What About Our 'own' Convictions?

153 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

LindaR,

 

 well the quote I saw was this (I don't see standings post my ignore list is active for them.

 

Standing Firm In Christ, on 27 Jun 2014 - 2:15 PM, said:snapback.png

"Baptizing is not pouring out.  It is immersion.  Pouring out is translated from the Greek "excheo".  Ekcheo is never used in regards to water baptism in the original autographs."

 

So the thought went because standing is stating emphatically that the original autographs say something.  So the Idea is that they had an original autograph and I wanted to see it.  they would be the first to have one seeing not even the RC has any original autographs, no university, no private collector, no museum has even a piece of an Original Autograph.

 

But once again they is not being forthcoming, seeing there are no original autographs available for us to see, all we have are copies and we can't even verify their accuracy because we have no Original Autographs to compare them with. 

 

How can a person state with full assurance that the Original Autographs say something when in fact they have never seen and original autograph in their life.  It is a false claim.

 

Not only that again he goes to the Greek takes out one word from the context, takes a Greek meaning and attaches it to the English, then forces that meaning back into the English Text as create a pretextual explaination.  But if one compares English scripture with English scripture they would understand that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost (identified as such by Paul), and  Peter spoke of as being poured out on the Gentiles. 

 

They can't prove anything from English, they always have to go to unreliable Greek sources which are actually classical Greek definition.  this is one of the reasons I have them on my ignore list they are being disingenuous at best.
 

 

 

Edited by AVBibleBeliever
Covenanter likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My interlinear is not unreliable.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How can a person state with full assurance that the Original Autographs say something when in fact they have never seen and original autograph in their life.  It is a false claim.

 

Not only that again he goes to the Greek takes out one word from the context, takes a Greek meaning and attaches it to the English, then forces that meaning back into the English Text as create a pretextual explaination.  But if one compares English scripture with English scripture they would understand that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost (identified as such by Paul), and  Peter spoke of as being poured out on the Gentiles. 

 

They can't prove anything from English, they always have to go to unreliable Greek sources which are actually classical Greek definition.  this is one of the reasons I have them on my ignore list they are being disingenuous at best

 

AVBibleBeliever,

 

Do you not believe that God preserved His Word in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic?

No Nicolaitans likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Do any of the King James translator's original copies still exist today? I don't mean a printed Bible from 1611...do any of the ACTUAL copies exist that the translators used to ACTUALLY pen the King James?

 

The answer is no. So those who think it is error to refer to Greek and Hebrew...because we don't have the original manuscripts...also have none of their own "original manuscripts" to compare our King James Bible to today. How do they know the King James that we have today is a faithful copy of the "original manuscripts" that the King James translators made when they penned their translation?   :scratchchin:

Edited by No Nicolaitans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Do any of the King James translator's original copies still exist today? I don't mean a printed Bible from 1611...do any of the ACTUAL copies exist that the translators used to ACTUALLY pen the King James?

The answer is no. So those who think it is error to refer to Greek and Hebrew...because we don't have the original manuscripts...also have none of their own "original manuscripts" to compare our King James Bible to today. How do they know the King James that we have today is a faithful copy of the "original manuscripts" that the King James translators made when they penned their translation? :scratchchin:

They do have some pages of GREEK that have translation notes from one of the KJV translators.
But I don't think the pages are original Greek manuscripts..... so what he translated from must have been a faulty copy......if you follow someone's logic anyway. Edited by DaveW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They do have some pages of GREEK that have translation notes from one of the KJV translators.
But I don't think the pages are original Greek manuscripts..... so what he translated from must have been a faulty copy......if you follow someone's logic anyway.

 

I think I see what you're saying...and correct me if I'm reading you wrong...

 

I wasn't referring to the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts that the translators used to make their translation; I was referring to the actual pieces of paper that the translators penned themselves as they translated...the actual-original sheets of ENGLISH that they penned when they made the translation. 

 

My understanding is that the original translation papers from the translators were lost in a fire in the 1630s; therefore, the English-onlyists don't have any "original manuscripts" either.

 

Does that make sense, or was I not interpreting what you were saying correctly?  :icon_confused:

LindaR likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How do they know the King James that we have today is a faithful copy of the "original manuscripts" that the King James translators made when they penned their translation?   :scratchchin:

 

Maybe compare this article to our modern KJB even.

 

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think I see what you're saying...and correct me if I'm reading you wrong...

I wasn't referring to the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts that the translators used to make their translation; I was referring to the actual pieces of paper that the translators penned themselves as they translated...the actual-original sheets of ENGLISH that they penned when they made the translation.

My understanding is that the original translation papers from the translators were lost in a fire in the 1630s; therefore, the English-onlyists don't have any "original manuscripts" either.

Does that make sense, or was I not interpreting what you were saying correctly? :icon_confused:


I was being a bit silly and it OBviously didn't work.....
They referenced copies only, but they believed they were handling the Word of God.
And yes, there is no complete original - there are a few pages, not of the actual translation but of translation notes, but not an original, so I agree that the argument they use against original Greek etc also applies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For the "English only" people who don't believe that we should go to the Greek or Hebrew (or Aramaic), where was God's Word BEFORE 1611?

Edited by LindaR
No Nicolaitans likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I was being a bit silly and it OBviously didn't work.....

 

Ohhhh...okay...no, I'm just a little slow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

water baptism of adults is clear but did they enter the water and then John poured water on them or laid them back into the water is moot seeing the scripture wording can be interpreted either way and when we look at the wording as to the fact God poured out his spirit on believers and we are baptized by the Holy Ghost could his pouring be an example as to how John did it?  Baby baptizing though is clearly not spoken of but again some interpreted "he and all his" as including infants.  Well would you immerse a baby?  I think not so pouring would have been done if any had done it.

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

 

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

 

Looks like Jesus was IN the water when he was baptized by John.  Otherwise, how would He come "up straightway out of the water" if He wasn't IN the water to begin with?

 

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

 

Phillip and the eunuch were IN THE WATER and after Phillip baptized the eunuch IN THE WATER (not with the water), they both "were come up out of the water"

 

Believer's baptism is IMMERSION, not "pouring".

 

Strong's Greek Dictionary
907. baptizo

 

baptizo bap-tid'-zo

 

from a derivative of 911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:--Baptist, baptize, wash.

 

No Nicolaitans and Miss Daisy like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

 

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

 

Looks like Jesus was IN the water when he was baptized by John.  Otherwise, how would He come "up straightway out of the water" if He wasn't IN the water to begin with?

 

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

 

Phillip and the eunuch were IN THE WATER and after Phillip baptized the eunuch IN THE WATER (not with the water), they both "were come up out of the water"

 

Believer's baptism is IMMERSION, not "pouring".

sorry but you can stand in water and have water poured over you then come up out of the water without ever being immersed.  no where in the any KJV text does it say John or anyone followed the standard Baptist formula we practice today of immersion.

 

If you have to run to the Greek you don't believe the KJV in English

Covenanter likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

AVBibleBeliever,

 

Do you not believe that God preserved His Word in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic?

he more than likely did at that time, but we have no original in those languages to check any of the COPIES (not originals) in those languages we have and that is the point of the "original autographs" claim. 

 

The Greek dictionaries of today or even of Erasmus and Stephanus are not infallible, and most simply impose on a Koine Greek word a Classical Greek meaning and that is an error.  Because there is no existence of a Koine Greek Dictionary anywhere and if any man says he has one or made one he is not being truthful.

 

What we can be sure of he did preserve his word into the KJV English so why not just stick to the English text of the KJV and define the words from the context and in the case of Baptism and baptized and baptize there is no proof anyone was immersed simply OBserving the KJV English Text.  As stated we can say they walked down into the water.  The went down statements are not conclusive they were immersed we would still have to pretext the text to make it immersion.

Edited by AVBibleBeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

We believe the KJV. But we also believe the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, since that is what the KJV WAS TRANSLATED FROM.

LindaR and Miss Daisy like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There is absolutely nothing wrong with going to the Greek and Hebrew.

LindaR likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

AVBB is searching for ways to push his point - he is not interested in the answers to the questions he is asking......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What we can be sure of he did preserve his word into the KJV English so why not just stick to the English text of the KJV and define the words from the context and in the case of Baptism and baptized and baptize there is no proof anyone was immersed simply OBserving the KJV English Text.  As stated we can say they walked down into the water.  The went down statements are not conclusive they were immersed we would still have to pretext the text to make it immersion.

 

In Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, - we OBserve the baptism of the Lord, and the text saying he was baptized (for clarity, 'immersed') he came up 'out' of the water, not walked out of, but being immersed, which is the act of 'going under the surface' of the water had to come up 'out' of the said water.

Thus, John, in my opinion did 'dunk' the head of our Lord when he baptized him.

Thus, the word in English for immersion is baptize.

 

Didn't use a lick of Greek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

In Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, - we OBserve the baptism of the Lord, and the text saying he was baptized (for clarity, 'immersed') he came up 'out' of the water, not walked out of, but being immersed, which is the act of 'going under the surface' of the water had to come up 'out' of the said water.

Thus, John, in my opinion did 'dunk' the head of our Lord when he baptized him.

Thus, the word in English for immersion is baptize.

 

Didn't use a lick of Greek.

Or, as John said: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

 

Could that read: "he shall dunk/immerse you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:" ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Or, as John said: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

 

Could that read: "he shall dunk/immerse you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:" ????

 

Yes, absolutely, or 'envelop' in the Holy Spirit, as we are enveloped in water in immersion/baptism.

'Fully integrated into'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Or, as John said: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

 

Could that read: "he shall dunk/immerse you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:" ????

 

A some what good example, Acts 2:2,3 of this actually 'happening'. The room was filled with the wind of the Holy Spirit where the Disciples sat, thus immersing/baptizing them in it.

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

AVBB - are you advocating that we stop immersing people? 

Should we no longer immerse people after their salvation?  Should we now start pouring water on them?

 

Please tell us what you believe and practice regarding this matter before people start making unjust assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

he more than likely did at that time, but we have no original in those languages to check any of the COPIES (not originals) in those languages we have and that is the point of the "original autographs" claim. 

 

The Greek dictionaries of today or even of Erasmus and Stephanus are not infallible, and most simply impose on a Koine Greek word a Classical Greek meaning and that is an error.  Because there is no existence of a Koine Greek Dictionary anywhere and if any man says he has one or made one he is not being truthful.

 

What we can be sure of he did preserve his word into the KJV English so why not just stick to the English text of the KJV and define the words from the context and in the case of Baptism and baptized and baptize there is no proof anyone was immersed simply OBserving the KJV English Text.  As stated we can say they walked down into the water.  The went down statements are not conclusive they were immersed we would still have to pretext the text to make it immersion.

It is OBvious that you don't believe that God is able to preserve His Word FOREVER, as He states in the following verses:

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

 

Psalms 33:11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

 

Psalms 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

 

Psalms 117:2 For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the LORD endureth for ever. Praise ye the LORD.

 

Psalms 111:7 The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.
Psalms 111:8 They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

 

Psalms 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

 

Psalms 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.

 

Psalms 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

 

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

 

Isaiah 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

 

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

 

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

 

1 Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

 

Why do you need "copies" to check to be sure God's inspired and preserved Word is accurate?  Is your faith in accurate "copies" or in God's promise to preserve His Word as He said He would?  God preserved His Word in the ORIGINAL languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic).

Edited by LindaR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not at all he preserved his word in English for us today as he had in times past in those old languages none of us speak.  However those "Original Documents" no longer exist AT ALL not even on jot or tittle of an original can be had any where.  But al; those Jots and tittles can be found in your ENGLISH KJV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

AVBB - are you advocating that we stop immersing people? 

Should we no longer immerse people after their salvation?  Should we now start pouring water on them?

 

Please tell us what you believe and practice regarding this matter before people start making unjust assumptions.

No Steve,

 

I am not advocating that.  I can prove by scripture that babies were not baptised by the ones I challenged Dave to lead a study on.  I baptize by Immersion because it fits the pattern we use in Romans 6 Even though there is no water in Romans 6. 

 

Paul left us no example of how to do Baptisms, and though it may say they went down into the water, you and I do that every time we went down into the water to baptize a person and we are not immersing ourselves.  and in those text that say that the person being baptized went down into the water, that is the very thing as they do in our Baptisteries they walk down into the water, it is after they went down into the water where the silence begins.  It is there we have no idea by scriptures what took place. 

 

So we could say the example of God pouring out his spirit on the Gentiles, which Paul call the baptism of the Holy Ghost, MAY have been an example of How John and Paul had baptized in water. 

 

I am not advocating we we not immerse I am simply saying if someone goes down into the water and the minister pours water over their head as I have seen in some Episcopal Churches we should not label their convicted practices as false when the scriptures are silent on the actual processes used by John, the 11 and Paul.  We need to give grace when silence is the only evidence we have.

Edited by AVBibleBeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.