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.