Since it is the KJVOnly position that it is a perfect, infallible translation down to the "jot" and "tittle," what do you have to say about the translations of "baptism" and "church?"

[Debau]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

Since it is the KJVOnly position that it is a perfect, infallible translation down to the "jot" and "tittle," what do you have to say about the translations of "baptism" and "church?"

Since you are the corrector, why don't you tell us what is wrong with these translations?

Originally Posted by Debau

Since you are the corrector, why don't you tell us what is wrong with these translations?

Corrector? Not.
I am genuinely interested in your thoughts. Mine don't matter to you. Also, I don't intend to fight here. I am simply asking.

Although I'm not KJVO I'll give you my opinion. I assume you are one of those who says that ekklesia must always be translated 'congregation,' right? Well, you are just plain wrong. When the church universal is spoken of then it is just plain wrong to translate ekklesia as congregation because every Christian all over the world does not congregate in the same place. So, when the church universal is meant, the translation must be church. In other words, it is proper to translate ekklesia as congregation only when the local congregation is meant. Secondly, the word church comes from a combination of kurios (Lord) and oikos (church) into something like kurioikos that eventually degraded in pronunciation to kirk and finally church. Its not some evil demonic word or something, but literally means "house of the Lord" which is what the church is called in 1 Tim 3:15 where Paul says "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." House of God, theou oikos gets changed to house of the Lord kuriou oikos, becomes one word kurioikos, kirk, church. Is this the work of Satan? No. Those who try and label it as the work of Satan seem more likely to be doing the work of Satan actually.

Now, on baptism. You probably beleive it ought to be translated immersion in every occurance. I agree that it ought to be translated immersion, but not in every occurance. It is necessary to keep some reference to the proper name, and yet to interpret it also properly. Therefore, my course of action would be to translate as both baptism and immersion in passages where the word occurs twice, but only as baptism where the word occurs only once. So, for example in John 1, I would have it more like "These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing....And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come immersing with water....And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom..." so that a mixture of the proper name and interpretation are before and not either one to the exclusion of the other. To translate uniformly as immersion and throw out the proper name baptism would be ignorant.

[bibleprotector]

Freesunday, by "infallible translation" are you implying that King James Bible believers generally teach that the translation was made by inspiration from 1604 to 1611?

The truth is that the authority of Scripture is in Scripture itself. And since there is only one Scripture, there is only one form of Scripture which is actually the authoritative representation. This is not the originals for us (or for most New Testament times peoples), because they are gone. It is not the original languages, because no single extant perfect presentation of the Scripture can be found there. It is not in the collective of all Scripture evidence, because that has already been utilised, refined and presented in a gathered form, and finalised, namely, the King James Bible. It is not in the variety of all versions today, because they contradict and differ to each other and do not agree that there is one final authority, nor do they match up to it.

Clearly, "baptize" and "church" are God's words in English for use and understanding by the Church throughout the world. These Biblical English words have meanings which are discerned by studying and conferring Scriptures, and by our spiritual understanding of Biblical English even as we increase in a proper understanding of natural English.

[bibleprotector]

it ought to be translated

This is the denial of the providence of God in having the right men (the translators of the King James Bible) at the right place at the right time with the right learning (very high) making the King James Bible perfect by their thorough checking and studies.

How could it be the providence of God that someone in an upstart-like spirit comes along and says, "The real translation should be..."?

Thanks for the lengthy reply TROnly...

I know that you have more freedom in translation because you are not properly labeled as KJVOnly. I am interested in how the KJVOnly here live with the terms "baptism" instead of "immersion" where water baptism is clearly intended.

I get the whole local/universal church idea. The word "churches" in Acts 9:31 really should be "assembly." Correct? Then, why is the KJV considered perfect when "baptism" and "church" are used when the more correct terms "immersion" and "assembly?"

[Debau]

Corrector? Not.
I am genuinely interested in your thoughts. Mine don't matter to you. Also, I don't intend to fight here. I am simply asking.

The word "churches" in Acts 9:31 really should be "assembly." Correct? Then, why is the KJV considered perfect when "baptism" and "church" are used when the more correct terms "immersion" and "assembly?"

There is a dichotomy in your statements. Either you are ignorant of what you said, or a liar.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

Thanks for the lengthy reply TROnly...

I know that you have more freedom in translation because you are not properly labeled as KJVOnly. I am interested in how the KJVOnly here live with the terms "baptism" instead of "immersion" where water baptism is clearly intended.

I get the whole local/universal church idea. The word "churches" in Acts 9:31 really should be "assembly." Correct? Then, why is the KJV considered perfect when "baptism" and "church" are used when the more correct terms "immersion" and "assembly?"

It is plural there, not ekklesia but ekklesiai, so 'congregations.' The one place where I would consider the KJV's use of churches to be an error is Acts 19:37 where they translate the word hierosulous (temple-robbers) as "robbers of churches." Sorry Mr.-kidna-Catholic-Anglican-translator-dude, but churches of Christ do not have idols of Mary sitting around for anyone to steal. They do the same thing in Romans 2:22 with the verb form of the word where they say "thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?" when they ought to say "thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples?" In otherwords, if you hate idols so much, why are you stealing them and either keeping them for yourself or selling them to others? But probably their interest here is in scaring people from smashing their idols of Mary, so they say "dost thou commit sacrilege?" as if it were sacrilege to smash their idols. This seems like a clear Anglican bias as does never once translating baptizo as immerse. Also, translating en as "with" rather "in" when speaking of baptism, like when John the Baptizer says in John 1:26 "ego baptizo en udati" i.e. "I baptize in water" the KJV says "I baptize with water" because they were baby sprinklers and couldn't admit that it is in water. I don't nitpick the KJV for all this, but one thing I cannot abide is that the KJV translates hades as hell in Acts 2, which leads unstable souls into putting their trust in a bar-b-qued Christ rather than crucified Christ. (see here fore more on that) My suggestion for now is to compare the KJV and NKJV, since both are Textus Receptus.

Originally Posted by Debau

There is a dichotomy in your statements. Either you are ignorant of what you said, or a liar.

Just because he is persuaded that he is correct does not mean that he is lying when saying he is genuinely interested in what you think. It is rather rude for you to assert such a thing, actually.