Baptism confusion plagues most versions including KJV and Latin Vulgate

[rsc2a]

He wrote in the context of baptism. You can't tell me that you think he wasn't aware of the symbolism of sprinkling/pouring out blood.

C'mon rsc2a.... you knew that.

Also, it is not my personal view that is the basis... just get yourself a lexicon.

Yes....and in the context of baptism, one can ascribe symbolic meaning to both sprinkling and pouring.  As far as lexicons, the whole point of a symbol is that one thing represents something else meaning one has to look at context to determine meaning, not standard usage.

Me and a great number of other believers including all Presbys and Lutherans.

But you said above that our theology should not influence our point. You allow traditions to influence yours.

So do we all. Tell me...why are certain writings in your canon and not others?

Now there is one person on this thread who has said he believes one is more proper than the others, but he's not willing to completely discount the arguments for the others whereas everyone else is being dogmatic in their traditions...so tell me, who is allowing their traditions to influence them more?

 

[rsc2a]

I have read every word in Hebrews 9 in both English (several different versions) and Greek (three different textforms) and I can't find a single time where the Greek word βαπτισμοις or any form of that word is used to indicate a sprinkling. The one place where the word "sprinkling" is used in the English versions the Greek word is ραντιζουσα (a verb, present, active, participle, nominative case, singular, feminine gender).

So, again, where is βαπτισμοις or any form thereof, used to indicate a sprinkling?

http://carm.org/questions/about-baptism/immersion-only-way-valid-baptism

 

[FSSL]

Yes....and in the context of baptism, one can ascribe symbolic meaning to both sprinkling and pouring.  As far as lexicons, the whole point of a symbol is that one thing represents something else meaning one has to look at context to determine meaning, not standard usage.

If it was truly a symbol for baptism, the word's usage would be noted in the lexicon.

Why skip the language and jump right into traditions of certain groups?

Why use a forum posting to prove your point?

 

[rsc2a]

Yes....and in the context of baptism, one can ascribe symbolic meaning to both sprinkling and pouring.  As far as lexicons, the whole point of a symbol is that one thing represents something else meaning one has to look at context to determine meaning, not standard usage.

If it was truly a symbol for baptism, the word's usage would be noted in the lexicon.

A host of lexicons:

https://books.google.com/books?id=zilAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=sprinkling+baptism+lexicon&source=bl&ots=1f5ZEdHhW1&sig=GRq0JfFwpqSA0PGGuTN2MCO3trw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1A2jVIGmL4mLNuqZg_gL&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=sprinkling%20baptism%20lexicon&f=false

[quote author=FSSL]Why skip the language and jump right into traditions of certain groups?[/quote]

Why skip the alternative passages and jump right into the traditions of certain groups?

[quote author=FSSL]Why use a forum posting to prove your point?[/quote]

I'm not out to prove anything. I could frankly care less what mode of baptism someone uses. When I baptized my son, I immersed him. If someone wants to be baptized by pouring because they recognize God has poured out His Spirit on them, I don't care at all.

As I have repeatedly stated, I'm the only one here who isn't actively trying to prove one mode as superior to any other which means this statement is not only inaccurate, but actually is nonsensical. You'd be better served to ask the others (including yourself) why use a forum posting to prove your point when someone already agrees with you.

It's quite simple. You make a blanket statement that there is absolutely no symbolic significance to sprinkling or pouring, a statement that is not only false but easily shown to be false. Instead of acknowledging your error and saying that, yes, other groups see symbolic significance but you don't think it's convincing, you double-down on your error. There are plenty of people who have written quite a bit about why they think the alternative methods are accurate, so I don't see why I need to bother repeating their arguments...arguments that I don't even necessarily agree with. But to simply claim they don't have any type of argument at all is, frankly, ignorant.

 

[FSSL]

Yes....and in the context of baptism, one can ascribe symbolic meaning to both sprinkling and pouring.  As far as lexicons, the whole point of a symbol is that one thing represents something else meaning one has to look at context to determine meaning, not standard usage.

If it was truly a symbol for baptism, the word's usage would be noted in the lexicon.

A host of lexicons:

https://books.google.com/books?id=zilAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=sprinkling+baptism+lexicon&source=bl&ots=1f5ZEdHhW1&sig=GRq0JfFwpqSA0PGGuTN2MCO3trw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1A2jVIGmL4mLNuqZg_gL&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=sprinkling%20baptism%20lexicon&f=false

[quote author=FSSL]Why skip the language and jump right into traditions of certain groups?

Why skip the alternative passages and jump right into the traditions of certain groups?

[quote author=FSSL]Why use a forum posting to prove your point?[/quote]

I'm not out to prove anything. I could frankly care less what mode of baptism someone uses. When I baptized my son, I immersed him. If someone wants to be baptized by pouring because they recognize God has poured out His Spirit on them, I don't care at all.

As I have repeatedly stated, I'm the only one here who isn't actively trying to prove one mode as superior to any other which means this statement is not only inaccurate, but actually is nonsensical. You'd be better served to ask the others (including yourself) why use a forum posting to prove your point when someone already agrees with you.

It's quite simple. You make a blanket statement that there is absolutely no symbolic significance to sprinkling or pouring, a statement that is not only false but easily shown to be false. Instead of acknowledging your error and saying that, yes, other groups see symbolic significance but you don't think it's convincing, you double-down on your error. There are plenty of people who have written quite a bit about why they think the alternative methods are accurate, so I don't see why I need to bother repeating their arguments...arguments that I don't even necessarily agree with. But to simply claim they don't have any type of argument at all is, frankly, ignorant.
[/quote]
Ahhh... why do you follow Avery's pattern of using Google? You can find whatever you want to find. A book quoting various sectarian sources does not make your argument.

Just get BDAG or any reputable lexicon.

Your misreading of the passage and conflation is absurd.

 

[FSSL]

It's quite simple. You make a blanket statement that there is absolutely no symbolic significance to sprinkling or pouring, a statement that is not only false but easily shown to be false. Instead of acknowledging your error and saying that, yes, other groups see symbolic significance but you don't think it's convincing, you double-down on your error.

Nah... as yeshua noted... you took me out of context.

 

[rsc2a]

It's quite simple. You make a blanket statement that there is absolutely no symbolic significance to sprinkling or pouring, a statement that is not only false but easily shown to be false. Instead of acknowledging your error and saying that, yes, other groups see symbolic significance but you don't think it's convincing, you double-down on your error.

Nah... as yeshua noted... you took me out of context.

I know....you were saying there is absolutely no symbolic significance for pouring or sprinkling in regards to baptism...except for all the millions of Christians who see symbolic significance in pouring and sprinkling in regards to baptism.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

http://carm.org/questions/about-baptism/immersion-only-way-valid-baptism

Most idiotic statement I have ever read on this forum (and I have read some really idiotic statements on here).

"The writer of Hebrews speaks of washings which is the Greek word ‘baptismois’ (comes from baptizo), and then he goes on to exemplify those ‘washings’ by mentioning how the Old Testament priests sprinkled blood. Therefore, it would appear that baptism, at least in this instance, is used in the context of sprinkling."

Only a complete idiot would try to connect the ceremonial washings of the Old Testament where priests and others were required to wash themselves prior to entering the temple or on other special occasions to the sprinkling of the blood on the mercy seat on Yom Kippur.

The washings were accomplised by the IMMERSION of the body in water, natural, running water if available, or a tub of water if running water was not available. There was NEVER the sprinkling of blood associated with this ceremonial washing.

Talk about idiotic eisegesis! You must really be desperate!

Now, again, please give me an example from Hebrews 9, or anywhere else in the bible, where "a sprinkling is specifically called a baptism." Anywhere. Anyone?

 

[FSSL]

Yes. A spurious and absurd conflation. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the OT preparations.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Here is a simple question.

Let's say we use immersion as one meaning for baptism. 

Does dipping qualify as immersion?  (dipping a vegetable into a solution, walking into a pool)
Does a covering qualify as immersion? (the ice water challenge, covered with water)

Do you say that immersion is different than submersion, and that submersion is the mode of baptism?

Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

Hi,
Here is a simple question.
Let's say we use immersion as one meaning for baptism. 
Does dipping qualify as immersion?

 

 

[FSSL]

Here's a question for you Avery...

In Junior High, did you consider it immersion when your head was plunged into the toilet?
... and then did you claim you have been Baptized?

 

[FSSL]

Most idiotic statement I have ever read on this forum (and I have read some really idiotic statements on here).

rsc2a ought to thank Avery because post #110 looks like the "winner, winner, chicken dinner" for most idiotic statement.

 

[prophet]

Most idiotic statement I have ever read on this forum (and I have read some really idiotic statements on here).

rsc2a ought to thank Avery because post #110 looks like the "winner, winner, chicken dinner" for most idiotic statement.

Except now your post here is in the running, because Avery's post was a series of questions, and really not a statement.

 

[FSSL]

Most idiotic statement I have ever read on this forum (and I have read some really idiotic statements on here).

rsc2a ought to thank Avery because post #110 looks like the "winner, winner, chicken dinner" for most idiotic statement.

Except now your post here is in the running, because Avery's post was a series of questions, and really not a statement.

A series of absurd questions that were answered all through this thread and easily answered in the lexicons.

If you want to seriously consider his questions... be my guest. Anyone who seriously asks about the comparison of Baptism to the Ice Bucket Challenge has his own set of challenges.

 

[prophet]

Most idiotic statement I have ever read on this forum (and I have read some really idiotic statements on here).

rsc2a ought to thank Avery because post #110 looks like the "winner, winner, chicken dinner" for most idiotic statement.

Except now your post here is in the running, because Avery's post was a series of questions, and really not a statement.

A series of absurd questions that were answered all through this thread and easily answered in the lexicons.

If you want to seriously consider his questions... be my guest. Anyone who seriously asks about the comparison of Baptism to the Ice Bucket Challenge has his own set of challenges.

Just saying, that post wasn't statements...
It was meant as jest, like this whole thread, apparently, where we all pretend that we can't determine the method of Baptism, or see any significance to the word "baptism" vs. any other non-symbolic term.

We all look like hens fighting over the last kernel of corn.

 

[FSSL]

Just saying, that post wasn't statements...
It was meant as jest...

Then my jesting responses are the perfect responses.

 

[FSSL]

We all look like hens fighting over the last kernel of corn.

This IS an internet forum! The FFF excels!

 

[prophet]

We all look like hens fighting over the last kernel of corn.

This IS an internet forum! The FFF excels!

Das Right!!!

 

[FSSL]

We all look like hens fighting over the last kernel of corn.

This IS an internet forum! The FFF excels!

Das Right!!!

People are actually quoting material from this thread (elsewhere) in a positive manner and calling it research! Now THAT is funny!