Actually the gift of Tongues was about HEARING and not speaking at all.
People speak in tongues today who simply do not know what the Bible says and do it because someone said to do it.
"And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." -Acts 2:7-11
Notice the phrase in Acts 2:11, "our tongues."
This interpretation is a bit convoluted. They said 'we do hear them speak in our tongues...' It does NOT say, 'We heard the sounds of our tongues coming out of their mouths, but they weren't speaking them...like in a dubbed Kung Fu movie."
This interpretation here is not unique to you. There was a St. Gregory in the 4th century who took in that way, and another St. Gregory in the 4th century who took it to mean they spoke foreign languages. A straightforward interpretation is that they heard them speak in the languages they were speaking. It says earlier that they spoke in tongues/languages. Why would the language the disciples spoke in be different from the one the audience heard? That's an unnecessarily convoluted interpretation.
The crowds heard the Apostles preach in their own native tongues, not some unknown heavenly jibber jabber. There was NEVER any heavenly languages spoken that no one understood and required an interpreter. There is a drastic difference between Biblical tongues and the heretical speaking in tongues of the Assemblies of God churches.
The "speaking in tongues" which the Assemblies of God and the Pentecostals foolishly practice are UNKNOWN tongues, not anything found on earth.
You do not know what you are talking about. This is a straw man argument. I spent several years in the Assemblies of God in the 1980's and I've spent months in A/Gs in the US and elsewhere from time to time as I've moved around the world. I've never heard someone in the Assemblies of God say that tongues are 'heavenly languages.' The idea of someone speaking in a human languages 'in tongues' is consistent with A/G belief as far as I can ascertain. Historically, Pentecostals believe that tongues are languages.
Now, Pentecostals in my experience would allow for the possibility that a tongue might fit into the 'tongues of angels' category since Paul suggests it might be possible.
When I was young Charles Greenoway was one of the missions denominational officials who was working while there was great missions growth in the movement. He had a testimony about someone preaching to the people 'in tongues'. I heard it in a church in one state, and then in another church when he went to visit a church there. I also heard an A/G preacher tell a testimony of someone hearing tongues in their own language and confirming the interpretation in their own language as accurate.
Also, if you look up the history of the early Pentecostal movement, there are a number of testimonies like this. Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues in 1901, and she wrote that some Bohemian brothers confirmed she spoke in Bohemian (now called Czech.) __The Apostolic Faith__, the newsletter of the Azusa Street Revival printed testimonies from all over the world, and some of them were about people recognizing 'tongues' as their own language. I can think of three people who testified to this happening at the Azusa Street meetings during the revival. Vinson Synan did some video interviews of people who were there as children and one of them said they spoke in real languages and part of what drew the crowd was people hearing their own languages, Japanese, etc., in tongues at the revival. I have met personally three people at least who testify to the fact that they have either heard their own language spoken 'in tongues' or someone else identified the language they spoke as one they knew. One of the Azusa Street testimonies by Val Dez involved a Russian understanding the message in Russian and verifying the interpretation.
There are some people out there who apparently think tongues are 'tongues of angels', maybe a spiritual code language that only God understands. I think some of the WOFers and maybe some other Charismatics think that. Maybe... maybe you could find someone who goes to an Assemblies of God or Pentecostal church who thinks that, but I can't name a preacher who preaches that or a member of one of those churches who does.
And 'unknown' is in italics in the KJV. My guess is A/G members and other Pentecostals are about as likely to know that as other evangelicals. I have never heard 'unknown' play into the doctrine on speaking in tongues. The tongue is unknown to those present, as it obvious in the context of I Corinthians 14, and therefore must be interpreted. Maybe that's why the KJV translators used it, or to indicate that this was a supernatural type of tongue rather than a natural one.
Supposedly, those unknown tongues can only be interpreted by ONE spirit-filled member of the congregation. The Apostle Paul speaks common sense to us Corinthians 14:19...
Stuff like this makes me wonder if you have carefully read the whole chapter you are quoting from. In verse 28 Paul says to let one interpret. I've never heard any teaching in the A/G or any other Pentecostal church that only one person in the congregation would ever be able to interpret tongues, if that is what you mean. But in my experience in the A/G, only one person would interpret a given tongue, and I cannot recall two people doing the interpreting in one service if two people gave a message in tongues.
"Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."
You need to read that with the verse before it and the whole chapter. Write before these words, he wrote, "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:"
Reading the verses before that, he was praying in tongues, by which one can give thanks well, but the other is not edified. Paul spoke in tongues a lot, but
in the church he preferred to speak with tongues that he may instruct others. This is part of Paul's argument about speaking in tongues that lead up to his instructions requiring speaking in tongues ____in the context of the assembly______ to be interpreted to edify others.
Now does your church allow obedience to what Paul taught in this passage? May someone speak in tongues and may someone interpret.
Paul goes on to call his instructions for the assembly 'commandments of the Lord' in verse 37. This seems to be an appeal to the idea that these commandments reflect universal church practice: "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" (v. 36)
