DOWNLOAD FILE AND OPEN IN A WORD-WRAPPING HTML EDITOR FOR EASIER READING:  A debate about Tongues.  My responses are in red bold-face.  
In a message Rudiment22 writes:
<< 1) The foundation to the study of the sign gift of tongues is the underlying Greek.  There are three main words and one variation in the Greek for the English translation "tongue(s)" or "language(s)."  
 A) The first is Glossa,  gloce'-sah: "the tongue; by impl. a language (spec. one naturally unacquired):--tongue." (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance) [Examples would be: Mark 16:17 & I Corinthians 13:1 & 8]
 B) The second is Hebraisti, heb-rah-is-tee': "adv. ; Hebraistically or in the Jewish (Chaldee) language:--in (the) Hebrew" (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance) [Examples would be: John 5:2 & Revelation 9:11] 
 C) The third is Dialektos, dee-al'-ek-tos: "a (mode of) discourse, i.e. "dialect":--language, tongue." (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance) [Examples would be: Acts 1:19 & 21:40]
 D) There is a fourth that is a compound word which would be a variation of Glossa, which is Heteroglossos, het-er-og'-loce-sos: "other-tongued, i.e. a foreigner:--man of other tongue." [Example would be: I Corinthians 14:21] (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)  
 Glossa is by far used the majority of the time when the word "tongue(s)" is used!  (Review the meaning above.)  Very simply, just looking at the meaning of the Greek word, which underlies the English word "tongue(s)," the passages become very clear.  When these scriptures are read with the Greek definition in mind it becomes clear that natural languages, not gibberish, were used to confirm the Word of God.   The meaning of the Greek words cannot be ignored because this is the language that our Lord used to inspire His New Testament of the Bible.
"Glossa is by far used the majority of the time...." the debater writes.  Note the word MAJORITY.  There is still room for other words for tongue, and Glossa is not necessarily mutually exclusive from the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues beyond those of man.  He refers to 1 Corinthians 13:1, a verse referring to the tongues of men (which he argues means other languages), but what about the rest of the verse:"tongues of men AND OF ANGELS" ? Do angels speak Spanish, Greek, Hebrew, or English?  They can probably speak any of these, but are those languages the native tongue of angels?  Is there a native tongue for the hosts of Heaven? Sure, but I am not going to assume that tongues of ANGELS refers to the man-made languages that the nations speak on earth.  It would be presumptuous to assume that angels speak tongues of mankind.  I am sure they can, but this is by no means their restriction just as the physical tongue and world are not their restriction.  Sure, tongues may translate to languages, but language of angels gives a compelling argument supporting the gift of speaking in tongues being something more than just being bilingual.  Tongues seem to include multilingualism, but it would also include the language of the hosts of Heaven -- the prayer and praise language that goes indiscernible lest there is one who has the gift of interpretation (which the Bible outlines there should be one with the gift of interpretation where there is a gift of tongues -- See 1 Corinthians 14:27).  He argues that the translation means natural language to which I ask, What is the natural language of the angels mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:1? 
 2) The second layer to the foundation of the study of the sign gift of tongues is the proper exposition of the passage, Mark 16:14-20.  Verses 17 and 20 are to be focused on in this passage, however, it is necessary to first look at verse 14 which sets the proper context to the passage.  
 A) Verse 14: This is the first key verse.  (Christ) ,"he", appears to the eleven (Judas having betrayed Him and killing himself, is not with the twelve) after His resurrection.  It is vital to note who the Lord Jesus Christ is speaking to before you move into verses 15 through 18 and then 19 and 20.  Most people fail to notice and recognize this verse (14) and go right to verses 15 through 18.  This is a major error because Christ is not speaking to the multitudes; He is speaking to the eleven disciples who are left to carry out the ministry of His Word.  It should be said, though obvious, that these eleven are the apostles, to which were given a special ministry unlike every other Christian.  (See Ephesians 2:20:  "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;")
 B) Verses 15 & 16: The Lord gives the Great Commission, as it is so commonly referred to, though not a common call.
 C) Verse 17: This is the second key verse.  Though simplistic, pay special attention to the word "signs."  One of these signs is speaking with "new tongues."  Remember, the word for "tongues" is Glossa ("the tongue; by impl. a language (spec. one naturally unacquired):--tongue.").  This is vital! The Lord is saying that a sign that would "follow" (Parakoloutheo, par-ak-ol-oo-theh'-o; to follow near, i.e. (fig.) attend (as a result), trace out, conform to:--attain, follow, fully know, have understanding) them that believe would be tongues (languages).  This is simple, but follow along.  The apostles are the ones that would do the "signs"; the "signs" were to "follow near" those that believed.  They would not do the signs, but would "fully know or have understanding" of the signs.  This is so clear when you look at the Greek word underlying "follow!"  Furthermore, these signs were what Paul calls "the signs of an apostle" in II Corinthians 12:12.  The signs were to give authority to the apostles themselves (Acts 4:30-33; 5:12) and to the Word of God, as will be shown in the exposition of Mark 16:20.
Signs would come as Jesus promised the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:5-8).  These verses say that "They will..." (then the root verb).  Like in Mark 17, it says that they WILL drive out demons.  What's the point if they only understand driving out demons, but cannot perform the deliverance in Jesus' name?  It would be like, "Oh, you're demon-possessed?  I understand, but despite being a child of God, I cannot help you."  Yet, Christ gives authority to God's children over evil (as seen in Luke 10:18-20 and in the applications of the Armor of God in Ephesians 6:10-20 as well as many other verses). I say this to show that there is more than just understanding.  There is a gifting by the Spirit to do these acts -- including tongues -- in Jesus' name.  If tongues translates into languages, that does not eliminate that there is a spiritual manifestation and a spiritual gift of speaking in tongues beyond the tongues of mankind.  Languages of angels (1 Cor 13:1) as well as other verses support this (Such as Romans 8:26.  There are others supporting tongues, but that these verses use "tongues" would mean that the debater would automatically ascribe this ONLY to man-made languages -- which is ONLY PART of what tongues is about).  
D) Verse 18: The Lord lists other signs that would follow the apostles. (Again, keep everything in context; He is referring to the ministry specifically that the apostles would have.)
 E) Verse 19: This verse speaks of the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ to His glorified position, that being the right hand of the God the Father.
 F) Verse 20: This is the third key verse and vitally significant to the rest of this whole study.  This verse tells us the purpose of the tongues sign.  First, it says, "they [referring, in context to the apostles] went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen."  The "word" is the Word of God.  The signs (which, according to verse 17, included tongues) were to confirm the Word of God!  In an effort not to miss the point, I will restate it: The eleven apostles, being spoken to directly by the Lord, were to preach the Word to every creature, and the signs following, which included tongues, were to give authority to the preaching, or in other words, as the Scripture puts it best, to "confirm the word."  Why is that important?  Tongues was to directly be linked with the Word!  We shall see the importance of this later, however this exposition was necessary to set the second layer to the foundation. 
And what is the point here lest someone abuses speaking in tongues?  Speaking in tongues would indeed confirm the Word by its very manifestation and by a Biblical interpretation. 
 3)  The third layer to the foundation of the study of the sign gift of tongues is proper exposition of our New Testament history book, The Acts of the Apostles 2:1-11.  There is a major consideration to the book of Acts: it is a historical book and not to be used as a guide for all practiced in the local assembly (church) of believers.  It will be readily noticed when doing a survey on the book of Acts that order and patterns change concerning practices.  This is a vital point!  It is highly overlooked!  A perfect example would be to compare Acts 8:14-16 to Acts 10:45-48.  It is readily seen that the pattern changes from believed -> baptized -> received Holy Ghost in Acts chapter eight to believed -> received Holy Ghost -> baptized in chapter ten.  This is only one example showing that the book of Acts is an inspired history book and does not show us a set order or pattern for practice.  To get that, we must examine the epistles.
CHANGE for CHRISTIAN PRACTICE????  God does not change (Malachi 3:6 among many verses supports this).  Sure, there may be contemporary music and internet sites and services in English as opposed to ancient Greek, but God's people are still baptized, still sealed with the Holy Spirit, and some have the gift of speaking in tongues. Are the Epistles historical, too, so that one could say that they do not apply to all Christians?  I think not and I think that such an argument is dangerous. Based on the debater's last statement, he does not believe this about the Epistles, but to state that Acts is strictly inspired history and not applicable to practice is not beneficial.  Acts is certainly applicable to belief.  If it is applicable to belief, then it is at least indirectly applicable to behavior, namely practice, since behavior and practice come partly out of belief.  What about the Gospels, namely Luke who wrote Luke-Acts?  Are they simply history?  What about the call to witness in Matthew 28 and ACTS 1:8 (where Jesus says that "Ye shall be witnesses" KJV :)?  What about Romans 8:26 -- an EPISTLE -- which outlines practice, yet supports the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues beyond a man-made language?
 A) Verse 1: Simply, the day of Pentecost is the setting and context.  It is vital to 
interpret the word "they" properly as to who "they" is referring to!  If you look back in chapter one verse 26, it ends speaking about Matthias as being ,"numbered with the eleven apostles."  This is key to the context of chapter two verse one!  When you get down to verse four, it is the twelve apostles which "began to speak with other tongues [natural, understood languages]."
 B) Verse 2: The Holy Spirit comes "as of a rushing mighty wind."  The word "as," interestingly enough is very important.  The Scripture is using a simile, which means that the Holy Spirit was not a wind but was "as" or "like" a mighty wind.  
 C) Verse 3: The cloven tongues were "like as of fire."  Again, the words "like as" are very important.  The Scripture is using a simile again, which means that the cloven tongues were not fire but were "like as" fire.
All these similes don't show anything.  The Holy Spirit not being a wind, but being like a mighty wind does not suggest anything about the gift of speaking in tongues. Those who believe in speaking in tongues as a spiritual gift do not literally believe tongues are fire. 
 D) Verse 4: "They" is referring to the twelve apostles!  The Spirit gave them utterance, which means that they were not uncontrolled.
And proper use of speaking in tongues should not be uncontrolled, either.  But my problem here is "They" referring to the apostles and not being applicable to believers in general.  Are we supposed to distinguish ourselves from the apostles or vice versa?  This thinking is not healthy for Christians.  That would mean we should distinguish ourselves from those who atteneded the churches at Corinth, Colosse, Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Galatia.  Paul wrote letters to those churches, but the message applies to us today.  If one separates apostles and 1st century saints from ourselves, then he or she is in a line of thinking which would ignore the teaching of much of the Bible.  God's Word is relevant to us today!  We are all saints whether the Apostle Paul or a 20th century computer programmer who is a Christian. And there is no favoritism with God regarding His people (including the apostles) -- See Romans 2:11. 
 E) Verse 5: Jews were present!  Jews were always present when tongues were spoken! (Also, look at I Corinthians 14:21; 1:22; Isaiah 28:11.)

Are not modern-day Christians the Church, His Bride, the New Jerusalem, JEWS by adoption?

F) Verse 6: The word "tongues" is not only shown clearly in the Greek to be real languages, but now is confirmed by the context of verse six. This verse makes it clear that "tongues" are real languages because of the phrase, "every man heard them [the apostles] speak in his own language. And this did occur where tongues were not necessarily referring only to the speaking in tongues spiritual gift but rather a man-made native language as seen in SOME of the New Testament, BUT that is not all of the gift of tongues as I have argued. Again, what are the tongues of angels? MORE COMPELLING, Romans 8:26 states "In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with GROANS that WORDS CANNOT EXPRESS" (NIV). I know that the debater in this article prefers KJV which uses "GROANINGS which cannot be uttered" in that verse. This does not sound man-made languages, but the aspect of the gift of tongues which includes what some refer to as speaking in tongues. On a picky side note: Why does the debater prefer the KJV when it refers to the Holy Spirit as "itself" such as in Romans 8:26. The Holy Spirit is a Person of the Trinity -- One who can be grieved (unlike an energy as some would want to reduce the Third Person of the Trinity). "Himself" is a more appropriate pronoun for the Holy Spirit. I know this is a digression from the discussion at hand, but it is just a picky side note to say that there is value in other versions besides the KJV. G) Verses 7 & 8: These verses just add to the clarity that "tongues" are real languages by the phrase in verse 8, which states,"how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" H) Verses 9 - 11: Specific places are mentioned to show the places wherein they "were born." Verse 11 makes a very clear statement to support the point further that "tongues" are real languages, saying,"we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." What was the point in doing all of that? The answer is that the Pentecostals/Charismatics claim to speak in the tongues of the Bible, yet what comes out of there mouth can easily be verified to not be real languages. Perhaps not "real" languages in the man-made arena of languages, but something that surpasses man-made language such as with tongues of angels. The Bible cannot fully be pinned down by the debater's understanding nor mine nor any human being's. God's ways are not our ways. Was there even a GREEK WORD to describe tongues beyond those of mankind? Perhaps Glossa was closest. Perhaps the Greek could not fully capture it, though in the full context of the Word and with description, one can see it fully captured. The Bible is perfect even though the finite words of mankind are in its pages. Regarding denominations that speak in tongues, certainly SOME (not ALL by any means!) may abuse spiritual gifts, or abuse the name of Christ as in the medieval Crusades, but this does not eliminate what the Word teaches. I am in agreement that other man-made languages are one aspect of tongues, but I also understand from the Bible (even KJV) that another aspect of tongues is speaking in tongues beyond the man-made language. Even though proper use of speaking in tongues beyond man-made language is to be controlled and interpreted, some will not understand (except for the interpretation) the tongues. It may sound like noise, but if it is to the Glory of God, then so be it! I do not consider proper use of tongues noise, but the Psalms state to make a joyful noise unto the Lord. 4) The fourth layer to the foundation of the study of the sign gift of tongues is a proper exposition of I Corinthians 13. Under this point of the study, chapter 13 will be the passage most heavily concentrated on. Chapter 12 is certainly the backdrop and chapter 14 is the follow up. Since chapter 13 is the heart of the passage indeed, this will be the main concentration which will shed light on all other questionable passages in regard to the tongues issue. There is a vital consideration for the book of I Corinthians, however. If a survey is done on the book of I Corinthians it can readily be seen that Paul is writing to the church at Corinth to deal with them on their carnality. Where is the proof of that? Refer to I Corinthians 3:3, "For ye are yet carnal...." Another vital point that is rarely looked at is to consider when the book of I Corinthians was written. It was written in approximately A.D. 56. This is very important as will be seen later. A) Verses 1-3: Paul is quite obviously using hyperbole in these verses! Hyperbole is simply extravagant exaggeration (such as "mile-high ice-cream cones"). The use of the word "though" is important to consider in these verses. "Though" is the Greek word, "Ean, eh-an'; a conditional particle; in case that, provided, etc.; often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty:--before, but, except, (and) if, (if) so, (what-, whither-) soever, though, when (-soever), whether (or), to whom, [who-] so (-ever)." (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance) It is very plain, yet again, in the underlying Greek that the word "though" was purposely chosen, by inspiration of God, to use a use of literature, called hyperbole, to teach a lesson. The Word of God is replete with grammatical expressions. Just take a look in the Hebrew of Isaiah and see all of the puns, similes, and metaphors used throughout the book. B) Verses 4-6: Simply put, these verses show the qualities and characteristics of "charity" or "love". Now we come into the true meat of the issue of tongues. Verses 8-13, with an additional passage to compliment this passage, are going to prove that tongues have ceased, beyond a shadow of a doubt! Remember again, that I Corinthians was written in A.D. 56; that is vital! AD 56 -- Is God limited by time? No. C) Verse 8: "Charity never faileth", however, "prophecies, they shall fail," "tongues, they shall cease," and "knowledge, it shall vanish away." Their are some very key points that need to be made here and the foundation has already been laid to accomplish the task. First, "prophesies" are the forthtelling of the Word of God. The Greek word underlying "prophesies" is "Propheteia, prof-ay-ti'-ah; ("prophecy"); prediction (Scriptural or other):--prophecy, prophesying." So, "prophecies" has to do with the Word of God. Second, it has already been established the purpose of "tongues" which was to confirm the Word of God. So, "tongues" is connected with the ministry of the Word of God. Third, is the word "knowledge," which is translated from the Greek word, "Gnosis, gno'-sis; knowing (the act), i.e. (by impl.) knowledge:--knowledge, science." The word gives the meaning of a present knowledge and referring also to the Word of God. This verse says that "prophecies" shall "fail" which is the Greek word, "Katargeo, kat-arg-eh'-o; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), lit. or fig.:--abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void." It is very clear that "prophecies," from the perspective of A.D. 56, will (have already according to today) cease all together! The verse says that "tongues" shall "cease", which is the Greek word, "Pauo, pow'-o; a prim. verb. ("pause"); to stop (trans. or intrans.), i.e. restrain, quit, desist, come to an end:--cease, leave, refrain." It is very clear that "tongues," from the perspective of A.D. 56, will (have already according to today) cease all together as well! The verse says that "knowledge" shall "vanish away," which is the same Greek word used for "fail" in reference to "prophecies." Therefore, it is partial knowledge, being that the canon of Scripture was not yet completed, would, from the perspective of A.D. 56, will (have already according to today) also cease altogether! Fulfillment of prophecy has not ceased. In Isaiah, the Word states that the government shall be upon His shoulders (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus did not fulfill this in the Gospel, but it is foretold to be fulfilled in Revelation 20:1-6 as Jesus reigns over the earth . D) Verse 9: This verse backs up all that was commented on in verse 8. Knowing and prophesying were in part. Why is that? Remember, I Corinthians was written in A.D. 56. The canon of Scripture was not yet completed, with the final book, The Revelation, to be written in A.D. 95. This is a vital point that must not be missed! Also, the preposition, "For" is very significant in the exposition and flow of thought. This preposition signifies that verse nine is referring back to verse eight. This tie is essential! E) Verse 10: This verse is, along with the following verses, the climax of this study of the tongues sign. It is vital to note that this verse starts with the conjunction, "But." This signifies that verse ten is referring back to verse nine which is referring back to verse eight. This point must not be overlooked! The pronoun "that" must be determined along with the noun "perfect." When this is determined, then, from the perspective of A.D. 56, it will be known when tongues will (would, had) cease. When the perfect comes, from the perspective of A.D. 56, then "that which is in part [prophecies, tongues, and knowledge] shall be done away." What is the "perfect"? For this, to be extremely accurate, it was necessary to go strait to the Greek text (Textus Receptus) itself. The root word for "perfect" is "tel'-i-os; complete (in various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character, etc.); neut. (as noun) completeness:--of full age, man, perfect." (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance); however, this word can be in different genders. This is a vital point that must be comprehended. The particular gender, used by the inspiration of God, found in the Greek text, is "tel'-i-on". This is the "neuter singular" gender. Furthermore, the noun "tel'-i-on" takes the definite article "to" which indicates that the noun is neuter. This adds to the impact of it being in the neuter singular gender. What is the significance of all of this? There are very clear rules in the Greek that an "object" must agree in gender with the noun it is supposed to be equivalent to. (For instance, if this was referring to Christ, then it would have to be in the masculine gender.) F) Verse 11: After having given the doctrine, Paul goes to the picturesque analogy to explain the teaching. This is a classic method of Paul and is very effective and indeed necessary for the proper interpretation. He shows in this verse that there is a transition from an immature stage (or incomplete stage) to a mature stage (or complete stage). The verse shows the same object making the transition! This is vital to see! So, if you look back, the "child" is the prophecies, tongues, and knowledge, which, from the perspective of A.D. 56, are being done in part. The "man" is the "perfect," which, from the perspective of A.D. 56, has not come yet. It is again important to see that it is the same object making the transition from being done "in part" to being "complete!" G) Verse 12: Paul has set us up with a great analogy in verse 11 and now he goes to the point to show us what the perfect is. The word "glass" means "mirror." So, Paul is saying in this verse that "we," from the perspective of A.D. 56, are seeing our "face" in a "glass" "darkly" or dimly. He then makes the transition to seeing himself as it were, "face to face," which would be the effect of a mirror that was no longer "dark" or dim. It is again vital to see that the verse shows the same object making the transition! The dark mirror is the prophecies, tongues, and knowledge, which, from the perspective of A.D. 56, are being done in part. The "face to face" is the "perfect," which, from the perspective of A.D. 56, has not come yet. It is again so important to see that it is the same object making the transition from being done "in part" to being "complete!" Now, what is the perfect? Well, the key is in two words: "glass" and "face". There is a major principle in interpreting the Bible. "Bible passages interpret other Bible passages." There is a passage in the New Testament that uses the exact same analogy that Paul uses in I Corinthians 13:12, using "glass" and "face." Remember, this analogy is the key to knowing what the "perfect" is. The passage that will interpret our I Corinthian passage comes from a New Testament book which was written in A.D. 45, approximately eleven years before Paul wrote the epistle to the church at Corinth. This book would have been copied by scribes and would, without a doubt, have been in the hands of Paul before he wrote the first epistle to the church at Corinth. Regardless, the Holy Spirit of God has indeed authored each book and so any passages which use similar analogies would be essential to the proper interpretation. The passage to expound is James 1:22-25 which states,"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." It is very clear from this passage that the Word of God is the "glass" or mirror! James used this analogy eleven years before Paul even wrote one verse of I Corinthians! Scripture has interpreted Scripture. The mirror is the Word of God and therefore the completed Word of God, which came in A.D. 95, was the "perfect" which did away with the need of the tongues sign and the other sign gifts for that matter. The Scripture must be chosen over any experiences that any individual has had!>> I see the point that nothing needs to be added to the perfect Word of God, and I agree. Yet, this does not mean that authors like Max Lucado or the late C.S. Lewis, etc., cannot write or speak about theological things. Further, I think tongues in the context of speaking in tongues involves an expression beyond human words. The human languages cannot fully express the eternal. The Bible is written in human languages so that we can understand it in our finite minds, but yet, we do not fully understand the Bible even then! SUMMARY: There are abuses in the body of Christ. God is just and God is full of grace. Abuses come when one takes either justice alone or grace alone. With justice alone, one is legalistic and focuses on doctrine as a means of salvation. With grace alone, one uses it as a license for sin or lack of order. This can occur in this debate, too. Don't abuse tongues (grace alone), but don't make the concordance your Bible. Tongues refers to both man-made langues and the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues. There are places in the Bible where the man-made languages are specified as well as at least the couple I have said, where speaking in tongues is specified. I put this here so that debaters can be cautious as to not commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as in Mark 3:29 (fully done when one denies who the Holy Spirit is as in dying and not knowing Christ as Savior and Lord -- denying Him -- for God is the Father, SON, and HOLY SPIRIT). Finally, what saves a man? Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross, His resurrection, and the sealing of a man's heart by the Holy Spirit. I believe the debater is likely saved (and definitely does great research and argues well), and I know I am saved. Neither he nor I fully know and understand scripture. What he or I believe about tongues is not a salvation issue. I believe he is mistaken. He likely believes I am (at least where I deviate from the ONLY MAN-MADE LANGUAGES to the speaking in TONGUES argument). We need to do is seek God and not cast judgment. Whoever is mistaken, may God direct to fullness and truth. I lack the gift of tongues, so that is not my motivation. As the debater and I disagree, I am confident that we will both see one another in Heaven and both be aghast by that which we did not fully understand in our finiteness. May we not be foolish in our argument. --BeaknDeakn