Acts 7:38, in any translation, is irrelevant. It makes as much sense as this reasoning:
It's the plainest sort of reductionism, fashioned to protect a traditionalistic position. It should hold no temptation for a Reformed Bible reader.
The verse in Acts says nothing about (as I keep saying) the church of Christ, but of the assembly of Israel. But if you insist on the relevance of Acts 7:38, I'd point you to Acts 19:32, 39, and 40, where ekklesia refers to a secular, political assembly. So you see, there is MORE evidence that the ekklesia of Christ is a secular, political assembly than that it is Israel. Which is to say, none, either way.
And of course the OT was written in Hebrew, not Greek. If the use of ekklesia in the LXX were significant, we would expect to see the church of Christ explicitly called Israel in some sense over and over again. But it is not done even once!
I don't know what it is that has drawn you away from the Biblical position. But it isn't the data.
Dan
I just don't think you can make as clear-cut a distinction between the Church and Israel as the dispensationalists would have you believe. It's a lot more complicated than it seems.
Siiiiggghh!
I've gone through this one with you already, Dan.
The refernece to ekklesia in Acts 19 is a specific reference to ennomos ekklesia -a lawful assembly
And since there is no such ennomos describing ekklesia in any other ekklesia citation, it is impossible to suggest there is ~any~ evidence at all that the 'church' is a 'secular political assembly' than Israel.
Of course, since your argument is blatantly false, then the opposite is actually true. There is more evidence that the 'church' is Israel than it is a 'secular, political assembly'.
Jean