Acts 8:37 MSS support?

I have plenty of evidence that he had a profession without the verse. Peter, who clearly knew what he was doing, baptized him. Would Peter baptize him without a profession of faith??

Once again, as usual, those who stand on one version refuse to answer very simple questions. Just in case you and your wife missed them, I will ask again:

Where does it say "You can get baptized without believing"???? (chapter and verse please)

I would like to add a couple to that:

Would you agree that the main goal of the KJV translators was to try and figure out the best way to translate that which the ORIGINAL AUTHORS wrote? Did they, or God for that matter, claim perfection for their work? Did they in fact encourage us to continue their work, always striving to make the best possible translation in the vulgar tongue? Is the main evidence you have for including this verse in fact only its inclusion by the KJV?

That last question is important. If yes, then you should honestly remove yourself from this thread, since you are not discussing the manuscript evidence behind this verse, but rather only its inclusion in the KJV. If no, then I ask you to present the reasons why those few manuscripts which contain it should be considered as more accurate than the sum of all the rest.

 

The problem with this thought process is the fact it's still based on some precognition of what the text ought read like.

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]First, you said I do not accept those versions. Did you read my post at all? Where did I say that??? Once again, I sincerely suspect you are adding in your own words and ignoring the authors words. I said the KJV IS NOT A MANUSCRIPT. No one associated with its creation ever claimed it as such, and I am aware of no publisher today who claims it as such. It is a TRANSLATION, and is not in the original language of the work contained. I am growing tired of comstantly re-explaining what I say so that the additions are weeded out.

To review, do you understand that the KJV is not a greek manuscript?

Second, you claim that there is no proof that it WASNT in the original. I completely agree. Now, if you dont mind, provide some proof that it WAS in the original. Otherwise, since you cant prove that the book of Mormon wasnt in the original, I conclude that it should be added to the end of Acts.

Finally, you said "would indicate that it was there, for otherwise, no profession of faith was made". NONONONONONO it wouldnt!!!!!!!!! It would indicate that we are not told of it, but it is SILENT ON THE MATTER!!!! I honestly feel that anyone with a brain would know that if Peter baptized him, then he clearly professed Christ as savior. It appears that others want the bible to tell them EVERYTHING. John said that if that were the case, the entire world couldnt contain the books!

The OT doesnt tell us exactly what happened to Lucifer. Shall we assume that since we arent told exactly what happened that NOTHING that ISNT recorded in scripture happened? I really hope not.

 

I am so sorry I have interrupted such a fine group of Bible scholars.

I must be reading the wrong Bible, because mine says it was Philip that baptized the Eunuch, not Peter. And the Eunuch was only baptized after making a profession of faith. I am sorry I did not check with you before explaining to the last 4 years of baptisms that they needed to know Christ before baptism.

NOT!!!!!

The KJV shows the profession, it should remain.

As to if he would have been baptized without a profession of faith, more than likely not. But nowadays, with the verses missing, many do and are baptized without a profession of faith. Take the Calvinists, for instance... they believe in paedobaptism. That infant has not made a profession of faith, now has he?

 

Your forgiven

That was just a typo. Lets not descend into mockery.

I hope you do not place your entire belief that one should place their faith in Christ on this one passage. The theif on the cross is a great example of one not being baptized and yet going to heaven. Acts 16 just a few chapters over also clearly points to trusting in Jesus for salvation. Ephesians 2 also clearly tells us salvation is by grace through faith which again rules out any possiblity of someone being confused.

Your point about the Calvinists is really quite mute because John Calvin had a hand in translating the Geneva Bible which retains Acts 8:37. Calvinism has been around much longer than modern translations and to accuse paedobaptism to be a result of modern translations deletion of Acts 8:37 from their texts is not only wrong but also very misinformed.

 

I stand corrected, I have no idea why I said Peter. Phillip is what I meant. Forgive my mistake.

I agree that the Eunuch was baptized only after a profession of faith. however, the question remains, which you have constantly ignored, is DID LUKE WRITE THAT VERSE?????

As to your final paragraph, give the fact that there are many other instances of salvation which do record baptism after profession, it is a fact that these people did not derive their respective doctrines based on the "removal" of this verse. In truth, I can scarcely believe that any intelligent human would believe that the absense of this verse caused any of these groups to believe as they do.

I noticed that you said the KJV shows the profession, and so it should remain.
I ask, HONESTLY, do you care at all whether or not Luke wrote this verse? I have not seen one post of yours which led me to believe you do, so I am asking. Please answer directly and honestly.

 

Huh???? Nowhere did I say one has to be baptized to be saved. I said one has to be saved to be baptized.

John Calvin himself trusted in his own paedobaptism, and was never baptized again in his lifetime.

Removing Acts 8:37 gives credence and license to not only paedobaptism, but also to adult baptism without a profession of faith.

Oh, and that was more than just a typo. I counted at least 3 posts where Peter was said to have done the baptism.

 

DesiderioDomini,

I posted earlier, and you quoted me. If Luke wrote Acts, and it is in Acts, Luke wrote it.

 

Standingfirm,

its official. You simply refuse to read. I did not call it a typo, but a mistake. I didnt just hit the wrong key, I just had Peter in my mind because of what I have been reading this week. I even said Peter after reading the passage in 3 translations. Each one said Phillip. I realize I said it many times, and I guess you can draw your assumptions from that as you wish. I will try to live up to the standard of perfection in the future.

 

This was my answer to the question which you quoted and then accused me of not answering.

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.

I am physically blind, but I believe there are some on this board that are blinder than me... SPIRITUALLY.

 

I was giving various Scripture passages besides Acts 8:37 that tell us salvation is certainly not by baptism. The whole point of that paragraph was to let you know there are other verses that convey the fact that salvation does not come by baptism.

John Calvin's personal Bible was the Geneva Bible which contained Acts 8:37 which did not stop him from believing in paedobaptism. Removing Acts 8:37 most certainly does not give credence to baptising adults or infant baptism. There are many other passages which clearly testify to the fact that salvation is based on faith not baptism.

 

Desirederio,

I was not addressing you when i posted that post about the typo, i was answering Declared.

 

Declared, I did not say anywhere that baptism is necessary for salvation. Don't try to twist my words.

 

My apologies to all I assumed DD was just typing the wrong thing. Don't sweat it DD it happens to all of us.

 

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:9-17)

 

I find it laughable that I may be considered spiritually blind since I believe that God preserved his word. I do not believe that the readings which only show up a couple hundred years before the making of the KJV and then only in a very few manuscripts are authentic.

 

I'm not twisting your words. I was refering to the fact you said that removing Acts 8:37 gives credence to baptism without belief. Which I know you think is wrong.My point was removing Acts 8:37 does not give credence to the things you said that it does. Because there are many verses that agree with our position other than Acts 8:37.

 

Excellent post Lina this proves my point. There are plenty of verses besides Acts 8:37 that convey the fact that salvation is not recieved by baptism. Rather salvation is a free gift of God and is requested by a repentent heart and one which has faith in Jesus.

 

Removing verse 37 from the 8th chapter of Acts would give credence and license to baptism without belief. One would be able to argue that there is no scriptural evidence that the Eunuch made a profession of faith and was baptized; thereby giving them license to be baptized without a profession of faith also. Why leave room for error?

 

Standing alone yes it would but with the whole council of God's Word that would easily be proven to be false.