Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
No one understands speaking in tongues today, which is contrary to what actually happened in Acts. In Acts 2 there were many people who understood the languages being spoken. Although the subsequent places in Acts do not specifically state such, we must use the same pattern of thought to interpret it.
There is no hermeneutical reason that makes it necessary to teach that tongues were totally understood in all p***ages where they were spoken. That would be an argument from silence unless there was compelling supporting evidence that would suggest otherwise.

Whenever the Samaritans, Gentiles, and John's followers spoke in tongues, it had to be authenticated by one who understood the languages being spoken. Otherwise, how could they have known it was a miraculous act, and that they also prophesied? To say that the other subsequent tongues speaking did not require understanding of what was said is an eisegetic and subjective interpretation that does not fit within the contextual intent.
1. There are no p***ages that suggest that tongues were being "authenticated" by those who understood the languages. This is reading into the text - that is "Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς "into" and ending from exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, reading into the text."

2. Prophecy is in the native language, so there were no need for interpreters.

3. "Contextual intent" needs to be proven, not merely stated. This, you have failed to do.

The only place in Scripture where we know for sure that tongues were understood by those who heard them was Acts 2. The only thing that can be suggested by that is that tongues are languages.

Respectfully

Adelphos