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?
