Baptism confusion plagues most versions including KJV and Latin Vulgate

[Steven Avery]

I think we have established that transliterating baptizo in the Vulgate instead of translating it ...

You have some of the same errors as earlier, such as claiming that baptism was a transliteration when it was a well-established English word.

There were some Baptists and Church of Christ folks who tried to make this error of mistranslating as immersion around 1850.  It is an interesting history. 

You are welcome to politic with the modern versions to revive the same error today.  Since you will not get anywhere trying to change the AV, you might as well try changing the ESV, the TNIV and other Westcott-Hort recension corrupt texts.  They like to come up with new translation errors.  It can be good for copyright protection, marketing, etc.

Steven Avery

 

[bgwilkinson]

I think we have established that transliterating baptizo in the Vulgate instead of translating it ...

You have some of the same errors as earlier, such as claiming that baptism was a transliteration when it was a well-established English word.

There were some Baptists and Church of Christ folks who tried to make this error of mistranslating as immersion around 1850.  It is an interesting history. 

You are welcome to politic with the modern versions to revive the same error today.  Since you will not get anywhere trying to change the AV, you might as well try changing the ESV, the TNIV and other Westcott-Hort recension corrupt texts.  They like to come up with new translation errors.  It can be good for copyright protection, marketing, etc.

Steven Avery

Confusion was caused by transliterating of Greek, Baptizo, into Latin, baptizabantur, rather than translating it into Latin, immergere.

Well the main point was the confusion caused because Baptizo was transliterated in the Latin versions and extended into the English versions. 

My speculation was that it was done by the religious authorities to be able to redefine the word for ecclesiastical use. The extension of the  transliteration into the English was secondary to the main point.

I am not politicking at all.

I am not under any illusions that the Latin or the English Bibles will ever change, that is not my point at all.

Of course the word was early in English as it was well known in Latin.

Wycliff had in Mt 3:11, both "waische you in water" and "he shall baptise you in the Hooli Goost and fier" in the late 1,300s. There is no question that baptise was used early in the 2nd millennium in English.

People thought of a religious rite not what the original Greek meant.

So today Baptist preachers have to explain what baptizo means in the original not what religious authorities want it to mean.

Probably mainly Baptists today, would want a version with baptizo correctly translated.

"Baptism" serves so many other religions so well as it is.

Translating it properly would cause problems with the Bible marketing depts.

 

[FSSL]

Talking about politics... Avery will not tell us what "Baptism" means.

 

[Steven Avery]

Confusion was caused by transliterating of Greek, Baptizo, into Latin, baptizabantur, rather than translating it into Latin, immergere.

Now we have a new criticism.  You don't like the Latin word. Now you are criticizing the knowledge of the languages of the men of 150-400 AD.  I think I will take the historic texts over the modern pot shots. Cyprian over BG.

[quote author=bgwilkinson]... My speculation was that it was done by the religious authorities to be able to redefine the word for ecclesiastical use. The extension of the  transliteration into the English was secondary to the main point..[/quote]
You do not seem to realize that the Latin texts were translated very early.

[quote author=bgwilkinson]. the word was early in English[/quote]
Which means that when Tyndale, Geneva and the AV used baptism, it was an English word not a transliteration.

[quote author=bgwilkinson] as it was well known in Latin. Wycliff had in Mt 3:11, both "waische you in water" and "he shall baptise you in the Hooli Goost and fier" in the late 1,300s. There is no question that baptise was used early in the 2nd millennium in English.[/quote]
And very properly so.

[quote author=bgwilkinson] People thought of a religious rite not what the original Greek meant.[/quote]
The original Greek had a range of meaning. To claim it only meant immerse would be ignorant, even putting aside the Christian component.

[quote author=bgwilkinson]So today Baptist preachers have to explain what baptizo means in the original not what religious authorities want it to mean..[/quote]
So you are running with your idea that those mean religious authorities of 150AD caused you all this angst.

[quote author=bgwilkinson]Probably mainly Baptists today, would want a version with baptizo correctly translated.[/quote]
Which they have ... baptize.

Steven

 

[FSSL]

Which they have ... baptize.

Whatever Avery means by that word...

He rejects the English Dictionary and Greek Lexicons and would rather spend time making a fool of himself over what "transliteration" means.

 

[FSSL]

The original Greek had a range of meaning. To claim it only meant immerse would be ignorant, even putting aside the Christian component.

What is compelling is that Avery, who admittedly knows no Greek, has some mysterious meaning for the ordinance of "Baptism." His Greek expertise tells him that in this secretive range of meaning for "baptisma" is ______________ (?????).

 

[prophet]

The original Greek had a range of meaning. To claim it only meant immerse would be ignorant, even putting aside the Christian component.

What is compelling is that Avery, who admittedly knows no Greek, has some mysterious meaning for the ordinance of "Baptism." His Greek expertise tells him that in this secretive range of meaning for "baptisma" is ______________ (?????).

Also compelling is: What do we have to gain, by insisting that "baptize" be changed to "immerse"?

 

[FSSL]

Obvious.... clarity!

or... do you not believe it is immersion?

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

What do we have to gain by changing the English translation of "immerse?"

Well, let's see.

1. Changing the name of the Baptist Distinctives to "immersionist."

2. Changing the name of every Baptist denomination to "immersionist."

3. Changing the name of every Baptist church to "immersionist."

4. Changing the name of every Baptist Bible College to "immersionist."

5. Changing the name of every Baptist Seminary to "immersionist."

6. Changing the name of every Baptist missions agency to "immersionist.

7. Changing the affiliation of every Baptist to "immersionist."

8. Changing the name of every Baptist publication to "immersionist."

9. Changing the name of every Baptist hospital to "immersionist."

10. Changing the name of every Baptist forum to "immersionist."

And the list goes on, and on, and on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

 

[FSSL]

Lol! The KJV was supposed to be perfect and the best TRANSLATION eva!

Were it a translation instead of a transliteration, then we would be called "immersionists." Remember, there were Anabaptists called the "Dippers."

 

[bgwilkinson]

What do we have to gain by changing the English translation of "immerse?"

Well, let's see.

1. Changing the name of the Baptist Distinctives to "immersionist."

2. Changing the name of every Baptist denomination to "immersionist."

3. Changing the name of every Baptist church to "immersionist."

4. Changing the name of every Baptist Bible College to "immersionist."

5. Changing the name of every Baptist Seminary to "immersionist."

6. Changing the name of every Baptist missions agency to "immersionist.

7. Changing the affiliation of every Baptist to "immersionist."

8. Changing the name of every Baptist publication to "immersionist."



9. Changing the name of every Baptist hospital to "immersionist."



10. Changing the name of every Baptist forum to "immersionist."

And the list goes on, and on, and on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

If I had my choice, I would rather be called an immersionist as opposed to a "liar and satanic fool".

Immersionist would be my preference in pejorative, if one must wildly hurl a pejorative

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Your problem here is in English.

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).

Which word would you prefer?
Steven Avery already demonstrated the problems with using the word immersion. (Baptism carries religious significance that immersion does not)

 

[FSSL]

Which word would you prefer?
Steven Avery already demonstrated the problems with using the word immersion. (Baptism carries religious significance that immersion does not)

Immersion works since that is what the real meaning of the word is.

Avery demonstrated? That would be your imagination. He will not tellbus what it means.

There are ZERO problems with using the word "immersion" in place of Baptism.  It would clear up the meaning of the symbol.

If you ever were to Baptize a person,  you would have to explain why they are going under and coming out. You have to speak of immersion if there is to be a clear understanding. There is no legitimate symbolic meaning with sprinkling and pouring.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Looking at this from the other side.

Can you imagine how hard it would be to sell Bibles where immersion replaced baptism to mainline churches that use baptism as a religious rite and necessary for salvation.

The marketing department of the publisher would be up in arms with the translation department.

They might sell well  to immersionists but not so well to Lutherans, Anglicans and others that view baptism as more than what the Bible actually teaches. The Anglican Priest would have to explain that immersion really meant sprinkling. I don't think that would go over so well.

 

[rsc2a]

Which word would you prefer?
Steven Avery already demonstrated the problems with using the word immersion. (Baptism carries religious significance that immersion does not)

Immersion works since that is what the real meaning of the word is.

Avery demonstrated? That would be your imagination. He will not tellbus what it means.

There are ZERO problems with using the word "immersion" in place of Baptism.  It would clear up the meaning of the symbol.

If you ever were to Baptize a person,  you would have to explain why they are going under and coming out. You have to speak of immersion if there is to be a clear understanding. There is no legitimate symbolic meaning with sprinkling and pouring.

God will pour out His Spirit. Blood was sprinkled on the altar. A sprinkling is specifically called a baptism.

To say there is no symbolic meaning for the other two is false. To say immersion is a better method may be true.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

A sprinkling is specifically called a baptism.

Where?

 

[rsc2a]

A sprinkling is specifically called a baptism.

Where?

Hebrews 9

 

[FSSL]

A sprinkling is specifically called a baptism.

Where?

Hebrews 9

rantidzo is used in Hebrews 9

There are Greek words for sprinkle and pouring. Were those modes intended, those words would have been used.

 

[rsc2a]

A sprinkling is specifically called a baptism.

Where?

Hebrews 9

rantidzo is used in Hebrews 9

There are Greek words for sprinkle and pouring. Were those modes intended, those words would have been used.

http://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/9-10.htm

Looking at the entirety of the chapter those washings (baptisms) are explicitly called sprinklings in several other verses.

Again, I'm not arguing that immersion shouldn't be the preferred method...I'm simply pointing out that to say there is no Biblically symbolic meaning for the other two methods is not accurate.

 

[praise_yeshua]

A sprinkling is specifically called a baptism.

Where?

Hebrews 9

rantidzo is used in Hebrews 9

There are Greek words for sprinkle and pouring. Were those modes intended, those words would have been used.

http://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/9-10.htm

Looking at the entirety of the chapter those washings (baptisms) are explicitly called sprinklings in several other verses.

Again, I'm not arguing that immersion shouldn't be the preferred method...I'm simply pointing out that to say there is no Biblically symbolic meaning for the other two methods is not accurate.

Are you really trying to compare the sprinkling of blood with some type of "baptism"? Really?

I can see "christenings" changing forever now that this little "nugget" been revealed. I'd just like to know who's going to provide the blood?