[BibChr]

Actually, that's not a bad translation. baptizo doesn't mean "baptize," that's a transliteration/copout. It means "dip" or "immerse."

That's the weird thing about this: some of those passages actually contain good ideas, for paraphrases. But what's bad is REALLY bad.

Besides, another paraphrase is the LAST thing we need.

Dan
Biblical Christianity web site

[Taliesan]

I like "John the Dipper".

[Fifth Business]

Actually, that's not a bad translation. baptizo doesn't mean "baptize," that's a transliteration/copout. It means "dip" or "immerse."

The "dipping" translation was only part of why I called it Baptist. He has an interpretive translation for "baptizm for the remission of sins" that suggests baptism is symbolic only. That's not exclusively Baptist, but combined with the dipping it lines up squarely with the Baptist tradition.

I'm not commenting on the theology of baptism one way or another, but I think the translation is too interpretive.

[Fifth Business]

Oh, and I forgot to say:

That Anglican's are praising this "translation" in spite of this symbolic-only understanding of baptism speaks volumes about where their church is at. The need to update concepts about marriage overrides everything else.

[The Grammarian]

Actually, that's not a bad translation. baptizo doesn't mean "baptize," that's a transliteration/copout. It means "dip" or "immerse."

Spoken like an immersionist. According to multiple Greek scholars, modern and past, there is no Greek word for "immersion" in the New Testament. Not only that, but the old pre-Vulgate Latin translation, The Itala (which dates back to the first couple of centuries A.D.) does NOT use the Latin term "immergo" (immerse), but "baptizo," implying that there is a difference between the two (a couple of tidbits from this article: Why Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies).