Gift of tongues

[OneEternalSonata]

I was asked if I ever spoke in tongues... and I became curious. How do other churches view this gift? How is it defined in other faiths? Any feedback, especially from non-members, would be appreciated.

[jadams_4040]

I was asked if I ever spoke in tongues... and I became curious. How do other churches view this gift? How is it defined in other faiths? Any feedback, especially from non-members, would be appreciated.

My experiance with the gift is not speaking an unknown language but things which are not thought of or considerd, or planned for;:)

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

dunno if this is what you're looking for, but my interpretation of it is a bit more literal, the ability to use other languages... because really knowing another language opens up communication to those who speak it when you couldn't talk to them otherwise, spreading the gospel to others. and especially when you consider that there aren't too many LDS outside the US, knowing languages besides English really opens the door to the rest of the world, so that to me qualifies easily as a special, spiritual gift.

as far as how other churches might interpret it, I've heard of people praying in an otherwise nonsense language that's understood by God. don't know much about that though.

Edited October 13, 2009 by xforeverxmetalx

[prisonchaplain]

This particular experience is a flagship doctrine of the Assemblies of God (my church). We believe there is a personal gift of the Holy Spirit available to every Christian believer. It accompanies the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This gift is speaking in tongues, but is often described as a prayer language. It is unknown, and entails our spirits praying directly to God. There is also a public gift of tongues, that is for use in church. In this case, the one so gifted will speak out in an unknown tongue, after which someone will offer an interpretation in the venacular of the people. Together, these two gifts have the same effect as the gift of prophecy.

In my own case, I learned of this gift when I was 13, and the following summer went to Bible camp. Those of us who wanted to be baptized in the Holy Ghost were invited to the altar for prayer, and we encouraged to simply pray, worship, and seek God for this gift. In my case, after about an hour I suddenly felt my tongue submit and I began to pray in tongues! It was such a wonderful, liberating experience. I knew I was praising God on a new and deeper level. As I left the chapel one of the counselor told me I was beaming, and that I'd surely met with God that night. And, indeed I did.

For an in-depth official study, see: http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4185_spirit-filled_life.pdf

[Jamie123]

Praying in tongues is very common. I do not have the gift myself but I've known many people who do.

Prophesizing in tongues is something I've never experienced, though I understand it happens often in many churches. In Bradford (where I was a student) there was one particular Anglican church where it was said to be quite common. I never went there - partly because the idea of it spooked me out a bit.

In the LDS church at Loughborough (where I first got involved with the LDS) one of the speakers mentioned it: His actual words were something like:

Prophesizing in tongues doesn't happen here very often. In fact [shift to more serious tone of voice] I don't think it has ever happened. [Long emphatic silence.]

So I get the impression it doesn't happen very often amongst Mormons.

[Jamie123]

Praying in tongues is very common. I do not have the gift myself but I've known many people who do.

Prophesizing in tongues is something I've never experienced, though I understand it happens often in many churches. In Bradford (where I was a student) there was one particular Anglican church where it was said to be quite common. I never went there - partly because the idea of it spooked me out a bit.

Probably the spookiest thing about it was the casual way in which people talked about it. Typical conversation:

Me: Please explain to me about prophesizing in tongues.

Charismatic type: Oh, that's just when the Holy Spirit gives a message to a person in the congregation, and they speak it out in a strange language. If it's of God, there will be someone else present who can interpret it. That's all that's about.

Me: What??!! You're telling me that....[words fail me]

Charismatic type: Yeah. That's all it is. Any more coffee?

Further attempts to express my surprise at the utter "strangeness" of this were usually met with blank looks of incomprehension about how anyone could find it unusual.

In the LDS church at Loughborough (where I first got involved with the LDS) the attitude couldn't have been more different. I remember one of the Sunday School speakers mentioned it. (He was an engineering student like me. He illustrated his talks with conjuring tricks using eggs and bottles. To me he always seemed disturbingly sure of himself.) His actual words were something like:

Prophesizing in tongues doesn't happen here very often. In fact [shift to more serious tone of voice] I don't think it has ever happened. [Long emphatic silence.]

So I get the impression that it doesn't happen very often amongst Mormons, but at least they don't consider it blahdy-blah-blah-nothing-special. Edited October 13, 2009 by Jamie123

[Vort]

Glossalalia

(Not to be confused with "flossalalia", the attempt to speak while cleaning between one's teeth.)

In the account of the pentecost given in Acts 2, the gift of tongues was not given so that people spoke in an unknown tongue. On the contrary, it was given so that "every man heard them speak in his own language...how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?"

In my experience, Mormons don't think much of the idea of speaking in strange tongues that no one can understand, except for occasional reference to "the Adamic language". We take a much more practical view of the gift of tongues: It is given to allow us to build the kingdom of God.

[RachelleDrew]

When I attended a Charismatic church everyone there could speak in tongues. There were a couple of people who have the gift of interpretation as well, who could more or less decipher what the speaker was

saying.

I have a lot of awe for people who speak in tongues. I never did it myself, mostly because at the particular church I was at it seemed like it was a show. EVERYONE seemed to be doing it in that church.

Nonetheless, i've always been interested in it. It's kind of neat to witness in the right environment.

[prisonchaplain]

Glossalalia

In the account of the pentecost given in Acts 2, the gift of tongues was not given so that people spoke in an unknown tongue. On the contrary, it was given so that "every man heard them speak in his own language...how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?"

If we were to study through the FIVE accounts of Spirit baptism in Acts we would find many incidentals--one-time experiences. Tongues being understood by spectators happened once. Tongues themselves are mentioned specifically three times, and implied once. Again, in none of the other incidences in Acts did it appear that the tongues were for the purpose of foreigners being able to hear in their own language. Additionally, even in Acts 2, the languages were mainly dialects. It's not at all clear to me that the PRIMARY purpose for the tongues was to provide translations services to onlookers.

[Vort]

PC, good to hear from you. I don't have time to do a response justice, so I guess I'll have to respond unjustly.

If we were to study through the FIVE accounts of Spirit baptism in Acts

I have observed that some Evangelicals equate "baptism of the spirit" with "speaking in tongues". I do not know why this is, and I am not sure this is what you are doing, but if so, let me note that I disagree with the identification. This is easily shown wrong; for example, in I Cor 12:13, we learn that "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." Then only a few verses later (28-31), we are asked a rhetorical question, the obvious answer to which is "No":

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way."

"All" received the Spirit, yet not "all" speak in tongues. It's s spiritual gift, and like the other spiritual gifts, is given of God to his Saints as he sees fit.

we would find many incidentals--one-time experiences. Tongues being understood by spectators happened once.

You must understand the scriptures differently from me in this thing, PC. To me, the meaning of the gift of tongues as recorded in the book of Acts seems clear:

• The first is in Acts 2. I think we both agree that this refers to people hearing and understanding the gospel message in their own tongue.
• The second is in Acts 10:44-46: "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God."

  Clearly, this is a case of the speaking of tongues being used to facilitate conversion; certainly the Jews were convinced of the Gentiles' reception of the Holy Spirit. Though it does not specify in the Biblical account, it makes sense that there were other Gentiles there who may not have been well-versed in Hebrew and who needed to hear the gospel preached in their own tongue -- hence the dispensation of the gift of tongues. This is further suggested a few verses later (11:15), when Peter, retelling the story, affirms, "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning."

• Last, we read in Acts 19:6, "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." Again, this is a clear use of the gift of tongues in conjunction with the preaching of the word. This one is more problematic, since the wording seems to make it clear that these were all Jews (twelve of them) that were baptized and received the Holy Ghost and the gift of tongues. My own suspicion is that, since these were Jews at Ephesus, it is possible (perhaps likely) that they were not all well-versed in Hebrew, which would make the gift of tongues necessary so that they could hear the gospel preached in their own tongue (cf. D&C 133:37).

I know of no other record of the gift of tongues being bestowed in the book of Acts. (Not that there isn't one; I just don't know about it.)

Tongues themselves are mentioned specifically three times, and implied once. Again, in none of the other incidences in Acts did it appear that the tongues were for the purpose of foreigners being able to hear in their own language.

As I have explained, I don't necessarily agree with this. In any case, the gift of tongues is certainly always associated with preaching the gospel to those who need to hear and accept it.

Additionally, even in Acts 2, the languages were mainly dialects. It's not at all clear to me that the PRIMARY purpose for the tongues was to provide translations services to onlookers.

What do you mean by "mainly dialects"? You mean, like someone from Great Britain would have heard, "Jolly good, then, chaps, the Lord Jesus truly is Christ, God's own Son", but someone from the American South would have heard, "Hey, y'all, y'know thet thar Jeezis feller is the Chraaaast, 'n he's God's bo-ah"?

The word used in Acts 2 is dialektos, which is indeed the root of our English word "dialect" but in Greek simply means "language"; compare Acts 26:14, Hebraïs dialektos "Hebrew language". The meaning of the verse is clear: Every man heard the gospel preached in his own native language.

Anyway, that's how things seem to me. In any case, I do believe that my summation is correct: Most Latter-day Saints don't generally think of the "gift of tongues" as running on in some unknown and ununderstandable "language". If that is your belief, then of course that's fine, and I don't mean any offense by pointing out that, in my opinion, most Latter-day Saints don't see things the same way.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not an LDS history expert by any means, but I seem to recall a quote from Joseph Smith mirroring what PC and Jamie have written: where someone speaks in tongues (which happened a lot more frequently in our early history) one may know it is of God because someone else will arise and give the interpretation of what has just been said.

Frankly, I suspect it doesn't happen to Mormons very often now, for no other reason than because we don't expect it to.

[prisonchaplain]

I have observed that some Evangelicals equate "baptism of the spirit" with "speaking in tongues". I do not know why this is, and I am not sure this is what you are doing, but if so, let me note that I disagree with the identification.

A few clarifications. Pentecostals identify tongues as the first physical sign of Spirit-baptism. Not all evangelicals are pentecostal, though. Also, it is far different to say Spirit-baptism is accompanied by tongues than to say tongues are the end-all and be-all of the experience. The primary purpose of Spirit-baptism is to receive power. (Acts 1:8).

This is easily shown wrong; for example, in I Cor 12:13, we learn that "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." Then only a few verses later (28-31), we are asked a rhetorical question, the obvious answer to which is "No":

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way."

The gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians is the public gift of speaking a message from the Lord, with an interpretation that follows. It is distinct from the tongues one experiences when being filled with the Spirit. Even in pentecostal churches, usually only a handful of people will exhibit the gift of tongues in a service, though usually a majority do pray in tongues.

The first is in Acts 2. I think we both agree that this refers to people hearing and understanding the gospel message in their own tongue.

While that may have happened, it's not clear to me that the purpose of the tongues speach was translation. Keep in mind that most in the crowd thought they were speaking gibberish, and were drunk!

The second is in Acts 10:44-46: "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God."

Clearly, this is a case of the speaking of tongues being used to facilitate conversion; certainly the Jews were convinced of the Gentiles' reception of the Holy Spirit. Though it does not specify in the Biblical account, it makes sense that there were other Gentiles there who may not have been well-versed in Hebrew and who needed to hear the gospel preached in their own tongue -- hence the dispensation of the gift of tongues. This is further suggested a few verses later (11:15), when Peter, retelling the story, affirms, "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning."

You make some rather gigantic assumptions here. The biggest being that translation was a constant issue in the church. I doubt that it was. Most people in the area spoke Koine Greek, not Hebrew. Further, your bolding of the last phrase doesn't prove to me at all that the tongues speach had to be exactly the same words, or even that they had to be human vs. angelic or unknown languages. It can just as easily be that they knew the Spirit had baptized because tongues were spoken in both incidences.

Last, we read in Acts 19:6, "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." Again, this is a clear use of the gift of tongues in conjunction with the preaching of the word. This one is more problematic, since the wording seems to make it clear that these were all Jews (twelve of them) that were baptized and received the Holy Ghost and the gift of tongues. My own suspicion is that, since these were Jews at Ephesus, it is possible (perhaps likely) that they were not all well-versed in Hebrew, which would make the gift of tongues necessary so that they could hear the gospel preached in their own tongue (cf. D&C 133:37).

Again, a lot of assumptions based upon the presupposition that tongues were primarily for translation. It's a doubtful premise to begin with, imho. They spoke in tongues AND they prophesied. Two different activities. Tongues seems to be the one constant indication of Spirit-baptism. Prophesying, tongues of fire appearing, venacular languages, these are incidentals that don't get repeated. Thus, pentecostals have looked at these episodes and concluded that speaking in tongues, whether known or unknown, is the one constant that appears at a Spirit-baptism. Tongues are not equated to the baptism, but a a signal that such has taken place.

What do you mean by "mainly dialects"? You mean, like someone from Great Britain would have heard, "Jolly good, then, chaps, the Lord Jesus truly is Christ, God's own Son", but someone from the American South would have heard, "Hey, y'all, y'know thet thar Jeezis feller is the Chraaaast, 'n he's God's bo-ah"?

The word used in Acts 2 is dialektos, which is indeed the root of our English word "dialect" but in Greek simply means "language"; compare Acts 26:14, Hebraïs dialektos "Hebrew language". The meaning of the verse is clear: Every man heard the gospel preached in his own native language.

The places that are mentioned did not all have "languages" that were as distinct as say English and Chinese. It's not at all clear to me that these pilgrims who gathered were unable to communicate at all.

[OneEternalSonata]

I'm not an LDS history expert by any means, but I seem to recall a quote from Joseph Smith mirroring what PC and Jamie have written: where someone speaks in tongues (which happened a lot more frequently in our early history) one may know it is of God because someone else will arise and give the interpretation of what has just been said.

Frankly, I suspect it doesn't happen to Mormons very often now, for no other reason than because we don't expect it to.

There were Saints from many countries in those prayer meetings. The incident you are quoting did not say what the language was, simply that it was translated. While I'm not refuting your theory, can it be said whether the language spoken was earthly or celestial? No, therefore that incident fails to prove or disprove in this argument.

[dazed-and-confused]

i very much beleive in the speaking of tongues as a blessing.

i have also witnessed...according to my own interpretation, as "what was expected to happen" stuff where, again, in my own interpretation, it was all a show for the congregation and nothing more.

while this may be some sort of inspiration for the congregation, and based in truth, for speaking in tongues is real, the reality of the actual instance NOT taking place so much as WANTING to have taken place, is a lie.

[Just_A_Guy]

There were Saints from many countries in those prayer meetings. The incident you are quoting did not say what the language was, simply that it was translated. While I'm not refuting your theory, can it be said whether the language spoken was earthly or celestial? No, therefore that incident fails to prove or disprove in this argument.

The Joseph Smith Priesthood/Relief Society manual doesn't come right out and say "Adamic Language", but it hints at it strongly. It does, however, include a number of useful caveats regarding the use of tongues.

If you go over some of the historical sources (I know Arrington mentions this in his biography of Brigham Young, and a number of Nauvoo/early Salt Lake periodicals refer to it as well), it becomes clear that the gift of tongues (in the sense of the Saints speaking in the Adamic language) was manifested to the Saints in Kirtland, well before the Church had made serious inroads in teaching non-English speakers.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[OneEternalSonata]

Thanks! Will do!

[prisonchaplain]

I found a source that answers a lot of the common questions raised here--especially whether tongues-speach must be in a human/foreign tongue, rather than an angelic or heavenly one. Also, whether tongues are only used as a public gift, or have another purpose for individual prayer. What follows is an explanation of the classic pentecostal take on these issues, and is short and to the point:

Speaking in Tongues FAQ

[Traveler]

Without a doubt the L-rd has many ways to accomplish his works. Some of those ways may seem hard to explain but in general I do not believe that G-d is a G-d of confusion. For example, when we read in the scriptures that the gospel of Jesus Christ will be taught to every Nation, Kindred, TONGUE and people – I believe that it means that everyone will have the opportunity to here ALL TRUTH of eternal benefit in the tongue they understand.

Anyone that speaks multiple languages understands that communication is not just words. There are within most languages problems of ambiguities. English is a lot of fun this way. If I were to say, “I will hold this stake and you take the sludge hammer, when I am ready, I will nod my head and you hit it.” One may wonder if they are to hit my head or the stake. If I say, “The lamb is too hot to eat.” One may wonder if the lamb is being eaten or the one trying to eat.

With what I have said so far I would like to make two points about the gift of tongues.

First – that speaking through the spirit (in tongues or otherwise), one is not speaking for themselves but acting as proxy as though G-d himself was speaking. I am skeptical that G-d would speak to himself in this manner. I just do not think G-d needs or wants to hear himself speak. In fact I do not believe that G-d would speak to anyone, by proxy, or with his own mouth except to both edify and reveal truths to the hearer.

Second – I do not believe G-d speaks to anyone unless he has something very important he wants them to hear. Therefore, I am quite sure that whenever G-d speaks to us we understand, without any ambiguity as per my example above. There is no possibility of deception, confusion or lack of understanding when G-d speak – and that includes his speaking by proxy.

The Traveler

Edited October 14, 2009 by Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, you seem to believe Holy Spirit-anointed speach would have to be prophetic in nature. Yet, even in Acts 2, it was a combination of praise and proclammation. While I comprehend your thinking, you seem to confine what God might do in ways I don't have confidence to. God speaks through a donkey, appears through clouds and fire, brings judgment through flooding, and through animals attacking adolescents. He commands nation to destory nation, as judgement. He uses a wicked nation to punish his own people, who are surely more righteous, relatively speaking. There is so much that happens that we do not understand. Why is it so hard to imagine that God might use the submission of our tongue to him, as a means of instilling both humility and power in us. Scripture says that if we could control our tongue we could be sinless, after all.

[Traveler]

Traveler, you seem to believe Holy Spirit-anointed speach would have to be prophetic in nature. Yet, even in Acts 2, it was a combination of praise and proclammation. While I comprehend your thinking, you seem to confine what God might do in ways I don't have confidence to. God speaks through a donkey, appears through clouds and fire, brings judgment through flooding, and through animals attacking adolescents. He commands nation to destory nation, as judgement. He uses a wicked nation to punish his own people, who are surely more righteous, relatively speaking. There is so much that happens that we do not understand. Why is it so hard to imagine that God might use the submission of our tongue to him, as a means of instilling both humility and power in us. Scripture says that if we could control our tongue we could be sinless, after all.

I am not sure what “Holy Spirit-anointed” means in the manner you have used it. I believe I understand what “Holy Spirit” and “anointed” means. It is clear to me from the scriptures that someone that is anointed of G-d (or by his proxy) is recipient of the Holy Spirit but I do not find anywhere that the Holy Spirit anoints. Perhaps you mean something more along the line of “confirmed” or to give comfort.

Now, since you brought up Acts chapter 2 take a close look at verse 6 and you will see that this confirms what I was trying to say – that is that the hearer does hear in a manner that they can understand clearly and not in a tongue “foreign” to them. Which I believe is precisely what is meant in 1Cor 14:8 and 1Tim 6:17 and if I may add one comment to 1Tim 6:17 à and understand.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler...perhaps directed would have been more precise than anoint. If the tongues are a gift of the Holy Spirit, then the Spirit is in them--covering them. When we anoint with oil, we cover. So...

We've been over Acts 2--yes, in that one incident there were those present who understood. But did the speaker? Did the one praising God (i.e. not proclaiming a prophetic word, but rather giving glory to God) understand his own words? Well...if he did, were the tongues really miraculous then? So, if one is praying in tongues, without an audience, would s/he understand? Is it necessary? Or, are you saying that tongues can only be a public gift, and never one for individual communion with God? If you'll read the link, my thought is that you are conflating the public gift of the Holy Spirit, used in corporate worship, with the sign of the Holy Spirit, available to all believers.

[Misshalfway]

PC....do the messages from the tongues in your experience teach doctrine? clarify your doctrinal understanding? Have I asked you this before? lol

[bytor2112]

I recently read Rough Stone Rolling......apparently speaking in tongues was a frequent occurrence during the early days of the Restoration.

[prisonchaplain]

PC....do the messages from the tongues in your experience teach doctrine? clarify your doctrinal understanding? Have I asked you this before? lol

No and no. The messages tend to be directives to the church for the immediate. Often they congratulate us on our praise and worship of the LORD, and encourage us to an even deeper level. Other times there are warnings that God will not tolerate habitual sin, and repentence is needed. Then again, there are reminders that God is ready and willing to comfort, to heal, to provide.

[Traveler]

Traveler...perhaps directed would have been more precise than anoint. If the tongues are a gift of the Holy Spirit, then the Spirit is in them--covering them. When we anoint with oil, we cover. So...

We've been over Acts 2--yes, in that one incident there were those present who understood. But did the speaker? Did the one praising God (i.e. not proclaiming a prophetic word, but rather giving glory to God) understand his own words? Well...if he did, were the tongues really miraculous then? So, if one is praying in tongues, without an audience, would s/he understand? Is it necessary? Or, are you saying that tongues can only be a public gift, and never one for individual communion with God? If you'll read the link, my thought is that you are conflating the public gift of the Holy Spirit, used in corporate worship, with the sign of the Holy Spirit, available to all believers.

I think we need to be careful that we do not read into scripture something that is not really there. The scripture tells us that the speaker was moved upon by the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues. There is no indication that the speaker actually realized what was happening because the speaker did not explain – nor did anyone else indicate that the speaker was speaking anything other than the tongue of those that were listening. Note that scripture clearly indicates that everyone was hearing in their own tongue and that no one (including the speaker) heard anything foreign.

It was the crowd that figured out that something very unusual was going on. Now there was some criticism that those that thought they were hearing their own language were drunk and really had no clue what was going on anyway. It is interesting that the critics did not realize that anything out of the ordinary was even going on.

Let me review what I believe about speaking by the Holy Spirit.

1. That the speaker is not speaking of themselves but is speaking in proxy for G-d –as though G-d was himself speaking. It is in essence G-d speaking using the mouth of the speaker. Let me make this point very clear. The individual person that G-d is using is not speaking or talking to anyone – it is the Holy Spirit that gives utterance and it is the Holy Spirit that is speaking. I believe the gift of tongues is the gift to speak for G-d and that it is possible that the speaker speak in their native tongue and the hearer also hear in the same native tongue but that both are understanding through the spirit which is the “language” of G-d and angles. I do not believe that it is necessary to speak outside on one’s native tongue to be speaking by the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues. There is no confusion when speaking in tongues by the spirit between the speaker and the hearer. No one is saying – you did not understand me or arguing over what was said.

2. I believe that whenever G-d speaks to anyone that they will understand what he is saying to them. I do not know of any place in Bible scripture that G-d spoke to anyone in a tongue foreign to them. What is being spoken is clear – without confusion or question and everyone that hears understand exactly the same. This is why I do not believe that the gift of tongues is present at all among the many “Christian” churches that seem to hear scriptures differently and find reason to argue over meaning – Because they lack the gift of G-d to hear and understand together.

The Traveler