I've got a question about the Bible

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by nth78, Feb 17, 2002.

  1. nth78

    nth78
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    In my King James Bible, at the beginning of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John it says in the title, "The Gospel According to Saint (Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John)". I thought that Baptists didn't believe in calling people Saints. I thought it was just a Catholic and Lutheran thing. Any info is appreciated.

    Peace
     
  2. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi. An explanation might be that the translators of the KJV were not Baptists, but mainly, if not all, Anglicans. The KJV, as well as many other translations, translate the Greek word "hagios" (agios, #40 in Strong's), an adjective, with "saint" when the context makes clear that it refers to a believer in Jesus Christ. It might more literally be rendered "holy one" or "sanctified one" to bring out the fact it is an adjective. The word saint is a noun to be specific. I, and many non-Catholics or non-Lutherans, have no problem with the KJV's "saint", because I understand it means a holy or sanctified person who has been made thus by God's grace.
    The word in and of itself is not wicked, but Catholics may have used in a perverted manner.

    Harald
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    And the "titles" given to the books are NOT inspired. They are aids for the reader (to keep the writings separated and identified).

    My biggest irritant is "The Revelation of St. John the Divine". The book actually starts off "The Revelation of Jesus Christ . . " and that is what it should have been titled.

    I would recommend ignoring them. They are titles from a different era. The book of First Corinthians simply says "Corinthians A" in the Greek. Not "The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Church at Corinth" or some such.
     
  4. buzz

    buzz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are over 30 references given in the kjv about the saints, so really there should be no problem with it, for the saints are God's redeemed people.
     
  5. MarciontheModerateBaptist

    MarciontheModerateBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the titles are Anglican, what else is Anglican?

    Daniel
     
  6. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    For starters, the transliteration of "baptize" from baptizo. An accurate translation would be "immerse."

    As I understand it, the Anglican translators made up the word baptize to avoid embarrassing their Church of England by contradicting its practice of sprinkling.
     
  7. MarciontheModerateBaptist

    MarciontheModerateBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    0
    My point exactly. It's quite funny that such fiercely independent fundamental Baptists enjoy their Anglicanized Bible so much ;)

    daniel payne
     
  8. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Siegfried:
    For starters, the transliteration of "baptize" from baptizo. An accurate translation would be "immerse."

    As I understand it, the Anglican translators made up the word baptize to avoid embarrassing their Church of England by contradicting its practice of sprinkling.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You understand wrongly. The translation committees did not "make up" the word baptize for any reason. The word "baptize" was a common word in English since the time of the Norman conquest under William the Conqueror in 1066 AD. The English word came from the French "Baptiste" and by 1611 had been in common use in England for over 500 years. This is just another of those urban myths used to discredit the KJV translators and their translation. Also, even though the word "immerse" means the same as baptize now, in 1611 it had another meaning, to merge with as opposed to dip or plunge under. Nobody in their righ mind would call baptism a merging with the water (I.E., you in the water and the water in you!)! What really irritates me is that it would only take about 20 seconds to look the word up in any good dictionary with a philology section to find this information! Why do we repeat this sort of falsehood without bothering to check our facts? Are Baptists really as anti-intellectual and anti-academic as so much of the world thinks we are? Unfortunately, it would appear so! :(
     
  9. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daniel,

    You generalize wrongly. I am a fiercely independent fundamental Baptist who thinks it's pretty unfortunate that there are so many who value tradition more than truth.

    Thomas,

    You may well be correct about the background of the terms. I haven't looked into that particular issue in 3 or 4 years, so I can't speak authoritatively from my memory. Maybe I'll research it if it seems like that big of a deal. I guess I would be curious to find out what the best translations prior to the KJV did with the term. If the KJV translators were the first to adopt the term, that could be evidence of their bias.

    Regardless, the KJV (and many modern versions, to be sure) fail to precisely define the meaning of the Greek word, which fuels doctrinal error. Just one more reason why a more accurate translation is needed.
     
  10. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,655
    Likes Received:
    225
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Siegfried:
    For starters, the transliteration of "baptize" from baptizo. An accurate translation would be "immerse."

    As I understand it, the Anglican translators made up the word baptize to avoid embarrassing their Church of England by contradicting its practice of sprinkling.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I have often heard the old Anglican Conspiracy Theory, but no one has been able to provide any evidence thereof--except dubious, amateur expositions on the meaning of the "original Greek."
     
  11. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Siegfried:
    I would be curious to find out what the best translations prior to the KJV did with the term.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wycliff 1380 "baptise"
    Tyndale 1525 "baptyse"
    Cranmer 1539 "baptise"
    Great 1540 "baptyse"
    Geneva 1557 "baptise"
    Bishops 1568 "baptize"
    Rheims 1582 "baptize"
    KJV 1611 "baptize"
    RV 1881 "baptize"
    ASV 1901 "baptize"
    RSV 1946 "baptize"
    NASB 1960 "baptize"
    NIV 1978 "baptize"
    NKJV 1982 "baptize"

    Well, in fact, all of them read the same!
     
  12. Jamal5000

    Jamal5000
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2001
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Nth,

    As far as I know it stems from tradition grounded in the influence of Roman Cathlocism that still existed in the Church of England at the time. Other than that, I'm not sure.

    [​IMG] J5Grand
     
  13. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
    Wycliff 1380 "baptise"
    Tyndale 1525 "baptyse"
    Cranmer 1539 "baptise"
    Great 1540 "baptyse"
    Geneva 1557 "baptise"
    Bishops 1568 "baptize"
    Rheims 1582 "baptize"
    KJV 1611 "baptize"
    RV 1881 "baptize"
    ASV 1901 "baptize"
    RSV 1946 "baptize"
    NASB 1960 "baptize"
    NIV 1978 "baptize"
    NKJV 1982 "baptize"

    Well, in fact, all of them read the same!
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Thanks for the research. It's too bad that none of those versions give a truthful translation of what biblical baptism is. Maybe we can do a BBV--Baptist Board Version. I'm sure we could put our heads together and take care of all the problems.

    ;)
     
  14. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Siegfried:


    Thanks for the research. It's too bad that none of those versions give a truthful translation of what biblical baptism is. Maybe we can do a BBV--Baptist Board Version. I'm sure we could put our heads together and take care of all the problems.

    ;)
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They all give a truthful translation of what biblical baptism. The very word βαπτιζο which "baptize" is a transliteration, conveys the idea of "to dip or immerse." To say the word "baptize" is untruthful then to turn around and call yourself a "Baptist" is what is untruthful! If you believe the word "baptize" is not accurate, then you must not call yourself a "baptist" for it is a form of the same word. (And if you are not a baptist, you must leave this part of the forum!) Why nit pick the bible like some crow picking at carrion beside the road? Why not love and respect the bible, teach it, preach it, and live it?
     
  15. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Siegfried said:

    As I understand it, the Anglican translators made up the word baptize to avoid embarrassing their Church of England by contradicting its practice of sprinkling.

    No, they didn't make it up, but they did retain it deliberately, so as to preserve the Anglican tradition of sprinkling. The KJV was originally suggested to James by a Puritan, and had the Puritan faction in the C. of E. had their way, many words, such as baptism, would have been translated in a more "populist" way. However, the translators were directed to retain the ecclesiastical terminology, as the third rule of translation stated:

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    In the preface to the Bible, the translators also indicated that they were deliberately taking a middle ground between the Puritans and the Romanists. Note that they specifically repudiate the term washing in favour of baptism:

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    [ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Ransom ]
     
  16. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> They all give a truthful translation of what biblical baptism. The very word βαπτιζο which "baptize" is a transliteration, conveys the idea of "to dip or immerse." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    To you and me it conveys that, because we understand what biblical baptism is. Someone who sprinkles or pours probably thinks he is practicing biblical baptism, too, because it conveys something else to him. It obviously did to the Anglican translators.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> To say the word "baptize" is untruthful then to turn around and call yourself a "Baptist" is what is untruthful! If you believe the word "baptize" is not accurate, then you must not call yourself a "baptist" for it is a form of the same word. (And if you are not a baptist, you must leave this part of the forum!) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I don't think that's a fair criticism. Being a Baptist is much more than believing in immersion. It's a term that has come to describe those who hold a certain view of Scripture and church polity and practice. That may be a little simplistic, but I don't really feel like a treatise on what it means to be a Baptist. Suffice it to say that the term represents a group who are unified around much more than baptism/immersion.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Why nit pick the bible like some crow picking at carrion beside the road? Why not love and respect the bible, teach it, preach it, and live it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I don't think I'm nit-picking, at least not at the Bible. Pure, uncompromising doctrine is a big deal. Accurate terminology is a big deal. When doctrine and terms get fuzzy we wind up with ECT, Promise Keepers, etc., with some good mixed with a whole lot of danger. I am being very critical of men who are unwilling to be biblical in their theology and terminology.

    By the way, I do love, respect, preach, and teach the Bible, and I try to live it as best I can. It's just easier to do all those things, at least the last three, when men don't let their biases skew Scripture to say what they want.
     

Share This Page

Loading...