TONGUES TODAY

I think a lot of the cessationists are coming from a wounded spirit, at those operating in the gifts.
Sad that they invest huge energy and time at something they neither want or seek.

It is the equivalent of myself attacking seamstress websites.

It HAS TO BE A SPIRIT. No doubt the pharisees had that exact same dynamic.

As someone mentioned - here we go again.

In answer to the question, I guess it depends on who you ask - here's a Linguist's take.....

There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" – when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); usually unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) – it’s their native language (in some cases, it is a language the speaker has learned).

In contrast, the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with.

It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns, alliteration, assonance, and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is also interesting to note that any disallowed sound combinations, i.e. consonant clusters, in the speaker’s native language are also disallowed in his/her tongues-speech. Further, this subset of phonemes typically contains only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically.

There is absolutely nothing that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot easily be explained in linguistic terms.

Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely no Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be one which is radically different from what you believe, or were taught.

“Praying in the Spirit” does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.

The word “tongue(s)” itself is simply a more archaic word for (real) “language(s)”, nothing more. Replace “tongue(s)” with “language(s)” in these various passages and the whole modern Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of “tongues” begins to become difficult to posit – “language(s)” sounds a lot less mysterious, and in many cases, adds more clarity to the text. Again, in Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the word has come to be equated with the modern concept of “tongues-speech”.

Most people who use ‘tongues’ are very keen on describing the ‘experience’. Indeed, for those that use it, it is very psychologically, physically, and spiritually fulfilling. It’s almost like primal screaming. When people practice ‘tongues’, they feel a sense of sweet release and inner peace, in that virtually all stress can be gone after the experience.

People describe the experience, but in examining the “mechanics” behind it…well, not so much. When a person has experienced tongues, s/he is absolutely convinced as to the ‘scripturalness’ of his/her experience, and the correctness of his/her doctrinal beliefs – this, despite the overwhelming scriptural absence of anything remotely akin to what they’re doing.

I'm not doubting or questioning the 'experience'; as mentioned, glossolalia as the spiritual tool that it is, can be very powerful and, for many people, the experience is profound. Both the spiritual and physical benefits of using this tool are also well documented. Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually _any other culture that practices glossolalia_ . Religious and cultural differences aside, the glossolalia an Evenki Shaman in Siberia, a vodoun priestess in Togo and a Christian tongues-speaker in Alabama are producing are in no way different from each other. They’re all producing their glossolalia in the exact same way; they just have different explanations and beliefs as to why they’re doing it and where it comes from.

“Tongues” is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best; non-cognitive non language utterance – the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In some cases, I would argue that it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience via “tongues”.

Known by many different names, “tongues”, “glossolalia”, or more accurately “non-cognitive non-language utterance” (NC-NLU), is practiced by many cultures and religious beliefs from literally all over the world; it is relatively new to Christianity and certainly not unique to it.

As a point of note, I’m a Linguist, and let me also add here that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ – I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”; people still speak.

I find it odd that someone who has not experienced speaking to God in an unknown tongue (prayer language) would consider his/herself an authority.

I find it common that those who refuse to accept that speaking in tongues is biblical have either been taught it's not of God or they have sought it and not received it. And rather than continuing to seek the gift of the Holy Ghost they ridicule others.

Ask yourself. Could I possibly be wrong? What if God has more for me and I reject it?

I find it odd that someone who has not experienced speaking to God in an unknown tongue (prayer language) or been used to speak a word of edification that is then interpreted for the church body would consider his/herself an authority.

I find it common that those who refuse to accept that speaking in tongues is biblical have either been taught it's not of God or they have sought it and not received it. And rather than continuing to seek the gift of the Holy Ghost they ridicule others.

Ask yourself. Could I possibly be wrong? What if God has more for me and I reject it?

I find it odd that someone who has not experienced speaking to God in an unknown tongue (prayer language) or been used to speak a word of edification that is then interpreted for the church body would consider his/herself an authority.

I find it common that those who refuse to accept that speaking in tongues is biblical have either been taught it's not of God or they have sought it and not received it. And rather than continuing to seek the gift of the Holy Ghost they ridicule others.

Ask yourself. Could I possibly be wrong? What if God has more for me and I reject it?

“…speaking to God in an unknown tongue” – if put into something a bit more modern and getting rid of that pesky added ‘unknown’ – “…..speaking to God in a language”.

I generally find that English, or any other real, rational language I may choose, seems to work just fine. Modern tongues-speech (‘prayer language’) is not language, it’s non-cognitive non-language utterance.

That said, there is nothing _to_ ‘interpret’. If it were language, an interpreter could look at the following example of real, transliterated tongues and give his/her interpretation:

Káyntay háychee, háychee kéeho hóro. /kénte héči, héči kího hóro/
Máhcha keetáy lah mócho, /máča kité la móčo/
rána mahcháy nay keetáh lau. /rána mačé ne kitá lau/
Réhnah shay kée nah máhto. /rɛ’na še kí na máto/

As far as the above example goes, essentially you read the above left-hand side as if it were English – the only convention I have used is to put an accent over the syllable in the ‘word’ that receives the main stress. The ‘ay’ here is the ‘ay’ in “day”, and of course, don’t forget to trill your R’s. The punctuation written is an assumption only and is based solely on the speaker’s intonation and phrasing.

This is a bit harsh perhaps, but…..as one writer put it, “You’re improvising the sounds, but there is nothing about what you’re doing that cannot be explained in natural terms. The only reason it sounds like a language is that you want it to sound like a language. But it’s not. As much as you’d like to think you are, you’re not producing a language.”

I find that many speakers seem to fall into this thought model; i.e., it sounds like a real language because speakers have convinced themselves to hear it as such. What Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are doing today is not to be found in the Bible. Doesn’t make it wrong, as I’ve said, modern tongues-speech, as the spiritual tool that it is, is a powerful one; but it’s just not something found in the Bible.

I’m not ridiculing anyone – just stating what modern tongues-speech is comprised of; looking at the mechanics behind it, so-to-speak. There are many things in the Bible that must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved, nor disproved. The tongues-speech of Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians is not one of these things. It is something very tangible. It can be, and has been, studied and analyzed with all studies yielding the same conclusions. And, no, I am by no means an ‘authority’ on the subject (and have never claimed to be).

I have not seen anything that demonstrates tongues-speech to be anything other than non-cognitive non-language utterance. God may indeed have more for me, but I'm pretty sure it's not 'tongues'.

“…speaking to God in an unknown tongue” – if put into something a bit more modern and getting rid of that pesky added ‘unknown’ – “…..speaking to God in a language”.

I generally find that English, or any other real, rational language I may choose, seems to work just fine. Modern tongues-speech (‘prayer language’) is not language, it’s non-cognitive non-language utterance.

That said, there is nothing _to_ ‘interpret’. If it were language, an interpreter could look at the following example of real, transliterated tongues and give his/her interpretation:

Káyntay háychee, háychee kéeho hóro. /kénte héči, héči kího hóro/
Máhcha keetáy lah mócho, /máča kité la móčo/
rána mahcháy nay keetáh lau. /rána mačé ne kitá lau/
Réhnah shay kée nah máhto. /rɛ’na še kí na máto/

As far as the above example goes, essentially you read the above left-hand side as if it were English – the only convention I have used is to put an accent over the syllable in the ‘word’ that receives the main stress. The ‘ay’ here is the ‘ay’ in “day”, and of course, don’t forget to trill your R’s. The punctuation written is an assumption only and is based solely on the speaker’s intonation and phrasing.

This is a bit harsh perhaps, but…..as one writer put it, “You’re improvising the sounds, but there is nothing about what you’re doing that cannot be explained in natural terms. The only reason it sounds like a language is that you want it to sound like a language. But it’s not. As much as you’d like to think you are, you’re not producing a language.”

I find that many speakers seem to fall into this thought model; i.e., it sounds like a real language because speakers have convinced themselves to hear it as such. What Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are doing today is not to be found in the Bible. Doesn’t make it wrong, as I’ve said, modern tongues-speech, as the spiritual tool that it is, is a powerful one; but it’s just not something found in the Bible.

I’m not ridiculing anyone – just stating what modern tongues-speech is comprised of; looking at the mechanics behind it, so-to-speak. There are many things in the Bible that must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved, nor disproved. The tongues-speech of Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians is not one of these things. It is something very tangible. It can be, and has been, studied and analyzed with all studies yielding the same conclusions. And, no, I am by no means an ‘authority’ on the subject (and have never claimed to be).

Ihave not seen anything that demonstrates tongues-speech to be anything other than non-cognitive non-language utterance. God may indeed have more for me, but I'm pretty sure it's not 'tongues'.

Ive never seen a cessationist that honestly unpacked the gifts biblically.

“…speaking to God in an unknown tongue” – if put into something a bit more modern and getting rid of that pesky added ‘unknown’ – “…..speaking to God in a language”.

I generally find that English, or any other real, rational language I may choose, seems to work just fine. Modern tongues-speech (‘prayer language’) is not language, it’s non-cognitive non-language utterance.

That said, there is nothing _to_ ‘interpret’. If it were language, an interpreter could look at the following example of real, transliterated tongues and give his/her interpretation:

Káyntay háychee, háychee kéeho hóro. /kénte héči, héči kího hóro/
Máhcha keetáy lah mócho, /máča kité la móčo/
rána mahcháy nay keetáh lau. /rána mačé ne kitá lau/
Réhnah shay kée nah máhto. /rɛ’na še kí na máto/

As far as the above example goes, essentially you read the above left-hand side as if it were English – the only convention I have used is to put an accent over the syllable in the ‘word’ that receives the main stress. The ‘ay’ here is the ‘ay’ in “day”, and of course, don’t forget to trill your R’s. The punctuation written is an assumption only and is based solely on the speaker’s intonation and phrasing.

This is a bit harsh perhaps, but…..as one writer put it, “You’re improvising the sounds, but there is nothing about what you’re doing that cannot be explained in natural terms. The only reason it sounds like a language is that you want it to sound like a language. But it’s not. As much as you’d like to think you are, you’re not producing a language.”

I find that many speakers seem to fall into this thought model; i.e., it sounds like a real language because speakers have convinced themselves to hear it as such. What Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are doing today is not to be found in the Bible. Doesn’t make it wrong, as I’ve said, modern tongues-speech, as the spiritual tool that it is, is a powerful one; but it’s just not something found in the Bible.

I’m not ridiculing anyone – just stating what modern tongues-speech is comprised of; looking at the mechanics behind it, so-to-speak. There are many things in the Bible that must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved, nor disproved. The tongues-speech of Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians is not one of these things. It is something very tangible. It can be, and has been, studied and analyzed with all studies yielding the same conclusions. And, no, I am by no means an ‘authority’ on the subject (and have never claimed to be).

I have not seen anything that demonstrates tongues-speech to be anything other than non-cognitive non-language utterance. God may indeed have more for me, but I'm pretty sure it's not 'tongues'.

That said, there is nothing _to_ ‘interpret’. If it were language, an interpreter could look at the following example of real, transliterated tongues and give his/her interpretation:

Káyntay háychee, háychee kéeho hóro. /kénte héči, héči kího hóro/
Máhcha keetáy lah mócho, /máča kité la móčo/
rána mahcháy nay keetáh lau. /rána mačé ne kitá lau/
Réhnah shay kée nah máhto. /rɛ’na še kí na máto/

As far as the above example goes, essentially you read the above left-hand side as if it were English – the only convention I have used is to put an accent over the syllable in the ‘word’ that receives the main stress. The ‘ay’ here is the ‘ay’ in “day”, and of course, don’t forget to trill your R’s.

If you talk to people who interpret tongues, many of them will explain that the interpretation comes to them, kind of like if you talk to people who receive prophecies in church. Two people can get the same interpretation, and one gives it first. One of my friends says the exact wording of other people giving the interpretation is not the same, but rather the meaning is the same. I have never heard of an interpreter of tongues being able to break down and understand words and morphemes like a native speaker would.

“…speaking to God in an unknown tongue” – if put into something a bit more modern and getting rid of that pesky added ‘unknown’ – “…..speaking to God in a language”.

I generally find that English, or any other real, rational language I may choose, seems to work just fine. Modern tongues-speech (‘prayer language’) is not language, it’s non-cognitive non-language utterance.

That said, there is nothing _to_ ‘interpret’. If it were language, an interpreter could look at the following example of real, transliterated tongues and give his/her interpretation:

Káyntay háychee, háychee kéeho hóro. /kénte héči, héči kího hóro/
Máhcha keetáy lah mócho, /máča kité la móčo/
rána mahcháy nay keetáh lau. /rána mačé ne kitá lau/
Réhnah shay kée nah máhto. /rɛ’na še kí na máto/

As far as the above example goes, essentially you read the above left-hand side as if it were English – the only convention I have used is to put an accent over the syllable in the ‘word’ that receives the main stress. The ‘ay’ here is the ‘ay’ in “day”, and of course, don’t forget to trill your R’s. The punctuation written is an assumption only and is based solely on the speaker’s intonation and phrasing.

This is a bit harsh perhaps, but…..as one writer put it, “You’re improvising the sounds, but there is nothing about what you’re doing that cannot be explained in natural terms. The only reason it sounds like a language is that you want it to sound like a language. But it’s not. As much as you’d like to think you are, you’re not producing a language.”

I find that many speakers seem to fall into this thought model; i.e., it sounds like a real language because speakers have convinced themselves to hear it as such. What Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are doing today is not to be found in the Bible. Doesn’t make it wrong, as I’ve said, modern tongues-speech, as the spiritual tool that it is, is a powerful one; but it’s just not something found in the Bible.

I’m not ridiculing anyone – just stating what modern tongues-speech is comprised of; looking at the mechanics behind it, so-to-speak. There are many things in the Bible that must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved, nor disproved. The tongues-speech of Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians is not one of these things. It is something very tangible. It can be, and has been, studied and analyzed with all studies yielding the same conclusions. And, no, I am by no means an ‘authority’ on the subject (and have never claimed to be).

I have not seen anything that demonstrates tongues-speech to be anything other than non-cognitive non-language utterance. God may indeed have more for me, but I'm pretty sure it's not 'tongues'.

If you talk to people who interpret tongues, many of them will explain that the interpretation comes to them, kind of like if you talk to people who receive prophecies in church. Two people can get the same interpretation, and one gives it first. One of my friends says the exact wording of other people giving the interpretation is not the same, but rather the meaning is the same. I have never heard of an interpreter of tongues being able to break down and understand words and morphemes like a native speaker would.

Yes, interpretation of tongues may also be said to be a sort of self-created phenomenon. When you really look at it, it’s a ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs, isn't it.

Interpretations are typically characterized by being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance, rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’. In other words, have ten interpreters listen to a glossic string and you’ll get ten different (typically unrelated) interpretations. In tongues ‘The big brown dog is slow’, can also be ‘The small white cat is quick’. These latter two characteristics (‘generic-ness’ and multiple interpretations) do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. It fails even the most basic tests and criteria that define ‘communication’ itself.

Given the ‘generic-ness’ and nature of the interpretations, some overlap and similarities are to be expected. As you say, the meaning can be the same or similar; however, the more common occurrence seems to be that the interpretations are completely different from one another. I think it’s easy to say, after one person gives an interpretation, that “That’s about what I was going to say”, or “Something very similar came to me too.”

I had read of an instance in France many years ago of an experiment (if you can call it that) where the ‘tongues-speaker’ (obviously someone planted there) started to recite the Our Father in a very thick, broad Scots – needless to say, someone stood up and offered a lengthy interpretation of his ‘tongues’. The going comment years ago was that you could stand up in a church in say rural Georgia, recite Beowulf, throw in a few "hallelujahs", and someone would offer an interpretation of your tongues.

A common come-back to the multiple interpretation issue is that God/the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to different people. As one writer put it rather succinctly, “Pentecostal/Charismatic Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying what is an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for ‘tongues’ in the first place”.

Yes, the only way tongues-speech seems to be able to be interpreted is solely from the spoken word. I’ve often wondered if I were to recite a written transcription aloud using the same intonations as the original speaker if someone could give an interpretation, and if not, why not.

If you utter something and want it to be language, one of the universal features it must contain are morphemes. If tongues-speech were language, it would have definable morphemes. No tongues-speech ever studied seems to have this feature. Modern tongues-speech however would require a separate set of morphemes for each and every speaker since no two tongues will ever be the same. There’s just nothing that remotely suggests or evidences ‘language’ here.

your humanistic explanation of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit is lacking one very important thing. The word of God.


The Church does not need an opinion from the science world to validate the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

There are millions of testimonies certified healings, miracles, and millions of lives changed by the Gospel message.

The Church doesn't need a carnal-minded person(s) to try and explain Spiritual truth.

That is why one does see the connection of those carried along by the Holy Spirit known as Inspiration God-breathed as holy men of old wrote. They did not write of their own but were helped by the Holy Spirit.


The same Holy Spirit does that every day in the believer IF they are seeking God. The inspiration is not to add to the Word of God it is NOW as 1cor chapter 12 through 14 states.

the tongues and interpretation of them = prophecy as 1cor 14 says yet it is not in the context of the authoritative word of God it is for :

Edification, comfort, exhortation, and confirmation. I person who speaks in tongues should pray that they interpret what 1cor 14 says, and speak forth what is given by the inspiration as the Holy Spirit leads.


when in use of this gift I can speak under my breath pray and ask God to give me the interpretation and speak out loud in the language I know and is the language of my home church in CA. I can do this and no one would ever hear me speak in tongues at all.

This is the maturity with the gift and can be developed. After I speak what is a word of encouragement, comfort, or exhortation, it is to BE JUDGED BY THE WORD OF GOD and confirm to someone there what is said.

The Holy Spirit doesn't make me do it, I don't have to interrupt the Pastor of the sermon, and when I visit a church other than my own
and I since the Holy Spirit prompting me to speak I go to the Pastor and tell him what I am sensing from the Holy Spirt.

I have had baptist, COGIC, and many other denominations tell me to go ahead, not yet, and no. I did not get up and leave yell out "you are grieving the Holy Spirit" and make a big sense.


many Pentecostals are in error and unlearned and think they fully know the gifts of the Holy Spirit, just like cessationism they are wrong. The message that is to be given must be a confirmation, meaning in a church the Pastor is and should already know and the person(s) whom the Holy Spirit is trying to help, edify, comfort, and build up. Why?


Well, the Pastor knows His flock and he knows who is sick, who has personal issues most of the time. FYI Pastors do work other days in addition to Sunday.

The Lord showed me a specific issue with someone who was sick, I did not know who that person was but I asked the Pastor if there was a person suffering from this issue. And he knew immediately who it was and I asked if I can pray for them because I believe God wants to heal her. God showed me it was a woman. he told me not yet and he would call me at the right time. I sat down and waited for the pastor to call me.

God did what he does I did what I believe God wanted me to do and the pastor did what he believed was best for his flock.

No issues nothing out of order God got the glory and we moved on.

Early this morning I was speaking in what sounded like tongues as I was waking up. I used to be in the practice of speaking in tongues for quite some time but have stopped due to not feeling at peace about it for myself. I understand there are different views on tongues today and I have known people who I see as godly who are in the practice of speaking in tongues.

A nice bit of worldly wisdom there!

Yes, interpretation of tongues may also be said to be a sort of self-created phenomenon. When you really look at it, it’s a ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs, isn't it.

Interpretations are typically characterized by being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance, rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’.

In other words, have ten interpreters listen to a glossic string and you’ll get ten different (typically unrelated) interpretations. In tongues ‘The big brown dog is slow’, can also be ‘The small white cat is quick’. These latter two characteristics (‘generic-ness’ and multiple interpretations) do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. It fails even the most basic tests and criteria that define ‘communication’ itself.

Given the ‘generic-ness’ and nature of the interpretations, some overlap and similarities are to be expected. As you say, the meaning can be the same or similar; however, the more common occurrence seems to be that the interpretations are completely different from one another. I think it’s easy to say, after one person gives an interpretation, that “That’s about what I was going to say”, or “Something very similar came to me too.”

I had read of an instance in France many years ago of an experiment (if you can call it that) where the ‘tongues-speaker’ (obviously someone planted there) started to recite the Our Father in a very thick, broad Scots – needless to say, someone stood up and offered a lengthy interpretation of his ‘tongues’. The going comment years ago was that you could stand up in a church in say rural Georgia, recite Beowulf, throw in a few "hallelujahs", and someone would offer an interpretation of your tongues.

A common come-back to the multiple interpretation issue is that God/the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to different people. As one writer put it rather succinctly, “Pentecostal/Charismatic Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying what is an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for ‘tongues’ in the first place”.

Yes, the only way tongues-speech seems to be able to be interpreted is solely from the spoken word. I’ve often wondered if I were to recite a written transcription aloud using the same intonations as the original speaker if someone could give an interpretation, and if not, why not.

If you utter something and want it to be language, one of the universal features it must contain are morphemes. If tongues-speech were language, it would have definable morphemes. No tongues-speech ever studied seems to have this feature. Modern tongues-speech however would require a separate set of morphemes for each and every speaker since no two tongues will ever be the same. There’s just nothing that remotely suggests or evidences ‘language’ here.