Speaking in tongues

To the bolded non-sentence... do try to keep your Scripture references relevant. That verse has absolutely nothing to do with tongues; it's ripped from its context and used to imply that those who speak in tongues are serving a different god. That's disingenuous.

No, the word " tongue " must be kept in context to 1cor 12 to 14 as Paul was given it from the Holy Spirit. Isaiah 28 is not about the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Isaiah 28 does not start with " Now concerning spiritual gifts I would not have you unlearned" (ignorant ). The foundation is not Isaiah 28, it is the very words of Jesus in Acts 1:28 and then in 1cor chapter 12 to 14. Very sad you would try to cause confusion with the word of God. trying to take Hebrew writing and make it fit Greek writing in the New Testament and doing so inappropriately. What a joke and perverted understanding. What is wrong with you guys ?

I think you misundersood - it is made up (self-created), but it is not not language; it's random free vocalization. It's not gibberish either; gibberish does not seek to mimic language, free vocalization does.

Yes, and it means "language", not modern tongues-speech.

You are correct Isaiah 28 does not start with " Now concerning spiritual gifts I would not have you unlearned" (ignorant ). it would seem many stay as far away from the foundation of the doctrine found in Isaiah 28, Like it was never there in the first place

It starts by informing us why God mocked those who mocked His word prophecy so God as a sign against those who refused hear prophecy understand when he came brought the spiritual gift of prophecy His interpretation in other languages other than Hebrew alone.

Its one sign what does it confirm?

Look to what the signs confirms, and why it was given to them who surely do whatsoever comes from their own mouths as oral traditions of men .

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee.
But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.1 Corinthians 44: 16-18

This new tradition called tongues todays using it to confirm they believe prophecy simply turns things upside down to take away the understanding of prophecy.

Do the work? What does it confirm and who is pointing to? The law is not subject to change. That leaves the new oral tradition of men that they call tongues. Which master?

In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 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.1 Corinthians 14:21-22

The word tongue must be defined according to its foundation (Isaiah 28) .No one can serve two teachings masters .The things of God not seen and the what some call sign gifts, the oral traditions of men as the things of men seen. It would seem the Christian must walk by faith the unseen Holy place of God the righteous teaching master.

Who does the sign point to and what does it confirm according to the law in 1 Corinthians 14 21-22?

a "random vocalization" wow you created a new word which means: utterance, in context to a "TYPE OF Communication". which I remember seeing that word in the Book of Acts chapter 2 KJV. Yet you say "but it is not not language;". Do you know what Languages are used for? Your medical diagnosis for a supernatural phenomenon is not biblical. You use things outside the word of God to disprove your bias. I hate to say this, but I feel as those I am not speaking to a person of faith but more like unto an evolutionist or an athiest. Normal Christianity uses scripture to make truth known. Most do not seek medical terms to disprove the word of God. can one misuse a gift that has been said many times. Does that mean the gifts are not real today? NOt at all. Does your experience or lack thereof validate the word of God? nope, it does not.

it is not that many stay away from Is 28 it is your incorrect use of it to change the contextual meaning of 1cor 12 to 14.

I would think the foundation confirms contextual meaning of the law in 1cor 14.

Who do you say the sign points to and what it confirms by looking at both references (Isiah 28 with 1 Corinthians 14 :21 -22) ?

1 Corinthians 14:21-22 King James Version (KJV) In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 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.


Psalm 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

lol FYI any language spoken today is modern, and when Paul spoke Greek it was modern then. let's simplify it shall we the error of this statement of " Modern languages " The meaning is really telling from Collins Dictionary :
Modern languages refer to modern European languages, for example, French, German, and Russian, which are studied at school or college. or it is also known :
A modern language is any human language that is currently in use




There you go, my friends, they have an issue with "Tongues" because this gift of the Holy Spirit does not allow them to studied at school or in their higher educational venues. Human reasoning.

But isn't it really about experience? What good is it for the Bible to speak of, say, healing, if you never actually get to experience one?

The wrong way is to use a private tongue in a public assembly, which is what Paul was trying to correct in 1 Cor 14. Private tongues used in public assembly are wrong.

The problem is if you assume Acts 2 is the end all, be all about tongues. Acts 2 falls under tongues with interpretation, which is only one form of the gift as described in 1 Cor 14

FYI the term Modern tongues-speech is not in the Bible either. That is a humanistic term coined in your college class, the same secular ones that I got one of my degrees in.

Yes, no man can serve two masters. If the Bible CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY states "do not forbid speaking in tongues", what master then tells yo to forbid speaking in tongues?

1 Cor 14:2--'he that speaketh in an unkown tongue speaketh not to men but unto God for others may not understand him but he speaketh mysteries...'. I think when we receive the Holy Spirit we shouldn't b surpeisd if we speak in His language, when we are praising Him, praying and talking to Him. Read on in 1 Cor 14 for more on this, God bless.

I think you’re kind of warping things here. Utterance can be almost anything that comes out of your mouth; it describes something/anything which is spoken. So, random free vocalization, though not language, is something that is ‘uttered’, i.e. ‘spoken’. Just like language, just like gibberish, just like the nonsense vocables of some songs. Not sure what your point here is.

‘Tongues’ is not supernatural; it refers to rational language(s). That’s what the word ‘glôssa’ means.

Scripturam ex Scriptura doesn’t always work – you need to put things into historical and cultural perspective to gain a better understanding of what was written. Each book, letter, etc. was written for a specific audience at a specific point in time. That needs to be put into historical and cultural perspective to make better sense of it.

Though I do not follow your particular spiritual path, I assure you I am not an atheist.

I am not disproving anything, but rather putting what was written into a cultural and historical perspective (e.g. the demographics of Corinth in the 1st century AD) which, if anything, sheds a clearer light on the subject.

I will answer you. it would be an error not to point out how you used Ps 11:3 to allegorize Is 28 with 1cor 12 to 14 chapters. So lets
look at Is 28.


Who is the Lord God speaking to speaking to? in verse 11 is the one you like to use but you have to back it up to the previous verses.

9. Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
precept here means: command, ordinance, oracle

11. For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
The Isaiah 28 through 33rd chapters form almost one prophecy about the destruction of Ephraim, the unreverent and sin of Judah, the danger of their league with Egypt.

They mocked Isaiah word from the Lord. Verses 9-11 is God telling them they will not know the word of the Lord it will become more distant to you. But he will use other nations: "stammering lips and another tongue" " this people " are Gods People.

yet they did not listen to the word of the Lord given to Isaiah, did they? Just as they almost did on the day of pentacost. Yet Paul in 1cor 14 is dealing with some of the same things scoffing and mocking verse 21
In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

the word in 1cor 14 :21 is law but contexually it is from the Greek "

1. a precept or injunction same as it is in Is 28 verse 10 both Hebrew and greek use this to Identfy scoffers and mockers YET after hearing the truth by the Holy Spirit they would not Hear the word of the Lord.

None of these verses have anything to do with tongues not being for today or being false. They are in context to those who scoff and mock the word of the Lord.

@ RickyZ
But isn't it really about experience? What good is it for the Bible to speak of, say, healing, if you never actually get to experience one?

Yes, I agree – the experience is certainly the ‘desired result’, so to speak. “Tongues” are a tool by which a very positive experience can be obtained. The tool (in this case “tongues”) itself however is neither divine nor mysterious. Like most spiritual tools, It is self-created.

@bygrace –
I use the term “modern” here to distinguish/differentiate it from Biblical “tongues” (rational language), and I suppose a way to reiterate that what people are producing today is not to be found in the Biblical narratives. Nothing more should be read into it than that.

Will get back to this thread as I can - with the upcoming holidays, taking a short hiatus.

Ok. But we need to narrow the data set within the bounds of Acts Ch2 in order create a testable hypothesis.