[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

You can reject that "immersion" (or submersion) is not a good translation. I am confounded why you guys press hard against this translation.

Simply because it is not good translation, and often pushed by folks with various agendas, especially Bible correctors at work and play. You do not seem to understand the spiritual forces that make man want to tamper with and dictate the word of God.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

I see no reason for you to debate the point unless you defend the practices of sprinkling or pouring.

Then your vision is very poor. Probably most everybody on the board here would rebaptise somebody sprinkled or poured, knowing from simple and clear and powerful Bible exegesis that the New Testament mode of baptism includes repentance, faith, immersion (submersion, more precisely) and emersion. (Some might add more, like testimony.)

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

I already made it clear that I do not defend the modern translations. There is an issue of marketplace expediency that demands "baptism" be a transliteration rather than a translation.

Sounds similar to the "marketplace expediency" that is for those in the Version of the Month Club.

Please understood, we are far more interested in the truth of the pure word of God than marketplace expediency.

Shalom,
Steven