Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Education And Learning
  4. / Education Subjects
  5. / English Language

by anonymous on February 18th, 2007

anonymous

Question

Help answer this question below.

What are the possible translations of the Hebrew phrase "ruakh elohim" in English?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. Showing one answer.

  • by anonymous on February 18th, 2007

    anonymous

    With more than a dozen different uses for the word "ruakh", (see http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/141576/403973) and at least 9 for elohim, (see http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/142408) there should be literally dozens of possibilities. If you were to use just one possible translation of Elohim there would be no less than 12 possibilities, if you were to use 2, there are at least 23, all nine and there is, at a minimum, 72 different translational possibilities.

    These could be any conjugation of; wind or spirit, seat of the mind, or invisible force, conjoined with any expression of divinity; God, godship, godlike, judge, powerful, holy, great, angels or mighty.
    Keep in mind this is just using one form of each of these words. Start adding in permutations of plurality, singularity, possessive articles, or future and past tenses, the possibilities are innumerable.

    The only way this is usually translated is as "Holy Spirit", but in some translations such as the Third Millenium and Douay-Rheims Bibles,the expression "Holy Ghost" is preferred.

    This is not to say that it is the only way it can be done, but it is the only way it is typically done.

    There seems to be some differences between the Old and New Testaments regarding the translation of these words.
    For example in the Latin Vulgate the phrase is conspicuously missing where the King James Version, and others, mention the Holy Spirit.
    For example, in Ps 51:11 the King James version reads
    "Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me."
    The same section of the Latin Vulgate reads; Ps 51:11
    "confitebor tibi in saeculum quia fecisti et expectabo nomen tuum quoniam bonum in conspectu sanctorum tuorum"
    There is no mention at all of the latin form of spirit, or holiness.

    In every other instance of the phrase "Holy Spirit" later in the Bible, the Latin Vulgate at least has some form of the corresponding Latin equivalent, but not always identical. I mean besides plurality, tense or possessive articles.
    Where it says "spiritum sancti" as opposed to "spiritu sancto", these are of course the same root words and convey the same root meaning if context is not considered.

    What of instances where it uses a different root, though? Should this not be translated differently? Where it says "spiritum bonum" in Luke 11:13, doesn't this mean "good" spirit, as opposed to clean or holy? Yet it is translated as “Holy Spirit.” And what of John 7:39, where it does not have any reference at all to Holiness or cleanness, but there Ghost is inserted, once again, a word not even in the original text, but spurious.

    So, given so many possible interpretations of those words, why is it translated the same way in every Bible, in every instance? Why would it be added in places where it is not even mentioned in the original languages or earlier translations which were used as the basis for these new versions? Some might be prone to think of a conspiracy theory.

    It seems the phrase took on a new meaning, actually representing a name, rather than
    the state of defilement or lack thereof , of a spirit or way of thinking.

    Some 400 years after the Bible was written scholars came together and debated the writings of the bible, one of the results was the formation of a new doctrine, the trinity.

    This “Holy Spirit” was one third of that triune spirit of God, and the "Holy Spirit" took on the form of a name, distinguishing this as a seperate personage from Jehovah, the Father.
    As a name, it was translated the same way, no matter the context. To do differently after this would be hailed as blasphemy against this portion of Gods identity.

    After the indoctrination of the Trinity every scholar, language expert and religious official was taught this as fact, if the dogma was questioned or if they looked for evidence to evaluate, they were typically excommunicated, discredited or even killed. For example, Nestorius; a highly esteemed official within the Christian religion, who had doubts over the validity of this teaching. When he began researching it and giving public discourses on the subject he was imprisoned for life at the urging of political rivals.

    Definitely good motivation to keep your mouth, and mind, shut, and write the Bible the way men tell you to, instead of the way it should be done, no?

    So basically scholars have been coerced and threatened over the centuries to not question this doctrine. If they do, they are finished, someone replaces them who will bow down to mens rules, and maintain the traditions handed down by men.

    So is the existence of a Holy Spirit, apart from Jehovah, a separate person,
    really supported by the Bible, or do the translators insert it sporadically in places where it should not be, and interpret it incorrectly in places where it is present, in order to support a centuries old error?

    Fortunately we finally live in an age where we are free to question these teachings. The clergy no longer inhibit the production of Bibles and keep the common man from learning about the Bible. We are finally out from under the thumb of an oppressive overlord which tried to keep us under their control.

    Unfortunately, many people do not know how to explore this freedom, do not question beliefs and try to make sure what they believe to be true, actually is.

    So what are you, personally, going to do? Fall in line, or try to find out what the Bible really teaches?

    What is there that prevents the translation of this in a different way? What rule of grammar? Where in the Bible does it describe this?

    There is nothing in the Bible to say this is the way to do it. There are no grammatical rules or rules of translation to make it the only way. There is only one thing; the statement of people taught that this is the way, saying they are smarter than you, telling you to do it this way. Taught from birth to do it this way, generation after generation passing along this tradition, formed by men 1600 years ago, 400 years after the Bible was written. . Nothing more than the traditions of men.

    Men that will call me a heretic and blasphemer, even though the Bible actually commands me to test my beliefs, to examine them and make sure they are true, and to not follow the traditions of men or lean on my own understanding or go beyond what is written. Yet that is exactly what they have done. They have added this teaching to the Bible, carried it along for hundreds of years, and those who do not believe it, because it is not in the Bible, are insulted as uneducated, called heretics and blasphemers.

    Who is a blasphemer, those who try to follow the Bible and respect it as the only authority, or those who insist on following the traditions of men as doctrine, and not the teachings of God, who would also kill and defile their brother on the basis of this false teaching?

    This opens up the possibility to interpret the meaning of "ruakh elohim" differently in many places, depending on the context. Without this dogma the entire existence of the trinity is in question. Once again the statement by God that He is the only true God, and there is no other, has meaning.

    Comments
    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading What are the possible translations of the Hebrew phrase "ruakh elohim" in English?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

Answerbag

a Demand Media company