Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

BAPTISM_IS IT_POUR-SPRINKLE-IMMERSE_WHICH_&_WHY_

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Theo Book View Post

    It says nothing about pouring, or sprinkling, but DOES instruct one to "Be baptized;" NOTHING is intimated about water being sprinkled or poured on or over the subject as a substitute for baptism.

    [/B]
    If that’s the case you should have no problem showing us an example of someone being dipped under water or immerised in water.
    No conviction,No conversion
    John 16:8
    And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Theo Book View Post

      So if I read "Jump into the river" that doesn't require a river?
      If you say "jump" that is a modal word specifying the type of action desired, that is, the mode of the result you want, in this case, entering the river.

      Bapsei, Baptw, different form of the word; Baptizw, all mean the same thing; to immerse one in water, or be immersed in the Spirit; or immersed in blood. The word itself is a reference to immersion, as OPPOSED TO sprinkling or pouring.
      No, those words do not mean the same thing:

      Luke 16:24 - And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip [bapt] 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 [bapt] it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

      Revelations 19:13 - And he was clothed with a vesture dipped [bapt] in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.


      As you can see from the above bapt is translated to "dip".




      Now where baptizo is translated, it is translated to "wash":

      Mark 7:4 - And when they come from the market, except they wash [baptizo], they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptizo] of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables

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

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


      There is an interesting variant text for Mark 7:4 in which rhantizo, "sprinkle" is used in place of the first "wash" giving a strong indication that words have some relation.


      The verse referenced in Revelations also has a variant reading.That verse has a variant text where rhantizo is in place of bapt, that is, And he was clothed with a vesture sprinkled with blood: and his name is called The Word of God..


      This points to the second definition of bapt - to dye, to stain, to color. The imagery of the verse being one of Christ returning from battle having his garments sprinkled with the blood of his enemies and thus stained.

      In any case bapt and baptizo do not mean the same thing as you insist.
      Last edited by uncleanlips; 02-16-19, 09:11 AM.
      One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in his temple.



      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by greatdivide46 View Post
        This is true. The reason for that is the biblical writers rarely if ever defined the words they were using. They just assumed that anyone who spoke the language would know what a word meant. And in this case baptizo means to immerse or submerge in water. Therefore, there is no need to define the word. If the King James translators had translated the word instead of transliterating it they would have translated it as immerse. There are other Greek words that mean pouring or sprinkling. Those words have no etymological connection with the word baptizo.
        In several instances they did translate baptizo did they not?
        One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in his temple.



        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Ruk View Post

          The Bible numerous times implicitly defines wine as alcohol by speaking of its intoxicating qualities and origin on the vine. In speaking of eschatology, Jesus explicitly defines a word meaning "at hand" (or "near") with his illustration of summer starting when trees start to leaf. Yet, many Baptists outright reject these clear definitions provided by scripture. But, nothing in the Bible tells us the literal meaning of baptism. The word is used for washing your hands before dinner, but I doubt that involves submersion as submersion would dirty the water and make it useless for the next person to wash. In hand washing, pouring makes more sense, so only a little water is dirtied.
          Your doubts notwithstanding, to wash one's hands does involve submersion of the hands in water. And of course it is not necessary to think that more than one person used the same water to wash their hands. Actually pouring makes no sense to me. How does a person pour water on their hands and wash them at the same time?

          Originally posted by Ruk View Post
          Yes, the authors of the NT assumed people knew what baptism means. The Didache was written in the first century, and it describes the ritual of baptism with pouring (in the absence of having "living water", a river), and says nothing about submersion. Pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (vs. Baptists dunking once).
          I will defer to your knowledge of The Didache since I know nothing about what it teaches. But if it really does say nothing about immersion, then it's deficient in its teaching.

          Originally posted by Ruk View Post
          Even if right about submersion, Baptists are still legalistic about it (if you innocently did the ritual "wrong" it doesn't count, regardless of your good faith). Even if right about submersion, Baptists are hypocritical about it (vs. wine and at hand, as well as their stated opposition to legalism and ritual). But, there's no proof they're right, which makes them all the more legalistic and hypocritical.
          I agree with you about Baptists being hypocritical about baptism. That's because they have a view of baptism that is not biblical.

          Originally posted by Ruk View Post
          Why didn't the KJV translate the word, if not for significant doubt about its meaning? Your argument that they would have translated immerse is at most speculation, and at worse nonsense. They were free to translate the word and it was their job to translate the word, and they still didn't translate it to immerse. You seem to assume that they were just being lazy, which is nonsense.
          My understanding of why the KJV translators transliterated in the case of baptism is because by that time the church was sprinkling as a mode of baptism and they knew the Greek word meant immerse so that if they translated it they would have had to admit that the church was wrong about sprinkling as a mode of baptism. Apparently their desire to be right was stronger than their desire to be accurate in their translation.

          Originally posted by Ruk View Post
          "Wash" and "pour" (or dunk or baptize) share no etymological connection, yet they both work to describe what people do for the hands before dinner. Juice and wine share no etymological connection, but Baptists are sure wine and juice are the same thing (except when the Bible warns against abusing wine, then Baptists fall back to their close friend hypocrisy). I wouldn't define "baptism" as "pour", but that doesn't mean pouring isn't baptism. In faith, all things are good, including sprinkling and pouring. Out of faith, all things are bad, including dunking.
          There are words in Greek that mean pour and sprinkle. Neither of those words is ever translated as baptize or any of its cognates. The word that is transliterated as baptism is a word that means immerse or submerge in water. There's just no getting around that.

          greatdivide46
          It is honorable for a man to resolve a dispute; but any fool can get himself into a quarrel. -- (Proverbs 20:3).

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by uncleanlips View Post

            In several instances they did translate baptizo did they not?
            I can't speak for the KJV but the NASB translates baptizo as baptize or its cognates every time but two. In Luke 12:50 it's translate "undergo." In Luke 11:38 it's translated "ceremonially washed." In neither of these cases does the translation detract from the lexical meaning of immersion or submersion in water.
            greatdivide46
            It is honorable for a man to resolve a dispute; but any fool can get himself into a quarrel. -- (Proverbs 20:3).

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by greatdivide46 View Post

              I can't speak for the KJV but the NASB translates baptizo as baptize or its cognates every time but two. In Luke 12:50 it's translate "undergo." In Luke 11:38 it's translated "ceremonially washed." In neither of these cases does the translation detract from the lexical meaning of immersion or submersion in water.
              You seemed to speak for them here:

              If the King James translators had translated the word instead of transliterating it they would have translated it as immerse.
              You should do a little more research on what the KJV translators actually did in translation.
              One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in his temple.



              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by greatdivide46 View Post
                There are words in Greek that mean pour and sprinkle. Neither of those words is ever translated as baptize or any of its cognates. The word that is transliterated as baptism is a word that means immerse or submerge in water. There's just no getting around that.
                Perhaps you can point to a major translation where baptizo is translated "immerse"?

                One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in his temple.



                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by uncleanlips View Post

                  You seemed to speak for them here:
                  Oh, ya got me!



                  Originally posted by uncleanlips View Post
                  You should do a little more research on what the KJV translators actually did in translation.
                  Yeah, you're right!

                  greatdivide46
                  It is honorable for a man to resolve a dispute; but any fool can get himself into a quarrel. -- (Proverbs 20:3).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by uncleanlips View Post

                    Perhaps you can point to a major translation where baptizo is translated "immerse"?
                    I can't do that. I don't know of one. Do you?
                    greatdivide46
                    It is honorable for a man to resolve a dispute; but any fool can get himself into a quarrel. -- (Proverbs 20:3).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by greatdivide46 View Post
                      Your doubts notwithstanding, to wash one's hands does involve submersion of the hands in water. And of course it is not necessary to think that more than one person used the same water to wash their hands. Actually pouring makes no sense to me. How does a person pour water on their hands and wash them at the same time?
                      Pouring water makes no sense to you? Would you prefer to carry one gallon from a well a mile away for dinner, or ten gallons? So, you have one gallon. That's a container barely big enough for a pair of men's hands. And, then when the one man is finished, the water is dirty and their hands are covered with dirty water. But, if he just got his hands wet by pouring a small amount of water, working the water through the dirt on his hands, and then pouring a little more water to rinse off, his hands would be clean and most of rest of original gallon would be clean for the next person.

                      I will defer to your knowledge of The Didache since I know nothing about what it teaches. But if it really does say nothing about immersion, then it's deficient in its teaching.
                      The Didache is a first-century document and the earliest document to describe how baptism is done. I don't hold anything outside the Bible as "gospel", but considering its early date and that nothing in the first century contradicts what it describes, I think it's a pretty good lead.

                      My understanding of why the KJV translators transliterated in the case of baptism is because by that time the church was sprinkling as a mode of baptism and they knew the Greek word meant immerse so that if they translated it they would have had to admit that the church was wrong about sprinkling as a mode of baptism. Apparently their desire to be right was stronger than their desire to be accurate in their translation.
                      That sounds plausible, but that's baseless speculation that doesn't hold up. Every English translation uses the word "baptize" (aside from lunatic jokes of translations, e.g. Tree of Life version, made by Messianic "Jew" armatures which makes many thousands of changes in the Bible, in rejection of the Greek words used). Are they all bending scripture to serve the church of that time? Granted, some are following KJV or Catholic tradition, but all of them?

                      The KJV translating baptize to "wash" when speaking of washing hands for dinner. Why didn't they use "immerse" here, when there's no church reason to avoid the word immerse?

                      There are words in Greek that mean pour and sprinkle. Neither of those words is ever translated as baptize or any of its cognates. The word that is transliterated as baptism is a word that means immerse or submerge in water. There's just no getting around that.
                      I never claimed baptize means pour or sprinkle. I have only claimed that there's no evidence that baptizing can't literally include pouring or sprinkling. You would translate the Disache (written by Christians in the first century, using first century Greek) say "To immerse, pour water pour water three times on the head in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." That makes no sense. It also doesn't really make sense of you to translate the Bible into saying people washed hands by immersion, when pouring a far more realistic method. Do you think the KJV should have included the phrase "immerse away sins"?


                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by greatdivide46 View Post
                        I can't do that. I don't know of one. Do you?
                        No I cannot. So perhaps your theory that baptizo should be translated to "immerse" is off base.
                        One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in his temple.



                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by uncleanlips View Post

                          No I cannot. So perhaps your theory that baptizo should be translated to "immerse" is off base.
                          Could be I suppose, but based on what I read in Greek-English lexicons there's no doubt in my mind that the definition of baptizo includes immersion and does not include sprinkling or pouring..
                          greatdivide46
                          It is honorable for a man to resolve a dispute; but any fool can get himself into a quarrel. -- (Proverbs 20:3).

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by greatdivide46 View Post

                            Could be I suppose, but based on what I read in Greek-English lexicons there's no doubt in my mind that the definition of baptizo includes immersion and does not include sprinkling or pouring..
                            Which is your preferred lexicon ?
                            No conviction,No conversion
                            John 16:8
                            And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Bigboy View Post

                              Which is your preferred lexicon ?
                              I use Thayer's, not because it's my preferred, but because it's the one closest to hand.

                              greatdivide46
                              It is honorable for a man to resolve a dispute; but any fool can get himself into a quarrel. -- (Proverbs 20:3).

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by greatdivide46 View Post
                                I use Thayer's, not because it's my preferred, but because it's the one closest to hand.
                                The following may be enlighting to you concerning Thayer .

                                If a man, or a group of men, author a book about the Bible, but they don't believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, don't believe in His divine nature, don't believe He is God, don't believe in the infallibility of Scripture, and many other wild heresies, why would you, as a born-again Christian, rely on the book they created? .


                                The following is the exact quotation from the Publisher's introduction to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon:

                                J. Henry Thayer, author of the New Thayer's Greek Lexicon, was a Unitarian who vehemently denied the deity of Christ. (Thayer was also the dominant member of the ASV committee!) His Lexicon contains a seldom noticed warning by the publisher in its Introduction (p. vii). It cautions readers to watch for adulterations in the work relating to the deity of Christ.The following is the exact quotation from the Publisher's introduction to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon: A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy. When defining metamelomai [the Greek word for regret], Thayer refuses to draw a clear distinction between this word and metanoeo [the Greek word for a change of mind - repentance]. Underlying this refusal is the view that man is inherently good, needing Christ not as a Savior but only as an example.".

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

                                Thayer was an evolutionist who scoffed at Christians who believe the Lord God created the world in six days, claiming that men of superior minds like himself have outgrown such teaching:

                                "It would be in point to remind the adherents of that view that they, in common with all Christendom, have come to acknowledge its erroneousness [the Bible's error] in particulars once stoutly defended by their lineal ancestors of former generations. Who now would declare that the Bible... restricts the work of creation to six days of twenty-four hours each... and a score of other outgrown opinions."

                                -Joseph H. Thayer, The Change of Attitude Toward the Bible: A Lecture Given Under the Auspices of the American Institute of Sacred Literature, Houghton & Mifflin, 1891, p. 45-46

                                Thayer considered the Word of God to be imperfect because it is just the writings of men:

                                "No substantive [useful] part of the truth of Christianity is discredited, should we perchance discover that the collection and even the composition of its books are not free from traces of the imperfection which cleaves to all things human." He did not believe as Christians believe; that God's Word is eternal and preserved in perfection, being inspired (God wrote His Word) through those who wrote it down.


                                Thayer was a lost hell bound man ............why would any Christian want Him to tell us what God said. ?

                                Not picking on you GD most Baptists are guilty of running to this lost infidel too.






                                No conviction,No conversion
                                John 16:8
                                And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X