All I can say is that the grammar and syntax rule of the English has been found throughout all of scripture but suddenly the Greek as one entirely different for one verse? I have to say they used the errant translation of most modern Bible to come up with that grammar & syntax rule which hardly follows the pattern for the whole Bible.
I understand that you are trying to be faithful to the Lord and His truth, and I respect you for that. I do believe, however, based on many of your posts, that you are "stuck" with some incorrect or inadequate ideas, and so you have fighting an unnecessary battle.
With regard to your comments above, rules of grammar and syntax are not primarily formed by using Scripture. Linguists would reference a wide range of literature, and would have no particular focus on the Bible... in any translation.
With regard to your claim that "groanings which are unutterable" means "no sound", I honestly think you are incorrect. That is certainly
not the only thing this phrase can mean. It could also mean:
- words that should not be spoken due to a moral or legal restriction;
- sensations for which words don't exist;
- sensations or thoughts for which the sender doesn't have words;
- messages for which the sender doesn't know the right or best words;
- cases where verbal expression is simply not possible (as for a mute person or non-person);
- concepts or sensations that cannot be reduced or translated into words (like pain or love);
- workings of the inner person (physical, mental, or spiritual) that happen below the level of conscious perception;
- ... and probably a few more.
The context of the passage would suggest one of the last two options above, and the "no sound" option is not suggested at all. Your interpretation seems fundamental for how you interpret the other passages, so an error here will lead to other errors.
Regarding your position on John 16:13, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come," you have another particular interpretation of "shall not speak of himself." Again, I suggest that there is certainly more than one way to interpret this passage:
- shall not speak at all (as in, no production of words by any means);
- shall not speak with sound, but may communicate with words by other means;
- shall not speak his own words, only those of another (as a diplomat would);
- shall not speak by his own power (like Stephen Hawking does now);
- shall not speak about himself (where the Spirit is the subject of the words).
The second part of that verse suggests the third interpretation, and the context is important. In this case, Jesus is introducing the Holy Spirit to the disciples, giving a general overview of the ministry and role of the Holy Spirit as the faithful and reliable “intermediary” (bridge or link) between the risen Jesus and the believer(s). This passage is not addressing the gifts at all. Given the specific context in which Jesus spoke those words, it makes more sense that He was not declaring that the abilities of the Holy Spirit were so restricted, but rather declaring the manner in which the Spirit would speak to the disciples later on, even as Jesus did then: as the bearer of God's truthful message. The Spirit is not some independent entity, but is completely faithful to Jesus and to the Father and can be trusted as the disciples trusted Jesus.
Further, and this has already been touched on in another post, the KJV of 1 Corinthians 14 gives plenty of room for the gift of tongues to occur without interpretation. Verses 2, 5 and 13 all mention it in this way:
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
Additionally, your statement that another person must have the interpretation is invalidated by both verses 5 and 13.
In summary, I think your interpretations of both John 16:13 and Romans 8:26 are flawed, and therefore your conclusion about Who is interceding in Romans 8:27 is faulty, that 'tongues without interpretation are not of the Holy Spirit' is not supported, and that 'the modern Bibles are corrupt' is groundless on this point.
