SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Acts 8:37-I'm putting it back in

Print Thread (PDF)


 Acts 8:37-I'm putting it back in

this is to Ron Bailey and others who know the differences between the ancient manuscript Bibles.

In no way, do i really want to engage in the all too familiar debate on the KJV vs modern Bible translations:

I was doing morning Bible reading, I'm in Acts 8 and I was reading about the Ethiopian eunuch, reading closely...and then I noticed that 37 was not in the top part and saw that it was in the footnotes, and it was the eunuch confession that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God".

the footnote says that some "later mauscripts add", so i googled, and found several pages that detail the Vulgate, the "greek text of Erasmus from the Vulgate" . "a vast number of old Latin manuscripts l, m, e, r, ar , ph, and gig".

and then this article goes onto say:

If the text were genuine, why would any scribe wish to delete it? [2] In his commentary on the book of Acts, Dr. J. A. Alexander provides a possible answer. By the end of the third century it had become common practice to delay the baptism of Christian converts to assure that they had truly understood their commitment to Christ and were not holding to one of the various heretical beliefs prevalent at that time. [3] It is possible that a scribe, believing that baptism should not immediately follow conversion, omitted this passage from the text, which would explain its absence in many of the Greek manuscripts that followed

some of you might be saying: "see? thats why you should toss out your modern Bible!", ESV doesn't have it either. Obviously the NKJV has it.

Now I'm not a "defender" or a "detractor" of any Bible translation. To me, in this Most Holy Faith, confession and profession that "Jesus is the Son of God" is a central Pillar of our faith.

So I'm adding it to my NIV as CANON, in the leading of the Spirit.

I noticed that in previous reading, I had highlighted in yellow, where it is, in the text notes.....

I'm adding it, I HAVE to add it.

Ron, IF you read this, what are some of the earliest complete manuscripts of the New Testament? Are they all in Greek and Latin?
Are there any that exist pre-Constantine? (pre-roman) Are there any that exist in Hebrew, or Aramaic?

Please saints, I beg you, don't take this as a backdoor way to engage in the tedious argument of KJV vs everything else.

My confession is that of the Ethiopian eunuch, and I know that its the confession of all of us here: that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

bartle, going back to reading

 2006/10/16 10:46

Joined: 2006/5/22
Posts: 2661
Nottingham, England

 Re: Acts 8:37-I'm putting it back in

I understand your tiredness of the KJV, so I'll ignore it!

Going back to the Ethiopian eunch, he was already reading Isaiah when Philip approached him.

As it was, Philip had been told to go to Gaza.

It says the eunuch had come to Jerusalem to worship. In other words, he already had a knowledge of God, was a worshipper, and had an open heart.

Philip and the eunuch engaged in a dialouge, Philip explaining the passage from Isaiah.

Upon understanding what the scriptures said, the eunuch requested baptism.

Philip questioned him.

'If you believe with all your heart, you may'.

The eunuch's confession 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God'

Then, baptism.

It wasn't the superficial, quick fix that we are into nowadays. The essence of the conversion was TIME.

God bless.

 2006/10/16 11:09Profile

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: Acts 8:37-I'm putting it back in

Ron, IF you read this, what are some of the earliest complete manuscripts of the New Testament? Are they all in Greek and Latin?

When we speak of the manuscripts of the New Testament we are usually referring to the Greek manuscripts. The earliest existing manuscripts are in two forms, [url=]papyrus[/url] and vellum. Papyrus being vegetable matter rots very quickly unless it is in extremely dry conditions. The papyrus manuscripts that have survived are usually scraps of single leaves. The earliest exisiting 'more complete' versions of our New Testament are in Greek 'upper case' (known as Uncials) letters but the papyrus manuscripts are in Greek 'lower case' (known as Cursives or Minuscules).

The Sinai and [url=]Vatican[/url] codices (book like) manuscripts are on vellum and were copied probably in the 3rd or 4th century AD. The papyrus 'scraps' sometimes go back to about 200 AD. Here is an [url=]example[/url].

All these manuscripts are in Koine Greek but there are other manuscripts, not as old, which are in other languages. Most students believe that these were translations from the original Koine Greek texts. Even though these a more recent they can sometimes be useful in tracing how manuscript texts have developed. Some are very old. Here is an article which details some of the data that linguistic scholars work with. This is now almost a hundred years old and is out of date with lots of details but the broad sweep of the article is still useful. [url=]Text and Manuscripts of the New Testament[/url] If you read section 5 it will explain these 'vernacular' or 'translations'.

Here is another article which will trace the history of Bible versions. It is also out of date but again will give you the general picture. [url=]The Story of the Bible by Kenyon.[/url]

Is that enough or do you want more?;-)

btw, I am no expert on these matters although I have studied the topic, off and on, for over 40 years. I should also add that I do not support the conclusions of some of the people quoted above (I am a KJV-preferred man) but these articles will give you a quick introduction to the topic.

Ron Bailey

 2006/10/20 4:43Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy