I know many might disagree with me, but here's what I believe... in such a case as this we can't really "know" what the absolute truth is.
So what should we do?
I believe we make a conscious choice to believe in the position that upholds our understanding of God's nature and brings the greatest glory to his name. We do this in "faith".
If something appears to be contrary to our understanding of God's nature it has to be rejected. If it brings reproach or doesn't prove to bring the greatest glory to his name it has to be rejected.
No, that can't be right. Then I'd have to reject the exodus, and a bunch of other things in the OT. And quite a few things in the NT. That can't be right.
Oh, but you mean things "scholars" say. OK. Then I have to reject what a lot of them say about the exodus, etc.
Quote:
Then we must commit our selves and our faith to the Lord; trusting that he will judge our hearts righteously in that our position was to bring our utmost for his highest.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Bro. Scott, my answer may seem somewhat simplistic, but here goes.....
First, we must study scripture to determine our beliefs, rather than studying scripture to buttress our beliefs.
Second, I believe we should never study without praying first. The same faith that led you to believe Acts 2:38 should lead you to believe that "if any man lack wisdom, let him ask God", and also that scripture is paramount. "Let God be true and every man a liar".
Same faith.
Study to determine, not to reinforce, and then pray before studying. Do I still make some mistakes? Of course, but God can let us know that as well.
Like for example EIS as in Acts.2:38 some stuff says it means because of,some stuff says it means in order to obtain.
It actually means both - similar to the way we use the word "for" in English. The context should (hopefully) supply the distinctions.
In this case (Acts 2:38), however, it really is somewhat unclear. Sometimes we just have to be happy to live with a bit of uncertainty, especially if no important Bible doctrines are involved... uhm, yeah.
Remember, whatever it's intended meaning in Acts 2:38 - we have the identical grammar and even the identical issue of baptism and "the remission of sins" described in the same way in Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3.
We can use Bible to interpret Bible - in fact that's usually the safest way to go.
What did John the Baptist mean when he said "I preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins..." And why would John's meaning be any different than Peter's as recorded by Luke?
Like for example EIS as in Acts.2:38 some stuff says it means because of,some stuff says it means in order to obtain.
We've talked about that on this forum over and over. Scholars have been quoted to support each side of the argument.
It's my understanding that the Greek word "eis" is as ambiguous as our English word "for" as in the following example of an old "wanted" poster:
WANTED
Dirty Dalton wanted for (because of) train robbery.
See U.S. Marshal for (in order to obtain) reward.
The reason I said that the word "eis" is ambiguous is the result of email with someone from the ISV web site. My printed copy, which is Release Edition 1.00, version no. 1, Build number 1, build date 15 February 1999 renders Acts 2:38 in this way:
Peter answered them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ since your sins are forgiven...
There was a CD included with the Bible which rendered it like most other translations do "...for the forgiveness of sins..."
When I contacted the ISV web site to ask why the change from the printed copy, the person stated that they had gone to the "for" rendering because of
their "Translation Principles." Translation Principle number 4 is:
"When the text can be understood in different ways, an attempt is made either to provide a rendering in which the same ambiguity appears in English, or to decide the more likely sense and translate accordingly."
He said the Greek word "eis" is ambiguous here so they used the word "for" to maintain that ambiguity. He then said that based on other parts of the Bible it meant "since" but they returned to the word "for" to maintain the ambiguity of the original.
The way Acts 2:38 appears in the current version as dowloaded today reads:
38 Peter answered them, “Every one of you must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis
Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
We've talked about that on this forum over and over. Scholars have been quoted to support each side of the argument.
It's my understanding that the Greek word "eis" is as ambiguous as our English word "for" as in the following example of an old "wanted" poster:
WANTED
Dirty Dalton wanted for (because of) train robbery.
See U.S. Marshal for (in order to obtain) reward.
The reason I said that the word "eis" is ambiguous is the result of email with someone from the ISV web site. My printed copy, which is Release Edition 1.00, version no. 1, Build number 1, build date 15 February 1999 renders Acts 2:38 in this way:
Peter answered them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ since your sins are forgiven...
There was a CD included with the Bible which rendered it like most other translations do "...for the forgiveness of sins..."
When I contacted the ISV web site to ask why the change from the printed copy, the person stated that they had gone to the "for" rendering because of
their "Translation Principles." Translation Principle number 4 is:
"When the text can be understood in different ways, an attempt is made either to provide a rendering in which the same ambiguity appears in English, or to decide the more likely sense and translate accordingly."
He said the Greek word "eis" is ambiguous here so they used the word "for" to maintain that ambiguity. He then said that based on other parts of the Bible it meant "since" but they returned to the word "for" to maintain the ambiguity of the original.
The way Acts 2:38 appears in the current version as dowloaded today reads:
38 Peter answered them, “Every one of you must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift
I've wished many times that I had kept that email.
.
...
What did John the Baptist mean when he said "I preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins..." And why would John's meaning be any different than Peter's as recorded by Luke?
was John saying remission/forgiveness was through baptism or through repentance? Does the prepositional phrase "for the remission/forgiveness" apply to baptism or repentance?
Last edited by Sam; 10-09-2009 at 11:58 PM.
Reason: correct typo
was John saying remission/forgiveness was through baptism or through repentance? Does the prepositional phrase "for the remission/forgiveness" apply to baptism or repentance?
Scholars are a piece of evidence, and only one part of the evidence. Let the evidence speak in harmony with other evidences.
This only becomes troublesome when these things rub against fundamental doctrines. Just no "scholars" come in all stripes. The Mormon Church has "scholars." The Jehovah's Witnesses have "scholars." Take it in stride. Don't just listen to their answers, listen to their reasoning of the scriptures!
We've talked about that on this forum over and over. Scholars have been quoted to support each side of the argument.
It's my understanding that the Greek word "eis" is as ambiguous as our English word "for" as in the following example of an old "wanted" poster:
WANTED
Dirty Dalton wanted for (because of) train robbery.
See U.S. Marshal for (in order to obtain) reward.
The reason I said that the word "eis" is ambiguous is the result of email with someone from the ISV web site. My printed copy, which is Release Edition 1.00, version no. 1, Build number 1, build date 15 February 1999 renders Acts 2:38 in this way:
Peter answered them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ since your sins are forgiven...
There was a CD included with the Bible which rendered it like most other translations do "...for the forgiveness of sins..."
When I contacted the ISV web site to ask why the change from the printed copy, the person stated that they had gone to the "for" rendering because of
their "Translation Principles." Translation Principle number 4 is:
"When the text can be understood in different ways, an attempt is made either to provide a rendering in which the same ambiguity appears in English, or to decide the more likely sense and translate accordingly."
He said the Greek word "eis" is ambiguous here so they used the word "for" to maintain that ambiguity. He then said that based on other parts of the Bible it meant "since" but they returned to the word "for" to maintain the ambiguity of the original.
The way Acts 2:38 appears in the current version as dowloaded today reads:
38 Peter answered them, “Every one of you must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift
Boy, you sure have to ignore other evidence in scripture that ties baptism to remission and removal of sins. Crafty, Sam.
Linear Mode
