It demonstrates powerfully that "baptizo" in the New Testament is used differently than it is in classical Greek.
It includes affusion and sprinkling.
For example, in the cleaning of hands, water was poured upon them and the dirty water collected in a bowl. This ties in with the pouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts being called baptism.
This article takes some very strong liberties with Scripture to come to it's conclusions. I am not willing to do that in order to figure out what Scripture says.
The fact that "baptizo" can't mean sprinkling or pouring does not come form classical Greek, but rather from Koine (or common) Greek, which is what the New Testament was written in.
If the Greek word "baptizo" truly includes the idea of sprinkling, then why can you not provide a single reputable Greek lexicon that says as much?
It merely demonstrates a lame attempt to try to change the meaning of the word "baptizo", which in the Greek means to "get thoroughly wet", by either full immersion, dipping something into a liquid, or pouring enough liquid onto someone or something to get it thoroughly wet.
Sprinkling did not get anything or anyone fully wet. Noah and those in the ark were never sprinkled, but they were symbolically baptized being in the ark which was surrounded with water, as was Moses and the children of Israel who had water on all sides of them, but they were saved through it and came up out of it.
Don't these people have a Greek/English Concordance? Don't you? Look up the word "baptism" and tell me when it ever means "sprinkle" and how many times ---- Zero.
Funny how English speakers see this but native Koine Greek and Aramaic never figured this out.
*sigh*
more protestant tripe. you'd figure Christ spoke English only the way protestants read their little English uniquities into Koine Greek and Aramaic...