Glenn wrote: > David, I can't comminute with you on this. > You, my friend, Are so blinded on this subject > it is unbelievable. Baptizio is NOT a translation > but a compromise; a transliteration. They did > not translate the word. Much learning has made > thee mad on this. :-)
I understand that the word "baptize" is basically a transliteration. But we have many words in the English language that are simply transliterated words. Nothing is unusual about that. All I was trying to say is that they didn't exactly transliterate the word, otherwise it would be baptizo. What they did was keep a word that already was common in English, which was a general transliteration, just like the word "Peter" is a transliteration of Greek. If you think that the word baptize was not part of the English language back then, you are mistaken. Is that what you think? Is that why we are having problems communicating? Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
