Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredoheaven
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
In Acts 9 is the event that made him a believer whereas, Acts 22 to be noted is telling his testimony concerning his conversion. Paul was already been saved by virtue of what happened in Acts 9 and accordingly, he was already saved when Annanias baptized him.
In Acts 22, there were some records in Paul's Testimony that seem in contradictory in Acts 9. One of it is the "voice" being heard in 9:7 and no "voice" being heard in 22:9. Then the problem of being baptized, and washed away thy sins (22:16) whereas in Acts 9, Paul was saved and was baptized.
Let me have my best guess in this particular text of 22:16.
1. The use of "AND" of 22:16
AND
To suggest that one idea is chronologically sequential to another: "Tashonda sent in her applications and waited by the phone for a response."
To suggest that one idea is the result of another: "Willie heard the weather report and promptly boarded up his house."
To suggest that one idea is in contrast to another (frequently replaced by but in this usage): "Juanita is brilliant and Shalimar has a pleasant personality.
To suggest an element of surprise (sometimes replaced by yet in this usage): "Hartford is a rich city and suffers from many symptoms of urban blight."
To suggest that one clause is dependent upon another, conditionally (usually the first clause is an imperative): "Use your credit cards frequently and you'll soon find yourself deep in debt."
To suggest a kind of "comment" on the first clause: "Charlie became addicted to gambling — and that surprised no one who knew him."
"Arise and be baptized" would meant Paul to submit to baptism as a result of his conversion and to symbolized what had Christ did unto him.
"And wash away thy sins" this might be the result of Paul calling on the Lord.
I hope this will help but I beleive many brethren will come out answering your question in a more clearer way. God bless you!!!
|
Brother, as KJV believers we frequently rise to the occasion when someone tries to "go to the Greek" to correct what the English says, but when confronted with the clear statements that crosses our denominational beliefs,
we are guilty of the same thing: twisting the English. Why can't we not "guess" and
just let the word of God say what it says? When Peter said water baptism in Acts 2 was "for" the remission of sins,
it meant just what it said, for the remission of sins. That was the commandment of Mark 16. That was the commandment given to Paul and when Ananias said to wash away his sins that's exactly what the man meant,
that's exactly what Paul, a Pharisee and Hebrew of the Hebrews, understood. Paul's baptism
is not our baptism(I Cor. 12:13)because
there were signs following Paul's baptism(his sight restored).
There is no "where unto", "because of", "for to", "beknownst upon", in Acts 2 or 9: the KJV translators
knew what Peter said and meant, why don't we? Why do we deplore "correcting the English with the Greek" and then
do the same to redefine English?
Why do we condemn Covenant/Reformed theology
and then practice it?
Grace and peace brother Fred, my "guessing" days are over.
Tony