Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,483,348 members, 5,623,548 topics. Date: Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 01:01 PM

I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? - Religion (2) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? (2962 Views)

Do People Who Speak In Tongues Fake It Or Understand It? / 7 Reasons Why Every Believer Should Speak In Tongues - Kenneth E Hagin / Daddy Freeze: "Speaking In Tongues In Nigerian Churches Is Fake” (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (19) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Kobojunkie: 12:17am On May 16
hupernikao:

You can never, and i mean never rate a foreign language, or translation above the original writings of a language. English will/has failed may test in language interpretation same as our local languages. No matter how primitive a language is, its translation must always derived meaning from it. There are lots that will be lost if you stay on translation. I give you a test. If you are African, in English, we have discussion and communication as two different words and meaning, but most African language dont have a difference in this. You may likely not be able to differentiate between communication and discussion in your language. So, the importance of always referring to originals.
This isn't a discussion about the original language in which the book in question was written though. Language in itself is fluid, and this applies to the old Hebrew which has understand various iterations since the writing of the Isaiah Scripts.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Kobojunkie: 12:17am On May 16
hupernikao:

We are doing bible study, your concordance will perfectly fit into this. Kindly refer to it well in this discussions.
Check my explanation and cross check usage with concordance, then we can progress. That is how we can derive our meaning based on the authors intent.
We don't need a concordance in this case. What we need is for person's to comprehend the message contained in the texts presented, right? Your going back to the Hebrew for the word "Stammering" does not enhance or add any more value to this than that already gotten from reading the texts presented in English. If we consulted the original Hebrew texts for each word, we would be here all day. Let's just stick to the English please

3 Likes

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 12:19am On May 16
vickydankal:


I have iPad for office, techno tablet for working at home and 2 iPhones for personal use. It is not the phone I think it is my eye. Working long hours with the computer and small screens is the issue.


I’m sorry. Do visit an ophthalmologist soon, please. I hope eye clinics aren’t locked down this period. Nevertheless, I pray that my Heavenly Father orchestrates the affairs of your life, so that you may receive relief and healing for your eyes. In Christ’s name, Amen.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 12:34am On May 16
Kobojunkie:

We don't need a concordance in this case. What we need is for person's to comprehend the message contained in the texts presented, right? Your going back to the Hebrew for the word "Stammering" does not enhance or add any more value to this than that already gotten from reading the texts presented in English. If we consulted the original Hebrew texts for each word, we would be here all day. Let's just stick to the English please

Can i know exactly why you want to rate the word translated to English above its original language and meaning? What we are discussing here is bible, and i never asked you to consult extra biblical tools. I asked you to discuss the original word used.

Okay, so how to do derived your meaning and interpretation of Isa 28:11? From your English Bible right? So, then how does the English bible in your hands derived its meaning of the passage, of course from the original. Why then arent you ready to check the same original. If you claim stammering mean something else from its original usage that that will not be consistent with scriptural intent and explanation.

I have given you all the places the word was used, given you its derivatives, yet you want me to take the meaning that is translated. Dont forget that where our differences lies is in interpreting the translated version sir.

We must seek to preserve the original intent of the author, their writings and words, because every word used or letter you see in the bible were not accidental, they were deliberately inspired by the Holy Ghost. Our work is to seek to get as close to this intent and explanation by the same Holy Ghost and putting all things (languages, culture, events, times etc) in proper context.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 12:37am On May 16
hupernikao:
Kindly lets pay attention to the bible explanation sir.
I have examined the very first place we have tongues inferred (see below link). Kindly look at the verse and give your input considering the original writers view and usage of words. Then we can move to others.
I'll give you an offer that sounds too good to be true. Let's leap front into New Testament and sort all this out in there, lmao. Are you game? Should I bring it on?

hupernikao:
My earlier submission below. Let us do a verse by verse analysis of tongues explanation in the scriptures. We cant derive out conclusion outside this.

https://www.nairaland.com/5860057/should-speak-tongues-right#89591415
Kobojunkie, is 10000% correct that your "My earlier submission below" with the above link shown, is disjointed. Everybody knows what tongue is. Tongue, is uttered able to be understood language and/or comprehensible dialect
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Kobojunkie: 12:45am On May 16
hupernikao:

Can i know exactly why you want to rate the word translated to English above its original language and meaning? What we are discussing here is bible, and i never asked you to consult extra biblical tools. I asked you to discuss the original word used.
There is a reason why you and I were not born at the time the Isaiah texts were written. There is also a reason why today's Hebrew language does not directly translate into the old hebrew.
We have a language in common today, on this nairaland forum, and that is English. It will suffice.
hupernikao:

Okay, so how to do derived your meaning and interpretation of Isa 28:11? From your English Bible right? So, then how does the English bible in your hands derived its meaning of the passage, of course from the original. Why then arent you ready to check the same original. If you claim stammering mean something else from its original usage that that will not be consistent with scriptural intent and explanation.
I don't do interpretations. I read what is written as is. If God wants to redirect me to a different English translation to give me better clarity, He will do that and even then, I have never had to interprete what is written. One thing I have learnt is as far as all languages are concerned, CONTEXT IS KEY!
hupernikao:

I have given you all the places the word was used, given you its derivatives, yet you want me to take the meaning that is translated. Dont forget that where our differences lies is in interpreting the translated version sir.
We must seek to preserve the original intent of the author, their writings and words, because every word used or letter you see in the bible were not accidental, they were deliberately inspired by the Holy Ghost. Our work is to seek to get as close to this intent and explanation by the same Holy Ghost and putting all things (languages, culture, events, times etc) in proper context.
The word is not the point. In fact the supposed meaning you give the word does not change the message contained in the text posted. Do you not even see that?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 12:45am On May 16
MuttleyLaff:
I'll give you an offer that sounds too good to be true. Let's leap front into New Testament and sort all this out in there, lmao. Are you game? Should I bring it on?

Bible study shouldnt be approached haphazard. We are looking at verse after verse. I am to discuss all the places where tongues was used in the bible for us to reach a conclusion. So, lets take it one step at a time. Isa 28:11 is the focus now.

Kobojunkie, is 10000% correct that your "My earlier submission below" with the above link shown, is disjointed. Everybody knows what tongue is. Tongue, is uttered able to be understood language and/or comprehensible dialect

Okay sir.

Can you discuss that same verse Isa 28:11 and show me the error. There is no need to get emotional here or speak with the language of "everybody" because non of us knows "everybody". So, lets stick to bible interpretation. Step by step. What does Isa 28:11 mean. I have given you the usage and word meaning as used by the original writer, what is good to do is for you to bring our your explanation of the same verse to show my error.

Note, i am not in a rush to discuss all of tongues. So, lets take it step by step so as not to create confusion. Firstly now, we are looking at Isa 28:11. So, keep focus on this sir.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 12:48am On May 16
Kobojunkie:

There is a reason why you and I were not born at the time the Isaiah texts were written. There is also a reason why today's Hebrew language does not directly translate into the old hebrew.
We have a language in common today, on this nairaland forum, and that is English. It will suffice.

I don't do interpretations. I read what is written as is. If God wants to redirect me to a different English translation to give me better clarity, He will do that and even then, I have never had to interprete what is written. One thing I have learnt is as far as all languages are concerned, CONTEXT IS KEY!

The word is not the point. In fact the supposed meaning you give the word does not change the message contained in the text posted. Do you not even see that?

What you are doing already is interpretation. Everyone does in different way. You gave a meaning to bible verse, that is interpretation in itself and your meaning must be investigated to align with the original context. That is exactly what i am asking you now to explain. So, ;lets discuss that.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Kobojunkie: 12:49am On May 16
hupernikao:

What you are doing already is interpretation. Everyone does in different way. You gave a meaning to bible verse, that is interpretation in itself and your meaning must be investigated to align with the original context. That is exactly what i am asking you now to explain. So, ;lets discuss that.
In a way, you could say that, but when you map the text back to it's own base meaning in the English language(without transforming it in any way) you are technically not applying any interpretation but simply taking it as is. undecided
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 12:57am On May 16
Kobojunkie:

In a way, you could say that, but when you map the text back to it's own base meaning in the English language(without transforming it in any way) you are technically not applying any interpretation but simply taking it as is. undecided

Every reader of the bible is an interpreter already because you interpret what you read one way or the other. Even the English bible in your hand that we called translation are actually interpretation because they gave their own meaning based on how they understand the context of scriptures, the reason you have many translations with varying meaning. But it must not be lost on us not to be able to investigate this thoroughly ourselves and just take all interpretation as such.

So, in taking scriptures on face value, we must sometimes have to consult the original writing to bail us from a seemingly confusion. Tongues doctrine is one of those. So, lets keep to this.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Kobojunkie: 1:06am On May 16
hupernikao:

Every reader of the bible is an interpreter already because you interpret what you read one way or the other. Even the English bible in your hand that we called translation are actually interpretation because they gave their own meaning based on how they understand the context of scriptures, the reason you have many translations with varying meaning. But it must not be lost on us not to be able to investigate this thoroughly ourselves and just take all interpretation as such.
Are we to assume you also believe this applies to the reading of every book out there. Meaning when I pick up a book to read, I am essentially "Interpreting" the contents of the book? If yes, then like I said in my previous post, in language processing, when you map the exact meaning of the words back to itself, you are applying a 1-to-1 mapping of exact values to themselves which is typically ignored as far as interpretations are concerned.
hupernikao:

So, in taking scriptures on face value, we must sometimes have to consult the original writing to bail us from a seemingly confusion. Tongues doctrine is one of those. So, lets keep to this.

Now that you have consulted the original writing, what did we gain? Nothing really why? Because when Isaiah 28 is considered in context, the meaning applied in original writing to that word does not change the meaning of the text that contains it.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 1:10am On May 16
Kobojunkie:

Are we to assume you also believe this applies to the reading of every book out there. Meaning when I pick up a book to read, I am essentially "Interpreting" the contents of the book? If yes, then like I said in my previous post, in language processing, when you map the exact meaning of the words back to itself, you are applying a 1-to-1 mapping of exact values to themselves which is typically ignored as far as interpretations are concerned.

Now that you have consulted the original writing, what did we gain? Nothing really why? Because when Isaiah 28 is considered in context, the meaning applied in original writing to that word does not change the meaning of the text that contains it.

Can you explain your meaning of Isa 28:11 in context of the word, this is the focus. Any other thing is secondarily. We have seen the original meaning of the usage of the word stammering, so give your interpretation on that. Dont also forget to refer to other places same word was used and show how consistent they are to your explanation.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Kobojunkie: 1:31am On May 16
hupernikao:

Can you explain your meaning of Isa 28:11 in context of the word, this is the focus. Any other thing is secondarily. We have seen the original meaning of the usage of the word stammering, so give your interpretation on that. Dont also forget to refer to other places same word was used and show how consistent they are to your explanation.
No, this is one at a time... like I said.. CONTEXT IS KEY as far as understanding what is written in EACH case!

This is Isaiah 28 vs 9-13 from the Easy-to-read translation
9. The people say, “Who does he think he is trying to teach and explain his message to? Does he think we are babies who were at their mother’s breast only a very short time ago? 10. He speaks to us as though we were babies:
“Saw lasaw saw lasaw
Qaw laqaw qaw laqaw
Ze’er sham ze’er sham.”


11. So God will use this strange way of talking, and he will use other languages to speak to these people.
12. In the past he spoke to them and said, “Here is a resting place. Let those who are tired come and rest. This is the place of peace.”
But they would not listen to him. 13. So the Lord’s words will be senseless sounds[c] to them:
“Saw lasaw saw lasaw.
Qaw laqaw qaw laqaw.
Ze’er sham ze’er sham.”


When the people try to walk, they will fall backwards. They will be defeated, trapped, and captured.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 2:15am On May 16
Kobojunkie:

No, this is one at a time... like I said.. CONTEXT IS KEY as far as understanding what is written in EACH case!

This is Isaiah 28 vs 9-13 from the Easy-to-read translation
9. The people say, “Who does he think he is trying to teach and explain his message to? Does he think we are babies who were at their mother’s breast only a very short time ago? 10. He speaks to us as though we were babies:

I guess you just want to derive your own meaning from the verse. I have shown you the word used in that verse but it seems you dont want to take it. Well, it is not my word, it is the written word.

Looking at the context of what you wrote, i also asked you what does it mean to speak to someone as a child, remembering the word your translation took as to be "spoken to as babies" (laeg). So how do you speak to a baby? Of cause not in Chinese or English, a baby is spoken to in the best language they could understand, and such is unintelligible language. That is how stammering is interpreted and what your translation is trying to point to is that. The verse 10 already point out to you that the speech is unintelligent to be interpreted as spoken to as babies, hence the usage of laeg in verse 11.

lâ‛êg. to mock, a mocker, a buffoon, to speak unintelligibly. In all its usage and its derivatives that is the meaning they carried. It always refer to mockery, something to deride, to shame of, its like calling it shameful tongues. That is the meaning.

Below, i have given you other places of usage of those words (laeg, laag)

2 Kings 19:21
HEB: בָּזָ֨ה לְךָ֜ לָעֲגָ֣ה לְךָ֗ בְּתוּלַת֙
KJV: laughed thee to scorn

2 Chronicles 30:10
HEB: מַשְׂחִיקִ֣ים עֲלֵיהֶ֔ם וּמַלְעִגִ֖ים בָּֽם׃
KJV: they laughed them to scor[/b]n, and mocked them.

[b]Nehemiah 2:19

HEB: וְגֶ֙שֶׁם֙ הָֽעַרְבִ֔י וַיַּלְעִ֣גוּ לָ֔נוּ וַיִּבְז֖וּ
KJV: they laughed us to scorn, and despised

Nehemiah 4:1
HEB: וַיִּכְעַ֖ס הַרְבֵּ֑ה וַיַּלְעֵ֖ג עַל־ הַיְּהוּדִֽים׃
KJV:and mocked the Jews.

Job 9:23
HEB: לְמַסַּ֖ת נְקִיִּ֣ם יִלְעָֽג׃
KJV:he will laugh at the trial

Job 11:3
HEB: מְתִ֣ים יַחֲרִ֑ישׁו וַ֝תִּלְעַ֗ג וְאֵ֣ין מַכְלִֽם׃
KJV: when thou mockest, shall no man make thee ashamed?

Job 21:3
HEB: וְאַחַ֖ר דַּבְּרִ֣י תַלְעִֽיג׃
KJV: mock on.

Job 22:19
HEB: וְיִשְׂמָ֑חוּ וְ֝נָקִ֗י יִלְעַג־ לָֽמוֹ׃
KJV: and the innocent laugh them to scorn.

Psalm 2:4
HEB: יִשְׂחָ֑ק אֲ֝דֹנָ֗י יִלְעַג־ לָֽמוֹ׃
KJV: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Psalm 22:7
HEB: כָּל־ רֹ֭אַי יַלְעִ֣גוּ לִ֑י יַפְטִ֥ירוּ
KJV: All they that see me laugh me to scorn:


You can never use laeg (stammering) and refer to intelligent speaking, you cant. No where in the scripture will you see that.

It is a mockery tongue. What people will hear and laugh, and deride. That is, laeg will be gibberish not intelligent. If it is intelligent, it cant be laeg, mockery or deriding speaking. A baby use same sort or unintelligent language to speak, a speaking you will laugh at, we will see that later in Acts 2.

So, in context of the passage, it implies he will speak to them in a language of derision, mockery, a speaking you hear and mock. Check well all its usage in the OT. Interpretation must be consistent all through.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Kobojunkie: 2:26am On May 16
WOW... even the accounts of Eliphaz from Teman(from Job 22) was included in this?? My gosh!! cheesy grin cheesy cheesy grin cheesy grin
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 2:28am On May 16
hupernikao:
Bible study shouldnt be approached haphazard. We are looking at verse after verse. I am to discuss all the places where tongues was used in the bible for us to reach a conclusion. So, lets take it one step at a time. Isa 28:11 is the focus now.
Let's cut to the chase and even save ourselves chasing tail.

Listen hupernikao, we all, are no spring chicken here, not to know that, speak in tongues is language (i.e. tongues of man=human language) and has the same meaning with mother tongue, native tongue, dialect, vernacular etcetera. For example, you can speak in vernacular, can speak in your local dialect, might speak in a native tongue or speak in your mother tongue. The issue OP's original post is about "I should speak in tongue, right?" as in meaning, should I speak in "lashon" (i.e. lashon, is the word for language/tongue in Hebrew/Aramaic) or should I speak in "glossa" (i.e. glossa, is the word for language/tongue in Greek)

Please borrow a leaf from your very own "focus" The focus is language/tongue and not stammmering

hupernikao:
Okay sir
Drop the sir. Who using "sir" epp. It is a distraction. Thank you.

hupernikao:
Can you discuss that same verse Isa 28:11 and show me the error.
There is nothing to discuss in Isaiah 28:11 because the verse is self explanatory. It is talking of two things which are stammering and language. Stammering is a function of language of course during talking. People dont stammer when singing. Your error is conflating stammerring with language/tongue. No, you dont do something like that

hupernikao:
There is no need to get emotional here

Is this talk? Smh

hupernikao:
or speak with the language of "everybody" because non of us knows "everybody".
Would you have preferred I used "everyone" instead of "everybody" hmm?

None of youse knows "everybody" erhn? No problem, let me introduce you to "everybody" "Everyone" is a pronoun, and the word means every person. It means all the people in a group or posters, so far, on a thread like this (e.g. in this instance, it means Acehart, MuttleyLaff, Kobojunkie and hupernikao) If we are honest and sincere with each other, each one of us knows what tongue is. we each know that tongue, is uttered, able to be understood language and/or comprehensible dialect. Now if all that is correct, what is my sin with using "everybody"? Why are you taking exception to me using the harmless "everybody" pronoun?

hupernikao:
So, lets stick to bible interpretation. Step by step. What does Isa 28:11 mean. I have given you the usage and word meaning as used by the original writer, what is good to do is for you to bring our your explanation of the same verse to show my error.
Context is King. When you begin to read verse in isolation, you are reading the text under pretext. It is glaring and plain in sight to see, even without digging what Isaiah 28:11 is all about. This is retribution promised to be visited upon the tribe of Ephraim, following their incessant attack on the Southern kingdom of Judah. Judah was only able to stave off the attacking Assyrians and not be taking captives and/or exiled because they paid the Assyrians tribute.

hupernikao:
Note, I am not in a rush to discuss all of tongues. So, lets take it step by step so as not to create confusion. Firstly now, we are looking at Isa 28:11. So, keep focus on this sir.
There is none out of the four of us who doesnt know what language/tongue is, so where is confusion coming from, if not, its you trying to introduce confusion into what's already clear cut crystal clear.

Let's deal with, "I should speak in tongue, right?" as in meaning, should I speak in "lashon" (i.e. lashon, is the word for language/tongue in Hebrew/Aramaic) or should I speak in "glossa" (i.e. glossa, is the word for language/tongue in Greek). Areas to explore are:
1/ Why were and was different tongues spoken in the NT?
2/ How many biblically recorded times were there of speaking in tongues?
3/ Etcetera
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Goshen360(m): 5:33am On May 16
I don pitch my tent for this thread, keenly following o....Hopefully I'll learn something new. It's interesting so far!
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 8:20am On May 16
hupernikao:


Okay.

From your write up, i know you believe that the word of God is supreme and authoritative and as such you trust in its explanation when put in proper context. Hence, i will want us to put proper bible interpretation as important in this discussion. That is, we should but away reading our own meaning into the scriptures. We shouldn't stand or drag our own words into the scriptures when it is clear that it isn't written.

Now to the OP

Firstly i will want to discuss and explore the Bible language usage of tongues (as related to the OP) verse by verse before moving to its application and practices in the Bible.

So, i will want our discussion to be sequential, so as not to lose focus of its essence.



ON BIBLE LANGUAGE USAGE ON TONGUES

By usage of tongues, i will how tongue(s) was described, the word usage to explain and qualify the tongue.

It is not surprising that almost all places where tongues (as per OP) is mentioned or inferred in the bible, it is always qualified: e,g stammering (foreign tongues), Isa 28:11, new tongues (Mark 16:17), another/other tongue (Acts 2:4), kinds of tongues (1 Cor 12:10) etc. Our first investigation is to understand the meaning of those words and why were they used in particular. This can explain first if tongues can is referred to as human language, or another different from such.

How Tongue is Described in the Bible (Verse by Verse Explanation).

I will give you few list then we will discuss them one after another.

1. Stammering and Other Tongues Isa 28:11

2. New Tongues Mark 16:17

3. Other/Another Tongue Acts 2:4

4. Kinds of Tongue 1 Cor 12:10

5. Unknown Tongues 1 Cor 14:2



1. STAMMERING TONGUES Isaiah 28:11
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. KJV

Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people NIV

The word STAMMERING/FOREIGN

The word stammering was translated from the Hebrew word lâ‛êg. It is simply translated as mocking, a mocker, a buffoon. It was used only 2 times in the OT (Isa 28:11, Ps 36:16)

Ps 36:16
16 With hypocritical mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth. Note the word: hypocritical mockers.

Like the ungodly they maliciously mocked; they gnashed their teeth at me. NIV

Hence, in Isa 28:11, Stammering lips implies a mocking lips.


To better see this, the Hebrew word lâ‛êg was taken from a root word lâ‛ag. Let us see how this is used.

lâ‛ag: to deride; to speak unintelligibly, have in derision, to stammer. Used 18 times in OT, It is used in discussing unintelligent speaking or speech.

2 Kings 19:21
21 This is the word that the Lord hath spoken concerning him; The virgin the daughter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee.

To make a jest, to mock, to like when you try to mock someone by speaking blablabla, unintelligent to deride him.

Ps 2:4
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

That is he will mock them. When this is used in speaking, it will refer to muttering unintelligibly, to deride or mock a person, speaker or an action.

lâ‛ag also have a closer word: la‛ag (note the marks on them), used just 7 times, to mean the same: mocking, derision, stammering.


Anytime any of these are used: lâ‛êg, lâ‛ag, la‛ag, it always point to these facts:

1. It is a speaking that mocks, when you mock in speaking, you will likely have to speak in a mockery form not in a true form of language.

2. It is always unintelligible. That is, the speaking is strange and lack understanding. The reason it is used as foreign (NIV). Because it will sound foreign and not known.

3. When you mock in speech, that is making derision of something or someone, you will usually do that in funny way, especially in gibberish.


Furthermore, In modern day language, the best word that describe what we do when we mock someone, is the word "gibberish".

Gibberish means talking that sounds or looks like real words or authentic speech, but it really has no meaning at all. This is what we do when we mock someone or want to make jest of a man.

So, Isaiah 28:11 usage of stammering lâ‛êg is very key in interpreting what tongue is truly is.

We can consider other verses later after we handle this (Isa 28:11).

Judges 12:5-6: The Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan opposite Ephraim. And it happened when any of the fugitives of Ephraim said, "Let me cross over," the men of Gilead would say to him, "Are you an Ephraimite?" If he said, "No," then they would say to him, "Say now, 'Shibboleth.'" But he said, "Sibboleth," for he could not pronounce it correctly. Then they seized him and slew him at the fords of the Jordan. Thus there fell at that time 42,000 of Ephraim.

The dialect identification in this text is the funniest part of the scriptures, in my view. Now to serious matters: I liked the version of Isaiah 28, Kobojunkie gave. It made my job lighter. Thank you Kobojunkie.

If I have to flow with the context without veering towards tongues as Apostle Paul applies v.11, so be it.

God speaks of the judgment of Epharim for folding his arms when his brothers were under attack from the enemy. Those who had stammering lips or foreign tongues were the Assyrians, the rod of God. You are sliding out of the context of Isaiah 28 unknowingly when you focus on the word “stammering”. You have globetrottered the Bible, so it shouldn’t be difficult remembering Hezekiah’s prayer concerning Rabshekeh’s “language“.

Do you know how to speak French? are you familiar with the stammering/stuttering style of expressing the French language if you aren’t a speaker of that language. Stammering/stuttering is a speech disorder (that could stem from a neurological or dopaminergic disorder). Stammering/stuttering is not a language disorder. What you are trying to do with your etymological scan of the word “stammering” is to make stammering look like a language to embellish an idea I think you have up your sleeves.

Stick to the context and you will not land in 1 Corinthians 14 - your destination.

2 Likes

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 8:36am On May 16
MuttleyLaff:
Let's cut to the chase and even save ourselves chasing tail.

Please borrow a leaf from your very own "focus" The focus is language/tongue and not stammmering

There is nothing to discuss in Isaiah 28:11 because the verse is self explanatory.

Context is King. When you begin to read verse in isolation, you are reading the text under pretext. It is glaring and plain in sight to see, even without digging what Isaiah 28:11 is all about.

There is none one of the four of us who doesnt know what language/tongue is, so where is confusion coming from, if not, its you trying to introduce confusion into what's already clear cut crystal clear.

You are correct dude. There is nothing to talk about in Isaiah 28. If he wanted to stick within the context and even the etymology of the word “stammering”, he would go back to the second Book of Kings and this issue would have been aborted before it was conceived. The first principle of eisegesis is the etymological approach - this is his route, and a fight will ensue. I didn’t even do that in my writeup so that I would let people reason.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Eulalia(f): 8:39am On May 16
Kobojunkie:
WOW... even the accounts of Eliphaz from Teman(from Job 22) was included in this?? My gosh!! cheesy grin cheesy cheesy grin cheesy grin

So, what's your take on this topic?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 8:40am On May 16
Kobojunkie:
WOW... even the accounts of Eliphaz from Teman(from Job 22) was included in this?? My gosh!! cheesy grin cheesy cheesy grin cheesy grin

Of all people, Eliphaz, Satan’s assistant?! He should quoted Satan too. One translation from Teman and another from the air.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 9:57am On May 16
Goshen360:
I don pitch my tent for this thread, keenly following o....Hopefully I'll learn something new. It's interesting so far!
"To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits;
to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
"
- 1 Corinthians 12:10

Tbh and if truth be told brother, you actually are on the forefront of those, I sincerely hope will be grabbed, arrested and get convicted through the workings and help of the Holy Spirit about this misunderstood, misused and abused wonderful spiritual gift. It is one, out of the 9 possible different displayed evidences of having the Holy Spirit that could publicly be seen of anyone that's a believer (i.e. 1 Corinthians 12:7-11)
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 11:00am On May 16
MuttleyLaff:
"To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits;
to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
"
- 1 Corinthians 12:10

Tbh and if truth be told brother, you actually are on the forefront of those, I sincerely hope will be grabbed, arrested and get convicted through the workings and help of the Holy Spirit about this misunderstood, misused and abused wonderful spiritual gift. It is one, out of the 9 possible different displayed evidences of having the Holy Spirit that could publicly be seen of anyone that's a believer (i.e. 1 Corinthians 12:7-11)

The gift doesn’t work alone. It is very easy to from the analogy of the human body parts working together, so also do all the gifts work at once. Also, Paul ask: “are all Apostles? Are all prophets?”. The gifts (in unison) was for a set of Christian leaders - the foundation stones - those who led the Jews and Gentiles into Christ. Glossolalia is something else: one person in his room would be instructed to open his mouth and breathe in the Holy Spirit and out of his belly would issue out wells of living waters - preposterous. Even those who don’t know the difference between Jude and Judas speak this language they say confuses the devil.

Some say the same pattern of words (tongues) after forty years. What can of language is that? If you ask them to say the name, “Yeshua” or “Jesus”, in tongues, they would look confused, and if you give them one million years, they still wouldn’t provide an answer.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 11:37am On May 16
Acehart:
The gift doesn’t work alone. It is very easy to from the analogy of the human body parts working together, so also do all the gifts work at once. Also, Paul ask: “are all Apostles? Are all prophets?”. The gifts (in unison) was for a set of Christian leaders - the foundation stones - those who led the Jews and Gentiles into Christ. Glossolalia is something else: one person in his room would be instructed to open his mouth and breathe in the Holy Spirit and out of his belly would issue out wells of living waters - preposterous. Even those who don’t know the difference between Jude and Judas speak this language they say confuses the devil.

Some say the same pattern of words (tongues) after forty years. What can of language is that? If you ask them to say the name, “Yeshua” or “Jesus”, in tongues, they would look confused, and if you give them one million years, they still wouldn’t provide an answer.
Let's wait, lmao.

God is not the author of confusion. Neither is His word either. It is crystal clear that and there are incontrovertible evidences that speaking in divers tongue is recorded in the Bible for posterity sake and a time like this, to have publicly happened only 3 times.

The Bible tells, why on each occasions, them 3 times of speaking in tongues happened. The Bible tells us, the objective of them 3 times of speaking in tongues. The Bible, when you look under the hood of when this phenomenon was recorded happening, reveals a pattern and a common denominator. The Bible reveals, when you look closely at this gift, the primary purpose for dispersing It, this particular gift. There are just too much to mention, but space and time, arent co-operation.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 12:33pm On May 16
Acehart:


Judges 12:5-6: The Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan opposite Ephraim. And it happened when any of the fugitives of Ephraim said, "Let me cross over," the men of Gilead would say to him, "Are you an Ephraimite?" If he said, "No," then they would say to him, "Say now, 'Shibboleth.'" But he said, "Sibboleth," for he could not pronounce it correctly. Then they seized him and slew him at the fords of the Jordan. Thus there fell at that time 42,000 of Ephraim.

The dialect identification in this text is the funniest part of the scriptures, in my view. Now to serious matters: I liked the version of Isaiah 28, Kobojunkie gave. It made my job lighter. Thank you Kobojunkie.

If I have to flow with the context without veering towards tongues as Apostle Paul applies v.11, so be it.

God speaks of the judgment of Epharim for folding his arms when his brothers were under attack from the enemy. Those who had stammering lips or foreign tongues were the Assyrians, the rod of God. You are sliding out of the context of Isaiah 28 unknowingly when you focus on the word “stammering”. You have globetrottered the Bible, so it shouldn’t be difficult remembering Hezekiah’s prayer concerning Rabshekeh’s “language“.

Do you know how to speak French? are you familiar with the stammering/stuttering style of expressing the French language if you aren’t a speaker of that language. Stammering/stuttering is a speech disorder (that could stem from a neurological or dopaminergic disorder). Stammering/stuttering is not a language disorder. What you are trying to do with your etymological scan of the word “stammering” is to make stammering look like a language to embellish an idea I think you have up your sleeves.

Stick to the context and you will not land in 1 Corinthians 14 - your destination.




Good morning.

You are the one sir not staying with the context.

Key words you neglected in your interpretation includes speaking as a child (blabbing, senseless speech), stammering lips translated from a shameful speaking, a mocking speech. You cant overlook such key words in this context sir.

And, like i asked you earlier, it will be good we stick to context of explanation and not bring in our own assumptions. You arent addressing this discussion in all you wrote above. Judges 12:5-6 wasnt laeg, mocking language, it isnt a derision. Pay good attention to Isa 28 and let us avoid importing what it didnt inferred.

In context, he spoke to them as children you speak to a child, babbling alliteration of a child, meaningless gibberish, senseless babbling. That is the word of a child. You cant explain the verses without having to battle with this. You cannot call a full blown language blabbing or mocking or senseless. French is not senseless, neither is Chinese. Its knowledge is only relative. Laeg isnt relative, it is a mockery, the way you blab when mocking someone, a speech that has no sense in it.



I have shown you the meaning of the word used "laeg" and other reference, but you said it is not right to fix on a word meaning. So, do you truncate the meaning of a word in a sentence and still achieve the same communication? Your interpretation has wrongly interpreted the usage of the word laeg, yet you seems not to bother. Dont you think that will be misleading?

In all places where such word is used, it inferred a shameful tongue, a tongue, speaking in derision, mockery tongue. The usage of the word foreign as used by you must be put in context. It means to speak unintelligibly (as if a foreign tongue). No place will you see laeg, stammering used as foreign again in all writings.

So, is gibberish/shameful tongue foreign?
The first thing to do is to examine the word foreign will implies strange and unfamiliar, alien. It doesnt always have to connote an existing language. It simply means what is unknown to you.

Laeg, was never translated as foreign but "like a foreign", that is a difference. It means it is strange to the hearer. When put in context of stammering (laeg), you must not loose the meaning of the word. The use of laeg in itself showed you that something is unintelligible.

In 1 Cor 14:21, when Paul quoted this, translators added the word "men" that is "men of other tongue". The word "men" was not in the original writings, it was inserted by translators possibly intending to change the meaning to human language. Isaiah never said "men or other men tongue".

"For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people."


And, it is so funny, how most of you are avoiding the use of the word by Isaiah (stammering, laeg, laag), and claim its of no use to look at word meaning when explaining the scriptures. That is not right sir. Meaning of words are very key to language and it must be well used as used by the author.
I have given you below again how it was used all through the OT, will the meaning now change when discussing Isa 28?

2 Kings 19:21
HEB: בָּזָ֨ה לְךָ֜ לָעֲגָ֣ה לְךָ֗ בְּתוּלַת֙
KJV: laughed thee to scorn

2 Chronicles 30:10
HEB: מַשְׂחִיקִ֣ים עֲלֵיהֶ֔ם וּמַלְעִגִ֖ים בָּֽם׃
KJV: they laughed them to scor[/b]n, and mocked them.

Nehemiah 2:19
HEB: וְגֶ֙שֶׁם֙ הָֽעַרְבִ֔י וַיַּלְעִ֣גוּ לָ֔נוּ וַיִּבְז֖וּ
KJV: they laughed us to scorn, and despised

Nehemiah 4:1
HEB: וַיִּכְעַ֖ס הַרְבֵּ֑ה וַיַּלְעֵ֖ג עַל־ הַיְּהוּדִֽים׃
KJV:and mocked the Jews.

Job 9:23
HEB: לְמַסַּ֖ת נְקִיִּ֣ם יִלְעָֽג׃
KJV:he will laugh at the trial

Job 11:3
HEB: מְתִ֣ים יַחֲרִ֑ישׁו וַ֝תִּלְעַ֗ג וְאֵ֣ין מַכְלִֽם׃
KJV: when thou mockest, shall no man make thee ashamed?

Job 21:3
HEB: וְאַחַ֖ר דַּבְּרִ֣י תַלְעִֽיג׃
KJV: mock on.

Job 22:19
HEB: וְיִשְׂמָ֑חוּ וְ֝נָקִ֗י יִלְעַג־ לָֽמוֹ׃
KJV: and the innocent laugh them to scorn.

Psalm 2:4
HEB: יִשְׂחָ֑ק אֲ֝דֹנָ֗י יִלְעַג־ לָֽמוֹ׃
KJV: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Psalm 22:7
HEB: כָּל־ רֹ֭אַי יַלְעִ֣גוּ לִ֑י יַפְטִ֥ירוּ
KJV: All they that see me laugh me to scorn:



If we truly want to be honest and see exactly what the verse means, we must be open to explaining contextually and putting all word meaning in their right places. Bible exegesis doesnt allow importation of new meaning of words sir. The word used by the author must be sufficient enough to explain the verse.

In this case, a senseless speech, unintelligent speaking, a shameful speech is synonymous to children babbling, this is the meaning stammering carried in the scripture.. The moment you try to give your own meaning as you did above, you will be moving outside the intent to the Author.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 12:42pm On May 16
MuttleyLaff:
Let's cut to the chase and even save ourselves chasing tail.

Listen hupernikao, we all, are no spring chicken here, not to know that, speak in tongues is language (i.e. tongues of man=human language) and has the same meaning with mother tongue, native tongue, dialect, vernacular etcetera. For example, you can speak in vernacular, can speak in your local dialect, might speak in a native tongue or speak in your mother tongue. The issue OP's original post is about "I should speak in tongue, right?" as in meaning, should I speak in "lashon" (i.e. lashon, is the word for language/tongue in Hebrew/Aramaic) or should I speak in "glossa" (i.e. glossa, is the word for language/tongue in Greek)

Please borrow a leaf from your very own "focus" The focus is language/tongue and not stammmering

Drop the sir. Who using "sir" epp. It is a distraction. Thank you.

There is nothing to discuss in Isaiah 28:11 because the verse is self explanatory. It is talking of two things which are stammering and language. Stammering is a function of language of course during talking. People dont stammer when singing. Your error is conflating stammerring with language/tongue. No, you dont do something like that

Is this talk? Smh

Would you have preferred I used "everyone" instead of "everybody" hmm?

None of youse knows "everybody" erhn? No problem, let me introduce you to "everybody" "Everyone" is a pronoun, and the word means every person. It means all the people in a group or posters, so far, on a thread like this (e.g. in this instance, it means Acehart, MuttleyLaff, Kobojunkie and hupernikao) If we are honest and sincere with each other, each one of us knows what tongue is. we each know that tongue, is uttered, able to be understood language and/or comprehensible dialect. Now if all that is correct, what is my sin with using "everybody"? Why are you taking exception to me using the harmless "everybody" pronoun?

Context is King. When you begin to read verse in isolation, you are reading the text under pretext. It is glaring and plain in sight to see, even without digging what Isaiah 28:11 is all about. This is retribution promised to be visited upon the tribe of Ephraim, following their incessant attack on the Southern kingdom of Judah. Judah was only able to stave off the attacking Assyrians and not be taking captives and/or exiled because they paid the Assyrians tribute.

There is none out of the four of us who doesnt know what language/tongue is, so where is confusion coming from, if not, its you trying to introduce confusion into what's already clear cut crystal clear.

Let's deal with, "I should speak in tongue, right?" as in meaning, should I speak in "lashon" (i.e. lashon, is the word for language/tongue in Hebrew/Aramaic) or should I speak in "glossa" (i.e. glossa, is the word for language/tongue in Greek). Areas to explore are:
1/ Why were and was different tongues spoken in the NT?
2/ How many biblically recorded times were there of speaking in tongues?
3/ Etcetera

I am not sure you want to follow this discussion sir.
The OP set the pace of this discussion by quoting several scriptures to disprove speaking in tongues. My first focus is for us to examine all the scriptures he used and put them in right context of the author. After this we can move to the concept of tongues and have detailed explanation.

Mixing things up wont help anyone and avoiding a verse that is vivid in this OP will not either. If you are ready to contribute to this, i have taken Isa 28:11 as the first scriptures to tackled and i am still going to others, if you have read my position, what is right for you is to explain what that same verse is saying considering the writers intent and words.
But what you are doing above will not allow a systematic explanation of the concept at hand and will only lead to unending arguments. I will chose to focus only on the step-wise explanation of scriptures to unravel this concept to reach a conclusion if possible and i will only respond to you when you deemed ready to contribute in that same line.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 1:05pm On May 16
hupernikao:
I am not sure you want to follow this discussion sir.
The OP set the pace of this discussion by quoting several scriptures to disprove speaking in tongues. My first focus is for us to examine all the scriptures he used and put them in right context of the author. After this we can move to the concept of tongues and have detailed explanation.

Mixing things up wont help anyone and avoiding a verse that is vivid in this OP will not either. If you are ready to contribute to this, i have taken Isa 28:11 as the first scriptures to tackled and i am still going to others, if you have read my position, what is right for you is to explain what that same verse is saying considering the writers intent and words.
But what you are doing above will not allow a systematic explanation of the concept at hand and will only lead to unending arguments. I will chose to focus only on the step-wise explanation of scriptures to unravel this concept to reach a conclusion if possible and i will only respond to you when you deemed ready to contribute in that same line.
You can cycle and play with your bicycle all by yourself.

Everyone has already informed you that you have set off with the wrong foot forward. The OP has explicitly informed you in no uncertain terms that you are and have deviated from whats in the original post, but you are hell bent on charting your own tangent course mixing up apples with oranges.

Each of the 3 recorded speaking of tongues in the NT had nothing to do with stammering. In fact, the hearing audiences and pedestrians found each occasion to be spoken language that they could intelligibly and crisp clearly understand, so please quit derailing the topic and stop wasting forum storage space with your unnecessary disjointed verbiage.

Stick to and within the purview of OP's thread topic. Thank you in advance for complying.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Maximus69: 1:11pm On May 16
It's purposeless now that true Christian (Jehovah's Witnesses) have been to all the countries of the earth and made the Good News available in all the languages on planet earth.

That was the purpose why speaking in foreign languages happened so it's no more useful now! Act 2:4

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 1:22pm On May 16
Maximus69:
It's purposeless now that true Christian (Jehovah's Witnesses) have been to all the countries of the earth and made the Good News available in all the languages on planet earth.

That was the purpose why speaking in foreign languages happened so it's no more useful now! Act 2:4
Why do you like deceiving yourself and misleading others like this nah?

"Agba ntara" if to say nah small pikin, we for understand but not "firigbon" nah.

OK, just for the sake of this discussion, let's play along with your Acts 2:4 purpose and pretend it is right, what of the remaining other two NT occasions of the recorded speaking of tongues, what were their purposes?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 1:33pm On May 16
The lack of ability to discuss bible with proper explanation and view of using the right words, meaning and context seems alien to NL. It is sad that, when you are question or ask to explain a scriptures, the result you get is nothing but emotions of a man who cant present his doctrine the right and proper way.

You want to discuss scriptures outside the purview of what was written or how it was written, they that must be your own scriptures not the bible.

Even in secular world, when a case is presented, a contributor must be intelligent enough to make proper contribution by a counter argument not an haphazard or uncoordinated writing full of assumptions. You dont go ahead and quote scriptures you arent ready to explain or give details. You should have in mind that there are people who will question your meaning, use of words, explanation and doctrine.

In the OP, it is obvious, that ordinarily a word study should avail you of the meaning, even Paul's explanation should let us know the real meaning. All through the bible, when tongue is spoken of, it is well qualified. There is a reason for that. That quality of the word is what some strife to over look here and bring external meaning.

Well, it is advisable, to do proper study before entering the internet space as you should expect to be question so as to avoid error and mislead others.

2 Likes

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 1:40pm On May 16
MuttleyLaff:
You can cycle and play with your bicycle all by yourself.

Everyone has already informed you that you have set off with the wrong foot forward. The OP has explicitly informed you in no uncertain terms that you are and have deviated from whats in the original post, but you are hell bent on charting your own tangent course mixing up apples with oranges.

Each of the 3 recorded speaking of tongues in the NT had nothing to do with stammering. In fact, the hearing audiences and pedestrians found each occasion to be spoken language that they could intelligibly and crisp clearly understand, so please quit derailing the topic and stop wasting forum storage space with your unnecessary disjointed verbiage.

Stick to and within the purview of OP's thread topic. Thank you in advance for complying.

Like i told you earlier, leave "everyone" out of your discussion. I am yet to see your explanation but only seeing emotions. I asked you to present logical explanation all you are doing is scattered and not well presented. You must know how to present your case well in doctrinal arguments. Jumping from scriptures to scriptures doesnt present you as a proper bible student. If the writers of the bible have such attitude, we will all be in great confusion today.

In this, you are yet to make a single contribution to the topic as you are too emotional in your discussions. Set aside that and face the bible. Explain scriptures, dont jump from one to one, present a logical explanation, systematic flow of thought. Didnt you see how the OP presented his case. It is because of its systematic explanation that gave me interest in the OP and hence my contribution. But you? I havent seen you present anything yet but nugget and shades. I will expect you to do so as a proper bible student.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 1:49pm On May 16
I have just noticed that it is OP himself who introduced Isaiah 28:11. This unfortunately is a red herring which conveniently hupernikao had lashed on and to make a meal out off.

Isaiah 28:11, clearly is prophesying about the impending Assyrian assault on the Northern kingdom of Israel, where the Israelites who later became the lost tribes of Israel, would be captives and into exile under the stammering grunting commands in a foreign language they wouldn't undetstand.

Isaiah 28:11 shouldn't have featured in the OP and would expect hupernikao to ignore it and move on, if he/she has any meaningful contribution to share or make on this one out of 9 spiritual gift of the Holy Spirit

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (19) (Reply)

Demons Manifest In T.B. Joshua's Church, London / Hamas Hangs Young Children On Fence To Use As Human Shields / Any Evidence That Christ Really Exists Without A Bible Backing

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2020 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 478
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.