Acts 8:37 MSS support?

I understand what you are saying John, but if he is going to be cited as an expert, people should be aware of his views on inspiration, and preservation of mss. </font>[/QUOTE]Frankly, I wasn't citing him as an expert. Notice I said, "Even Metzger...." I was citing his opinion.

 

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? (Acts 8:36)

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. (Acts 8:37)

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. (Acts 8:38)

If Acts 8:37 is left out, you are leaving out the requirement for salvation. It leaves out the profession of faith in Christ. It just says that you can get baptized without believing.

 

Acts 8:37 is not the only verse that deals with salvation. Theology and personal belief should never go against fact and truth. If it wasn't there originally we shouldn't include it now just because it fits our theological position.

 

They used Westcott and Hort to translate and not the received text. That is the reason the verse was left out.

When one leaves out that verse, it implies one need not even profess belief in Christ to be baptized.

Here is what it would say without verse 37.

In this manner, there is no need to even profess Christ as Lord. Verse 37 is needed, else anyone can be baptized without having even the slightest care of who Christ was or what He did for them by dying on the cross.

 

Nate, there is a certain logic in what Linda64 and standingfirminChrist are saying. One of my objections to modern textual theory (take note Boanerges--I'm objecting to Metzger & co. :D ) is the notion that a smooth-reading text (the Byzantine/Majority) likely has something added. What is the logic to the notion that the shorter reading is always best? Why would it not be that sometimes something is added, sometimes something is dropped?

This is one reason I say that textual criticism is not a science, but a highly subjective scholarly discipline. If it were a science, someone would have set up a group of seminary students to copy a document, another group who didn't know Greek to do so, and a control group, and observed (the key to real science) the result.

The only one I know who has come close to a true scientific approach to textual criticism is James Price in his work using a computer program to research text-type. See Grace Theological Journal (Vol. 8 #7), "A Computer-Aided Textual Commentary on the Book of Philippians."

 

I agree with you -- you have a good point concerning between the salvation and the baptism.

 

In this manner, there is no need to even profess Christ as Lord. Verse 37 is needed, else anyone can be baptized without having even the slightest care of who Christ was or what He did for them by dying on the cross. </font>[/QUOTE]I second that.

 

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.

 

If the Byzantine family supported Acts 8:37 I would have to say it probably was original. I can understand the view that sees the Church preserving the text. (Byzantine) but I just cannot support the readings found in the TR based on a handful of mss. I prefer 'God' in 1 Timothy 3:16. And other byzantine renderings. I have no problem with Acts 8:37 being in the text even without brackets as long as there is a footnote letting everyone know the verse is not heavily supported in the mss.

 

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. (Acts 8:37)majority of mss

"And Phillip said to him, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may be saved;' then he answered and said, 'I believe in Christ the Son of God.'"Codex E

Is E the more theological reading of the two? Satan believes Jesus to be the Son of God. But don't we as believers not only acknowledge Jesus as being the Son of God but also we believe in Jesus and place our trust and faith in Him? I was just wondering what are your guys thoughts.

 

Where does it say "You can get baptized without believing"???? Leaving something out does not mean that the author is endorsing anything concerning it. I have an example of this below.

This statement of yours is incorrect, and shows no respect for God's word. Does he have to mention every aspect of salvation in every passage which discusses it, so that he may please you? Is God subject to your assumption?

In translating the bible, there should be one goal: What are the words that God inspired Paul/Luke/John to write? Any theological assumptions of how things "should" read constitute adding to the word.

Now, I said "Paul/Luke/John" in my examples of NT writers. From your logic, one could claim that since I left out Peter, I obviously believe that
1&2 Peter should not be included in the canon. Same could be said about Matthew and Mark or James. I see things like this ALL THE TIME in baptist circles. They read or hear something, and then rather than attempting to understand what the author or speaker was saying, they force their own opinions INTO their words. "Since he didnt say (this), he must mean (this)." I am unaware of a tradition practiced by christians which is more asinine that this one.

 

In this manner, there is no need to even profess Christ as Lord. Verse 37 is needed, else anyone can be baptized without having even the slightest care of who Christ was or what He did for them by dying on the cross. </font>[/QUOTE]By this logic, we need to add many things to many passages in the bible. How many conversions are recorded in scripture which display everything we believe are to occur in salvation? How often does the new convert pray anything resembing the sinners prayer? Obviously, either the eunuch or Luke does not feel that sharing our salvation with others is important at all, since he says NOTHING of the Eunuch sharing his faith. In fact, either the Eunuch or Luke must also reject the idea of making a public profession of faith, since once Peter disappears, we know that he went away rejoicing, but did he present himself as a changed man before a group of believers? Finally, they both must reject church attendance, since Luke offers no record of the eunuch every attending church.

See how completely foolish this is? Once again, the ONLY goal of bible translation should be to attempt to figure out what was ORIGINALLY inspired, and not what sounds best and provides the best doctrine.

 

What number comes after 36?

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same Scripture, and preached vnto him Iesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came vnto a certaine water, and the Eunuche said, See, here is water: what doeth let me to be baptized?
37 And Philippe said vnto him, If thou beleeuest with all thine heart, thou mayest. Then he answered, and saide, I beleeue that that Iesus Christ is that Sonne of God.
38 Then he commanded the charet to stand stil: and they went downe both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuche, and he baptized him.
GNV (1599)

All the new versions but KJV leave out verse 37. If it was important back in 1599, I would say it is still important today. God's Word abideth for ever.

My wife's post is not assumption, it was taken directly from the King James 1611 Authorized Version of the Bible; word for word. She did not translate, only copied and pasted. She did not have anything with the writing of those passages and it was very uncivil for you to accuse her of having 'forced her own opinions' or of being 'asinine'. Your post will be reported as uncivil in the Baptist thread.

 

Notice, sir, that my words had nothing to do with the KJV.

I understand that you would wish to defend your wife, but my question still stands. Where in any of the modern versions does it say that "It just says that you can get baptized without believing."???
Where is that passage? Why on earth would anyone assume that those versions which do not feel that this verse, since its manuscript evidence is so little, are in fact stating that one can "be baptized without believing"????

I am sorry if my honesty has offended you or your wife, but would you prefer for someone to allow the same to be said of you? Suppose you preach a sermon on fasting, and in describing fasting, you say "abstaining from food and water" for a period of 3 days. Now, shall the congregation be allowed to claim that since you failed to mention Dr. Pepper, and since Dr. Pepper is not water or food, then clearly you support fasting from from everything EXCEPT Dr. Pepper as exactly what the bible meant when it said "fasting"??? How completely foolish would that be??? If I did the same thing to any verse in the KJV, you would feel that such actions are jsut as foolish as I feel when it is done to other versions, and if it had been done to you.

 

I do not believe DD ever attacked your wife. He was simply pointing to the fact that reading's can't be added because they fit our theological belief. You misquote him. And he did not call or accuse your wife of being asinine.

He's attacking the practice of many Christians here who have no problem adding to God's Word but freak out when something is 'deleted'. Never mind the evidence.

 

I think we should get back to the original points and focus on them. Is there enough mss and other support for Acts 8:37, enough to leave it in the actual text of the Bible. So far those who favor this are simply pointing to the verse and saying it goes against their idea of how Acts 8 should read and doesn't fit their theology if it's wrong. Personally I have no problem with it being left in the text. nate's explanation of the Church Fathers is interesting but unprovable while the basic evidence points to the Fathers actually quoting the passage. E is a fairly early mss. I would translate that verse because it doesn't seem to have later embellishment tacked onto it.

 

And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? (Acts 16:30)

And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. (Acts 16:31)

And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. (Acts 16:32)

And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. (Acts 16:33)

And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. (Acts 16:34)

Notice--Belief in the Lord Jesus Christ PRECEDES baptism. Before you attack me again, read the verses in context. There seems to be a disdain for the KJV--why?

Since when do I have no respect for God's Word--the KJV IS God's Word. The KJV has Acts 8:37, the MVs do not--and all you get are footnotes. All I did was post 3 verses from the Authorized KJV and I show no respect for God's Word? Leaving out the eunuch's profession of faith in Acts 8:37 shows no respect for God's Word.

 

36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" {36 Some late manuscripts baptized?" 37 Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."}
37
38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

Notice how the NIV leaves out 37? It adds in brackets that some late manuscripts include it. That implies that the verse is never there in the first place. If you go by just the 36 and 38 then, you end up with this...

36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"

38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

Now, using those two verses alone, show me where there is a profession of faith? The preceding verses certainly do not indicate so... only a reading of the Scriptures, and the Eunuch questioning Philip.

On that the profession of faith is never once implied.

 

Sir I must ask you is Acts chapter 8 the only portion of the Bible you own,use, or preach from?

 

I preach the entire Bible from beginning to end. But if I preach a service using only Acts 8 and the account of the Eunuch's baptism, using MV's, there would not be a single indication of the need for salvation before baptism.

As my wife posted, Salvation must precede baptism.