₦airaland Forum

MuttleyLaff:
Cricket is one game I never understood. Couldn't score it, don't know how which team is losing or winning. Maybe its you, who will give me a crash course on cricket.

MuttleyLaff:
I am sorry, please pardon me, as I don't seem to understand how you mean "... one eye on the “square leg”, tongues ...". I get "one eye on" but I don't get how or what you mean by “square leg”, tongues"

C'mon Acehart, stop doing this man. Stop doing this to your self, if just done to me, I don't mind, but no, no, not to yourself too nah. Acehart, we are a construction site, work in progress. We are not the finished article yet bro

Try to be honest and sincere here nah, Acehart. Look around you, look at the world, nah. OK, forget the world, let's come closer home, let's come local. Do you really believe we are formed already? We are one of the 24/7/365 days, most going to church people, in the whole world wide, yet there is still so much woes, misery, dejection, oppression, desertion, infidelity, treachery, abject poverty, prejudices, avoidable starvation, insecurity, no sense of safety, no enjoyable movement, dereliction of duties, no love lost, thievery, scamming, fakeries, et cetera.

Christ, is not coming back for a church that can't present herself to Him without stain, wrinkle or any other blemish. No, but one that is complete holy, blameless and ready for Him.

[img]https://s7/images/HolySprit3.png[/img]
True, one size fits all indeed, but ....

Acehart, you don start again ooo. Watch this. When I was little, I first learned about numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 up to 10 or 20. I didn't know there were more numbers after 10 or 20, nor that there were numbers lesser than 1. Also I first learned alphabets starting from A, B, C, D, E up to Z, I didn't first know that I could write them even as a, b, c, e ..... z. Well as time went on, I got to learn there are quite an uncountable numbers beyond 10 or 20. I learned that 2+2=4, then soon after I learned that even 1+3=4, that 1+1+1+1=4 or 4+0=4. On the alphabet side, I later learned that stringing A, with B, B and A becomes ABBA et cetera.

There's no point going on, you sure I am certain, have gotten the drift, especially with the already above pasted picture, that shows how though one size, truly is whats provided to fit all, albeit, you still need to flesh out, you need to buff up, you need to exercise the body and flex them muscles so that you fill out to perfectly.

Do you remember, the story of the widow of Zarapheth refer to 1 Kings 17:7-16, but the focus is on 1 Kings 17:14. It is whatever size of jar that the widow brought that the oil was going to fill up until the day God made it rain on the surface of the ground. Praise God. Alleluia. The flow of anointing has no limit. The power of the Holy Ghost has no limit. It simply is proportional to what is presented and how it is presented.

You see how after the little boy with over-sized suit jacket, trousers and shoes had grown into the suit and all, everything fitted perfectly well, and how the boy turned grown, will be able to effectively move about to be a success in whatever he puts his mind upon.

Angel Gabriel made a physical direct and personal appearance to Mary. As for Joseph, a version of the same import message was made to Joseph without privilege personal visitation, but rather only in the form of a dream.

You of course know who and what the Holy Spirit is, don't you. If your answer is in the affirmative, then I dare ask who would you rather be the last authority on whatever you need to know about the counsel of God, hmm?

I suspect you're trying hard to bend a straight stick to match yours here brother. We have, if we haven't korokoro with our own eyes, witness it ourselves, read the prophecy fulfilled of speaking in tongues recorded three times in scripture. The Bible said, they first heard a noisy loud sound, powerful full force rushing gust of wind sweep into the house they were and filling in the room where they were fitted, then appearing miraculously, were a representation of some form or sort of cloven tongues (i.e. glossa, in Greek, a member of the body, the organ of speech) of fire, sitting upon the disciples and they miraculously began to speak in other tongues/languages, please note this because Acts2:4 said, they did all this as the Spirit gave them utterances. The disciples didn't not force, did not conjure up, did not initiate, did not discretionally do anything. Everything was by the Holy Spirit. Now, isn't it surprising none of the disciples freaked out. Why would they, when they previously have been advanced warned by Jesus Christ, to tarry or wait in the city of Jerusalem until they are endued with power from on high (i.e. Luke 24:48)

Why at all, would they need to have such a power, a different level, a development and an improvement on quality, hmm Acehart. Why nah? Why, aside the obvious other reason(s) was this sort of versatility necessary? Of course, you do remember the state of mind and psychology of the disciples after Jesus was arrested, then humilated, assaulted, ridiculed, and lastly, literally slaughtered, didn't you, hmm?. If you do, then please advise me Acehart, help me with this nah, do you really think these men and women, were in the frame of mind, to go out and proclaim the gospel, just like that, on ordinary run of mill, business as usual, lacking distinctive features or interesting characteristics skillset or abilities, hmm? Please don't because of the little details trees, lose focus of the bigger picture forest.

MuttleyLaff:
Acehart, please slow down, lmao. You're behaving like someone grabbing stuff off the supermarket shelves, like as if they aren't going to re-open again tomorrow.

Let's get this fact and truth straight first. No matter how much well versed anyone is in Pauline epistles, without the assistance of the Holy Spirit, all the person has, is just sheer head knowledge and nothing from the soul emanated from the spirit man, alive and correctly tuned connected to the Holy Spirit.

It seems you didn't grab the subtle illustration, I earlier made with Genesis 1:26a, in addition to compare and contrast it with Genesis 1:27a

Acehart, we are already exercising different levels and/or essences of hope, faith and love. Of course not yet to perfection, nonetheless.

Yeah, there you're, you've just up there said it with Hebrews 11:1 that: "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". If you aren't trying to exercise hope, you wouldn't be interested in exercising faith. Now because you want to exercise faith, you because of knowing about Romans 10:17, you are now listening to the affirmation word of God. Why? It is because "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Apostle Paul, stepped up to the plate, after when Apostle Peter was found dithering. The same would have happened to Mary, if when Angel Gabriel paid her a visit, she too like Peter was found to be indecisive, but Praise God, that her response to the angel's message was: "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me, according to your word." Praise God. Alleluia.

Are you aware, that father Abraham, saw you in the future, way back in Genesis 22:18 and Genesis 28:14, hmm? Gentiles, is used in Genesis 22:18, while families of the earth is what's used in Genesis 28:14. Isn't that amazing beautiful that God had us in mind from the very beginning when He singled out Abram/Abraham to leave his country, his people and his father's household and go to the land that will be shown him, to make him into a great nation and be blessed, such that his name will be great and he will be a blessing (i.e. Genesis 12:1)

Acehart what exactly are you trying to get your head round with here please?

MuttleyLaff:
Funnily enough "foreign," in English, has meanings, similar to unfamiliar, unknown, unheard of, strange, alien, exotic, outlandish, odd, peculiar, curious, bizarre, weird, queer, funny, novel or new, lmao

Why bother have scripture translated into various languages duh. Why not take a cue from Islam, who didn't translate the Quran from Arabic but its adherents learn about their faith in Arabic. You are a devil, thats what you are and you'll soon have your comeuppance. Mark my words

Amujale:
No, you should pick up a history textbook and read.

Christianity is a fake and malicious ideology.

MuttleyLaff:
I am not sure which church you're referring to, because there is the ecclesia/ekklesia, the organic and there is organised/institutionalised church, lmao

That's beside the point, so I'll move on. As far I know, fellowshipping with one another has been to a considerable length being going on here on this thread. Of course, hope, faith and without a doubt, agape love, are the propelling influences that makes some be interlocutors on this thread and keep revisiting it.

Now, the thing about you question, is, God is love and when God, in Genesis 1:26a said "Let us make man (i.e. mankind) in Our image, after Our likeness: ..."that exactly was the plan and/or objective. Hopping forward a little bit, Isaiah 55:11 says about God's word that: "So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it". The three gifts, hope and love, especially love Acehart, are already dispersed and the word of God, will not return back to God, until when they are perfected, lmao

Watch this now. Are you an artist, do you do life drawing or you're familiar with any sort of drawing, painting, portrait et cetera things like that. How does it start? It begins with sketches, lines, strokes et cetera with the brush or pencil, then gradually, slowly but surely, an actual image of object of the painting begins to appear, looking little by little more like what the object/subject of the painting looks like or a likeness seems to be appearing that convincingly to a good degree, looks like a passing representation of the object/subject of painting, lmao. I'll pause there without any intention of saying more, lmao, except for catch your mind back to Genesis 1:26a, and then after carefully reviewing Genesis 1:26a, to now compare and contrast it with Genesis 1:27a, lmao. What you do find odd between both of them Acehart? Whatever you correctly find odd or find as a difference, is the answer to your question, lmao. We have them Acehart, love included. Its only, we are just there having them, we don't, fully have hope, faith and love perfected or in their fulness yet.

This is still a construction site Acehart with WiP sign (work in progress) still hung up. Have you forgotten we build each other up ni, lmao, hmm?

MuttleyLaff:
Hope, faith and love, of which love is the greatest. These three are not contestable.

MuttleyLaff:
"But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away."
- 1 Corinthians 13:10

Exactly in line with what I earlier hinted to above there about "... nowhere has it being specified "[i]speaking in tongues" has been done away with or going to be done away, bar 1 Corinthians 13:13, about faith, hope and love being the only thing that are eternal and remains forever[/i]"

Them three, meaning faith, hope and love, should be the focus and concentration, where the greatest of the three is agape love and not some fixation on "speaking in tongues," something that is temporal. It is eternal.

Apostle Paul's letters becomes a lethal minefield, especially if you aren't equipped to walk through it or don't know how to put your feet in the right spot of ground to not set off explosions, lmao

MuttleyLaff:
The albeit it has passed its best before date, the gift of speaking in tongues, as you presumed with all due respect my dear sire, has not being discarded. Please be careful how you stoke the flames of the fire.

It has achieved its primary audience targeted at. First to the lost sheep, now then, soon after the Gentiles. For the Judahite required a sign, a miracle et cetera (i.e. 1 Corinthians 1:22) Praise God. Alleluia.

MuttleyLaff:
The albeit it has passed its best before date, the gift of speaking in tongues, as you presumed with all due respect my dear sire, has not being discarded. Please be careful how you stoke the flames of the fire.

It has achieved its primary audience targeted at. First to the lost sheep, now then, soon after the Gentiles. For the Judahite required a sign, a miracle et cetera Praise God. Alleluis.

Maximus69:
@bolded exposed your lack of wisdom!

An organization is fast moving across the face of the earth, catching people from different races and tongues, making them preachers and teachers, turning them away from using weapons to settle disputes, you yourself even acknowledged that "they are vast in the knowledge of the letters" because they can drive home their points anywhere you find them.

Then you concluded:-

they lack the spirit.

Please what else do you expect of those having the spirit if not the ability to do the will of God?

For your information, what God's word foretold about his worshipers during the endtime was clearly revealed to Isaiah and Micah! Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-3

Jesus himself said "don't expect any spectacular signs (things that's extraordinary) because it will happen just as what you read about Jonah" Luke 11:29

Jonah never performed any sign yet the Ninevites accepted his message and acted on his words, but here you're expecting extra signs after being an eyewitness of all the good works JWs have achieved so far.

I pity your condition!

Maximus69:
Nice point!

I hope you find a group that's better than Jehovah's Witnesses in speaking in tongues with a useful purpose! Matthew 7:16-18

Myer:
Your case is different.
The bible didn't say the disciples went to learn the foreign languages they spoke.
Your articles were written in different languagrs by those who speak those languages.

There is no power in your JW organisation. And the gospel is unfortunately only believable when it is backed by the power of God through the Holyspirit.

Like I told you b4, JW is vast in the knowledge of the letter of the scriptures but lacking in the Spirit.
You don't even believe in miracles anymore so you would have crucified Jesus just as the Jews saying he was healing through Belzebub.

alberson:
hello pets lover...remembered my dog, he is so grown about 4 months plus. but, I am still very much confused about the dog breed.
some persons said cane corsos and while others said rottweiler...

please someone should help me out with the breed..

hoopernikao:
Bros, Habaa.

Your representation is firstly, neglecting the true meaning of KAINOS, and implying your own different meaning.

MuttleyLaff:
The manner of speech, the boldness (i.e. the parresia) of like in Acts 4:13, is what is the new development, the method, the new delivery et cetera in Mark 16:17, that makes the speaking in tongues "kainos" as opposed to be regular, business as usual, ordinary, lacking unusual or special aspects about it "neos".

The speech style or mode of delivery, is the verb, the action done, the activity, that separates the men from the boys. The difference between "neos" and "kainos" is the verb. It is the added factor, the improved upon. It is the improvement, the development. It is, what's been done. It is, how is it done.

Acehart, you have your choice of words mixed up. You meant to type "parresia", but you put in "doxa". Complete different thing and meaning altogether, lmao

hoopernikao:
.........USAGE OF KAINOS IN SEPTUAGINT.............

I will try to still help in giving you extended study to OT.

The Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrews scriptures) used kainos 53 times in OT. As least the Septuagint is one of the oldest if not the oldest translation into Greek you can have, It existed even before the birth of Jesus and read by the Apostles. Let me show you how it used kainos in the OT

hoopernikao:
AS AN ASIDE: I guess i didnt let you know from beginning my stand on scriptural doctrine and practice. Please note this is my believe in bible explanation. I believe absolutely in the authority of the scriptures, I mean absolutely (100000%). If you show me anything and i can see it written as such in the bible, that is final and will make correction immediately. But trying to show me what isnt written or want me to go by reading meaning to the authors intent when it isnt documented. I will rather lay my life down than compromise the scriptures on that. The written word is above all.
I say this so that it will guide your response as i am not seeing you using scriptures but reading meaning to events to interpret.

---

Now, in your above quote, There is nothing like[b] laeg as mockery and laeg as unintelligible?[/b] Bros stop this. Laeg is Laeg o, It is mockery, it is unintelligible. Laeg wasnt used at all in that conversation above, so stay with that, no need for touch-lighting and seeking what is not there.

Etifinity:
please how do u pray in the holy ghost?

hoopernikao:
Bro, i cant see o What i am seeing is you reading mockery in.

hoopernikao:
AS AN ASIDE: I guess i didnt let you know from beginning my stand on scriptural doctrine and practice. Please note this is my believe in bible explanation. I believe absolutely in the authority of the scriptures, I mean absolutely (100000%). If you show me anything and i can see it written as such in the bible, that is final and will make correction immediately. But trying to show me what isnt written or want me to go by reading meaning to the authors intent when it isnt documented. I will rather lay my life down than compromise the scriptures on that. The written word is above all.
I say this so that it will guide your response as i am not seeing you using scriptures but reading meaning to events to interpret.

Okoroawusa:
Which one come be apologist?

hoopernikao:
But you know that everything you wrote here didnt address the question at hand which is Isa 28:11. The usage and meaning of the word "laeg". All your explanation have subtlety avoided the real situation.

You said, i misinterpreted Isa 28:11, what i expected from you is to take the scripture and explain. I HAVE ASKED A MILLION TIMES THAT YOU SHOULD EXPLAIN WHAT LAEG MEANS. But you kept avoiding. There is a way that word was used all through the bible, state them here and be consistent with it. You cant change bible meaning to suit a doctrine. What you will do is to drop the doctrine and embrace bible facts.

Note, i didnt give any meaning or definition to stammering (laeg), i gave you exactly the meaning as used in the original language (Hebrew).

I will still give you again though it seems we are in cycle. I also gave you its root word and its application from the bible. Those arent my word.


See below my explanation in quote



Now the issue is, you never look at Isa 28:11, mentioned and try to explain what stammering is when used in the bible. But said i misinterpret..

---

To your reference to Hezekiah period.: The events was well documented in 2Ki 18, 2Kin 19 and Isa 36, Isa 37 almost as copy and paste, you can read it.

---

Let me point you to this quick mistake you should correct.

1, the Assyrian has a known language and it is well understood by the Hebrew as seen in 2Ki 18, 2Kin 19 and Isa 36, Isa 37.

2Ki 18:26
Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and talk not with us in the Jews' language in the ears of the people that are on the wall.

The Assyrian language (Syrian, Syriac) cant be a language of mockery even to the Jews, it is well know and documented.

2. There is a bible term for the Assyrian language and its not stammering or laeg, check your concordance and references well. The Assyrian language which is usually called Syriac is interpreted in Hebrew as "Aramiyth" the Syrian tongue. Bible always differentiate this from other forms of language.

Hence if Isa 28:11 couldnt have used stammering (laeg) to described it. Anytime we the bible refer to Assyrian language, it is interpreted from Aramiyth

---

Gibberish defined as "talking that sounds or looks like real words or authentic speech" is also not my word. It is well documented, check (examples dot yourdictionary dot com)

And dont forget that you are the one who claimed that Isa 28:11 was referring to Assyrian tongue not me. Please check. I have made a you know severally that it is a shameful, derided language, like children babbling that Isaiah referred to and that is obvious in the usage of the same word stammering (laeg) all through the scriptures.

In all, you are only trying to rewrite the scriptures by neglecting the exact word used. If you are sure of your interpretation of usage of stammering in Is 28:11, post here its meaning as translated from Hebrews (laeg) and examine how it was used all through. It is not an hidden thing or personal interpretation.

Finallydead:
Acehart, not so sure what the point of this thread is but we might be straying from the spirit of brotherly objective exchange. I can't see hoopernikao's heart but I'll just say we shouldn't cast aspersions because false accusation is also a sin. What's with all this "air of superiority" character assassination label. I think he's only presented his points logically and objectively and if there's any condescension in his heart, I think so far, it's not distinctly expressed in his presentations.
Not everyone must come out in the explicitly modest "I just want to learn" conduct that Goshen360 has chosen before we entertain them. Afterall, sometimes even proud people can do that, so it's more about the heart.
You presented a sensitive subject. You should be prepared for proper scrutiny from any party and that isn't derogatory in anyway. If you think his points are flawed, you can do due diligence to show him and us all how or just ignore.

As for the quoted presentation of yours. I'm sorry but knowledge doesn't work that way. I also respect Spurgeon. But no scripture is of private interpretation. The only authority is the Holy Spirit Himself and we all see in part(1Cor13:9)
You've sort of said here, huper has to respect the opinions of other "better" Christians(in your judgment) else he is disdainful. Unknown to you that can be seen as manipulative. If that's your view, maybe we should just close the thread already.
A million commentators giving the same interpretation wouldn't make it right as respected as each may be.
Not that I agree with all his presentation, my line of thought remains as I've already presented but just so we don't lose the purpose of the thread.

And it is not derogatory to say the God of Israel doesn't communicate Himself clearly at times. In fact, this is part of His judgment on the rebellious(Pr26:5, Is6:10, Is44:18, Mat13:13). The holy words though sensible will come to them as unintelligible just as you would expect the message of the gospel to atheists. This was exactly Paul's point that though the words are divine, the hearer's don't understand hence not blessed. It's not an affront to God. So you don't have to sound so pious about that.

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.

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).


Updated!!!

I have given Part 2 (Mark 16:17, New Tongue) in below link.

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

hoopernikao:
You like too much illustration external to the scriptures. Even using Yoruba translations The lost will be so great. Imagine Hebrews to Greek, to Latin, to English to Yoruba? That is the flow of translation you quoted. Lol. The miss here is incomprehensible.

But much more use the scriptures bro, your illustration has too many external input into the bible. text. Italian, Yoruba, Igbo, China, men all falls under NO MAN. That is Paul's language. why not examine that. Your explanation of 1 Cor 14 is relative, what Paul used is absolute. Arent you seeing that.

hupernikao:
It seems you actually arent ready to discuss your OP. You seem to be trying to move away from examining your OP and scriptures you used. You will need to follow properly our discussion and make me know exactly where i faulted.

My current concern is to investigate tongues as qualified by the writers of bible firstly because that is where many normally, including your OP waved away in discussing tongues. Whether tongue is for Jews or Gentile is a secondary thing for now, what is primarily is usage of the word. The writers were deliberate in using those words and these are the same words you arent ready to investigate.

You said the below

hupernikao post=89629745:
It seems you actually arent ready to discuss your OP. You seem to be trying to move away from examining your OP and scriptures you used. You will need to follow properly our discussion and make me know exactly where i faulted.

My current concern is to investigate tongues as qualified by the writers of bible firstly because that is where many normally, including your OP waved away in discussing tongues. Whether tongue is for Jews or Gentile is a secondary thing for now, what is primarily is usage of the word. The writers were deliberate in using those words and these are the same words you arent ready to investigate.

You said the below



As i told you, you cant be using any scriptures that come to mind to explain facts. You must present scriptures in context of their explanation. 1 Cor 1:22 is absolutely a different terrain that has no bearing on issue of tongues neither did Paul said the "sign" there is tongue. You are the one who want to draft that in here. And we wont start referring to tongue anywhere we see the word "sign".

Secondly, the church in Corinth can be referred to as a gentile church, with Christian Jews (taught by Paul not Peter o) sir and Paul explained well in 1 Cor 14 what tongue is about. You are the one reading your meaning as above into the scriptures.

You also said



You quoted me wrongly, Bro, but i will manage it. But the facts is you havent shown me how it is my invention. Is tongue new as in new language not human? If no, give me scriptures and tell me why Jesus referred to tongue as kainos.

I am wondering where Ephe 4 contradicts that. Ephe 4 used new man, that is a new creation, Paul called it a man after God, created in holiness and righteousness. That isnt Adamic sir. That is man in Christ, a truly new (kainos) man. That same creature has to past, no record or usage before. This isnt refering to difference from point of man but of God. You are firstly a NEW man CREATED IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, that is why you can live righteously.
This is the same language of new creation and same as that of Jesus as i pointed to you. Pleasssssssssse read all verses i gave you and dont move fast across the response.

---

In all, it still remain that you are giving a distracting response and you arent approaching my submission. Why was tongue called NEW (kainos). Have you checked the usage of that word? Why did Jesus chose such word to explain tongues. This is the focus of this part.

If tongue is called new (kainos) tongue, then it cant be human language. Check by part 2 well i have given you enough scriptures for that else present the reason it is refer to as new (kainos) by Jesus and not strange or foreign tongues.

Jesus called it new, the same way he called his testament new, covenant new etc. This tongue is NEW.[/b] and that new is relative to the fact that it is not human language.

As i told you, you cant be using any scriptures that come to mind to explain facts. You must present scriptures in context of their explanation. 1 Cor 1:22 is absolutely a different terrain that has no bearing on issue of tongues neither did Paul said the "sign" there is tongue. You are the one who want to draft that in here. And we wont start referring to tongue anywhere we see the word "sign".

Secondly, the church in Corinth can be referred to as a gentile church, with Christian Jews (taught by Paul not Peter o) sir and Paul explained well in 1 Cor 14 what tongue is about. You are the one reading your meaning as above into the scriptures.

You also said

hoopernikao:
It is important to know that using personal illustration as basis for doctrinal explanation will mislead. You have to explain the scriptures as they are. Illustration and experience are personal and should be secondary and subjected to bible words.

You gave much illustration below but not bible interpretation.

Firstly, you must know that there is nothing called UNKNOWN TONGUES. It never exist in bible lexicon. 1 Corinthians 14:2 never used unknown neither did Paul use such terminology and this is one of the basic problems that have affected the teaching of tongues.

1 Cor 14:2
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

The word unknown was inserted by KJV translator just as Easy to Read translation inserted "different" there. That is why you see it written in italics.
Even in the verse you quoted above, it is evident that tongue is known but in the spirit. It is a communication. The not knowing is only relative to human mind not to the language or words spoken. I am trying hard not to touch 1 Cor 14 for now to avoid mix up.

Now you wrote


This is only an illustration but not consistent with the same verse you quoted. It still boils down to same facts that you too neglected the words used by Paul. How will someone say NO MAN, yet your explanation carried that someone somewhere knows it or speak it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO MAN The word occurred 236 times in NT. I will give you instances. It simple means nothing.

John 6:44
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Is this exclusive or all inclusive?

Romans 13:8
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.


Matthew 24:4
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Titus 3:2
To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Hebrews 12:14
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Let me give a parallel by Paul

1 Co 12:3
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that NO MAN can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

So, we ask, when no man is used, what does it includes? In all text, it implies no one, nothing, irrespective of location, tribe, place, language, people. Why then do you find convenience in interpreting 1 Cor 14:2 as to be relative to tribe? You should see your mistake there.

When Paul said no man, he gave you a reason: it can only be understand IN THE SPIRIT. It means if you stream a tongue on internet all across the whole world, no one in any tribe or language will understand. None exclusive. The moment it is understood relative to human mind, it is not tongue. The only antidote to bring tongues to human mind is interpretation which is also a gift of the Spirit. The reason 1 Cor 14 dwells on tongues, interpretation and prophecy.

We must seek to be consistent with our interpretation and not seek to change meaning when it suits us. Tongues is to God, not to man, man (all men) cant understand (human mind cant comprehend the things of the spirit), but it is a clear, known, communication in the spirit to God.

---

You also wrote


This is your assumption sir, no where in the scriptures was it written that the disciples preached with tongues, Peter was mentioned to have preached and he did it in knowledge. Let us stay with Bible illustration and not our thoughts. Note, no one will ever understand the events of Acts 2 without first clearing your mind on 1 Cor 14 because a teaching must take precedence over experience and events.

Teaching brings knowledge, events collaborate points. Your issue is you are taking Acts 2 as doctrine to interpret 1 Cor 14. No sir, it must be the other way. All Acts events must be read in consistency with the Epistles, in this case of tongues, 1 Cor 14. That is where we are taught as church.

Lastly, it will be good to provide more scriptural explanation of your thoughts going further than illustration. Believers arent taught by illustration (you will only see this mostly in 4 gospel not epistles) but by clarity of scriptures and instructions. Let us dwell less on personal thoughts and beliefs without being evident in the letters of the bible.

You quoted me wrongly, Bro, but i will manage it. But the facts is you havent shown me how it is my invention. Is tongue new as in new language not human? If no, give me scriptures and tell me why Jesus referred to tongue as kainos.

I am wondering where Ephe 4 contradicts that. Ephe 4 used new man, that is a new creation, Paul called it a man after God, created in holiness and righteousness. That isnt Adamic sir. That is man in Christ, a truly new (kainos) man. That same creature has to past, no record or usage before. This isnt refering to difference from point of man but of God. You are firstly a NEW man CREATED IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, that is why you can live righteously.
This is the same language of new creation and same as that of Jesus as i pointed to you. Pleasssssssssse read all verses i gave you and dont move fast across the response.

---

In all, it still remain that you are giving a distracting response and you arent approaching my submission. Why was tongue called NEW (kainos). Have you checked the usage of that word? Why did Jesus chose such word to explain tongues. This is the focus of this part.

If tongue is called new (kainos) tongue, then it cant be human language. Check by part 2 well i have given you enough scriptures for that else present the reason it is refer to as new (kainos) by Jesus and not strange or foreign tongues.

Jesus called it new, the same way he called his testament new, covenant new etc. This tongue is NEW.[/b] and that new is relative to the fact that it is not human language.

hoopernikao:
Much of personal thoughts above sir, not scriptural. Even your statement contradict history. The Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew text) was written even before the birth of Jesus. The Greek have the Hebrews bible in their language, so they arent confused. Stephen read from Septuagint, Philip etc. History had it that the eunuch Phillip met was reading the Septuagint as a non Jew. You are carrying too much of your own thoughts alone without considering the effect on bible integrity.[/i]


Secondly, you do more explaining in your own words than using the same scriptures. You are explaining 1 Cor 14 but it still boils down to same facts that you too neglected the words used by Paul. How will someone say NO MAN, yet your explanation carried that someone somewhere knows it or speak it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO MAN The word occurred 236 times in NT. I will give you instances. It simple means nothing.

John 6:44
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Is this exclusive or all inclusive?

Romans 13:8
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.


Matthew 24:4
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Titus 3:2
To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Hebrews 12:14
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Let me give a parallel by Paul

1 Co 12:3
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that NO MAN can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

So, we ask, when no man is used, what does it includes? In all text, it implies no one, nothing, irrespective of location, tribe, place, language, people. Why then do you find convenience in interpreting 1 Cor 14:2 as to be relative to tribe? You should see your mistake there.

When Paul said no man, he gave you a reason: it can only be understand IN THE SPIRIT. It means if you stream a tongue on internet all across the whole world, no one in any tribe or language will understand. None exclusive. The moment it is understood relative to human mind, it is not tongue. The only antidote to bring tongues to human mind is interpretation which is also a gift of the Spirit. The reason 1 Cor 14 dwells on tongues, interpretation and prophecy.

We must seek to be consistent with our interpretation and not seek to change meaning when it suits us. Tongues is to God, not to man, man (all men) cant understand (human mind cant comprehend the things of the spirit), but it is a clear, known, communication in the spirit to God.

hoopernikao:
Bros, this your explanation ehn!!, it only found you out. Lol

But you know when we started, i asked for something key. Can you remember. I asked you if you are open to HONEST discussion. And you said yes.
Well, not to assume too much, i think what i am seeing now is not representing those words. I believe in honest bible study, when you are pointed to something, you dont have to take it immediately but you must go back and check thoroughly to know if its true.

I have shown you severally here, the inconsistency of your interpretation and where you got it wrong from Isa 28:11, Mark 16:15-17, for example.
When i pointed out to you that your application of new is wrong and i gave you word to study ([b]kainos). Honestly, if i were you i will first do a full run down of the word all around the scriptures to know how it is applied and compare to my understanding. I have given you comparison with neos also. [/b]

But i discovered you are still insistent in using wrong meaning of the word "new" different from the meaning it carried in Mark 16.

Have you checked and study the word KAINOS, NEOS. Why are you insisting on giving wrong explanation when words are different. What that implies is you want to rather take your doctrine without checks or openness to progressive learning and take it just as wrong as it is, preaching it to others.
The danger to this is that you will mislead others and not also be able to see the true essence of that verse. If you arent ready to understand or correct your mistakes on Mark 16 how then will you be able to take to 1 Cor 14. exegesis. We arent in struggle for supremacy here but biblical adjustment of our teachings. If truly you want honest discussion, what is ideal is when you find your doctrine questioned you check and relate back and ask questions, counter such argument and explanation with vivid evidence of scriptures. But as some usually do when their doctrine is found out, they recourse to being adamant and strong-willed to hold unto the wrong.

Like i said its not my scriptures, or words, it is God's word and we will all stand to give account of how we handle it. If you read it with openness, good , if not the days ahead awaits us all. But note, that a single misinterpretation of a word in a text, will lead to a whole interpretation of the text or verse and lead to wrong doctrine/teaching. Wrong teaching likewise will birth wrong application, wrong application will birth wrong believing and wrong believing will birth wrong living. We must be very careful not to be found wanting.

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.

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.

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.

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.

hupernikao:


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?

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

hupernikao:
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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

hupernikao:
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.

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.

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.

hupernikao:
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.

hupernikao:
Interesting.
Are you open to honest discussion and scriptural investigation of your write up?

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).


Updated!!!

I have given Part 2 (Mark 16:17, New Tongue) in below link.

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

hupernikao:
The scriptures original languages are Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek. English are translations or better still interpretations, and in doing translation, a lot can be lost on us in language. This is also common today when you want to translate your local language to English.

Hence when we dont have clear explanation of a word usage, we must result to the original context to get our meaning. The essence why you can overlook the Hebrew writing in this case. There is no English word that will better describe a word in a language than that same language.

Therefore, we must look at what was translated as "strange talk" in your translation from the original word "laeg". That is the meaning i gave you above. If the original writer used "laeg", what we must seek to know is the meaning of the word as used in that period and in bible context.

That is exactly what i gave you. It simply translate to mockery, unintelligible speaking. We must thus derive our meaning from this.

Note and observe even your translation usage of words:
verse 10: He speaks to us as though we were babies? babies? how do you converse with a baby? blabbing or intelligent speaking?
verse 13: So the Lord’s words will be senseless sounds. Senseless sound? how do you describe such sound, unintelligent, right?

But i will keep my focus on the original word as that is what can bail us out. Laeg is used only twice, its derivations were likewise used to mean the same. No place again in the bible was the work laeg, laag etc was translated as what you did. Kindly study the word as used by the original writer, that is the focus here.

PharmaGirl:
OP kindly explain Mark 16:17
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;