The Doctrine of Baptisms.

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe you agree positively that we may/should as God Directs/ pray for many that their eyes will be opened,
considering the "few" already have their eyes opened in God's Grace ....

Yes, we should be praying for truth for others and ourselves constantly. God reveals truth, but sometimes it takes time to find more of it. There are doctrines or truths that Christians today do not accept unfortunately. It is my hope that some will find it in time eventually if they are honest with themselves in what God’s Word actually says (Rather than what they want it to say). It’s easy to fall into repeating what some church or Christian says vs. what God’s Word actually says. Jesus quoted Scripture. The devil was also able to quote Scripture, but he did so out of context. In short, we have to look at the whole counsel of God’s Word and accept the parts we do not like. Parts of the Bible today that most Christians do not like are warnings against how sin can destroy our souls unless we confess and forsake such sins. Most today have a sin and still be saved mindset all because they say that the only requirement needed of us is to believe on the finished work of the cross (When that saying is not even in the Bible).

 

[Aaron112]

The Philips translation you used

.... without regard to the translation,
I simply had gone, as often in the past, to biblegateway to see all the translations for that verse on one page, and copied a few for examples, which all are good and useful.

With a spirit of understanding and wisdom as God Grants,
they are all acceptable as they are without digressing from God's Purpose and Plan.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

.... without regard to the translation,
I simply had gone, as often in the past, to biblegateway to see all the translations for that verse on one page, and copied a few for examples, which all are good and useful.

In the case of the PHILLIPS translation, it would not be good and useful if the author was corrupted in his thinking.
A guy who talks to a ghost of C.S. Lewis and how he denies the blood for salvation cannot have any kind of spiritual insight to do a Bible translation correctly.

Would you read a Bible translated by Hitler?
He exterminated many Jews as if they were cattle.

 

[Aaron112]

The Philips translation you used says baptism (singular), and not baptisms (plural).

"faux pax ?
www.wordhippo.com › what-is › the-plural-of › baptism.html

What is the plural of baptism? - WordHippo​

What is the plural of baptism? The plural of baptism is baptism. "

 

[Aaron112]

In the case of the PHILLIPS translation

Many thousands or millions have found it useful, helpful, and correcting some previous errors or lacks of understanding ...

Mistakes in any translation have been found, some or many much more serious than things you have pointed out. ...
(except if true that he (or anyone) denies the blood atonement, that must certainly be seen as a very grievous error as without the shedding of Jesus' blood there is no remission of sin(s) ) .

 

[Aaron112]

C.S. Lewis and how he denies the blood for salvation

It has been seen that , for many, " the value of Lewis is the way he brings together “the experience of joy and the defense of truth” in his writing.

He said, “The way Lewis deals with these two things — Joy and Truth — is so radically different from Liberal theology and emergent postmodern slipperiness that he is simply in another world — a world where I am totally at home, and where I find both my heart and my mind awakened and made more alive and perceptive and responsive and earnest and hopeful and amazed and passionate for the glory of God every time I turn to C.S. Lewis.”"

 

[Aaron112]

"“To be sure, Lewis is not orthodox on some important matters,” he said. “I assign reading from a range of authors who are worth engaging; I am happy to have students read one of the most important apologists of the 20th century. Lewis is not always right, but he is nearly always worth considering and engaging.”

According to these evangelicals, Lewis was sometimes wrong — but is always worthwhile."

 

[Dan Perez]

But you are saying ”one baptism” is ”one baptizer.” The word “baptism” cannot be defined as “baptizer.” There is no English dictionary that defines it as such. It would be a violation of the meaning of that word
(Unless one believes there are errors in the Bible —— which I do not believe).

In other words, I believe both the English in the KJB and the Greek in the NT (Textus Receptus) say the same thing.

We have to think that the physical water baptism is merely a symbolic ritual that pointed to the greater reality (Which would be the baptisms done upon a believer by God).

Do that my word what Eph 4:5 saying , ONE BAPTISMA , just check the Greek text , using either BLUE LETTER BIBLE or use BIBLE HUB as they use the KJV translation , and I do not change words .

Just because any translation uses the Greek word BAPTISM does not means it means WATER / HUDOR and here is just one example in 1 Cor 10:2 , and , And all were BAPTIZED / BAPTISO unto Moses , in the Cloud , and in the Sea .

How were they BAPTIZED into Moses ??

Than in Mark 16:16 says that He that believeth and is BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED , and says that Baptism saves , your thoughts on this verse ?

dan p

 

[Der Alte]

Open AI (ChatGPT).
If you ever used it, the answers are based on things that it gathers from the internet.
But if you disagree, feel free to refute the points and offer verifiable proof text sources.
But I am not expecting you to do that because that would be speaking against logic or truth (Which would be exceptionally difficult).

And you accept everything you read at that anonymous site? Well, I have some ocean front property in Arizona I want to sell you, cheap.

Scholars do not always even agree with each other. So why should I trust everything that they say? Their ramblings have been proven wrong many times. I see it all the time.

You quoted an anonymous "scholar." "One of the top Greek grammarians in the world says..."

God cannot error. What He says is always pure and true and correct.

I'm not the one who said there was an error in the Bible.

 

[Strong in Him]

I am not sure you are thinking correctly here. If you were to study a book on Chinese and then you go to China, you do not think that you would not make any mistakes speaking and or writing to them? There are even different dialects in different regions in certain countries and so this complicates this even more. I say this because there is a difference between studying a book vs. practical experience. There is even slang or metaphor that needs to be learned in a country, as well. This is not always evident in book like study. Again, I think you are putting the scholars up really high on a pedestal and ignoring how learning languages actually works.

Sorry, but the only reason I entered this thread - and I know it's off topic - was because you, someone who doesn't speak Greek, were arguing with someone who does.
It still seems to be the case that because YOU think that if they didn't first learn modern Greek, you doubt their credentials in NT Greek - which is nonsense.

Would you fly in a plane by a person who built an aircraft having no hands on experience in designing planes and he was just building it for the first time based on only reading a book? This would be a guy who has no experience with how to design planes or fix them. Yet, he is going to design a plane by following a book? Yeah, not gonna happen.

So, would you take advice on the language the Scriptures were written in from someone who has studied it to a high level, or from someone who doesn't know any?

My hands are tied in discussing this topic with the freedom I would like because of the newly placed forum rules. So, “no comment.”

I'm not discussing it; it's an observation.
I have said to you before - when there was no forum rule about it - that if the KJV agreed with the Greek, you wouldn't be writing all this nonsense about people not learning Greek properly. If you could show that the KJV had translated perfectly from the original language, you'd shout it from the roof tops. Because it would confirm your position that the KJV is THE word of God.

I'm not going to say anything else about that - even if there wasn't a forum rule about it, there'd be nothing to discuss. You have made your position very clear and no amount of discussion or debate would change that - hence, nothing to discuss.

But you should ask yourself, why would there be such a rule?

If you want my honest opinion I would say it's because implying that people who read translations other than the KJV - "corrupt" versions as you have called them - are not reading the true, or full, word of God; and that questions their salvation - which is not a loving or kind thing to do.

But anyway, my only comment was about you telling someone else how best to study a language - when you know nothing about it, and they have studied it to a high level. I'll leave now and let you discuss the topic of the thread.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

"faux pax ?
www.wordhippo.com › what-is › the-plural-of › baptism.html

What is the plural of baptism? - WordHippo​

What is the plural of baptism? The plural of baptism is baptism. "

WordHippo is a site which is owned by an Australian company (See here).

Australian English is not always exactly the same as American English.

Australian vs American spelling: what's the difference? - ABC Education

A common question among learners of English is: when do I use ‘z’ or ‘s’ in words? One way to understand this is to learn the differences between Australian, British and American spelling.

www.abc.net.au

Types of English: US, UK, and Australian Variations | Acrolinx

Learn the differences between alternative types of English, including American, British, Canadian, and Australian language variations.

www.acrolinx.com

Do a survey involving the word “baptism” (singular) and see if they catch if it can refer to being plural. Most here in America take the singular word “baptism” as if it is in reference to a singular action. In other words, it would be awkward to say, and Bob performed eight baptism that day. It just doesn’t sound correct. Well, maybe if you live in Australia.

 

[Aaron112]

WordHippo is a site which is owned by an Australian company (See here).

Australian English is not always exactly the same as American English.

Australian vs American spelling: what's the difference? - ABC Education

A common question among learners of English is: when do I use ‘z’ or ‘s’ in words? One way to understand this is to learn the differences between Australian, British and American spelling.

www.abc.net.au

Types of English: US, UK, and Australian Variations | Acrolinx

Learn the differences between alternative types of English, including American, British, Canadian, and Australian language variations.

www.acrolinx.com

Do a survey involving the word “baptism” (singular) and see if they catch if it can refer to being plural. Most here in America take the singular word “baptism” as if it is in reference to a singular action. In other words, it would be awkward to say, and Bob performed eight baptism that day. It just doesn’t sound correct. Well, maybe if you live in Australia.

Yet if you were to give a class some day about baptism,
would it be right to
not include the different meanings of baptism , the different uses in Scripture at least, or the different references ?
So your own class on baptism could well include 2 or more types of baptism without being incorrect in the English, American nor Australian, you use.

 

[Aaron112]

Australian English is not always exactly the same as American English.

Perhaps true, but perhaps not valid point.
How often is American English wrong (or variable/with or including the meaning more than one thing) in the description of Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek ideas ?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sorry, but the only reason I entered this thread - and I know it's off topic - was because you, someone who doesn't speak Greek, were arguing with someone who does.
It still seems to be the case that because YOU think that if they didn't first learn modern Greek, you doubt their credentials in NT Greek - which is nonsense.

No. It’s not nonsense. You are not thinking clearly how languages actually work practically because you simply do not know. You have not tried to school the Chinese people on one of their great literary works using an English to Chinese dictionary. Until you done that, you will see how silly it is to claim that you know a language based on merely book reading alone without living in that culture and experiencing it with all the different dialects and metaphors and unique uses. Again, I know this is probably an attack on scholarship and so this is what you are really defending. I prefer just reading the Bible and asking God to help me understand it. I don’t need any priest or scholar to understand God’s Word.

So, would you take advice on the language the Scriptures were written in from someone who has studied it to a high level, or from someone who doesn't know any?

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The Bible has already been translated by the top scholars already. Men have trusted the Bible for hundreds of years. It is only in recent history, where men think it is normal to echo the words of the serpent in the garden, “Yea, hath God said…?”

I'm not discussing it; it's an observation.
I have said to you before - when there was no forum rule about it - that if the KJV agreed with the Greek, you wouldn't be writing all this nonsense about people not learning Greek properly. If you could show that the KJV had translated perfectly from the original language, you'd shout it from the roof tops. Because it would confirm your position that the KJV is THE word of God.

Please stop. We cannot talk about the KJV openly here. Rules are already in place that has prevented me in talking about this topic openly. That’s the best I can do. But dangling a piece of Picanha steak in front of me to get me talk about the KJV openly here to give me points that can lead me to be banned is not desirable. I will have to let the flies enjoy that steak instead.

May God bless you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Perhaps true, but perhaps not valid point.
How often is American English wrong in the description of Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek ideas ?

Well, unless you would be regarded as one of the top world experts in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, you are only guessing and taking pot shots in the dark and or blindly trusting some Lexicon as if it was the Bible.

But the point here is that it would be misleading to say “baptism” as referring to ”baptisms” when most do not regard “baptism” as being plural except maybe in Australia (where the English is slightly different).

It is either “Baptism“ (singular) or baptisms (plural). I trust that it is baptisms because it comes from the Bible I trust.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yet if you were to give a class some day about baptism,
would it be right to
not include the different meanings of baptism , the different uses in Scripture at least, or the different references ?
So your own class on baptism could well include 2 or more types of baptism without being incorrect in the English, American nor Australian, you use.

Look. You are trying to defend a translation of a guy who talked with a ghost and who denies the blood for salvation. If you want to do that, be my guest. But your defending a corrupted source text.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

And you accept everything you read at that anonymous site? Well, I have some ocean front property in Arizona I want to sell you, cheap.

No. It’s called experience. Experience taught me that you cannot learn a language properly without immersing yourself in that culture. I know. My wife is Brazilian. There are things you learn in that culture that cannot always be learned in a book. One has to bury their head in the sand to say otherwise, unless one never tried to go to that country and impress them with what you know. In other words, it would be normal if you have been corrected by the locals of that country (if all you have known was from a school or books).

You quoted an anonymous "scholar." "One of the top Greek grammarians in the world says..."

I'm not the one who said there was an error in the Bible.

Most scholars say that 1 John 5:7 is not in the Bible. Yet, they are wrong because one of the top Greek grammarians has pointed out that there is a solecism in the text. The fact that you have no clue about this merely shows you do not know Greek like you should. I can just read 1 John 5:7 in the English and see that there is a hole in the text if 1 John 5:7 is not there. The context shows this. 1 John 5:7 is the witness of God. 1 John 5:8 in the KJV at Biblehub (the Pure Cambridge Edition KJV) refers to the witness of man. 1 John 5:9 says the witness of God is greater.

 

[Strong in Him]

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The Bible has already been translated by the top scholars already. Men have trusted the Bible for hundreds of years.

Yeah - for 1600 years before the KJV was even thought of.

Sorry; I'm done.
God bless.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do that my word what Eph 4:5 saying , ONE BAPTISMA , just check the Greek text , using either BLUE LETTER BIBLE or use BIBLE HUB as they use the KJV translation , and I do not change words .

I do not consider James Strong and his buddies to have created a perfectly inspired work that is without error.
Again, the best way to understand that word is to compare it to the rest of the chapter and to look at other cross references.
The only Greek interpretation I would actually trust is from a top Greek expert who lives in Greece and teaches their own people the Greek language with them having no religious bias or stake in the issue. Religious men who create religious dictionaries could be biased to their own religious beliefs. I am not saying they cannot be right sometimes, and I am not saying we cannot use them on rare rare occasions, but they should never be used as a code key to understand the Bible. I just read the verse in English just fine and it makes sense in light of other verses. If you don’t like the idea of the Spirit baptizing us into Jesus, thats your call. I believe it simply because that is how the Scriptures plainly read to me in the English here. I don’t need to do a fancy dance around the text in order to not believe it. I mean, think. Logically we would be connected with being a part of the body of Christ, right? When does that happen? I believe it happens right away when we are baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ. Then Jesus baptizes us into the Holy Spirit. In other words, you need to first be connected to Christ in order to be connected to the Holy Spirit. This is what the immersions (Baptisms) are all about here.

Just because any translation uses the Greek word BAPTISM does not means it means WATER / HUDOR and here is just one example in 1 Cor 10:2 , and , And all were BAPTIZED / BAPTISO unto Moses , in the Cloud , and in the Sea .

They were baptized metaphorically through the Red Sea in that they went through the Red Sea when it was parted by the miracle of God. It does not literary mean they were baptized in the waters of the Red Sea.

How were they BAPTIZED into Moses ??

By being immersed (baptized) by following his instructions in the beginning. From the putting on the blood of the doorposts to following him through the Red Sea. But they later fell away due to sin. In short, they started off good and were initially right with God, but then like many today, they failed to endure to the end to be saved.

Than in Mark 16:16 says that He that believeth and is BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED , and says that Baptism saves , your thoughts on this verse ?

dan p

Well I don’t believe baptism is for salvation in the sense that it helps one to gain entrance into the Kingdom, although I do consider water baptism as something that a believer will naturally want to do as a part of their faith in Christ.

On a quick note, I believe Matthew 28:19 is clearly talking about water baptism. This is a water baptism in then name of Jesus (Which is what we see the apostles do according to Scripture).

Mark 16:16 is a little more tricky.

There are two ways to interpret this verse.

The water baptism interpretation of Mark 16:16:

If Mark 16:16 is talking about water baptism, then Jesus would have a different understanding on the word “saved” in relation to ”believing” vs. “baptized.” We both agree that we need to believe in the Son of God, Jesus to be saved or to enter His Kingdom. As for being saved in relation to baptism: Well, Peter makes it clear that baptism saves us not for the putting away of the filth of the flesh, i.e. sin, but it saves us to give an answer to God in that we already have a cleared and clean conscience before God. Paul himself says he came not to baptize but to preach the gospel. So clearly water baptism does not save in the sense that help us to enter the Kingdom of God.

The Spirit baptism interpretation on Mark 16:16.

If Mark 16:16 is talking about Spirit baptism or baptism into the body of Christ, then this verse flows really nicely. We are saved spiritually to enter the Kingdom by both a belief in Jesus as our Savior, and by being spiritually baptized by God. No saved believer can bypass the spiritual baptisms done by God. A believer who is born again spiritually (has a new heart with new desires) and be changed radically will have been baptized spiritually by the Lord.

I learn towards the Spirit baptism interpretation because it appears to flow the best, but that does not mean that the water baptism interpretation on Mark 16:16 is not true. I consider them as both as possibiltles.

 

[Der Alte]

No. It’s called experience. Experience taught me that you cannot learn a language properly without immersing yourself in that culture. I know. My wife is Brazilian. There are things you learn in that culture that cannot always be learned in a book. One has to bury their head in the sand to say otherwise, unless one never tried to go to that country and impress them with what you know. In other words, it would be normal if you have been corrected by the locals of that country (if all you have known was from a school or books).

Your personal experiences cannot be presented as normative. If you wish to discuss this topic find someone with some letters after their names in the appropriate fields. Otherwise please don't lecture on linguistics.

Most scholars say that 1 John 5:7 is not in the Bible. Yet, they are wrong because one of the top Greek grammarians has pointed out that there is a solecism in the text. The fact that you have no clue about this merely shows you do not know Greek like you should. I can just read 1 John 5:7 in the English and see that there is a hole in the text if 1 John 5:7 is not there. The context shows this. 1 John 5:7 is the witness of God. 1 John 5:8 in the KJV at Biblehub (the Pure Cambridge Edition KJV) refers to the witness of man. 1 John 5:9 says the witness of God is greater.

"Most scholars" and "the top Greek grammarians" is too vague.