The Holy Spirit Is An It

Unfortunately, perhaps the greatest tragedy in the translation of the Word of God on this topic is the seemingly harmless translation of the pronoun that refers to the LOGOS. The Greek pronoun AUTOS can be translated either “him” or “it” depending on the noun that it is referring to. In KOINE Greek, there were not multiple pronouns used for each type of noun, they did not have a “he”, “she” and an “it” as we have in English. They simply had one pronoun, AUTOS, which was used as a placeholder for all three of these noun types. If referring to a man, AUTOS would be translated “he” or “him,” but if referring to an inanimate object like the LOGOS, “life” or the “light,” then “it” is more accurate. In “The Challenge of Bible Translation” Mark L. Strauss, Professor of New Testament at Bethel Seminary in San Diego confirms:

“Grammatically, pronouns follow their antecedents; they do not govern them…In beginning Greek we teach our students that a pronoun replaces a noun (its antecedent) and gets its meaning from that noun—not vice versa!…We should not impose the male connotations of ‘he’ onto AUTOS unless we are sure they are there. And in most generic contexts, there is no evidence that they are there. Indeed, when AUTOS is preceded by a true generic term, we must assume it, too, is a true generic. It does not mean ‘he’…What some English speakers have trouble comprehending is that, because Greek pronouns such as AUTOS were used for all masculine nouns—whether animate or inanimate—in many contexts this pronoun sounded exactly like ‘it’ sounds to English ears.”-Strauss, Mark L. “The Challenge of Bible Translation”, p128, 130

Although I do agree that it is very difficult to assign an inanimate neutral pronoun like “it” to the living, breathing, active, penetrating truth that is the LOGOS of God, it probably is the most accurate translation of the term AUTOS as it relates to the personified, but still inanimate object of the LOGOS; and that is how AUTOS has been translated every other place the LOGOS is found to be with a pronoun in Scripture. Referring to the LOGOS as a “him” brings with it a large presupposition that potentially was not the original intent of John, and in the process essentially reshapes our entire perception of probably the primary proof text for the deity of Jesus in all of Scripture! The fact that AUTOS is translated “he” and “him” in the Prologue of John numerous times gives us insight into the paradigms and agendas of the translators. It proves that they are speculating that the LOGOS is used interchangeably by John for the term “Jesus,” and you’ll even hear this verse quoted as “obvious” or “certain” evidence that Jesus was in fact referred to as “God.” Whereas the vast majority of scholars obviously presume that it is appropriate to translate AUTOS as “him” rather than “it” in the Prologue of John because the LOGOS is in fact Jesus in their minds, the same scholars would consider it ludicrous to propose the translation of the term LOGOS to the English name “Jesus” because they would consider this a drastic and unacceptable departure from the original words of John. But this is exactly what is inferred with the current speculative translation of the generic pronoun AUTOS. By translating AUTOS “he” and “him” in the Prologue, we are making an implied argument that John uses the term LOGOS as a placeholder for the proper name of IESOUS, which means “Jesus.” They are now no longer “translating” the original Greek, but rather “speculating” based on a theologically based set of paradigms that does not align precisely with the text. I’d rather presume that John references the inanimate LOGOS in his Prologue for a reason. If in fact he meant that “Jesus” was “God,” he would have said IESOUS, not LOGOS. And the LOGOS, in its true inanimate sense, as with the many verses of the Prologue and exclusively throughout the rest of Scripture, it is not a “him,” it is an “it.”

And before you claim this alleged translation bias is an argument from silence because it has little support from the current academic community, if you were to reread John 1:1-5 & 14 the way the primary original translator of the Bible into English and the principal source for many of our modern translations interpreted it in William Tyndale’s first version of the New Testament translated in 1525, our current perception of the verse would be drastically different:

1In the beginning was that word, and that word was with god, and god was that word. 2The same was in the beginning with god. 3All things were made by it, and without it, was made no thing, that made was. 4In it was life, and life was the light of men 5and the light shineth in the darkness, and darkness comprehended it not…14And that word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw the glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten son of the father, which word was full of grace, and verity.-John 1:1-5, 14 {TYNDALE}

And as most are already aware, all modern translators since the KJV retranslate the pronoun AUTOS as “he” or “him” rather than agreeing with Tyndale and translating the term “it.” But now we know that they did so in spite of previously accepted translations rather than because of them. Look how drastic the translation of this one pronoun changes the meaning of a verse, and potentially the “central” doctrine of our religion! But the interesting thing to note, once again, is that even though the above verses seem irregular to us now, the current translations that we have were, at the time they were translated, an intentional deviation from the norm! At the time that the KJV was being translated, the two primary Bibles used were Tyndale’s New Testament and the Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible translated by John Calvin’s brother-in-law, William Whittingham, both of which chose to translate AUTOS as “it” rather than “him” here in John’s Prologue. And this is significant for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that John Wyclif’s Bible, which is the only English version that proceeded Tyndale’s, translated this pronoun as “he” and “him” throughout the Prologue. So the translation of this term to “it” by both Tyndale and the Geneva Bible must have been an intentional deviation from Wyclif. But the translators subsequent to Tyndale and Calvin are telling us that, even though they choose to use the vast majority of Tyndale’s words identically as he translated them, they disagreed with him almost exclusively with this pronoun and the correct order of the phrase KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS or “and god was the word.” They speculated that AUTOS should rather be translated “him” because they believed that the LOGOS was in fact a “him” in the beginning prior to it “becoming flesh” where it was presumed to be referring to Jesus. But if AUTOS is by default an “it” unless its antecedent forces it into a gender specific pronoun, these translators are no longer acting as translators, but rather as interpreters that are presuming a meaning that is injected into the words chosen by John. This primary unbiased interpretation is unfortunately only evidenced when we review our earliest English translations prior to our modern interpretive deviations.

But rather than having a disagreement on the correct translation of the pronoun AUTOS, let’s instead, just read the verses using the noun or antecedent that the pronoun AUTOS is intended to replace, so we can remove the bias of interpretation from either side:

1In the beginning was [the LOGOS], and [the LOGOS] was with God, and [the LOGOS] was God. 2 [the LOGOS] was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through [the LOGOS], and apart from [the LOGOS] nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In [the LOGOS] was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend [the light]… 14And [the LOGOS] became flesh, and dwelt [EN] us, and we saw [the LOGOS]’s glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.-John 1:1-5, 14 {NASB}

These verses look very different when they are not overloaded with the heavy burden of the translators’ speculative interpretations. Now, for those of you skeptics who are currently accusing me of taking our earliest version of the English Bible and using it as support to prove my interpretation of the original rendering of John. Remember, Tyndale was the father of the English Reformation and all current Bibles relied heavily if not almost exclusively on his interpretation of the original intent of the authors of Scripture. And as already stated, multiple Bibles actually translated AUTOS as “it” prior to the KJV, so it wasn’t only Tyndale who originally interpreted the verse this way.

The Logos of God dwell “in” us or “among” us?

The Holy Spirit Is Not a Person

The Holy Spirit is referred to as he and him in translation. This is also true of common tools, etc. "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into, his place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew 26:52; also cf. Ezekiel 21:3-5, 30).

The word 'house' is personified in translation in Jeremiah 22:14. The word 'candlestick' is personified in Revelation 2:5. The word 'ordinance' is personified in translation in Exodus 13:10. The word sun is personified in Ecclesiastes 1:5 and Malachi 4:2. The word 'patience' is given a female personification in translation in James 1:4. The word 'wisdom' is also given a female personification in Proverbs 1:20; 9:1 & 31:26.

Why sometimes called 'He' and 'Him'

Many people assume that the Holy Spirit is a personal entity, based on references to the Spirit as "he," "him" and "himself" in the New Testament. This confusion arises from two factors—the use of gender-inflected pronouns in the Greek language and bias on the part of some translators.

Greek, as do the Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian, etc.), invokes a specific gender for every noun. Every object, animate or inanimate, is designated as either masculine, feminine or neuter. The gender is often unrelated to whether the item is indeed masculine or feminine. For example, in French the word livre, meaning "book," is of the masculine gender and is referred to by a pronoun equivalent to the English "he." And in Spanish, mesa, or "table," is in the feminine. Clearly, although these nouns have gender, their gender does not refer to actually being male or female.

In the English language, in contrast, most nouns that do not refer to objects that are male or female are referred to in the neuter sense, with the pronoun "it."

In Greek, both masculine and neuter words are used to refer to the Holy Spirit. The Greek word translated "Helper," "Comforter" and "Advocate" in John 14-16 is parakletos, a masculine word in Greek and thus referred to in these chapters by Greek pronouns equivalent to the English "he," "him," "his," "himself," "who" and "whom."

Because of the masculine gender of parakletos, these pronouns are grammatically correct in Greek. But to translate these into English as "he," "him," etc., is grammatically incorrect.

By the same token, you would never translate a particular French sentence as "I'm looking for my book so I can read her." While this grammatical construction makes sense in the French language, it is wrong in English. Thus the supposition that the Holy Spirit is a person to be referred to as "he" or "him" is incorrect.

Neuter in nature, not personal

There is absolutely no justification for referring to the term "Holy Spirit" with masculine pronouns, even in Greek. The Greek word pneuma, usually translated "spirit" but also translated "wind" and "breath," is a grammatically neuter word. So, in the Greek language, pronouns equivalent to the English "it," "its," "itself," "which" or "that" are properly used in referring to this word for "spirit."

Yet, when the King James or Authorized Version was produced (early in the 1600s), the doctrine of the Trinity had already been accepted for more than 1,000 years. So naturally the translators of that version usually chose personal rather than neutral pronouns when referring to the Holy Spirit in English (see, for example, John 16:1314; Romans 8:26).

Notice, however, that in some passages in the KJV the translators properly used neuter pronouns. Romans 8:16, for example, says: "The Spirit itself [not himself] beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Matthew 10:20 and 1 Peter 1:11 are other places in the KJV where the proper neuter pronouns are employed.

Regrettably, later English translators of the Bible have gone even further than the King James translators in referring to the Holy Spirit as masculine rather than neuter. Thus the Holy Spirit is almost always referred to as "he" or "him" in the more-modern versions. This reflects not linguistic accuracy, but the doctrinal bias or incorrect assumptions of Bible translators.

Scott Ashley: SOURCE

The "Holy Spirit" is the power of Father Yahweh and His spirit is not a separate person. If one is under the inSPIRation of Yahweh's spirit they would be agreement with His Teaching (Torah, Law). Note that Shaul said that the Teaching (Torah, Law) of Father Yahweh is spiritual. Yahshua was under the inSPIRation of Father Yahweh's set apart ("Holy") spirit. He was in obedience to Father Yahweh's Teaching (Torah, Law). He was without sin, and sin is the disobedience of Father Yahweh Teaching (Torah, Law) as stated in I Yahchanan [John] 3:4. I would suggest that you read and study this passage in the entire context from which it was taken. We are also to be under the inSPIRation of Father Yahweh's Teaching (Torah, Law). This is true righteousness. If we are under the inSPIRation of Father Yahweh's Spirit we will obey Him as also did His son Yahshua. The Teaching (Torah, Law) that Yahshua taught was not his own, but that of Father Yahweh. Note also that the spirit is part of the WHOLE armour that we are to be equipped with to fight off the wiles of the devil (evil). If one is not fully equipped with the WHOLE armour of Father Yahweh they are under the inSPIRation of Satan the devil. WRONG spirit as opposed the RIGHTEOUS Spirit of Father Yahweh.

Shaul said:

"For we know that the law (the Teaching [Torah] of Father Yahweh) is SPIRITual ..." (Romans 7:14).

Put on the whole armour of Yahweh, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil (Ephesians 6:11, 13).

"... and the sWORD of the Spirit, WHICH IS THE WORD OF YAHWEH (Ephesians 6:17).

"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than edifying which is in faith: so do. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a righteous conscience, and of faith unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; ("Holy Trinity" is Vain Jangling!) Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the law is righteous, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the wicked and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the esteem of the glad tidings of our Mighty One Yahweh, which was committed to my trust." (1 Timothy 1:1-11)

Certainly there is power in Father Yahweh's Word (Teaching, Torah, Law)

And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before Yahweh our Mighty One, as He has commanded us (Deuteronomy 6:25).

Father Yahweh's Teaching (Torah, Law)

Father Yahweh Is Not His Son Yahshua Whom He Anointed, Appointed As King To Reign For 1,000 Years And Raised From The Dead.

The Diverse Trinity Doctrines Are Not The Teachings Of Father Yahweh! They are the teachings and "private interpretations" of mere men are not under the inspiration of Father Yahweh.

KNOWING THIS FIRST, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation (2 Kepha [Peter] 1:20).

The Historic Translation of John 1:3-4

Our English Bible gradually developed over the last six hundred years. John Wycliffe is credited with the first English translation of the New Testament which was completed about 1380 C.E. Until that time the Word of Yahweh was locked up in the Latin tongue which was unknown to the common people. The Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome about 400 C.E. was the standard Bible used in the Catholic Church.

Wycliffe's translation is based upon the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek. It is therefore a "version of a version." In Wycliffe's version, John 1:3-4 use the word "him" in reference to the "Word" of verse 1 and is a translation of the Latin "ipsum" and "ipso" (he, she, or it).

The next great English translator was William Tyndale. He was an excellent Greek scholar who had access to the Greek text of Erasmus which Wycliffe did not have. The hand of the Almighty was upon Tyndale as He used him to give us our first English translation based upon the Hebrew and Greek. His New Testament was published in 1526 and revised to its final state in 1534.

Tyndale's translation of John 1:3-4 reads, "All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men." As you can see, Tyndale used "it" instead of "him." "It" is a translation of the Greek "autou" meaning he, she, or it. What this tells us is that Tyndale did not read Messiah into the "logos" or "word" of verse 1 and he was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate or Wycliffe.

Miles Coverdale, a friend of Tyndale, gave us the first complete Bible printed in English in 1535. It was not a firsthand translation from the Hebrew and Greek, but was based on the Latin Vulgate and Tyndale's translation. Coverdale used "him" in John 1:3-4.

In 1537, John Rogers, using the pseudonym "Thomas Matthew," published a translation based largely on Tyndale and Coverdale which became known as Matthew's Bible. He uses "it" in John 1:3-4.

The Great Bible followed in 1539 and was a revision of Matthew's Bible. The first edition was prepared by Miles Coverdale. For some reason Coverdale decided "it" was more correct than "him" which appeared in his 1535 version based on the Latin Vulgate and left John 1:3-4 as it was in Matthew's translation, "it" instead of "him.". The Great Bible was the first authorized English version and was ordered to be placed in every church.

Under Queen Mary the printing of the English Bible ended and its use in the churches was forbidden. This gave rise to a version completed in Geneva. The Geneva Bible of 1560 was the first Bible to have numbered verses, each set off as a separate paragraph. This Bible became the "household Bible of the English-speaking nations." It held that position for about 75 years. It was Shakespeare's Bible and that of the Puritans who settled New England. Once again, the translation of John 1:3-4 follows Tyndale's example, "it" instead of "him."

Queen Elizabeth eventually reinstated the order that a copy of the Bible be placed in every church and she encouraged its reading. Since there were not enough copies of the Great Bible, the bishops themselves made a new revision known as the Bishop's Bible. It was published in 1568. It was used mostly by the clergy, not being very popular with the common people. It, too, renders John 1:3-4 using "it," not "him."

In 1582, the Roman Catholic version of the New Testament was completed and known as the Rheims New Testament. It was the result of a battle between Papists and Protestants, the former believing the Latin Vulgate to be the standard upon which all translations should be made. It was the work of Roman Catholic scholars based on the Latin. They chose to render John 1:3-4 using "him" as did the previous versions based on the Vulgate.

From that point on, all future versions, beginning with the King James version of 1611, used "him" instead of "it" in their translation of John 1:3-4. As you can see, the following translation of John 1:3-4 is not without historic and linguistic foundation;

"All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men."

The "logos" (word) of John 1:1 means "the spoken word" or "something said (including the thought)." In that sense the word is an "it," not a person but a thing. In other words, Yahweh spoke creation into existence. This understanding agrees perfectly with passages such as Gen.1:3,6,9,11,14,20, and 24, all of which begin, "And Elohim said." Yahweh spoke and it was done. Ps.33:6,9 says, "By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast." Not only did Yahweh speak creation into existence, but He also spoke His Son Yeshua into existence; "And the word (Yahweh's spoken word) was made flesh" (Jn.1:14). Yeshua did not become the "Word of [Yahweh]" until his birth as a flesh and blood male child.

De 32:39 says, "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." Yahweh the Father is speaking here. He is saying there is no other "elohim" or no other God with Him. John 1:1 says, " . . .and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God." If the "Word" is the Son and the Son was WITH God and was God, how does that harmonize with the above verse? In De 32:39, since Yahweh was speaking, then there was no other God with Him, not even the Son.

To say the "logos" of John 1:1 is a reference to Messiah is to read him into the text. Roman Catholic scholars had to do this in order to support their unscriptural trinity doctrine. If Messiah did not pre-exist, the trinity doctrine would collapse, it being based upon the belief that all three members of the "godhead" were co-eternal. Since Messiah only pre-existed in Yahweh's plan of salvation and not literally, the trinity doctrine is without foundation.

The Historic Translation of John 1:3-4 - ARCHIVED

Yahweh's Set Apart ("Holy") Spirit Is Not A Person!

It Is An It!

The Same Is True With 'Word (Logos)' In John 1:1

The ‘Word’ Or ‘Logos’

Is A THING, Not A PERSON

Also compare John 1:1 Empahatic Diaglott

John 1:1-3

Emphatic Diaglott

John 1:1 - Tyndale New Testament

CLICK HERE for zoomable high-resolution image

Compare The Following Translation Of John 1

1. “All things were made by it” (Tyndale, 1534)

2. “The worde ... All things were made by the same” (Coverdale, 1535)

3. “All things were made by it and without it nothing was made” (Matthews’ Bible, 1537)

4. “All things were made by it and without it was made nothing that was made” (The Great Bible, 1539)

5. “All things were made by it” (Taverner NT, 1540)

6. “All things were made by it”(Whittingham, 1557)

7. “All things were made by it” (The Geneva Bible, 1560)

8. “All things were made by it” (Bishops’ Bible, 1568)

9. “All things were made by it” (Tomson NT, 1607)

10. “Nor can anything be produced that has been made without it [Reason]” (John LeClerc, 1701)

11. “The word ... through the same all things were made” (Mortimer, 1761)

12. “In the beginning was Wisdom ... All things were made by it” (Wakefield NT, 1791)

13. “The Word ... All things were made by it” (Alexander Campbell, founder of the Church of Christ, 1826)

14. “The Word ... All things were formed by it” (Dickinson, A New and Corrected Version of the NT, 1833)

15. “All things were made by it” (Barnard, 1847)

16. “Through it [the logos] everything was done” (Wilson, Emphatic Diaglott, 1864)

17. “All things through it arose into being” (Folsom, 1869)

18. “All things were made through it” (Sharpe, Revision of the Authorized English Version, 1898)

19. “All things were made by the Love thought” (Goddard, 1916)

20. “All things came into being in this God-conception and apart from it came not anything into being that came into being” (Overbury, 1925)

21. “All came into being through it” (Knoch, 1926)

22. “The word ... the living expression of the Father’s thought” (Blount, Half Hours with John’sGospel, 1930)

23. “The word was god” (C.C. Torrey, The Four Gospels, 1933)

24. “Through the divine reason all things came into being” (Wade, The Documents of the NT Translated, 1934)

25. “Without it nothing created sprang into existence” (Johannes Greber, 1937)

26. “It was in the beginning with God, by its activity all things came into being” (Martin Dibelius, The Message of Jesus Christ, translated by F.C. Grant, 1939)

27. “Through its agency all things came into being and apart from it has not one thing come to be” (William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, Readings from St. John’s Gospel, 1939)

28. “The energizing mind was in existence from the very beginning” (Crofts, The Four Gospels, 1949)

29. “First there was the Thought and the Thought was in God ... He, him” (Hoare, Translation from the Greek, 1949)

30. “In the beginning God expressed Himself ... That personal expression, that word ... He” (J.B. Philips, NT in Modern English, 1958)

31. “All was done through it” (Tomanek, 1958)

32. “The Word was the life principle [in creation]” (William Barclay, NT, 1969)

33. “This same idea was at home with God when life began ... He” (Jordan, Cottonpatch Version, 1970)

34. “All things became what they are through the Word” (Dale, NT, 1973)

35. “Within the Word was life” (Edington, 1976)

36. “It was his last werd. Ony it come first” (Gospels in Scouse, 1977)

37. “By it everything had being, and without it nothing had being” (Schonfield, The Original NT, 1985)

38. “All things were made through the Word” (Inclusive Language Lectionary, 1986)

39. “In the beginning was the Plan of Yahweh. All things were done according to it” (Hawkins, Book of Yahweh, 1987)

40. “All things happened through it” (Gaus, Unvarnished NT, 1991)

41. “In the beginning was the divine word and wisdom ... everything came to be by means of it” (Robert Miller, The Complete Gospels, Annotated Scholars’ Version, 1992 [PDF] SOURCE

The Holy Spirit Is An It

Regarding The Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

An exhaustive verse-by-verse, side-by-side comparison of the four major historical paradigms.

What is the Soul and Spirit?

By Bob Pickle

Leland Ryken

The Holy Spirit Is Not a Person

The Holy Spirit is referred to as he and him in translation. This is also true of common tools, etc. "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into, his place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew 26:52; also cf. Ezekiel 21:3-5, 30).

Why sometimes called 'He' and 'Him'

Neuter in nature, not personal

Shaul said:

Certainly there is power in Father Yahweh's Word (Teaching, Torah, Law)

Yahweh's Set Apart ("Holy") Spirit Is Not A Person!

It Is An It!

The Same Is True With 'Word (Logos)' In John 1:1

Is A THING, Not A PERSON

Also compare John 1:1 Empahatic Diaglott

Emphatic Diaglott

Yahchanan [John] 1:1

Separate From the Only True God, the Father

Letters Answering the Arguments Offered By Trinitarians: Letter 2

Links Of Interest

A Third Person?

By Anthony V. Gaudiano

By John T. Willis

The Meaning of the Word “Spirit”

by DJ. Love, Minister, SCY

Researched and Compiled by Chuck McManigal

Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site