Acts 8:37

Read my post.

 

Askjo,

He just gave you the truth about it. Why do you reject the truth?

 

He rejected God's preserved Word. Why did you reject it?

 

Belief in God's preserved Word (Psalm 12:6-7) rather than anything what you talked about.

 

Belief in God's preserved Word (Psalm 12:6-7) rather than anything what you talked about. </font>[/QUOTE]You are convinced. It is obvious. But the problem is that your convincing has come at the expense of truth. There is a huge difference between the circulation of sayings or even possibly truth and scripture. You have provided no manuscript evidence to support your opinion.

Your opinion is much like a police officer asking a bystander for the details of what he saw and the bystander responds, "I know by faith who is right." When in reality he saw nothing other than faith in his ignorance. The problem is he just doesn't know what the truth is.

Your arguments are much like those in the flat earth society.

 

This information is ridiculously and obviously false. Skanwmatos has posted above the truth of the matter. Check it out for yourself!

 

Belief in God's preserved Word (Psalm 12:6-7) rather than anything what you talked about. </font>[/QUOTE]Anyone, anyone at all, who believes that the KJV is God's preserved Word, to the exclusion of all other translations, has excluded himself from reason, common sense, and sanity itself! It is absolutely outrageous that such a person should call them self a Baptist and in so doing insult all of us who love God’s Word enough to honestly study it.

 

The KJV of 1611 was an excellent translation at the time, considering what little the translators had to work with, but to think that God Himself could not do any better than that is to think that God is an incompetent fool—but of course that does not bother you at all!

 

I believe this is askjo's source:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_ac8_37.html

I'll accept Acts 8:37 as genuine but I realize that the ice is cracking under my feet.

HankD

 

So, why did you zero in on the first part of the statement, and conveniently forget that he also quoted certain manuscripts ?
Why don't you all prove instead that those manuscripts ain't worth cow's dung ?
I guess the question can be bounced right back to you all, who appointed the modern greek scholars to decide which is part and which is not part of the Word of God ?

Not that I am a KJVO, I am not, but, we need to be fair here.

 

I don't know of anyone who believes that. Why set out to prove somesthing that is not true and that no one believes. All manuscripts are valuable. Some are more valuable than others, for a variety of reasons.

My point was to show the inherent inconsistency of arguing that we shouldn't trust scholars. The KJV was given to us by scholars. The church fathers that were quoted are recognized as scholars.

The argument here is simple. People want to claim that the KJV is God's only word in English. They blast scholarship. But when asked to prove that, they cannot quote God because God didn't say it. They have to resort to quoting scholars and appealing to the superior scholarship of the KJV translators.

MOdern Greek scholars haven't decided what is in and what is out. They have made decisions based on linguistics, transcriptions, and internal and external evidence. In the textual apparatus, they give you the information so that you can study it for yourself. The KJV did something similar when they included marginal notes with alternative renderings, something that clearly cast doubt on the word of God, if you listen to modern KJVOnlyists.

People are making some ridiculous arguments in favor of the KJV. I was simply pointing out the inconsistency.

 

No he didn't. Look at his post. He quoted God's preserved word and in so doing, gave evidence that contradicted your position.

 

Read my post. </font>[/QUOTE]I read your post and responded to it. Is there anything in my response you don't understand?

 

Yes, and every one of those Church Fathers were from the Latin West. No pre-Vulgate Church Father from *any* region outside the Latin West knew Ac. 8:37. The verse is found *only* in the Latin West in the earliest centuries because that's where the spurious addition originated.

If what Alexander is suggesting is true, then the problem is that the verse wasn't omitted by "many scribes." The problem is that it was omitted by *every scribe working outside the Latin West.* Alexander is suggesting that *every* Syriac scribe, *every* Greek scribe, and *every* Coptic scribe INDEPENDENTLY decided to omit this very verse from his copies. This is utterly implausible. It's far more likely that Ac. 8:37 is an early Latin scribal addition that subsequently found its way into later copies elsewhere in the centuries after the Vulgate.

 

These Church Fathers witnessed this verse in their lifetime. God used them for His purpose that they witnessed this verse -- Genuine! </font>[/QUOTE]Many of these same Church Fathers also witnessed to other verses in the Old Latin sources. Does that make them genuine too?

For example, according to Justin Martyr, Hilary of Poitiers, Lactantius, and Augustine, the heavenly voice at Jesus' baptism in Lk. 3:22 says, "You are my beloved Son; today I have begotten you." Is this genuine because all these early Western Fathers quoted it? (This version of Lk. 3:22 is also found in the Old Latin manuscripts a b c d ff1 l and r1).

 

He rejected God's preserved Word. Why did you reject it? </font>[/QUOTE]It's not "rejecting God's preserved word" when you reject *additions* to God's preserved word. "God's preserved word" doesn't have additions to it, and Ac. 8:37 is an addition.

 

I wasn't referring to an English translation. When I said Archangel quoted God's preserved word, I was referring to the numberou manuscripts he referenced that do not have this ... all those manuscripts are "God's preserved word." I was pointing out the fallacy of Askjo's position, that the KJV is the "preserved word of God." Archangel cited God's preserved word and did not cite an English translation.