14.) United Pentecostal Church International - William N. Harding: Fill & Download for Free

Re your query - Why isn't the tetragrammaton used in Exodus 3:14?In Jewish tradition, “Yahweh” is too sacred a name to utter out loud. Over time Jews started to substitute in “Adonai,” or “My Lord,” especially when speakingSo the name of God that we today in English would pronounce as Jehovah:Moses has some concerns, the main one being how he will convince his fellow Israelites that this really is a mission from (and blessed by) God.when Moses comes to the elders of Israel with a "new message" from God, it is logical to think they would ask, "What name did He reveal Himself to you under? What new revelation from God do you have?"Quoted source…These are my personal research notes gleaned from over 50 plus years of being a bible student - assisted by the following information which is taken from the Bible Encyclopaedia Insight on the Scriptures - I hope that this information assists you with your query:The true God is not a nameless God. His name is Jehovah. (De 6:4; Ps 83:18) He is God by reason of his creatorship. (Ge 1:1; Re 4:11) The true God is real (Joh 7:28), a person (Ac 3:19; Heb 9:24), and not lifeless natural law operating without a living lawgiver, not blind force working through a series of accidents to develop one thing or another. The 1956 edition of The Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. XII, p. 743) commented under the heading “God”: “In the Christian, Mohammedan, and Jewish sense, the Supreme Being, the First Cause, and in a general sense, as considered nowadays throughout the civilized world, a spiritual being, self-existent, eternal and absolutely free and all-powerful, distinct from the matter which he has created in many forms, and which he conserves and controls. There does not seem to have been a period of history where mankind was without belief in a supernatural author and governor of the universe.”Some Bible scholars acknowledge that it seems likely that the divine name appeared in Hebrew Scripture quotations found in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Under the heading “Tetragrammaton in the New Testament,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary states: “There is some evidence that the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name, Yahweh, appeared in some or all of the O[ld] T[estament] quotations in the N[ew] T[estament] when the NT documents were first penned.” Scholar George Howard says: “Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible [the Septuagint] which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.”Sadly, many churches that sponsor Bible translations pressure scholars into omitting God’s name from their translations of the Bible. For example, in a letter dated June 29, 2008, to presidents of Catholic bishops’ conferences, the Vatican stated: “In recent years the practice has crept in of pronouncing the God of Israel’s proper name.” The letter gives this pointed direction: “The name of God . . . is neither to be used or pronounced.” Furthermore, “for the translation of the Biblical text in modern languages, . . . the divine tetragrammaton is to be rendered by the equivalent of Adonai/Kyrios: ‘Lord.’” Clearly, this Vatican directive is aimed at eliminating the use of God’s name.Protestants have been no less disrespectful in their treatment of Jehovah’s name. A spokesman for the Protestant-sponsored New International Version, published in English in 1978, wrote: “Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 21⁄4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, ‘Yahweh is my shepherd.’”In addition, churches have hindered Latin Americans from knowing God by name. Steven Voth, a translation consultant for the United Bible Societies (UBS), writes: “One of the ongoing debates in Latin American Protestant circles revolves around the use of the name Jehová . . . Interestingly enough, a very large and growing neo-pentecostal church . . . said they wanted a Reina-Valera 1960 edition, but without the name Jehová. Instead, they wanted the word Señor [Lord].” According to Voth, the UBS rejected this request at first but later gave in and published an edition of the Reina-Valera Bible “without the word Jehová.”Deleting God’s name from his written Word and replacing it with “Lord” hinders readers from truly knowing who God is. Such a substitution creates confusion. For example, a reader may not be able to discern whether the term “Lord” refers to Jehovah or to his Son, Jesus. Thus, in the scripture in which the apostle Peter quotes David as saying: “Jehovah said to my Lord [the resurrected Jesus]: ‘Sit at my right hand,’” many Bible translations read: “The Lord said to my Lord.” (Acts 2:34, NIV) In addition, David Clines, in his essay “Yahweh and the God of Christian Theology,” points out: “One result of the absence of Yahweh from Christian consciousness has been the tendency to focus on the person of Christ.” Thus, many churchgoers are hardly aware that the true God to whom Jesus directed his prayers is a Person with a name—Jehovah.Satan has worked hard at blinding people’s minds about God. Even so, you can become intimately acquainted with Jehovah.Early Use of the Name and Its Meaning. Exodus 3:13-16 and 6:3 are often misapplied to mean that Jehovah’s name was first revealed to Moses sometime prior to the Exodus from Egypt. True, Moses raised the question: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?” But this does not mean that he or the Israelites did not know Jehovah’s name. The very name of Moses’ mother Jochebed means, possibly, “Jehovah Is Glory.” (Ex 6:20) Moses’ question likely was related to the circumstances in which the sons of Israel found themselves. They had been in hard slavery for many decades with no sign of any relief. Doubt, discouragement, and weakness of faith in God’s power and purpose to deliver them had very likely infiltrated their ranks. (Note also Eze 20:7, 8.) For Moses simply to say he came in the name of “God” (ʼElo·himʹ) or the “Sovereign Lord” (ʼAdho·naiʹ) therefore might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites. They knew the Egyptians had their own gods and lords and doubtless heard taunts from the Egyptians that their gods were superior to the God of the Israelites.Then, too, we must keep in mind that names then had real meaning and were not just “labels” to identify an individual as today. Moses knew that Abram’s name (meaning “Father Is High (Exalted)”) was changed to Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”), the change being made because of God’s purpose concerning Abraham. So, too, the name of Sarai was changed to Sarah and that of Jacob to Israel; in each case the change revealed something fundamental and prophetic about God’s purpose concerning them. Moses may well have wondered if Jehovah would now reveal himself under some new name to throw light on his purpose toward Israel. Moses’ going to the Israelites in the “name” of the One who sent him meant being the representative of that One, and the greatness of the authority with which Moses would speak would be determined by or be commensurate with that name and what it represented. (Compare Ex 23:20, 21; 1Sa 17:45.) So, Moses’ question was a meaningful one.God’s reply in Hebrew was: ʼEh·yehʹ ʼAsherʹ ʼEh·yehʹ. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha·yahʹ, from which the word ʼEh·yehʹ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.” Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the New World Translation properly renders the above Hebrew expression as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”—Ex 3:14,That this meant no change in God’s name, but only an additional insight into God’s personality, is seen from his further words: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.” (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from a Hebrew verb that means “to become,” and a number of scholars suggest that the name means “He Causes to Become.” This definition well fits Jehovah’s role as the Creator of all things and the Fulfiller of his purpose. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.This aids one in understanding the sense of Jehovah’s later statement to Moses: “I am Jehovah. And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them.” (Ex 6:2, 3) Since the name Jehovah was used many times by those patriarchal ancestors of Moses, it is evident that God meant that he manifested himself to them in the capacity of Jehovah only in a limited way. To illustrate this, those who had known the man Abram could hardly be said to have really known him as Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”) while he had but one son, Ishmael. When Isaac and other sons were born and began producing offspring, the name Abraham took on greater meaning or import. So, too, the name Jehovah would now take on expanded meaning for the Israelites.To “know,” therefore, does not necessarily mean merely to be acquainted with or cognizant of something or someone. The foolish Nabal knew David’s name but still asked, “Who is David?” in the sense of asking, “What does he amount to?” (1Sa 25:9-11; compare 2Sa 8:13.) So, too, Pharaoh had said to Moses: “Who is Jehovah, so that I should obey his voice to send Israel away? I do not know Jehovah at all and, what is more, I am not going to send Israel away.” (Ex 5:1, 2) By that, Pharaoh evidently meant that he did not know Jehovah as the true God or as having any authority over Egypt’s king and his affairs, nor as having any might to enforce His will as announced by Moses and Aaron. But now Pharaoh and all Egypt, along with the Israelites, would come to know the real meaning of that name, the person it represented. As Jehovah showed Moses, this would result from God’s carrying out His purpose toward Israel, liberating them, giving them the Promised Land, and thereby fulfilling His covenant with their forefathers. In this way, as God said, “You will certainly know that I am Jehovah your God.”—Ex 6:4-8; see ALMIGHTY.Professor of Hebrew D. H. Weir therefore rightly says that those who claim Exodus 6:2, 3 marks the first time the name Jehovah was revealed, “have not studied [these verses] in the light of other scriptures; otherwise they would have perceived that by name must be meant here not the two syllables which make up the word Jehovah, but the idea which it expresses. When we read in Isaiah, ch. lii. 6, ‘Therefore my people shall know my name;’ or in Jeremiah, ch. xvi. 21, ‘They shall know that my name is Jehovah;’ or in the Psalms, Ps. ix. [10, 16], ‘They that know thy name shall put their trust in thee;’ we see at once that to know Jehovah’s name is something very different from knowing the four letters of which it is composed. It is to know by experience that Jehovah really is what his name declares him to be. (Compare also Is. xix. 20, 21; Eze. xx. 5, 9; xxxix. 6, 7; Ps. lxxxiii. [18]; lxxxix. [16]; 2 Ch. vi. 33.)”—The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, Vol. I, pp. 856, 857.Known by the first human pair. The name Jehovah was not first revealed to Moses, for it was certainly known by the first man. The name initially appears in the divine Record at Genesis 2:4 after the account of God’s creative works, and there it identifies the Creator of the heavens and earth as “Jehovah God.” It is reasonable to believe that Jehovah God informed Adam of this account of creation. The Genesis record does not mention his doing so, but then neither does it explicitly say Jehovah revealed Eve’s origin to the awakened Adam. Yet Adam’s words upon receiving Eve show he had been informed of the way God had produced her from Adam’s own body. (Ge 2:21-23) Much communication undoubtedly took place between Jehovah and his earthly son that is not included in the brief account of Genesis.Eve is the first human specifically reported to have used the divine name. (Ge 4:1) She obviously learned that name from her husband and head, Adam, from whom she had also learned God’s command concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and bad (although, again, the record does not directly relate Adam’s passing this information on to her).—Ge 2:16, 17; 3:2, 3.As is shown in the article ENOSH, the start that was made of “calling on the name of Jehovah” in the day of Adam’s grandson Enosh was evidently not done in faith and in a divinely approved manner. For between Abel and Noah only Jared’s son Enoch (not Enosh) is reported to have ‘walked with the true God’ in faith. (Ge 4:26; 5:18, 22-24; Heb 11:4-7) Through Noah and his family, knowledge of the divine name survived into the post-Flood period, beyond the time of the dispersion of peoples at the Tower of Babel, and was transmitted to the patriarch Abraham and his descendants.—Ge 9:26; 12:7, 8.Where is God’s name found in Bible translations that are commonly used today?The New English Bible: The name Jehovah appears at Exodus 3:15; 6:3. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24; Ezekiel 48:35. (But if this and other translations use “Jehovah” in several places, why not be consistent in using it at every place where the Tetragrammaton appears in the Hebrew text?)Revised Standard Version: A footnote on Exodus 3:15 says: “The word LORD when spelled with capital letters, stands for the divine name, YHWH.”Today’s English Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 states: “THE LORD: . . . Where the Hebrew text has Yahweh, traditionally transliterated as Jehovah, this translation employs LORD with capital letters, following a usage which is widespread in English versions.”King James Version: The name Jehovah is found at Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24.American Standard Version: The name Jehovah is used consistently in the Hebrew Scriptures in this translation, beginning with Genesis 2:4.Douay Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 says: “My name Adonai. The name, which is in the Hebrew text, is that most proper name of God, which signifieth his eternal, self-existing being, (Exod. 3, 14,) which the Jews out of reverence never pronounce; but, instead of it, whenever it occurs in the Bible, they read Adonai, which signifies the Lord; and, therefore, they put the points or vowels, which belong to the name Adonai, to the four letters of that other ineffable name, Jod, He, Vau, He. Hence some moderns have framed the name of Jehovah, unknown to all the ancients, whether Jews or Christians; for the true pronunciation of the name, which is in the Hebrew text, by long disuse is now quite lost.” (It is interesting that The Catholic Encyclopedia [1913, Vol. VIII, p. 329] states: “Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name.”)The Holy Bible translated by Ronald A. Knox: The name Yahweh is found in footnotes at Exodus 3:14 and 6:3.The New American Bible: A footnote on Exodus 3:14 favors the form “Yahweh,” but the name does not appear in the main text of the translation. In the Saint Joseph Edition, see also the appendix Bible Dictionary under “Lord” and “Yahweh.”The Jerusalem Bible: The Tetragrammaton is translated Yahweh, starting with its first occurrence, at Genesis 2:4.New World Translation: The name Jehovah is used in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures in this translation, appearing 7,210 times.An American Translation: At Exodus 3:15 and 6:3 the name Yahweh is used, followed by “the LORD” in brackets.The Bible in Living English, S. T. Byington: The name Jehovah is used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.The ‘Holy Scriptures’ translated by J. N. Darby: The name Jehovah appears throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, also in many footnotes on Christian Greek Scripture texts, beginning with Matthew 1:20.The Emphatic Diaglott, Benjamin Wilson: The name Jehovah is found at Matthew 21:9 and in 17 other places in this translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text—A New Translation, Jewish Publication Society of America, Max Margolis editor-in-chief: At Exodus 6:3 the Hebrew Tetragrammaton appears in the English text.The Holy Bible translated by Robert Young: The name Jehovah is found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures in this literal translation.Re your query - Why do many Bible translations not use the personal name of God or use it only a few times?The preface of the Revised Standard Version explains: “For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom he had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.” (Thus their own view of what is appropriate has been relied on as the basis for removing from the Holy Bible the personal name of its Divine Author, whose name appears in the original Hebrew more often than any other name or any title. They admittedly follow the example of the adherents of Judaism, of whom Jesus said: “You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.”—Matt. 15:6.)Translators who have felt obligated to include the personal name of God at least once or perhaps a few times in the main text, though not doing so every time it appears in Hebrew, have evidently followed the example of William Tyndale, who included the divine name in his translation of the Pentateuch published in 1530, thus breaking with the practice of leaving the name out altogether.Was the name Jehovah used by the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures?Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.” (De viris inlustribus, chap. III) This Gospel includes 11 direct quotations of portions of the Hebrew Scriptures where the Tetragrammaton is found. There is no reason to believe that Matthew did not quote the passages as they were written in the Hebrew text from which he quoted.Other inspired writers who contributed to the contents of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted hundreds of passages from the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Many of these passages included the Hebrew Tetragrammaton right in the Greek text of early copies of the Septuagint. In harmony with Jesus’ own attitude regarding his Father’s name, Jesus’ disciples would have retained that name in those quotations.—Compare John 17:6, 26.In Journal of Biblical Literature, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write יהוה within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words [God] and [Lord], it would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself. . . . Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. . . . But when it was removed from the Greek O[ld] T[estament], it was also removed from the quotations of the O[ld] T[estament] in the N[ew] T[estament]. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates [substitutes] must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments.”—Vol. 96, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 76, 77.Which form of the divine name is correct—Jehovah or Yahweh?No human today can be certain how it was originally pronounced in Hebrew. Why not? Biblical Hebrew was originally written with only consonants, no vowels. When the language was in everyday use, readers easily provided the proper vowels. In time, however, the Jews came to have the superstitious idea that it was wrong to say God’s personal name out loud, so they used substitute expressions. Centuries later, Jewish scholars developed a system of points by which to indicate which vowels to use when reading ancient Hebrew, but they put the vowels for the substitute expressions around the four consonants representing the divine name. Thus the original pronunciation of the divine name was lost.Many scholars favor the spelling “Yahweh,” but it is uncertain and there is not agreement among them. On the other hand, “Jehovah” is the form of the name that is most readily recognized, because it has been used in English for centuries and preserves, equally with other forms, the four consonants of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.J. B. Rotherham, in The Emphasised Bible, used the form Yahweh throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. However, later in his Studies in the Psalms he used the form “Jehovah.” He explained: “JEHOVAH—The employment of this English form of the Memorial name . . . in the present version of the Psalter does not arise from any misgiving as to the more correct pronunciation, as being Yahwéh; but solely from practical evidence personally selected of the desirability of keeping in touch with the public ear and eye in a matter of this kind, in which the principal thing is the easy recognition of the Divine name intended.”—(London, 1911), p. 29.After discussing various pronunciations, German professor Gustav Friedrich Oehler concluded: “From this point onward I use the word Jehovah, because, as a matter of fact, this name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted.”—Theologie des Alten Testaments, second edition (Stuttgart, 1882), p. 143.Jesuit scholar Paul Joüon states: “In our translations, instead of the (hypothetical) form Yahweh, we have used the form Jéhovah . . . which is the conventional literary form used in French.”—Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique (Rome, 1923), footnote on p. 49.Most names change to some extent when transferred from one language to another. Jesus was born a Jew, and his name in Hebrew was perhaps pronounced Ye·shuʹa‛, but the inspired writers of the Christian Scriptures did not hesitate to use the Greek form of the name, I·e·sousʹ. In most other languages the pronunciation is slightly different, but we freely use the form that is common in our tongue. The same is true of other Bible names. How, then, can we show proper respect for the One to whom the most important name of all belongs? Would it be by never speaking or writing his name because we do not know exactly how it was originally pronounced? Or, rather, would it be by using the pronunciation and spelling that are common in our language, while speaking well of its Owner and conducting ourselves as his worshipers in a manner that honors him?Be today beg to ask the following question:Why is it important to know and use God’s personal name?Do you have a close relationship with anyone whose personal name you do not know? For people to whom God is nameless he is often merely an impersonal force, not a real person, not someone that they know and love and to whom they can speak from the heart in prayer. If they do pray, their prayers are merely a ritual, a formalistic repetition of memorized expressions.True Christians have a commission from Jesus Christ to make disciples of people of all nations. When teaching these people, how would it be possible to identify the true God as different from the false gods of the nations? Only by using His personal name, as the Bible itself does.—Matt. 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 8:5, 6.Ex. 3:15: “God said . . . to Moses: ‘This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, “Jehovah the God of your forefathers . . . has sent me to you.” This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.’”Isa. 12:4: “Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high.”Ezek. 38:17, 23: “This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘ . . . And I shall certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah.’”Mal. 3:16: “Those in fear of Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance began to be written up before him for those in fear of Jehovah and for those thinking upon his name.”John 17:26: “[Jesus prayed to his Father:] I have made your name known to them [his followers] and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”Acts 15:14: “Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.”Is Jehovah in the “Old Testament” Jesus Christ in the “New Testament”?Matt. 4:10: “Jesus said to him: ‘Go away, Satan! For it is written, “It is Jehovah [“the Lord,” KJ and others] your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.”’” (Jesus was obviously not saying that he himself was to be worshiped.)John 8:54: “Jesus answered [the Jews]: ‘If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me, he who you say is your God.’” (The Hebrew Scriptures clearly identify Jehovah as the God that the Jews professed to worship. Jesus said, not that he himself was Jehovah, but that Jehovah was his Father. Jesus here made it very clear that he and his Father were distinct individuals.)Ps. 110:1: “The utterance of Jehovah to my [David’s] Lord is: ‘Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’” (At Matthew 22:41-45, Jesus explained that he himself was David’s “Lord,” referred to in this psalm. So Jesus is not Jehovah but is the one to whom Jehovah’s words were here directed.)Phil. 2:9-11: “For this very reason also God exalted him [Jesus Christ] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. [Dy reads: “ . . . every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.” Kx and CC read similarly, but a footnote in Kx acknowledges: “ . . . the Greek is perhaps more naturally rendered ‘to the glory,’” and NAB and JB render it that way.]” (Notice that Jesus Christ is here shown to be different from God the Father and subject to Him.)

glossolalia language researchBasically, get a copy of scripture in a language that is not likely to be known in your area. Play it for all those who claim the gift of interpretation. You will not find a single person who gets the interpretation correct. This is a linguistic fact."In almost all instances, linguists are confident that the samples of T-speech represent no known natural language and in fact no language that was ever spoken or ever will be spoken by human beings as their native tongue. The phonological structure is untypical of natural languages. Some samples of T-speech, however, are more complex and cannot be clearly distinguished from a natural language on these grounds.15" age 372“Glossolalia: Analyses of Selected Aspects of Phonology and Morphology,” M.A. thesis, University of Texas, 1967, p. 95" (Linguistic and Sociological Analyses of Modern Tongues-Speaking: Their Contributions and Limitationsby 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: Eerdmans, 1986. Pp. 469-489.)Just google: Glossolalia in Contemporary Linguistic Study or google Samarin, TonguesThe highly respected 1972 study of John P. Kildahl (The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues) concludes that "from a linguistic point of view, religiously inspired glossolalic utterances have the same general characteristics as those that are not religiously inspired." In fact, glossolalia is a "human phenomenon, not limited to Christianity nor even to religious behavior." (Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements by Spittler, P. 340).Experts in the field of linguistics have diligently studied the phenomenon of glossolalia over a period of many years. One of the early investigations was made in the early 1960's by Eugene A. Nida. He provided a detailed list of reasons why glossolalia cannot be human language. Another early study, that of W.A. Wolfram in the year 1966, also concluded that glossolalia lacks the basic elements of human language as a system of coherent communication.In a massive study of glossolalia from a linguistic perspective by Professor William J. Samarin of the University of Toronto's Department of Linguistics published after more than a decade of careful research, he rejected the view that glossolalia is xenoglossia, i.e. some foreign language that could be understood by another person who knew that language. Samarin concluded that glossolalia is a "pseudo-language." He defined glossolalia as "unintelligible babbling speech that exhibits superficial phonological similarity to language, without having consistent syntagmatic structure and that is not systematically derived from or related to known language." (William J. Samarin, "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia," Language in Society, ed. Dell Haymes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972 pgs. 121-130)Felicitas D. Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, engaged in a study of various English - Spanish - and Mayan-speaking Pentecostal communities in the United States and Mexico. She compared tape recordings of non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan as well. She published her results in 1972 in an extensive monograph (Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study in Glossolalia by Felecitas D. Goodman, University of Chicago Press, 1972).Goodman concludes that "when all features of glossolalia were taken into consideration--that is, the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and its suprasegmental elements (namely, rhythm, accent, and especially overall intonation)-- she concluded that there is no distinction in glossolalia between Christians and the followers of non-Christian (pagan) religions. The "association between trance and glossolalia is now accepted by many researchers as a correct assumption," writes Goodman in the prestigious Encyclopedia of Religion (1987).Goodman also concludes that glossolalia "is, actually, a learned behavior, learned either unawarely or, sometimes consciously." Others have previously pointed out that direct instruction is given on how to "speak in tongues," ie. how to engage in glossolalia.In fact, it has been found that the "speaking in tongues" practiced in Christian churches and by individual Christians is identical to the chanting language of those who practice voodoo on the darkest continents of this world.Let us briefly examine the results of eight linguists:Eugene A. Nida, Secretary of Translations for the American Bible Society and world renowned expert in linguistics, concluded from his studies that the phonemic strata indicates that the phonomes of glossolalic utterances are closely associated with the language background of the speaker's native language.7Felicitas D. Goodman made phonetic analysis of glossolalia from recordings she taped for her Master's Degree in Mexico and different sections of the United States. She concludes that the glossolalia she analyzed was not productive and noncommunicative.8James Jaquith from Washington University in his research among English speaking tongue-speakers concludes that "There is no evidence that these glossolalic utterances have been generated by constituent subcodes of any natural language other than English."9Ernest Bryant and Daniel O'Connell of St. Louis University studied nine tapes of glossolalia taken from among their respondents. The results of their studies proved that "all glossolalic phonemes are within the normal phonemic repertoire of the native speaker of English."10 He says, "If a foreign language system were used a much greater divergence of phonemes would be expected, but the opposite is the case."Dr. Donald Larson of Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota, began analyzing glossolalic samples in Toronto, Canada, in 1957. Since then he has analyzed many samples and observed glossolalic behavior in different parts of the world. His research also concludes that the phonological features of the native speaker's language carried over into his glossolalia experience.11In a letter to Dr, William Welmers of U.C.L.A., I asked him, "In your studies of modern glossolalia have you detected any known language?" His reply was, "In short, absolutely not." He goes on to say that "Glossolalic utterances are consistently in important respects unlike human languages. They are characterized by a great deal of recurrences of closely similar sequences of syllables and usually employ a restricted number of different sounds." Dr. Welmers said that the same thing is true of hundreds of other utterances studied by Christian linguistics of his acquaintance.12Dr. Samarin, by far the most thorough, says, "There is no mystery about glossolalia. Tape recorded samples are easy to obtain and to analyze. They always turn out to be the same things: strings of syllables made up of sounds taken from among all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but which nevertheless emerge as word-like or sentence-like units.13F. Goodman, "Phonetic Analysis of Glossolalia in Four Cultural Settings," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (1969), Pages 227 to 239.F. Goodman, "Speaking in Tongues. A Cross-Cultural Study of Glossolalia," University of Chicago Press, (1972).W. Samarin, "Tongues of Men and Angels. The Religious Language of Pentecostalism," Macmillan (1972).W. Samarin, "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia," Language in Society, (1972), 1:121-130.W. Samarin, "Glossolalia as Regressive Speech," Language and Speech (1973), 16:77-89.W. Samarin, "Review of Goodman (1972)," Language (1974), 5:207-213.D. J. Janes, "Glossolalia: The Gift of Gibberish," available at the Institute for First Amendment StudiesJ.G. Melton, Ed., "The Encyclopedia of American Religions," Volume 1, Triumph Books, Tarrytown, NY, (1991), Page 41 to 47.Jussi Karlgren, "Speaking in tongues," The Linguist List, #6.385. A compilation of responses by linguists to a question on the structure of Glossolalia.Jeff Wehr, "Speaking in Tongues," Our Firm Foundation, Vol. 11, #11, 1996-NOV-11.Steve Paulson, "Divining the Brain," Templeton-Cambridge Journalism, 2006-SEP-20,Andrew Newberg, Nancy Wintering, Donna Morgan, and Mark Waldman, "The Measurement of Regional Cerebral Blood Flow During Glossolalia: a Preliminary SPECT Study." Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging for 2006-NOV. This is the official publication of the International Society for Neuroimaging in Psychiatry."Language Center of the Brain Is Not Under the Control of Subjects Who 'Speak in Tongues'," University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 2006-OCT-30,Kildahl (1975) points out that:"There are no reported instances of a glossolalist speaking a language which was then literally translated by an expert in that language…"Malony & Lovekin (1985:5) conclude:"Although tongue speakers often claim that their new language is French or Italian or Spanish, and so on – languages they never knew before – scientific studies to date have not confirmed their claims."T. H. Spoerril has described this speech as "unsemantical conglomerations of sounds" and "as sound externalized without sense which sometimes produces the impression of coherent speech." The terms "unintelligible," "meaningless," and "jibberish" have also been applied to the entities representing this type of speech.Boisen, A. T. Religion in Crisis and Custom: A sociological and Psychological study. New York, Harper, 1955.On Youtube: Creationist Study, Disproves Glossolalia As Language.Why did Jesus forbid prayer with babbling/long repetitions if he was going to give it as a special gift?“And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition (battalogeó/battalogēsēte) as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.” (Mat 6:7)If modern tongues are the same as those in Acts, why is there no verifiable xenoglossy?“devout men from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5) around the first tongue speakers clearly stated “we hear them in our own tongues” (Acts 2:11).If glossolalia is a real language, why are different interpretations given for the same phrase?“Interpretations do in fact take place, but they are usually pious exhortations in the language of the group where the glossic utterances are made. They are often strikingly longer or shorter than the glossic utterance.” (1)“I have heard the same glossolalic phrases repeated by the same glossolalist in different services, but each time the identical glossolalic utterances are given a different translation.“ (4)“the interpreters gave different meanings to identical words in the same set of words. When confronted with this inconsistency, the interpreters simply said, ‘God gave different interpretations.'” (14, 23)Why is Priming the Pump needed in Pentecostal training? I once visited Happy Church in Denver, CO. They hearded non-tongue speakers into a room and said, repeat after me. I asked what this this all about and they called it priming the pump.I have met many people who have had the same thing happen to them in different churches in different cities."A variety of linguistic analyses of glossolalia (the religious phenomenon of “speaking in tongues”) were performed to determine both the extent to which glossolalia is language‐like and the extent to which it is linguistically dependent upon the glossolalist's native language. The results indicate the glossolalia is, in more ways than not, both language‐like and unlike the speaker's native language. These results are contrary both to earlier studies of glossolalia and to the predictions of current psycholinguistic theory. The implication is that glossolalia manifests a unique sort of speech encoding which cannot now be, but must eventually be, accounted for by psycholinguistic theory."(A linguistic analysis of glossolalia: Evidence of unique psycholinguistic processingMichael T. Motley)1 Timothy 6:20,“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings…”1 Corinthians 14:19-20 “Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. 20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.”google Glossolalia Project for more research.Glossolalia and Linguistic Alterity: The Ontology of Ineffable SpeechEvandro BonfimA linguistic analysis of a corpus of glossolaliaSpeer, Blanche Corder, 1922-Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2004 pp. 171–184Glossolalia and Altered States of Consciousnessin two New Zealand Religious Movements"AbstractIn nine tape-recorded samples of glossolalia, there is a remarkably low correlation with English samples from the same Ss, ascribable primarily to variation in vowel frequency. Nonetheless, all glossolalic phonemes are within the normal phonemic repertoire of native speakers of English. There is a divergence of syllables per pause rates between glossolalia and English. Optional articulatory choices characteristic of glossolalic samples can evidently be studied by means of accepted scientific procedures independently of theological or religious explication."(A phonemic analysis of nine samples of glossolalic speechErnest BryantDaniel O’Connell)5 There were many religious Jews staying in Jerusalem. They were from every country of the world. 6 When they heard this strange sound, they gathered together. They all listened! It was hard for them to believe they were hearing words in their own language. 7 They were surprised and wondered about it. They said to each other, “Are not these Galileans who are speaking? 8 How is it that each one of us can hear his own language? 9 We are Parthians and Medes, Elamites and from the countries of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and in the countries of Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene. Some have come from the city of Rome. Some are Jews by birth and others have become Jews. 11 Some are also men of the countries of Crete and Arabia. They are speaking of the powerful works of God to all of us in our own language!”(Acts 2)Tongues: Intelligible LanguageIn an effort to exhort the Corinthian Christians toward a greater level of concern for one another in their use of “spiritual gifts,” Paul wrote this admonition. “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become a sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor. 13:1).If it can be established that the term “tongues,” when employed with reference to men, has to do with intelligent communication (and such can be demonstrated: see the article referenced above), then it must be conceded that the word “tongues,” when used of angels, similarly signifies an understandable language.In order for the “Pentecostal” view to be valid, there would have to be some compelling contextual evidence to indicate that the term “tongues” is used in two different senses in this passage, and there simply is none.Unintelligible Tongues Are UnlovingIn chapter 14 of the first Corinthian letter, one of Paul’s major points of emphasis is this. If one employs his gift of tongues before an audience that cannot understand the language spoken, and no interpreter is present to translate the message, such would be a violation of God’s will. In fact, it would be an act of vanity, and not a demonstration of love for the listener.This is the precise point of 13:1 as well. To speak in a tongue, when no one can understand the words, is an act void of love. Such would be nothing more than a sound (an irritating noise); it would not be an instructive message.The implication behind the argument is this. If the gift were exercised properly, i.e., in conjunction with an interpreter, the audience could understand the instruction, and such would evince the speaker’s love.But the identical point is made whether the allusion is to “the tongues of men” or to the “tongues of angels.” Even the tongues of angels, if it were possible to exercise such in an appropriate way, could be understood. There is nothing here suggesting a “gibberish” sort of utterance; just the opposite is the case.Angels Always Spoke UnderstandablyThere are numerous Bible examples of angels speaking to men. In not a single instance do they communicate in anything except in languages that are perfectly understandable — a communication that the recipient can process readily. There is not one shred of biblical evidence to suggest that angels speak in disjointed, incomprehensible sounds. As one scholar astutely observed:With respect to the words of angels which are recorded in the Scriptures, nothing can be plainer, more direct, and, we may say, more unimpassioned. They seem to say with the utmost conceivable plainness what they have been commissioned to say, and nothing more. No words are less the words of ecstasy than theirs (Sadler, 217).Angel’s Tongues: HyperbolePaul’s appeal to “angels” in 13:1 is a form of hyperbole (an exaggeration for emphasis’ sake) that is designed to accentuate his argument.Consider a similar use of this figurative expression in the apostle’s letter to the Galatians. He wrote:“But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8; emphasis added).The apostle is not suggesting that an angel actually is likely to proclaim a different gospel; the point is one of emphasis. Even if an angel were to preach a different gospel, there would be no validity in it, and he would fall victim to divine wrath.So similarly, in 1 Corinthians 13:1, Paul is not indicating that some Christians speak an “angelic” (ecstatic) language. Rather, he is merely saying that even if one could ascend to a new height, and communicate on the level of angels, if he did not exercise love by speaking in an understandable fashion, he still would be nothing but a distracting noise. The apostle’s argument does not hint of a mysterious, unintelligible utterance; in fact, it reflects just the opposite.When all the data is considered, there is no basis in 1 Corinthians 13:1 for the notion that there is a heavenly, ecstatic “glossolalia” that some saints are able to access, whereby they speak to God alone.REFERENCESM. F. Sadler. 1906. The First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. George Bell and Sons: London, England.SCRIPTURE REFERENCES1 Corinthians 13:1; Galatians 1:8CITE THIS ARTICLEJackson, Wayne. "What Are the "Tongues of Angels" in 1 Corinthians 13:1?" ChristianCourier.com | Church of Christ magazine investigating religious doctrine, Christian evidences, and ethical issues.. Access date: November 29, 2016. What Are the "Tongues of Angels" in 1 Corinthians 13:1?Mark 16:17These special powerful works will be done by those who have put their trust in Me. In My name they will put out demons. They will speak with languages they have never learned.1 Corinthians 14:10There are many languages in the world. All of them have meaning to the people who understand them.That's not the way I see it when you look at the verse in context. 1 Cor 13:1-3 consists of 5 parallel statements to emphasize the worthlessness of having spiritual gifts without love. Paul is pointing out that even if someone possessed spiritual gifts to the highest conceivable degree, but not have love, it would be to no avail. Each of them is a IF statement, where he presents 5 extreme hypothetical examples to make his point:"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."Even if someone had the gift of tongues to such a degree that they spoke in the language of angels, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them."If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge;...but do not have love, I am nothing."Even if someone had the gift of prophecy to such a degree that they knew ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie was omniscient), but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them."and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."Even if someone had the gift of faith to such a degree that they could remove mountains, but didn't have love, it would be a worthless to them."And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, ...but do not have love, it profits me nothing."Even if someone had the gift of giving to such a degree that they gave ALL their possessions to the poor, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them."and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing."Even if someone had the gift of giving to such a degree that they gave their own life, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them.None of these extreme hypothetical examples represents the normal operations of those gifts, including speaking with the tongues of angels. The statements are clearly presented as parallels, so you cannot say one is to be taken as being the normal operation, while the others are not.Notice that in each case Paul prefaces the hypothetical with the the normal operation of the gift: "If I speak with the tongues of men...", "If I have the gift of prophecy...", "if I have all faith...", "if I give...". So the normal operation of the gift of tongues is to speak in the tongues of men (not the hypothetical tongues of angels).On Romans 8:26 it clearly says the human tongue is unable to speak what the Holy Spirit is groaning, thus it is NOT speaking in languages.Romans 8:26-27King James Version (KJV)26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.Matthew 6:7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.But, in studying tongues by recording it and having a computer analysis of the recordings, all tongue speakers are doing is repetitions of sounds, not a language of any kind.Why does not two people give the same interpretation of the same recorded tongues example? Why does the interpretation vary so much in length of the recording?computer research on repetition of sounds, not language.GoogleSamarin analyzes the speech of tongue-speakers in the samemanner that a linguist analyzes a foreign language. He makes aphonetic and semantic inventory, and describes its prosodic andparalinguistic features. The discourse "is divided into units ofspeech . . . through accent, rhythm, intonation and pauses" (p.78). "The breathgroup itself can often be divided into subgroupsthrough phonological features" (p. 79). It consists of syllablesmade up of consonants and vowels taken from the speaker'snative language or a foreign language known to him, with muchrepetition, alliteration, and rhyme. However, the "syllable stringdoes not fall into words" (p. 81), even though one gets the feelingthat "words are almost emerging" (p. 82).In comparing glossolalia to real language Samarin shows howthe two differ in form and function. In form, real language is a ...(A Linguistic Analysis ofGlossolalia ...................................... Theodore Mueller 185)I have a big case which anyone can duplicate.Simply record various samples of "tongues" have various people with the gift of interpretation translate them and ask translators to translate them.On several occasions, I took recordings of languages likely not known in the English speaking world of works that have been translated and asked them to translate them --- to date, not a single person has gotten it even close within right. God allows and honors fleeces. He is also, not the god of chaos. Everyone at Pentecost heard them speaking in their own languages which tells me God gives us known real languages, not noise.Paul uses the illustration of music to say the languages from him have meaning otherwise, no one would heed the sound of attack.Data from recent neuroimaging studies on stuttering give us insights into the possible bases of these fluency-inducing conditions in stuttering speakers. The main brain regions that work together to make fluent speech production possible include areas in the frontal cortex of the brain, which controls movement planning and execution, and auditory sensory regions located farther back, in the temporoparietal cortex. Regions deeper within the brain, including the basal ganglia, thalamus, and cerebellum, also support speech movements by providing internal timing and sequencing cues. It is in these brain regions and their connections that researchers have found brain function and anatomy differences between stuttering speakers and fluent speakers.Using Brain Imaging to Unravel the Mysteries of Stuttering | Dana FoundationYes, because the tongue speaking thing was common in some of the mystery cults that Jesus was speaking against at the time.Too often we regard speaking in tongues as a purely Christian phenomenon, but it was known in the ancient ecstatic religions; and Aristophanes in Frogs mentions ’the tongue of Bacchos’ (357). While a heathen might babble without consciousness of what he was saying, there is no indication that speaking a known language without prior instruction was practiced outside of a Christian context.Pandemonium and Silence at CorinthThe most ancient evidence that we have is from the report of Winamon, a young man who was the worshipper of the Egyptian God Amon. The report which is dated approximately 1100 BC says that as he was worshipping Amon in the temple he was overwhelmed in a state of frenzy which continued throughout the night and he spoke in some ecstatic language. We don’t know if it was a legitimate language or just religious frenzy, gibberish, but it is clear that the tongues was the direct result of this kind of possession and control by a god, although it just could have been brought on by emotion which is true in a lot of cases.Plato also reports religious ecstatics in roughly the 5th century BC. In the accounts we can observe that in each instance reported by Plato the speaker had no control over his mental faculties, he did not know what he was saying, there was the need for some sort of interpreter or diviner who would tell what was said, and the person was allegedly under the control of a god.Virgil, writing about 17-19 BC, mentions a Sibyline priestess who would go into an ecstatic state where she was unified with the spirit of Apollo, and she would begin to speak in tongues, in ecstatic utterance. They claimed that it was known language. This is in pagan Greek worship of Apollo that she was probably possessed by a demon and spoke in a legitimate or a known language as well as in incoherent gibberish. Tongues in PaganismTongues and the Mystery Religions of CorinthH. Wayne House Tongues and the Mystery Religions of CorinthWhy do tongue speakers always uses phonemes of his or her native language?'interpretation' and 'translation go hand in hand. One can not translate until they have interpreted the text.in·ter·pre·ta·tioninˌtərprəˈtāSH(ə)n/nounthe action of explaining the meaning of something."the interpretation of data"synonyms: explanation, elucidation, expounding, exposition, explication, exegesis, clarification Morean explanation or way of explaining.plural noun: interpretations"this action is open to a number of interpretations"synonyms: meaning, understanding, construal, connotation, explanation, inference"they argued over interpretation"Definition of translation1: an act, process, or instance of translating: asa : a rendering from one language into another; also : the product of such a renderinghttp://blog.lionbridge.com/travel-hospitality/files/2012/07/Lionbridge-FAQ-Interp-vs-Translation.pdfI did ask them to put their interpretation into writing, and they did take the time to revise it a few times each and yet none of them ever came close to what the recordings really meant. The processes are similar enough in everyday language. Also, if the interpretation was from God it would be very accurate, thus close to a translation.The article I posted above lists five differences.But, if God is interpreting would not those be accurate?What I brought up are not "spiels of unbelief", but are common sense and discernment. In Acts 2 and in the writings of Paul it is clear that this gift is in fact speaking human language unknown to the speaker. God allows fleeces, I Thess 5:21 tells us to prove all things, hold to what is good. The exact thing of speaking in tongues were among the pagans, mystery religions first at Corinth and today in cults like LDS or Mormonism, Gnostic groups, oneness Pentecostals and even in world religions. Based on fact that none research wise are speaking human languages, it must be babble from the disengaging of the human mind which is the same thing imaging brain research wise that occurs with stuttering.The verb "speak" in 1 Corinthians 13:1 is in the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood in Greekassumes an unreality, or something not presently the case. Paul was not speaking in tongues of angels, butonly used that phrase to make a hypothetical case based on a hyperbole. Furthermore, there is no evidence thatangels use a heavenly language, for when they communicate in Scripture they use normal human language(Luke 1:11-37, 2:8-14).Do Pentecostals really speak in Languages? The ResearchAside, I often collect recordings in langues unknown to most Americans. Play them for Pentecostals. There has never been a Pentecostal who got any of the messages correct.Interpretations rarely match the lenght of the recording. Many of the recordings are people teaching non Christian subjects or opinions.