The proper word to translate baptism into English should have been immersion, but since they liked to dip/sprinkle, got baptise instead?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
many varying KJV's; Which KJV?
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
The proper word to translate baptism into English should have been immersion, but since they liked to dip/sprinkle, got baptise instead?
Agreed with one other fact:
IMO the ASV is a better translational choice of the following passage.
KJV Mark 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
ASV Mark 1:8 I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.
The literal Greek is en hudati and en pneumati hagio
HankD
Could that be their bias showing here in the KJV regarding mode of baptism?
"in" water or "with" water
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). Concerning this verse in his commentary on Matthew, Charles Spurgeon wrote: “John could plunge the penitent into water; but a greater than he must baptize men into the Holy Ghost and into fire” (Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 12).
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).
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). Concerning this verse in his commentary on Matthew, Charles Spurgeon wrote: “John could plunge the penitent into water; but a greater than he must baptize men into the Holy Ghost and into fire” (Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 12).
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).
Would you regard this being an error/mistake in translation?
The Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones from "Great Doctrines Of the Bible." ;
"The first thing we must do, in view of all that we have seen together, is agree to grasp the Bible as our full and final authority in all matters of revelation. Having seen that we cannot get anywhere without the Bible, then the obvious thing to do is to say, 'Very well, I accept the Bible. I don't know anything apart from it. I have no knowledge of God apart from what the Bible tells me. I may theorize, and other people may do the same thing, but I really do not know anything apart from what I find in this book.' So the first decision we must make is that we are going to be, as John Wesley put it, men and women 'of one book'. Here is my only source, my only authority.
But I want to underline this and even emphasise it still further. I must submit myself entirely to the Bible, and that will mean certain things. First, I start by telling myself that when I come to read the Bible and its doctrines, I am entering into a realm that is beyond the reach of my understanding. By definition, I shall be dealing with things that are beyond my power to grasp. The very idea of revelation , in and of itself, I suggest to you, must carry that implication. We are going to try and know God and study the doctrines concerning Him, and it must be the case that these truths are beyond our understanding. If I could understand God, I would be equal with Him. If my mind were able to apprehend and to span the truth about God then it would mean that my mind is equal to the mind of God, and that, of course, is altogether wrong.
For instance, in our next lecture we hope to be dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity. Now there by definition is a doctrine that no one can possibly understand, but let us agree to say that before we come to the doctrine. Let nobody think, however, that this means committing intellectual suicide when we take up the Bible. It simply means that we recognize that there is a limit to reason. We agree with the great French mathematician and philosopher, Pascal, that the supreme achievement of reason is to teach there there is an end and limit to reason. Our reason takes us so far and then we enter into the realm of revelation, where God is graciously pleased to manifest Himself to us.
But now I am anxious to emphasise the second point. It means that we must accept truths where we cannot understand them and fully explain them. Not only must we agree that we cannot, of necessity, understand everything, but also, when we come up against particular doctrines and truths, we must accept them if they are in he Bible, irrespective of the fact that we can or cannot understand them. Now I rather like to think of faith in that way. I am not sure but that the best definition of faith we can ever arrive at is this: faith means that men and women decide quite deliberately to be content only with what they have in the Bible, and that the stop asking questions."
"The first thing we must do, in view of all that we have seen together, is agree to grasp the Bible as our full and final authority in all matters of revelation. Having seen that we cannot get anywhere without the Bible, then the obvious thing to do is to say, 'Very well, I accept the Bible. I don't know anything apart from it. I have no knowledge of God apart from what the Bible tells me. I may theorize, and other people may do the same thing, but I really do not know anything apart from what I find in this book.' So the first decision we must make is that we are going to be, as John Wesley put it, men and women 'of one book'. Here is my only source, my only authority.
But I want to underline this and even emphasise it still further. I must submit myself entirely to the Bible, and that will mean certain things. First, I start by telling myself that when I come to read the Bible and its doctrines, I am entering into a realm that is beyond the reach of my understanding. By definition, I shall be dealing with things that are beyond my power to grasp. The very idea of revelation , in and of itself, I suggest to you, must carry that implication. We are going to try and know God and study the doctrines concerning Him, and it must be the case that these truths are beyond our understanding. If I could understand God, I would be equal with Him. If my mind were able to apprehend and to span the truth about God then it would mean that my mind is equal to the mind of God, and that, of course, is altogether wrong.
For instance, in our next lecture we hope to be dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity. Now there by definition is a doctrine that no one can possibly understand, but let us agree to say that before we come to the doctrine. Let nobody think, however, that this means committing intellectual suicide when we take up the Bible. It simply means that we recognize that there is a limit to reason. We agree with the great French mathematician and philosopher, Pascal, that the supreme achievement of reason is to teach there there is an end and limit to reason. Our reason takes us so far and then we enter into the realm of revelation, where God is graciously pleased to manifest Himself to us.
But now I am anxious to emphasise the second point. It means that we must accept truths where we cannot understand them and fully explain them. Not only must we agree that we cannot, of necessity, understand everything, but also, when we come up against particular doctrines and truths, we must accept them if they are in he Bible, irrespective of the fact that we can or cannot understand them. Now I rather like to think of faith in that way. I am not sure but that the best definition of faith we can ever arrive at is this: faith means that men and women decide quite deliberately to be content only with what they have in the Bible, and that the stop asking questions."