Speaking in tongues: A new angle

[Raf]

Quick recap for anyone unfamiliar.

Part of my deconstruction process involved a hard look at SIT, reaching the conclusion that if TWI was right about what it means Biblically to speak in tongues, then what they taught us to do in PFAL was not real Biblical tongues. I carefully went over all the usages of SIT and tongues in the New Testament to demonstrate that tongues were always languages. Blah blah blah, we all faked it, I concluded. Some of you agreed with me. Some of you beat me to it by years. Some of you disagreed. Life moved on.

I'd like to take another run at the topic from a different angle.

The careful review of SIT depended very much on the notion that all the writers of the New Testament were in agreement about SIT. Since only two are relevant, let's cut to the chase: What if Paul and Luke (whoever Luke was) disagreed about the meaning of SIT? It would help explain why Paul would say something like "no man understands" while Luke gives us the first instance of SIT, where everyone understands these babbling apostles.

Is it possible that Luke meant known human languages, but Paul did not? 

It would be my position that Paul wrote his doctrine on SIT before the Acts 2 story was made up, which would be the simplest reason he didn't know about exceptions to the "no man understands" rule he laid down without hesitation.

It would also make sense for Luke (or whoever concocted the Acts 2 story) to invent a practical reason God would have wanted his people to SIT in the first place, since Paul doesn't really give a coherent reason this "gift" or "manifestation" is of any use. 

Interested in other thoughts.  

[waysider]

I moved recently, so my PFAL materials are still packed up. I'll see if I can get them back out this weekend.