Did God

[atlas]

John,

I agree that you lost shades of meaning of words and tenses and experessions in translating from the Greek or Hebrew to another lanauage. This clearly reveals that the translation is not inerrant but can be totally trustworthy.

So the KJV is not inerrant?

I see now what you really believe. If it is not inerrant how can it be totally trustworthy? If it needs help from the G, H and A how can it be totally trustworthy? It can only be particaly trustworthy. Houston we have a problem.



Atlas

[JAHinton]

The King James translators did not themselves claim inspiration. It seems that many would like to claim it for them. "It was good enough for Paul and Silas so its good enough for me."
The Textus Receptus and the masoretic texts are the preserved Word of God. The inspired Word of God is in the original documents which we do not have. The KJV is the most reliable translation that we have of the preserved text and as such is the preserved Word of God in English. It is however just exactly that, a translation.

Multilingual people are aware that decisions must be made on what word in the context best translates another word. More than one word may be a correct translation. i.e. the little preposition 'en" can be equally correctly translated in or by. Which one fits? That is a translaters decision. Some times it is necessary in the translation of one word to use multiple words. i.e "Pray without ceasing' in the Greek is only one word.

Then there are the transliterated words such as baptize and baptism. Their transliteration allows for the doctrinal errors of sprinkiling, pouring, or slapping with a wet wipe.

If the King James is not a translation of the preserved text but itself the inspired text then God left the world without His Word until 1611.

[Jerry]

Then there are the transliterated words such as baptize and baptism. Their transliteration allows for the doctrinal errors of sprinkiling' date=' pouring, or slapping with a wet wipe.[/quote']

How can you say that? The problem is not with the word - as the word "baptize" means "to immerse" - the problem is people do not know the meaning of the word. Therefore we need to teach them.

[Guest Guest]

as the word "baptize" means "to immerse"

This is only one of the secular meaning of the word. What happens during baptism has nothing to do with how it is actually done, but with the spiritual affect the sacrament expresses. A spiritual baptism is the outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual grace of having ones sins washed a way. It is mystical and unexplainable. It is unchristian for us to tell another believer that his or her baptism isn't legitimate solely because it was different from our own. It's between them and God and if they believe that getting sprinkled "baptized" them, then they are correct.

This whole arguement over how we are supposed to perform the sacraments really saddens me. It's dsiturbing that people think they know for certain something that God did not give us a bright line rule on. It's just like people that are "saved" during some overly charismatic service in which they made some staged ailse walk and repeated a certain groupings of words in the form of prayer, telling people that were "saved" in their car on the way to work that their salvation doesn't count.

[dwayner79]

Did God preserve His word in the form/words He wanted us to have it?
If He did not, why not?

One thing is certain, He absolutely did exactly what He wanted to do.

[JAHinton]

We know that that is what it means for two reasons.

1. We know the meaning of the untranslated Greek word.
2. We know the picture that it portrays of our association with Christ in His death burial and ressurection. Only immersion would do that.

Another example of transliteration that is less known is 1Co 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. . Most do not know its meaning.

[Jerry]

This is only one of the secular meaning of the word. What happens during baptism has nothing to do with how it is actually done' date=' but with the spiritual affect the sacrament expresses.[/quote']

Nothing happens during baptism - it is merely an identification with Christ and a public testimony of our faith in Him. We are not Catholics - we do not believe in sacraments.



Not according to the Bible, they aren't. Do you actually believe the Bible or don't you? Either someone's beliefs and practices line up with the Bible or they don't - if they don't, they are wrong.



You are simply showing ignorance - the Bible teaches who is to be baptized and how they are to be baptized.

[heartstrings]

Mark 1:9
9And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 10 And straightway coming [b]up out of the water[/b], he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

[JAHinton]

You see Jerry this is just what I meant that leaving baptizo and baptizein untranslated opened. I like what Luther did with it he translated the doopen. Which is just exactly what I like to do with day old donuts as depicted in your signature.

[Guest Guest]

[quote="Jerry"]You are simply showing ignorance - the Bible teaches who is to be baptized and how they are to be baptized.[/quote]

No it doesn't.

Jerry, I am well aware that you weren't raised in a courtly manner. You were either never taught manners or have since forgotten them. But just because someone's beliefs don't line up with your skewed and self serving worship of the Bible, doesn't mean you can go around calling people names. At least pretend to be a gentlemen, or don't respond to me at all.

[Pastor Matt]

Do not be a back seat Moderators here.
You are commenting how Jerry acts toward you and then in the same sentence you do the exact same thing to him.

[John81]

You are commenting how Jerry acts toward you and then in the same sentence you do the exact same thing to him.

:thumb

[HappyChristian]

Thank you, BroMatt!

[Guest Guest]

You are commenting how Jerry acts toward you and then in the same sentence you do the exact same thing to him.

Telling someone they need to act courtly is not the same as calling them a name. I never called Mr. Jerry a derogatory name nor did I comment on his intelligence or lack thereof.

[John81]

your skewed and self serving worship of the Bible,

At least pretend to be a gentlemen, or don't respond to me at all.