Sorry, an Acts 2:38 thread.

[e.r.m.]

I have posted these points on a number of forums and rarely seem to get a response on them. I'd like to give them their own thread and see what others may have to say. These are not the typical arguments like eis is always forward looking, although I'm seeing growing evidence for that, and the ones that says repent is in included in the "for" forgiveness of sins, although that's a rock solid argument in and of itself. These are inconsistencies or clashes that I've seen that are more subtle, yet just as disqualifying to the because of argument.

For those who believe for in Acts 2:38 means because of

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Then it runs into the following problems.

1. If it's because of, he's telling them to get baptized because of their forgiveness of sins, without them knowing first that their sins were forgiven.

2. If it's because of he's telling them to get baptized because of the forgiveness of their sins. What does one have to do with another? He puts the two together without connecting them in any way or explaining what one has to do with the other. For the first time that baptism is ever mentioned in history, it would leave them in the dark without saying the relationship between the two.
Analogy - "Sit in the other chair, because of your raise?"
... Huh?, why? What does having a raise have to do with where I sit?

... And wait, I got a raise?

Now people may give all sorts of explanations why Peter told them to get baptized in relation to their forgiveness (such as Peter consequently told them to do that as a public declaration of their faith), but Peter didn't give any explanation whatsoever! He left them completely in the dark.
Telling them to get baptized forward looking "into" or "in order to receive" forgiveness of sins fits completely within what he stated.

3. Why bring up baptism into a forgiveness of sin discussion in the first place if it doesn't belong. People who don't believe baptism is involved in getting saved don't bring it up. They say things like "Follow me in prayer", "Accept Jesus as personal savior" and all that. They never put baptism & forgiveness of sins in the same sentence unless it's to emphasize that they're not connected. Peter did included it, and didn't give any qualifier.

4. Peter took what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 and turned that into Acts 2:38-39.

5. Peter said “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...." to a group of Jews who were used to the mikveh, which was water immersion many did obsessively to be cleansed. Telling them to be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins would be accepted right away. Telling them to be baptized because of forgiveness of sins would make no sense to them.

6. Comparing all eis instances together in scriptures that relate to being saved/forgiven shows a trend. ALL such scriptures always use eis in the forward sense, like Acts 3:19 and Romans 10:10. Relevant verses such as these give context to Acts 2:38. And since eis in relevant salvation verses are all forward looking, then it's fitting that Acts 2:38 is forward looking looking as well.

7. There's more wiggle room to argue For/eis in English than there is in Spanish. In English, for could mean either) forward-looking, (as in into or in order to receive) or backward-looking (as in because of, or in view of). In Spanish you don't have that, you have to choose between the words "por" (backward looking for) and "para" (forward looking for). I looked up 11 translations in spanish and 10 of those used para. The eleventh didn't use either por or para, but worded it as if it is para, such as "be baptized in order to receive". In Acts 2:38 Eis is overwhelmingly understood as "in order to receive".

8. In English, only a few obscure translations like the Renaissance and Weymouth Bibles translate it as because of. The overwhelming majority translate it as for.

9. Peter stated both Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 "baptism that now saves you also". I understand all the arguments against 1st Peter 3: 21. My point is this, if a person is misunderstood once, it's easier to explain it away as what he said is not actually what he meant as in Acts 2:38. If a person says something twice, it's harder to explain that both times he didn't mean what he said.

Feel free to address any or all the points.

The floor is open. Thank you.

 

[74x12]

I have posted these points on a number of forums and rarely seem to get a response on them. I'd like to give them their own thread and see what others may have to say. These are not the typical arguments like eis is always forward looking, although I'm seeing growing evidence for that, and the ones that says repent is in included in the "for" forgiveness of sins, although that's a rock solid argument in and of itself. These are inconsistencies or clashes that I've seen that are more subtle, yet just as disqualifying to the because of argument.

If Acts 2:38 were to actually mean
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Then it would run into the following problems.

1. If it's because of, he's telling them to get baptized because of their forgiveness of sins without them knowing first that their sins were forgiven.

2. If it's because of he's telling them to get baptized because of the forgiveness of their sins. What does one have to do with another? He puts the two together without connecting them in any way or explaining what one has to do with the other. For the first time that baptism is ever being mentioned in history, it would leave them in the dark without saying the relationship between the two.
Analogy - "Sit in the other chair, because of your raise?"
... Huh?, why? What does having a raise have to do with where I sit?

... And wait, I got a raise?

Now people may give all sorts of explanations why Peter told them to get baptized in relation to their forgiveness (such as Peter consequently told them to do that as a public declaration of their faith), but Peter didn't give any explanation whatsoever! He left them completely in the dark.
Telling them to get baptized forward looking "into" or "in order to receive" forgiveness of sins fits completely within what he stated.

3. Why bring up baptism into a forgiveness of sin discussion in the first place if it doesn't belong. People who don't believe baptism is involved in getting saved don't bring it up. They say things like "Follow me in prayer", "Accept Jesus as personal savior" and all that. They never put baptism & forgiveness of sins in the same sentence unless it's to emphasize that they're not connected. Peter did included it, and didn't give any qualifier.

4. Peter took what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 and turned that into Acts 2:38-39.

5. Peter said “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...." to a group of Jews who were used to the mikveh, which was water immersion many did obsessively to be cleansed. Telling them to be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins would be accepted right away. Telling them to be baptized because of forgiveness of sins would make no sense to them.

6. Comparing all eis instances together in scriptures that relate to being saved/forgiven shows a trend. ALL such scriptures always use eis in the forward sense, like Acts 3:19 and Romans 10:10. Relevant verses such as these give context to Acts 2:38. And since eis in relevant salvation verses are all forward looking, then it's fitting that Acts 2:38 is forward looking looking as well.

7. There's more wiggle room to argue For/eis in English than there is in Spanish. In English, for could mean either) forward-looking, (as in into or in order to receive) or backward-looking (as in because of, or in view of). In Spanish you don't have that, you have to choose between the words "por" (backward looking for) and "para" (forward looking for). I looked up 11 translations in spanish and 10 of those used para. The eleventh didn't use either por or para, but worded it as if it is para, such as "be baptized in order to receive". In Acts 2:38 Eis is overwhelmingly understood as "in order to receive".

8. Peter stated both Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 "baptism that now saves you also". I understand all the arguments against 1st Peter 3: 21. My point is this, if a person is misunderstood once, it's easier to explain it away as what he said is not actually what he meant as in Acts 2:38. If a person says something twice, it's harder to explain that both times he didn't mean what he said.

That's all I can think of for now. If I think of more I'll add it later.

The floor is open. Thank you.

I believe there is no scripture that says baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins. That's what it really is for. John the baptist gave them the baptism of repentance. Jesus gives them baptism of forgiveness. One prepared them for Christ's coming. The new baptism is the result of His coming. He actually gives forgiveness. John prepared them for the one who would "baptize in the holy Spirit" which is Jesus. He taught I baptize with water but one who comes after me baptizes in the holy Spirit. Jesus does baptize in the holy Spirit but that doesn't mean people should ignore water baptism. Not everyone receives water baptism before they receive the baptism of the holy Spirit. Yet, in that case they should still get baptized in Jesus name to "fulfill all righteousness" This is what Jesus did who had no sin. Yet He was baptized in the baptism of repentance because He wanted to fulfill all righteousness.

So, I argue that anyone who is first baptized in the holy Spirit (even though their sins are obviously forgiven) yet they should be baptized in the water to fulfill all righteousness. Just as Peter said when he saw the first gentiles receive the baptism of the holy Spirit. He said "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" So people like me believe go to; God wants us to fulfill this righteousness even if we have received the baptism of the holy Spirit and our sins are forgiven already. Water baptism is still an act of humility which pleases God and a confession of our sins.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe there is no scripture that says baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins. That's what it really is for. John the baptist gave them the baptism of repentance. Jesus gives them baptism of forgiveness. One prepared them for Christ's coming. The new baptism is the result of His coming. He actually gives forgiveness. John prepared them for the one who would "baptize in the holy Spirit" which is Jesus. He taught I baptize with water but one who comes after me baptizes in the holy Spirit. Jesus does baptize in the holy Spirit but that doesn't mean people should ignore water baptism. Not everyone receives water baptism before they receive the baptism of the holy Spirit. Yet, in that case they should still get baptized in Jesus name to "fulfill all righteousness" This is what Jesus did who had no sin. Yet He was baptized in the baptism of repentance because He wanted to fulfill all righteousness.

So, I argue that anyone who is first baptized in the holy Spirit (even though their sins are obviously forgiven) yet they should be baptized in the water to fulfill all righteousness. Just as Peter said when he saw the first gentiles receive the baptism of the holy Spirit. He said "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" So people like me believe go to; God wants us to fulfill this righteousness even if we have received the baptism of the holy Spirit and our sins are forgiven already. Water baptism is still an act of humility which pleases God and a confession of our sins.

Thank you. What do you believe Acts 2:38 says?

 

[74x12]

Thank you. What do you believe Acts 2:38 says?

I have here an Englishman's Greek new Testament by Zondervan. It say's

And Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So basically the KJV is dead on according to the Englishman's Greek new Testament.

Here is another very literal translation. The Young's Literal Translation:

and Peter said unto them, `Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,

 

[e.r.m.]

I have here an Englishman's Greek new Testament by Zondervan. It say's

And Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So basically the KJV is dead on according to the Englishman's Greek new Testament.

Here is another very literal translation. The Young's Literal Translation:

and Peter said unto them, `Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,

Thank you. Do you believe then, since Acts 10:47-48 establishes that baptism in Jesus name is in water, that Peter was saying to repent and be baptized in water in Jesus's name in order to receive forgiveness of sins? If not why not? Thank you.

 

[74x12]

Thank you. Do you believe then, since Acts 10:47-48 establishes that baptism in Jesus name is in water, that Peter was saying to repent and be baptized in water in Jesus's name in order to receive forgiveness of sins? If not why not? Thank you.

I believe exactly that.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe exactly that.

Thank you.

 

[74x12]

Thank you.

And what do you think it means?

 

[e.r.m.]

And what do you think it means?

Exactly that as well.

 

[socharlie]

I believe there is no scripture that says baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins. That's what it really is for. John the baptist gave them the baptism of repentance. Jesus gives them baptism of forgiveness. One prepared them for Christ's coming. The new baptism is the result of His coming. He actually gives forgiveness. John prepared them for the one who would "baptize in the holy Spirit" which is Jesus. He taught I baptize with water but one who comes after me baptizes in the holy Spirit. Jesus does baptize in the holy Spirit but that doesn't mean people should ignore water baptism. Not everyone receives water baptism before they receive the baptism of the holy Spirit. Yet, in that case they should still get baptized in Jesus name to "fulfill all righteousness" This is what Jesus did who had no sin. Yet He was baptized in the baptism of repentance because He wanted to fulfill all righteousness.

So, I argue that anyone who is first baptized in the holy Spirit (even though their sins are obviously forgiven) yet they should be baptized in the water to fulfill all righteousness. Just as Peter said when he saw the first gentiles receive the baptism of the holy Spirit. He said "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" So people like me believe go to; God wants us to fulfill this righteousness even if we have received the baptism of the holy Spirit and our sins are forgiven already. Water baptism is still an act of humility which pleases God and a confession of our sins.

What he meant: repent - turn around from doing wrong thing because you now know how to do it in correct manner - sin is ignorance of doing things right way- from Strongs: " ἁμαρτία, (ας, ἡ (from 2 aorist ἁμαρτεῖν, as ἀποτυχία from ἀποτύχειν), a failing to hit the mark (see ἁμαρτάνω. In Greek writings (from Aeschylus and Thucydides down). 1st, an error of the understanding (cf. Ackermann, Das Christl. im Plato, p. 59 Anm. 3 (Englishtranslati0n) ".
As ancient Gnostics considered SIN = IGNORANCE. Acts is a Gnostic piece.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

4. Peter took what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 and turned that into Acts 2:38-39.

Feel free to address any or all the points.
The floor is open. Thank you.

I would like to mention that there is No Mark 16:16.
Please note that there is No way Peter took anything from Mark 16:16 because Mark ends at Mark 16:8.
After verse 8 those are spurious verses.
There are No cross-references verses as there is with the rest of Mark.
They style of writing changes after verse 8.
The Sinaitic and the Vatican 1209 does Not include those spurious verses.
Both Jerome and Eusebius agree Mark ends at Mark 16:8.
Jesus never said just the words of Mark 16:16-17 'believe and baptized is saved', but the one who endures to the end is saved according to Jesus at Matthew 24:13, so more than just belief and baptism saves.
On the first day of the week (Mark 16:2) Jesus did Not ascend to heaven as Mark 16:19 says.

 

[74x12]

I would like to mention that there is No Mark 16:16.
Please note that there is No way Peter took anything from Mark 16:16 because Mark ends at Mark 16:8.
After verse 8 those are spurious verses.
There are No cross-references verses as there is with the rest of Mark.
They style of writing changes after verse 8.
The Sinaitic and the Vatican 1209 does Not include those spurious verses.
Both Jerome and Eusebius agree Mark ends at Mark 16:8.
Jesus never said just the words of Mark 16:16-17 'believe and baptized is saved', but the one who endures to the end is saved according to Jesus at Matthew 24:13, so more than just belief and baptism saves.
On the first day of the week (Mark 16:2) Jesus did Not ascend to heaven as Mark 16:19 says.

If we wanted too we could cross reference it with the book of Acts and furthermore we know that people are just as likely to take scriptures out that they disagree with as they are to add in spurious scriptures. Just look at Thomas Jefferson's Bible. He took out the parts he didn't like. There is no new thing under the sun.

Even Ignatius mentions in one of his epistles how certain people were quoting from corrupted versions of the scriptures to him in his day. These people were telling Ignatius that what he was talking about was not in the originals so they did not believe him. Ignatius claimed it was indeed in them but they were quoting from corrupted versions which had taken things out of the gospel. (see Ignatius to the Philadelphians chapter 2 verse 20) So we should be aware of both sides of the argument before we start disbelieving every scripture that is not in this or that version.

Some of the things covered in Mark 16 are backed up in other parts of the Bible. Namely, speaking in other tongues. Casting demons out. Baptism, etc.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Thank you. What do you believe Acts 2:38 says?

I find at Acts of the Apostles 2:37-41 is the Jewish crowds response to Peter's words or speech of verses 14-36.
Those Jewish ' brothers ' failed to bring Jesus to justice as per Deuteronomy 21:1-9.
So, in the case of Jesus that made them guilty of Regicide.
So, they were guilty or culpable in failing to respond - Acts of the Apostles 2:22 - in connection to Deut. 21.
However, since they could have acted out of ignorance - Acts of the Apostles 3:17 - so they could turn around.
( Remember the corrupted religious leaders often did Not teach them the Law but traditions - Matthew 15:9 )
The people were to ' repent ' of their blood guilt for forgiveness in failing Jesus. Then in order to receive God's holy spirit in connection to Acts of the Apostles 3:19, 25-26.

 

[e.r.m.]

Thank you all.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Some of the things covered in Mark 16 are backed up in other parts of the Bible. Namely, speaking in other tongues. Casting demons out. Baptism, etc.

After Mark 16:8 the style of writing changes, and sure there is mention about speaking in foreign languages such as found at Acts of the Apostles 2:6-11, but what about a cross reference for us to Mark 16:18.
How may serpents do you handle and poison drinks have you taken as instructed to you at Mark 16:18.
How do you know Jesus went heaven as Mark 16:19 says in connection to Mark 16:9.
Especially since Jesus did Not go to heaven that day.

 

[Skwim]

I have posted these points on a number of forums and rarely seem to get a response on them. I'd like to give them their own thread and see what others may have to say. These are not the typical arguments like eis is always forward looking, although I'm seeing growing evidence for that, and the ones that says repent is in included in the "for" forgiveness of sins, although that's a rock solid argument in and of itself. These are inconsistencies or clashes that I've seen that are more subtle, yet just as disqualifying to the because of argument.

For those who believe for in Acts 2:38 means because of

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Then it runs into the following problems.

1. If it's because of, he's telling them to get baptized because of their forgiveness of sins, without them knowing first that their sins were forgiven.

2. If it's because of he's telling them to get baptized because of the forgiveness of their sins. What does one have to do with another? He puts the two together without connecting them in any way or explaining what one has to do with the other. For the first time that baptism is ever mentioned in history, it would leave them in the dark without saying the relationship between the two.
Analogy - "Sit in the other chair, because of your raise?"
... Huh?, why? What does having a raise have to do with where I sit?

My suggestion is to use a Bible that doesn't use "for," at all, but makes the meaning quite clear.

CEV
Peter said, “Turn back to God! Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will be given the Holy Spirit.

ERV
Peter said to them, “Change your hearts and lives and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ. Then God will forgive your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

GW
Peter answered them, “All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift.

GNT
Peter said to them, “Each one of you must turn away from your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven; and you will receive God's gift, the Holy Spirit.

MSG
Peter said, “Change your life. Turn to God and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, so your sins are forgiven. Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is targeted to you and your children, but also to all who are far away—whomever, in fact, our Master God invites.”

NOG
Peter answered them, “All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Yeshua Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift.

Etc.

Etc.
​

But what the heck, that's what's neat about Christianity; a person can find whatever one wants to conform to/ confirm their theology just by shopping around a bit.

.​

 

[74x12]

After Mark 16:8 the style of writing changes, and sure there is mention about speaking in foreign languages such as found at Acts of the Apostles 2:6-11, but what about a cross reference for us to Mark 16:18. How may serpents do you handle and poison drinks have you taken as instructed to you at Mark 16:18.

Well because I'm no Greek expert; I can't speak to how the style changes. However, I consider the part about serpents being taken up to most likely be about demons who God is able to put into our hands. That is to say God is able to put them into our power. (as in Luke 9:1) This is similar to Luke 10:19; no Christians I know of believe this is literally about scorpions or serpents being trampled on.

As for poison drinks; it's never happened to me that I know of, but I wouldn't limit God by saying God could not save someone from this eventuality. This also could be a spiritual meaning as well perhaps.

In any case the idea of taking up serpents reminds me of when Paul was bitten by a serpent on the hand but it did not hurt him. (Acts 28:3)

How do you know Jesus went heaven as Mark 16:19 says in connection to Mark 16:9.
Especially since Jesus did Not go to heaven that day.

There is nothing here that leads us to believe this happened on the same day. In verse 12 it says "after that" and in verse 14 again it says "afterward" (KJV) So, these series of events could be spread out over days or weeks for all we know from the text.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I have posted these points on a number of forums and rarely seem to get a response on them. I'd like to give them their own thread and see what others may have to say. These are not the typical arguments like eis is always forward looking, although I'm seeing growing evidence for that, and the ones that says repent is in included in the "for" forgiveness of sins, although that's a rock solid argument in and of itself. These are inconsistencies or clashes that I've seen that are more subtle, yet just as disqualifying to the because of argument.

For those who believe for in Acts 2:38 means because of

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Then it runs into the following problems.

1. If it's because of, he's telling them to get baptized because of their forgiveness of sins, without them knowing first that their sins were forgiven.

2. If it's because of he's telling them to get baptized because of the forgiveness of their sins. What does one have to do with another? He puts the two together without connecting them in any way or explaining what one has to do with the other. For the first time that baptism is ever mentioned in history, it would leave them in the dark without saying the relationship between the two.
Analogy - "Sit in the other chair, because of your raise?"
... Huh?, why? What does having a raise have to do with where I sit?

... And wait, I got a raise?

Now people may give all sorts of explanations why Peter told them to get baptized in relation to their forgiveness (such as Peter consequently told them to do that as a public declaration of their faith), but Peter didn't give any explanation whatsoever! He left them completely in the dark.
Telling them to get baptized forward looking "into" or "in order to receive" forgiveness of sins fits completely within what he stated.

3. Why bring up baptism into a forgiveness of sin discussion in the first place if it doesn't belong. People who don't believe baptism is involved in getting saved don't bring it up. They say things like "Follow me in prayer", "Accept Jesus as personal savior" and all that. They never put baptism & forgiveness of sins in the same sentence unless it's to emphasize that they're not connected. Peter did included it, and didn't give any qualifier.

4. Peter took what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 and turned that into Acts 2:38-39.

5. Peter said “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...." to a group of Jews who were used to the mikveh, which was water immersion many did obsessively to be cleansed. Telling them to be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins would be accepted right away. Telling them to be baptized because of forgiveness of sins would make no sense to them.

6. Comparing all eis instances together in scriptures that relate to being saved/forgiven shows a trend. ALL such scriptures always use eis in the forward sense, like Acts 3:19 and Romans 10:10. Relevant verses such as these give context to Acts 2:38. And since eis in relevant salvation verses are all forward looking, then it's fitting that Acts 2:38 is forward looking looking as well.

7. There's more wiggle room to argue For/eis in English than there is in Spanish. In English, for could mean either) forward-looking, (as in into or in order to receive) or backward-looking (as in because of, or in view of). In Spanish you don't have that, you have to choose between the words "por" (backward looking for) and "para" (forward looking for). I looked up 11 translations in spanish and 10 of those used para. The eleventh didn't use either por or para, but worded it as if it is para, such as "be baptized in order to receive". In Acts 2:38 Eis is overwhelmingly understood as "in order to receive".

8. In English, only a few obscure translations like the Renaissance and Weymouth Bibles translate it as because of. The overwhelming majority translate it as for.

9. Peter stated both Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 "baptism that now saves you also". I understand all the arguments against 1st Peter 3: 21. My point is this, if a person is misunderstood once, it's easier to explain it away as what he said is not actually what he meant as in Acts 2:38. If a person says something twice, it's harder to explain that both times he didn't mean what he said.

Feel free to address any or all the points.

The floor is open. Thank you.

Some translations render certain phrases badly....that's why it's good to examine many, and their context, to get a better idea of the writer's intent.

In this regard, BibleHub is great:
Acts 2:38

 

[e.r.m.]

My suggestion is to use a Bible that doesn't use "for," at all, but makes the meaning quite clear.

CEV
Peter said, “Turn back to God! Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will be given the Holy Spirit.

ERV
Peter said to them, “Change your hearts and lives and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ. Then God will forgive your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

GW
Peter answered them, “All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift.

GNT
Peter said to them, “Each one of you must turn away from your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven; and you will receive God's gift, the Holy Spirit.

MSG
Peter said, “Change your life. Turn to God and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, so your sins are forgiven. Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is targeted to you and your children, but also to all who are far away—whomever, in fact, our Master God invites.”

NOG
Peter answered them, “All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Yeshua Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift.

Etc.

Etc.
​

But what the heck, that's what's neat about Christianity; a person can find whatever one wants to conform to/ confirm their theology just by shopping around a bit.

.​

Nice! And you're right. That's why I like going back to the Greek eis.

 

[e.r.m.]

Some translations render certain phrases badly....that's why it's good to examine many, and their context, to get a better idea of the writer's intent.

In this regard, BibleHub is great:
Acts 2:38.

Thank you and I think the op talks about the context.