It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If God Spoke, what language would God Speak?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 10:51 PM
maybe he'd speak sanskrit?

or perhaps old hebrew?

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 10:54 PM
God speaks all langauges. He is all knowing. Remember?

He can read your thoughts, too

I believe that God spoke to many civilizations, and always in their own respective language. But He usually didn't talk to the human messenger directly, he would use an angel as a middle man, like Gabriel.

I think the last language that God spoke to a messenger was Arabic. He gave us the Quran.
There will be no more prophets, so no more scriptures from God.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by seattletruth]

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 10:58 PM
I've only heard the voice of God one time. One word. "Faith", in a very loud and commanding tone while I was outside having a cigarette.
I was shocked, and in a stupour for the next 15 minutes or so?
I guess from my experience God would speak to you in every way your body is able to process. Light, bearings, language, mood...all information taken from outside yourself is directed towards that which you are to understand. that experience is the primary cornerstone of my much-whithered religious beliefs.

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:16 PM

Originally posted by runetang
maybe he'd speak sanskrit?

or perhaps old hebrew?

Sanskrit is a very old language, very good..... where the term "Kundalini" comes from...

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:20 PM
If God Spoke, what language would God Speak?

I don't know but it got me to thinking about what type of grass Unicorns prefer.


posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:27 PM

Originally posted by happygolucky
Good Input...

A century and a half ago, a debate was raging about the question whether God spoke Hebrew. Jacob Grimm, one of the brothers to whom we owe the collection of fairy tales, pointed out gently that if God spoke language, any language, we must assume that he had teeth, but since teeth were not created for speech but for eating, we must assume that he also ate, and this leads to so many other undesirable assumptions that we better abandon the idea altogether (1851, reprint 1958:28).

I laughed out loud when I read that one.

Good post.

God speaks in creation, in everything.

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:31 PM
Very odd, my niece asked this exact question just a few days ago. She's 12, and I was helping her craft a paper maché bust of Bob Marley for a school project, and she just suddenly and quietly asked, "What language do you think God speaks?"

I didn't have to think about it for even a moment, as God and I converse on a regular basis. So I answered, "God speaks English, honey, American English, with an East Texas drawl and a liberal sprinkling of expletives."

We continued working on the craft project in silence for a few minutes.

Without looking up, she quietly muttered, "You are so full of shît."

But I'm not. I think that God speaks in more than mere words — He speaks in actions and events and music and everything you can imagine. Including American English with an East Texas drawl.

— Doc Velocity

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:35 PM
reply to post by Im a Marty

Hello, OP. Heh, yeah, God will speak in Arabic, and the hell with the rest of the population on Earth that doesn't understand Arabic. Just replace Arabic with any other language of choice. lol.

I believe that God does, indeed, "speak" to people. Ideas are one way for God to speak to humans. Ideas that seem to come from nowhere, but somehow end up in people's minds.

As for me, I believe God has spoken quite clearly to me on two ocassions. The first time it was using thoughts plus visual images of real looking things to accompany the thoughts. Later, the second time it was a bit more complicated, yet also, at the same time, simpler. Colors! Flowing colors and the colors introduced in their various combinations was a very understandable "language" for me. More complicated because the visions weren't of actual identifiable things. Simpler, though, because there was no need for extravagant objects having shape and dimension.

I know a priest who says God spoke to him. And he says, God did speak out loud to him saying, ,(insert name here) look and learn. And then the room he was in exploded in a great flash of light and then all was darkness except a light shining upon his notepad, but ideas suddenly rushed into his head. And he began writing furiously to record the ideas. The only light was what shined upon the tablet of paper that was before him.

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:39 PM
reply to post by Doc Velocity

Heh. You are so full of it. That's funny.
For sure God speaks in many languages. God speaks the language of the one willing to listen. Whether it's English, Aramaic or shapes or colors. Whatever the listener is most adept at understanding, God speaks that language.

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:43 PM
GOD ( excuse the pun LOL ) I feel alone here because GOD does speak to my highest level of thought and also throw my heart. He also specks to me through other people. You mean you guys don't know that??

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 12:30 AM
I would have to say Conscience. You would not know exactly what was said but you would truley know what he meant. It will guide you when you need it but it will not lead you threw your day but it will help you when you need it. And if you have done some thing wrong it will nag you forever.

Reminds me of the footsteps in the sand, There was God and his faithful follower and there foot prints were in the sand the follower noticed everytime he ran into difficulties there was only one set of foot steps in the sand, so he asked God why is there only one set of footsteps everytime I have difficulties in my life and two when every thing is fine. Why do you leave me at my most trying times. The answer he said was I carried you at those times so there was only one set of foot prints.

[edit on 1-1-2010 by JBA2848]

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 01:20 AM

Originally posted by JBA2848
I would have to say Conscience. You would not know exactly what was said but you would truley know what he meant. It will guide you when you need it but it will not lead you threw your day but it will help you when you need it. And if you have done some thing wrong it will nag you forever.

Reminds me of the footsteps in the sand, There was God and his faithful follower and there foot prints were in the sand the follower noticed everytime he ran into difficulties there was only one set of foot steps in the sand, so he asked God why is there only one set of footsteps everytime I have difficulties in my life and two when every thing is fine. Why do you leave me at my most trying times. The answer he said was I carried you at those times so there was only one set of foot prints.

[edit on 1-1-2010 by JBA2848]

I like that, very nice indeed, and soothing to the soul to read, very nice

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 05:44 AM
I'm tempted to reply with "Physics" - but there's far more to say on the subject matter. IF such an entity desired to communicate with man, I don't think he'd use an obtuse and inefficient encoding method adapted for a specific environment. Nor would it write a book. Language itself would be as inefficient for him to convey divine wisdom, as vice grips and tack hammers are for us to fire bullets. It's a lot to read, but it's just not something you can understand with a clever one-off or emotional appeal.

(vocal) Language is merely a sophisticated method of associating the frequency of compression waves in the molecules of the environment with the elicitation of patterns of brain activity necessary to reproduce the patterns of activity in my brain - in yours. While everyone's brain is unique, they all function more or less the same. For instance, Karen's brain is wired differently than Tim's brain, and those differences are what makes you an individual. However, they operate similarly enough that we can use the same machine and software to start accurately (though primitively) start to read people's minds.. This is significant, because they're using fMRI technology which only reads consumption of oxygen to infer activity levels. It can't show the pathways by which those regions are communicating and back and forth the way the more expensive DTI (Diffusion Tensor Imaging) can.

On the low end, simple patterns of alternating pitch, volume, tone, etc, can be correlated with basic emotional states. Mating calls, Hisses and growls when frightened or antagonistic, the rattling of an appendage to indicate apprehensiveness. These can convey the basic information necessary to stimulate the production of similar (or functionally useful) brain activity in other creatures that represent intent. Most prominently displayed in social animals where greater breadth and capacity of information transference are beneficial (to warn of danger or coordinate basic hunting strategies, for example) - but also to other species as in the example of a rattlesnake which alerts other larger or hazardous animals that could easily trample and kill the snake to it's presence. This can also be used deceitfully, vi mimicry. As an example, house cats (especially those in homes with few or no children to vie for the owners attention) are thought to pick up on and exploit a trick of mimicry by adjusting the frequency and intensity of their purrs to embed segments of 220-520Hz. This falls within the frequency range of the hunger cries of human infants. Essentially, it mimics a baby's cry to try to invoke our nurturing instincts as a means of conveying the information that they want to be fed. NS article on feline mimickry

On a more socially and cognitively complex level (mostly within mammals and some birds), often this can lead to more purposefully structured vocalizations indicating detailed information with associations to objects, environment, and even some abstract concepts. In fact, it was just reported last month that researchers studying the vocalization of Campbell's Monkeys have found evidence of basic syntax.

Furthermore, Campbell's monkeys combine calls in order to convey different messages. By modifying a call sequence or the order of calls within a sequence, the messages are changed, and can relay precise information about the nature of the danger (a falling tree, a predator), the type of predator (eagle, leopard), how the predator was detected (acoustically, visually) but also about social events unrelated to predation (gathering before the group moves to another site, an encounter with another group of the same species at territory boundaries...

ScienceDaily: Syntax in our primate cousins.

It's already been well evident that humans are "wired for language" - but not any sort of specific language. The above finding adds correlative support for the proposition that humans are born with an (as of yet undefined) understanding of primitive and nebulous concept of syntax from which they can begin to infer structure and meaning from context. However, this innate aptitude for correlating vocalization patterns with memories of observations and abstract concepts seems to be a uniquely adapted function - and not some broader innate skill. For instance, we're woefully poor at associating those correlative connections to patterns of symbols. And while we can learn to read & write - it comes at the cost of far greater dedication and effort to forge those neural pathways. You cannot simply immerse a child in a library and expect them to pick up written language the way you can teach them a language by immersion in a society & culture.

So... in a way, the concept of language is roughly analogous to that of an analog modem on your PC. Just as your PC cannot by any innate qualities of the machine simply reproduce it's structures of 1s & 0s to a client PC - neither can we innately transfer information on patterns of correlation necessary to duplicate a mental construct to another person's mind. There would have to be some way of encoding that information to a form capable of traveling over an otherwise unconnected and incompatible medium, then a method of decoding patterns in that medium back to 1's & 0's. This is essentially what your old analog modems did. Modem is an anagram for MOdulator/DEModulator. It read the packets of digital information and recreated it a format that the old POTS handled - then connected to a client PC the same way you connected telephone to telephone when calling someone... and their modem would pick up the varying analog frequencies and translate them into binary that the client PC could understand. Except that rather than telephone lines, we use the movement of molecules as the energy from our lungs cascades from molecules to molecule. (This is why, in space, nobody can hear you scream)

While I've focused on vocalization, remember that it is by no means the only method of language and communication. We also, both consciously and unconsciously, put a substantial amount of attention into expressing and inferring body language (especially facial gestures), olfactory production/perception, and other means of biological cues to read each other's mental states. Ever had someone glare or glance at you in a way that conveyed their intent or mindset more acutely than anything they could have said? Ever won a poker game by picking up on another player's tell? Structured expressions of body language can convey more than sufficient information and syntax to form a language out of that's just as complex as spoken language... and we do, in the form of sign language. On the other extreme, we can find pleasure in expressing new and improvised syntax and language in the form of dance - and have even made a popular recreational game out of the experience (charades). So please, don't think I've neglected other forms of sensory communication for an "auditory dominant" view. They work in tandem and typically are seamlessly melded into our perceptions unless actively trying to identify them.

And now that I've explained this much (as well as running out of space), I should get to the crux of my contention mentioned in the first post. Language has a fatal flaw... it doesn't work. Or rather, it only works just well enough to be useful, not well enough to be precisely accurate. Going back to the PC/Modem analogy, one of the differences between it and how we communicate is that modems (being designed for accurate communication) have been fitted with a vast array of protocols and operations we designed specifically to ensure minimal data loss and precise error detection and automatic correction. Language does not have this luxury. The successful reproduction of mental models is at the mercy of how well inferred the recipient can gauge your intent and apply the correct correlations. Having several different methods of language working in tandem can provide helpful redundant confirmation - but it's also prone to undermining this goal in the case purposeful or perceived mixed signals. This can be especially prominent and vexing when you are in situations where several language systems are prohibited. Internet message boards like ATS, for example, are notorious for being difficult to infer intent - since we're forced to rely solely on a written language we have no innate aptitude towards. The patterns of facial/body cues, auditory pitch and tone, hand gestures... they're useless here. We've been forced to adopt methods of translating the intent of our translations of our mental models such as stressed points, emotional states
, [/sarcasm], TO LET PEOPLE KNOW YOU'RE YELLING OR HOW COOL YOU ARE, as well as combination of which used in such as WHEN YOU'RE REALLY FRICK'IN PO'D.

I'm reaching the limit of my post, and this hasn't even started to touch cognitive disorders, sensory & cognitive blind spots, conformational bias, the multi-use application of words allowing a single pattern to correlate to several different meanings, hallucinations, illusions, in-group/out-group identification/demonization, insufficient information... our mental processes and interactions are as much a slip-shod mess as they are elegant.

If god wanted to communicate with us, the most efficient way would be simply hijack your brain and apply the necessary patterns & paths of activity for proper understanding. The limitations of language and the absence of accurate mental tools for error correction of inference suggest that personal communication with us is not on his priority list.

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 05:45 AM
reply to post by Im a Marty

He would only speak, in subconscious language, so its your puzzle to work out.

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 06:12 AM
OK here's my two cents worth.

Originally posted by Im a Marty
God communicates in 3 ways, and 3 ways only

By definition I don't think it is right or correct to compartmenalise God like this and say he is this or that. That is a very typrical and slight ego driven human traite. Not saying that you are ego driven though cos I know a little about you.

I do agree that God could communicate in the 3 ways you mention but you have to remember you're viewpoint is very narrow, relatively speaking and from a human perspective and does not take into account infinity. So just as you don't know what happens in the higher dimenstions similarly you cannot presume to know how God does or does not communicate per se, unless you mean of course how he might communicate with a human mind that is.

Simply put I don't think he would, certainly not directly like many nutjobs claim who say they are in communion with God, thereby inflating their own sense of importance, a bit like saying my friend is a movie star and I have his phone number! Pure nonsense accept for maybe a handful of people on earth at best.

So with this in mind I can only say how God might communicate with us in this realm. A good analogy would be the movie Tomb Raider that some of you may have seen. Remember the part where Lara activates the orb with sound and the orb responds by lighting up and showing her the way! Welll we are built like that. So if God were to communicate with us, it would be with that part that resembles our greatest sense of self aka our heart where our God seed resides ( as well as the pineal gland also containing a God seed). He would probably do so by using a frequency that triggers the resonation of our God seeds.

As for communication with the mind it would imagine it would be in the form of music, speech is doubtful. unfortuanlty people don't really fully 'understand' music yet so it would have to be the right environment for them to 'get it'. Probably something similar to trance or progressive music. But then I'm biased towards that genre, but I do hear and understand the frequencies which I feel is important.

As I said I don't like to compartmentalise what God is or isn't but if my life depended on it I would say Gods language is movement and connectivity incorporating but not exclusive to the three forms of communication you mentioned.

[edit on 1-1-2010 by pharaohmoan]

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 06:44 AM
armenian, naturally.

what else?

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Im a Marty
I once pondered, if God could speak...what language would he speak (we'll use 'he' for this post, god has no gender imo).

I asked this question last night, a friend who follows islam said he would speak arabic, my wife said he would speak aramaic, and I simply stated, "do you think, that he would actually communicate verbally".

God communicates in 3 ways, and 3 ways only.

Shape, Colour, Sound, or more specifically, Archetype, Colour, Tone.

Your 3 methods of communication are all defined by the one universal language of creation that god would speak in...the language of mathematics

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:29 AM
The universal mass intelligence as known as "God"

Speaks through us all

How it is interpreted ....

Well !...that speaks for "itself"

When god becomes judgmental, righteous, unforgiving and condemning

Then you know for sure It is not God that is speaking

It is that old devil called "self"

The Divine Holy ghost is without color sound or substance .... It simply is ....a pure sensation of "divinely being"

So any one who says they have seen God ...Jesus...angels ...
Are simply using that trusted form in order to make sense out of
The information they are receiving

Jesus.........spoke through the divinity ..the Christ with in him .....

Everyone has the Christ with in them ....

Look and you will see ...listen and you will hear ......Jesus ..the Christ ...also said this ...

And there is a reason ....that Muslims will not have any image of god ...not even as a joke

For it leads people to believe ....that god is a something ..... And that is the height of blasphemy even in my book

The holy Ghost is rightly ...named

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:34 AM
All of the opinions raised in this thread are valid, however, the method of communication they each mention falls into a distinct category rather than a universal schema and so only describe one aspect of communication.

Most of the methods described fall under a "physical" category and surely we can agree that an omnipotent being is not limited to the style of that physical communication? Sounds (including 'spoken' words), shapes, colours, written signs, they all represent physical manifestations. We can also consider more ethereal effects which may have a physical basis (for instance manipulation of light) but also those which seem to have no discernible or measurable 'reality' to them.

When we write of language, surely we cannot impose limitations? Surely all incidents of communication would be through the method most likely to be acceptable to the listener, whether Greek, Hebrew, English or any other language.

Another form of communication may be termed 'intercession' - Apparently changing the course of events according to the will of The One. Not only in 'language' but evident in the very fabric of our world, from the growth of a tree to the fall of leaf from a twig at the end of a branch.

Surely we can accept that anything that we can experience as human beings can be communication? Who has seen a particularly wondrous sunrise or sunset and not paused to think, or looked upon the stars in a night sky and pondered our very own existence? This can have greater effect than any spoken words.

Language is simply a tool for communication, one form of communication at that, any message from God need not be limited to the imagination of mankind.

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:44 AM
God can communicate in language verbal whatever someone speaks he is omniscient. however there are many things that are still unknown about God. I would like to see a thread on just Archetypes a detailed list of your knowledge please combined into a single thread. He also talks through the feeling of the holy spirit, which feels great might I add!

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in