-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost?
- Thread starter Scott J
- Start date
S. Baptist
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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.
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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wasn't referring to "other written" Revelations, but to understanding what is "already written" in the Bible.
The Bible contains all that is necessary, "in God's opinion". However all that is in the Bible hasn't been revealed, Yet, but will be "in due season".
I did notice one difference in "your interpretation" of the Bible and mine. You emphasized such things as ," manuscript evidence", "theological ideas", "common sense of communication".
I'll be the first to admit, I like to learn anything and everything I can about the Bible, "BUT" in my reading and understanding the Bible, I only allow the "Holy Ghost" to "interpret", as God said: I don't need anything or anyone else for that job.
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.
"Education" seems to have replace the "Holy Ghost" as "interpreter", and "Carnal Knowledge" is needed to "bear witness" to the Bible, as if the "Holy Ghost" isn't witness enough.
God knows who's listening to him and who isn't, and that's a fact none will escape on Judgment day.
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.
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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wasn't referring to "other written" Revelations, but to understanding what is "already written" in the Bible.
The Bible contains all that is necessary, "in God's opinion". However all that is in the Bible hasn't been revealed, Yet, but will be "in due season".
I did notice one difference in "your interpretation" of the Bible and mine. You emphasized such things as ," manuscript evidence", "theological ideas", "common sense of communication".
I'll be the first to admit, I like to learn anything and everything I can about the Bible, "BUT" in my reading and understanding the Bible, I only allow the "Holy Ghost" to "interpret", as God said: I don't need anything or anyone else for that job.
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.
"Education" seems to have replace the "Holy Ghost" as "interpreter", and "Carnal Knowledge" is needed to "bear witness" to the Bible, as if the "Holy Ghost" isn't witness enough.
God knows who's listening to him and who isn't, and that's a fact none will escape on Judgment day.
S. Baptist
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:
Are you perfect?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"in the flesh", NO, "In the spirit", YES.
Ro 7:7 I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
It's by "God's law", (word) we know sin, if we don't have "God's word" (law) then "God's word" (law) can not judge me.
Ro 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in (knowledge of) the law shall be judged by the law;
Will we be Judged by "God's word"????
If "God's word" is tainted with "leaven", so would a judgment.
Only in "Righteousness" can a "righteous" judgment be rendered.
Are you perfect?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"in the flesh", NO, "In the spirit", YES.
Ro 7:7 I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
It's by "God's law", (word) we know sin, if we don't have "God's word" (law) then "God's word" (law) can not judge me.
Ro 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in (knowledge of) the law shall be judged by the law;
Will we be Judged by "God's word"????
If "God's word" is tainted with "leaven", so would a judgment.
Only in "Righteousness" can a "righteous" judgment be rendered.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:
"in the flesh", NO, "In the spirit", YES. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. But handcopying and translation are both activities subject to the other "law, warring with the law of my mind." Fatigue, human error, and even human will all played a role in creating thousands if not millions of variants through the history of handcopied mss.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ro 7:7 I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please read the context. Paul is discussing the law of Moses as compared to the freedom we have through Christ. The thought is that we can serve in newness of Spirit as opposed to being ruled by the letter of the Mosaic law.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's by "God's law", (word) we know sin, if we don't have "God's word" (law) then "God's word" (law) can not judge me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is not the message of the passage you cited. We are in fact convicted by the Word of God (which btw is not a given set of words but His expressed will) but we are no longer under the law. The next chapter goes on to show that we are governed by the indwelling Spirit because they which are in the flesh cannot please God. Romans 6 tells us that we are not under the law but under grace.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ro 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in (knowledge of) the law shall be judged by the law;
Will we be Judged by "God's word"????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Note the context. Paul is establishing that there is no respect of persons with God, that all are quilty whether they know the law or not.
According to this very same passage (in context), "God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my (Paul's) gospel." Paul had just made it clear that knowledge of the law was not prerequisite.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If "God's word" is tainted with "leaven", so would a judgment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Moot point. Those who have not heard the law are just as guilty as those who have according to the text you cite.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Only in "Righteousness" can a "righteous" judgment be rendered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> God's righteousness is sufficient. His Word is forever settled in heaven and Christ the Word is even at the right hand of the Father. He does not need the KJV or any other written document to rightly execute judgment according to His Word.
You have tried to take scripture out of context to prove that a translation that would not exist for over 1500 years after Paul wrote the originals is somehow perfect. I hope you know that misusing scripture is sinful.
"in the flesh", NO, "In the spirit", YES. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. But handcopying and translation are both activities subject to the other "law, warring with the law of my mind." Fatigue, human error, and even human will all played a role in creating thousands if not millions of variants through the history of handcopied mss.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ro 7:7 I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please read the context. Paul is discussing the law of Moses as compared to the freedom we have through Christ. The thought is that we can serve in newness of Spirit as opposed to being ruled by the letter of the Mosaic law.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's by "God's law", (word) we know sin, if we don't have "God's word" (law) then "God's word" (law) can not judge me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is not the message of the passage you cited. We are in fact convicted by the Word of God (which btw is not a given set of words but His expressed will) but we are no longer under the law. The next chapter goes on to show that we are governed by the indwelling Spirit because they which are in the flesh cannot please God. Romans 6 tells us that we are not under the law but under grace.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ro 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in (knowledge of) the law shall be judged by the law;
Will we be Judged by "God's word"????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Note the context. Paul is establishing that there is no respect of persons with God, that all are quilty whether they know the law or not.
According to this very same passage (in context), "God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my (Paul's) gospel." Paul had just made it clear that knowledge of the law was not prerequisite.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If "God's word" is tainted with "leaven", so would a judgment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Moot point. Those who have not heard the law are just as guilty as those who have according to the text you cite.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Only in "Righteousness" can a "righteous" judgment be rendered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> God's righteousness is sufficient. His Word is forever settled in heaven and Christ the Word is even at the right hand of the Father. He does not need the KJV or any other written document to rightly execute judgment according to His Word.
You have tried to take scripture out of context to prove that a translation that would not exist for over 1500 years after Paul wrote the originals is somehow perfect. I hope you know that misusing scripture is sinful.
S. Baptist
New Member
You said:
But handcopying and translation are both activities subject to the other "law, warring with the
law of my mind." Fatigue, human error, and even human will all played a role in creating
thousands if not millions of variants through the history of handcopied mss.
Here's what the Bible has to say:
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,
Joh 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received
them,
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but
which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of
our Lord Jesus Christ,
Mt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but "my words" shall not pass away.
Does the "Holy Ghost", (Comforter) still teach today, are his words the same as Jesus's, how
can we judge what is "wholesome" if we don't have "Jesus's words", has his words really
"passed away" in translations?????
Does your Pastor preach by "Knowledge" or by the "Holy Ghost"??
If God can put in the heart of a Pastor words to preach, where's the "short circuit" between a
man's heart and hand to write???
What you fail to realize is that "GOD'S WORD" isn't preserved by man, but by the "Holy
Ghost", (GOD), and the "absoluteness" of God's word when he said:
2Ti 3:16 "ALL SCRIPTURE" is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Do you suppose the KJV translation, and the number of people who would come to depend on
it, came as a "Surprise" to God???
What you, and all the others, are really saying is that the men who translated the KJV "WERE
NOT" following the leadership of the "Holy Ghost".
How do you arrive at that conclusion, "Carnal reasoning", based on man's ineptitude, or
"Spiritual guidance"???
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
"Would the "Holy Ghost" bear witness to words which "ARE NOT" God's words???
Does the "Holy Ghost" bear witness to the words of the KJV Bible???
You said:
"Paul had just made it clear that knowledge of the law was not prerequisite."
At my church we preach "THE LAW":
"the wages of sin is death"
"ALL have sinned"
"without the shedding of blood, (Jesus's) there is no remission" (of sin)
The Gospel is teaching the law and how to escape the penalty of that law. (being saved)
I think if you'll "reexamine" your belief in light of what "God" has said, your perspective will
shift until it is a little straighter "in line" with the "written word".
Don't take my word for it, you have the "Holy Ghost".
But handcopying and translation are both activities subject to the other "law, warring with the
law of my mind." Fatigue, human error, and even human will all played a role in creating
thousands if not millions of variants through the history of handcopied mss.
Here's what the Bible has to say:
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,
Joh 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received
them,
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but
which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of
our Lord Jesus Christ,
Mt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but "my words" shall not pass away.
Does the "Holy Ghost", (Comforter) still teach today, are his words the same as Jesus's, how
can we judge what is "wholesome" if we don't have "Jesus's words", has his words really
"passed away" in translations?????
Does your Pastor preach by "Knowledge" or by the "Holy Ghost"??
If God can put in the heart of a Pastor words to preach, where's the "short circuit" between a
man's heart and hand to write???
What you fail to realize is that "GOD'S WORD" isn't preserved by man, but by the "Holy
Ghost", (GOD), and the "absoluteness" of God's word when he said:
2Ti 3:16 "ALL SCRIPTURE" is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Do you suppose the KJV translation, and the number of people who would come to depend on
it, came as a "Surprise" to God???
What you, and all the others, are really saying is that the men who translated the KJV "WERE
NOT" following the leadership of the "Holy Ghost".
How do you arrive at that conclusion, "Carnal reasoning", based on man's ineptitude, or
"Spiritual guidance"???
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
"Would the "Holy Ghost" bear witness to words which "ARE NOT" God's words???
Does the "Holy Ghost" bear witness to the words of the KJV Bible???
You said:
"Paul had just made it clear that knowledge of the law was not prerequisite."
At my church we preach "THE LAW":
"the wages of sin is death"
"ALL have sinned"
"without the shedding of blood, (Jesus's) there is no remission" (of sin)
The Gospel is teaching the law and how to escape the penalty of that law. (being saved)
I think if you'll "reexamine" your belief in light of what "God" has said, your perspective will
shift until it is a little straighter "in line" with the "written word".
Don't take my word for it, you have the "Holy Ghost".
< What you fail to realize is that "GOD'S WORD" isn't preserved by man, but by the "Holy Ghost", (GOD), and the "absoluteness" of God's word when he said >
The scripture says nothing at all about translations. Since translating one language to another is not an absolute one-to-one function, to shove the word "absoluteness" into a 3rd-hand, at best, account is an absurdness.
< What you, and all the others, are really saying is that the men who translated the KJV "WERE NOT" following the leadership of the "Holy Ghost". >
Not as much as they were following the leadership of Jimmy from Scotland, who wanted to do away with the Geneva Bible because it was not a strong enough affirmation of an absolute monarchy.
And if they were following the leadership of the 'Holy Ghost,' do you continue to follow such leadership? IOW, are you a member of the particular church they authorized Jimmy's Bible for?
< Does the "Holy Ghost" bear witness to the words of the KJV Bible??? >
Did He bear witness to the words of the Geneva Bible, as well as to the modern version to come later, the KJV? How about the Great Bible before the Geneva Bible? How about any other translation before or after?
< Don't take my word for it, you have the "Holy Ghost". >
I am definitely not taking your word for it. What is this [expletive deleted] about "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit," when it is the same term translated different ways? If God inspired it one way, why should we read it 2 ways? Or is it alright to add to the Word of God?
[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
The scripture says nothing at all about translations. Since translating one language to another is not an absolute one-to-one function, to shove the word "absoluteness" into a 3rd-hand, at best, account is an absurdness.
< What you, and all the others, are really saying is that the men who translated the KJV "WERE NOT" following the leadership of the "Holy Ghost". >
Not as much as they were following the leadership of Jimmy from Scotland, who wanted to do away with the Geneva Bible because it was not a strong enough affirmation of an absolute monarchy.
And if they were following the leadership of the 'Holy Ghost,' do you continue to follow such leadership? IOW, are you a member of the particular church they authorized Jimmy's Bible for?
< Does the "Holy Ghost" bear witness to the words of the KJV Bible??? >
Did He bear witness to the words of the Geneva Bible, as well as to the modern version to come later, the KJV? How about the Great Bible before the Geneva Bible? How about any other translation before or after?
< Don't take my word for it, you have the "Holy Ghost". >
I am definitely not taking your word for it. What is this [expletive deleted] about "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit," when it is the same term translated different ways? If God inspired it one way, why should we read it 2 ways? Or is it alright to add to the Word of God?
[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
S. Baptist
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
< I am definitely not taking your word for it. What is this crud about "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit," when it is the same term translated different ways? If God inspired it one way, why should we read it 2 ways? Or is it alright to add to the Word of God?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why was it "inspired" different ways,
so those who had "ears to hear" could understand the Bible in a way those who didn't have ears, "couldn't".
God with the "Holy Spirit",led Israel by "law and prophets" until John,
then Jesus with the "Holy Ghost" leads the church until the rapture,
then God, with the "Holy Spirit" and again under the "law and prophets" will led Israel during the tribulation period.
If you'll get your doctrine out of the Bible, you won't be calling it "crud".
< I am definitely not taking your word for it. What is this crud about "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit," when it is the same term translated different ways? If God inspired it one way, why should we read it 2 ways? Or is it alright to add to the Word of God?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why was it "inspired" different ways,
so those who had "ears to hear" could understand the Bible in a way those who didn't have ears, "couldn't".
God with the "Holy Spirit",led Israel by "law and prophets" until John,
then Jesus with the "Holy Ghost" leads the church until the rapture,
then God, with the "Holy Spirit" and again under the "law and prophets" will led Israel during the tribulation period.
If you'll get your doctrine out of the Bible, you won't be calling it "crud".
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:
Why was it "inspired" different ways, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is the point ... it was not inspired different ways. The text uses the same word (pneuma); it is the translators who translate the same word different ways. As I previously showed, your little division between Spirit/Israel and Ghost/Church is not consistent in Scripture. The translators use "Spirit" in reference to the church.
God inspired it one way -- Pneuma. Translators chose to translate it differently - and inconsistently differently at that.
Why was it "inspired" different ways, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is the point ... it was not inspired different ways. The text uses the same word (pneuma); it is the translators who translate the same word different ways. As I previously showed, your little division between Spirit/Israel and Ghost/Church is not consistent in Scripture. The translators use "Spirit" in reference to the church.
God inspired it one way -- Pneuma. Translators chose to translate it differently - and inconsistently differently at that.
S. Baptist
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
That is the point ... it was not inspired different ways. The text uses the same word (pneuma); it is the translators who translate the same word different ways. As I previously showed, your little division between Spirit/Israel and Ghost/Church is not consistent in Scripture. The translators use "Spirit" in reference to the church.
God inspired it one way -- Pneuma. Translators chose to translate it differently - and inconsistently differently at that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll just say this:
You've still got a lot to learn about the Bible.
Like a lot of "others", you try to "generalize" scripture, the broad brush you paint with covers up the minute details.
Throw your "measuring tape" away, get out your "micrometer", start measuring in "Thousandths", instead of inches, you'll be surprised how "close a tolerance" the Bible holds.
That is the point ... it was not inspired different ways. The text uses the same word (pneuma); it is the translators who translate the same word different ways. As I previously showed, your little division between Spirit/Israel and Ghost/Church is not consistent in Scripture. The translators use "Spirit" in reference to the church.
God inspired it one way -- Pneuma. Translators chose to translate it differently - and inconsistently differently at that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll just say this:
You've still got a lot to learn about the Bible.
Like a lot of "others", you try to "generalize" scripture, the broad brush you paint with covers up the minute details.
Throw your "measuring tape" away, get out your "micrometer", start measuring in "Thousandths", instead of inches, you'll be surprised how "close a tolerance" the Bible holds.
< If you'll get your doctrine out of the Bible, you won't be calling it "[expletive deleted]". >
If you will read the Bible-- not your [KJV, ed.] to the exclusion of the orignial language manuscripts and other competent translations-- you will find there is one term used and translated 'Holy Spirit' by most MV's, but in 2 different ways by the KJV. If you have one term and you subjectively translate it different ways, that is [expletive deleted], and so is your advocacy thereof.
[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
If you will read the Bible-- not your [KJV, ed.] to the exclusion of the orignial language manuscripts and other competent translations-- you will find there is one term used and translated 'Holy Spirit' by most MV's, but in 2 different ways by the KJV. If you have one term and you subjectively translate it different ways, that is [expletive deleted], and so is your advocacy thereof.
[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
S. Baptist
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
< If you'll get your doctrine out of the Bible, you won't be calling it "[expletive deleted]". >
If you will read the Bible-- not your [KJV, ed] to the exclusion of the orignial language manuscripts and other competent translations-- you will find there is one term used and translated 'Holy Spirit' by most MV's, but in 2 different ways by the KJV. If you have one term and you subjectively translate it different ways, that is [expletive deleted], and so is your advocacy thereof.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks, you're doing better at proving the "Inerrancy" of the KJ than I.
"subjectively translate it different ways"
I suppose you can "prove" the "subjectively" part of this statement, with the Bible of course??
I'd like to see those verses.
[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
< If you'll get your doctrine out of the Bible, you won't be calling it "[expletive deleted]". >
If you will read the Bible-- not your [KJV, ed] to the exclusion of the orignial language manuscripts and other competent translations-- you will find there is one term used and translated 'Holy Spirit' by most MV's, but in 2 different ways by the KJV. If you have one term and you subjectively translate it different ways, that is [expletive deleted], and so is your advocacy thereof.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks, you're doing better at proving the "Inerrancy" of the KJ than I.
"subjectively translate it different ways"
I suppose you can "prove" the "subjectively" part of this statement, with the Bible of course??
I'd like to see those verses.
[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
Try not to spend much time on this Forum as I am busy with all I have to oversee. Have seen some good debates and a lot of ad hominem attacks. But nevertheless don't much appreciate the language employed.
"Crud" is military slang for venereal disease. (It started as a way soldiers could report sick without actually saying what malady they had - "I got the crud")
Now, whether you like a translation or not, I do not think appropriate to use that language. And calling one another names seems petulant and childish.
If you all don't straighten up, I am going to put on your report card "Does not play well with others."
"Crud" is military slang for venereal disease. (It started as a way soldiers could report sick without actually saying what malady they had - "I got the crud")
Now, whether you like a translation or not, I do not think appropriate to use that language. And calling one another names seems petulant and childish.
If you all don't straighten up, I am going to put on your report card "Does not play well with others."
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:
I'll just say this:
You've still got a lot to learn about the Bible.
Like a lot of "others", you try to "generalize" scripture, the broad brush you paint with covers up the minute details.
Throw your "measuring tape" away, get out your "micrometer", start measuring in "Thousandths", instead of inches, you'll be surprised how "close a tolerance" the Bible holds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well then teach me. Teach me why God used one word to refer to the Holy Spirit. Did God not know the difference between teh Ghost and the Spirit? If he did, then why didn't he use language to demonstrate that. In every case, God used the single word, pneuma. In the KJV version, translators felt the liberty to use two words (Ghost and Spirit) to translate the one word Pneuma.
As I have said before and will now point out again, I have showed from Scripture how your breakdown of the use of Spirit and Ghost does not work out. The Spirit is used in reference to the church on multiple occasions. Why don't you deal with Scripture? You talk about wanting to learn it ... deal with the texts that are put in front of you.
Then follow up dealing with Scripture by telling us how the first century church who didn't have the benefit of the KJV would have known the difference between Spirit and Ghost. For them, they all read the same.
You need to put away your micrometer and get out your texts and lexicons. You need to look and see what God wrote and then explain why the KJV felt the liberty to translate it differently.
I'll just say this:
You've still got a lot to learn about the Bible.
Like a lot of "others", you try to "generalize" scripture, the broad brush you paint with covers up the minute details.
Throw your "measuring tape" away, get out your "micrometer", start measuring in "Thousandths", instead of inches, you'll be surprised how "close a tolerance" the Bible holds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well then teach me. Teach me why God used one word to refer to the Holy Spirit. Did God not know the difference between teh Ghost and the Spirit? If he did, then why didn't he use language to demonstrate that. In every case, God used the single word, pneuma. In the KJV version, translators felt the liberty to use two words (Ghost and Spirit) to translate the one word Pneuma.
As I have said before and will now point out again, I have showed from Scripture how your breakdown of the use of Spirit and Ghost does not work out. The Spirit is used in reference to the church on multiple occasions. Why don't you deal with Scripture? You talk about wanting to learn it ... deal with the texts that are put in front of you.
Then follow up dealing with Scripture by telling us how the first century church who didn't have the benefit of the KJV would have known the difference between Spirit and Ghost. For them, they all read the same.
You need to put away your micrometer and get out your texts and lexicons. You need to look and see what God wrote and then explain why the KJV felt the liberty to translate it differently.
DocCas
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
Does the English monarch "sit upon the very throne of God," as James I claimed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes! If you beleive in the Sovereignty of God! James sat on the throne of England by the Sovereignty of God. Proverbs 8:15 By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.
ALSO, LAST WARNING. I WILL DELETE ALL POST CONTAINING VULGAR LANGUAGE, NAME CALLING, AND AD HOMINEM. IF YOU CANNOT CONDUCT YOURSELF AS A CHRISTIAN IN THIS FORUM, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LEAVE!
[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
Does the English monarch "sit upon the very throne of God," as James I claimed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes! If you beleive in the Sovereignty of God! James sat on the throne of England by the Sovereignty of God. Proverbs 8:15 By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.
ALSO, LAST WARNING. I WILL DELETE ALL POST CONTAINING VULGAR LANGUAGE, NAME CALLING, AND AD HOMINEM. IF YOU CANNOT CONDUCT YOURSELF AS A CHRISTIAN IN THIS FORUM, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LEAVE!
[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
S. Baptist
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Well then teach me. Teach me why God used one word to refer to the Holy Spirit. Did God not know the difference between teh Ghost and the Spirit? If he did, then why didn't he use language to demonstrate that. In every case, God used the single word, pneuma. In the KJV version, translators felt the liberty to use two words (Ghost and Spirit) to translate the one word Pneuma.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Heb 1:1 God, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
De 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
so why did the translator say that "GOD" stopped speaking and his son started, if they are
ONE and the same, why call one the "FATHER" and the other the "SON"???
Is this one of those "subjectively" decisions by the translators, which contributes little or
nothing to understanding the Bible???
"God, the Father" and "God, the Son", speak by different "Voices", God uses the "Holy
Spirit", and Jesus the "Holy Ghost".
The "Holy Ghost" is the "Voice of the "Bridegroom", the "Son",
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,
Ac 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and
teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given
commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
The Holy Ghost is the means by which Jesus speaks, leads, and stays with his "Bride".
1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you,
This same "Holy Ghost" is the "restrainer" who with his "LAST TRUMP" (voice) will leave
this earth with the church before the "wicked" one is revealed. (rapture)
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall
sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
The failure to understand these differences has many believing the
"last trump" is the trumpeters of tribulation, it isn't, it's the "last trump" of the Son speaking,
not God.
Jesus in his capacity as the "VINE" doesn't bring Israel to Salvation, God does, Jesus tried,
but the "Fig Tree" refused to produce "figs", (Israel rejecting Jesus) and he writhed up the
"Fig Tree". Mt 21:19 then took the Gospel to the Gentiles. (olive berries)
Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches:
Jas 3:12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs?
When you fail to understand the differences between "God the Father" and "God and the Son"
and their different methods of communicating with the Jews and Gentiles, you're doomed to
failure in comprehending the Bible.
And the differences in "Holy Ghost", Holy Spirit" are as important to understand the Bible as
the differences in "God the Father", and "God the Son".
It's why many doesn't know the difference in the "last trump" of the "Son" (pre trib: rapture)
and the "last trump" of the "Father". (end of time).
Well then teach me. Teach me why God used one word to refer to the Holy Spirit. Did God not know the difference between teh Ghost and the Spirit? If he did, then why didn't he use language to demonstrate that. In every case, God used the single word, pneuma. In the KJV version, translators felt the liberty to use two words (Ghost and Spirit) to translate the one word Pneuma.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Heb 1:1 God, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
De 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
so why did the translator say that "GOD" stopped speaking and his son started, if they are
ONE and the same, why call one the "FATHER" and the other the "SON"???
Is this one of those "subjectively" decisions by the translators, which contributes little or
nothing to understanding the Bible???
"God, the Father" and "God, the Son", speak by different "Voices", God uses the "Holy
Spirit", and Jesus the "Holy Ghost".
The "Holy Ghost" is the "Voice of the "Bridegroom", the "Son",
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,
Ac 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and
teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given
commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
The Holy Ghost is the means by which Jesus speaks, leads, and stays with his "Bride".
1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you,
This same "Holy Ghost" is the "restrainer" who with his "LAST TRUMP" (voice) will leave
this earth with the church before the "wicked" one is revealed. (rapture)
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall
sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
The failure to understand these differences has many believing the
"last trump" is the trumpeters of tribulation, it isn't, it's the "last trump" of the Son speaking,
not God.
Jesus in his capacity as the "VINE" doesn't bring Israel to Salvation, God does, Jesus tried,
but the "Fig Tree" refused to produce "figs", (Israel rejecting Jesus) and he writhed up the
"Fig Tree". Mt 21:19 then took the Gospel to the Gentiles. (olive berries)
Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches:
Jas 3:12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs?
When you fail to understand the differences between "God the Father" and "God and the Son"
and their different methods of communicating with the Jews and Gentiles, you're doomed to
failure in comprehending the Bible.
And the differences in "Holy Ghost", Holy Spirit" are as important to understand the Bible as
the differences in "God the Father", and "God the Son".
It's why many doesn't know the difference in the "last trump" of the "Son" (pre trib: rapture)
and the "last trump" of the "Father". (end of time).
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Heb 1:1 God, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
De 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure what your point is here. The translator in these passages was translating different words differently. God is theos; Son is huios. Deut 6:4 says that YHWH our Elohim is one YHWH. The words are different. It is not a subjective translation decision. Theos is different that huios; YHWH is different than Elohim. However, the Spirit is one word translated differently (ghost or Spirit).
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"God, the Father" and "God, the Son", speak by different "Voices", God uses the "HolySpirit", and Jesus the "Holy Ghost". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If this is so, then how did people know this before the KJV was published? This distinction is non-existent in the writings of Paul, Peter, Luke, John, Jude, etc.
Furthermore, if you study your KJV you will find that this distinction does not hold up. Notably 2 Peter 1:22 where holy men of GOD spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. That is specifically referring to OT Scriptures.m
God the Father and God the son speak by different voices?? Are you suggesting the Trinity is really a quadernity??? Surely not. Can you not see how ridiculous this is? The more I read your post the funnier it gets. I do not even know where to start. You have made so many errors in connecting things that have nothing to do with each other (like John 15 and James 3). These are apples and oranges. The point in James 3 is about the tongue. It has nothign to do with Israel or their salvation.
You are making some weird distinctions. You have been exposed to some very poor Bible teaching and it would do you well to get as far away from it as you can. You are using Scripture out of context, making distinctions that the Bible doesn’t make, wresting Scriptures from their meaning to support whatever you want to believe.
The point stands: In the revelation of God, there is no distinction between the Ghost and the Spirit. They are the same Greek word and if it was written that way, then we should treat it that way.
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
De 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure what your point is here. The translator in these passages was translating different words differently. God is theos; Son is huios. Deut 6:4 says that YHWH our Elohim is one YHWH. The words are different. It is not a subjective translation decision. Theos is different that huios; YHWH is different than Elohim. However, the Spirit is one word translated differently (ghost or Spirit).
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"God, the Father" and "God, the Son", speak by different "Voices", God uses the "HolySpirit", and Jesus the "Holy Ghost". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If this is so, then how did people know this before the KJV was published? This distinction is non-existent in the writings of Paul, Peter, Luke, John, Jude, etc.
Furthermore, if you study your KJV you will find that this distinction does not hold up. Notably 2 Peter 1:22 where holy men of GOD spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. That is specifically referring to OT Scriptures.m
God the Father and God the son speak by different voices?? Are you suggesting the Trinity is really a quadernity??? Surely not. Can you not see how ridiculous this is? The more I read your post the funnier it gets. I do not even know where to start. You have made so many errors in connecting things that have nothing to do with each other (like John 15 and James 3). These are apples and oranges. The point in James 3 is about the tongue. It has nothign to do with Israel or their salvation.
You are making some weird distinctions. You have been exposed to some very poor Bible teaching and it would do you well to get as far away from it as you can. You are using Scripture out of context, making distinctions that the Bible doesn’t make, wresting Scriptures from their meaning to support whatever you want to believe.
The point stands: In the revelation of God, there is no distinction between the Ghost and the Spirit. They are the same Greek word and if it was written that way, then we should treat it that way.
S. Baptist
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[/qb]
If this is so, then how did people know this before the KJV was published? This distinction is non-existent in the writings of Paul, Peter, Luke, John, Jude, etc.
----------------------------------
It may be "non-existent" to the "carnal mind", but not the "spiritual mind".
--------------------------------------
Furthermore, if you study your KJV you will find that this distinction does not hold up. Notably 2 Peter 1:22 where holy men of GOD spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. That is specifically referring to OT Scriptures.m
God the Father and God the son speak by different voices?? Are you suggesting the Trinity is really a quadernity??? Surely not. Can you not see how ridiculous this is? The more I read your post the funnier it gets. I do not even know where to start.
-------------------------------------------
If the Bible makes a distinction between the "Father and Son" speaking, why do you find it hard to believe it also distinguishes between their "voices"?
-----------------------------------------
You have made so many errors in connecting things that have nothing to do with each other (like John 15 and James 3). These are apples and oranges. The point in James 3 is about the tongue. It has nothign to do with Israel or their salvation.
-----------------------------------------
Yes, to the "babe in Christ" it is talking about "tongues", but to the "meat eater" it tells "more".
We're all made to "drink of the same "Spiritual Rock", (1Co 10:4) but for the Church, it's easy to drink, (fresh)(Spiritual crucifixtion) however when Isael drinks of this same water, it will be "Bitter", "In tribulations", to drink of this water will mean physical death for them, (not worshipping the antichrist).
Do you know anything about "drinking of Jesus Cup"???
-----------------------------------------
You are making some weird distinctions. You have been exposed to some very poor Bible teaching and it would do you well to get as far away from it as you can. You are using Scripture out of context, making distinctions that the Bible doesn’t make, wresting Scriptures from their meaning to support whatever you want to believe.
----------------------------------------
As one poster here stated, "I worked in area 51", I suppose I do, I work with the "Holy GHOST", and that does seem to be an area restricted to only a few.
----------------------------------------
The point stands: In the revelation of God, there is no distinction between the Ghost and the Spirit. They are the same Greek word and if it was written that way, then we should treat it that way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
--------------------------------------------
And there's no distinction between "God the Father" and "God the Son",
"and we should treat it that way".
[/qb]
If this is so, then how did people know this before the KJV was published? This distinction is non-existent in the writings of Paul, Peter, Luke, John, Jude, etc.
----------------------------------
It may be "non-existent" to the "carnal mind", but not the "spiritual mind".
--------------------------------------
Furthermore, if you study your KJV you will find that this distinction does not hold up. Notably 2 Peter 1:22 where holy men of GOD spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. That is specifically referring to OT Scriptures.m
God the Father and God the son speak by different voices?? Are you suggesting the Trinity is really a quadernity??? Surely not. Can you not see how ridiculous this is? The more I read your post the funnier it gets. I do not even know where to start.
-------------------------------------------
If the Bible makes a distinction between the "Father and Son" speaking, why do you find it hard to believe it also distinguishes between their "voices"?
-----------------------------------------
You have made so many errors in connecting things that have nothing to do with each other (like John 15 and James 3). These are apples and oranges. The point in James 3 is about the tongue. It has nothign to do with Israel or their salvation.
-----------------------------------------
Yes, to the "babe in Christ" it is talking about "tongues", but to the "meat eater" it tells "more".
We're all made to "drink of the same "Spiritual Rock", (1Co 10:4) but for the Church, it's easy to drink, (fresh)(Spiritual crucifixtion) however when Isael drinks of this same water, it will be "Bitter", "In tribulations", to drink of this water will mean physical death for them, (not worshipping the antichrist).
Do you know anything about "drinking of Jesus Cup"???
-----------------------------------------
You are making some weird distinctions. You have been exposed to some very poor Bible teaching and it would do you well to get as far away from it as you can. You are using Scripture out of context, making distinctions that the Bible doesn’t make, wresting Scriptures from their meaning to support whatever you want to believe.
----------------------------------------
As one poster here stated, "I worked in area 51", I suppose I do, I work with the "Holy GHOST", and that does seem to be an area restricted to only a few.
----------------------------------------
The point stands: In the revelation of God, there is no distinction between the Ghost and the Spirit. They are the same Greek word and if it was written that way, then we should treat it that way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
--------------------------------------------
And there's no distinction between "God the Father" and "God the Son",
"and we should treat it that way".
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It may be "non-existent" to the "carnal mind", but not the "spiritual mind". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you are saying that the biblical authors did not have spiritual minds?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If the Bible makes a distinction between the "Father and Son" speaking, why do you find it hard to believe it also distinguishes between their "voices"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I find it hard to believe because Scripture does not make a distinction between their voices. You are imposing something on a translation of Scripture, something not found in the original language texts. Scripture makes a distinction between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. It does not throw in a fourth person, God the Ghost.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[On James 3] Yes, to the "babe in Christ" it is talking about "tongues", but to the "meat eater" it tells "more". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you are saying that James was a babe in Christ?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We're all made to "drink of the same "Spiritual Rock", (1Co 10:4) but for the Church, it's easy to drink, (fresh)(Spiritual crucifixtion) however when Isael drinks of this same water, it will be "Bitter", "In tribulations", to drink of this water will mean physical death for them, (not worshipping the antichrist).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is an example of what I am talking about. You are introducing something foreign to the text.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As one poster here stated, "I worked in area 51", I suppose I do, I work with the "Holy GHOST", and that does seem to be an area restricted to only a few. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is not a biblical area. This is another example of the foolishness that is being employed to support a translational distinction that is not found in the original language texts.
There is a basic principle of hermeneutics that you are ignoring. It says, Scripture cannot mean what it never meant. It is illegitimate to take an author's words about one subject and apply to another.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And there's no distinction between "God the Father" and "God the Son",
"and we should treat it that way". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is heresy unless you mean something than you wrote. There is a clear distinction between the Father and the Son and we should it as if there is. If this is what you mean, you are in contradiction to clearly revealed Scripture.
So you are saying that the biblical authors did not have spiritual minds?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If the Bible makes a distinction between the "Father and Son" speaking, why do you find it hard to believe it also distinguishes between their "voices"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I find it hard to believe because Scripture does not make a distinction between their voices. You are imposing something on a translation of Scripture, something not found in the original language texts. Scripture makes a distinction between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. It does not throw in a fourth person, God the Ghost.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[On James 3] Yes, to the "babe in Christ" it is talking about "tongues", but to the "meat eater" it tells "more". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you are saying that James was a babe in Christ?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We're all made to "drink of the same "Spiritual Rock", (1Co 10:4) but for the Church, it's easy to drink, (fresh)(Spiritual crucifixtion) however when Isael drinks of this same water, it will be "Bitter", "In tribulations", to drink of this water will mean physical death for them, (not worshipping the antichrist).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is an example of what I am talking about. You are introducing something foreign to the text.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As one poster here stated, "I worked in area 51", I suppose I do, I work with the "Holy GHOST", and that does seem to be an area restricted to only a few. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is not a biblical area. This is another example of the foolishness that is being employed to support a translational distinction that is not found in the original language texts.
There is a basic principle of hermeneutics that you are ignoring. It says, Scripture cannot mean what it never meant. It is illegitimate to take an author's words about one subject and apply to another.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And there's no distinction between "God the Father" and "God the Son",
"and we should treat it that way". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is heresy unless you mean something than you wrote. There is a clear distinction between the Father and the Son and we should it as if there is. If this is what you mean, you are in contradiction to clearly revealed Scripture.