**???**
My wife, who sometimes looks at what I’ve posted on FR said that in the past (maybe not on FR) I’ve done a much better job of answering questions about the ‘tongues in the upper room’ scenario in Acts 2. She’s right, but the last four months have been very demanding of my time at work. So, for quite sometime now, my visits to FR have been brief, avoiding threads that would require a commitment to a possibly lengthy discussion. I simply haven’t had the time.
As I mentioned before, the ‘mutitude’ consisted of Jews from other nations, that probably knew at LEAST two languages (obviously, they already knew Hebrew). The Word doesn’t say that each of the 120 only spoke one language. Maybe each was speaking several tongues, not knowing any of them.
Imagine yourself being from “the parts of Libya about Cyrene”. Now consider the reaction to hearing one of the 120 standing in front of you speaking what seems to be gibberish, then suddenly you hear your native language glorifying God, and then the rest seems like gibberish again. You would most likely be startled hear this person from Galilee speak in your tongue. But there would also be the assumption that the the speaker was drunk; seeing how there was so much said that was completely unintelligible.
However, imagine that another observer, that was from Phrygia, was standing next to you, listening to the SAME person you were listening to, and had the same experience as you; hearing a portion of the words in HIS native tongue, while the rest was unknown to him. The possiblity of drunkeness could also be assumed by the other observer, since so much couldn’t be understood.
Under those circumstances, no interpretations were needed.
Now, concerning unknown tongues, they are clearly not dismissed as foolish gibberish, since Paul acknowledged their existance.
However, imagine that another observer, that was from Phrygia, was standing next to you, listening to the SAME person you were listening to, and had the same experience as you; hearing a portion of the words in HIS native tongue, while the rest was unknown to him. The possiblity of drunkeness could also be assumed by the other observer, since so much couldn’t be understood."
I believe I am beginning to understand your perspective. If it occurred the way you describe, then it is possible that there was a "gibberish" which was heard by the individuals in their own tongues. This strikes me as implausible, however. The reason this does not fit the scenario is that if each one heard one man speaking in their own language, no one would have called it "gibberish" or considered them "drunk". No one would have known the guy next to them was hearing something different than they heard.
However, consider this scenario. The men from the upper room step onto the street and begin speaking. A man from Israel who has never been to the particular village of Phrygia from which a particular pilgrim hailed, begins speaking Phrygian with the perfect accent only known to this one fellow. He knows that the man could not have possibly grown up there, since he knows everyone in the village.
Further, the rest of the crowd now hears this language and considers it a bunch of gibberish, since it is unknown to them. However, the man is told of the works of God, in particular that Jesus had bled and died as the final sacrifice for his sins. He is astonished. How could this Israeli Jew tell him, a Phrygian Jew, in perfect linguistic constructs, tones, accents and grammar this message? A miracle.
That is why an interpreter (of that language) is always needed for the broader audience to benefit from the "gift". This same view applies in all appearances of the "tongues" matters. Tragically, many believers have fallen for a fleshly experience that amps their emotions up, but doesn't represent anything biblical. Is it deadly? No. Is it profitable? No.