You have completely misinterpreted the verse. Nowhere does the verse state the person speaking understands what he/she is saying.
As a matter of fact, I bolded the word "my" so you would understand it is the person speaking whose spirit is praying and it is the person speaking whose understanding is unfruitful.
The New Living Translation renders the verse as follows: For if I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don't understand what I am saying.
In the Greek the verse clearly states that it is my [Greek mou, first person singular] spirit prayeth, but my [Greek mou, first person singular] understanding is unfruitful.
First person singular, not third person plural (as you want Scripture to state).
Yes, it’s ‘pneua mou’ and ‘nous mou’, but the crux of the passage is really the word ‘akarpos’ (unfruitful) and whether it’s used passively or actively. Used passively, the meaning would be something like ‘unfruitful to me’; used actively, ‘unfruitful to others’. I agree that arguments can be made to support either view; however, given the historical and cultural context as well as Paul’s plea for clarity and understanding in public worship, the active usage seems considerably more plausible here and, of course fits considerably better with the concept of Biblical “tongue(s)” equating to real language(s). My understanding (the fact I understand it) is unfruitful (to others).
So your shaman somewhere in Siberia is born again and the One and the selfsame Spirit works within the shaman to bring about the manifestation of kinds of tongues? Wow. Who knew???
With your understanding of ‘tongues’ I would concur with your comment; however, you don’t seem to realize that what modern tongue speakers are doing is not what is being described in the Bible with reference to “tongue(s)”. All Biblical references to the word ‘tongue(s)’ describe real language(s) – there are no passages that cannot be explained with reference to real languages and with what was happening historically and culturally, whilst what modern tongue speakers are doing is easily explained in terms of modern Linguistics.
Tongues as they are used today by Christian practitioners are a relatively recent phenomenon (to Christianity that is, certainly not to other cultures and religious paths).
Speakers will argue that the origin/reference is Biblical, but it simply is not.
James K.A. Smith in “Thinking in Tongues” (April, 2008) sums it up nicely where, in reference to the origins of modern tongues, he writes “The miraculous phenomena that manifested themselves at the Azusa Street revival, for example, compelled serious and sustained reflection. The events needed explanation (since it was painfully obvious that xenoglossy was not, as Parham fervently believed, what was happening), and the Pentecostal preachers and leaders turned to the resource that was most important to them: the narrative of Scripture. The resulting implicit theology was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy but rather a synthesis trying to make sense of the experience in light of the narrative of Scripture.”
In short, looking for a way to legitimize what they were doing by ‘proofing‘ it in the Bible, despite the obvious absence therein of anything resembling modern tongues – call it what you will, but the result was a virtual re-definition of Scripture with respect to the understanding of “tongues” for this group of Christians.
So, what you and the ‘Siberian shaman’ are doing with respect to producing glossolalia is, in fact, identical; and, you’re both using it for essentially the same purpose – to establish a spiritual connection to the Deity. In these respects, your glossolalia is no different than his; different understanding of what it is, but same ‘methodology’ and purpose.
The manifestation of the Spirit is the manifestation of the Spirit. That you want to refer to the manifestation of kinds of tongues as "NCNLU's" does not convert the manifestation to NCNLU's.
The ‘manifestation’ is just the conferring of the ability; and yes, the Spirit can certainly inspire one what to say and perhaps even how to say it, but, with respect to the vehicle used, it is real language, not modern T-speech.
