Today's New International Version (TNIV)

[MatthewDiscipleOfGod]

translating baptizo "baptize" rather the "immerse", the literal translation.

I agree with you 100%. As Baptists we should support using the word immerse over baptize. Here is a portion from a paper I wrote on baptism.

The Word Baptize

The word Baptize is not really a translation but a transliteration. The Greek work is βαπτίζω
(baptizō). It literally means to immerse. Gary Zeolla, the translator of the Analyttical-Literal
Translation gives us some insight to the reason why many, but not all, English Bibles transliterate
instead of translate the word for Baptize (emphasis mine):

“The lexical data definitely does favor “immerse in,” and in its early
stages, such a translation was used in the Analytical-Literal Translation.
However, I later changed it to “baptize in” for the following reasons:

1. I did not want the translation of one word to hurt the reputation of the
ALT as being a “bias” translation. But I did keep “immerse” as an
alternate translation. It is seen the first time verb baptizo and the noun
batisma occurs in a book. I’ve used the same pattern throughout. When
what I believe is the best translation differs from the traditional translation
and it affects an interpretation in favor of my own theological beliefs, then
I used the traditional translation in the text, and the “new” translation as an
alternate (See for another example John 15:2).”[1]

His list of reasons is long but the first two are mainly the same. It is about the reputation of his
translation. People would claim he had a bias and not benefit from his translation. I find this as a
compromise that should not have taken place. I although will give Zeolla credit for listing the word
immerse along with the word Baptize.

If you believe Zeolla’s fear is unfounded one only needs to look at Baptist history. William Carey,
a famous Baptist missionary to India, ran into resistance. Here is Edward Brand’s account
(emphasis mine):

“When William Carey and his colleagues at Serampore made their Hindu translation of the Bible, they
translated the scripture word "baptizo" by a Hindu word meaning to immerse. Their only alternative was to
leave it untranslated. By and by the pedOBaptist missionaries began to discover that their people OBjected
to sprinkling as a substitute for baptism on the ground that it was not in scripture. But if it was not in
scripture it ought to be! So about 1827 a protest was sent to the British Bible Society against aiding in the
circulation of the Serampore versions. Through some of the Baptist brethren pressure was brought to bear
on Mr. Carey to induce him to transfer the offending word and let it alone, or to translate it by one of the
many words which it did not mean. But he steadily refused to abandon his principle of translating every
word of scripture into the native tongue. He held that the command to baptize was the command to do a
certain act, that the act was defined in the word used in the command, and that his duty as translator was to
make the command as plain in the translation as it was in the original. So in 1833 the British Bible
Society declared that they would no longer aid versions in which "baptize" was translated. They did not
realize that in so far as they succeeded in abolishing the symbol they would abolish that which the symbol
stands for, viz: Death to sin and resurrection to a new life.” [2]

[1] Companion Volume to the Analytical-Literal Translation Third Edition 2007, Gary F. Zeolla
[2] History of the Baptists of Illinois 1930, Edward P. Brand, pg 128-129

Edited October 29, 2010 by MatthewDiscipleOfGod

[anime4christ]

Wow. I suggest you read the book The Men Behind the King James Bible and be humbled by the intellectual genius and spirituality of the men who translated the King James Bible before even considering that you could usurp what God has done already.

Josh, I suggest you trust and believe the version that God has blessed historically with the greatest revivals the world has ever seen. There's no such thing as "the originals", like I said, there's over 5,700 manuscripts that all differ with each other. If you believe God's promise to preserve His word (Ps. 12:6-7), the only place it could be today would be the KJV.

Then again, maybe you just don't believe can God keep his promises?

The KJV is my favorite version and the best version I have read in my opinion, but I don't think that all other versions are bad. The reason is this: the best Russian translation is the RST. It was translated around 200 years ago from the Masoratic text and the Textus Receptus. However, the KJV is much sharper and in general, a much better quality translation than the RST. There are several texts in which the meaning also differ in the RST and the KVJ. In most cases, the KJV gets it much better than the RST, but in a few cases the RST has a better translation. Since the KJV has some differences from the RST, does that really mean that only the KJV is correct and Russians are just out of luck? Does God really not care to preserve His word for the Russians? For this reason, it is really hard to sell me on the KJVO position. I don't believe there is in any language, a Bible which is identical to the KJV. So if the KJVO position was correct, all peoples of the world, except those who speak English are just plain out of luck because they don't have access to God's true word, but only a perversion of it. That is a rather strong claim, and I don't buy it.

[Brother Rick]

So if the KJVO position was correct, all peoples of the world, except those who speak English are just plain out of luck because they don't have access to God's true word, but only a perversion of it. That is a rather strong claim, and I don't buy it.

Someone is always "plain out of luck" when it comes to this.

The Egyptians were out of luck when God's pure word was in the Hebrew Old Testament.

The Hebrews were out of luck when God's pure word was in the Greek New Testament.

If you're NOT KJVO, then you say that everyone except Greek scholars are out of luck; if you're KJVO, then you say that God preserved His word in the language of the world today, as He's already before. Edited October 29, 2010 by Rick Schworer

[trc123]

People need to be fighting over it less and believe it more, practice it more and disseminate it more.

Edited October 29, 2010 by trc123

[Brother Rick]

People need to be fighting over it less and believe it more, practice it more and disseminate it more.

Believe, practice, and disseminate what? The word of God? I agree. The prOBlem is, the leaders in mainstream Christianity elevate an education over the word of God, and in so doing remove it from the hands of the people and place a man and his brain as the new final authority.

The battle for the Bible is arguably the most important one, when one considers the emphasis that God puts on the value of His word and how truely lost we are without it.

Ps. 138:2, "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." Edited October 29, 2010 by Rick Schworer

[Covenanter]

Actually if you buy a Greek Bible you will get a translation - its not the Received Text - which is eclectic anyway.

[Covenanter]

The world needs 3,000 translations.

We, English & US, may take the attitude that all the foreigners only need to learn one foreign language & then they can understand both us & each other, but they do need to read the Bible in their own language.

We have a mixed language group, with English as a 2nd - 4th language. KJV preachers have tried to explain the meaning of the 16th C language, & time is spent with an ad hoc translation - from old English. Attempts to read aloud show limited understanding. I have to teach simply, to allow understanding & translation.

Some have Bibles in their own language, & we have translation. I prepare from the KJV, but teach from the NIV. Switching to the TNIV would be pointless.

There are translation questions with the KJV that are best resolved using the Blue Letter Bible, with Strong's numbers, to see how a word is used in various contexts.

I consider a prayerful reader will gain an understanding & will grow as he searches the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit guides us in our understanding of our Lord & Saviour.

[anime4christ]

Someone is always "plain out of luck" when it comes to this.

The Egyptians were out of luck when God's pure word was in the Hebrew Old Testament.

The Hebrews were out of luck when God's pure word was in the Greek New Testament.

If you're NOT KJVO, then you say that everyone except Greek scholars are out of luck; if you're KJVO, then you say that God preserved His word in the language of the world today, as He's already before.

I'm sorry, but no Bible, including the King James says "thou shalt preserve them in 17th century English and no other language so everyone who really wants to know God's word must understandeth 17th century English". All your arguments are purely logical, emotional, or philosophical, not biblical.

[Brother Rick]

I'm sorry, but no Bible, including the King James says "thou shalt preserve them in 17th century English and no other language so everyone who really wants to know God's word must understandeth 17th century English". All your arguments are purely logical, emotional, or philosophical, not biblical.

Really?

If you want to be biblical, God clearly said his words were pure and that He promised to preserve them - so where are they today? Edited October 29, 2010 by Rick Schworer

[Brother Rick]

I agree with you 100%. As Baptists we should support using the word immerse over baptize. Here is a portion from a paper I wrote on baptism.

You're dead wrong on many accounts.

1. Baptize is an English word today, and though it has its roots in Latin and Greek, it was an English word in 1380 under Wycliff's Bible, 1525 under Tyndale's Bible, 1539 under The Great Bible, and 1560 under the Geneva Bible. It was an English word used in the Council of Trent in 1543, and eventually 1611 under the Authorized King James Version.

2. "Baptize" and "immerse" are NOT the same thing. Immersion is only part of it. To baptize someone in water is to place them into the water as a picture of death and burial of Christ (immerse) and to take them out of the water as a picture of the resurrection (emerge). To falsely translate the word baptizo to "immerse" is to leave out the last one third of what water baptism is supposed to symbolize.

3. How stupid would it be if after 600 years we all decided to yield to the Bible correctors and start calling ourselves "immersionists". First Immersionist Church?!?!?!?!?


I don't have much tolerance for Bible correctors. Who gave you the right and authority to stand in judgment of the word of God? What makes you think you know more or better than God who promised to preserve His words in Ps. 12:6-7?

What makes you think you're smarter than Dr. Lancelot Andrews who was well known for having mastered 15 languages, and once a year around Easter for his vacation would learn an Oriental language - in a month? Or his brother Roger who was also a well known linguist of his time? Or how about William Bedwell who was the first to write a three volume Arabic lexicon? Let's not forget Dr. Richard Brett who was fluent in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean, Arabic, and Ethiopian and wrote several works in Latin, and was a pastor for 43 years. That's only a few out of the 54 men who translated the Bible into the King James Version. The King James translation committee was the most qualified group of men EVER to perform such a task, and God has clearly blessed that book with the greatest revivals the world has ever seen.

But somehow you and all the other pipsqueaks with a lexicon found something they and God missed?????

Ya right.

When someone corrects the word of God they are placing themselves in authority over it. They are placing themselves in authority over something that God placed above His very name in importance.

Ps. 12:6-7, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Ps. 138:2, "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." Edited October 29, 2010 by Rick Schworer

[trc123]

They are all pure words of God. All of them!

[JerryNumbers]

I have no idea, and really don't care, how many versions of the Bible has be written in English. Can you imagine, if there were 100 version, and a church had 100 members, and each one had a different version, and they set down to read from the Bible, how much confusion there would be with everyone reading from a different version..

33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
1 Cor 14:33 (KJV)


Regarding the KJV issue

Most of us who devoutly believe and defend the King James Bible are well aware of how "stupid" "ignorant" "backward" "cultic" "unloving" and "narrow minded" we are IN YOUR EYES.

You do not need to tell us again, we heard you the first time and have been hearing you for hundreds of years. The trouble is that we are a loyal and faithful lot finding it difficult to change our stand and beliefs. Even with all of your books, magazines, articles, and posts, you have not given us any evidence, either material or Spiritual, to show that you offer us anything better than what we already have. In fact there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that you could even offer us anything as good as we have!

Therefore to listen to your insults, blasphemies, and offers, is a repeat of history and a waste of our time but we thank you for your concern (you did come out of true concern didn't you?) but we are really not interested in your offers.

We will however pray that you come to know and believe in something to the point that you are willing to stand as a true defender of the faith in the face of any and all opposition just as most of us do.

We DO however stand with open invitation to all who come sincerely seeking the truth in the matter of the King James Bible versus the Modern Versions. I don't know of a single KJBible defender who will lie to you or twist History or the Scriptures to make a point. If any do then they have other prOBlems that need dealt with before the Lord and have no fellowship with the true defenders of God's Word.

We ask the seeker to look beneath all the hype and the arguments found in every public KJBible forum, for the devil sends such events to keep you discouraged and in the dark. Be not detoured from your mission of truth, for in the end the Spirit of God will testify to the Spirit in you as to what is true and what is not.

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: John 15:26

Written by Jim Oakley and used by permission.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Added 11/05/05

I feel it is time I bring this back up to the top. It seems we go in circles talking about these issues and neither side gets anywhere. It is a waste of my time and yours if you will not listen to answers when they are given. If you do not like our stand that is fine just remember that you are the one who came here to fellowship with us.

[JerryNumbers]

They are all pure words of God. All of them!

Impossible, for things that are different are never the same, besides, many of them contradict one another.

[trc123]

Impossible, for things that are different are never the same, besides, many of them contradict one another.

Wow, you don't believe all of God's words are pure?

[Brother Rick]

Wow, you don't believe all of God's words are pure?

He's talking about different versions.

You don't seriously believe all the different English versions are the word of God do you?