Acts 8:37 MSS support?

[Linda64]

Acts 8:37 does NOT say that one has to be baptized to be saved. Baptism does not save, never has, and never will. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. Acts 8:37 simply states that there must be a profession of faith before baptism. Salvation is required for baptism--not visa versa.

Like I stated before, leaving out Acts 8:37, leaves out the eunuch's profession of faith. Because the eunuch believed, he was baptized by Philip.

Sure, there are other verses in the Bible that say salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. But why leave out verses and leave room for false doctrine? (i.e. baptismal regeneration, that baptism saves)

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by Linda64:
Sure, there are other verses in the Bible that say salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. But why leave out verses and leave room for false doctrine? (i.e. baptismal regeneration, that baptism saves)

I didn't look at my Bible one day and decide that Acts 8:37 shouldn't be included. The choice to remove Acts 8:37 is based on the fact it has little mss support.

 

[Linda64]

I didn't look at my Bible one day and decide that Acts 8:37 shouldn't be included. The choice to remove Acts 8:37 is based on the fact it has little mss support.

I looked at my Bible one day and saw Acts 8:37, in between 8:36 and 8:38 and accepted the fact that it was supposed to be there--after all, it is God's Word. What I did question was why the MVs took it out.

 

[Askjo]

If Acts 8:37 is in the KJV, this verse identified with the wording of the autographs. Amen!

If Acts 8:37 was deleted in the modern versions, it did not identify with the wording of the autographs because those naturalistic textual critics rejected this verse dues to the lack of mss supported. The reason for this is that they ignored the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, even the preservation of the Holy Scriptures. Remember 3 earliest Church fathers witnessed this verse prior to 3rd century, but naturalistic textual critics rejected them. Suppose, these men who witnessed this verse, are in heaven. When you meet them in Heaven, they would ask you, Why reject thou me? What say ye?

 

[Askjo]

You reject Acts 8:37 as the history because the Book of Acts is the history of the earliest churches.

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by Askjo:
You reject Acts 8:37 as the history because the Book of Acts is the history of the earliest churches.

Why would I or anyone else reject Acts 8:37 because it's the history of the earliest churches?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Linda64:
Acts 8:37 does NOT say that one has to be baptized to be saved. Baptism does not save, never has, and never will. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. Acts 8:37 simply states that there must be a profession of faith before baptism. Salvation is required for baptism--not visa versa.

Like I stated before, leaving out Acts 8:37, leaves out the eunuch's profession of faith. Because the eunuch believed, he was baptized by Philip.

Sure, there are other verses in the Bible that say salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. But why leave out verses and leave room for false doctrine? (i.e. baptismal regeneration, that baptism saves)

I stand with you, Linda!

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by Linda64:
I looked at my Bible one day and saw Acts 8:37, in between 8:36 and 8:38 and accepted the fact that it was supposed to be there--after all, it is God's Word. What I did question was why the MVs took it out.

The modern versions were on fine solid ground. There are 64 manuscripts that contain Acts 8:37. There are another 417 which do not contain Acts 8:37. That is very solid ground considering none of the 64 (excluding Codex E) dates to before the 11th Century. Why don't we discuss the original Greek language texts rather than continue posting on the fact that the KJV contains Acts 8:37. Of which I'm well aware.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Guess what? According to every version out there, God works with smaller numbers to prove larger numbers weak and wrong. I'll stick with the 64.

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by Askjo:
If Acts 8:37 was deleted in the modern versions, it did not identify with the wording of the autographs because those naturalistic textual critics rejected this verse dues to the lack of mss supported. The reason for this is that they ignored the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, even the preservation of the Holy Scriptures. Remember 3 earliest Church fathers witnessed this verse prior to 3rd century, but naturalistic textual critics rejected them. Suppose, these men who witnessed this verse, are in heaven. When you meet them in Heaven, they would ask you, Why reject thou me? What say ye?

I am fairly certain the church fathers that you refer to will be in heaven. Justin Martyr, also before the third century, stated that the church held to the belief that during communion the wine and bread became Christ blood and body respectively. When you see him in heaven what say ye?

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Guess what? According to every version out there, God works with smaller numbers to prove larger numbers weak and wrong. I'll stick with the 64.

Interesting logic. Because at one time almost all Christians used the KJV. Was it evil? God worked through Siniaticus and Vaticanus to preserve His Word. Your reasoning here can be turned against you easily remember Westcott & Hort's text was based on a smaller number of manuscripts.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by DeclareHim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Linda64:
I looked at my Bible one day and saw Acts 8:37, in between 8:36 and 8:38 and accepted the fact that it was supposed to be there--after all, it is God's Word. What I did question was why the MVs took it out.

The modern versions were on fine solid ground. There are 64 manuscripts that contain Acts 8:37. There are another 417 which do not contain Acts 8:37. That is very solid ground considering none of the 64 (excluding Codex E) dates to before the 11th Century. Why don't we discuss the original Greek language texts rather than continue posting on the fact that the KJV contains Acts 8:37. Of which I'm well aware. </font>[/QUOTE]All you want is PAPER!!!!

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Guess what? According to every version out there, God works with smaller numbers to prove larger numbers weak and wrong. I'll stick with the 64.

I second that.

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Guess what? According to every version out there, God works with smaller numbers to prove larger numbers weak and wrong. I'll stick with the 64.

I second that. </font>[/QUOTE]I think we may finally be in agreement. The Critical texts are all based on a rather small number of manuscripts. Even smaller than your 64 so I'm now going to assume my version is even more of God than yours.

 

[nate]

It's not so much that there are only 63 manuscripts it's the fact that they are so late I mean none are before the 11th Century they are pretty late.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Thread closed - there are FAR too many personal attacks and attempts to make this a KJV discussion for it to be repaired.

I will leave this thread up today so that everyone can see that it was closed after which I will move it to the archices.

Both sides are guilty of the degeneration of this thread.