With genuine tongues, no one understood the speaker, and the gift of interpretation was needed to understand. Both the Acts 2 case and I Corinthians 14 case were 'genuine tongues'. You err by interpreting one passage in such a way that it contradicts the other.
What purpose did the gift of interpretation of tongues have if what you write is true?
The genuine tongues of I Corinthians 14 fit the description of what a lot of Charismatics describe. Paul says of one who speaks in tongues 'no man understandeth him'. He says that if he prays with a tongue, his spirit prays, but his understanding is unfruitful. Many Charismatics do not understand what they say in tongues.
Directed at another poster, not me. But I noticed your article took other people's alleged experiences and used them to argue against Biblical teachings on tongues.
I'd ask that about your approach also.
Rejecting all occurrences of a certain type of spiritual gift, even if they fit with a Biblical description, is not testing the spirits. Rejecting spiritual gifts w
Why don't you show your quotes from Antiquity on this. The authors referenced in the Matthew 6:7 article do not agree with your interpretation.
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:7
Show us a quote from ancient Greek literature that proves this.
Show us a quote from ancient Greek literature that says this before proceeding with the conversation.
Here is another possibility, that you are abusing the cultural and historical approach to interpreting scripture, like homosexual apologists and many other liberals do. You see this kind of stuff all the time when someone with an agenda gets a hold of some pieces of historical information about the ancient near east. I read a blog where a man was trying to make Job and Abraham out to be Horus worshipers. He had his linguistic evidence, too, references to 'Horites' in scripture.
Here, you pick a much debated word, and try to whip up a story around it to make it be about a spiritual gift you reject.
Don't you also see the unnecessary contradiction you are creating between Christ's words and I Corinthians, where believers were speaking in tongues, in languages neither they nor the congregation understood, and an interpretation was required for others to benefit?