Am I wrong

Yehren said:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead. ;
whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Nicene Creed, 381

Click to expand...

That's Nice! As we have the right to believe in what manner we are taught! John Baptized for the remission of sin, Jesus commanded that the believers be Baptized in His Name!!!!!!!!!!!!! that makes two. Believe as you wish, and I hope you find Peace, for we all are just laborer's for the Master!

Truth said:

That's Nice! As we have the right to believe in what manner we are taught! John Baptized for the remission of sin, Jesus commanded that the believers be Baptized in His Name!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

That's one. For the remission of sin.

Yehren said:

That's one. For the remission of sin.

Click to expand...

As I said, here in the good ole USA, we Have the Freedom to believe and practice our core belief's without fear, and in the manor in which we choose!
Maybe soon that will change, But until then???????????

Truth said:

As I said, here in the good ole USA, we Have the Freedom to believe and practice our core belief's without fear, and in the manor in which we choose!
Maybe soon that will change, But until then???????????

Click to expand...

I don't think so. We're going through a bad time right now, but the pendulum seems to have started the swing back.

life is better right now--worldwide, by any measure we care to name, any common yardstick--than it has ever been, and now is the best time of your life, imo. these are the good old days
Morality Index

FHII said:

On the other hand it does exist in many translations. I do not know if the Greek language has a colon or an equivalent, but one thing I am sure of is that the word "and" was inserted into the beginning of verse 20 and wasn't in the original text. If it was, we could conclude that teaching and baptizing were separate Acts. However, I stand by my assertion that the context of the verses say that the teaching is the baptising spoken of in these verses.

Click to expand...

i would have said hearing

Truth said:

As I said, here in the good ole USA, we Have the Freedom to believe and practice our core belief's without fear, and in the manor in which we choose!
Maybe soon that will change, But until then???????????

Click to expand...

ha like anyone could change what you believe without your permission right
but the age of influence is upon us
i think

Giuliano said:

No, there was no punctuation of any kind in the Greek of the time.

Click to expand...

The KJV has a ' : ' instead of the NIV ' and '
If the original Greek had no punctuation, then the KJV has also added it !
Or us that just me being ' picky ' !! Lol

Butterfly said:

The KJV has a ' : ' instead of the NIV ' and '
If the original Greek had no punctuation, then the KJV has also added it !
Or us that just me being ' picky ' !! Lol

Click to expand...

Guiliano and I have been discussing this. Yes, you are right, but every translation does this because it is necessary. In this case we are dealing with the Greek written language and trying to translate it to English. The rules of grammar, punctuation and even the translation of words is not the same between the languages. Even the alphabet is different. We have A,B,C... the have different symbols altogether....

Thus, translators have to have great knowledge of both systems and do their best. With that in mind, I don't blame the NIV translators for doing such nor do I blame the KJV translators. Again, it is necessary. No doubt, this delemnia exists outside religious texts as well.

So, while I don't fault the NIV for doing such as a general practice (which is both necessary and present in all translations) I do not agree with it's translation of this verse. I do not think the word "and" should've been added.

Incidentally, I was in another discussion recently involving 1 Cor 6, where the NIV placed quotation marks around certain words. I disagreed with that as well because it changed the meaning and point that was trying to be made. So I am a little skeptical of the NIV at this point.

I hate to do this... But I feel it's necessary to make my point.

I BY NO MEANS AM CALLING ONE VERSION OF THE BIBLE FALSE OR UNINSPIRED WHILE CALLING ANOTHER TRUE AND INSPIRED! I HOLD TO THE KJV, BUT I AM NOT SO ARROGENT TO CLAIM EVERYTHING ELSE IS FALSE! I HAVE MY PREFERENCE AND LEAVE YOU TO YOURS! I WILL HUMBLY LOOK AT ANY VERSION FIR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

Sorry for the "shouting caps"... I feel they are necessary because this is a very controversial subject. It's weird that we have so many passionate about versions and not what is actually written in them. I feel in these circumstances the NIV is wrong... But that does not mean I think you are going to burn in hell for following it.

Bottom line:. All translations insert or omit words here and there, and put in very important punctuation as they see fit. Neither the KJV or the NIV is at fault for the general practice.

It's okay, I dont think I am going to burn in hell either !
I use all kinds of translations- but I came to faith and only knew the NIV.
The reason I mentioned the colon in the KJV is because it can represent different things, so its not entirely clear what it is saying.
I guess this is where you need to study the whole biblical evidence on the subject at hand and draw your conclusions.
One verse is not enough!!
Rita

FHII said:

Bottom line:. All translations insert or omit words here and there, and put in very important punctuation as they see fit. Neither the KJV or the NIV is at fault for the general practice.

Click to expand...

Two things I like about my hard copy KJV is how the added words are in italics and also how the notes in the center column with alternative meanings.

Butterfly said:

It's okay, I dont think I am going to burn in hell either !
I use all kinds of translations- but I came to faith and only knew the NIV.
The reason I mentioned the colon in the KJV is because it can represent different things, so its not entirely clear what it is saying.
I guess this is where you need to study the whole biblical evidence on the subject at hand and draw your conclusions.
One verse is not enough!!
Rita

Click to expand...

I regularly read the HCSB, but in study I use several different versions, including the KJV and NIV.

You're right about colons. They can be used to join independent clauses. We don't see this very much today, but I've noticed this in the KJV. These days, we tend to use a comma with a coordinating conjunction or a semicolon. (Sorry for the technical jargon.)

Giuliano said:

Two things I like about my hard copy KJV is how the added words are in italics and also how the notes in the center column with alternative meanings.

Click to expand...

Yes, mine has the added words in italics as well. It has a few alternate meanings but puts them in brackets.

FHII said:

Sadly, but predictably, you don't. It's like you received a memo on my post but didn't actually read my post.

Well he also literally died on the cross. We died with him on that cross, but must we die on a literal cross as well?

Besides, I am not against baptism. Not even water baptism, but I do proclaim we must be baptized. It is necessary. We must be baptized (immersed) in him. Being baptized in water isn't necessary. It's ok, it's good, it's edifying... But not necessary. Being baptized in him IS necessary!

Hold to your tradition! I will not stop you, and I encourage you to continue!

Click to expand...

Hi FHII,

I got your memo. You make it clear that the literal practice of baptism with water isn't required/necessary.

Your memo clearly states that we literally do not have to follow the example that Jesus gave us which is be baptized by water and his instruction to baptize all nations with water.

Your memo clearly states that we don't have to literally hold to the traditions/practices/teachings of water baptism that were taught to us by the Apostles even though Scripture clearly states we are to hold to the traditions/practices/teachings of the Apostles.

Your memo clearly states that the 1st century Christians literally got it wrong and their literal practice of water baptism was not necessary even though they clearly taught that it was and the 1st century Christians were wrong and you are right.

Your memo suggest that the word "baptism" in Scripture does not mean with water.

I got the memo....and it's full of errors that teach opposite of Scripture.

I will hold on to my 2,000 year tradition and practice what Jesus practiced....do what Jesus told us to do and what the Apostles taught, practiced and required. I stand firm and hold fast to the teachings that were passed on whether by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thess. 2:15

I do not encourage you should hold fast to the 500 year tradition that you currently espouse.


Mary

FHII said:

Well he also literally died on the cross. We died with him on that cross, but must we die on a literal cross as well?

Click to expand...

hi FHII,

Ya' and He literally walked on water, healed the sick/blind, raised people from the dead, fed thousands with a few loaves of bread/fish etc. sooooo we must literally do all that also since he literally died on the cross????

What a silly rebuttal.....you really didn't think that one thru...Did you?

Mary

bbyrd009 said:

Hey, I liked it too!
“How is it you did not know I was not talking about bread?”
Not that I have any objection to ritual baptisms, Don’t get me wrong

Click to expand...

OK....you liked his post. His post is a teaching that is opposite of Scripture.

And your proud of that?

FHII said:

Again, I did not say that...again, they did baptize... They taught. They did what Jesus told them to do. Even today some are baptising by teaching.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "baptizing by teaching". There is no such thing as being baptized by being immersed in Christ. Your theory is not based on Scripture.

In every instance of baptism in Scripture there was first the teaching to convince (convert) and then once they believed (were converted) they were baptized....WITH WATER! Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10, Acts 16, Acts 22

Like you said, "They did what Jesus told them to do".....AND YOU SHOULD ALSO!!!

Mary

Truth said:

Well if this makes it any better, Scripturally there are more than one Baptism. 1- baptism for repentance, 2- Baptism of Identification [in His name, 3- Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 4- Baptism of suffering [ persecution] so being Baptized again would do no harm, as Our Savior said to John, let it be so as to fulfill all RIGHTIOUSNESS!
Be Blessed in His Holy Name, Yashua [Jesus]

Click to expand...

Hi Truth,

Can you please give the passages from Scripture that buttress points 1-4?

Points #2 and #4 are foreign to me.

Mary

Marymog said:

His post is a teaching that is opposite of Scripture.

Click to expand...

no, it isnt, sorry. You are not the arbiter of Scripture, miss mog

bbyrd009 said:

no, it isnt, sorry. You are not the arbiter of Scripture, miss mog

Click to expand...

And you or he is????

Marymog said:

And you or he is????

Click to expand...

no but I don't recall either of us telling you that you had to believe some ersatz fact did we? Atleast i hope not