Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost?

Main Entry: Holy Ghost
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
: the third person of the Trinity : HOLY SPIRIT

Main Entry: Holy Spirit
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
: the third person of the Christian Trinity

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
Main Entry: Holy Ghost
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
: the third person of the Trinity : HOLY SPIRIT

Main Entry: Holy Spirit
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
: the third person of the Christian Trinity<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So you're saying that the KJV translators erred, because by the 17th century, Holy Spirit had been the common usage for 300 years?

 

No, I didn't say anything, I merly gave you the definition of the two terms and they are one and the same. But if you must nit pick then so be it. Have FUN!!!
If I call Jesus- Christ, did I err? Or what if I call Him Saviuor or the Son of God or Prince of peace or Lord of Lords or King of Kings, did I err or did I just simply say it another way. With equal authority
I might add, for those that would say that thier Bible says the same thing just in a different way. Maybe so but not with equal authority. By authority I mean with equal emphisis.

 

And again I'm not taking up for the KJV translators. Because they are mere men and I'm sure they have erred in places. But the KJV is far more superior than any other translation out there.
The other translations dilute the meanings of the Bible in a gross way.

[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
And again I'm not taking up for the KJV translators. Because they are mere men and I'm sure they have erred in places. But the KJV is far more superior than any other translation out there.
The other translations dilute the meanings of the Bible in a gross way.

[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, in Greek, pneuma never means ghost, but only wind or spirit. And the Hebrew ruach never means ghost either, but breath, wind, or spirit.

the word ghost only appears twice in the NASB - in Matt 14:26 and Mark 6:49 - and both times it is a translation of the Greek phantasma; meaning an appearance, or apparition.

 

Dr. Bob Griffin said:

There is a difference when the AV uses "ghost" or "spirit".

That may be, but both words are used to translate the same Greek word (pneuma), so "Holy Spirit" and "Holy Ghost" are synonymous. Whatever the KJV translators might have had in mind is pretty much a moot point.

[ October 02, 2001: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

&lt; With equal authority I might add, for those that would say that thier Bible says the same thing just in a different way. &gt;

Well now Joey, some thoughts you have been expressing lately indicate you are learning.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:
Welcome back Dr. Cassidy.

Can you explain the reasoning of the KJV translators in translating the same phrase Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would be glad to!

The translators tried to use "Ghost" when refering to the person of the Holy Spirit as He worked in the hearts of men, and "Spirit" when refering to the power of the Holy Spirit and his influence in the world. However, being fallible men, they sometimes blured the distinction.

 

I can tell you the difference between "Holy Spirit" and "Holy Ghost". The KJV is written
with such "precision" that few have seen just how "precise" it is in selecting words to
describe a particular application.

Under the OT, God led Israel by the "Holy Spirit", and the HS only came upon the
"prophets", kings" and "Priest", however after Jesus came he sent the "Holy Ghost"
(comforter) which came upon all people who believed.

The arrival of the Holy Ghost represented the "pouring out" of God's spirit on "ALL
FLESH" rather than certain one as in the OT.

Jesus and God are "ONE", but are given two different name to describe different roles
each play, one as "God the Son", one as "God the Father", the same applies to the Holy
Spirit, it is "renamed" "Holy Ghost" to associate it with Jesus speaking, it is the "Voice of
the bridegroom".

Matt 1:18 is the first place you'll find the words "Holy Ghost" in the Bible.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the
fathers by the prophets, (through the Holy Spirit)
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, (through the Holy Ghost)

Jesus sent the "Holy Ghost" to led his church and he is the "restrainer" who must be
removed (rapture) before the antichrist can appear.

The name "Holy Ghost" is associated only with Jesus's "Spiritual kingdom" (Church) and
it too leaves earth with the church.

This is not to say that "God's Spirit" departs, it doesn't, but after the rapture God will again
deal with Israel as he did in the OT, and that was through the "Holy Spirit".

Do you see how the "Holy Ghost" arrives and departs with the church, and how it
distinguishes between "God" and "Jesus" speaking??

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sim:
Do you see how the "Holy Ghost" arrives and departs with the church, and how it
distinguishes between "God" and "Jesus" speaking??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you refer to the Holy Spirit as an "it"? Do you not know that the Holy Spirit is a person?

Wy does the Holy Spirit seal the church? According to your thinking, it should be the Holy Ghost. In Matt and in Luke (4:1) the Holy Ghost appears prior to the beginning of the church and without reference to the church.

Where is this distinction in the Greek text? The Greek text uses the same word in these instances. Did the Holy Spirit (or is it the Holy Ghost) not make a distinction for 1511 years?

Can you not see how ridiculous this argument is?

 

Pastor Larry:
Wy does the Holy Spirit seal the church? According to your thinking, it should be the Holy
Ghost.
Why did God change his name to JESUS and come to the earth to be crucified???
De 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
These "name changes" are very important for understanding the Bible.

Pastor Larry:
Where is this distinction in the Greek text? The Greek text uses the same word in these
instances. Did the Holy Spirit (or is it the Holy Ghost) not make a distinction for 1511 years?
Ac 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou
at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father
hath put in his own power.
The disciples ask Jesus questions he refused to answer, why, because the answer didn't affect
them. Fifty years ago, the book of Revelation might as well not been in the Bible, few
understood it, and even fewer preached from it. God only reveals as it applies to each
Generation, we are in the "last days", that's why not only Revelation, but other things are also
being revealed which have been kept secret.

Scott J
When one word is translated into two words without a concrete contextual reason to do so, I
think someone has a tall order in proving it to be a more precise translation.
Was Jesus GOD?? Why was GOD translated into "two words", JESUS??
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my
name, ......will send in..."MY NAME",
Now we have the "Holy Ghost" in "Jesus's name", why not just call it the Holy Spirit, it's the
same, why not just call Jesus, GOD, he's the same???
I'll let you look for the " concrete contextual reason" for the name changes.

Scott J
Not really since there were different committees working on the OT and NT for the KJV.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
Are you saying there were "different gods" inspiring the "different committees" for the Bible.
If it's "one GOD" inspiring, different committees wouldn't make any difference.
Scott J
when dealing with translation I prefer a literal consistent translation when possible.
Try this translation, it never fails:
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my
name, he shall teach you all things,
1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that
any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no
lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

 

Regarding name changes, God did not change his name. God sent his Son, who is also God, but there is a distinction. To deny that distinction is heresy. Furthermore, any name changes in the OT are a part of the text which God inspired. They are not a part of translations.

Regarding revelation, surely you are not suggesting that God is still revealing things today. That would contradict a whole passel of Scriptures and we have taken a stand against charismatics who believe something very similar to what you are saying here. God finished his revelation for this age 1900 years ago and neither the charismatics nor the KJVOnlyites can add to it or change it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

Regarding revelation, surely you are not suggesting that God is still revealing things today. That would contradict a whole passel of Scriptures and we have taken a stand against charismatics who believe something very similar to what you are saying here. God finished his revelation for this age 1900 years ago and neither the charismatics nor the KJVOnlyites can add to it or change it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself
being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together "groweth" unto an holy temple in the Lord:

1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, (Jesus) then that which is in part shall be
done away.

Re 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the
mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

If you think that "Everything" in the Bible has "Already" been "Revealed", you're
"Badly mistaken", it hasn't.

Like a "Building" being constructed, each generation has used it's "Revelations" from
God to build on the "Foundation" Jesus laid with the Apostles,(add to our knowledge) when the "Building" is
complete, all will have "full knowledge" of the finished building. (mystery of God should be
finished)

As the Bible says: Our knowledge is only "in part", and we won't have "complete
knowledge" until Jesus returns.


"KJVOnlyites"

Did you ever try to work a puzzle with "missing pieces"??

That's what you're trying to do using "versions" other than the KJV.

A "virus" can't be seen with the Natural eye, and neither can the "minute" (precision) details which the KJV is written.

You've never read "God's word", until you see the prefection of God in "His Word".

 

Do I speak for anyone else when I say, “WHAT?????????” This makes no sense whatsoever. It does not help your case to argue without consideration of theology.

Eph 2:20 – The foundation of the apostles and prophets is found in the NT. It is complete and therefore the foundation is complete. The superstructure (the church) is built on that foundation, not on revelation outside of that foundation.

1 Cor 13:10 – It does not say “Christ.” You have added that in. You, of all people, should know not to add to God’s word.

Rev 10:7 – You should have read my post. Go back and check it. I said everything for this age has been revealed. When you skip words, you miss important things like meaning. I am not denying that there is revelation still to come but it is most certainly not in this age.

Your next paragraph has nothing to do with what I said. I didn’t not say everything in the Bible has been revealed as you seem to understand it. There are parts of Scripture whose fulfillment has not yet been revealed. There is no Scripture yet to be revealed. No one is receiving revelation from God outside of the Bible. He has told everything he wants us to know in Scripture and it is sufficient for making us equipped for every good work. The end of your position is that 2 Tim 3:16-17 cannot be true because you are saying that we need more than Scripture to be equipped for every good work. No generation since AD100 has received any revelation because revelation has ceased and what we have is all we need.

As for the puzzle with missing pieces, you are the one with missing pieces. You have excluded from your Bible study the vast majority of manuscript evidence. You have excluded from your study some very important key theological ideas like the doctrine of inspiration and the closing of the canon. You have excluded from your study the common sense of communication without which understanding of Scripture is impossible. I do see the perfection of God in his word. But I would have missed a lot of it had I not started reading a Bible in my language.

 

Joey M says:

The other translations dilute the meanings of the Bible in a gross way.The other translations dilute the meanings of the bible in a gross way.

Thanks Joey:

I am with you all the way on that one.

Not just dilute but, change, omit, weaken and pervert.