What is the significant difference between the NT translation "Holy Ghost" vs "Holy Spirit"?

Discussion in 'Pneumatology' started by Fool for Christ, Jul 3, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fool for Christ

    Fool for Christ Puritan Board Freshman

    For many years I have wondered why the KJV translators chose the wording "Holy Ghost" over the more popular and modern reading of "Holy Spirit" in the New Testament. Is this just an antiquated relic of wording that is no longer significant or is there strong reasons why this was done?
     
  2. KeithW

    KeithW Puritan Board Freshman

    I do not have an answer. But have you done a word search to determine if the KJV always refers to that person of the Godhead only as the Holy Ghost?

    My primary study tool is the Blue Letter Bible website, specifically blbclass.org instead of blb.org

    A search for ghost in the Old Testament shows it is only used in the phrase "give up the ghost", never of a person of the Godhead.

    More complicated searches of the Old Testament shows "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of the LORD" are used in places like Gen. 1:2, Exo. 31:3, Judges 11:29, etc.

    In the New Testament there are phrases like "the Holy Ghost" in Matt. 3:11, 12:32 and "the Spirit of God" in Matt. 3:16, 12:28.

    Other examples:

    Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

    Luke 12:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.​

    and

    Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

    Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

    1Th 4:8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.​

    But yes, "Holy Ghost" is typical in the KJV.
     
  3. Jack K

    Jack K Puritan Board Professor

    The KJV most often uses "Holy Ghost" in the New Testament, but sometimes uses "Spirit." I don't have a comprehensive source in front of me, but I think you'll find the Greek word being translated is the same in most (maybe all) cases. The Luke 11:13 and 12:10 passages mentioned above are a good example. The Greek says "Pneuma" in both places; the KJV translators used "Spirit" in one and "Ghost" in the other.

    Why? The "To the Reader" note from the translators suggests they may have liked the idea of using alternate English words when either might work. It seemed wise to them not to tie single, particular English words to the expressions of truth found in Scripture. Certainly, they say this was their philosophy in several other passages.

    DEFENSE OF A VARIETY OF WORDS TO TRANSLATE ONE ORIGINAL WORD
    There is another thing we think good to point out to you, gentle Reader. It is that we have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some perhaps would wish that we had done.... We have not always expressed the same idea with the same particular word. For example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by ‘purpose’, then in another place to call it ‘intent’; if one place ‘journeying’, in another ‘traveling’; if one place ‘think’, in another ‘suppose’; if one place ‘pain’, in another ‘ache’; if one place ‘joy’, in another ‘gladness’. To use a uniformity of words we thought it would produce more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist, than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we lie in bondage to them, if we may be free? Why use one word only, when we may use another no less fit and just as suitably?​

    So perhaps they followed this same translation philosophy with "Pneuma." I wonder if some historian among us is able to confirm or refute that, but this is my opening suggestion based on the translators' stated philosophy.

    Obviously, this translation philosophy can cause confusion. Well-meaning readers have wondered if the Ghost and Spirit are different entities. But there also may be some wisdom behind it. Given how the connotations associated with the English word "ghost" have changed in 400 years, perhaps we get a more well-rounded view when we see that the Greek word can also be translated as "spirit."
     
  4. KeithW

    KeithW Puritan Board Freshman

    Of the 4 verses I quoted which use the Holy Spirit in the KJV NT, only 3 of those are Holy Spirit in the 1587 Geneva Bible, but all 4 are "holy sprete" in the 1525 Tyndale New Testament.

    Jack, that translator note was the first thing which crossed my mind. Their idea makes sense if you are a translator and know what the underlying Hebrew and Greek words are, and therefore can comprehend the "richness" of what is being said. But that is lost on us who don't know the original languages. I learn some by seeing how an English word is used in different places. I learn more when I know when the underlying Greek word is used in other places. And vice versa. I learn more when I learn that 2 or 3 different Greek words are translated into the same English word, and that those Greek words have different definitions.

    It will be interesting to hear what the real answer is.
     
  5. Adam Olive

    Adam Olive Puritan Board Freshman

    I heard once that in the 1600s "ghost" had connotations of personhood e.g. a person who had died. Whereas "spirit" referred more to like evil spirits and had darker connotations. So "Holy Ghost" (emphasising the personhood) was more appropriate than "Holy Spirit" (almost a contradiction of terms - although the addition of 'holy' to 'spirit'might refer to a good supernatural being' and so would not be wrong although open to misunderstanding).

    In our day the words have almost reversed with "spirit" referring to humans and "ghost" to supernatural sometimes darker forces. So today "Holy Ghost" is more open to misunderstanding than "Holy Spirit".

    I think "Holy Ghost" was more appropriate then and "Holy Spirit"now because of the changes in the meaning of words.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2017
  6. Jack K

    Jack K Puritan Board Professor

    It sounds to me like those translators saw that a dictionary-definition approach to the words of Scripture both forces meanings that weren't intended and sacrifices richness. I can appreciate that. I've been in Bible studies that would be helped by people realizing we shouldn't get too stuck on either the dictionary definition of individual words or their use elsewhere, but should understand them in context.

    But I've also been in Bible studies where someone started making a point about the supposed difference between "faith" and "belief" in the New Testament, not realizing that although John urges his readers to "believe" while Paul tells his to have "faith," the Greek roots are the same. A more consistent translation philosophy would seem helpful in such cases, as it might in the KJV's use of "Ghost" and "Spirit."

    I find the whole thing fascinating. What tough decisions a translator must make! As a words guy, I probably would have enjoyed that line of work.
     
  7. Fool for Christ

    Fool for Christ Puritan Board Freshman

    Thank you for your reply. Yes, I have done word studies. My question is based upon E-Sword's count of 89 verses which use the translation "Holy Ghost" compared to 4 or 5 times the words "Holy Spirit" is used (in the KJV) in the NT. More modern versions nearly always use "Holy Spirit." The KJV never uses the words "Holy Ghost" in the OT.

    The Greek "Pneuma" is rendered "spirit" 234 times, And "Ghost" 89 times; but most of the time "Holy" is placed before the word "ghost", when it appears as a phrase, and just "Spirit or spirit" when it is without it. I am assuming that "Holy Ghost" is the name of a person, but so it would appear is "Spirit." There are also two other Greek words used for "ghost" but they are referenced when one "gives up the ghost," not in reference to the "Holy Ghost". Something tells me this is significant and I have some hunches, but am curious what others think. Are the new versions technically wrong when translating Holy "pneuma" as "Holy Spirit", or am I just splitting hairs?
     
  8. Fool for Christ

    Fool for Christ Puritan Board Freshman

     
  9. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    The English of the time of the 1611 translation would have had Ghost mean to them what the term Spirit connotes to us today, as they would not have seen it meaning ghosts as in say casper or other dead spirits, but as the Holy Spirit being a Spirit, and also God.
     
  10. KeithW

    KeithW Puritan Board Freshman

    The exceptions which a search uncovers are always interesting. For example compare these two verses.

    Matt. 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

    Matt. 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.​

    The underlying Greek word for Spirit/Ghost is the same in both verses. But in the second case the translator chose to render it Ghost and added Holy though Holy is not in the Greek. In Matt. 12:31, the 1568 Bishop's Bible translates this as "spirite", and the 1587 Geneva Bible translates this as "holy Ghost".

    Another interesting search was when the words Holy and Ghost and Spirit are all used in the same verse. These 5 verses do follow the pattern you noticed even though in each case "Spirit" and "Holy Ghost" are obviously referring to the same Person of the Godhead. And in each case the underlying Greek word for Spirit/Ghost is the same.

    What about the cases where the KJV does translate Holy "pneuma" as "Holy Spirit"? This kind of makes it hard to say you have a universal rule where only the KJV is "technically right". (Not finding fault -- see my last paragraph below.)

    Your question could also be expanded from just new versions also to older versions. When older versions (like the Geneva Bible or the Latin Vulgate) do not follow this pattern are they also technically wrong?

    This is where when I am not making headway on finding an answer to a question I try to re-evaluate my question, and/or find alternative yet similar ways to ask the same question.
     
  11. KeithW

    KeithW Puritan Board Freshman

    Sorry, more data... My mention of expanding the search to older translations got me to check 2 sample verses.

    Luke 4:1

    The Wycliffe Bible (1395)
    And Jhesus ful of the Hooli Goost turnede ayen fro Jordan, and was led bi the spirit into desert fourti daies,

    Tyndale Bible [1534]
    Iesus then full of the holy goost returnyd fro Iordan and was caryed of ye sprete into wildernes

    Miles Coverdale Bible (1535)
    Iesus full of the holy goost, came agayne from Iordane, and was led of ye sprete into wyldernes,

    The Bishop's Bible (1568)
    Iesus, being full of the holy ghost, returned from Iordane, & was ledde by the spirite into wyldernesse,

    The Geneva Bible (1587)
    And Iesus full of the holy Ghost returned from Iordan, and was led by that Spirit into the wildernes,

    The King James Version (1611)
    And Iesus being full of the holy Ghost, returned from Iordane, and was led by the spirit into the wildernesse,

    The King James Version (1769)
    And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,​

    There is consistency in the use of "Holy Ghost" going back to Wycliffe. Remember that Wycliffe was translating from the Latin not from the Greek.

    Matt. 12:31

    The Wycliffe Bible (1395)
    Therfor I seie to you, al synne and blasfemye shal be foryouun to men, but `the spirit of blasfemye shal not be foryouun.

    Tyndale Bible [1534]
    Wherfore I say vnto you all maner of synne and blasphemy shalbe forgeven vnto men: but the blasphemy of ye sprite shall not be forgeven vnto men.

    Miles Coverdale Bible (1535)
    Therfore I saye vnto you: All synne and blasphemy shalbe forgeuen vnto men, but the blasphemy agaynst the sprete shal not be forgeuen vnto men:

    The Bishop's Bible (1568)
    Wherfore, I say vnto you, all maner of sinne and blasphemy shalbe forgeuen vnto men, but the blasphemy agaynst the spirite, shall not be forgeuen vnto men.

    The Geneva Bible (1587)
    Wherefore I say vnto you, euery sinne and blasphemie shalbe forgiuen vnto men: but the blasphemie against the holy Ghost shall not be forgiuen vnto men.

    The King James Version (1611)
    Wherefore I say vnto you, All maner of sinne and blasphemie shall be forgiuen vnto men: but the blasphemie against the holy Ghost, shall not bee forgiuen vnto men.

    The King James Version (1769)
    Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.​

    Something to factor in when considering why the KJV translators made certain choices is the instructions which were given to the translators by King James. The first 4 or those instructions were:

    1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
    2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.
    3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.
    4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.
    http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html

    In Matt. 12:31, "Holy Ghost" was used in the Geneva Bible but not in earlier English translations. When the word "Holy" was not in the Greek, were the KJV translators following the rule of using the name in common use? Because they were not following the instruction to follow the Bishop's Bible for this occurrence.
     
  12. KeithW

    KeithW Puritan Board Freshman

    I forgot a good example.

    Luke 11:13

    The Wycliffe Bible (1395)
    Therfor if ye, whanne ye ben yuel, kunnen yyue good yiftis to youre children, hou myche more youre fadir of heuene schal yyue a good spirit to men that axith him.

    Tyndale Bible [1534]
    Yf ye then which are evyll canne geve good giftes vnto youre chyldren how moche more shall the father of heaven geve an holy sprete to them that desyre it of him?

    Miles Coverdale Bible (1535)
    Yf ye then which are euell, can geue youre children good giftes, how moch more shal the father of heauen geue the holy sprete vnto them that axe him?

    The Bishop's Bible (1568)
    If ye then, being euyll, can geue good gyftes vnto your chyldren, howe muche more shall your father of heauen geue the holy spirite, to them that desire [it] of hym.

    The Geneva Bible (1587)
    If yee then which are euill, can giue good giftes vnto your children, howe much more shall your heauenly Father giue the holy Ghost to them, that desire him?

    King James Version (1611)
    If ye then, being euill, know how to giue good gifts vnto your children: how much more shall your heauenly Father giue the holy Spirit to them that aske him?”

    King James Version (1769)
    If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?​

    Here the KJV skips over the usage in the Geneva Bible to follow older usages.
     
  13. Adam Olive

    Adam Olive Puritan Board Freshman

    (Mat 12:31-32) Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 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.

    (Luk 11:13) If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

    (Eph 1:13-14) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

    (Eph 4:30) And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

    (1Th 4:8) He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
    _________________________
    "Holy pneuma" seems to always translated as 'Holy Ghost' except in the 4 cases above.

    The last three might be exceptions because of the additional expansion "of promise", "of God" and "his". Usually "pneuma of God" is translated 'Spirit of God' and so even though holy pneuma would usually be 'Holy Ghost' the additional phrase might account for conformity to 'Spirit of God' like translation.

    However Luke 11:13 would then be an exception to an otherwise neat rule.

    It would seem that the KJV translators added the word 'holy' to Matthew 12:31 in order to use the word "Ghost" which is used only in relation to "Holy pneuma". I would like to know why.

    So it seems a clear translation rule of "holy pneuma" = Holy Ghost and "pneuma of ..." = Spirit of ... (the latter being the preference where "holy pneuma of ..." appears.

    However Luke 11:13 is an exception and Matthew 12:31 is just a whole different question. If my 'rule' was correct then Luke 11 should be Holy Ghost (like Geneva but unlike Tyndale) and Matthew 12 should be Spirit (like Tyndale but unlike Geneva).
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
  14. bookslover

    bookslover Puritan Board Professor

    "Ghost" is one of those words that has had a meaning added to it over the centuries (because languages are always changing). Today, "ghost" has a connotation of, well, ghosts (Caspar the Friendly Ghost, appearances of dead people, etc.). So, to avoid that connotation, modern translations use the word "Spirit," which is probably more accurate anyway, considering the respective Hebrew and Greek words for "breath" and "spirit."
     
  15. KeithW

    KeithW Puritan Board Freshman

    The original question:
    The modified question:
    For new versions to be technically wrong that means the KJV translators were technically right. They were following some sort of Greek grammatical rule. Was this rule maybe lost by modern translators? (I am only adding this comment after further word studies mentioned next.)

    I proposed the idea that maybe, according to the instructions given to the translators by King James, that it should be investigated whether or not the phrase "Holy Ghost" was in use prior to the KJV and therefore they followed the rule which states that names in common should be retained. Also, it should be checked whether or not the pattern in the KJV noticed in this thread was used in Bibles before the KJV. I was curious about this so I did some searching. My test cases were the 5 verses in the KJV which contain all 3 of these words in referring to the person of the Holy Ghost: "Holy", "Ghost", "Spirit". These verses are: Luke 4:1, John 1:33, John 7:39, Acts 2:4, 1 Cor. 12:3.

    For translations I checked: Latin Vulgate, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, KJV, NIV(1984), NASB, ESV. Remember that Wycliffe was the first to translate into English in 1395, but from the Latin. In 1534 Tyndale was the first to translate from Greek into English.

    What was the pattern found? When Wycliffe translated a Latin phrase like "Spiritu Sancto" he always chose Holy Ghost. When "Sancto" (Holy) was not there he always translated the Latin word for Spirit as Spirit. So for these example verses, Wycliffe established the pattern in 1395 when he translated from Latin into English. This pattern was followed (in these example verses) up through the time of the KJV in 1611. This pattern was strictly followed even when in two of these verses the existence of word Holy did not match between the Latin and Greek sources. See John 7:39 and Acts 2:4.

    This was by know means an exhaustive search. Just food for thought while thinking about what the KJV translators may have been doing.
     
  16. Adam Olive

    Adam Olive Puritan Board Freshman

    "holy pneuma" is always translated 'Holy Ghost'

    "pneuma of …" is always translated 'Spirit of …"

    Spirit of God (Mat 3:16; Rom 8:9; Rom 8:14; Rom 15:19; 1Co 2:11; 1Co 2:14; 1Co 3:16; 1Co 6:11; 1Co 7:14; 1Co 12:3; 2Co 3:3; 1Jn 4:2), Spirit of your Father (Mat 10:20), Spirit of the Lord (Luk 4:18; Acts 5:9; 8:39; 2Co 3:17; 3:18), Spirit of truth (Joh 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1Jn 4:6), spirit of holiness (Rom 1:4), Spirit of life (Rom 8:2; Rev 11:11); Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9; 1Pe 1:11), Spirit of him (Rom 8:11), Spirit of adoption (Rom 8:15), spirit of meekness (1Co 4:21; Gal 6:1), spirit of faith (2Co 4:13); Spirit of his Son (Gal 4:6), holy Spirit of promise (Eph 1:13), spirit of wisdom and revelation (Eph 1:17); spirit of your mind (Eph 4:23), holy Spirit of God (Eph 4:30); Spirit of Jesus Christ (Php 1:19), spirit of his mouth (2Th 2:8) Spirit of grace (Heb 10:29), spirit of glory and of God (1Pe 4:14), spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10)​

    The twice occuring composite form i.e. "holy pneuma of …" is translated in conformity with "pneuma of ..."

    Note: his holy Spirit (1Th 4:8) conforms to Spirit of God and Spirit of him as above​

    Exception #1 – Matthew 12:31

    Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 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.

    In order to maintain this 'rule' the KJV translators seem to have added the word 'holy' in order to translate as Holy Ghost. The KJV follows the Geneva with "Holy Ghost" against the Wycliffe-Tyndale-Bishop's "Spirit"

    Exception #2 – Luke 11:13

    If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

    The KJV follows Tyndale-Bishop's "Holy Spirit" against the Geneva's "Holy Ghost" thus creating an exception to the 'rule'. Wycliffe has "good spirit" paralleling "good gifts".

    Other than these two exceptions the rule seems to stand. I would like to know why these exceptions exist.
     
  17. Fool for Christ

    Fool for Christ Puritan Board Freshman

    Wow. Thank you guys for doing so much research to aid in my understanding!

    I too am fascinated by words and why the KJV translators chose them. They did not always follow Tyndale. For example when it comes to Easter, Tyndale always translated what modern translations render "passover" as "easter". Leaving Tyndale, The KJV translators only used the word once in Acts 12:4, and all the rest of the times they used passover. They did so very carefully and for many good reasons. I believe one of which is that our understanding of the word "Easter" has been corrupted from what is was at the time of the apostles. Easter to the apostles was a holy celebration, not a time of pagan worship. There is evidence for this in the ancient versions.

    But this research takes painstaking study and enormous amounts of time, of which I do not have. I wrote for an hour and a half the other day and hit a wrong key and deleted everything accidentally. I do believe that the translators did have ancient texts that have since disintegrated from age. I was watching a newscast of the war in Syria a year ago and heard a Syrian pastor lamenting that Issis had destroyed his first century manuscripts of the bible. I have always been told that first century manuscripts no longer exist! What do we know, really?

    As far as the issue with the Holy Ghost translation, our Lord did say, "I will not leave you comfortless, I will come unto you." (Jn 14:18) What do we call a man who dies and comes back to life as a spirit? A ghost. But the spirit of Jesus Christ is a Holy Ghost, not a meddling ghost, always. The Spirit of life in Christ (Rom 8:2) is the Holy Ghost. When we come to Christ in faith, the Godhead takes up abode within us, by His spirit, and we become a holy temple of the Spirit of Christ. This does not deny the Trinity doctrine, it confirms it.

    I am afraid to write too much for fear I will lose it all again. "If any man have not the spirit of Christ (which is a holy spirit) he is none of his." (Ro 8:9) Christ and the Holy Ghost are one. The Father and Christ are one. The Lord our God is one Lord. The New Testament is His love letter to us. A "testament" is not in force until after a man has died. (Heb 9:16-17) Cold this be a few of the reasons the translators chose the wording they did?

    God bless you guys for encouraging and challenging me.
     
  18. iainduguid

    iainduguid Puritan Board Sophomore

    Can you tell us why you believe that the KJV translators had access to other ancient manuscripts that have no longer been preserved? Do you have any sources that claim that? As I understand it, a key component of the argument in favor of the KJV is that it is based on the majority text, which has been better preserved for us in many (more recent) manuscripts rather than the critical edition which in some places follows a few more ancient texts. Your suggestion would seem to turn that on its head by suggesting that the KJV translators in places corrected the majority text in accordance with a few ancient manuscripts that they alone had access to and which no longer exist. That seems curious to me. I'd like to see a reputable historian back that up.

    It's also extremely unlikely that an ordinary Syrian pastor would have "a first century manuscript of the Bible." Most of our extant earliest Syriac texts, whether the Peshitta (the Syriac OT) or the Syriac NT date back to around the 5th century AD. Finding a "first century manuscript of the Bible" would be the archaeological equal of finding the Holy Grail. It would be front page news on every newspaper around the world.
     
  19. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    My understanding is that the KJV team used the TR, not the Majority text, as that was not in effect at that time.
     
  20. KeithW

    KeithW Puritan Board Freshman

    Adam, here is further data on two verses you point out are exceptions to your rule.

    Latin (405) - Spiritus
    Wycliffe (1395) - spirit
    Tyndale (1534) - sprite
    Bishop's (1568) - spirite
    Geneva (1587) - holy* Ghost
    KJV (1611) - holy* Ghost
    KJV (1769) - [Holy] Ghost
    NASB (1995) - Spirit
    ESV (2011) - Spirit

    (* The electronic versions I have do not show whether this was an insertion in English by the translators or if it was in the sources they were translating from.) The question is not why did the KJV translators do this, but why did the Geneva translators before them do this?

    Latin (405) - spiritum bonum [good spirit]
    Wycliffe (1395) - a good spirit
    Tyndale (1534) - an holy sprete
    Bishop's (1568) - the holy spirite
    Geneva (1587) - the holy Ghost
    KJV (1611) - the holy Spirit
    KJV (1769) - the Holy Spirit
    NASB (1995) - the Holy Spirit
    ESV (2011) - the Holy Spirit

    The "exception" in history here should cause the question, why did the Geneva translators choose Ghost instead of Spirit like the translations before them? But notice that within the context of history, a significant change has occurred with the translation of this phrase. The English phrase changed from "a good spirit" to "an holy spirit" to "the Holy Spirit".
     
  21. Fool for Christ

    Fool for Christ Puritan Board Freshman

    Yes, there is evidence of other texts. I realize that it shakes up current theories, but theories are just that. Give me some time and I will research this question. Some of the information I found here in some older studies on the Puritan Board. I also happen to believe my bible, which to me, throws science in some sectors into a difficult dilemma. Evolutionists don't know what to do with Out of Place Ancient Artifacts. They exist, but why? Do you think if a real live dinosaur was discovered that it would make world headlines or if Noah's Ark was found and photographed? I think it would probably be buried, covered up immediately because many scientists do not have an open mind. No, it's not likely to happen, but scripture tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God. Do Astronomer's hear that langauge? Many do not, even though it is obvious (to those who believe).
     
  22. KeithW

    KeithW Puritan Board Freshman

    Mike, I would like to ask you about, "What do we call a man who dies and comes back to life as a spirit? A ghost." Are you saying that Jesus was not resurrected with a physical body but He only came back "as a spirit"? One implication of this is that the Spirit of God did not exist before Jesus' resurrection, since He came back as the Spirit of God. An additional implication is that the future "resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust" (Acts 24:15 KJV) is only one of a spirit body and not a physical body.

    Have you considered what the "Westminster Larger Catechism" says?

    Question 52: How was Christ exalted in his resurrection?

    Answer: Christ was exalted in his resurrection, in that, not having seen corruption in death (of which it was not possible for him to be held), and having the very same body in which he suffered, with the essential properties thereof (but without mortality, and other common infirmities belonging to this life), really united to his soul, he rose again from the dead the third day by his own power; whereby he declared himself to be the Son of God, to have satisfied divine justice, to have vanquished death, and him that had the power of it, and to be Lord of quick and dead: all which he did as a public person, the head of his church, for their justification, quickening in grace, support against enemies, and to assure them of their resurrection from the dead at the last day.​

    The question is one of, is the resurrection of the dead, either of Jesus or later of men, one of the physical body or only as a spiritual body?
     
  23. Fool for Christ

    Fool for Christ Puritan Board Freshman

    Thank you for your comments Keith.

    I certainly do believe Jesus rose bodily from the dead. But I believe that His spirit lives within every believer. Jesus Christ was manifested in the flesh as God. (Jn 1:14) Yet, nevertheless, he said He would come to his disciples to comfort them as a Spirit. As near as I can tell, from his last conversation with them, this meant after His death.

    John 14:16 "I will pray th Father and he shall give you another Comforter...Even the Spirit of truth...ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you."

    Is there information I am missing?
     
  24. Ask Mr. Religion

    Ask Mr. Religion Flatly Unflappable

    Mike,

    I think you are overlooking the points raised by Keith. When you write "after His death" in relation to "as a Spirit", what exactly do you mean? The Holy Spirit, eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son, has always existed. The Holy Spirit is not God the Father, nor God the Son. The believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, an individuated subsistence of the Triune God. How are you distinguishing between God the Holy Spirit and the "spirit" you refer to in "His spirit lives within every believer"?
     
  25. Adam Olive

    Adam Olive Puritan Board Freshman

    Exception #1 – Matthew 12:31

    Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 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.

    To maintain the 'rule' the KJV translators seem to have added the word 'holy' in order to translate as Holy Ghost. The KJV follows the Geneva with "Holy Ghost" against the more consistent Tyndale-Coverdale-Matthew-Bishop's "Spirit"

    Possibly the Matthew 12:31 Geneva-KJV exception (from what came before) was through a desire to clarify that it was the third-person of the Trinity rather than the divine nature of the Son or God as Spirit that was the subject of the blasphemy.

    Exception #2 – Luke 11:13

    If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

    The KJV follows Tyndale-Coverdale-Matthew-Bishop's "Holy Spirit" against the more consistent Geneva's "Holy Ghost".

    Possibly the Luke 11:13 KJV exception derived from the Vulgate's 'good spirit' (influenced by Matthew 7:11's 'good things') being translated as 'holy spirit' rather than an actual Greek translation of 'holy pneuma' as 'Holy Ghost'. Whereas a direct Greek translation of 'holy pneuma' led to the Geneva's more consistent translation as 'Holy Ghost'.


    So I think my original statement is correct and that the two exceptions have particular reasons why they are exceptions.

    "holy pneuma" is always translated 'Holy Ghost'

    "pneuma of …" is always translated 'Spirit of …" (including the two composite instances 'holy pneuma of ...')
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2017
  26. Fool for Christ

    Fool for Christ Puritan Board Freshman

    I guess I am confused. When my bible says, "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." I have difficulty understanding how Christ does not or cannot reside in my heart by faith, when He says specifically that He does and will.

    Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. If God is not a Spirit, what is He?

    Did Christ not have a spiritual body when He rose from the dead? If He did not, then what does 1 Cor 15 teach when it says the "...last man Adam was made a quickening spirit." There are only two choices I know of: A mortal body and a spiritual (immortal body) body. Did Jesus ascend to heaven with mortal body? Will not this mortal put on immortality at the return of Christ that my corruption may changed to His incorruption? I do not understand what you are getting at.
     
  27. Fool for Christ

    Fool for Christ Puritan Board Freshman

     
  28. Ask Mr. Religion

    Ask Mr. Religion Flatly Unflappable

    How are you distinguishing between the second person of the Trinity, God the Holy Spirit, and the "spirit" you refer to in "His spirit lives within every believer"? In other words, is the "spirit" you refer to as living in every believer God the Holy Spirit or God the Son?
     
  29. Fool for Christ

    Fool for Christ Puritan Board Freshman

    Sorry Patrick, I still haven't got this quote thing figured out. to your question, "How does the Spirit of Christ live in a believer?"

    I guess it would be best to tell you what I believe by quoting the Westminster Confession.:

    "To all those whom Christ hath purchased redemption, He doth certainly...(make) intercession for them...persuading them by His Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by His...Spirit..."

    Christ does have a Spirit. I believe He is Very God. God is a Spirit.
     
  30. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    The term immortal body, spiritual body, as when used by Paul, would refer to the physical body now being glorified, but still not as a spiritual one as in total disconnected from the prior body. It's the same physical body now made able to last forever in heaven with the Lord now.
    Many use spiritual body as meaning nothing to do with the prior physical body, as if we now are in a spirit form period.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page