Acts 8:37 is in my NET Bible

[bgwilkinson]

It's in a text critical note where it belongs.

92 tc A few later MSS (E 36 323 453 945 1739 1891 pc) add, with minor variations, Act 8:37 "He said to him, 'If you believe with your whole heart, you may.' He replied, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'" Verse Act 8:37 is lacking in î45, 74 ‌א‎‏‎ A B C 33 614 vg syp,h co. It is clearly not a part of the original text of Acts. The variant is significant in showing how some in the early church viewed a confession of faith. The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

I sure love the honesty and transparency of the NET Bible.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Acts 8:36-38
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water:
and the eunuch said, See, here is water;
what doth hinder me to be baptized?

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.

And he commanded the chariot to stand still:
and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch;
and he baptized him.

Why does the NETBible omit the three earliest evidences? The sections from Irenaeus, Cyprian and Pontius the Deacon.  How can it be honest to omit the most vital evidences?

This verse is a fantastic example for helping to understand the superiority of the Received Text.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[PappaBear]

Good to see you, Steven.  This is only one of his several attempts at whacking Acts 8:37.  I responded on another further down, "Acts 8:37 is not in the HF Majority text."

Have fun!

Welcome back.

 

[christundivided]

Hi,

Acts 8:36-38
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water:
and the eunuch said, See, here is water;
what doth hinder me to be baptized?

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.

And he commanded the chariot to stand still:
and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch;
and he baptized him.

Why does the NETBible omit the three earliest evidences? The sections from Irenaeus, Cyprian and Pontius the Deacon.  How can it be honest to omit the most vital evidences?

This verse is a fantastic example for helping to understand the superiority of the Received Text.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

The NET foot notes address textual evidence. Not over hyped circumstantial evidence that used by KJVOist to pervert a true understanding of the issue.

I don't expect you to understand this. I'm sure you're just passing through.

By the way, how's you're relationship going to many of the KJVOist you claim fellowship with....???? Everything going well? Do you feel loved and supported. I noticed that kiddycub's got you're back. That's not saying much at all. He does the same things. When he's faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he just disappears. He then later shows up and claims "victory". He's so smart. He's such a KJVO nut.

 

[christundivided]

Good to see you, Steven.  This is only one of his several attempts at whacking Acts 8:37.  I responded on another further down, "Acts 8:37 is not in the HF Majority text."

Have fun!

Welcome back.

So much for not bidding "Godspeed" to a heretic. Its funny how you KJVOist stick together. Its worse than Al Gore and Bill Clinton dealing with Monica.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Its not missing...... Acts 8:37 was added long after Luke wrote it. The evidence is overwhelming.

Could you give your dating on this.  When is this "long after"?  And how do you know?

Thanks.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[christundivided]

Hi,

Its not missing...... Acts 8:37 was added long after Luke wrote it. The evidence is overwhelming.

Could you give your dating on this.  When is this "long after"?  And how do you know?

Thanks.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

Some time after Luke wrote Acts and before the first actual recorded reference to the verse. I have no exact date. Neither do you. There is no such concrete evidence. All you have are the surviving texts themselves and some vague references that may or may not actually reference the verse. The texts that include the verse are hundreds of years removed from the original production of Acts. Even several Beza texts exclude the verse. As does the Syriac (which your buddy Kenney lied about), The Ethiopian and the Alexandrian texts.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Some time after Luke wrote Acts and before the first actual recorded reference to the verse. I have no exact date.

You specifically said:

"long after Luke wrote it". 

500 years? 300 years?  10 years?

Your phrase, so how about your best estimate.

We can go into evidence claims separately. 

============================

Although one thing stands out, I would like your documentation on the Theodore Beza editions.  Or are you only talking about Greek manuscripts he used?  (Which of course would be no surprise.)

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

The texts that include the verse are hundreds of years removed from the original production of Acts.

Similarly, we could say: "The texts that omit the verse are hundreds of years removed from the original production of Acts". 

About 200 years for one, and then 300 for the dynamic duo.  And localized in an area and textline that is now understood to have a large number of scribal omissions, as pointed out in studies, especially the one by James Ronald Royse.  The Vaticanus omission is simply the outgrowth of the early Alexandrian line omission.

Summary
The Alexandrian line without the verse was without the verse in the 200s. Agreed.

On the flip-side, the Old Latin line was with the verse was in the 200s.

And the ECW evidences as early as the 2nd century are probative for ms inclusion, in the Bibles of the 2nd century. Just as early as any exclusion.  (And Cyprian, eg. worked with both Greek and Latin mss.)

Have you actually read the sections from Irenaeus, Cyprian and Pontius the Deacon?  By what type of Hortian fog could you ever refer to  direct verse references from church leaders from 175 AD- 250 AD as "overhyped circumstantial evidence". Textually, that is  the comment of a village idiot. 

To be fair, though, I will say that Tertullian, mentioned in the other thread, is only on the level of a possible allusion, and is better omitted.

Returning especially to Irenaeus and Cyprian:

The deceiving NETBible leaves out ALL the ECW evidence because if they include any, the cat would be out of the bag.  Philip Wesley Comfort deceived even more blatantly, only including the minimal ECW indicated by some as supporting omission. Metzger played his own games here. Deception in presenting evidences is just par for the course for those in the Hortian fog..

As does the Syriac (which your buddy Kenney lied about), The Ethiopian and the Alexandrian texts.

Since the Harklean Syriac (reflecting the Greek text of about 600 AD, one source says the margin) and the Ethiopic-TT (Takla Haymanot) are said to have the verse, should we call you a liar?

Will Kinney placed the Peshitta with the verse because of the George Lamsa inclusion, without brackets or any conditional indication. And it just so happens that (afaik) this is the only verse out of 8,000 in the NT where Lamsa diverges from the Peshitta source manuscripts in this manner. (If you know of any other, share away.)

And, thus checking, Will will simply update his article, since he is always seeking to have his information accurate.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hi,

Acts 8:36-38
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water:
and the eunuch said, See, here is water;
what doth hinder me to be baptized?

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.

And he commanded the chariot to stand still:
and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch;
and he baptized him.

Why does the NETBible omit the three earliest evidences? The sections from Irenaeus, Cyprian and Pontius the Deacon.  How can it be honest to omit the most vital evidences?

This verse is a fantastic example for helping to understand the superiority of the Received Text.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

Steven said:

Why does the NETBible omit the three earliest evidences? The sections from Irenaeus, Cyprian and Pontius the Deacon.  How can it be honest to omit the most vital evidences?

Quotes from Church Fathers do not scripture make. NET cites scripture manuscripts.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Quotes from Church Fathers do not scripture make. NET cites scripture manuscripts.

So when Daniel Wallace and the NETBible cite Cyprian to support the change of the pure Bible:

Mark 7:9 
And he said unto them,
Full well ye reject the commandment of God,
that ye may keep your own tradition.

To instead read "set up your tradition"...

They have not learned "bg's axiom"?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[christundivided]

Have you actually read the sections from Irenaeus, Cyprian and Pontius the Deacon?  By what type of Hortian fog could you ever refer to  direct verse references from church leaders from 175 AD- 250 AD as "overhyped circumstantial evidence". Textually, that is  the comment of a village idiot. 

There Avery goes again.

Yes, I have read them. In fact, I would LOVE for you to prove that Irenaeus directly quoted Acts 8:37. Its simple. Just take Irenaeus's words and lay them right beside the TR of Acts 8:37.

Do you see any differences? IF you DO. (which you will) then why would you accept a corrupt reproduction of Acts 8:37?..... < I don't expect a answer here.

The deceiving NETBible leaves out ALL the ECW evidence because if they include any, the cat would be out of the bag.  Philip Wesley Comfort deceived even more blatantly, only including the minimal ECW indicated by some as supporting omission. Metzger played his own games here. Deception in presenting evidences is just par for the course for those in the Hortian fog.[/color].

I have already explained it to you. There is nothing deceiving about the notes. There is no "cat" to be let out the bag.

Will Kinney placed the Peshitta with the verse because of the George Lamsa inclusion, without brackets or any conditional indication. And it just so happens that (afaik) this is the only verse out of 8,000 in the NT where Lamsa diverges from the Peshitta source manuscripts in this manner. (If you know of any other, share away.)

I'm glad you admit that Kenney lied about it. I can't help neither you nor Kenney, could care less about actually research anything. You make SO many assumptions.... its really comical.

And, thus checking, Will will simply update his article, since he is always seeking to have his information accurate.

I'm sure he will. The fact that he obviously "lied" doesn't really mean anything does it?

You guys pretend to be scholars. You foolishly engage learned men that are far superior in textual analysis. You then claim THEY LIED, purposely and deceitfully, then when you're PROVEN to be wrong........ Its just a simple "mistake".

Both of you are horribly dishonest.

Since the Harklean Syriac (reflecting the Greek text of about 600 AD, one source says the margin) and the Ethiopic-TT (Takla Haymanot) are said to have the verse, should we call you a liar?

Here you go again. Being dishonest. The Harklean is partly based on the Philoxenian.... both being later REVISIONS. They are not THE SYRIAC.....Especially.... no more than YOUR stupid PCE claims to be the real KJV without revision.

Why do you do such things? Can't you see the dishonesty in your methods. On one hand you claims works like the "PCE" isn't a revision and then you claim a "late revised" translation of the Syriac is actually the true "Syriac"?

What a bunch of dishonest HACKS. You have referenced several sources that clearly state that Act 8:37 is not found in the Aramaic texts.

Either way. Provide the evidence that Acts 8:37 is in the Philoxenian and the Harklean.

Both the Philoxenian and the Harklean translation clearly show Byzantine influence. They do not exclusively embrace earlier manuscripts. How about you get Kenney to include that in his article? I won't hold my breath.

the Ethiopic-TT (Takla Haymanot) are said to have the verse

I know why you used the phrase "are said". Its because you can't "google" to confirm such evidence. Its interesting to note that you're talking about a 13 century work. Will you include this in Kenney's article as well?

Provide the evidence.

 

[christundivided]

Hi,

Quotes from Church Fathers do not scripture make. NET cites scripture manuscripts.

So when Daniel Wallace and the NETBible cite Cyprian to support the change of the pure Bible:

Mark 7:9 
And he said unto them,
Full well ye reject the commandment of God,
that ye may keep your own tradition.

To instead read "set up your tradition"...

They have not learned "bg's axiom"?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

Here is the exact note.

The translation here follows the reading στήσητε (sthshte, “set up”) found in D W Θ Ã‹1 28 565 2542 it sys,p Cyp. The majority of mss here read τηρήσητε (thrhsete; א A L Ë13 33 Ï co) or τηρῆτε (thrhte; B 2427), both translated “keep.” It is hard to know which reading is best: On the one hand, τηρήσητε/τηρῆτε has much stronger external support, but στήσητε is a more difficult reading. What makes “keep” suspect is that it appears in two different forms, suggesting independent alterations of a difficult reading. Further, scribes may have been influenced by the preceding “commandment of God” to change the text toward “keep” (TCGNT 81), a common enough expression (cf. Matt 19:17; John 14:15; 1 Tim 6:1; 1 John 5:3; Rev 14:12). Thus, the more difficult reading is “set up.” Also, the more natural opposite of “reject” (ἀθεῖτε [aqeite], literally “you set aside”) is “set up.” However, the Western reading may have been influenced by Exod 6:4 or Heb 10:9, but this likelihood seems remote. Thus, “set up” is more likely to be the original wording of Mark here.

Can you point to the Cyprian reference in question?

By the way.... Daniel Wallace didn't exclusively translate the NET Bible. It was translated by a team of translators and various books were split among them. If you really knew what you were talking about. You wouldn't have said such nonsense. I suspect you really don't know how footnotes work.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Look at "Cyp".

When a person makes an understandable error, and promptly corrects the error when it is shown to him, only a railing accuser would say that they lied.

Daniel Wallace is the senior New Testament editor for the NETBible.  It is silly to try to take the NT notes away from his responsibility.  Granted, he has played a shell game about corrections, by saying that this is no longer his responsibility.

Thus, NETBible blunders and errors, as in the ending of Mark, do not get corrected.

Ethiopic-TT (Takla Haymanot) is from the LaParola apparatus, which is generally very reliable on ms entries (a bit less so on ECW, since all the Critical Text apparatuses have deficiencies there and LaParola works off of the CT apparatuses).

There is no definition for "the Syriac". I agree 100% that the Harklean is far less significant than the traditional Peshitta in terms of textual history. As does Will Kinney (note the spelling).  I was just showing how easy it would be to accuse you of lying, by your deficient usage, since "the Syriac" is not homogeneous.

> You then claim THEY LIED, purposely and deceitfully

Nahh. That is your style.

The NETBible and Metzger blunders and diversions and misrepresentations are not purposeful and deceitful lying.  They just learn word-parsing and deceitful presentation of evidences as part of the modern seminarian Hortian approach.  It comes with the turf with textus corruptus apologetics.

You will not see me accusing men like Wallace and Metzger of lying, or even James White or James Price or Fenton Hort. I try to stay with the proper use of the term liar and lying.

In fact, I would LOVE for you to prove that Irenaeus directly quoted Acts 8:37.

The real question is whether their quotes shows that Acts 8:37 was in their Bible.

Scrivener, who mistakenly opposed Acts 8:37 authenticity, wrote accurately about the ECW:

Irenaeus, who wrote in Gaul in the second century, recognised it without hesitation, as did Cyprian in the third century, Jerome and Augustine in the fourth. - Six Lectures, 1875,  p. 73.

If you agree with the accurate statement from Scrivener, then you are moving away from your earlier village idiot approach, and I will instead commend your willingness to learn and understand.

Planned ahead: more on the ECW, more on the compelling internal evidence that Acts 8:37 is pure scripture. Let us start with the Cyprian reference:

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 in all thine heart, thou mayest.
- Cyprian (200-258 AD) Treatises I:1:43

Acts 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.

Do you agree that Acts 8:37 was in the Bible of Cyprian? 

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[christundivided]

Hi,

Look at "Cyp".

What's the reference in Cyp? I didn't just ask if Cyp existed. I asked what was referenced. Can you elaborate?

When a person makes an understandable error, and promptly corrects the error when it is shown to him, only a railing accuser would say that they lied.

I explained myself very clearly. Kenney knew he was lying. If he didn't, then he is utterly incompetent. He made no distinctions. NONE. Even you, with a little "googling"... know better... (and that's not saying much)

Daniel Wallace is the senior New Testament editor for the NETBible.  It is silly to try to take the NT notes away from his responsibility.  Granted, he has played a shell game about corrections, by saying that this is no longer his responsibility.

I didn't. I explained the source of the notes.

Question? Why is it you guys point to how holy the translators of the KJV were..... and then distance yourselves from the one responsible for their work?

Ethiopic-TT (Takla Haymanot) is from the LaParola apparatus, which is generally very reliable on ms entries (a bit less so on ECW, since all the Critical Text apparatuses have deficiencies there and LaParola works off of the CT apparatuses).

I asked for evidence. You haven't reviewed the evidence. You don't HAVE ACCESS TO THE EVIDENCE.

There is no definition for "the Syriac". I agree 100% that the Harklean is far less significant than the traditional Peshitta in terms of textual history, I was just showing how easy it would be to accuse you of lying, by your deficient usage, since "the Syriac" is not homogeneous.

Sure there are. When someone talks of the "Syriac" they are not talking about a 6 century translation. You know this. I wish I could remember that word you liked to use so much when someone is squirming.... I think it perfectly fits you at the moment.

The NETBible and Metzger blunders and diversions and misrepresentations are not purposeful and deceitful lying.  They just learn word-parsing and deceitful presentation of evidences as part of the modern seminarian Hortian approach. 

You will not see me accusing men like Wallace and Metzger of lying, or even James White or James Price or Fenton Hort. I try to stay with the proper use of the term liar and lying.

Kenney does it all the time. You admire him. You may not use the word "liar" but you imply the same things.

FSSL.... I think we need to bring back that thread from the old forum... .the one filled with Avery's accusations.

 

[christundivided]

The real question is whether their quote shows that Acts 8:37 was in their Bible.

Scrivener, who mistakenly opposed Acts 8:37 authenticity, wrote accurately about the ECW:

Irenaeus, who wrote in Gaul in the second century, recognised it without hesitation, as did Cyprian in the third century, Jerome and Augustine in the fourth. - Six Lectures, 1875,  p. 73.

If you agree with the accurate statement from Scrivener, then you are moving away from your earlier village idiot approach, and I will instead commend your willingness to learn and understand

You're deflecting. I asked for you to prove that Irenaeus directly quoted the verse. I reasonably asked you to lay Irenaeus's words right beside those of the TR.

Instead.... You appeal to Scrivener

In a few a posts, you will reject everything Scrivener has to do with the KJV. You guys can't keep your deception straight. You're all over the place.

Here, lets try again. Show me how Irenaeus directly quoted the TR rendering of Acts 8:37.... Put up or shut up.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Rather two worthless rambling posts.
One point of note.

When someone talks of the "Syriac" they are not talking about a 6 century translation.

When someone refers to the Syriac Peshitta, they are talking about a particular edition that probably is 2nd century, maybe 3rd, although some date it as late as the 4th. 

"The Syriac" is rarely used.  Simply because can refer to the two Old Syriac manuscripts, the Peshitta, the Philoxenian and Harklean, other evidences like Ephraem, printed editions and all or some of the above. 

Will Kinney is very happy and quick to learn, and to correct the error on his page, which was quite understandable since it is, afaik, the only such significant textual modification by Lamsa away from Peshitta manuscripts in the whole New Testament. 

You should learn from Will's example.  Instead of being a railing accuser, you should try to make cogent arguments about the evidences.  The fact that you noted the error is appreciated, Will will correct it, and we move on.

And I asked you to comment on the Cyprian reference. Looking at his quote, do you agree that Acts 8:37 was in the Bible of Cyprian?

You do understand, I hope, that there is often a complementary and corroborative aspect to ECW references, especially in the Ante-Nicene period which has less full quoting of verses than the later periods.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[christundivided]

"The Syriac" is rarely used.  Simply because can refer to the two Old Syriac manuscripts, the Peshitta, the Philoxenian and Harklean, other evidences like Ephraem, printed editions and all or some of the above. 

You're being silly. Even Kenny used the term "The Syriac". You're really.... .really...losing it. You've been caught in a deception and you refuse to acknowledge it. He did not reference the Peshitta or use to term "Old Syriac".

Contrary to your claims.... Its only been a recent develop. (The last 2 centuries) that or editions have been considered to be part of the Syriac tradition. Some accept this. Some don't. Either way, Its not something that been readily accept as being "The Syriac"

Will Kinney is very happy and quick to learn, and to correct the error on his page, which was quite understandable since it is, afaik, the only such significant textual modification by Lamsa away from Peshitta manuscripts in the whole New Testament. 

Sure. Sure. I'm so glad you're correcting this error you've both believed for many years. Yeah... I hear you.

You should learn from Will's example.  Instead of being a railing accuser, you should try to make cogent arguments about the evidences.  The fact that you noted the error is appreciated, Will will correct it, and we move on.

Oh my....what reasonableness. I don't expect that to last long.

And I asked you to comment on the Cyprian reference. Looking at his quote, is there any doubt at all that Acts 8:37 was in the Bible of Cyprian?

"Bible of Cyprian?" Never heard of it.....

Where?

 

[PappaBear]

In fact, I would LOVE for you to prove that Irenaeus directly quoted Acts 8:37. Its simple. Just take Irenaeus's words and lay them right beside the TR of Acts 8:37.

Do you see any differences? IF you DO. (which you will) then why would you accept a corrupt reproduction of Acts 8:37?..... < I don't expect a answer here.

And why should you expect a genuine answer when you only reframe the question?  First, you are all about arguing against Acts 8:37, making many claims such as "Acts 8:37 was added long after Luke wrote it. The evidence is overwhelming."  Now, when presented clear evidence that it existed long before you claim, you alter the question to particular wording matching the King James.

Now, he has posted Acts 8:37 (KJV) alongside Cyprian.  In the context of Cyprian's remarks, is there enough verbiage for you to recognize that it was in whatever Bible he referenced as authoritative?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

> Papabear
And why should you expect a genuine answer when you only reframe the question?  First, you are all about arguing against Acts 8:37, making many claims such as "Acts 8:37 was added long after Luke wrote it. The evidence is overwhelming."  Now, when presented clear evidence that it existed long before you claim, you alter the question to particular wording matching the King James

They call that moving the goal posts.  A virtual field-flip.

> Now, he has posted Acts 8:37 (KJV) alongside Cyprian.  In the context of Cyprian's remarks, is there enough verbiage for you to recognize that it was in whatever Bible he referenced as authoritative?

Sure. Sure. I'm so glad you're correcting this error you've both believed for many years.

Here is an actual lie from cud.  I've posted on the various forums, FFF, TC-Alternate and others, for years on Acts 8:37, discussing specific evidences.  And I never thought the Peshitta included the verse.

The fact that you pointed out the error in Will's paper was helpful, and appreciated.  You would do better to leave it at that, rather than embarrass yourself by lying outright, just for attempted politics.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery