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

  • #31
    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.
    What I just posted about Thayer I have not always known that......I started researching some things about reference works that didn’t seem right.......I was shocked about my findings concerning reference works.

    I had to repent for ever relying on them instead of fully trusting God’s word........one thing that motivated me to look deeper at them was the subject of Baptism.
    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


    • #32
      Originally posted by Bigboy View Post

      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.
      Actually, what you've quoted here about Thayer, makes me trust him even more regarding his knowledge of the Greek language. Obviously he has no agenda to try to make the words mean what he thinks they should mean as a Baptist Greek scholar might. His only interest is in giving the correct definition of the words. He wouldn't be swayed by a preconceived notion that baptism couldn't possibly mean immersion; that it must mean something else, since not all the churches are practicing immersion. Therefore, I'm more likely to put credence in what Thayer says the word means, than in what a Baptist Greek expert might say it means.
      greatdivide46
      By his breath the heavens gained their beauty; His hand pierced the fleeing serpent. -- (Job 26:13).

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by greatdivide46 View Post
        Actually, what you've quoted here about Thayer, makes me trust him even more regarding his knowledge of the Greek language. Obviously he has no agenda to try to make the words mean what he thinks they should mean as a Baptist Greek scholar might. His only interest is in giving the correct definition of the words. He wouldn't be swayed by a preconceived notion that baptism couldn't possibly mean immersion; that it must mean something else, since not all the churches are practicing immersion. Therefore, I'm more likely to put credence in what Thayer says the word means, than in what a Baptist Greek expert might say it means.
        Well I don’t think God wants me consulting men who deny the deity of his son.......seeking counsel fron the ungodly.

        Psalms 1:1

        Psalms
        1 Blessed is the man
        that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly,
        nor standeth in the way of sinners,
        nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

        I don’t believe Baptist scholars either after my findings many of them are ungodly too.

        Anyway this is just where I’m at and wanted to comment on it...you take care.
        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


        • #34
          Originally posted by Bigboy View Post

          Well I don’t think God wants me consulting men who deny the deity of his son.......seeking counsel fron the ungodly.
          Of course you have to follow your best understanding of what God wants for you. Personally, I don't see being a Greek scholar necessarily having to be a Christian. Whether or not the person is a Christian really has no bearing on his knowledge of Greek or his willingness to share that knowledge. And just as an aside I don't see consulting a lexicon as seeking counsel from anyone. But, I suppose that's just me.

          greatdivide46
          By his breath the heavens gained their beauty; His hand pierced the fleeing serpent. -- (Job 26:13).

          Comment


          • #35
            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..
            Lexicons are someone's opinion, albeit educated opinion. Thayer was a theological liberal. Different lexicons sometimes have conflicting definitions on various words. Someone's lexicon is not above criticism.

            Theyer defines baptism as something producing a permanent change, like pickling a cucumber, and therefor baptism isn't really about getting wet (which isn't permanent), but about a lasting union with Christ.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Ruk View Post

              Lexicons are someone's opinion, albeit educated opinion. Thayer was a theological liberal. Different lexicons sometimes have conflicting definitions on various words. Someone's lexicon is not above criticism.

              Theyer defines baptism as something producing a permanent change, like pickling a cucumber, and therefor baptism isn't really about getting wet (which isn't permanent), but about a lasting union with Christ.
              You're right. Someone's lexicon is not above criticism. For instance, while I agree that baptism isn't about getting wet, but a lasting union with Christ, I disagree that baptism produces anything. I believe that the lasting change is produced in baptism by God, but it is not produced by baptism. God could have chosen any medium or no medium to effect His change in. The fact that He chose baptism is lost on many Christians today.
              greatdivide46
              By his breath the heavens gained their beauty; His hand pierced the fleeing serpent. -- (Job 26:13).

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Ruk View Post

                Every English translation uses the word "baptize"
                The 1380's Wycliffe's Bible has "were christened of him in Jordan" at Matthew 3:6.

                The 1798 Scarlett's New Testament has "were immersed by him in Jordan" at Matthew 3:6.

                The 1842 revision of the KJV, the 1850 KJV's NT edited by Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff, and the 1973 Estes' Better Version have
                "were immersed by him in the Jordan" at Matthew 3:6.

                The 1866 American Bible Union Version has "they were immersed by him in the Jordan" at Matthew 3:6.

                The 1897 Rotherham's The Emphasized Bible has "they were being immersed in the Jordan River" at Matthew 3:6.

                The 1912 Improved Edition by the American Baptist Publication Society has "they were baptized (immersed) by him in the Jordan" at Matthew 3:6.

                The 1998 Complete Jewish Bible has "they were immersed by him in the Yarden River" at Matthew 3:6.



                Comment


                • #38
                  Among those words called "ecclesiastical words" which King James forbade to be translated into English, changed, or updated, the words "baptism" and "baptize" could perhaps be included. In fact, the preface to the 1611 KJV clearly indicated that “baptism” was considered to be one of the “old ecclesiastical words’ that the translators were ordered to keep. John T. Christian affirmed “that ‘baptize’ was included among the ecclesiastical words is evident from the preface that King James’ translators put to their Bible” (Close Communion, p. 164). Jack Lewis wrote: “The translators in their ‘Preface to the Reader,‘ confess that there a polemic interest in retaining certain ecclesiastical words like ‘baptism’ and ‘church’” (English Bible, p. 63). Edwin Bissell maintained that “undoubtedly ‘polemical considerations were allowed to intrude’ in the treatment accorded by the board of revisers to old ecclesiastical words” (Historic Origin, p. 78). John Christian asserted that the KJV “is an Episcopal translation rendered under rules, that forbade the translation of baptize, and commanded that the word should be merely transferred” (Close Communion, p. 164).

                  In 1657, Baptist John Gosnold (1625-1678) wrote: “They [the translators] have constantly retained the Greek word baptism in the Translation” (Of the Doctrine, p. 11). William Shirreff (1762-1831) asserted: "The translators of the Bible have not translated this word at all" (Lectures on Baptism, p. 146). Adoniram Judson wrote: “Unhappily, our translators have retained the original word” (On Christian Baptism, p. 3). In 1849, Richard Pengilly maintained that “our translators have not rendered into English by a verb of our own language expressive of the same action, but adopted the original Greek word” (Scripture Guide to Baptism, p. 13). Richard Fuller (1804-1876) wrote: “One word of this commission is not translated, but only transferred. This word is ‘baptized’” (Baptism, p. 9). In 1863, G. S. Bailey wrote: “Baptize is a Greek word, brought into our language from the Greek, and left untranslated” (Manual of Baptism, p. 31). In a sermon in 1861, Charles Spurgeon maintained that “it [baptize] is not an English, but a Greek word” (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, VII, p. 284). John Christian asserted that “baptize was transferred and not translated” and that “it is a Greek word in English dress” (Close Communion, p. 165). Cleland McAfee wrote: “Our word ’baptism’ is not an English word nor a Saxon word; it is a purely Greek word” (Greatest English Classic, p. 69). John Reed asserted: “The word baptize, is borrowed from the Greeks” (An Apology, p. 123). M’Clintock and Strong maintained that “though baptism is Greek, it comes to us from the Latin” (Cyclopaedia, X, p. 838). Homer Massey wrote: “This [baptism] is not an English word, but has been brought right over into English from the Greek New Testament” (Tabernacle Baptist Crusader, March/April, 1983, p. 2). Alexander Carson in his exhaustive study on this word noted: "Baptize has become an English word, but as an English word it has not the sense of the Greek word which it is employed to represent" (Baptism, p. 279). Again Carson wrote: "We do not believe that baptism, as an English word, is synonymous with immersion. As an English term it respects not mode at all, but refers to what is considered the rite, apart from the mode" (Baptism, p. 383).

                  An examination of old English dictionaries seems to affirm Carson's point. The 1715 edition of John Kersey’s General English Dictionary and the 1737 edition of Nathan Bailey’s Universal Etymological English Dictionary defined baptize as “to administer the sacrament of baptism; to christen.“ Likewise, Samuel Johnson's English dictionary of 1755 defined baptize as "to christen, to administer the sacrament of baptism." Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828 also defined baptize as "to administer the sacrament of baptism; to christen." Webster's 1828 dictionary defined baptism as follows: "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." After his definition of baptize, Noah Webster wrote: "More generally the ceremony is performed by sprinkling water on the face of a person, whether an infant or an adult, and in the case of an infant, by giving him a name, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is called Christening." Does this meaning correspond exactly to the meaning of the Greek word so that it is an accurate translation? In his book entitled A Christian Dictionary printed in 1612, Thomas Wilson gave as one definition of baptize the following: “To sprinkle or wash one’s body sacramentally. Thus, the minister baptizeth (Matt. 3:11) I baptize you with water, that is, outward sacramental washing” (p. 22). Additional direct evidence is found in a book written by Daniel Featley, who is listed as a KJV translator according to some sources and who was at least associated with them. Daniel Featley asserted: “Sprinkling may be done, and is usually, without any dipping at all” (Dippers Dipt, p. 26). Featley wrote: “Though dipping may be used in baptism; and if the child be strong, and the weather and climate temperate, it is fit to be used, and the Church of England both alloweth it and practiseth it; yet it is no way necessary or essential to baptism” (p. 25). John L. Dagg quoted a source that maintained that “during the reigns of King James and King Charles I, there were but very few children dipped” (Manual of Church Order, p. 312). In addition to the evidence that sprinkling was usually done in that day, some of the early translations even used christen and baptize as synonyms, which is more evidence that the English word baptize was not always understood to mean “immerse” or “dip” in that day and that it may not indicate accurately the meaning of the Greek. For example, Tyndale's and Matthew's Bibles have "christen" at 1 Corinthians 1:14. Wycliffe's Bible also used "christen" for "baptize" in some places.

                  Baptists in their Standard Confession of Faith of 1660 seemed to think it necessary to give an English definition for the word “baptize.” This 1660 Confession has this explanation after the word baptize: “that is in English to dip” (McGlothin, Baptist Confessions, p. 115). In his 1649 book, Henry Lawrence (1600-1664) explained “baptize them” as “or dip them” (Some Considerations, p. 56). In 1641, Edward Barber referred to “some words left untranslated, as in Matthew 28:19, where the word may as well be dipping, as in Luke 16:24” (Small Treatise, p. iv). In 1642, Thomas Killcop wrote: “Baptism is a Greek word, and most properly signifies dipping in English” (Short Treatise, p. 1). Thus, some valid evidence conflicts with the claim of some that “baptize” was a common English word in the 1600’s with the commonly understood meaning “to immerse” or “to dip.”

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                    The 1380's Wycliffe's Bible has "were christened of him in Jordan" at Matthew 3:6.
                    Christened? Why would you even bother to dig up a quote from an 1380s Bible that doesn't say anything as descriptive as even "baptism"?

                    The 1798 Scarlett's New Testament has "were immersed by him in Jordan" at Matthew 3:6.
                    Scarlett's New Testament? Okay, of the innumerable, mostly bad armature jobs, of translations that exist, a few of them say "immersed". Your examples are insignificant. Any stupid Baptist can sit down and replace the word "baptize" with "immerse" in their slightly modified KJV, all the while screaming it's from the original Greek.

                    The 1998 Complete Jewish Bible has "they were immersed by him in the Yarden River" at Matthew 3:6.
                    If the Devil's "Jewish Bible" says it, then you have lost the argument.

                    No serious translation uses the word "immerse", and few of their translators are worried about offending a 1600's church.







                    Comment


                    • #40
                      David Bernard and Samuel Aaron noted: "Let it be remembered that we contend for a translation, irrespective of our own belief as to the meaning of the word baptizo. If that word means sprinkle, let it be so translated. If its meaning can only be expressed by a phrase of several words, let it be so translated. If it requires different words in different places, let it be suitably translated. It is, in our apprehension, the imperative duty of those who understand the word of God to 'make it plain upon tables'" (The Faithful Translation, p. 20).

                      Pastor Carson wrote: "It is an axiom, as clear as any in mathematics, that every thing in the original, as far as it can be ascertained, ought to be communicated in a translation of Scripture" (Baptism, p. 278). Under the heading “Obligation to translate the word,“ Thomas J. Conant referred to “the simple rule of giving a faithful and intelligible rendering of the inspired word” (Meaning and Use of Baptizein, p. 158).

                      W. A. Jarrell noted the following about the American Bible Union Version: "There could be no other result from rules requiring that every word of the Bible should be put into the English than that the version would substitute, for King James' Episcopal version, immersion for baptize--baptize not being a translation but a transfer--concealing from the English reader what God says for him to do" (Baptizo-Dip-Only, p. 46). After using the word “immersed” in quoting a verse, Charles Spurgeon commented: “Mark, I have translated the word. King James would not have it translated” (Allen, Exploring the Mind, p. 38). John William Porter maintained: “The truth is, the word in the King James Version, is not translated, but transliterated” (Baptist Debt to the World, p. 237). Porter claimed: "It is nothing less than a mockery and a sin that the word for baptism should be transliterated instead of being translated" (World's Debt to the Baptists, p. 139). Paul Gutjahr observed: “The Baptists’ larger concern in pushing for their translation of baptizo as immersion was founded upon a concern that the original text and its original meaning be given precedence over the fallible human translations of the past” (An American Bible, p. 106).

                      S. E. Anderson observed: "The KJV of Matthew 3:11 reads, "I baptize you with water," but the Greek has it, "I immerse you in water" (Biblical Baptist Beliefs, p. 17). Henry Burrage also noted: "In those passages in our English version [KJV] where we find the words 'with water,' as in Matt. 3:11, 'I indeed baptize you with water,' the Greek has 'in water'" (Jenkens, Baptist Doctrines, p. 153). Concerning this verse in his commentary on Matthew, John Broadus has this comment: “With--rather, in water is the proper rendering of the preposition and case here employed” (p. 48). Concerning this verse in the KJV, John Christian noted: “You must remember this is the Episcopalian translation of King James. The original Greek has, they shall be baptized ‘in water’” (Immersion, p. 51). He concluded: “The literal meaning of the passage is in water and not with water” (p. 52). John R. Rice pointed out that "the word translated with in the above verse is usually translated in" (Bible Baptism, p. 41). Richard Pengilly asserted: “’IN water’; not with water,‘ as it is rendered in the English authorized version” (Scripture Guide, p. 14). Pengilly asked: “Would it not be absurd to render the passage [Matt. 3:6] ‘John baptized with the Jordan‘”? (p. 15). Augustus Strong maintained that at texts such as Matthew 3:11 the “en is to be taken, not instrumentally, but as indicating the element in which the immersion takes place” (Systematic Theology, p. 935). Thomas J. Conant contended that those texts [Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, John 1:26, 31, 33] with the preposition in denote “locality, or the element in or within which the act is performed” (Meaning, p. 100). Hugh Jones claimed that “the ambiguity in the authorized translation of the Bible sometimes confuses the reader in regard to the acts of baptism” (Act, pp. 1-2). He asserted that “John baptized not ‘with’ but ‘in’ water (p. 30). Concerning this verse in his commentary on Matthew, Charles Spurgeon wrote: “John could plunge the penitent into water; but a greater than he must baptize men into the Holy Ghost and into fire” (Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 12). Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, and Bishops' Bibles have "in water" at Matthew 3:11. Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, and Whittingham's have "in water" at John 1:33. The 1842 revision began Matthew 3:11 as follows: “I indeed immerse you in water.”

                      Concerning Mark 1:8, Thomas Patience or Patient in 1654 maintained that the rendering with water “suits with sprinkling“ (Doctrine of Baptism, p. 9). Charles Stovel wrote: “The expression, ‘I baptized you in water,‘ implies that John moved the persons when he baptized them; but the expression, ‘I baptized you with water,‘ as plainly implies that in the act of baptism the water was moved” (Christian Discipleship, p. 492). Stovel added: “thereby the way is prepared for affirming that we may baptize with water, by sprinkling” (Ibid.). Does the translation of this preposition as “with” open the door to claiming that sprinkling is an acceptable mode of baptism? Patience wrote: “It may be as well rendered, I baptize you in water, and he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.” Patience wrote: “It may as well be rendered, I baptize you, or dip you into water, as it is rendered, they were casting a net into the sea, Mark 1:16, for which the words are affirmed to be the same, and it would be too improper a speech to say, John did baptize with the wilderness [1:4], and they were casting a net with the sea [1:16]” (Doctrine, p. 9).

                      Concerning Mark 1:9-11, John Christian contended that “This passage says in the original that he was baptized into the Jordan” (Immersion, p. 56). He maintained that the best thing “to do is to take this passage as it reads, Jesus was immersed into the river of Jordan” (p. 59). Stovel asserted that there is “a distinct difference in the meaning of the three words, in, with, and into, which our [KJV] translators have concealed by changing the one for the other, in order to make the English version fit the borrowed word baptize” (Christian Discipleship, p. 503).

                      In his tract entitled “The Historical Baptist Position on Baptism,” Berlin Hisel wrote: “The Greek word for baptize means to immerse or dip.” In its etymology at its entry baptism, Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary indicated that it was from the Greek word “baptismos [meaning] that which is dipped; from baptizein, to dip” (p. 148). In 1657, John Gosnold contended that “the proper and native signification” of the Greek word baptizo is “to dip” (Of the Doctrine, p. 9). John L. Dagg asserted: The word baptize in the language which Christ spoke, as every Greek scholar allows, meant nothing else than immerse” (Manual of Church Order, p. 308). James Alter wrote: “The biblical mode or method of baptism is complete immersion in water” (Baptism, p. 3). Richard Fuller wrote: “What does Baptizo mean? I answer, it means immerse” (Baptism, p. 15). Concerning Matthew 3:16 in his commentary, Charles Spurgeon noted that Jesus was “immersed into the element of water” (p. 13). In his commentary on Matthew, John R. Rice maintained that “Baptism in the Bible means immersion in water” (p. 59). John R. Rice wrote: “Literal baptism in the Bible is Christian baptism, the immersion of a believer in water” (Bible Doctrines to Live By, p. 253). William Brantley acknowledged: “Nothing can be more evident in any book, than that baptize and baptism, in the New Testament, mean immerse and immersion” (Objections, p. 35). James Woolsey maintained that the word baptize “means to immerse; and never means sprinkling or pouring” (Doctrine, p. 105). Lloyd Streeter asserted that “baptize means immerse and immerse means baptize and both of them mean ’to dip’” (Seventy-Five Problems, p. 57).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Ruk View Post

                        If the Devil's "Jewish Bible" says it, then you have lost the argument.
                        If you have to use fallacies [false arguments] in order to assume things that you do not prove to be true, you have lost the argument.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                          If you have to use fallacies [false arguments] in order to assume things that you do not prove to be true, you have lost the argument.
                          You use stupid excuses for translations like the "Jewish Bible" and you think you've proven something, and then claim victory. Sad!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            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.
                            Yes, the word translated as baptize literally means to immerse. There is no getting around that.

                            " For in one Spirit we were all immersed into one body, whether Yehudim or Yevanim, whether bond or free; and were all given to drink into one Spirit. " ( 1 Corinthians 12:13, HNV )

                            " But "when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared, he saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us in full measure through Jesus Christ our Savior.

                            And so, since we have been justified by his grace, we become heirs with the confident expectation of eternal life." ( Titus 3:4-7 )

                            Water is not being poured out in full measure. The Holy Spirit through Jesus our Savior is.
                            Last edited by inertia; 03-12-19, 11:06 AM.
                            "The exact sciences also start from the assumption that in the end it will always be possible to understand nature, even in every new field of experience, but that we make no a priori assumptions about the meaning of the word "understand"."

                            Heisenberg
                            .....................

                            " It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and it is the glory of a king to search out a matter. " ( Proverbs 25:2 )

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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.
                              What does it mean when they said "much water," and "down into the water," "buried by baptism?" Don't you suppose those are "picture phrases" describing what is meant by the words?



                              John 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.



                              Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.



                              Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.



                              Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.



                              Some of this material has been posted by me on other websites.
                              By law, I cannot plagiarize my own work. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
                              If you accuse me of plagiarism, you will face it again at the judgment

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Ruk View Post

                                Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                                Originally posted by Ruk View Post

                                If the Devil's "Jewish Bible" says it, then you have lost the argument.

                                If you have to use fallacies [false arguments] in order to assume things that you do not prove to be true, you have lost the argument.
                                You use stupid excuses for translations like the "Jewish Bible" and you think you've proven something, and then claim victory. Sad!
                                You were the one who tried to claim victory based on use of fallacies while I simply had attempted to provide accurate information and then I applied your own claim more consistently and justly than your claim did.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X