Acts 8:37

HankD,
Thank you for this information (regarding the link. I strongly suggest that you get off the ice and onto solid ground before you drown in the icy cold waters of KJOism.

 

Well,which one of the 5000 manuscripts do you consider to be the Word of God?? All of them?!

 

Oh how poetic

 

It is obvious to all except those who are afraid to study and know the truth. Their theology is confined to what they have been told and not to the truth.

 

Well,what about Romans 10:9? The other so called Bibles do not show the Ethiopian "confessing with his mouth" the Lord Jesus,despite what Romans 10:9 commands.

 

Well,which one of the 5000 manuscripts do you consider to be the Word of God?? All of them?! </font>[/QUOTE]The Bible does not answer that question, and therefore it can be answered only from extra-Biblical sources such as the Preface to the King James Version which says that all translations, however poor they may be, are the Word of God. But of course the KJO gang only believes the translators when they want to! What sinful hypocrisy! How can such hypocrites even call themselves Baptists? They disgrace the very name and everything that it stands for! Why are they permitted to post in forums for Baptists only when they so very clearly have a very different allegiance? They are NOT Independent Baptists; they are independent of the Baptist churches, and in no way a part of them! They make a mockery of the Bible, everything that it says, and everything that it stands for. Their faith is not in Christ and His redemptive work on the cross; their faith is in the lies and deceptions of men who are the enemies of the cross of Christ! Rather than winning souls for Christ and His kingdom, they are out recruiting people for their c[edited by me in order to obey the rules of this message board].

 

It won't happen.

HankD

 

Slambo said:

The other so called Bibles do not show the Ethiopian "confessing with his mouth" the Lord Jesus,despite what Romans 10:9 commands.

Translation: If the Bible doesn't report it, it never happened. How simplistic.

 

If this verse is spurious, this is not how God preseved His Word in MSS. Did God?

 

The "other so called Bibles" don't make note of him going to the john, either, but we can rest assured that he did!

The narratives of the Bible show and tell us many things, but not each and every detail.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Just becasue this does not line up with how your man-made beliefs say that God preserved His word does not mean that God didn't do it this way.

Askjo, there are times when I get the feeling that there is a little bitty light trying to spark somewhere behind your posts, and then-BAM!-you crush it with a sledgehammer.

 

I agree 100% that Scripture doesn't give us every detail, but God gave us a BRAIN instead of just another ganglion in our heads to tell us when to breathe.

Plainly, Jonah said more in Nineveh than, "within 40 days shall Nineveh be overthrown". Or, perhaps God gave him a miracle to perform to prove he was the "real deal". I've heard the argument that the prophets in those days wore special clothes, & therefore the Assyrians would've recognized him as one. But this flies in the face of the fact that the Assyrians had CONQUERED Israel and had defeated Judah at every turn. They would hardly believe a prophet who couldn't protect his own people.

Just imagine someone doing the same thing in DC, Havana, Paris, or London, & the reception he'd get.

Yes, Jonah did much more than walk down the street hollering, but God chose not to record it for us.

 

Well,what about Romans 10:9? The other so called Bibles do not show the Ethiopian "confessing with his mouth" the Lord Jesus,despite what Romans 10:9 commands. </font>[/QUOTE]The KJV doesn't show Saul (Ac. 9:17-18) or those of Cornelius' household (Ac. 10:44-48) "confessing with their mouths" before their baptism either. It's a "red herring" anyway -- the genuineness or spuriousness of Ac. 8:37 isn't based on its orthodoxy, but rather on the textual evidence. And the textual evidence we have *strongly* condemns it as spurious.

 

Right good question..

What about the Alexandrian manuscripts, Sinaiticus(Galatians 4:24-25),Vaticanus(Revelation 17),p66, p75 and their Arian rendering of John 1:18?

Do you accept the Arian reading of John 1:18 found in these mss.(as well as the NAS,Matt 7:20)as the word of God?

 

And the evedence-that pre-dates the "oldest and best" thingys by at least 150-200 years-proves it's authenticity..

 

The expression “Word of God” (case sensitive) occurs only once in the King James translation of the Bible where in Revelation 19:13 it reads,

"And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

Those individuals who teach that the Word of God is the KJV need to repeat the first grade! The Word of God is NOT the King James translation of the Bible; it is NOT any other translations of the Bible; it is NOT any text of the Old or New Testaments; it is NOT any Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek manuscript! The Word of God is Jesus!

The expression “Word of God” (case sensitive) occurs 47 times in the King James translation of the Bible. In NONE of those places is it speaking of the King James translation of the Bible, nor any other translation of the Bible, nor any text of the Old or New Testaments, nor any Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek manuscript!

It is the revelation of God to man found imperfectly in the human words of men who imperfectly recorded them in imperfect document. The word of God is perfect, but all manuscripts are imperfect because they are written in imperfect human speech and recorded by imperfect men.

But of course those most unfortunate individuals who are caught up in the error of KJOism refuse to believe these facts. They believe and teach that there were imperfect men who perfectly recorded the perfect words of God using imperfect human speech and delivered perfect manuscripts thereof to the Kings Printers in England, and that, after thousands of years of perfection, God allowed the Kings Printers to imperfectly print those perfect manuscripts giving us King James translations of the Bible that said “Thou shall commit adultery,” and which contained thousands of other printers’ errors.

Indeed, I have never seen a King James translation of the Bible that does not contain at least one printers’ error,

Matt. 23:24. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

The word “at” is a printers’ error! The correct word is “out.” However, even though the Textus Receptus and every other Greek text shows us that this is a printers’ error, the KJO gang believes that the Textus Receptus and EVERY ancient Greek and Latin manuscript is in error because they disagree with the “perfect KJV.”

And what about those “perfect” manuscripts that were delivered to the Kings Printers in England? Why did God not preserve them? Why did He allow His “perfect Word” to be lost forever?

 

Why can't the KJO gang tell the truth? The answer: They are not of the truth!

 

Why can't the KJO gang tell the truth? The answer: They are not of the truth! </font>[/QUOTE]Does that put them of the Devil then?

 

And the evedence-that pre-dates the "oldest and best" thingys by at least 150-200 years-proves it's authenticity.. </font>[/QUOTE]Oral tradition predates all that you believe too.

 

And the evedence-that pre-dates the "oldest and best" thingys by at least 150-200 years-proves it's authenticity.. </font>[/QUOTE]Evidence from the same early time and locale as Ac. 8:37 also has the heavenly voice in Lk. 3:22 saying, "This is my beloved Son; today I have begotten you." Does that prove the authenticity of this variant in Lk. 3:22 as well?