Acts 8:37

Again(As usual) your wrong.No matter how much spin,skulduggery,or skirting the issue you try,you will see that Scripture(KJB)will ALWAYS clear matters up when in doubt.

We find in Acts 13:1 that Paul was in Antioch(Smack dab in the middle of the BYZANTINE EMPIRE!).The Bible(KJB)says in Acts 13 that the word of God comes from Antioch;no mention of Alexandria as being where the word of God came from,PERIOD.The Old Latin came from the Syrian/Byzantine mss of the reformation.

Proof from God's word that the Byzantine MSS were present in paul's time..The verse is legitimate.

 

Anti-Alexandrian:We find in Acts 13:1 that Paul was in Antioch(Smack dab in the middle of the BYZANTINE EMPIRE!).>

WRONG! The Byz Empire didn't begin till roughly 312 AD. In Paul's day, it was all still the ROMAN EMPIRE, as his subsequent arrest, appeal to Caesar, and shipping to Rome as a prisoner shows.


The Bible(KJB)says in Acts 13 that the word of God comes from Antioch;no mention of Alexandria as being where the word of God came from,PERIOD.The Old Latin came from the Syrian/Byzantine mss of the reformation.

WRONG AGAIN.

In Acts 13, we see Paul & Barnabas were EXPELLED from Antioch during their 2nd visit. I shall leave it to everyone interested to read Acts 13 for him/herself.

AND...think Antioch of Pisidia(Acts 13:14) was a different Antioch? If so, please enter "pisidia" into any search engine.

Proof from God's word that the Byzantine MSS were present in paul's time..The verse is legitimate.

Actually, what we have here is a desperation 80-foot shot by KJVO which misses the goal completely & lands in the cheap seats.

 

Apples and Oranges!! Given,it WAS the Roman empire in Paul's day,it soon afterwards became the Byzantine empire.A good contrast would be the basis of the KJB;the TR.It wasn't known as the TR until AFTER the A.V. was first published.Again,Apples and Oranges..

Yes there are two Antiochs.But where did Paul get the word of God? The Bible says nothing of Paul(or anybody else for that matter) getting ANY Scripture from Alexandria;the context of the story plainly states that the word of God come from Byzantiun(Antioch,Syria),and was published through out the region.No Egypt,sorry...

BooYa.

Whaaa?!! You really should come up with some anecdotes that make sense!! That's as funny as a train wreck

 

Almost as funny as you, A-A.

 

Acts 13:1 talks about Antioch, not Alexandria. There were Antiochan texts namely Textus Receptus, Byzantine Texts and Traditional Texts.

The problem that you can't argue or deny is CT men who knew they are absolutely true. This evidence is very obvious.

 

Again(As usual) your wrong.No matter how much spin,skulduggery,or skirting the issue you try,you will see that Scripture(KJB)will ALWAYS clear matters up when in doubt.

We find in Acts 13:1 that Paul was in Antioch(Smack dab in the middle of the BYZANTINE EMPIRE!).The Bible(KJB)says in Acts 13 that the word of God comes from Antioch;no mention of Alexandria as being where the word of God came from,PERIOD.The Old Latin came from the Syrian/Byzantine mss of the reformation.

Proof from God's word that the Byzantine MSS were present in paul's time..The verse is legitimate. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Again(As usual) your wrong.No matter how much spin,skulduggery,or skirting the issue you try,you will see that Scripture(KJB)will ALWAYS clear matters up when in doubt.

We find in Acts 13:1 that Paul was in Antioch(Smack dab in the middle of the BYZANTINE EMPIRE!).The Bible(KJB)says in Acts 13 that the word of God comes from Antioch;no mention of Alexandria as being where the word of God came from,PERIOD.The Old Latin came from the Syrian/Byzantine mss of the reformation.

Proof from God's word that the Byzantine MSS were present in paul's time..The verse is legitimate. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but you are mistaken on several points.

(1) Ac. 13 says *nothing whatsoever* about any Scriptures coming from Antioch.

(2) There *was* no "Byzantine empire" at the time the events described in Ac. 13 took place.

(3) The terms "Alexandrian," "Western," and "Byzantine" in NT textual criticism denote three different text types (i.e., texts with characteristic patterns of defining variant readings). The first two are found in the most ancient sources dating back to the 2nd C.; the Byzantine text doesn't appear until the 4th C.

 

And Ac. 8 talks about Jerusalem, Judaea and Samaria, and Ac. 9 talks about Damascus, and Ac. 10 talks about Caesarea, just like Ac. 13 talks about Antioch. And *none* of these chapters says *anything* about any NT Scriptures.

You are mistaken. The Byzantine text (= "Traditional text") is *not* the same as the Textus Receptus. The TR is the creation of Erasmus, who took the Byzantine text and added numerous minority readings found in Latin sources. No known Byzantine manuscript anywhere before Erasmus agrees completely with the TR.

 

Apples and Oranges!! Given,it WAS the Roman empire in Paul's day...</font>[/QUOTE]Then maybe we should be calling it the "Roman text?"

 

Askjo:&gt;Irenaeus in 180 A.D. and Cyprian in 250 A.D. witnessed Acts 8:37. This verse was there before B & Aleph MSS appeared. Erasmus says that he took this reading from the margin of 4ap and incorporated it in the TR. (FS page 203)


According to published sources:




Summary of the full evidence of Greek MSS in relation to Acts 8:37 (taken from the complete collations recorded in Text und Textwert):

1. Do not include verse: 417 Greek MSS (86.5% of all Greek MSS)

2. Do include verse in varying forms: 65 MSS (13.5% of all Greek MSS)

Of the 65 MSS that include the verse only one MS reads exactly as the Textus Receptus editions (all TR editions read identically in this verse), and that MS is minuscule 1883, of the XVIth century -- contemporary with Erasmus. However, even that MS when translated into English (and allowing normal formal equivalence) does not read identically with the KJV:

KJV = "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."


MS 1883/TR literally = "So Philip said, If you believe out of the whole heart, it is permitted. And having answered, he said, I believe the Son of God to be Jesus Christ."

The most prominent Greek form of those that include the verse is found in 30 MSS, and reads as follows:

"So he said to him, If you believe out of your whole heart, it is permitted. And having answered, he said, I believe the Son of God to be Jesus Christ."

The other 34 MSS that include all or part of the verse don’t even come this close to the TR or KJV rendering.


MS 4ap now is Greg.-Aland 2816. It is a MS of Acts and Paul from the XVth century. That MS originally did not contain the verse, and the marginal reading was added sometime later (century XV or XVI, obviously). However, Erasmus did not follow the reading of that marginal annotation, since it differs from the TR reading (and also from that XVIth century MS 1883) by reading as follows (with differences underlined):



“So he said to him, If you believe out of your whole heart, it is permitted. And answering he said, I believe the Son of God to be Christ Jesus.