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.

OTHER HEAVENLY BEINGS 4

Rarely does anyone consider that there might be more spiritual beings in heaven than just God and His angels. Generally, the average Christian acknowledges that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are spiritual beings in heaven, but do they consider who or what else might be there?

Some have quoted Habakuk 1:13 to say nothing unholy would ever be in the presence of the Heavenly Father, but they fail to see that the prophet is using his best argument to keep God from using an evil nation to punish Israel.  The ones who pull this verse out of context to say the LORD could not bear to see anything unholy forget the account in the book of Job, where Satan appeared before God. “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. 7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it” (Job 1:6-7).  By this we know that Satan went from the earth to appear before the LORD in heaven.  This did not happen before the world began, nor was it before Christ.  It happened during Job’s time after the creation of the world.

WHO IS MELCHEZEDIC, AND WHY WOULD HE BE MENTIONED IN THE CONTEXT OF HEAVENLY BEINGS?

Considering the statement in Psalm 110:4 about Christ’s priesthood, and the profound implications it has for us, how could Melchizedek be an ordinary man? “The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4). Melchizedek should be understood to be a guarantee of our Lord’s priesthood! He is a guarantee to us that there will not be an end of Jesus’ priesthood. What point do the ones take from the doctrines concerning Melchizedek if he were a mere man? Besides that, if Melchizedek were a man, the statement is clear that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham. If that were true, then why are we not children of Melchizedek instead of children of the second best man (Abraham)?

The importance of this verse is indicated both by the fact that it is a Psalm, which is quoted at least 12 times in the New Testament, and is also central to the main theme of Hebrews, chapters 5–7. It is quoted no fewer than five times in the book of Hebrews. Melchizedek (spelled Melchisedec in the New Testament) is mentioned nine times. Each time, it refers to the strange appearance in Genesis 14:18-20. The Lord makes the point that when Melchizedek’s name is translated, he is the “King of Righteousness.” When the remainder of his description, the “King of Salem,” is translated, he is also the King of “Peace.” Some claim that Salem was a former name of Jerusalem, but there is no evidence for such an assumption—at least not in association with a heavenly being. Such hardly does justice to the exalted descriptions of Melchizedek in Scripture. He is the “priest of the most high God” (Heb. 7:1), suddenly appearing, and then disappearing as mysteriously as he came—like the other spiritual beings we have studied.

The Lord makes the point that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham (Heb. 7:4), and greater than Aaron, the founder of the Levitical priesthood. Furthermore, he was without father, without mother, . . . having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually (Heb. 7:3). Such a description is not consistent with the claim that his genealogy is simply not recorded.

Some have postulated that this Melchizedek was a pre-incarnation of Christ. If that were true, they must explain why the Scriptures make a strong point of the Father’s declaring with an oath that Jesus would be after the order of Melchizedek. Why swear with an oath if Melchizedek were Christ himself? He would not need to swear but merely declare that Christ is Melchizedek. Secondly, they must explain the present tense language that Melchizedek is made like unto the Son of God who abides a priest continually (Heb. 7:3).

The only point one can take of such a description is that, because Christ was made a priest after the order of Melchizedek, this proves that his priesthood is eternal. There is no other point made in these verses concerning Christ. Can we assume that throughout eternity there has never been any other being beside men or angels? Consider that eternity is a long time, and to think that God has done nothing forever and ever before he created the earth may be assuming too much.

When it comes to religion, two a-priory assumptions prevail because 1) men today have been taught not to take the Scriptures literally and 2) men believe that the only celestial beings are the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the angels who serve them. As modern day man reads these verses about Melchizedek, he cannot imagine any other possibility than that the scriptures are mistaken or that the language is somehow figurative or allegorical rather than literal (thanks to Origen). He cannot imagine that Melchizedek was a being who really had neither father nor mother nor beginning or end. Once that dam of doubt is opened, men can, without a conscience, assume other scriptures also are not literal or true.

Could there be, would there be, another heavenly being with whom we are not familiar? Those who read carefully have read about the scenes in Daniel, chapters 10-12, where the angel Michael spoke in a vision, telling Daniel where he had been and what he had been doing. Notice how many different heavenly bodies were mentioned in those chapters. You may also like to read a recent blog article about more than one unusual being in Daniel.

(https://helpmeettohim.org/2014/05/17/stranger-than-fiction/)

What about the angels? Are they not already greater than any man and do they not count in the total picture (Heb. 2:5-10Heb. 2:17)? The Bible, the revealed Word of God (2 Tim. 3:162 Pet. 1:21) actually speaks of only one archangel, Michael (Jude 1:9), though he is called “one of the chief princes” (Dan. 10:13). Only two angels are specifically named. Those are Michael and Gabriel. The Scriptures clearly describe fallen angels as those who chose to rebel with Satan against the only true and living God (Eze. 28:12-19Matt. 25:41). What form do angels have?

Who are the Angels? We all look at the world through colored glasses that affect how we view reality. Those glasses are called our worldview. The Bible—the divine revelation of God—informs us about the truths of our earth and the God who created it. A complete biblical worldview recognizes the reality of God, the Creator; and of angels, good and evil. As we have seen, they are personal beings with intellect, emotions, and will, and they have a distinct nature are in spiritual forms and are only seen if they take on a physical form.

Who are the watchers? What or who are the beings described without names? Who are the cherubim in Ezekiel? We are told that the cherubim have wings, and not just two, like the modern artists paint for angels. Who/what are the wheels and the wheels within wheels—each filled with eyes (Eze. 1:15-16Eze. 10:9-1013)? Both Revelation and Isaiah (Isa. 6) describe the Seraphim. The Beasts in Revelation seem quite different even if they had 6 wings). Joshua didn’t describe what he saw, and it may have been Christ (Joshua 5:13-15). An interesting side note: the beings we remember from Genesis 3:24 were not angels, but cherubim. Although some try to say cherubim are just angels with a fancy title, Scripture differentiates between the two types of celestial creatures.

Go back to Hebrews 7:4 for a minute. “Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.” The word man is not in the original Greek text. The passage should read: Now consider how great this was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.” The KJV translators obviously thought a noun needed to be supplied, so they supplied the word man. They could just as easily have supplied the word being or creature.

If we understand that there is more than one kind of spiritual being in heaven, more than one type or kind of what men call angels, then perhaps we could read Hebrews 7:4 with the understanding that “this being” was indeed a heavenly being. Try reading the verse with one of those nouns supplied and see if your understanding of these events broadens. “Now consider how great this being was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

OTHER HEAVENLY BEINGS, Part 2

MORE ABOUT CHERUB/CHERUBIMS—GOD’S SPIRITUAL REALM

God’s world and his creatures are truly fascinating, and one wonders if the creatures described in Ezekiel are given an earthly form or if that description indicates their real spiritual form. Whatever might be the case, more than one Cherub was placed at the entrance of the Garden, when God intended to keep man from re-entering (Gen. 3:24). Perhaps there was more than one Cherub at the entrance but only one flaming sword that turned every direction, or maybe one each?  In any case, men of old knew what the cherubims looked like before Ezekiel’s vision because they were carved and entwined in the temple tapestry, on the lavers and other prominent places. Two fully formed Cherubims carved from the almond tree and covered with gold were on either end of the ark.  Did these two have more than one face, and, if so, which face did Moses understand would be facing toward each other?

Continue reading OTHER HEAVENLY BEINGS, Part 2

OTHER HEAVENLY BEINGS (part 1)

CHERUB – CHERUBIMS

My intent is to give as complete a picture of heavenly beings as possible, using the only reliable source we have–Scripture. One day, Lord willing, we may get to go to be with these spiritual beings, and have a form even more glorious than theirs. Heaven is an unimaginably glorious place. The cherubim were not chubby naked babies like one sees in today’s pictures – there is no glory to that.Baby AngelsThe true cherubim were obviously so magnificent in form that they were selected by God to decorate the various tabernacle items?

Continue reading OTHER HEAVENLY BEINGS (part 1)

ABOUT ANGELS 7

One very interesting fact about angels is found in Matthew 13:37-42.  Notice that angels have another job besides being messengers.

He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 OBSERVATIONS ABOUT EACH VERSE:

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; {{has to have started sewing the seed on Pentecost}}

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; {{Good seed and tares have to have started on Pentecost}}

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

  • {{Satan sowed his seed from the beginning of the kingdom on Pentecost}}
  • {{HARVEST: has to be the after the end of this world – 2nd coming}}
  • {{REAPERS: also has to be after this world ends – after Jesus comes again}}

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.{{He notes that this is “in the end of this world”}}

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; {{If this event happens before Judgment, then none of the evil that was in his kingdom will be judged}}

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. {{Again, if these souls are cast into the Lake of Fire before the Judgment, they have no judgment.}}

43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. {{And once again – this can’t be before Judgment for all of us will stand in Judgment and bow before Jesus – Rom 14:11}}

Another instance where the angels work for the departed souls is found in Luke 16:20-22.  “And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.”

We cannot speculate whether angels carried the rich man to hell (torments). We do know that angels that sinned were in hell in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6.  We know also that His angels will have work at the second coming – after he judges them – so that they are fully qualified to enter the eternal habitations (1 Cor. 6:3).

Angels are able to transport all souls from this world to the next (Matt. 24:31). “And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”