Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,483,391 members, 5,623,714 topics. Date: Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 02:11 PM

I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? - Religion (3) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? (2965 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 Maximus69: 1:53pm On May 16
MuttleyLaff:
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?

That time different people do come to the meetings of Christians and don't forget that the Bible has not been completed so certain information that's supposed to remain secret was revealed to the Christians in spiritual languages that must be translated later for those who must know of it! 1Corinthians 14:1-20

But now the book has been completed! Revelations 22 18-19 smiley
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Kobojunkie: 2:00pm On May 16
Eulalia:

So, what's your take on this topic?
You would probably need to start at the beginning of the thread to learn that.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Eulalia(f): 2:06pm On May 16
Kobojunkie:

You would probably need to start at the beginning of the thread to learn that.

Ouch! embarassed
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 2:06pm On May 16
hupernikao:
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.
Look at soot with your disjointed post trying to tar snow black, lmao.

hupernikao:
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
Yinmu. Smh.

hupernikao:
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.
Looks like you've just discovered and learned the word "emotional" and so everything to you has to be construed as being "too emotional" if when it's a constructive criticism. Anyway that's by the side but arent you ashamed of making bare faced lies in public?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 2:09pm On May 16
MuttleyLaff:
Look at soot with your disjointed post trying to tar snow black, lmao.

Yinmu. Smh.

Looks like you've just discovered and learned the word "emotional" and so everything to you has to be construed as being "too emotional" if when it's a constructive criticism. Anyway that's by the side but arent you ashamed of making bare faced lies in public?

How does this add to this OP? grin grin
You must be very funny in real life.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 2:15pm On May 16
MuttleyLaff:
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

Is Isaiah 28 out of the context of tongues as per OP? OP didnt fabricate this o, He is quoting Paul also, as Paul himself referred to Isaiah 28:11 when explaining tongues. Should we do away with that? Of course no.

And dont forget, i am not fixative on Isa 28:11, the issue is there is no serious argument here push away my inquiring into the usage of word in context of Isa 28:11. I have told you, we will get to the scriptures you are impressed on overtime, no need to rush. Handling Isa 28:11 first is primarily to this OP and that should be dont well.

2 Likes

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Kobojunkie: 2:18pm 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.
"Breathe in the Holy Spirit"? Jesus said something along the lines of "... I and the Father will come and make our home in you...". So if the Holy Spirit already lives inside of you, why would He leave to come back again each time you "Breath in the holy spirit"? What the heck does that even mean? What do the so-called spiritual people mean when they call on the Holy spirit to "come down"? If He is already on the inside of one, where would He come down from? And why does it seem that some believe He is under their control in some way?

The gifts(in unison) was set for a set of Christian leaders - the foundation stones? Any true follower of Christ ought to frown on that notion of leadership among Christians. Jesus definitely frowned on the idea of "Christian leaders".He scolded his disciples warning them not to adopt the way of the world in that ... but rather to lowest of servants to everyone if they want to be the greatest in His Kingdom.
Must everyone who supposedly has all the gifts assume a "leadership" role of some? And what in the world is a "foundation stone"?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 2:26pm On May 16
Maximus69:
That time different people do come to the meetings of Christians and don't forget that the Bible has not been completed so certain information that's supposed to remain secret was revealed to the Christians in spiritual languages that must be translated later for those who must know of it! 1Corinthians 14:1-20

But now the book has been completed! Revelations 22 18-19 smiley
I am not following, I seem to have been lost on you. You have lost me, is what I am saying here.

I am going to check we are singing from the same hymn book and common perspective. OK?

I have allowed Acts 2:4 to slide with your alleged purpose reason, but now you've sprung up an extensive and long range 1 Corinthians 14:1-20, to then follow up with a Revelation 22:18-19 menacing looking when read scripture, so let's see where the valid markers on the ground are from the following questions
1/ Please tell how many times was/were the gift of speaking intelligibly in tongues/language recorded?
2/ Please give the corresponding bible verses for each occasion of #1 above
3/ What is the common denominator in each ocassion of speaking in tongues?
4/ What objective and purpose was achieved from the speaking in tongue experience (s)
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 2:26pm On May 16
hupernikao:



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.

Good afternoon,

In the multitude of words, there is an unhealthy dose of folly - this may have been the case I’m my last response. God help me.

Isaiah 28v9: [Those leaders say this. ‘We wonder] to whom he (Isaiah) is teaching knowledge. [We wonder] to whom he is explaining his message. [We are not babies] that do not drink milk any longer. [Surely he (Isaiah) does not think that. Certainly] we have not just come from [our mother’s] breast.

v10 [Isaiah’s speech sounds strange to us, like this.] “Tsaw latsaw tsaw latsaw. Qaw laqaw qaw laqaw. Zeir sham, zeir sham.” ’

v11 So, with foreign lips he (the *LORD) will speak to this nation. And [he will speak to them with] a strange tongue (language). (Easy English version)

hupernikao said: “stammering lips translated from a shameful speaking, a mocking speech. You cant overlook such key words in this context sir“.

The context says: God spoke to Ephraim the drunkard in plain language but they scoffed; so He will speak to them in a mocking speech.

Ace hart says: Assyria, the stammerers and foreigner is coming against Ephraim. They came. The emissary of King Sennacherib, Rabshekeh, makes a speech. The speech was derogatory, reproachful, scornful, and a mockery of the sovereignty of Israel - God’s word came to pass. Jehovah spoke to them, precepts upon precepts, and it wearied them. Since Israel is his child, He would unless His rod.

Context respected, right? If you would have read the accounts of the book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, your search light on stammering, translated as mocking language, would have dimmed by now

hupernikao said: Judges 12:5-6 wasnt laeg, mocking language.

Acehart says: I didn’t say anything about this text apart from how it humours me.

hupernikao said: “In context, he spoke to them as children you speak to a child, babbling alliteration of a child, meaningless gibberish, senseless babbling[/b]. 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.”

Acehart says: Now, you put in your words; God didn’t speak to them as children, as you said. Ephraim said: His prophet speaks to them as though they were children.

[We wonder] to whom he is explaining his message. [We are not babies] that do not drink milk any longer. [Surely he (Isaiah) does not think that. Certainly] we have not just come from [our mother’s] breast.

v10 [Isaiah’s speech sounds strange to us, like this.] “Tsaw latsaw tsaw latsaw. Qaw laqaw qaw laqaw. Zeir sham, zeir sham.”


The drunkard, mocked Isaiah‘s words in a song, just as the way David was made the song of drunkards. As they mocked Him (v.10,14), He would mock them, as verse 11 says. Many versions translate stammering as foreign or strange: quite true: for many years God spoke in precepts, the new employ would be strange to them.

It may be translated as “unintelligible”. The scriptures says, “His way is in the whirlwind and the storm.” Jehovah promised them rest and in their rest, they didn’t listen to Him; so He will bring the whirlwind and the storm, and they would know His way. (Please think of when one tries to say something to you in a quiet place and when he tries to say something to you in a place like Oshodi; would the speaker in Oshodi sound unintelligible?)

Context respected, right?

I didn’t want to respond to your second comment because the issue of 1 Corinthians would come in and it would seem that Paul had no ground to lift Isaiah 28:11 and insert it in his letter. I dare not voice that. So let’s see what your response will be.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 2:40pm On May 16
Kobojunkie:

"Breathe in the Holy Spirit"? Jesus said something along the lines of "... I and the Father will come and make our home in you...". So if the Holy Spirit already lives inside of you, why would He leave to come back again each time you "Breath in the holy spirit"? What the heck does that even mean? What do the so-called spiritual people mean when they call on the Holy spirit to "come down"? If He is already on the inside of one, where would He come down from? And why does it seem that some believe He is under their control in some way?

The gifts(in unison) was set for a set of Christian leaders - the foundation stones? Any true follower of Christ ought to frown on that notion of leadership among Christians. Jesus definitely frowned on the idea of "Christian leaders".He scolded his disciples warning them not to adopt the way of the world in that ... but rather to lowest of servants to everyone if they want to be the greatest in His Kingdom.
Must everyone who supposedly has all the gifts assume a "leadership" role of some? And what in the world is a "foundation stone"?

Hi, Holy Spirit move...Holy Spirit come down...the list of commands one can give the Holy Spirit is endless in the Pentecostal churches.

I’m sorry to say Christian leaders. I don’t mean it in the context of today’s pastors, the Moses type of people in the period of grace, but in the forerunners of the saints - Àwọn set Peter and Paul.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 2:50pm On May 16
MuttleyLaff:
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

It’s quite unfortunate. Paul picked it up (1 Corinthians 14:21-22:In the Law it is written, "By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me," says the Lord. So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe) and it would be expected to speak about it in the light of Paul’s explanation.

Like a smart defense counsel, he has picked up a hole and hidden there. Ultimately, he may say like some OP here in nairaland headline their OP: “places where the Christian Bible disagrees with itself”. I may “Jerry“ him out of the hole with a blunt tool.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 3:01pm On May 16
hupernikao:
Is Isaiah 28 out of the context of tongues as per OP? OP didnt fabricate this o, He is quoting Paul also, as Paul himself referred to Isaiah 28:11 when explaining tongues. Should we do away with that? Of course no.
I know what I was talking about when I advanced to you to leave stammering out of Isaiah 28:11, which you were hell bent on doing your eisegesis on, lmao. C'mon now, let's at least be honest and sincere with each other nah. Apostle Paul never once strayed on to stammering in that verse. He limited himself to the relevant and related Isaiah 28:11b part ignoring the Isaiah 28:11a part that stammering in it.

1 Corinthians 14:21, that which Apostle Paul posited, is not a mirror image of Isaiah 28:11

hupernikao:
And dont forget, i am not fixative on Isa 28:11, the issue is there is no serious argument here push away my inquiring into the usage of word in context of Isa 28:11. I have told you, we will get to the scriptures you are impressed on overtime, no need to rush. Handling Isa 28:11 first is primarily to this OP and that should be dont well.
Like I've earlier said, it not your fault, it is OP who inadvertently gave you leeway without setting boundaries, lmao.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 3:12pm On May 16
Acehart:

hupernikao said: “In context, he spoke to them as children you speak to a child, babbling alliteration of a child, meaningless gibberish, senseless babbling[/b]. 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.”

Acehart says: Now, you put in your words; God didn’t speak to them as children, as you said. Ephraim said: His prophet speaks to them as though they were children.

[We wonder] to whom he is explaining his message. [We are not babies] that do not drink milk any longer. [Surely he (Isaiah) does not think that. Certainly] we have not just come from [our mother’s] breast.

v10 [Isaiah’s speech sounds strange to us, like this.] “Tsaw latsaw tsaw latsaw. Qaw laqaw qaw laqaw. Zeir sham, zeir sham.”


The drunkard, mocked Isaiah‘s words in a song, just as the way David was made the song of drunkards. As they mocked Him (v.10,14), He would mock them, as verse 11 says. Many versions translate stammering as foreign or strange: quite true: for many years God spoke in precepts, the new employ would be strange to them.


How do you mock sir, considering other usage of the verses i gave you. How do you mock in words? Do you speak intelligently to mock someone? Mocking is not an abuse, it is derision, it is babbling as used.

If you take mocking/stammering as meaning an intelligent speaking either by the speaker or hearer, then you arent referring to mocking (laeg). It is clear from all explanation and usage of laeg that it is unintelligible.



In what context do you have the below you wrote sir

Assyria,
the stammers
and foreigner is coming against Ephraim. They came. The emissary of King Sennacherib, Rabshekeh, makes a speech. The speech was derogatory, reproachful, scornful, and a mockery of the sovereignty of Israel - God’s word came to pass. Jehovah spoke to them, precepts upon precepts, and it wearied them. Since Israel is his child, He would unless His rod.

Is this in context of this verse or just your explanations by putting other meaning?

Assyrian language is not mockery sir. A known, full blown language cannot be term a mockery. How does speaking Assyrian become a mockery, a shameful tongue? Chinese etc is not a mockery language, it is a language know by men, some men. It can be learn by going to class sir.

Check the context of Pauls' usage, he referred to the response of the the unbeliever hearing this as saying THEY ARE MAD. Why? the speaking is senseless, unintelligent. Will a Chinese man (unbeliever) present say you are mad if the tongues will be Chinese?

I Cor 21
21 In the law it is written, With other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

Pay attention to verse 23, unlearned and unbeliever will be who? Why will they say you are mad when you speak in tongue?

If tongue is a known language such as Chinese, if an unbelieving Chinese man come into your service and you speak "in tongues as you presented" (Chinese in this case) will he say you are mad? He doesnt need any interpretation to know the meaning, yet he is an unbeliever. Should we say Paul's unbeliever is relative? If an unbeliever will call you mad (a mockery term) due to the tongue spoken, he sees it meaningless, them it means when spoken anywhere in the world no unbeliever will see is as intelligible speaking. The moment an unbeliever sees tongue as intelligible speaking, it is no tongue sir.

Putting Isa 28:11 and 1 Cor 14:21-23 side by side, you will understand you cant take tongue as human language except if there is any tribe that has no unbeliever. It must always be senseless, derided, unintelligible and meaningless to any unbeliever any where around the world.

If a tongue is streamed via the internet to the whole world and an unbeliever somewhere give meaning to it or understanding it, them Paul's explanation of the unbeliever response will be faulted. He must always see it as senseless, mocking, and derision. That exactly is what Isaiah pointed out using laeg as explaining tongues.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 3:26pm On May 16
hupernikao:


How do you mock sir, considering other usage of the verses i gave you. How do you mock in words? Do you speak intelligently to mock someone? Mocking is not an abuse, it is derision, it is babbling as used.

If you take mocking/stammering as meaning an intelligent speaking either by the speaker or hearer, then you arent referring to mocking (laeg). It is clear from all explanation and usage of laeg that it is unintelligible.



In what context do you have the below you wrote sir



Is this in context of this verse or just your explanations by putting other meaning?

Assyrian language is not mockery sir. A known, full blown language cannot be term a mockery. How does speaking Assyrian become a mockery, a shameful tongue? Chinese etc is not a mockery language, it is a language know by men, some men. It can be learn by going to class sir.

Check the context of Pauls' usage, he referred to the response of the the unbeliever hearing this as saying THEY ARE MAD. Why? the speaking is senseless, unintelligent. Will a Chinese man (unbeliever) present say you are mad if the tongues will be Chinese?

I Cor 21
21 In the law it is written, With other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

Pay attention to verse 23, unlearned and unbeliever will be who? Why will they say you are mad when you speak in tongue?

If tongue is a known language such as Chinese, if an unbelieving Chinese man come into your service and you speak "in tongues as you presented" (Chinese in this case) will he say you are mad? He doesnt need any interpretation to know the meaning, yet he is an unbeliever. Should we say Paul's unbeliever is relative? If an unbeliever will call you mad (a mockery term) due to the tongue spoken, he sees it meaningless, them it means when spoken anywhere in the world no unbeliever will see is as intelligible speaking. The moment an unbeliever sees tongue as intelligible speaking, it is no tongue sir.

Putting Isa 28:11 and 1 Cor 14:21-23 side by side, you will understand you cant take tongue as human language except if there is any tribe that has no unbeliever. It must always be senseless, derided, unintelligible and meaningless to any unbeliever any where around the world.

If a tongue is streamed via the internet to the whole world and an unbeliever somewhere give meaning to it or understanding it, them Paul's explanation of the unbeliever response will be faulted. He must always see it as senseless, mocking, and derision. That exactly is what Isaiah pointed out using laeg as explaining tongues.

Baba,

Please calm down. Take it one step at a time like I did for you. Did I say anything about the Assyrian language? Didn’t I speak about all the meaning of the word “stammering” you brought forward? Did I speak about Rabshekeh’s mockery, craziness, and the other meaning of laeg? Didn’t I tell you that you will eventually land in 1 Corinthians instead of the manner you wanted to proceed? You speak glossolalia. Please carry on.

If falsehood is televised and someone else bound by falsehood say it is indeed the truth, who in his alliance will fault him? Didn’t the scriptures say, a kingdom divided against itself can’t stand? I have already told you that you would indict Paul and you did it.

If you speak glossolalia, carry on. If you are God’s own, just ask Kobojunkie stated: God will teach you Himself.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 3:56pm On May 16
hupernikao:



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


PART 2: Mark 16:17 New Tongues

For Part 1 check link below
https://www.nairaland.com/5860057/should-speak-tongues-right#89591415



Dont forget where we started from, and as i said we will need to examine each places in the scriptures that pointed to tongue.

I mentioned that every where tongue is used it is mostly qualified and this is not accidental, hence we must not over look that in our explanation. Having looked at stammering. I will now consider Jesus' commentary on tongues.

Mark 16:17, JESUS COMMENTARY ON TONGUES
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

It is not surprising that Jesus is the first person in NT to comment about tongues. Let us pay attention to him words. he called it NEW TONGUES.
The word used here for new is translated from the Greek word kainos. I will give you places it was used and what it means.

KAINOS
new, recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn, of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of.

Note that when ever kainos is used it always point to something totally knew with respect to what it qualifies.

Mat 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins..

New testament. New relative to the testament. It means the testament was never used before, a new kind, unworn, unheard.

Whenever kainos is used it points to something absolutely new. Paul in 2 Cor 5:17 used new creation

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

New creature, will refer to a creature that is different from the existing creature. That is a new one from what used to be. New creature will not be localized but meaning "this is different from all forms of existing creature".

You can take time to check every other usage of Kainos .

Now to our discussion. Note that there are several word available for Jesus to used if he want to refer to a foreign language, that is an existing one.

The one foreign never occurred in Hebrew/Greek lexicon but its relative exist that is the word "STRANGE". There are 3 words used as strange in NT but Jesus never used any of this to describe tongues.

Strange: allotrios
foreign, strange, not of one's own family, alien, an enemy.

This should be the closest word Jesus would have used if he is referring to a foreign tongue. It means something alien or not part of your tribe.

Acts 7:6
And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years.

Strange land will not mean a new (kainos) land as the land exist before. Strange there will mean unfamiliar.

Strange: xenos
a guest or (vice-versa) entertainer:—host, strange(-r). This is very clear. It is refering to a person.

3Jo 1:5
Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers;

Strange: xenizō
to receive as a guest, to entertain, hospitably

The closest in all these 3 to what Jesus is saying is allotrios, foreign, strange, not of one's own family, alien, an enemy. Buthe never used that. Jesus used a very strong term. kainos.

That means the tongue that has no prior usage, existence or tribe. If Jesus wants to refer to a foreigner's tongue he would use strange (allotrios).

Observe Jesus' use of Kainos in his teachings

Mat 26:29
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Mar 14:24
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

new here mean the testament never exist before now.

Mar 16:17
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Jhn 13:34
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Commandment that was never in existence before.



Paul Commentary?

2Co 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

The testament has no past.

2Co 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

No past of such creature. New with respect to the existing creature.


Hebrews?

Heb 8:13
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The covenant has no past or existing record.



Revelation

Rev 2:17
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

The name has no past record, not bore before by anyone.

We can go on and on. Now to Mark 16:17

When Jesus used kainos, it implies, what has no existence and like i said that is not localized, it must be same everywhere you go, Believers are to be raised from all nations, when they read kainos glossa, they must see it as a tongue that has no previous existence in human race. It cannot be kainos when it is used in China or Nigeria, or UK, that will be allotrios a stranger, foreigner's tongue.

Hence, we must not loose this facts in our interpretation of the doctrine of tongues. New testament, is relative to the old testament, new covenant is relative to the old covenant, new creature (man in Christ) is relative to the old creature (Adamic), hence New tongue is relative to the human tongues, a new tongue/language as relative to existing or human language. It is not a tongue of a tribe or a human nation but the people of God.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Kobojunkie: 4:23pm On May 16
hupernikao:

Check the context of Pauls' usage, he referred to the response of the the unbeliever hearing this as saying THEY ARE MAD. Why? the speaking is senseless, unintelligent. Will a Chinese man (unbeliever) present say you are mad if the tongues will be Chinese?

I Cor 21
21 In the law it is written, With other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

Pay attention to verse 23, unlearned and unbeliever will be who? Why will they say you are mad when you speak in tongue?

If tongue is a known language such as Chinese, if an unbelieving Chinese man come into your service and you speak "in tongues as you presented" (Chinese in this case) will he say you are mad?
I think you missed the message contained in that passage.i.e. 1 Corinthians 14 vs 20-23


20. Brothers and sisters, don’t think like children. In evil things be like babies, but in your thinking you should be like full-grown adults. 21. As the Scriptures[a] say,

“Using those who speak a different language
and using the lips of foreigners,
I will speak to these people.
But even then, they will not obey me.”

This is what the Lord says.

22. And from this we see that the use of different languages shows how God deals with those who don’t believe, not with those who believe. And prophecy shows how God works through those who believe, not through unbelievers. 23. Suppose the whole church meets together and you all speak in different languages. If some people come in who are without understanding or don’t believe, they will say you are crazy.

Ofcourse if I walked into a church where I found a collection of people, each speaking aloud in a different language, even if I am able to pick up what is being spoken by just one person in the group, I would still them all crazy people. Remember Babel?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 4:58pm On May 16
Kobojunkie:

I think you missed the message contained in that passage.i.e. 1 Corinthians 14 vs 20-23


Ofcourse if I walked into a church where I found a collection of people, each speaking aloud in a different language, even if I am able to pick up what is being spoken by just one person in the group, I would still them all crazy people. Remember Babel?

An unbeliever Sir, not anyone, read it again.

He is very specific, an unbeliever? Whether Chinese, Japanese, American etc. HE will say they are man. Will he say so if his language is part of what is being spoken?

That scriptures wont refer to a well taught believer. He said an unlearned and unbeliever. The focus is the nature of the man to understand. If he is a Chinese unbeliever and he heard Chinese in the Cong as tongue, will he say they are mad? But Paul said, the unbeliever will ALWAYS say they are mad. This applies to all unbeliever anywhere. Seeing them crazy is relative to him unbelieving and the fact that his mind is unfruitful, he doesnt understand.

Will the mind of an unbelieving Chinese man be unfruitful if tongues of Chinese is spoken in church? Tongue is unfruitful to all human mind but the believer knows it is by the holy ghost.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 5:07pm On May 16
Acehart:


Baba,

Please calm down. Take it one step at a time like I did for you. Did I say anything about the Assyrian language? Didn’t I speak about all the meaning of the word “stammering” you brought forward? Did I speak about Rabshekeh’s mockery, craziness, and the other meaning of laeg? Didn’t I tell you that you will eventually land in 1 Corinthians instead of the manner you wanted to proceed? You speak glossolalia. Please carry on.

If falsehood is televised and someone else bound by falsehood say it is indeed the truth, who in his alliance will fault him? Didn’t the scriptures say, a kingdom divided against itself can’t stand? I have already told you that you would indict Paul and you did it.

If you speak glossolalia, carry on. If you are God’s own, just ask Kobojunkie stated: God will teach you Himself.

I actually dont know the reason for the above though as i cant find how it speaks about our discussion. I will keep the focus of discussion and that is what you should keep. I am using your verses in your OP and you shouldnt be wary of that.

Of course, we will be coming to 1 Cor 14, but a lot have to be cleared on the way. I only referred to 1 Cor 14:21 because it is a direct reference to Isa 28:11 which can be used in explaining it. The full context of 1 Cor 14 will come in play later.

And about falsehood, why not lets leave that out of this and treat the OP you committed here. The OP is the focus now or better still discuss how the OP negate the scriptures i put above. So, leave the televised or others out of this.

But note this, that in all usage of tongues in the Bible, it is well qualified enough for you to know it cant relate to human language or otherwise. And there are reason for the usage of those words. And as you can see, my first target is for us to examine and see the true meaning of those word before placing them in explanation.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 5:08pm On May 16
hupernikao:



PART 2: Mark 16:17 New Tongues

For Part 1 check link below
https://www.nairaland.com/5860057/should-speak-tongues-right#89591415



Dont forget where we started from, and as i said we will need to examine each places in the scriptures that pointed to tongue.

I mentioned that every where tongue is used it is mostly qualified and this is not accidental, hence we must not over look that in our explanation. Having looked at stammering. I will now consider Jesus' commentary on tongues.

Mark 16:17, JESUS COMMENTARY ON TONGUES
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

It is not surprising that Jesus is the first person in NT to comment about tongues. Let us pay attention to him words. he called it NEW TONGUES.
The word used here for new is translated from the Greek word kainos. I will give you places it was used and what it means.

KAINOS
new, recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn, of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of.

Note that when ever kainos is used it always point to something totally knew with respect to what it qualifies.

Mat 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins..

New testament. New relative to the testament. It means the testament was never used before, a new kind, unworn, unheard.

Whenever kainos is used it points to something absolutely new. Paul in 2 Cor 5:17 used new creation

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

New creature, will refer to a creature that is different from the existing creature. That is a new one from what used to be. New creature will not be localized but meaning "this is different from all forms of existing creature".

You can take time to check every other usage of Kainos .

Now to our discussion. Note that there are several word available for Jesus to used if he want to refer to a foreign language, that is an existing one.

The one foreign never occurred in Hebrew/Greek lexicon but its relative exist that is the word "STRANGE". There are 3 words used as strange in NT but Jesus never used any of this to describe tongues.

Strange: allotrios
foreign, strange, not of one's own family, alien, an enemy.

This should be the closest word Jesus would have used if he is referring to a foreign tongue. It means something alien or not part of your tribe.

Acts 7:6
And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years.

Strange land will not mean a new (kainos) land as the land exist before. Strange there will mean unfamiliar.

Strange: xenos
a guest or (vice-versa) entertainer:—host, strange(-r). This is very clear. It is refering to a person.

3Jo 1:5
Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers;

Strange: xenizō
to receive as a guest, to entertain, hospitably

The closest in all these 3 to what Jesus is saying is allotrios, foreign, strange, not of one's own family, alien, an enemy. Buthe never used that. Jesus used a very strong term. kainos.

That means the tongue that has no prior usage, existence or tribe. If Jesus wants to refer to a foreigner's tongue he would use strange (allotrios).

Observe Jesus' use of Kainos in his teachings

Mat 26:29
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Mar 14:24
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

new here mean the testament never exist before now.

Mar 16:17
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Jhn 13:34
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Commandment that was never in existence before.



Paul Commentary?

2Co 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

The testament has no past.

2Co 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

No past of such creature. New with respect to the existing creature.


Hebrews?

Heb 8:13
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The covenant has no past or existing record.



Revelation

Rev 2:17
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

The name has no past record, not bore before by anyone.

We can go on and on. Now to Mark 16:17

When Jesus used kainos, it implies, what has no existence and like i said that is not localized, it must be same everywhere you go, Believers are to be raised from all nations, when they read kainos glossa, they must see it as a tongue that has no previous existence in human race. It cannot be kainos when it is used in China or Nigeria, or UK, that will be allotrios a stranger, foreigner's tongue.

Hence, we must not loose lose this facts in our interpretation of the doctrine of tongues. New testament, is relative to the old testament, new covenant is relative to the old covenant, new creature (man in Christ) is relative to the old creature (Adamic), hence New tongue is relative to the human tongues, a new tongue/language as relative to existing or human language. It is not a tongue of a tribe or a human nation but the people of God.

You have spoken
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Kobojunkie: 5:13pm On May 16
hupernikao:

An unbeliever Sir, not anyone, read it again.
He is very specific, an unbeliever? Whether Chinese, Japanese, American etc. HE will say they are man. Will he say so if his language is part of what is being spoken?
Look again

1 Corinthians 14 vs 23. Suppose the whole church meets together and you all speak in different languages. If some people come in who are without understanding or don’t believe, they will say you are crazy.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 5:13pm On May 16
Acehart:


It’s quite unfortunate. Paul picked it up (1 Corinthians 14:21-22:In the Law it is written, "By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me," says the Lord. So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe) and it would be expected to speak about it in the light of Paul’s explanation.

Like a smart defense counsel, he has picked up a hole and hidden there. Ultimately, he may say like some OP here in nairaland headline their OP: “places where the Christian Bible disagrees with itself”. I may “Jerry“ him out of the hole with a blunt tool.


Funny enough that you can see the hole in your explanation and that exactly is the point of this discussion. Likewise the other here too as seen in style of trying to avoid the author's word. But it should be clear, we arent discussing for trophy but scriptural accuracy. So, when you see a hole in your explanation the right thing to do is to go again for further study in light of that. Then reconcile your doctrine. Any other thing you do aside this will be trying to protect your doctrine which you have already seen its incompleteness.

And for the record, the Bible doesnt have any disagreement anywhere, it is the lack of study, putting thing in right context and finally accepting to correction and re-examining doctrines that birth such seemingly inconsistency in the scriptures.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 5:17pm On May 16
Kobojunkie:

Look again


unlearned and unbeliever, it is clear there Sir.Are you unlearned or an unbeliever sir? Are you qualified in any of this category in church?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Kobojunkie: 5:21pm On May 16
hupernikao:

unlearned and unbeliever, it is clear there Sir.Are you unlearned or an unbeliever sir? Are you qualified in any of this category in church?
Oh yeah, it is likely that I am unlearned in the languages being spoken. Also, it is likely that I am not even able to pick up what is being said by the one person who I believe speaks my language, over all that commotion. I would definitely believe them mad for engaging in what I consider stupidity.

Have I experienced something similar before? I have attended services where the pastor commands everyone to begin speaking in tongues(gibberish). Did I think them stupid then? Ofcourse I did. Now that I have a better understanding of what speaking in tongues really is about, do I think such practices stupid even now? Absolutely.

My take of what Paul says here in his letter is that it is better to take turns when speaking in tongues, rather than trying to speak over each other.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Maximus69: 5:24pm On May 16
MuttleyLaff:
I am not following, I seem to have been lost on you. You have lost me, is what I am saying here.

I am going to check we are singing from the same hymn book and common perspective. OK?

I have allowed Acts 2:4 to slide with your alleged purpose reason, but now you've sprung up an extensive and long range 1 Corinthians 14:1-20, to then follow up with a Revelation 22:18-19 menacing looking when read scripture, so let's see where the valid markers on the ground are from the following questions
1/ Please tell how many times was/were the gift of speaking intelligibly in tongues/language recorded?
2/ Please give the corresponding bible verses for each occasion of #1 above
3/ What is the common denominator in each ocassion of speaking in tongues?
4/ What objective and purpose was achieved from the speaking in tongue experience (s)



Sorry Sir i'm not here to teach you, if you feel you know something contrary to that please do well to present it.

God's word never asked us to attack anoone for preaching or teaching publicly what he knows.

But if you want to know more about why true Christians (Jehovah's Witnesses) don't speak in tongues today, please welcome a free home Bible study, fill in your contact address on (jw.org) and a qualified Bible Scholar will be sent to teach you! smiley
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 5:35pm On May 16
hupernikao:


I actually dont know the reason for the above though as i cant find how it speaks about our discussion. I will keep the focus of discussion and that is what you should keep. I am using your verses in your OP and you shouldnt be wary of that.

Of course, we will be coming to 1 Cor 14, but a lot have to be cleared on the way. I only referred to 1 Cor 14:21 because it is a direct reference to Isa 28:11 which can be used in explaining it. The full context of 1 Cor 14 will come in play later.

And about falsehood, why not lets leave that out of this and treat the OP you committed here. The OP is the focus now or better still discuss how the OP negate the scriptures i put above. So, leave the televised or others out of this.

But note this, that in all usage of tongues in the Bible, it is well qualified enough for you to know it cant relate to human language or otherwise. And there are reason for the usage of those words. And as you can see, my first target is for us to examine and see the true meaning of those word before placing them in explanation.

I asked for objectivity and I gave it to you. From your television narrative, you have seen that you have veered from the venture you started. We have told you that you have gone in cycles and eventually strayed but you don’t see it. Have you answered every question I asked in my last response. I kept a promise but you didn’t keep yours. I played the flute but you didn’t dance; I sang the dirge for you but you didn’t mourn; what more can I do? If I didn’t make sense to you, other commentators here gave hints for your understanding and I appreciate them a lot.

If the OP negates the scriptures you stated, you should have said so from the start but you set land mines everywhere and now you want to make the land free of them.

If I negated the 1 Corinthians 14, then by first principles, the principle of context, Paul was wrong, right? I dare not say that to a man whose words have changed my world. But I tell you, if you dig your heels in “stammering” to do an exposition of 1 Corinthians 14:21, the beasts will come for you; Did you see them commenting on this thread?

I have lost the taste for responding to you. Please don’t be mad at me.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 5:40pm On May 16
Maximus69:
Sorry Sir i'm not here to teach you, if you feel you know something contrary to that please do well to present it.

God's word never asked us to attack anoone for preaching or teaching publicly what he knows.

But if you want to know more about why true Christians (Jehovah's Witnesses) don't speak in tongues today, please welcome a free home Bible study, fill in your contact address on (jw.org) and a qualified Bible Scholar will be sent to teach you! smiley
You always like thinking too highly of yourself dont you, hmm? Now who did you see bringing chalk and duster to the communion of drinking wine, breaking and sharing bread that we are in philadephia having together, huh?

Have spotted anyone with a dagger hidden under their cloak on this thread ni, hmm? What's with attack? Why are you miconstruing iron sharpen iron for attack? You lay down your stick, I lay down my stick, we let the shapes, judge by themselves, lmao.

I had access to the best Teacher in the whole wide world and beyond. Thank you very much with your JW for org.

2 Likes

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 5:42pm On May 16
Eulalia:


So, what's your take on this topic?

Kobojunkie:

Oh yeah, it is likely that I am unlearned in the languages being spoken. Also, it is likely that I am not even able to pick up what is being said by the one person who I believe speaks my language, over all that commotion. I would definitely believe them mad for engaging in what I consider stupidity.

Have I experienced something similar before? I have attended services where the pastor commands everyone to begin speaking in tongues(gibberish). Did I think them stupid then? Ofcourse I did. Now that I have a better understanding of what speaking in tongues really is about, do I think such practices stupid even now? Absolutely.

My take of what Paul says here in his letter is that it is better to take turns when speaking in tongues, rather than trying to speak over each other.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 5:46pm On May 16
hupernikao:


Funny enough that you can see the hole in your explanation and that exactly is the point of this discussion. Likewise the other here too as seen in style of trying to avoid the author's word. But it should be clear, we arent discussing for trophy but scriptural accuracy. So, when you see a hole in your explanation the right thing to do is to go again for further study in light of that. Then reconcile your doctrine. Any other thing you do aside this will be trying to protect your doctrine which you have already seen its incompleteness.

And for the record, the Bible doesnt have any disagreement anywhere, it is the lack of study, putting thing in right context and finally accepting to correction and re-examining doctrines that birth such seemingly inconsistency in the scriptures.

It’s not a hole in my explanation because the OP didn’t do an expose on Isaiah’s text. It’s the hole in the text you want to nest in and incubate your idea (but you said you had an open mind. Time has shown that isn’t true).

In real life, I don’t speak much and I will not do that in writing.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 5:49pm On May 16
Acehart:


I asked for objectivity and I gave it to you. From your television narrative, you have seen that you have veered from the venture you started. We have told you that you have gone in cycles and eventually strayed but you don’t see it. Have you answered every question I asked in my last response. I kept a promise but you didn’t keep yours. I played the flute but you didn’t dance; I sang the dirge for you but you didn’t mourn; what more can I do? If I didn’t make sense to you, other commentators here gave hints for your understanding and I appreciate them a lot.

If the OP negates the scriptures you stated, you should have said so from the start but you set land mines everywhere and now you want to make the land free of them.

If I negated the 1 Corinthians 14, then by first principles, the principle of context, Paul was wrong, right? I dare not say that to a man whose words have changed my world. But I tell you, if you dig your heels in “stammering” to do an exposition of 1 Corinthians 14:21, the beasts will come for you; Did you see them commenting on this thread?

I have lost the taste for responding to you. Please don’t be mad at me.


grin grin grin

You are putting Paul in firing line. The issue here is not Paul, the issue is your interpretation of Paul's doctrine. And i have told you severally that i started from Isa 28:11 because that is the very first mention of what seems to be tongue and your OP confirmed that too.

I am quite amused where you see the television narratives? Does that mean my explanation deserve televising? grin

You cant avoid Isa 28:11 sir. And infact i have moved on from there and given you Part 2 of my submission (Mark 16:17, Jesus Commentary) in the below link of this same OP.

https://www.nairaland.com/5860057/should-speak-tongues-right/2#89615517

That is a check on what Jesus referred to as NEW TONGUE.

Lastly, like i told you we will get to 1 Cor 14 and will be ready for the beasts, at least the original writer of same book faced such beast too in Ephesus. We will handle that when we enter the Colosseum smiley
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hupernikao: 5:54pm On May 16
Acehart:


It’s not a hole in my explanation because the OP didn’t do an expose on Isaiah’s text. It’s the hole in the text you want to nest in and incubate your idea (but you said you had an open mind. Time has shown that isn’t true).

In real life, I don’t speak much and I will not do that in writing.

I have told you many times here again and again that Isa 28:11 is just one of the many scriptures we will examine to prove the OP. Why thinking i am going to stay only on Isa 28:11. We are moving bro. Even if we dont agree, we will move, what is key is further study will be stirred up.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Maximus69: 5:54pm On May 16
MuttleyLaff:
You always like thinking too highly of yourself dont you, hmm? Now who did you see bringing chalk and duster to the communion of drinking wine, breaking and sharing bread that we are in philadephia having together, huh?

Have spotted anyone with a dagger hidden under their cloak on this thread ni, hmm? What's with attack? Why are you miconstruing iron sharpen iron for attack? You lay down your stick, I lay down my stick, we let the shapes, judge by themselves, lmao.

I had access to the best Teacher in the whole wide world and beyond. Thank you very much with your JW for org.


I never intended chatting you up, my presentation is STRICTLY for those who might pick one or two things from it, but if nobody picks anything then i take my leave.

You and i have had enough chatting and i'm not interested in arguments Sir!

So just as you've said you have access to the best teachers, please stick to their teachings and ignore my posts because i only know of one single Christian group globally, and that's where i can get my own iron sharpened as a Christian by fellow believers if the need be!. Hebrew 10:23-25

Thanks Sir! smiley
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 8:31pm On May 16
hupernikao:



PART 2: Mark 16:17 New Tongues

For Part 1 check link below
https://www.nairaland.com/5860057/should-speak-tongues-right#89591415



Dont forget where we started from, and as i said we will need to examine each places in the scriptures that pointed to tongue.

I mentioned that every where tongue is used it is mostly qualified and this is not accidental, hence we must not over look that in our explanation. Having looked at stammering. I will now consider Jesus' commentary on tongues.

Mark 16:17, JESUS COMMENTARY ON TONGUES
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

It is not surprising that Jesus is the first person in NT to comment about tongues. Let us pay attention to him words. he called it NEW TONGUES.
The word used here for new is translated from the Greek word kainos. I will give you places it was used and what it means.

KAINOS
new, recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn, of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of.

Note that when ever kainos is used it always point to something totally knew with respect to what it qualifies.

Mat 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins..

New testament. New relative to the testament. It means the testament was never used before, a new kind, unworn, unheard.

Whenever kainos is used it points to something absolutely new. Paul in 2 Cor 5:17 used new creation

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

New creature, will refer to a creature that is different from the existing creature. That is a new one from what used to be. New creature will not be localized but meaning "this is different from all forms of existing creature".

You can take time to check every other usage of Kainos .

Now to our discussion. Note that there are several word available for Jesus to used if he want to refer to a foreign language, that is an existing one.

The one foreign never occurred in Hebrew/Greek lexicon but its relative exist that is the word "STRANGE". There are 3 words used as strange in NT but Jesus never used any of this to describe tongues.

Strange: allotrios
foreign, strange, not of one's own family, alien, an enemy.

This should be the closest word Jesus would have used if he is referring to a foreign tongue. It means something alien or not part of your tribe.

Acts 7:6
And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years.

Strange land will not mean a new (kainos) land as the land exist before. Strange there will mean unfamiliar.

Strange: xenos
a guest or (vice-versa) entertainer:—host, strange(-r). This is very clear. It is refering to a person.

3Jo 1:5
Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers;

Strange: xenizō
to receive as a guest, to entertain, hospitably

The closest in all these 3 to what Jesus is saying is allotrios, foreign, strange, not of one's own family, alien, an enemy. Buthe never used that. Jesus used a very strong term. kainos.

That means the tongue that has no prior usage, existence or tribe. If Jesus wants to refer to a foreigner's tongue he would use strange (allotrios).

Observe Jesus' use of Kainos in his teachings

Mat 26:29
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Mar 14:24
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

new here mean the testament never exist before now.

Mar 16:17
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Jhn 13:34
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Commandment that was never in existence before.



Paul Commentary?

2Co 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

The testament has no past.

2Co 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

No past of such creature. New with respect to the existing creature.


Hebrews?

Heb 8:13
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The covenant has no past or existing record.



Revelation

Rev 2:17
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

The name has no past record, not bore before by anyone.

We can go on and on. Now to Mark 16:17

When Jesus used kainos, it implies, what has no existence and like i said that is not localized, it must be same everywhere you go, Believers are to be raised from all nations, when they read kainos glossa, they must see it as a tongue that has no previous existence in human race. It cannot be kainos when it is used in China or Nigeria, or UK, that will be allotrios a stranger, foreigner's tongue.

Hence, we must not loose this facts in our interpretation of the doctrine of tongues. New testament, is relative to the old testament, new covenant is relative to the old covenant, new creature (man in Christ) is relative to the old creature (Adamic), hence New tongue is relative to the human tongues, a new tongue/language as relative to existing or human language. It is not a tongue of a tribe or a human nation but the people of God.

The keyword you wanted to state from Isaiah 28 is unintelligible and babbling. The keyword from your exposition here is: The new tongue is not a tongue of a tribe or a human nation but the people of God. I would like to see your next exposition.

Whatever your next exposition is, remember that signs were for the Jews rather than for Gentiles. “For the Jews require a sign . . . ” (1 Corinthians 1:22). Whenever the gift of tongues was exercised Jews were present, tongues-speaking being used either to communicate the Gospel (as the OP states) or else to confirm to the Jews that the Gentiles were worthy of salvation and should therefore have the Gospel also.

Finally, you said: “It is not a tongue of a tribe or a human nation but the people of God”. This statement is your invention. However, the scriptures says: “You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires;...to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.” (Ephesians 4:17,22-24). Your insertion of “tongue of a tribe or human nation” is a dubious and manipulative. It doesn’t agree with Ephesians 4, Leviticus 18 and 19, 1 Peter 4 and every scripture that speaks of how believers must be different from the world.

1 Like

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

Jesus's Doctrine Of Passive Non-resistance To Evil / Ghana Is The Most Religious Country On Earth. / £100 To Any Christian Who Can Prove The Hindu God Doesn't Exist

(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. 603
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.