Tongues with Respect to Real Language

[Medawlinno]

I am hoping to get some insight into a few questions I had regarding tongues.

Guess this needs to be done in two posts, so #1…

Specifically, I’m looking at situations where the speaker will ‘pray with’ or ‘pray over’ a person in tongues (this person I’ll refer to as the ‘recipient’) and the recipient will hear it as his/her native language, which the speaker does not know nor has ever been exposed to in any way shape or form. As I understand it, this typically will occur in a more private setting as opposed to a more public setting such as a church service.

As a Linguist, I have studied the phenomenon of tongues and, without getting into details (which can be found elsewhere on this forum), suffice to say that I am working on the premise that there are no known provable cases of what is known as xenoglossy/xenoglossia; the ability to speak a language one has never had any previous contact with in any way, shape or form.

So, to the questions –

Despite the premise outlined above, the Pentecostal/Charismatic community is rife with examples of ‘tongues’ being heard/understood as real language(s). It is truly unfortunate that no such cases have ever been documented and studied as it would answer a lot of debates and questions. I am not beyond believing that that the divine can speak to a third party through someone. In fact, this is common in a lot of faith traditions around the world and, is more the “correct” (if I can call it that) usage of the tool of glossolalia as it is practiced around the world.

If for a moment we can take these occurrences (situations where the speaker will ‘pray with’ or ‘pray over’ a person in tongues and the recipient will hear it as his/her native language) at face value, it begs a few questions:

1. Is the speaker actually shifting their non-cognitive non-language utterances (NC-NLU’s, a/k/a glossolalia) to a real language?
2. Is the recipient physically hearing the speaker in his/her language?
3. Is the recipient only subconsciously hearing his/her own language?

The unfortunate thing is that, from what I’ve been able to learn, these occurrences seem to always occur on a one-to-one basis; there never seems to be anyone else there to verify what’s going on with respect to the above questions.

I would argue that, unless proven otherwise, scenario one is probably unlikely. If the speaker is actually shifting from NC-NLU’s to real language, it would be something instantly and very obvious to any third party present. I have never heard of any such accounts reported.

With scenario two, if the recipient is physically hearing the speaker in his/her language, the additional question it begs is: if a third party were there, what would they hear; NC-NLU’s or real language?

If real language, then scenario one would be the answer – the speaker is shifting from NC-NLU’s to real language.

If however any third party present is still hearing NC-NLU’s while the recipient is hearing his/her language, then this would be a question of how what is being spoken by the speaker is perceived by the listener(s) (recipient and any third party); i.e. what we can for now term a “miracle of hearing”.

With scenario three, if the speaker is not shifting to a real language and the recipient is also hearing it as NC-NLU’s but subconsciously receiving a message in his/her language, then the situation is similar to scenario two; however, what the recipient is hearing is not actually anything being spoken in any way by the speaker. In this case, the NC-NLU’s are serving as a tool by which the message is subconsciously perceived by the recipient in his/her language.

continued…

 

[Medawlinno]

OK - here’s the second and last part…

Again, this is the issue with many of these reports; there is never a third party ‘witness’ to verify what is happening.

Further, what is the recipient actually hearing? Is it simply a word or phrase repeated over and over, or is it an actual short monologue?

I suspect that in most cases, the recipient is subconsciously hearing a message in his/her own language rather than a change/shift in what the speaker is physically producing.

The ‘praying with’ or ‘praying over’ the recipient by the speaker via NC-NLU’s just sets the tone/mood, so to speak, to allow the recipient to receive a positive reinforcement/outcome to his/her situation by means of a received message in his/her own language.

Whether or not the message is subconsciously self-created or actually divinely received is a matter for further study (between psychologists and theologians). Perhaps, however, it’s actually a lot more straightforward; if you believe in divine help, then the message perceived is from God; if not, then it’s self-created. Personally, I’d like to hope it’s the first.

The above I believe describe the more correct use of glossolalia; i.e. to aid a third party (the “recipient” as referenced above) on a very personal, and apparently one-to-one basis, but it begs the question of just what is going on with the speaker (NC-NLU’s or shifting to real language), and how the recipient is perceiving the phenomenon (physically hearing his/her language, subconsciously perceiving a message in his/her own language), and if there is a third party present, what are they perceiving; NC-NLU’s or a shift to real language?

Most reports I’m familiar with are, to put it bluntly, sort of hearsay; “So-and-so told me onetime that……”; “My friend said that while she was in such-and-such a place, she heard that….”. They are not told by the actual ‘recipient’ of the message; they’re reported by someone else who usually was not there to witness the event, not an actual account by the recipient of what transpired.

Do such reports exist? I’m hoping to find something that may describe such experiences in a more unbiased manner (sort of “this is what happened as best I can describe it” type description).

The purpose is to try and determine (1) what is the speaker producing in these instances, (2) how does the recipient perceive the message in his/her language with respect to what the speaker is producing, and lastly (3) what is the recipient actually hearing; a word, a phrase, a short monologue. If only a word of phrase, is it said once or is it repeated.

Insights to the above would be appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[ffg]

Just a heads up - you may get some action, but if you haven’t already, search for the subject. You will find quite a bit of info.

 

[DebChris]

Your post is too long for most people to understand.
You are looking for encyclopedic knowledge beyond what many people can answer.
I watched a movie last night about St. Joseph of Cupertino, who was a simpleton but was able to explain the Trinity (by use of a blanket) and ordained a priest.
He had the simple faith of a child.

Tongues is a charism, a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is not learned in a scholarly fashion as person takes up languages in school.
Do look for the other threads on this subject for a better understanding of this unique gift. Read the Acts of the Apostles.

Sometimes, we need to let go and enter into the mystery of our Faith instead of trying to figure it all out. Pope Benedict XVI said we forget about the wonder and awe that is our God.

 

[Medawlinno]

Thanks - I did search, but as mentioned, most of what comes up is reported by a third party who wasn’t there so can’t really “fill in the specific details”.

 

[Tomyris]

Well, I have studied it, spoken in tongues publicly, had them interpreted publicly by others, interpreted others’ tongues, heard someone (native English speaker) who thought they were praying in tongues praying in English, etc.

I don’t know the answers. I don’t know that we have the answers. If someone can tongue-talk “Wakiki-Honolulu-Havana” and someone interprets it as “My children, I love you”, what just happened? Maybe there was a tongue, somehow, and an interpretation, or something someone thought was a tongue, but wasn’t, but there was a prophecy? Or maybe neither happened.

Linguists have tape recorded tongue talking and said that it was pseudo-English, with all the phonemes in the native language of the speaker. And there are reports of English-free Tibetan monks quoting Shakespeare in their ecstasies (without a trace of native accent?). Most of the evidence is anecdotal and, as has been said, is not really the province of scientific investigation.

Who is going to be your unbiased witness? In this situation, the only one is God, and He reserves some things to Himself in the way of explanation.

 

[ffg]

Thanks - I did search, but as mentioned, most of what comes up is reported by a third party who wasn’t there so can’t really “fill in the specific details”.

I should have been specific about searching the forums here.

Those who have experience with the subject tend to have various opinions of it.

I had a priest try to get me to do it, I was around it a lot for a spell.

My experience of the ‘gift’ as it is commonly associated today, is used for worship.

I’m not sure I’ve ever heard that person B understood person A’s unintelligible ‘speaking’. (Until the above post)

At certain prayer services there are teams of people who try to determine if a message someone is feeling / getting is for the whole crowd to hear. I’m familiar with that explanation of the message in the common language.

The effect of Pentecost was a specific and known language spoken and a different known language heard.

Perhaps someone on here knows the origination of the change to what is commonly thought of today as the ‘gift of tongues’.

Happy hunting!

 

[steve93]

A tongue was a real language, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Persian, etc. A real language that could be verified.

 

[Tomyris]

A tongue was a real language, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Persian, etc. A real language that could be verified.

Ah. There is the rub. What about ‘angelic tongues’ (1 Cor 13:1)? We do not have an exhaustive compilation of every language that ever has been or will be spoken, in all their changes and variations. What is a ‘real language’ anyway? And someone familiar with, say, Indo-European languages will dismiss languages from other families as babble because they do not conform to the rules, the rules, that is, of Indo-European language.

‘Wikiwiki’ sounds like something someone made up, but it means ‘quickly’ in Hawaiian. And a First Nations friend of mine told me of two Amerind languages of two tribes with overlapping phonemes, but ‘I come in peace’ in one language meant something like ‘your mother is an ugly dog’ in the other. And there are overlaps between English and German: the German word for the English “thick” will, I think, get filtered for profanity, although it is a slang word for detective, among other things.

The problem here is that how do you know someone is available to interpret some ancient and now dead language, or even that that is your tongue, if you have only one?

Paul spoke in tongues, and ‘more than all of you’, in 1 Corinthians 14. He encouraged it, meaning it was something that was encouraged by the apostle, with his authority, and so we see that there is a difference between a public tongue, meant to be heard and interpreted, and a private tongue, which may not be interpreted.

The modern tongues movement originated in Topeka Kansas, at the leading of Charles Parham, in 1901, when, as the result of his group studying the book of Acts, speaking in tongues was deemed the definitive evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. This teaching exploded into the Pentecostal movement as a result of the Azusa Street Revival (1906-1909) in Los Angeles.

I have seen both good and bad as a result, and I have heard hot argument on both sides, as well as having, unsurprisingly, engaged in some. I think today we need to see to it that it is not an issue that divides Christians, as it has, with one side accusing the other of pride, gnosticism, Biblical enthusiasm and overenthusiasm on the one hand and quenching the Holy Spirit, cold dead religion and pride on the other.

 

[steve93]

Ah. There is the rub. What about ‘angelic tongues’ (1 Cor 13:1)? We do not have an exhaustive compilation of every language that ever has been or will be spoken, in all their changes and variations. What is a ‘real language’ anyway? And someone familiar with, say, Indo-European languages will dismiss languages from other families as babble because they do not conform to the rules, the rules, that is, of Indo-European language.

‘Wikiwiki’ sounds like something someone made up, but it means ‘quickly’ in Hawaiian. And a First Nations friend of mine told me of two Amerind languages of two tribes with overlapping phonemes, but ‘I come in peace’ in one language meant something like ‘your mother is an ugly dog’ in the other. And there are overlaps between English and German: the German word for the English “thick” will, I think, get filtered for profanity, although it is a slang word for detective, among other things.

The problem here is that how do you know someone is available to interpret some ancient and now dead language, or even that that is your tongue, if you have only one?

Paul spoke in tongues, and ‘more than all of you’, in 1 Corinthians 14. He encouraged it, meaning it was something that was encouraged by the apostle, with his authority, and so we see that there is a difference between a public tongue, meant to be heard and interpreted, and a private tongue, which may not be interpreted.

The modern tongues movement originated in Topeka Kansas, at the leading of Charles Parham, in 1901, when, as the result of his group studying the book of Acts, speaking in tongues was deemed the definitive evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. This teaching exploded into the Pentecostal movement as a result of the Azusa Street Revival (1906-1909) in Los Angeles.

I have seen both good and bad as a result, and I have heard hot argument on both sides, as well as having, unsurprisingly, engaged in some. I think today we need to see to it that it is not an issue that divides Christians, as it has, with one side accusing the other of pride, gnosticism, Biblical enthusiasm and overenthusiasm on the one hand and quenching the Holy Spirit, cold dead religion and pride on the other.

It is normal in german to change th to d, d to t, f to v, etc.
ei Vorwarts=forwards, Vaderland=fatherland, etc.

 

[DebChris]

Ah. There is the rub. What about ‘angelic tongues’ (1 Cor 13:1)? We do not have an exhaustive compilation of every language that ever has been or will be spoken, in all their changes and variations. What is a ‘real language’ anyway? And someone familiar with, say, Indo-European languages will dismiss languages from other families as babble because they do not conform to the rules, the rules, that is, of Indo-European language.

‘Wikiwiki’ sounds like something someone made up, but it means ‘quickly’ in Hawaiian. And a First Nations friend of mine told me of two Amerind languages of two tribes with overlapping phonemes, but ‘I come in peace’ in one language meant something like ‘your mother is an ugly dog’ in the other. And there are overlaps between English and German: the German word for the English “thick” will, I think, get filtered for profanity, although it is a slang word for detective, among other things.

The problem here is that how do you know someone is available to interpret some ancient and now dead language, or even that that is your tongue, if you have only one?

Paul spoke in tongues, and ‘more than all of you’, in 1 Corinthians 14. He encouraged it, meaning it was something that was encouraged by the apostle, with his authority, and so we see that there is a difference between a public tongue, meant to be heard and interpreted, and a private tongue, which may not be interpreted.

The modern tongues movement originated in Topeka Kansas, at the leading of Charles Parham, in 1901, when, as the result of his group studying the book of Acts, speaking in tongues was deemed the definitive evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. This teaching exploded into the Pentecostal movement as a result of the Azusa Street Revival (1906-1909) in Los Angeles.

I have seen both good and bad as a result, and I have heard hot argument on both sides, as well as having, unsurprisingly, engaged in some. I think today we need to see to it that it is not an issue that divides Christians, as it has, with one side accusing the other of pride, gnosticism, Biblical enthusiasm and overenthusiasm on the one hand and quenching the Holy Spirit, cold dead religion and pride on the other.

I have forgotten my fluent French several times. It was first learned as a child living in France. Children, of course learn communication rather than languages so my parents only discovered my ability when they heard me playing with the neighborhood children. We left France, and the language was forgotten until junior high school where it was part of the curriculum.
At the high school and college level, I added German. The problem with languages not practiced is that they fall into disuse. I retain a smattering of words from different languages.
The same term, in different languages can have an entirely different meaning. I am most familiar with this from Japanese “sticky” being “pretty” and “go” being “five.”
Of course, different languages follow different grammatical rules. Those learned as a mother tongue will come from hearing, while others will learn the grammatical rules through study. Examples are where to place adjectives and verbs (at the end of sentences for German). With English, of course, there are the different regional dialects as there are with Arabic.I worked with Arab speaking students who have a sound halfway between b and p that is difficult for English speakers to replicate. Arab speakers have difficulty with the p sound.

Just as speaking and praying in tongues is a gift, so is the interpretation. What you will generally witness during a Catholic Charismatic Prayer meeting when a person speaks in tongues is another shortly afterward interpreting what has been spoken. This does not include when tongues has been used solely as a matter of adoration, when the whole congregation raises its voice in praise without interpretation, generally followed by silence.
Discernment means there may be some form of confirmation, an affirming voice. This can come in the form scriptural reading, or another prophetic voice. Note that prophecy does not mean foretelling. God speaks through the prophet, generally words of encouragement, although sometimes words of admonishment. Everything must be in line with scripture and the magisterium which why a passage from the Bible may be read.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I had an (unsuccessful) faith healing attempt a few years ago, Catholic, by the way, and the guy just seemed to be going “a-heebie-haba-haba” and variations for a while - I really was nonplussed by the apparent gibberish at the time, and the unconvincing nonchalance of the healer… but in the end, I can’t help suspect that my spontaneous unbelief in the face of true faith healing methodology coloured my experience - I’m convinced it does sometimes work - and invalidated any chance for healing, if nothing else did

 

[DebChris]

I had an (unsuccessful) faith healing attempt a few years ago, Catholic, by the way, and the guy just seemed to be going “a-heebie-haba-haba” and variations for a while - I really was nonplussed by the apparent gibberish at the time, and the unconvincing nonchalance of the healer… but in the end, I can’t help suspect that my spontaneous unbelief in the face of true faith healing methodology coloured my experience - I’m convinced it does sometimes work - and invalidated any chance for healing, if nothing else did

I don’t know what you wanted healed. There are in fact different types of healing.
We know from Scripture, that very often the first words that Jesus used when he healed somebody was, “Your sins are forgiven you.” This was generally met with skepticism before the actual physical manifestation of healing took place.
I have yet to observe any physical healing when I have prayed over anybody. Living overseas, in a Muslim country, I did have a woman come to me in the middle of the street and ask to prayed for. Her faith was stronger than mine and I definitely wasn’t going to deny her regardless of how many people were watching. When I saw her again, she reported on the improvement, on how much better she moved.

I respond to those who question my own lack of personal healing with those of St. Paul, “in weakness power reaches perfection.” I know that all prayers are answers “in accordance with God’s Will.” I never pray “if you will.”
Even if what you wanted healed was not spontaneously healed, don’t lose hope or faith.
An article I read spoke about a woman’s search for healing. Her prayers seemed to go unanswered. She focused the next year on praise and worshiping God. She stopped thinking about herself. At the end of the year, her cancer was gone.

 

[Tomyris]

I had an (unsuccessful) faith healing attempt a few years ago, Catholic, by the way, and the guy just seemed to be going “a-heebie-haba-haba” and variations for a while - I really was nonplussed by the apparent gibberish at the time, and the unconvincing nonchalance of the healer… but in the end, **I can’t help suspect that my spontaneous unbelief in the face of true faith healing methodology coloured my experience - I’m convinced it does sometimes work - and invalidated any chance for healing, if nothing else did **

I strongly doubt that is the issue. I would suggest talking it over with your priest and see what he says. In any case you need to deal with the suspicion.

 

[DebChris]

I strongly doubt that is the issue. I would suggest talking it over with your priest and see what he says. In any case you need to deal with the suspicion.

Excellent response. Healing is not always spontaneous.
It is easy to fall into “Health and wealth” trap thinking that lack of healing is a sign of lack of health. There are those Job Comforters who feed this trap.
It is true that Our Lord said faith the size of a mustard seed will move a mountain.
I agree that speaking with the parish priest is the best way to deal with doubts about personal faith or suspicions a person has.
What was the setting? Did you initiate the prayer? Were you informed ahead of time about what was taking place?
Don’t mistake discomfort with a situation as lack of faith in God.

 

[grannymh]

When we study Tongues in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, we find that Tongues is not a human language nor is it related to a human language. In the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, the source of Tongues is the Holy Spirit Who is Divine.

 

[DebChris]

When we study Tongues in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, we find that Tongues is not a human language nor is it related to a human language. In the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, the source of Tongues is the Holy Spirit Who is Divine.

When the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles at Pentecost, they began to preach to the crowds who had come to Jerusalem. Each heard them speak in his native tongue although the Apostles were Nazarenes.
It is true that the source of Tongues is the Holy Spirit. It is also true that individuals passing by have understood the speech of the one praying or speaking in tongues, although the one praying or speaking was unfamiliar with the language. The language itself is a human language. It is not acquired in the usual fashion, nor does the person praying, speaking, singing, remember what was said.
Since it is the Holy Spirit who prays through the individual, when tongues are used, a person prays in tongues when not knowing how to pray or what to pray for. It is prayer from the very center of a person’s heart. Satan cannot interfere with this prayer, making it perfect for intercession. It is a way of saying, “God, I don’t know what to say. I submit to your Holy Will in this matter so that your Will be done.”
Tongues are used to praise God in communal worship. How this will be observed is by a gradual crescendo of sound followed by decrescendo and complete silence. It is during this silence that a single voice might speak a prophetic word in tongues or in English (or whatever language the meeting is being held in), followed by an interpretation, and confirming Scriptural reading or other type of confirmation. All must be in order within the assembly.
During private prayer, there would be no confirmation. Just praying in the Spirit (as speaking in tongues is often called). In this case, what the person controls is when to start and when to stop.
The example was used earlier of healing prayer. If a person asks for healing, I need guidance. Where do I place my hands? What does the person want healed? Prayer would begin in silence, taking the information the information the person gave me. Then I would ask the Holy Spirit to lead the prayer. Afterward, I might have a word of encouragement to give the person for which I prayed, some type of insight that I didn’t have prior to praying.

It is even possible for a person without the charism of interpretation to occasionally decipher the meaning of one or two words being prayed, especially if that person has previously studied another language. And knowing that praying in the Spirit is often a prayer of praise and thanksgiving.

 

[grannymh]

Acts 2: 5-12 usccb.org/bible/acts/2

5
Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem.
6
At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
7
They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, “Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans?e
8
Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language?
9
We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus
and Asia,
10
Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome,
11
both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.”f
12
They were all astounded and bewildered, and said to one another, “What does this mean?”

At the first Pentecost, there are actually two distinct manifestations of the Holy Spirit. The first is the Holy Spirit Gift of praying, praising God in Tongues. The second manifestation is known as the Miracle of Hearing. Acts 2: 5-12.

Reference: A Key to Charismatic Renewal In The Catholic Church, Msgr. Vincent M. Walsh
brendancase.com/uploads/Key_to_the_Charismatic_Renewal.pdf

 

[Medawlinno]

Thanks for all the comments!

A few comments to the various posts…

yes, I agree - the ‘evidence’ is all very anecdotal.

I don’t know if you’d ever really have an unbiased witness, but that person would/should be able to describe what they witnessed with what one would hope would be more than something anecdotal.

There are no ‘angelic tongues’ - the passage where that comes from has been analyzed up one side and down the other - it’s pure hyperbole.

Paul spoke in tongues ‘more than you all’ - simply indicates he was multi-lingual and most likely, considering his missionary work, used foreign languages in his travels and everyday life considerably more than the average person.

The first Pentecost was a breaking of tradition - the expected language was Hebrew, instead of the apostles using what would have been the socially and religiously correct language in this situation, they were keenly aware that in order for the message to spread, it had to be given in languages people could understand. Though Hebrew was the socially and religiously correct language to use, very few people actually had more than a reading knowledge of it. Thus rather than the expected Hebrew, the apostles spoke to the people in Greek and Aramaic, their native tongues (western Diasporan Jews were all Greek speaking and eastern Diasporan Jews were preserved Aramaic as the language of their Jewish identity in the lands they lived in - the list in Acts is not a list of languages; it’s a list of the lands of the Diaspora. It doesn’t indicate linguistic diversity, but rather that the first apostolic mission was to the Jewish nation as a whole (diaspora included).

Learning a language at a young age and not using it - yes, it can definitely be forgotten (my Dad is a great example. Could not speak English until grade school, now can barely speak a word of his original native language). There are instances though of where people have forgotten that they’re actually learned a language (no clue how that could happen, but apparently is does) and then later on in life begin to miraculously speak ‘X’. It’s called crytomnesia and apparently it’s not as rare as one might think (though the term however not applied just to languages; it can be anything previously learned and forgotten with time only to be remembered again much later). Instances such as this are sometimes mistaken for xenoglossy.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for all the comments!

A few comments to the various posts…

yes, I agree - the ‘evidence’ is all very anecdotal.

I don’t know if you’d ever really have an unbiased witness, but that person would/should be able to describe what they witnessed with what one would hope would be more than something anecdotal.

There are no ‘angelic tongues’ - the passage where that comes from has been analyzed up one side and down the other - it’s pure hyperbole.

Paul spoke in tongues ‘more than you all’ - simply indicates he was multi-lingual and most likely, considering his missionary work, used foreign languages in his travels and everyday life considerably more than the average person.

The first Pentecost was a breaking of tradition - the expected language was Hebrew, instead of the apostles using what would have been the socially and religiously correct language in this situation, they were keenly aware that in order for the message to spread, it had to be given in languages people could understand. Though Hebrew was the socially and religiously correct language to use, very few people actually had more than a reading knowledge of it. Thus rather than the expected Hebrew, the apostles spoke to the people in Greek and Aramaic, their native tongues (western Diasporan Jews were all Greek speaking and eastern Diasporan Jews were preserved Aramaic as the language of their Jewish identity in the lands they lived in - the list in Acts is not a list of languages; it’s a list of the lands of the Diaspora. It doesn’t indicate linguistic diversity, but rather that the first apostolic mission was to the Jewish nation as a whole (diaspora included).

Learning a language at a young age and not using it - yes, it can definitely be forgotten (my Dad is a great example. Could not speak English until grade school, now can barely speak a word of his original native language). There are instances though of where people have forgotten that they’re actually learned a language (no clue how that could happen, but apparently is does) and then later on in life begin to miraculously speak ‘X’. It’s called crytomnesia and apparently it’s not as rare as one might think (though the term however not applied just to languages; it can be anything previously learned and forgotten with time only to be remembered again much later). Instances such as this are sometimes mistaken for xenoglossy.

Thank you.

Obviously, the Hebrew belief in the existence of a supreme super-natural being known as God is not here due to the scientific (inductive) method, observe without prejudice.