Baptism confusion plagues most versions including KJV and Latin Vulgate

[bgwilkinson]

Almost all English translations use baptism the transliteration of baptizo.

This allows religious authorities to define the word not as immersion but as  sprinkling or anything that they can dup people into believing.

The Latin Vulgate has baptizabantur again a transliteration of baptizo instead of the Latin immergere, which means to dip or to plunge into, so it isn't just the English translators that did the transliteration, it was those that translated the Latin as well.

It's no wonder that there is confusion as to what baptism is. This was by design to please the religious authorities for whom the translators were doing the translations.

It is just as true today in the translations we see now, still trying to please the customer.

 

[FSSL]

Yep! A feature in every English Bible so as not to lose some market share.

That is why the Greek is superior!

 

[bibleprotector]

That is why the Greek is superior!

Actually, the obscurity is in appeal to the Greek, but the English word Baptism is a religious word with a religious meaning. In English there is proper meaning for words (despite what people say or define otherwise) whereas in Greek, now, nobody knows with 100% certainty (apparently). That's why we should trust that the KJB is giving the very words and message of God to the world today and for the future.

 

[FSSL]

Look who knows Greek now! ^^

 

[rsc2a]

It's like he doesn't even understand the argument.

BP - you do realize what baptism meant to the Anglican translators of the King Jimmy, no?

 

[FSSL]

He won't tell us what it means in English.

Oxford English Dictionary... " noun the Christian rite of sprinkling water on to a person’s forehead or of immersing them in water, symbolizing purification or regeneration and admission to the Christian Church."

Too bad the English word "baptism" means everything from sprinkling to pouring and immersion. It even took Baptists a few years to understand it properly when they finally looked at it in the Greek.

 

[FSSL]

BP... we get it. You know neither Greek nor Hebrew. We would never hold that against you. But when you become your own authority and say stuff like this, you do show not only an ignorance about the ancient languages, you demonstrate an ignorant prejudice about English.

Is the Oxford English Dictionary diving into obscurity when it says... " Greek baptismos, from Greek baptizein ‘immerse, baptize’"?

 

[FSSL]

So... what mode of Baptism does BP hold to? In English, the word can mean sprinkle, pour or immerse. (OED)

In Greek, the word means dip, immerse and wash. (BDAG)

 

[subllibrm]

BP and BB stop in at Avery's house to discuss this question. After much study and discussion they conclude that the proper response is:

"I know you are but what am I?"

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

First, our English word baptism was not transliterated from the Greek word baptizo, by the King James translators, but was an English word in common usage since five hundred years before the King James translators began their work.

The word did not come into the language as a transliteration of the Greek, but from the French “Baptiste”, at the time of the Norman conquest in 1066! The French got it from the Romans (Latin) as the Romans moved north into Gaul (present day France). It was the Romans who got it from the Greek, and carried it throughout their empire, where it has lived on in French, Italian, Spanish, English, and other languages, even after the death of the Latin language.

Second, it is ridiculous to say that the translators would have had to translate the word to ‘dip’ or to ‘immerse’. Any competent researcher can see from a quick look into the standard reference book on the origin and usage of the English language, “The Oxford English Dictionary”, (any good library will have one) that “immerse” did not appear in English until 1605, the year after the King James translators started their work, and even then, did not have the same meaning as it does today. The word “immerse” originally meant to “merge with”, and only came to mean “submerge in” in 1613, two years after the King James Bible was published.

As far as “dip” is concerned, the word is used ten times in the King James Bible, and never once is it used to describe Christian Baptism. It is used nine times in the Old Testament, and only once in the New Testament to describe what the rich man in hell requested Abraham to have Lazarus do with his finger because of his terrible thirst.

Third, great ignorance and inconsistency is shown by criticizing the word baptism, while calling yourself a Baptist, which comes from the same word! If we are to remove the word baptism from our language, we must also remove “angel,” “apostasy,” “apostle,” “blaspheme,” “blasphemous,” “blasphemy,” “paradise,” “psalm,” “prophecy,” and “prophet!” In fact, you are going to have to remove about seventy percent of the English language, for it is just about that much that has come from foreign sources.

"Baptize" and "Baptism" have been in constant use in English for almost 1000 years. Get over it!

There is nobody on this planet who is more anti-kjvo than me, but come on, people, do a little research before spouting such nonsense. All you do is give the KJVOs more reason to call us stupid, ignorant, and apostate.

 

[praise_yeshua]

There is nobody on this planet who is more anti-kjvo than me, but come on, people, do a little research before spouting such nonsense. All you do is give the KJVOs more reason to call us stupid, ignorant, and apostate.

You say this all the time and I just don't believe it.

First, our English word baptism was not transliterated from the Greek word baptizo, by the King James translators, but was an English word in common usage since five hundred years before the King James translators began their work.

The word did not come into the language as a transliteration of the Greek, but from the French “Baptiste”, at the time of the Norman conquest in 1066! The French got it from the Romans (Latin) as the Romans moved north into Gaul (present day France). It was the Romans who got it from the Greek, and carried it throughout their empire, where it has lived on in French, Italian, Spanish, English, and other languages, even after the death of the Latin language.

Irrelevant. Just a lot of information that ignores the fact the OP deals with the transliteration of  baptizo into Latin. Not English.

Second, it is ridiculous to say that the translators would have had to translate the word to ‘dip’ or to ‘immerse’. Any competent researcher can see from a quick look into the standard reference book on the origin and usage of the English language, “The Oxford English Dictionary”, (any good library will have one) that “immerse” did not appear in English until 1605, the year after the King James translators started their work, and even then, did not have the same meaning as it does today. The word “immerse” originally meant to “merge with”, and only came to mean “submerge in” in 1613, two years after the King James Bible was published.

Immerse finds it origins in immersionem and is implied in immersed. Which dates to the mid 15 century. The evidence is against you.

As far as “dip” is concerned, the word is used ten times in the King James Bible, and never once is it used to describe Christian Baptism. It is used nine times in the Old Testament, and only once in the New Testament to describe what the rich man in hell requested Abraham to have Lazarus do with his finger because of his terrible thirst.

Irrelevant and your information is incorrect or have you forgotten about your friend in Rev 19:13 and Judas.

Third, great ignorance and inconsistency is shown by criticizing the word baptism, while calling yourself a Baptist, which comes from the same word! If we are to remove the word baptism from our language, we must also remove “angel,” “apostasy,” “apostle,” “blaspheme,” “blasphemous,” “blasphemy,” “paradise,” “psalm,” “prophecy,” and “prophet!” In fact, you are going to have to remove about seventy percent of the English language, for it is just about that much that has come from foreign sources.

Great KJVOist logic you have going there Cassidy. The OP had nothing to do with removing the word Baptism from existence. Get over it.

Its supposed ex-KJVOist like yourself that give KJVOist reason to hold on to their ignorance.

 

[FSSL]

Why take umbrage with us? BP spoke ignorantly and now you do as well.

1. It most definitely IS  a transliteration. Who cares who did it first? It is and always has been a transliteration.

BDAG (and nearly every lexicon/commentary I have) says this "plunge, dip, wash, baptize. The transliteration ‘baptize’ signifies"

2. Baptizo means "dip, immerse and wash." The KJV translators certainly knew about the baptistries used by the Orthodox Greek RCC for centuries before.

3. Do you really want to revisit your sanctimonious "no one is more anti-kjvo" than you? I thought we already established your KJVO articles remain on the www.

 

[bibleprotector]

1. It most definitely IS  a transliteration. Who cares who did it first? It is and always has been a transliteration.

You are admitting then that there is an English word which exists in English which is used in English Bibles which has an English definition. Your argument about etymology only confirms this.

 

[FSSL]

1. It most definitely IS  a transliteration. Who cares who did it first? It is and always has been a transliteration.

You are admitting then that there is an English word which exists in English which is used in English Bibles which has an English definition. Your argument about etymology only confirms this.

Etymology? Where do you get that out of what I wrote? I explicitly said that the origin of this word has anything to with this discussion.

You have not told us yet what mode of baptism you perform.

 

[bibleprotector]

1. It most definitely IS  a transliteration. Who cares who did it first? It is and always has been a transliteration.

You are admitting then that there is an English word which exists in English which is used in English Bibles which has an English definition. Your argument about etymology only confirms this.

Etymology? Where do you get that out of what I wrote? I explicitly said that the origin of this word has anything to with this discussion.

You have not told us yet what mode of baptism you perform.

Baptism. There is no mode, but what the proper meaning of the word is. If you refer to dipping, washing, sprinkling, immersing, or anything else, then you are not sticking with the actual Biblical word "baptism". I'm not saying it's wrong to immerse people, but you seem to think that the word "baptism" can be used by everyone to make it mean what they want it to mean.

 

[FSSL]

Baptism. There is no mode, but what the proper meaning of the word is. If you refer to dipping, washing, sprinkling, immersing, or anything else, then you are not sticking with the actual Biblical word "baptism". I'm not saying it's wrong to immerse people,..

BWilkinson... another layer has been peeled off the onion!

BP... this is a most pathetic answer. There certainly is a proper mode of Baptism and the Greek is crystal clear as to what that mode is.

The nature of the word "Baptism" includes the mode. You cannot strip baptidzo of its core.

...but you seem to think that the word "baptism" can be used by everyone to make it mean what they want it to mean.

You won't say it is wrong, but you will not say what it is.

It obviously doesn't stop you from making the word meaningless.

Do you pour? Do you sprinkle?

 

[Ransom]

If you refer to dipping, washing, sprinkling, immersing, or anything else, then you are not sticking with the actual Biblical word "baptism". I'm not saying it's wrong to immerse people, but you seem to think that the word "baptism" can be used by everyone to make it mean what they want it to mean.

LOL! There's so much weaseling in that "argument" we could give out free fur coats on the street corner.

So in order to stick with the actual biblical word "baptism," what act does one have to perform on a baptismal candidate?

 

[Steven Avery]

First, our English word baptism was not transliterated from the Greek word baptizo, by the King James translators, but was an English word in common usage since five hundred years before the King James translators began their work. ...

And people are immersed all the time.  In the swimming pool, in the ocean, in the bathtub.  However, they are only baptized as per the commands of the New Testament.  A command to be immersed has little significance.

Steven

 

[subllibrm]

First, our English word baptism was not transliterated from the Greek word baptizo, by the King James translators, but was an English word in common usage since five hundred years before the King James translators began their work. ...

And people are immersed all the time.  In the swimming pool, in the ocean, in the bathtub.  However, they are only baptized as per the commands of the New Testament.  A command to be immersed has little significance.

Steven

And I get "sprinkled" every morning in the shower. What's your point?

 

[FSSL]

Merry Christmas BGWillkinson! You have fully demonstrated the confusion of the word "Baptism" by the KJVO!

The word is meaningless and has no significance to the KJVO. Why? Because their allegiance is to words. It is not to the meaning or significance of words, but just the words themselves.

Words.... meaningless and insignificant.