[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Luke

Baptizo - Greek, meaning to immerse.
Baptise - English, meaning to immerse.

Hi Luke,

The problem with this simple explanation is that it is questionable on both counts.

Before the counts I will remind you that the English baptism does not = immersion. People are immersed all the time in swimming and diving and in the bathtub without being baptized. Baptism is a very distinct word having to do with a Christian Bible application of water only. Not only water, there can be baptism in other forms.

Putting that very substantial distinction aside we also have :

The Greek difficulty which I showed in depth in the post above. By looking at the verses where the word 'baptizo' is used you find many verses where 'immersion' is simply not a good definition. In those verses you cannot substitute 'immersion' for the Greek word and get a sensible and accurate English sentence. We should not pretend otherwise and make a definitional claim from perspective rather than sound scholarship.

And this is confirmed by those who go into the auxiliary ancient Greek literature. We do not need to do that, since the Bible shows us cases where baptizo is not comfortably defined as the English 'immersion'.

Now we know through simple and clear Biblical exegesis that:
proper and valid and efficacious water baptism is by immersion.
If we cannot demonstrate that to others, then we should review our Bible interpretation and explanation skills. (While those in spiritual rebellion may not receive what we share the Bible itself is crystal clear.)

The following sentence is in fact proper English :

"the RCC baptizes infants, even though the necessary Biblical connection with repentance is completely lacking"

It is in fact true that the RCC 'baptizes' infants.

Here is the definition of the word baptism given in the 1828 Webster.

"The application of water to a person, as a sacrament or religious ceremony, by which he is initiated into the visible church of Christ. This is usually performed by sprinkling or immersion."

Well the RCC is not the "visible church of Christ", so that part of the 1828 definition is subject to controversial parlance debate, since the dictionary is taking a 'big tent' approach. However, in general the 1828 is properly connecting the English word baptism with the church of Christ. The 1828 does not make a distinction between what is valid and what is invalid baptism.

And we know that sprinkling is a type of baptism that is not efficacious, you could even say that functionally it is a counterfeit.

Originally Posted by Luke

Baptise IS an English word, and has it's root in the Greek. It's not an untranslated word. It's translated into English.

True.

Shalom,
Steven

I see from your comments that you are unanimously in agreement that "baptism" is a translation. Actually, it is a transliteration, not a translation. Why didn't the KJV translators translate the term? Why did they simply transliterate it given the many different methods of "baptism" in their day? If it is true that the majority of Anglicans immersed (which I don't see historically), then why would they not be compelled to translate the word as "immerse" to remove all doubt?

Any thoughts?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

I see from your comments that you are unanimously in agreement that "baptism" is a translation. Actually, it is a transliteration, not a translation.

Hi FSSL,

No, actually the word 'baptism' was an excellent and accurate translation decision, for those cases where baptizo was relating to the Christian event as in John's baptism and in Acts 2 and 10 and 19 and Matthew 28:19 and Romans 6 and such verses. There was no other word that would even be close. (To be fair, it was not at all original to the King James Bible translators, it was well known as the accurate English word from diverse sources.) Even today translators from diverse backgrounds almost invariably agree on the same translation decision.

Baptism had been an English word with specific English meanings for a long time, as you can see by simply picking up the Tyndale bible or reading the sermons of the day. Or even the Wycliffe Bible, which shows that baptism had been an English word for centuries.

When I say that the folks here have 'savoir faire' in their Bible analysis abilities, that is an English phrase, of French origin. Ironically, if I was translating from French, and saw the phrase 'savoir faire' I may end up translating it as 'know-how' or some other phrase, depending on sense, context and mood. Even the best translator relies on his own, or preferably on Bible translation, providential, savoir faire.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

No, actually the word 'baptism' was an excellent and accurate translation decision...

I ask this with genuine (no sarchastic/caustic intent) motives. Do you know the difference between a "transliteration" and a "translation?" If so, how can you deny that "baptism" is not a transliteration of "baptizo?"

[Luke]

If you want to be like that, the entire English language is a transliteration, and has it's roots in German, Latin, French, Greek, Old English & Middle English, etc etc. It's numbering system is Arabic, it's typeface is Roman, and it's Alphabet Latin with the addition of German (j for example).

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

I ask this with genuine (no sarchastic/caustic intent) motives. Do you know the difference between a "transliteration" and a "translation?" If so, how can you deny that "baptism" is not a transliteration of "baptizo?"

The real question is why you seem to be implying that baptism is not an English word. It was an English word before the KJV was translated.

Whether baptism is an English word or not is a pointless argument. His point is clearly that English dictionaries do not dictate the real meaning of the word baptism. Some wack dictionary will say that baptism is "a Christian ceremony involving any application of water" which is pure skubalon. The Greek word baptizo means immersion and was even used by pagan authors to describe the sinking of ships and drowning (see Liddel and Scott). If you fall for the ignorant argument that baptism is an English word, then you also fall for the ignorant argument that common English usage by Romanists and their allies the Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Anglicans gets to define the word! That's utter peresh! It is 100% right to say that the King James translators botched up big time in not translating the word as immerse in some of the passages where the word is used numerous times in a row. It is good to keep the proper name from the Greek, but it is stupid to keep the proper name to the exclusion of the meaning thereof, and we know that the King James translators did not do so out of ignorance but out of willful manipulation, out of a desire to keep their rank heresy of baby sprinkling defensible in their English translation. They are no doubt burning in tartarus for that heresy right now, and for you to excuse them shows that you are no more interested in the truth than Phygellus and Hermogenes. John Calvin also admits in his commentary that the word baptizo means immerse, but he opposes immersion--and as sure as pope is a heretic, John Calvin would not have translated the word baptizo as immerse! That would tear down his heresy. But admitting in passing that the word really means immerse, then giving some sophistry for why its ok to disregard the meaning of the word and all the context of Scripture to worship Satan and cause your seed to pass to Molech through baby sprinkling, does not hurt his heresy. So Calvin the heretic chose that path, as did our lovely KJV translating heretics. Is a translation made by heretics wholly invalidated as a result? No. But it also is not as perfect as it could have been had they not been heretics, and anyone who says that it is, clearly is such a heretic themselves whether they admit it or not and whether anyone realizes it or not.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by textusreceptusonly

If you fall for the ignorant argument that baptism is an English word,

It is ignorant to imply that it is not an English word. It was an English word as early as the year 1250. To say it is a "botching" to have this in the KJV is just ridiculous, since nearly every other English translation also uses the word. Your research is sorely wanting.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Diligent9

It is ignorant to imply that it is not an English word. It was an English word as early as the year 1250. To say it is a "botching" to have this in the KJV is just ridiculous, since nearly every other English translation also uses the word. Your research is sorely wanting.

Hi Diligent,

'Sorely wanting' is an understatement.

Since virtually every sentence that TRO wrote is biased against the King James Bible and the 'scholarship' weak, a bit more response is needed. The answers in the posts above have been simply ignored (such as the fact that the Anglican church at that time was largely immersionist).

Please notice especially the complete lack of TRO addressing the many NT usages where "immersion" would fail in translation, some are given above, some are below in the Wikipedia article.

TRO adds one major new deception, "going to the Greek" by misreferencing Liddell and Scott, falsely implying that L & S says that baptizo must = immersion.

Originally Posted by TRO

The Greek word baptizo means immersion and was even used by pagan authors to describe the sinking of ships and drowning (see Liddel and Scott).

Wikipedia is actually quite thorough on this, with a good Greek font, and referencing Liddell and Scott. The Greek word has a wide range of meaning, and TRO is being scholastically dishonest in his selectivity.

(I will add that dip and plunge are very different than immerse as well, a point largely overlooked in the article, and as Christians we know this from cases where the immersion is not full submersion and then folks are rebaptised.)

Scripture references added from the pure Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism
Meaning of the Greek word βαπτίζω

The Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott gives the primary meaning of the word βαπτίζω (transliterated as "baptizô"), from which the English word baptism is derived, as dip, plunge, but indicates, giving Luke 11:38 as an example, that another meaning is perform ablutions.[9]

Liddell and Scott is not the only authority to state that the Greek word βαπτίζω does not mean exclusively, dip, plunge, immerse. Scholars of various denominations[10] point to two passages in the New Testament as indicating that the word was used also for something much less than the total immersion (submersion) of the person. Luke 11:38 recounts that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee's house, "the Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash (βαπτίζω – literally, "be baptized" or "baptize himself") before dinner." Those who point to this passage say that the Pharisee will not have expected Jesus to immerse himself fully before having a meal and that his surprise will have been at Jesus' omission of the customary ritual washing of the hands.[11] By Jewish tradition this washing of the hands before a meal is performed by pouring water over them, not by dipping the hands in water.[12] The other New Testament passage pointed to is Mark 7:3–4a: "The Pharisees ... do not eat unless they wash (νίπτω, the ordinary word for washing) their hands thoroughly, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves (literally, "baptize themselves" - βαπτίζω)".

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

Mark 7:3-4
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews,
except they wash their hands oft, eat not,
holding the tradition of the elders.
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.

9) Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert (1940). A Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie, Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0198642261.

10) For instance, The Mode of Baptism; The Sacrament of Baptism#How is Baptism to be Applied?; Baptism: Immersion Only?

11) This is the passage that Liddell and Scott cites as an instance of the use of βαπτίζω to mean perform ablutions. Jesus' omission of the rite has been compared with that by his disciples, mentioned in Matthew 15:1-2: "Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 'Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash (νίπτω) their hands when they eat.'"

12) Jewish Encyclopedia: Ablution

Once again, contextually any sensible exegete will see that the mode of water baptism in the New Testament is immersion. It is sad to see such tawdry pseudo-scholarship about "the Greek" and attacking the pure Bible from folks who appear to be too lazy or ill-informed or dumbed-down that they cannot show that the New Testament teaches water baptism by immersion through many infallible scriptural proofs.

The following article shows that anti-immersionists make the opposite error in "going to the Greek" as TRO:

http://truediscipleship.com/bsub/subjects48.htm
How is Baptism Defined by Greek Dictionaries ?

"Baptizo in various forms is used 112 times in the New Testament, always meaning ‘pouring’" (E.J. Berkey, The Bible Mode of Baptism, p. 15).

A summary is given.

"The standard Greek lexicons reveal that the term means to dip, to immerse, to plunge, to sink, to submerge"

Thus the Greek alone allows for, but does not force, immersion, the context and the usage in the New Testament demonstrates that baptism is much more. To start you have:

a) immersion (submersion is more precise)
b) emersion
c) in response to repentance and faith (Hebrews 6)

The answer of a good conscience towards God. (1 Peter 3:21)

The English word baptism, properly defined, includes all these elements.

Shalom,
Steven

Whether Anglicans were largely immersionists (or not) is not germaine. Even Baptists practiced two forms of baptism. This is really not the crux of my argument.

Why did I raise this argument in the first place? While another interesting thread seeks to understand the differences between the varieties of the KJVOnly crowd this thread highlights a very important distinction--"What did God actually preserve in the KJV?"

Did He preserve...
His very WORDS?
His very DEFINITION of every word?
His very MEANING of every word in its context?
His very SENSE of every word in its context?

How far, as a strict KJVOnly advocate, would you go knowing that the terms "Baptism" and "Church" are used?