A "quick" response to Dino246 in post #1,837 -
I don’t see where Acts 11 has anything to do with language(s), unless I’m just missing the obvious.
Acts 2 (the Pentecost narrative) – I believe that the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit and were also empowered/inspired to break with centuries of Jewish tradition and make/allow their God to be accessible to anyone (i.e. non-Jews) and (especially) in any language (to do something like this and promote it as they did was unheard of and, for many Jews, unthinkable). I believe the H/S definitely played a huge role here, but not the one most people associate with Pentecost.
With respect to languages, though the Jews gathered there were from three ‘areas’, if you will, i.e. Judea (‘locals’), Eastern Diasporan lands, and Western Diasporan lands, they all only spoke one of two languages: Greek and Aramaic, and the apostles spoke both. There was a miracle at Pentecost, but it only indirectly affected language. So, in short, the apostles knew exactly what they were saying. For an in-depth look at this see “Another Understanding of “Tongues” at Pentecost” in the blogs section (there are four parts).
With respect to 1 Cor. 14 –
The whole of the argument here for tongues-speech centers on “my mind/understanding is unfruitful”. Clearly, this demonstrates that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying; ergo, modern tongues-speech.
I’m paraphrasing from a few sources here, but in essence, ‘unfruitful’, or ‘akarpos’ in Greek, in this phrase of the text, is typically understood in the passive sense; that is, the speaker’s mind/understanding is inactive and thus ‘barren’, ‘unfruitful’, ‘producing no distinct thoughts’.
‘Akarpos’ can also be used in the active sense. This changes the meaning of the phrase from “my mind/understanding is unfruitful/produces no fruit” to “my mind/understanding is unfruitful for others/produces no fruit in others.”
Most translations, and hence most people, tend to use the word in the passive sense – this interpretation also, of course, supports the idea of ‘tongues’ being some sort of prayer language, something the speaker himself does not even understand.
Paul however likely uses akarpos in the active sense which, given the language demographics and general everyday communication issues in Corinth at the time, seems to make the most sense:
The whole context of 1 Corinthians 14 is the effect upon the hearers of untranslated languages.
Paul’s concern is the edification of the group. Therefore, 14:14 should be taken as "My spirit prays but my mind does not produce fruit in others."
In other words, if I were to speak in a foreign language that no one else at a public worship understood, even though the I was praying ‘in the spirit’ (again, as defined in my previous posts), my understanding (i.e., the fact that I understand what I’m saying), produces no fruit in others (i.e. it doesn’t benefit them, they don’t understand a word I’m saying).
If the above seems a bit like ‘stretching it’, consider that in Luther’s Bible of the late 1500’s, the last part of that line (in English) reads literally: “but my understanding/mind brings no one fruit.”
That whole verse in Luther’s Bible seems to offer a better understanding of the text: “So then (if) I pray with a language, so prays my spirit, but my understanding brings no one fruit”. Or to sort of paraphrase it: If I pray in a language, my spirit is likewise praying in that (same) language, i.e. both my spirit and I are praying in my native language, but my understanding (of what I’m praying) does not benefit anyone else (as they don’t speak/understand my language).
It seems that Luther, writing almost 100 years before the KJV, may have had an idea that the word ‘akarpos’ was to be understood (and used by Paul in his letter) in the active sense. With Luther’s version, if both the speaker and ‘his spirit’ are praying in the same language, it’s hard to postulate that the speaker doesn’t know what he’s saying. That would mean his spirit has no clue either, but if one argues that his spirit understands, how can that be since both are using the same language. It becomes even harder to postulate that the speaker doesn’t understand what he’s saying when the second half of the verse in taken into consideration (that his understanding doesn't benefit anyone else).
So, with respect to real, rational language, I don’t see an issue with 1 Cor. 14:13-14. Again, given the demographics in a city like Corinth at that time, the above makes considerably more sense than postulating modern tongues-speech. The speaker understands exactly what he’s saying (it’s his native language), it’s just that his understanding doesn’t benefit anyone else but him, as no one else at that particular worship service understands/speaks his particular native language (his mind/understanding is unfruitful for others, not for himself).
