Should we call the Holy Spirit "He' instead of "it"?

[Tortex Plectrum]

They translated it in this fashion because the Greek word here is ἅγιον, it could just as easily be translated "that which is holy" or "holy one". The introduction of the word "thing" is used in the KJV simply as a way to provide sensible meaning in English of the Greek.

This is a very weak argument to try and reject the personhood of a human fetus.

-CryptoLutheran

In other words, instead of actually reading my comment, you decided just to react to it ignorantly, and to falsely accuse me of trying to "reject the personhood of a human fetus".

 

[Clare73]

That's a vacuous, popular slogan, and, as such, is no argument for or against anything.



"Thing" means inanimate? Obviously that is false, seeing as "thing" is a noun, whereas "inanimate" is an adjective, a noun-modifying word. But I can see why clowns such as heretics, anti-Trinitarian cultists, would feel an urge to demand that to be a person is to not be a thing, and that to be a thing is to not be a person. Do you prefer to let such errorists shape and control your use of language? (It's funny that, in my entering the text of this very comment into the computer screen, AI is being used to try to control my use of language by notifying me, with a squiggly, red underscore, that its programmers don't approve of my word, "errorists".)

And, at any rate, words don't mean things; rather, persons mean things by words they use (unless they are speaking meaninglessly (which, alas, is an all too common occurrence)).



By your phrase, "the original text," are you referring to the Greek autograph of Luke 1:35? See, I had said nothing about that. Rather, I was clearly speaking of the KJV rendering of Luke 1:35, in which the translators referred to a person—viz., to Jesus Christ, Himself—by the word, "thing."



So what? I've got news for you: "one" is also not in the original text, and neither is "child," seeing as the original text is Greek, and not English.

Also, the word, "thing," is no more necessarily bound to connote impersonality than is the word, "one."



So what? I don't know why anyone would claim that it is wrong to do so, and that it should not be done. I don't know why anyone would claim that to do so is to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.



True: the Holy Spirit is obviously a person. But, the Holy Spirit is, indeed, a power. How could He not be a power? It would downright blasphemous to deny that the Holy Spirit is (a) power. For, nobody in his/her right mind would deny that the Holy Spirit is powerful, or that the Holy Spirit has power. But, to deny that the Holy Spirit is (a) power while yet affirming that He is powerful, and has power, is to blaspheme Him by affirming that He derives His power from outside Himself—from outside God. The Holy Spirit is powerful because He IS power.

But, again, pointing out the obvious truth that the Holy Spirit is a person has no relevance in attempting to back up the asinine, false claim that He (or any other person) should never be referred to by the noun, "thing," or by the pronoun, "it".
To have a name is to be a thing.
To be referred to is to be a thing.
To be referred to as "He" is to be a thing.
To be quenched is to be a thing.
To be grieved is to be a thing.
To be a person is to be a thing.
To be a place is to be a thing.
To be an idea is to be a thing.
To be is to be a thing.



But you are a thing, because you are a person. So why would you not like to be referred to as a thing?

And, by saying, "Just weird," what, really, are you doing, if not merely advertising something as inconsequential as your personal taste? Frankly, that you (and perhaps many, other, like-minded people) have become accustomed, reflexively, to refrain from certain usages does not entail that those usages are erroneous.

Asinine is in the eye of the beholder.

"Thing" is commonly understood to mean inanimate, and there is no need to change that.

 

[Deafsilence]

removed

 

[ViaCrucis]

In other words, instead of actually reading my comment, you decided just to react to it ignorantly, and to falsely accuse me of trying to "reject the personhood of a human fetus".

I don't think I'm the only person who interpreted your post in this fashion. If I interpreted you wrongly, then I apologize. But it seems like I wasn't alone in how your post was interpreted: It came across as using "thing" as a way to undermine personhood.

I simply wanted to point out that the most literal translation of the text just says "holy"; and due to the nature of language to make that make sense in English we have to add words of some kind to make it a full and complete thought that is faithful to the meaning of the text.

If I got it completely backward, and it seems that I did; and your argument is that "thing" doesn't exclude personhood; the argument still isn't good, because again the text simply says "holy". It doesn't say "holy thing" or "holy one" or "holy child", it just says "holy".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Aussie Pete]

That's a vacuous, popular slogan, and, as such, is no argument for or against anything.



"Thing" means inanimate? Obviously that is false, seeing as "thing" is a noun, whereas "inanimate" is an adjective, a noun-modifying word. But I can see why clowns such as heretics, anti-Trinitarian cultists, would feel an urge to demand that to be a person is to not be a thing, and that to be a thing is to not be a person. Do you prefer to let such errorists shape and control your use of language? (It's funny that, in my entering the text of this very comment into the computer screen, AI is being used to try to control my use of language by notifying me, with a squiggly, red underscore, that its programmers don't approve of my word, "errorists".)

And, at any rate, words don't mean things; rather, persons mean things by words they use (unless they are speaking meaninglessly (which, alas, is an all too common occurrence)).



By your phrase, "the original text," are you referring to the Greek autograph of Luke 1:35? See, I had said nothing about that. Rather, I was clearly speaking of the KJV rendering of Luke 1:35, in which the translators referred to a person—viz., to Jesus Christ, Himself—by the word, "thing."



So what? I've got news for you: "one" is also not in the original text, and neither is "child," seeing as the original text is Greek, and not English.

Also, the word, "thing," is no more necessarily bound to connote impersonality than is the word, "one."



So what? I don't know why anyone would claim that it is wrong to do so, and that it should not be done. I don't know why anyone would claim that to do so is to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.



True: the Holy Spirit is obviously a person. But, the Holy Spirit is, indeed, a power. How could He not be a power? It would downright blasphemous to deny that the Holy Spirit is (a) power. For, nobody in his/her right mind would deny that the Holy Spirit is powerful, or that the Holy Spirit has power. But, to deny that the Holy Spirit is (a) power while yet affirming that He is powerful, and has power, is to blaspheme Him by affirming that He derives His power from outside Himself—from outside God. The Holy Spirit is powerful because He IS power.

But, again, pointing out the obvious truth that the Holy Spirit is a person has no relevance in attempting to back up the asinine, false claim that He (or any other person) should never be referred to by the noun, "thing," or by the pronoun, "it".



To have a name is to be a thing.
To be referred to is to be a thing.
To be referred to as "He" is to be a thing.
To be quenched is to be a thing.
To be grieved is to be a thing.
To be a person is to be a thing.
To be a place is to be a thing.
To be an idea is to be a thing.
To be is to be a thing.



But you are a thing, because you are a person. So why would you not like to be referred to as a thing?

And, by saying, "Just weird," what, really, are you doing, if not merely advertising something as inconsequential as your personal taste? Frankly, that you (and perhaps many, other, like-minded people) have become accustomed, reflexively, to refrain from certain usages does not entail that those usages are erroneous.

Oh dear. I have upset you. Not my intention. I still would not like to be referred to as a thing. Are you a school teacher?

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

Oh dear. I have upset you. Not my intention. I still would not like to be referred to as a thing. Are you a school teacher?

Oh, OK. Then I guess you prefer to be referred to as nothing. Have fun with that.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

I don't think I'm the only person who interpreted your post in this fashion. If I interpreted you wrongly, then I apologize. But it seems like I wasn't alone in how your post was interpreted: It came across as using "thing" as a way to undermine personhood.

I simply wanted to point out that the most literal translation of the text just says "holy"; and due to the nature of language to make that make sense in English we have to add words of some kind to make it a full and complete thought that is faithful to the meaning of the text.

If I got it completely backward, and it seems that I did; and your argument is that "thing" doesn't exclude personhood; the argument still isn't good, because again the text simply says "holy". It doesn't say "holy thing" or "holy one" or "holy child", it just says "holy".

-CryptoLutheran

No problem.

I just don't see how anyone, when carefully reading what I had written, cannot see that I very clearly pointed out that EVERY PERSON IS A THING.

Every person is a thing, though not every thing is a person.

It's really not very hard at all. As I already clearly stated, to be referred to is to be a thing. When referring, that which is being referred to is a referent. Look what the dictionary says in its entry for the word, 'referent': "the thing that a word or phrase denotes or stands for."

So, if you are referring to a person, by, say, the word, "Fred," that person is your referent; that person, Fred, is THE THING that your word or phrase denotes or stands for.

the argument still isn't good

I do not even know what you are referring to by your phrase, "the argument".

Please lay out what you would say are the premise(s) of whatever it is you are referring to as "the argument," as well as what you would say is its conclusion. I have no clue what argument you are talking about.

the text simply says "holy". It doesn't say "holy thing" or "holy one" or "holy child", it just says "holy".

Which text?

Obviously the Greek text says neither "holy thing," "holy one," nor "holy child," and it does not even say "holy". You need to remind yourself that the word, "holy," is an English word, and not a Greek word, and that, ipso facto, it can be clearly seen that the Greek text does not say the English word, "holy." This is elementary.

And, again: the KJV text does, indeed, say "holy thing". Also elementary.

And, again: there is absolutely nothing wrong with the KJV saying "holy thing".

But it seems like I wasn't alone in how your post was interpreted: It came across as using "thing" as a way to undermine personhood.

You did not interpret my post. You mischaracterized it. To mischaracterize something is to fail to interpret it. You were not alone in mischaracterizing my post, because you were not alone in your failure to read it carefully.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

Asinine is in the eye of the beholder.

What you just wrote is not even a sentence, since you have no subject. Your word, "asinine," is an adjective; it is not a noun, and it is not a substantive. You have no subject, so you have no sentence.

"Thing" is commonly understood to mean inanimate, and there is no need to change that.

Since you obviously did not carefully read what I had written in my previous post, you're obviously not about to improve your conduct so as to try to carefully read a reiteration of it.

• The word, "thing," is a noun, not an adjective.
• The word, "inanimate," is an adjective, not a noun.

You obviously think otherwise on both of these points, and to think otherwise is for you to fail to understand both of those words.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Oh, OK. Then I guess you prefer to be referred to as nothing. Have fun with that.

"He or him" will do just fine.

As an aside, I knew someone who referred to everything as a "thing". He had issues due to previous drug abuse. He stayed with me for 6 months. Drove me nuts. He knew what he meant! I am not a mind reader.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

"He or him" will do just fine.

As an aside, I knew someone who referred to everything as a "thing". He had issues due to previous drug abuse. He stayed with me for 6 months. Drove me nuts. He knew what he meant! I am not a mind reader.

Why would you not refer to every thing as a "thing"? Anyone who is so irrational as to refuse to call some things, "things," may as well have drug abuse issues.

p.s.: Thanks, BTW, for gnashing your teeth and casting your barbs at me, instead of trying to carefully read and rationally respond anything I've written in this thread. You could not have done a better job advertising the fact that you have no argument. Iron's supposed to sharpen iron, but the way you've been writing in reaction to my posts sounds like you've been sharpening your canines.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

The Bible uses the word Spirit, not Ghost. Why should people call Him what God does not?

Since the Bible also uses the word, "Ghost," what's your problem?

 

[RDKirk]

Face it: Everyone pretends the Holy Spirit is a thing, calling the Third Person of the Trinity "it" - even in churches. Although the Bible does not refer to the Holy Spirit as "He" anywhere, a born person is never called "it" like other animal species, even if the sex is unknown. The Holy Spirit is a PERSON of God.

On the other hand, the Bible says "the Holy Spirit" everywhere. Yes, people say "the baby" and "that kid," etc. But putting "the" in front of "Holy Spirit" implies there is no life in "it."

What do you think?

I don't know any Christian who deliberately calls the Holy Spirit "it." That's certainly not a doctrinal position of any Christian denomination.

In every case I've heard someone inadvertently refer to the Holy Spirit as an "it," that person has been quickly corrected by the Christians within hearing.

 

[RDKirk]

I predict he/she will be replaced in a similar way with "they" and using he/she will start to feel very awkward and too formal.

Actually, that's been happening in America for decades--even before deliberate gender neutrality became a thing. It's a matter of the grammar naturally simplifying over time, as grammars tend to do. Using "they" as a general-purpose pronoun obviates the need to match number or gender, and it's what the more poorly trained in grammar have been doing since the shift from "thou."

 

[RDKirk]

that's what "it" is for, we just don't like using it for people (except for some rare examples, ie "who is it?" or "it's a boy!") but to claim one doesn't exist would be incorrect.

Of course, once one has said, "It's a boy" (or "It's a girl"), then one does not use "it" any longer.

 

[RDKirk]

zie, ze, sie, ey, ve, tey, e, per, xe are all suggestions. I think what's going to happen is he/she will fade from practice and it will be replaced with "they" and all the rest will be forgotten.

Agree. Grammar does not become more complex over time, it becomes less complex. Using "they" as a gender and number neutral pronoun has been going on for a few hundred years, despite the gnashing of grammarian teeth. That's because it simplifies grammar.

Introducing more complexity with a bunch of new pronouns that would only rarely find valid settings to be used is simply not going to stick.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Why would you not refer to every thing as a "thing"? Anyone who is so irrational as to refuse to call some things, "things," may as well have drug abuse issues.

p.s.: Thanks, BTW, for gnashing your teeth and casting your barbs at me, instead of trying to carefully read and rationally respond anything I've written in this thread. You could not have done a better job advertising the fact that you have no argument. Iron's supposed to sharpen iron, but the way you've been writing in reaction to my posts sounds like you've been sharpening your canines.

You are taking all this way too seriously.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

I don't know any Christian who deliberately calls the Holy Spirit "it." That's certainly not a doctrinal position of any Christian denomination.

In every case I've heard someone inadvertently refer to the Holy Spirit as an "it," that person has been quickly corrected by the Christians within hearing.

It's not wrong to call a person "it," so it's nothing amenable to correction. I mean, you can easily look up the pronoun, "it," in a dictionary, and it'll tell you that it can be "used to identify a person." And then, it gives you a common example: "It's me."

Maybe Charles Spurgeon should be corrected?

But is it not said in Scripture, and do we not feel it, dear brethren, that it is the Holy Ghost who regenerates the soul? It is the Holy Ghost who quickens us.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

You are taking all this way too seriously.

I'm sorry that you do not, also, take truth seriously. You've already demonstrated, by your juvenile reactions to my posts, that you do not want to be taken seriously.

BTW, when you complained about people for referring to every thing as a "thing," I asked you: "Why would you not refer to every thing as a "thing"?
You: <NO ANSWER>

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

Of course, once one has said, "It's a boy" (or "It's a girl"), then one does not use "it" any longer.

LOL

Great non-answer to my post!

 

[DamianWarS]

Actually, that's been happening in America for decades--even before deliberate gender neutrality became a thing. It's a matter of the grammar naturally simplifying over time, as grammars tend to do. Using "they" as a general-purpose pronoun obviates the need to match number or gender, and it's what the more poorly trained in grammar have been doing since the shift from "thou."

it has been happening for a while which is exactly why it will probably be more and more favours. I suspect in social media platforms people will explicitly reject gender pronouns and call people out who use them. starting with polite requests of "could you please keep this gender-neutral" then turning into more shaming and/or aggressive approaches calling it offensive. it will then start appearing in TV shows/late-night shows and over time pick up in casual speech.

There was a time when "thee/thou" was actually considered too direct and offensive among the afluent and they preferred "you" instead of as it was less direct. The KJV uses this language but it was actually considered crasser, eventually, "thee/thou" was dropped in favour of "you" now "thee/thou" is no considered crass but too formal. I can imagine there was some who thought the shift to be counter-biblical and continued to use "thee/thou" in protest and in doing so estranged themselves from others.

With gender pronouns, sections of the church will object but abstractly it is not a moral issue nor does it diminish biblical values. I speak a language that does not have gender pronouns and "he/she" is one pronoun for both genders. The culture that speaks the language is very traditional in gender values so it's unrelated to how they approach gender issues. The church shouldn't be afraid of this move and respond as it is culturally appropriate to be more effective to their mission and if not they will eventually estrange themselves from their own mission. if/when gender pronouns fall out of favour they will become awkward and offensive and entering these places that demand continued value of them will feel oppressive, culty, and full of weirdos, something the Chruch has enough of already.

We need to be approach everything gentle as doves and wise as serpents but too often the church's response seems as gentle as a serpent and as wise of a dove which only separates and pushes people away.