactly what it says .. each person heard the same man in front of them speak in their own tongue .. and the next person listening to that same man heard them speaking in his tongue and the next heard the same person speaking in his tongue .. all at the same moment .
because it is by the holy Spirit of the living God with whom nothing is impossible .

do you not think when we stand in judgement before him and he speaks that he will speak every language there is at the same time and all mankind will know what is being said ? your unbelief limits god .
and you err greatly
for you attribute the things of the Holy Spirit to demons when you accuse tongues being of Beelzebub .. .. its that same as saying ,he casts out devils by the power of devils.. -it is interesting that it was after that very accusation that Jesus warns of blasphemy of the holy Spirit .

you quote reams of the opinions of man ..you hod the opinions of man over the word of god .you know not anything you speak of and mock what you do not understand.

swordsman1 · Nov 30, 2016

Alithis said:
tongues was the most common (and still is ) evidence of a person being filled with the spirit of God . it does not validate everything person does .a person can speak in tongues and be living an utterly sin filled life ..they will not be saved because they speak in tongues .

How can someone be filled with the Spirit if they are living a sinful life, not saved even?

Being filled with the Spirit is to be controlled by Spirit, as opposed to being controlled by our sinful nature. Paul contrasts it to drunkenness in Eph 5:21 "Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit". You are controlled by the Spirit, like someone is controlled by alcohol. The evidence of being filled with the Spirit is not speaking in tongues. There are well over a dozen instances in the NT of people being filled with the Spirit, only on one occasion did they happen to speak in tongues as well (at Pentecost). The evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit is boldness in witnessing:

Luke 1:41 "Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women,..."

Luke 1:67 "Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied “Praise be to the Lord,..."

Acts 4:8 "Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!...."

Acts 4:31 "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly."

Acts 7:55 "But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God....”

Acts 9:17 “Brother Saul, the Lord... has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit".....At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God."

Acts 11:24 Barnabas: "He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord."

Acts 13:8 "Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, “You are a child of the devil..."

Acts 13:51 "And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit....There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Greeks believed. "

Alithis said:
so when the book of acts says they each heard the speaking in their own tongue.it means exactly what it says .. each person heard the same man in front of them speak in their own tongue .. and the next person listening to that same man heard them speaking in his tongue and the next heard the same person speaking in his tongue .. all at the same moment .
because it is by the holy Spirit of the living God with whom nothing is impossible .

At Pentecost the miracle was in the speaking, not a miracle of the hearing. It was the disciples on whom the Spirit fell and caused them to miraculously speak in other foreign language. The Spirit did not fall on the crowd and cause them to miraculous have an automatic gift of interpretation in their ears.

Acts 2:4 "...and they began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."

There is no mention of interpretation at all in the account.

Daniel Marsh · Nov 30, 2016

Alithis said:
I tire of the spiels of unbelief .. what i do know is at Corinth Paul is writing to them some 20+ years later . tongues was the most common (and still is ) evidence of a person being filled with the spirit of God . it does not validate everything person does .a person can speak in tongues and be living an utterly sin filled life ..they will not be saved because they speak in tongues . but by repentance faith and obedience-all of which are inseparable .

If that is true then it is unbiblical

I cor 12
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole werehearing, where were the smelling? 18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. 19 And if they were all one member, where were the body? 20 But now are they many members, yet but one body. 21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. 22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: 23 and those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. 24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:25 that there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. 26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30 have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

It is clear that every member of the body of christ is not an apostle, prophet, teacher, workers of miracles, healers, speak in tongues and interpret.

So, if everyone speaks in tongues, is the church only a tongue?

Daniel Marsh · Nov 30, 2016

swordsman1 said:
How can someone be filled with the Spirit if they are living a sinful life, not saved even?

Being filled with the Spirit is to be controlled by Spirit, as opposed to being controlled by our sinful nature. Paul contrasts it to drunkenness in Eph 5:21 "Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit". You are controlled by the Spirit, like someone is controlled by alcohol. The evidence of being filled with the Spirit is not speaking in tongues. There are well over a dozen instances in the NT of people being filled with the Spirit, only on one occasion did they happen to speak in tongues as well (at Pentecost). The evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit is boldness in witnessing:

Luke 1:41 "Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women,..."

Luke 1:67 "Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied “Praise be to the Lord,..."

Acts 4:8 "Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!...."

Acts 4:31 "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly."

Acts 7:55 "But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God....”

Acts 9:17 “Brother Saul, the Lord... has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit".....At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God."

Acts 11:24 Barnabas: "He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord."

Acts 13:8 "Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, “You are a child of the devil..."

Acts 13:51 "And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit....There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Greeks believed. "

Swordsman, I think you gave the best post yet.
Daniel

At Pentecost the miracle was in the speaking, not a miracle of the hearing. It was the disciples on whom the Spirit fell and caused them to miraculously speak in other foreign language. The Spirit did not fall on the crowd and cause them to miraculous have an automatic gift of interpretation in their ears.

Acts 2:4 "...and they began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."

There is no mention of interpretation at all in the account.

Swordsman, I think you gave the best post yet.
Daniel

Daniel Marsh · Nov 30, 2016

What I brought up are not "spiels of unbelief", but are common sense and discernment. In Acts 2 and in the writings of Paul it is clear that this gift is in fact speaking human language unknown to the speaker. God allows fleeces, I Thess 5:21 tells us to prove all things, hold to what is good. The exact thing of speaking in tongues were among the pagans, mystery religions first at Corinth and today in cults like LDS or Mormonism, Gnostic groups, oneness Pentecostals and even in world religions. Based on fact that none research wise are speaking human languages, it must be babble from the disengaging of the human mind which is the same thing imaging brain research wise that occurs with stuttering.

The verb "speak" in 1 Corinthians 13:1 is in the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood in Greek
assumes an unreality, or something not presently the case. Paul was not speaking in tongues of angels, but
only used that phrase to make a hypothetical case based on a hyperbole. Furthermore, there is no evidence that
angels use a heavenly language, for when they communicate in Scripture they use normal human language
(Luke 1:11-37, 2:8-14).

Radrook · Nov 30, 2016

I heard a story about one Charismatic church member who would prance and rooster-strut around during services saying in a machine-gun-like very rapid fashion: "Rrriiiice rrriccee rrrricce Rrrrrice ah beeeens- Rrrricce ah beeeens, Rrrricce ah beeeens, Rrrricce ah beeeens"". Those church members in attendance who did not understand English considered him a very spiritual man and he enjoyed great prestige there amongst the brethren . Unfortunately for him, someone who understood English finally chanced to attend church, understood immediately that he was saying as: "Rice and Beans"" divulged it to the thoroughly shocked congregation. Needles to say, he was unceremoniously ushered out via the nearest vestibule..

sparow · Nov 30, 2016

mnorian said:
As Apostle Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 13:1:

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal."

the language that Christians speak when they are speaking in tongues can be either earthly languages or heavenly languages; and if it's heavenly; then it's no wonder that linguists can't find any "earthly" understanding of them.

All I can do is express an opinion: scientific research is useless in matters pertaining to God. Speaking in tongues is something the Holy spirit does and the Biblical example is He works on the hearers not the speakers; the apostles spoke and were heard in multiple languages, but they only spoke in one language.

hedrick · Nov 30, 2016

I agree with the OP that the evidence suggests that tongues isn’t a language. It seems unlikely that tongue-speakers are doing what was done in Acts 2.

However that doesn’t make their practice valueless or wrong. Tongues are a way of praising God with your spirit and emotions. As long as you also involve your understanding at other points in your Christian life, and as long as you don’t maintain that everyone has to use that specific way of expressing themselves, it seems OK.

What the Pentecostals have done is what many other reform movements through church history has done, which is to emphasize the importance of personal religious experience. Christianity isn’t just intellectual and isn’t just moral. However just like other reform movements, it’s easily possible for it to go too far, and to imply that that mode of experiencing God is mandatory, or overemphasize the emotional side of being Christian.

Postvieww · Nov 30, 2016

swordsman1 said:
How can someone be filled with the Spirit if they are living a sinful life, not saved even?

Being filled with the Spirit is to be controlled by Spirit, as opposed to being controlled by our sinful nature. Paul contrasts it to drunkenness in Eph 5:21 "Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit". You are controlled by the Spirit, like someone is controlled by alcohol. The evidence of being filled with the Spirit is not speaking in tongues. There are well over a dozen instances in the NT of people being filled with the Spirit, only on one occasion did they happen to speak in tongues as well (at Pentecost). The evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit is boldness in witnessing:

Luke 1:41 "Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women,..."

Luke 1:67 "Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied “Praise be to the Lord,..."

Acts 4:8 "Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!...."

Acts 4:31 "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly."

Acts 7:55 "But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God....”

Acts 9:17 “Brother Saul, the Lord... has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit".....At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God."

Acts 11:24 Barnabas: "He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord."

Acts 13:8 "Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, “You are a child of the devil..."

Acts 13:51 "And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit....There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Greeks believed. "

At Pentecost the miracle was in the speaking, not a miracle of the hearing. It was the disciples on whom the Spirit fell and caused them to miraculously speak in other foreign language. The Spirit did not fall on the crowd and cause them to miraculous have an automatic gift of interpretation in their ears.

Acts 2:4 "...and they began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."

There is no mention of interpretation at all in the account.

swordsman1 said:

There are well over a dozen instances in the NT of people being filled with the Spirit, only on one occasion did they happen to speak in tongues as well (at Pentecost). The evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit is boldness in witnessing:

You left one out.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Truly1999 · Nov 30, 2016

In my opinion, very few Christians speak in languages. I think that many are in a ecstatic state of mind at times and are in a trance where they speak gibberish. Others make it up to avoid being marginalised.

Postvieww · Nov 30, 2016

Daniel Marsh said:
glossolalia language research
11-25-16, 02:00 PM
Basically, get a copy of scripture in a language that is not likely to be known in your area. Play it for all those who claim the gift of interpretation. You will not find a single person who gets the interpretation correct. This is a linguistic fact.

"In almost all instances, linguists are confident that the samples of T-speech represent no known natural language and in fact no language that was ever spoken or ever will be spoken by human beings as their native tongue. The phonological structure is untypical of natural languages. Some samples of T-speech, however, are more complex and cannot be clearly distinguished from a natural language on these grounds.15" age 372
“Glossolalia: Analyses of Selected Aspects of Phonology and Morphology,” M.A. thesis, University of Texas, 1967, p. 95" (Linguistic and Sociological Analyses of Modern Tongues-Speaking: Their Contributions and Limitations

by Vern S. Poythress

[Published in the Westminster Theological Journal 42/2 (1980) 367-388. Reprinted in Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia. Watson E. Mills. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Pp. 469-489.)

Just google: Glossolalia in Contemporary Linguistic Study or google Samarin, Tongues

The highly respected 1972 study of John P. Kildahl (The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues) concludes that "from a linguistic point of view, religiously inspired glossolalic utterances have the same general characteristics as those that are not religiously inspired." In fact, glossolalia is a "human phenomenon, not limited to Christianity nor even to religious behavior." (Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements by Spittler, P. 340).

Experts in the field of linguistics have diligently studied the phenomenon of glossolalia over a period of many years. One of the early investigations was made in the early 1960's by Eugene A. Nida. He provided a detailed list of reasons why glossolalia cannot be human language. Another early study, that of W.A. Wolfram in the year 1966, also concluded that glossolalia lacks the basic elements of human language as a system of coherent communication.

In a massive study of glossolalia from a linguistic perspective by Professor William J. Samarin of the University of Toronto's Department of Linguistics published after more than a decade of careful research, he rejected the view that glossolalia is xenoglossia, i.e. some foreign language that could be understood by another person who knew that language. Samarin concluded that glossolalia is a "pseudo-language." He defined glossolalia as "unintelligible babbling speech that exhibits superficial phonological similarity to language, without having consistent syntagmatic structure and that is not systematically derived from or related to known language." (William J. Samarin, "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia," Language in Society, ed. Dell Haymes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972 pgs. 121-130)

Felicitas D. Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, engaged in a study of various English - Spanish - and Mayan-speaking Pentecostal communities in the United States and Mexico. She compared tape recordings of non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan as well. She published her results in 1972 in an extensive monograph (Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study in Glossolalia by Felecitas D. Goodman, University of Chicago Press, 1972).

Goodman concludes that "when all features of glossolalia were taken into consideration--that is, the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and its suprasegmental elements (namely, rhythm, accent, and especially overall intonation)-- she concluded that there is no distinction in glossolalia between Christians and the followers of non-Christian (pagan) religions. The "association between trance and glossolalia is now accepted by many researchers as a correct assumption," writes Goodman in the prestigious Encyclopedia of Religion (1987).

Goodman also concludes that glossolalia "is, actually, a learned behavior, learned either unawarely or, sometimes consciously." Others have previously pointed out that direct instruction is given on how to "speak in tongues," ie. how to engage in glossolalia.

In fact, it has been found that the "speaking in tongues" practiced in Christian churches and by individual Christians is identical to the chanting language of those who practice voodoo on the darkest continents of this world.

Let us briefly examine the results of eight linguists:

Eugene A. Nida, Secretary of Translations for the American Bible Society and world renowned expert in linguistics, concluded from his studies that the phonemic strata indicates that the phonomes of glossolalic utterances are closely associated with the language background of the speaker's native language.7

Felicitas D. Goodman made phonetic analysis of glossolalia from recordings she taped for her Master's Degree in Mexico and different sections of the United States. She concludes that the glossolalia she analyzed was not productive and noncommunicative.8

James Jaquith from Washington University in his research among English speaking tongue-speakers concludes that "There is no evidence that these glossolalic utterances have been generated by constituent subcodes of any natural language other than English."9

Ernest Bryant and Daniel O'Connell of St. Louis University studied nine tapes of glossolalia taken from among their respondents. The results of their studies proved that "all glossolalic phonemes are within the normal phonemic repertoire of the native speaker of English."10 He says, "If a foreign language system were used a much greater divergence of phonemes would be expected, but the opposite is the case."

Dr. Donald Larson of Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota, began analyzing glossolalic samples in Toronto, Canada, in 1957. Since then he has analyzed many samples and observed glossolalic behavior in different parts of the world. His research also concludes that the phonological features of the native speaker's language carried over into his glossolalia experience.11

In a letter to Dr, William Welmers of U.C.L.A., I asked him, "In your studies of modern glossolalia have you detected any known language?" His reply was, "In short, absolutely not." He goes on to say that "Glossolalic utterances are consistently in important respects unlike human languages. They are characterized by a great deal of recurrences of closely similar sequences of syllables and usually employ a restricted number of different sounds." Dr. Welmers said that the same thing is true of hundreds of other utterances studied by Christian linguistics of his acquaintance.12

Dr. Samarin, by far the most thorough, says, "There is no mystery about glossolalia. Tape recorded samples are easy to obtain and to analyze. They always turn out to be the same things: strings of syllables made up of sounds taken from among all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but which nevertheless emerge as word-like or sentence-like units.13

F. Goodman, "Phonetic Analysis of Glossolalia in Four Cultural Settings," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (1969), Pages 227 to 239.
F. Goodman, "Speaking in Tongues. A Cross-Cultural Study of Glossolalia," University of Chicago Press, (1972).
W. Samarin, "Tongues of Men and Angels. The Religious Language of Pentecostalism," Macmillan (1972).
W. Samarin, "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia," Language in Society, (1972), 1:121-130.
W. Samarin, "Glossolalia as Regressive Speech," Language and Speech (1973), 16:77-89.
W. Samarin, "Review of Goodman (1972)," Language (1974), 5:207-213.
D. J. Janes, "Glossolalia: The Gift of Gibberish," available at the Institute for First Amendment Studies
J.G. Melton, Ed., "The Encyclopedia of American Religions," Volume 1, Triumph Books, Tarrytown, NY, (1991), Page 41 to 47.
Jussi Karlgren, "Speaking in tongues," The Linguist List, #6.385. A compilation of responses by linguists to a question on the structure of Glossolalia.
Jeff Wehr, "Speaking in Tongues," Our Firm Foundation, Vol. 11, #11, 1996-NOV-11.
Steve Paulson, "Divining the Brain," Templeton-Cambridge Journalism, 2006-SEP-20,
Andrew Newberg, Nancy Wintering, Donna Morgan, and Mark Waldman, "The Measurement of Regional Cerebral Blood Flow During Glossolalia: a Preliminary SPECT Study." Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging for 2006-NOV. This is the official publication of the International Society for Neuroimaging in Psychiatry.
"Language Center of the Brain Is Not Under the Control of Subjects Who 'Speak in Tongues'," University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 2006-OCT-30,

Kildahl (1975) points out that:

"There are no reported instances of a glossolalist speaking a language which was then literally translated by an expert in that language…"

Malony & Lovekin (1985:5) conclude:

"Although tongue speakers often claim that their new language is French or Italian or Spanish, and so on – languages they never knew before – scientific studies to date have not confirmed their claims."

T. H. Spoerril has described this speech as "unsemantical conglomerations of sounds" and "as sound externalized without sense which sometimes produces the impression of coherent speech." The terms "unintelligible," "meaningless," and "jibberish" have also been applied to the entities representing this type of speech.
Boisen, A. T. Religion in Crisis and Custom: A sociological and Psychological study. New York, Harper, 1955.

On Youtube: Creationist Study, Disproves Glossolalia As Language.

Why did Jesus forbid prayer with babbling/long repetitions if he was going to give it as a special gift?

“And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition (battalogeó/battalogēsēte) as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.” (Mat 6:7)

If modern tongues are the same as those in Acts, why is there no verifiable xenoglossy?

“devout men from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5) around the first tongue speakers clearly stated “we hear them in our own tongues” (Acts 2:11).

If glossolalia is a real language, why are different interpretations given for the same phrase?

“Interpretations do in fact take place, but they are usually pious exhortations in the language of the group where the glossic utterances are made. They are often strikingly longer or shorter than the glossic utterance.” (1)

“I have heard the same glossolalic phrases repeated by the same glossolalist in different services, but each time the identical glossolalic utterances are given a different translation.“ (4)

“the interpreters gave different meanings to identical words in the same set of words. When confronted with this inconsistency, the interpreters simply said, ‘God gave different interpretations.'” (14, 23)

Why is Priming the Pump needed in Pentecostal training? I once visited Happy Church in Denver, CO. They hearded non-tongue speakers into a room and said, repeat after me. I asked what this this all about and they called it priming the pump.
I have met many people who have had the same thing happen to them in different churches in different cities.

"
A variety of linguistic analyses of glossolalia (the religious phenomenon of “speaking in tongues”) were performed to determine both the extent to which glossolalia is language‐like and the extent to which it is linguistically dependent upon the glossolalist's native language. The results indicate the glossolalia is, in more ways than not, both language‐like and unlike the speaker's native language. These results are contrary both to earlier studies of glossolalia and to the predictions of current psycholinguistic theory. The implication is that glossolalia manifests a unique sort of speech encoding which cannot now be, but must eventually be, accounted for by psycholinguistic theory."
(A linguistic analysis of glossolalia: Evidence of unique psycholinguistic processing
Michael T. Motley)

1 Timothy 6:20,

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings…”

1 Corinthians 14:19-20 “Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. 20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.”

google Glossolalia Project for more research.

Glossolalia and Linguistic Alterity: The Ontology of Ineffable Speech
Evandro Bonfim

A linguistic analysis of a corpus of glossolalia
Speer, Blanche Corder, 1922-

Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2004 pp. 171–184
Glossolalia and Altered States of Consciousnessin two New Zealand Religious Movements

"Abstract
In nine tape-recorded samples of glossolalia, there is a remarkably low correlation with English samples from the same Ss, ascribable primarily to variation in vowel frequency. Nonetheless, all glossolalic phonemes are within the normal phonemic repertoire of native speakers of English. There is a divergence of syllables per pause rates between glossolalia and English. Optional articulatory choices characteristic of glossolalic samples can evidently be studied by means of accepted scientific procedures independently of theological or religious explication."(A phonemic analysis of nine samples of glossolalic speech
Ernest BryantDaniel O’Connell)

1 Corin 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

A few questions:

1. Why is prophesying not scrutinized with the same zeal as tongues?

2. If we ask the brilliant minds and academics to analyze the born again experience what would we find?

3.Could they explain it with scientific clarity?

4. Would not the entire chapter, 1 Corinthians 14 be relevant to this discussion?

Radrook · Nov 30, 2016

Truly1999 said:
In my opinion, very few Christians speak in languages. I think that many are in a ecstatic state of mind at times and are in a trance where they speak gibberish. Others make it up to avoid being marginalised.

My mother was marginalized and left the church because of it. Although she led a saintly life she just would not b overcome with the urgency to drop and roll on the floor or utter sounds. So in tears she asked the pastor why and he told her to pray for one week. So after fervid week of silent supplications and she once again attended church full of expectations and all around her were women rolling and uttering sounds but she still, like some pariah, remained untouched. When she once more told the pastor he said that she must have some hidden sin which was obstructing the holy spirit. That accusation was unfounded and she decided that if God was rejecting her then she might as well not impose her presence and leave.

swordsman1 · Nov 30, 2016

hedrick said:
I agree with the OP that the evidence suggests that tongues isn’t a language. It seems unlikely that tongue-speakers are doing what was done in Acts 2.

That's right. The tongues of today is not the tongues of the New Testament.

swordsman1 · Nov 30, 2016

Postvieww said:
swordsman1 said:

There are well over a dozen instances in the NT of people being filled with the Spirit, only on one occasion did they happen to speak in tongues as well (at Pentecost). The evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit is boldness in witnessing:

You left one out.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

I don't see any mention of being filled with the Spirit in that passage. Receiving/being baptized in the Spirit at conversion is a one-off event. Being filled with the Spirit is something that ought to happen repeatedly throughout a Christians life.

SteveCaruso · Nov 30, 2016

Well I didn't realize I was quoted and trending.

A few other points to add to the conversation:

Most glossolallia is asemic, that is to say there is no semantic content, so it cannot be a language or tongue in any sense -- human or "angelic". The very purpose of a tongue or language is to convey information.

Secondly, most glossolallia is uninterpreted. That is to say, not what is described in the letters of Paul.

Third, the practice of "speaking in tongues" in the Charismatic or Pentecostal sense is a very recent phenomenon, cropping up for the first time in the 19th century.

That plus the data I've collected and experienced firsthand (re: Aramaic) is very strong evidence against this practice.

Once I'm behind a proper keyboard and not on my phone, I'll discuss the different "categories" I've seen of people who have asked my help in interpreting their "tongues". There are a number of patterns that bear mentioning.

JCFantasy23 · Nov 30, 2016

mnorian said:
As Apostle Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 13:1:

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal."

the language that Christians speak when they are speaking in tongues can be either earthly languages or heavenly languages; and if it's heavenly; then it's no wonder that linguists can't find any "earthly" understanding of them.

A true point. I never expected to speak in tongues and don't identify with Pentecostals much in the area of gifts, but I was surprised to find myself speaking in tongues once. I had no idea what I said or couldn't even hear myself though. It was part of my baptism and was a wonderful experience, but it didn't happen to edify or help someone around me in that case.

Do Pentecostals really speak in Languages? The Research

Well-Known Member

member since 7-14-16

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Disciple of Jesus .

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Believer

Newbie

Believer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Translator

In a Kingdom by the Sea.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency