Glossolalia - Speaking in Tongues
This is intriguing. A common religious belief is that some human beings extemporaneously receive a gift from God - the ability to 'speak in tongues' - to speak fluently in a new language. This new language is also unknown - it is not any language known to human beings.
Not many studies have been done on this phenomenon even though millions of Christians believe this actually occurs. One study conducted in 1972 [ Samarin, William J. (1972). Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism . New York: Macmillan ] (a 5 year analysis) determined that these odd languages seem like they are legit but when one studies the linguistic structures, the languages are basically gibberish. The utterances lack the necessary semantic patterns found in real languages - pretty much what one would expect if someone is simply pretending to speak a brand new language.
Here is a third party summary of the analysis:
The author, an eminent linguist, professor of anthropology and linguistics at the University of Toronto, attempts to answer the question: Why do so many educated and well-established members of society "speak in tongues"? He first examines glossolalia from a linguist's point of view and shows "what Christians, at least. do when they talk in tongues" (p. 2).
His examination is based on a large sample of glossolalia recorded in private and public meetings over a five-year period in Europe and North America. In-depth interviews and questionnaires provided further information about the people and their beliefs. The book is a sympathetic analysis, showing respect for the beliefs of these people as "sacred ground" (p. 236).
Samarin dismisses such frequently mentioned psychological causes as repression and emotional release. In some sense glossolalia is "learned behavior" (p. 73), yet not learned as foreign languages are learned. "The tongue speaker is the product of considerable instruction, whether or not glossolalia comes suddenly or gradually" (p. 72). Thus, tongue-speaking is not a "supernaturally acquired skill." Samarin analyzes the speech of tongue-speakers in the same manner that a linguist analyzes a foreign language. He makes a phonetic and semantic inventory, and describes its prosodic and paralinguistic features. The discourse "is divided into units of speech . . . through accent, rhythm, intonation and pauses" (p. 78). "The breath group itself can often be divided into subgroups through phonological features" (p. 79). It consists of syllables made up of consonants and vowels taken from the speaker's native language or a foreign language known to him, with much repetition, alliteration, and rhyme. However, the "syllable string does not fall into words" (p. 81), even though one gets the feeling that "words are almost emerging" (p. 82).
In comparing glossolalia to real language, Samarin shows how the two differ in form and function. In form, real language is a systematic relationship between the segments of speech and concepts, a relationship which is missing in glossolalia . While language has communication as its function, there is no meaning to individual strings of syllables in glossolalia. The resemblance to real language is superficial: "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 pseudo-grammatically . . . with variations in pitch,volume,speed and intensity" ( p. 1 20). It is "only a facade of language, although at times a very good one indeed" (p. 128). Yet it is not "a specimen of human language because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives" (p. 128). Yet glossolalia has meaning to the speaker; the meaning is in the area of emotions (joy, concern, anxiety). Thus Samarin defines glossolalia as a " meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead "
Many who 'speak in tongues' believe they are really speaking a new language. And, of course, many who hear this accept this to be the case.
The question for discussion is 'how wide spread is this belief in 2018?'. Is this a commonly held belief or do most Christians dismiss this as rather extreme?
How many people did Robert Tilton fool with this?:
Tags
Who is online
197 visitors
How many people believe some can extemporaneously begin speaking fluently in a new language?
only the gullible
when I speak I have to use my tongue
also, when somwone asks how I'm making out, usually with my tongue
on a more yahoo serious note, I've heard a few
reminded me of pea soup, head spins, n other exercises to lose weight, as well as demons
,
once when
I was robbed, and ones did steal
I spoke in Tungsten
unfortunately, probably too many. The whole speaking in tongues is a religious con that the gullible will fall for.
True, as I said above, it wasn't some new unknown language, it was the languages that people in the city were speaking at the time that the disciples didn't know how to speak that the spirit taught them. Like the Rosetta stone of God.
When I went thru RCIA we were taught that the Pentecost was when the disciples were gifted with speaking in "tongues". Father Bob made sure to emphasize that the disciples were speaking in the languages of the day so that they could go out and preach the word.
He also emphasized that to truly speak in tongues one must either be speaking a modern foreign language or an ancient language. Just throwing "oobas" "oogas" and "babababbabas" out there is just speaking gibberish. Father Bob did say that he believed that people could be gifted with the speaking of tongues but he thought it was rare.
My mother who was a devout Christian, use to say that the speaking of tongues in church distracted from the message that Yahweh wanted to get out.
That makes sense to me. You're supposed to keep your mouth shut so you can hear while in church
I always vexed the preacher after church with a billion questions about his message that day most of it I had gotten from other parts of the Bible were his message was contradicted in.
I'll bet in some cases it's just made up on the spot, like gibberish.
I'll bet you're right.
it seems to be quite common with various sects. Why is it needed ? it would seem that communication would be much simpler if God made everything into (or designed it as) one language that everyone spoke - would cut down on a lot of this need for "magic" to be performed on people that suddenly makes them speak different languages. Seems a bit unnecessary (in my opinion) when you consider that God is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing.
From what I understand you can't be a full member of certain churches until the Holy Spirit fills you and you can speak in tongues
And, if I was a new Christian I would avoid those church's like the plague.
Don't blame you. One of the reasons I'm not crazy about the UPC or Assembly of God
I know that Ms. Trout, hell, you know me, if I thought you blamed me for something and, ask you why. I spent until my mid-twenty's going to different church's and, decided that organized religion was nothing more than a money scam so, I went my own way.
My grandmother was a member of the Church of Christ. She told me that speaking in tongues was prohibited unless there was an interpreter present. I probably asked her about this because I had classmates who were members of a Pentecostal sect. People outside of that sect often referred to them as the Holy Rollers because of their habit of speaking gibberish and rolling around on the floor of their their church when the "spirit" moved them.
My adopted parents attended the Methodist Church. To the best of my recollection, speaking in tongues was never mentioned.
The only tongue speaking I ever saw was in Assembly of God which is pretty closely associated with the Pentecostals. Never saw it in a Methodist, Lutheran or Baptist church.
There are Charismatic Catholic churches but I don't think there are very many because for the most part Catholics like their aerobics and 20 minute homilies and let's get the hell out of here so we can go eat!
I was raised Pentecostal until I was 12, we didn't do the tongues and rolling around thing. There's probably just different behaviours in different areas.
Could be the region, but most probably the sect or just the particular church since there is no central authority governing Pentecostalism.
Some sects even have a Biblical dress code ...
and some background on the origins of the Pentecostal sect of the Christian religion.
While I have been accused of speaking in tongues when really drunk I suspect in the religious sense it's either fakery or mental illness.
At least that's understandable.
Or both.
We all know were certain Christians get this idea from, it would be in the book of Acts in the Bible, however, what these Christians don't realize is this, in Acts the disciples were in a city and, a building were not everyone spoke the same language so, Yahweh sent a spirit down to help teach the disciples to speak in the other languages that were there in that place, in other words in other tongues but, it wasn't meant that the spirit taught them to speak some new language, the languages were already known to others there, like Latin, Greek and, what ever else was available at that time in that town and, building.
Wished I had read this comment before I wrote mine...
"Shondala chi elly ally voocou shamma lamma ding dong goo goo ga ga". Is that really any way to talk to God?
No, but, the Sa-tan loves it.
I believe the correct term for this language is, "gibberish".
hey
I speak that
at lease so many wrong righties tell me I do
but i'm
not marrying their divorced realities
I attended some really fundamentalist churches growing up. Lots of people standing up and "testifying" whenever they felt the Lord called them to do so, and so forth. Nobody ever spoke in tongues, though, and I think most of us would have made fun of anybody who had, if they expected us to take them seriously, especially if they'd followed it up with a request for money. Even we had our limits.
I think you guys are making far too much out of this. There was a baby just out of shot of the camera. The dude was only talking baby talk to the baby......so yes, I do think people can speak extemporaneously.
Miin-aan baash kimini-sij-i-gan bitooyin sij-i-gan-i bukwayszhiigan. There, I'm speaking in tongues. It's actually a word in my language (Ojibwe).
It's actually pretty simple, just sound it out and your home free or your tongue is wrapped around your nose.
I didnt and dont believe in speaking in tongues.... But I attended a chuck for a while where they did, at one point I did. I didn't understand it , why or anything I said. But it just flowed out of me at the time I thought what was coming out sounded like perhaps a native american language or dialect.
It was weird to me, I was not comfortable doing it, but if I want to I think it still would flow out of me in bursts till I was freaked out or started laughing.
What, why how? Dont know, dont care.
...LOL...
Church
You reverted to your speaking-in-tongue days
Yeah that was reading a bit odd ... you speaking in tongues and attending [to?] Chuck.
LOL Yep that's the kinda shit mistakes I occasionally make when typing quickly. I'm so glad no one else ever does that. lol
LOL... Not likely, most of what I wrote WAS understandable. Nothing in tongues is, that's what makes it so fuckin freaky. It was not for me.
I believe that it's the longest word in our language and it means.....drum roll please..
Blueberry pie...
I like pie.
I hope that doesn't end with your tongue wrapped around your nose. Blueberries are messy.
Onkalofato flosda nah, flipat teronza fo. Bolabaston tepalt, baloonka bonta shom oonla horta pab! Wenksdint storta ta fo montrak hort uklaw stap. Valot, valot, storntaprodal helbin, worgha torsan flort!