i believe that those speaking are speaking in a unknown tongue (language) and will sound sometimes like babble, but if you read you will see it said people heard in the own language, it did not say the speaker spoke in their language it said others heard in their own language. I believe they are saying there are people there people there with different languages but yet they ALL heard in their Own language not that the speaker spoke in multiple languages at one time.
There are (unfortunately) absolutely no documented cases of xenoglossy - anywhere. Thousands of examples of tongues-speech have been studied. Not one was ever found to be a real rational language, living or dead. Despite this, the tongues-speaking community is rife with such examples. Unfortunately, every one of them seems to be anecdotal at best. Things along the lines of “It happened a while ago to a friend's third cousin on his mother's side, and a visitor from West Bubbatania happened to be visiting and recognized the language.” This visitor, of course, went back home and there's no way to verify that the anecdote actually took place. Or the event happened in some remote jungle somewhere with the same results. The quintessential example circulating a few years ago was tongues coming out as Hebrew or Aramaic. It got to the point where it was almost cliché and reached virtual urban legend status. Any pastor worth their salt had to have such a story in their repertoire. If something that profound happened, I should think that the tongues-speaker would, at the very least, want to know specifically what language s/he was supposedly speaking and would want to ask the person who heard him/her exactly what was said. To most however, the specific details are recalled rather vaguely at best. In addition - what was supposedly said - a few words, a monologue? Did other people hear the switch from tongues-speech to the target language, or did they just continue to hear tongues-speech? What is the speaker's experience with the target language? The fact that specific names are given is almost irrelevant; it's their exposure to the target language. Yours would be a first. As to the Spanish sermon - kind of sounds to me like perhaps he memorized a sermon since he only seems to be able to recall those specific sentences. I have taught Scouts short meal graces in various Native American languages and they can recite the grace and know what it means, but do not speak the specific language. If you're plopped down in a country, you're going to learn that language in pretty short order. It's not only the best way to learn a language (complete and total immersion), but also part survival instinct. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" - and there is only one type - 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 be explained in relatively simple 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. _Nowhere in the Bible is modern tongues-speech advocated or evidenced._ “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”, it signifies that 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. As one commenter put it, “Speaking in tongues distracts the ego/analytical/conscious mind while leaving the subconscious (the heart) wide open to import the divine." 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”. Indeed, as one writer puts it: “You want this to be real. You’ve convinced yourself it’s real. 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.” 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”; as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, people still speak.
I see that you have copy-pasted this comment from elsewhere. Clearly you didn't watch the whole video, as Jordan provides several examples of documented xenoglossy. Not from "a friend's third cousin on his mother's side, and a visitor from West Bubbatania", but real people that you yourself can interview if you want. I myself has interviewed dozens of people who have experienced xenoglossy, many of which were witnesses to the same event. So your claim that there are absolutely no documented cases of xenoglossy is simply false.
@@Charismactivism It was cut and pasted from my own notes. Yes, I did watch the whole thing - hence my comments. Despite having the people known, the stories are still quite anecdotal. None of them address the speaker's experience with the target language. I don't need to speak Spanish to know what "yo quiero Taco Bell", or "no tango dinero", etc. means. You pick up subconsciously from just haring a language spoken around you. There are several questions that are not answered - what did other people hear, besides the intended target? Tongues-speech, or did the speaker actually switch from tongues-speech to the target language? Did the target physically hear the language spoken, or did they just hear it in their mind's ear? Is it a word, a phrase, or an actual monologue? If a word or phrase, is it generic in nature ? The list goes on. My experience has been that the more one investigates, the more natural the explanation. If indeed these accounts are true xenoglossy, they would be the first.
That's not true, either. Historians documenting people's experiences is a valid type of research. What you mention seems along the lines of Samarin's research. Has anyone ever tested Samarin's or other linguists who use the same methods by presenting them with obscure, but real language samples to see if these linguists consider them to be babbling?
@@SaudaraLink Yes, there have such studies. Here’s the thing; real rational language is unmistakable, as is glossolalia. If you listen carefully for about a minute, there’s really no way to mistake one for the other. As linguist Dr. William Welmers puts it: “Among us (Linguists), we have heard many hundreds of languages. Furthermore, we have heard representative languages in virtually every group of related languages in the world. At worst we may have missed a few small groups in the interior of South America or in New Guinea. I would estimate that the chances are at least even that if a glossolalic utterance is in a known language, one of us would either recognize the language or recognize that it is similar to some language we are acquainted with." Dr. Welmers further makes this challenge: "Get two recordings, one of a glossolalic utterance and the other in a real language remote from anything I have ever heard. I'm confident that in just a few moments I could tell which is which and why I am sure of it."
Your statement is false on the historical side of things, there is documentation. A relatively small sample of lab research does not represent all the information available on this. You should open up to the idea that there is other knowledge outside of one academic field. I also moderate a forum on Facebook, and a number of people I have met and people I know through the forum have either heard tongues in a language they knew or had their tongues identified. One brother, a comoderator on the forum with a doctorate in theology knows of two individuals who do not know English who have spoken it in tongues, one a German-speaking Swiss and the other a Hungarian. One spoke in 'King James' English as he described it. I'd be curious to hear it to see if it fits the reconstruction or is Early Modern English with a Late Modern English accent. He gave me the Facebook contact for one of them, but the man doesn't speak English and I don't speak German. I read an article by Dennis Balchome in which he said he'd heard Chinese villagers speak in tongues in English. Shortly thereafter, his daughter sang at a church I attended. I mentioned it to her and she'd heard that also. Real life events are evidence, too, and in academia can serve as the basis for historiographies and case studies.
I have a PhD in business administration, and I do some research. As a Christian and Bible teacher who believes in spiritual gifts, I find this kind of research interesting. I notice that some skeptics say there is no research that supports 'xenoglossic glossalalia' or whatever we call it. I would like to see some historical, experimental, etc. research methodology used to document these type of events in peer-reviewed academic journals. If skeptics could find a number of articles on Google Scholar, AB Inform, EBSCO, etc. that are peer reviewed, that might silence some of them and give them something to read on the subject. In some academic fields, books are well-accepted, but in other fields, it has to be in an academic journal article.
i believe that those speaking are speaking in a unknown tongue (language) and will sound sometimes like babble, but if you read you will see it said people heard in the own language, it did not say the speaker spoke in their language it said others heard in their own language. I believe they are saying there are people there people there with different languages but yet they ALL heard in their Own language not that the speaker spoke in multiple languages at one time.
There are (unfortunately) absolutely no documented cases of xenoglossy - anywhere. Thousands of examples of tongues-speech have been studied. Not one was ever found to be a real rational language, living or dead. Despite this, the tongues-speaking community is rife with such examples. Unfortunately, every one of them seems to be anecdotal at best. Things along the lines of “It happened a while ago to a friend's third cousin on his mother's side, and a visitor from West Bubbatania happened to be visiting and recognized the language.” This visitor, of course, went back home and there's no way to verify that the anecdote actually took place. Or the event happened in some remote jungle somewhere with the same results. The quintessential example circulating a few years ago was tongues coming out as Hebrew or Aramaic. It got to the point where it was almost cliché and reached virtual urban legend status. Any pastor worth their salt had to have such a story in their repertoire. If something that profound happened, I should think that the tongues-speaker would, at the very least, want to know specifically what language s/he was supposedly speaking and would want to ask the person who heard him/her exactly what was said. To most however, the specific details are recalled rather vaguely at best. In addition - what was supposedly said - a few words, a monologue? Did other people hear the switch from tongues-speech to the target language, or did they just continue to hear tongues-speech? What is the speaker's experience with the target language? The fact that specific names are given is almost irrelevant; it's their exposure to the target language. Yours would be a first. As to the Spanish sermon - kind of sounds to me like perhaps he memorized a sermon since he only seems to be able to recall those specific sentences. I have taught Scouts short meal graces in various Native American languages and they can recite the grace and know what it means, but do not speak the specific language. If you're plopped down in a country, you're going to learn that language in pretty short order. It's not only the best way to learn a language (complete and total immersion), but also part survival instinct.
There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" - and there is only one type - 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 be explained in relatively simple 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. _Nowhere in the Bible is modern tongues-speech advocated or evidenced._
“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”, it signifies that 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. As one commenter put it, “Speaking in tongues distracts the ego/analytical/conscious mind while leaving the subconscious (the heart) wide open to import the divine." 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”. Indeed, as one writer puts it: “You want this to be real. You’ve convinced yourself it’s real. 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.”
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”; as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, people still speak.
I see that you have copy-pasted this comment from elsewhere. Clearly you didn't watch the whole video, as Jordan provides several examples of documented xenoglossy. Not from "a friend's third cousin on his mother's side, and a visitor from West Bubbatania", but real people that you yourself can interview if you want. I myself has interviewed dozens of people who have experienced xenoglossy, many of which were witnesses to the same event. So your claim that there are absolutely no documented cases of xenoglossy is simply false.
@@Charismactivism
It was cut and pasted from my own notes.
Yes, I did watch the whole thing - hence my comments. Despite having the people known, the stories are still quite anecdotal. None of them address the speaker's experience with the target language. I don't need to speak Spanish to know what "yo quiero Taco Bell", or "no tango dinero", etc. means. You pick up subconsciously from just haring a language spoken around you. There are several questions that are not answered - what did other people hear, besides the intended target? Tongues-speech, or did the speaker actually switch from tongues-speech to the target language? Did the target physically hear the language spoken, or did they just hear it in their mind's ear? Is it a word, a phrase, or an actual monologue? If a word or phrase, is it generic in nature ? The list goes on. My experience has been that the more one investigates, the more natural the explanation. If indeed these accounts are true xenoglossy, they would be the first.
That's not true, either. Historians documenting people's experiences is a valid type of research.
What you mention seems along the lines of Samarin's research. Has anyone ever tested Samarin's or other linguists who use the same methods by presenting them with obscure, but real language samples to see if these linguists consider them to be babbling?
@@SaudaraLink
Yes, there have such studies. Here’s the thing; real rational language is unmistakable, as is glossolalia. If you listen carefully for about a minute, there’s really no way to mistake one for the other.
As linguist Dr. William Welmers puts it: “Among us (Linguists), we have heard many hundreds of languages. Furthermore, we have heard representative languages in virtually every group of related languages in the world. At worst we may have missed a few small groups in the interior of South America or in New Guinea. I would estimate that the chances are at least even that if a glossolalic utterance is in a known language, one of us would either recognize the language or recognize that it is similar to some language we are acquainted with."
Dr. Welmers further makes this challenge: "Get two recordings, one of a glossolalic utterance and the other in a real language remote from anything I have ever heard. I'm confident that in just a few moments I could tell which is which and why I am sure of it."
Your statement is false on the historical side of things, there is documentation. A relatively small sample of lab research does not represent all the information available on this. You should open up to the idea that there is other knowledge outside of one academic field.
I also moderate a forum on Facebook, and a number of people I have met and people I know through the forum have either heard tongues in a language they knew or had their tongues identified.
One brother, a comoderator on the forum with a doctorate in theology knows of two individuals who do not know English who have spoken it in tongues, one a German-speaking Swiss and the other a Hungarian. One spoke in 'King James' English as he described it. I'd be curious to hear it to see if it fits the reconstruction or is Early Modern English with a Late Modern English accent. He gave me the Facebook contact for one of them, but the man doesn't speak English and I don't speak German.
I read an article by Dennis Balchome in which he said he'd heard Chinese villagers speak in tongues in English. Shortly thereafter, his daughter sang at a church I attended. I mentioned it to her and she'd heard that also.
Real life events are evidence, too, and in academia can serve as the basis for historiographies and case studies.
I have a PhD in business administration, and I do some research. As a Christian and Bible teacher who believes in spiritual gifts, I find this kind of research interesting.
I notice that some skeptics say there is no research that supports 'xenoglossic glossalalia' or whatever we call it. I would like to see some historical, experimental, etc. research methodology used to document these type of events in peer-reviewed academic journals. If skeptics could find a number of articles on Google Scholar, AB Inform, EBSCO, etc. that are peer reviewed, that might silence some of them and give them something to read on the subject.
In some academic fields, books are well-accepted, but in other fields, it has to be in an academic journal article.
Samarin's work as well as F. Goodman's are good places to start.