Acts 8:37

No, I accept the orthodox reading of Jn. 1:18 found in these manuscripts as the word of God and condemn the Arians for ministerpreting it.

 

Amen! Very well said.

 

Sorry, i don't know Greek so i'll
stick with the English.
I'm sticking with my FINAL AUTHORITY
the The Holman Christian Standard Bible

John 1:18 (HCSB):

No one has ever seen God. The only Son* -- the One
who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him.

* Footnote - "Other mms read God"

That is Good enough for me.
Jesus, the Son of God, is God.

 

As it seems nobody else wants to post the actual evidence instead of senseless argumentation, I will do so.

Acts 8:37 is omitted by p45, p74, Aleph, A, B, C, P, Psi, 049, 056, 0142, 81, 104, 181, 326, 330, 436, 451, 614, 1241, 1505, 2127, 2412, 2492, 2495, virtually all of the Byzantine mss, and all but one of the Lectionaries.

The verse is present (with possible variants) in 88 (correctors hand), 630, 945, 1739, 1877, Lectionary 59, E, 629, and is listed as being present in Bede's list of Greek manuscript readings.

It is cited by Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, Pacian, Ambrose, Augustine, Theophylact, and is present in several Old Latin mss, the Clementine Vulgate, Harkonian Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian versions.

There are verses included in the Critical text with far less manuscript attestation, and there are verses dropped with far more manuscript attestation.

The fact that the Byzantine text omits the verse is, in my opinion, the strongest evidence against its inclusion.

 

Done did!!!

Already have...All I get is spin and skirting of the Arian rendering in the "oldest and best" and their fruits;NAS,NWT,et al..

Typical.

 

A_A: Seems as if Skan documented the inclusion/omission of Acts 8:37 from various mss, so now the ball's in your court to either prove him wrong or admit the passage is spurious. Can you find it in the Byzantine text? After all, if you're anti-Alexandrian, your choices are narrowed considerably.

 

Seeing how the Old Latin was translated from the Byzantine texts(which pre-date the "oldest and best" thingamajigs by 150-200 years) proves it's authenticity.No matter how you try to spin it.

If? You better believe it!

Not really,the Geneva has the passage,observe Acts 8:37 from a 1599 Geneva:
And Philip said unto him, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. Then he answered, and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is that Son of God.

Boo Ya!!

 

Acts 8:37 in the KJV is accurate or Luke, the author of Acts will accuse you for your false comments against this verse. See John 5:45-47.

 

Acts 8:37 in the KJV is accurate or Luke, the author of Acts will accuse you for your false comments against this verse. See John 5:45-47.

Specious "God is gonna get yuh" threats noted and duly ignored. Consider the one making the threats.

 

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)

 

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) </font>[/QUOTE]Still beating the same drum! Perhaps you need to go back and see how I responded to your same argument earlier. You never responded to my statement countering what your wrote. Do you simply ignore the debate to write what is convenient rather than deal with the issues?

Oral tradition preceded what you believe too. That does not always make it scripture.

Perhaps you need to read, "Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity: With Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity" (Biblical Resource Series)
by Eric J. Sharpe (Translator), Birger Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity Gerhardsson, Jacob Neusner

Along with that book maybe you should read John 21:25, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

 

Dr. Bob, the textual apparatus in UBS indicates the verse is attested to by Irenaeus (died 202AD), but not exactly as it appears in the TR, and also indicates it was cited by Tertullian (died 220AD), Cyprian (died 258AD), Ambrosiaster (date uncertain, but mid 4th century is generally cited), Pacian (died 392AD), Ambrose (died 397AD), Augustine (died 430AD), and Theophylact (died 1077AD) (manuscript b).

Unless we are going to call into question the veracity and accuracy of the UBS critical apparatus, it seems to me providing, at best, a translation of the the quotes which may not be an accurate translation, is not necessary for the purposes of this discussion.

 

Act 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. (KJV)

Dr. Bob Griffin,

Here are the only quotes from the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers in which I find quotes from Acts 8:37:

IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES -- BOOK III, CHAP. XII

8. But again: Whom did Philip preach to the eunuch of the queen of the Ethiopians, returning from Jerusalem, and reading Esaias the prophet, when he and this man were alone together? Was it not He of whom the prophet spoke: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb dumb before the shearer, so He opened not the month?" "But who shall declare His nativity? for His life shall be taken away from the earth."(2) [Philip declared] that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, "I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God."(3) This man was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed, that there was one God preached by the prophets, but that the Son of this [God] had already made [His] appearance in human nature (secundum hominem), and had been led as a sheep to the slaughter; and all the other statements which the prophets made regarding Him.

THE TREATISES OF CYPRIAN: TREATISE XII.--THREE BOOKS OF TESTIMONIES AGAINST THE JEWS.--THIRD BOOK, TESTIMONY 43

43. That he who believes can immediately obtain (i.e., pardon and peace).

In the Acts of the Apostles: "Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest."(18)

THE LIFE AND PASSION OF CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR BY PONTIUS THE DEACON.

3. The apostle's epistle says(2) that novices should be passed over, lest by the stupor of heathenism that yet clings to their unconfirmed minds, their untaught inexperience should in any respect sin against God. He first, and I think he alone, furnished an illustration that greater progress is made by faith than by time. For although in the Acts of the Apostles(3) the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip, because he believed with his whole heart, this is not a fair parallel. For he was a Jew,(4) and as he came from the temple of the Lord he was reading the prophet Isaiah, and he hoped in Christ, although as yet he did not believe that He had come; while the other, coming from the ignorant heathens, began with a faith as mature as that with which few perhaps have finished their course. In short, in respect of God's grace, there was no delay, no postponement,--I have said but little,--he immediately received the presbyterate and the priesthood.(5) For who is there that would not entrust every grade of honour to one who believed with such a disposition? There are many things which he did while still a layman, and many things which now as a presbyter he did--many things which, after the examples of righteous men of old, and following them with a close imitation, he accomplished with the obedience of entire consecration--that deserved well of the Lord.(6) For his discourse concerning this was usually, that if he had read of any one being set forth with the praise of God, he would persuade us to inquire on account of what doings he had pleased God. If Job, glorious by God's testimony, was called a true worshipper of God, and one to whom there was none upon earth to be compared, he taught that we should do whatever Job had previously done, so that while we are doing like things we may call forth a similar testimony of God for ourselves. He, contemning the loss of his estate, gained such advantage by his virtue thus tried, that he had no perception of the temporal losses even of his affection. Neither poverty nor pain broke him down; the persuasion of his wife did not influence him; the dreadful suffering of his own body did not shake his firmness. His virtue remained established in its own home, and his devotion, rounded upon deep roots, gave way under no onset of the devil tempting him to abstain from blessing his God with a grateful faith even in his adversity. His house was open to every comer. No widow returned from him with an empty lap; no blind man was unguided by him as a companion; none faltering in step was unsupported by him for a staff; none stripped of help by the hand of the mighty was not protected by him as a defender. Such things ought they to do, he was accustomed to say, who desire to please God. And thus running through the examples of all good men, by always imitating those who were better than others he made himself also worthy of imitation.

************************************************************************

Can any one else find any others?

 

Seeing how the Old Latin was translated from the Byzantine texts(which pre-date the "oldest and best" thingamajigs by 150-200 years) proves it's authenticity.</font>[/QUOTE]There are many reasons why the Old Latin texts could not have been translated from the Byzantine text, the major one being that there *was* no Byzantine text before the early 4th C.

The fact that the verse appears in an *English* Bible version printed in the *late 16th C.* and based on the same flawed 16th C. Greek text as the KJV is completely irrelevant. The authenticity of a reading has to be established by *early* sources.

 

Ac. 8:37 can't be "accurate" if Luke never wrote it -- which is what the evidence clearly suggests. I'm sure Luke wouldn't appreciate someone adding to what he wrote.

 

Irenaeus of Lyons and Cyprian of Carthage both lived in *Western* region of the empire. This region had NT texts chock-full full of additions, expansions, and variant readings like "this day I have begotten you" in Lk. 3:22 (attested by Justin Martyr of Rome, c. 100-165 A.D.) The addition found in Ac. 8:37 is of exactly the same kind as all the others. It survives in our English translations only because Erasmus chose to include it in his TR for some bizarre reason even though he rightly rejected most other similar additions. (4ap, incidentally, is a 15th C. copy, so it's hardly an *early* source. And it has Ac. 8:37 as a marginal note and not in the actual text!)