Poll on what Acts 2:38 was intended to mean

[Cow Poke]

"The spirit is willing..."

But Jeff is stubborn.

The reality of your situation seems to be this: If you (and Sparko/RBerman/Jedidiah) are right about this, then those Bibles that OBP cited for you are NOT right. In fact, it would mean that those Bibles are 100% dead WRONG regarding the correct meaning of the verse.

No, Jeff... it would mean that ONE WORD was incorrectly translated.

Which makes your situation boil down to: What are the compelling facts that make your translation right, and those Bibles a case of egregious mistranslation?

Egregious?

A valid issue....in a thread asking what that verse was intended to mean.

Proof, once again, that you have NO CLUE what "context" is all about.

Of course; otherwise, it would be strange for me to be LDS

I think the only reason you ARE a Mormon is because you were born into it, and have too much invested in it to consider the Truth.

I wasn't necessarily appealing to majority opinions on this issue. It was more about evidence--evidence of sufficient quality and quantity to justify the conclusion that the intended meaning of Acts 2: 38 was

Yeah, OTHERWISE you would have called the thread something like... "Poll on what Acts 2:38 was intended to mean" instead of something like "The Evidence for..".

[Sparko]

"The spirit is willing..."


The reality of your situation seems to be this: If you (and Sparko/RBerman/Jedidiah) are right about this, then those Bibles that OBP cited for you are NOT right. In fact, it would mean that those Bibles are 100% dead WRONG regarding the correct meaning of the verse.

No jeff. It only means you are reading it wrong. There is nothing wrong with using the word "for" in the verse. "for" can mean "because" - yet that doesn't mean that it has to be translated into the english word "because" instead of "for"

Like the example Strong's gives: Jesses James wanted for robbery. There is nothing wrong with using "for" in that sentence, even though it has the meaning of "because of"

Your argument would be that the wanted poster was wrong because it used "for" instead of "because of"

[One Bad Pig]

And regarding "eis" - here is what Strong's greek lexicon says about it:

Strong 1519
Eis preposition 1. into, unto, to, towards, for, among

"For" (as used in Acts 2:38 "for the forgiveness...") could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery", "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works.

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1519

With all due respect for that resource, it is far from complete, and I see a bit of "weak point - yell louder" here. See here for a more complete exposition of the word (you'll need to expand the view to see it all). I dispute the assertion that it would "violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works;" it rests on the assumption (unfounded, IMO) that baptism is a work. Oh, and we should be arguing based on the meaning of eis, not for.

The same construction is used in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, except it's talking about the baptism of John the Baptist.

[nrajeff]

With all due respect for that resource, it is far from complete, and I see a bit of "weak point - yell louder" here. See here for a more complete exposition of the word (you'll need to expand the view to see it all). I dispute the assertion that it would "violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works;" it rests on the assumption (unfounded, IMO) that baptism is a work. Oh, and we should be arguing based on the meaning of eis, not for.

The same construction is used in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, except it's talking about the baptism of John the Baptist.

Thanks for providing additional info, OBP.

[Sparko]

OK I am asking John Reese what he thinks. He knows greek better than any of us.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...77#post3432377

[nrajeff]

But Jeff is stubborn.

I don't think I have ever denied being stubborn when it comes to some things. In others, my wife says I give in too easily. I bet most other normal people are similar.

No, Jeff... it would mean that ONE WORD was incorrectly translated.

Don't you think that one important word, if incorrectly translated, can render a verse's meaning so radically different that it qualifies as an egregious mistranslation? I do. If you disagree, I can give you an example or 2 that supports my claim. Heck, Acts 2:38 is a great example. If the Sparko Bible is right, and eis really should mean "because" instead of "so that" then it makes a huge difference. This isn't a trivial "variant" that really doesn't change the meaning of the verse. It has significant ramifications.
In fact, I think some Evangelicals use the verses as a proof text for supporting their doctrine of sola fide as the SOLE condition for remission of sins. If the verse is really saying that Peter told the people to get baptized so that their sins could then be remitted, so that they could then receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, then it's a major deal, IMO. The ramifications are equally devastating to those who would use the verse as a proof text for the possibly-related (to sola fide), quasi-Calvinistic idea that salvation comes FIRST BEFORE ANY act of obedience that a person does or even is ABLE to do. Of course I'm referring to this whole cart-pulls-the-horse, "degree is given and then the classes can be taken" soteriology timeline. If Sparko's translation is correct, then it supports the idea that Peter--and by extension Jesus Himself--subscribed to that idea.

But if the Sparko translation is WRONG, then all bets in that scenario might be off.

So getting the translation correct seems pretty crucial to me.

Egregious?

Seems that way to me, for the reasons I just mentioned.

Proof, once again, that you have NO CLUE what "context" is all about.

Some friendly advice: You lose credibility every single time you make those absolutist, sweeping generalizations. "That's a clown accusation, bro." It's one thing to tell a person that in your opinion their understanding of a subject is flawed. It's another thing--and a damaging thing to your credibility as an accuser-- to tell that person that he as NO CLUE what the subject is all about. I made plenty of mathematical errors when I was taking math classes. I never got an "A" in any high-school-and-above math class. But if a fellow student had told me I had no clue or didn't know the first thing about the subject, do you think I (or the teacher for that matter) would have taken him seriously?

Do you want to be taken seriously? One important element is to lose the sweeping generalizations of the absolutist kind. The person you're insulting KNOWS that he at least has SOME idea about the subject. So any VALID arguments you MIGHT subsequently present will be met with hostility and distrust.

I think the only reason you ARE a Mormon is because you were born into it, and have too much invested in it to consider the Truth.

Again, it's not the first time your thinking has been wrong. But notice that I don't say "That false statement is, ONCE AGAIN, PROOF that you have NO CLUE as to what Mormonism is all about!"

Yeah, OTHERWISE you would have called the thread something like... "Poll on what Acts 2:38 was intended to mean" instead of something like "The Evidence for..".

I am not seeing a valid point there. The poll was to find out how many posters think Sparko's version of what the verse really says is correct, and how many think it's NOT correct. Since I allow commentary if a person wants to give more than just a "yes" or "no" then that commentary is probably gonna include what people consider to be good evidence supporting their vote. I don't see that as a bad thing, nor do I think it makes the thread's title misleading...or "dishonest."

[nrajeff]

OK I am asking John Reese what he thinks. He knows greek better than any of us.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...77#post3432377

If John Reese's opinion is that your version of what the verse is really saying is incorrect, what do you plan to say in response? Just wondering how "stubborn" (thanks CP for the Word of the Day) you plan to be in defending your interpretation. Not that it's a bad thing, necessarily--I was just wondering how authoritative a source will need to be (in the hierarchy of authoritativeness) that it would result in you changing your mind on this issue.

[Cerebrum123]

Jeff, the issue here seems to be far more about a misunderstanding of what is being said, rather than "mistranslation".

[Sparko]

If John Reese's opinion is that your version of what the verse is really saying is incorrect, what do you plan to say in response? Just wondering how "stubborn" (thanks CP for the Word of the Day) you plan to be in defending your interpretation. Not that it's a bad thing, necessarily--I was just wondering how authoritative a source will need to be (in the hierarchy of authoritativeness) that it would result in you changing your mind on this issue.

I will take John's word on it, Jeff.

and it is NOT about the word "eis" meaning "for" but that "eis" just like the english word "for" can mean either "in order" or "because of" depending on the context.

how about you? will you take his word on it? He is an expert in Greek.

[Cow Poke]

Don't you think that one important word, if incorrectly translated, can render a verse's meaning so radically different that it qualifies as an egregious mistranslation?

How dense can you be, Jeff? It's not about a "mistranslation".

Some friendly advice: You lose credibility every single time you make those absolutist, sweeping generalizations.

OK, you may have SOME clue, but you don't apply it.

Again, it's not the first time your thinking has been wrong.

My "thinking" isn't wrong, Jeff. Based on my observations, it is my OPINION, based on your conduct here, that your Mormonism is "head knowledge" and not "heart knowledge." It is a fact, is it not, that you were born into Mormonism. It is my opinion that you are simply too invested in it to even consider the possibility that you may be wrong.

[Sparko]

well John Reese agrees with me. He even posted the same commentary I did.

[Chrawnus]

well John Reese agrees with me. He even posted the same commentary I did.

How about John Reece. Does he agree with you?

[Sparko]

oops.

[Cow Poke]

well John Reese agrees with me. He even posted the same commentary I did.

Perhaps that's why I have such a corrupt view of Acts 2:38... . I did a couple semesters at Southern Seminary in Louisville, Ky where A T Robertson taught (many years earlier, of course), and we used his text books in class. I still have his "Word Pictures in the New Testament", and have referred to it often in preaching.

[Vivian]

Hi Jeff,

When I look at the Greek word here in question it seems to mean 'entrance into' in other words, this eis that, this enters one into that. And so your interpretation, in looking at the Greek, is accurate, IMO. However, the assumes that we understand what baptism is, or salvation for that matter. I offer that true baptism has been lost, so yes, the anti's here are correct. The baptism that occurs in most churches does not allow one to enter into the remission of sins. This baptism is powerless, and so is only for show.

I also offer that we are arguing here as though there is only one way to get that get out of hell free card. I offer that there is no get out of hell free card, and so there is no one way to get it or to get forgiveness or anything. Forgiveness of sins can come via many forms, no single means of transmission or acquisition, or giving and receiving, is necessary for forgiveness nor for salvation. The scripture lists abundant means whereby we might access the forgiveness of sins necessary to free us to walk the path to salvation. And all that are listed are accurate. God's Mercy is so grand that it is offered and delivered through all means possible, through Jesus' Blood, through true baptism, through confession and repentance, through good works. None of this is salvation, but merely frees us from bondage so that we might seek and find the Truth that will make us free.

(A little secret that is little known...most people do not want salvation. They do not know what salvation is, and if they did, they would not want it, and so a salvation that appeases the beast has been created, or rather an idea of salvation that appeases the beast has been created. And so most of the arguments here are about ideas of forgiveness of sins and salvation, not the real deal.)


Shalom!

Viv