Concerning your words: "It is dishonest to add to a persons words which they did not say."
Yet, you said "Where did i exalt myself above you or Scripture here?"
You added "or Scripture" to what I said, since I implied nothing of the sort. So will you confess your dishonesty and double standard?
It's possible I misunderstood your response. But my point is that there is only one way to prove that the tongues spoken is of God, and that is to translate it, which men can do, and which they actually do. It's no different than translating Ugaritic text or hieroglyphics. If the tongues convey a message, it can be translated. Why keep people in the dark about it?
Yet, you said "Where did i exalt myself above you or Scripture here?"
You added "or Scripture" to what I said, since I implied nothing of the sort. So will you confess your dishonesty and double standard?
It's possible I misunderstood your response. But my point is that there is only one way to prove that the tongues spoken is of God, and that is to translate it, which men can do, and which they actually do. It's no different than translating Ugaritic text or hieroglyphics. If the tongues convey a message, it can be translated. Why keep people in the dark about it?
You want to prove tongues is real/authentic by recording and applying methodology to known languages and or language structure.
Yes or No