Is "Holy Ghost" a Bad Translation of the Hebrew Ruach haKodesh?

Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is translated from the Greek πνευματος αγιου (pnuematos agiou) and Hebrew רוח קדשׁ (ruach kadosh).

Many people feel like "Holy Ghost" is a bizarre and even sacrilegious way to translate this term, but this feeling is based more on poor education than on any actual problem with the translation.

The word "ghost" comes from the Old English word gast, which meant breath, wind, spirit, angel, demon, etc.

The word "spirit" comes from the Latin word spiritus, which meant breath, wind, spirit, angel, demon, etc.

At the time that the KJV was translated from Greek and Hebrew into English, if someone wanted to talk about the spirit of God, they were just as likely (maybe even more likely, since the common people were more familiar with Germanic-rooted words) to use the word ghost as the word spirit. They were perfect synonyms. The two words were interchangeable.

In today's English we tend to associate the word ghost only with the spirits of the dead and the word spirit with the spirits of supernatural beings. But that doesn't change the actual meanings of the words. Notice that I said "spirits of..." in both cases. That's because the words mean essentially the same thing, and it is still perfectly acceptable in modern English to refer to the "ghost" of a dead person as a "spirit".

The only two real differences between the words "ghost" and "spirit".

1. The two words came from different ancestral languages, Proto-German (via Old English) and Latin (via Old French).
2. We are in the habit of using one word in some contexts and the other word in other contexts.

The definitions of the words haven't really changed. It's only our informal usage of the words that have changed somewhat since the KJV was translated.

Having said all that, a modern English translation of the Scriptures shouldn't use the word "ghost" to refer to the Holy Spirit because it does confuse people who are only used to hearing that word in the context of the spirits of dead people.

Is "God" the Name of a Pagan Deity?

The quotes below are from a comment on a Facebook post in the Common Sense Bible Study group.

The name גד has ancient origins as a false deity in many places around the world, and it is mentioned in Isaiah 65:11 specifically. You cannot deny this. It was used in Europe when the first printing presses rolled out the first bibles and it was a name of one of their foremost deities before the catholic church invaded their land. These are facts and there are many more like them.

Yes, Gad is used in Isaiah 65:11 to refer to the god of fortune that was commonly worshiped in ancient Semitic cultures. However, the word itself just means "fortune" and was applied to the corresponding god more as a nickname than anything else. If someone today decided that there was a god that governed how much light is put out by light bulbs, but didn't know its name, he might call it "the god of lumens". If he started a religion to worship this god, eventually his followers would probably just start calling their god "Lumen" because it's easier. Same thing here. "Gad" was not really the name of the god, but of the god's area of responsibility.

This is almost exactly the same way that ba'al was first a common Hebrew word that simply meant master or husband, but was later used like a proper name for a particular false master. It was a perfectly good word coopted for nefarious purposes. Interestingly enough, YHVH uses the word "ba'al" to refer to himself more than once in Scripture.

The rest of this claim is historical fiction as far as I can tell. I haven't found a single source for the existence of a deity named Gad or God anywhere outside of the Ancient Near East. The English word, god, descends from an old Germanic word that meant almost exactly what it means in English today: a supernatural being. It was never the proper name of any deity. Someone probably made that up because they wanted to impress their friends with their arcane knowledge, what Ryan (IIRC) refers to as more-special-than-thou syndrome.

In the ancient Semitic languages, including Hebrew, gad means fortune or troop, depending on the language and context. This has absolutely no connection to the ancient Germanic word. The German languages, including English, are part of the Indoeuropean family of languages. English and Hebrew share one major element in common: they are both spoken by humans. But that's about it. If a word in Biblical Hebrew sounds similar to a word in Old English or German, there is next to zero chance that the words are actually related in any historical way.

In Exodus 23:13, YHWH specifically says we are not to have the names of other deities even found in our mouths...

And yet the Bible, all of which is clearly meant to be read aloud, contains many names of pagan deities. God commanded the prophets to speak the names of pagan deities on many occasions, for example in Jeremiah 46:25 which contains the name "Amon of No" (strangely translated as "multitude of No" in the KJV).

The same pagans (and Israelites!) who worshiped Ba'al also used the name YHVH to refer to multiple pagan deities. They were only following the example of the Hebrews with the golden calf at Mt Sinai. Since YHVH became the name of one or more pagan gods, does that mean we can't use that name for the original YHVH anymore?

Clearly Exodus 23:13 can't mean that we absolutely must never speak the name of a pagan deity under any circumstances, or else God commanded the prophets to sin. Rather, it means that we must never pray to them, call on them, speak or act in their names, or swear by them. In other words, don't speak of or to them as you should to YHVH.

...yet you would teach as many people as you can in your warped desire to break this command wantonly and to justify your own wrongdoing.

To which I can only respond with Exodus 20:16, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Why not just drop your pride and be wrong for once? Why not just let go of you and say to Him, "Okay, Father." Why not just use the name HE told you was His instead of fighting so hard against Him and everyone who would oppose you, instead of insisting on using what YOU want to call Him.

Like adonai, baal, and elohim, "god" and "father" are both titles, not names. They are both titles applied to countless false deities as well as to the one true Creator (also a title and not a name). YHVH also said to call him Adonai, Elohim, El Shaddai, Father, Yeshua, Emmanuel...and even Ba'al.

I am perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong. I have done so many times, and I'm sure I will make and correct many more mistakes if God (YHVH, if you prefer) allows me the time.

But you're going to have to use some actual evidence of error--as opposed to historical fantasy--before I'll take you seriously.

The Very Foggy Origins of Christmas Trees

If someone tells you he knows for a fact that Christmas trees came from some pagan religion, he's lying.

If someone tells you he knows for a fact that Christmas trees were started by Christians with no pagan connections, he's lying too.

Personally, I find it extremely unlikely that the Christmas tree tradition was invented in the 16th century out of whole cloth, but the unfortunate fact is that nobody knows who started it nor why. There is no solid historical evidence on the matter.

Of course, if just a fraction of the resources that go into Christmas were applied to keeping the holidays that we know beyond any doubt that God gave to mankind, the question would become purely academic.

(If someone does manage to find a primary source on the origin of Christmas trees, I'd love to see it! I will happily retract this statement.)

Multiple Chiasms in Joshua 23

The entirety of Joshua 23 is a chiasm.

A Meme Is Not Evidence

• "King James personally supervised the translation of the KJV and he was a pervert."
• "Francis Bacon translated the KJV or at least edited it, and he was a Freemason."
• "The NIV deliberately removed X number of verses from the Bible."
• "The Pope removed whole books from the Bible."

These are just a few examples of the many urban myths about Bibles and translations that have been circulating for decades and even centuries. They are all false--mostly if not totally--but people keep repeating them because these myths align with their notions of how the world works.

I don't have a lot of respect for the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church. I think the KJV has outlived its usefulness as a source of doctrine. I have issues with how the NIV translates some passages.

My prejudices aren't excuses for repeating lies.

If you see a claim about a conspiracy or if you see a meme that "exposes" some shocking truth, do some actual research before you repost it. See if you can verify the claims with primary sources.

You'll learn a lot and maybe save yourself some embarrassment at the same time.

Does the Bible Say that the Earth Doesn't Move?

Tremble before him, all the earth; yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
1 Chronicles 16:30 

The LORD reigns; he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed; he has put on strength as his belt. Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
Psalms 93:1 

He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.
Psalms 104:5

I have heard some people quote these verses in support of the idea that the earth can't possibly be spinning through space, orbiting around the sun. "God says the earth doesn't move and God doesn't lie!"

If you read these verses in isolation without looking at the context or the underlying Hebrew, and if you squint just right, I can see why a person might think that, but if you take just a few minutes to understand what the authors were trying to communicate, you'll quickly see that it doesn't hold up.

For example, 1 Chronicles 16:30 is part of a prayer that David spoke after bringing the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. It's poetic and demonstrative, and--like almost all poetry--uses some very picturesque language that wasn't meant to be understood literally. Other lines in this same prayer describe the land (Hebrew eretz, which can be translated "land", "ground", or "earth") singing to God and speaking to the nations and peoples. If verse 30 literally means that the world (Hebrew tebel) cannot physically move, then verses 23, 24, and 31 must literally mean that the land speaks in an audible, comprehensible voice. We all know that it doesn't. 

The Hebrew word translated as "moved" in these three verses is mot, which literally means to shake. It does not mean to move something from one place to another, as the earth orbiting the sun or a person moving from one room to another. It's used in Job 41:23 to describe the scales of the leviathan. I don't think anyone would seriously propose that the leviathan was in immobile statue, so it obviously doesn't mean that its scales can't move from one place to another. It's also used in Isaiah 41:7 to describe an idol that has been nailed to a base or other type of mount. Again, that doesn't mean the idol can't be moved. It only means that the idol won't wobble and fall over.

Clearly saying that the world or the earth can't be moved, does not have to mean that it is fixed in a static location within the universe or else we would have to say the same thing about finished idols and the leviathan. 

"The world shall never be moved" doesn't even mean that it won't be moved in the literal sense of being shaken. Earthquakes happen all the time, even in the Bible. More than that, the Bible says that entire mountain ranges and oceans have been rearranged over time and will be again.

Even if you believe, despite the overwhelmingly massive evidence all around you, that the earth is a plane, standing on literal pillars, Job 9:5 says that God moves mountains and 9:6 says that he shakes the whole earth out of its place. Psalm 104:5 says the earth's foundations mean it can't be moved, but Psalm 82:5 says all the foundations of the earth are shaken. The selectively hyper-literal reading of flat-earthers requires that the earth cannot be moved and that it moves. It is inherently contradictory. It is physically, literally, and logically absurd.

So if "never moved" doesn't mean that the earth's location is permanently fixed in the universe, and it doesn't mean that the earth never trembles or moves around in any way, what does it mean?

"The world shall never be moved" is just a poetic way of saying "This stuff sure is dependable compared to you and me." And that's all it means. It's an idiomatic expression (Dictionary definition of idiom), never meant to be taken literally. Neither David nor Job believed that the earth could never be moved, and I'm sure they would be dumbfounded if they learned that anyone had taken their words to mean that.

If any "teacher" says otherwise, you should immediately stop listening to him. He is not qualified to be a teacher of anything at all that requires a basic understanding of human language.

Did Miriam Author Part of the Bible?

There is an obvious chiasm in Exodus 1-2 in the story of Moses' birth and adoption into Pharaoh's house. The chiasm includes at least Exodus 1:22-2:9, and possibly as much as Exodus 1:5-2:15.

This image shows the clearest segment:

Here is the expanded chiasm, which I think is correct:

A .v8-19 - Egyptians oppress Hebrews. Midwives rescue. Answer demanded. Escape.
B ...v20-21 - God's favor on the Midwives and growth of their families.
C .....v22 - Pharaoh said, "Take the son away. Let the daughter live."
D .......v1 - Amram went and took his wife, Jochebed.
E .........v2 - Jochebed conceived and bore a son.
F ...........v2 - Jochebed saw that the child was fine, took pity on him, and hid him for 3 months.
G .............v3 - Jochebed went to the river and hid the child in a basket in the river.
H ...............v4 - Miriam stood at a distance to learn what would happen.
G .............v5 - The princess went to the river and found the basket in the river.
F ...........v6 - The princess revealed the child, saw him crying, took pity, and recognized him.
E .........v7 - Miriam found a woman who had born a child.
D .......v8 - Miram went and called the child's mother, Jochebed.
C .....v9 - The princess said, "Take the child away. Pay the woman her wages."
B ...v10-11a - The princess's favor on Moses and his growth into a man.
A .v11b-15 - Egyptians oppress Hebrews. Moses rescues. Answer demanded. Escape.

Chiasms are always fascinating. The most interesting part is usually at the center, and this one is no exception. Miriam is at the center of a chiasm on the birth, near death, and adoption of Moses, and not just Miriam, but her observing and studying the process of Moses' transformation from Hebrew to Egyptian and back again to Hebrew.

What does this mean?

It probably means that Miriam was the source of the first part of Exodus; it might even record her exact words. How do we know what happened with the midwives and Jochebed and the basket and Pharaoh's daughter? Miriam witnessed it all so that Moses could his story as seen through her eyes and possibly even her words.

Knowledgeable Bible students will recall that this isn't the only extended record of Miriam's words. Exodus 15:1-21 contains The Song of Miriam.