IT is the Holy Ghost!

There seems to be some controversy over the use of the third person neuter pronoun 'it' in regard to the Holy Spirit. Some folks feel that it is wrong to speak of the Spirit of God as 'it'.

But please do notice the following:

Isa 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Here, Isaiah delivers a message from God, who speaks of his spirit as 'it'.

Jhn 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

Here John the Baptist speaks of the Spirit as 'it'.

1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Here the apostle Peter speaks of the Spirit of Christ as 'it' and uses the term 'which' (instead of the religiously correct term 'who'.


Now let's look at one verse, which is actually merely a sample of numerous other similarly constructed verses:

1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

Notice the phrase 'it is the Spirit'. This is similar in construction to numerous other phrases which say 'it is ...X' where X is a person (male or female). For example, howmany times have you said 'it's God' or 'it's Jesus'? We see no problem whatsoever in saying 'it is [insert male or female person's name here]'.

Why is this possible? Why do we not say 'he is the Spirit' or 'He is God' in such situations? Technically and grammatically, the phrase 'it is the Spirit' is simply saying that 'the Spirit is it' where 'it' is the subject of the sentence or phrase.

Why is this not considered incorrect grammar? Because that is simply how language works.

To say 'it is ...X' is simply saying that 'it', an unidentified subject, is then identified as 'the Spirit' or 'God' or 'Fred' or 'Mary' or whatever you supply. There is no grammatical difficulty even though the pronoun is neuter and the noun which it refers to is masculine or feminine or whatever the case may be.

So, in short, there is both Biblical and grammatical precedent for using 'it' in reference to the Holy Spirit.

Does this mean the Spirit is 'an it' and not a 'He'? No, of course not. The pronoun does not determine the reality of the underlying noun. That would be contrary to all logic and language, not to mention common sense.

But, to put it simply, if the Bible itself occasionally refers to the Spirit of God as 'it' then it is not wrong for us to do so as well.

[SDG]

I don't want to burst your it bubble ...

1. but in the 4 verses you mentioned the word Spirit is always included in context of its usage. Some today use an impersonal "it" to refer to the Spirit of God ... like "Did you receive it?' ... never once acknowledging it is the Spirit of the living God ... but simply the experience.

2. I also see a freedom, or creative license, used by KJV translators in using the Greek work "to", "o","ho" ... as it ... when those words are properly translated as "this"

Greek [3588]: ho .... this, that, these, etc.

Examples:

John 1:32

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ;not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness , because the Spirit is truth.

Outov estin (5748) o elqwn (5631) di' udatov kai aimatov, Ihsouv Xristov;ouk en tw udati monon all' en tw udati kai en tw aimati; kai to pneuma estin (5748) to marturoun, (5723) oti to pneuma estin (5748) h alhqeia.

1:11
what *, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify , when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ,and the glory that should follow

eraunwntev eiv tina h poion kairon edhlou to en autoivpneuma Xristou promarturomenon (5740) ta eiv Xriston paqhmata kai tav meta tauta docav;

The NAS ... does not use it in this reference in 1 Peter....

seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow

Clearly the Apostles in their original intent did not refer the the Spirit of God as an it ... but you can if you like.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I don't want to burst your it bubble ...

I don't blow bubbles, bubba.

1. but in the 4 verses you mentioned the word Spirit is always included in context of its usage. Some today use an impersonal "it" to refer to the Spirit of God ... like "Did you receive it?' ... never once acknowledging it is the Spirit of the living God ... but simply the experience.

Nice avoidance of the actual facts. The Scripture clearly uses the word 'it' in reference to the Spirit of God in the passages I cited. Case closed. (Unless of course, you believe the Holy Word of God is wrong....)

2. I also see a freedom, or creative license, used by KJV translators in using the Greek work "to", "o","ho" ... as it ... when those words are properly translated as "this"

Of course you do. When the Bible plainly contradicts your premise, you 'see creative license' in the Scripture rather than where it belongs - your interpretation.

Clearly the Apostles in their original intent did not refer the the Spirit of God as an it ... but you can if you like.

I am simply quoting the Bible, which uses 'it' to refer to the Spirit of God. Obviously, you did not bother with much of my post, which clearly explained how and why this is not only possible, but normal.

I am always somewhat amused at how some people take their personal grievances with some abstract 'movement' and apply it to such things as grammar and the plain text of Scripture.

Funny.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

2. I also see a freedom, or creative license, used by KJV translators in using the Greek work "to", "o","ho" ... as it ... when those words are properly translated as "this"

Greek [3588]: ho .... this, that, these, etc.

Examples:

John 1:32

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ;not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness , because the Spirit is truth.

Outov estin (5748) o elqwn (5631) di' udatov kai aimatov, Ihsouv Xristov;ouk en tw udati monon all' en tw udati kai en tw aimati; kai to pneuma estin (5748) to marturoun, (5723) oti to pneuma estin (5748) h alhqeia.

1:11
what *, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify , when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ,and the glory that should follow

eraunwntev eiv tina h poion kairon edhlou to en autoivpneuma Xristou promarturomenon (5740) ta eiv Xriston paqhmata kai tav meta tauta docav;

Clearly the Apostles in their original intent did not refer the the Spirit of God as an it ... but you can if you like.

1Pe 1:11 ερευνωντες Searching 2045 V-PAP-NPM εις of 1519 PREP τινα what 5101 I-ASM η or 2228 PRT ποιον what manner 4169 I-ASM καιρον of time 2540 N-ASM εδηλου did signify 1213 V-IAI-3S το the 3588 T-NSN εν which was in 1722 PREP αυτοις them 846 P-DPM πνευμα Spirit 4151 N-NSN χριστου of Christ 5547 N-GSM προμαρτυρομενον when it testified beforehand 4303 V-PNP-NSN τα the 3588 T-APN εις 1519 PREP χριστον Christ 5547 N-ASM παθηματα sufferings 3804 N-APN και and 2532 CONJ τας the 3588 T-APF μετα that should follow 3326 PREP ταυτα 5023 D-APN δοξας glory. 1391 N-APF


Joh 1:32 και And 2532 CONJ εμαρτυρησεν bare record 3140 V-AAI-3S ιωαννης John 2491 N-NSM λεγων saying 3004 V-PAP-NSM οτι 3754 CONJ τεθεαμαι I saw 2300 V-RNI-1S το the 3588 T-ASN πνευμα Spirit 4151 N-ASN καταβαινον descending 2597 V-PAP-ASN ωσει like 5616 ADV περιστεραν a dove 4058 N-ASF εξ from 1537 PREP ουρανου heaven 3772 N-GSM και and 2532 CONJ εμεινεν it abode 3306 V-AAI-3S επ upon 1909 PREP αυτον him. 846 P-ASM

Daniel,

In neither of the verses you quoted did the translator translate as you assert they did. They did not mistranslate the word 'to','ho', or 'o' because those words just aren't there. In each verse they used a pronoun they thought was appropriate for the antecedent noun, a pronoun which is implied in the verb itself.

I also see a freedom, or creative license, used by KJV translators in using the Greek work "to", "o","ho" ... as it ... when those words are properly translated as "this"

You may see a creative license with the KJV translators but that license is taken with other translators as well.

Do you think the Spirit of God has a gender? The NAS translators chose to use the pronoun, he, but the pronoun, he, is not in the Greek text.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Do you think the Spirit of God has a gender?

Yes sir.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Yes sir.

In what way does the Spirit of God have a gender?

Originally Posted by mizpeh

In what way does the Spirit of God have a gender?

It always amuses me to hear how people express themselves in regard to "spirit" as though spirit is a indefinite glob of air or cloud or something strangely etherial.

First let me ask you.

Don't you believe that Jesus is the One True Lord God, Jehovah Almighty?

Don't you believe that He is a man?

Do you not believe that He is the last Adam?

Are we not speaking of gender? Don't you believe that Jesus in the flesh was nothing unlike you and I in regards to gender?

I am sure that you said "yes" to all of the above.

Now for the last question, do you not believe that the Lord (Jesus Christ) is that Spirit?

2Cr 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty.

Yes sir. When you see Jesus, you will see God, who is Lord above all. You will also see that He is a man. Yes, He is THE Spirit...the Holy Spirit having no human limitations, indwelling all believers, present in His church, filling all space and time, having all power.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

In what way does the Spirit of God have a gender?

In the way Jesus referred to the Spirit ... as HE.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

1Pe 1:11 ερευνωντες Searching 2045 V-PAP-NPM εις of 1519 PREP τινα what 5101 I-ASM η or 2228 PRT ποιον what manner 4169 I-ASM καιρον of time 2540 N-ASM εδηλου did signify 1213 V-IAI-3S το the 3588 T-NSN εν which was in 1722 PREP αυτοις them 846 P-DPM πνευμα Spirit 4151 N-NSN χριστου of Christ 5547 N-GSM προμαρτυρομενον when it testified beforehand 4303 V-PNP-NSN τα the 3588 T-APN εις 1519 PREP χριστον Christ 5547 N-ASM παθηματα sufferings 3804 N-APN και and 2532 CONJ τας the 3588 T-APF μετα that should follow 3326 PREP ταυτα 5023 D-APN δοξας glory. 1391 N-APF


Joh 1:32 και And 2532 CONJ εμαρτυρησεν bare record 3140 V-AAI-3S ιωαννης John 2491 N-NSM λεγων saying 3004 V-PAP-NSM οτι 3754 CONJ τεθεαμαι I saw 2300 V-RNI-1S το the 3588 T-ASN πνευμα Spirit 4151 N-ASN καταβαινον descending 2597 V-PAP-ASN ωσει like 5616 ADV περιστεραν a dove 4058 N-ASF εξ from 1537 PREP ουρανου heaven 3772 N-GSM και and 2532 CONJ εμεινεν it abode 3306 V-AAI-3S επ upon 1909 PREP αυτον him. 846 P-ASM

Daniel,

In neither of the verses you quoted did the translator translate as you assert they did. They did not mistranslate the word 'to','ho', or 'o' because those words just aren't there. In each verse they used a pronoun they thought was appropriate for the antecedent noun, a pronoun which is implied in the verb itself.



You may see a creative license with the KJV translators but that license is taken with other translators as well.

Do you think the Spirit of God has a gender? The NAS translators chose to use the pronoun, he, but the pronoun, he, is not in the Greek text.

You are correct. Daniel does not know what he is talking about here.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

1Pe 1:11 ερευνωντες Searching 2045 V-PAP-NPM εις of 1519 PREP τινα what 5101 I-ASM η or 2228 PRT ποιον what manner 4169 I-ASM καιρον of time 2540 N-ASM εδηλου did signify 1213 V-IAI-3S το the 3588 T-NSN εν which was in 1722 PREP αυτοις them 846 P-DPM πνευμα Spirit 4151 N-NSN χριστου of Christ 5547 N-GSM προμαρτυρομενον when it testified beforehand 4303 V-PNP-NSN τα the 3588 T-APN εις 1519 PREP χριστον Christ 5547 N-ASM παθηματα sufferings 3804 N-APN και and 2532 CONJ τας the 3588 T-APF μετα that should follow 3326 PREP ταυτα 5023 D-APN δοξας glory. 1391 N-APF


Joh 1:32 και And 2532 CONJ εμαρτυρησεν bare record 3140 V-AAI-3S ιωαννης John 2491 N-NSM λεγων saying 3004 V-PAP-NSM οτι 3754 CONJ τεθεαμαι I saw 2300 V-RNI-1S το the 3588 T-ASN πνευμα Spirit 4151 N-ASN καταβαινον descending 2597 V-PAP-ASN ωσει like 5616 ADV περιστεραν a dove 4058 N-ASF εξ from 1537 PREP ουρανου heaven 3772 N-GSM και and 2532 CONJ εμεινεν it abode 3306 V-AAI-3S επ upon 1909 PREP αυτον him. 846 P-ASM

Daniel,

In neither of the verses you quoted did the translator translate as you assert they did. They did not mistranslate the word 'to','ho', or 'o' because those words just aren't there. In each verse they used a pronoun they thought was appropriate for the antecedent noun, a pronoun which is implied in the verb itself.



You may see a creative license with the KJV translators but that license is taken with other translators as well.

Do you think the Spirit of God has a gender? The NAS translators chose to
use the pronoun, he, but the pronoun, he, is not in the Greek text.

The word ho is there ... my dear Mizpeh ... it languages there are variations of root words ... hate to break to you ... but according to Strong's the word ho ... has variations ... to ... tav etc.