Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Baptism vs Immersion part 4

Let's look at more examples that prove that those who claim the KJB translators made a new word and that they jelly-fished out are less than honest.

The Oxford English dictionary says that the words 'baptize', 'baptized', 'baptist', and 'baptism' have all been in use in the English language since the year 1200.

Here are some examples from this fine work:

Baptist is shown as being spelled as 'baptiste in 1200 and 1230, and as 'baptist' in 1400.

We find Baptism used as 'baptim' in 1300, 'baptem' in 1325 by Wyclif as 'bapteme in 1382 and as 'baptisme' in 1528.

Then for baptized we usage as 'ybaptized' in 1297, 'baptysed' in 1480, 'baptizing' in1561, baptised in 1450 and as 'baptize' in 1604.

Also in Oxfords we 'baptisid' in 1382, 'baptizer' in 1483, and 'baptizing' in 1297.

Not a complete list, but more than enough to prove that the KJB translators used words that were allready in use and had meaning and that the only ones who jelly-fish out are those who claim this is an error int he KJV, but have no problems with these words in their modern versions, and even use the words baptize, baptized, and baptism themselves.

Oh yeah, the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't list immerse as an English word until 1605 at the earliest and that the first recorded usage of immerse to mean "submerge in" was two years after the KJB was translated in 1613.

I will add more thought on this in the next few days if the Lord allows.

Baptism vs Immersion part 3

Let's continue our look at the issue between the wrods baptism and immersion to see if the KJV translators did jelly-fish out, made a new English word and vieled the real meaning of baptizo.

In our last entry we saw where Eddie Lowen in a sermon on the baptism of Jesus accused the KJB translators of making an English word, thus giving us the rendering of the word baptism instead of immersion in the NIV. We saw Bob Ross accuse the KJV translators of jelly-fishing out. yet, both of these men use the word baptism.

West Side Christian Church on their Next Steps page sates:
BAPTISM - The Bible teaches all believers to demonstrate faith in Christ by being baptized into Him. We are often asked, "How?" The New Testament reveals that baptism depicts the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is why we baptize by immersion.

Let's move on to some documented facts that pre-date King James Bible.

The Tyndale's New Testament of 1534 uses baptised.
The Geneva Bible of 1560 and the 1602 revision also uses baptized.
The Bishops Bible of 1568 uses baptized.
The Geneva Bible of 1587 also uses baptized.

For examples from 4 Bibles that pre-date the KJB and at Matthew 3:13 they all used the word baptized. So much for the claim the the KJB translators made a new word.

There are also documented facts that show that Shakespeare in Henry V (1599), Othello (1604) and Romeo and Juliet (1595) used the words baptism and baptiz'd. These works predate the 1611 KJB.

More examples in our next post.
So, if the use of the word baptism is wrong, why is used by West Side?

Baptism vs Immersion part 2

Continuing on from our last entry, let's look at what New Covenant Christian Groups has on their website about baptism. What do they say?

Baptism is one of the key ordinances of the Christian faith signifying spiritual rebirth and committment to Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) and yet some churches not only baptise in the wrong way but others neglect the ordinance altogether.
So, immersion isn't a key ordinance, baptism is. Yet baptism is an incorrect word. Interesting.

Let's move on to one last example.

This comes to us from Eddie Lowen the Lead Minister at West Side Christian Church in Springfield, IL. On 3/25/2001 Mr. Lowen preached a sermon called 'His Amazing Baptism' and after reading Matthew 3:13 made in his sermon the following claim:

And I believe that when the King James Bible was translated in the early 1600's that the translators knew that many of the people who would read that Bible had been baptized by some form other then immersion. So they avoided controversy by not translating the word. They didn't translate it, they just made an English word out of the old Greek Word. Greek word was 'baptizo' they made an English word, 'baptized'. If they had translated it, the verse that we read today would have read; Jesus went from Galilee to be immersed by John.
As I listened to this sermon, I noticed that it wasn't the KJV that Eddie Lowen was preaching out of. As I checked my other translations, it seemed to me that he was preaching from the NIV. this is interesting, since the KJV was translated in 1611 (the translators started in 1604) the NIV was translated in the early 1970's. I am sure the KJB translators had nothing to do with the NIV. The two are also based on different underlying texts. So why would Eddie Lowen blame the KJB translators for how the NIV reads? Was it something more sinister than it appears, or just laziness on his part? You, dear reader, are the judge.

In post 3 we will see if in fact the claims made against the KJB translators in posts 1 and 2 are correct, or if they are less than honest.

Baptism vs Immersion part 1

One of the attacks I have seen against the King James Bible, and its translators, revolves around the word baptism and how it should have been translated as immersed.

One such place where this claim can be made is on a Church of Christ website called The Interactive Bible where in a section on "errors" in the KJV they claim that baptism is a indisputable, universally recognized error in the KJV and say:

immersion, because sprinkling was the mode of baptism in 1611AD, they jelly-fished out and transliterated the Greek "baptizo" but refused to translate it.
Yet I don't think they really feel that the use of baptism is realy an error since on their How to be saved page, for step #5 it reads:

Baptism by immersion for remission of sins
And further down on this page they make the statement:

We are born again at our water Baptism!
So really now, just who is it that has jelly-fished out? The facts show the double standard of the Interactive Bible people proves they are the ones who jelly-fished out.

There is also the website for the New Covenant Christian Groups where they have a page called "King James Only HOKEY" by Bob Ross who is notorious for his attacks on the Bible. In Mr. Ross' article he makes the claim:

More in Part 2.
Yet, as with the example above, the New Covenant Christian Groups website shows the typical double standard since they have a page on water baptism.