Holy Spirit/ Holy Ghost

Yes it is a stretch to say that it "adds" to God's word. It is less of a stretch to say it "changes" it, but still a stretch. It is better simply to say that the translators were inconsistent and that it should be rectified to reflect what God inspired, "Spirit."

 

This issue has bothered me for some time.

Not only because of the inconsistency but also because no one seems to know why they did it. What distinction did they detect and were trying to reflect?

Dr. Cassidy once tried to answer it but even he admitted that his explanation did not universally explain every occurrence.

 

I think that "ghost" meant any spirit in 1611, instead of what it means now-a disembodied spirit of a person floating around in a "nether world". I believe both ghost and spirit are correct in the KJV. It's not like the obvious miscue in Acts 12:4 where the KJV has "Easter"-the ONLY time they didn't render 'pascha' as 'Passover', and having NO contextual reason to do so.

 

It may just be because that's how the previous English versions translated it, or perhaps it makes the English text read better/more beautifully in each individual case. Who knows?

 

Good question - can we get a reasoned response from a KJO please?

 

I disagree. Whether ghost was synonomous with spirit (which by the way I don't think it was), other translations did it, or they thought it sounded better... the inconsistency is not justified by any of these reasons.

BTW Timothy, if the NASB had a similar inconsistency that appeared to be this arbitrary, would you grant those translators a pass? Judging from your reaction to the word "merely", I am inclined to doubt that you would.

 

Observations:

I notice that every time pneuma is modifed by a posessive (his, thy) it is rendered Spirit.

Likewise, every time is it follow by "of".

In the old testament it is always rendered Spirit.

---

My opinion is that "Holy Spirit" is used when the underlying unity of God is stressed, and "Holy Ghost" is used whenever the equal personhood of the Spirit is stressed in the surrounding context.

It is overwheliningly translated as "Ghost".

Of course this is a distinction not found in the original languages, and I think likely is just a result of what happens to sound good or more correct in English.

 

Scott,

"Merely" completely changes the what a verse says, it is not comparable.

Ge 19:8
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not merely known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Ex 4:21
And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not merely let the people go.


Le 10:6
And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not merely your heads, neither merely rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD hath kindled.

Eze 39:7
So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them merely pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.

Mt 19:6
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man merely put asunder.

Just dropping in the word merely changes the meaning quite a bit, yes?

 

No mystery, no difference in meaning. Ghost and Spirit are synonymous. It's just a matter of English having two words for the same thing, one from its Germanic roots and one from its Latin roots.

My guess as to why the KJV translators didn't stick to one or the other is the reason given in their preface: they liked variety and didn't feel a need to stick with one English word per Greek word.

Neither translation is actually wrong. However, since today ghost now refers basically exclusively to the disembodied spirit of a dead person, spirit is the better choice.

 

No. It disagrees with the interpretation of the verse that you favor.

No. It illustrates that you would rather change the subject than deal with it.

 

... then there is absolutely no reason, even in that day, to add confusion by using two different terms. I remember being troubled by this as a kid when I not only didn't know there were other Bible versions, I didn't know the KJV wasn't the original.

 

This is worth repeating... amen and amen.

 

timothy: "Merely" completely changes the what a verse says, it is not comparable.

scott: No. It disagrees with the interpretation of the verse that you favor.

yes... the LITERAL interpretation, which makes perfect sense. We shouldn't completely turn a verse on its head just because we in the 21st century don't want to live by it.

How about this one?

Ex 20:14
Thou shalt not merely commit adultery.

 

I am not aware of a single instance in the Bible where adultery is noted positively. I am aware of places where outward adorning is praised and even used to parallel an act of God Himself.

Not amazingly, you don't seem to be quite so slavish to the literal approach when it comes to the KJV and its problems.

By the way, it is not apparent from the text and its historical context that your "LITERAL interpretation" is the same one that a reader of Peter's original letter would have made... which is probably why the NASB and NKJV translators added "merely" in italics. The things Peter mentioned were illustrative at the time of being trendy, vain, proud, superficial, etc.

They denote an attitude focused on the outward rather than true inner beauty- a significant temptation for every woman I have ever known. Your desire to narrow this passage to a "LITERAL interpretation" actually lessens the impact for it says nothing about make-up, mini-skirts, navel piercing, breast enhancement, lip enhancement, bleached hair, lyposuction, etc. Literally speaking, these things are not off limits.