IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, WHEN DID THE WORD IMMERSION BECOME BAPTISM?

Borrowed from the Visual Thesaurus

NT:907 baptizo (bap-tid’-zo); from a derivative of NT:911; to immerse, submerge; to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N. T.) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: KJV – Baptist, baptize, wash.

NT:908 baptisma (bap’-tis-mah); from NT:907; immersion, baptism (technically or figuratively): KJV – baptism.

NT:909 baptismos (bap-tis-mos’); from NT:907; ablution (ceremonial or Christian):

NT:910 Baptistes (bap-tis-tace’); from NT:907; a baptizer, as an epithet of Christ’s forerunner: KJV – Baptist.

NT:911 bapto (bap’-to); a primary verb; to overwhelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the N. T. only in a qualified or specially, sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye): KJV – dip.

(Biblesoft’s New Exhaustive Strong’s Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

If we follow Strong’s ‘rule,’ and take the primary word as the definition, we have the word that proceeded out of the mouth of God.

If we accept “anything” after the “i.e.,” we will come out with possible uses of the word.

The next word has 2 “i.e.”s, which makes it doubly suspect.

No doubt someone used the word figuratively somewhere at sometime in the Greek culture, which supposedly makes it a ‘possible’ meaning of the word.

Even the washing of cups, etc., refers to covering with water.

NT:911 bapto (bap’-to); a primary verb; to overwhelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the N. T. only in a qualified or specially, sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye):

Who knows if the following exerpt from an article is right or not, but Webster’s Dictionary says it was first used in the 1200’s.

Origin and Etymology of baptize
Middle English, from Anglo-French baptiser, from Late Latin baptizare, from Greek baptizein to dip, baptize, from baptein to dip, dye; akin to Old Norse kvefja to quench

First Known Use: 13th century
https://www.facebook.com/notes/joshua-ingram/kjv-and-the-word-baptize-did-they-make-it-up-part-1/10151658284793471/

Semantical Relationship of “Baptism” to the KJV Translators

In semantics, which is the study of the significance of words and the concepts to which they refer, there is a basic principle that what a word means to its users is determined by what its users do with that word. (55) For the purpose of this study, this principle may be formulated as a question: ‘Did the words ‘baptism’ and “to baptize’ mean” “immersion” and “to immerse” to the KJV’s translators, that is, were they synonymous with each other?” There are three key sources of evidence, which practically demand an affirmative answer to this question.

Other English Bibles

The first of these decisive factors is that every Bible, from the very first English Bible written by John Wycliffe (c. 1384) to the last Bible in English prior to the KJV, the Rheims New Testament (1582), uses either the exact words “baptism” and “to baptize” or their contemporary English equivalents in their original texts. (56, 57, 58) What did the users of these Bibles take those words to mean? The study of the baptismal mode in England indicates that they understood those words to mean “immersion” and ‘to immerse.”

I tried to check on Wycliffe’s translation, and apparently he included the word baptism instead of immersion. Supposedly the entire Roman Catholic Church believed that sprinkling (pouring at that time) was OK. Whether that is right or not, I have not been able to confirm.

I also can’t confirm whether the KJV translators made any changes in that pattern.

In this article, rather than label a specific group with the charge of transliterating the word, I have found it is better to refer to ‘translators’ in general.

If the word baptism itself were in use in the 1200’s, that would predate Wycliffe.

More ideas about immerse may be found here.

WHO IS LUCIFER IN ISAIAH 14, AND WHO IS THE KING OF TYRE?

Isaiah 14:12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

OT: Hebrew #1966 heylel (hay-lale’); from OT:1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star:

Continue reading WHO IS LUCIFER IN ISAIAH 14, AND WHO IS THE KING OF TYRE?

THE FALL OF BELSHAZZAR

Isaiah Chapter 14 contains great prophecies of the destruction of the Babylonian Empire and the restoration of God’s people Israel to their land.  It is quite possible that the chapter also contains prophecies that would find ultimate fulfillment in the New Testament, in the Lord’s Church, which is spiritual Israel (Gal 6:15-16; Heb. 12:22-23).  But there are several verses that explicitly foretell God’s judgment of one of the kings of Babylon, who was Belshazzar.  Isaiah 14:4-6 says, “That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.”

Continue reading THE FALL OF BELSHAZZAR

QUESTIONS ABOUT LUCIFER

The origin of the word “Lucifer” appears to be included in a literal translation in the Latin Vulgate which (word) Wycliffe {and/or others} transliterated and included in the first English translation of the Bible (published from 1382-1395 AD).

According to Webster’s dictionary the origin and etymology of “Lucifer” is from Middle English, and is defined as 1) the morning star, 2) a fallen rebel archangel, and 3) the Devil. The word ‘lucifer’ is originally a Latin word which is literally translated as “bright, shining or clear.”  It was first known to be used in English before the 12th century.

According to an article in Wikipedia under the title of “Fallen Angel,”[i]The fall of Lucifer finds its earliest identification with a fallen angel in Origen (182-254 A. D.)… (in) the image of the fallen morning star or angel (and) was applied to Satan both in Jewish pseudepigrapha and by early Christian writers…”

Continue reading QUESTIONS ABOUT LUCIFER

THE JUDGES CHRONOLOGY CONTROVERSY

Several modern day scholars point to a problem for the chronology of the Judges in the King James Version of the Bible, but these assertions mostly come from denominational websites.  The best I can tell from these sources is that they believe there is an issue with the dates because of the genealogy.

Continue reading THE JUDGES CHRONOLOGY CONTROVERSY