TONGUES is a precious gift from God

[kaylagrl]

According to You, someone with No Credentials to make any type of conclusion or decision as you have! I would suggest that everyone should ignore your opinion since it is based off pure conjecture and no professional authority in the realm of Linguistics.

Every time there is a thread like this you have the same people pop up with "proof" of their POV. No one has "proved" tongues has ceased in the first place. One interprets it one way, and we another. There is no date or time on the calendar that tongues must stop. Any thing beyond that is opinion.

 

[Rhomphaeam]

And here is the reason you are having issues with other posters. I made a very simple comment to HB, if you can't understand a poster, move on. You take it as the worst insult you've ever received, take it to the tenth spiritual level, take a fictional character and act like I compared you to an ax murderer. So let me give you some advice in return, you are far too sensitive to be in a forum. You take everything far too seriously,an emoji is not "spiritual". You're ministry is out there, not here. This is a place people discuss, we don't personalize every little word. You do. You and HB were derailing the thread simply because you were talking past each other. I gave advice to him. Now you think you'll take me to task for it. I'm not that person.

No it isn't sister. The only derailing that is being done is to press an effect which I firmly intend to resist every step of the way in the name of Christ. Thats it.

 

[Heaven_Bound]

No it isn't sister. The only derailing that is being done is to press an effect which I firmly intend to resist every step of the way in the name of Christ. Thats it.

Do you believe you have much to offer in this Thread discussion?
Let's say you do.
People are making claims they do not understand you.
You want to convey your message + Others want to understand what you have to offer.
If others cannot understand you in your current format, is it worth altering your presentation in a way so Your message is understandable, in the goal of continuing the discussion at hand?

 

[kaylagrl]

No it isn't sister. The only derailing that is being done is to press an effect which I firmly intend to resist every step of the way in the name of Christ. Thats it.

And which effect are you speaking about, if you care to share.

 

[Kavik]

According to You, someone with No Credentials to make any type of conclusion or decision as you have! I would suggest that everyone should ignore your opinion since it is based off pure conjecture and no professional authority in the realm of Linguistics.

Again, no clue what you're getting at - I believe I've already stated I am a linguist and I assure you nothing has been "made up".

 

[Kavik]

None, and I haven't watched any. No sincere person would take something so sacred and put it on a secular media like Youtube. Seriously, gimme a break.

Then there are myriad of insincere people including pastors out there!

In you're opinion, it's something sacred and not to be shared via media. Okay, that's one opinion. and I thank you for that. Curious to see what others say.

 

[Heaven_Bound]

Again, no clue what you're getting at - I believe I've already stated I am a linguist and I assure you nothing has been "made up".

I am stating that an actual well known Linguist disagrees and would claim you are full of baloney, is what I am claiming.

She has national recognition and written material taught this very day.

I do not believe you at all, in your claim of being a Linguist.

 

[ResidentAlien]

So, here are three links to random tongues videos pulled off of YT - curious if any of these would be considered, in you the reader's opinion, as legit 'tongues' - if so why? If not, why not?

What makes them legit, what makes them not legit??

Does it boil down to a matter of personal opinion? What "Joe" considers legit, "Jane" says is bogus, etc. Is there that much disagreement even amongst tongues-speakers as to what's legit and what's not?

Again, these are just random choices I pulled off the internet, but I think exemplify what's out there.

The fist video. . .seriously, 7 hours of gibberish? This isn't Biblical and is ridiculous in my opinion.

In regard to the second video, the tongues lasted about 1:00 and the interpretation was :45. That's pretty close but still a 15 second difference. I noticed that the "interpretation" was simply teachings found in God word. The "tongues" was completely unnecessary; this exhortation could have easily been given without tongues.

Also, the preacher says: "We thank you Lord for your word. Your word is the source of life. . .etc." I agree, His word is the source of life. But there was nothing profound in the interpretation that couldn't be known by simply reading the Bible. It impressed me as a gimmick used to entertain and impress.

In the third video, the first episode of "tongues" was approximately :30 but the "interpretation" went on for 1:00. In the second episode, the "tongues" was again :30 but the "interpretation was :45. Maybe she was using some heavenly shorthand, I don't know.

The third video is from a Billye Brim conference at her Prayer Mountain retreat near Branson, Missouri. Brim worked for Kenneth Hagin Ministries for 10 years as Editor of Publications and taught at Rhema Bible Training Center. So she's obviously connected to Word of Faith and prosperity gospel. Just click on the Store link at her website and you'll find no shortage of merchandi$e for you to spend your money on.

https://billyebrim.org/about/

This seems like just another Branson attraction geared to entertain. Brim is another brick in the wall of the evangelical industrial complex. So, no, this isn't legit in my opinion.

 

[kaylagrl]

Then there are myriad of insincere people including pastors out there!

In you're opinion, it's something sacred and not to be shared via media. Okay, that's one opinion. and I thank you for that. Curious to see what others say.

Sure, I can't speak for all. Just my own POV.

 

[Heaven_Bound]

Kavik,

It took me several attempts with her to witness Speaking in Tongues. To begin with, she is an ATHEIST, so her first inclination is that it is either gibberish or hog wash. Not every Service was Tongues present. Eventually, we were able to observe Prayer Service, or organized Prayer Times. What she ultimately concluded, through the different peoples with a multitude of natural Languages such as Espano/English/Portuguese/French/Russian/and a few others, is that NATURALLY their sounds within their Native Languages do not match one another from French to spanish to Russian to English, to Yiddish and so forth. BUT, WHEN SHE OBSERVED THESE PEOPLE, WHO SPOKE NATURAL DIFFERENT LANGUAGES SPEAKING IN TONGUES, [[THEY ALL USED A SIMILAR DIALECT NOT FOUND WITHIN THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE]].

From this, she was able to determine that if a Russian, Asian, English, Spanish, French speaking peoples whose Dialects and Sounds are as diverse from one another, BUT, when Speaking in Tongues, their Dialects suddenly become Similar, IT IS IN FACT A LANGUAGE, JUST NOT A HUMAN LANGUAGE!

 

[Heaven_Bound]

If You were an actual Linguist, YOU WOULD HAVE PICKED UP ON WHAT SHE DID, AND SHE IS AN ATHEIST!

 

[Kavik]

I am stating that an actual well known Linguist disagrees and would claim you are full of baloney, is what I am claiming.

She has national recognition and written material taught this very day.

I do not believe you at all, in your claim of being a Linguist.

Really? What is this person's name, may I ask. There is no linguist in the world worth his/her salt that is going to call modern tongues-speech 'language'; human or otherwise. You're free to choose to believe whatever you wish.

 

[Kavik]

The fist video. . .seriously, 7 hours of gibberish? This isn't Biblical and is ridiculous in my opinion.

In regard to the second video, the tongues lasted about 1:00 and the interpretation was :45. That's pretty close but still a 15 second difference. I noticed that the "interpretation" was simply teachings found in God word. The "tongues" was completely unnecessary; this exhortation could have easily been given without tongues.

Also, the preacher says: "We thank you Lord for your word. Your word is the source of life. . .etc." I agree, His word is the source of life. But there was nothing profound in the interpretation that couldn't be known by simply reading the Bible. It impressed me as a gimmick used to entertain and impress.

In the third video, the first episode of "tongues" was approximately :30 but the "interpretation" went on for 1:00. In the second episode, the "tongues" was again :30 but the "interpretation was :45. Maybe she was using some heavenly shorthand, I don't know.

The third video is from a Billye Brim conference at her Prayer Mountain retreat near Branson, Missouri. Brim worked for Kenneth Hagin Ministries for 10 years as Editor of Publications and taught at Rhema Bible Training Center. So she's obviously connected to Word of Faith and prosperity gospel. Just click on the Store link at her website and you'll find no shortage of merchandi$e for you to spend your money on.

https://billyebrim.org/about/

This seems like just another Branson attraction geared to entertain. Brim is another brick in the wall of the evangelical industrial complex. So, no, this isn't legit in my opinion.

Thanks for the insight.

I agree with most of it. Here's the thing with "interpretation" - 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.

This leads to the conclusion that, like modern tongues-speech, 'interpretations' may also be said to be a self-created phenomenon; a ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs.

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 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”.

Yeah, I noticed that with many of these videos, the first thing you're sort of given for information is where to send your money.

 

[Heaven_Bound]

Really? What is this person's name, may I ask. There is no linguist in the world worth his/her salt that is going to call modern tongues-speech 'language'; human or otherwise. You're free to choose to believe whatever you wish.

I believe you are a Liar, first and foremost!

 

[Heaven_Bound]

Anecdotally, when I was an undergrad, one of my professors mentioned having seen a study or two on glossolalia. The studies indicated that the phoneme inventory was always quite small, smaller than that found in practically any natural language. Maybe even smaller than the Hawaiian inventory of thirteen phonemes, although my professor didn't go into details.

My professor was an excellent linguist. She did believe that glossolalia was, at least in some cases, an inspired state and that people in that state were often speaking genuine languages. However, they weren't natural human languages.




Goodman, Felicitas (1969). Phonetic Analysis of Glossolalia in Four Cultural Settings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 227-239. Goodman, Felicitas (1972). Speaking in Tongues. A Cross-Cultural Study of Glossolalia. The University of Chicago Press. Samarin, William (1972a). Tongues of Men and Angels. The Religious Language of Pentecostalism. The Macmillan Company. Samarin, William (1972b). Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia. Language in Society 1:121-130. Samarin, William (1973). Glossolalia as Regressive Speech. Language and Speech 16:77-89. Samarin, William (1974). Review of Goodman (1972). Language 5:207-213.

Malony H.N. & Lovekin A.A. 1985. Glossolalia, New York, Oxford University Press.

Dilia Flores. Analisis y Comparacian de Hablas Sagradas en Tres Formas de Trance-Posesian: Un Estudio en Etnografia de la Comunicacion. Universidad del Zulia, 1987. A study of glossolalia and related phenomena in Maracaibo, Venezuela.

_Tongue Speaking_, Morton Kelsey (New York: Crossroad, 1981).

_They Speak With Other Tongues_, by John L. Sherrill (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1964), a popular treatment.

_The Pentecostal Movement in the Catholic Church_ by Edward D. O'Connor (Notre Dame, Indiana: Ave Maria Press, 1971) claims cases of xenolalia (speaking in an unlearned, existing language).

And a recommendation to perform a library search for Donald Clarence Laycock which might uncover a few things on glossolalia.

There are literally 30 Well Known LINGUIST claiming Speaking in Tongues is a REAL LANGUAGE, but not a Human Language!

 

[Heaven_Bound]

Kavik said:
Really? What is this person's name, may I ask. There is no linguist in the world worth his/her salt that is going to call modern tongues-speech 'language'; human or otherwise. You're free to choose to believe whatever you wish.

Heaven_Bound:
I believe you are a Liar, first and foremost!

 

[Heaven_Bound]

Motley, the Brilliant Harvard Linguist, wrote in the Analog of the Heverly Studies:
Glossia examples he found are in a number of ways Language-like, yet [[unlike]] the Language of the Speaker!

 

[1ofthem]

So, here are three links to random tongues videos pulled off of YT - curious if any of these would be considered, in you the reader's opinion, as legit 'tongues' - if so why? If not, why not?

What makes them legit, what makes them not legit??

Does it boil down to a matter of personal opinion? What "Joe" considers legit, "Jane" says is bogus, etc. Is there that much disagreement even amongst tongues-speakers as to what's legit and what's not?

Again, these are just random choices I pulled off the internet, but I think exemplify what's out there.

Did you take it to God?

Did you sincerely and humbly pray and ask the Lord about it?

Truth is no one is going to be able to give you discernment. You are going to have to seek that out for yourself. You are not going to find it in a textbook, scientific journal, or linguistics training.

It is going to take humbly seeking the Lord.

Ask, seek, knock. To those that ask, it shall be given. Those that seek shall find, and to those that knock it shall be opened.

Sincerely and humbly ask God out of faith, and He will answer.

I'm praying that God moves within your heart and mind and shows you in a way that is best for you and that is clearly evident to you.

 

[Kavik]

Kavik,

It took me several attempts with her to witness Speaking in Tongues. To begin with, she is an ATHEIST, so her first inclination is that it is either gibberish or hog wash. Not every Service was Tongues present. Eventually, we were able to observe Prayer Service, or organized Prayer Times. What she ultimately concluded, through the different peoples with a multitude of natural Languages such as Espano/English/Portuguese/French/Russian/and a few others, is that NATURALLY their sounds within their Native Languages do not match one another from French to spanish to Russian to English, to Yiddish and so forth. BUT, WHEN SHE OBSERVED THESE PEOPLE, WHO SPOKE NATURAL DIFFERENT LANGUAGES SPEAKING IN TONGUES, [[THEY ALL USED A SIMILAR DIALECT NOT FOUND WITHIN THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE]].

From this, she was able to determine that if a Russian, Asian, English, Spanish, French speaking peoples whose Dialects and Sounds are as diverse from one another, BUT, when Speaking in Tongues, their Dialects suddenly become Similar, IT IS IN FACT A LANGUAGE, JUST NOT A HUMAN LANGUAGE!

It would take too long to get into in detail, but his person does not have a good grasp of some basic linguistic theory; particularly phonetics.

Given the construction of glossolalia (it's syllable structure, phonemic make-up, etc.), and the fact that most speakers will use a subset of the phonemes found in their respective languages - specifically those easiest to produce physiologically, there is going to be overlap between speakers of different languages. That said, no two tongues will ever be the same....ever. There are as many 'tongues' as there are speakers of same. If for a moment we say that tongues a re some sort of heavenly language, why would there ever be a need for more than just one??

If a person or being produces a stream of speech, in order for it to be ‘language’, regardless of whether spoken in front of you, in some remote corner of the word, on some alien planet, or on some heavenly/spiritual plain of existence, to be 'language', at its most basic level, it must contain at a minimal two features – (1) discrete units of various sorts, and (2) rules and principles that govern the way these discrete units can be combined and ordered. It cannot be stressed enough that these two features are universal, regardless of where or by whom the speech is being produced. Without these two features, you don't have language. Glossolalia contains neither feature. It is simply a façade of language.

 

[Kavik]

Anecdotally, when I was an undergrad, one of my professors mentioned having seen a study or two on glossolalia. The studies indicated that the phoneme inventory was always quite small, smaller than that found in practically any natural language. Maybe even smaller than the Hawaiian inventory of thirteen phonemes, although my professor didn't go into details.

My professor was an excellent linguist. She did believe that glossolalia was, at least in some cases, an inspired state and that people in that state were often speaking genuine languages. However, they weren't natural human languages.




Goodman, Felicitas (1969). Phonetic Analysis of Glossolalia in Four Cultural Settings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 227-239. Goodman, Felicitas (1972). Speaking in Tongues. A Cross-Cultural Study of Glossolalia. The University of Chicago Press. Samarin, William (1972a). Tongues of Men and Angels. The Religious Language of Pentecostalism. The Macmillan Company. Samarin, William (1972b). Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia. Language in Society 1:121-130. Samarin, William (1973). Glossolalia as Regressive Speech. Language and Speech 16:77-89. Samarin, William (1974). Review of Goodman (1972). Language 5:207-213.

Malony H.N. & Lovekin A.A. 1985. Glossolalia, New York, Oxford University Press.

Dilia Flores. Analisis y Comparacian de Hablas Sagradas en Tres Formas de Trance-Posesian: Un Estudio en Etnografia de la Comunicacion. Universidad del Zulia, 1987. A study of glossolalia and related phenomena in Maracaibo, Venezuela.

_Tongue Speaking_, Morton Kelsey (New York: Crossroad, 1981).

_They Speak With Other Tongues_, by John L. Sherrill (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1964), a popular treatment.

_The Pentecostal Movement in the Catholic Church_ by Edward D. O'Connor (Notre Dame, Indiana: Ave Maria Press, 1971) claims cases of xenolalia (speaking in an unlearned, existing language).

And a recommendation to perform a library search for Donald Clarence Laycock which might uncover a few things on glossolalia.

There are literally 30 Well Known LINGUIST claiming Speaking in Tongues is a REAL LANGUAGE, but not a Human Language!

I'm familiar with many of these, particularly Samarin and Goodman. I think you're misreading something - nowhere do either advocate that modern tongues-speech is actual language, nor have I ever heard of any other linguist who does. "Language-like" is the usual moniker attached to tongues-speech. Unlike gibberish, tongues seek to mimic language (gibberish, by its very nature, does not).
I've already addressed the typical subset of phonemes found in tongues-speech in a previous post.

Some people do speak it in an inspired state, but again, if one studies the the structure and glossic strings, any hope of postulating real language quickly goes out the door.