JMAN05:

granted the word can mean ridicule but the overall view of that verse suggests that ridicule is not the best word to use. another prove is that Paul applied that word to speaking in tongues which sometimes it is a language people do not understand without an interpreter. 1cor. 14:21

the word never means convinction at all. did you see that meaning in Strong's definition?

in translation you dont just give any meaning that suits you, there must be a prove from greek literature that the word also has that meaning. please quote the lexicon you got that from.

my reason for replying you is basically on your stating that the hebrew and greek words translated at Isaiah and Romans respectively were wrong words for them. I want to say that the translation was correct.

I am not giving it any meaning that suits me. Now you are just arguing for arguing sake. I read the entire chapter of Isaiah 28 and based on what was being said and what was going on, this was what was being implied. Even the NLT says 'So now God will have to speak to his people through foreign oppressors who speak a strange language!' Just because I feel like pointing this out, the Hebrew word for stammering in Isa 28:11 -לעג (lâ‛êg)- was used in Psalm 35:16 which says 'With hypocritical mockers (lâ‛êg) in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth.' (They mock and call me names; They snarl at me. [NLT]). So yes, it means in that context mocking/ ridiculing which is what an oppressor would do. Still nothing whatsoever to do with speaking in tongues.

I said

The bible, in translation, a lot words have lost their original meaning a little.

I never said it was wrong. Strong's definition is not the only language dictionary in the world....even though that's what I used. Interestingly enough I decided to Google Hebrew dictionaries online, every single one I found defines the word as ridicule, mock. I looked for the original Hebrew text of the Bible, both links I looked at, in fact show the word as בְּלַעֲגֵי which means same thing - deride (express contempt for/ ridicule). Here, see for yourself: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa28.pdf and http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1028.htm.

In fact the Strongs lexicon you quote see the result I got when I searched:

3934 la`eg law-ayg' from 3932; a buffoon; also a foreigner:--mocker, stammering. (http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=3934)

The first word there is Buffoon. the foreigner is an afterthought.

Rom8:27, Strongs lexicon states inclination or purpose, other lexicons (I used different ones) say will, spirit, original greek text says disposition (http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom8.pdf), when I check the word itself in greek dictionaries, it means conviction. Again, I am looking at the overall chapter and what Paul was talking about to understand the meaning of the verses.

I end here, I repeat, the words in question and the verses have nothing to do with speaking in tongues. Before I answer any Biblical question I always pray and ensure what I post is what God wants to pass across truly. I have much more of the Bible to read and gain understanding of from God. Any more time spent going over this issue is pointless because I don't see how much more it can be explained. May God grant us all understanding.

Angyee:

I am not giving it any meaning that suits me. Now you are just arguing for arguing sake. I read the entire chapter of Isaiah 28 and based on what was being said and what was going on, this was what was being implied. Even the NLT says 'So now God will have to speak to his people through foreign oppressors who speak a strange language!' Just because I feel like pointing this out, the Hebrew word for stammering in Isa 28:11 -לעג (lâ‛êg)- was used in Psalm 35:16 which says 'With hypocritical mockers (lâ‛êg) in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth.' (They mock and call me names; They snarl at me. [NLT]). So yes, it means in that context mocking/ ridiculing which is what an oppressor would do. Still nothing whatsoever to do with speaking in tongues.

I said



I never said it was wrong. Strong's definition is not the only language dictionary in the world....even though that's what I used. Interestingly enough I decided to Google Hebrew dictionaries online, every single one I found defines the word as ridicule, mock. I looked for the original Hebrew text of the Bible, both links I looked at, in fact show the word as בְּלַעֲגֵי which means same thing - deride (express contempt for/ ridicule). Here, see for yourself: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa28.pdf and http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1028.htm.

In fact the Strongs lexicon you quote see the result I got when I searched:

The first word there is Buffoon. the foreigner is an afterthought.

Rom8:27, Strongs lexicon states inclination or purpose, other lexicons (I used different ones) say will, spirit, original greek text says disposition (http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom8.pdf), when I check the word itself in greek dictionaries, it means conviction. Again, I am looking at the overall chapter and what Paul was talking about to understand the meaning of the verses.

I end here, I repeat, the words in question and the verses have nothing to do with speaking in tongues. Before I answer any Biblical question I always pray and ensure what I post is what God wants to pass across truly. I have much more of the Bible to read and gain understanding of from God. Any more time spent going over this issue is pointless because I don't see how much more it can be explained. May God grant us all understanding.

I never said that the word can never mean "mocker". my words:

granted the word can mean ridicule but the overall view of that verse suggests that ridicule is not the best word to use. another prove is that Paul applied that word to speaking in tongues which sometimes it is a language people do not understand without an interpreter. 1cor. 14:21

When one says 'granted', it means he agrees to it. but I only said that from the overall consideration of the verse, that ridicule is not the best word to be used in that verse. if you use 'ridicule' in that verse it will contradict the point Paul was about to make at 1corintians.

My other words are these:

the word never means convinction at all. did you see that meaning in Strong's definition?

in translation you dont just give any meaning that suits you, there must be a prove from greek literature that the word also has that meaning. please quote the lexicon you got that from.

this is referring to your claim that Rom 8:27 can be translated conviction. I was not referring to what you said concerning the book of Isaiah. and I said and repeat, THE WORD CAN NEVER BE TRANSLATED CONVICTION. Quote the lexicon that said so. the meaning as to how greek literatures use that word at that time can never be conviction.

so the translations are correct. do not say they were wrong. that is my point.

apostle Paul applied that word to speaking in tongues to show it was a sign for the unbelievers. the tongue being spoken by Paul is logically not that of the angels, but of men. what apostle Paul was discussing at 1cor. 14 is tongue of men, ie a language which humans understand. but those who understand those languages may not be present in the congregation, which made Paul to suggest an interpreter.

However, my position here concerns your opinion to discredit a bible translation because of the definition it gave a hebrew/greek term as if it was a wrong translation of the hebrew/greek term. there were no loss in meaning on how they translated the words.

Modern day tongues is gibberish... Lobatan