It was possible for someone to speak in tongues without interpretation. Paul would later instruct the one who spoke in tongues to be silent in the church if there were no interpreter. Why would Paul make the point about the barbarian if it were not possible for someone to speak in tongues without no one else understanding.
The analogy regarding the barbarian is about a conversation that does not take place. When someone teaches or prophesies, does he typically have a 'conversation.' One could teach in a conversational manner, but there is no basis for assuming tongues and interpretation were in the form of some kind of conversation as opposed to addressing the assembly.
The lack of understanding is the reason Paul gives instructions regarding the interpretation of tongues. It is obvious from the passage that speaking in tongues without interpretation is possible. Paul was not opposed to praying in tongues, but in the context of the assembly, it does not edify others.
I do not recall anyone on the thread arguing that the ability to genuinely speak in tongues comes from the person speaking in tongues (though I am not sure about the recent diglossia theory posts.)
The verse you quote below argues against that idea. Paul's understanding was 'unfruitful' if he prayed in tongues.
I speak English and I speak Indonesia. I can interpret using my mundane learned abilities.
But that is not what the verse says. In verse 13, Paul tells the one who speaks in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret. It doesn't say to pray that someone else might interpret. That's allowed in verse 28. But it is not in verse 13.
The interpreter understands, or receives a message whereby he understands what is spoken in tongues. He shares that interpretation with the assembly.
The analogy regarding the barbarian is about a conversation that does not take place. When someone teaches or prophesies, does he typically have a 'conversation.' One could teach in a conversational manner, but there is no basis for assuming tongues and interpretation were in the form of some kind of conversation as opposed to addressing the assembly.
The lack of understanding is the reason Paul gives instructions regarding the interpretation of tongues. It is obvious from the passage that speaking in tongues without interpretation is possible. Paul was not opposed to praying in tongues, but in the context of the assembly, it does not edify others.
I do not recall anyone on the thread arguing that the ability to genuinely speak in tongues comes from the person speaking in tongues (though I am not sure about the recent diglossia theory posts.)
The verse you quote below argues against that idea. Paul's understanding was 'unfruitful' if he prayed in tongues.
I speak English and I speak Indonesia. I can interpret using my mundane learned abilities.
But that is not what the verse says. In verse 13, Paul tells the one who speaks in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret. It doesn't say to pray that someone else might interpret. That's allowed in verse 28. But it is not in verse 13.
The interpreter understands, or receives a message whereby he understands what is spoken in tongues. He shares that interpretation with the assembly.