Baptism confusion plagues most versions including KJV and Latin Vulgate

The English word "baptism" has only a religious significance but the English meaning does not reflect the etymological meaning of the Greek word which it is descended from, via the Latin, French, etc.

That is not uncommon for neologisms. They often do not completely reflect the etymological meaning of the parent word.

"Baptism" or "Baptize" are English words that have been in common usage in English for almost 1000 years. The English meaning is much broader than the meaning of the Greek parent word, but that does not invalidate the English word.

The English meaning is simply "a ceremonial immersion in water, or application of water, as an initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church."

Many on this forum self-identify as "Baptist" and don't find that at all confusing even though some Baptist churches don't require Baptism by immersion for membership.

I think this entire attack on the KJV over the word "Baptism" is straining out a gnat and swallowing the proverbial camel.

Not to mention, of course, that nearly every English version both before and after the KJV also uses the word "Baptize."

Before the KJV

Matthew 3:11 Bishops Bible

Mat 3:11  I baptize you in water vnto repentaunce: But he that shall come after me, is mightier then I, whose shoes I am not worthy to beare, he shall baptize you with the holy ghost, and with fire.

Matthew 3:11 Geneva Bible

Mat 3:11  In deede I baptize you with water to amendement of life, but he that commeth after me, is mightier then I, whose shoes I am not worthie to beare: hee will baptize you with the holy Ghost, and with fire.

Matthew 3:11 Tyndale Bible
 
11 I baptise you in water in toke of repentauce: but he ye cometh after me is myghtier then I whose shues I am not worthy to beare. He shall baptise you with ye holy gost and with fyre:

Matthew 3:11 Wycliffe Bible

11 I wash you in water [Soothly I christen you in water], into penance; but he that shall come after me is stronger than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you [he shall baptize, or christen, you] in the Holy Ghost and [in] fire.

After the KJV

Matthew 3:11 New International Version (NIV)

11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Matthew 3:11 New English Translation (NET Bible)

11 “I baptize you with water, for repentance, but the one coming after me is more powerful than I am—I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Matthew 3:11 New Century Version (NCV)

11 “I baptize you with water to show that your hearts and lives have changed. But there is one coming after me who is greater than I am, whose sandals I am not good enough to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Matthew 3:11 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

11 “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Matthew 3:11 Living Bible (TLB)

11 “With water I baptize those who repent of their sins; but someone else is coming, far greater than I am, so great that I am not worthy to carry his shoes! He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit* and with fire.

Matthew 3:11 English Standard Version (ESV)

11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Well, you get the idea. Now let me ask you all a question. Do you find just about EVERY English translation of the bible "confusing?" And if, as you say, "most versions" use the common English word "Baptism" why single out the KJV?

Can you say "obsessed?" :D

The KJV is a venerable old translation. It has stood the test of time. It has become a classic in the English language. It is now, in the early years of the 21st century, over 400 years old and some of the spelling, grammar, and syntax is difficult for the 21st century reader to follow. It is time to replace it. I prefer the NKJV, but find it inaccurate in places where it slavishly follows the TR when following the Byzantine textform would have produced a clearer and more accurate rending of a passage or passages and how it handles translation of certain verb forms. The church I now attend uses the ESV which I find, for the most part, to be a very good translation of the Alexandrian textform.

Come on, people, time to grow up. This whole thread has nothing at all to do with the English word "baptism." The only reason this thread was posted was to inflame the KJVOs for the purpose of your enjoyment. You may not like them, their manner, and their position on the KJV (personally I think many of them are just ignorant, but a few are massively dishonest!) but they are our brothers (and sisters) in Christ. It might be a good idea to remember that. When we get our eyes on Christ this desire to inflame our brethren for our own perverted enjoyment will fade away.

Merry Christmas. :)
 
Thomas Cassidy said:
The English word "baptism" has only a religious significance but the English meaning does not reflect the etymological meaning of the Greek word which it is descended from, via the Latin, French, etc.

That is not uncommon for neologisms. They often do not completely reflect the etymological meaning of the parent word.

"Baptism" or "Baptize" are English words that have been in common usage in English for almost 1000 years. The English meaning is much broader than the meaning of the Greek parent word, but that does not invalidate the English word.

The English meaning is simply "a ceremonial immersion in water, or application of water, as an initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church."

Many on this forum self-identify as "Baptist" and don't find that at all confusing even though some Baptist churches don't require Baptism by immersion for membership.

I think this entire attack on the KJV over the word "Baptism" is straining out a gnat and swallowing the proverbial camel.

Not to mention, of course, that nearly every English version both before and after the KJV also uses the word "Baptize."

Before the KJV

Matthew 3:11 Bishops Bible

Mat 3:11  I baptize you in water vnto repentaunce: But he that shall come after me, is mightier then I, whose shoes I am not worthy to beare, he shall baptize you with the holy ghost, and with fire.

Matthew 3:11 Geneva Bible

Mat 3:11  In deede I baptize you with water to amendement of life, but he that commeth after me, is mightier then I, whose shoes I am not worthie to beare: hee will baptize you with the holy Ghost, and with fire.

Matthew 3:11 Tyndale Bible
 
11 I baptise you in water in toke of repentauce: but he ye cometh after me is myghtier then I whose shues I am not worthy to beare. He shall baptise you with ye holy gost and with fyre:

Matthew 3:11 Wycliffe Bible

11 I wash you in water [Soothly I christen you in water], into penance; but he that shall come after me is stronger than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you [he shall baptize, or christen, you] in the Holy Ghost and [in] fire.

After the KJV

Matthew 3:11 New International Version (NIV)

11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Matthew 3:11 New English Translation (NET Bible)

11 “I baptize you with water, for repentance, but the one coming after me is more powerful than I am—I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Matthew 3:11 New Century Version (NCV)

11 “I baptize you with water to show that your hearts and lives have changed. But there is one coming after me who is greater than I am, whose sandals I am not good enough to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Matthew 3:11 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

11 “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Matthew 3:11 Living Bible (TLB)

11 “With water I baptize those who repent of their sins; but someone else is coming, far greater than I am, so great that I am not worthy to carry his shoes! He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit* and with fire.

Matthew 3:11 English Standard Version (ESV)

11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Well, you get the idea. Now let me ask you all a question. Do you find just about EVERY English translation of the bible "confusing?" And if, as you say, "most versions" use the common English word "Baptism" why single out the KJV?

Can you say "obsessed?" :D

The KJV is a venerable old translation. It has stood the test of time. It has become a classic in the English language. It is now, in the early years of the 21st century, over 400 years old and some of the spelling, grammar, and syntax is difficult for the 21st century reader to follow. It is time to replace it. I prefer the NKJV, but find it inaccurate in places where it slavishly follows the TR when following the Byzantine textform would have produced a clearer and more accurate rending of a passage or passages and how it handles translation of certain verb forms. The church I now attend uses the ESV which I find, for the most part, to be a very good translation of the Alexandrian textform.

Come on, people, time to grow up. This whole thread has nothing at all to do with the English word "baptism." The only reason this thread was posted was to inflame the KJVOs for the purpose of your enjoyment. You may not like them, their manner, and their position on the KJV (personally I think many of them are just ignorant, but a few are massively dishonest!) but they are our brothers (and sisters) in Christ. It might be a good idea to remember that. When we get our eyes on Christ this desire to inflame our brethren for our own perverted enjoyment will fade away.

Merry Christmas. :)
Click to expand...

Dear Mr. Cassidy,

You are blinded by your own polemics.

Please take off your KJVO blinders.

draftlucy.jpg


The op was concerning the transliteration of the Greek into Latin in the Vulgate.

There was no mention of the KJV except as it is one of many English translations that have the same problem.

The premise is that the transliteration of certain ecclesiastical words allows the religious professionals to define the transliterations to accommodate and support their private interpretations impressed upon the text of the Bible.


I completely reproduce the op below. Please reread it. I don't think you will find where I'm sticking pins in the eyes of KJVOs.


Quote the op,

"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."




Now that you have read it you may want to respond without your KJVO polemics.

This is not very difficult. Again almost all English versions are in view here.


All your quotes do tend to support the op, I don't think you meant it that way though.

Your praise of the KJV is Non Sequitur even though I can mostly agree with it.

Mr. Cassidy said,
"I think this entire attack on the KJV over the word "Baptism" is straining out a gnat and swallowing the proverbial camel."


What attack?



You are revealing your KJVO pedigree even as you claim that you are not a KJVO.


KJVOs sense attacks where none exist.


Don't forget Wycliff where he used an actual translation instead of a transliteration.

Mt. 3:6  where he used waischen for the Latin, baptizabantur and  Greek, βαπτίζω, baptizō.

Mt. 3:11 where he used waisch for Latin baptizo, and Greek, βαπτίζω, baptizō.


Wycliff was opposed to many Roman Catholic beliefs, even though he was a Catholic Priest himself.

While he was saying Mass in the parish church at Lutterworth on Holy Innocents' Day, 28 December 1384, he suffered a stroke, and died within a few days.
 
Please, just once try to be honest. The title of the thread clearly reads: "Baptism confusion plagues most versions including KJV and Latin Vulgate." Is it just a coincidence that the ONLY English version you mention is the KJV?

And, again, please try to be honest. Trying to label me a KJVO is simply a lie, and you know it.
 
Thomas Cassidy said:
Please, just once try to be honest. The title of the thread clearly reads: "Baptism confusion plagues most versions including KJV and Latin Vulgate." Is it just a coincidence that the ONLY English version you mention is the KJV?

And, again, please try to be honest. Trying to label me a KJVO is simply a lie, and you know it.
Click to expand...

The op does not mention the KJV at all, instead it mentions almost All English translations as a group.

The KJV was used in the headline to attract readers, KJVOs too.

As far as KJVO, if it walks like a duck....

duck.jpg
 
So, you admit you lied, and the real reason for the thread was to "attract" the attention of the KJVOs so you could mock them.

And again you lie about me and my position regarding the KJV. That is really sad when someone who claims the Name of Christ, Who is The Truth, has so little concern for the Truth that he will continue to post out and out lies. :(
 
FSSL said:
When Steve and Bibleprotector agree with you...
Click to expand...
I would guess they agree with you on the Triune nature of the Godhead, the Person and Work of Christ, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Does that make you a KJVO?

Ever heard of the logical fallacy of guilt by association?
 
Thomas Cassidy said:
So, you admit you lied, and the real reason for the thread was to "attract" the attention of the KJVOs so you could mock them.

And again you lie about me any my position regarding the KJV. That is really sad when someone who claims the Name of Christ, Who is The Truth, has so little concern for the Truth that he will continue to post out and out lies. :(
Click to expand...

Writing a headline that appeals to readers is hardly a lie.

Your position is revealed by your writing.

Do I detect KJV hypersensitivity?
 
You know you are over the target when you start receiving flak.

flak.jpg
 
subllibrm said:
And I get "sprinkled" every morning in the shower. What's your point?
Click to expand...

That baptism is a word with a spiritual significance.  Immersion and sprinkling would both be difficult translations when the context is Christian baptism. Only the English word baptism imparts the significance.

As for knowing that the mode of baptism is immersion, that is a contextual teaching, Bible harmony, easy to see from Romans and Acts.  It is not imparted fully or directly by the Greek word used.

Steven Avery
 
I would guess they agree with you on the Triune nature of the Godhead, the Person and Work of Christ, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...

Don't say things like that when I have a mouth full of coffee! :) You have no idea.

Ever heard of the logical fallacy of guilt by association?
Click to expand...

Yes. But that is not what is happening here. You have been shown to be hiding your former recent KJVO beliefs from the forum.

Do you believe the word "Baptism" as the apostles understood it to be immersion? Or do you confuse the word with other modes?
 
FSSL said:
Yes. But that is not what is happening here. You have been shown to be hiding your former recent KJVO beliefs from the forum.
Click to expand...
That is a lie. I have never been KJVO. I was KJV preferred prior to the NKJV, which I now prefer but use the ESV as that is the pew bible at the church I now attend.
Do you believe the word "Baptism" as the apostles understood it to be immersion? Or do you confuse the word with other modes?
Click to expand...
The Greek word βαπτιζω means, literally, to overwhelm with water in the sense of immerse or fully dip the object in water.

The English word Baptize means only the rite of inclusion in the church by means of the sacrament/ordinance of baptism.
 
FSSL said:
Do you believe the word "Baptism" as the apostles understood it to be immersion?
Click to expand...

Do you think they thought of immersion on this verse:

Mark 7:4 
And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not.
And many other things there be, which they have received to hold,
as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

Do you know any modern versions that translate immersion there?

Or are you only asking about the interpretative (contextual) understanding.

Steven Avery
 
Thomas Cassidy said:
That is a lie. I have never been KJVO. I was KJV preferred prior to the NKJV, which I now prefer but use the ESV as that is the pew bible at the church I now attend.
Click to expand...

Lying... liar... pish posh... Did you get this vocabulary word for Christmas?

These are not statements you would expect from a preferred KJV user.

https://web.archive.org/web/20081231051614/http://members.tripod.com/~ThomasCassidy/doctrine.html

First Baptist Church of Spring Valley, California: We Are An Independent, Fundamental, Separated, Soul Winning Church, Teaching and Preaching only from the King James Bible

What We Believe
The Scriptures
1. We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the verbally inspired Word of God inerrant in the whole and in every part, the supreme and final authority in all matters of faith, practice, and understanding. We believe the King James Bible is authoritative because it is a faithful and accurate transmission of the Providentially Preserved Masoretic (OT) and Byzantine (NT) (TR) texts, and is therefore the verbal and formal equivalent of the Inspired Words which God has preserved for us, intact, for use in this day (II Pet. 1:21; II Tim. 3:16-17; Ps. 12:6-7; Matt 4:4; Matt 5:17-18; Matt 24:35)

The Greek word βαπτιζω means, literally, to overwhelm with water in the sense of immerse or fully dip the object in water.

The English word Baptize means only the rite of inclusion in the church by means of the sacrament/ordinance of baptism.
Click to expand...

I know this is just a forum and we do not expect research, but you are just making up stuff. The English word DOES involve the mode in the meaning... hence the reason for the OP. There is confusion.

Standard dictionaries say this...

Collins: baptize or baptise (bæpˈtaɪz) vb 1 Christianity to immerse (a person) in water or sprinkle water on (a person) as part of the rite of baptism 2 tr to give a name to; christen 3 tr to cleanse; purify [c13: from Late Latin baptīzāre, from Greek baptizein, from baptein to bathe, dip]

Compact Oxford: " baptism
■ 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.
 
Steven Avery said:
Or are you only asking about the interpretative (contextual) understanding.

Steven Avery[/color]
Click to expand...

Why do you ignore the meanings of words and skip to interpretation?

You misspoke about the Greek.

Washing involves immersing the hands. Covering them with water. Why are simple things so difficult for the KJVO?
 
FSSL said:
Washing involves immersing the hands. Covering them with water. Why are simple things so difficult for the KJVO?
Click to expand...
Do you always immerse your hands in water when you wash them?

Do you know the meaning of immersion? Do you really think covering (do you really "cover" your hands when you wash them?) is the meaning of immersion?

Would you take a bucket of water and splash it on somebody, covering them, and call it baptism?  Is the ice water challenge a baptism?

Your problem here is in English.
 
Yes. Every part of my hand is immersed in water. For this reason alone... I doubt I will ever shake your hand ;)

You must not understand the ceremonial washings.
 
Steven Avery said:
Your problem here is in English.
Click to expand...

Yes. The English usage of the word bastardized the meaning.

We are forced to explain to those who are wanting to be baptized what it symbolizes and what it does not do (give grace).
 
FSSL said:
These are not statements you would expect from a preferred KJV user.

https://web.archive.org/web/20081231051614/http://members.tripod.com/~ThomasCassidy/doctrine.html

First Baptist Church of Spring Valley, California: We Are An Independent, Fundamental, Separated, Soul Winning Church, Teaching and Preaching only from the King James Bible

What We Believe
The Scriptures
1. We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the verbally inspired Word of God inerrant in the whole and in every part, the supreme and final authority in all matters of faith, practice, and understanding. We believe the King James Bible is authoritative because it is a faithful and accurate transmission of the Providentially Preserved Masoretic (OT) and Byzantine (NT) (TR) texts, and is therefore the verbal and formal equivalent of the Inspired Words which God has preserved for us, intact, for use in this day (II Pet. 1:21; II Tim. 3:16-17; Ps. 12:6-7; Matt 4:4; Matt 5:17-18; Matt 24:35)
Click to expand...
Yes, our church believed the KJV was authoritative as a faithful translation of the underlying texts. But nowhere does it say we believe the KJV is the ONLY authoritative and faithful translation of the underlying texts. And, yes, when that was written the KJV was the only Byzantine based bible in wide circulation. NKJV had not yet been widely circulated. The NKJV did not come along until 1982 and that doctrinal statement was written in 1946. And the KJV was the only pulpit/lectern bible because it was the pew bible. The people were free to carry and follow along in whatever version they preferred. :)

The statement clearly says it is the underlying Byzantine and Masoretic textforms that were preserved by God, not any English version.

(By the way, if you want to find fault with the old doctrinal statement you might note their misunderstanding of Psalm 12:6-7 rather than making up things like KJVO that are not there.) :)

I know this is just a forum and we do not expect research, but you are just making up stuff. The English word DOES involve the mode in the meaning... hence the reason for the OP. There is confusion.

Standard dictionaries say this...

Collins: baptize or baptise (bæpˈtaɪz) vb 1 Christianity to immerse (a person) in water or sprinkle water on (a person) as part of the rite of baptism 2 tr to give a name to; christen 3 tr to cleanse; purify [c13: from Late Latin baptīzāre, from Greek baptizein, from baptein to bathe, dip]

Compact Oxford: " baptism
■ 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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I said. The English word is inclusive. The Greek word is not. And for almost 1000 years (since 1066) that has been the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top