MuttleyLaff:
''These are the miraculous signs that will accompany believers:
They will use the power and authority of my name to force demons out of people.
They will speak new languages (i.e. new tongues)"
- Mark 16:17

"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"
- 1 Corinthians 14:2 KJV

Here is an illustration of what 1 Corinthians 14:2 is saying:
If Acehart, hupernikao and Goshen360 speak and understand only Igbo, but I, MuttleyLaff, bilingual in Igbo and Hausa, start to begin speaking, preaching or praying in Hausa, then the Hausa tongue or language would be unknown to Acehart, hupernikao and Goshen360, none of the trio, Acehart, hupernikao and Goshen360 would understand what I said, preached or prayed in Hausa language/tongue. I in effect wouldnt be communicating with any other them, as it all be mysteries to them what I said, preached or prayed in the Hausa tongue. It is only Go, the "Arinu lode, Olumọran ọkan", ( i.e. He who sees the inside and He who knows whats in the heart) who will understand what I said, preached or prayed in that Hausa tongue, not you, as God understands all languages or tongues.

Now cycling back to Mark 16:17, with special focus placed on "new tongues" or "new languages" and its very important, the plural designation. This Mark 16:17 prophetic verse, as declared by Yehushua Ha Mashsiach, aka, our Lord and Saviour of the whole wide world has already been fulfilled. Before furthering on, let's first recollect the above 1 Corinthians 14:2 illustration with Acehart, hupernikao and Goshen360 used as reference in it. Now, what if by some miraculous feat and/or means, Acehart, hupernikao and Goshen360 happen to one day, woke up and started speaking in a Hausa language/tongue, doesn't that mean that Acehart, hupernikao and Goshen360 were then speaking in a new language/tongue ni, hmm?

At the first recorded instance of fulfilling this Jesus' uttered prophecy (i.e. Act 2:4), the disciples began speaking in new tongues, such that the visiting pilgrims, Israelites that have travelled far from all parts of Israel to Jerusalem for the Passover festival began hearing the disciples preach and proclaim the message of the Gospel in the hearing, listening and understanding ears of each of these congregated Israelites (i.e. Acts 2:5-11), albeit the disciples never until that moment had the ability to communicate in those tongues before. It was all new to them, as much as it was shocking to all who heard them (i.e. Acts 2:12)

We need to remember that, Jesus, three verse before Mark 16:17, actually did, tongue lash the disciples for not first believing that He has resurrected, lmao (i.e. not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen) It was after the tongue lashing that He now prophesied about speaking in new tongues/languages and of course the purpose for that is to override unbelief. Whose unbelief, are we talking off us here then? Whose unbelief, do you think this primarily is? Why are miraculous signs required/needed?

Goshen360:
You will have some hard questions to explain here in your writings above ooo.....she you are ready sir?

MuttleyLaff:
Yes ooo. Bring it on. We dey pick lantern use, go stare tiger, korokoro for hin eyes. Just make sure you're standing on solid ground.

Acehart:


Hi,

This verse and its parallels in the synoptic gospels are referred to as “The Great Commission”. Please permit me to infer from the Oxford dictionary meaning of the word “commission“ every now and then in my explanation.

One of principles used in interpreting the scriptures is the principle of questioning the situation; I mean one asks: who is speaking? Who is being spoken to? who said it? where was it spoken? etc. For instance: Eliphaz says to Job, “you shall decree a thing and it would come to pass. God then says, “Everything Eliphaz said is a lie”. If I then try to adopt Eliphaz’s word without knowing what God’s reply was, I’ll be in error. Another instance is Jesus’ letter to the seven churches in Asia Minor: if Jesus said anything to the church in Philadelphia, it is strictly for Philadelphia and it shouldn’t be applied to Ephesus.

The dictionary says: “bring something newly produced“. So what was newly produced? The Apostles were newly produced. (Please remember that Jesus sent his disciples in twos in Mark 6:6-7 to preach and cast out devils (without the instruction to speak in new tongues); and they were sent to preach to the Jews only). So the principle of questioning comes into focus: who was Jesus speaking to? The Apostles. (Please notice that this new instruction is to His eleven Apostles (Judas excluded); the previous instruction to the seventy and twelve men in Jesus’ fold referred to as His disciples (Judas included).)

It’s quite straightforward to see that casting out demons in the previous instruction still abides and the method to exorcise the demon-possessed remains. So this instruction concerning casting out of demons is “old”. What is “new” is the instruction concerning “tongues”. The commission began in Mark 16:15 with the instruction to preach to the world; in contrast to the instruction to preach only within the borders of Israel. Now the dilemma comes: they are Galileans or nationals of the Jewish nation who can only speak their native language. The task or working condition (as the dictionary puts it) to preach the gospel in their old (native) language to non-Jewish nationals would be an impossible or tedious one. So, something new has to replace what was old.

Going to the Thayer’s Biblical dictionary translation of the Greek word for “New” - Kainos, meaning:

1. With respect to form: Recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn.
2. With respect to substances: Novel, uncommon, unheard of
Since language is a form rather than a substance, let me dwell in the former definition. The first definition is the same description given to the donkey which no man has ridden on(Luke 19:30); and to Jesus when the guards replied: “No one ever spoke the way this man does” (John 7:46). That donkey was part of a group of animals referred to as “donkeys”; but what set it apart from other donkeys was its quality- purity and newness. Jesus was part of a group of creatures referred to as “man“; but what set Him apart was the mode of His language (speech). The writeup says: “tongue” means “language” or “dialect”. Combining the two definitions and inferring from the illustrations of the donkey and Jesus, we would see that the categorization of this new language belongs is something generic; that generic thing is human languages; but what will differ is the quality of what proceeds from the mouths of the Apostles which will be something unique and fresh while using human language.

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:
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

Goshen360:
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"

Goshen360:
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

Goshen360:
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?

hoopernikao:
Sorry, didnt mentioned that my other account got banned (reason best known to mod).

hoopernikao:
So, this is a new (kainos, that means has no past record), not (neos, that means created before but just newly put to use) account. Thanks,

MuttleyLaff:
''These are the miraculous signs that will accompany believers:
They will use the power and authority of my name to force demons out of people.
They will speak new languages (i.e. new tongues)"
- Mark 16:17

Here is an illustration of what 1 Corinthians 14:2 is saying:
If Acehart, hupernikao and Goshen360 speak and understand only Igbo, but I, MuttleyLaff, bilingual in Igbo and Hausa, start to begin speaking, preaching or praying in Hausa, then the Hausa tongue or language would be unknown to Acehart, hupernikao and Goshen360, none of the trio, Acehart, hupernikao and Goshen360 would understand what I said, preached or prayed in Hausa language/tongue. I in effect wouldnt be communicating with any other them, as it all be mysteries to them what I said, preached or prayed in the Hausa tongue. It is only God, the "Arinu lode, Olumọran ọkan", ( i.e. He who sees the inside and He who knows whats in the heart) who will understand what I said, preached or prayed in that Hausa tongue, not you, as God understands all languages or tongues.

At the first recorded instance of fulfilling this Jesus' uttered prophecy (i.e. Act 2:4), the disciples began speaking in new tongues, such that the visiting pilgrims, Israelites that have travelled far from all parts of Israel to Jerusalem for the Passover festival began hearing the disciples preach and proclaim the message of the Gospel in the hearing, listening and understanding ears of each of these congregated Israelites (i.e. Acts 2:5-11), albeit the disciples never until that moment had the ability to communicate in those tongues before. It was all new to them, as much as it was shocking to all who heard them (i.e. Acts 2:12)

Acehart:


My response is for the two parts of question 3: I wrote earliers:

The synagogue in the Greek nation of Corinth like in all synagogues Apostle Paul visited, read the Hebrew texts - the Torah (The Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ('Prophets') and Ketuvim ('Writings'), which make up our Old Testament scriptures. When these texts are read, the congregation of Greeks would never understand; so the purpose of reading is unfruitful, and these leaves the Gentiles with a feeling of disrespect or dissatisfaction; So they might say, “na only him and God understand wetin he dey talk”, so does Paul say: “For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understand[/i]s”. The reader of the Hebrew texts always made a vain effort in communing with the unlearned congregation in a foreign tongue;

Therefore, Paul admonished the gifted to pray and sing the psalms, hymns and spiritual songs according to the spirit of the Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim, and according to the gifted’s mind (“mind” means “mental disposition” or “vital principle”.

If God is in the midst of His people in a synagogue in Iseyin (a place Yoruba land) for instance, and someone rises to read the Ketuvim in Latin for instance; could you tell me who would understand speaker? The answer is simply God and the speaker. That is what Paul was saying.

MuttleyLaff:
It has nothing to do with mods. It is the pesky algorithm, probably because of your incessant dissertations, lmao. It doesn't like that.

No, when I go to learn new languages. It doesn't means these languages have no past record, they already exist but to me they are new and/or foreign

MuttleyLaff:
Case in point one. I only speak and understand English, so I have decided to go learn a new language. The foreign language I have in mind to learn is Italian. Have you got it now?

Smh. Case in point two. If an Italian person gets me, to start repeating Italian words after him. Though I am repeating the words after him, I wouldn't understand any in all I am repeating. My mind, my intellect hasn't got a clue. The same happened to the disciples, they just were obeying the prompt of the Spirit, speaking out as led by the Spirit speaking mysteries to the hearing of the listening audiences, who picked up that, its in their individual languages that they are receiving the Gospel message

If I decide to speak to you in Chinese, which I know for sure you don't speak, please tell me if I am communicating with you or not, in that Chinese language. You'll probably without wasting time advise me to change to English, lmao

"Nítorí ẹni tí ń sọ̀rọ̀ ní èdè àìmọ̀, kò bá ènìyàn sọ̀rọ̀ bì ko ṣe Ọlọ́run:
nítorí kó sí ẹni tí ó gbọ́; ṣùgbọ́n nípá ti Ẹ̀mí ó ń sọ ohun ìjìnlẹ̀;"
- 1 Kọrinti 14:2 Bíbélì Mímọ́ Yorùbá

I am sure reading the above 1 Kọrinti 14:2 , like that, does make things clearer now. If there was a present targeted audience in 1 Corinthians 14:2, of course just as in Acts 2:4 circa, the foreign nationals in 1 Corinthians 14:2 present will realise its their language thats being spoken and of course there on understand.

If I go to a fully Igbo dominated gathering and begin speaking in Hausa language, them present there, wouldn't understand me but out of courtesy might flow with me in the spirit, knowing that what I am saying, probably are good things etcetera anyway, so they'll nod along but without any understanding in their mind or intellect.

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;

Acehart:


I would like to embellish my point concerning the second meaning of "new" from Thayer's Bible Dictionary.

The second meaning: With respect to substances: Novel, uncommon, unheard of.

Covid-19 is referred to as "The Novel Coronavirus". (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus. (https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2500114-overview). It is called Novel because it is new and it's characteristics unknown; yet by its physical features, it belongs to the genre of viruses "Coronavirus".

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.

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:


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:


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.

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.

Acehart:


I posted most of your comments because I would go through them again. What I have noticed however, is that you haven't been patient to read every comment carefully; its like you are in a hurry. I pray that God will give you a patient mind in Christ's name. I also see that you have an air of superiority; maybe you are better in all spheres of life than all of us who have responded to you; If I am the least of all of us who have responded to you, praise the Lord. I hope I will respond appropriately at a later time and I hope it would coincide with the time God has heard my prayers for you.

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

The issue of tongues is one that has really been treated with much injustice in today's christianity. We all need to be open to the Holy Spirit to help us grasp it better.
So there are two categories of tongues (1Cor13:1) and neither are unknown
1.) Tongues of men(known to one man or another)
2.) Tongues of angels(known only to God and the angels)
But the standard for genuine tongues(men's or angel's) is they can ONLY come by the inspiration/anointing of the Holy Spirit and never one's effort(like concocted prayer tongues in churches today). Eulalia's testimony is a good one for seekers of the genuine gift to follow.
This means that there is actually no place in scripture for the unintelligible gibberish and jargons that Christians are taught to mechanically mimick. If christians pray with gibberish and get results, it is actually not because of the jargons but because they are exploring the principles of resultful prayer e.g. faith, perseverance and sowing & reaping, while muttering nonsensical jargons.

So, I believe when the Lord spoke of new tongues(Mk16:17), he wasn't referring to tongues of men but of angels because "new"(kainos) meant "never before existing" i.e. never before been in existence as huper pointed out.
It is also tongues of angels and NOT of men that Paul particularly dealt with in 1Cor14 as v2,13 make obvious.
The manifestation of tongues(1Cor14) comprises all speakings(v2), i.e. singing(v15), praying(v14,15), praises and thanks(16,17).
The manifestation of tongues being the accompanying sign of the Holy Spirit baptism happens to be available for every believer to develop through consistent prayer for personal edification.

It's important to note that Paul recommends that we do not rest at tongues which is only for personal edification but develop tongues into prophecy that edifies others in the true spirit of love.(1Cor14:1,5,15...). We can develop through growing in love and prayer(1Cor14:13).
Please note that prophecy is not necessarily prediction but is the superimposition of ANY utterance of the Holy Spirit into vocal chords of men i.e. the prophesier does not direct His vocal chords within the prophetic moment. This is different from God giving one a message and they using their vocal chords to convey the message e.g a word of knowledge. It is also worthy of note that prophecy like tongues is the particular spiritual gift that EVERY believer is encouraged to grow into(1Cor12:31,14:1,5,12,) though not making them a prophet....

Finallydead:
So, I believe when the Lord spoke of new tongues(Mk16:17), he wasn't referring to tongues of men but of angels because "new(kainos)" meant "never before existing" as huper pointed out.

Finallydead:
It is also these tongues of angels and NOT of men that Paul particularly dealt with in 1Cor14.
The manifestation of tongues(1Cor14) comprises all speakings(v2), i.e. singing(v15), praying(v14,15), praises and thanks(16,17).
The manifestation of tongues being the accompanying sign of the Holy Spirit baptism happens to be available for every believer to develop through consistent prayer for personal edification..
(to be contd.)

Acehart:


Please don’t respond till I provide answers all your previous questions and postulations.

Kobojunkie:

I disagree!

Again I disagree
By the way, how many angel tongues are there?

Finallydead:
Greetings Acehart, Muttleylaff, Goshen360 and hoopernikao.
Please don't mind if I bump in a little. First, I must commend huper's approach with the exposition.
But I think it's much easier to grasp this subject from the holistic perspective where a bit of everyone's ideas will find a landing and some rough edges in them will be evened out.
This is a modified (for this thread) excerpt of mine that might help.

(to be contd.)

Eulalia:
Hmm. God bless you for this.
Very insightful.

Goshen360:
MuttleyLaff didn't answer my question at all maybe I didn't present my questions well but I see hoopernikao had done justice with the difference between kainos and neos as against the response of MuttleyLaff and Acehart.

So as not to distract the flow of the thread/discussion, I'll still rather sit back to allow them resolved the difference of misconception or misunderstanding of bible words leading to differences in interpretation.

I'm enjoying the flow of conversation though and learning.

Unknown soldier:
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. and that new is relative to the fact that it is not human language.

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.

---

---

---

You arent reading your bible and also following this thread. It is obvious. You will need to take time to read ever word on this thread so as to allow your respond flow with the discuss. What you refer to above as learning new language is neos, i have given you detailed explanation earlier. Except you want to deliberately neglect Jesus' words on new tongues. And i dont think you want to do so deliberately.

Let me explain this in English terminology. If you say: Get me a new book.

Sadly English has no single word to differentiate this and that is why English speaker and dependence on such translation alone can prove hard.

1. That statement can mean a new book as in from supermarket, or buy a new book, the book exist on a shelf somewhere, but not in use, hence new. This is NEOS and what you are referring to.

2. That statement can mean, a new manufactured book. The book was never in existence before, if you go back to yesterday of the book, you wont find it. It has no previous record. This is KAINOS

Jesus used kainos to explain tongues, kainos glossa. New in origin, existence, nature and essence. It means if you go back into history you wont find such in existence before then, same as new testament (Matt 26:28-30), new Jerusalem (Rev 21:2), new heaven (Rev 21:1-3), new creature (2 Cor 5:17). None of these have past record until the time.

So, referring to new tongues as existing human language is a contradiction of the word kainos as used by Jesus. We must ensure therefore we stay with what the scriptures says, its usage of words, to explain the discussion and get the intent of the speaker and writer.

Goshen360:
@ MuttleyLaff, first dont assume I'm of the opinion that the kainos tongue we're talking about is that of Angels as you mentioned in your response above. That's even another hole entirely so I'm not of such opinion. However, I'm reading and deeply following debates on both sides.

However, let me ask a question: if I say my wife just delivered a new born baby boy. What does that mean? Does this mean the baby existed before or not?