Byzantine or Alexandrian

[TCassidy]

The word order as translated by the king James, maintains the correct intention of the Narratives, or the Authors motives.

Nope. In John 1:1 the KJV reads "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

But the Greek reads "εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος."

As you cannot read Greek I will translate that for you.

Literally it reads "In beginning was the word and the word was toward God and God was the word."

Adjusting that for better readability it says" In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and God was the word."

Notice the last clause. It does NOT say, as the KJV does, that "the word was God." It places the word "God" in what is called the emphatic position. It has the meaning of "and the word was most emphatically God!" The emphatic position negates the need for the definite article.

As far as motives go, when you read a complete bio. On Westcott and Hort, it's mind boggling.

Correct. When you actually read what they wrote, rather than reading the KJVO lies told about them, you begin to understand they were orthodox Trinitarians.

The arrival of the critical text translated by Westcott and Hort,

Westcott and Hort did not translate the critical text. The manuscripts are in Greek and the critical text is in Greek.

I would bet most of the people here found the Lord, and were called to preach and teach using the King James.

Nope. Was saved while reading the RSV, the translation evangelicals love to hate.

 

[OzSpen]

That is my point.
The word order as translated by the king James, maintains the correct intention of the Narratives, or the Authors motives.

As far as motives go, when you read a complete bio. On Westcott and Hort, it's mind boggling.
As well much credit is given to Erasmus but his story has some flaws as well.
He was not as biased as Hort , and John Calvin agreed with his work.
The arrival of the critical text translated by Westcott and Hort, came much more recently and oddly enough the majority of new Bibles are based on their work.

I proposed prophetic words, because we cannot understand all the different types of translations.
I personally believe it is for profit.
I do not believe that all of us should be so divided in The Body of Christ.
When you compare the texts, you cannot find even dynamic equivalents but rather major changes in meaning.
Example Paul on Mars Hill, is it superstitious or religious?
We know they have a idol to many God's and a no name God.
We know they were philosophers who aspired to mythology.

How can you tell a student they were very religious when they had no religon?
Yet the N.K.J. tells us this.
I do not bash people for their translation, but I think the Devil is involved in this separation.
One of my favorite preachers has to Apologize for the King James.
He starts out...
I'm reading from the Old King James , I like it because it is poetical and easy to remember.
I would bet most of the people here found the Lord, and were called to preach and teach using the King James.
This will never change, so I guess we will find out when the time comes.

 

[now faith]

I am going deeper in study, I have noticed some things that need reconciled.

 

[now faith]

Now I have to disagree with you on that.

Study in that area shows that the men King James commissioned were instructed:

"Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. And "the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.

James' instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of the Bishops' Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops' Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible.

For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza, which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate.

The translators appear to have otherwise made no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those that – like the Codex Bezae – would have been readily available to them.

The translators took the Bishop's Bible as their source text, and where they departed from that in favour of another translation, this was most commonly the Geneva Bible. However, the degree to which readings from the Bishop's Bible survived into final text of the King James Bible varies greatly from company to company, "

Main Source

So I go back to a previous point.

The Third Person of the "Trinity" is in the scriptures called the holy "Spirit". Greek word: "pneuma".

A "ghost", the disembodied spirit/soul/whatever you choose to call them in the Greek is "phantasm".

The word "ghost" being used in conjunction with the Holy Spirit first appeared around the mid 1300's in "Wycliffe's Bible".

And, though the centuries since, it has stayed. History has shown and proved that now, "ghost" and "spirit" are used virtually identically when referencing the third person of the Trinity.

When and where the change happened is a matter for somebody to search out. But I do know that prior to Wycliffe, as mush as I sometimes disagree with the ECF's, there are no records of even them using "ghost" inconnection with the Holy Spirit.

Where does that bring us?

Seems to me that remember reading:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men," -Col. 2:8 (KJV)

History has proven that the KJ Translators made very little use of any Greek MSS that had. In fact, they were told to follow what was already printed.

"The text of the Bishops' Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops' Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible.

And, other than occasionally looking at Theodore Beza's Codex D, and occasionally the Greek text of Stephanos 1559 version:

"hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those that – like the Codex Bezae – would have been readily available to them... The translators took the Bishop's Bible as their source text, and where they departed from that in favour of another translation, this was most commonly the Geneva Bible."

It is amazing what one can find and learn IF they are willing to study.

Turns out, the KJ Translators did follow after the "traditions of men". (Especially on the point o0f the third person of the Trinity as I have shown)

And yet, I am wrong for consulting the Greek.





God Bless

Till all are one.

Not at all wrong, I am going to take more time to study.
A Preacher I was listening to today said the Greek translated from Spirit to Ghost.
I often use Holy Spirit, as God is a Spirit and The Holy Spirit is God.
Walking on the water Christ in Hebrew replied I AM.
The number of fish the Apostles caught when Christ stood on shore after his death, translated to I AM God in Hebrew.

So my Brother you have given me good reason to study and I thank you and OZ both.
I am leaving the thread ancc hope to converse on your level in a year or 10
God Bless.

 

[DeaconDean]

Not at all wrong, I am going to take more time to study.
A Preacher I was listening to today said the Greek translated from Spirit to Ghost.
I often use Holy Spirit, as God is a Spirit and The Holy Spirit is God.
Walking on the water Christ in Hebrew replied I AM.
The number of fish the Apostles caught when Christ stood on shore after his death, translated to I AM God in Hebrew.

So my Brother you have given me good reason to study and I thank you and OZ both.
I am leaving the thread ancc hope to converse on your level in a year or 10
God Bless.

Let me show you.

Lets go to the book of Matthew:

"And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear." -Mt. 14:26 (KJV)

"οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης περιπατοῦντα ἐταράχθησαν λέγοντες ὅτι Φάντασμά ἐστιν, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου ἔκραξαν." -Mt. 14:26 (GNT)

Here, you see the Greek word being rendered "spirit". The Greek word here actually is properly rendered "phantasa". Where we get our word "phantom/phantasm".

However, just for your sake, lets just say it does mean "spirit".

Lets look at another "spirit".

Look at this from Matthew:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." -Mt. 1:18 (KJV)

"Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν. μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου. -Mt. 1:18 (GNT)

Here, a totally different Greek word is used.

"πνεύματος" pneumatos, this is where we get our word "pneumatic".

Point of order, the Gospels we have, were written after about 95% of Acts was written. Mark was written probably around AD 65.

Why is that important?

In Acts 2 we read:

"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." -Acts 2:4 (KJV)

"καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύματος ἁγίου, καὶ ἤρξαντο λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις καθὼς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐδίδου ἀποφθέγγεσθαι αὐτοῖς." -Acts 2:4 (GNT)

Here is the pivotal period in Christianity. It is here we see the dramatic arrival of the Holy Spirit to the Earth to begin His work.

Luke uses the Greek word "pneuma" twice in this verse.

"pneúma – properly, spirit (Spirit), wind, or breath. The most frequent meaning (translation) of 4151 (pneúma) in the NT is "spirit" ("Spirit")."

Source

Difference is:

"5326 (phántasma) originally referred to "seeing" a ghost or apparition."

Ibid

I also submit:

"I.an appearance, phantasm, phantom, Aesch., Eur.:— a vision, dream, Theocr.
II.in Philosophy, v. φαντασία.
2.a mere image, unreality, Plat."

Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889.

Whenever "phantasma" is used in the New Testament, it always carries the reference to "spirits/ghosts" in a negative context, you know, those disembodied souls doomed to roam the earth.

Another place where the KJV (Authorized Version) got it wrong was here:

"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." -Mt. 27:50 (KJV)

"ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς πάλιν κράξας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα." -Mt. 27:50 (GNT)

There are no Greek lexicons period, where "pneuma" is rendered/translated as "ghost".

Now, having said that, upon further research we also come to find out that right around the time of John Wycliffe, the teaching had begun where "ghost" became used so frequently that it became synomous with "spirit". So much so that they became used interchangeably. And it stuck.

As a matter of fact, you can find the Wycliffe Bible on-line and referencing it against the AV, you will see that they changed nothing. Why was written there, was kept. In fact, that was one of the rule King James gave them. If it was in the Wycliffe Bible, they had to keep it.

"The translators took the Bishop's Bible as their source text, and where they departed from that in favour of another translation, this was most commonly the Geneva Bible. However, the degree to which readings from the Bishop's Bible survived into final text of the King James Bible varies greatly from company to company, as did the propensity of the King James translators to coin phrases of their own."

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ble-belt-baptist.8049755/page-7#post-72793156

We also know that one of the few entire copies of the NT the KJ Translators has was Theodore Beaza's Codex "D".

Luke set the NT usage of "pneuma" as the description of the Holy Spirit. A fact that Mark, Matthew, and John also followed.

Sometime around AD 1200, phantasm and pneuma were taught and used equally. And it has stuck ever since.

What was it Paul said?

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men," -Col. 2:8 (KJV)

To equate "phantom" with "pneuma" in reference to the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is wrong. The KJV got it wrong. The KJ Translators got it wrong!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[now faith]

Let me show you.

Lets go to the book of Matthew:

"And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear." -Mt. 14:26 (KJV)

"οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης περιπατοῦντα ἐταράχθησαν λέγοντες ὅτι Φάντασμά ἐστιν, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου ἔκραξαν." -Mt. 14:26 (GNT)

Here, you see the Greek word being rendered "spirit". The Greek word here actually is properly rendered "phantasa". Where we get our word "phantom/phantasm".

However, just for your sake, lets just say it does mean "spirit".

Lets look at another "spirit".

Look at this from Matthew:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." -Mt. 1:18 (KJV)

"Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν. μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου. -Mt. 1:18 (GNT)

Here, a totally different Greek word is used.

"πνεύματος" pneumatos, this is where we get our word "pneumatic".

Point of order, the Gospels we have, were written after about 95% of Acts was written. Mark was written probably around AD 65.

Why is that important?

In Acts 2 we read:

"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." -Acts 2:4 (KJV)

"καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύματος ἁγίου, καὶ ἤρξαντο λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις καθὼς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐδίδου ἀποφθέγγεσθαι αὐτοῖς." -Acts 2:4 (GNT)

Here is the pivotal period in Christianity. It is here we see the dramatic arrival of the Holy Spirit to the Earth to begin His work.

Luke uses the Greek word "pneuma" twice in this verse.

"pneúma – properly, spirit (Spirit), wind, or breath. The most frequent meaning (translation) of 4151 (pneúma) in the NT is "spirit" ("Spirit")."

Source

Difference is:

"5326 (phántasma) originally referred to "seeing" a ghost or apparition."

Ibid

I also submit:

"I.an appearance, phantasm, phantom, Aesch., Eur.:— a vision, dream, Theocr.
II.in Philosophy, v. φαντασία.
2.a mere image, unreality, Plat."

Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889.

Whenever "phantasma" is used in the New Testament, it always carries the reference to "spirits/ghosts" in a negative context, you know, those disembodied souls doomed to roam the earth.

Another place where the KJV (Authorized Version) got it wrong was here:

"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." -Mt. 27:50 (KJV)

"ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς πάλιν κράξας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα." -Mt. 27:50 (GNT)

There are no Greek lexicons period, where "pneuma" is rendered/translated as "ghost".

Now, having said that, upon further research we also come to find out that right around the time of John Wycliffe, the teaching had begun where "ghost" became used so frequently that it became synomous with "spirit". So much so that they became used interchangeably. And it stuck.

As a matter of fact, you can find the Wycliffe Bible on-line and referencing it against the AV, you will see that they changed nothing. Why was written there, was kept. In fact, that was one of the rule King James gave them. If it was in the Wycliffe Bible, they had to keep it.

"The translators took the Bishop's Bible as their source text, and where they departed from that in favour of another translation, this was most commonly the Geneva Bible. However, the degree to which readings from the Bishop's Bible survived into final text of the King James Bible varies greatly from company to company, as did the propensity of the King James translators to coin phrases of their own."

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ble-belt-baptist.8049755/page-7#post-72793156

We also know that one of the few entire copies of the NT the KJ Translators has was Theodore Beaza's Codex "D".

Luke set the NT usage of "pneuma" as the description of the Holy Spirit. A fact that Mark, Matthew, and John also followed.

Sometime around AD 1200, phantasm and pneuma were taught and used equally. And it has stuck ever since.

What was it Paul said?

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men," -Col. 2:8 (KJV)

To equate "phantom" with "pneuma" in reference to the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is wrong. The KJV got it wrong. The KJ Translators got it wrong!

God Bless

Till all are one.

I use the Reference Holy Spirit, more than Holy Ghost.
Not to offend but you used a King James quote to point out a error
When Paul speaks of the gifts of the Spirit they at times are translated plural as Spirituals.

I do not understand the bitterness toward the King James.
In what few things are ambiguous, they are small in comparison to modern translation.
As you know I am not versed in Greek, yet Greek is much older than the King James.
The probility for error of Greek dialectics being changed is high due to so many people using the language for thousands of years.
This seems to be the core of the disagreement, two different types of translations one from Alexandria and one from Antioch.
When it comes to Bibles the links in the other thread I provided as a question about IFB Churches, were very in depth.
I do not follow this site but who ever put it together points out a endless array of mistakes in modern translation.
I placed them in I'm a King James Bible believer.
The site is Jesus is saviour.org click to or go to thread if they are still up.
I agree on the use of Ghost, it does equate to a disembodied spirit.
I do not know how it was translated 2000 years ago, but I do know there are differences between Koine` Greek and modern Greek.
The two dialects differ in pronunciation.

The only way to determine one translation over the other is to compare the integrity of the narrative in English.
Does it make common sense to read a passage that
is void of reason?
How many words simply do not fit the text?
If we were reading a secular book, and one had hundreds of un warranted changes with the focous being taken away from the plot line we could discern what book to read.
This is why I promote comparison it speaks for it's self.
God Bless

 

[DeaconDean]

Not to offend but you used a King James quote to point out a error

Although the KJV has some "rendering" errors, their is nothing wrong per se, with it.

The Gospel message, salvation through faith in the finshed work of the Only begotten of God, remains in the KJV as well as 99% of all other versions.

I do not understand the bitterness toward the King James.

Perhaps I can put it this way. According to KJVOnlyists, the KJV is "perfect". So much so that they go further to say that it is "the Perfectly preserved word of God".

Now, if you can show where any of the authors of the scriptures wrote that God would "perfectly preserve" His word in an as yet, unknown language, in an as yet, unwritten book, called the AV, then I'll take back everything I said and whole heartedly jump on the KJV Only cause. Otherwise...

As you know I am not versed in Greek, yet Greek is much older than the King James.

You don't have to be, there are "tools" to get around it. But here's the deal, I'm sure Ozpen, as much as we disagree, would agree with me that there is profit in studying in the original languages.

The probility for error of Greek dialectics being changed is high due to so many people using the language for thousands of years.

Possibly, but in saying so, just as the "English" language evolved, so did the Greek. Which is why there are noticeable "scribes" working while copying to bring the Greek into their "at the time" modern Greek.

I agree on the use of Ghost, it does equate to a disembodied spirit.

Here again, I hate to disagree with you, but strictly from BC 400 roughly, the Greeks used "phantasm" for the appearance of those who died, "ghosts". A disembodied "spirit".

I do not know how it was translated 2000 years ago, but I do know there are differences between Koine` Greek and modern Greek.

You can know. As much as I disagree with the ECF's, check their writings and see if they refer to the Holy Spirit as "ghost".

The two dialects differ in pronunciation.

The only way to determine one translation over the other is to compare the integrity of the narrative in English.

Not necessarily. In English, a "napkin" is something to wipe your face with. In the 1st century, a "napkin" was a type of burial cloth. (See what I mean)

Does it make common sense to read a passage that
is void of reason?
How many words simply do not fit the text?
If we were reading a secular book, and one had hundreds of un warranted changes with the focous being taken away from the plot line we could discern what book to read.
This is why I promote comparison it speaks for it's self.
God Bless

Even though some would disagree, that is why I urge anybody who studies in the Greek to also have handy a copy of the LXX. Here one learns "morphology" of Greek words. How the words came from "Attic" Greek, to the more modern version "Koine".

Just as "English" has evolved over the last 7-800 years, so did the Greek.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Petros2015]

We would never know that 'God is not the author of confusion' if it weren't for the Scriptures.

Yeah... because there's nothing confusing about those...

 

[TCassidy]

I am certainly no defender of the folly known as KJVOism, but I will defend the KJV itself against false accusations.

First off, the words "spirit" and "ghost" were synonymous in 1611 when the KJV was first published so it is impossible to claim that the use of "ghost" as a translation of πνεῦμα is a mistake. It is certainly an archaicism to an early 21st century English reader, but also certainly not a mistake.

Secondly, the KJV translators tried to use the different words to indicate a different ministry of the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit was a leading or driving force the translators would generally use the word "spirit" to translate πνεῦμα and use the word "ghost" to indicate the personal ministry of indwelling. However, as the New Testament uses the terms about 360 times, they missed some verses due to the shear number of incidents of usage so some people see an inconsistency in their use of the two English words.

By he way, regarding the "morphology" of Greek language, Attic and Ionic Greek are the main basis for Modern Greek.

The Koine of the New Testament (koine: Greek "common") was the form of Greek that was the common language of most of the middle eastern world due to the conquest of that part of the world by Alexander the Great in around 325 BC. When Alexander died his empire was divided between his generals, with the kingdoms of Ptolemy in Egypt and Seleucus in what we think of as the Middle East today being the strongest and most long lived. (The Ptolemy dynasty endured in Egypt for around 300 years, until the Roman conquest in 30 AD and the death of Cleopatra, the last of the Ptolemies.)

It was the Koine of Alexander's empire that eventually became the language of the early Byzantine Empire which endured until being conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1453 AD.

It was the Greek speaking Byzantines who are most responsible for the preservation of the Greek New Testament as the Byzantine textform was the only Greek text used, and copied, by the native Greek speaking Byzantines, and now makes up around 95% of all existing Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. It is that text which is still the official text of the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Church (Patriarchal Text of 1904).

It was the Koine Greek of the early Byzantine Empire that developed gradually into Medieval Greek and Modern Greek.

 

[DeaconDean]

I am certainly no defender of the folly known as KJVOism, but I will defend the KJV itself against false accusations.

First off, the words "spirit" and "ghost" were synonymous in 1611 when the KJV was first published so it is impossible to claim that the use of "ghost" as a translation of πνεῦμα is a mistake. It is certainly an archaicism to an early 21st century English reader, but also certainly not a mistake.

Secondly, the KJV translators tried to use the different words to indicate a different ministry of the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit was a leading or driving force the translators would generally use the word "spirit" to translate πνεῦμα and use the word "ghost" to indicate the personal ministry of indwelling. However, as the New Testament uses the terms about 360 times, they missed some verses due to the shear number of incidents of usage so some people see an inconsistency in their use of the two English words.

By he way, regarding the "morphology" of Greek language, Attic and Ionic Greek are the main basis for Modern Greek.

The Koine of the New Testament (koine: Greek "common") was the form of Greek that was the common language of most of the middle eastern world due to the conquest of that part of the world by Alexander the Great in around 325 BC. When Alexander died his empire was divided between his generals, with the kingdoms of Ptolemy in Egypt and Seleucus in what we think of as the Middle East today being the strongest and most long lived. (The Ptolemy dynasty endured in Egypt for around 300 years, until the Roman conquest in 30 AD and the death of Cleopatra, the last of the Ptolemies.)

It was the Koine of Alexander's empire that eventually became the language of the early Byzantine Empire which endured until being conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1453 AD.

It was the Greek speaking Byzantines who are most responsible for the preservation of the Greek New Testament as the Byzantine textform was the only Greek text used, and copied, by the native Greek speaking Byzantines, and now makes up around 95% of all existing Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. It is that text which is still the official text of the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Church (Patriarchal Text of 1904).

It was the Koine Greek of the early Byzantine Empire that developed gradually into Medieval Greek and Modern Greek.

From a previous post:

"Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. And "the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.

James' instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of the Bishops' Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops' Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible.

For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza, which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate.

The translators appear to have otherwise made no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those that – like the Codex Bezae – would have been readily available to them.

The translators took the Bishop's Bible as their source text, and where they departed from that in favour of another translation, this was most commonly the Geneva Bible. However, the degree to which readings from the Bishop's Bible survived into final text of the King James Bible varies greatly from company to company, "

Main Source

So I go back to a previous point.

The Third Person of the "Trinity" is in the scriptures called the holy "Spirit". Greek word: "pneuma".

A "ghost", the disembodied spirit/soul/whatever you choose to call them in the Greek is "phantasm".

"I also submit:

"I.an appearance, phantasm, phantom, Aesch., Eur.:— a vision, dream, Theocr.
II.in Philosophy, v. φαντασία.
2.a mere image, unreality, Plat."

Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889."

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/byzantine-or-alexandrian.7788618/page-2#post-72869397

The word "ghost" being used in conjunction with the Holy Spirit first appeared around the mid 1300's in "Wycliffe's Bible".

"But the generacioun of Crist was thus. Whanne Marie, the modir of Jhesu, was spousid to Joseph, bifore thei camen togidere, she was foundun hauynge of the Hooli Goost in the wombe." -Mt. 1:18 (Wycliffe Bible-1382)

And, though the centuries since, it has stayed. History has shown and proved that now, "ghost" and "spirit" are used virtually identically when referencing the third person of the Trinity.

When and where the change happened is a matter for somebody to search out. But I do know that prior to Wycliffe, as mush as I sometimes disagree with the ECF's, there are no records of even them using "ghost" inconnection with the Holy Spirit."

"Holy Ghost" is a rather "new" term.

The Greek word "phantasma" (ghost/spirit-the disembodied dead) was not used to describe the Holy Spirit, 3rd person of the Trinity/God-Head, prior to Wycliffe/Tyndale.

Just because something was done for 300 years prior to the KJV, does not make it necessarily right.

And evidently, your history and the history I saw behind the KJV are very different.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

The Koine of the New Testament (koine: Greek "common") was the form of Greek that was the common language of most of the middle eastern world due to the conquest of that part of the world by Alexander the Great in around 325 BC. When Alexander died his empire was divided between his generals, with the kingdoms of Ptolemy in Egypt and Seleucus in what we think of as the Middle East today being the strongest and most long lived. (The Ptolemy dynasty endured in Egypt for around 300 years, until the Roman conquest in 30 AD and the death of Cleopatra, the last of the Ptolemies.)

Correct.

But writers such as Plato and others, wrote in Attic.

Attic was the prestige Greek dialect and if you want to read classical works you'd need it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[TCassidy]

But I do know that prior to Wycliffe, as mush as I sometimes disagree with the ECF's, there are no records of even them using "ghost" inconnection with the Holy Spirit."

Are you under the impression there were ECFs who wrote in Modern English?

And evidently, your history and the history I saw behind the KJV are very different.

Yes, that is obvious. Mine is factual.

 

[now faith]

Although the KJV has some "rendering" errors, their is nothing wrong per se, with it.

The Gospel message, salvation through faith in the finshed work of the Only begotten of God, remains in the KJV as well as 99% of all other versions.



Perhaps I can put it this way. According to KJVOnlyists, the KJV is "perfect". So much so that they go further to say that it is "the Perfectly preserved word of God".

Now, if you can show where any of the authors of the scriptures wrote that God would "perfectly preserve" His word in an as yet, unknown language, in an as yet, unwritten book, called the AV, then I'll take back everything I said and whole heartedly jump on the KJV Only cause. Otherwise...



You don't have to be, there are "tools" to get around it. But here's the deal, I'm sure Ozpen, as much as we disagree, would agree with me that there is profit in studying in the original languages.



Possibly, but in saying so, just as the "English" language evolved, so did the Greek. Which is why there are noticeable "scribes" working while copying to bring the Greek into their "at the time" modern Greek.



Here again, I hate to disagree with you, but strictly from BC 400 roughly, the Greeks used "phantasm" for the appearance of those who died, "ghosts". A disembodied "spirit".



You can know. As much as I disagree with the ECF's, check their writings and see if they refer to the Holy Spirit as "ghost".




Not necessarily. In English, a "napkin" is something to wipe your face with. In the 1st century, a "napkin" was a type of burial cloth. (See what I mean)



Even though some would disagree, that is why I urge anybody who studies in the Greek to also have handy a copy of the LXX. Here one learns "morphology" of Greek words. How the words came from "Attic" Greek, to the more modern version "Koine".

Just as "English" has evolved over the last 7-800 years, so did the Greek.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Thank You Deacon, what ever verision you read can and will be conformed to the doctrine you choose.
This is a general statement.

That being said there must be a foundation of truth.
For me it is the King James, but I listen to sermons that are preached from other Bibles.
Only God can convict our hearts and draw us to His Wisdom.
Honestly These harsh worded debates invoke so much discord they are a curse rather than a blessing.

 

[DeaconDean]

Yes, that is obvious. Mine is factual.

I am not going to take that as an insult in spite of your attempt at it.

I could care less what you say. The difference between your post and mine?

I provided a link to support what I said.

You? As far as I know, that is just your KJVO opinion.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Are you under the impression there were ECFs who wrote in Modern English?

Here is what I have:

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols.
Edited By: Alexander Roberts
More in Early Church Fathers Series
Hendrickson Publishers / 1994 / Hardcover

Description: The Ante-Nicene Fathers ranges from the Apostolic Fathers to various third and fourth century sources including the liturgies and ancient Syriac documents. It was intended to comprise translations into English of all the extant works of the Fathers (with the exception of the more bulky works of Origen) down to the date of the first General Council held at Nicaea in 325 A.D. This American edition by Arthur Cleveland Coxe is a revision of the original series edited by Alexander Roberts and Sir James Donaldson and published in Edinburgh. The revision involves a major rearrangement to conform to the historical sequence, the addition of brief introductions and notes indicating variances in readings, specifying references to scripture or literature, clarifying obscure passages, and noting corruptions or distortions of patristic testimony (as forged in the Decretals). The basic aim of the translations has been to strive for literary exactness, placing the English reader as nearly as possible on an equal footing with those who are able to read the original.

Again Mr. Cassidy, I am not going to take your remark personally as much as you are trying to make this personal.

I challenge you to produce one (1) post in which I said the Early Church Fathers:

wrote in Modern English

As near as is possible, as far back as 1869, In: "Translations of The Writings Of The Fathers, Down To AD 325, Edited by: Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, LL.D, Vol. X, The Writings of Origen, Edinburg, T. & T. Clarke, 38, George Street, MDCCCLXIX, Book I, Chapter III, On the Holy Spirit, p33" nowhere in any translation is the Holy Spirit referred to as "ghost". All references to the Third Person of the Trinity, the Third Person of the God-Head, is always "Holy Spirit" and NOT "ghost".

Until you refute that, your point is moot. Period.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

As a matter of fact, in AD 325, when the Nicene Creed was originally written, did it not read:

"Καὶ εἰς τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα."?

In AD 381, when it was added to, did the Nicene Creed NOT retain the sentence:

"Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον"?

Lets take another step, in the Latin, does the Nicene Creed NOT say:

"Et in Spiritum Sanctum"?

Furthermore, within a century of its writing, did not Augustine of Hippo write:

"He cannot say that the third person is the Spirit, and then deny that he proceeds" by "spiration" (spiritus quia spiratus) from the Father and Son."

Source

Show me, prove to me where "pneuma" in any component source renders pneuma as phantasma.

Isn't the correct word for "ghost" in Latin "exspiravit"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I'll go one step more.

Thomas Aquinas, theologian of the 13th century, wrote concerning the "Holy Spirit" saying:

"Post haec considerandum est de his quae pertinent ad personam spiritus sancti."

Summa Theologica, First Part, QQ 1-119, Question XXXVI, Of the Person of the Holy Spirit.

He goes further to say:

"Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc quod dico spiritus sanctus, prout sumitur in virtute duarum dictionum, commune est toti Trinitati. Quia nomine spiritus significatur immaterialitas divinae substantiae, spiritus enim corporeus invisibilis est, et parum habet de materia; unde omnibus substantiis immaterialibus et invisibilibus hoc nomen attribuimus. Per hoc vero quod dicitur sanctus, significatur puritas divinae bonitatis. Si autem accipiatur hoc quod dico spiritus sanctus, in vi unius dictionis, sic ex usu Ecclesiae est accommodatum ad significandam unam trium personarum, scilicet quae procedit per modum amoris, ratione iam dicta."

Translation:

"The expression Holy Spirit, if taken as two words, is applicable to the whole Trinity: because by 'spirit' the immateriality of the divine substance is signified; for corporeal spirit is invisible, and has but little matter; hence we apply this term to all immaterial and invisible substances. And by adding the word "holy" we signify the purity of divine goodness. But if Holy Spirit be taken as one word, it is thus that the expression, in the usage of the Church, is accommodated to signify one of the three persons, the one who proceeds by way of love, for the reason above explained."

So I am able here to show that at least a century before Wycliffe used the term "Holy Ghost", the teaching was "Holy Spirit"!

What ever happened, whatever changed, whatever was taught, was taught/changed after 1274.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

How about a reference a little closer to the first century?

Clement of Rome, is considered to be the "Clement" that Paul references to. (cf. Phil. 4:3)

Anywho, Clement is considered to be the author of both 1 and 2 Clement. Dated to some time between AD 80-140.

Considered by the Catholic Church to be the First Pope. Pope Clement I (AD 88-99)

Since he seems to be the closest to the Apostles, perhaps his writings reflect your teachings, that "ghost" and "spirit" are the same.

Hum...

"Thus a profound and rich peace was given to all, and an insatiable desire of doing good. An abundant outpouring also of the Holy Spirit fell upon all;" -1 Clem. 2:2 (Translated by: J. B. Lightfoot)

Source

What did Clement write in the Greek?

"Ουτως ειρηνη βαθεια και λιπαρα εδεδετο πασιν και ακορεστος ποθος εις αγαθοποιιαν, και πληρης πνευματος αγιου εκχυσις επι παντας εγινετο·"

Source

Oh no! There is that same Greek phrase again: "πνευματος αγιου".

Translated "Holy Spirit". By J. B. Lightfoot in the late 1800's.

I guess everybody in the whole wide world got those two words wrong EXCEPT the KJ Translators.

Go figure.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[TCassidy]

Fine. You don't understand the point. Neither do you understand what you copy and paste.

In 1611, in English, "spirit" and "ghost" were synonyms.

The KJV translators tried to produce an (artificial) distinction that relied on an interpretation and not translation.

Any attempt to drag any non-English "evidence" into the discussion is moot.

The discussion is whether "ghost" in the KJV is an error.

Point #1 proves that assertion to be incorrect.

 

[DeaconDean]

Fine. You don't understand the point. Neither do you understand what you copy and paste.

WRONG!

In 1611, in English, "spirit" and "ghost" were synonyms.

Never have I denied that. NOT ONCE!

In fact, go back one page and you will see where I said:

The word "ghost" being used in conjunction with the Holy Spirit first appeared around the mid 1300's in "Wycliffe's Bible".

And, though the centuries since, it has stayed. History has shown and proved that now, "ghost" and "spirit" are used virtually identically when referencing the third person of the Trinity.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/byzantine-or-alexandrian.7788618/page-2#post-72869397

The KJV translators tried to produce an (artificial) distinction that relied on an interpretation and not translation.

I know that. But it does not change any fact.

Any attempt to drag any non-English "evidence" into the discussion is moot.

No, it is the point. Prior to 1382, hagios spiritus" was always rendered "Holy Spirit.

Along come the Wycliffe bible and now we have "hooli goost".

The discussion is whether "ghost" in the KJV is an error.

Point #1 proves that assertion to be incorrect.

Wrong again.

There are no references to "pneuma" as "ghost" in the original language of the scriptures. PERIOD!

πνεῦμα

A.blast, wind, first in Anaximen.2, ὅλον τὸν κόσμον π. καὶ ἀὴρ περιέχει: freq. in Trag., etc., “ἀνέμων πνεύματα πάντων” A.Pr.1086 (anap.), cf. 1047 (anap.); “θαλάσσας . . πνεύματι λάβρῳ” Id.Pers.110(lyr.); “πνευμάτων ἐπομβρίᾳ” Id.Fr.300.3; “τέως δὲ κούφοις πνεύμασιν βόσκου” S.Aj.558; “πνεύμασιν θαλασσίοις ἐξωσθέντες” E.Cyc. 278 (but πνοή is commoner in Poets; Hom. uses πνοιή）“; πνεύματα ἀνέμων” Hdt.7.16.“ά; τὸ π. κατῄει” Th.2.84; κατὰ πρύμναν ἵσταται τὸ π. ib.97; “τὸ π. λεῖον καὶ καθεστηκὸς λαβεῖν” Ar.Ra.1003; “τὸ π. ἔλαττον γίγνεται” Id.Eq.441; “εἰ φορὸν π. εἴη” X.HG6.2.27; κατὰ πνεῦμα στῆναι τοῦ ἄρρενος to leeward of him, Arist.HA560b14; but κατὰ π. προσιόντες down wind, ib.535a19; πνεύματος ἀνείλησις, ἐκπύρωσις, Epicur. Ep.2pp.44,45 U.; as an element, air, Corp.Herm.1.9, 16; “τὸ π. τὸ περὶ τὴν ψυχήν” Plot.2.2.2, cf. Porph.Sent.29.
2. metaph., θαλερωτέρῳ π. with more genial breeze or influence, A.Th.708(lyr.); “λύσσης π. μάργῳ” Id.Pr.884(anap.); αἰδοίῳ π. χώρας with air or spirit of respect on the part of the country, Id.Supp.29(anap.); π. ταὐτὸν οὔποτ᾽ . . ἐν ἀνδράσιν φίλοις βέβηκεν the wind is constantly changing even among friends, S.OC612; “π. συμφορᾶς” E.IT1317; “ὅταν θεοῦ σοι π. μεταβαλὸν τύχῃ” Id.HF216.
II. breathed air, breath, “σάλπιγξ βροτείου πνεύματος πληρουμένη” A.Eu.568; αὐλῶν, λωτοῦ π., E.Ba.128(lyr.), Ph.787 (lyr., pl.); π. ἀπέρρηξεν βίου the breath of life, A.Pers.507; “π. ἀπώλεσεν” Id.Th.984 (lyr.); π. ἄθροισον collect breath, E.Ph.851; π. ἀφεῖναι, ἀνεῖναι, μεθεῖναι, to give up the ghost, Id.Hec.571, Or.277, Tr.785 (anap.); “π. δειμαίνων λιπεῖν” Id.Supp.554; “π. . . δυσῶδες ἠφίει” Th.2.49; πνεύματος διαρροαί the wind-pipe, E.Hec.567; “τὰς τοῦ π. διεξόδους ἀποφράττον” Pl.Ti.91c (v. πνεύμων）“; πνεύματος ῥώμη” Plu.2.804b: prov., “ἄνθρωπός ἐστι π. καὶ σκιὰ μόνον” S.Fr.13.
2. breathing, respiration, freq. in Hp., π. πυκνόν, ἀραιόν, ἐκτεῖνον, κατεπεῖγον, Epid.2.3.7; “π. πυκνότερον” Acut.16; π. προσκόπτον checked, difficult breathing, Aph.4.68; π. ἄσημον indistinct, feeble breathing, Epid.6.7.8; “π. βηχῶδες” Coac.622; π. μετέωρον shallow breathing, Epid.2.3.1; τὸ π. ἔχειν ἄνω to be out of breath, Men.23, cf. Sosicr.1; τὸ π. ἀνήνεγκαν recovered their breath, Hp.Prorrh.2.12 (so without “τὸ π.” Aph.2.43); but ἀναφέρουσιν . . κλαίοντά τε καὶ ἐς τὰς ῥῖνας ἀνέλκοντα τὸ π. they sob . . , Id.Hebd.51.
b. pl., of the air imagined as filling the veins, πνευμάτων ἀπολήψιες ἀνὰ φλέβας Id.Acut.(Sp.)7,al.
3. flatulence, in pl., Eub.107.9, Arist.Pr. 948b25, Dsc.2.112, D.L.6.94.
4. breath of life, “π. ζωῆς” LXXGe.6.17, 7.15, cf. Plu.Per.13,etc.; π. ἔχειν retain life, Plb.31.10.4; living being, “ἐγὼ Νίνος πάλαι ποτ᾽ ἐγενόμην π.” Phoen.1.16; οὐ π. πάντα βρότεια σοὶ (sc. Πλούτωνι）“ νέμεται;” IG14.769 (Naples).
5. that which is breathed forth or exhaled, odour, “ὦ θεῖον ὀδμῆς π.” E.Hipp.1391; π. βαρὺ ἀφιεῖσα, of a tree, Plu.2.647b.
6. Gramm., breathing with which a vowel is pronounced, ib. 1009e (pl.), A.D.Adv.147.18; π. δασύ, ψιλόν, Id.Pron. 78.6, Adv.148.9.
III. divine inspiration, “ἄγρια . . πνεύματα θευφορίης” AP6.220.4 (Diosc.); “εἰ μή τι θεῖον . . ἐνῆν π. τῇ ψυχῇ” Pl.Ax.370c; “τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ δαιμόνιον ἐν μούσαις π.” Plu.2.605a; “καθαρὸν δίκαιον . . π. θεοῦ σωτῆρος” BMus.Inscr.1062(Cyrene, ii A. D.).
IV. the spirit of God, “π. θεοῦ” LXXGe.1.2, etc.: freq. in NT, “τὸ π. τὸ ἅγιον” Ev.Marc.3.29,al.
2. spirit of man, “εἴτ᾽ ἐστὶ τοῦτο π. θεῖον εἴτε νοῦς” Men.482.3: in NT, opp. ψυχή, 1 Ep.Thess.5.23, cf. Ep.Rom.8.2; τῷ π., opp. τῷ σώματι, 1 Ep.Cor.5.3; also, opp. γράμμα, Ep.Rom.2.29.
V. spiritual or immaterial being, angel, Ep.Hebr.1.14, Apoc.1.4; τὰ ἄχραντα π., τὰ κακὰ π., Iamb.Myst.3.31; π. πονηρόν, ψευδές, LXX Jd.9.23, 3 Ki.22.21, cf. Act.Ap.19.12, 15, Apoc.16.14, Porph. ap. Eus.PE4.23, etc.; ἀλάλου καὶ κακοῦ π. οὖσα πλήρης (sc. ἡ Πυθία) Plu.2.438b.
VI. Rhet., sentence declaimed in one breath, Hermog.Inv.3.10,4.4,al."

Source: Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.

"φάσμα , ατος, τό: (φαίνω):—
A.apparition, phantom, Hdt.6.69, 117, A.Ag.415 (lyr.), etc.; φ. ἀνθρώπου spectral appearance of a man, Hdt. 4.15; “φ. γυναικός” Id.8.84, cf. Pl.Smp.179d; “φ. νερτέρων” E.Alc. 1127; vision in a dream, “ὀνείρων φάσματα” A.Ag.274, cf. S.El.644, etc.; φ. νυκτός ib.501 (lyr.); “νύχια φ.” E.IT1263 (lyr.).
2. appearance, phenomenon, Pl.Tht.155a; “ἀνατολῆς φ. καὶ δύσεως” Epicur.Nat.11.8 (pl.), al.: so, of strange phenomena in the heavens, Arist.Mete. 338b23, 342a35; of images apprehended by sense, Diog.Oen.Fr. 7.
3. of shows or mysteries, as images or types of realities, “εὐδαίμονα φ. μυούμενοι” Pl.Phdr.250c.
4. sign from heaven, portent, omen, Hdt.3.10, 4.79, 7.37,38, 8.37, S.El.1466, Pl.Plt.268e, etc.; “φ. Κρονίδα” Pi.O.8.43, cf. A.Ag.145 (pl., lyr.); Παλλάδα . . εὔσημον φ. ναυβάταις Eur.IA252 (lyr.).
5. monster, prodigy, periphr., φάσμα ταύρου, ὕδρας, a monster of a bull, of a hydra, S.Tr. 509 (lyr.), 837 codd. (lyr.); of the Sphinx, Epigr.Gr.1016.3."

Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.

As far back as 456 BC, the Greek usage (Aeschylus) pneuma never supported "ghost".

As far back as the early 300 BC, the Greek usage (Herodotus) phantom never equated to "spirit".

Now, would like to say that the above material is lying?

Up until the late 1300's, pneuma (spirit) was never used to mean "ghost".

And it does not change the fact, not even now, 2000 years after the original Greek was written, does "πνεύματος ἁγίου" translate out as "Holy Ghost"!

You have been proven wrong.

You, are being added to my ignore list.

Unsubscribing

God Bless

Till all are one.