Go back to the Acts 2 text I quoted, your position is refuted.
An unknown language is simply unknown to the speaker, but it is a human language as Acts 2 demonstrates plainly. You completely ignored the Linguistic Research.
Acts 2:7-11 Good News Translation (GNT)
7 In amazement and wonder they exclaimed, “These people who are talking like this are Galileans! 8 How is it, then, that all of us hear them speaking in our own native languages? 9 We are from Parthia, Media, and Elam; from Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia; from Pontus and Asia, 10 from Phrygia and Pamphylia, from Egypt and the regions of Libya near Cyrene. Some of us are from Rome, 11 both Jews and Gentiles converted to Judaism, and some of us are from Crete and Arabia—yet all of us hear them speaking in our own languages about the great things that God has done!”
Two Points:
1. None of the Linguistic Research finds that one is speaking a language of any kind.
2. Acts 2 above, people who were not born again from many nations heard them speaking in their own languages.
Thus the booklet you referred to is responded to.
Who is Gideon Hereb?
The Church Fathers understood it as being human languages.
I Cor 13, says if it were possible with the indication from the grammar it is not possible.
glossolalia language research
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) ***-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)
