Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
Freesunday, by "infallible translation" are you implying that King James Bible believers generally teach that the translation was made by inspiration from 1604 to 1611?
|
By infallible, I mean its original sense that it is considered both infallible and inerrant. The 1611 product being your perfect edition.
Quote:
|
These Biblical English words have meanings which are discerned by studying and conferring Scriptures, and by our spiritual understanding of Biblical English even as we increase in a proper understanding of natural English.
|
Neither a straight reading nor a "spiritual understanding" of the KJV will let anyone come to the conclusion that "baptism" is to be by immersion only. Only the definition of the Greek term will help you come to that conclusion. I also know that in 1611, the translators could not use the term "immersion" for obvious religious implications. My KJVOnly professors of the past made a huge deal out of "baptism" by immersion alone and "church" as assembly, but they always went back to the Greek to support their conclusions.
I am not here to "get ugly" on this subject. I was KJVOnly, but am no longer. That being said, I have wondered why it is impossible to find much pure KJVOnly literature on the subject of the use of these terms. The TROnly guys don't have this issue. Those who are KJVOnly purists do.