What does it mean to you to be KJVO?

Ibelieve God spoke to other translators just as much as He did the AV translators, and, as English changed, He caused them to write "Spirit".

Did God tell the AV men to call the Holy Spirit "IT"?????

 

Both the 1611 and the 1769 have the word Ghost in the passage in Matthew 28:19,20.

Are there any scriptures in the 1769 that say ghost where spirit is in the 1611? and vice versa?

 

This thread will be closed without notice as soon as it reaches page 20.

 

Because of the current usage of the word 'ghost'. We now use it to to mean the disembodied essence of a person.

See? I can answer virtually ANY question a KJVO asks me, and I will answer as truthfully as I can, according to what knowledge God has provided me. Now, can YOU answer one for me?

If you really believe the KJVO myth(Not just use the KJV alone), how can you justify that doctrine, since it has ABSOLUTELY *NO* SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT from the KJV itself?

 

By the same premise that you believe 'ghost' is correct. While it may have been correct in 1611, it's certainly not correct NOW. </font>[/QUOTE]Why was Ghost correct then (implying it was God's True Word), but not correct now (implying God's Word became a lie)?

 

...and it doesn't appear that it'll be too long, si I figure you have a finger poised over the 'close thread' button right now.

However, with your permission, I'd liketa start a thread, "what it means NOT to be KJVO", and to keep it free of insults to other members & free of attacks against any valid BV. If ya don't want it to happen, please simply delete it & I shall both abide by your decision and understand why.

 

Two points. The first being the KJV translators tried to differentiate between the "Holy Ghost" as relating to the person indwelt by Him, and the "Holy Spirit" as a force or power. They were not always consistent simply because of differences of understanding of the passages in question, but the using of different words was not entirely arbitrary.</font>[/QUOTE] Isn't this adding to the Word of God? Why should they attempt to make a distinction where the God inspired originals did not?

No. Not when it is contextually required to do so. But as far as I know, "Ghost" and "Spirit" as used to refer to the Holy Spirit refer to the same word, same definition, without distinction in identity or meaning.

But context demands it.

God bless you Doc. I have enjoyed seeing you back around here... and particularly picking on people other than me.

 

By the same premise that you believe 'ghost' is correct. While it may have been correct in 1611, it's certainly not correct NOW. </font>[/QUOTE]Why was Ghost correct then (implying it was God's True Word), but not correct now (implying God's Word became a lie)? </font>[/QUOTE]Possibly for the same reason "conversation" was correct then but "behavior" is a better word now. English language and definitions have changed.

 

SFIC:Why was Ghost correct then (implying it was God's True Word), but not correct now (implying God's Word became a lie)?

I'm sorry; I shoulda elaborated more. Since the KJV was released in 1611, it was in the English of 1611, and 'ghost was correct THEN. But in the times later Bible versions were written, the meaning of 'ghost' had changed. It was no longer correct, for example, when the NKJV was written, to call Him a ghost.

If you're READING ALOUD, or otherwise quoting the KJV, it's entirely to call Him the Holy Ghost, as that's what was then written. But when discussing Him in modern English, or in writing a Bible version in modern English, it's no longer quite correct to call Him a 'ghost'.

BTW, you asked me if I know of any verses in the 1769 KJV that read 'spirit' where the AV 1611 reads'Ghost. My answer: I DON'T KNOW. I have never done any comparison between the two editions to look for that difference. Since you mentioned that, I might do such a comparison when I find time. But as of right now, I'll hafta say I doubt if I will find any such differences.

 

But God's Word should never change.

 

Would you also then say that Spirit is in the NKJV or NASB where it is because God wanted it there? Why or why not? Please support your answer with scripture or other verifiable proof.

 

If Ghost was changed to Spirit, then no, I do not believe God wanted it put there.

 

It doesn't... but the human words to express His Word may change. The KJV is not the same as any version that came before it in English or otherwise. Did God's Word change in 1611?

The TR is a unique creation. It didn't exist until Erasmus made it. It doesn't match any single known manuscript so therefore it cannot be a "preservation" in the sense of precise wording. Since the TR was a uniquely worded text that is unknown to have existed previously... did God's Word change?

The answers are "NO". The words may vary but the Word does not.

I'll give you a scriptural phrase to consider: "the word of the Lord came unto..." What is meant by "word" there? Did God speak a single word to the prophet then stop? No. We know that "word" means "saying". "The word of the Lord came unto..." is roughly equivalent to "The Lord said unto..."

The words of the original were perfect because God directly inspired them. However, He has also allowed that the message can be transmitted using words different from those original words.

The "Word" can be transmitted by differing sets of "words". This is the ONLY way we can consider any translation the "Word of God"... because the words of translations did not come from God by direct inspiration.

 

Well, actually, yes! The Greek phrase is αυτο το πνευμα. The Greek word αυτο is a pronoun in the nominative, singular, neuter (in fact, all three words are nominative, singular, neuter). God inspired the Greek pronoun in the neuter and the KJV translators translated it exactly as God inspired it. If you have an argument over the neuter pronoun take it up with God. </font>[/QUOTE]Aye, pneuma is neuter. Good Greek doesn't always make good English though.

But this is one of those translation vs. interpretation issues.

 

Why? What proof do you offer that God intended Ghost but not Spirit?

 

Scott, I did a search on my BibleWorks 7 and found that Holy Ghost is not found anywhere in the NIV, or the NASB.

They have changed 89 verses from Holy Ghost to Holy Spirit.

 

Unless I'm accused of doing another act of Satan, then it will be closed IMMEDIATELY.

 

Soooooo! You yourself said it could be either way, then what difference does it make?