Tongues Perceived as Real Language

[Kavik]

Not quite sure where to post this so thought this might be the better sub-forum.

I am hoping to get some insight into a few questions I had regarding tongues.

Specifically, I’m looking at situations where the speaker will ‘pray with’ or ‘pray over’ a person in tongues (this person I’ll refer to as the ‘recipient’) and the recipient will hear it as his/her native language, which the speaker does not know nor has ever been exposed to in any way shape or form. As I understand it, this typically will occur in a more private setting as opposed to a more public setting such as a church service.

As a Linguist, I have studied the phenomenon of tongues and, without getting into details (which can be found elsewhere on this forum), suffice to say that I am working on the premise that there are no known provable cases of what is known as xenoglossy/xenoglossia; the ability to speak a language one has never had any previous contact with in any way, shape or form.

So, to the questions –

Despite the premise outlined above, the Pentecostal/Charismatic community is rife with examples of ‘tongues’ being heard/understood as real language(s). It is truly unfortunate that no such cases have ever been documented and studied as it would answer a lot of debates and questions. I am not beyond believing that that the divine can speak to a third party through someone. In fact, this is common in a lot of faith traditions around the world and, is more the “correct” (if I can call it that) usage of the tool of glossolalia as it is practiced around the world.

If for a moment we can take these occurrences (situations where the speaker will ‘pray with’ or ‘pray over’ a person in tongues and the recipient will hear it as his/her native language) at face value, it begs a few questions:

1. Is the speaker actually shifting their non-cognitive non-language utterances (NC-NLU’s, a/k/a glossolalia) to a real language?
2. Is the recipient physically hearing the speaker in his/her language?
3. Is the recipient only subconsciously hearing his/her own language?

The unfortunate thing is that, from what I’ve been able to learn, these occurrences seem to always occur on a one-to-one basis; there never seems to be anyone else there to verify what’s going on with respect to the above questions.

I would argue that, unless proven otherwise, scenario one is probably unlikely. If the speaker is actually shifting from NC-NLU’s to real language, it would be something instantly and very obvious to any third party present. I have never heard of any such accounts reported.

With scenario two, if the recipient is physically hearing the speaker in his/her language, the additional question it begs is: if a third party were there, what would they hear; NC-NLU’s or real language?

If real language, then scenario one would be the answer – the speaker is shifting from NC-NLU’s to real language.

If however any third party present is still hearing NC-NLU’s while the recipient is hearing his/her language, then this would be a question of how what is being spoken by the speaker is perceived by the listener(s) (recipient and any third party); i.e. what we can for now term a “miracle of hearing”.

With scenario three, if the speaker is not shifting to a real language and the recipient is also hearing it as NC-NLU’s but subconsciously receiving a message in his/her language, then the situation is similar to scenario two; however, what the recipient is hearing is not actually anything being spoken in any way by the speaker. In this case, the NC-NLU’s are serving as a tool by which the message is subconsciously perceived by the recipient in his/her language.

Again, this is the issue with many of these reports; there is never a third party ‘witness’ to verify what is happening.

Further, what is the recipient actually hearing? Is it simply a word or phrase repeated over and over, or is it an actual short monologue?

I suspect that in most cases, the recipient is subconsciously hearing a message in his/her own language rather than a change/shift in what the speaker is physically producing.

The ‘praying with’ or ‘praying over’ the recipient by the speaker via NC-NLU’s just sets the tone/mood, so to speak, to allow the recipient to receive a positive reinforcement/outcome to his/her situation by means of a received message in his/her own language.

Whether or not the message is subconsciously self-created or actually divinely received is a matter for further study (between psychologists and theologians). Perhaps, however, it’s actually a lot more straightforward; if you believe in divine help, then the message perceived is from God; if not, then it’s self-created. Personally, I’d like to hope it’s the first.

The above I believe describe the more correct use of glossolalia; i.e. to aid a third party (the “recipient” as referenced above) on a very personal, and apparently one-to-one basis, but it begs the question of just what is going on with the speaker (NC-NLU’s or shifting to real language), and how the recipient is perceiving the phenomenon (physically hearing his/her language, subconsciously perceiving a message in his/her own language), and if there is a third party present, what are they perceiving; NC-NLU’s or a shift to real language?

Most reports I’m familiar with are, to put it bluntly, sort of hearsay; “So-and-so told me onetime that…..”; “My friend said that while she was in such-and-such a place, she heard that….”. They are not told by the actual ‘recipient’ of the message; they’re reported by someone else who usually was not there to witness the event, not an actual account by the recipient of what transpired.

Do such reports exist? I’m hoping to find something that may describe such experiences in a more unbiased manner (sort of “this is what happened as best I can describe it” type description).

The purpose is to try and determine (1) what is the speaker producing in these instances, (2) how does the recipient perceive the message in his/her language with respect to what the speaker is producing, and lastly (3) what is the recipient actually hearing; a word, a phrase, a short monologue. If only a word of phrase, is it said once or is it repeated.

Insights to the above would be appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[kaylagrl]

​Before I make a comment on your post can you explain why you care since you yourself are not a Christian?

 

[Willie-T]

Not quite sure where to post this so thought this might be the better sub-forum.

I am hoping to get some insight into a few questions I had regarding tongues.

Specifically, I’m looking at situations where the speaker will ‘pray with’ or ‘pray over’ a person in tongues (this person I’ll refer to as the ‘recipient’) and the recipient will hear it as his/her native language, which the speaker does not know nor has ever been exposed to in any way shape or form. As I understand it, this typically will occur in a more private setting as opposed to a more public setting such as a church service.

As a Linguist, I have studied the phenomenon of tongues and, without getting into details (which can be found elsewhere on this forum), suffice to say that I am working on the premise that there are no known provable cases of what is known as xenoglossy/xenoglossia; the ability to speak a language one has never had any previous contact with in any way, shape or form.

So, to the questions –

Despite the premise outlined above, the Pentecostal/Charismatic community is rife with examples of ‘tongues’ being heard/understood as real language(s). It is truly unfortunate that no such cases have ever been documented and studied as it would answer a lot of debates and questions. I am not beyond believing that that the divine can speak to a third party through someone. In fact, this is common in a lot of faith traditions around the world and, is more the “correct” (if I can call it that) usage of the tool of glossolalia as it is practiced around the world.

If for a moment we can take these occurrences (situations where the speaker will ‘pray with’ or ‘pray over’ a person in tongues and the recipient will hear it as his/her native language) at face value, it begs a few questions:

1. Is the speaker actually shifting their non-cognitive non-language utterances (NC-NLU’s, a/k/a glossolalia) to a real language?
2. Is the recipient physically hearing the speaker in his/her language?
3. Is the recipient only subconsciously hearing his/her own language?

The unfortunate thing is that, from what I’ve been able to learn, these occurrences seem to always occur on a one-to-one basis; there never seems to be anyone else there to verify what’s going on with respect to the above questions.

I would argue that, unless proven otherwise, scenario one is probably unlikely. If the speaker is actually shifting from NC-NLU’s to real language, it would be something instantly and very obvious to any third party present. I have never heard of any such accounts reported.

With scenario two, if the recipient is physically hearing the speaker in his/her language, the additional question it begs is: if a third party were there, what would they hear; NC-NLU’s or real language?

If real language, then scenario one would be the answer – the speaker is shifting from NC-NLU’s to real language.

If however any third party present is still hearing NC-NLU’s while the recipient is hearing his/her language, then this would be a question of how what is being spoken by the speaker is perceived by the listener(s) (recipient and any third party); i.e. what we can for now term a “miracle of hearing”.

With scenario three, if the speaker is not shifting to a real language and the recipient is also hearing it as NC-NLU’s but subconsciously receiving a message in his/her language, then the situation is similar to scenario two; however, what the recipient is hearing is not actually anything being spoken in any way by the speaker. In this case, the NC-NLU’s are serving as a tool by which the message is subconsciously perceived by the recipient in his/her language.

Again, this is the issue with many of these reports; there is never a third party ‘witness’ to verify what is happening.

Further, what is the recipient actually hearing? Is it simply a word or phrase repeated over and over, or is it an actual short monologue?

I suspect that in most cases, the recipient is subconsciously hearing a message in his/her own language rather than a change/shift in what the speaker is physically producing.

The ‘praying with’ or ‘praying over’ the recipient by the speaker via NC-NLU’s just sets the tone/mood, so to speak, to allow the recipient to receive a positive reinforcement/outcome to his/her situation by means of a received message in his/her own language.

Whether or not the message is subconsciously self-created or actually divinely received is a matter for further study (between psychologists and theologians). Perhaps, however, it’s actually a lot more straightforward; if you believe in divine help, then the message perceived is from God; if not, then it’s self-created. Personally, I’d like to hope it’s the first.

The above I believe describe the more correct use of glossolalia; i.e. to aid a third party (the “recipient” as referenced above) on a very personal, and apparently one-to-one basis, but it begs the question of just what is going on with the speaker (NC-NLU’s or shifting to real language), and how the recipient is perceiving the phenomenon (physically hearing his/her language, subconsciously perceiving a message in his/her own language), and if there is a third party present, what are they perceiving; NC-NLU’s or a shift to real language?

Most reports I’m familiar with are, to put it bluntly, sort of hearsay; “So-and-so told me onetime that…..”; “My friend said that while she was in such-and-such a place, she heard that….”. They are not told by the actual ‘recipient’ of the message; they’re reported by someone else who usually was not there to witness the event, not an actual account by the recipient of what transpired.

Do such reports exist? I’m hoping to find something that may describe such experiences in a more unbiased manner (sort of “this is what happened as best I can describe it” type description).

The purpose is to try and determine (1) what is the speaker producing in these instances, (2) how does the recipient perceive the message in his/her language with respect to what the speaker is producing, and lastly (3) what is the recipient actually hearing; a word, a phrase, a short monologue. If only a word of phrase, is it said once or is it repeated.

Insights to the above would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Without getting as verbose as you did, I will just point out that the Scriptures say, "they HEARD them in their own languages."

So.... Yeah.

 

[Kavik]

I'm a Linguist who is interested in the Christian/Charismatic concept and practice of 'tongues'.

During the course of my studies, this is the one aspect that seems to come up again and again despite there being no definitive proven cases of xenoglossy....anywhere. My 'studies' are very informal, more for my own use than anything - just one of those little studied Linguistic phenomenon (like "twin language") that I've wanted to look into in more depth.

Obviously it seems as if something is taking place with language here in these cases (other than glossolalia), and is perceived as xenoglossy, but the specifics and details are not all that well reported. As mentioned, most are from third parties who weren't there and thus can't really comment on specifics or details.

Just sort of trying to fill in a few blanks, I guess.

 

[Kavik]

I should add that I do not regard Biblical 'tongues' as anything but real language(s). The modern concept of tongues is an entirely different phenomenon.

Yes, Scriptures said they "heard" - in this case here, what they heard were real languages.

 

[valiant]

I should add that I do not regard Biblical 'tongues' as anything but real language(s). The modern concept of tongues is an entirely different phenomenon.

Yes, Scriptures said they "heard" - in this case here, what they heard were real languages.

William Burton, a well known Pentecostal missionary whose honesty I would vouch for, tells how he was in a home Pentecostal church where a man repeated over and over again a monotonous phrase in 'tongues' as he worshipped God. It was so monotonous that Burton himself was doubtful of the genuineness of it. But a fellow missionary heard it and was excited. He said that it was a phrase used by a certain African tribe whom he knew to honour their ruler. They would repeat it over and over again in homage, as the man unknowingly was doing to God.

 

[Rockrz]

Without getting as verbose as you did, I will just point out that the Scriptures say, "they HEARD them in their own languages."

Yes, and the New Testament has much more than just that to say on the subject so it is in error to take this one passage and conclude that's all it is...

 

[Johnny_B]

It can be an angelic language as well. If it is a language and someone hears it and says it's their language. The only way to know if it was that same as the book of Acts is if they were glorifying and magnifying God.

 

[Kavik]

The Burton account described above is typical of what is reported – the ‘evidence’, if I can call it that, is all very anecdotal.

There are no “angelic languages” – the passage in Corinthians where that comes from has been studied up one side and down the other; it’s pure hyperbole. The passage in Greek (analyzed grammatically) confirms even more that hyperbole is intended.

With respect to angelic languages the following should be noted: when in contact with humans, angels always spoke a real language (usually Hebrew). Traditional Jewish belief holds that angels only understand one language, and a real one at that; Hebrew. On a more esoteric note, angels are pure spirit, ‘light beings’ as it were. If they communicate with each other (there’s no reason to think that they don’t), I highly doubt it’s with anything that even remotely resembles a human vocal tract.

The Burton account described above, to me, seems to be the crux of the issue – most accounts of this type are very anecdotal; there are no specifics.

 

[notuptome]

Interesting to note that diversity of languages or tongues came about because God judged the wicked hearts of men at Babel.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Demi777]

If theres no angelic language...I bet the devil and God speak to one another in German

 

[Grace777x70]

If theres no angelic language...I bet the devil and God speak to one another in German

Nien ...schöne Frau

 

[Kavik]

Ah, Babel...

Here's a take on it from a linguistic perspective.

The Tower of Babel story is quite interesting from a linguistic viewpoint; however, a few things must be defined in order to begin any type of linguistic analysis.

First, one must put into context the concept of what would have been considered “the whole world” to the original redactor(s) of the Babel narrative. The answer to this is rather simple and straightforward: to a person or people living in what we know call the Middle East several thousand years ago, the "whole world" would have been just that; a small part of what we now call the Middle East. There would not have been the concept of the world existing beyond the lands these people were already familiar with and inhabited. It’s quite possible they had no idea, for example, that lands beyond the Mediterranean Sea even existed.

In taking the narrative in historical context therefore, the “whole world” was not as we understand it today, but must be understood to mean a very small part of the modern Middle East.

What about what language or languages would have been spoken in that area? Was there, or could there have indeed been a common language spoken by “all mankind” (again, with the understanding that “all mankind” in this context refers to that small portion of the current Middle East discussed above)?

The answer is, well, yes – and no.

Linguists recognize that almost all languages of what are today the Middle East and parts of North Africa derive from one parent tongue: Proto Afro-Asiatic. This proto-language, due to several factors including the migration and isolation of people from each other, split off into several dialects, one of which was what is called Proto-Semitic; the parent tongue of all Semitic languages. The general consensus seems to be that Proto-Semitic had its ultimate origins in Arabia, Mesopotamia or perhaps even Africa and spread westward.

Proto-Semitic subsequently splintered off and developed into the various Semitic languages found in the ancient Middle East. This again was due to several factors including the migration of peoples to other areas and the general isolation of these peoples from one another over time. It should be noted that in ancient times, there were many Semitic languages. Only a few of these have survived into modern times.

In turning back to the Babel narrative, and taking into context the concept of “the whole world” as discussed above; it is safe to conclude that the common language referred to as “spoken by all mankind” was indeed in all likelihood what we today call Proto-Semitic.


What is fascinating is the fact that even back in those times it was recognized that there must have been at one time some parent language, some “common tongue” for the various languages people encountered in their “world”. The (somewhat) mutual intelligibility between these languages, or at the very least the similarity in vocabulary, surely must have been recognized.

As just one example, the word for 'god' is essentially the same word in Hebrew "el" as it is in Arabic "allah" as it is in Assyrian and Babylonian (a/k/a Akkadian) "ilu", Phoenician 'l, and Ugaritic 'il. Surely people even back then would have recognized the similarity and further realized they all must have come from the same source language, some ‘parent tongue’ (in this case, the Proto Semitic *'il).

This concept seems to have been preserved in the oral tradition of the Habiru/Hebrew people in their oral tradition via the Babel narrative.

To these people however, the reasons for the various related languages they encountered would not have been known. They would have no concept of the ‘hows and whys’ of the splintering off of Proto-Semitic; they just knew there was obviously one parent language at one time, and now there were several distinct (but related) languages.

How did they account for this “confounding” of languages?

As with many things not clearly understood by ancient man, the reasons were usually attributed to a deity, an “act of God”, if you will.

Such must have been the case here as well. The confounding of languages was simply attributed to an act of God.

This does however beg the question of why would God have done such a thing?

I would argue that the narrative of the Tower is pure allegory/metaphor – the intentional creation of a “back story”, if you will, to explain the reason for the current situation and to have a vehicle by which to attribute the event as an “act of God”. Simply put, it was a story that was easy to understand. To ancient man, this split in languages was an instantaneous thing and possibly viewed as something quite miraculous and mysterious (and as a result of ‘something bad’ that mankind did – his wickedness) – there was no concept of languages changing and diverging very slowly over long periods of time.

In fact, it is important to note that, while the Babel account does indicate a common original language, it does not claim that said language was Hebrew (as many people think) or that God necessarily used a supernatural process in confounding the languages. Further, what many people don’t realize is that the account doesn’t even claim that this diversification of languages was an immediate event (though most people interpret it as such).


The Babel narrative is also interesting in that it relates that these original speakers came from the East. This is generally regarded as the “migration route” of Proto-Semitic, i.e. the original Sprachgebiet (language area) was to the east of what is now Israel and the surrounding countries and moved westward.

The Babel narrative as we have it today is also really quite fascinating in that it is one of very few ancient accounts of a people remembering the history of their language(s) - told of course in a religious context.

If, however, the religious context is extracted, the result is a fairly accurate historical account of what happened - speakers of Proto Semitic migrated towards the west and as they migrated and became isolated nations, groups, etc., their languages eventually splintered off into what would have been at first just dialects of P-Semitic, but over time, separate but a very closely related group of languages (a “confounding” of languages).

If one wishes to include the religious context, the notion commonly assumed is that *God used the confounding of languages to scatter the people*, however, it may be argued, as Dallin Oaks states in his article “The Tower of Babel: A Linguistic Consideration”, that “God scattered the people to cause a confusion of languages”. An interesting take on the narrative as it fits more closely with what actually happened historically.


I'm sure heavenly beings communicate with one another - I just don't think it's a form of communication that humans can duplicate or would even recognize, though we can certainly speculate. Heavenly beings are pure spirit, no need for a human vocal tract.

LOL - Was?? Kein deutsch?! Das ist ja nicht annehmbar!

 

[Demi777]

XD that made my day miseur

Nien ...schöne Frau

 

[Depleted]

Not quite sure where to post this so thought this might be the better sub-forum.

I am hoping to get some insight into a few questions I had regarding tongues.

Specifically, I’m looking at situations where the speaker will ‘pray with’ or ‘pray over’ a person in tongues (this person I’ll refer to as the ‘recipient’) and the recipient will hear it as his/her native language, which the speaker does not know nor has ever been exposed to in any way shape or form. As I understand it, this typically will occur in a more private setting as opposed to a more public setting such as a church service.

As a Linguist, I have studied the phenomenon of tongues and, without getting into details (which can be found elsewhere on this forum), suffice to say that I am working on the premise that there are no known provable cases of what is known as xenoglossy/xenoglossia; the ability to speak a language one has never had any previous contact with in any way, shape or form.

So, to the questions –

Despite the premise outlined above, the Pentecostal/Charismatic community is rife with examples of ‘tongues’ being heard/understood as real language(s). It is truly unfortunate that no such cases have ever been documented and studied as it would answer a lot of debates and questions. I am not beyond believing that that the divine can speak to a third party through someone. In fact, this is common in a lot of faith traditions around the world and, is more the “correct” (if I can call it that) usage of the tool of glossolalia as it is practiced around the world.

If for a moment we can take these occurrences (situations where the speaker will ‘pray with’ or ‘pray over’ a person in tongues and the recipient will hear it as his/her native language) at face value, it begs a few questions:

1. Is the speaker actually shifting their non-cognitive non-language utterances (NC-NLU’s, a/k/a glossolalia) to a real language?
2. Is the recipient physically hearing the speaker in his/her language?
3. Is the recipient only subconsciously hearing his/her own language?

The unfortunate thing is that, from what I’ve been able to learn, these occurrences seem to always occur on a one-to-one basis; there never seems to be anyone else there to verify what’s going on with respect to the above questions.

I would argue that, unless proven otherwise, scenario one is probably unlikely. If the speaker is actually shifting from NC-NLU’s to real language, it would be something instantly and very obvious to any third party present. I have never heard of any such accounts reported.

With scenario two, if the recipient is physically hearing the speaker in his/her language, the additional question it begs is: if a third party were there, what would they hear; NC-NLU’s or real language?

If real language, then scenario one would be the answer – the speaker is shifting from NC-NLU’s to real language.

If however any third party present is still hearing NC-NLU’s while the recipient is hearing his/her language, then this would be a question of how what is being spoken by the speaker is perceived by the listener(s) (recipient and any third party); i.e. what we can for now term a “miracle of hearing”.

With scenario three, if the speaker is not shifting to a real language and the recipient is also hearing it as NC-NLU’s but subconsciously receiving a message in his/her language, then the situation is similar to scenario two; however, what the recipient is hearing is not actually anything being spoken in any way by the speaker. In this case, the NC-NLU’s are serving as a tool by which the message is subconsciously perceived by the recipient in his/her language.

Again, this is the issue with many of these reports; there is never a third party ‘witness’ to verify what is happening.

Further, what is the recipient actually hearing? Is it simply a word or phrase repeated over and over, or is it an actual short monologue?

I suspect that in most cases, the recipient is subconsciously hearing a message in his/her own language rather than a change/shift in what the speaker is physically producing.

The ‘praying with’ or ‘praying over’ the recipient by the speaker via NC-NLU’s just sets the tone/mood, so to speak, to allow the recipient to receive a positive reinforcement/outcome to his/her situation by means of a received message in his/her own language.

Whether or not the message is subconsciously self-created or actually divinely received is a matter for further study (between psychologists and theologians). Perhaps, however, it’s actually a lot more straightforward; if you believe in divine help, then the message perceived is from God; if not, then it’s self-created. Personally, I’d like to hope it’s the first.

The above I believe describe the more correct use of glossolalia; i.e. to aid a third party (the “recipient” as referenced above) on a very personal, and apparently one-to-one basis, but it begs the question of just what is going on with the speaker (NC-NLU’s or shifting to real language), and how the recipient is perceiving the phenomenon (physically hearing his/her language, subconsciously perceiving a message in his/her own language), and if there is a third party present, what are they perceiving; NC-NLU’s or a shift to real language?

Most reports I’m familiar with are, to put it bluntly, sort of hearsay; “So-and-so told me onetime that…..”; “My friend said that while she was in such-and-such a place, she heard that….”. They are not told by the actual ‘recipient’ of the message; they’re reported by someone else who usually was not there to witness the event, not an actual account by the recipient of what transpired.

Do such reports exist? I’m hoping to find something that may describe such experiences in a more unbiased manner (sort of “this is what happened as best I can describe it” type description).

The purpose is to try and determine (1) what is the speaker producing in these instances, (2) how does the recipient perceive the message in his/her language with respect to what the speaker is producing, and lastly (3) what is the recipient actually hearing; a word, a phrase, a short monologue. If only a word of phrase, is it said once or is it repeated.

Insights to the above would be appreciated.

Thanks.

A story hubby told me.

Who told him? One of two mentors he had way back when he was first saved. His name was Bobby back then. And Bobby was one of two leaders of the Jesus Movement in this area back then. (This area. I live in Philly.) That was back in the 1970's, and hubby and Bobby moved on and lost contact with each other. But, in the 1990's they ran into each other at a presbytery. Bobby had become Bob over the years, became reformed, and became a missionary. Odd kind of missionary though. He was sent to Kenya to raise up Kenyan men who were already believers to pastor churches in the country.

That's the Bob who told my husband this story.

Reformed. By very word most catch on to they/we aren't people keen on believing the gifts are for today. Not entirely true, but fairly accurate. Reformed get caught up on not trusting in tongues or future-telling. (That aspect of Prophecy. No problem with words of knowledge though.) Bob was like that. (Hubby and I are a bit looser on the tongues issue since hubby speaks in tongues. lol)

So, that's the set up for "the story," so you know this isn't merely passing on a story heard through the grapevine and past along forever to be distorted.

Bob had his ministry underway for at least a year, (I'm thinking closer to 18 months, but I don't remember), and it was Sunday so everyone was gathered for service in the building. Bob was giving it. The sanctuary wasn't huge or anything, but it was 80% full. As usually happens, his best friends were up front while he was at the pulpit just starting. And then someone dude in the back of the room made a guttural sound. Several of them, actually, but when you don't know the language it sounds like a glob of gibberish. And guttural, so a deep blob of gibberish that filled the room.

Bob is freaking a bit. He doesn't cotton to tongues, plus that didn't sound even like tongues to him. He's thinking out how to handle this when his buddy up front, (also reformed, so we just don't speak out of turn in church. Just doesn't happen), started laughing, raised his hands and shouted, somewhat in sinc with the noisemaker in the back of the church, except guttural doesn't translate to English well.

It started with a praise for God and quickly turned into a word of knowledge/encouragement for THAT group. When the two were done, the guy in the front broke out in laughter, while the guy in the back came forward.

The guy in the front told Bob that that was his ancestral language -- his tribe's language. It really got to him, because he was an older man and the younger men in the tribe weren't interested in the old language anymore, so he knew he was one of the last people to ever speak that language. It was language!

The guy in the back wasn't from the part of Africa that spoke that language, and he really had no idea what he was saying. He just felt the compunction from God so had to say it.

This didn't happen while praying over anyone. It wasn't one or two gathered. It was an assembly gathered. (The building was about twice the length of a one-room school house as traditionally pictured in American westerns.)

And that was the day Bob changed his mind on tongues. lol

(He also saw a few miracles, so many things he believed have changed from his time as a missionary over in Kenya.)

 

[Depleted]

​Before I make a comment on your post can you explain why you care since you yourself are not a Christian?

Linguist! That says it all. Someone who very much cares about language.

 

[Willie-T]

I'm a Linguist who is interested in the Christian/Charismatic concept and practice of 'tongues'.

During the course of my studies, this is the one aspect that seems to come up again and again despite there being no definitive proven cases of xenoglossy....anywhere. My 'studies' are very informal, more for my own use than anything - just one of those little studied Linguistic phenomenon (like "twin language") that I've wanted to look into in more depth.

Obviously it seems as if something is taking place with language here in these cases (other than glossolalia), and is perceived as xenoglossy, but the specifics and details are not all that well reported. As mentioned, most are from third parties who weren't there and thus can't really comment on specifics or details.

Just sort of trying to fill in a few blanks, I guess.

Why "obviously" when the Bible pretty clearly speaks to various people in the same receiving crowd simply "hearing" (or perceiving) whatever came out of the speaker's mouths as the sounds of their own language/languages?

 

[Depleted]

The Burton account described above is typical of what is reported – the ‘evidence’, if I can call it that, is all very anecdotal.

There are no “angelic languages” – the passage in Corinthians where that comes from has been studied up one side and down the other; it’s pure hyperbole. The passage in Greek (analyzed grammatically) confirms even more that hyperbole is intended.

With respect to angelic languages the following should be noted: when in contact with humans, angels always spoke a real language (usually Hebrew). Traditional Jewish belief holds that angels only understand one language, and a real one at that; Hebrew. On a more esoteric note, angels are pure spirit, ‘light beings’ as it were. If they communicate with each other (there’s no reason to think that they don’t), I highly doubt it’s with anything that even remotely resembles a human vocal tract.

The Burton account described above, to me, seems to be the crux of the issue – most accounts of this type are very anecdotal; there are no specifics.

You do get the difference between hypothesis and proof, right? Because your hypothesizing a lot without proving anything too. How do you know there is no angelic language? How do you know there is a difference between that and "real language?" I can't say another planet doesn't have a landscape of biological crystal life forms simply because I don't believe such a thing is impossible. We don't know if it is possible or not, therefore cannot conclude it doesn't exist.

And yet, that's exactly what you've done. Conjectured on nothingness. Studying a scientific field should not be done with so many assumptions to start with. It stops being science and ends up being political correctness then. Don't fall for that trap!

 

[Depleted]

The Burton account described above is typical of what is reported – the ‘evidence’, if I can call it that, is all very anecdotal.

There are no “angelic languages” – the passage in Corinthians where that comes from has been studied up one side and down the other; it’s pure hyperbole. The passage in Greek (analyzed grammatically) confirms even more that hyperbole is intended.

With respect to angelic languages the following should be noted: when in contact with humans, angels always spoke a real language (usually Hebrew). Traditional Jewish belief holds that angels only understand one language, and a real one at that; Hebrew. On a more esoteric note, angels are pure spirit, ‘light beings’ as it were. If they communicate with each other (there’s no reason to think that they don’t), I highly doubt it’s with anything that even remotely resembles a human vocal tract.

The Burton account described above, to me, seems to be the crux of the issue – most accounts of this type are very anecdotal; there are no specifics.

What language do angels speak when they aren't talking to humans?

I'm very disappointed in your lack-of scientific method. You might want to go back to what you learned in college. AND, if this is what you learned in college, then you have a good reason for suing them for not teaching you your field!

 

[Depleted]

Ah, Babel...

Here's a take on it from a linguistic perspective.

The Tower of Babel story is quite interesting from a linguistic viewpoint; however, a few things must be defined in order to begin any type of linguistic analysis.

First, one must put into context the concept of what would have been considered “the whole world” to the original redactor(s) of the Babel narrative. The answer to this is rather simple and straightforward: to a person or people living in what we know call the Middle East several thousand years ago, the "whole world" would have been just that; a small part of what we now call the Middle East. There would not have been the concept of the world existing beyond the lands these people were already familiar with and inhabited. It’s quite possible they had no idea, for example, that lands beyond the Mediterranean Sea even existed.

In taking the narrative in historical context therefore, the “whole world” was not as we understand it today, but must be understood to mean a very small part of the modern Middle East.

What about what language or languages would have been spoken in that area? Was there, or could there have indeed been a common language spoken by “all mankind” (again, with the understanding that “all mankind” in this context refers to that small portion of the current Middle East discussed above)?

The answer is, well, yes – and no.

Linguists recognize that almost all languages of what are today the Middle East and parts of North Africa derive from one parent tongue: Proto Afro-Asiatic. This proto-language, due to several factors including the migration and isolation of people from each other, split off into several dialects, one of which was what is called Proto-Semitic; the parent tongue of all Semitic languages. The general consensus seems to be that Proto-Semitic had its ultimate origins in Arabia, Mesopotamia or perhaps even Africa and spread westward.

Proto-Semitic subsequently splintered off and developed into the various Semitic languages found in the ancient Middle East. This again was due to several factors including the migration of peoples to other areas and the general isolation of these peoples from one another over time. It should be noted that in ancient times, there were many Semitic languages. Only a few of these have survived into modern times.

In turning back to the Babel narrative, and taking into context the concept of “the whole world” as discussed above; it is safe to conclude that the common language referred to as “spoken by all mankind” was indeed in all likelihood what we today call Proto-Semitic.


What is fascinating is the fact that even back in those times it was recognized that there must have been at one time some parent language, some “common tongue” for the various languages people encountered in their “world”. The (somewhat) mutual intelligibility between these languages, or at the very least the similarity in vocabulary, surely must have been recognized.

As just one example, the word for 'god' is essentially the same word in Hebrew "el" as it is in Arabic "allah" as it is in Assyrian and Babylonian (a/k/a Akkadian) "ilu", Phoenician 'l, and Ugaritic 'il. Surely people even back then would have recognized the similarity and further realized they all must have come from the same source language, some ‘parent tongue’ (in this case, the Proto Semitic *'il).

This concept seems to have been preserved in the oral tradition of the Habiru/Hebrew people in their oral tradition via the Babel narrative.

To these people however, the reasons for the various related languages they encountered would not have been known. They would have no concept of the ‘hows and whys’ of the splintering off of Proto-Semitic; they just knew there was obviously one parent language at one time, and now there were several distinct (but related) languages.

How did they account for this “confounding” of languages?

As with many things not clearly understood by ancient man, the reasons were usually attributed to a deity, an “act of God”, if you will.

Such must have been the case here as well. The confounding of languages was simply attributed to an act of God.

This does however beg the question of why would God have done such a thing?

I would argue that the narrative of the Tower is pure allegory/metaphor – the intentional creation of a “back story”, if you will, to explain the reason for the current situation and to have a vehicle by which to attribute the event as an “act of God”. Simply put, it was a story that was easy to understand. To ancient man, this split in languages was an instantaneous thing and possibly viewed as something quite miraculous and mysterious (and as a result of ‘something bad’ that mankind did – his wickedness) – there was no concept of languages changing and diverging very slowly over long periods of time.

In fact, it is important to note that, while the Babel account does indicate a common original language, it does not claim that said language was Hebrew (as many people think) or that God necessarily used a supernatural process in confounding the languages. Further, what many people don’t realize is that the account doesn’t even claim that this diversification of languages was an immediate event (though most people interpret it as such).


The Babel narrative is also interesting in that it relates that these original speakers came from the East. This is generally regarded as the “migration route” of Proto-Semitic, i.e. the original Sprachgebiet (language area) was to the east of what is now Israel and the surrounding countries and moved westward.

The Babel narrative as we have it today is also really quite fascinating in that it is one of very few ancient accounts of a people remembering the history of their language(s) - told of course in a religious context.

If, however, the religious context is extracted, the result is a fairly accurate historical account of what happened - speakers of Proto Semitic migrated towards the west and as they migrated and became isolated nations, groups, etc., their languages eventually splintered off into what would have been at first just dialects of P-Semitic, but over time, separate but a very closely related group of languages (a “confounding” of languages).

If one wishes to include the religious context, the notion commonly assumed is that *God used the confounding of languages to scatter the people*, however, it may be argued, as Dallin Oaks states in his article “The Tower of Babel: A Linguistic Consideration”, that “God scattered the people to cause a confusion of languages”. An interesting take on the narrative as it fits more closely with what actually happened historically.


I'm sure heavenly beings communicate with one another - I just don't think it's a form of communication that humans can duplicate or would even recognize, though we can certainly speculate. Heavenly beings are pure spirit, no need for a human vocal tract.

LOL - Was?? Kein deutsch?! Das ist ja nicht annehmbar!

Yup. I see. Just to be clear, I too have a communications degree, so have an interest in linguistics (I stink at languages, but I marvel at the nuisances), as well as many forms of communications.

I'll give you this, if that's what they taught you about civilization at the time of Babel, you really should sue the school! That is the biggest load of baloney I've seen in quite sometime, and I say that in 2017, right after America got to choose between The Donald and The Hill.

If you don't understand history, you aren't a good linguist.

Clue number one that your narrative is bad: How do you know Babel was even in the Middle East? You know what stands between us and that history? A man name Noah and his family living on a boat over a flooded world for 13 months. (The boat still floated for 8 of those months.) Eight months floating on a boat at sea doesn't land you exactly where you started, unless the boat is in dry dock.

(More clues, but you are bound and determined to keep that narrative.)

I'm sorry. I thought you were someone with a scientific mind.