TONGUES false teaching.

I imagine then that scholarly translators had the gift of interpretation of tongues kicked out of its boots, God had nothing on them

Neither did I say that.

The speakers aren't the translators. Someone speaks in a foreign language and other person who knows that language is the one who translates it. The HS helps them translate more accurately than just someone who knows both languages. This is especially important when the translating is regarding biblical and spiritual matters.



He he didn't know the l;anguage the people he was speaking to spoke, then he should pray to be able to speak their language to be able to translate but of course if he knew that other language he would have spoken in it and not his own language.




You have misquoted the verse:

1Co_14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Obviously if you speak a language no one else knows you are only talking to God.

Nor should anyone else yet it is common for this to be heard in some Churches. Paul addresses the faked language here:

1 Corinthians 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?


It is the same with a musical instrument. What good is playing one if it is randomly played with indistinct sounds? It is the same when you speak "in a tongue".


1 Corinthians 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?


Certain trumpet sounds (short musical pieces) signified certain actions to be carried out. Have you ever heard a trumpet sound at the horse races that tells the racers to begin the race? What if the trumpet made a strange sound no one knew? It would be confusion.



1 Corinthians 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.


Do not utter "words" which are not easy to understand. If it is not easily understood by the listener then the speaker has done something wrong.



1 Corinthians 14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
1 Corinthians 14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.


915

915 barbaros {bar'-bar-os}

of uncertain derivation; TDNT - 1:546,94; adj

AV - barbarian 5, barbarous 1; 6

1) one whose speech is rude, rough and harsh
2) one who speaks a foreign or strange language which is not
understood by another
3) used by the Greeks of any foreigner ignorant of the Greek
language, whether mental or moral, with the added notion after
the Persian war, of rudeness and brutality. The word is used
in the N.T. without the idea of reproachfulness.

Take note esepcially of the last two definitions as this is exactly what Paul is addressing.


Do not speak and sound like a barbarian. This means do not speak ignorantly, in a mumbo-jumbo, gibberish, non-sense, false, made up by YOU "tongue".

That verse is describing this type of situation:

A group of Christians have arrived in Texas from a distant country and do not speak English. If they wish to give testimonies or preach, no more than 3 should be speaking and only if there is an interpreter. Why? One person interpreting what 3 other people are saying is hard! 4 or more would be too much. Paul also says if there is no interpreter these people should not be speaking to the congregation. Why? There is no one to interpret (which means to translation) from their language to English. They should simply speak to God quietly to themselves in their minds etc.

There is no magical or miracle subject here. Tongues simply is a VERY OLD English word for "languages". All Paul is talking about is speaking and translating foreign languages so other people can know what's being said. Most of what Paul talks about in regards to "tongues" is this. The odd sounding "language" found in some churches is simply not something the bible promotes.[/QUOTE]


1Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

4Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

So the Holy Spirit giving the gift of interpretation of tongues is a miraculous gift not simply the act of translating from Spanish to English which any bilingual unbeliever could do without needing the Holy Spirit or a gift of the Spirit.

No, I did not. The latter part of my sentence is a direct quotation from the NASB. Don't attempt to correct me with the KJV wording.

The NASB is not accurate there. Paul is not speaking about someone speaking in a "tongue" but an tongue that is not known to anyone else ie: unknown tongue which in modern English would be a foreign language. That is why only God can understand the person speaking.

Yes, you did. Here are your exact words from post #299: "The part of the HS is for him to fully understand what is being spoken more than just linguistically and to be able to re-speak it in another language accurately. "

I see nothing in the text supports that view; nothing in the text addresses the concept of mere "translation" from one human language to another.

This is not a matter of "easily understood" at all; it is a matter of a Spirit-empowered interpretation of a Spirit-empowered speech. There is no reason to include "tongues" and "interpretation" among the other miraculous manifestations of the Holy Spirit if these gifts were mere natural abilities, which is the crux of your position.

No, it does not. The word barbarian in 1 Cor. 14 means foreigner; that is clear from the two definitions about which you stated, "Take note"!

Your eisegesis is getting worse.

I am speaking of the translator not the speaker of the "tongues" which the translator is translating.

There is no eisegesis in my post except what I am replying to.

Your argument is empty. Here are the two translations, side by side:

NASB: For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

KJV: For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God, for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

The word "unknown" was added by the KJV translators and is not in the Greek. The KJV is no more "accurate" than the NASB.

There is no "translating" happening. There is speaking in tongues, and there may be interpretation of tongues. That's it; that's all.

Translating and interpreting are the same thing. Someone speaks a language others do not understand and another person tells the people what was said.

Yes it is. A translation that is strictly word for word isn't a good translation. The best translation uses whatever words are needed to fully carry forth the true meaning of the original. Languages use different amounts of words to say the same things and in this case "unknown" was needed to preserve the context because a language which isn't known by all is the context.

The entire passage is about manifestations of the Holy Spirit; translating is not one of them. Anyone who has learned more than one language can translate.

If someone speaks in a tongue to the assembly, then there must be someone with the gift of interpretation that will tell the assembly what was said. When this happens it edifies the assembly. It is equal to someone speaking prophesy. If there is no one to interpret, then they can speak in tongues between themselves and God, they are edifying themselves which in this context is a good thing, not a bad thing.

If you see someone in the church praying in tongues to God and not trying to address the assembly this is decent and in order and is not a problem or in violation to the instructions Paul was giving on how to operate in the gifts decently and in order.

Now being new to this you might see people praying in a corporate prayer meeting where people are praying out loud but not to the assembly and others are all praying out loud as well, everyone usually understands that no one is expecting you to tune in to their particular prayer, you should be praying yourself instead of staring at folks.

But of course a new person might think it is strange if they have never been around people who are for real about God. If someone has only been to a prayer meeting where no one prays they might not understand what the early church did when they gathered and prayed out loud at the same time. It was a lively group.

As this thread is about tongues, not translations, I'm not going to discuss this further here. There are plenty of other threads where the translations are discussed.

I’ll have to think about this.

26What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.

So you see that even though it says "keep silent in the church" it says "speak to himself and to God" in tongues because that is the subject of verse 27. How can you be silent in the church and speak in tongues to yourself and God at the same time? By not speaking loud enough to make it obvious that you are addressing the church. To speak softly so that it is obvious that you are speaking to yourself and to God. That is the way most Pentecostals and charismatics interpret this.
It is not that complicated. You can tell when someone is addressing the assembly in tongues and when they are just speaking to themselves and to God.

That isn't being silent. One should not speak using their mouth if they wish to pray and be silent at the same time.

And yet speaking in tongues requires using the tongue doesn't it? Therefore silent here must be interpreted as Not Addressing the Assembly. Maybe analyze the Greek.
I understand it so it's not confusing to me. People who don't believe in the gift of tongues will never figure it out so there is no use is arguing about it. Arguing about tongues with people who don't believe in it is about the worst use of my time I can think of. Wood, Hay and Stubble. Worst use of ministry energy ever.

It still says to keep silent in church...and if you don’t have an interpreter than that’s the right way to do it.

I agree with what @ewq1938 says..that one should not speak using their mouth if they are to pray and be silent at the same time.

No, one can speak in their mind which is silent to the ear.


G4601
σιγάω
sigaō
Thayer Definition:
1) to keep silence, hold one’s peace
2) to be kept in silence, be concealed
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4602