glossolalia language research

glossolalia language research

Israel back then was on many trade routes. In the USA, major languages are English, Spanish, Arabic in Dearborn MI and maybe French near French Speaking Canada. The US is more Educated than People in Jewish day speaking other languages.

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/battalogesete) 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)

***

SteveCarusoTranslator

I do not hate Pentecostalism. It's in my varied experience that many Pentecostal churches -- which are a somewhat recent phenomenon in Christendom -- have odd theology and tend to be very authoritarian when you get involved in their hierarchy.

I also submit as evidence of oddness the fact that over the 15 years that I was translating Aramaic as my primary profession, over a hundred folks of Pentecostal persuasion came to me to translate their "tongues" because they were told "by the Spirit" (directly or through others, including pastors) that they were Aramaic.

Every case but one was not.

The one that was, *I* translated from English the year prior and someone was being deceptive with it.

You may not have a ten foot pole, but God does and did such a thing in Acts 2!!!!!

5 There were many religious Jews staying in Jerusalem. They were from every country of the world. 6 When they heard this strange sound, they gathered together. They all listened! It was hard for them to believe they were hearing words in their own language. 7 They were surprised and wondered about it. They said to each other, “Are not these Galileans who are speaking? 8 How is it that each one of us can hear his own language? 9 We are Parthians and Medes, Elamites and from the countries of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and in the countries of Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene. Some have come from the city of Rome. Some are Jews by birth and others have become Jews. 11 Some are also men of the countries of Crete and Arabia. They are speaking of the powerful works of God to all of us in our own language!”


That rather large sample and outcomes -- along with how most "tongues" are completely anemic -- to me, is fairly conclusive.

Peace,
--
Steve Caruso, MLIS
Translator, Aramaic Designs & The Aramaic New Testament

*****

Mark 16:17
These special powerful works will be done by those who have put their trust in Me. In My name they will put out demons. They will speak with languages they have never learned.

1 Corinthians 14:10
There are many languages in the world. All of them have meaning to the people who understand them.

1 Corinthians 14:18-19Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)

18 I thank God that I speak in [strange] tongues (languages) more than any of you or all of you put together;

19 Nevertheless, in public worship, I would rather say five words with my understanding and intelligently in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a [strange] tongue (language).


I already answered your misquote of I Cor 13:1 read rest of the verse. Paul is speaking in hypothetical Hyperbole
language, not literal. "If it were possible for me to speak all human languages and even angelic ...."

So similarly, in 1 Corinthians 13:1, Paul is not indicating that some Christians speak an “angelic” (ecstatic) language. Rather, he is merely saying that even if one could ascend to a new height, and communicate on the level of angels, if he did not exercise love by speaking in an understandable fashion, he still would be nothing but a distracting noise. The apostle’s argument does not hint of a mysterious, unintelligible utterance; in fact, it reflects just the opposite.
https://www.christiancourier.com/art...rinthians-13-1

Tongues: Intelligible Language

In an effort to exhort the Corinthian Christians toward a greater level of concern for one another in their use of “spiritual gifts,” Paul wrote this admonition. “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become a sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor. 13:1).

If it can be established that the term “tongues,” when employed with reference to men, has to do with intelligent communication (and such can be demonstrated: see the article referenced above), then it must be conceded that the word “tongues,” when used of angels, similarly signifies an understandable language.

In order for the “Pentecostal” view to be valid, there would have to be some compelling contextual evidence to indicate that the term “tongues” is used in two different senses in this passage, and there simply is none. Unintelligible Tongues Are Unloving

In chapter 14 of the first Corinthian letter, one of Paul’s major points of emphasis is this. If one employs his gift of tongues before an audience that cannot understand the language spoken, and no interpreter is present to translate the message, such would be a violation of God’s will. In fact, it would be an act of vanity, and not a demonstration of love for the listener.

This is the precise point of 13:1 as well. To speak in a tongue, when no one can understand the words, is an act void of love. Such would be nothing more than a sound (an irritating noise); it would not be an instructive message.

The implication behind the argument is this. If the gift were exercised properly, i.e., in conjunction with an interpreter, the audience could understand the instruction, and such would evince the speaker’s love.

But the identical point is made whether the allusion is to “the tongues of men” or to the “tongues of angels.” Even the tongues of angels, if it were possible to exercise such in an appropriate way, could be understood. There is nothing here suggesting a “gibberish” sort of utterance; just the opposite is the case. Angels Always Spoke Understandably

There are numerous Bible examples of angels speaking to men. In not a single instance do they communicate in anything except in languages that are perfectly understandable — a communication that the recipient can process readily. There is not one shred of biblical evidence to suggest that angels speak in disjointed, incomprehensible sounds. As one scholar astutely observed:
With respect to the words of angels which are recorded in the Scriptures, nothing can be plainer, more direct, and, we may say, more unimpassioned. They seem to say with the utmost conceivable plainness what they have been commissioned to say, and nothing more. No words are less the words of ecstasy than theirs (Sadler, 217).
Angel’s Tongues: Hyperbole

Paul’s appeal to “angels” in 13:1 is a form of hyperbole (an exaggeration for emphasis’ sake) that is designed to accentuate his argument.

Consider a similar use of this figurative expression in the apostle’s letter to the Galatians. He wrote:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8; emphasis added).
The apostle is not suggesting that an angel actually is likely to proclaim a different gospel; the point is one of emphasis. Even if an angel were to preach a different gospel, there would be no validity in it, and he would fall victim to divine wrath.

So similarly, in 1 Corinthians 13:1, Paul is not indicating that some Christians speak an “angelic” (ecstatic) language. Rather, he is merely saying that even if one could ascend to a new height, and communicate on the level of angels, if he did not exercise love by speaking in an understandable fashion, he still would be nothing but a distracting noise. The apostle’s argument does not hint of a mysterious, unintelligible utterance; in fact, it reflects just the opposite.

When all the data is considered, there is no basis in 1 Corinthians 13:1 for the notion that there is a heavenly, ecstatic “glossolalia” that some saints are able to access, whereby they speak to God alone. REFERENCES

M. F. Sadler. 1906. The First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. George Bell and Sons: London, England.
SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

1 Corinthians 13:1; Galatians 1:8 Jackson, Wayne. "What Are the "Tongues of Angels" in 1 Corinthians 13:1?" ChristianCourier.com. Access date: November 29, 2016 www christiancourier com articles 671-what-are-the-tongues-of-angels-in-1-corinthians-13-1
*************

Matthew 6:7
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

But, in studying tongues by recording it and having a computer analysis of the recordings, all tongue speakers are doing is repetitions of sounds, not a language of any kind.

Why does not two people give the same interpretation of the same recorded tongues example? Why does the interpretation vary so much in length of the recording?

computer research on repetition of sounds, not language.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...rch+repetition

Samarin analyzes the speech of tongue-speakers in the same
manner that a linguist analyzes a foreign language. He makes a
phonetic and semantic inventory, and describes its prosodic and
paralinguistic features. The discourse "is divided into units of
speech . . . through accent, rhythm, intonation and pauses" (p.
78). "The breathgroup itself can often be divided into subgroups
through phonological features" (p. 79). It consists of syllables
made up of consonants and vowels taken from the speaker's
native language or a foreign language known to him, with much
repetition, alliteration, and rhyme. However, the "syllable string
does not fall into words" (p. 81), even though one gets the feeling
that "words are almost emerging" (p. 82).
In comparing glossolalia to real language Samarin shows how
the two differ in form and function. In form, real language is a ...(A Linguistic Analysis of
Glossolalia ...................................... Theodore Mueller 185)

I have a big case which anyone can duplicate.

Simply record various samples of "tongues" have various people with the gift of interpretation translate them and ask translators to translate them.

On several occasions, I took recordings of languages likely not known in the English speaking world of works that have been translated and asked them to translate them --- to date, not a single person has gotten it even close within right. God allows and honors fleeces. He is also, not the god of chaos. Everyone at Pentecost heard them speaking in their own languages which tells me God gives us known real languages, not noise.

Paul uses the illustration of music to say the languages from him have meaning otherwise, no one would heed the sound of attack.

Data from recent neuroimaging studies on stuttering give us insights into the possible bases of these fluency-inducing conditions in stuttering speakers. The main brain regions that work together to make fluent speech production possible include areas in the frontal cortex of the brain, which controls movement planning and execution, and auditory sensory regions located farther back, in the temporoparietal cortex. Regions deeper within the brain, including the basal ganglia, thalamus, and cerebellum, also support speech movements by providing internal timing and sequencing cues. It is in these brain regions and their connections that researchers have found brain function and anatomy differences between stuttering speakers and fluent speakers.
http://dana.org/Cerebrum/2011/Using_...of_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).

****

You may not have a ten foot pole, but God does and did such a thing in Acts 2!!!!!

5 There were many religious Jews staying in Jerusalem. They were from every country of the world. 6 When they heard this strange sound, they gathered together. They all listened! It was hard for them to believe they were hearing words in their own language. 7 They were surprised and wondered about it. They said to each other, “Are not these Galileans who are speaking? 8 How is it that each one of us can hear his own language? 9 We are Parthians and Medes, Elamites and from the countries of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and in the countries of Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene. Some have come from the city of Rome. Some are Jews by birth and others have become Jews. 11 Some are also men of the countries of Crete and Arabia. They are speaking of the powerful works of God to all of us in our own language!”

Ephesians 4:11-13 Good News Translation (GNT)
11 It was he who “gave gifts to people”; he appointed some to be apostles, others to be prophets, others to be evangelists, others to be pastors and teachers. 12 He did this to prepare all God's people for the work of Christian service, in order to build up the body of Christ. 13 And so we shall all come together to that oneness in our faith and in our knowledge of the Son of God; we shall become mature people, reaching to the very height of Christ's full stature.



https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/c...l/4281585-glossolalia-language-research/page8

LOl long post-Hey FYI interpretation is not a translation. And a linguist is not an authority on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Professor j. Samarin was educated from CA Berkley were he got his Ph.D. Samarin spent almost a decade in Central Africa studying Gbeya, Sango and other African languages. In addition, his take was from 1972. Not very authoritative with an undergrad theologically and with a Ph.D. from a secular school not known for being Christian friendly. That being said he does not even use one Biblical text to explain the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. His position is completely secular humanistic not theological. Thus he is not one of authority on the Biblical context of the Greek word glossolalia.

So, what, you in your post at least acknowledge that he is qualified enough to know what is a language. He is not the only Linguist who did research.

lin·guistDictionary result for linguist
/ˈliNGɡwəst/Submit
noun
1.
a person skilled in foreign languages.
2.
a person who studies linguistics.

What better linguist than one who has first hand experience?

"A Linguistic Analysis of Glossolalia: A Review Article Theodore Mueller TONGUES OF MEN AND ANGELS. The Religious Language of Pentecostalism. By William J. Samarin. The Macmillan Company, New York, 1972. 277 pages. $7.95. The author, an eminent linguist, professor of anthropology and linguistics at the University of Toronto, attempts to answer the question: Why do so many educated and well-established members of society "speak in tongues"? He first examines glossolalia from a linguist's point of view and shows "what Christians, at least. do when they talk in tongues" (p. 2). His examination is based on a large sample of glossolalia recorded in private and public meetings over a five-year period in Europe and North America. In-depth interviews and questionaires provided further information about the people and their beliefs. The book is a sympa,t het ic analysis, showing respect for the beliefs of these people as "sacred ground" (p. 236). Samarin dismisses such frequently mentioned psychological causes as repression and emotional release. In some sense glossolalia is "learned behavior" (p. 73), yet not learned as foreign languages are learned. "The tongue speaker is the product of considerable instruction, whether or not glossolalia comes ..."http://ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/muellerlinguisticanalysis.pdf

"A significant body of professional linguistic, psychological, and sociological analysis of modern tongues-speaking (glossolalia) has now accumulated.1 Some of it attributes a generally positive value to speaking in tongues; some of it is quite negative. All of it agrees in treating glossolalia as at root a nonmiraculous phenomenon. "https://frame-poythress.org/linguis...speaking-their-contributions-and-limitations/

Too long didnt read.

Can you sum it up for lazy rats like me? No disrespect to OP! Im just lazy

short edition:

in pentecostal charismatic churches, no linguist an expert in languages has not discerned anything that even resembles a language of any kind.

Those tested for interpretation of "languages" do not give consistent interpretations. With known tapes being played of foreign languages, no one has ever gotten the message even close.

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.

Basically the research shows us that those who speak in tongues are just making it all up to be park of the in group.

Paul and Acts 2 proves beyond doubt that those that spoke in tongues in the early church were speaking known Human Languages.

Acts 2:1-12 J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)
The first Pentecost for the young Church
2 1-4 Then when the actual day of Pentecost came they were all assembled together. Suddenly there was a sound from heaven like the rushing of a violent wind, and it filled the whole house where they were seated. Before their eyes appeared tongues like flames which separated off and settled above the head of each one of them. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different languages as the Spirit gave them power to proclaim his message.

The Church’s first impact on devout Jews
5-11 Now there were staying in Jerusalem Jews of deep faith from every nation of the world. When they heard this sound a crowd quickly collected and were completely bewildered because each one of them heard these men speaking in his own language. They were absolutely amazed and said in their astonishment, “Listen, surely all these speakers are Galileans? Then how does it happen that every single one of us can hear the particular language he has known from a child? There are Parthians, Medes and Elamites; there are men whose homes are in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Africa near Cyrene, as well as visitors from Rome! There are Jews and proselytes, men from Crete and men from Arabia, yet we can all hear these men speaking of the magnificence of God in our native language.”

12 Everyone was utterly amazed and did not know what to make of it, Indeed they kept saying to each other, “What on earth can this mean?”

What would Linguistics have to with the spiritual understanding of the law of the doctrine of tongues. That is if men refuse to hear it, establishing confirming their unbelief? Would that not be more of a spiritual work of someone who defends the faith of Christ, as it is written seeing it defends us and search out the meaning of the law?

Unknown tongues appear in some. If people like, they may continue looking at the gifts of the Holy Spirit as in the mouth of a gift-horse.

They are experts on Languages. They examine the phoneme not the spiritual side. The phoneme as it exists contradicts Acts 2 and Paul's statement about distinct sound of musical instruments. This type of research is the best way to verify or falsely what is going on.

5-11 Now there were staying in Jerusalem Jews of deep faith from every nation of the world. When they heard this sound a crowd quickly collected and were completely bewildered because each one of them heard these men speaking in his own language. They were absolutely amazed and said in their astonishment, “Listen, surely all these speakers are Galileans? Then how does it happen that every single one of us can hear the particular language he has known from a child? There are Parthians, Medes and Elamites; there are men whose homes are in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Africa near Cyrene, as well as visitors from Rome! There are Jews and proselytes, men from Crete and men from Arabia, yet we can all hear these men speaking of the magnificence of God in our native language.”

If you take the time to study the mystery religions and other false religions of the time, you will see that they spoke gibberish.

Thanks I agree and it would make a interesting study.

I have thought for a while now that the verses in Mathew that speak of vain repetitions had to do with vain words as language of the dead or sounds and not so much the repetition. .

It seems there are fake speakers of tongues just as there are false brethren. Although I studied languages and linguistics at the U. of Ill, Champaign-Urbana, i AM not qualified to question the gifts of the Holy Spirit nor to dissemenate doubt among the family in Jesus, Yeshua.

Live by fiath, and walk the same, and those shoes you have bought will not cause you to limp.

Correct. Short is always sweet.

The fact remains that for those who speak in tongues or pray on tongues, nothing that non-tongues speakers say makes a whit of difference. They are convinced that modern tongues are a gift of the Holy Spirit. And who is anyone to dissuade them?

I would love to do my education over. What a great blessing to study languages, something I have had a interest in it for some time. I dropped out of school early in need of getting a job . I hated school. English which is no surprise to anyone here was my most dreaded class..

I would think the validity of the tongues doctrine does not depend so much on languages studied as much as the doctrine itself, it must be studied for the spiritual understanding.

Looking to the foundation as to why it came about would seem to be a good place to start. From my experiences most do not even look outside of the new testemtment in order to build their understanding. .

Like to begin with, is tongues prophecy? Is God still bringing new prophecy in any manner as of the last book recorded? The sign of tongue what does it confirm, is it something Christians should even seek after?

Basically the data shows that modern day tongues is not a language and lacks the basic organization that is inherent in all known languages.

Acts 2
5-11 Now there were staying in Jerusalem Jews of deep faith from every nation of the world. When they heard this sound a crowd quickly collected and were completely bewildered because each one of them heard these men speaking in his own language. They were absolutely amazed and said in their astonishment, “Listen, surely all these speakers are Galileans? Then how does it happen that every single one of us can hear the particular language he has known from a child? There are Parthians, Medes and Elamites; there are men whose homes are in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Africa near Cyrene, as well as visitors from Rome! There are Jews and proselytes, men from Crete and men from Arabia, yet we can all hear these men speaking of the magnificence of God in our native language.”

Since the Holy Spirit only gives speakers human languages. Examining what is claimed to be a language which turns out is not a language of any kind is a great way to run from the false, human made up false gibberish.