praying in tongues glossolia

[Biblicist]

Do angels even have vocal cords or exist in a place where sound waves carry? Apart from their apparitions on earth?

There are numerous passages within the Scriptures that speak of how the Heavenly Hosts offer praise and worship to the Father through some form of audible speech, where Rev 4 is a good example of this.

Here on earth, our ability through the Holy Spirit to pray in the Spirit (tongues) is a foretaste of our heavenly language here on earth. As the Angels speak a heavenly language so do we, once we stand before the Lord we will no longer have to speak through inarticulate utterances, where neither we nor anyone can understand what the Spirit is saying to the Father, in this future time we will be able to understand this language of heaven.

In 1Cor 13:8 Paul does say that prophecy will cease (καταργέω katargeo) to exist as it should, but with tongues he employes another word (παύω pauo) which seems to indicate a change of state.

Revelation 4 (NASB)
Scene in Heaven

4 After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things.” 2 Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne. 3 And He who was sitting was like a jasper stone and a sardius in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, like an emerald in appearance. 4 Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.​

The Throne and Worship of the Creator

5 Out from the throne come flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God; 6 and before the throne there was something like a sea of glass, like crystal; and in the center and around the throne, four living creatures full of eyes in front and behind. 7 The first creature was like a lion, and the second creature like a calf, and the third creature had a face like that of a man, and the fourth creature was like a flying eagle. 8 And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night" they do not cease to say,

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.”

9 And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.”​

 

[Biblicist]

Anyone else care to pick up where Biblicist failed to produce, and bring simple, straightforward scripture to the table that prove tongues are not to be understood?

It's funny to me how it often plays out when people want to show they can do miraculous things.

As I said, go back and read 1 Corinthians 14 and let me know what you think. Considering how I have already covered this point throughout the thread then you need to do some work for yourself, I really can't spoon feed you and I simply do not want to.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

There are numerous passages within the Scriptures that speak of how the Heavenly Hosts offer praise and worship to the Father through some form of audible speech, where Rev 4 is a good example of this.

Here on earth, our ability through the Holy Spirit to pray in the Spirit (tongues) is a foretaste of our heavenly language here on earth. As the Angels speak a heavenly language so do we, once we stand before the Lord we will no longer have to speak through inarticulate utterances, where neither we nor anyone can understand what the Spirit is saying to the Father, in this future time we will be able to understand this language of heaven.

In 1Cor 13:8 Paul does say that prophecy will cease (καταργέω katargeo) to exist as it should, but with tongues he employes another word (παύω pauo) which seems to indicate a change of state.

Revelation 4 (NASB)
Scene in Heaven

4 After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things.” 2 Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne. 3 And He who was sitting was like a jasper stone and a sardius in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, like an emerald in appearance. 4 Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.​

The Throne and Worship of the Creator

5 Out from the throne come flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God; 6 and before the throne there was something like a sea of glass, like crystal; and in the center and around the throne, four living creatures full of eyes in front and behind. 7 The first creature was like a lion, and the second creature like a calf, and the third creature had a face like that of a man, and the fourth creature was like a flying eagle. 8 And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night" they do not cease to say,

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.”

9 And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.”​

So you emulate the "language of angels," but don't emulate their worship with altars and incense? Why not?

 

[Biblicist]

So you emulate the "language of angels," but don't emulate their worship with alters and incense? Why not?

I'll give my traditionalist sister 10/10 for this particular question, not bad at all.

As for heaven I will leave this aspect of your question alone, as I have absolutely no idea how we will connect with any heavenly alter/s. This is where ignorance on my part can be bliss.

When it comes to planet earth, as Christ is our Sacrifice, where his sacrifice was once and for all then we have no need of earthly alters, they belonged to Israel who were waiting for the promised Messiah.

Still, it was a really good question.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I'll give my traditionalist sister 10/10 for this particular question, not bad at all.

As for heaven I will leave this aspect of your question alone, as I have absolutely no idea how we will connect with any heavenly alter/s. This is where ignorance on my part can be bliss.

When it comes to planet earth, as Christ is our Sacrifice, where his sacrifice was once and for all then we have no need of earthly alters, they belonged to Israel who were waiting for the promised Messiah.

Still, it was a really good question.

Pretty sure heavenly altars are about Christ's sacrifice. In ancient Jewish sacrifices, the animal was rarely a "whole burnt offering". Most of the time, it functioned more like a consecrated toast to God, and the priests ate the animal over the course of three days (the laity couldn't partake, that was the big distinction between laity and priests).

 

[Biblicist]

Pretty sure heavenly altars are about Christ's sacrifice. In ancient Jewish sacrifices, the animal was rarely a "whole burnt offering". Most of the time, it functioned more like a consecrated toast God, and the priests ate the animal over the course of three days (the laity couldn't partake, that was the big distinction between laity and priests).

In all honesty I have absolutely no idea as to the meaning and purpose of the heavenly alter where maybe I should do a study on it, though I'm not all that sure what I will pick up much as I gather the Scriptures do not provide us with any real information on them.

Is it about Christ in heaven, well it could be I suppose but as Christ is our sacrifice and alter here on earth, where we lay ours sins at his feet, then I would see no purpose for any earthly alters. As the Apostles did not bother about them then why should we.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

In all honesty I have absolutely no idea as to the meaning and purpose of the heavenly alter where maybe I should do a study on it, though I'm not all that sure what I will pick up much as I gather the Scriptures do not provide us with any real information on them.

Is it about Christ in heaven, well it could be I suppose but as Christ is our sacrifice and alter here on earth, where we lay ours sins at his feet, then I would see no purpose for any earthly alters. As the Apostles did not bother about them then why should we.

Why do you presume the Apostles did not bother about them?

 

[Kenny'sID]

QUOTE="Biblicist, post: 70399328, member: 281049"]As I said, go back and read 1 Corinthians 14 and let me know what you think. Considering how I have already covered this point throughout the thread then you need to do some work for yourself, I really can't spoon feed you and I simply do not want to.[/QUOTE]

You aren't spoon feeding anyone, just starving them of the truth.

I "think" I'll do as you have done, and instead of addressing it myself, I'll let someone else do it for me, maybe you'll believe them. It's not the way I prefer, but I've already said you were twisting scripture, and in order substantiate something not biblical, but something you want to do...yet you persist. So maybe the flowing will convince you...maybe not

« 1 Corinthians 14:1
1 Corinthians 14:3 »
1 Corinthians 14:2
by Grant Richison | Jan 7, 2003 | 1 Corinthians | 4 comments

Read Introduction to 1 Corinthians


2 “For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.”
2For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God,
The first time the New Testament uses the word “tongues” is for known human languages (2:4-12). The Greek word is glossa from which we get the English word “glossary.” A glossary is a compilation of words something like a dictionary, which appears at the end of a book to tell us what terms mean. Every time the words “tongue” or “tongues” appears in the New Testament, it means foreign language, except for the literal tongue in the mouth or a figurative use such as “tongues of fire.”
All speaking in tongues in Acts refers to known human languages. The people also spoke in dialects of these languages (dialectos, Acts 2:6, 8 [six times in Acts and each time it refers to a known language or dialect]). The foreign language is found in the last mention in Revelation 17:15. There is no evidence that tongues in First Corinthians is different from foreign languages in Acts. The only difference between Acts and First Corinthians is that tongues in Acts were used publicly and tongues in First Corinthians within the local church.
The singular “tongue” refers to a specific human language. Paul’s use of the plural “languages” in this chapter refers to multiple languages. Gibberish cannot be plural, for there is no variety of non-language. The common, customary use of the word “tongue” is for human language, not ecstatic speaking.
Whatever tongues we understand here, the tongue was not to men but to God (three references and all tongues speaking directed to God and not to people: 14:2, 14-16, 28). Tongues were always addressed to God, not men. Only God can understand all languages known to men. Since the tongues speaker did not understand the language he spoke with the gift of tongues, he must speak to God. This is why the gift of “interpretation” or translation was important. Translation implies a real language, so the speaker of tongues could not understand the translation of the language he spoke until someone with the gift of translation exercised his gift.
The normal use of the word “tongue” in the New Testament is for communicative languages. Nowhere does the New Testament use “tongue” or language for ecstatic speech. The normal, customary use for “tongues” is human languages (Acts 2:11; Re 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15). I do not believe with some that this refers to pagan ecstatic, gibberish speech because this speech does indeed “edify the self” (14:4). Paul used the “gift” of speaking in foreign languages (tongues) without studying them to evangelize the Jews and, in doing so, edified himself.
Paul gave standards for foreign languages spoken in the local church:
1. To speak five words with clarity is better than 10,000 words in a foreign language (14:19).
2. No more than two or three persons were to speak in foreign languages at any one meeting (14:27).
3. Speakers in foreign languages were to speak one at a time (14:27).
4. No one was to speak in a foreign language without a translator present (this obviously implies a human foreign language,14:28).
5. Each speaker was to maintain order in the congregation by using, within certain bounds, his gift to speak in a foreign language not known to him (14:32,33).
6. Women were not to speak in public in the assembly (14:34,35).
For no one understands him;
“No one understands” is literally, no one hears, and the metaphorical idea is that no one (who does not speak that language) understands with comprehension. This does not imply that no man living could understand, but that no one present in the assembly could understand. The context of this verse is a diverse assembly of people from different backgrounds in the congregation at Corinth. People came from Europe, Asia, and Africa to trade in Corinth, and they spoke in many languages. These people needed translation of their languages to understand what was being said (interpretation – 14:13). If there was no native speaker of a given language in the congregation, then the language should not be spoken (4:10-11). All languages convey meaning (14:10-11). If no one was there to translate, there was no point in using the gift.
however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.
A tongues speaker spoke “in the spirit” as opposed to understanding the language (14:14); that is part of the supernatural element of speaking in a foreign language without studying for it. If a speaker cannot understand the language he is speaking, the ideas in the language are not meaningful to him. Since this is so, only the speaker derives benefit from intention of what he said.
The Greek idea of mystery is a truth not previously disclosed. The word “mystery” does not carry the English concept of something mysterious but of something that God has not disclosed yet. Meaning of mystery lies outside the understanding until it is communicated within one’s known language.
PRINCIPLE:
All communication in congregational worship must carry meaning to the listeners.
APPLICATION:
The reason chapter 14 argues for the inferiority of tongues as over against the communication of God’s Word is that, if a person sits in the congregation and does not know the language, it is unintelligible to him.

http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-corinthians/1-corinthians-142/

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I might point out now that the Magi brought three gifts appropriate for glorifying God (which, according to Saint John Chrysostom, showed that sacrificing animals to God was over): two of those gifts are the mixture used for incense in Christian worship (one is for anointing a king, the other for important funerals). This same mixture was actually used by the ancient Jews in their worship, but its significance was not understood until Christianity.

 

[Biblicist]

Why do you presume the Apostles did not bother about them?

Uh! Well, because they did not speak of them and if they did then we would probably have to forgo the New Covenant and return to something akin to Judaism.

 

[Biblicist]

You aren't spoon feeding anyone, just starving them of the truth.

Are you maybe trying to say that I am starving people from the truth simply because I do not say things that you believe? Even though the material you have posted is not your own, I will still reply as the points raised are very easy to correct.
___________

The first time the New Testament uses the word “tongues” is for known human languages (2:4-12).

First occurrence within the NASB, NIV & ESV NT; (application: the physical tongue, glossa)

(Mar 7:33 NASB) Jesus took him aside from the crowd, by himself, and put His fingers into his ears, and after spitting, He touched his tongue with the saliva;

The Greek word is glossa from which we get the English word “glossary.” A glossary is a compilation of words something like a dictionary, which appears at the end of a book to tell us what terms mean.

That’s a great example of why glossa is not a great word for language, which is why dialektos is the standard word for language. As for our contemporary use of glossary, which is one of many adaptations for an English word from a number of languages, if you consider how we apply our word glossary (and not the Greek word) then it is not a language but a reference point for word symbols which have no meaning of their own. All they do is to point to where a number of possible uses of a given word symbol are known and it is certainly not language.

Every time the words “tongue” or “tongues” appears in the New Testament, it means foreign language, except for the literal tongue in the mouth or a figurative use such as “tongues of fire.”

What an odd thing to say. So you are saying that a particular word only means one specific thing but on the other hand it 'only' means something else every other time - what a tongue twister.

All speaking in tongues in Acts refers to known human languages.

The only occurrence where tongues is used to describe a known human language or languages is with Acts 2. If Luke had believed that the other occurrences where given in known human languages then he would have certainly told us so; the fact that he ‘failed’ to mention this means that we can only conclude that these subsequent occurrences of tongues follow the standard practice found within the Epistles.

There is no evidence that tongues in First Corinthians is different from foreign languages in Acts.

As I said, go back and read 1Cor 14, it’s really a no brainer.

The singular “tongue” refers to a specific human language. Paul’s use of the plural “languages” in this chapter refers to multiple languages. Gibberish cannot be plural, for there is no variety of non-language. The common, customary use of the word “tongue” is for human language, not ecstatic speaking.

As I have already covered this point in a recent previous post then you will need to go back and check what I have already said.

Whatever tongues we understand here, the tongue was not to men but to God (three references and all tongues speaking directed to God and not to people: 14:2, 14-16, 28). Tongues were always addressed to God, not men.

This is spot on. As I have already covered this point in a recent previous post then you will need to go back and check what I have already said.

Only God can understand all languages known to men.

That’s a very odd thing to say. So you are apparently saying that no man can understand a human language that the Holy Spirit is supposedly speaking to them – very strange indeed!!!

The normal use of the word “tongue” in the New Testament is for communicative languages. Nowhere does the New Testament use “tongue” or language for ecstatic speech.

Incorrect, if you were to go back and read the horrid “thoughts of man” in the Lexical spoiler you will discover that no lexical scholar will agree with you. As I have already covered this point in a recent previous post then you will need to go back and check what I have already said.

Paul used the “gift” of speaking in foreign languages (tongues) without studying them to evangelize the Jews and, in doing so, edified himself.

Can you provide an example of this from within the Scriptures? As Paul spoke Hebrew and Aramaic and most likely Greek and Latin then why would the Apostle to the Gentiles need to evangelise in tongues when Latin and Greek would have been known to all the cities that he visited, which is why he never he hints that he ever did.

All communication in congregational worship must carry meaning to the listeners.

I fully agree.

Now to return to cutting down a few trees.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Uh! Well, because they did not speak of them and if they did then we would probably have to forgo the New Covenant and return to something akin to Judaism.

I'm not really following your logic. First of all, Christianity is not a "new religion", it is a continuation of ancient Judaism. What we call "Judaism" today refers to Pharisaic Judaism, Christianity is the continuation of legitimate Judaism. It's not, "Okay, that religion is now obsolete, here is a new one," or else we would not still have the old testament. There are major changes, yes, but there wouldn't really be a need to do away with altars, because in Christianity, altars are not used to make an alternative sacrifice to Christ, they are used to prepare the Body and Blood of Christ for consumption (whether you believe that's figurative or literal is beside the point here), just as ancient Jewish altars were used to prepare the lamb for consumption by the priests. It's not a separate sacrifice, because Christ's sacrifice isn't temporary, it's eternal, to be continually partaken of, that's why even in heaven it's celebrated.

 

[Biblicist]

I'm not really following your logic. First of all, Christianity is not a "new religion", it is a continuation of ancient Judaism. What we call "Judaism" today refers to Pharisaic Judaism, Christianity is the continuation of legitimate Judaism. It's not, "Okay, that religion is now obsolete, here is a new one," or else we would not still have the old testament. There are major changes, yes, but there wouldn't really be a need to do away with altars, because in Christianity, altars are not used to make an alternative sacrifice to Christ, they are used to prepare the Body and Blood of Christ for consumption (whether you believe that's figurative or literal is beside the point here), just as ancient Jewish altars were used to prepare the lamb for consumption by the priests. It's not a separate sacrifice, because Christ's sacrifice isn't temporary, it's eternal, to be continually partaken of, that's why even in heaven it's celebrated.

I understand your denominations position regarding the Lord's table but of course it is not something that I agree with. The Lord's table for most Pentecostals and Evangelicals is purely a point of reference where we communally remember his sacrifice for us. We do not accept that the presence of Christ is there in any way, though I gather that the Evangelical Lutherans may believe something along this line.

Now I really must go at least for a few hours anyway.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Are you maybe trying to say that I am starving people from the truth simply because I do not say things that you believe?

Nope, much more straight forward than that...only because you twist the Bible and don't teach the truth.

First occurrence within the NASB, NIV & ESV NT; (application: the physical tongue, glossa)

(Mar 7:33 NASB) Jesus took him aside from the crowd, by himself, and put His fingers into his ears, and after spitting, He touched his tongue with the saliva;

Twist. If you will notice the claim was for the first time the term "tongues" was used, not tongue as you twisted it to be. You see what you want to see, and that is a great example.

That’s a great example of why glossa is not a great word for language, which is why dialektos is the standard word for language. As for our contemporary use of glossary, which is one of many adaptations for an English word from a number of languages, if you consider how we apply our word glossary (and not the Greek word) then it is not a language but a reference point for word symbols which have no meaning of their own. All they do is to point to where a number of possible uses of a given word symbol are known and it is certainly not language.

This is that which is the other thing tuned into something else, because the meaning of that means this. And all by design to confuse the issue.

What an odd thing to say. So you are saying that a particular word only means one specific thing but on the other hand it 'only' means something else every other time - what a tongue twister.

No, I'm not, he is saying what he is saying, nothing more. A comment that you chose to attempt to call out as something other than the reasonable comment it is. Can't you see what you just did there with a simple and factual comment? You attempted to twist and confuse it into something else...wow.

You haven't proven your point, however, you have proven yourself, so not much need to continue wasting time with this particular post.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I understand your denominations position regarding the Lord's table but of course it is not something that I agree with. The Lord's table for most Pentecostals and Evangelicals is purely a point of reference where we communally remember his sacrifice for us. We do not accept that the presence of Christ is there in any way, though I gather that the Evangelical Lutherans may believe something along this line.

Now I really must go at least for a few hours anyway.

You seem to have departed from the point that angels are depicted using an altar in worship, and ancient Jews used one as well. You presume Christians stopped using altars on the basis that altars would be out of place in the new covenant, but Hebrews 13:10 suggests Christians took Communion from an altar. Your assertion that altars would be out of place in the new covenant, is based on the idea that using an altar signifies a sacrifice with is an alternative to Christ's sacrifice, but, as I think we've established, we're not talking about such an altar, for surely the angels are not offering an alternative sacrifice.

Furthermore, you still haven't addressed incense, which is clearly an appropriate way to glorify God. In Christ's person, heaven and earth are bridged, we are all invited to be residents of the Father's Mansion, and therefore it seems improper that heaven would have a peculiar method of worship that earth is not to participate in, especially since heaven's worship is described in terms that can be realized on earth.

 

[swordsman1]

To save some time, if you check the brief excerpts from the following peer-reviewed commentaries this should help you to understand that tongues are always spoken as inarticulate non-human communications, where they are also always directed to the Father and never to man. Congregational prophecy which is always given in the local language is how the Holy Spirit speaks to a congregation or to an individual and this does not involve tongues.

The following commentaries are all well known and if you happen to be near a Christian University library then you will be able to view each book in greater depth if you wish.

_________________

(Published 1958/85) Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians (Principle, Ridley College, Melbourne Australia)
p.167

The ability to speak in different kinds of tongues appears to have been a special form of speech when the person uttering the words did not know what they meant (unless he also had the gift of interpretation). Some have interpreted this from Acts 2, where ‘tongues’ seems to mean speaking in a foreign language. But it is difficult to see this here. Whereas in Acts 2 the characteristic is intelligibility (Acts 2:8-11), here the characteristic is unintelligibility (‘no-one understands him’, 14:2).

The gift here is not part of the church’s evangelistic programme[1] (as in Acts 2), but one exercised among believers. It is not understood by people who speak other languages, but requires a special gift of interpretation.​

(1987) D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological exposition of 1 Corinthians 12 -14, p.52

It is not clear whether either Paul or his readers thought their gifts of tongues were the dialects of angels. A few interesting Jewish parallels make this possible, but Paul may be writing hyperbolically to draw as sharp a contrast as possible with love. I suppose a pedant might argue that they cannot be the tongues of angels, because in that case it would be silly for tongues to cease when perfection comes since that is precisely when we are more likely to encounter angels[2]! But I shall leave the question as to what language or languages we shall speak in the new heavens and on the new earth to those more gifted in speculation than I.​

(1985) David Prior, The Message of 1 Corinthians,

p.240
In classical Greek there were three nuances in the verb to explain or interpret, to articulate or express clearly, to translate. Colin Brown has written: ‘It would seem that Paul is not thinking of interpretation in the sense of translating one language into another, which would presume that tongues had a coherent scheme of grammar, syntax and vocabulary. Rather, interpretation here seems to be more akin to discerning what he Spirit is saying through the one who is speaking in tongues16.

Page Footnote:

16. ‘…”This sort of interpretation is clearly not to be understood in the sense of “translation” . . . The fits of interpretation is that of rendering intelligible the preconceptual spiritual ecstasy[3] of the tongues-speaker.’​

p.242

The rest of our expectation of this chapter is based on the understanding that this gift is available to us today and is being experienced constructively as such in many churches in different countries. For this reason the rendering of glossai as ‘tongues’ will be followed.
​

(1987) Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, (Exegetical Scholar - AoG)

p.630
…“tongues of angels” would reflect an understanding that the tongues-speaker was communicating in the dialect(s) of heaven. That the Corinthians at least, and probably Paul, thought of tongues as the language(s) of angels seems highly likely – for two reasons:…”
​

(1999) Marion L. Soards, 1 Corinthians, (Prof. NT Studies, Louisville Presbyterian Theo. College)

pp.281-82
…Paul offers a reflection on these two gifts that informs the readers that anyone who speaks in a tongue does not address people but God, and no human understands because the speaker utters mysteries with his spirit (lit. “but in spirit speaks mysteries”). According to Paul’s teaching, there is a clear point and a clear audience for tongues, but other humans are not the intended recipients of the message and so they do not comprehend the substance of the speech in tongues or benefit from it.

Additional Notes p.282


The Gk. Word glossa means tongue or “language,” but its use here refers to spiritual utterance. From Paul’s discussion of this phenomenon one finds that to speak in a tongue was a supernatural gift. It was not speech in an unstudied human language or dialect. . . Tongue speaking benefited the speaker as a direct spiritual communication to God (14:2, 16-17), but without interpretation it had no capacity for benefiting the congregation, even when spoken in the assembly (14:17, 27-28).​

In setting the word spirit with a lower case “s” and in rendering the phrase “with his spirit” rather than “in the spirit,” the NIV interprets Paul’s use of the word (Gk. Pneuma) to refer to the spirit of the human speaker. This reading is possible, perhaps correct; yet, Paul’s ambiguous phrase in Gk. Contains the possibility that Paul meant to indicate that a tongue speaker spoke “in the Spirit of God,” so that the unintelligibility of the speaking was because of the divine origin of the language. A final decision for this question of translation is impossible and not crucial for grasping the basic sense of Paul’s statement.​

(2000) Paul Barnet, 1 Corinthians, (Lect. At Macquarie Univ. Anglican Bishop)

pp.254-55
Verses 2 and 4 help solve several riddles. One is to identify ‘the spiritual things’ of the previous verse. It is pretty clear (at least to me) that ‘the spiritual things’ of verse 1 are now defined as ‘tongues-speaking…speaking mysteries in the Spirit’ in verses 2 and 3, something Paul earlier called ‘tongues of men and of angels’ (see on 13:1), a heavenly dialect.​

p.243

…Most likely such ‘speech’ was ecstatic, and believed to be the dialect of the angels in heaven.
​

(2003) David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Dean of George W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University)

p.586

Sixth, if one kind of tongue applies to the unspeakable groanings— sighs too deep for words—in which the Spirit intercedes in Rom. 8:26— 27 (Stendahl 1977: 111; cf. Macchia 1992), it offers new insights into Paul’s understanding of this phenomenon. Kasemann (1971: 134) contends that far from being a sign that the Christian community has been translated with Christ into heavenly existence (the view taken by the Corinthian enthusiasts), the apostle (Paul) hears in these things the groans of those who, though called to liberty, still lie tempted and dying and cry to be born again with the new creation.” Tongues, from this perspective, are a sign of weakness, not spiritual superiority. We do not know how to pray except with unspeakable groans, and the Spirit comes to our aid. As a token of our weakness, it explains why tongues will end (1 Cor. 13:8). Dunn (1988a: 493) thinks it unlikely that Paul has glossolalia in mind when he speaks of inarticulate groaning, but comments that if glossolalia was recognized as something undignifying, something beneath man’s self-respect as a rational being (cf. 1 Cor. 14:20),” then it would "be of a similar order to the wordless groaning,” expressing “human helplessness, ignorance, and inarticulateness."​

p.611

The nature of speaking in tongues has been dealt with in the discussion of 12:8-10. The question arises here whether the “tongues of angels" are an expansion of human tongues or hyperbole. Petzer (1989: 239-40) thinks that the phrase’s emphatic position after the verb (“if in the tongues of humans I speak and of angels") means that “the tongues of angels" are not simply an extension of human tongues. The two are not linked. Petzer takes Paul to mean: even if speaking in human tongues “could be perfected to such an extent that it would be comparable to the angelic tongues. . . ." Petzer assumes that Paul exaggerates (Petzer’s term is “defamiliarizes") by putting glossolalia out of the reach of ordinary humans (see also Sigountos 1994: 252-53). These are tongues beyond any ever known by humans. The parallel with 13:2, “having prophecy and knowing all mysteries," suggests that the two items listed are distinct and that the last element is hyperbole.

I have presented evidence earlier, however, that speaking in the tongues of angels would not have been regarded as unattainable (see comments on 12:8-10). Pauls rapture into the third heaven, into paradise, where he heard things that a human may not speak, assumes that he heard things in some heavenly tongue (2 Cor. 12:1-4). It is more likely that he poses a realistic possibility that some may indeed believe that they speak in a celestial language (cf. the combination of humans and angels in 1 Cor. 4:9 [so Spicq 1965: 145; Conzelmann 1975: 221 n. 27]). In fact, to identify as hyperbole the second element in the next verses is misleading. Faith to move mountains does not refer literally to moving mountains but is an idiom for doing what is impossible. Giving one's body is also not an exaggeration, because many Christians had done so. The ascending scale in the dazzle factor of the gifts described is not correlated to their impossibility but to their potential to accrue greater glory for the individual.
​

(2010) Roy E. Ciampa/Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, (Both are Professors in NT Studies)

p.670
For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God. Witherington thinks that the fact that Paul says that those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God is “a clear indication that glossolalia was seen as a prayer language or as a way to talk to God, not as a human language. It does not indicate that it was not a human language, but that he did not expect that those gathered would normally know whatever was being spoken. It does suggest that speaking in tongues was understood as prayer, a view that is consistent with Paul’s other comments on the subject.
​

I didn't see anything in your quotes that proves that the tongues spoken at Corinth was any different from the tongues of Pentecost.

The best seems to be an attempt by Morris:

Whereas in Acts 2 the characteristic is intelligibility (Acts 2:8-11), here the characteristic is unintelligibility (‘no-one understands him’, 14:2).​

Of course the tongues of 1 Corinthians was unintellegible. It was spoken in a small Greek church which historians are agreed consisted of less than 100 locals. If nobody there was fluent in the foreign language spoken then of course no one would understand it. Whereas the tongues at Pentecost were spoken when Jerusalem was packed with thousands of foreigners from all over the world who recognized the languages spoken.

Some of it was simply laughable. Eg Paul Barnes: "Most likely such ‘speech’ was ecstatic, and believed to be the dialect of the angels in heaven."

Of course you can cherry pick quotes from continuationist authors, just as I can pick quotes from cessationist authors. You pay your money and you take your choice. I don't expect you will be influenced, but others who are less dogmatic can decide for themselves which makes the most exegetical sense:

Miraculous Gifts: Are They for Today? (2001)
By Thomas R. Edgar Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Capital Bible Seminary

Many non-charismatics as well as charismatics feel that l Corinthians 14:1-40 definitely refers to ecstatic unintelligible speech when speaking of tongues." It is important to take notice of the fact that the gift of tongues is not defined or directly described in I Corinthians 12-14. Nowhere does it say what speaking in tongues actually is. The arguments for ecstatic speech are based solely upon implications derived from certain statements in chapter 14. But implications are not enough to set aside the facts we have noticed:

• There is no definite evidence that tongue, glossa, was ever used of ecstatic unintelligible speech.
• There is no evidence in the Old Testament that believers practiced such utterance.
• Glossa is not used in this sense in any other passage in the New Testament.
• The only clear description of the gift of tongues (Acts 2:6-11) definitely refers to actual human languages,
• Another passage, Acts 10:46, is stated to be the same thing as Acts 2:6-11.

The only sound exegetical procedure is to interpret glossa, tongue, where it refers to the spiritual gift in 1 Corinthians as normal human language, since this is a valid use of the word, since it agrees with the only passage describing the gift, and since it cannot be proved that tongue is ever used of unintelligible ecstatic utterance. In order to set aside the view that languages are referred to in this passage, it must be definitely demonstrated that language does not fit in the passage. However, this is impossible. This not only cannot be demonstrated, but it can be demonstrated that language fits the passage very well. There are no conclusive arguments against the interpretation that the tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 are languages, since many have felt that this is the best interpretation of the passage.
...
To sum up, Paul discusses the use of tongues in the church assembly. The languages are not understood because no interpreter or translator is present, and the congregation as a whole does not know the languages spoken. It should be self-evident that a failure to understand another person's speech does not mean the speech is unintelligible ecstasy. No one can understand a foreign language unknown to him.
...
The fundamental argument proving that glossa in 1 Corinthians 14 means languages is of course based on the word itself, Glossa is a common term for human languages, and no evidence has been presented that it is used for unintelligible ecstatic speech. The spiritual gift of tongues was clearly described as languages in Acts2:4ff. It is difficult to conceive how there could be a stronger indication of the nature of tongues, The term for language is used; they are described as languages and are stated to be languages. These facts and the additional fact that there is no verse in 1 Corinthians 14 where glossa cannot be translated as language are all the proof needed. However, there are other indications supporting this view.
Verse 22 definitely refers to foreign languages rather than ecstatic speech. First Corinthians 14:21-23 says:
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 then that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for then that believe not, but for them which believe. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues,
The quotation in verse 21 is from Isaiah 28: II. This passage prophesies destruction upon Israel. The Hebrew refers to men "stammering in speech, and through a strange tongue." The word translated "stammering" (la'ag) means "mocking,” "derision," or "stammering of barbarous language)." The context speaks of God's judgment upon Israel by a nation which speaks a language foreign to their ears. This prophecy apparently referred to the Assyrians, who spoke a language foreign to the Israelites and later invaded Israel.'
The word hoste (so then) begins 1 Corinthians 14:22 and connects it with the statement in verse 21. When hoste is in an independent clause, as here, it introduces a conclusion based on the preceding statement. Since verse 21 is a quotation (Isaiah 28:1 l) regarding foreign language, the conclusion in verse 22 must also refer to language. Paul would not base a direct conclusion regarding ecstatic utterance on a passage referring to normal languages. The tongues in verse 22 must be of the same nature as those in Isaiah 28:ll, or else the conclusion would not follow. Verse 23 is also connected to the preceding verses by "if therefore” (eran oun), indicating that the tongues referred to in verse 23 are of the same nature as those in verses 21 and 22-i.e., foreign language. Verse 23, however, clearly refers to speaking in tongues and the Corinthian assembly-that is, to the same tongues discussed in the entire chapter. Therefore all three verses refer to the tongues spoken in Corinth and to foreign languages as one and the same.
...
The discussion to this point has demonstrated that such a view is based on a misunderstanding of Paul's statements in l Corinthians 14. There is nothing in the passage that requires a meaning contrary to the normal meaning of the word glossa and contrary to the meaning of tongues elsewhere in the New Testament. As a matter of fact, it was shown that "nonunderstood foreign languages" is acceptable in every instance as the meaning for glossa, and that there are several verses where only this meaning is appropriate. The evidence from 1 Corinthians shows that the tongues referred to are languages.
...
There is perfect consistency between the terminology and description of tongues wherever they are mentioned in the New Testament. They are always foreign languages; they are one and the same spiritual gift. No one attempts to prove that the Apostle Peter is different in the Epistles and Acts, nor that the earthly city of Jerusalem refers to two different cities, nor that Timothy is a different person in Acts and the Epistles. Items of the same name and description which have no statements of explanation, but are assumed to be recognized by the readers, are normally considered to be the same. It is clear in this case that those who see two different kinds of tongues in the New Testament have arrived at this position on the basis of their theological presuppositions rather than from Biblical evidence. There is only one kind of tongues in the New Testament. All references to speaking in tongues refer to one and the same gift: the miraculous ability to speak foreign languages.
...
The strongest evidence concerning the nature of the gift of tongues for those who accept the authority of the New Testament is the clear and explicit testimony of Acts 2:4-11. The tongues are stated by Luke to be human languages. The hearers heard and also described them as languages. This testimony is as explicit as it could be stated. This alone is sufficient to settle the issue unless exceedingly strong and clear evidence to the contrary is produced. This study shows that no such evidence has been produced, certainly none in the category of "strong."

New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (2008)
By Thomas Schreiner professor of New Testament interpretation and associate dean for Scripture and interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

The strongest argument for tongues being some kind of ecstatic prayer language is found in 1 Cor. 14:2. Those who speak in tongues "speak not to people but to God; for no one understands, but he speaks mysteries by or "in the Spirit" (my translation). In Acts 2, on the other hand, those who speak in tongues proclaim to people "the mighty works of God" (Acts 2:11) and those present do understand what is being said. Thus, 1 Cor. 14 describes a tongue that is incomprehensible and addressed only to God, whereas Acts 2 involves a tongue that people understand and that speaks about God. Despite the fact that most interpreters now seem to favor ecstatic utterances, I remain unconvinced, for both passages must be read in context, not as isolated proof texts. In 1 Cor. 14:1-5 Paul argues that prophecy is superior to tongues because it is comprehensible. Interpreted tongues, on the other hand, are equivalent to prophecy because people can understand what is said. Paul's comment about tongues in 1 Cor. 14:2 must be understood carefully. The reference here is to uninterpreted tongues. If no interpreter is present, then no one can understand what the tongue-speaker says. The speaker utters mysteries that are incomprehensible to all who are present and speaks "to God" in the sense that only God understands what is said. Such a statement about tongues does not contradict Acts 2. The tongues are comprehensible in Acts 2 only because those who understood the languages spoken were present. The tongue-speakers themselves were speaking mysteries, for presumably they had no idea about the meaning of their utterances. Even in 1 Cor. 14:1-5 Paul agrees that tongue-speaking is no longer a mystery if an interpreter can translate what is said. There is no compelling evidence, therefore, to say that Acts and 1 Corinthians refer to two different gifts of tongues. In both instances languages with a discernible code are in view. This idea is not countered by 1 Cor. 14:2, for here Paul simply describes the nature of tongues without an interpreter. In such a case no one but God understands what is being said. However, if an interpreter is present, then the tongue is no longer mysterious.​

 

[swordsman1]

That’s a great example of why glossa is not a great word for language, which is why dialektos is the standard word for language. As for our contemporary use of glossary, which is one of many adaptations for an English word from a number of languages, if you consider how we apply our word glossary (and not the Greek word) then it is not a language but a reference point for word symbols which have no meaning of their own. All they do is to point to where a number of possible uses of a given word symbol are known and it is certainly not language.

Glossa is the main word used by both Luke and Paul for language. In Acts 2 it clearly means human languages "we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues (glossa)".
The same word is used by Paul to also mean human languages: 1 Cor 13:1 "If I speak in the tongues (glossa) of men", 1 Cor 14:21 "With other tongues (glossa) and through the lips of foreigners". It therefore follows that Paul's other uses of the word mean the same thing.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The entire point of speaking in tongues is to show a reconciliation of humanity into one, repairing what was shattered after the Tower of Babel, with the Christian Church replacing the would-be tower. Babbling of course would be the opposite of that.

 

[swordsman1]

The only occurrence where tongues is used to describe a known human language or languages is with Acts 2. If Luke had believed that the other occurrences where given in known human languages then he would have certainly told us so; the fact that he ‘failed’ to mention this means that we can only conclude that these subsequent occurrences of tongues follow the standard practice found within the Epistles.

Nonsense. Luke says the tongues spoken in Acts 10 was the same as at Pentecost:

Acts 11:15-17 "“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. ... So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”​

The only reason the hated gentiles were accepted into the church was because they experienced the exact same phenomenon as the disciples did at Pentecost. If it was anything different they would never have been accepted.

There is no description of the nature of tongues in Acts 19. But seeing as Luke has already given us a full description of the gift in Acts 2, there is no reason for him to give another. Scripture doesn't have to give us an 8 verse description every time the same word is referenced again. In the absence of any re-definition it must be presumed to be the same thing. There is absolutely no justification for presuming it was something different.

 

[Goatee]

Even though I had good reason to put in a formal complaint to the forum moderators as none of us have the right to say that someone who we are talking to is demonic, I am certainly well aware that on a public forum such as this that there will be those who fail or even have a desire to communicate in a forthright manner, which is why I let these things slide by.

Considering that I could very well be the most read person on this forum when it comes to First Corinthians and with the Ministry of the Holy Spirit, then I have absolutely no reason to have any concerns as I carefully consider each and every aspect of the Biblical testimony of the Ministry of the Holy Spirit, which is why I endeavour to obtain the best of the best commentaries on this subject.

Even though I consider the practice of praying to dead people and to 'Mary' as being a pagan practice, which in itself probably crosses a few forum rules or guidelines, I know full well that there are many fine Roman Catholic brothers and sisters who are still oddly involved in this practice, but I know that these brothers and sisters are not of the devil, just poorly educated in the Word of God. For that matter, even within Pentecostal and Evangelical circles we often have our own set of both silly practices and doctrines where some I would deem to be abominable before the Lord.

So, may I suggest that you apply a degree of caution when you are speaking on things you obviously have little practical experience with or maybe avoid them altogether.

Its ok for you to scoff at Catholic doctrine but not ok for me to express how i feel about the falseness of 'your' speaking in tongues?

I don't mean to insult anyone on these forums. I am just expressing my view on the matter.

When the Bible talks of 'speaking in tongues' it is talking about an Apostle speaking to a gathering of many individuals with different languages between them who can all hear the same words spoken from the said Apostle. Its not on about 1,000s of people gathered in a place all mumbling 'gibberish' of which nobody can understand!!

No need to brag either about being the most read person etc.

Luke 18:9-14
9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”