[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

"Ghost" does not mean "Guest". That is not only unbiblical, but an unscientific use of etymology.

Looking at the etymology can be helpful, even if you have to be very careful, since etymology fallacies abound. With that caution in mind, let's go to the eytmology videotape.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...earchmode=none
ghost
O.E. gast "soul, spirit, life, breath," from P.Gmc. *ghoizdoz (cf. O.S. gest, O.Fris. jest, M.Du. gheest, Ger. Geist "spirit, ghost"), from PIE base *ghois- "to be excited, frightened" (cf. Skt. hedah "wrath;" Avestan zaesha- "horrible, frightful;" Goth. usgaisjan, O.E. gæstan "to frighten"). This was the usual W.Gmc. word for "supernatural being," and the primary sense seems to have been connected to the idea of "to wound, tear, pull to pieces." The surviving O.E. senses, however, are in Christian writing, where it is used to render L. spiritus, a sense preserved in Holy Ghost. Modern sense of "disembodied spirit of a dead person" is attested from c.1385 and returns the word toward its ancient sense. Most IE words for "soul, spirit" also double with ref. to supernatural spirits. Many have a base sense of "appearance" (e.g. Gk. phantasma; Fr. spectre; Pol. widmo, from O.C.S. videti "to see;" O.E. scin, O.H.G. giskin, originally "appearance, apparition," related to O.E. scinan, O.H.G. skinan "to shine"). Other concepts are in Fr. revenant, lit. "returning" (from the other world), O.N. aptr-ganga, lit. "back-comer." Bret. bugelnoz is lit. "night-child." L. manes, lit. "the good ones," is a euphemism. The gh- spelling appeared c.1425 in Caxton, influenced by Flem. and M.Du. gheest, but was rare in Eng. before c.1550. (snip)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...earchmode=none
spirit (n.)
c.1250, "animating or vital principle in man and animals," from O.Fr. espirit, from L. spiritus "soul, courage, vigor, breath," related to spirare "to breathe," from PIE *(s)peis- "to blow" (cf. O.C.S. pisto "to play on the flute"). Original usage in Eng. mainly from passages in Vulgate, where the L. word translates Gk. pneuma and Heb. ruah. Distinction between "soul" and "spirit" (as "seat of emotions") became current in Christian terminology (e.g. Gk. psykhe vs. pneuma, L. anima vs. spiritus) but "is without significance for earlier periods" [Buck]. L. spiritus, usually in classical L. "breath," replaces animus in the sense "spirit" in the imperial period and appears in Christian writings as the usual equivalent of Gk. pneuma. Meaning "supernatural being" is attested from c.1300 (see ghost) .. (snip)

Thus the emphasis on both words is on the aspect of 'supernatural being' with of course the adjective 'Holy' being fundamental. Whether you could find any 'guest' type distinction that actually works throughout the NT can be an exegesis mission, albeit one perhaps difficult or impossible.

Shalom,
Steven Avery,

Originally Posted by scott

Hello, Brother George and others....Ok, I am going to explain why it might be a big deal to Scott and others. [and put myself in position for some charitable scathing criticism as well] I myself have actually waited to see if this issue would ever come up....I am KJVO, I have convictions why I am, but I am one of those who cannot be dogmatic about terms such as "word perfect" and "letter perfect" about any translation....Here's an illustration why there is a problem: back in the 80's our old buddy Jimmy Swaggert began teaching [and selling tapes] that, well, I'll quote him: "You've received the Holy Spirit, but you HAVEN'T received the Holy Ghost" [don't know how many of these messages he sold, but, knowing what happened to him, it must have been interesting to say the least].....Now I'm all for what Brother Vendetta said, I agree 100%, he nailed it on the head, but if I want to be "all in" for word perfect and letter perfect, would I not also have to agree with Jimmy Swaggert ?. [which is madness]...Holy Ghost is Holy Spirit, but [am I not seeing something correctly] Ghost and Spirit are not the same word obviously....so, reiterating, there isn't an issue unless one uses terms like word perfect and letter perfect [and maybe I am not understanding these terms, so please forgive me if I'm not].....God bless....Scott

I just can not believe what I am reading from you guys, if I spent 50 years read the Bible and never wonder about the difference was between the holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost, I would have to say I was blind and was missing something. But never was one was so blind that said they see.
I guess the Holy Ghost is no big deal to ye, that this is not an issue. All perversion version change Holy Ghost to Holy Spirit, o well I guess they got that one right, like they say even a blind dog finds a bone once in awhile.

Originally Posted by Scott Simons

I guess the Holy Ghost is no big deal to ye, that this is not an issue.

Actually, we might have quite a bit more love for the Holy Spirit than you suspect. But we don't enjoy long, pointless discussions about it, because we know that when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself (John 16:13a).

Forgive us if we'd prefer to talk about Jesus.

Originally Posted by Vendetta Ride

Actually, we might have quite a bit more love for the Holy Spirit than you suspect. But we don't enjoy long, pointless discussions about it, because we know that when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself (John 16:13a).

Forgive us if we'd prefer to talk about Jesus.

Another avoidee, comment noted, thanks for nothing