Can Someone Please Define What a Christian is?

[Truther]

The only Bible version (translation) to use "Holy Ghost" is the KJV. The newer versions (translations) were published after 1900 while the KJV was published in 1611. I think it reasonable that "ghost" is one of MANY words whose range of meanings has drifted from when Shakespeare used it to now.

ghost (n.)​

Old English gast "breath; good or bad spirit, angel, demon; person, man, human being," in Biblical use "soul, spirit, life," from Proto-West Germanic *gaistaz (source also of Old Saxon gest, Old Frisian jest, Middle Dutch gheest, Dutch geest, German Geist "spirit, ghost"). This is conjectured to be from a PIE root *gheis-, used in forming words involving the notions of excitement, amazement, or fear (source also of Sanskrit hedah "wrath;" Avestan zaesha- "horrible, frightful;" Gothic usgaisjan, Old English gæstan "to frighten").​

​

Ghost is the English representative of the usual West Germanic word for "supernatural being." In Christian writing in Old English it is used to render Latin spiritus (see spirit (n.)), a sense preserved in Holy Ghost. Sense of "disembodied spirit of a dead person," especially imagined as wandering among the living or haunting them, is attested from late 14c. and returns the word toward its likely prehistoric sense.​

​

Most Indo-European words for "soul, spirit" also double with reference to supernatural spirits. Many have a base sense of "appearance" (such as Greek phantasma; French spectre; Polish widmo, from Old Church Slavonic videti "to see;" Old English scin, Old High German giskin, originally "appearance, apparition," related to Old English scinan, Old High German skinan "to shine"). Other concepts are in French revenant, literally "returning" (from the other world), Old Norse aptr-ganga, literally "back-comer." Breton bugelnoz is literally "night-child." Latin manes probably is a euphemism.​

​

The gh- spelling appeared early 15c. in Caxton, influenced by Flemish and Middle Dutch gheest, but was rare in English before mid-16c. Sense of "slight suggestion, mere shadow or semblance" (in ghost image, ghost of a chance, etc.) is first recorded 1610s; sense of "one who secretly does work for another" is from 1884. Ghost town is from 1908. Ghost story is by 1811. Ghost-word "apparent word or false form in a manuscript due to a blunder" is from 1886 (Skeat). Ghost in the machine was British philosopher Gilbert Ryle's term (1949) for "the mind viewed as separate from the body." The American Indian ghost dance is from 1890. To give up the ghost "die" was in Old English.​

What other words did the KJV translators get wrong that modern translators redefined correctly?

 

[Aunty Jane]

So, God is not holy and a not Spirit(AKA Ghost)...not a Holy Ghost?

Is God an unholy thingamajigger?

Is that what I said? There is no one more holy than Jehovah, “the Most High over all the earth” (Psalm 83:18)
John tells us that God is a spirit, (John 4:24) and scripture describes God’s spirit in various ways, but never as a separate entity.
In the case of Moses, (Numbers 11:16-17, 24-25) the full portion of holy spirit that was given to him was taken away from him and each of the 70 appointed men assisting him had equal portions of God’s spirit along with him. This demonstrates that God knows how much of his power is needed in any given situation.

When Jesus was out teaching, a woman approached him whose condition made her “unclean” to approach the teacher, but she knew that if could just touch his outer garment, she would get well. When she did that Jesus stopped and said... “Who touched me?” When they were all denying it, Peter said: “Instructor, the crowds are hemming you in and pressing against you.” 46 But Jesus said: “Someone touched me, for I know that power went out of me.” (Luke 8:45-46)

Jesus was empowered by God’s holy spirit and he could use it himself or authorise others to use it in his name.....this is how miracles were performed. After Jesus death and resurrection, the holy spirit was poured out on Christ’s disciples at Pentecost, enabling them to perform miracles.

God’s spirit is not a separate god. There is “only one God, the Father” according to Jesus’ apostles who collectively said so....
“For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.”(1 Cor 8:5-6)

“One God the Father AND one Lord Jesus Christ”.....they are not two separate parts of God but two completely separate entities.....the Son was created by his Father and “sent” on a mission to earth. (Rev 3:14; John 3:16) The son calls his Father “the only true God” (John 17:3)

 

[atpollard]

What other words did the KJV translators get wrong that modern translators redefined correctly?

No.
In other words, ”Ghost” meant “Spirit” in 1611 when the KJV was published and in 2023, “Ghost” and “Spirit” now mean different things because the meaning of the word “Ghost” has changed over the 400 years from 1600 to 1900.

 

[Truther]

Is that what I said? There is no one more holy than Jehovah, “the Most High over all the earth” (Psalm 83:18)
John tells us that God is a spirit, (John 4:24) and scripture describes God’s spirit in various ways, but never as a separate entity.
In the case of Moses, (Numbers 11:16-17, 24-25) the full portion of holy spirit that was given to him was taken away from him and each of the 70 appointed men assisting him had equal portions of God’s spirit along with him. This demonstrates that God knows how much of his power is needed in any given situation.

When Jesus was out teaching, a woman approached him whose condition made her “unclean” to approach the teacher, but she knew that if could just touch his outer garment, she would get well. When she did that Jesus stopped and said... “Who touched me?” When they were all denying it, Peter said: “Instructor, the crowds are hemming you in and pressing against you.” 46 But Jesus said: “Someone touched me, for I know that power went out of me.” (Luke 8:45-46)

Jesus was empowered by God’s holy spirit and he could use it himself or authorise others to use it in his name.....this is how miracles were performed. After Jesus death and resurrection, the holy spirit was poured out on Christ’s disciples at Pentecost, enabling them to perform miracles.

God’s spirit is not a separate god. There is “only one God, the Father” according to Jesus’ apostles who collectively said so....
“For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.”(1 Cor 8:5-6)

“One God the Father AND one Lord Jesus Christ”.....they are not two separate parts of God but two completely separate entities.....the Son was created by his Father and “sent” on a mission to earth. (Rev 3:14; John 3:16) The son calls his Father “the only true God” (John 17:3)

God(AKA Father) is Holy and a Spirit(AKA Ghost).

Jesus was filled with it...

4 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

The son was full of the Father.

 

[Truther]

No.
In other words, ”Ghost” meant “Spirit” in 1611 when the KJV was published and in 2023, “Ghost” and “Spirit” now mean different things because the meaning of the word “Ghost” has changed over the 400 years from 1600 to 1900.

Don't change the Bible if you are afraid of ghosts.

Just sleep with the light on.

 

[RR144]

Who says?

Look it up.

 

[atpollard]

What other words did the KJV translators get wrong that modern translators redefined correctly?

“Wrong” is incorrect. There are probably lots of words that the KJV got wrong … none of them significant, but small changes based on 500 years of additional manuscripts discovered many hundreds of years older than the oldest copies available in 1611.

The language drift of words in English is just a fact, not a right vs wrong issue.

”Charger” is another word that I know changed meaning (from a large plate to a horse).
Thee, Thy, and many other words became archaic and simply fell out of use.

 

[atpollard]

Don't change the Bible if you are afraid of ghosts.

Just sleep with the light on.

If you don’t want to change the Bible, then learn archaic Greek. If you are not reading the original Greek, then the Bible HAS been changed. The KJV was neither the first nor the most recent translation into English … it is just the official version of the Anglican Church and one of the most widely printed and one of many English translations.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Don't change the Bible if you are afraid of ghosts.

Just sleep with the light on.

You are betraying a complete lack of knowledge concerning the languages in which the scriptures were written…..many have the mistaken belief that the KJV is an accurate translation for today’s readers…..nothing could be further from the truth. Language changes over time, so if you don’t keep up with the changes, you end up believing things that are simply not true. Some archaic words convey the opposite to what was intended….e.g. “suffer the little children to come unto me” in the KJV implied that children who suffer and die would go to be with the Lord. It was often written on babies’ headstones…..but that is not what Jesus said at all! He actually said “allow the young children to come to me” when his disciples were turning them away, thinking that they were bothering the teacher. They were told not to hinder the children from coming to him. (Mark 10:13-14)

Another word commonly used today is “terrific”, meaning something very good, but it is taken from the word “terrify” which is opposite to what it means now. Can you see the problem? You don’t have to be a Bible scholar to study the original language words when we have Interlinear editions of the scriptures and extensive concordances to tell us what we are actually reading in the scriptures. There is no place for lazy Christians here posting like they know things that they obviously don’t.

Try to learn something from the people who put in the time to study these things.

 

[RR144]

many have the mistaken belief that the KJV is an accurate translation for today’s readers…..nothing could be further from the truth.

It is commonly accepted that there have been four real revisions of the King James text before the modern era. There are about 22,000 differences between the first 1611 King James printing and the fourth revision in 1769.

 

[atpollard]

It is commonly accepted that there have been four real revisions of the King James text before the modern era. There are about 22,000 differences between the first 1611 King James printing and the fourth revision in 1769.

On the other hand, almost NOBODY has ever read the 1611 version. If they saw it, they would see how difficult the FONT used is to read and how DIFFERENT the basic shapes of even the letters are (not to mention the spelling). However most of the problems with the First Edition (1611) were obvious typographic errors that were quickly fixed.

The language drift from 1611 (when the words were chosen) to today is a more real and serious problem. The "manuscript" discoveries since 1611 have been covered in most modern printings with footnotes.

The difficulty is the tiny minority that believe that the KJV is some sort of "autograph" (divinely inspired, perfect original, God-breathed, flawless in every word, text). That's just crazy talk.

 

[Truther]

Look it up.

In the KJV?

 

[Truther]

“Wrong” is incorrect. There are probably lots of words that the KJV got wrong … none of them significant, but small changes based on 500 years of additional manuscripts discovered many hundreds of years older than the oldest copies available in 1611.

The language drift of words in English is just a fact, not a right vs wrong issue.

”Charger” is another word that I know changed meaning (from a large plate to a horse).
Thee, Thy, and many other words became archaic and simply fell out of use.

So, if a word in the word of God is not used by some it should be eliminated?

 

[Truther]

If you don’t want to change the Bible, then learn archaic Greek. If you are not reading the original Greek, then the Bible HAS been changed. The KJV was neither the first nor the most recent translation into English … it is just the official version of the Anglican Church and one of the most widely printed and one of many English translations.

The original Greek does not exist anymore. I think you know that. Mass copies are all that is left. Modernists make up new definitions willy nilly from the copies.

 

[Truther]

You are betraying a complete lack of knowledge concerning the languages in which the scriptures were written…..many have the mistaken belief that the KJV is an accurate translation for today’s readers…..nothing could be further from the truth. Language changes over time, so if you don’t keep up with the changes, you end up believing things that are simply not true. Some archaic words convey the opposite to what was intended….e.g. “suffer the little children to come unto me” in the KJV implied that children who suffer and die would go to be with the Lord. It was often written on babies’ headstones…..but that is not what Jesus said at all! He actually said “allow the young children to come to me” when his disciples were turning them away, thinking that they were bothering the teacher. They were told not to hinder the children from coming to him. (Mark 10:13-14)

Another word commonly used today is “terrific”, meaning something very good, but it is taken from the word “terrify” which is opposite to what it means now. Can you see the problem? You don’t have to be a Bible scholar to study the original language words when we have Interlinear editions of the scriptures and extensive concordances to tell us what we are actually reading in the scriptures. There is no place for lazy Christians here posting like they know things that they obviously don’t.

Try to learn something from the people who put in the time to study these things.

Words change per generation. Ancient English is best for ancient Greek. Modernists have destroyed the validity of the word of God.

 

[atpollard]

The original Greek does not exist anymore. I think you know that. Mass copies are all that is left. Modernists make up new definitions willy nilly from the copies.

The AUTOGRAPHS do not exist any more. Copies using Koine Greek exist. Lexicons and Grammar texts in Koine Greek exist. Bibles created from the 99% of the manuscript words that agree (in Koine Greek) with footnotes noting the alternatives exist.

You do know that the majority of manuscript "differences" are spelling errors or a double word that crept in during copying and are obvious. So there are fewer than a score of words in the Bible that are not known EXACTLY to have been in the autographs. There may be a missing ending to one of the Gospels that appears in NO BIBLE ... but that is not an "addition or error" ... it is just lost (if it ever existed).

Nobody is making up new definitions of a dead language [Koine Greek]. It is only living languages [like English] where words change meanings and translations need to adjust.

Let's turn this around:

What evidence is there that the KJV is anything other than a mediocre translation of Greek to English full of manuscript and translation errors?​

​

If you start a new topic, I will be happy to present some of the flaws and errors in the KJV.

 

[Truther]

The AUTOGRAPHS do not exist any more. Copies using Koine Greek exist. Lexicons and Grammar texts in Koine Greek exist. Bibles created from the 99% of the manuscript words that agree (in Koine Greek) with footnotes noting the alternatives exist.

You do know that the majority of manuscript "differences" are spelling errors or a double word that crept in during copying and are obvious. So there are fewer than a score of words in the Bible that are not known EXACTLY to have been in the autographs. There may be a missing ending to one of the Gospels that appears in NO BIBLE ... but that is not an "addition or error" ... it is just lost (if it ever existed).

Nobody is making up new definitions of a dead language [Koine Greek]. It is only living languages [like English] where words change meanings and translations need to adjust.

Let's turn this around:

What evidence is there that the KJV is anything other than a mediocre translation of Greek to English full of manuscript and translation errors?​

​

If you start a new topic, I will be happy to present some of the flaws and errors in the KJV.

Excellent short presentation on our subject.

 

[atpollard]

Excellent short presentation on our subject.

Not really. It ignores the fact that the Septuagint OT differs from the Hebrew OT so the KJV based on the Greek OT is different from the OT found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient Hebrew copies. He is using an English translation that has harmonized passages by changing the original word of God. That is an example of the sort of bad hermeneutics of which I was speaking. It is an error in the English translation (however smug he is in his presentation). [I went to the original to compare the issue with the charioteers that David slew].

 

[Aunty Jane]

Words change per generation. Ancient English is best for ancient Greek. Modernists have destroyed the validity of the word of God.

Actually it was heretics masquerading as Christians who destroyed the truth of God’s word.
The KJV is a dinosaur in today’s world. You have to learn a different language to even try to understand its outdated lingo.

No one seems to mention the foretold apostasy that Jesus and his apostles warned would take over the Christian faith, and turn it into something completely different. It was history repeating……just as satan corrupted Judaism, he did exactly the same to Christianity….there were always corruptible humans to do his bidding.

Christendom is a broken counterfeit of the true faith, but it gives the impression that the apostasy either never happened, or is everyone else’s church but theirs. Paul said it was beginning whilst the apostles were still alive, but ‘restrained’ until the last of the Christians scriptures were penned by John. After he died, the apostasy went ahead unrestrained. This is what the majority have accepted as “Christianity” up to today, when it bears no resemblance.

 

[Truther]

I am just curious, what is your favorite bad translation? Do you think they all are incorrect? Do you believe in a perfect translation anywhere on earth? Are you just doing your own thing these days?