No so fast!
I only "see" the word "word" used to describe the blashemy of the mouth or lips but do you automatically interject or "add" the word "word" where it is explaining against the Holy Ghost?
Nice try, only you have reasoned that what is not specified as being spoken actually is (while it is not even present)!
It does not say "word" twice though does it?
You failed to point that part out.
Where the word "word" is omitted after "speaketh" (which can mean an action also).
It
could mean action also. But it is all one long contiguous sentence. What is meant by "speaketh" was already defined. To repeat it again is optional and could be considered redundant.
"And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh (???) against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Matt 12:32
It would be much more of a stretch to insert "action" where "word" had already been defined and used. If the implication was changed, why wouldn't it have been stated so explicitly? Why not say "act-eth" or whatever?
No, it does not say the word "word" twice, but then neither does it say the word "action" even once.
You can dispense with all the "not so fast" forum flaming stuff. Nobody is trying to pull anything over on you. You say you don't want to argue then you ask for opinions and once you get them you argue and name call.
You are going to fit in nicely here! LOL Unless this pro-racist stuff is all you are interested in?
So we should believe
"not speaketh words against the Son and not speaketh [actions] against the Holy Spirit" is what you contend that this passage intends to say?
What was it Chuck Missler said... "If we torture the data long enough, we can get it to confess to anything."
But then don't listen to me because I only have the comprehension of a child.