Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | where did this teaching come from? | Acts 2:37 | Morant61 | 53218 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! Good morning my friend! One of the really neat things about Greek is that it has different forms for the various genders, numbers, and even cases of it's nouns and verbs. Therefore, I'm not guessing when I say that the command to 'repent' is a plural command, while the command to 'be baptized' is a singular command. Here is the parsing information for the two commands and the purpose clause. 1) Repent - Aorist, Active, Imperative, 2nd Person, Plural. 2) Be Baptized - Aorist, Passive, Imperative, 3rd, Singular. 3) Of your sins - Feminine, Genitive, Plural. So, in Greek, this is quite clear. The second command cannot be associate with the phrase 'for the remission of your sins' because that phrase is plural in number. The first command is associated with the phrase because they are both in the same number. The second command is a command, but it is parenthetical, and not associated with the 'remission of sins'. Only repentance leads to the remission of sins. This is why I love Greek, because it is so precise and exact. We don't have to guess (usually) about the meaning. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | where did this teaching come from? | Acts 2:37 | Grace and Truth | 53223 | ||
I think that this interpretation cannot not be correct, simply because when it was translated, it could have been translated in the form you mentioned, but it's not. Many scholars have work many long hours to bring this text to light, now unless you are a scholar and an expert in the greek language, I would leave it alone. The reason I said this is nearly all the translations read the same way, and none that I've ever seem have read the way you are interpreteding it. In plain english it reads "REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED, EVERY ONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS," if this is not what the translaters have translated they should be the one's who need to make it known that they translated the text wrong! And you and I know that will never happen because they translated it right. |
||||||
3 | where did this teaching come from? | Acts 2:37 | Hank | 53233 | ||
Grace and Truth: What follows is an exact reproduction of a footnote to Acts 2:38 found on page 1544 of the "Believer's Study Bible" [Thomas Nelson]. It pretty much follows tongue-in-groove what Tim has already posted to you on this thread. Herewith the quote: "'Repent' is second person imperative, indicating a mandate for all to repent. Repentence is a Christian absolute, both doctrinally and experientially (Luke 13:3). 'Be baptized' is third person passive imperative, thereby stressing individual responsibility to obey. To submit to such apostolic kerygma (Gr.), or 'proclamation,' is one of the first outward evidences of the genuineness of repentance and faith. Baptism, therefore, follows justification and is not a prerequisite for salvation. Baptism is important; it is not, however, essential for salvation. These words might be understood to mean 'because of the remission of sins.' See Matt. 12:41 where the same preposition (eis, Gr.) means 'because.'" .... Don't you see, G and T, that Tim, Joe, I and others who have responded to you are not attempting to 'undo' Acts 2:38 or any other passages of Scripture that speak of baptism. Our responses to you have been generally synergic, inviting you to examine Scripture with us fully, contextually, and exegetically. It has always been a grave error to base a key point of theology upon one's interpretation of a few isolated passages while ignoring other, clearer passages that provide an incontrovertible indicator that such an interpretation is false. Salvific issues such as grace and works, faith and baptism, are prime examples wherein faulty interpretation of isolated passages has led to some very erroneous conclusions about what the Bible really teaches on these topics. The torchlight of Scripture shines brighly and its message is loud and clear, but we must have eyes that see and ears that hear. --Hank | ||||||
4 | where did this teaching come from? | Acts 2:37 | Grace and Truth | 53236 | ||
One Problem in [Thomas Nelson]'s interpretation of the word (eis, Gr.) the same word is use in Matt 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many "for" (eis) the remission of sins". So Mr.Nelson would have to rethink his view on his interpretation. Jesus used it in the same context! | ||||||
5 | where did this teaching come from? | Acts 2:37 | Hank | 53239 | ||
Grace and Truth: Well, just to clear the decks, Thomas Nelson is an old, well-established publishing firm and "Mr. Nelson" didn't write a word of the footnote reproduced in my former post. The Believer's Study Bible is a compositie effort by more than 50 Bible scholars, preachers and teachers. The book has been in print for well over a decade, so I'm reasonably certain that "Mr. Nelson" has had every opportunity to re-think his explanation of what 'eis' means, but thus far has appended no correction to what you consider to be his woeful blunder :-) Here again, G and T, you have demonstrated your expertise in swatting flies, in nit picking, all without the least display that you are concerned with anything more than promulgating a distinctly one-sided denominational bias. That has been the import of your posts from day one. To continue playing biblical ping pong at this level is both fatuous and inane, defies reason and common sense, feds no one and thus I, before signing off this thread, appeal to you in the name of common courtesy, to dismount from your baptismal steed and let the poor horse get some much-needed rest. --Hank | ||||||