If I've been babtized by the Holy Spirit, why cant I speak in tongues?

[Watchman]

Why do you suppose Paul differentiated between the tongues of men and the tongues of angels in 1 Corinthians 13?

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 1 Corinthians 13:1

Very popular misinterpretation. The "tongues ... of angels" is an extreme. Similar to a "clanging cymbal" He is speaking in extremes. If i drive my car so fast it lifts from the ground and takes flight.... is also an extreme. The point of the passage is the value of love. It is more important than any other gift.

All other references to speaking in tongues means only in another human language like an English man speaking french or something of that nature.

Weather it is demons or the power of their own mind that causes them to "speak in the tongues of angels" i don't know.

Why does no one start a church of the unclanging cymbal? Why do people automatically recognize the one extreme but not the other?

Because they are different.

I realize the contrast Paul is drawing, but that doesn't relegate tongues of angels to insignificance or to equality with human languages. It relegates them to the category of an unknown tongue, does it not? I am not advocating for gibberish, just for open mindedness. Who can know what the tongues of angels sound like? I believe they can sound like any human language, if needed, or unlike anything we've heard, else Paul wouldn't have drawn the distinction. Sure, the point of 1 Corinthians 13 is the maturity worked out by love, but there is still other information that can be gleaned. I don't take it as an extreme and don't understand why it would be view as such...it is simply a statement. Would you clarify, please, Jesse?

Thanks,

W

[Watchman]

That wouldn't have been the same church pastored by Larry Lea at the time, in Rockwall across Lake Ray Hubbard by chance? If by chance it's the same church, I used to attend that church regularally in the mid or late 80s or so. It was because of my experiences there that I got so turned off to Charismatic. I haven't been a Charismatic since, nor do I ever believe I could be one again. I'm not dissing Charismatics tho, I'm just saying that kind of thing is not for me anymore. I witnessed too much nonsense at the time, tho at the time I didn't find it to be nonsensical at all.

I believe it was. I was excited to go, because I'd read Will You Not Tarry One Hour that Larry Lea wrote about the Lord's prayer. (I think that was the title..it was nearly 20 years ago.) I was looking forward to hearing him speak, but he wasn't around and I was really bummed by the entire evening.

W

[jesse]

I realize the contrast Paul is drawing, but that doesn't relegate tongues of angels to insignificance or to equality with human languages. It relegates them to the category of an unknown tongue, does it not? I am not advocating for gibberish, just for open mindedness. Who can know what the tongues of angels sound like? I believe they can sound like any human language, if needed, or unlike anything we've heard, else Paul wouldn't have drawn the distinction. Sure, the point of 1 Corinthians 13 is the maturity worked out by love, but there is still other information that can be gleaned. I don't take it as an extreme and don't understand why it would be view as such...it is simply a statement. Would you clarify, please, Jesse?

Thanks,

W

Glad to. Paul is talking to the Corinthians who were engaged in many heathen practices mingled with Christian practices. The whole letter is directed at the errors that were going on in the church. Speaking in gibberish was one of these errors. Or so it would seem from the passage.

I take it as an extreme for one, because this is the only time it is mentioned... so there is no way to really draw any great conclusions from it and certainly there is not enough to make a doctrine out of it as some try to do. Secondly, I consider it an extreme because the "clanging cymbal" is an extreme and it seems as though he is talking in extremes. "If I speak in the tongues of men" is his main point "and of angels" meaning even more amazing than possible, "but have not love" is his main statement again "I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." Meaning more useless than humanly possible.

It could be rewritten as....

If i speak in the tongues of men and unimaginably great things, But have not love, I am unimaginably useless.

To assume that we can literally talk in the tongues of angels is as far fetched as assuming we will literally become a clanging cymbal if we don't love.

It is almost comical in a sad way that people use these verses of correction to (sometimes) do exactly the kinds of things that the verses were written to correct.

[Slug1]

Glad to. Paul is talking to the Corinthians who were engaged in many heathen practices mingled with Christian practices. The whole letter is directed at the errors that were going on in the church. Speaking in gibberish was one of these errors. Or so it would seem from the passage.

I take it as an extreme for one, because this is the only time it is mentioned... so there is no way to really draw any great conclusions from it and certainly there is not enough to make a doctrine out of it as some try to do. Secondly, I consider it an extreme because the "clanging cymbal" is an extreme and it seems as though he is talking in extremes. "If I speak in the tongues of men" is his main point "and of angels" meaning even more amazing than possible, "but have not love" is his main statement again "I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." Meaning more useless than humanly possible.

It could be rewritten as....

If i speak in the tongues of men and unimaginably great things, But have not love, I am unimaginably useless.

To assume that we can literally talk in the tongues of angels is as far fetched as assuming we will literally become a clanging cymbal if we don't love.

It is almost comical in a sad way that people use these verses of correction to (sometimes) do exactly the kinds of things that the verses were written to correct.

Did Paul tell them to "stop" the gibberish or did he disciple them in the correct and orderly usage of the gibberish?

If Paul told the Body of Christ to stop ALL gibberish... which scripture will support his instruction to stop speaking in tongues??

Scripture does support that he instructed them all in the proper order of and purpose FOR speaking in tongues, as the operation of the gift of the Holy Spirit "kinds of tongues" and the gift of "interpretation of tongues", manifested.

[jesse]

Did Paul tell them to "stop" the gibberish or did he disciple them in the correct and orderly usage of the gibberish?

If Paul told the Body of Christ to stop ALL gibberish... which scripture will support his instruction to stop speaking in tongues??

Scripture does support that he instructed them all in the proper order of and purpose FOR speaking in tongues, as the operation of the gift of the Holy Spirit "kinds of tongues" and the gift of "interpretation of tongues", manifested.

He gave them an ordered structure which would take care of the whole problem.

Also, i was reading Acts last night and noticed this verse.

For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Acts 1:5

Very interesting how Baptism in water is an outward expression of what is happening inside. A public display. Similarly the baptism of the Spirit that happened at pentacost was also a public display.

[Slug1]

He gave them an ordered structure which would take care of the whole problem.

Also, i was reading Acts last night and noticed this verse.

For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Acts 1:5

Very interesting how Baptism in water is an outward expression of what is happening inside. A public display. Similarly the baptism of the Spirit that happened at pentacost was also a public display.

Let me re-ask the question in a different way. I also ask that you address the question.

Did Paul ask them to stop speaking in tongues (gibberish), or did he disciple them and correct them in the proper use and order of speaking in tongues (gibberish) and then allow them to continue speaking tongues, now that they did speak in tongues in the proper order?

[ewq1938]

Did Paul ask them to stop speaking in tongues (gibberish)

The true Tongues of the Holy Spirit is never gibberish. It never needs interpreting either. That's it's entire purpose, to be understood by anyone. I believe this is also referred to as the Tongues of angels.

[jesse]

Let me re-ask the question in a different way. I also ask that you address the question.

Did Paul ask them to stop speaking in tongues (gibberish), or did he disciple them and correct them in the proper use and order of speaking in tongues (gibberish) and then allow them to continue speaking tongues, now that they did speak in tongues in the proper order?

I don't think gibberish was an issue.
It would seem in Corinthians 14 Paul told them to not speak in tongues in church.

18I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: 19Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

22Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

In other words, if you want to speak in unknown human tongues go do it in public not at church. Because just as baptism was a display for unbelievers. So to was the "baptism of the holy spirit" a display for unbelievers. It was a part of the signs and wonders that accompanied the coming of Christ.

For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Acts 1:5

He was talking about real languages that people speak but that we do not know. Not gibberish.

[ewq1938]

I don't think gibberish was an issue.
It would seem in Corinthians 14 Paul told them to not speak in tongues in church.

18I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: 19Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

22Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

In other words, if you want to speak in unknown human tongues go do it in public not at church.

He was talking about real languages that people speak but that we do not know. Not gibberish.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Slug1]

I don't think gibberish was an issue.
It would seem in Corinthians 14 Paul told them to not speak in tongues in church.

18I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: 19Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

22Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

In other words, if you want to speak in unknown human tongues go do it in public not at church. Because just as baptism was a display for unbelievers. So to was the "baptism of the holy spirit" a display for unbelievers. It was a part of the signs and wonders that accompanied the coming of Christ.

For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Acts 1:5

He was talking about real languages that people speak but that we do not know. Not gibberish.

Then explain the conclusion that Paul gave to the Body of Christ beginning with those in the Body of Christ at Corinth. First let me say this... to establish the context of 1 Cor 12-14, we see that Paul is referring to the Body of Christ as a "whole"... NOT singling out the Corinthians. It's just that the Corinthians were operating in the gift of tongues in error and needed discipleship, so it may seem he was singling them out from the rest of the Body of Christ. But the fact is clear, these scriptures are for the entire Body of Christ.

Here is the context set, and then I will post scriptures that is the OPPOSITE of what you just stated. In other words... Paul NEVER said to stop speaking in tongues.

Context:

1 Cor 12:⁴ There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. ⁵ There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. ⁶ And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. ⁷ But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: ⁸ for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, ⁹ to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, ¹⁰ to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. ¹¹ But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. Unity and Diversity in One Body

¹² For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. ¹³ For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into^[c] one Spirit. ¹⁴ For in fact the body is not one member but many.


Now, with the context established as to "who" Paul is being used by God to instruct... the entire Body of Christ, we find in the conclusion the scriptures that are quite the opposite of your conclusion.

You say Paul said that they are to STOP speaking in tongues in church:

It would seem in Corinthians 14 Paul told them to not speak in tongues in church.

Here is the conclusion from Paul:

1 Cor 14:27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.

37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.[e]

39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

Now... back to 1 Cor 12- Paul establishes that this discipleship is for the correct order when the Holy Spirit gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation of tongues is made manifest.

That gibberish today is the same abuse that that Corinthians were doing. Granted, much is also people wanting to fit into their church and some is also fake. But the truth is, this gift of the Holy Spirit is still active BUT... unfortunately, it's also still done in error as the Corinthians were in error. Doesn't mean they are wrong for exercising their gifts, JUST MEANS they are wrong in the proper ORDER of the operation of those gifts.

The manifestation of the gift of tongues cannot be understood by anyone except God:

1 Cor 14: ² For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

This is the reason for the gift of "interpretation" of tongues... otherwise if a person speak out loud to the church all that is listened to is what man calls... gibberish. This is NOT loving those around you as Paul establishes throughout 1 Cor 13. He even describes what we call "gibberish" as... sounding as "I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal." When it's done today, we don't describe it this way, the term today is simply... gibberish.

The only way for listeners to be edified by the gift of tongues is if it is done IN ORDER and there is an interpreter:

1 Cor 14:²⁶ How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. ²⁷ If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. ²⁸ But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.

That final verse (28)... when a person in church is moved by the Holy Spirit and they are praying or speaking in tongues and there is no interpretation, they are the ones that are speaking in tongues under their breath privately... they are effectively "silent" to the church and only speaking to "themselves" and to God. It is for "their" edification... not those who happen to evesdrop and listen in on the speaking of tongues.

1 Cor 14: ⁴ He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

So when a person is INSTEAD hollering out in tongues and this gets others hollering out in tongues because the "Spirit" is moving... well, they are IN THE SAME ERROR that the Corinthians were and they need to be discipled.

However, that's not likely because those who are discipled aren't listened to and Christians who don't believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit simply point out the error and have no ability to help because they don't allow the Holy Spirit to manifest ANY of His gifts upon their churches so they CAN'T be used by God to disciple others who are in error.

Then... most of those who ARE IN ERROR, are just WHOOPING it up in the abuse they love and they'll just ignore most offers of help and discipleship that comes their way.

Here is the heart of the matter and also the heart of the problem... people are "ZEALOUS" for the gifts of the Holy Spirit and this leads to that abuse:

12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.

See... here Paul is explaining (discipling) the Body of Christ that these gifts are for the edification OF THE CHURCH if a church seeks to EXCEL.

13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? 17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.

So, if there is no interpretation of the manifestation of the gift "different kinds of tongues"... then there IS NO edification and then the church CANNOT EXCEL!

WHY???

Verse 17 explains it all... because no one is EDIFIED. In other words... while those who are HOLLERING out in tongues in such an abusive and unorderly way... they sure are giving their thanks... but what about all those listening who don't speak in tongues... all they hear is what many today call... gibberish. This means they are UN-EDIFIED. Even the ones hollering out will say straight up that they have no clue what they are speaking... BUT PRAISE THE LORD, AMEN! They are happy and those around them listening... are miserable. THIS IS WHY PAUL SAYS THIS IS UN-LOVING.

They sound of "brass or a clanging cymbal" and quite frankly, they need to do what Paul instructs and SHUT UP or speak to themselves as he gave them instruction to do! A church that is to excel in the operation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and for the edification of ALL in the church... WHICH includes those who DON'T speak in tongues... there needs to be order as Paul gave as discipleship instruction to the Body of Christ and the Body of Christ would EXCEL as a whole!!

[Slug1]

The true Tongues of the Holy Spirit is never gibberish. It never needs interpreting either. That's it's entire purpose, to be understood by anyone. I believe this is also referred to as the Tongues of angels.

I'll let God explain this one then...

Let's establish the gift first...

1 Cor 12:10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.

Now... as for a need to interpret.

1 Cor 14:

Tongues Must Be Interpreted

6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? 7 Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? 8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? 9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me. 12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.

13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? 17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.

18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Tongues a Sign to Unbelievers

20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.

21 In the law it is written:

“With men of other tongues and other lips
I will speak to this people;
And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,”

says the Lord.

22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus[c] the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.
Order in Church Meetings

26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

[ClayInHisHands]

So when a person is INSTEAD hollering out in tongues and this gets others hollering out in tongues because the "Spirit" is moving... well, they are IN THE SAME ERROR that the Corinthians were and they need to be discipled.

However, that's not likely because those who are discipled aren't listened to and Christians who don't believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit simply point out the error and have no ability to help because they don't allow the Holy Spirit to manifest ANY of His gifts upon their churches so they CAN'T be used by God to disciple others who are in error.

Then... most of those who ARE IN ERROR, are just WHOOPING it up in the abuse they love and they'll just ignore most offers of help and discipleship that comes their way.

Basically addressing all you said in this whole post, I just narrowed it down as to not copy and paste the whole thing.



Ken, would you agree that it is a big disservice when you have a Christian group like Jesus Culture and the lead singer Kim Walker is singing and starts speaking loudly in tongues during the song in worship, would you agree that it is being done in error?



Also, when Paul mentions having 2 or 3 interpreters. Aren't all three suppose to interpret it the same way? If not, what if all three interpretations are different or if there were only 2 and each were different, how is it decided whose interpretation is correct and how would that be edifying if you walk out of the service thinking to yourself..." I think it meant that one and someone else says no, it meant this one."?

That seems to be UNedifying and thus cause confusion, and possibly ear tickling.

[Slug1]

Basically addressing all you said in this whole post, I just narrowed it down as to not copy and paste the whole thing.



Ken, would you agree that it is a big disservice when you have a Christian group like Jesus Culture and the lead singer Kim Walker is singing and starts speaking loudly in tongues during the song in worship, would you agree that it is being done in error?



Also, when Paul mentions having 2 or 3 interpreters. Aren't all three suppose to interpret it the same way? If not, what if all three interpretations are different or if there were only 2 and each were different, how is it decided whose interpretation is correct and how would that be edifying if you walk out of the service thinking to yourself..." I think it meant that one and someone else says no, it meant this one."?

That seems to be UNedifying and thus cause confusion, and possibly ear tickling.

We have one in our church who sings in tongues... they first sing in tongues and then they are led to interpret. It is quite edifying when the Holy Spirit gives new song and our one keyboardist (when present) would also be in the Spirit and the music would accompany the singing even though the song is new. Even with no live players, this person when led, will still sing out in tongues and then sing the song a second time, interpreted.

1-3 speakers and ONE interpreter. Not 1-3 interpreters.

I say 1-3 due to these instructions to us by God through Paul:

27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret.

AND

13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? 17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.

When that one person who is led to sing in tongues also interprets... as per verse 16, God is blessing our church as that person is obediently singing and interpreting. If there was only singing in tongues and no interpretation... then as per verse 16, the church CANNOT give an AMEN or thanks because there was NO edification. The one singing would be good to go, but without that interpretation... the rest of the church is in my opinion, miserable.

So to answer your question concerning Kim, and I've listened to her... she is not excelling the church by doing that.

[ClayInHisHands]

27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret

That's what happens when you read it and not pay attention. and sad at the same time.




Thanks Ken

[Watchman]

I realize the contrast Paul is drawing, but that doesn't relegate tongues of angels to insignificance or to equality with human languages. It relegates them to the category of an unknown tongue, does it not? I am not advocating for gibberish, just for open mindedness. Who can know what the tongues of angels sound like? I believe they can sound like any human language, if needed, or unlike anything we've heard, else Paul wouldn't have drawn the distinction. Sure, the point of 1 Corinthians 13 is the maturity worked out by love, but there is still other information that can be gleaned. I don't take it as an extreme and don't understand why it would be view as such...it is simply a statement. Would you clarify, please, Jesse?

Glad to. Paul is talking to the Corinthians who were engaged in many heathen practices mingled with Christian practices. The whole letter is directed at the errors that were going on in the church. Speaking in gibberish was one of these errors. Or so it would seem from the passage.

I take it as an extreme for one, because this is the only time it is mentioned... so there is no way to really draw any great conclusions from it and certainly there is not enough to make a doctrine out of it as some try to do. Secondly, I consider it an extreme because the "clanging cymbal" is an extreme and it seems as though he is talking in extremes. "If I speak in the tongues of men" is his main point "and of angels" meaning even more amazing than possible, "but have not love" is his main statement again "I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." Meaning more useless than humanly possible.

It could be rewritten as....

If i speak in the tongues of men and unimaginably great things, But have not love, I am unimaginably useless.

To assume that we can literally talk in the tongues of angels is as far fetched as assuming we will literally become a clanging cymbal if we don't love.

It is almost comical in a sad way that people use these verses of correction to (sometimes) do exactly the kinds of things that the verses were written to correct.

No, no, no! You are eisegetically rewriting this passage to suit your view. Go take a look at the Greek text. You CANNOT simply disregard the words and replace them with your own thoughts. That is an abuse of the text of the highest order! Wow.

W