John MacArthur nails it on this one! Do a little research on the Greek δοῦλος and I think you’ll agree.
A Slave of Christ
John MacArthur nails it on this one! Do a little research on the Greek δοῦλος and I think you’ll agree.
#1 by Justin Harris on June 28th, 2009
Quote
In light of the recent revival of proper interpretation of Scripture and the purity of the gospel, I am curious as to why recent translations of Scripture still avoid such literal terminology? In this case, the word “slave” over “servant” has enormous consequences on one’s understanding of each of these passages. This same principle applies to the word “baptism.” Why was it transliterated and not translated? What is it that these linguistic scholars know that I don’t? Seriously, wherein am I ignorant concerning this matter? What could possibly motivate someone to avoid such plain and elementary principles of translation?
#2 by Craig Lowery on December 9th, 2010
Quote
Re: “This same principle applies to the word “baptism.” Why was it transliterated and not translated?”
Your comment indicates a misunderstanding of the history and etymology of the English word, which had been in use in England for centuries preceding the English translation undertaken by Englishmen. It was most emphatically not transliterated by the translators. It was already an English word.
#3 by Justin Harris on December 17th, 2010
Quote
Please clarify. Are you implying that the word “baptism” shouldn’t be translated as “immerse” or are you just attempting to correct my apparent misunderstanding of when “baptism” was transliterated by the English? If the former is true, what lexicographical evidence supports your claim? If the latter is what you intended to convey, what sources are you citing?