I started listening to Pastor John messages and I have truly been Blessed 🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽this is a pastor who carried a great anointing that rested on his shoulders 🙌🏽
These classic sermons are refreshing. They are also a reminder of just how far the nation has fallen. Instead of teaching kids, woke/dem schools are confusing kindergartners about their gender. The world is falling into the pit of hell while proudly shouting its woke religion
"May the nations praise you, O God. Yes, may all the nations praise you. Then the earth will yield its harvests, and God, our God, will richly bless us. Yes, God will bless us, and people all over the world will fear him." (Psalm 67:5-7)
This entire family is beautiful! He should be still here! Because, Pastor Joel Osteen and his family, is kicking behinds! His daddy is so young! Lord, Jesus Give this entire family of Osteens and family and friends, s long, long, life! Amen.
Those who judged the Pastor, reminds me of those who God had Job to Pray for! The Pastor will judge those who were an accuser of the brethern? This Pastor not only knows his Bible! He, also, knew God!
I love these videos, Pastor, Joel, sir! Can you do a dual performance of you, two, most loving and Powerful Preachers! Like, Nat King Cole and, her daddy! It would be Outstanding! That's why you have so many people! Those, in the audience, individually, have been Elevated! He's looking down on you , Pastor, Joel, sir! And, you are going to make it!
Nahhhhhhh, I'm going to DISAGREE w/ his statement that "every believer" has the Holy Ghost. That's simply NOT BIBLICAL. when a person receives the REAL HOLY GHOST it will be like the 120 followers received it on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1-4. The apostles who were "believers" did not receive the Holy Spirit until Acts 2:4. So believers today can be a BELIEVER but does not have the Holy Spirit until they have an Acts 2:4 experience.
To try and provide a quick summary to what would otherwise be a rather long post…. No offense intended to anyone who practices glossolalia, however, it is simply an advanced form of learned word-play; anyone can learn to do it. It only has specific significance in a cultural or religious context where it is part of that cultural or religious belief system. To quickly summarize: Glossolalia will ONLY contain those phonemes found in a speaker’s native language, or any other language s/he may be familiar with or have been exposed to either knowingly or otherwise. Glossolalia is governed by the SAME phonological rules that apply to the speaker’s native language(s) In other words, if a person knows or has only ever been exposed to say English, their glossolalia will not contain the sounds made by say, the German ü or ö, nor any sound or combination of sounds that do not occur naturally in English. Further, the phonological rules of their glossolalia will conform to the same phonological rules of English. Syllable structure is also rather unique to some degree. Glossolalia typically exhibits a very open syllable structure, that is, the syllables of a given string (I hesitate to use “word”) are typically Consonant (C) Vowel (V) and strings typically consist of a repetition of this structure, so something like CVCVCVCV, etc. With the final segment of the string, there seems to be a choice of using either an open syllable or a closed one (a closed syllable has the structure CVC). Where I have C (consonant) here, it should be understood, for simplicity’s sake, that it could be just a single consonant or an allowed consonant cluster. Glossolalia most closely resembles babbling in structure. The typical syllable structure of “babble” is CVCV (i.e. open syllables no matter what your native language may favor). Small children, learn it the same way they learn almost anything - by observation, repetition, imitation, positive reinforcement and encouragement from adults. Older people learn it by watching and imitating what they see and hear. Once a person learns the methodology behind it, glossolalia can be done at will in any setting; church, sitting in a chair at home, wherever. I don't believe that it must first present itself in a church setting either - initial presentation can be virtually anywhere. No one (I don’t think anyway) actually sits down and decides that “today I’m going to start learning how to speak in tongues”. It is learned by exposure to the environment or cultural/religious setting in which glossolalia occurs and either consciously or subconsciously imitating what is occurring (typically imitating the most prominent person (the "guide" as some describe it). There even exist many instructional type videos on RUclips which are clearly indicative of a learned behavior. The videos and “instructions” I have seen are very similar to how one learns to enter a meditative state and allow your mind to simply play with the language. The other issue with glossolalia which seems to diminish its validity as something divinely acquired seems to be the supposed interpretation of a given string or strings. The results of studies done were very non-inspiring: ask ten different people, get ten different answers. No two interpretations were even remotely similar.. I am forced to conclude that glossolalia is very much a learned behaviour - anyone can learn to do it. With some it comes easier than for others (much the same way as learning a foreign language). As one becomes more comfortable with it, and the more one is exposed to the phenomenon in various (typically religious) settings, the more easily it is produced and the more complex it seems to become. It is nothing more than advanced forms of word play done within the subconscious and its production by anyone may boil down to simply a matter of not being “afraid to play with your language” - something almost anyone over the age of four or so has forgotten how to do! Glossolalia is not divine; it is simply a tool the shaman, healer, Christian praying, uses to channel the divine. Glossolalia, by the way, is by no means exclusively the realm of Christianity - many cultures employ glossolalia as part of their cultural tradition; from Siberia, to Borneo to Native America. It is all the same glossolalia produced the exact same way. As far as people quoting Acts as support of glossolalia…. What supposedly happened at Pentecost is NOT glossolalia at all; it’s called xenoglossia - the ability to speak in a LIVING language the speaker has in no way, shape or form ever been exposed to. That said, however, I suspect the story has a much less dramatic reality and was enhanced, as stories often are, long before ever being committed to writing. Yes, there were Jews from many different countries and regions gathered in Jerusalem, but most were from the Mediterranean basin, a very heavily Hellenized area - virtually everyone spoke Koine Greek to some degree; it was the ‘English’ of its day. I would suggest that it was simply just the apostles preaching to the people in Koine Greek and the story was simply ‘enhanced’ as stories often are, to the version we have recorded today (i.e. speaking in various living languages). The true gift may have simply been the apostles finding the courage to go out and preach; these were people supposedly literally in fear of their lives after the death of the historical Jesus. The gift of the spirit may have simply been the courage for them to overcome this fear. The language used was simply Greek - understood in various degrees by virtually everyone in the Greco-Roman world. Incidentally, there are no known solid, provable cases of xenoglossia - some of the better known cases have proven, upon closer and intense examination, not to be true examples of xenoglossia; all speakers were at some time or another exposed to the target language they were exhibiting in their xenoglossia.
Kavik v.d.Hexenholtz you believe the Bible is puffed up? that's not good. is Noah's ark, Jonah, Job, Jesus walking on water , his birth death and Resurrection are they puffed up too?
Not sure what you mean by "puffed up", but concerning 'tongues' in the Bible, see the posts below...... PART 1 When it comes to “tongues”, there are two separate issues at hand; ‘tongues’ as described in the Bible, and the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic practice/understanding of ‘tongues’. With the latter, we may also include ‘tongues’/glossolalia as practiced by many non-Christians in their various cultural traditions. The first issue (Biblical tongues) is in no way mutually inclusive with the latter two as they are totally different phenomenon. Biblical ‘tongues’ are simply real languages, perhaps unknown (i.e. foreign) to those listening to them, but known by the speaker (typically his/her native language). This view is not derived from any particular religious context (I am neither a so-called cessationist or a continuationist), but one based on a more in depth reading (through the lens of linguistics - I’m a Linguist) of what is actually written in the Pentecostal narrative of Acts, and in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians; the two main sources cited as evidence for modern ‘tongues’. Further, all Biblical references to ‘tongue(s)’ (‘glossa’) describes one of two things: the physical organ in the mouth, or real language(s). There are many misinterpretations and “misreadings” (for lack of a better term) that most people don’t even think about when reading Acts and Corinthians. One such example is the “list” in Acts 2:9-11 - most assume it is a list of languages. It is not. It is essentially a list of geographic locations and nationalities; specifically, those of the Jewish Diaspora (Cyprus and Syria are missing - perhaps due to copyist errors over time). In fact, not one place in the entire Pentecostal narrative is even one language ever referenced by name…not one. Further, nowhere in the entire narrative does it suggest that communication was even a problem to begin with! The Pentecostal narrative, contrary to how many interpret it, does not describe xenoglossy, nor does it describe a miracle of hearing; the “other languages” referred to were simply Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongues (sic!) of those local Jews in attendance as well as those of the Diaspora. Wait a second - “other languages” you may ask? Other than what? The answer lies in an overlooked aspect of Judaism; ecclesiastical diglossia. The rules of ecclesiastical diglossia of the time demanded that teaching, evangelization, etc. such as what occurred at Pentecost be done in Hebrew (though Greek was slowly gaining influence as an acceptable alternative). The Jews gathered there expected to hear Hebrew, the culturally (and religiously) correct language to use in this situation - instead they heard the apostles speaking in their native languages of Greek and Aramaic; both of which the apostles would have spoken. The result was amazement, wonder, astonishment and even ridicule at such an obvious breach of cultural “etiquette”. These men were Galileans after all; they should know better! The real miracle of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost may simply have been to give the disciples the courage and spiritual strength to “spread the word” and to dispose of the cultural necessity to do so in one (or two) language(s) (i.e. observe strict adherence to ecclesiastical diglossia). They would now break that cultural barrier and use the local vernaculars, and speak to the people in a language they understood without fear of any reprise. As this cultural barrier was now broken, the disciples, one could almost say, “paved the way” for the quick spreading of a new religion called Christianity. Getting back to our “list”, on another level, it could very well be argued that Luke’s purpose in presenting this list (with Cyprus and Syria missing) was perhaps not intended to represent linguistic diversity (and in fact, as we have just seen, it really doesn’t), but rather may suggest that the first apostolic ministry was to the Jewish Nation as a whole (Diaspora included). Turning to Corinthians, it must be kept in mind that we are dealing with Paul’s response to an issue at public worship services in that city. It must also be born in mind that Corinth was a multi-cultural, multi-lingual city on not one, but two ports. Though Greek was the language of Corinth as well as the ‘English of its day (i.e. almost everyone was familiar with it to some degree), communication in general between people from different lands and countries must have been difficult at best as it would have had to be conducted in Greek; a language, as mentioned, not everyone knew equally as well. At first glance, Corinthians presents what at first may seem like a slew of evidence for tongues-speech (T-speech), particularly two passages: 1 Cor. 14:2, and 1 Cor. 14:13-14. Many will go to 1 Cor. 14:2 as “proof” of tongues being spiritual language(s) - but upon closer examination, it simply describes real language, though a foreign one to the “hearers”. Note that nowhere does the passage state that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying. To explain it further, as one writer put it, “Think of it this way; if I showed up at a Bible study and began to speak in German, but no one else in the room could speak German, I might impress a few people, but no one would understand me. So if I speak in a language that no one else in the room can speak, I am in fact not speaking to men, but to God (who alone can understand all languages). Anything I say would be a mystery to those in the room. That is what Paul was trying to convey” by people speaking a foreign language at a public worship. Another way to look at it is this: if I attend a worship service in ‘East Haystack’, Alabama two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone in East Haystack speaks anything *but* English is pretty slim to nil. If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a bloody word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one *there* will understand my “tongue”. That does *not *mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service. So it ends up being a “real language no one understands” (within that given context). To the people listening to me, I am speaking ‘mysteries” in the Spirit (i.e. I’m praying earnestly from my heart and from deep within my being = praying ‘in the spirit’). Corinthians 14:13-14 seems to present a problem with respect to T-speech as real language(s). “Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.” If a person speaks in a foreign language (as his first language), let him pray that he can adequately translate what he’s saying into the language of Corinth (Greek). It seems somewhat odd at first, but when you take into consideration the intricacies of translating (even something that appears easy and straightforward at first glance), it’s really no wonder that Paul admonishes the person to pray for guidance that he may translate it (adequately and correctly) into Greek. I have translated a simple four line meal’s grace into several local Native American languages of northern New England and can attest that what seems so simple at first; four simple lines, can be maddeningly difficult - it’s not just the grammar, it’s also the cultural aspect - what you say, or the way you say something, in language X, may not be anything like how it needs to be said in language Y. In light of the intricacies involved in translating, I don’t see verse 13 as being an issue with respect to real language. With respect to verse 14, I am going to quote from an article (A New Look At Tongues Part II) by Robert Zerhusen who explains it much better than I can: “1 Corinthians 14:14 is probably the main text used to argue that the language speaker did not understand his language. Paul says that if he should speak in a language (without translation), "my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful [akarpos]." Lenski takes akarposas passive: "my nous or understanding" is inactive and thus akarpos--"barren," "unfruitful," producing no distinct thoughts". Paul could also be using akarpos in the active sense: A decision upon its meaning centers in akarpos ("unfruitful") whether the adjective is passive in sense, meaning the speaker himself receives no benefit, or active in sense, meaning his nous (understanding) provides no benefit to others...The view that assigns akarpos a meaning of "produces nothing, contributes nothing to the process"... is not convincing, because akarpos does not mean "inactive." It is a word for results and does not apply to the process through which the results are obtained. The present discussion does not center on the activity or nonactivity of the tongues speaker's mind, but rather on potential benefit derived by listeners. The whole context of 1 Corinthians 14 is the effect upon the hearers of untranslated languages. Paul’s concern is the edification of the group. Therefore, 14:14 should be taken as "My spirit prays but my mind does not produce fruit [in others]." This says nothing about whether or not the speaker understood his own utterance.” In fact, you’re not going to find anywhere where it specifically indicates that the speaker either does or does not understand what he is saying. It’s simply never definitively stated. It has to be inferred from context. If you adhere to T-speech, then the speaker does not understand what he’s saying. With real languages, he does. We can quickly dismiss 1 Cor. 13:1 as it’s simply hyperbole.
PART 2 I think many times these passages are interpreted by certain religious groups to fit their understanding and practice of modern tongues (T-speech). Modern Pentecostal/Charismatic tongues are a totally different animal. It’s simply the Christian form of glossolalia. Glossolalia itself being simply, as Robert Zerhusen terms it, “non-cognitive non-language utterances” (NC-NLU’s) composed of random free vocalization (essentially “playing with language”). Due to the nature of glossolalia, the language producing centers of the brain (particularly the area controlling grammar) are not overly engaged when one practices it, as a study done by the University of Pennsylvania (2010), using SPECT imaging, demonstrated. Mr. Zerhusen, by the way, is a pastor and theologian whose interests include the application of cultural anthropology and linguistics to NT studies. Glossolalia consists of *only* those sounds found in the speaker’s native language (and any language they may have been exposed to); anyone can learn to produce it relatively easily. Further, ‘word’ stress and general accent are typically those of the speaker’s native language. A person from Georgia is going to sound like a person from Georgia when “speaking tongues”, i.e. there’s no “foreign accent”, so to speak, in their glossolalia. American speakers do however typically trill their r’s when “speaking in tongues” (with some it’s more a what’s called a ‘flap’ than an actual trilled ‘r’ - the ‘t’ in “water”) - it makes the glossic utterance sound more “foreign”. All of the preceding also applies to the so-called “singing in the Spirit”; it is simply sung glossolalia rather than spoken. Glossolalia as practiced in most other cultural and/or faith traditions around the world typically entails a petitioner seeking aid in the emotional and/or spiritual healing process, who is helped by the practitioner (minister, priest, shaman, healer - whatever s/he is called in that culture). It is rarely, if ever, the petitioner him/her self who is engaging in the actual glossolalia; it’s almost always involves a third party. In these instances glossolalia is used as a tool to establish a ‘connection’ to the divine, a message is received (either directly or indirectly via an interpreter) that is extremely pertinent to this third party’s situation and, as a result, with the message delivered, the petitioner may begin the process of emotional/spiritual healing. Though this more ‘correct”, if I may call it that, use of glossolalia does occur the context of Christianity, from all accounts I have read or been told about, instances of this are exceedingly rare. Whether or not it is rare because most people do not practice glossolalia ‘correctly’ (due to a misconception of what it actually is) is a matter for further study/debate. In addition, whether or not Christian practitioners realize that glossolalia is simply the tool used to enter into the process (not the means) may also be a matter for debate. The bottom line is that by far the more common practice used by Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians seems to be one of “interpreting Scripture” to fit the modern practice/connotation of what glossolalia is perceived to be. The only praying going on with tongues is the deep subconscious praying of the individual (in whatever their native language happens to be; inspired, of course, by their deep faith and beliefs). There is nothing divine or miraculous going on here. There is nothing being done that can’t be explained in natural terms. If you really stop and think about it, the Holy Spirit (being one of three aspects of God, if you subscribe to the concept of the Trinity) does not need to inspire people on how to pray to itself. Interpretation may again also be inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs, but the relatively generic messages of most interpretations do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. This is clearly evidenced in that if one gives the same glossic string to ten different people who can interpret tongues, one will get ten different interpretations typically non-related to each other. The all too common come-back to this issue of ‘multiple interpretations’ is that God/the Holy Spirit simply gives different interpretations to different people. As one on-line writer quips (and I couldn’t have said it better myself), “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist - there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for glossolalia in the first place.” Another internet writer puts it rather bluntly - “People who claim to speak in tongues need to understand that they are making a testable claim. The claim has been tested, numerous times. And the tongues speakers have failed the test, every single time.” This same writer further goes on to say: “You want this to be real. You’ve convinced yourself it’s real. The only reason it sounds like a language is that you want it to sound like a language. But it’s not. It’s meaningless. You’re not producing a language. It's a purely manufactured experience initially created by psychological manipulation (all the praise music and the sort of altered state that it puts you in to begin with... and the emotional frenzy of the service before that) as well as intense pressure to perform from those standing around you.” The above is admittedly a somewhat harsh statement from a former tongues speaker, but it begs the question of just how accurate the above paragraph really is. I suspect more than most practitioners would care to admit. Glossolalia mimics language, but upon further closer examination, it is simply a façade of language. If T-speech met the criteria of language and had a definite lexicon, structure and grammar, I’d be the first to say, “Hey, you’re on to something here that’s supernatural and really needs to be looked at more closely and studied”, but tongues simply isn’t that. Let me ask, if you have ever heard someone speak in tongues and thought “That doesn’t sound like tongues” or “That sounds demonic”, what was your basis for thinking that? What was it that made you doubt the ‘authenticity’ of their tongues as opposed to yours? I’d be curious to know. Next time you speak tongues, take out your phone; put it on voice recorder, and record yourself for about a minute. Then play it back and take a listen, truly listen to the utterances - write them down and look at them. Can you see the patterns, the play on sounds, repetitions of syllables, predictability of syllable structures - then ask yourself, is this language or simply something that mimics it and is only a façade of language? Next, listen to the tongues/glossolalia of say a Shaman from Siberia and you’ll notice he’s producing his tongues the same exact way you are. They may even sound like something you’ve heard - are his ‘tongues’ any less divine than yours? As a Linguist who has studied the phenomenon, my take on it is that tongues/glossolalia is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience, but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best - the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In some extreme cases, it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience
Kavik v.d.Hexenholtz that's a whole lot of reading. So simply do you believed that 1) this was a gift only for the first century believer? if so.. 2) where in the bible does of say it so? 1 Corinthians 12:1-11 KJV Now concerning spiritual gifts , brethren, I would not have you ignorant. [2] Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. [3] Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. [4] Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. [5] And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. [6] And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. [7] But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. [8] For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; [9] To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; [10] To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: [11] But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. notice how there is no separation of the gifts 1 Corinthians 14:2 KJV For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him ; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. tell me if it was always a "reall" earthly language why can "no man understand" and you use pagan "tongues" as a end all but don't other religions fast and pray and read from book they count Holy? just because it seems alike doesn't mean it is.
Kavik v.d.Hexenholtz and just to clear up. some people "Oneness Pentecostals" believe this is sign of salvation! this I'm sure we agree is a complete perversion of the gospel and when I encounter them I show them the same scripture i gave you about the being no separation of the Gifts of The Spirit.
I started listening to Pastor John messages and I have truly been Blessed 🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽this is a pastor who carried a great anointing that rested on his shoulders 🙌🏽
These classic sermons are refreshing. They are also a reminder of just how far the nation has fallen. Instead of teaching kids, woke/dem schools are confusing kindergartners about their gender. The world is falling into the pit of hell while proudly shouting its woke religion
I wrote a poem on us all being related to someone in the Bible! Pastor John Osteen is going to live for eternity!
"May the nations praise you, O God. Yes, may all the nations praise you. Then the earth will yield its harvests, and God, our God, will richly bless us. Yes, God will bless us, and people all over the world will fear him." (Psalm 67:5-7)
This entire family is beautiful! He should be still here! Because, Pastor Joel Osteen and his family, is kicking behinds! His daddy is so young! Lord, Jesus Give this entire family of Osteens and family and friends, s long, long, life! Amen.
And the first shall be lastAnd the last shall be first In the Lord Jesus Christ Amen
Those who judged the Pastor, reminds me of those who God had Job to Pray for! The Pastor will judge those who were an accuser of the brethern? This Pastor not only knows his Bible! He, also, knew God!
Go to acts chapter 19 and start with the first verse and that will show you do need to receive the Holy Ghost speaking in tongues to be saved
AMEN
I love these videos, Pastor, Joel, sir! Can you do a dual performance of you, two, most loving and Powerful Preachers! Like, Nat King Cole and, her daddy! It would be Outstanding! That's why you have so many people! Those, in the audience, individually, have been Elevated! He's looking down on you , Pastor, Joel, sir! And, you are going to make it!
❤😂 y the roots tho omg ahahahahh jesus
He started I verse 6 of acts chapter 19 if you start in verse 1 and read it all you would see that just believing is not enough
Bon talabon
Pastor, Joel Osteen? This is certainly your daddy!
Nahhhhhhh, I'm going to DISAGREE w/ his statement that "every believer" has the Holy Ghost. That's simply NOT BIBLICAL. when a person receives the REAL HOLY GHOST it will be like the 120 followers received it on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1-4. The apostles who were "believers" did not receive the Holy Spirit until Acts 2:4. So believers today can be a BELIEVER but does not have the Holy Spirit until they have an Acts 2:4 experience.
Very good point
I believe the baptism is different from salvation ❤
He twisted it maybe to sound nice about it but still wrong
To try and provide a quick summary to what would otherwise be a rather long post….
No offense intended to anyone who practices glossolalia, however, it is simply an advanced form of learned word-play; anyone can learn to do it. It only has specific significance in a cultural or religious context where it is part of that cultural or religious belief system.
To quickly summarize:
Glossolalia will ONLY contain those phonemes found in a speaker’s native language, or any other language s/he may be familiar with or have been exposed to either knowingly or otherwise.
Glossolalia is governed by the SAME phonological rules that apply to the speaker’s native language(s)
In other words, if a person knows or has only ever been exposed to say English, their glossolalia will not contain the sounds made by say, the German ü or ö, nor any sound or combination of sounds that do not occur naturally in English. Further, the phonological rules of their glossolalia will conform to the same phonological rules of English.
Syllable structure is also rather unique to some degree. Glossolalia typically exhibits a very open syllable structure, that is, the syllables of a given string (I hesitate to use “word”) are typically Consonant (C) Vowel (V) and strings typically consist of a repetition of this structure, so something like CVCVCVCV, etc. With the final segment of the string, there seems to be a choice of using either an open syllable or a closed one (a closed syllable has the structure CVC). Where I have C (consonant) here, it should be understood, for simplicity’s sake, that it could be just a single consonant or an allowed consonant cluster.
Glossolalia most closely resembles babbling in structure. The typical syllable structure of “babble” is CVCV (i.e. open syllables no matter what your native language may favor).
Small children, learn it the same way they learn almost anything - by observation, repetition, imitation, positive reinforcement and encouragement from adults. Older people learn it by watching and imitating what they see and hear. Once a person learns the methodology behind it, glossolalia can be done at will in any setting; church, sitting in a chair at home, wherever. I don't believe that it must first present itself in a church setting either - initial presentation can be virtually anywhere.
No one (I don’t think anyway) actually sits down and decides that “today I’m going to start learning how to speak in tongues”. It is learned by exposure to the environment or cultural/religious setting in which glossolalia occurs and either consciously or subconsciously imitating what is occurring (typically imitating the most prominent person (the "guide" as some describe it).
There even exist many instructional type videos on RUclips which are clearly indicative of a learned behavior. The videos and “instructions” I have seen are very similar to how one learns to enter a meditative state and allow your mind to simply play with the language.
The other issue with glossolalia which seems to diminish its validity as something divinely acquired seems to be the supposed interpretation of a given string or strings. The results of studies done were very non-inspiring: ask ten different people, get ten different answers. No two interpretations were even remotely similar..
I am forced to conclude that glossolalia is very much a learned behaviour - anyone can learn to do it. With some it comes easier than for others (much the same way as learning a foreign language). As one becomes more comfortable with it, and the more one is exposed to the phenomenon in various (typically religious) settings, the more easily it is produced and the more complex it seems to become. It is nothing more than advanced forms of word play done within the subconscious and its production by anyone may boil down to simply a matter of not being “afraid to play with your language” - something almost anyone over the age of four or so has forgotten how to do!
Glossolalia is not divine; it is simply a tool the shaman, healer, Christian praying, uses to channel the divine.
Glossolalia, by the way, is by no means exclusively the realm of Christianity - many cultures employ glossolalia as part of their cultural tradition; from Siberia, to Borneo to Native America. It is all the same glossolalia produced the exact same way.
As far as people quoting Acts as support of glossolalia….
What supposedly happened at Pentecost is NOT glossolalia at all; it’s called xenoglossia - the ability to speak in a LIVING language the speaker has in no way, shape or form ever been exposed to.
That said, however, I suspect the story has a much less dramatic reality and was enhanced, as stories often are, long before ever being committed to writing.
Yes, there were Jews from many different countries and regions gathered in Jerusalem, but most were from the Mediterranean basin, a very heavily Hellenized area - virtually everyone spoke Koine Greek to some degree; it was the ‘English’ of its day.
I would suggest that it was simply just the apostles preaching to the people in Koine Greek and the story was simply ‘enhanced’ as stories often are, to the version we have recorded today (i.e. speaking in various living languages).
The true gift may have simply been the apostles finding the courage to go out and preach; these were people supposedly literally in fear of their lives after the death of the historical Jesus. The gift of the spirit may have simply been the courage for them to overcome this fear. The language used was simply Greek - understood in various degrees by virtually everyone in the Greco-Roman world.
Incidentally, there are no known solid, provable cases of xenoglossia - some of the better known cases have proven, upon closer and intense examination, not to be true examples of xenoglossia; all speakers were at some time or another exposed to the target language they were exhibiting in their xenoglossia.
Kavik v.d.Hexenholtz you believe the Bible is puffed up? that's not good. is Noah's ark, Jonah, Job, Jesus walking on water , his birth death and Resurrection are they puffed up too?
Not sure what you mean by "puffed up", but concerning 'tongues' in the Bible, see the posts below......
PART 1
When it comes to “tongues”, there are two separate issues at hand; ‘tongues’ as described in the Bible, and the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic practice/understanding of ‘tongues’. With the latter, we may also include ‘tongues’/glossolalia as practiced by many non-Christians in their various cultural traditions. The first issue (Biblical tongues) is in no way mutually inclusive with the latter two as they are totally different phenomenon.
Biblical ‘tongues’ are simply real languages, perhaps unknown (i.e. foreign) to those listening to them, but known by the speaker (typically his/her native language). This view is not derived from any particular religious context (I am neither a so-called cessationist or a continuationist), but one based on a more in depth reading (through the lens of linguistics - I’m a Linguist) of what is actually written in the Pentecostal narrative of Acts, and in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians; the two main sources cited as evidence for modern ‘tongues’. Further, all Biblical references to ‘tongue(s)’ (‘glossa’) describes one of two things: the physical organ in the mouth, or real language(s).
There are many misinterpretations and “misreadings” (for lack of a better term) that most people don’t even think about when reading Acts and Corinthians.
One such example is the “list” in Acts 2:9-11 - most assume it is a list of languages. It is not. It is essentially a list of geographic locations and nationalities; specifically, those of the Jewish Diaspora (Cyprus and Syria are missing - perhaps due to copyist errors over time). In fact, not one place in the entire Pentecostal narrative is even one language ever referenced by name…not one. Further, nowhere in the entire narrative does it suggest that communication was even a problem to begin with!
The Pentecostal narrative, contrary to how many interpret it, does not describe xenoglossy, nor does it describe a miracle of hearing; the “other languages” referred to were simply Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongues (sic!) of those local Jews in attendance as well as those of the Diaspora.
Wait a second - “other languages” you may ask? Other than what? The answer lies in an overlooked aspect of Judaism; ecclesiastical diglossia. The rules of ecclesiastical diglossia of the time demanded that teaching, evangelization, etc. such as what occurred at Pentecost be done in Hebrew (though Greek was slowly gaining influence as an acceptable alternative). The Jews gathered there expected to hear Hebrew, the culturally (and religiously) correct language to use in this situation - instead they heard the apostles speaking in their native languages of Greek and Aramaic; both of which the apostles would have spoken. The result was amazement, wonder, astonishment and even ridicule at such an obvious breach of cultural “etiquette”. These men were Galileans after all; they should know better!
The real miracle of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost may simply have been to give the disciples the courage and spiritual strength to “spread the word” and to dispose of the cultural necessity to do so in one (or two) language(s) (i.e. observe strict adherence to ecclesiastical diglossia). They would now break that cultural barrier and use the local vernaculars, and speak to the people in a language they understood without fear of any reprise. As this cultural barrier was now broken, the disciples, one could almost say, “paved the way” for the quick spreading of a new religion called Christianity.
Getting back to our “list”, on another level, it could very well be argued that Luke’s purpose in presenting this list (with Cyprus and Syria missing) was perhaps not intended to represent linguistic diversity (and in fact, as we have just seen, it really doesn’t), but rather may suggest that the first apostolic ministry was to the Jewish Nation as a whole (Diaspora included).
Turning to Corinthians, it must be kept in mind that we are dealing with Paul’s response to an issue at public worship services in that city. It must also be born in mind that Corinth was a multi-cultural, multi-lingual city on not one, but two ports. Though Greek was the language of Corinth as well as the ‘English of its day (i.e. almost everyone was familiar with it to some degree), communication in general between people from different lands and countries must have been difficult at best as it would have had to be conducted in Greek; a language, as mentioned, not everyone knew equally as well.
At first glance, Corinthians presents what at first may seem like a slew of evidence for tongues-speech (T-speech), particularly two passages: 1 Cor. 14:2, and 1 Cor. 14:13-14.
Many will go to 1 Cor. 14:2 as “proof” of tongues being spiritual language(s) - but upon closer examination, it simply describes real language, though a foreign one to the “hearers”. Note that nowhere does the passage state that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying.
To explain it further, as one writer put it, “Think of it this way; if I showed up at a Bible study and began to speak in German, but no one else in the room could speak German, I might impress a few people, but no one would understand me. So if I speak in a language that no one else in the room can speak, I am in fact not speaking to men, but to God (who alone can understand all languages). Anything I say would be a mystery to those in the room. That is what Paul was trying to convey” by people speaking a foreign language at a public worship.
Another way to look at it is this: if I attend a worship service in ‘East Haystack’, Alabama two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone in East Haystack speaks anything *but* English is pretty slim to nil. If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a bloody word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one *there* will understand my “tongue”. That does *not *mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service. So it ends up being a “real language no one understands” (within that given context). To the people listening to me, I am speaking ‘mysteries” in the Spirit (i.e. I’m praying earnestly from my heart and from deep within my being = praying ‘in the spirit’).
Corinthians 14:13-14 seems to present a problem with respect to T-speech as real language(s). “Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.”
If a person speaks in a foreign language (as his first language), let him pray that he can adequately translate what he’s saying into the language of Corinth (Greek). It seems somewhat odd at first, but when you take into consideration the intricacies of translating (even something that appears easy and straightforward at first glance), it’s really no wonder that Paul admonishes the person to pray for guidance that he may translate it (adequately and correctly) into Greek.
I have translated a simple four line meal’s grace into several local Native American languages of northern New England and can attest that what seems so simple at first; four simple lines, can be maddeningly difficult - it’s not just the grammar, it’s also the cultural aspect - what you say, or the way you say something, in language X, may not be anything like how it needs to be said in language Y. In light of the intricacies involved in translating, I don’t see verse 13 as being an issue with respect to real language.
With respect to verse 14, I am going to quote from an article (A New Look At Tongues Part II) by Robert Zerhusen who explains it much better than I can:
“1 Corinthians 14:14 is probably the main text used to argue that the language speaker did not understand his language. Paul says that if he should speak in a language (without translation), "my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful [akarpos]." Lenski takes akarposas passive: "my nous or understanding" is inactive and thus akarpos--"barren," "unfruitful," producing no distinct thoughts".
Paul could also be using akarpos in the active sense:
A decision upon its meaning centers in akarpos ("unfruitful") whether the adjective is passive in sense, meaning the speaker himself receives no benefit, or active in sense, meaning his nous (understanding) provides no benefit to others...The view that assigns akarpos a meaning of "produces nothing, contributes nothing to the process"... is not convincing, because akarpos does not mean "inactive." It is a word for results and does not apply to the process through which the results are obtained. The present discussion does not center on the activity or nonactivity of the tongues speaker's mind, but rather on potential benefit derived by listeners.
The whole context of 1 Corinthians 14 is the effect upon the hearers of untranslated languages.
Paul’s concern is the edification of the group. Therefore, 14:14 should be taken as "My spirit prays but my mind does not produce fruit [in others]." This says nothing about whether or not the speaker understood his own utterance.”
In fact, you’re not going to find anywhere where it specifically indicates that the speaker either does or does not understand what he is saying. It’s simply never definitively stated. It has to be inferred from context. If you adhere to T-speech, then the speaker does not understand what he’s saying. With real languages, he does.
We can quickly dismiss 1 Cor. 13:1 as it’s simply hyperbole.
PART 2
I think many times these passages are interpreted by certain religious groups to fit their understanding and practice of modern tongues (T-speech).
Modern Pentecostal/Charismatic tongues are a totally different animal. It’s simply the Christian form of glossolalia.
Glossolalia itself being simply, as Robert Zerhusen terms it, “non-cognitive non-language utterances” (NC-NLU’s) composed of random free vocalization (essentially “playing with language”). Due to the nature of glossolalia, the language producing centers of the brain (particularly the area controlling grammar) are not overly engaged when one practices it, as a study done by the University of Pennsylvania (2010), using SPECT imaging, demonstrated. Mr. Zerhusen, by the way, is a pastor and theologian whose interests include the application of cultural anthropology and linguistics to NT studies.
Glossolalia consists of *only* those sounds found in the speaker’s native language (and any language they may have been exposed to); anyone can learn to produce it relatively easily. Further, ‘word’ stress and general accent are typically those of the speaker’s native language. A person from Georgia is going to sound like a person from Georgia when “speaking tongues”, i.e. there’s no “foreign accent”, so to speak, in their glossolalia.
American speakers do however typically trill their r’s when “speaking in tongues” (with some it’s more a what’s called a ‘flap’ than an actual trilled ‘r’ - the ‘t’ in “water”) - it makes the glossic utterance sound more “foreign”. All of the preceding also applies to the so-called “singing in the Spirit”; it is simply sung glossolalia rather than spoken.
Glossolalia as practiced in most other cultural and/or faith traditions around the world typically entails a petitioner seeking aid in the emotional and/or spiritual healing process, who is helped by the practitioner (minister, priest, shaman, healer - whatever s/he is called in that culture). It is rarely, if ever, the petitioner him/her self who is engaging in the actual glossolalia; it’s almost always involves a third party.
In these instances glossolalia is used as a tool to establish a ‘connection’ to the divine, a message is received (either directly or indirectly via an interpreter) that is extremely pertinent to this third party’s situation and, as a result, with the message delivered, the petitioner may begin the process of emotional/spiritual healing.
Though this more ‘correct”, if I may call it that, use of glossolalia does occur the context of Christianity, from all accounts I have read or been told about, instances of this are exceedingly rare. Whether or not it is rare because most people do not practice glossolalia ‘correctly’ (due to a misconception of what it actually is) is a matter for further study/debate. In addition, whether or not Christian practitioners realize that glossolalia is simply the tool used to enter into the process (not the means) may also be a matter for debate.
The bottom line is that by far the more common practice used by Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians seems to be one of “interpreting Scripture” to fit the modern practice/connotation of what glossolalia is perceived to be. The only praying going on with tongues is the deep subconscious praying of the individual (in whatever their native language happens to be; inspired, of course, by their deep faith and beliefs). There is nothing divine or miraculous going on here. There is nothing being done that can’t be explained in natural terms. If you really stop and think about it, the Holy Spirit (being one of three aspects of God, if you subscribe to the concept of the Trinity) does not need to inspire people on how to pray to itself.
Interpretation may again also be inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs, but the relatively generic messages of most interpretations do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. This is clearly evidenced in that if one gives the same glossic string to ten different people who can interpret tongues, one will get ten different interpretations typically non-related to each other.
The all too common come-back to this issue of ‘multiple interpretations’ is that God/the Holy Spirit simply gives different interpretations to different people. As one on-line writer quips (and I couldn’t have said it better myself), “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist - there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for glossolalia in the first place.”
Another internet writer puts it rather bluntly - “People who claim to speak in tongues need to understand that they are making a testable claim. The claim has been tested, numerous times. And the tongues speakers have failed the test, every single time.”
This same writer further goes on to say: “You want this to be real. You’ve convinced yourself it’s real. The only reason it sounds like a language is that you want it to sound like a language. But it’s not. It’s meaningless. You’re not producing a language. It's a purely manufactured experience initially created by psychological manipulation (all the praise music and the sort of altered state that it puts you in to begin with... and the emotional frenzy of the service before that) as well as intense pressure to perform from those standing around you.”
The above is admittedly a somewhat harsh statement from a former tongues speaker, but it begs the question of just how accurate the above paragraph really is. I suspect more than most practitioners would care to admit.
Glossolalia mimics language, but upon further closer examination, it is simply a façade of language.
If T-speech met the criteria of language and had a definite lexicon, structure and grammar, I’d be the first to say, “Hey, you’re on to something here that’s supernatural and really needs to be looked at more closely and studied”, but tongues simply isn’t that.
Let me ask, if you have ever heard someone speak in tongues and thought “That doesn’t sound like tongues” or “That sounds demonic”, what was your basis for thinking that? What was it that made you doubt the ‘authenticity’ of their tongues as opposed to yours? I’d be curious to know.
Next time you speak tongues, take out your phone; put it on voice recorder, and record yourself for about a minute. Then play it back and take a listen, truly listen to the utterances - write them down and look at them. Can you see the patterns, the play on sounds, repetitions of syllables, predictability of syllable structures - then ask yourself, is this language or simply something that mimics it and is only a façade of language? Next, listen to the tongues/glossolalia of say a Shaman from Siberia and you’ll notice he’s producing his tongues the same exact way you are. They may even sound like something you’ve heard - are his ‘tongues’ any less divine than yours?
As a Linguist who has studied the phenomenon, my take on it is that tongues/glossolalia is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience, but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best - the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In some extreme cases, it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience
Kavik v.d.Hexenholtz that's a whole lot of reading. So simply do you believed that
1) this was a gift only for the first century believer?
if so..
2) where in the bible does of say it so?
1 Corinthians 12:1-11 KJV
Now concerning spiritual gifts , brethren, I would not have you ignorant. [2] Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. [3] Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. [4] Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. [5] And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. [6] And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. [7] But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. [8] For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; [9] To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; [10] To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: [11] But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
notice how there is no separation of the gifts
1 Corinthians 14:2 KJV
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him ; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
tell me if it was always a "reall" earthly language why can "no man understand"
and you use pagan "tongues" as a end all but don't other religions fast and pray and read from book they count Holy? just because it seems alike doesn't mean it is.
Kavik v.d.Hexenholtz and just to clear up. some people "Oneness Pentecostals" believe this is sign of salvation! this I'm sure we agree is a complete perversion of the gospel and when I encounter them I show them the same scripture i gave you about the being no separation of the Gifts of The Spirit.