Otherwise foolish heretics would claim that actual baptism is not meant but that Peter is just saying "immerse yourself in Christ by believing on him really hard."

Foolish heretics have the ability to make Scriptures say whatever they want them to say. "Baptism" means "immerse," plain and simply.

Personally, I really don't care that "immerse" was/is not used. I was wondering from the standpoint of a KJVOnly advocate how they claim the absolute error free translation allows for lack of clarity. It appears to me to be a real problem given that there is an element of marketplace efficiency with the term.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

BAGD, the standard Greek lexicon (which most here consider one of the most liberal works) gives the most basic, root definition as: " dip, immerse, mid. dip oneself, wash (in non-Christian lit. also ‘plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm’

Putting aside all your other difficulties .. FSSL, Do you even realize that dipping and washing and being drenched are not the same as immersion?

When you wash dishes, do you necessarily immerse dishes ?
When you dip into a pool, are you immersed in the pool ?
When you get drenched in a downpour are you immersed or submersed or water ?

Even by your own chosen "basic, root" definition (which Diligent points out is often faulty translation) your claim totally fails.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

"Baptism" means "immerse," plain and simply.

A person has to have some sort of special confusion or agenda to contradict themselves so blatantly in a space of a couple of hours. You demonstrate the words are not equal, and then you claim they are.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

Where would "immersion" not be a good translation?

Since two different posts give a number of different verses, your asking this question now shows that you are not paying attention to any facts that contradict your particular agenda against the King James Bible on the word 'baptism'. Reread the thread, look for verses, and then comment.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

You can reject that "immersion" (or submersion) is not a good translation. I am confounded why you guys press hard against this translation.

Simply because it is not good translation, and often pushed by folks with various agendas, especially Bible correctors at work and play. You do not seem to understand the spiritual forces that make man want to tamper with and dictate the word of God.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

I see no reason for you to debate the point unless you defend the practices of sprinkling or pouring.

Then your vision is very poor. Probably most everybody on the board here would rebaptise somebody sprinkled or poured, knowing from simple and clear and powerful Bible exegesis that the New Testament mode of baptism includes repentance, faith, immersion (submersion, more precisely) and emersion. (Some might add more, like testimony.)

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

I already made it clear that I do not defend the modern translations. There is an issue of marketplace expediency that demands "baptism" be a transliteration rather than a translation.

Sounds similar to the "marketplace expediency" that is for those in the Version of the Month Club.

Please understood, we are far more interested in the truth of the pure word of God than marketplace expediency.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by sophronismos

LThe Anglican was (according to you and you alone apparently) largely immersionist. What you mean is that there was a minority immersionist element in the Anglican church, because it is clearly a lie to say that it was largely immersionist!

Soph .. It is one thing to say that it is wrong, and demonstrate your reasons for claiming my statement was wrong, it is totally another to accuse me of lying, and this is not the type of forum take is very receptive to such accusations made for convenience.

================================================
http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/baptisminkjv.htm
BAPTISM In The King James Version

The reign of the Tudor family over England (1485-1603) saw many changes in the nation's religious life. It was during Henry VIII's reign (1509-1547) that the Church of England was founded in the year 1534(46). That baptism by immersion was still practiced is evident by the fact that he, his older brother Arthur, his sister Margaret, King Edward VI, and Queen Elizabeth I were all immersed(47). The turbulent era of the Catholic Queen Mary (1553-1558) was one in which only immersion was permitted(48). Christian states that "immersion was almost the universal rule in Elizabeth's reign"(49) (1558-1603) and refers to an important book entitled Reformation Legum Ecclesiasticarum which was written and published by high Anglican officials in 1571 and which required immersion for the Church of England's baptism(50).
Although other modes for baptism did start to make their way into England about the beginning of the Stuart family's reign in England (1603), King James I (r. 1603-1625), the one for which the King James Version was named, was not an advocate of these other modes(51). Anglican officials consistently fought attempts to introduce sprinkling and pouring into the Church of England during the reign of Charles I (1625-1649)(52).

46. Roy Mason, The Church that Jesus Built (Tampa, n.d.), p. 53.
47. Christian, op. cit., pp. 427-428.
48. Christian, op. cit.,, p. 204.
49. Ibid., p. 213.
50. Ibid., pp. 296-297.
51. Pendleton, op. cit.,, p. 69.
52. Christian, op. ., pp. 287-288.
==================================================

You are welcome to seek to correct any flaws in that article, and demonstrate that there was only a minority immersionist element in the Anglican church in 1611. I will be happy to consider any potential corrective scholarship, although so far I have seen none.

Whether you succeed in correction or not, you would do well to apologize to the forum for accusing me of lying.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Luke 11:38
And when the Pharisee saw it,
he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.

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.

Mark 7:8
For laying aside the commandment of God,
ye hold the tradition of men,
as the washing of pots and cups:
and many other such like things ye do.

Originally Posted by sophronismos;

The Baptist scholar John Gill shows by quotations from rabbinic sources that these Jewish washings were done by immersion, not by pouring.

First, lets show what John Gill says about the Greek word.


http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/ivimey/html/gill_bap.htm
The author of the dialogue under consideration affirms that there is not one single lexicographer or critic upon the Greek language, he has ever seen, but what agrees, that though the word baptizo sometimes signifies to dip, yet it also naturally signifies to wash; and that washing, in any mode whatsoever, is the native signification of the word baptismos; that the words baptize and baptism, (as used in the new testament) do not, from their signification, make dipping or plunging the necessary mode of administering the ordinance.

John Gill properly argues that it is wrong to say that baptizo cannot be immersion, as I pointed out is argued by some. Gill points out that baptizo can be any type of dipping, washing or immersion.

This would tend to make the complex Rabbinic discussions about the verses above a bit on the moot side. A nice intellectual and historical exercise about the full context of the Liddell and Scott verses. However please note e.g. Gill does not indicate what you claim in the page I reference. John Gill only says that there would be plunging or dipping, using Beza as one source, in Mark 7:4, not necessarily immersion.

The main point is that John Gill has already supports the wide usage view of baptizo that demolishes the baptizo=immersion view of the critics of the word baptism in the English Bibles, including the King James Bible.

Also I had earlier in the thread given a more complete list of verses for consideration in addtional contexts.

Luke 16:24
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus,
that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am
tormented in this flame.

John 13:26
Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it.
And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

Revelation 19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called The Word of God.

Originally Posted by sophronismos

since you KJVO extremists ...want to be the champion of pouring and baby baptism, you relinquish all your credibility.

Hmmm .. you are very incautious in speech.. sophomoric.

Perhaps you have not read the thread, where I shared more than once that sound New Testament exegesis impels immersion (submersion) and emersion as essential aspects of baptism.

After you reread the thread, proper would be an apology to the forum, lest you be seen as a false accuser before God and man.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

...we are far more interested in the truth of the pure word of God than marketplace expediency.

Then prove it. Demand that a retranslation of the KJV in the following instances be changed to reflect God's intended meaning without confusion...

"John did submerse in the wilderness, and preach the submersion of repentance for the remission of sins."

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his submersion, he said unto them..."

"Buried with him in submersion, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the..."

I know that this will not happen, nor do I think it should. I have said my "peace" on the matter. I know that this is really your domain. I am an "outsider." Nevertheless, it was my thread, so here is what I learned from the combined posts here:

1) The KJV translators made a translation choice with the term baptism. We are to simply accept it as perfectly preserved truth.
2) You do not allow for the argument that this was a transliteration. You simply say it was a translation.
3) The Greek does not matter to some of you.
4) The Greek does matter to some of you and you would prefer to see the term "baptism" be more clear but are comfortable with the KJV translation.
5) Not all KJVOnlyrs agree on this issue.

I'm satisfied with your arguments. Not that I agree with them all, but I found your replies interesting. For me to continue pressing this thread does not seem very productive. I am not here to be a "jerk." You will not see me post any adhominems. I will play fair.

Call me a "corrector" if you so desire. I am all about correcting faulty logic/interpretations/translations. I am not not a "corrector" in the traditional sense by envisioning JEDP or Q sources.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

Demand that a retranslation of the KJV

FSSL, you were shown to be confused and wrong time and again on your insistent claims. .. Thus your 'demands' are weak, and they sound like a cry from someone who is at war with the word of God.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

I'm satisfied with your arguments. Not that I agree with them all, but I found your replies interesting.

Much better .. now that would be an appropriate starting and stopping point for you at this time. You may still see this issue a bit darkly but at least you have learned a little. That is meant to be one major purpose of this forum.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

I am not not a "corrector" in the traditional sense by envisioning JEDP or Q sources.

Understood. The spirit of Bible correction takes many forms. Yours is a bit more nuanced. However for a long time something very illogical took over your thinking, and you were very insistent in a type of mental coldness. This is a symptom that there is an underpinning of wanting to 'correct' the Bible, not simply seeking to learn how and why and where is the pure word of God.

Shalom,
Steven