This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Speaking in tongues article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
![]() | Interpretation of tongues was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 October 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Speaking in tongues. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was not moved – no consensus — ækTalk 06:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Glossolalia → Speaking in tongues — per WP:NC, article title should be the most commonly used and recognized, for which readers are most likely to look, and to which editors will most naturally link. Ἀλήθεια 19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Anyone has any reference to McKenna talking about Glossolalia in one of his books? Twipley (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed a portion that stated "shunda" and its equivalents "shindar", "shinda", etc. were universal in the tongue-speaking world. A closer inspection of the source says the contrary (find it by searching 'tikitiki'). Whoever originally posted it misread the second half of the sentence, I suppose. There's also no mentions of conjugations of the word, so I have no idea where they made that up =/ . Here's the original source they...'used': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#cite_note-kavan-17 . --a guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.196.188.66 (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is rather disturbing to me, in the fact that the definition of "speaking in tongues" it gives, although maybe accepted by a large community, is completely different from the definition used in the bible. A tongue, in the bible, has meant "language," and as it describes in 1 Cor. 14 (Annotated KJV), as men from different countries spoke with one another and understood one another; it isn't unintelligible babble, but that the men were speaking in more language than once, so people could speak a language they did not know, while simultaneously speaking their own. This leads me to believe that much of this "modern interpretation" is completely wrong, except for maybe the psychoanalysis part. --64.136.202.74 (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (not logged in, actual wiki id: inthend9)
I agree with the OP. The only place "speaking in tongues" is described is in Acts. It's quite clear in this passage that the disciples are speaking in human languages because the congregation remarks on hearing them speak their own native tongues. It's true that "speaking in tongues" is mentioned in Corinthians but you have to read-in the idea that Paul meant glossolalia rather than speaking in a foreign tongue the speaker himself did not know. Both meanings are perfectly viable but only the latter makes sense in the context of Acts. Korona (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Rome was like New York City of today. It was the place that had everything, including people from different countries, speaking their native tongues. When the “gift of tongues” was given at Pentecost, it wasn’t glossolalia', a practice in which people utter words or speech-like sounds, often thought by believers to be languages unknown to the speaker. Of what use would that be? What would uttering sounds and words no one could understand contribute to the spreading of the good news? Speaking in tongues, bestowed upon the 120 in the upper rooms meant that miraculously, they could speak in a tongue , or language, they had never learned. The purpose? To follow Jesus’s command to spread the good news to the furthest corners of the world. After the establishment of the Christian congregation and after the death of the last apostle, the gift ceased and so did prophesying. There was no need for it as people went back to their native countries and spread the word. Anyone today speaking nonsensical gibberish and describes it as “speaking in tongues”, or go into trances doing it, should understand that they may be doing that. But the gift is not from God and if it is not from God, then there is only one other source it could come from. Those practicing this need to make a through examination of what they are doing. Are they teaching as God would want them to? Or are they misleading people with gibberish which only serves to obscure the word of God, and that could only come from Satan? Biblically,only account of persons speaking gibberish no one could understand is that if demon possessed people. Foxsingstheblues (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
(I may be late, but I have only just come across this page.)
The term: "Speaking in Tongues" is the term generally used by:
(1) Those who do it, (2) Those who argue against it, (3) The vast majority of the population who have any reason to want to know anything about it.
The term: "Glossolalia" is generally only used by theologians and (allegedly) scientific researchers.
Most ordinary people would have absolutely no idea what "Glossolalia" means.
I propose we go with the people on this one. That's who Wikipedia is for.
(Just in case anyone wants to know: Yes, I'm a plain ordinary bog-standard Christian who does it.) Darkman101 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
This article needs audio samples to illustrate the practice of glossolia. Else, it is too windy.Sindhbadh (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Has this shown up in anime? I think wikipedia should discuss Glossolalia in Anime. --86.148.74.171 (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
What is Igmo? I tried to find a lyrics translation for the song Dance of Curse, from Esxaflowne, and it doesn`t seem to be a language. I can find the words, but not what they mean.
All of the information I have been able to find about this topic focuses on religion or spiritual aspects of the event. What about when it occurs in people without any religious context?
-Is there a seperate term for that?
-Many definitions mention a "trance-like state" - what about when a person doesn't "trance", just suddenly shifts into an alternative verbal pattern without any accompanying physical/emotional/situational change?
-Have there been any studies done of the behavior without it being in a faith-invoked/involved setting?
- Are there currently any studies being done that do not involve a religious element?144.124.243.172 (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC) ←
There are indeed people who can do this voluntarily with no religious connotation to it whatsoever (I know at least one personally). If anyone can find some studies or source material covering non-religious glossolalia, please add it; it would be much appreciated. 192.54.250.11 (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I removed the following footnote cited in several places in the article: "Personal Interview with Deborah Cox. Professor of Writing about the Bible as Literature. 4 May 2009. Lonestar College Library. Conroe, Texas, 77384[verification needed]". Wikipedia's guidelines on No original research is clear. Since "personal interviews" are not published, they are not verifiable. Ltwin (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The OED seems to show the latter preposition is the standard. Why then the most frequent preposition in the phrase in the article is "in" ?
c.II.8.c The knowledge or use of a language. Esp. in phrases gift of tongues, to speak with a tongue (tongues), in reference to the Pentecostal miracle and the miraculous gift in the early Church; also simply tongues (pl. in collect. sense).
1526 Tindale [see 2 a]. ― 1 Cor. xii. 30 Do all speake with tonges? Ibid. xiii. 8 Though that prophesyinge fayle, other tonges shall cease, or knowledge vanysshe awaye. 1533 Gau Richt Vay 48 The halie spreit‥gaif to thayme ye gift to speik with al twngis. 1538 Cromwell in Merriman Life & Lett. (1902) II. 144 Ioynyng wyth you Maister Mason‥to declare your purpose for that having the tongue he may doo‥it more fully thenne you could percace easly vtter the same. 1593 R. Harvey Philad. 3 Neither can you proue that hee had not wealth enough to serue his vses, or tongue enough in euery place of his trauell. a 1637 B. Jonson Underwoods, Execration upon Vulcan 75 Their‥bright stone that brings Invisibility, and strength, and tongues. 1879 Farrar St. Paul I. 96 The glossolalia or ‘speaking with a tongue’, is connected with ‘prophesying’, that is, exalted preaching. 1965 Sunday Mail (Brisbane) 5 Dec. 31/5 Some parishioners have complained to the Diocesan authorities‥about Mr. Schofield's interest in speaking with tongues. 1972 S. Tugwell Did you receive Spirit? v. 40 Some manifestation, usually tongues, is generally expected; indeed, strict Pentecostals demand it. 1976 Church Times 5 Mar. 14/2 Tongues is a personal and devotional gift as opposed to the others, which are intended to help people.
9.II.9 transf. in biblical use: A people or nation having a language of their own. Usually in plural: all tongues, people of every tongue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.155.250 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The introduction gives one definition as the most correct, when later in the article there are many given. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I was raised in Russian Orthodoxy, & when I stumbled to this page, I was surprised that the term glossolalia is in the Greek, as opposed to the more frequently used form „speaking in tongues.“ The occurrence could be read in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 2. Which made me wondered, „Why is not the Greek Christian or any other Eastern Church have a section on this page?“ So I accompanied the matter with some research, & I did find some interesting perspectives about the speaking in tongues from Orthodox sources. Here are a few that I found reliable to start a section:
Here are some blogs that cover the subject:
Here is an extensive sermon [video on the website YouTube,] which I am not sure is reliable but dœs cover the perspective:
A podcast:
Thank you for your time reading my question, I hope & am seeing into the construction of an Orthodox perspective section. 序名三「Jyonasan」 TalkStalk 04:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems that on April 10, 2012, someone added the section on Catholicism. Why does Catholicism get its own section when it seems that the way the article is outlined is by time period, not by Christian denomination. Furthermore, the section asserts that "Glossolalia is the miraculous ability to speak in a foreign language so that foreigners can hear the Gospel." If this is indeed the "Catholic" definition of speaking in tongues, then it belongs at the article xenoglossia. One more thing, it contradicts the very real and vibrant charismatic movement within the Catholic Church, which has official papal approval. These blanket statements that glossolalia is always understood as speaking a foreign language and never as speaking a heavenly or sacred language cannot be supported. The current teaching of the Catholic Church on this charism is much more nuanced than this section leads one to believe. For this reason, I am removing this section. Ltwin (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Totally church biased, the whole article is. There is a point "science" missing as psychology and medical sciences have a very different opinion which is absolutely neglected and practically not mentioned in the article. The majority - by far - of the Western world population does not see glossolalia as anything religious but as something not working right in the human brain. Also, the majority of "Protestants" rejects glossolalia as something not being part of the religion and not belonging in a church. Only pentecostals and a few other fringe sects see glossolalia as part of religion and church service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4958:D783:24E7:F51E:26FD:9ACC (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Glossolalia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Is this what the article is trying to explain? I don`t diddly, but I do ramble on in gibberish when nervous or angry. Kaskada Zglovos zjidaku hlanak mlavad.
I suggest adding a section on secular interpretations of the phenomenon. An example reliable reference is: The measurement of regional cerebral blood flow during glossolalia: A preliminary SPECT study See: http://www.amebrasil.org.br/html/Newberg2006.pdf
Also, chapter 6 of book "How Enlightenment Changes your Brain" by Andrew Newburg discusses this in some depth. Glossolalia is likely one of many forms of "enlightenment" that can be induced by various secular practices of meditation and other secular rituals.
Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement over the first sentence of the article. Since at least 2013, the article has opened with essentially the following sentence, "Glossolalia or (speaking in tongues) is the fluid vocalizing of speech-like syllables that lack any readily comprehended meaning, in some cases as part of religious practice.[1]." As of this edit, the article begins with "Glossolalia or (speaking in tongues) is the religious phenomenon of persons speaking languages not known to them." I have two problems with this sentence. First, it is vague and doesn't actually describe what the article is about. It could be referring either glossolalia or xenoglossy. Second, we discuss what xenoglossy is before we even define glossolalia. It is only at the end of the paragraph that we actually find out what glossolalia is as opposed to xenoglossy. Whatever the etymology of the word, as it is used today it is not simply "speaking languages not known to them" but speaking what are believed to be non-human languages. The reader shouldn't have to read the entire lead section before they understand the difference. Ltwin (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The history section should probably include a proper reference to the Pythia. This is a contemporary reference that was popular to those in the Greco-Roman world and actually sets the stage for why this behavior would be accepted and found to be intriguing to them in the first place. This citation references what is likely the origin of this practice.69.40.38.162 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Glossolalia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
http://www.davidcrystal.com/?fileid=-4204
(The original article is apparently http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014610799502500304).
In short, the author relates the proposition that the Apostles spoke in non-prestigious languages (Aramaic & Greek) in a situation where others expected them to speak in the prestigious language of the place (Hebrew). This would explain why detractors ridiculed them as drunkards, and not (as was the case with Jesus in the Gospels) denounced as possessed by demons. 37.190.146.24 (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
So after all that religion, all we have is two sentences of actual medical science??? 2600:1700:4CA1:3C80:AD1B:7F60:7F8F:70B6 (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tongues. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Glossolalia → Speaking in tongues – per WP:COMMONNAME. "Speaking in tongues" is a far more common term for this than "glossolalia" as demonstrated by the Google Ngrams Rreagan007 (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
In the History section, what's the strange box at the bottom of the Classical antiquity subsection doing there? It's unsourced and I'm not sure how it fits with the preceding text. JezGrove (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k0JeEKR3Do 98.4.118.65 (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted a significant addition to the above section. The addition can be found in the history here:[1]. I have a number of concerns, although I note it is a good faith edit that included citations to papers. Nevertheless the reasons for reverting are:
Those who engage in glossolalia often describe it in first person as a surrender of their willand other generic statements, but the information is being sourced to a single primary source. Secondary sourcing is required for such statements
Three maim[sic] hypotheses. We are given primary sourcing for each but no secondary sourcing showing why these are the main hypotheses, nor why they are notable for this addition.
To help us evaluate what can be said here, I include the additional sources found. I note that as the fourth is not in a citation template, these may have been obtained from elsewhere on Wikipedia perhaps?
To move this forward, it would be good if this were guided by a suitable secondary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)