why is my bible missing acts 8:37?!?!

[Tintin]

Dont diss' the colors...

The red letters!

[video=youtube;o11wY_SAz90]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o11wY_SAz90[/video]

Pages filled with a holy message
Sealed with a kiss from heaven
On a scroll long ago
Phrases, words that were bound together
Now have the power to sever
Like a sword evermore

Heed the words divinely spoken
May your restless heart be broken
Let the supernatural take hold

[chorus]
There is love in the red letters
There is truth in the red letters
There is hope for the hopeless
Peace and forgiveness
There is life in the red letters
In the red letters

One man came to reveal a mystery
Changing the course of history
Made the claim he was God
Ageless, born of a virgin Mary
Spoke with a voice that carried through the years
It's persevered

Heed the words divinely spoken
May your restless heart be broken
Let the supernatural take hold

[repeat chorus]

[bridge]
What You say moves me, revelation, come and take me
The more I look (the more I look) the more I see (the more I see)
The Word of God (the Word Of God) is what I need

Oh yeah, oh yeah
Yeah, it's the book of love
Yeah, yeah, yeah
It's the book of love
That moves

[repeat chorus]

(Waitin' for you)
(Comin' to you)
(Do you see it?)
(I believe it)

Speak to me, breathe in me new life [x2]
Let Him in your heart [x4]

 

[posthuman]

for my part, i think Angela's right. if what i've read can be trusted, what we number as Acts 8:37 (verses and chapters weren't added to the bible until at least 13th century, right?) doesn't appear in any manuscript older than AD 500-600. and doesn't appear in many manuscripts younger.

just looking at the verse, and the context, and thinking about some of the baptism threads we've had here on the forum, it does make sense that this is an addition by some scribe who didn't care for the sanctity of the text as much for preserving theological argument. do we see anywhere else someone putting restrictions on whether a person could be baptized or not? does it make sense that Philip would ask him this after he had just stopped the caravan wanting to be baptized, and had been talking with him about the scripture?

the honest answer is like what i stated: early manuscripts don't have Philip withholding baptism until the eunuch states that he believes. translators responsible for the modern English versions took this into account and left it out. some put it in brackets, some put it as footnotes, some just leave it out altogether. so people who have made it their life's work to form a reliable and accurate rendition as close as possible to the original manuscripts are convinced that this in pariticular is not part of the original text. they have access to thousands more manuscripts than the KJV translators did.

take that for whatever it is. it should not have any effect on your salvation and God's purpose for you in Christ - how many tens of thousands heard and believed with no bible at all? before the NT was even all written? all the Eunuch had was Isaiah, the Spirit of God, and someone to help him understand.

 

[Jason0047]

Think about this from the devil's perspective or as if there is a spiritual war going on right now. Does it not make sense that the devil would attack God's Word? No? Also, if you were to do a side by side comparison, one can easily see for themselves that the changes in Modern Translations are not for the better, but they are for the worse. This is not a coincidence. Granted, I still use Modern Translations to update the Early Modern English in the KJV, but that does not mean I put my entire faith in this Newer Versions because they have many problems within them.

 

[posthuman]

Think about this from the devil's perspective or as if there is a spiritual war going on right now. Does it not make sense that the devil would attack God's Word? No? Also, if you were to do a side by side comparison, one can easily see for themselves that the changes in Modern Translations are not for the better, but they are for the worse. This is not a coincidence.

sure, but the side-by-side needs to be done with the most accurate Greek & Hebrew texts available, not with the KJV, or any other particular English translation.

i wish i could speak from the point of view of being able to read Greek and having studied all these available texts, but i can't. . . . yet. maybe one day, Lord willing.

 

[Jason0047]

sure, but the side-by-side needs to be done with the most accurate Greek & Hebrew texts available, not with the KJV.

First, nobody truly speaks or writes Biblical Greek. For don't you think Paul would correct people today on their Greek? Second, You are going off a dictionary created by James Strong and his friends. They were not inspired by God and they only provide you with a multiple choice choose your own adventure type Bible.

If God did not preserve His Word today, then His Word would have failed.

 

[crossnote]

Talk about alot of unChrist like responses to a simple question. Besides, there is no such thing as trolls. I just see people. I do not understand when people say that. It is cruel and unloving. All people need Jesus Christ.

Anyways, Acts 8:37 is supposed to be in your Bible. Modern Versions can be helpful in updating the Early Modern English (1600's English) of the King James Bible, but they can also be a problem, too. Just do a keyword search at Google ....

KJV vs. Modern Translations


​

And then you will see a ton of elimated verses and twisted verses that are not for the better, but for the worse. Yes, I still use Modern Tranlsations because they help to update the old 1600's English lingo. But I still use the KJV as my final word of authority, though. Hence, why I use a KJV vs. NLT parallel Bible when I read a hard cover Bible. For the reason why this verse is not in your Bible is because Satan hates the Word of God. So he seeks to twist and eliminate what is in God's Word. This is not surprising because the devil was doing this even in the Garden of Eden.

Sure, blame satan on matters we are ignorant about. What proof do you have that the discovery of additional manuscripts is a work of satan? Did he hide them under the archeologists spade or is that just your opinion?

 

[posthuman]

* paraphrases like the NLT and the MSG etc. seem like more of a satanic attack than honest-to-goodness scholarship.

to me, anyway.

but hey, the bible i have on my phone and the leather-bound i read from most often are both AKJV. so, whatever that means. i think it means i like the archaic language. whenver i have difficulty with a verse i go to the interwebz and study up.

 

[crossnote]

Think about this from the devil's perspective or as if there is a spiritual war going on right now. Does it not make sense that the devil would attack God's Word? No? Also, if you were to do a side by side comparison, one can easily see for themselves that the changes in Modern Translations are not for the better, but they are for the worse. This is not a coincidence. Granted, I still use Modern Translations to update the Early Modern English in the KJV, but that does not mean I put my entire faith in this Newer Versions because they have many problems within them.

need proof. These types of comments need to be filed in the Conspiracy Forum.

 

[Jason0047]

Sure, blame satan on matters we are ignorant about. What proof do you have that the discovery of additional manuscripts is a work of satan? Did he hide them under the archeologists spade or is that just your opinion?

The devil corrupted the Word of God in the Garden. Why on Earth do you think he changed his tactics?

 

[Jason0047]

need proof. These types of comments need to be filed in the Conspiracy Forum.

So you don't believe the devil exists and you don't believe he is not up to his same old bag of tricks like in the Garden? The Scriptures say, there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Jason0047]

The devil corrupted the Word of God in the Garden. Why on Earth do you think he changed his tactics?

I mean, he did the same thing when he tempted Jesus. He eliminated from Scripture when he quoted it to the Lord.

Huh, wonder why the devil did that?

 

[DesiredHaven]

The red letters!

[video=youtube;o11wY_SAz90]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o11wY_SAz90[/video]

Pages filled with a holy message
Sealed with a kiss from heaven
On a scroll long ago
Phrases, words that were bound together
Now have the power to sever
Like a sword evermore

Heed the words divinely spoken
May your restless heart be broken
Let the supernatural take hold

[chorus]
There is love in the red letters
There is truth in the red letters
There is hope for the hopeless
Peace and forgiveness
There is life in the red letters
In the red letters

One man came to reveal a mystery
Changing the course of history
Made the claim he was God
Ageless, born of a virgin Mary
Spoke with a voice that carried through the years
It's persevered

Heed the words divinely spoken
May your restless heart be broken
Let the supernatural take hold

[repeat chorus]

[bridge]
What You say moves me, revelation, come and take me
The more I look (the more I look) the more I see (the more I see)
The Word of God (the Word Of God) is what I need

Oh yeah, oh yeah
Yeah, it's the book of love
Yeah, yeah, yeah
It's the book of love
That moves

[repeat chorus]

(Waitin' for you)
(Comin' to you)
(Do you see it?)
(I believe it)

Speak to me, breathe in me new life [x2]
Let Him in your heart [x4]

Too funny, tis true, There is love in the red letters



I am comforted that there are people like me out there

 

[posthuman]

First, nobody truly speaks or writes Biblical Greek. For don't you think Paul would correct people today on their Greek? Second, You are going off a dictionary created by James Strong and his friends. They were not inspired by God and they only provide you with a multiple choice choose your own adventure type Bible.

If God did not preserve His Word today, then His Word would have failed.

are mr. strong and his pals less honorable than mr james and his friends?

i did read on the forum a year or so ago how that strong's isn't necessarily the best reference, news to me, and took it to heart. so i look at other sources too for definitions. like i said, i would love to go to seminary someday and be properly taught. but i don't want to preach or teach - so i feel like it's only for myself, and maybe that's not the best reason to go. but maybe that'll change sometime.

my point is that the manuscripts are more of a guide than an english translation made 1500 years after the fact, that's all. is there some reason teh KJV was immune to ataque satánico but the NIV wasn't? Satan not appear until 17th century? no?
or we can talk about unicorns.

 

[posthuman]

I mean, he did the same thing when he tempted Jesus. He eliminated from Scripture when he quoted it to the Lord.

Huh, wonder why the devil did that?

yeah, so.. the NLT -- totally and unabashedly not at all literal translation. completely paraphrase, not faithful to the text but to the "translator's" idea of what it means. i.e. a man in the middle of the word and it's transmission to us, inserting his own opinions.

how does that strike you?

to me, more of an attack than making an honest attempt at to-the-best-of-ability, given available resources, faithfully transcribing what the apostles wrote. it sure gives more opportunity for corrupting the text, IMHO.

 

[Nick01]

Think about this from the devil's perspective or as if there is a spiritual war going on right now. Does it not make sense that the devil would attack God's Word? No? Also, if you were to do a side by side comparison, one can easily see for themselves that the changes in Modern Translations are not for the better, but they are for the worse. This is not a coincidence. Granted, I still use Modern Translations to update the Early Modern English in the KJV, but that does not mean I put my entire faith in this Newer Versions because they have many problems within them.

If the devil were honestly behind these omissions (and let's assume for the sake of discussion that they are in face omissions from the original text, not additions to the orignal text as I believe), then he did a terrible job. The kinds of differences we're talking about fall far short of the kinds of changes you would need to actually alter doctrinal positions.

 

[Jason0047]

are mr. strong and his pals less honorable than mr james and his friends?

i did read on the forum a year or so ago how that strong's isn't necessarily the best reference, news to me, and took it to heart. so i look at other sources too for definitions. like i said, i would love to go to seminary someday and be properly taught. but i don't want to preach or teach - so i feel like it's only for myself, and maybe that's not the best reason to go. but maybe that'll change sometime.

my point is that the manuscripts are more of a guide than an english translation made 1500 years after the fact, that's all. is there some reason teh KJV was immune to ataque satánico but the NIV wasn't? Satan not appear until 17th century? no?
or we can talk about unicorns.

The men who worked on the Bible had double checked each other's work. There were 47 I believe that actually worked on the KJV and they were in groups who each checked each other's work. Strong and his friends really did not do that. They were not creating a translation but creating multiple definitions and meanings for a particular Greek word. They were not preserving God's Word but they were just offering possible definitions. God is not the author of confusion. He is not going to give you multiple meanings to what He is saying. God's Word cannot be broken. There is not many words of God but only one Word of God.

Actually, Jesus had a problem with the scholar or scribes of his day. In fact, he said, BEWARE of the Scribes. Scribes are scholars.

 

[Jason0047]

If the devil were honestly behind these omissions (and let's assume for the sake of discussion that they are in face omissions from the original text, not additions to the orignal text as I believe), then he did a terrible job. The kinds of differences we're talking about fall far short of the kinds of changes you would need to actually alter doctrinal positions.

It's just dumb to suggest that the devil is not behind the corruptions in many Bibles today when the Bible makes it clear over and over that he has done it thru out Biblical History. So no. I am not buying your theory. I choose to believe God's Word instead. Oh, and yes. Truth and doctrine has been changed or altered in key passages. I do not get a complete teaching on the Condemnation because Modern Translations have corrupted Romans 8:1. I do not have one clear defense of the Trinity without 1 John 5:7.

 

[Nick01]

The men who worked on the Bible had double checked each other's work. There were 47 I believe that actually worked on the KJV and they were in groups who each checked each other's work. Strong and his friends really did not do that. They were not creating a translation but creating multiple definitions and meanings for a particular Greek word. They were not preserving God's Word but they were just offering possible definitions. God is not the author of confusion. He is not going to give you multiple meanings to what He is saying. God's Word cannot be broken. There is not many words of God but only one Word of God.

Actually, Jesus had a problem with the scholar or scribes of his day. In fact, he said, BEWARE of the Scribes. Scribes are scholars.

Who do you think wrote the KJV, Jason? What kind of men compiled the various versions of the Textus Receptus? Surely you are not saying that ALL scholars are evil?

 

[Jason0047]

Who do you think wrote the KJV, Jason? What kind of men compiled the various versions of the Textus Receptus? Surely you are not saying that ALL scholars are evil?

That is up to Christ to decide about every scholar. But Jesus said beware of the Scribes and I believe Him. Anyways, I don't want to get into the Translation debate with you.

 

[posthuman]

The men who worked on the Bible had double checked each other's work. There were 47 I believe that actually worked on the KJV and they were in groups who each checked each other's work. Strong and his friends really did not do that. They were not creating a translation but creating multiple definitions and meanings for a particular Greek word. They were not preserving God's Word but they were just offering possible definitions. God is not the author of confusion. He is not going to give you multiple meanings to what He is saying. God's Word cannot be broken. There is not many words of God but only one Word of God.

Actually, Jesus had a problem with the scholar or scribes of his day. In fact, he said, BEWARE of the Scribes. Scribes are scholars.

what, those 47 weren't scribes?

strong went by how words were translated in the KJV, so . . . where are we going with this?