Well.... I'm curious... if the KJV was translated from Greek, why would Acts 2:38 not say, "repent and be immersed...." ? The word used was "baptizo" which, as I understand it, translates to "immerse". Could it have been that good old King James believed in sprinkling for baptism, and the translators knew upon which side their bread was buttered? So in order to NOT irritate their employer, created a word to cover the incorrect method?
When did the word "baptize" come into existence? I've always been told it was around 1611 or so. I will be the first to admit I have not researched it myself, but was taught that from a very early age.
Any linguists out there?
Baptizo in Greek means "to baptize, dip, immerse." It is actually an ancient Jewish cleansing tradition, a ritual to do with ceremonial cleansing. It was very important to the Pharisees, and many rich Pharisees had a mikvah, a pool of running water, in their home so they could undergo this rite before going to the temple. John the Baptist had public baptisms in the Jordan River, including Jesus.
So no, not invented by KJV, and certainly the right word is being used in this passage in that translation.
This is not addressed specifically to you, Hornet guy, but to everyone, especially in this thread who keep misusing the Greek/Hebrew to support their points.
1. Please stop posting stuff you may have heard once, without at least googling it. We may get rid of half the errors people are presenting as fact, simple by looking up what you THINK might be true, before posting it.
2. Be careful of your sources you are using to back up your claims. Thayers, for example, is a thoroughly discredited source. And it has been since the early 20th century. It uses a lot of wrong grammar, etc. Strong's is also extremely old, and because it is based on the KJV, it is not right to use it to back up claims the KJV is right, because of course it is based on that translation. So you can't say the NIV or ESV (or any other translation!) is wrong based on Strong's. An independent Lexicon like Bauer for Greek and Brown-Driver-Briggs for Hebrew would be a superior choice. That would require learning how to read the letters, instead of transliterating, and their order, but that would not take more than a week for each!
If this thread is still going tomorrow, I will try and advance some scholarly concerns about the KJV. However, it is better to read the KJV, than some other versions, or not read at all!
As for saying KJV is closest to the Greek, because it mirrors a parallel version, NOT!! Greek word order is completely different than English, it cannot be translated word for word, or the English would not make sense. That applies to any version.
It would be so nice if people would actually study Greek and Hebrew before making all these wild claims based in simple word studies. Biblical languages are highly complex, and extensive study of grammar, syntax, etc needs to be done to understand either Hebrew or Greek. Both languages come from cultures which are radically different than our own, and from English, and it takes a lot of work in translation, to even begin to understand the thought processes of those cultures.
BUT, as Jaume said much earlier, the central message of the Bible is the same in any language, culture or translation. Sadly, it is often the finer points of theology that get lost in translation.
My concern is always to urge people to read the Bible, in a version that makes sense! Reading the Bible has to go hand in hand with prayer, because knowing God is a heart matter, and the Holy Spirit will enlighten the eyes of our heart as we read the Bible to know God better, and to follow him and do his will.
