Is Speaking in Tongues still available today?

That's laughable. You haven't. You asserted that is the case. You haven't shown any evidence at all. Silly sophistry isn't evidence.

Let's look at the arguments around it.
I Corinthians 13
13
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Are tongues of angels fictional? Well, let's look at the context.

Are tongues of men fictional? No.
Is there such a thing as sounding brass or tinkling cymbals? If there weren't, how would they know what he was talking about.
Is prophecy a real thing? Yes it is.
Are mysteries, knowledge, and faith fictional? No.
Are mountains just imaginary? Are they fictional? No.
Is it impossible to give all one has to feed the poor? No.
Is it impossible to give one's body to be burned? No, and there were Christians Nero burned as 'human candles' within decades of this.

Every time in scripture angels spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic in scripture, they were speaking to someone who spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, which allowed them to understand. The Bible does not teach that angels only speak Hebrew or Aramaic. If even mentions tongues of men and of angels, so they may speak some other language or languages.

(But what about quotes from angels in Greek? Do you think the angel spoke to Cornelius in Greek, and do you have any quotes from angels that are in Aramaic from the Bible.)

Do you believe those exist, or is that fictional, too?

Silence is silence. IMO, that's a very flawed assumption when interpreting scripture because it doesn't apply to other cases. The Bible mentions the fact that individuals were wearing certain clothes in certain passages. But in Acts 19, it doesn't mention Paul wearing clothes, so should we assume he was naked?

I Corinthians 14 is also talking about tongues in church meetings, and Acts 10 is more of an evangelistic scenario since the listeners weren't believers when Peter started talking.

Why?
If you believe the Bible it tells you when this happened in Acts 2 and does not ever say it it happened that way again. If the Bible points something out and then stops pointing it out, we know it changed.

Perfect example. Peter said be baptized in Jesus name in Acts 2. We literally have 5 more examples after that specifies being baptized in Jesus name. The Bible kept pointing it out.

I can't find the post. I think it was @CD1, that the greater gift is
So do you think it is wrong to use Acts 2 to teach on speaking in tongues and to say you speak as the Spirit gives you utterance?

In Acts 2, they spoke human languages, but the Spirit gave them utterance.

If God made man able to talk and confused the languages at Babel, isn't it likely that He came up with all of the languages.... at least proto-languages.... at Babel or before?

Look, if you just start making sounds it is YOU doing it.
The Bible says when true speaking in tongues happens, it ""is not"" you doing, it is GOD doing it through you. So if GOD is "how" tongues are spoken, then it is GOD's Language, not human.

Inaccurate - God knows all languages, and He's totally capable of, and does, gift a people to speak whatever HE pleases, in any language he pleases. "Prophesy", "Tongues", "Word of wisdom", "Word of Knowledge", and "Interpretation of tongues" are essentially the SAME GIFT.

The person so gifted is simple speaking that which the Holy Spirit puts into their mind.

And it goes beyond that - the "Babel factor" IS STILL in effect!!! Even people who speak THE SAME LANGUAGE, are often incapable of communicating with one another.

Didn't I say that in this post?

To ""give"" utterance is to make someone speak.
God makes someone speak.

I'm thinking of actual scripture-- they spoke... as the Spirit gave them utterance. And 'if any man speak in tongues...."

So do you think the individual has no choice in the matter, can't choose to speak, can't choose not to?

It wouldn't be exactly the same if the word of knowledge or word of wisdom is the word God speaks to the individual whether or not he speaks it to others.

Nope, he doesn't. God doesn't "MAKE" anybody do anything. He simply puts His words in a person's mind, and they, of their own free will, speak that which they're given.

The SATANIC GIFT of tongues is compulsive, and out of the person's control.

I believe a person "is a willing vessel" and surrendered unto God during prayer so when God "chooses" to give utterance that person will speak in tongues.

Totally unimportant - ALL Gifts are for the Church. you're just splitting hairs.

You mean when God gives the utterance you can "choose" to Quench the Spirit of God?
I agree.
But a willing vessel surrendered to God would "never" Quench the Spirit.

There's some kind of difference or Paul wouldn't have listed different gifts. You could get supernatural knowledge so you can pray for others, or share it with them. Prophecy has to do with the Spirit moving the individual to speak... usually.

There are cases where one __could _ speak in tongues but shouldn't, otherwise Paul wouldn't have written I Corinthians 14:28 and other parts of the passage.

That's why I said "a surrendered vessel." Someone who just does it is doing it on their decision not when God gives them the utterance.

You didn't answer my question and avoided my point completely. I was asking if you were saying tongues was NEVER a human language because your comment sure sounded like that, and I had to disagree because there are only 1 or 2 verses that support what you're saying here about tongues being a "unknown language". ALL the rest the scripture on tongues is very clear that tongues is human language, so when I saw the comment worded like tongues was NEVER HUMAN LANGUAGE, I had to ask you to be clear.

Now you jump on some "God does what He wants", and "why would God do this instead of that" kinds of argument. Has nothing to do with what I was asking or why I was asking it. Saying tongues was "Not a human language", isn't correct outside of maybe a prayer language between yourself and God, but outside of those couple obscure openings leaving just enough room to pray like that, the REST describes tongues as human language that is understood or needs to be interpreted.

These things I'm talking about really have nothing to do with the questions you were asking me. If you know that tongues in the Bible is 95% human language, then cool. I was only asking if you thought tongues was NEVER a human language, because that's the way your comment made it seem to me. If that's not what you meant then I have no other questions judge, and the defense rest. (<-----just a joke, not being passive aggressive)

I don't dispute that it may be an angelic language according to scripture.