Which Revision is Correct?

Sorry to see you get beat up by the know it all thugs on here, B4L. I shall pray for you and appreciate your prayers for me, as well. :flower:

 

Since I am TR strongly preferred, I don’t do much by way of manuscript witness research anymore. But …

This passage is found in the traditional texts of Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir which is why the KJV translators included it as well as 1 John 5:7 (which seems to have an anomalous relationship to Acts 8:37).

It is not found in the majority of ancient Greek texts; however it does have some weighty support.

Here are a few witnesses for Acts 8:37 I found after a little but not exhaustive research.

In one form or another, with a perhaps word or two difference or differing word order, the following are historic witnesses to Acts 8:37.

One will probably need more than one apparatus to verify this.

Greek manuscripts: E, 4, 36, 88, 97, 103, 104, 242, 257, 307, 322, 323, 385, 429, 453, 464, 467, 629, 630, 913, 945, 1522, 1739, 1765, 1877, 1891.

Old Itala: ar, c, e, gig, h, l, m, ph, r.

The Latin Vulgate.

Some copies of the Peshitta.

Church Fathers: Irenaeus, Cyprian, Chromatius, Tertullian, Ambrosiaster, Pacian, Ambrose, Augustine and Theophylact.

I can’t find anything yet in Burgon’s writings concerning this passage. I wish I had electronic copies so I could scan them but I’ll keep looking (especially if anyone else is interested).

Personally, I believe it to be apostolic.


HankD

 

When it comes right down to it, it becomes a case of "my scholar can beat up your scholar".

Regardless, IMHO (and that's the one that counts when it comes to MY choice of Bible versions :smilewinkgrin the presence or absence of Acts 8:37 does not affect doctrine.

 

James Strong was a professor at Drew Theological Seminary which is affiliated with the United Methodist Church also a "sprinkler" and "Paedo-baptising" church.

Then you must believe the same for the Old Latin Bible and the Latin Vulgate (derived from the Old Latin) which ruled over the church for over 1000 years. The Bible of the early Church of Rome, the Bible of the martyrs who spilled their blood under the tyranny of the Caesars.

Ironically, the KJV translators themselves disagree with you. The words of inspiration are the words of the original Greek which the KJV translators themselves bore witness before the King of England and the entire English speaking world as I have shown over and over again:

Notice they call the Greek and Hebrew “the Scriptures” wherein God was pleased to speak to His church by His Prophets and Apostles.

There is no way to say this but plainly.

I will take their word for it rather than the Peter Ruckman "second guess" theory that they were unaware that they were being moved and inspired by God (which "second guess" didn't exist until he proclaimed it) giving not only inspired words but "advanced revelation" which only he can interpret correctly.

e.g. the litmus test of the Ruckman "advanced revelation" theory - the word "easter" of Acts 12:4.

If you believe "Easter" is the correct translation then you believe in both components of the Ruckman theory.

This is of course your right as both a human being and a believer.

But nowhere in their writings or the KJV of the Bible itself is such a claim made that the words of their translation are/were given under the superintendence and Inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

But even if you believe their (CoE) claim to apostolic succession (though they did not claim it for inspiration of the English text) and that they (the English words) were/are indeed God-breathed inspired words, then you should immediately renounce your affiliation with the Baptist persuasion and join the Anglo-Catholic Church of England because this act of inspiration of the 1611/1769 AV proves that the Anglo-Catholic Church of England is indeed the “authorized” apostolic Church of Jesus Christ and their Bible is the “Authorized Version” as they claim.

The Greek and Hebrew are the words of inspiration.

"being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to His church by His Prophets and Apostles"

HankD

 

Yes, 1 John 5:7 (also know as the Johannine Comma) is probably the most controversial passage of the Traditional Text.

Contrary to popular belief it is found in a few Greek mss, late but Greek nonetheless.

Even Nestle's admits to 629; 61; 88 (Greek mss) and Latin testimonial of existence in early Greek mss as well as the Old Latin (r) and the Vulgate (Claromantanus) and several Latin early church fathers.

There are also two controversial early Greek father citations (Tertullian and Cyprian I believe).

While I accept it as apostolic, I don't fault anyone for excluding it.

HankD

 

I do not see the Dark Ages when the Roman Catholic church ruled Europe as a good thing at all. The church was very corrupt and put forward many heresies. But there were always groups who held and preserved the accurate texts.

Inspiration is a difficult subject for me. If only the original autographs are inspired, then neither the KJV or MVs are inspired as they both came from copies. The scriptures say all scripture is given by inspiration of God, so I tend to side with those who say that an accurate copy of God's word is inspired regardless of what language it is translated into. I don't view scripture as simply words on a page, the scriptures say God's word is alive and powerful.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

This verse does not say all scripture is inspired, it says all scripture is "given" by inspiration. One could argue only the original autographs are inspired.

But still, the scriptures are said to be quick and powerful.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

So, I don't know if inspired is the right word to call our translations, however I do believe the accurate scriptures are quick and powerful as Heb 4:12 says. A man is born again, spiritually regenerated through the word of God, so I believe they carry spiritual power. As I said, this is a difficult thing to understand, I simply believe what the scriptures say about themselves.

Well, I am not a Ruckmanite. I heard of him years ago, I've watched a few videos of him on YouTube, but I do not consider myself a follower of any man. He seems like a brilliant man, a little odd in other ways. I really don't get into all this theory about the scriptures.

I will keep saying, I realized years ago that there is no way to figure out all this stuff through scholarship. You have good men on every side who are saying different things. I simply believe God promised to preserve his word and did, and I believe the KJV is the accurate and preserved version in English.

 

Well, I have said all along there is no way to prove the scriptures through scholarship.

However, your second statement is ridiculous. Acts 8:37 more than any other verse in the Bible shows the doctrine of baptismal regeneration false. This verse absolutely affects doctrine. Putting it in the footnotes does not help, as most people do not give footnotes the weight of scripture. Ann has argued this several times and I have asked her when her kids memorize scripture if they also memorize the footnotes. I think we all know the answer to that. And not all versions provide footnotes, and some versions that used to provide footnotes do not any longer.

The MVs absolute erode doctrine in my opinion. It is subtle, but adds up. For instance, compare these two verses.

KJV:

Mark 1:31 And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.

NIV:

Mark 1:31 So he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them.

Notice the NIV leaves out the word "immediately". Is that important? Yes. The word immediately shows this to be a miracle, omitting this one word dramatically changes the meaning. There is nothing special about a fever leaving a person, happens all the time. But the word immediately in the KJV shows that Jesus instantly healed her of her sickness.

And there are dozens of verses like this that very subtly erode doctrine.

 

And I agree that it is one of the most accurate and preserved English versions.

But the final authority (or at least my final authority) in the langauge of the original words of inspiration are preserved in The Traditional Texts:

The OT Masora (ben Asher).
The NT Textus Receptus (Scrivener).

And please remember winman, both sides of this issue are sincere in their strong desire to know the word of God, every jot and tittle as given from the hand of God.

Just as a side issue, no jots and tittles are preserved in English translations only the Hebrew original language mss. Therefore Jesus also agrees with the KJV translators, that these are the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to His church by His prophets and Apostles.

Learn the Greek and Hebrew Winman, you have a superior intelligence, don't waste it on ruckmanite theories.

It will open up the windows of heaven for you, then you can pass it on (in modern English) to others.

John 21:17 ... Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.​

HankD

 

It's as lame if not lamer than the worn out, let's all shake in our boots, "Jesus lied" argument.

 

I have no problem with someone who prefers the KJV. They can only believe the KJV is the right and only Bible for their personal use. The problem arises when they try and promote their opinion into a doctrine. Problems arise when they use lame arguments such as the one Ann is discussing with Winman. The lengths that KJVOnlyists will go to promote their man made doctrine borders on fanaticism.

 

You said it all right there.

 

If anyone is giving a lame argument, it is you and others that say words don't matter, they don't have a meaning.

I can tell you from personal experience that years ago I read John 7:8-10 in the RSV and it confused me. In verse 8 Jesus clearly says he is not going up to this feast, then in verse 10 he goes up. I noticed that and it immediately caught my attention. It was a contradiction. It seemed to imply that Jesus broke his own word.

And I showed not one, but two Muslim websites that actually used this very passage to teach that the scriptures themselves showed Jesus to be a liar.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/bible_says_jesus_is_liar.htm

Now, I fully realize this is an enemy of Christ who is misusing the scriptures to teach blasphemy. But not everyone knows this. If this fellow were to show this to fellow Muslims, or even non-Muslims, they could be convinced that the scriptures do in fact show Jesus to be a liar.

This very article proves that what I am saying is true. But you folks deny reality to keep your own views.

 

Sigh... and NNE has ever used KJV verses to bolster false doctrine, right??

No one has ever been confused by the antiquated meaning of "quick", "conversation", or "bolster" as used in the KJV either?

Are we at page 10 yet??

 

Oh, we have folks right here who twist the scriptures all the time. That does not negate the fact that John 7:8-10 in many of the MVs makes Jesus appear to be a liar.

Now here is a comparison of a verse in the KJV and NIV that contradict each other.

KJV:

Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

NIV:

Phil 2:6 Who, being in very nature [fn] God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

This verse in the NIV does not even make sense. And it is saying the very opposite of what the KJV says. The KJV says Jesus did not think it robbery to be equal with God, the NIV says being equal with God cannot be grasped.

But I know you will rationalize this away, you have already made up your mind.

 

Some folks like to strain at gnats. If you want to then so be it. But, don't force me to choke on a gnat that can't even be found in the Bible. Keep your gnats to yourself.

 

Just presenting the facts. If you choose to ignore them, that is your problem, not mine.

 

Look winman, this is proof that the NIV just as any other translation cannot be a perfect representation of the original language text.

Not too long ago I showed you where the KJV translators made what I and many others consider a blunder:

KJV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.​

RSV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.​

In this case the RSV is true to the Traditional Text. For some unknown reason the KJV translators glossed over the Greek words brachu ti (a little while).​

If they were indeed led by the Holy Spirit How could they leave out these words which had been part of the inspired Greek text He (the Holy Spirit) Godbreathed almost 1600 years before they saw it? ​

This is another ruckamnite error that the English is better than the Greek because it is "advanced revelation" (Manuscript Evidence, p. 126) given to these men or somesuch other man made tradition.​

If I didn't know better I could justifiably say that the KJV text here makes Jesus a created being. In fact this KJV text is a favorite proof text of the JW Arian doctrine that Jesus Christ is not eternal God come in the flesh.​

Winman, look, I (and others) could, but I won't come up with dozens of KJV blunders just as the KJVO love to do so with the MVs.​

OK, so you found a flaw in the NIV.

For every "error" you find, I could clash my KJV sword against your MV sword.​

If you don't like it, STOP doing it to others and their Bible version.​

The KJV translators were human, they did a remarkable job with what they had and then spent (The church of England to their credit) over 150 years correcting and amending the AV text, which by the way were not just spelling and typographical errors but errors in number, case and gender along with additions and/or deletions of words.​

Go ahead and challenge me if you want proof. I know some will accuse me of "Hating the KJ Bible" though I almost always quote it and have memorized perhaps thousands of KJB verses.​

I find no joy in criticizing any translation other than an obvious cultic distortion.

What the radical KJVO cannot and never will be able to do is tell us why some of those very same men who wrote "advanced revelation" a few years later changed their translation to something else or which is the "pure" word of God the 1611AV or the 1769AV.​

There is no problem when there is a change of focus to what the KJV translators called "the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to His church by His prophets and Apostles" - the Greek and Hebrew Godbreathed words.​

HankD​