[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

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.

The problem was that your argument, whatever the crux, was flawed at every point. That is why the posts rather fully refuted every attempted accusation at the King James Bible for the very excellent translation of 'baptism' and showed conclusively that 'immersion' would be a vastly inferior translation, one reason why even today there is barely a version anywhere that translates in your preferred manner.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

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?"

Every King James Bible poster agreed that the words themselves were God's words, with absolutely no exception. Despite all the twisting tried here to try to come against the simple and accurate word 'baptism' in many places for baptizo (not every place, in some places words like "washing" were more accurate).

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

Did He preserve...
His very WORDS?

Yes.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

His very DEFINITION of every word?
His very MEANING of every word in its context?
His very SENSE of every word in its context?

These all have subjective components.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

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

We showed conclusively in this thrad that "baptism" is the proper and perfect word, as used in the King James Bible in many instances. And that your preferred 'immersion' would simply be improper translation, reeking havoc on some verses and limiting the sense of others.

So why you still raise this issue as if it is has not been fully addressed is really the puzzle. Do you even read the posts (more than a skim where you can say .. 'well maybe this one aspect is not so germane') ?

Shalom,
Steven

So Steven, you go on record as agreeing with #1 "His Words"
All others, in your opinion, are "subjective"

The reason I keep pressing is because this is the disagreement among KJVOnly believers.

Your statement that the definition, meaning, and sense of the words "baptism" and "church" are subjective is definitely not shared by your constituents. In fact, you need to rethink your "subjective" analysis. Since when is the definition, meanings and the sense of the term "baptism" subjective?

About modern versions. I do not defend them for their treatment of "baptism." I would simply say that there are too many people out there that believe in various modes of baptism. So, keeping the word "baptism" does not limit the distribution of their translations.

Steven: Here is a post that contradicts your "subjective" analysis:
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread....sense#post4630

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

Steven: Here is a post that contradicts your "subjective" analysis:
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread....sense#post4630

FSSL, here is what Matthew says, and I agree 100%.

"The issue is that God's full and utter truth, exact in words, full in sense, leaving nothing to be desired, having nothing added, is fully present in the King James Bible only".

All I am adding is the clear and obvious, that not every King James Bible believer will agree on all senses of the words. We may not agree on the exact sense of every doctrine or the exegesis and meaning of every word. Disagreements on meaning and sense and interpretation and exegesis can come forth, even when we agree on the exact words. Often such disagreements will be reflections of our rightness, approval and correctness before God, or our spiritual difficulties before God. I know that I myself have changed my own "sense" of words each year, hopefully as I have received and understood more from God.

However with the King James Bible, the words of God do not change.
Thank you Lord Jesus for your unchanging and perfect and pure scriptures.

Hope that makes it clearer for you, I really have no idea :

a) what is your overall point
b) why you still are immersed in your baptism accusation error.

Shalom,
Steven

Hope that makes it clearer for you, I really have no idea :

a) what is your overall point
b) why you still are immersed in your baptism accusation error.

My point could not be clearer: The terms "baptism" and "church" are not clear translations of the Greek "baptizo" and "ekklesia"

That being the case, I wondered how KJVOnly types reconcile this. Do you simply accept the terms to be improvements on the original languages? Do you agree with the words, but have always wondered why they were not clearer?

Now I know. Some of you are so intent that the translators produced an absolutely perfect translation that you are willing to justify an obvious difficulty. The attempts here to claim that Anglicans were immersionists and the term "baptism" in 1604-11 carried the only obvious meaning of immersion highlights the lengths you will go to prove your point.

There is no doubt that the KJV would have been rejected by King James if the term "baptism" was translated "immersion." Politics and expediency always plays a part in the translation process, especially with 43 individuals involved.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

The terms "baptism" and "church" are not clear translations of the Greek "baptizo" and "ekklesia".

We discussed baptism in depth. You never even addressed the most basic difficulty with your argument, that your word choice 'immersion' does not work for baptizo, that there are verses where the Greek word simply does not mean immersion. You simply ignored that, even though it blasts a huge hole in your contention. You want to deliberately mistranslate to match your doctrinal view, rather than teach baptism by immersion through sound Bible exegesis.

Similarly you ignored that translators before and after have all agreed with the King James Bible translators, simply because baptism is the superior translation word.

I even showed you how the anti-immersionist goes to "the Greek" and make the opposite false claim as you, that baptizo means "pour", since the Greek word has a wide range of meaning, something you seem incapable of grasping.

In generaly, you simply ignored every such refutation of your position, only occasionally saying that a particular refutation was not 'germaine'.

FSSL, since you obviously trump personal preference and confusion over logic and dialog, there really is not much more to say. You may repeat yourself with the same false words as much as you like.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

You never even addressed the most basic difficulty with your argument, that your word choice 'immersion' does not work for baptizo, that there are verses where the Greek word simply does not mean immersion. You simply ignored that, even though it blasts a huge hole in your contention. You want to deliberately mistranslate to match your doctrinal view, rather than teach baptism by immersion through sound Bible exegesis.

I find it impossible to debate Greek definitions with someone who uses Websters and Wikipedia for their references. 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’

If you want to go to the Greek, then let's go. I simply will not use Websters or Wikipedia to define biblical terms. I will use Oxford's Dictionary to show what people meant by a certain English phrase in 1611, but that is about it.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

I find it impossible to debate Greek definitions with someone who uses Websters and Wikipedia for their references. 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’

Why would anybody want to translate the Bible based entirely on the "most basic, root definition" of words? You have been corrected on your understanding of the word baptizo, and instead of acknowledging it, you continue on to imply that if a Bible doesn't stick to the "most basic" "root definitions" of a word then we know it's not properly translated.

True translation is not based on the "most basic" definition of words. Even reading plain English is not properly done with "most basic" definitions. Context determines definitions, not lexicons. If you are going to argue that the KJV has it wrong, you are not going to prove your claim by evincing your complete lack of understanding of the Greek by quoting one "most basic" definition from a lexicon.

The most salient point here is that the mere fact of the word "Baptize" being an English word as early as the year 1250 completely and utterly disproves your original contention that it is merely a transliteration. Furthermore, the fact that virtually every Bible version ever published agrees with the KJV in using the ENGLISH word "Baptize" puts you in a very strange position -- you are arguing against the KJV but can't even offer something to put in its place!

We are missing each other in the dark. So, with this post, I will drop the issue.

I have translated enough to know that context is one factor, albeit a major one, in translation. Also, the lexical meaning must be considered. In the case of "baptism" this is no problem. Where would "immersion" not be a good translation?

You can reject that "immersion" (or submersion) is not a good translation. I am confounded why you guys press hard against this translation. I see no reason for you to debate the point unless you defend the practices of sprinkling or pouring.

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.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

Where would "immersion" not be a good translation?

In a passage like Acts 2:38 "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ" it would be wrong to translate the word as immersion like "be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ." Here, the proper name must be used. 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." This is why TRO says that baptizo should only be translated immerse in passages that use the word multiple times, so that some of the occurances can be transliterated as the proper name and some can be translated as immerse, all in the same context to indicate that the meaning of baptism is immersion without removing the word baptism because the proper name is NECESSARY.

Originally Posted by Diligent

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.

Actually, if you read TRO's post again you will see that he was not saying that the KJV botched up by using the word baptism, but rather that they botched up by using "the proper name [i.e. baptism] to the exclusion of the meaning thereof." Also when he denies that baptism is an English word he doesn't literally mean that it is not an English word but rather that "English dictionaries do not dictate the real meaning of the word baptism" and that "common English usage by Romanists and their allies" does not get to define the word.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The answers in the posts above have been simply ignored (such as the fact that the Anglican church at that time was largely immersionist).

Largely is not wholly, now is it? The Baptist church is wholly immersionist. The 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! And clearly the KJV translators, even if they were immersionist, caved in to political correctness and were too cowardly to translate the word baptizo as immerse even once! What a bunch of cowards.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

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.

It has two meanings, one literal and one figurative. Literally, to immerse. Figuratively, to be overwhelmed. This is undoubtedly another reason why TRO is against using the meaning to the exclusion of the proper name and against using the proper name to the exclusion of the meaning. To always use the word baptism is misleading and to always use the word immerse is misleading. His argument is clearly that both words will be used in a perfect translation.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

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)".

The Baptist scholar John Gill shows by quotations from rabbinic sources that these Jewish washings were done by immersion, not by pouring. But since you KJVO extremists (remember, I'm KJVO too, but not like you) want to be the champion of pouring and baby baptism, you relinquish all your credibility.