Acts 8:37 MSS support?

Another misinformed post. No one in the first page said or posted anything about the KJV. In fact I looked and it wasn't even mentioned until you brought it up. No one here is anti-KJV. NNE. The KJV is an excellent translation. I thank God for the impact it had on our society and language but it doesn't mean I worship it.

 

According to David Cloud, Dr. Price answered to him, "I am not TR advocate..." That is why TTU (Tenn. Temple University) used the UBS text instead of TR Greek text. </font>[/QUOTE]Didn't say he was a TR advocate. Said he had a scientific approach to textual criticism.

 

I am in complete agreement with both you and your wife. Salvation is indeed a prerequisite for baptism. I'm quite sure Luke, and the versions that delete Acts 8:37 are also in agreement with you. Why not just turn to Acts 16 where the jailer is converted. Are you arguing this verse should be included simply because it agree's with our personal theology?

 

Another misinformed post. No one in the first page said or posted anything about the KJV. In fact I looked and it wasn't even mentioned until you brought it up. No one here is anti-KJV. NNE. The KJV is an excellent translation. I thank God for the impact it had on our society and language but it doesn't mean I worship it. </font>[/QUOTE]One does not need to be a rocket scientist to see, by the posts advocating the MVs and the fact that some verses are left out of the MVs that are in KJV, that there is a disdain for the KJV. It's really not that difficult to figure that out.

 

Not at all.

My argument is if Philip had not told the man that he had to believe, the picture would be painted for the reader that he need not be saved in order to be baptized.

 

Nate--

How do you know for sure that this verse was not in the originals? There are NO originals!! I never said that I thought that verse SHOULD be there (please don't misquote me)--and I never said anything about original MSS--all I know is that this verse is in the KJV and not in the MVs. I have used the MVs, but after I did a comparison study (on my own) of about 4 or 5 different MVs, I am convinced in my heart that the KJV is the most accurate translation--translated from a superior Greek text (Textus Receptus/Received Text) and Hebrew Masoretic text.

BTW--older MSS don't necessarily mean that they are more accurate, plus, how do we know for sure that they ARE older???

 

Reading the NIV account with verse 37 missing, the Eunuch would never have come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. In verse 34, the Eunuch does not know who the passage out of Isaiah is referring to. He did not know Christ. Then Phillip began teaching Christ to the Eunuch. Then the Eunuch wanted to be baptized. Nowhere does the Eunuch make a profession that he believed that Jesus was the one Isaiah was talking about.

Had he not made a profession of faith in Christ, baptizing him would have done no good whatsoever. He would have only come out of the water a wet unsaved Eunuch.

 

Before I respond further, may I ask why nearly all of my questions were ignored? I feel if you answer my questions, perhaps you will understand my position.

The thread is discussing the manuscript evidence for acts 8:37. The KJV is not a manuscript, since it is in english. I do not accept the KJV translators as the final authority on earth, since no scripture nor claim nor anything resembling evidence has ever been shown in support of it. Therefore, I wish to ask "Did LUKE write this verse?" It appears, and correct me if I am wrong, that your question is "Do we need to believe in order to be baptized?" The answer is yes. However, that tells us NOTHING about the subject at hand.

Standingfirm, would you like to answer the simple questions I asked, and declarehim asked?

 

The New Revised Standard Version

37 also missing from this version.

Other versions where 37 is missing:
The Bible in Basic English, The Darby Bible, The English Standard Version, The New American Bible, The New International Version (BR), The New Jerusalem Bible, The New Living Translation, The Revised Standard Version, & Wescott and Hort ... all of the above are Modern Versions

 

DesiderioDomini posted:

Then you must also not accept any of these version as correct translations as they also are in English...

The Bible in Basic English, The Darby Bible, The English Standard Version, The New American Bible, The New International Version (BR), The New Jerusalem Bible, The New Living Translation, The Revised Standard Version, & Wescott and Hort

Since it is believed that Luke wrote the book of Acts, I believe he also wrote verse 37 of chapter 8. Seeing as there are no originals, there is no proof whatsoever that the verse was not there in the first place. Reading the verse as I posted earlier would indicate that it was there, for otherwise, no profession of faith was made.

 

MVs deleted Acts 8:37 because MV defenders focus upon the textual criticism dues to their logic of unbelief. The KJV defenders focus upon how God provided His preserved Words (including Acts 8:37) dues to their logic of faith.

 

Askjo, I believe your above post will be deleted, but lemme say it's a total fabrication, totally incorrect, totally off-topic. You cannot begin to prove what was added, nor what is deleted, and neither can I. But I don't pretend I can prove it, unlike some folks. Without any originals, I cannot prove Acts 8:37 either way.

 

Askjo you are getting soft you used to be so fiery . BTW where is Anti-Alexandrian is he going to jump in here with more wild passionate unfounded and complete nonsense?

Logic of faith in an 1611 TRANSLATION. Thought I would add that small detail you forgot to mention.

 

Not speculation if verse 37 is included.

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

There is the profession of faith. No evidence of a profession beforehand. If there was a profession beforehand, why would Philip have to make the statement, 'If thou believest, thou mayest.'?

Also, it can be said if the verse is not included that it is pure speculation that the Eunuch made a profession of faith, since there is no recording
beforehand.

So that is why verse 37 is needed.

The Eunuch asked what doth hinder me? Philip answered.

 

Originally posted by Linda64:

I agree that belief in Jesus preceeds baptism. However, my question still stands. Where in the modern versions, since they decided that this verse did not have enough manuscript evidence to be included, is it stated that belief does not preceed baptism? What if God writing through Luke felt it was obvious what had happened?

Your statement of my "disdain for the KJV" shows a complete lack of concern for any accuracy whatsoever. I can turn around and say "There seems to be a disdain for what Luke wrote", and my statement would be just as empty. Once again, if you do not wish to discuss the manuscript evidence, and wish to simply place all of your faith in the alleged perfection of 17th century anglicans, who claimed no such thing for their work, then so be it. However, an honest christian would remove him/herself from this discussion, since they did not in any way wish to discuss the topic at hand.

[/QUOTE]
You made one interesting statement, "leaving out" this verse shows no respect for God's word. That is the topic of this discussion! Is it left out, or is it added it. All we are asking is to discuss this in the VERY SAME WAY THE KJV TRANSLATORS DID!!!!! They used greek texts, knowledge of greek manuscripts, knowledge of manuscripts in other languages, and everything at their disposal to make their decisions. The simple fact is if ANY of those translators had stood up and said "I believe this verse should be included since it is in the Geneva!" they would have been LAUGHED OUT OF THE ROOM. "What if the Geneva got it wrong" would have quickly followed. Do you wish to discuss the manuscript evidence for this verse, or simply the English translation evidence for it?