 I have an honest and sincere question for those people who speak in tongues today. As I've said before, I started off in a charismatic Pentecostal church and I won't forget when I started having questions about tongues. This was when our pastor was a bishop who was speaking in tongues. He went from English to tongues to English and I raised my hand and asked a question. This was during a Wednesday night, the teaching service. And I asked the question, what did you say? And then the next question, the follow-up was, since he didn't know what he said was, why? He said, I don't know what I said. The spirit just came over and it just came out. And I said, well, why did you say that should we know what we're saying? And he really could not give me an answer. So just led me through my journey. So I have a question and I want to start the question prior to that. I want to look at a scripture and then ask this question. In 1 Corinthians 12, 1 says, now concerning spiritual gifts or numitikom spiritual things, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware or some verses may say ignorant. And the word issues here in the Greek is a Greek word, agnotain, which is to not know. I don't want you to not know. And he says, he speaks about, says, therefore I make known to you that none of you speaking, and he uses the word speaking, speaking by the spirit of God says Jesus is a curse and no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. So he's saying, he's referring to what someone is saying, but he starts off by saying, I don't want you to be ignorant or unaware or to not know. So here's my question. For those of you that speak in tongues, shouldn't you know what it is that you're saying? Now, the reason why I'm asking this question is, as I look through the scriptures, especially in 1 Corinthians 14 and that going along with chapter 12 as well, seems to indicate to me that we should know that there should be something that we, we should know and understand what is we're saying. And we look at chapter 14 in verse, let's say in verse two, he says in the spirit of the person that speaks in this singular tongue or the King James version might say an unknown tongue, this person, he says, no one understands what he's saying. I'm sorry. Yeah, verse two. He says he does not speak to men, but to God for no one understands him. Now, does that include he himself, the person that is speaking? And then if we look at what he says, continuing this in verse six, he says, Now brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or by knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching, yet even lifeless things, either the flute or the harp in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played or on the flute or on the harp? In other words, it seems to be saying that the people who are also hearing this should know. I'll get this issue about should you also know, but his point here is that shouldn't we should we know what you're saying? And so continuing, he says, for if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? In other words, you need to know what's being played on the instrument. So also you, unless you utter by the tongue, the member of your mouth utter by the tongue speech that is clear or understandable, then how will it be known what is spoken? If what you're saying is not intelligible, understandable, how will anyone know what is being spoken? He says, for you will be speaking into the air. I don't think that that is a good thing. I think that really might be a kind of a jab, but that's certainly not a positive thing to say that all you're doing, you're just speaking to the air. He says, there are perhaps a great many kinds of languages in the world, nobody says, and no kind is without meaning, without some sort of understanding. If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me. Now, could that also mean you are a barbarian or a foreigner to yourself of your speakingness? Maybe, maybe. That's why I'm asking the question. He says, verse 12. So also you, so he's using the same thing, this analogy in terms of tongue. So also you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church, which he's already covered, that our spiritual gifts are for the benefit of others, but I'll leave that for another discussion. Therefore, let the one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. This word for interpret here in the Greek, it means to explain, to interpret. You give an understanding of what's being stated. So he should pray that he may interpret or explain or understand. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. My mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? So the question is, it is asking, there's a solution to this. There's a problem, which is why he comes back with a solution. What then is the outcome? What shall I do? What is the outcome of what? What is the solution of what? Me praying, and my mind being unfruitful, not knowing what I'm saying. His solution is this, I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind. Also, this word for no a or no a is from the same word that we have in chapter 12, verse one, where he says, I don't want you to not know or to be unfruitful or to be ignorant or to be unaware. I want you to know what you're saying. So he says, I will pray with the mind or some person may say, I will pray with understanding. I will sing with the spirit. I will also sing with my mind or with understanding. So my question is, shouldn't people that speak in a tongue, shouldn't you understand what you're saying? The question is, do you understand what you're saying? Now, if the answer is yes, I do understand what I'm saying, well, then why am I not just speaking English? Why not just speaking your native language? And if you don't understand what you're saying, of course, no one else does either, then should you do that? According to this passage, that's my only question.