In this security model of a possible attack, the "Others" are now the faithful who have been relegated to an outside status as they do not understand what is being said.

Do the speaker and listener understand? Some communication and security ideas are needed.

These security concepts are relevant to the Universal Language. One cannot fool God, but an adversary (such as Satan or his helpers or other humans) can fool a person who are not careful.

How might one know or determine if a message is from God or from Satan?

This is often done by the "power of suggestion".

Details are left as a future topic.

Is the message from God, Satan, etc.?
Augustine was the first to talk about hearing voices that compete with each other.

• good voice on one side
• bad voice on the other side

Details are left as a future topic.

This is somewhat like the choices Hercules faced between "bad" and "good" (virtue).

At the crossroads Hercules has a choice.

• Take the easy and pleasure route of "bad".
• Take the hard and virtuous route of "good".

More: 1 Peter 2: The powerful goodness of virtue

A "decision procedure" in computer science is a method or algorithm that, given some input, makes a decision that can be though of as "yes" or "no". Note: A "decision tree" rotates the tree and has more nodes to make decisions, things to happen, etc.

Assume the above security model of a possible attack. What is an effective decision procedure to discern authentic behavior from spoofed behavior?

Decision: Is the message (tongues) authentic? Is it from God?

Paul attempts to provide a decision procedure, in terms of policies, for determining legitimate or illegitimate "speaking in tongues".

This might have been a particular problem in Corinth, as all the verses are from 1 Corinthians.
In general, Paul often provides advice as "vitamins" that if taken when not needed, or taken to excess, may cause extra work but may also cause harm.

Details are left as a future topic.

In reading the following verses, answer the following question. How well do the policies of Paul address, identify, prevent and/or mitigate a attack by way of a spoofed behavior of "speaking in tongues"?

The context is that of "gifts" of each "member" of the church.

Details are left as a future topic.

There are two gifts of interest here.

• What is a "type of tongue"? (for speakers)
• What is an "interpretation of a tongue"? (for listeners)

Does everyone have every gift? Is one gift more important than another gift?


Some pastors do not want to acknowledge certain gifts of their flock. What gift might not be desired?

The popular "love chapter" is a continuation of chapter 12 addressing gifts, members and, especially, "speaking in tongues" and "interpreters".



The only gift that appears to relate to "sounding brass" and "tinkling cymbal" is the unintelligible gift of "tongues".

Paul says that "tongues" shall cease.


Based on Pentecost, and the Universal Language Model, when the Tower of Babel confusion is fully and permanently reversed, "tongues" as we know them shall "cease".

Even small children can be understood as to what they are saying.


This is not true for the "speaking in tongues" addressed by Paul.

Should such "speaking in tongues" be "put away" as a "childish thing"?

This popular "love chapter" is continued in chapter 14, some of which is covered here. Again, the chapter division here is arbitrary. Paul returns to "tongues".

It appears that the "speaking in tongues" was not providing any useful side-effect.


Prophesying would be better, Paul says.

The Greek word for "edify" has to do with "building" such as build up the believers.

• The English word "edifice" is related to "edify".

In part, a prophet usually speaks in clear language so that he is understood and needs to provide short range prophecies to verify his true words and then long range prophecies.

Many people think of a "prophet" as someone who "foretells" the future.

A more common feature of a "prophet" is in "forth-telling" as in telling the truth or pointing out the truth.This can be hard to verify if the what is said is not clear as to meaning - as in "speaking in tongues".

Leaders tend to have their "false prophets" who say what the king wants to hear rather than "true prophets".

Paul would rather the person be the one to interpret.


The "unknown" appears to be inferred from previous verses as it is not present in the Greek.

In the original "speaking in tongues" in Acts 2, there is no need for an "interpreter". Does this raise a "red flag"?

The "others" as outsiders are now the faithful believers. This should raise a "red flag"?

The "unknown" appears to be inferred from previous verses as it is not present in the Greek.

Paul does not want someone speaking in tongues if there is no one there to interpret.


According to the Acts 2 model, if this is from God, an interpreter should not be needed.

This is one of those times when "silence is golden".

How might an attacker spoof or get around the decision procedure (or security policy) suggested by Paul?

How might the policies be changed to better prevent, detect and/or recover from attacks?

One approach or decision procedure that one might use is a legal approach of cross examination whereby speakers and interpreters are separated such that all interpretations can be compared and such that prior planning is precluded.

There is a story (detailed by Gleick in his book The information) of Galileo and communication (related to the compass) whereby someone tried to interest him a set of magnetic sympathetic needles. Separate them by a long distance, and moving one caused the other one to move the same way. Somewhat like the modern entanglement of small particles in quantum physics. Galileo asked for a cross-examination type demonstration by doing it from the next room. The person told Galileo it only worked at long distance. Galileo was not interested. Somewhat like the double-slit experiment in quantum physics.Measuring it closely caused it not to work.

In quantum physics, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, when generalized, says that in trying to measure both position and momentum, the measurement itself interferes in the measurement process.
The argument that can be by those speaking in tongues is that "if you try to cross examine" or use some other way to detect the nature of the tongues, it will interfere in the process. Or it will cause the process not to work.

It is interesting that humans often replicate or spoof a perceived reality rather than an actual reality.

This how many forgeries are detected. The forger uses information that everyone thought was correct but, at some point, someone discovers new information such that what the forger wrote is seen to be clearly false for that time period.

Details are left as a future topic.

There have been many instances where ancient relics are found that are very rare.

Museums, organizations, rich people etc., will pay a lot for the limited number of relics found.

There are native people to that area, or others, who will then create what appears to be authentic relics to sell for the money.

Once people find out about speaking in tongues, if the perception is that it is in an actual human language, the spoof may be in an actual and different human language. It is not clear, however, that the original tongues at Pentecost were in human language. It could have been in the Universal Language which could be indistinguishable from a native language.

This idea of tongues is addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12, 13 and 14. The idea exploded from the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles in 1906 until 1915 and developed into the modern Pentecostal movement.

Details are left as a future topic.

It is interesting that, throughout history, at some point, a group of people start to believe and/or imitate some behavior or characteristic.

That behavior or characteristic is considered to make one "superior" to those who do not have it.

This results in a gathering of members in that organization. And yet, that special "thing" remained hidden for hundreds or thousands of years, and may be something that Jesus did not actually do in the flesh (or spirit). All those people before missed out on that "special" opportunity.

Does any of that appear to follow from the teachings of Jesus? It might be part of human nature to create houses of sand - human organization - and then compete for special positions in that hierarchy while "enslaving" those in the hierarchy below. This is often done by a "salvation by works" viewpoint.

Using the example of Paul, be careful not to criticize any faith or faithful directly as there may be many who are doing what Jesus wants them to do. Instead, indirectly point out parts of the man-made human hierarchy sand edifice as having issues with what Jesus and the Bible say.