Definitions, Please

< Dear Rockfort, >

[I'm sure not called "dear" very often]

< Yet to the second question, you said that there is NO Bible that is God inspired, THAT A PERSON CAN HOLD IN THEIR HAND. I hope you understand the severity of that answer. >

I do, and it is very minimal. A book is phycially just bound paper. Read it, throw it, sneeze on it, burn it... it is still material objects and is no animate entity. You would have to put together a Bible with sharper materials than most of them are made of if you actually wanted to stab someone with it-- even though *The Word* is sharper than any 2-edged sword. So is The Word a physical book or not?

< If there is no inspired word of God that anyone can hold in their hand, then you are basically left with two outcomes:
1) that we can not be held accountable by God to what His word has instructed us to do, or not to do…according to His laws >

We sure are (Romans 2:15).

2) God help us all at the judgment…it will be every man for himself, to see "who got it right" as far as God is concerned. If we have no written word of God, that is God inspired, WE HAVE NO AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE, only man's opinions. >

Then don't we wish we were all illiterate and could not possibly be held accountable?

< How do people of this day know what God is requiring of them? >

I can know by opening my NAS to Roamns 10:9 and understand that He requires belief in the Lord Jesus and the proclamation of such...is that, or is it not, what God requires? Yes or No--- Is He gonna throw a person into hell for reading that verse and carrying it out from a non-KJV?

< You must believe in modern day prophets. >

I do not, and I have never met one.

< I am not going to spend much more time in responding to a reply from someone who does not believe the Bible is the God inspired, word of God. >

Either you are no longer addressing me, or you did not read my answer to that precise question.

< You say you believe in that, yet you can't touch it >

That's right-- what about it?

< Of course I know that there WERE original manuscripts…did you think that I thought the apostle Paul wrote a letter without writing the letter? >

Evidently you thnk he wrote letters which are now ficitious.

< And finally, that the Bible is God's word settled in heaven. If this is where the Bible is…can someone please ask God to send it down here…we really need it. >

I cited the verse which says His Word is settled in heaven. Now, if you can, YOU show ME the verse which says His Word is setled on earth.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
In theory, yes. In practice, no. The MT, as published by Hodges and Farstad (Thomas Nelson 1982), often contains readings that are accounted for in less than 15% of the MSS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't that because of the "stemmatics" scheme that they insist on slavishly following, which ends up painting them into corners, and comfounding the so-called "majority" premise?

Do you think, that Robinison and Pierpont have overcome the quandries Hodge's and Farstad created for themselves? Or have you not had the chance to compare the two?

THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK ACCORDING TO THE BYZANTINE / MAJORITY TEXTFORM by Maurice A. Robinson (Editor) William G. Pierpont (Editor)

cordially,

CNM

BTW,

ORDER Here:

Greek New Testament according to the Byzantine Textform by Maurice A. Robinson (Editor) William G. Pierpont (Editor)

[ July 05, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
1 John 5:7-8 is an excellent of this. It is a reading in the vast minority, yet it must be included or the grammar of the passage is so damaged that it makes God appear to be ignorant of simple rules of Greek grammar.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have been trying to verify this discrepancy that you mentioned in a previous post. I have the Online Bible 8.01 which has the TR, MT, and WH texts. Can you help me find this gender disagreement that you are referring to? These texts do not seem to have it.

I am a novice without formal training in Greek. I am learning what I can by using lexicons and Vine's study guide. Please try not to be too technical.

Most scholars seem to be against the authenticity of this passage but a majority ruling has never been an adequate test for truth. However, the fact that such a plain declaration does not appear elsewhere in the Bible weighs against the inclusion as well. I don't think that the deity of Christ nor the doctrine of the Trinity hinge on this one verse but it would be valuable if it could be proven authentic.

 

Rockfort,

&lt; You say you believe in that, yet you can't touch it &gt;

That's right-- what about it?

&lt; Of course I know that there WERE original manuscripts…did you think that I thought the apostle Paul wrote a letter without writing the letter? &gt;

Evidently you thnk he wrote letters which are now ficitious.

I believe I see where you are coming from now Rockfort. You believe that the KJV, the NASB, the NIV, the LB, the NLT, and any other version is the perfect, inerrant, infallible word of God.

So let me make a point, if I may. If I wrote Rom 10:9 on a bathroom wall ( like someone wrote earlier), that is the word of God…even though its on a bathroom wall. However, if I want to read the word of God, I'm not going to the bathroom to get it.

Just because these versions "contain" the word of God, does not mean that they are in themselves THE PERFECT WORD OF GOD, IN WRITTEN SCRIPTURES, IN ITS ENTIRITY. I obviously believe that when the Lord said,
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matt 24:35
that He meant what He said.

If the word of God, which you have agreed with, is perfect, infallible, and inerrant…and there are 20 different English versions of it down here (on earth), you are left with two possibilities:

1. None of them are the perfect word of God

2. Only one of them is perfect, because if they all differ in what verses they contain…and some words are changed which changes the meaning of what was said…then one has to be right…the others have to be wrong.

From what you have written, my guess is you will pick #1…yet tell people that the NASB is the word of God. Quite confusing.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Quite confusing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is only confusing if you fail to understand the nature of translation. It is the transfer of a message from the signs and symbols of one language to the signs and symbols of another.

Believe me, in reality it is not confusing. The confusion only comes in when people are not properly taught the doctrine and implication of bibliology. I preach from the NASB, have people who carry the KJV and the NIV. In my Adult Bible Fellowship class, I routinely ask what other versions read and I quote them frequently from the pulpit. We have no issues over the "perfect Word of God" because we understand that there are various ways to accurately translate any given original language phrase.

 

Reference Quite Confusing Reply

I'm not confused on this subject...I have studied it quite thoroughly. The problem here is not just translating a word from Greek to English...I wish it were that simple.

One very obvious problem is hundred of deleted or altered verses. Hundreds. If the word of God is perfect, we would assume that its not "missing something" that man has chosen to take out.

In studying manuscript evidence, it is quite obvious that hundreds of verses are taken out of the NIV, NASB, NLT, and such. The people who usually attack the KJV, is on "old English" and the like.

There has never been one proven error in the KJV, and for that reason, it should be the "preferred" Bible of use. I'm not saying the NASB or the NIV do not contain the word of God...they do. However, they are not the complete, perfect word of God. That is what I want.

 

I think the more obvious problem is the hundreds of added or altered verses in the KJV. Why do you want to use a Bible that man has so gratuitously added to over the years? Was the Word of God so deficient as to necessitate the addition of thousands and thousands of words by scribes over the generations of textual transmission? I hardly think so. I think we should stick with the unadulterated Word of God and leave the added words of man to the Anglican followers who are not satisfied with what God gave us.

 

Man of Sword posted the following questions:

1. Do you believe that the Bible is God inspired?

Yes.

2. If you answered "yes" to #1, then is it a Bible you can actually hold? In other words, it is not some fictious "original manuscripts" that no one has touched in almost 2,000 years.

This is a loaded question, because it forces me to accept a fallacious assumption - namely, that because no one has touched the autographs in ~2000 years, they are fictitious.

But to answer the first part of the question without reference to the false assumption, the answer is yes, the Bible is a tangible object that I can hold.

Of course, the Bible can also exist in intangible forms: oral delivery or installation on a computer hard disk, for example, are both intangible.

3. If you do believe that you can hold this God inspired word, is it written in English or Greek, or both, or in any other language?

The Word of God exists in any language to which it has already been translated, and any future translations to be made would also be the Word of God.

4. If you believe that the "God inspired scriptures" are only in the "original Greek" . . .

I do not believe this.

5. Let's soul search on this question: What is the real motivation behind yours and everyone else's attacks on the KJV, and the people who defend it?

This is a loaded question, which assumes that opposing KJV-onlyism is the same as opposing the KJV itself. To give an answer, I have to accept your assumption that I am "attacking" the KJV, which I am not. I am not opposed to the KJV, only a particular set of views held by some people about the KJV.

6. Why do you suppose that one of the greatest "revival" times in church history happened from about 1600 - 1900,

Because revival followed Reformation.

 

Man of Sword posted a couple more loaded questions:

1. We all believe that the "original manuscripts" are God inspired, infallible, inerrant. We believe that they are from the mouth of God, if you will.

Who's this "we" you're talking about? "We" believe no such thing, because you believe the "original manuscripts" are fictitious. As you said in your previous batch of questions:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. If you answered "yes" to #1, then is it a Bible you can actually hold? In other words, it is not some fictious [sic] "original manuscripts" that no one has touched in almost 2,000 years. (emphasis added)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fictitious adj. 1. Of, relating to, or characterized by fiction; imaginary. 2. (a) Accepted or assumed for the sake of convention: a fictitious belief. (b) Adopted or assumed in order to deceive: a fictitious name. 3. Not genuinely believed or felt; sham: greeted me with a fictitious enthusiasm. (AHD, 4th ed.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why did God inspire the original documents, yet HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESERVING WHAT HE WROTE?

I have to assume both premises of your question are true before I can assign a reason. I do not believe both premises are true.

You are quickly proving yourself the master of the loaded question here.

Just answer the question plainly.

Try asking some real questions.

[ July 05, 2001: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Robert G. Gromacki, in hsi excellent little bookelt TRANSLATIONS ON TRIAL:Is Your Bible the Word of God?, says this:

In the hymn printed above, Holy Bible, Book Divine, one word is repeated over
and over. That word is mine. Are you personally glad that you have a Bible?
You should be. Millions of people throughout the world today cannot sing the truth
of this beautiful hymn. They do not own a Bible. They have never seen a copy of the
Scriptures. In fact, they probably don’t even know that the written Word of God exists. It may even be that the Bible has not been translated into their native tongue.
We believers in the English-speaking world should be extremely grateful because
we have the Word of God printed in our own native language. Through publishers and
bookstores, we have unlimited access to the Bible. We can buy it; we can give it to our
loved ones. In many ways we have become spoiled. The Bible has been in our language
for more than 500 years now. We have a heritage of Bible translations and an abundance of versions and study helps. Millions upon millions of English Bibles have been printed and distributed. Most of us own several personal copies. And yet, we’re not thankful to God for what we possess. Many fail to read it. Others criticize it. Most disobey it. The majority treat it like any other piece of literature. It is no longer a precious treasure. What a shame!

We need a fresh and proper understanding of the very nature of the Scriptures....

The Bible is inspired, technically speaking, in only the original writings that the
Spirit-directed authors wrote. These original documents are known today as the
“autographa,” meaning “the writings themselves.” Thus, the original writing of Romans was technically inspired or breathed out by God, through His selected, authoritative apostle, Paul. This claim would apply equally to all 66 books produced by 40 men who were gifted and authenticated by God.

At the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy held in October 1978, more than
250 scholars signed a document presenting the evangelical position on the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures. Informed ministers and laymen throughout the evangelical, fundamentalist world have wholeheartedly supported the principles of this statement of faith, containing Nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial. Article X says: “We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in
the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.”

So the original documents of the 66 books of the Bible were actually and technically
inspired. The unique ministry of the Holy Spirit in divine revelation, illumination and
inspiration consequently was limited to the initial production of the written Word of God.

But we can also say that Spanish, French and Bengali translations are the Word of
God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original writings. Likewise, the King James Version (KJV), the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and other English translations are practically and virtually inspired to the extent that they also faithfully represent the autographa.
This distinction between the original writings and later copies, versions and
translations must be understood. There is much confusion today over the abundance of
English translations, their respective worth and their fidelity to the biblical originals.

Evangelical Christianity, unfortunately, has become divided over the issue of English
translations and the Hebrew-Greek texts upon which they are based. Are English translations, such as the KJV, NIV and NASB, the inspired, written Word of God? Or is there only one that qualifies? Or do none of them meet the proper prerequisites? In a technical sense, no translation is inspired. In a practical, virtual sense, they are all inspired to that extent whereby they correspond to the content of the original
writings.

The Bible is inerrant and infallible in all matters which it addresses. The Bible is
inspired truth, not only in issues of doctrinal faith and moral living, but also in areas of history, geography and science.
The Evangelical Theological Society is an organization whose members subscribe
annually to a basic doctrinal statement: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and is therefore inerrant in the autographa.”

Unfortunately, a growing number of professing evangelicals cannot onscientiously
sign that statement. They embrace a position of partial or limited inerrancy. They believe
the Bible is inerrant and infallible on matters of faith and practice, but that, even in the original writings, it contained historical, chronological and geographical errors.

The issue of the complete inerrancy and infallibility of the total original Scriptures is the real doctrinal battleground today. Those who embrace this foundational doctrine should unite in its defense against the attacks made by both liberals and some evangelicals.
A person who uses the KJV should be committed to the full inerrancy of the
Scriptures. And so should those who use the NIV or the NASB. Charges of heresy should
be hurled at those who deny inerrancy, not at those who believe in it but use a different English version.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
Matt 24:35
that He meant what He said.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes He did and it has nothing to do with the point you are trying to prove. You have used this passage out of context

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If the word of God, which you have agreed with, is perfect, infallible, and inerrant…and there are 20 different English versions of it down here (on earth), you are left with two possibilities:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. There is at least one more possibility...the truth: God inspired the very words of the original writings so that they perfectly conveyed His WORD(His expressed will) and that His WORD has been transmitted to us through faithful manuscripts and translations in such a way that God's infallible, inerrant WORD can be known even though we cannot declare with absolute certainty what every original word was.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. None of them are the perfect word of God

2. Only one of them is perfect, because if they all differ in what verses they contain…and some words are changed which changes the meaning of what was said…then one has to be right…the others have to be wrong.

From what you have written, my guess is you will pick #1…yet tell people that the NASB is the word of God. Quite confusing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You have falsely limited the alternatives to those that agree with your predetermined conclusions.

If you insist that only the 'words of God' = the 'Word of God' then how can you escape the obvious problem? The KJV is written in a language which didn't even exist when the originals were given. Even assuming the most radical of KJVO idea, that the KJV was re-inspired, you still have a problem because you say that only one can be perfect.

"I'm not confused on this subject...I have studied it quite thoroughly. The problem here is not just translating a word from Greek to English...I wish it were that simple." I will re-state my most basic objections to your stated opinions: (1) You presume upon God by insisting that He preserve His word in a way that He did not promise and that does not agree with the factual evidence, (2) you define the Word of God as a finite set of human words rather than God's expressed revelation of Himself, and (3) you start your reasoning process from what you feel/desire to be true develop a deeply held, sincere (although incorrect) faith, then manipulate facts to agree with your predetermined conclusion.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
I believe I see where you are coming from now Rockfort. You believe that the KJV, the NASB, the NIV, the LB, the NLT, and any other version is the perfect, inerrant, infallible word of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope. None of them are "perfect, enerrant, infallible." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So let me make a point, if I may. If I wrote Rom 10:9 on a bathroom wall ( like someone wrote earlier), that is the word of God…even though its on a bathroom wall. However, if I want to read the word of God, I'm not going to the bathroom to get it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's a big YEEHAW, isn't it? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just because these versions "contain" the word of God, does not mean that they are in themselves THE PERFECT WORD OF GOD, IN WRITTEN SCRIPTURES, IN ITS ENTIRITY.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There is none *in its entirity*. John said in the final verse of his gospel that the world can not contain the books it would require to record all the things Jesus did. So fie upon the idea that ANY version/translation is the Word in its entirity. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I obviously believe that when the Lord said, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matt 24:35that He meant what He said.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is not obvious what anyone who posts on message boards believes. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, will these millions of physical bindings of paper 'pass away' when heaven and earth pass away, or, for the words jof ZJesus to remain forever, must these papers bindings remain? Remember, we brought *nothing* into this world and we can take nothing out of it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If the word of God, which you have agreed with, is perfect, infallible, and inerrant…and there are 20 different English versions of it down here (on earth), you are left with two possibilities:

1. None of them are the perfect word of God

2. Only one of them is perfect, because if they all differ in what verses they contain … and some words are changed which changes the meaning of what was said…then one has to be right … the others have to be wrong.

From what you have written, my guess is you will pick #1…yet tell people that the NASB is the word of God. Quite confusing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do some thinking. I cited a truth, referring to the NAS as a written source of that truth. Do I claim the NAS is THE Word of God? No. The best any translation can do is to contain the truth.

Now, you seem to be a Q & A guy. Answer these Q's:

If you were sentenced to solitary confinement (justly or unjustly) and the one book in your cell was a NAS, would you read it, ignore it, destroy it, or discard it?

Do you believe an Anglican Bible must be more accurate than a Baptist Bible?

Do you believe God wants English speakers to identify male human beings as the ones who "pisseth against the wall," in the terminology of I Samuel 25:22 (et al), KJV?

Do you believe the name of God should be inserted into a translation in spots where no Greek manuscripts contain it?

Does scripture say there will be one-- and only one-- Word of God for the English or any language?

[ July 05, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
Do some thinking. I cited a truth, referring to the NAS as a written source of that truth. Do I claim the NAS is THE Word of God? No. The best any translation can do is to contain the truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've gotta disagree with you here Rockfort.

As the The Chicago Statement On Biblical Inerrancy, Part II, Article X states:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
Do you believe God wants English speakers to identify male human beings as the ones who "pisseth against the wall," in the terminology of I Samuel 25:22 (et al), KJV?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, lets see. The Hebrew reads shathan a hiphil participle, meaning to urinate or one who urinates, and qiyr mean wall. Uh, the English reads just as the Hebrew does! God must have gotten confused with He inspired 1 Samuel 25!

[ July 05, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
One very obvious problem is hundred of deleted or altered verses. Hundreds. If the word of God is perfect, we would assume that its not "missing something" that man has chosen to take out.

In studying manuscript evidence, it is quite obvious that hundreds of verses are taken out of the NIV, NASB, NLT, and such.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we go again.

Deleted from what? Altered from what? Taken out from what? The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts?

Again I say, you "King James Bible" guys just don't get it. The KJV is a translated English version of the Bible. It is not THE Bible, from which all OTHER translations are made.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
There has never been one proven error in the KJV<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shucks, I can think of a couple offhand:

(1) "candlestick"
There were no candlesticks in biblical times. The proper English translation is "lampstand" (oil lamp).

(2) "cherubims"
This is an improper pluralization of the word "cherubim", which itself is the plural of "cherub".

Need more? Of course, what you really meant was there has "never been one proven error in the KJV" that you are willing to accept.

Am I right?

TLB

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
(1) "candlestick"
There were no candlesticks in biblical times. The proper English translation is "lampstand" (oil lamp).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Candlestick, "formerly a general name including chandeliers, simple, or branched, upright or pendent, branches, lusters, etc." Oxford English Dictionary. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(2) "cherubims"
This is an improper pluralization of the word "cherubim", which itself is the plural of "cherub".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cherub, cherubim, and cherubims are not Hebrew words, they are English words. The Hebrew words are ker-oob' and ker-oobim. The plural of the English Cherubim is Cherubims, just as baptism is an English word, not a Greek word, and the plural is baptisms.

If that is the best you caon do in pointing out errors in the KJV maybe you better just retire now.

 

Isn't the KJV's "candlestick" from the Hebrew "Menorah" better translated as "lampstand"? I know that the Jewish Menorah had oil in it (the bowls), not wax as candles. As far as baptism is concerned, I thought that "baptize" is a transliteration from the Greek, and in English wouldn't it mean to dip or immerse? Just asking!

 

&gt;&gt;There has never been one proven error in the KJV&gt;&gt;

There are several "errors" in translation, one of which...

KJV Luke 20:16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.

"God forbid" is NOT what they said in the koine. They said "MA GENOITO".
Which translated correctly (as do many MVs)
means "may it never be". I know that at least one sincere soul tried to defend this reading when this error in translation came up earlier, but no matter what you do to "may it never be" it is not and cannot be "God forbid" (unless of course one uses and approves of dynamic equivelance).

HankD

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Well, lets see. The Hebrew reads shathan a hiphil participle, meaning to urinate or one who urinates, and qiyr mean wall. Uh, the English reads just as the Hebrew does! God must have gotten confused with He inspired 1 Samuel 25!

[ July 05, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was not and is not a question as to "pisseth against the wall" being an accurate translation. The question was that-- if in the view of KJVO's that particular translation is *exactly* the way God wants 'His Word' in English presented-- is that how THEY present it? Or, do they change the "perfect, infallible" word in any manner anywhere under any circumstances? You, Cassidy, have already said that you change the wording here. Thus, it is not "perfect; infallible" as it is stated (IYO), and consequently satanic to state that phrase otherwise. I am just asking that question of others who believe changing the wordilng of the KJV is throwing aside the 'true Word of God.'

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RevKevin77:
Isn't the KJV's "candlestick" from the Hebrew "Menorah" better translated as "lampstand"? I know that the Jewish Menorah had oil in it (the bowls), not wax as candles. As far as baptism is concerned, I thought that "baptize" is a transliteration from the Greek, and in English wouldn't it mean to dip or immerse? Just asking! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Hebrew word translated "candlestick(s)" in the KJV is "menoraw'" from "maw-nore'" meaning a beam and "neer" meaning to glisten. Literally it is a "glistening beam." But my point was, the word "candlestick" meant the same thing in 1611.

And "baptize" did not come into the English language due to a transliteration of the Greek "baptidzo" in 1611 or at any other time. It comes from the French "baptiste" and arrived in English in 1066 at the time of the Norman conquest under William the Conqueror. It entered French from the Latin several centuries earlier, and the Latin from Greek still more centuries earlier. It was a common English word in use for over 500 years when the KJV was translated.