"EIS" OR "DIA" OR "HOTI" ??

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
#41
Yes if you hit the blue letters that say The New Testament an expanded translation, it will take you to Amazon, were you can get the New Testament translation. I just clicked on it to make sure it's working.
Thank you. I clicked the blue link, it worked. The Bible it led me to was one written by Mr. Wuest himself! Even so this version STILL DOES NOT use "because of" which is the whole point of this thread. It seems the only version that uses Mr. Wuest's translation of Acts 2:38 is the version he wrote himself. I must admit to being amused by this. My CEV uses 29 words translating Acts 2:38, the NIV uses 30, the KJV uses 34, the Expanded Bible uses 39 and the RSV uses 35 words. Mr. Wuest's version uses 80!! Why?

I am rather surprised by how many people believe that baptism is "because of" the forgiveness of sins. But there are no version that translate it as such. My version actually states "so that your sins will be forgiven" (CEV). All this Greek is way over my head, but it seems rather odd that not even one version translates it as what it is intended to mean. Why is this??
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#42
Thank you. I clicked the blue link, it worked. The Bible it led me to was one written by Mr. Wuest himself! Even so this version STILL DOES NOT use "because of" which is the whole point of this thread. It seems the only version that uses Mr. Wuest's translation of Acts 2:38 is the version he wrote himself. I must admit to being amused by this. My CEV uses 29 words translating Acts 2:38, the NIV uses 30, the KJV uses 34, the Expanded Bible uses 39 and the RSV uses 35 words. Mr. Wuest's version uses 80!! Why?

I am rather surprised by how many people believe that baptism is "because of" the forgiveness of sins. But there are no version that translate it as such. My version actually states "so that your sins will be forgiven" (CEV). All this Greek is way over my head, but it seems rather odd that not even one version translates it as what it is intended to mean. Why is this??
Do not forget "repent" in the beginning of the verse.

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."

The verse is not saying "be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins".

"Repent and be baptized" expresses the positive response to gospel and therefore produces the forgiveness of our sins. We cannot (imho) cut the verse technically into Greek pieces and let this perspective get away :)
 
Last edited:

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#43
Thank you. I clicked the blue link, it worked. The Bible it led me to was one written by Mr. Wuest himself! Even so this version STILL DOES NOT use "because of" which is the whole point of this thread. It seems the only version that uses Mr. Wuest's translation of Acts 2:38 is the version he wrote himself. I must admit to being amused by this. My CEV uses 29 words translating Acts 2:38, the NIV uses 30, the KJV uses 34, the Expanded Bible uses 39 and the RSV uses 35 words. Mr. Wuest's version uses 80!! Why?

I am rather surprised by how many people believe that baptism is "because of" the forgiveness of sins. But there are no version that translate it as such. My version actually states "so that your sins will be forgiven" (CEV). All this Greek is way over my head, but it seems rather odd that not even one version translates it as what it is intended to mean. Why is this??
Why assume it means anything other than what it says? There is a reason the Holy Spirit uses the words he does.
 

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
#45
I just want to add that your search for a "translation" that has "because of" instead of "into, in among" (the short definition of "eis" doesn't mean the translation is right. (And thank you to OH for taking the time to write out the full Bauer definition of "eis" so I didn't have to do it! LOL)

Only the Greek is correct, and sometimes we struggle to put the Greek words into English, because of the differences in grammar and syntax. Of course, what the words actually mean in English, is another issue in some cases.

However, in Acts 2:38, there is NO argument that "eis" means "in." When you see a common word being twisted to mean what it does not, then you are probably looking at someone who is so desperate to prove their theology, that they are actually willing to change words to meanings that are not there in the Greek. And that means you are probably involved in a cult.

As someone else pointed out, Luke (along with the writer of Hebrews) was the consummate scholar. Luke and Acts are considered advanced Greek. It is only lately that we have translated from these books in our Greek class. And both passages were extremely challenging. That being said, the example you have in your OP of "eis" in Acts 2:38, is NOT one of those difficult places.

OH, going to check out your link! Bill Mounce is my Greek professor, and we also used his first year Greek text in seminary. He has the most amazing resources for Greek, and offers FREE classes at 3 levels for anyone who wants to study the Bible. (Not talking languages, that is separate!) There are lectures by some of the most outstanding scholars in the world, all of whom are known for orthodoxy. So if you want some half-cocked new revelation, this is not for you! But if you want the truth about the Bible, theology, and many other issues concerning our faith, please check this out!

https://www.biblicaltraining.org/
You say that Acts 2:38 is NOT one of the harder to translate uses of "eis", which seems to be true since not one Bible uses it. It seems that anyone pushing the notion that "because of" is the proper translation is doing this more to justify a theology. Am I correct in this thinking? Also, does anyone know of a Bible in a language other then English that uses "because of" in Acts 2:38. If not, I think the issue is closed.
 

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
#46
Do not forget "repent" in the beginning of the verse.

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."

The verse is not saying "be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins".

"Repent and be baptized" expresses the positive response to gospel and therefore produces the forgiveness of our sins. We cannot (imho) cut the verse technically into Greek pieces and let this perspective get away :)
I do not see the perspective you are talking about. The verse is rather clear and to the point. I wish more of the Bible was this simple. There is no need to "cut the verse" just read it. If this simple verse is this confusing, what does this say about us?
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#47
You say that Acts 2:38 is NOT one of the harder to translate uses of "eis", which seems to be true since not one Bible uses it. It seems that anyone pushing the notion that "because of" is the proper translation is doing this more to justify a theology. Am I correct in this thinking? Also, does anyone know of a Bible in a language other then English that uses "because of" in Acts 2:38. If not, I think the issue is closed.
I do not know about the Bible in other world languages but here is a link you may want to add to your research tools. Its lists some 293 English translations from between 1382 and 2004. This link shows the translation of Acts 2:38 in each of the translations. Some however are paraphrased versions so I would not give much credence to them even if the prove to be correct. Paraphrased versions are not dedicated to upholding the integrity of the original language texts, but it may be interesting to compare them.

http://www.tabiblion.com/liber/Ingles/ACTS2_38_293Translations.pdf
 

Johnny_B

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2017
1,954
64
48
#48
Thank you. I clicked the blue link, it worked. The Bible it led me to was one written by Mr. Wuest himself! Even so this version STILL DOES NOT use "because of" which is the whole point of this thread. It seems the only version that uses Mr. Wuest's translation of Acts 2:38 is the version he wrote himself. I must admit to being amused by this. My CEV uses 29 words translating Acts 2:38, the NIV uses 30, the KJV uses 34, the Expanded Bible uses 39 and the RSV uses 35 words. Mr. Wuest's version uses 80!! Why?

I am rather surprised by how many people believe that baptism is "because of" the forgiveness of sins. But there are no version that translate it as such. My version actually states "so that your sins will be forgiven" (CEV). All this Greek is way over my head, but it seems rather odd that not even one version translates it as what it is intended to mean. Why is this??
As far as the 80 words, you would have to ask him, I don't know. Here where Hermeneutics play a part as Osborn said do not take one portion of Scripture and make a doctrine of it. That's the way cults start, the oneness group use Acts 2:38 as their proof text that Jesus is the Father, the Son and the Spirit, because Peter after being filled with the Spirit had a revelation that Matthew 28:19 is all Jesus and that's why Peter said be baptized in Jesus name, instead of in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. We know through Scripture that Jesus is not ll three because of other verse in the Bible. The same applies here, there are no other verse that have the idea that baptism is for the remission of sins. I did find something interesting, the Young's Analytical Concordance on page 362 it has, With a view to εἰς. ​You can check it out here the author is Young https://levendwater.org/books/analytical...young/index.htm

Here's another thing to consider, Acts is a historical book, it's not written in the form that should be used for doctrinal purposes, does it have doctrinal truths in it, yes. Is it laid out in the form as the epistles are, no, which much of our doctrine come form. A good rule of thumb when looking to establish anything, the words of Jesus are very helpful, "by two or three witnesses, let a thing be established." Doctrine, it's good to have OT, Gospel and epistle conformation for a doctrine. Like the Trinity, we have word used for God that are pluarl and there are verses that mention the Father, Son and Spirit, like Isaiah 61:1 "
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor;" This is a picture of the Messiah, so we have the Spirit, Jesus and the Lord (Father) who is anointing. Then you go to the Gospel and we have John 6:63, 65 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life......65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." We have Jesus speaking about the salvation He brings, applied by the Spirit, granted by the Father, we have a Gospel witness. When we go the I Peter 1:2 "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:" We have the foreknowledge of the Father, sanctification of the Spirit and obedience to Jesus, as all part in our salvation. So we have three witnesses to the doctrine of the Trinity.

I brought this up with a oneness believer and he came back with three verses out of the same book Acts as his three witnesses to baptism regeneration by the baptizing in Jesus name, not three witnesses, one witness three times, not the same. In answer to the question as to why people don't believe in baptism regeneration, it's for that reason, interpreting the whole of Scripture by one verse because of one word, is not a good idea, again that's the way cults get started. Here's another good rule of thumb when trying to establish a doctrine, if you were to take out the book of Acts or the verse that you are trying to establish the doctrine with, can yo still establish that doctrine? In this case, no, without the book of Act this question would not even be brought up.

The biggest problem with trying to make a doctrine because of one word, is it's always translated within the context of the
sentence, paragraph, chapter, book and the whole of Scripture, as Osborn stated. With what you asked me, as to why Wuest used 80 words to translate Acts 2:38, I'm only sharing with you information that I have and have read, I am not try to say anything other than be careful of getting caught up in one word, when the Bible had hundreds of words used to make it and the Spirit choose each one (in the original language) of them and they are perfect. The problems come in when they are translated to a different language, it can lose meaning or it does not translate the original meaning in it's context. English is the worse language to translate any language of love or picturesque language, English is to dry of a language because in this case it has one word that is "for" when other languages have more. Like Spanish has two words that mean "for" one is "to get" one is the "result" those are basic interpretation of the words, they have to be interpreted in the context of how they are being used or what message they are trying to convey.

Good luck in you quest, if you really have to know, I would say learn the language, I am trying to at me age. I do have the benefit of knowing one of the love languages so I kind of have a head start as far as that goes. It's quite amazing how I can see the Greek words are the base of the language I already know, many of the sound that are used in the Greek we use. Best of luck to you in your quest. If you have a seminary in your city, you might try to get an appointment with the Greek professor to get a clearer understanding of the word used in Acts 2:38. I think what you are going to find is it means "for" and that being baptized to receive forgiveness of sins or to be born again, is not by grace, which is the real question. If one has to be baptized to receive forgiveness of their sins. Salvation is by works and not grace, because that's where it leads. Best of luck in your quest.

If baptism was the means of remission of sins, the didn't Peter say the same to these Acts 3:17-21
And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out,20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus,21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.” Acts 10:34, 41 So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality,...To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

Acts 11:17-18, 21
If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?”18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.......21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord.” Peter doesn't mention being baptized in Jesus name for the remission of sins, in these cases were people believed and were saved. Here's a case where the Acts of Acts verifies a doctrine form the OT "call on the name of the Lord and you will be saved" Gospel To believe in Jesus and epistles saved by faith. If you can find other verses that say baptism is for the remission of sin, then you have something, but I my years of studying the word, I've never found any.

 
Dec 2, 2016
1,652
26
0
#49
What happened at the home of Cornelius set the record straight about water baptism. The Spirit of God cleansed their hearts by faith before they were water baptized. I think when Peter said to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, he was using baptism as conversion, it is the symbol of conversion.
 
Dec 2, 2016
1,652
26
0
#50
About studying languages, if that seems important to you then do it. I think we need to keep in mind that the original NT was a translation into Greek from another language. It is obvious that Jesus did not teach in Greek, so what we have in the first place was a translation from what was originally spoken.
 

Johnny_B

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2017
1,954
64
48
#51
What happened at the home of Cornelius set the record straight about water baptism. The Spirit of God cleansed their hearts by faith before they were water baptized. I think when Peter said to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, he was using baptism as conversion, it is the symbol of conversion.
About studying languages, if that seems important to you then do it. I think we need to keep in mind that the original NT was a translation into Greek from another language. It is obvious that Jesus did not teach in Greek, so what we have in the first place was a translation from what was originally spoken.
Yes you are right, here's verse 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” They received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” If Peter was teaching remission of sins by the baptism in Jesus name, he would of said it here again, when he said be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, he did not add for the remission of sins. Which would not have fit anyway because they had already received the gift of the Holy Spirit verifying that they had remission of sins already. There is no more mention of being baptized for the remission of sins again through out the book of Acts or in any of the epistles. All sin being removed or a person being justified before God is by faith.

It is also interesting as you mentioned Jesus taught in Aramaic, yet the NT was written in Konié Greek. Like you said a translation from the language Jesus taught with to the Konié Greek.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#52
About studying languages, if that seems important to you then do it. I think we need to keep in mind that the original NT was a translation into Greek from another language. It is obvious that Jesus did not teach in Greek, so what we have in the first place was a translation from what was originally spoken.
Only the sayings of Jesus (not the narrative, it was written in Greek) and also we must realize that the NT has 27 books, not just 4 gospels. And the rest 23 were in Greek from their beginning.

But you can be right that Peter, if used Greek in public speaking, can made some grammatical mistakes. The question is if Luke would fix it or let it written as he heard it.
 
Last edited:

Johnny_B

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2017
1,954
64
48
#53
It was the common language from 300 B. C. to 300 A. D. and was the dominant language of the Byzantine Empire until 1453 A. D.

The word
"εἰς" is not the problem, it's the straight view that "for" always means "purpose of" or carries that idea with it, all the time. There's only one word that translates "for" in English, and as a preposition it just means "for" as it always does. But in what way? Is it being used in the way we use "for" in this way, "take an aspirin for your headache", are you taking the aspirin to get your headache or are you taking the aspirin because of your headache? Because of your headache, not to get your headache. When you look at overall Scripture, the idea to get your headache or "remission of sins" does not line up, so the word "for" is not the problem, it's the straight forward translation that it can only mean "the purpose of" or "to receive" that's the problem.

What Dana and Mantey said is the idea they are relating,
"εἰς" is not to be translated, "because of" it carries the idea with it, but not to be translated in any other way, it's interpreted in our communication as it is in our figure of speech or idiom, about the headache.

Bottom line is, does this mean that our sins are forgiven through water baptism? No! We are saved by grace, justified though faith
. So with in the overall context of Scripture it has to mean something else or we have a major contradiction in the Bible on Salvation, which we do not have.

 

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
#54
I do not know about the Bible in other world languages but here is a link you may want to add to your research tools. Its lists some 293 English translations from between 1382 and 2004. This link shows the translation of Acts 2:38 in each of the translations. Some however are paraphrased versions so I would not give much credence to them even if the prove to be correct. Paraphrased versions are not dedicated to upholding the integrity of the original language texts, but it may be interesting to compare them.

http://www.tabiblion.com/liber/Ingles/ACTS2_38_293Translations.pdf
Thank you. It took me some time to read it all but I did. I asked some Spanish co-workers about the "so that" in Acts 2:38 and both of them told me the it does not in any way imply "because of" in Spanish either.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#55
Thank you. It took me some time to read it all but I did. I asked some Spanish co-workers about the "so that" in Acts 2:38 and both of them told me the it does not in any way imply "because of" in Spanish either.
I don't know, but I think you will be hard presses to find a translation in any language that would translate this with a 'because of' equivalent. Of course I could be wrong.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,779
2,934
113
#56
Here is the French, which apparently I still speak and understand quite well, despite neglecting it for so many years.

"Pierre leur dit: «Changez d’attitude et que chacun de vous soit baptisé au nom de Jésus-Christ pour le pardon de vos péchés, et vous recevrez le don du Saint-Esprit." Acts 2:38 Segond21

Pour is the word "for" in French!

Plus, JohnnyB I have been thinking about this claim that Acts can't be used for doctrine, and I have to disagree. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, is the first important church document, and lays out how to treat Gentiles that become Christians. Interestingly, it sides with the Holy Spirit and not the Mosaic or Abrahmaic Covenants that the Pharisees were trying to keep active. Not unlike some people in this forum!

Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic to the crowds, yet, most people in Israel understood Greek, which is why the OT had to be put into Greek in 250 BC. Jesus spoke directly to Pontius Pilate, and there is no record of a translator, but rather a direct exchange between the two of them. Since it is highly unlikely Pilate spoke Aramaic, and probably unlikely Jesus spoke Latin, they had to be conversing in Greek, which was the Lingua Franca of the Roman Empire. That, in fact, was one of the factors why God chose that time - because a common language meant that the gospel could be preached by anyone speaking Greek, in any country, which is what Paul did on his missionary journeys. In addition, all the apostles and Jesus quote the Septuagint (OT Greek Bible) more than the Masoretic text, implying they all spoke Greek, and knew both versions of the OT.

I do know there are some Aramaic puns that Jesus used in his speeches to the multitudes which do not come through in the Greek. I read this in a book, and I have never been able to find the references again.

As for the myth that the gospels were originally written in Hebrew, there is not so much as a single scrap of paper of the NT written in Hebrew, in the earliest manuscripts. The silence is deafening, as much as the Hebrew Roots people don't like it!
 

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
#57
It was the common language from 300 B. C. to 300 A. D. and was the dominant language of the Byzantine Empire until 1453 A. D.

The word
"εἰς" is not the problem, it's the straight view that "for" always means "purpose of" or carries that idea with it, all the time. There's only one word that translates "for" in English, and as a preposition it just means "for" as it always does. But in what way? Is it being used in the way we use "for" in this way, "take an aspirin for your headache", are you taking the aspirin to get your headache or are you taking the aspirin because of your headache? Because of your headache, not to get your headache. When you look at overall Scripture, the idea to get your headache or "remission of sins" does not line up, so the word "for" is not the problem, it's the straight forward translation that it can only mean "the purpose of" or "to receive" that's the problem.

What Dana and Mantey said is the idea they are relating,
"εἰς" is not to be translated, "because of" it carries the idea with it, but not to be translated in any other way, it's interpreted in our communication as it is in our figure of speech or idiom, about the headache.

Bottom line is, does this mean that our sins are forgiven through water baptism? No! We are saved by grace, justified though faith
. So with in the overall context of Scripture it has to mean something else or we have a major contradiction in the Bible on Salvation, which we do not have.

Your argument is but a straw man. Any clear thinking person can see you are but diverting the issue by bringing up the meaning of the English word "for". The issue here is quite clear, is Luke attempting to convey "so that" or "because of" by using the Greek word "eis" in Acts 2:38?

Your aspirin example is but a weak false dichotomy. Someone takes a aspirin not "to get a headache" nor "because of their headache" but "to gain relief from their headache". This is the reason not even a paraphrased Bible would consider the "because of" notion. The purpose of translation is the convey the intent of the writer, are you truly that naive to think every Greek scholar that has ever translated this verse is wrong?

Your words "it has to mean something else" leads to your second false dichotomy. The verse must mean something else or the Bible is wrong. No Johnny_B, the verse does not have to mean something else nor does it have to mean the Bible is wrong. What it means is that you are filtering the Word of God through your preconceived notions. Instead of allowing the scriptures to speak for themselves, you in your wisdom know better. Obviously the translators got it wrong, of course.

Just as a person takes an aspirin "for" the relief the aspirin will bring, so to did Dr. Simon Peter tell those "cut to the heart" to be baptized "for" the remission of their sins. (1st Peter 3:21)

I look forward to your reply.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#58
Your argument is but a straw man. Any clear thinking person can see you are but diverting the issue by bringing up the meaning of the English word "for". The issue here is quite clear, is Luke attempting to convey "so that" or "because of" by using the Greek word "eis" in Acts 2:38?

Your aspirin example is but a weak false dichotomy. Someone takes a aspirin not "to get a headache" nor "because of their headache" but "to gain relief from their headache". This is the reason not even a paraphrased Bible would consider the "because of" notion. The purpose of translation is the convey the intent of the writer, are you truly that naive to think every Greek scholar that has ever translated this verse is wrong?

Your words "it has to mean something else" leads to your second false dichotomy. The verse must mean something else or the Bible is wrong. No Johnny_B, the verse does not have to mean something else nor does it have to mean the Bible is wrong. What it means is that you are filtering the Word of God through your preconceived notions. Instead of allowing the scriptures to speak for themselves, you in your wisdom know better. Obviously the translators got it wrong, of course.

Just as a person takes an aspirin "for" the relief the aspirin will bring, so to did Dr. Simon Peter tell those "cut to the heart" to be baptized "for" the remission of their sins. (1st Peter 3:21)

I look forward to your reply.
A great may people allow their soteriology to drive their reading of the text rather than allowing the language of the text to define their soteriology. This is precisely what A.T. Robertson did in his treatment of this verse, and what's more, he admits it.
 
Last edited:

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,779
2,934
113
#59
Your argument is but a straw man. Any clear thinking person can see you are but diverting the issue by bringing up the meaning of the English word "for". The issue here is quite clear, is Luke attempting to convey "so that" or "because of" by using the Greek word "eis" in Acts 2:38?

Your aspirin example is but a weak false dichotomy. Someone takes a aspirin not "to get a headache" nor "because of their headache" but "to gain relief from their headache". This is the reason not even a paraphrased Bible would consider the "because of" notion. The purpose of translation is the convey the intent of the writer, are you truly that naive to think every Greek scholar that has ever translated this verse is wrong?

Your words "it has to mean something else" leads to your second false dichotomy. The verse must mean something else or the Bible is wrong. No Johnny_B, the verse does not have to mean something else nor does it have to mean the Bible is wrong. What it means is that you are filtering the Word of God through your preconceived notions. Instead of allowing the scriptures to speak for themselves, you in your wisdom know better. Obviously the translators got it wrong, of course.

Just as a person takes an aspirin "for" the relief the aspirin will bring, so to did Dr. Simon Peter tell those "cut to the heart" to be baptized "for" the remission of their sins. (1st Peter 3:21)

I look forward to your reply.

Luke was a Greek physician. Luke and Acts are very advanced Greek and he certainly knew what prepositions to use. We won't even get into the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I am looking at several complications of prepositions, and none of them are "because," in Greek. Words for because include mostly Hoti, with gar or "for" being used sometimes as "because." However, this word "gar" in Greek is a propositive conjunction, and not a preposition like our English Word "for."

Which brings us to your total lack of understanding of English grammar let alone Greek.

Eis is a preposition. That means words like "into, in among, for." I think OH did the full Bauer definition on page 1 or 2 or this thread.

Here is a formal definition.

"a word governing, and usually preceding a noun or pronoun, expressing a relation to another word or element in the clause, as in "the man ON the platform," "she arrived AFTER dinner,". What did you do it FOR?"

Eis translated as "for" in Acts 2:38 is accurate linguisically and theological. "Because" is not a preposition, but a subordinate conjunction.

"The word "because" in standard English usage, is a subordinate conjunction, which means that it connects the tow parts of a sentence in which one (the subordinate clause) explains the other." "

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38 ESV

"
for the forgiveness of sins," is a prepositional phrase, explaining the words "be baptized."

In order for "because" to be used, you need to have a full clause, led by a subordinate conjunction. So, a clause needs a subject and a verb. "Forgiveness is obviously a noun, but there is no verb in the phrase, therefore it cannot be a subordinate clause, and "because" cannot be used.

Further, Greek has a unique set of verb endings, which identify it as being a subjunctive verb. Since, there is no verb, I won't get deeper into this, because in Greek, as in English, a clause requires a subject and a verb, for both major or coordinate clauses and subordinate clauses. A subordinate clause cannot stand alone. In Greek, it was normal and usual to have a series of clauses, to the point, where it gets hard to identify for English speakers what is supporting what. Eph. 1:1-15 is an example where there are so many subordinate clauses, that the translators put sentences in and pull out conjunctions in order to make sense.

However, again, "because the forgiveness of sins" makes no sense in either English or Greek. Something to be careful of in Greek, is that the articles are not always next to the words they are modifying. Perhaps this is the mistake that Robertson made?

Another issue to consider, is that one verse does not make a doctrine, ever! So perhaps time to go searching for other verses that prove you point?
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#60
"

In order for "because" to be used, you need to have a full clause, led by a subordinate conjunction. So, a clause needs a subject and a verb. "Forgiveness is obviously a noun, but there is no verb in the phrase, therefore it cannot be a subordinate clause, and "because" cannot be used.
Excellent point Angela. I never thought of that. That really blows Robertson's argument out of the water doesn't it.