Good as New??

it means neither dip, nor sprinkle. it means to immerse.

 

Ok, what's the difference between dip and immerse..

And Does peter ever say, "Yo Adrian" in the GAN? lol

 

The word dip means only to moisten suggesting a pouring liquid on

G911 bapto (1)
bapto bap'-to a primary verb; to whelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or special sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one's person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye):--dip.
HE MAY DIP (1)
Lu 16:24


The word baptize means to immerse suggesting a complete burial

G907 baptizo (9)
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.
BAPTIZE (4)
Mt 3:11; Mr 1:4; Lu 3:16; Joh 1:26
SHALL BAPTIZE (3)
Mt 3:11; Mr 1:8; Lu 3:16
TO BAPTIZE (2)
Joh 1:33; 1Co 1:17

 

To dip means to immerse and pull back out. Bapto is brief, and baptizo is more permanently changing. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

Either way, it's a transliteration.

 

What? No, it doesnt. Perhaps you should look up the word DIP in a dictionary written within the last 1000 years? Dip means to:

web page

If only this were the first time I have seen something invented for the sole purpose of defending one's position, I would be shocked. However, it is not. It doesnt matter what the truth about Baptizo is, this statement above is either untrue, or taken from the worst dictionary on the planet.

 

The link worked just fine for me. Perhaps this link will work better for you:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39114

I first learned of this translation two years ago, but I have seen no evidence that it has been well received by very many Christians. Here is a link to a good review of this translation:

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

 

I am not able to find any use of the word “baptize” in any English literature prior to the 13th century. We may have a typographical error in the OED.

 

If you read my post, I specifically stated that it was in use in the English language prior to the KJV, just as many other Catholic ideas that were also incorporated into the KJV. To deny that it is a transliteration and not a translation is to believe in some vast conspiracy by all etymologists:

baptize 1297, from O.Fr. baptizier (11c.), from L. baptizare, from Gk. baptizein "to immerse," in ecclesiastical language, "baptize," from baptein "to dip, steep, dye, color." Christian baptism originally consisted in full immersion. Baptist as member of a Protestant sect that believes in adult baptism by immersion first recorded 1654; their opponents called them anabaptists. Phrase baptism of fire (1822) translates Fr. baptême de feu and is a reference to a soldier's first experience under fire in battle; but the phrase originally was ecclesiastical Gk. baptisma pyros and meant "the grace of the Holy Spirit as imparted through baptism." Later it was used of martyrdom, especially by fire.

It means to dip or immerse. "Baptize" is a transliteration. Do I think that it's bad to transliterate? Not really, but in this case, it certainly helps many denominations and sects justify sprinkling or pouring by calling them "baptism".

 

There is a bit of a difference between a word coming into the English language and the French language coming into England.

 

The Greek word βαπτιζω as used in the New Testament did not necessarily mean to dip into or immerse in water. It was sometimes used for washing or cleansing.

Luke 11:38. When the Pharisee saw it, he was surprised that He had not first ceremonially washed before the meal.

Mark 7:4. and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)

 

And the Greek word βαπτιζω is sometimes used in the sense of “pouring.”

In Acts 1:4-5 we find that the disciples were to be baptized with the Holy Spirit,

Acts 1:4. Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," He said, "you heard of from Me;
5. for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

And on the day of Pentecost this promise was kept by the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:17. 'AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says, 'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;
18. EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT And they shall prophesy.

Acts 2:33. "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.

What mode of Baptism was actually used in the New Testament? Was it always immersion? The Bible does not answer that question, but:

Acts 2:41. So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Where were these 3,000 people immersed?

The oldest known (ca. 70 A.D.) document giving instructions for water baptism in the Christian church gives us the following,

"Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

We also find the following regarding the mode of baptism in the early church,

Hippolytus of Rome: "If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available" (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]).

Cornelius I: (Writing of Novatian on his deathbed,) "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Cyprian: [No one should be] "disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]).

Tertullian: [Baptism should be done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner" (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]).

Although these very early witness to the mode of Baptism in the early church are NOT authoritative on the correct mode of water baptism, we can see very clearly that the Greek word βαπτιζω was not used exclusively for immersion,” but was also used for “sprinkling” and “pouring.

Very much additional early Greek literature could be cited to prove that the Greek word βαπτιζω was used for immersion, cleansing, washing, pouring, and sprinkling.

I personally believe in Baptism by immersion, but to say the Greek word βαπτιζω always means “to dip or immerse in water” is simply incorrect.

(All Scriptures NASB, 1995)

 

It seems like an interesting paraphrase like The Message. It has its use and audience and God will bless those it was intend for.

I probably won't ever refer to it since the Message is an equivalent with more cultural commonalities to me than the Good as New.

I actually liked the two passages quoted in the OP and found some of his interpretive choices interesting although I disagree with a few.