Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | disciplerami, support forgiveness last. | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77205 | ||
Repost, Hello Tim and Search and everybody else, The argument for parsing Acts 2:38 as you have shown is without merit, because: 1] No translation available has ever translated it such? You claim that the grammar rules are violated; if so, then your argument is not with me, but with every translation board known to man. Can you show me a single translation that has dared to translate Acts 2:38 as you have offered here? If you give no answer, we all must assume that the Greek scholarship is against you. 2] This argument you offer is old, and has been refuted many times. The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the correlating conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. [I realize that you must conclude that repentence is not essential to salvation either, but we shall get to that]. 3] The sentence in Acts 2:38 is what's referred to as a Complex Compound Sentence, comprised of three sentences joined by the correlating conjunction, AND, a] Repent ye (AND)… b] Be baptized (3rd,singular, individually) each OF YE (humon, genetive 'of', plural) on the name of Jesus Christ UNTO the remission of the sins OF YE (humon, genetive 'of, plural), (AND)… 1) in this second sub-sentence, it says 'let be baptized each individual of YE into the name of Jesus Christ with a view to remission of sins. c] YE shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 4] Here's where you take a twist by turning the preposition, EIS, into a causal meaning (because), you also make repentence unnecessary for the remission of sins. To be consistent then, you must say that repentence follows only as evidence that you are saved. Where you did argue by this novel translation that repentence is connected to forgiveness and baptism is not, you must now conclude that repentence and baptism are no more connected to forgiveness than the other: except now, they both follow. Here is how you really see this verse: a] “Because you have forgiveness of sins, you are commanded to repent (it is an imperative, as you pointed out) and commanded to be baptized (an imperative also) … or b] “Repent BECAUSE you have been forgiven of sins, and then you must go ahead and be baptized too, but NOT BECAUSE of your former forgiveness of sins…. [it is you who disassociated baptism from forgivess of sins, right?]. Now you must tell us why we must be baptized. All along, you've been disassociating baptism from forgiveness of sins, while connecting repentance to forgiveness of sins. Now your argument is that repentence follows too! Your argument has been that baptism follows. Now you must, to be consistent with your causal explanation for the preposition EIS, say that repentance isn't associated with forgiveness, not any more than baptism is! ! ! If you deal with anything in this response, deal with this. Explain how all along you can make the case that number and person only connects repentance and forgiveness, and baptism therefore follows. Then you introduce the causal argument for EIS and make repentance no more necessary for forgiveness than is baptism. |
||||||
2 | disciplerami, support forgiveness last. | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 77209 | ||
Since you ignore what the Greek says, I am done with you. In closing Acts 10:44-48 supports our view. | ||||||
3 | disciplerami, support forgiveness last. | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77265 | ||
Searcher56, I will not change the subject until you deal with my answers. After you have done this, then we can talk about Acts 10:44-48. How can you say I have ignored what the text says? It would be interesting if you responded to the points I have made. 1] Do you have a single translation that supports your view? I assume not. 2] Prove the conjunction 'and' does not give equal important to the verbs 'repent' and 'be baptized.' I understand that the study you offered was not your own work--though you posted and reposted it several times-- and I have nothing against Morant61, but Tim eventually makes the case that both repentance AND baptism only follow salvation AND THEREFORE HAVE EQUAL FORCE. Since you do not respond, I assume you have no evidence to refute. If you could disprove this point, I would be the first to accept. But I'm still waiting for your response. 3] Deal with the fact that the verse is a Complex Compound sentence: comprised of three sentences. The first is joined to the second by the correlating conjunction 'AND' and those two are joined to the third by the correlating conjunction "AND". The second sentence literally says, and this is from the Greek, "Be baptized (singular) each one of YE (olde english for 'you' plural) in the name of Jesus Christ with a view to the remission of sins. 4] Since you offer the possibility that EIS is causal--instead of prospective, with a view to, unto, in order that, etc--then do you conclude that 'repentance' is not anymore necessary than baptism? I have to conclude that you do. Please, do not quit this important dialogue. I see that you call yourself Searcher. Then realize I mean you no harm. My purpose is not academic. In my private life, public life, and computer life :), I want to lead others to the truth. If you help me get to the truth, then I am better for it. Again, I will be glad to hash out the meaning of the Act 10 passage you refer to, but for now please deal with these points. Good day. |
||||||
4 | Misquote? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 77274 | ||
Greetings Dan! You wrote: "...and I have nothing against Morant61, but Tim eventually makes the case that both repentance AND baptism only follow salvation AND THEREFORE HAVE EQUAL FORCE." To what are you referring my friend? I'm not I understand what you are trying to say, but I know that I never said it! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Misquote? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77281 | ||
Dear Tim, This is not a misquote; rather it is drawing a logical conclusion from your stated points. Here is what I posted originally, and you have read from a follow up post: ______________ Here's where you take a twist by turning the preposition, EIS, into a causal meaning (because), you also make repentence unnecessary for the remission of sins. To be consistent then, you must say that repentence follows only as evidence that you are saved. Where you did argue by this novel translation that repentence is connected to forgiveness and baptism is not, you must now conclude that repentence and baptism are no more connected to forgiveness than the other: except now, they both follow. Here is how you really see this verse: a] “Because you have forgiveness of sins, you are commanded to repent (it is an imperative, as you pointed out) and commanded to be baptized (an imperative also) … or b] “Repent BECAUSE you have been forgiven of sins, and then you must go ahead and be baptized too, but NOT BECAUSE of your former forgiveness of sins…. [it is you who disassociated baptism from forgivess of sins, right?]. Now you must tell us why we must be baptized. All along, you've been disassociating baptism from forgiveness of sins, while connecting repentance to forgiveness of sins. Now your argument is that repentence follows too! Your argument has been that baptism follows. Now you must, to be consistent with your causal explanation for the preposition EIS, say that repentance isn't associated with forgiveness, not any more than baptism is! ! ! If you deal with anything in this response, deal with this. Explain how all along you can make the case that number and person only connects repentance and forgiveness, and baptism therefore follows. Then you introduce the causal argument for EIS and make repentance no more necessary for forgiveness than is baptism. ______ That is my conclusion from what you have said. Did I misunderstand and if so, please point to the exact place where I went off course from your argument. Thank so much. Disciplerami |
||||||
6 | Misquote? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 77285 | ||
Greetings Dan! You wrote: " If you deal with anything in this response, deal with this. Explain how all along you can make the case that number and person only connects repentance and forgiveness, and baptism therefore follows. Then you introduce the causal argument for EIS and make repentance no more necessary for forgiveness than is baptism." I have addressed this already, several times. The post you were referring to was one in which I listed several interpretative options, each of which did not allow baptism to be necessary for salvation. The 'eis' arguement you mention is one among several that I listed. However, I have stated quite clearly all along which option I believe! :-) If I remember correctly, (it has been awhile since that post), someone previously had stated that 'eis' always meant result and never the basis for an action. So, I had listed several times where this was not true. While it usually indicates result, it can be causual. But, that is not my position on Acts 2:38. I just wanted to clear! ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | Misquote? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77290 | ||
Ok, Thanks for clearing that up. Disciplerami |
||||||