Spirit or Ghost?

Icthus, you talk about us needing to read what you said. It would help if you read what I said. I didn't say that pneuma only meant spirit. I said it actually means spirit. You agreed with my conclusion. Don't pick a fight where there is none. You will know I am right if you pick up a lexicon and look at it.

 

Care to deal with my last post? Since we are on the issue of translations, this is an important verse.

 

But it doesn't mean "S"pirit, now does it Larry? There is none such a thang as "Holy "s"pirit", and to rexconcile and conclude that God has dominion over opinions of mere men, "Holy Ghost" is much rather desired than man declaring that there are "ghosts", which there are NOT!!

 

It doesn't matter what it means to most now, it matters what it means ,period!!

Again you lack discernment, the use of "spirit", (notice in the KJB the lower case letters) is perfection all over again, they thought Jesus was a "spirit" not The Holy Spirit.

You almost got it, the difference is all English literature ISN'T the Word of God!!

Exactly!

I offered a chance to reason, I made no accusation Mr. Roby. My reading comprehension is quite up-to-date, coupled with discernement, something you obviously haven't been praying for, or maybe you can't have your prayers answered?

 

On 1 Cor 7:1??? This thread is about Spirit or Ghost, not about marriage. If you want to talk about 1 Cor 7:1, that is fine. I won't be the one defending the NIV, though I know why they did it. But keep this post on topic.

 

Surely it is not necessary to explain that there are no capital letters in the Greek autographa is it? The word "pneuma" means "spirit," and whether or not it is capitalized to refer to the third person of the Trinity is a matter of context, not capital Greek letters.

I think the "spirits of just men made perfect" in Heb 12 certainly qualifies as a holy spirit.

Due the modern usage of "ghost," it is not preferable to use in respect to the Holy Spirit. God inspired "pneuma" and we should use hte word that most naturally flows from that, "Spirit." The idea that God has dominion and authority over the opinions of mere men doesn't h hang on using "ghost" in the Bible. The KJV translators didn't even do it consistently. They used both.

 

The poor man appears to be as ignorant of the statements of the Lord Jesus as Nicodemas, the master of Israel. He can't find the crossreferences in the Holy Scriptures either AS Nicky-bob. The Lord gave an explanation and comparison of his doctrinal teaching, then an illustration. They come from ECCLESIASTES. (Note that WIND is in the context of BOTH, along with BIRTH, and SPIRIT. See chapter 11.) The Lord caps off the interpretation with asking him about being a MASTER OF ISRAEL. Hey, isn't that what Solomon the Preacher spoke about? (The Masters of assemblies! Ecc.12, and WORDS OF TRUTH.)

The Lord COMPARED the WIND with the SPIRIT. The word of comparison was SO. (How did ole Jay miss that fact?)His correction of the King James produced more darkness, as ANY correction does.

But back to the truth. Ghost (a bodily shape) is explanative of the PERSON of the Holy Spirit who INDWELLS every Christian AFTER THE IMAGE. (Rom.8, 1 Cor.2, Col.1-3)

Once you "lose" GHOST, you lose the sense of the Scriptures. (Nehemiah 8, 1 Cor.2)

 

All I see offered, except maybe for icthus, is a tangle of words.

If one uses some discernement, (not likely on BB )one also can "see" that when Jesus "gives up the ghost", He is releasing that life giving breath and commending His Spirit into the hands of the Father.

I have to agree with icthus, Larry's staement demanding that pnuema only means spirit is very misleading, opinionated, and thus irrational at best.

Carlaiminge, I just read your post, I also agree with you, but I cannot limit my understanding to any other person's limited view of Greek or God's Word.

 

Then you, like Icthus, would be guilty of attributing something to me that I did not say. If you (and he) would actually read what I said, you would be able to be more accurate with it. Statements such as Icthus made and you agreed with are completely out of line because they are not truthful. When you quote someone, quote what they actually said, not what you wish they had said.

There is a lot of discerment on the BB (though not spread around to all). It is interesting that you say "one also can "see" that when Jesus "gives up the ghost", He is releasing that life giving breath and commending His Spirit into the hands of the Father." In your statement, you proved my point, by interchanging "Spirit" for "Ghost." The point is that the "ghost" he gave up was his spirit, and that is exactly what I said. And knowing that doesn't even take discernment. YOu just have to be able to read.

 

Your statement is misleading. It is subjective, but I am glad you cleared that up. So? You agree there is nothing misleading or even archaic about the use of Holy Ghost? Especially since we all are using the word in question, it is therefore in use and not archaic!!

 

This is a nitpick and I may be wrong but I believe our oldest manuscripts and likely the autographs had no lower case Greek letters.

 

Do any translations use Holy Wind or Holy Breath?

 

I feel comfortable with the usage of the "Holy Ghost" because I have a background in both the Douay-Rheims and KJV and have been cloistered in the schools/churches which used these translations of the 16-17th century period English.

However, "ghost" has taken on at least one popular nuance (occult) that is significantly different than the biblical word "spirit-pneuma" and is more akin now to the meaning of "apparition".

I don't believe anything of the sense of the Scripture is lost by using the word "Spirit/spirit" in place of "Ghost/ghost" if the whole counsel of God is taken into consideration.

Of the passages which Carl cites (Rom.8, 1 Cor.2, Col.1-3) the phrase "Holy Ghost" or "ghost" does not even appear one time.

Romans 8 contains "Spirit" 17 times.
1 Corinthians 2 contains "Spirit" 5 times.
Colossians 1-3 contains "Spirit" 1 time.

The narrative says it all concerning the manifestation and power of the Holy Spirit in our lives with the word "Spirit" and without the term "Holy Ghost".

The term "ghost" is related to germanic/anglo saxon "gheist", "gast", "gustr", from which we derive the word "gust" as in a "gust of wind" or a "manifestation" of the power of the wind.

So, in 16-17th century, closer to the English roots, there was cause for "ghost" as related to pneuma-wind and its power and manifestation (or His power for the divine defintion) but IMO it needs to be updated for the current generation of Bible readers especially the newly saved from the ranks of the "unchurched'.

But, I would agree with Carl in that "ghost" encapsulated into one word the nuance of the power and manifestation of the Spirit for their day and a certain beauty of the old English phrase is indeed lost.

However (again) the passages he cited, which the Holy Ghost inspired Paul to write, refrain from using the term.


HankD

 

Bro. Hank,

The passages of reference deal with the STATEMENT which was made, not the FACT that the passages CONTAIN the term, Holy Ghost, ALTHOUGH 1 Cor.2 does indeed contain the term. The Spirit of God, the spirit which is of God, and the Holy Ghost are all used.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl

 

It was neither. It was objective fact, as you can tell by looking at any Greek lexicon.

No, I disagree. The Holy Spirit is not a ghost, as the word "ghost" is typically used in modern day English. It is not "wrong," but it is certainly outdated and unnecessary. "Holy Spirit" is the best terminology to use today.

 

This is a nitpick and I may be wrong but I believe our oldest manuscripts and likely the autographs had no lower case Greek letters. </font>[/QUOTE]My point was that the capitals as we know them for delineation of proper nouns did not exist.

 

It would appear to me that "ghost" was just as good as spirit, if it's use in the contemporary literature is any indication.

 

It would appear to me that "ghost" was just as good as spirit, if it's use in the contemporary literature is any indication. </font>[/QUOTE]The KJV revised or corrected similar uses in some of the earlier English Bibles. The rendering "unghostly" (1 Tim. 4:7, 6:20, 2 Tim. 2:16) in Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles was changed to "profane" in the KJV.
At Romans 8:5, "ghostly minded" in Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles was revised to "spiritually minded" in Bishops and to
"of the Spirit" in the Geneva and KJV. The KJV has "spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14) where the old Wycliffe's Bible has "ghostly." Wycliffe's Bible has the rendering "sword of the ghost" at Ephesians 6:17. At Mark 1:10, Coverdale's has "ghost" where the KJV has "Spirit."

 

Very true ... if you lived in contemporary times. But we don't ... and the KJV is still inconsistent in translating it one way some of the time and one way other times.