Glossolalia (speaking in tongues) and a theory on what really happened at Pentecost?

[The Righterzpen]

I was watching some YouTube videos today on neuro-science and the phenomena of glossolalia.

Glossolalia definition:

Definition of GLOSSOLALIA

tongue… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Now here are the videos if anyone wants to watch them. This post isn't about the videos themselves though: it's about an idea that struck me from watching these videos.

Points from the videos:
1. They found neurologically that glossolalia does not trigger the language centers in the brain.
2. The frontal cortex is more active when praying in a known language or meditating then when manifesting glossolalia.
3. Glossolalia does not produce sounds that are not already known to the speaker's native language.
4. Glossolalia does change the brain. It does trigger the "executive functioning center" of the frontal cortex, as well as "regulatory input from outside" and "internal input". Meaning that people are aware when they are doing it and it's not a "random behavioral occurrence" that happens spontaneously. Someone does not walk through Walmart and "spontaneously" break out in glossolalia. It's a behavior reserved for specific places and circumstances. The learned behavior is reinforced through practice.

As I was watching these videos; I was reminded of studies I've seen of: for example; athletes, musicians, cab drivers; anyone who engages in a repetitive practiced behavior will show physical changes in the brain that controls these behavioral actions. Thus the behaviors become "auto-pilot" sequences of actions that the individual can do without specific conscious attention to. They exhibit conscious attention when learning the behavior, but perform it automatically after already learned. Yet when they stop practicing that behavior; those parts of their brain will return to "statistical norms". Having trained their brain to perform the task at one point in their lives; they can easily "pick it up" again if "out of practice".

Thus obviously this is not a "miraculous" occurrence.

So when I went to the Book of Acts; I already knew the apostles were speaking a foreign language that they had not learned. One aspect of what was recorded in Acts caught my attention though. The phrase "And how hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born". Well I went and looked up that phrase "wherein we were born" and the word "born" isn't the same Greek word such as "Jesus was born in Bethlehem". This word born means "the stock of" or "origin" of.

So I got to thinking about that and came to the hypothesis that technically I don't think this word "born" is referring to where people were birthed as much as where the "origin point" of their language came from. (Hold that thought a minute.)

Now Acts also indicates that what the apostles were actually speaking, was not a multitude of foreign languages; but that the hearers heard language that was familiar to them. They heard their native languages. (I.E. Greek, Latin, Arabic, Persian etc.)

Yet some people didn't hear a language that they recognized. Thus they ridiculed the apostles and said they were drunk. This hearkens back to "tongues are not a sign for believers but for unbelievers" 1 Corinthians 14:22 Now the Biblical context for "sign" and "unbeliever" is "The Jews require a sign..." (1 Corinthians 1:22) Thus "speaking in tongues" (a language that foreigners understood as their native language) was a sign of judgement against the Jews. (Jesus is the Christ (Jewish Messiah) and the gospel is going to the gentiles.)

Now back up this idea of "origin point of language" to the Tower of Babel. All current human language is derived from what ever was spoken before the languages were divided. (Let's call it "paleo-human language".) Thus what ever it was God spoke to Adam; was a known understood language by humanity; at least up until the Tower of Babel. This "paleo-human language" was a real language. It wasn't glossolalia.

So, was the language the apostles were actually speaking; this "paleo human language"? I don't know; but that seems like a logical hypothesis based on the fact that all foreigners heard their native foreign language; but "unbelievers" couldn't' understand the apostles.

Thoughts on this hypothesis?

 

[Red Gold]

Methinks that what happened at Pentecost was the exact opposite of what happens today sometimes.

When the apostles spoke at Pentecost, EVERYBODY understood them.

But if today somebody "speaks in tongues" - NOBODY understands them.

 

[rdclmn72]

You had two groups of people, those of Jerusalem and the pilgrims from many nations.
Those from Jerusalem heard gibberish, the pilgrims heard the message loud and clear.

 

[The Righterzpen]

You had two groups of people, those of Jerusalem and the pilgrims from many nations.
Those from Jerusalem heard gibberish, the pilgrims heard the message loud and clear.

Does it say specifically in the passage that it was only those from Jerusalem that heard something they didn't understand? If it does say that; well that would be interesting. (An indication of judgement has commenced upon the city. I.E. "Babylon the mother of harlots has fallen")

But that judgement very well may have commenced when Jesus cursed the fig tree. Cursing the fig tree represented some form of judgement; but maybe that was more specific to the nation than specifically the city?

I don't see where it says specifically though that only those who were not from Jerusalem heard the foreign languages.

 

[Gary K]

You had two groups of people, those of Jerusalem and the pilgrims from many nations.
Those from Jerusalem heard gibberish, the pilgrims heard the message loud and clear.

I believe you are mistaken in this. Everyone heard Peter speak in their own language.

 

[rdclmn72]

they were bi-lingual.

 

[The Righterzpen]

they were bi-lingual.

The context of Acts says nothing about the apostles or the foreigners being bi-lingual.

A Greek, a Persian or someone of any other nation hearing a Judean speak Aramaic; even if they understood Aramaic, would have still recognized it as Aramaic.

That's not what happened though. The apostles spoke a language that everyone else heard as the language of their native birth places.

 

[ARBITER01]

Points from the videos:
1. They found neurologically that glossolalia does not trigger the language centers in the brain.
2. The frontal cortex is more active when praying in a known language or meditating then when manifesting glossolalia.
3. Glossolalia does not produce sounds that are not already known to the speaker's native language.
4. Glossolalia does change the brain. It does trigger the "executive functioning center" of the frontal cortex, as well as "regulatory input from outside" and "internal input". Meaning that people are aware when they are doing it and it's not a "random behavioral occurrence" that happens spontaneously. Someone does not walk through Walmart and "spontaneously" break out in glossolalia. It's a behavior reserved for specific places and circumstances. The learned behavior is reinforced through practice.

It's interesting that they would observe such things, but it does fall in line with scripture,...

ASV
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.​

 

[The Righterzpen]

It's interesting that they would observe such things, but it does fall in line with scripture,...

ASV​

For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.​

Explain what you mean.

What's your understanding of this post?

 

[ARBITER01]

Explain what you mean.

What's your understanding of this post?

All 4 of those items you listed excluded brain activity when this was happening, which makes perfect sense since the gift of tongues is not derived from our brain but our human spirit.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Have this to add; for anyone who's interested.

Linguistic and Sociological Analyses of Modern Tongues-Speaking: Their Contributions and Limitations

by Vern S. Poythress [Published in the Westminster Theological Journal 42/2 (1980) 367-388. Reprinted in Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia. Watson E. Mills. Grand Rapids: Eerd…

frame-poythress.org

 

[The Righterzpen]

All 4 of those items you listed excluded brain activity when this was happening, which makes perfect sense since the gift of tongues is not derived from our brain but our human spirit.

What is your understanding of that Scripture reference when all the foreigners heard the apostles in their own native foreign language? What ever language the apostles were speaking; had to have conscience thought behind it; seeing how they were communicating the gospel to these people.

 

[ARBITER01]

What is your understanding of that Scripture reference when all the foreigners heard the apostles in their own native foreign language? What ever language the apostles were speaking; had to have conscience thought behind it; seeing how they were communicating the gospel to these people.

Well,....... I'm Pentecostal, so it's not right for me to teach on a subject that might be against your statement of faith. I just noticed your post and how it fit well in that section of scripture I posted, and decided to respond to it. I'm not looking to start a war.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Well,....... I'm Pentecostal, so it's not right for me to teach on a subject that might be against your statement of faith. I just noticed your post and how it fit well in that section of scripture I posted, and decided to respond to it. I'm not looking to start a war.

Well, I don't think it would be against the rules to respond regarding how you understand the subject in relation to the people in Acts hearing the apostles in their own language. (Personally, I wouldn't consider that against the rules. I.E. not something I would "report". Seeing how you'd be answering a question posed to you.)

 

[The Righterzpen]

@ARBITER01 - You could message me too; if you wanted to do that instead.

 

[ARBITER01]

Well, I don't think it would be against the rules to respond regarding how you understand the subject in relation to the people in Acts hearing the apostles in their own language. (Personally, I wouldn't consider that against the rules. I.E. not something I would "report". Seeing how you'd be answering a question posed to you.)

I'll try to answer your questions as best as I can, but if it turns negative with folks I'll stop.

In relation to your question, I want to hold off answering it just yet. There's a reason for this,....

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but by the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

I need to sort of set a stage here so the proper understanding might be presented.

1 Corinthians 14:2 is applicable across scripture. It is not something that came later and The Holy Spirit decided to begin observing it. The rules for the proper operation of the gifts were already in operation by Him, and this included Acts 2.

The gift of tongues has 2 usages in scripture, prayer and speaking. Prayer is the personal use of the gift by our human spirit, and speaking is the corporate use of the gift by The Holy Spirit. One use provides a personal edification while the other provides a corporate edification. Both uses of the gift are not understandable when operated, they require the gift of interpretation to bring about understanding, hence why GOD also gave us that gift.

Do you have any questions on what I've presented so far?

 

[The Righterzpen]

I'll try to answer your questions as best as I can, but if it turns negative with folks I'll stop.

In relation to your question, I want to hold off answering it just yet. There's a reason for this,....

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but by the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

I need to sort of set a stage here so the proper understanding might be presented.

1 Corinthians 14:2 is applicable across scripture. It is not something that came later and The Holy Spirit decided to begin observing it. The rules for the proper operation of the gifts were already in operation by Him, and this included Acts 2.

The gift of tongues has 2 usages in scripture, prayer and speaking. Prayer is the personal use of the gift by our human spirit, and speaking is the corporate use of the gift by The Holy Spirit. One use provides a personal edification while the other provides a corporate edification. Both uses of the gift are not understandable when operated, they require the gift of interpretation to bring about understanding, hence why GOD also gave us that gift.

Do you have any questions on what I've presented so far?

So, are you saying that if this is being used as "a personal prayer language" you need an interpreter? And if you'd need an interpreter; how would that work?

Here's the other issue I see. "Out of the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses; let all things be established." This phrase is repeated in Scripture 6 times. It has legal consequences and actually applicable consequences to establishing doctrine. (2 Corinthians 13:1-3) This is why things in Scripture are repeated multiple times.

So, where is the 2nd witness to what is happening in the Corinthian church? (There's only two places Scripture talks about tongues: Corinthians and Acts.) So since the 2nd witness to what was going on in the Corinthian church had to be Acts. Well, clearly when they spoke; they were heard in foreign languages. Which would totally exclude this idea of a "personal prayer language".

The "personal prayer language" idea only came up after the onset of events like the Azusa Street revival. (Early 20th century.) Prior to that; even Parum / Dowey and these early perponants of this practice; believed "speaking in tongues" was heard by the recipients as foreign language. And the first people who had this phenomena happen; believed they were speaking Chinese. So they went to China, Japan, and India expecting the natives of those countries would be able to understand them; and they didn't.

Only after that, did this idea of "oh this must be a private prayer language" came about. But historically, that isn't what anyone believed.

Prior to this, (where this phenomena had now gone "more main stream"; the only people who "spoke in tongues" were those clearly outside of orthodox Christianity; namingly the Shakers and the Mormons. Now this phenomena does happen in other religions. Kundalini (which I believe is a form of Hinduism?) Islam and Judaism. There are also non Christian African tribes who practice this; as well as Buddhists, and.... a couple other far eastern religions that I don't remember off the top of my head what those are.

The other thing too is what Paul says in Corinthians about this being a "sign to unbelievers". Now who were the unbelievers Paul was referring to and why is it a sign to them?

The answer to that starts back in Exodus when Moses says to God: "They won't believe me." And God instructs Moses to give them a sign. We get into the NT and Scripture tells us "The Jews require a sign and the Greek seeks wisdom." 1 Corinthians 1:22.

So to validate this as a thing of today that's legitimately of the Holy Spirit; one would have to answer these questions / issues as they relate to Scripture.

So yes, there's a broad spectrum of problems with the modern tongues movement.

Now if you wanted to discuss these issues; we can talk about them. But if not and you believe in the validity of the modern Pentecostal movement; then the conversation; at least in regards to this thread would pretty much end here.

But like I said; if you wanted to message me; (to avoid anyone else complaining about the conversation in relation to the denominational umbrella this thread is posted in); you could message me too. I don't have an issue with that.

 

[ARBITER01]

So, are you saying that if this is being used as "a personal prayer language" you need an interpreter? And if you'd need an interpreter; how would that work?

Here's the other issue I see. "Out of the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses; let all things be established." This phrase is repeated in Scripture 6 times. It has legal consequences and actually applicable consequences to establishing doctrine. (2 Corinthians 13:1-3) This is why things in Scripture are repeated multiple times.

So, where is the 2nd witness to what is happening in the Corinthian church? (There's only two places Scripture talks about tongues: Corinthians and Acts.) So since the 2nd witness to what was going on in the Corinthian church had to be Acts. Well, clearly when they spoke; they were heard in foreign languages. Which would totally exclude this idea of a "personal prayer language".

The "personal prayer language" idea only came up after the onset of events like the Azusa Street revival. (Early 20th century.) Prior to that; even Parum / Dowey and these early perponants of this practice; believed "speaking in tongues" was heard by the recipients as foreign language. And the first people who had this phenomena happen; believed they were speaking Chinese. So they went to China, Japan, and India expecting the natives of those countries would be able to understand them; and they didn't.

Only after that, did this idea of "oh this must be a private prayer language" came about. But historically, that isn't what anyone believed.

Prior to this, (where this phenomena had now gone "more main stream"; the only people who "spoke in tongues" were those clearly outside of orthodox Christianity; namingly the Shakers and the Mormons. Now this phenomena does happen in other religions. Kundalini (which I believe is a form of Hinduism?) Islam and Judaism. There are also non Christian African tribes who practice this; as well as Buddhists, and.... a couple other far eastern religions that I don't remember off the top of my head what those are.

The other thing too is what Paul says in Corinthians about this being a "sign to unbelievers". Now who were the unbelievers Paul was referring to and why is it a sign to them?

The answer to that starts back in Exodus when Moses says to God: "They won't believe me." And God instructs Moses to give them a sign. We get into the NT and Scripture tells us "The Jews require a sign and the Greek seeks wisdom." 1 Corinthians 1:22.

So to validate this as a thing of today that's legitimately of the Holy Spirit; one would have to answer these questions / issues as they relate to Scripture.

So yes, there's a broad spectrum of problems with the modern tongues movement.

Now if you wanted to discuss these issues; we can talk about them. But if not and you believe in the validity of the modern Pentecostal movement; then the conversation; at least in regards to this thread would pretty much end here.

But like I said; if you wanted to message me; (to avoid anyone else complaining about the conversation in relation to the denominational umbrella this thread is posted in); you could message me too. I don't have an issue with that.

I can see you're already on defense about it, so I won't pursue trying to help any further. Good day.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I can see you're already on defense about it, so I won't pursue trying to help any further. Good day.

That choice is yours.

 

[ARBITER01]

That choice is yours.

It's better that way, laters.