Baptism does not make one a disciple of Christ. In John 4:1-3, we see that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. Note that the verse does not say that Jesus made disciples by baptizing them.
In Matthew 28:19, we are commanded first to make disciples (KJV mistakenly translates this teach) and then we are commanded to baptize them. Who are the ‘them’ but “them disciples?” Luke 6:40 tells us we make disciples by converting them to want to be like the one Master—Jesus Christ.
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.
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
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.
Colossians 2:16-17—Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Hebrews 8:3-6—For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. 4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Hebrews 10:1—For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
One should be able to see why it is important to study the Old Testament; it helps us better understand the New.
Knowing the one true God and the Jesus he sent (John 17:3) requires faith that there is one true God. To God’s chosen apostle, there was one God, the Father, from whom are all things (1 Cor. 8:6). That same God and Father made all things through Jesus (Col. 1:15-18; John 1:1-4). That same Father gave Jesus all of his authority after the cross (Matthew 28:18).
I know you like a little history so here is something that you may find interesting. King James II of England had about 50-60 or so scholars who translated the Bible from its original text to the King’s English. What’s important to realize here is that King James was Catholic. Of course, you know that Catholics have totally different beliefs than Protestant Christians so I won’t delve into specifics here.