KJB1611reader
Active Member
I already gave a video explaining Holy Ghost and Spirit. Then, we went to 'it,' the KJB is more alligned in Greek here as it kept the neutral form. I still see no issue.
Shawn
Shawn
-
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!
Spirit or Ghost?
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Paul Cockrell on August 6, 2016 at 8:30 pm
In the KJV, when the term “Holy Ghost” is used, it refers to a direct visitation/operation of the Holy Spirit. Once the miraculous gifts dies out with the apostles, this no longer was available to Christians who were beginning to have the written word, as miracles were to confirm the word. Once the Gospels and epistles were written and spread throughout the church, there was no need to have these gifts. There are of course varying theological beliefs regarding the indwelling if the Holy Spirit today. That’s not my debate. But Ghost was a “guest” and thus the KJV translators gives us a wonderful too to differentiate between the third part of the Godhead visiting man.
Found this in a comment thread.
In the KJV, when the term “Holy Ghost” is used, it refers to a direct visitation/operation of the Holy Spirit. Once the miraculous gifts dies out with the apostles, this no longer was available to Christians who were beginning to have the written word, as miracles were to confirm the word. Once the Gospels and epistles were written and spread throughout the church, there was no need to have these gifts. There are of course varying theological beliefs regarding the indwelling if the Holy Spirit today. That’s not my debate. But Ghost was a “guest” and thus the KJV translators gives us a wonderful too to differentiate between the third part of the Godhead visiting man.
Found this in a comment thread.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
I don't refer to God as "what" or "which." As to the question of why some people and some bible translations do, my answer is the same as for the related word, "it."
KJB1611reader
Active Member
QUESTION #33:
Isn’t the Holy Spirit incorrectly called “it” in Romans 8:26 in the King James Bible’?
ANSWER:
No. There is nothing wrong with the translation of “pneuma” in Roman 8:26.
EXPLANATION:
The refutation of this popular though feeble charge against the integrity of the Bible comes from three sources. First, the Greek language itself, secondly, the hypocrisy of Bible critics and thirdly, from Jesus Christ Himself. (Since the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, His testimony should hold considerable influence.)
First, the word translated “itself” in Romans 8:26 is “pneuma” which means “spirit.” (Since the “spirit” is like air (Genesis 1:7, John 3:8) we use the word “pneumatic” to describe things that are air operated.) In Greek every word has its own distinct gender, masculine, feminine or neuter. Masculine gender is denoted by the article “o,” feminine by “a,” and neuter by “to.” The word for spirit, “pneuma” is neuter, a fact which is known to even first year Greek language students. Thus, the King James Bible correctly translates pneuma “itself” because it would be grammatically incorrect to translate it “himself” as many of today’s inferior translations do. Since critics of the King James Bible like to deride it for pretended “mistranslations” of the Greek, it seems hypocritical indeed to criticize it here for properly translating the Greek. Then to add insult to ignorance they laud other versions such as the New American Standard Version, New International Version, and New King James Version which INCORRECTLY render pneuma as “himself.”
Secondly, in adding to their hypocrisy and exposing their disdain for God’s Bible, these same critics, who become indignant at the Holy Spirit being called “it” in Romans 8 in a King James Bible, will promote translations such its the New American Standard Version and the New International Version which call God a “What ” in Acts 17:23. The Authorized Version correctly renders it “Whom.”
Thirdly, and most convincingly, is a statement that Jesus Christ makes in John chapter 4 while dealing with the woman at the well.
Jesus, completely unintimidated by twentieth century scholarship, doesn’t hesitate to say to the woman in verse 22, “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.”
To whom is Jesus referring to by the word “what?” The next verse defines His statement perfectly.
“But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.”
Thus we see that Jesus finds referring to His own Father as “what” in verse 22 a non-issue. While the mighty mice of twentieth century scholarship would translate an entirely new version over it. Even though they, in their own casual conversation, find no offense in referring to the Holy Spirit in the neuter.
Which will you follow’?
Isn’t the Holy Spirit incorrectly called “it” in Romans 8:26 in the King James Bible’?
ANSWER:
No. There is nothing wrong with the translation of “pneuma” in Roman 8:26.
EXPLANATION:
The refutation of this popular though feeble charge against the integrity of the Bible comes from three sources. First, the Greek language itself, secondly, the hypocrisy of Bible critics and thirdly, from Jesus Christ Himself. (Since the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, His testimony should hold considerable influence.)
First, the word translated “itself” in Romans 8:26 is “pneuma” which means “spirit.” (Since the “spirit” is like air (Genesis 1:7, John 3:8) we use the word “pneumatic” to describe things that are air operated.) In Greek every word has its own distinct gender, masculine, feminine or neuter. Masculine gender is denoted by the article “o,” feminine by “a,” and neuter by “to.” The word for spirit, “pneuma” is neuter, a fact which is known to even first year Greek language students. Thus, the King James Bible correctly translates pneuma “itself” because it would be grammatically incorrect to translate it “himself” as many of today’s inferior translations do. Since critics of the King James Bible like to deride it for pretended “mistranslations” of the Greek, it seems hypocritical indeed to criticize it here for properly translating the Greek. Then to add insult to ignorance they laud other versions such as the New American Standard Version, New International Version, and New King James Version which INCORRECTLY render pneuma as “himself.”
Secondly, in adding to their hypocrisy and exposing their disdain for God’s Bible, these same critics, who become indignant at the Holy Spirit being called “it” in Romans 8 in a King James Bible, will promote translations such its the New American Standard Version and the New International Version which call God a “What ” in Acts 17:23. The Authorized Version correctly renders it “Whom.”
Thirdly, and most convincingly, is a statement that Jesus Christ makes in John chapter 4 while dealing with the woman at the well.
Jesus, completely unintimidated by twentieth century scholarship, doesn’t hesitate to say to the woman in verse 22, “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.”
To whom is Jesus referring to by the word “what?” The next verse defines His statement perfectly.
“But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.”
Thus we see that Jesus finds referring to His own Father as “what” in verse 22 a non-issue. While the mighty mice of twentieth century scholarship would translate an entirely new version over it. Even though they, in their own casual conversation, find no offense in referring to the Holy Spirit in the neuter.
Which will you follow’?
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Regarding ghost: the esv had no issuecof using ghost.
The modern versions have 'ghost' and its abosustly hyprocritcal to say the KJB is wrong on this when modern scholars also use 'ghost.'
The modern versions have 'ghost' and its abosustly hyprocritcal to say the KJB is wrong on this when modern scholars also use 'ghost.'
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Again: many people see 'Holy Ghost' emphasis the 'person of the Godhead' and 'Holy Spirit' emphasiss the work in someone.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
I have just checked in the ESV. It uses the word "ghost" three times:
Isa 29:4 And you will be brought low; from the earth you shall speak, and from the dust your speech will be bowed down; your voice shall come from the ground like the voice of a ghost, and from the dust your speech shall whisper.
Mt 14:26 But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out in fear.
Mr 6:49 but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out,
Not once does it use "Ghost" for the Holy Spirit.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Hello, we seem to have a misunderstanding.
I was just pointing out new versions use 'ghost.'
So, what's wrong with KJB USING 'Ghost?'
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Yet in the original Greek of the New Testament, the words used are always the same p- hagios pneuma. The Greek word for "ghost" is phantasma. It does occur in the New Testament, for example when the disciples see Jesus walking on the water.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Because as I have just mentioned in an answer to another of your posts, when the ESV or the NKJV (for example) use the word "ghost", they do so to translate the Greek word phantasma, which does mean "ghost." Phantasma is never used for the Holy Spirit.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Holy Ghost is person, Holy Spirit is the action.
This is something the Greek can't give. Why esv put 'ghost' for the same Greek word as 'spirit?'
KJB1611reader
Active Member
I see, so it mean modern meaning of 'ghost?'
Did the KJB put spirit in those words?
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Thanks for informing me: I stand corrected.
I am going to see the Hebrew and Greek on this.
כְּא֤וֹב - bottle, spirit, familiar spirit.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
That doesn't make sense. If the Greek can't give it, and the KJV New Testament is translated from the Greek, how did the translators know which was which?
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Context, just like any other word.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Yes, phantasma is "ghost" as in the way we use it today, a phantom.
When you ask "Did the KJB put spirit in those words?" do you mean, "Did the KJB put spirit where the Greek has "phantasma?"
Here is one of the verses that uses "phantasma":
Mt 14:26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit <5326>; and they cried out for fear.
So yes, the KJV confusingly translates the word "phantasma" as "spirit."
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Phantoms are not real.
Second: found this, apprantly the translators had a theological bias and made a disctination. Hebrew Streams: holy spirit to Holy Ghost
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
I agree that phantoms are not real.
I disagree with calling the Holy Spirit a "Ghost". As you say, phantoms are not real, and in English "ghost" means a phantom. One dictiary says:
"A ghost is the spirit of a dead person that someone believes they can see or feel.
...the ghost of Marie Antoinette.
The village is haunted by the ghosts of the dead children."