Acts 8:37

[Ransom]

Now is the time on the FFF when we juxtapose:

There was no way to appeal to the absence of a verse when it was in their Bibles!  Logic 101.

In the preceding verse (Acts 8:36), the eunuch asked what condition had to be met for baptism. How can we leap from such a good question right down into the water? Especially since the Bible declares that faith must always precede baptism (Matt 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:12; 18:8; I Peter 3:21).

Do you know of anyone so profane they would just tear this verse out of the Bible, in spite of its Scriptural content and obvious need in the context? . . .

Can you think of a motive? Easy! They love baptizing babies, and they cannot have the condition of faith, if they are going to do that.

[Let God Be True]

In both the Greek East and the Latin West, infant baptism was considered normative and beneficial. . . . The fact of history demonstrates that the message of 8:37 was subversive to the dominant theologies of the early churches.  In light of this, it is more likely than not that 8:37 was omitted rather than added.  The fact that 8:37 remained in the Latin stream despite the Latin church's deeply held devotion to infant baptism demonstrates the resilience of 8:37, which is best explained by the theory that 8:37 was supported by sufficient external evidence in early times.

[KJV Today]

Avery, as usual, misses the point. He claims that "Logic 101" says no one could appeal to the omission of Acts 8:37 during a time when it wasn't omitted.  Of course, it is, in fact, actually omitted from modern Bible versions today, and therefore we have scads of examples of KJV-onlyists who claim they can know the motive for this omission: paedobaptists, both Protestant and Catholic, know that Acts 8:37 militates against infant baptism since it requires a confession of faith before being baptized.

Maybe Stevie-Weevie should worry less about "Logic 101" in others, and concentrate on passing "Reading Comprehension 101" himself, as clearly he is wanting in that area.

KJV-onlyists themselves say the defense of paedobaptism is the motivation for "omitting" Acts 8:37. I want to see paedobaptists say this is the motivation for omitting it, and requested examples.

Stevie, as usual, has no answer to the question I posed. Therefore, he has proven my point that this KJV-only argument is based on lies. Instead, he has attempted to hijack the thread with his own pontifications. If he can't answer my question, he is wholly welcome to post his off-topic foolishness elsewhere.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You are not even following the issues, my friend.  Acts 8:37 was properly in all the Greek and Latin times from the 16th century Reformation era until the 19th century hortian apostasy.  This was the period of vigorous modern debates on issues like paedobaptism between various groups like rcc, the Reformers and the Anabaptists.

It is true that modern seminarians know very little about the historical battle of the Bible in the late 1500s on till the time of the hortian apsotasy.  At that point, the rcc embraced the ultra- corrupt text as their Plan B.

No it wasn't. Not even close. You're lying. Codex Alexandrious, and many others, existed during the "Reformation era".

Are you really that lost?

 

[Steven Avery]

Are you that incapable of understanding basic textual discussion.? All the Greek and Latin Bible editions included Acts 8:37.  Of course, there were many earlier Greek mss that had the error of omission.  Those were not Bibles read in the eastern or western church once we had the Received Text correction which was then the Greek base for all the Reformation Bible editions.

My friend, you should really examine both the issues and your heart and tone.

Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

My friend, you should really examine both the issues and your heart and tone.

Avery, who is practically unable to post to this thread without impugning others' intelligence or motives, is in no position to be playing Tone Police.

 

[subllibrm]

Are you that incapable of understanding basic textual discussion.? All the Greek and Latin Bible editions included Acts 8:37.  Of course, there were many earlier Greek mss that had the error of omission.  Those were not Bibles read in the eastern or western church once we had the Received Text correction which was then the Greek base for all the Reformation Bible editions.

My friend, you should really examine both the issues and your heart and tone.

Steven Avery

Help me understand your position. Why do you believe that the RCC and other baby sprinklers needed Acts 8:37 removed after 1900 years? You admit that they successfully taught infant baptism for centuries with it present in the scriptures they used. And since they pretty much ran the show for ages they could have expunged it much earlier. But they didn't. You admit that there were some mss that had it and some that didn't prior to the TR yet you also state that all of the Greek and Latin editions had it (including the versions used by the RCC for centuries). They controlled everything and had mss support (those with Acts 8:37 omitted) to use a version without the verse. Yet they didn't. They used (by your own admission) texts that included it.  Why? Seems to be a pretty poor use of their control over what was published and/or taught.

Now back to Ransom's question; can you provide any documentation from the RCC or other infant baptizers that connects them to the omission of Acts 8:37 for the purpose of eliminating the requirement of belief prior to baptism?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Are you that incapable of understanding basic textual discussion.? All the Greek and Latin Bible editions included Acts 8:37.  Of course, there were many earlier Greek mss that had the error of omission.  Those were not Bibles read in the eastern or western church once we had the Received Text correction which was then the Greek base for all the Reformation Bible editions.

My friend, you should really examine both the issues and your heart and tone.

Steven Avery

Not all of the Greek and Latin Bible editions include Acts 8:37. Why are you saying they did? The Eastern church has long used the Codex Alexandrian as a base for its translation. EVEN... during the time you reference.

Again. You are lying. You should examine both the issues and your heart and tone. 

 

[Steven Avery]

Can you reference specific Greek printed editions that have been used by the Orthodox in the last hundreds of years that omit Acts 8:37?  My understanding has been that they accepted the Reformation Bible correction, like they did with the heavenly witnesses, where this a long history of Greek Orthodox support for the verse (with some stumbling among their scholars after the hortian textual apostasy.)

And I would be interested in any editions that you know of that are essentially Codex Alexandrinus, where it has text.  The Greek Orthodox mss that were copied from 1000 to 1500 AD were not at all like Codex Alexandrinus (especially not in Acts, Epistles and Revelation).  Your source for the Alexandrinus claim would be helpful.

====================

The question of why Acts 8:37 dropped from many Greek, but not Latin, mss is conjectural. Since this division occurred by the 2nd century, we only have theories, not proof.  If you are interested in the theories, it is an interesting question.

====================

btw, your tone remains dumb.  You do not know the material particularly well, and yet your main vapid attempt is "lying" which only works to your disrepute.  (Acknowledging that you are playing to the deficient contra crowd.)

====================

>  Why do you believe that the RCC and other baby sprinklers needed Acts 8:37 removed after 1900 years?

Never claimed this was a motivation.  They went to the textus corruptus for a number of reasons, in opposition to the pure Reformation Bible. 

What I pointed out is that those who fought infant baptism and believed in a baptism faith and testimony used Acts 8:37 as a primary verse.  I have not yet looked to see if the rcc apologists of those times tried to respond in any way.

> And since they pretty much ran the show for ages they could have expunged it much earlier.

Actually, I do not know of any verses "expunged" by Latin Vulgate copyists, do you?  And there was Old Latin, Greek, ECW and lots of versional support.  They were various recensions of the Vulgate, as far as I know they agreed on the verses, differing more on words and phrases. 

Steven

 

[subllibrm]

Actually, I do not know of any verses "expunged" by Latin Vulgate copyists, do you?  And there was Old Latin, Greek, ECW and lots of versional support.  They were various recensions of the Vulgate, as far as I know they agreed on the verses, differing more on words and phrases. 

Steven[/color]

Here you show the exact point that Ransom was making in the OP. The argument is made that the removal of this verse was motivated by the RCC and others to remove the concept of "believers" baptism. If that is true, why did they wait 1900 years for Hort to do it when they could have done it themselves anywhere along the way? They controlled the library as it were and left it in there for millennia. But when Hort "corrupted" it the cry goes out that it is a Romanist plot. I would say those Catholics must have been asleep at the switch to let that one verse hang around for so long.

Maybe they aren't as powerful as y'all think they are. Or the argument mentioned in the OP is a bunch of hot air generated by people running out of answers for their KJVO only nonsense. Clutching at straws comes to mind.

 

[bgwilkinson]

The story of strength by putting many small straws together to form an unbreakable beam comes to mind.

So does that mean many small fallacious arguments make one strong main argument?

Many straw men a mighty army makes.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Can you reference specific Greek printed editions that have been used by the Orthodox in the last hundreds of years that omit Acts 8:37?  My understanding has been that they accepted the Reformation Bible correction, like they did with the heavenly witnesses, where this a long history of Greek Orthodox support for the verse (with some stumbling among their scholars after the hortian textual apostasy.)

And I would be interested in any editions that you know of that are essentially Codex Alexandrinus, where it has text.  The Greek Orthodox mss that were copied from 1000 to 1500 AD were not at all like Codex Alexandrinus (especially not in Acts, Epistles and Revelation).  Your source for the Alexandrinus claim would be helpful.

There you go... changing what you said. Why are you asking about the last 100 years when you made a claim that goes all the way back to the time of the Reformation?

Why are you changing your tune now?

To answer your question. Have you ever heard of the RSV? Did you know the Greek Orthodox church generally follows the English RSV? The RSV doesn't contain verse 37.....

and you say I don't know the material..... Please. The GOC has long followed the LXX based largely on CA. Get a life....

 

[Steven Avery]

The argument is made that the removal of this verse was motivated by the RCC and others to remove the concept of "believers" baptism.

Who precisely are you referencing? 

Surely not me, as I pointed out above, the reasons for the original dropping, likely in the 2nd century, before there was an rcc, are conjecture. 

William Trollope (1798-1863) wrote that the verse was:

Anelecta Theologica (1835)
http://books.google.com/books?id=QnQTAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA224

"probably omitted in later times as being opposed to the delay of baptism" 

James Henshall, in Is Acts viii:37 Genuine Scripture? quotes from August Neander (1789-1850), who has the same explanation with more detail, and also references this from Whitby.

The Millennial Harbinger, Volume 3 (1860)
Is Acts viii:37 Genuine Scripture? - James Henshall
https://books.google.com/books?id=_X8oAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA254

The history of the Christian religion and Church during the three first centuries (1831)
Johann August W. Neander
https://books.google.com/books?id=bcIUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA350

"Originally, as it was of great consequence that the Church should extend itself rapidly, those (among the Jews) who acknowledged their belief in Jesus as the Messiah, or (among the heathen) who acknowledged their belief in the one God, and in Jesus the Messiah, were immediately baptised, as appears from the New Testament. It gradually came to be thought necessary to give those, who wished to be received into the Christian Church, a more careful instruction by way of preparation, and to subject them to a more severe trial. This whole class of persons were called " auditores,"... and these names implied that they were persons, who were  receiving a preparatory instruction in Christianity, and who as yet were only in a state to listen to the Holy Scriptures, when they were read, and to the sermons. The time of probation must have been different according to the different condition of individuals ; but the council of Elvira determined generally that it should last two years. In Origen we find two classes of these catechumens distinctly separated from each other. ... "

Delay of baptism is a related yet distinct motivation from believer's baptism. 

Then, in the Reformation era, the verse became a sword used in the defense of believer's baptism.  And the verse remains foundational in Bible baptism discussions today.  Even more so, now that the rcc has joined forces with the modern version textus corruptus (in versions like the Nova Vulgata and the NRSV)  in omitting the confession of faith.

(Please note the doctrinal relationship to Romans 10 as well, pointed out by Henshall.)

==============

The other post goes all over the map, even the Greek Orthodox interest in the RSV and NRSV because they include the Orthodox deuterocanonical books, which surely is going far afield.  More important would be simply their modern Greek NT texts with Acts 8:37.

Steven Avery

 

[subllibrm]

The argument is made that the removal of this verse was motivated by the RCC and others to remove the concept of "believers" baptism.

Who precisely are you referencing? 

Steven Avery

Um, you would know if you read the part of my post that you deleted when you quoted me.

"Here you show the exact point that Ransom was making in the OP. The argument is made that the removal of this verse was motivated by the RCC and others to remove the concept of "believers" baptism. "

Here I will help you. The OP refers to Steven Anderson claiming that the NIV dropping the verse in Acts proves that the intent was to eliminate a key verse in the defense of believers baptism. Any confusion on your part is due to your insistence on arguing about things not related to the OP.

Maybe learning to stay on topic would help you understand what other people are saying.

 

[Ransom]

The argument is made that the removal of this verse was motivated by the RCC and others to remove the concept of "believers" baptism.

Who precisely are you referencing? 

Surely not me . . .

Indeed not, as I hardly had you in mind when I posted the thread, despite your constant efforts to insinuate your unwelcome and off-topic opinions upon it. Relax, Narcisstevie, it's not all about you.

However, I did post links to two KJV-onlyi sites making precisely that argument, and I originally cited Steven Anderson's video New World Order Bible Versions in which the omission of Acts 8:37 is alleged to be one of several "Catholic" intrusions upon the Scriptures.

You would know this, had you read the OP rather than jumping in and blabbing about irrelevancies.

 

[Steven Avery]

There is nothing in the OP about the reasons for the early omission of the verse.  And there is nothing about people arguing the positive significance of the awkward omission.  That is logically backwards.  It is the inclusion of Acts 8:37 that is a powerful verse from the word of God for those  who support believer's baptism.  However, the modern version pusher is unable to make that strong argument, as we see from their motto:

Use the modern versions, you don't know what you are missing!

 

[Ransom]

There is nothing in the OP about the reasons for the early omission of the verse.  And there is nothing about people arguing the positive significance of the awkward omission.

Yes, that's because--you narcissistic gasbag--those aren't the questions I was asking.

Good grief, Avery, if you can't answer the OP's question, not whining is still an option.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

> Steven (stating the supposed argument)
> ...removal of this verse was motivated by the RCC and others to remove the concept of "believers" baptism.

Scott
>  I did post links to two KJV-only sites making precisely that argument

Since you now have totally disclaimed this bogus assertion about motives for omission, let's go once again over your confused OP.

... Steven Anderson's ... tries to argue that the NIV is a "Catholic Bible" because it props up certain Catholic doctrines. The first of these is infant baptism, where he argues that since modern Bibles omit the Ethiopian eunuch's verbal confession of Christ, there's nothing stopping infants from being baptized.

The strongest single argument against infant baptism, and supporting the baptism testimony, is out of the modern versions. From Westcott-Hort to today.  Thus, the arguments against infant baptism are crippled.  Anderson is correct (allowing that your representation is accurate) that the modern versions are infant baptism friendly.

The eunuch was an adult being instructed in the faith, and you can't argue from an implicit confession of faith that no confession of faith at all is required;

This is ultra-vague.  I think you are claiming that there is a weak "implicit" confession of faith even when the real confession:

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.

is removed.  However, without that powerful Bible text there is no statement of faith at all, not stated, not implicit.  Maybe conjectural, especially if you remember what the pure Bible actually has at that point.

the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not appeal to Acts 8 where it discusses the necessity of baptizing infants (CCC 1250-52)..

This is a non-sequitur.  They could not appeal to Acts 8 because, to their embarrassment, their historic Bible actually has the baptism testimony. Jerome had properly included the verse.

And the latter is the main point of this post: Can anyone point to any Christian tradition, Catholic or otherwise, that practises paedobaptism and also uses the omission of Acts 8:37 as justification for the practice?.

  This "main point" is built on a total non-sequitur, so it is similarly irrelevant.

Conversely, I've seen both Catholic and Protestant sources that appeal to Acts 16:15, for example, assuming Lydia's "household" to include infants, as evidence that the church practised paedobaptism right from the start.

  Which makes no sense, since infants are not remotely mentioned. 

However, I've never seen one appeal to the Ethiopian eunuch..

    And I showed you how the Anabaptists made the Acts 8:37 confession central to their position. 

Anderson and other KJV-onlyists claim that this variant reading could be used in this way, but unless I can see evidence of it actually being used in this way, it seems to me that their objection is not one based in reality.

Here, "this way" is your convenient non-sequitur.

Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

Since you now have totally disclaimed this bogus assertion about motives for omission, let's go once again over your confused OP.

Since you have now totally disclaimed non-fantasy-related arguments, how about I offer a derisive hoeselaugh directly in your face, and disregard your feeble-minded attempts to hijack my thread yet again?

If you can't answer the OP, Stevie, it's OK. You don't impress anyone with your faux-intellectual posturing.

 

[Steven Avery]

If you can't answer the OP,

Done, above.  Point by point.

 

[Ransom]

Done, above. Point by point.

No, you whined about it, point by point. However, you failed to answer my question.

Not only that, it took you two weeks not to do it.

The derp, it burns.

 

[Steven Avery]

Not only that, it took you two weeks 

Two weeks before reviewing the logical mess of the OP point by point. True.