- Speaking in tongues is a sign to those who do not believe
- Biblically, “tongues” refers to languages
- There were only three cases of speaking in tongues in the Book of Acts: 2:4-11, 10:44-48, and 19:1-8
- All three instances of speaking in tongues, Apostles were present, and Jews were present. In all three cases, unbelieving Jews were in the vicinity to witness.
- speaking in an unknown tongue probably refers to speaking in Hebrew, according to two commentators (Adam Clarke and Charles Hodge)
- Speaking in tongues must be done one at a time.
- there must be no more than three people per service speaking in tongues.
- Someone must be there that understands that language to interpret.
- There must be no more than three people to preach at any service.
- women may not preach or speak in tongues.
I realize again, that for many whom the Lord will bring here to read this… many will reject the word of God as revealed in the Bible for their own experiences, and for the good feeling within them.
Sadly, I want to say – if you go by your experiences or your good feelings rather than what God has to say… it is fruit to show you probably are not saved. You most likely will be hearing those dreaded words… ” I never knew ye.” For your sake, Im begging you to pray about this, to read the Bible, the inspired, preserved, inerrant word of God – and go by what the Bible commands you, and not what you experience.
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9 (KJV)
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. Romans 7:18 (KJV)
You cannot go by your experiences. If you are truly born again, you will go by the word of God.
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26-27 (KJV)
I’m trying to save your soul. And if you are saved, but decieved and misled, I’m trying to get you back into a proper Biblical understanding of Doctrine.
Continuing on with our examination…
1 Corinthians was written in 54 AD. Paul spoke of the sign gifts soon to pass.
Phillippians was written 61 AD.
25 Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants. 26 For he longed after you all, and was full of heaviness, because that ye had heard that he had been sick. 27 For indeed he was sick nigh unto death: but God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. Philippians 2:25-27 (KJV)
1 Timothy was written in 64 AD, ten years later.
20 Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick. 2 Timothy 4:20 (KJV)
23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities. 1 Timothy 5:23 (KJV)
If the sign gifts were still in effect – why could Paul not heal Trophimus, Epaphroditus and Timothy?
Now for the long promised analysis of tongues…
Speaking in tongues, as previously mentioned, was speaking in a foreign tongue. This meant speaking in Latin, or in Arabic, or in Persian, or… you get the point.
What is “Rhondalalalalaishka?”
I don’t know. Do you? If you don’t either… it’s not speaking in tongues.
1Co 14:8-11 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? (9) So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. (10) There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. (11) Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
Nobody is sure. The words make no sense. It is not a true language, and therefore not Biblical Speaking in tongues. Contrary to the claims of some uninformed Charismatics, speaking in tongues has been analyzed numerous times by language experts. They always have concluded it was babbling.
“Bubblyaida, Bubblyaida, Bubbliaida…” would be the same word (if it was one) three times..
It cannot mean “Praise the Lord” as it is the same sound repeated.
“Shanananananana” is two sets of consonants, the last one repeated. Like, “Mustache-ache-ache-ache” or “water-ter-ter-ter-ter.” It cannot mean “Praise the Lord.” It may possibly be “Praise” with the last syllable repeated eight times in some language I do not know.
I am not picking on tongues speakers… I am quoting three separate phrases used by documented tongues speakers.
Language has sets of words, often 12,000 to 25,000 words. (The King James Bible uses about 8,000 words). Words come in sets of letters, composed of consonants and vowels. It has structure.
Modern tongues has no discernible structure. Experts cannot identify nouns and verbs, the simplest rudiments of speech. Most Modern Tongues speakers have “tongues” vocabularies of at maximum, about 50 sounds. This is far too few to be a language.
Shema Israel, Adonai Elohaynu, Adonai Echad. Baruch Shem Kevod Malkuso L’olam Vayed. V’ahvta et Adonai Elohaykha v’kol nafsh’ka v’kol lav’ka v’kol me’odekha.
Compare this (Deut. 6:4-5) to “Shan dama lai kushaiah hodhaiah salamah maqaiah shan dama lai maqaiah muriah.” Keep a mental thumb on this spot, I’m going to be analyzing and attempting a translation of this phrase.
Most of those words in the second example end in the same vowel sound. As a matter of fact, it should be noted almost all the words have the same pairing of vowels – ah-ah or ah-yah.
The first example is obviously a language – Hebrew. The second… is gibberish. And an actual quote of tongue speaking. Compared to the first example, “Eh-ah” “A-O-Ai” “Eh-Oh-Ay-ooo”. We’ve seen a greater variety in the very first three words than in the entire second example.
“Shan Dama” seems to be an adjective and perhaps a noun. “Lai” a conjunction perhaps.
The next three words, ending in “Iah” seem to be verbs, with suffix tenses like Hebrew. But… three verbs, with no adverbs to modify or prepositions to link together make no sense whatsoever.
I can only attempt a sample translation, as I have absolutely no idea what the corresponding values are for these languages.
Example translation: “When David happens Run I do, Boat I do, Walk I do, James fixes I do, when David happens James Fixes I do, skateboard I do.”
I simply assigned temporary words, nouns for nouns, verbs for verbs, and apparent conjunctions where apparent conjunctions exist. As the syllabic combination is repeated, I repeated the example word.
You can argue with me what the actual meanings of the words are. But it’s hard to argue with the results. Substitute your own verbs for verbs and nouns for nouns. If you can come up with something more sensible, let me know. But it has to follow demonstrable rules of some kind of grammar.
There are no identifiable prepositions, or adverbs.
Having learned some Japanese, German, Yiddish, Aramaic, Russian, Hebrew, Greek, Spanish and French… I can honestly say it does not resemble a language. However, I am not an expert. I am just saying it doesn’t seem to make sense to me! It seems to be – both in the actual quote and in the test translation, gibberish.
“Shan dama lai kushaiah hodhaiah salamah maqaiah shan dama lai maqaiah muriah.”
Maqaiah sounds like Micaiah.
1Ki 22:8 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may inquire of the LORD : but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so
Dama sounds like Hakel Dama, or Aceldama in Greek.
Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Kushiah sounds like the Cush nation.
My explanation? The Complete “Shan Dama” is 30% King James Bible words, and words that sound like the Bible, mixed with 30% babble and 40% imagination.
It is not a language. (again, I am not an expert. Shigata ga nai, neh?)
I cannot determine its source. It is not a language from God, or EVERY follower of God would be able to understand it word for word.
- Eskimo Shamans speak in modern tongues sounds. They don’t believe in Jesus, and practice Magic, something we know comes from Satan. Is this from God?
- Tibetan Monks speak in tongues, both modern and ancient type. John MacArthur reports hearing them speaking in German. Buddhism denies Jesus and God. Is this from God?
- People under demonic possession in New Orleans voodoo ceremonies speak in modern tongues. Is this from God?
- Roman Catholics who are not born again speak in tongues. Is this from God?
- Some Witches Grottos feature speaking in tongues. Is this from God?
- Priestesses of North Borneo speak in tongues while possessed. Is this from God?
- Tribal Doctors speak in tongues in the Andes mountains while casting spells. Is this from God?
- Tongues speakings occur in seances in Japan. Is this from God?
- Mormons speak in tongues. Is this from God?
- The Temple of Delphi at Corinth had tongues speaking. Was that from God?
- If it is not from God, where is it from?
I have a video of Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland speaking to each other in this kind of sounds. If you are interested, I’ll be more than happy to attempt an analysis of this! But I’m sure that what I’ve already done either convinced you… or you are unconvinceable no matter how much logic and Bible I’ve already used.
The following experts in language all have studied Glossolalia (speaking in tongues) in depth, and have concluded it is not a real language:
- Eugene Nida (father of “Dynamic Equivalence”, the corrupt doctrine that gave us the NIV)
- W. A. Wolfram
- William J. Samarin
- Felicitas Goodman
William J. Samarin’s book “Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia,” (Language in Society, Cambridge University Press, 1972 pgs. 121-130) describes modern tongues speaking 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.”
Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study in Glossolalia by Felecitas D. Goodman (University of Chicago Press, 1972) also addressed modern speaking in tongues, concluding there was no difference between “Christian” speaking in tongues and pagan speaking in tongues.
If that doesn’t tell you something, you need to re-read that, and pray about it. In your native language, that is – be it English, German, French, whatever.
Again, remember – are you going to go by the Bible or your experiences?
- The Word Faith Movement Answered 2 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- The Word Faith Movement Examined 1 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)