Results 1 - 13 of 13
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Bobby1971 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Rhantizo vs. Baptizo- Synonyms? | NT general | Bobby1971 | 198505 | ||
Below is the information given to me by a professor from "The Master's Seminary": 1. These texts refer to two different events, although they deal with the same subject of non-biblical, ceremonial washings. 2. Baptism is not in view in either passage, and therefore conclusions drawn from these passages in their unique context should not be automatically shifted over to the baptism question. 3. I have consulted BAGD and DNTT – two of the best lexical works available.- for the following remarks. I use the UBS 4th ed. GNT. 4. There is a textual variant in Mark 7:4 – rhantizo (sprinkle) vs. baptizo (dip, immerse). The best and most recent conservative Greek scholarship rejects the former and champions the latter which is the preference in the ESV and NIV English translations. Thus, the question of sprinkling can be deleted from the discussion. 5. Mark 7:2-3 use nipto and aniptos respectively. That verb/noun family means to “wash” without specifying the means or mode. Therefore, they add nothing as to further defining the manner in which the washing took place. 6. The double use of baptizo in Mark 7:4 and single use in Luke 11:38 define the particulars of the washing. This word group always means to dip/immerse. It is used in other water contexts of drowning a person and sinking a ship. 7. Therefore, we can conclude that Mark 7:2-3 uses the generic term “wash” while Mark 7:4 (twice) and Luke 11:38 specifies a washing by dipping/immersion in contrast to pouring or sprinkling. 8. The final question regards the illustration in the MSB notes on Mark 7:3. No one knows for sure exactly how this procedure was carried out at that specific time. The illustration given is one possibility, but there are others. I favor the possibility of cupping one’s hand to receive the water and then dipping/immersing one’s other fingers/hand. 9. Thus, both passages are consistent in context and in the language used without creating an apparent contradiction with regard to either the manner of ceremonially washings or of baptism. |
||||||
2 | Rhantizo vs. Baptizo- Synonyms? | NT general | Bobby1971 | 198454 | ||
Cheri, Thanks for the information. I'm in the middle of a dialogue now about this with a seminary professor, and it looks like he's going to completely explain this. Once this is concluded, and with his permission, I'll post his explanation here. If I still have issues, I'll be sure to contact the Lockman Foundation. In Christ, Bobby |
||||||
3 | Rhantizo vs. Baptizo- Synonyms? | NT general | Bobby1971 | 198443 | ||
Hank, Thanks for the input. Actually, my concern does not have to do with how baptisms occured in the Jordan River. My question is that if the Greek manuscript used by Lockman for Mark (Mark 7:4) had the word "rhantizo" for the same Jewish ablution ceremony that Luke refers to using the word "baptizo" in Luke 11:38, does this mean that "baptizo" and "rhantizo" were synonymous. If so, then the biblical use of "baptizo" would indicate that "baptizo" does not always mean "immersion," which most baptists seem to indicate that it must always mean. How does one actually contact the Lockman Foundation? Do you know what their e-mail address is? Thank you, Bobby |
||||||
4 | Rhantizo vs. Baptizo- Synonyms? | NT general | Bobby1971 | 198409 | ||
CDBJ, No disrespect received. I'm just trying to make sense of the NASB's apparent translation of the word rhantizo in one place and baptizo in another place for what might be the same ceremonial ablution ceremony. Concerning the baptizing in the Jordan River, I suppose they could have been standing IN the Jordan River while water was poured over their heads, as many paintings illustrate. Don't get me wrong, however, I think the many times baptizing is described in Scripture, it appears a large body of water was needed, which would indicate that they weren't likely just needing it to stand in it so they could merely pour water over their heads. Bobby |
||||||
5 | Rhantizo vs. Baptizo- Synonyms? | Not Specified | Bobby1971 | 198402 | ||
I noticed that the NASB uses a Greek translation that has "rhantizo" (sprinkle) for the Jewish practice of washing themselves prior to eating after they come from the market in Mark 7:4. Luke 11:38, however, apparently describing the same practice translates from the Greek "baptizo". Would it be proper to make the case, then, that baptizo could also cover the particular mode of sprinkling? Interestingly, the John MacArthur Study Bible has a note for Luke 11:38 that refers the reader back to Mark 7:3. The study note there describes the practice of the Jews pouring water over their hands before they eat. The fact that baptizo is used in Luke 11:38 and then the Study Bible directs the reader to a note describing pouring makes it sound like baptizo was also used to describe washing/cleansing when this occured from pouring. Any ideas on how to ascertain the true meaning of baptizo? If baptizo and rhantizo are being used to describe the same ritual, does this mean that they are synonyms? Thanks for the help. |
||||||
6 | Rhantizo vs. Baptizo- Synonyms? | NT general | Bobby1971 | 198403 | ||
I noticed that the NASB uses a Greek translation that has "rhantizo" (sprinkle) for the Jewish practice of washing themselves prior to eating after they come from the market in Mark 7:4. Luke 11:38, however, apparently describing the same practice translates from the Greek "baptizo". Would it be proper to make the case, then, that baptizo could also cover the particular mode of sprinkling? Interestingly, the John MacArthur Study Bible has a note for Luke 11:38 that refers the reader back to Mark 7:3. The study note there describes the practice of the Jews pouring water over their hands before they eat. The fact that baptizo is used in Luke 11:38 and then the Study Bible directs the reader to a note describing pouring makes it sound like baptizo was also used to describe washing/cleansing when this occured from pouring. Any ideas on how to ascertain the true meaning of baptizo? If baptizo and rhantizo are being used to describe the same ritual, does this mean that they are synonyms? Thanks for the help. |
||||||
7 | Baptize all "Nations" and Infants? | Not Specified | Bobby1971 | 198388 | ||
I recently came across a Lutheran explanation of why they teach that they should baptize infants. They refer to the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19. They claim that since Jesus says to baptize all "nations", which means all people, and since infants are people, then infants should be baptized. John Gill, however, claims that the underlying Greek makes that interpretation impossible, but the Lutherans also argue from the Greek that their interpretation is correct. Can anyone with more knowledge about how Greek is used shed some light on this debate? Thank you for the time and help. Here is the Lutheran explanation: "In the Greek, the words translated "make disciples" is a verb which means "to teach, to instruct" and then, since this verb refers to a specialized kind of teaching or instructing, that is instructing people who are followers or discples of the one who is teaching, it can be translated in English as "to make disciples." So there is no noun in Greek for the English word "disciples" to refer to. Note some other translations, such as the KJV, which translate this verse "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them etc." Thus the Greek word for "them" (though it is masculine), can only refer to "all nations" since this is the only noun for the pronoun to refer back to. The word for "all nations" is indeed neuter gender in Greek, but since it refers to people, the pronoun referring back to it can be either be masculine or neuter in Greek. A couple other examples of a NT writer using a masculine pronoun to refer back to the Greek word ethnee (which can be translated either as "nations" or "Gentiles" depending on the context) are Acts 15:17 and Acts 26:17. More examples could be given, so it is wrong to say that the masculine pronoun "them" in Matthew 28:19 can't refer to "nations." And, as was noted above, it can't refer to "disciples" since there is no noun for this word in Greek to which the pronoun could refer." |
||||||
8 | Baptize all "Nations" and Infants? | NT general | Bobby1971 | 198389 | ||
I recently came across a Lutheran explanation of why they teach that they should baptize infants. They refer to the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19. They claim that since Jesus says to baptize all "nations", which means all people, and since infants are people, then infants should be baptized. John Gill, however, claims that the underlying Greek makes that interpretation impossible, but the Lutherans also argue from the Greek that their interpretation is correct. Can anyone with more knowledge about how Greek is used shed some light on this debate? Thank you for the time and help. Here is the Lutheran explanation: "In the Greek, the words translated "make disciples" is a verb which means "to teach, to instruct" and then, since this verb refers to a specialized kind of teaching or instructing, that is instructing people who are followers or discples of the one who is teaching, it can be translated in English as "to make disciples." So there is no noun in Greek for the English word "disciples" to refer to. Note some other translations, such as the KJV, which translate this verse "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them etc." Thus the Greek word for "them" (though it is masculine), can only refer to "all nations" since this is the only noun for the pronoun to refer back to. The word for "all nations" is indeed neuter gender in Greek, but since it refers to people, the pronoun referring back to it can be either be masculine or neuter in Greek. A couple other examples of a NT writer using a masculine pronoun to refer back to the Greek word ethnee (which can be translated either as "nations" or "Gentiles" depending on the context) are Acts 15:17 and Acts 26:17. More examples could be given, so it is wrong to say that the masculine pronoun "them" in Matthew 28:19 can't refer to "nations." And, as was noted above, it can't refer to "disciples" since there is no noun for this word in Greek to which the pronoun could refer." |
||||||
9 | Pronouns in NASB? | Bible general Archive 4 | Bobby1971 | 197728 | ||
Doc, Yes, your example is right on. That's exactly what was done in the Catholic NAB translation. They replaced the masculine pronoun "He" when it referred to God with the word "God" itself. That brought them under fire for "vertical inclusive language." People felt they were trying to avoid referring to God has a "He", thus they replaced the masculine pronoun with the word "God." I seriously doubt that would happen with the NASB though. |
||||||
10 | Pronouns in NASB? | Bible general Archive 4 | Bobby1971 | 197723 | ||
I'm sure there must be a reasonable explanation for their statement. I believe the NASB is highly regarded by conservatives, so I doubt gender-inclusive principles had anything to do with it. Maybe it's something along the lines of when when referring to individual men within a group when you know what their titles are, replacing their individual pronouns with their titles would remove any ambiguity or uncertainty in the understanding of which particular person is stating or doing something. | ||||||
11 | Pronouns in NASB? | Bible general Archive 4 | Bobby1971 | 197719 | ||
Hi Doc, Actually, I was thinking they meant it in the opposite way you referred to. For example, if the Hebrew had "He is sovereign. He is Lord. He is Immanuel." The way their explanation is written, e.g., "Proper names...have been used IN PLACE OF PRONOUNS only when...", they're saying they are replaying the pronoun with a proper name or title. Thus, the previous statement could become, "God is sovereign. God is Lord. God is Immanuel." Thus the masculine pronoun is no longer present and in its place if the word "God." This caught my eye because the translators of the NAB (Catholic translation) did the same thing with their revised translation of the Psalms. If I remember correctly, many conservative Roman Catholics reject this translation of the Psalms due to it having both horizontal and vertical gender neutral language. I remember one of the Psalms said something like, "He is great. He is wonderful." and so on. The NAB took out the "He" and replaced it with God. An example where the NAB does this is Psalm 121: " 1 A song of ascents. 2 I raise my eyes toward the mountains. From where will my help come? 2 My help comes from the LORD, the maker of heaven and earth. 3 God will not allow your foot to slip; your guardian does not sleep. 4 Truly, the guardian of Israel never slumbers nor sleeps. 5 3 The LORD is your guardian; the LORD is your shade at your righthand. 6 By day the sun cannot harm you, nor the moon by night. 7 The LORD will guard you from all evil, will always guard your life. 8 The LORD will guard your coming and going both now and forever." (NAB) Thanks, Bobby |
||||||
12 | Pronouns in NASB? | Not Specified | Bobby1971 | 197712 | ||
Hello, I'm new to this forum and have recently purchased a NASB Bible. On the Lockman Foundation's website, the following is said with respect to the NASB Update: "Proper names or titles have been used in place of pronouns only when the context made it clear who the person was..." Does anyone know exactly what this means? Would this mean that a masculine pronoun referring to God would be, or could have been, replaced with a "gender neutral" term like "God"? If the Hebrew uses pronouns, why not continue to do so? Thanks, Bobby |
||||||
13 | Pronouns in NASB? | Bible general Archive 4 | Bobby1971 | 197716 | ||
Hello, I'm new to this forum and have recently purchased a NASB Bible. On the Lockman Foundation's website, the following is said with respect to the NASB Update: "Proper names or titles have been used in place of pronouns only when the context made it clear who the person was..." Does anyone know exactly what this means? Would this mean that a masculine pronoun referring to God would be, or could have been, replaced with a "gender neutral" term like "God"? If the Hebrew uses pronouns, why not continue to do so? Thanks, Bobby |
||||||