₦airaland Forum

Goshen360:
First, I completely agree that what was spoken in Acts was understood by other foreign nationals. However, can you explain:

1. How it is a "new" (kainos) language the Apostles spoke as against an already existing foreign (allotrios) language which others could understand......as per the explanation of hupernikao

2. The language the Apostles spoke to other men was spoken men to men. Is it the same language Paul taught about in 1 cor 14vs2?

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"


3. If you say it's the same, please explain why one was spoken to God and the other spoken to men....that is, 1 cor 14vs2 says, the speaker does not speak to men but to God

3b. Why doesn't any man understand the speaker of 1 cor 14vs2 but the speakers Acts 2 was understood by the foreign nationals that was present?

Goshen360:
Let me read side - by - side and compare what was said by both.

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;

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



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.

Maximus69:
And Jesus also used an illustration to do the same!

He said "do not stop anyone from preaching or teaching in my name" Luke 9:49-50

But in another illustration he made it clear that a time will come when many will start acting as teachers of Christianity, instead of stopping them they should be allowed to continue, because as times go on their fruit will expose them if they're truly his own or not! Matthew 13:24-30

ublight:
everyone now wants to be a Bible teacher. Smh

CAPSLOCKED:
I CAN'T ENCOUNTER GOD FOR THE SAME REASON NOBODY IN HISTORY HAS EVER ENCOUNTERED GOD.

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:
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.

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.

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:
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.

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.

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

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"?

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.

MuttleyLaff:
"To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits;
to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:"
- 1 Corinthians 12:10

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

Kobojunkie:
WOW... even the accounts of Eliphaz from Teman(from Job 22) was included in this?? My gosh!!

MuttleyLaff:
Let's cut to the chase and even save ourselves chasing tail.

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

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

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

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

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).

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

Kobojunkie:
As far as convincing others, I am a firm believer in the message contained in Jeremiah 31 vs 34 ....

Kobojunkie:
What are you expecting me to glean from it as far as this topic is concerned? From the much I have come to understand of your write up, you are telling those who practice glossolalia to essentially cease and desist, am I correct? Only how can they cease that which they believe, and have convinced themselves en masse, is of the spirit of God? How do you expect them to do that?

Kobojunkie:
Peter never said anything about speaking in tongues in that 2nd letter of his. And Paul's writings never suggest much of what you claim. I wonder if it has to do with reading from a translation that is not clear enough to get one this. OR maybe if you cut your Original writeup down into bits, we might be better able to grasp the converstion contained.

Kobojunkie:
Maybe this might help

vickydankal:
Old iPhone 6. I don’t look at screen for long because of my eyes

Kobojunkie:
I have on several occassions read the books in question, and don studies on how we arrived at noting them as Paul's writings.
I like to read the books of the bible as if reading through a novel, and so have come to detest the way folks are quick to pull verse out of context to bolster whatever idea they have in their heads, abandoning the very meaning the writer of the full book had for including the verse in question.

"Tongue" refers to a full blown language ofcourse(in it's completeness); and not a bunch of syllables spliced together,and repeated over and over for the sake of attention -- it is nothing more than jibberish (also referred to as glossolalia).

As for speaking in tongues, I do speak a full blown language. In my case, I know the name of the language, and the place and time during which the language was likely spoken. There is no "spiritual" angle to my speaking of this language that I am aware of. It does not only come on when I pray... it comes on whenever and wherever and it does not seem to give a damn who is listening, when or why. On several occassions been given the ability to understand the meaning of the words that flow out of my mouth, and it is refreshing during those times.

I am a curious soul, so I continue to investigate it.

vickydankal:
I can read 500 pages of a book but to do so with phone mbanu not after getting my 2nd glasses. Please summarize

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

Kobojunkie:
@OP, I am afraid Paul's message is lost on you.

MightySparrow:
So it is of no use fixing it?

MightySparrow:
Summary?