Originally Posted by Debau

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

Perhaps we are missing each other. I took your "corrector" term in its technical sense (e.g., one who sees "Q" and "JEDP") I don't intend to get into a brawl with you. So, I will not comment any further.

[PB1789]

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?"

...hmmm? ---well to borrow a line from Herr Martin Luder when he when he was before the council/judges/other big-wigs at the Diet of Worms:

..."My conscience is held captive to scripture..."

Those of us who believe that God has preserved His written word to us---centuries after Abraham and Moses and David, and Matthew and Paul have left us can and do trust what He has given to us-(hence, my signature.) The Truth.

I looked at your website --{which just so happens to be your screen name here ?! } and you are one of the people that say you (or your group) believes the Greek and Hebrew texts in the "original autographs"---aarrgghh!! We don't have the "originals". If memory serves, the oldest fragment is a small portion of the gospel of John from about 150 A.D.. I prefer to read a Bible which used the texts that sparked the Protestant Reformation in many countries in the 1500's. Not the current crop of "New" stuff that relies on greek texts (Nestle/Aland) which is on it's what...27th revision/edition..? And/or the Vatican/Sinai "wastebasket" texts.

----- ---- ---- ----- ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ----

To the Thread Topic: In case there are young or not-sure Christians reading this website and are a little bit confussed, please click on the links below which give definitions of the words and have many links to further compare and study. Hope this helps.

Baptism-Baptizo

http:///www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=907

Church-ecclesia

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1577

[bibleprotector]

A side note.

Sadly, the Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe that the King James Bible is perfect.

While it is true that we do not have any extant originals, there is still a false idea that the authority of Scripture is somehow "locked up" in the Greek and Hebrew. The truth is that the King James Bible translators were God's locksmiths to get the Word from there to us. Since the door has been opened, why go to the cage of Greek and Hebrew?

This idea of relying on the Greek and Hebrew today is both nonsensical and unbelieving. Nonsensical, because even the so-called best present Greek edition by the Trinitarian Bible Society contains anomalies, and differs to the King James Bible. Unbelieving because it always leads a person away from the King James Bible as God's present revealed truth. Very many are far from the truth because they trust in the so-called Greek and Hebrew, which is to say, that they are yet seeking for truth which they are never able to obtain, and which they admit is unobtainable, yet they still seek for it (or the best they can get).

Oh, that they would believe God's pure Word and see that it is final authority!

Originally Posted by 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?

By infallible, I mean its original sense that it is considered both infallible and inerrant. The 1611 product being your perfect edition.

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.

Neither a straight reading nor a "spiritual understanding" of the KJV will let anyone come to the conclusion that "baptism" is to be by immersion only. Only the definition of the Greek term will help you come to that conclusion. I also know that in 1611, the translators could not use the term "immersion" for obvious religious implications. My KJVOnly professors of the past made a huge deal out of "baptism" by immersion alone and "church" as assembly, but they always went back to the Greek to support their conclusions.

I am not here to "get ugly" on this subject. I was KJVOnly, but am no longer. That being said, I have wondered why it is impossible to find much pure KJVOnly literature on the subject of the use of these terms. The TROnly guys don't have this issue. Those who are KJVOnly purists do.

Originally Posted by PB1789

I looked at your website --{which just so happens to be your screen name here ?! } and you are one of the people that say you (or your group) believes the Greek and Hebrew texts in the "original autographs"---aarrgghh!!

Yes. It was an attempt at full disclosure. I thought it best to come here and give access to my website so you know who I am and what I believe. It thought this approach was better than saying,

"Hi guys, I am new in the neighborhood! I have a NIV, NASB, ESV on a PocketPC in the front pocket of my blue jeans and believe it was only the originals that were infallible (and innerrant)."

[bibleprotector]

By infallible, I mean its original sense that it is considered both infallible and inerrant. The 1611 product being your perfect edition.

But is not the original sense 100% here in English? Otherwise how is it that the Word of God can be said to be present today, or to go into all the world, to every nation, etc?

By "original sense" I interpret the meaning of the original writer, and that as perceived by the original audience. This can easily be a false way to examine the Bible, because it relegates present interpretations onto the past.

Since the full meaning has, by God's power, been rendered and presented in English, we may be confident that every word we come across has been providentially placed there by God Himself (through use of various means and methods).

So when we come to the word "baptism", we see that it is an ENGLISH WORD with a meaning or definition given in English. Clearly, it does not mean just "immersion", though we may see from Scripture that baptism does involve immersion.

This idea that the "Greek meaning" is the real one is false. I repeat, the word "baptism" is an English word, with a meaning that may be found by examining the English Bible, as well as by having a general good knowledge of English words.

It is true that the traditional Greek text would, if rightly understood, support both the Bible and right doctrines, but this is both unnecessary and counter to proper practice. It is unnecessary because the Word is fully present in English, and all the study and vindication has already been accomplished by people who have looked at the Greek up to perhaps the year 2000 (Dr Thomas Holland being the representative of the last). It is counter to proper practice because it is subject to error, a rejection of the providence of God with the English Bible and not truly useful for edifying. Appealing to the Greek today is most likely to be to alter doctrine, rather than to accept it as is presented by the King James Bible.

To claim that the translators of 1611 did not use one or other words for "religious reasons" is really not the case. They were not merely translating according to their sectarian bias. They were translating according to the Spirit of truth, that is, of fidelity and excellence, or accuracy and exactness.

It is a Romanist doctrine to say that tradition is equal to Scripture, and yet this is the idea that is presented today by those who do not see the correctness of the King James Bible. They think that somehow the translators’ doctrine had an equality (by an interfering quality) to the Scripture (which was therefore altered or rendered according to their limited and wrong understandings). This is altogether a false, Babylonish accusation. It is denying that God has worked providentially in history and used men despite their personal failings, errors or lackings.

It is clear that the 1611 translators were making their appeal to truth rather than to their own relatively limited understandings of true doctrine. This is because they were handling the word of God, and were translating it as God’s Word, not as interpreters, but being faithful to what God’s words were and what they meant. The Bible has hard sayings, and there is no doubt that various sayings were hard or dark to these translators, though they laboured to present the words faithfully in English. They made a perfect translation, regardless of their individual imperfections.

The reason why TRO people do not have an issue is because they have accepted the false principle that the real truth or authority is still in the original languages. The proper KJBO position is to accept that God has been well and fully able to get the truth authoritatively into one final text and translation in English for the world. Therefore, if the English Bible says “baptism” or “church”, we study the Scripture, seek spiritually and examine rightly to see what these things mean.

Christ did not appoint the office of “Greek interpreter” into His Church. The Apostles did not instruct the foreigners to look to the Greek or Hebrew for the real Scripture or the real meanings. It is true that the real meanings were in Hebrew and Greek, and that those words being preserved in those languages to at least 1611 were useful, but now we have the blessing of having the full text and full sense in English. In fact, it is by the English Bible that the full text and proper translation is accessible to anyone in the world today, and especially since English is becoming the global language, it basically allows the English Bible to be the ONLY Bible for everyone, Jew and Gentile, English or Italian.

[bibleprotector]

only the originals that were infallible (and innerrant)

If anyone actually believes that, they are really denying that the Gospel is present (no extant perfect text), and disallowing that anyone who speaks English can be saved (no perfect translation) and rejecting God who promised that the Scripture is true (they would have a god who is a liar who has no true Bible).

The spirit of error loves to say that the Word of God has been lost. After all, it was the antichrist working which scattered manuscripts, confused the sense and ensured copyist mistakes. That would be saying that Satan is in victory.

BibleProtector: Thank you for your lengthy reply.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

Neither a straight reading nor a "spiritual understanding" of the KJV will let anyone come to the conclusion that "baptism" is to be by immersion only.

The simplest example that contradicts this is Phillip and the Ethiopian. There was no search for a canteen or water bottle, but when a body of water was sited, then the Ethiopian eunuch asked in Acts 8 :

"See, here is water;
what doth hinder me to be baptized?"

This is reinforced by what follows:

"they went down both into the water,
both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
And when they were come up out of the water"

This is very clear, and completely in harmony with the Romans 6 and Colossians 2 discussion of being buried in Jesus, as well as John baptizing where there was "much water". It is difficult to find a more solidly based doctrine, scripturally, than immersion as an element of baptism, although perhaps an ultra-dispensationalism might try to limit the applications.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

Only the definition of the Greek term will help you come to that conclusion.

Really ? Have you viewed even all the NT uses, much less yet all the uses of the term in classical Greek ?

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

I also know that in 1611, the translators could not use the term "immersion" for obvious religious implications.

There are many weaknesses with the term 'immersion'. e.g. Many folks are immersed daily without undergoing Christian baptism. That is one example of why baptism had long been in English translations. Incidentally, the Anglicans of that time were apparently largely immersionists.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

My KJVOnly professors of the past made a huge deal out of "baptism" by immersion alone and "church" as assembly, but they always went back to the Greek to support their conclusions.

Perhaps there were a bit more enamored with seminary shenanigans than the simple beauty and majesty, truth and perfection of the Bible text.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

That being said, I have wondered why it is impossible to find much pure KJVOnly literature on the subject of the use of these terms.

I've seen lots of good material. Here are some notes I have on the subject from a discussion on another forum.

=======================================

There is a lot of irony in this discussion, since "Baptists" are known
as the full immersion people, and John the Baptist is so named for his baptisms
in the Jordan River :-) That is why it is especially ironic when Baptists raise
an objection against the word "baptism" in the NT !

In the article below and notes below, you will see that the word baptism

a) is the best translation of the Greek,

b) had been in the English language for hundreds of years

c) was not a new transliteration.

d) every previous English Bible used "baptism" and "to baptize" or their contemporary equivalents

e) Baptist (full immersion) confessions of faith of that time ... all employ baptism.

f) Most Anglican practice in that era.."required immersion for the Church"

g) The KJB preface specifically states the usage of "baptism" against the (Puritan) "washing" -- clearly to support immersion as a translational aspect of the Greek

Wow.

The NT does of course teach baptism as full immersion, however lets not falsely accuse our English Bible in order to try to make our harmony "easier" (at the cost of creating error in the Bible.)

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (2 Timothy 3:16)

"Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:7)

================================================== ================
http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/baptisminkjv.htm

"BAPTISM" In The King James Version
By Paul Kirkpatrick
Compelling Proof That "Baptism" Is Translated Correctly In The King JamesBible

The Problem Stated
In the course of examining the question as to why some groups use modes other than immersion for their baptism, one will occasionally come across the charge that is leveled by some people, Baptists in particular, that one reason for the existence of these variations in the mode of baptism is that the English word "baptism" and its cognate verb form "to baptize," which are found in the King James Version of the Bible, are extremely vague in their meanings.

(snip)

(please read from web site)
================================================

There is one additional point to mention.

While contextually the Greek word baptizo in the NT is usually referring to immersion,
that is not always the case -- it is simply not a necessary part of the Greek word baptizo.

Pleae note these examples.

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.

Even these examples are from the same root.

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.

So, if you insist on translating baptizo as "immersion" you make gibberish and
error of these verses, and your Bible is simple not the inerrant Word of God.

================================================== ==========
Note also the related b-greek discussion -- you will see the wide range of meaning, definitely including, but not limited to, immersion.

Terry Pruitt
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...er/023627.html
Semantic Range of BAPTIZW/BAPTISMA
Check out word usages in these scripture references Mark 7:4 Luke 11:39 Hebrews 9:10. These are passages which are often translated without the english word "baptism". There is no special method prescribed for washing dishes in Mark passage. :-)

Hebrews 9:10
Which stood only in meats and drinks,
and divers washings,
and carnal ordinances,
imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Heflin Jones
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...er/023614.html
As for the 'watery' i.e. literal meaning I decided on my own gloss to cover
almost all cases: "to get very wet" :-)

Heflin Jones gives a fuller lexicon treatment, showing the wide range of the Greek word

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...er/023637.html
Semantic Range of BAPTIZW/BAPTISMA

The water baptism of the NT is contextually shown again and again to be immersion, (e.g Gospel, Acts and Romans) however, we should not mistranslate words to match our doctrinal views, nor should we weaken the spiritual aspect of baptism to simply immersion (an unbeliever can immerse, only a believer is baptised).

================================================== ===========

Hope this helps

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Luke]

Baptizo - Greek, meaning to immerse.

Baptise - English, meaning to immerse.

Baptise IS an English word, and has it's root in the Greek. It's not an untranslated word. It's translated into English. There are several untranslated words in the KJB (Raca, Anathema, Maranatha, Eloi, etc) and the interpretation is given either directly, or in context.