• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Speaking in Tongues

outhouse

Atheistically
speaking in tongues is a form of lunacy in my opinion.

ive seen videos of children doing this and crying and if i caught someone messing with my daughter like that, there would be more then word involved.

its nothing short of child abuse

in adults i feel they should be locked up and there sanity checked
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Here is a post regarding glossolalia that I made last August


It's not a language. In linguistic studies made of various glossolalias none of them showed signs of a structure that could be called language, although they did share some common elements.

Here is one particular assessment taken from a Wikipedia article, which reflects the consensus of these studies.

Linguistics of Pentecostal glossolalia
William J. Samarin, a linguist from the University of Toronto, published a thorough assessment of Pentecostal glossolalia that became a classic work on its linguistic characteristics.[3] His assessment was based on a large sample of glossolalia recorded in public and private Christian meetings in Italy, Holland, Jamaica, Canada and the USA over the course of five years; his wide range included the Puerto Ricans of the Bronx, the Snake Handlers of the Appalachians, and Russian Molokan in Los Angeles.

Samarin found that glossolalic speech does resemble human language in some respects. The speaker uses accent, rhythm, intonation and pauses to break up the speech into distinct units. Each unit is itself made up of syllables, the syllables being formed from consonants and vowels taken from a language known to the speaker.
It is verbal behavior that consists of using a certain number of consonants and vowels[...]in a limited number of syllables that in turn are organized into larger units that are taken apart and rearranged pseudogrammatically[...]with variations in pitch, volume, speed and intensity.[4]

[Glossolalia] consists of strings of syllables, made up of sounds taken from all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but emerging nevertheless as word-like and sentence-like units because of realistic, language-like rhythm and melody.[5]
That the sounds are taken from the set of sounds already known to the speaker is confirmed by others: Felicitas Goodman found that the speech of glossolalists reflected the patterns of speech of the speaker's native language.[6]

Samarin found that the resemblance to human language was merely on the surface, and so concluded that glossolalia is "only a facade of language".[7] He reached this conclusion because the syllable string did not form words, the stream of speech was not internally organised, and– most importantly of all– there was no systematic relationship between units of speech and concepts. Humans use language to communicate, but glossolalia does not. Therefore he concluded that glossolalia is not "a specimen of human language because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives".[7]

On the basis of his linguistic analysis, Samarin defined Pentecostal glossolalia as "meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance,

What other explanations are there for it?
In 2006, the brains of a group of individuals were scanned while they were speaking in tongues. Activity in the language centers of the brain decreased, while activity in the emotional centers of the brain increased. Activity in the area of control decreased, which corresponds with the reported experience of loss of control. There were no changes in any language areas, suggesting that glossolalia is not associated with usual language function.[10][11][12] Other brain wave studies have also found that brain activity alters in glossolalia.[13]

Learned behaviour
The material explanation arrived at by a number of studies is that glossolalia is "learned behavior".[15][19] What is taught is the ability to produce language-like speech. This is only a partial explanation, but it is a part that has withstood much testing. It is possible to train novices to produce glossolalic speech. One experiment with 60 undergraduates found that 20% succeeded after merely listening to a 60-second sample, and 70% succeeded after training:"

(source: ibid)
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
In response to the OP. Once, I woke up one time speaking outload and fluently in a language I know nothing about. The last glympse I remember after I woke up actually speaking the language outload was that I was holding some book in a dream with a writing I knew nothing about. I was only asleep for a few minutes, but fell asleep meditating. I have no idea what the book was or what the language was. I still don't know what to make of that mega-strange experience.. IMO.

When the mind sleeps the spirit remains awake. It is most likely that your spirit was remembering a past life experience.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I recognize the words "shan da" because it shows up in my tongue speech often. It means "truly to." It is usually part of the phrase "shan da ba kish." which means literally "truly toyou I say" which for translation purposes gets turned aroound to correct syntax in English as "Truly I say to you." This phrase is used by Jesus and can be found in the Bible.

As an addendum to this. Shun can be translated also as true, truth or thruthfulness depending on the context. as you can see this is different from English where a word takes on different spellings for different parts of speech ie adjective, adverb, noun.
 

Jacksnyte

Reverend
As an addendum to this. Shun can be translated also as true, truth or thruthfulness depending on the context. as you can see this is different from English where a word takes on different spellings for different parts of speech ie adjective, adverb, noun.

from http://www.spirithome.com/tongues1.html

Non-Christians speak in tongues, too.

The Oracle at Delphi, for instance, started in the 400s BC, when Greece was at its strongest. It continued into the Roman era as if it was a parody of its former self, so the members of the churches of Greece and Asia Minor would have been very familiar with how Delphi worked. It was a shrine of the Greek god Apollo. In response to someone's questions, a priestess would go into a frenzy and start babbling. An attendant priest would then 'translate' the babble into some glittering generalities that could in some way be understood as an answer. Some of the best-known features of Greek philosophy streamed out from the Oracle's early years (for instance, it bred the saying "Know Yourself"); the great Greek philosophers were very good at finding jewels in waste water. The cult of Dionysis used rhythmic music, whirling dances, alcohol and/or herbal drugs, and magic spells to send peoples' souls out of their body (Greek ek stasis ) and into the presence of whatever deity or sub-deity was involved; this too sometimes caused strange sounds.
African animists, too, have long had ecstatic speech in their religions. But, just as glossolalia among Jews marked one as a prophet, glossolalia caused most African animists to foist onto the speaker the role of religious leader or priest, a heavy spiritual and cultural responsibility to lay upon an unprepared person. Wherever they have happened in the past, glossolalia and other extraordinary 'spiritual' happenings have not been, and have not really been allowed to be, a thing 'of the people', which could be a part of the otherwise-normal life of otherwise-ordinary people.
Deep in the gnostic book-hoard at Nag Hammadi, archaeologists discovered what may be the earliest, and perhaps one of the strangest, written instances of glossolalia. (Gnosticism arose at the same time as Christianity, and Gnostics were skilled at melding Christian devotions and spirituality to the un-Christian Gnostic framework -- to use a modern term, they tried to 'co-opt' Christianity.) While modern theologians give the unusual contents at Nag Hammadi much more attention than they deserve, a prayer introduction in *The Gospel Of the Egyptians* is a true attention-grabber. It reads roughly (very roughly) like this :
Ié ieus éó ou éó óua! O Jesus, bond of Yah's righteousness, O Living Water, O Child of Child, O glorious Name! Really truly, O Eon that is, iiii éééé eeee oo uuuu óóóó aaaaa, really truly éi aaaa óó óó! O One That Is, Seer Of the Ages! Really truly, aee ééé iiii uuuuuu óóóóóóóó, You who are eternally eternal, really truly iéa aió, in the heart, You who Are, You are what You are, ei o ei eios ei!
Even the translatable words are very iffy and full of vowels and mixed languages. Like modern glossolalia, it's got a lot of almost-words, divine titles, and even 'really truly'. It's almost like a parody, it's so garbled, but it was serious in its intent. The ecstatic speech did not make the book's bizarre beliefs the slightest bit more true.
back to top


What happened in Acts 2 was not the first time anyone ever spoke in any kind of tongues. There's reason to believe that some of the Jewish prophets did. Some of the great civilizations of old had instances of it. But in the past, such speech itself had no purpose, except to show that the speaker was being overcome by something or someone, and that something understandable would follow. They were thought to be either prophets or wackos, and sometimes both. Its short-term impact was small : a changed decision or two by some leader, a few heads rolled. Nothing much that changed the course of other lives, no changed direction in society, and no lasting effects at all.
What happened in that house on Pentecost as recounted in Acts 2 was something very different. It would be trite to say it changed the course of history; even the most vigorous atheist would acknowledge that. More importantly, it would miss the point. Acts 2 marked the beginning of a community of living witness, a community which would be the only way that people from then on could come to know of Jesus.
The event itself was quite something -- according to the Acts report, it seemed almost as momentous as it really was. Something special happened to a bunch of people sitting around in a room hanging out together. (It's inferred that the room had the full group of believers that existed at the time, the 120 or so men and women mentioned in the first chapter, but some commentators think it was just the apostles and perhaps their closest associates.) Those in the room started acting - and looking, and sounding - like they were on fire. And it flowed out into the streets.
Once in the open, a large crowd quickly gathered. Those in the crowd not only heard all sorts of languages -- they each heard their own language. For some of them, that must have been especially weird, knowing how few were there from their land. And for someone to think 'that's my language', it not only would have had to be their language, but often their own village or city's dialect. That was especially so back then, when it was easy to tell someone's home town and social class by the way they spoke. Getting all those languages and dialects right would be tough even for the most expert modern speakers of language. Picture someone from Bay Ridge being there: they would have heard not just English, not just US English, not just New York English, but Brooklynese. Language just like they speak it -- their own! God cared enough to get the gospel message to them in each person's own language! This could not have been done by those who spoke. This was the work of the Spirit on each of the speakers and on each of those in the crowd that were open enough to let the Spirit work, undoing Babel so that others would know Christ.
It's like the "tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them". Each of the those present in the room got their own individual 'flame'. Yet all the 'flames' were from a common source and were sent for a common purpose. The language each person heard was their own, their response to it was their own, but the message was the same for all, and the life-changing power came from the same source. Diversity yet also unity; variety yet from a common base; individuality yet with a common purpose.
In Acts 2, the point about the tongues was not what was said, but what was understood by those who heard it -- namely, the Gospel of Christ, for the first time ever. The Spirit was interpreting whatever it was that the apostles spoke. It's like at those United Nations events where the speaker gives a speech in their own language or language of their choice, and the ambassadors and guests hear through earphones an (hopefully) accurate translation of what is being said. The Spirit was an earphone translator for those who were there. But more : the Spirit was helping the more open folks in the crowd take it to heart. The Spirit was causing not just miraculous hearing, but miraculous listening.
There are some Christians who hold that the speakers in Acts 2 must have been speaking in some miraculous 'heavenly tongue'. It's a game question. There had to be a reason why some people thought they were drunk, even at that early hour. But the fact that people were hearing their own tongues out of a bunch of so-called 'hicks' may have been more than shocking enough. Besides, the whole scene was one which was 'aflame', full of agitation and buzz and excitement and noise. Perhaps the people were not just hearing their own language, but hearing it spoken with zest, passion, and energy -- what in most languages is described with images of fire. One does not need to propose a 'heavenly tongue' to account for what happened; human language with parahuman power would be enough. Meanwhile, the less-open ones would just hear lots of indistinguishable talking, like in an overly-gabby party or restaurant.
 

Jacksnyte

Reverend
From Speaking In Tongues
(1) 1 Corinthians is the only epistle that mentions speaking in tongues. This phenomenon has nothing to do with "praying in the Spirit" (Rom. 8; Eph. 5; Jude 20). Therefore, "speaking in tongues" is not essential, as some claim, for the life of faith of a Christian.(2) In the Scriptures, "tongues" always mean languages that really exist(ed). The Greek word "glossa" is also used in the phrase "tongues, as of fire" (Acts 2:2), to indicate the tongue as a member of the human body. It is further used in Revelation 5:9: "every tribe, tongue, and people ..." to represent the different populations on the earth, with their different languages.(3) Someone may speak in tongues (a foreign language), but this is never a proof that such a person is filled with, or even indwelt by, the Holy Spirit, let alone a spiritual believer (cf. 1 Cor. 1:5; 3:1).(4) The gift of tongues is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the sense that He gives this gift through sovereign grace to some in the Assembly and He works in them (1 Cor. 12).(5) As a gift of the Spirit, tongues receives the last place in 1 Corinthians 12:28 (which presents the order of importance from apostles and downwards) because its possibility to edify is very limited (1 Cor. 14), except in gospel work on the mission front. Paul, in his travels, spoke in foreign languages certainly using his spiritual gifts but not in his home assembly.(6) Only the apostles and some of those converted by their ministry spoke in tongues. Generally speaking, the sign-gifts are limited to the apostles (apart from the Lord, of course). See Acts 2:43; 3:7-9; 5:12, 15; 9:40; 19:11.(7) The signs are given as proofs and characteristics of the work of an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12). Apostles must have been with the Lord during His earthly ministry or have seen the Lord in the glory, as happened to Paul (Acts 1:21-26; 9:3; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8).(8) The signs and miracles, including tongues, were given by God to confirm His Word (Mk. 16:17; Heb. 2:3-4; Jn. 2:23-25). The passage in Hebrews 2 refers to sign-gifts as something of the past, already past when this epistle was written (a few years before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD).(9) Speaking in tongues is, therefore, a sign for the unbelievers (1 Cor. 14: 19-25) so they could understand what was being said (v.23). [The gift of healing is similar. We find in the New Testament that it is used only for the benefit of unbelievers (especially among the Jews, who looked for signs) to reach their conscience, to confirm the Word that was preached, and to establish the new testimony. We do not read about any healing of believers; in fact, to the contrary (see 1 Cor. 11:30; 1 Tim. 5:23; 2 Tim. 4:20; Gal. 4:13-14; 2 Cor. 12:7).](10) Speaking in tongues is only described in the book of Acts, in the three cases when new groups of believers were introduced into the Assembly (or Church) -- the Jews in ch. 2, the Gentiles in ch. 10, and the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19:6. All spoke in different languages, and that, without having asked for it!(11) With the progression of the testimony in the book of Acts, the number of signs and miracles diminishes quickly(12) Scripture presents two cases when signs and wonders take place. Most commonly, they are characteristic for the very beginning of a new dispensation. By way of exception, they also occur as a unique and temporary testimony to warn the professing people of God of soon-coming judgments. Moses, Joshua, our Lord, the twelve apostles, and the seventy that were sent out, were only sent to Israel and would fit in the first category (beginning of a new dispensation), whereas Elijah and Elisha fit in the second category (warning of judgment). The past testimony of signs and wonders, at the beginning of the Christian era, as well as a future testimony after the rapture of the Church, takes place within the borders of the Roman Empire.(13) The completion of the revelation of the Word of God put an end to the special revelations, prophecies, and sign-gifts, including speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 13:8-10). We cannot discuss in detail in this report 1 Corinthians 12-14 (see report titled Biblical Tongues), but note that we should distinguish the gifts of prophecy and revelation of the beginning (Eph. 2:20), when the Word of God was not yet completed, from the gift of prophecy for edification (building up) which still continues to the present time (1 Cor. 13:8), the Word being now complete. [It is remarkable that the apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, uses two different verbs in the Greek text to indicate a distinction between prophecy and knowledge on the one hand, which shall be done away with, and speaking in tongues on the other, of which he says "they shall cease" (1 Cor. 13:8). This last verb we could also translate with "pause," because they will function again at the introduction of the millennial reign.](14) Speaking in tongues is also presented in the New Testament as a fulfillment of Joel 2 and Isaiah 28 (1 Cor. 14:21) and, therefore, is intimately linked with Israel or the Jews. In Acts 2 and 19, and also in Corinth, the Jews are addressed by different tongues. Thus, they heard the Word of their God spoken to them with "pagan" tongues, something very exceptional. After the introduction of believing Gentiles into the Church, and after the formal closing of the Jewish dispensation (illustrated at the end of Acts 28 and implemented in the year 70 AD with the destruction of the temple), there are no more sign-gifts, at least not on behalf of God. [The enemy will fool people through an energy of error, allowed by God, in the coming days of apostasy (2 Thess. 2:8-12); however, a similar spirit of error is already at work, referred to as the mystery of iniquity.] God will give them again in the near future, connected with Israel: by the two witnesses in Jerusalem (Rev. 11) and, at the beginning of the coming millennial reign (Isa. 32; 53; Ps. 103), connected with a special healing of Israel.(15) With regard to speaking in tongues (as well as any speaking), it is stated in 1 Corinthians 14:34 that women should be silent in the local assembly. Therefore, besides the arguments already given to show that speaking in tongues as a gift of God was limited to the beginning of the Church, we now come to a command of God, given at the beginning, but still valid for today. Yet, when these "gifts" are displayed today, mostly women are involved. [This is not said to discriminate against women! It is a matter of obedience to the Lord Jesus and of submission to the authority of His Word.](16) In religious movements and cults, such as Christian Science, Theosophy, Adventism, and all kinds of Pentecostals and Charismatics, women play an important role, either in the start of such a movement or in its emotional practices. The Holy Spirit should control emotions, which is often not so. Genesis 2-3 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 indicate the place God has given to women; these passages also show how the enemy attacks God's order.(17) Wrong use of speaking in tongues, even in the days of the apostles, was caused either by ignorance (1 Cor. 14:38), by lack of experience (1 Cor. 12:1), because of spiritual imperfection or immaturity (1 Cor. 2:6-16), or even willful abuse (1 Cor. 4:19).(18) Unbelievers can do signs (Mt. 7:22; Rev. 13; 2 Th. 2:9; 2 Chr. 18:21; Acts 16:16). Furthermore, so-called speaking in tongues has been practiced in the past (even before the early days of the Church) by unbelievers and false teachers, as well as in our days: Plato, Virgil, before Christian Era; Irving, 19th century; Mormons, Buddhists, Spiritists, besides so-called Charismatics, in past and present days.(19) True believers can place themselves under wrong, diabolical influences, as occurred to Peter (Mt. 16:21-23). (20) The tongues at the beginning of the Christian era were real languages that could be verified. Today, those who pretend to speak in languages (tongues) do not know what language they speak nor what they say. Sometimes they try to justify themselves by saying that they are speaking in the tongues of angels (because nobody can check this). (21) Often there is no interpretation, in contrast to Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 14. In reality, uncontrolled expressions that nobody can translate are pronounced; sometimes even curses are uttered, though in a language none of those present understands. If they give interpretations, they may contradict each other, or they are sometimes much longer than the tongue-spoken message, or they are very subjective, instead of glorifying Christ.(22) A key passage is 1 Corinthians 14:15. This verse shows the one praying, singing, or speaking in tongues (and in context this refers to men in the public meetings of the local assembly) must himself understand what he speaks. (23) To heed this principle would be very beneficial for many Christians today, who are involved in all kinds of manmade systems and may be placing themselves (often without realizing it) under demonic influences. Even so-called "singing in tongues" is practiced today.....
 

Jacksnyte

Reverend
from http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/char/speaking.htm
Conclusion:Speaking in tongues, when practiced according to the Bible, is a sign from God given to warn unbelievers of impending judgment. Because of this point, Scripture provides limiting conditions for its use within the Church, including the requirement that an interpretation should be given (also in the case of a visitor speaking a foreign language).Furthermore, tongues were a characteristic of apostolic ministry, to confirm the Word of God in a time when the Church was not yet established in all its diversity and when the revealed Word of God was not yet completed. The destruction of the temple closed the days of the Jewish era. With the establishment of the new Christian testimony, which included Jewish Christians, the exercise of the sign-gifts, including speaking in tongues, simply stopped. (On the foundation of the apostles and prophets of the New Testament, Ephesians 2:20; Paul's ministry completed the Word of God and closed the period in which God gave revelations.) Therefore, the modern-day tongues movement must be rejected as a demonic influence which serves several purposes: (1) To keep believers in ignorance and spiritual immaturity; (2) To suggest that right now, in a day of small things like in Zechariah 4:10, we can have the same "great things of God" (Acts 2:11) as in the early days of the Church; (3) To suggest that we are not under Gods dealings in discipline, because of decline and disobedience;(4) To sow discord among Christians, while creating outward unity; (5) To mobilize emotions, which are not controlled by the Spirit and Word of God.
 

Jacksnyte

Reverend
Now, I don't subscribe to any of these beliefs specifically, but I would like to know what people from various traditions make of this. I believe we are aware of what Pentecostal and Charismatic christians, etc. think about this, but what about others?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Have the Pentcostals thought that their gibberish may be the words of the Devil?

As Jacksnyte pointed out, they are speaking in similar fashion as the practitioners of Voodoo, speaking no language but uttering unintelligible while they in ecstatic trances, ecstasy similar to those so-called gifted in Speaking in Tongues.

I am not in anyway impressed with these Pentecostal Christians. If anything I disturbed by their complete stupidity; that's the only that impress me, their stupidity. If there is any sect of Christianity I wouldn't join, this Pentecostal sect is certainly be one of the top 5 (sects) that I wouldn't join.

Unfortunately this sensation in the US have spread among small groups of Australian believers, making fools of themselves as the American brothers. Have they no shame in their deception (pretending to have gifts which they clearly don't have)?
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
Have the Pentcostals thought that their gibberish may be the words of the Devil?

As Jacksnyte pointed out, they are speaking in similar fashion as the practitioners of Voodoo, speaking no language but uttering unintelligible while they in ecstatic trances, ecstasy similar to those so-called gifted in Speaking in Tongues.

I am not in anyway impressed with these Pentecostal Christians. If anything I disturbed by their complete stupidity; that's the only that impress me, their stupidity. If there is any sect of Christianity I wouldn't join, this Pentecostal sect is certainly be one of the top 5 (sects) that I wouldn't join.

Unfortunately this sensation in the US have spread among small groups of Australian believers, making fools of themselves as the American brothers. Have they no shame in their deception (pretending to have gifts which they clearly don't have)?

A person with a gift of tongues could also have the gift of discerning spirits. There is no doubt the devil can speak languages. When a demon attacked my wife through a ouiga board he spoke latin. This was not a language with which she was familiar. However a person shouldn't have too much trouble figuring out that an attack isn't coming from God.
 

Jacksnyte

Reverend
I think it would be interesting to have an exorcist approach someone "speaking in tongues" and attempt to "cast out the demon"! I bet you would see an abrupt change in the behavior of the one recieving this "gift" of tongues.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I think it would be interesting to have an exorcist approach someone "speaking in tongues" and attempt to "cast out the demon"! I bet you would see an abrupt change in the behavior of the one recieving this "gift" of tongues.

Maybe ortongues might be the best way to counter a person laboring under a misapprehension.
 

TEXASBULL

Member
You see, here is my problem: in the New Testament, the gift of tongues made them more intelligible to everyone present, not less intelligible. I suspect that the practice of speaking in tongues as practiced by Pentecostals and Charismatics etc., has a lot more in common with the oracle at Delphi, and various Vodun sects.
Here is a quote from the New Testament that is the primary basis for the whole idea:

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.[5]
While those on whom the Spirit had descended were speaking in tongues, the disciple Peter stood up with the eleven and proclaimed to the crowd that this event was the fulfillment of the prophecy ("I will pour out my spirit") inJoel 2:28-29: Acts 2:41 reports: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."
I think that all these Christians who claim to be speaking in tongues as the apostles did are doing something else entirely!

Nope. When Paul spoke in tongues he said " NO MAN UNDERSTANDS" , but he speaks heavenly mysteries. Acts was a different manifestation. Todays christians are usually trying to do what Paul did, " pray in the Spirit'.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
muffled said:
A person with a gift of tongues could also have the gift of discerning spirits. There is no doubt the devil can speak languages. When a demon attacked my wife through a ouiga board he spoke latin. This was not a language with which she was familiar. However a person shouldn't have too much trouble figuring out that an attack isn't coming from God.

Do you seriously think that the Speaking in Tongue is speaking the language of heaven? And do seriously believe that angels and demons spoke different languages?

According to Christian teaching, 3rd of the angels in heaven had fallen with Satan (not that I believe this myth), so these so-called demons were those who had fallen.

So if there was a language in heaven (not that I believe in heaven), don't you think that demons who possessed your wife would also know this heavenly-speak as well as any human language?

I find it hard to believe that Satan and God don't speak the same language, considering that God and Satan had converse with one another, in Job. Or did they speak in Hebrew?
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Nope. When Paul spoke in tongues he said " NO MAN UNDERSTANDS" , but he speaks heavenly mysteries. Acts was a different manifestation. Todays christians are usually trying to do what Paul did, " pray in the Spirit'.

Where did Paul say NO MAN UNDERSTANDS ?

1st Cor 14v9 ...except you utter by the tongue words easy to understand,
how will it be known what is spoken? for you will be speaking into the air.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
That Wikipedia page is pretty good at explaining why glossolalia is not considered a genuine human language. When I was an assistant professor of linguistics, we occasionally got calls from local groups about this. In one case, someone sent us a tape asking to identify the language being spoken. It was clearly not a real language, but a stream of nonsense syllables.

Every human language has a limited set of basic speech sounds called "phonemes". English has about 43 phonemes, but the inventory of sounds can vary. When you listen to English-based glossolalia, what you hear is a string of syllables comprised of two types of speech sounds--English phonemes and sounds that English speakers typically associate with a foreign accent (e.g. trilled "r"). What you almost never hear are some of the more exotic speech sounds that characterize real foreign languages--clicks, imploded stops, glottalized stops, pitch stress, tone differences, etc. In other words, the stream of syllables produced is exactly what you would expect if the speaker were making it all up and did not know much about what foreign languages are really like.

Now, Klingon--that is more authentic "speaking in tongues". :D
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Do you seriously think that the Speaking in Tongue is speaking the language of heaven? And do seriously believe that angels and demons spoke different languages?

According to Christian teaching, 3rd of the angels in heaven had fallen with Satan (not that I believe this myth), so these so-called demons were those who had fallen.

So if there was a language in heaven (not that I believe in heaven), don't you think that demons who possessed your wife would also know this heavenly-speak as well as any human language?

I find it hard to believe that Satan and God don't speak the same language, considering that God and Satan had converse with one another, in Job. Or did they speak in Hebrew?

I think you are laboring under a misconctruction. Sometimes charismatics will say that they are speaking in a heavenly language. Perhaps they mean a language from Heaven but that seems to be a desire of the self for it to be so. Tongues are most often God given so I can understand the assumption but God knows all the languages, not only from our sphere but others as well.

It would make sense that angels and demon wish to communicate in a language that a person understands. In my wife's case it was not a language that she understood but the demon might have done that on purpose to convince her that he was real. Up to that point she didn't believe in spirits.

It is wild speculation to say that God or Heaven has its own language.

They would have to speak the same language to understand each other. However there is no implication as to what that language was. Job is one of the oldest books of the Bible. The Hebrew is so old that some of the words are not translatable because no-one knows their meaning.
 
Top