Featured For Those Who Love The KJV

As I understand it the Greek word "baptizo" literally means immerse. However, since the Anglican church of the day practiced sprinkling, instead of translating baptizo into immerse, they invented a new English word, "baptize" which was neutral as to immersion, sprinkling or pouring. Thus, they were in fact dishonest about the matter.

 

They also believed in the Episcopal model of church govenment and they did not believe in a sepatation of church/state. The monarch of England was/is the head of the church. The KJV was comissioned by the King of England, not as far as we know the Spirit of God working in the hearts of men to produce the ultimate English translation of the Hebrew/Greek Scriptures. The 1611 work itself has an actual writen dedication to the King of England!

And how do you know this? Does the historical record prove this? Does 400 years scholarship prove your point? If yes then show us.

 

Gregory Perry Sr:

So do I. That's why I don't limit myself to just one translation of it.

 

They took a Greek word meaning 'immerse' and instead of translating it into English, i.e. 'immerse', they coined a totally new word 'baptize' that does not indicate the methodology of immersion. That is dishonest, IMO.

 

Who is "they"?

 

The KJV translators. IIRC, the Geneva Bible sometimes also used the word baptize so perhaps the KJV translators did not coin a 'new' word, but nevertheless they did not honestly translate it 'dip' or 'immerse'.

 

Tyndale, Wycliffe, and Bishops also have "baptize". You can't put that on the KJV translators. The word had been used long before 1611. Not to mention, ALL MV's use the word.

 

The word wasn't in common usage in 1611. The KJV translators still had a choice, either 'baptize' or 'immerse'.

I guess the real question is this: "Does 'baptizo' mean immerse? If it does then Tyndale, Wycliffe, Bishop's, Geneva and finally the KJV mis-translated it.

The MV's use baptize because it is a commonly used word, esp. since 1611, which has come to mean something other than 'immerse'.

 

with water or in water?

The KJV translators' doctrinal views did influence their translation work in some verses that relate to church government views.

Among those words called "ecclesiastical words" which King James forbade to be translated into English, changed, or updated, the words "baptism" and "baptize" could perhaps be included. In fact, the preface to the 1611 KJV clearly indicated that “baptism” was considered to be one of the “old ecclesiastical words“ that the translators were ordered to keep. John T. Christian affirmed “that ‘baptize’ was included among the ecclesiastical words is evident from the preface that King James’ translators put to their Bible” (Close Communion, p. 164). Jack Lewis wrote: “The translators in their ‘Preface to the Reader,‘ confess that there a polemic interest in retaining certain ecclesiastical words like ‘baptism’ and ‘church’” (English Bible, p. 63).

As far as baptism, the KJV is not as clear as you suggest since the KJV's rendering "baptize with water" could be understood to imply or permit sprinkling or pouring.

S. E. Anderson observed: "The KJV of Matthew 3:11 reads, "I baptize you with water," but the Greek has it, "I immerse you in water" (Biblical Baptist Beliefs, p. 17). Henry Burrage also noted: "In those passages in our English version [KJV] where we find the words 'with water,' as in Matt. 3:11, 'I indeed baptize you with water,' the Greek has 'in water'" (Jenkens, Baptist Doctrines, p. 153).

Concerning this verse in his commentary on Matthew, John Broadus has this comment: “With--rather, in water is the proper rendering of the preposition and case here employed” (p. 48). Concerning this verse in the KJV, John Christian noted: “You must remember this is the Episcopalian translation of King James. The original Greek has, they shall be baptized ‘in water’” (Immersion, p. 51). He concluded: “The literal meaning of the passage is in water and not with water” (p. 52). John R. Rice pointed out that "the word translated with in the above verse is usually translated in" (Bible Baptism, p. 41).

Richard Pengilly asserted: “’IN water’; not with water,‘ as it is rendered in the English authorized version” (Scripture Guide, p. 14). Pengilly asked: “Would it not be absurd to render the passage [Matt. 3:6] ‘John baptized with the Jordan‘”? (p. 15). Augustus Strong maintained that at texts such as Matthew 3:11 the “en is to be taken, not instrumentally, but as indicating the element in which the immersion takes place” (Systematic Theology, p. 935). Thomas J. Conant contended that those texts [Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, John 1:26, 31, 33] with the preposition in denote “locality, or the element in or within which the act is performed” (Meaning, p. 100). Hugh Jones claimed that “the ambiguity in the authorized translation of the Bible sometimes confuses the reader in regard to the acts of baptism” (Act, pp. 1-2). He asserted that “John baptized not ‘with’ but ‘in’ water (p. 30).

Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, and Bishops' Bibles have "in water" at Matthew 3:11. Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, and Whittingham's have "in water" at John 1:33. The 1842 revision began Matthew 3:11 as follows: “I indeed immerse you in water.”

Concerning Mark 1:8, Thomas Patience or Patient in 1654 maintained that the rendering with water “suits with sprinkling“ (Doctrine of Baptism, p. 9). Charles Stovel wrote: “The expression, ‘I baptized you in water,‘ implies that John moved the persons when he baptized them; but the expression, ‘I baptized you with water,‘ as plainly implies that in the act of baptism the water was moved” (Christian Discipleship, p. 492). Stovel added: “thereby the way is prepared for affirming that we may baptize with water, by sprinkling” (Ibid.). Does the translation of this preposition as “with” open the door to claiming that sprinkling is an acceptable mode of baptism? Patience wrote: “It may be as well rendered, I baptize you in water, and he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.” Patience wrote: “It may as well be rendered, I baptize you, or dip you into water, as it is rendered, they were casting a net into the sea, Mark 1:16, for which the words are affirmed to be the same, and it would be too improper a speech to say, John did baptize with the wilderness [1:4], and they were casting a net with the sea [1:16]” (Doctrine, p. 9).

In his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Peter Ruckman cited Bruce Lackey as claiming that Mark 1:8 should be translated “‘baptized IN’ rather than ‘with’” (p. 412). Concerning Mark 1:9-11, John Christian contended that “This passage says in the original that he was baptized into the Jordan” (Immersion, p. 56). He maintained that the best thing “to do is to take this passage as it reads, Jesus was immersed into the river of Jordan” (p. 59). Stovel asserted that there is “a distinct difference in the meaning of the three words, in, with, and into, which our [KJV] translators have concealed by changing the one for the other, in order to make the English version fit the borrowed word baptize” (Christian Discipleship, p. 503).

 

The KJV translators were under orders to keep or use the renderings "baptize" and "baptism."

The preface to the 1611 KJV clearly indicated that “baptism” was considered to be one of the “old ecclesiastical words“ that the translators were ordered to keep. John T. Christian affirmed “that ‘baptize’ was included among the ecclesiastical words is evident from the preface that King James’ translators put to their Bible” (Close Communion, p. 164).

Tyndale's and Matthew's Bibles have "christen" at 1 Corinthians 1:14. Wycliffe's Bible also used "christen" for "baptize" in some places.

What does the fact that a couple of the pre-1611 English Bibles used "christen" at least one time to mean the same thing or as a synonym for "baptize" suggest about the meaning of baptize in that day?

 

didn't King james also want to keep the calvinistic notes out of margins, and to keep Kingly authority in the scriptures in the KJV?

 

I'm confused. If the word "baptize" was an incorrect translation, and if the KJV translators were under orders to keep it, who's orders are the MV's under? They have all kept it too. And therefore the MV translators have also mistranslated the word.

What exactly is your point?

 

The point is that the KJV translators were given directives to use certain words and not others when they translated the Bible.

 

Not really a translation of the term. It's a transliteration.

Why the "if"? They had many orders from the King including keeping marginal notes to a minimum. Though they did include marginal notes including ones about textual variants.

 

Point was that they had an agenda to make sure their translation met approval, so was not totally accurate to original texts, as had to do some "editoralizing" in the final product!