'For' or 'because of'

[eternally-gratefull]

You're just like a Democrat or a liberal EG, facts mean absolutely nothing to you. You and I have had this conversation before and to no avail. I see no point in continuing this.

again, The same argument can be said to you. Thats why we are always at odds. I refuse to sit down while a person attacks other people with their view is right, and anyone who disagrees is ignoring truth, no matter what side you are on, it is arrogant, and pridefull, and gives God and his people a bad name

You think your right, and no one will tell you otherwise, And anyone who disagrees with you ,You basically tell that that, and then attack them by telling them they ignore truth. like you are doing to me now.

as I see it, the facts mean nothing to you. if it does not support your water baptismal regeration gospel. you will not even give it a second look, And your right, there is no point in continuing, only for the fact that other people will see what your saying, and they need to be shown that your perspective is not the only perspective and they need to be shown another view so they can have a choice.

sadly, i thought you wanted to really discuss the word eis, but I see that was not the case at all. You want to discuss YOUR interpretation of the word. thats all

 

[oldhermit]

again, The same argument can be said to you. Thats why we are always at odds. I refuse to sit down while a person attacks other people with their view is right, and anyone who disagrees is ignoring truth, no matter what side you are on, it is arrogant, and pridefull, and gives God and his people a bad name

You think your right, and no one will tell you otherwise, And anyone who disagrees with you ,You basically tell that that, and then attack them by telling them they ignore truth. like you are doing to me now.

as I see it, the facts mean nothing to you. if it does not support your water baptismal regeration gospel. you will not even give it a second look, And your right, there is no point in continuing, only for the fact that other people will see what your saying, and they need to be shown that your perspective is not the only perspective and they need to be shown another view so they can have a choice.

sadly, i thought you wanted to really discuss the word eis, but I see that was not the case at all. You want to discuss YOUR interpretation of the word. thats all

It is not MY interpretation of the word EG, the definition of eis has been long settled. It has only been in the last several years that people have attempted to change the definition of the word; and from all that I can determine, this all began with Robertson. Also, your attempt to manipulate the person and number of that verse will simply not hold water. Robertson tried the same thing and his argument are completely bogus. If all of these arguments carry any weight at all, why is it that NO ONE, in any translation, has ever translated it as 'because of', and why has no translation changed the structure of the verse to fit Robertson's theories. The reason this has not been done is because these arguments are based on poor scholarship, and no scholar or group of scholars is going to put their reputation on the line to come out is support of those theories.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

It is not MY interpretation of the word EG, the definition of eis has been long settled.

Settled by you, and as you like to say, NOTHING will change your mind.

It has only been in the last several years that people have attempted to change the definition of the word; and from all that I can determine, this all began with Robertson.

Again, this is your view, as you see it, Because nothing else will convince you (again using your own argument against you)

Also, your attempt to manipulate the person and number of that verse will simply not hold water.

Again, Thats your opinion, and probably the opinion of everyone who holds to baptismal regeneration.

Robertson tried the same thing and his argument are completely bogus.

I do not even know or care who robertson is, How about lets just stick to the word. and not follow doctrines of men? Is that to hard to ask?

The roman church took many of the churches doctrines and if they did not agree with, or considered it heresy, burnt it, So there would be no record of anyone have doctrines which disagree with them, and since water baptism is one of their sacraments, I would not expect to see any record of anyone disagreeing with them on this issue, so your use of history is faulty at best.

If all of these arguments carry any weight at all, why is it that NO ONE, in any translation, has ever translated it as 'because of', and why has no translation changed the structure of the verse to fit Robertson's theories. The reason this has not been done is because these arguments are based on poor scholarship, and no scholar or group of scholars is going to put their reputation on the line to come out is support of those theories.

You missed the whole point,

KJV "For" the remission of sin
NKJV "FOR" The remission of sin
NASB "For" the forgiveness of sin
NIV "For" the forgivenss of sin

here you have all the popular translations of the word translate it, and nothign in any of these phrases show that remission or forgiveness is the direct result of being baptised PERIOD.

I PROVED the english word "FOR" can be translated multiple ways. so this so called "PROOF" You have given is already destroyed based on HOW these SCHOLARS interpreted the word in the 4 major bibles that most people use.

as I have shown

for can be translated

in order to recieve
on account of
in reference to
with respect to

so context has to be used to properly interpret. no matter what you say

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Here's another example in Matthew 26:28 that has the exact same wording as Acts 2:38 - εις άφεσιν αμαρτιών. Was Jesus blood shed into (for) remission of sins, or because of remission of sins? Obviously the former case.

this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:28.​

​

btw the first instance of for in that verse is the word περί, which is often translated as for.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Robertson admits on Page 389 of his book that syntax sometimes has to give way to theological bias.

After all is done, instances remain where syntax cannot say the last word, where theological bias will inevitably determine how one interprets the Greek idiom. ... When the grammarian has finished, the theologian steps in, and sometimes before the grammarian is through.

 

[oldhermit]

Robertson admits on Page 389 of his book that syntax sometimes has to give way to theological bias.

In other words, what Robertson is saying is, that scripture must be subordinate to human intelligence. This is not how scripture defines its relationship to the human mind. Truth is grounded in the grammatical structure of the text which comes from the Holy Spirit, not in the human interpretation of the text. There is a reason why scripture says things the way it does.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

In other words, what Robertson is saying is, that scripture must be subordinate to human intelligence. This is not how scripture defines its relationship to the human mind. Truth is grounded in the grammatical structure of the text which comes from the Holy Spirit, not in the human interpretation of the text. There is a reason why scripture says things the way it does.

That viewpoint allowed him to contradict himself. Of the identical wording in Matthew 26:28 he said:

“The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins”

If he was going to be consistent he would also say of Acts 2:38:

"The purpose of repentance and baptism was precisely to remove (forgive) sins”

 

[Johnny_B]

You are correct, "for" can mean because of in some cases in the English language, but in Greek, the word εἰς never means because of. This is why it is never translated 'because of' in scripture.

so you atr saying the Holy Spirit moved Lukr to pen one Sxripture that goes aganist the full counsel of God concerning salvation, be cause baptism does noy bring for giveness or remission of sin. It's is eveident that this bothers you because since I've been on this site this is not the first time you brought this up or you have made the same post on the greek word. i say you write a book about how you view as a hard translation of "for" meaning to get and let Greek schalors critic it.