The Doctrine of Baptisms.

[Bible Highlighter]

Believe it or not, I was only going to write one paragraph. I started with such good intentions...

I don’t believe truth should be contained to one paragraph. Sometimes short and sweet is good, but if the Spirit leads us to defend God’s Word on a particular topic, it can sometimes be lengthy. I know some folks frown on lengthy replies but if the content is good and edifying and it is true, then it is not in conflict with God’s purposes and plans in contending for the faith.

 

[Dan Perez]

In my previous stance (or old position), I understood Ephesians 4:5 as exclusively addressing water baptism.

However, my current perspective is that Ephesians 4:5 refers to water baptism while emphasizing its connection with spiritual baptisms. These elements harmonize as one, with water baptism serving as the primary tangible expression for us to witness and participate in. Although Spirit baptism may initially appear distinct from water baptism, it is essentially the spiritual counterpart of the physical act of water baptism. To grasp this concept, it's crucial to consider 1 John 5:8.

Lets look at it in context.

1 John 5:7-9

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.​

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.​

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.​

1 John 5:7 talks about the witness of God in Heaven. There are three that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.

1 John 5:8 talks about the witness of man on Earth. Man is made up of water, blood, and spirit, and these three agree in one.

1 John 5:9 says the witness of God is greater. What witness of God? The witness back in 1 John 5:7 (Which plays a part of the context). Even one of the top Greek grammarians in the world says that there is a hole in the text if 1 John 5:7 is removed from the Bible. This is evident if one reads the context as I have shown.

Anyways, my main point here is that if the water, blood, and spirit agree in one, then it makes sense that water baptism mentioned in Ephesians 4:5 is referring to the most commonly understood form of baptism by most (Which was water baptism), and yet it is connected or one with the spiritual baptisms mentioned in Scripture. The physical is a representation of the spiritual. It’s one water baptism that is physical and yet has an unbroken connection with our spiritual baptisms. They all breathe together as one baptism.

It’s like the Trinity. While there are three distinct persons in the Godhead or Trinity, the Bible also teaches there is one God in substance or number. Meaning, the Lord our God is one God (in number) and yet He also exists as three distinct persons, as well. This is neither Modalism or Tritheism.

So the way I understand Ephesians 4:5 when it says there is one baptism, it is water baptism (the physical) that is connected to pointing to the spiritual reality in the Spirit immersing our lives when we first accepted Jesus Christ, and when we continue with the Spirit and crucify the affections and lusts (Galatians 5:24) (Galatians 6:8-9) (2 Corinthians 7:1) (Romans 8:13). The one baptism is an immersion in God which is represented outwardly in water baptism.

I understand Eph 4:5 and it says ONE LORD , ONE FAITH and ONE BAPTISM..

It does not say ONE WATER BAPTISM , so how can you say it means WATER ?

I am still waiting HOW you see how they were BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD , in 1 Cor 15:29 , instead of , speaking about 1 John 5:7 and need your thought , on a hard verse ?

dan p

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I understand Eph 4:5 and it says ONE LORD , ONE FAITH and ONE BAPTISM..

It does not say ONE WATER BAPTISM , so how can you say it means WATER ?

Context. If you read the context (the verses before and after Ephesians 4:5), the focus is the believer taking action involving the faith and the context of the chapter is not all about what God does to you. Granted, water baptism is the main outward ritual, and there are spiritual applications that are parallels. So it is one baptism (water baptism) with spiritual baptisms that God does to us.

I am still waiting HOW you see how they were BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD , in 1 Cor 15:29 , instead of , speaking about 1 John 5:7 and need your thought , on a hard verse ?

dan p

It is written:

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"
(Romans 6:3).

As for 1 John 5:7:

Actually, my main point was 1 John 5:8.
The water, blood, and spirit agree in one and these three things are the witness of man (Seeing man is made up of water, blood, and spirit). Think. These three things agree in one in 1 John 5:8. This is the same thing that I believe is the one baptism in Ephesians 4:5. It is water baptism (but like man is made up of water, blood, and spirit), water baptism also has other aspects to it that agree in being one. Meaning water baptism is also represented by spiritual baptisms, as well. Do you understand what I am saying here?

 

[Dan Perez]

Context. If you read the context (the verses before and after Ephesians 4:5), the focus is the believer taking action involving the faith and the context of the chapter is not all about what God does to you. Granted, water baptism is the main outward ritual, and there are spiritual applications that are parallels. So it is one baptism (water baptism) with spiritual baptisms that God does to us.



It is written:

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"
(Romans 6:3).

As for 1 John 5:7:

Actually, my main point was 1 John 5:8.
The water, blood, and spirit agree in one and these three things are the witness of man (Seeing man is made up of water, blood, and spirit). Think. These three things agree in one in 1 John 5:8. This is the same thing that I believe is the one baptism in Ephesians 4:5. It is water baptism (but like man is made up of water, blood, and spirit), water baptism also has other aspects to it that agree in being one. Meaning water baptism is also represented by spiritual baptisms, as well. Do you understand what I am saying here?

Here is what Eph 4:5 means and BAPTISM does NOT means water baptism .

Eph 4:5 , means in the Greek text means ONE BAPTISMA ..


ONE BAPTISMA really means ONE BAPTIZER , and means IT is taking about the HOLY SPIRIT .


If anyone believes in WATER BAPTISM , who was water baptism REALLY given too , John 1:31 , that WATER BAPTISM was given to Israel and NOT given to the BODY OF CHRIST .

If anyone believes in WATER BAPTISM , I also believe that in it too and that WATER BAPTISM will come back during the TRIBULATION , Mark 16:16-18 .

Most over look as to why Jesus was WATER BAPTIZED by John in Matt 3:13-17 as Jesus had no sin and did not repent , except Christ did REPENT , as written in Gen 6:6-7 .

If anyone still believes in WATER BAPTISM , how can they explain 1 Cor 10:2 ?

And they were ALL BAPTIZED unto Moses , in the CLOUD and in the SEA , if it was WATER BAPTISM ?

dan p

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here is what Eph 4:5 means and BAPTISM does NOT means water baptism .

So you know how to speak, write, read, and listen in Greek with the native locals of Greece flawlessly?
Do you know Koine Greek (the ancient form of Greek) like the other experts in Greece?
Please get back to me when you do.
I do not regard scholars, or Christians who play with a language that they really do not know intimately (when it contradicts the English).
You also have to identify which Greek text you are talking about, as well.
Not all Greek manuscripts are the same.

Side Note:

I do not have a problem if you flesh out a deeper meaning of the English word with the Greek based on the context, but I do not believe it should contradict the meaning in English. Your definition is suggesting you know more than the 47 translators of the Bible who know the original languages far better than you could dream of.

Side Note 2:

Now, please keep in mind that I have offered a possibility of Greek definitions only one time in regards to the English word “hell.” But I am not claiming I am 100% correct and this would not be in conflict with the English word “hell” and its meaning, either. See my post here to learn more (if you are interested). Greek is not how I read the Bible primarily. I only do original language studies when God leads me to do so on rare occasions. We do not read the Bible cover to cover in the Hebrew and Greek, but in English.

Eph 4:5 , means in the Greek text means ONE BAPTISMA ..

Jesus chose men that were simple like fishermen, and not scholars. So I prefer to keep things simple and just trust my Bible in the English instead of playing Greek word games.

ONE BAPTISMA really means ONE BAPTIZER , and means IT is taking about the HOLY SPIRIT .

If one believes the promise in Psalms 12:6-7 in the King James Bible, then we do not really need to go to the original languages always. We can just read it in English instead of claiming that the English in the KJV has errors in it that we need to correct. You would have to convince me using the text in English within the KJV. You are welcome to even use cross references if you like or use the chapter to prove your case. So are you reading it in context? Do you know what the context is? Does context factor into your defining words in the Bible?

If anyone believes in WATER BAPTISM , who was water baptism REALLY given too , John 1:31 , that WATER BAPTISM was given to Israel and NOT given to the BODY OF CHRIST .

When I believed Spirit baptism replaced water baptism, I did so based on inaccurately reading a passage. I could not see my error at the time by my misreading the text. This is one reason why Christians falsely believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism. Another reason is that it sounds good to them based on their own thinking and so they play Greek word games (When they do not even know that language).

If anyone believes in WATER BAPTISM , I also believe that in it too and that WATER BAPTISM will come back during the TRIBULATION , Mark 16:16-18 .

What in the world?
You would need a lot more than Mark 16:16-18 to confirm such a teaching.

Most over look as to why Jesus was WATER BAPTIZED by John in Matt 3:13-17 as Jesus had no sin and did not repent , except Christ did REPENT , as written in Gen 6:6-7 .

How does this prove your case?

If anyone still believes in WATER BAPTISM , how can they explain 1 Cor 10:2 ?

Obviously this is a metaphor. But if the reality of water baptism was not real, then we could not know that baptism could be taken metaphorically like in this verse. Just as the devil is compared to a dragon, and thus dragons are real creatures described in the Bible. Yet, there are many today who deny that dragons ever existed, despite the Bible talking about them.

And they were ALL BAPTIZED unto Moses , in the CLOUD and in the SEA , if it was WATER BAPTISM ?

dan p

Jesus even spoke of baptism as being a form of death. Again, if you were to go back to my original post, I talk about different baptisms. Even the Bible talks about how there is a doctrine of baptisms (Plural). But like 1 John 5:8, three things can agree as one. At the heart, there is one baptism we must partake in. This is water baptism, and all other forms of baptism relate to this ritual.

 

[Dan Perez]

Context. If you read the context (the verses before and after Ephesians 4:5), the focus is the believer taking action involving the faith and the context of the chapter is not all about what God does to you. Granted, water baptism is the main outward ritual, and there are spiritual applications that are parallels. So it is one baptism (water baptism) with spiritual baptisms that God does to us.



It is written:

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"
(Romans 6:3).

As for 1 John 5:7:

Actually, my main point was 1 John 5:8.
The water, blood, and spirit agree in one and these three things are the witness of man (Seeing man is made up of water, blood, and spirit). Think. These three things agree in one in 1 John 5:8. This is the same thing that I believe is the one baptism in Ephesians 4:5. It is water baptism (but like man is made up of water, blood, and spirit), water baptism also has other aspects to it that agree in being one. Meaning water baptism is also represented by spiritual baptisms, as well. Do you understand what I am saying here?

What do think what 1 Thess 5:23 then means and reads Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you COMPLETE in all respects and may your ENTIRE , SPIRIT , and SOUL and BODY be kept blamelessly at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ .

What say you , PLEASE ?

dan p

 

[Der Alte]

Here is what Eph 4:5 means and BAPTISM does NOT means water baptism .

Eph 4:5 , means in the Greek text means ONE BAPTISMA ..

ONE BAPTISMA really means ONE BAPTIZER , and means IT is taking about the HOLY SPIRIT .

If anyone believes in WATER BAPTISM , who was water baptism REALLY given too , John 1:31 , that WATER BAPTISM was given to Israel and NOT given to the BODY OF CHRIST .

If anyone believes in WATER BAPTISM , I also believe that in it too and that WATER BAPTISM will come back during the TRIBULATION , Mark 16:16-18 .

Most over look as to why Jesus was WATER BAPTIZED by John in Matt 3:13-17 as Jesus had no sin and did not repent , except Christ did REPENT , as written in Gen 6:6-7 .

If anyone still believes in WATER BAPTISM , how can they explain 1 Cor 10:2 ?

And they were ALL BAPTIZED unto Moses , in the CLOUD and in the SEA , if it was WATER BAPTISM ?

dan p

Isn't the sea, water?

 

[Dan Perez]

Isn't the sea, water?

Yes it is water !!

Water has many meaning , like , WASHING , SPRINKLING , even CAN MEANS FROM THE SEA .

So what does BAPTIZED unto to Moses and unto the CLOUD then mean ??

Or here is a simple one , WHY was Jesus BAPTIZED if he had no sin and did Jesus have tom REPENT ?

Check Gen 6:6 and you will se that Christ did REPENT ?

dan p

 

[Der Alte]

Yes it is water !!
Water has many meaning , like , WAHING , SPRINLING , even CAN MEANS FROM THE SEA .
So what does BAPTIZED unto to Moses and unto the CLOUD then mean ??
Or here is a simple one , WHY was Jesus BAPTIZED if he had no sin and did Jesus have tom REPENT ?
Check Gen 6:6 and you will se that Christ did REPENT ?
dan p

There is a big, big gap between the repenting in Gen 6:6 and Jesus being baptized in the Jordan. What was the purpose of Jesus being baptized? What do you think being baptized in, not unto, the cloud means?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What do think what 1 Thess 5:23 then means and reads Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you COMPLETE in all respects and may your ENTIRE , SPIRIT , and SOUL and BODY be kept blamelessly at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ .

What say you , PLEASE ?

dan p

The last I answered one of your questions it did not go anywhere. There was no back and forth discussion. There was no “iron sharpening iron” going on. I will tell you why there is no such thing happening. It’s because many Scriptures are locked away in meaning to you because you do not accept the plain child like reading of God’s Word in English (Which is the world language of today). You have chosen to look to languages you do not know (But you think you know because you are using a Lexicon). You also fail to understand that there is no such thing as “THE Greek,” or “THE Hebrew” as if there is just ONE text. There are multiple Greek, and Hebrew texts out there. Which one are you looking to? Can you tell the difference between them? Which Lexicon do you think is best? There are many and it would take a lifetime to figure out if one is truly better than another. Do you know the creators behind Lexicons held to false beliefs? Would not these things color the way they interpret the Lexicon they are giving you? In other words, there is no Lexicon that fell down from Heaven that is perfect and inspired. We are also fallible human creatures and our thoughts are not God’s thoughts. In short, there has to be a point where a person believes that God would keep the promise of His Word for today (See: Psalms 12:6-7 in the King James Bible).

 

[Dan Perez]

The last I answered one of your questions it did not go anywhere. There was no back and forth discussion. There was no “iron sharpening iron” going on. I will tell you why there is no such thing happening. It’s because many Scriptures are locked away in meaning to you because you do not accept the plain child like reading of God’s Word in English (Which is the world language of today). You have chosen to look to languages you do not know (But you think you know because you are using a Lexicon). You also fail to understand that there is no such thing as “THE Greek,” or “THE Hebrew” as if there is just ONE text. There are multiple Greek, and Hebrew texts out there. Which one are you looking to? Can you tell the difference between them? Which Lexicon do you think is best? There are many and it would take a lifetime to figure out if one is truly better than another. Do you know the creators behind Lexicons held to false beliefs? Would not these things color the way they interpret the Lexicon they are giving you? In other words, there is no Lexicon that fell down from Heaven that is perfect and inspired. We are also fallible human creatures and our thoughts are not God’s thoughts. In short, there has to be a point where a person believes that God would keep the promise of His Word for today (See: Psalms 12:6-7 in the King James Bible).

I am not using LEXICON , but I do use BLUE LETTER BIBLE and many others use BIBLE HUB and do use VINE'S DICTIONARY and also use STRONG'S CONCORDANCE that has ALL the HEBREW and GREEK words used in the KJV and also use MANUEL GRAMMER OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by DANA AND MANTEY and also a book written by WILLIAM D MOUNCE , called Greek for the REST OF US and is that BAD ?

Just trying to do the best that I can !

dan p

 

[Der Alte]

I am not using LEXICON , but I do use BLUE LETTER BIBLE and many others use BIBLE HUB and do use VINE'S DICTIONARY and also use STRONG'S CONCORDANCE that has ALL the HEBREW and GREEK words used in the KJV and also use MANUEL GRAMMER OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by DANA AND MANTEY and also a book written by WILLIAM D MOUNCE , called Greek for the REST OF US and is that BAD ?
Just trying to do the best that I can !
dan p

Which is all that any of us can do. I don't recall seeing anywhere anyone critiqued your understanding e.g. specifically showing where any Hebrew or Greek word you mentioned was incorrectly translated, merely broad brush criticizing your sources without, I might add, referencing sources he considered reliable.
Strong's is not a lexicon, he did not do any word studies but only states how the words were translated in the KJV. Strong's has been found to have about 15,000 errors or omissions.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am not using LEXICON , but I do use BLUE LETTER BIBLE and many others use BIBLE HUB and do use VINE'S DICTIONARY and also use STRONG'S CONCORDANCE that has ALL the HEBREW and GREEK words used in the KJV and also use MANUEL GRAMMER OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by DANA AND MANTEY and also a book written by WILLIAM D MOUNCE , called Greek for the REST OF US and is that BAD ?

Just trying to do the best that I can !

dan p

While the classic Strong’s Concordance (the printed book) is not a Lexicon, the website BLB that uses the Strong’s numbers has turned it into a Lexicon (so to speak). According to BlueLetterBible, they say, I quote:

“The Strong's number is an integral part of the BLB. It helps users to access the original languages of the Bible using a non-technical methodology. By clicking on the Strongs number the user is taken to the Lexicon page, which both defines the word and presents every occurrence of it in the Bible.”

Source:

LexiConc Help Tutorial

How to use the lexiconc help tutorial gives picture examples and instructions on how to use the lexiconc to search the English definition of Hebrew/Greek words

www.blueletterbible.org

So yes. You are using a Lexicon if you are using the Strong’s at BLB. If you are using the old printed edition of Strong’s Concordance, you are not using a Lexicon.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am not using LEXICON , but I do use BLUE LETTER BIBLE and many others use BIBLE HUB and do use VINE'S DICTIONARY and also use STRONG'S CONCORDANCE that has ALL the HEBREW and GREEK words used in the KJV and also use MANUEL GRAMMER OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by DANA AND MANTEY and also a book written by WILLIAM D MOUNCE , called Greek for the REST OF US and is that BAD ?

Just trying to do the best that I can !

dan p

As for the Hebrew and Greek words in the KJV:

Again, the problem today is that you got many so-called Hebrew and Greek experts when they do not know even one tenth of what the translators of the KJV did. Many of the KJV translators knew the languages enough to speak, write, and read them. Most today do not know how to do that and they are only going off Modern scholarship that is affected by Rationalism. They use dictionaries and Lexicons that are tainted by those who were into altering the Bible or who have no belief in the preservation and infallibility of God’s Word. People today who do not like the Bible can just change, add, or delete words as they see fit in the Bible. There is no respect for the Word of God anymore. Example: You just changed the English word “baptize” to “baptizer.” This is wrong. You are NOT a Greek expert and nor do you on the level of the KJV translators. You are acting like you know Greek based on some Modern dictionary tainted by Rationalism. Also, again, you cannot go to Ethiopia to learn Chinese correctly by using an Ethiopian to Chinese dictionary. You go to China to learn Chinese properly. However, Christians should not waste their entire lives learning the original languages by going to those countries and gleaning it from the locals. Instead, believers should get busy with living out faith by God’s Word by simply submitting to it instead of correcting It.

Today, there is no fear before people’s eyes to alter God’s words. To the people today, the Bible is no more than some kind of school text book, and it is not the very words of God which are inspired or God breathed. What about the warning in Revelation to not add or take away from God’s words? The Bible also talks about those who pervert the Word of God. So don’t change what the Bible says in English. You don’t know more than the translators of the KJV. They had the best manuscripts available to them and they knew the languages far better than you. Stop acting superior to them. Just read and believe your Bible in English. If not, and you want to know what the original languages say, then you need to waste your whole life going to the countries where they speak those languages whereby you can converse with the locals and then you can move on to learning the more archaic forms of Hebrew and Greek. But I do not believe God requires us to know dead languages. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Believers need to be born again by the Word of God. This means that a person has to have a spiritual experience with the Word whereby it changes them and humbles them to tremble at His Word and see His book with spiritual eyes. If this has not happened for you, I would encourage you to seek it out with the Lord Jesus Christ.

So if the Bible says ”baptize” in English, then the KJV translators got it right and the Modern day Bible corrupting scholars who put out dictionaries today are wrong. Just read your Bible in English and believe it. Be simple like a child. There is no need to go to the Greek or Hebrew on a regular basis. Just read the Bible normally. Why? That is what we see in the Bible. The apostles did not employ the methods you are using. We learn nothing about textual variants or Lexicons, or dictionaries when we read the gospels and the writings of Paul, and others (i.e., Scripture).

But today, everyone does what is right in their own eyes.

 

[Berserk]

Oops, you missed a baptism :

"...and not laying again the foundation: repentance from good works and faith toward God, INSTRUCTION ABOUT BAPRTISMS (plural!)...(Hebrews 6:1-2)."
In his Commentary on Hebrews F. F. Bruce points out that Hebrews was written from Rome and (citing Hippolytus of Rome) the early Roman church practiced an initial baptism of purification prior to the baptism universally practiced. Hence the plural "baptisms."

 

[Der Alte]

As for the Hebrew and Greek words in the KJV:
Again, the problem today is that you got many so-called Hebrew and Greek experts when they do not know even one tenth of what the translators of the KJV did. Many of the KJV translators knew the languages enough to speak, write, and read them. Most today do not know how to do that and they are only going off Modern scholarship that is affected by Rationalism. They use dictionaries and Lexicons that are tainted by those who were into altering the Bible or who have no belief in the preservation and infallibility of God’s Word. People today who do not like the Bible can just change, add, or delete words as they see fit in the Bible. There is no respect for the Word of God anymore. Example: You just changed the English word “baptize” to “baptizer.” This is wrong. You are NOT a Greek expert and nor do you on the level of the KJV translators. You are acting like you know Greek based on some Modern dictionary tainted by Rationalism. Also, again, you cannot go to Ethiopia to learn Chinese correctly by using an Ethiopian to Chinese dictionary. You go to China to learn Chinese properly. However, Christians should not waste their entire lives learning the original languages by going to those countries and gleaning it from the locals. Instead, believers should get busy with living out faith by God’s Word by simply submitting to it instead of correcting It.
Today, there is no fear before people’s eyes to alter God’s words. To the people today, the Bible is no more than some kind of school text book, and it is not the very words of God which are inspired or God breathed. What about the warning in Revelation to not add or take away from God’s words? The Bible also talks about those who pervert the Word of God. So don’t change what the Bible says in English. You don’t know more than the translators of the KJV. They had the best manuscripts available to them and they knew the languages far better than you. Stop acting superior to them. Just read and believe your Bible in English. If not, and you want to know what the original languages say, then you need to waste your whole life going to the countries where they speak those languages whereby you can converse with the locals and then you can move on to learning the more archaic forms of Hebrew and Greek. But I do not believe God requires us to know dead languages. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Believers need to be born again by the Word of God. This means that a person has to have a spiritual experience with the Word whereby it changes them and humbles them to tremble at His Word and see His book with spiritual eyes. If this has not happened for you, I would encourage you to seek it out with the Lord Jesus Christ.
So if the Bible says ”baptize” in English, then the KJV translators got it right and the Modern day Bible corrupting scholars who put out dictionaries today are wrong. Just read your Bible in English and believe it. Be simple like a child. There is no need to go to the Greek or Hebrew on a regular basis. Just read the Bible normally. Why? That is what we see in the Bible. The apostles did not employ the methods you are using. We learn nothing about textual variants or Lexicons, or dictionaries when we read the gospels and the writings of Paul, and others (i.e., Scripture).
But today, everyone does what is right in their own eyes.

Do you have anything like credible, verifiable, historical, grammatical etc. evidence for your claims about the KJV and/or the KJV translators? FYI the apostles didn't have to do any research they were writing in a language they spoke every day. Much as we don't have to consult dictionaries or lexicons to read and write English but people whose native language is not English would have to.

 

[Berserk]

I am not looking to change what my Bible says. I believe the King James Bible is the most accurate translation today for 101 Reasons.

Here is a partial list with explanations of countless translation errors in the KJV:

Errors in the King James Version (Boy, are there a lot of them) – The Superior Word

superiorword.org

It's bad enough that the KJV uses archaic language and is based on just a few late manuscripts with highly corrupt texts. But its countless mistranslations of those flawed manuscripts is also disturbing. Here is another KJV mistranslation not included in the above list:

"Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Did you EXPERIENCE ("suffer"--KJV) so much for nothing... ? Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and WORK MIRACLES AMONG YOU by your doing the works of the Law or by your believing what you heard (Galatians 3:3-5)?"

The Greek "pascho" can mean both "experience" and "suffer," but here the NRSV is right to translate it "experience." The context makes no mention of suffering and instead refers to the experience of the Spirit and miracles. A spiritually significant KJV mistranslation!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here is a partial list with explanations of countless translation errors in the KJV:

Errors in the King James Version (Boy, are there a lot of them) – The Superior Word

superiorword.org

Yes, I was aware of this article before you even posted it.
Lots of assumptions are being made in that article.
I am also not Catholic, and so that is why I do not favor Vatican manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus / Nestle and Aland) that underly pretty much the majority of Modern Translations today. Yes, I am aware of Erasmus. But the RCC really did not like him, and they sought to destroy his works. The RCC said Erasmus was the egg that Luther hatched. In fact, there are 14 verses that are in Modern Translations that favor the Catholic Church. So that is why I don’t trust them. But do I use Modern bibles? Yes. Do I trust them entirely? No.

At the end of the day, we all will have to give an answer to what God’s Word actually says.
For example, if we do not receive the words of Jesus, those words will judge us on the last day (John 12:48).

It's bad enough that the KJV uses archaic language and is based on just a few late manuscripts with highly corrupt texts. But its countless mistranslations of those flawed manuscripts is also disturbing. Here is another KJV mistranslation not included in the above list:

"Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Did you EXPERIENCE ("suffer"--KJV) so much for nothing... ? Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and WORK MIRACLES AMONG YOU by your doing the works of the Law or by your believing what you heard (Galatians 3:3-5)?"

The Greek "pascho" can mean both "experience" and "suffer," but here the NRSV is right to translate it "experience." The context makes no mention of suffering and instead refers to the experience of the Spirit and miracles. A spiritually significant KJV mistranslation!

Sorry, we are not allowed to discuss the KJB-only issue here at CF.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you have anything like credible, verifiable, historical, grammatical etc. evidence for your claims about the KJV and/or the KJV translators? FYI the apostles didn't have to do any research they were writing in a language they spoke every day. Much as we don't have to consult dictionaries or lexicons to read and write English but people whose native language is not English would have to.

My answer will be found in my future write-up I mentioned to you previously. It is still a long work in progress. Granted, I imagine there will still be many who will simply brush it aside either due to laziness, preference of beliefs, or some other odd-ball excuse.

 

[Der Alte]

My answer will be found in my future write-up I mentioned to you previously. It is still a long work in progress. Granted, I imagine there will still be many who will simply brush it aside either due to laziness, preference of beliefs, or some other odd-ball excuse.

...or more likely you do not support your posts with credible, verifiable, historical, grammatical, lexical etc. evidence.
Probably something like "this guy said 'this' that guy said 'that' some other guy said 'something else.'"
Let me show you what I mean about such sources. Here from Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich [BDAG] lexicon of NT Greek the definition of the Greek word "aionios" which you will note is correctly translated "eternal" in the NT.. You may further note 80+ grammatical, lexical etc. sources highlighted in blue, reviewed by the scholars in determining the correct definition. That is scholarship! If you can't match/supersede that don't bother.

αἰώνιος (ία Pla., Tim. 38b; Jer 39:40; Ezk 37:26; OdeSol 11:22; TestAbr A; JosAs 8:11 cod. A; 2 Th 2:16; Hb 9:12; mss. Ac 13:48; 2 Pt 1:11; AcPl BMM recto 27=Ox 1602, 29; Just., A I, 8, 4 al.; B-D-F §59, 2; Mlt-H. 157), ον eternal (since Hyperid. 6, 27; Pla.; ins, pap, LXX, En, TestSol, TestAbr A, Test12Patr; JosAs 12:12; GrBar 4:16; ApcEsdr; ApcMos 29; Ps.-Phocyl. 112; Just.; Tat. 17, 1; Ath., Mel.; standard epithet for princely, esp. imperial, power: OGI index VIII; BGU 176, 12; 303, 2; 309, 4; Sb 7517, 5 [211/12 a.d.] κύριος αἰ.; al. in pap; Jos., Ant. 7, 352).​

① pert. to a long period of time, long ago χρόνοις αἰ. long ages ago Ro 16:25; πρὸ χρόνων αἰ. before time began 2 Ti 1:9; Tit 1:2 (in these two last pass. the prep. bears the semantic content of priority; on χρόνος αἰ. cp. OGI 248, 54; 383, 10).​

② pert. to a period of time without beginning or end, eternal of God (Ps.-Pla., Tim. Locr. 96c θεὸν τ. αἰώνιον; IBM 894, 2 αἰ. κ. ἀθάνατος τοῦ παντὸς φύσις; Gen 21:33; Is 26:4; 40:28; Bar 4:8 al.; Philo, Plant. 8; 74; SibOr Fgm. 3, 17 and 4; PGM 1, 309; 13, 280) Ro 16:26; of the Holy Spirit in Christ Hb 9:14. θρόνος αἰ. 1 Cl 65:2 (cp. 1 Macc 2:57).​

③ pert. to a period of unending duration, without end (Diod S 1, 1, 5; 5, 73, 1; 15, 66, 1 δόξα αἰ. everlasting fame; in Diod S 1, 93, 1 the Egyptian dead are said to have passed to their αἰ. οἴκησις; Arrian, Peripl. 1, 4 ἐς μνήμην αἰ.; Jos., Bell. 4, 461 αἰ. χάρις=a benefaction for all future time; OGI 383, 10 [I b.c.] εἰς χρόνον αἰ.; EOwen, οἶκος αἰ.: JTS 38, ’37, 248–50; EStommel, Domus Aeterna: RAC IV 109–28) of the next life σκηναὶ αἰ. Lk 16:9 (cp. En 39:5). οἰκία, contrasted w. the οἰκία ἐπίγειος, of the glorified body 2 Cor 5:1. διαθήκη (Gen 9:16; 17:7; Lev 24:8; 2 Km 23:5 al.; PsSol 10:4 al.) Hb 13:20. εὐαγγέλιον Rv 14:6; κράτος in a doxolog. formula (=εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας) 1 Ti 6:16. παράκλησις 2 Th 2:16. λύτρωσις Hb 9:12. κληρονομία (Esth 4:17m) vs. 15; AcPl Ha 8, 21. αἰ. ἀπέχειν τινά (opp. πρὸς ὥραν) keep someone forever Phlm 15 (cp. Job 40:28). Very often of God’s judgment (Diod S 4, 63, 4 διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν ἐν ᾅδου διατελεῖν τιμωρίας αἰωνίου τυγχάνοντα; similarly 4, 69, 5; Jer 23:40; Da 12:2; Ps 76:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 13:15) κόλασις αἰ. (TestReub 5:5) Mt 25:46; 2 Cl 6:7; κρίμα αἰ. Hb 6:2 (cp. κρίσις αἰ. En 104:5). θάνατοςB 20:1. ὄλεθρον (4 Macc 10:15) 2 Th 1:9. πῦρ (4 Macc 12:12; GrBar 4:16.—SibOr 8, 401 φῶς αἰ.) Mt 18:8; 25:41; Jd 7; Dg 10:7 (cp. 1QS 2:8). ἁμάρτημα Mk 3:29 (v.l. κρίσεως, κολάσεω, and ἁμαρτίας). On the other hand, of eternal life (Maximus Tyr. 6, 1d θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰ.; Diod S 8, 15, 3 life μετὰ τὸν θάνατον lasts εἰς ἅπαντα αἰῶνα; Da 12:2; 4 Macc 15:3;PsSol PsSol 3:12; OdeSol 11:16c; JosAs 8:11 cod. A [p. 50, 2 Bat.]; Philo, Fuga 78; Jos., Bell. 1, 650; SibOr 2, 336) in the Reign of God: ζωὴ αἰ. (Orig., C. Cels. 2, 77, 3) Mt 19:16, 29; 25:46; Mk 10:17, 30; Lk 10:25; 18:18, 30; J 3:15f, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2f; Ac 13:46, 48; Ro 2:7; 5:21; 6:22f; Gal 6:8; 1 Ti 1:16; 6:12; Tit 1:2; 3:7; 1J 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jd 21; D 10:3; 2 Cl 5:5; 8:4, 6; IEph 18:1; Hv 2, 3, 2; 3, 8, 4 al. Also βασιλεία αἰ. 2 Pt 1:11 (ApcPt Rainer 9; cp. Da 4:3; 7:27; Philo, Somn. 2, 285; Mel., P. 68, 493; OGI 569, 24 ὑπὲρ τῆς αἰωνίου καὶ ἀφθάρτου βασιλείας ὑμῶν; Dssm. B 279f, BS 363). Of the glory in the next life δόξα αἰ. 2 Ti 2:10; 1 Pt 5:10 (cp. Wsd 10:14; Jos., Ant. 15, 376.—SibOr 8, 410 φῶς αἰῶνιον). αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης 2 Cor 4:17; σωτηρία αἰ. (Is 45:17; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 1, 19) Hb 5:9; short ending of Mk. Of unseen glory in contrast to the transitory world of the senses τὰ μὴ βλεπόμενα αἰώνια 2 Cor 4:18.—χαρά IPhld ins; δοξάζεσθαι αἰωνίῳ ἔργῳ be glorified by an everlasting deed IPol 8:1. DHill, Gk. Words and Hebr. Mngs. ’67, 186–201; JvanderWatt, NovT 31, ’89, 217–28 (J).—DELG s.v. αἰών. M-M. TW. Sv.[1]​

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 33.​