No "tongues" can mean a Earthly language or a Heavenly language, just like at Pentacost when the Holy Spirit came upon the Disciples in the upper room like cloven tongues of fire, and then they went out and spoke to the crowd that had gathered outside because they heard this mighty rushing of wind and came to investigate, which gave them the opportunity to preach the gospel to them IN THEIR OWN TONGUES. In other words, all the different people who came from different places heard the message in THEIR OWN LANGUAGE.The other tongues is heavenly, and that's why Paul says when you speak in tongues you speak to God. Why would you speak to God in an Earthly foreign language when you can speak to him in your native tongue? It's because you are not speaking. It is the Holy Spirit who is speaking through you.
At Pentacost it was not a "heavenly" or gibberish language.
Acts 2:6
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
1. The term "tongue" is often used in the New Testament describing real languages (Revelation 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15).
2. The adjective "new" is most appropriate for describing real languages (Mark 16:17).
Tongues were the God-given ability to speak in a language that was totally new to the speaker (i.e., a foreign language). How could ecstatic utterances be thought of as being "new"?
3. Speaking in tongues was a supernatural, God-given ability (Mark 16:17-18; Acts 2:4) which is reasonable only if tongues were real languages.
As John Walvoord observes, "Any view which denies that speaking in tongues used actual languages is difficult to harmonize with the scriptural concept of a spiritual gift. By its nature, a spiritual gift had reality, and being supernatural, needs no naturalistic explanation." [John F. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), p. 182.]
Bellshaw adds this comment: "If these tongues are ecstatic utterances, they could be duplicated fraudulently. Gibberish can be uttered by anyone, and a second person could feign interpretation of that unintelligible vocalization. Therefore, it is reasonable that this gift would consist of the ability to speak in a foreign language without the opportunity to learn that language by ordinary means." [William G. Bellshaw, "The Confusion of Tongues," Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 120 (April-June, 1963), pp. 147-148.]
4. The adjective "other" is most appropriate for describing real languages (Acts 2:4; 1 Corinthians 14:2l; Isaiah 28:11).
These are languages other than and different from the person’s native tongue (i.e., foreign languages). In what sense could ecstatic utterances be considered "different"?
5. The tongues of Acts 2:4,11 are clearly identified in Acts 2:6,8 as real languages (dialects).
6. The tongues in the book of Acts were not meaningless utterances, but they were means of conveying a meaningful message (Acts 2:11; 10:46). Likewise the tongues in 1 Corinthians communicated meaningful content.
In Acts:
Acts 2:4-"the great things of God"
Acts 10:46-"magnifyiilg God (proclaiming God’s greatness)"
Thus, tongues in, Acts involved meaningful doctrinal content, not meaningless and empty gibberish.
In 1 Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 14:14-15 – A prayer to God
1 Corinthians 14:15 – A song of praise
1 Corinthians 14:16 – The giving of thanks
7. The expression "kinds of tongues" is understandable only if tongues were real languages (1 Corinthians 12:10,28; cf. 1 Corinthians 14:10).
Any linguist knows that the three thousand languages of the world are grouped into many classes or kinds. But could it be said that there are kinds of ecstatic utterances?
8. The fact that tongues could be interpreted demands that tongues be real languages (1 Corinthians 12:10,30; 14:5,13,27-28).
Interpretation necessitates meaning! Meaningless utterances cannot be interpreted. How can one give meaning to something that has no meaning? How can one give sense to nonsense? In Chapter 5 we gave the example of two songs sung around Christmas time: 1) "Gloria in Excelsis Deo" (this can be translated--"Angels We Have Heard on High"; 2) "FA LA LA LA LA, LA LA LA LA" ("Deck the Halls")--this cannot be translated. It is meaningless syllables.
9. 1 Corinthians 14:10-11 is clearly depicting real languages.
10. Tongues-speaking is said to consist of words, which would be possible only if tongues were real languages (1 Corinthians 14:9,19).
11. The tongues mentioned in Isaiah 28:11 (cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:21) were real languages.
12. The article of previous reference in I Corinthians 14:22 ("the tongues are for a sign") proves that the Corinthian tongues (verse 22) were the very same thing as the Isaiah tongues (verse 21), namely, real languages (see discussion in Chapter 9).
"These twelve arguments, taken together, demonstrate conclusively that all of the New Testament references to the gift of tongues concern the same phenomenon. In every case it was the miraculous ability to speak in an unearned foreign language." [This is Seller’s conclusion in his booklet, Biblical Conclusions Concerning Tongues, p. 7. Actually this booklet was originally authored by Charles Smith and later Sellers put his name to it. Smith later changed his position by saying that the gift of tongues was not real languages. On pages 1-7 Sellers gives 13 reasons showing that Biblical tongues were real languages. See also Robert H. Gundry, Estatic Utterance (N.E.B.)?" Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 17, 1966, pp. 299-307. Dr. Gundry shows that the tongues speech of both Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 can refer only to known languages spoken here on earth.]