CS1 –
so you change the word of God where it says very plainly in chapter 12 of 1cor " Now concerning spiritual gifts".
I have it as “peri de tôn pneumatikôn – “concerning moreover spiritual [things/matters]….”
The word ‘gift’ is not used here, nor is it necessarily implied.
I was going to try and get into some detail, but I think Shrume has summed it up quite nicely. I know we do not agree on some aspects of “tongues”, but the summation and analogy with the lightbulb are spot on.
The word used translates to "spiritual things" - It's hard not to read things into the text, but "gift" just isn't there.
as far as welcome documentation As I said there are .however, those that prove tongues is a real language or those that do not can not change the context of the word of God . Clearly you did not see two of my location which did offer you proof.
If you copied any links, etc., I did not see them.
Faking tongues may be what you did
I’m not Pentecostal nor Charismatic so do not use glossolalia in the Christian sense, though admittedly, I do play a lot with language just to see what I can come up with for sounds, styles of speech and whatnot. I have no doubt that in some circles, what I am doing would be construed as speaking in tongues.
In trying to find any links you posted, I noticed that in one of your posts, you mention that you have asked some linguists or a linguist in particular (?) to make up a language and they could not. Such languages do indeed exist and are called “constructed languages”, or “con-langs” for short. They are actually quite common. Typically their use is relegated to movies (Navi’i in the movie ‘
Avatar’, or to go way back, Klingon in the “
Star Trek” movies), but some are created with the intent to be artificial languages, replacing normal ones, to be used on an everyday basis where communication is an issue (Esperanto and Interlingua - neither of which really caught on - English is just too powerful and too widely used).
These are all real functioning languages which contain a specific set of sounds, grammar and word order. They are a popular pastime with many linguists, but not everyone can create them; they are, as you might suspect, rather time involved. Here’s a link to quite a number of con-langs that linguists (professional and non-professional alike) have created:
Conlangery - Omniglot forum
Unlike modern tongues, these languages must have a defined set of sounds, rules on how those sounds go together (i.e. what’s allowed for combinations and what’s not allowed), a specific grammar, and a specific syntax (word order). None of which modern tongues have. Many of these con-langs are not intended to be simple to learn; they are rather complex and just as difficult as any real language to learn (oftentimes something like, what if a Bantu language were crossed with a Slavic one? type of deal, but again, unlike tongues, they are real language (though not spoken by “ethnic/native speakers”).