Acts 8:37 is in my NET Bible

[christundivided]

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?

No, I was arguing the point he made against the NET Bible translation notes. I can't help you don't understand. Follow the discussion. Don't pretend you know why I did, what I did.

He even mentioned a Cyprian Bible....... maybe you can provide a reference he refuses to provide.

 

[christundivided]

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

If you've posted it SO MUCH... Then by all means... share the post where you pointed out that Acts 8:37 isn't in the Aramaic text? Just one reference would suffice.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Your the one who lied about my understanding.  I have lots of posts on Acts 8:37, you show where I ever claimed Acts 8:37 was in the Peshitta, or even any Syriac text or commentary.

e.g. On FFF there are many posts. Also on TC-Alternate, here is an example discussing Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine:

TC-Alternate-list] Acts 8:37 - Tertullian, Cyprian, Ireneaus
Steven Avery - December 27, 2007
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/1683

Here is a discussion of Byzantine manuscript evidence, where the Peshitta is referenced en passant.

[TC-Alternate-list] Acts 8:37 - verse than can be a lens to understanding the textual discussion
Steven Avery - August 16, 2010
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/2010

Here is a discussion about similarities between Acts 8:37 and the heavenly witnesses

[TC-Alternate-list] heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37 - Bengel, Burgon, Scrivener consider the sister verses
Steven Avery - July 6, 2012
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/5072

Here is a post on textualcriticism with some more ECW references, and I point out that the Hilary reference is missing in the apparatus.

[textualcriticism] Acts 8:37 - early church writer references
Steven Avery - Dec 31, 2007
http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/3494

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[christundivided]

Hi,

Your the one who lied about my understanding.  I have lots of posts on Acts 8:37, you show where I ever claimed Acts 8:37 was in the Peshitta, or even any Syriac text or commentary.

e.g. On FFF there are many posts. Also on TC-Alternate, here is an example discussing Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine:

TC-Alternate-list] Acts 8:37 - Tertullian, Cyprian, Ireneaus
Steven Avery - December 27, 2007
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/1683

Here is a discussion of Byzantine manuscript evidence, where the Peshitta is referenced en passant.

[TC-Alternate-list] Acts 8:37 - verse than can be a lens to understanding the textual discussion
Steven Avery - August 16, 2010
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/2010

Here is a discussion about similarities between Acts 8:37 and the heavenly witnesses

[TC-Alternate-list] heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37 - Bengel, Burgon, Scrivener consider the sister verses
Steven Avery - July 6, 2012
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/5072

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

Man..... what dishonesty. Here.... I'll try one more time. Show me one place that you acknowledge that The Syriac doesn't have Acts 8:37. Claiming its there and acknowledging its not there.... are two separate things. You KJVOist deal in half truths and misdirection. Nothing you've posted for reference has such an acknowledgement there. If you claim it does, then include the quote. Just don't post a link. I did a search through your references and its not there.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

You really do post like a village idiot.  If I thought the Peshitta, or the Diatessaron, or any such early evidence was a support for my Acts 8:37 writings, it would have been given as such a support when discussing Acts 8:37 manuscripts and/or ECW.  As was done with Old Latin manuscripts. In my dozens of Acts 8:37 posts on FFF, CARM, BVDB, TC-Alternate, TextualCriticism and other forums. (And I have also posted on the Peshitta forums.)  Over the years, I probably read and understood the lack of Acts 8:37 in the Peshitta manuscripts over a dozen times, in studying the heavenly witnesses, in study Aramaic primacy claims, in studying Acts 8:37 and as studying Acts 8:37 as a sister verse to the heavenly witnesses, and in studying the Syriac printed edition history with Tremellius and Gutbier and others.

Cud, you were simply a liar in claiming that I thought the Peshitta had the verse. I have no burden of proof, you simply spoke a cud-style fabrication of convenience.  And you have no integrity at all, by which you would simply retract the accusation (preferably with an apology).

And note, I rarely call anyone a liar.  Here, you are such a brazen liar that I have no hesitation in using the term.

You properly pointed out an error in Will's paper.  He was contacted, and it may already be fixed.  Good enough. Then your destroy any credibility or good will by lying outright.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[christundivided]

Hi,

You really do post like a village idiot.  If I thought the Peshitta, or the Diatessaron, or any such early evidence was a support for my Acts 8:37 writings, it would have been given as such a support when discussing Acts 8:37 manuscripts and/or ECW.  As was done with Old Latin manuscripts. In my dozens of Acts 8:37 posts on FFF, CARM, BVDB, TC-Alternate, TextualCriticism and other forums. (And I have also posted on the Peshitta forums.)  Over the years, I probably read and understood the lack of Acts 8:37 in the Peshitta manuscripts over a dozen times, in studying the heavenly witnesses, in study Aramaic primacy claims, in studying Acts 8:37 and as studying Acts 8:37 as a sister verse to the heavenly witnesses, and in studying the Syriac printed edition history with Tremellius and Gutbier and others.

Cud, you were simply a liar in claiming that I thought the Peshitta had the verse. I have no burden of proof, you simply spoke a cud-style fabrication of convenience.  And you have no integrity at all, by which you would simply retract the accusation (preferably with an apology).

And note, I rarely call anyone a liar.  Here, you are such a brazen liar that I have no hesitation in using the term.

You properly pointed out an error in Will's paper.  He was contacted, and it may already be fixed.  Good enough. Then your destroy any credibility or good will by lying outright.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

I'll ask one more time.... show me just one reference where you acknowledge the Peshitta does not contain Acts 8:37.  I will remind you again that claiming it contains the verse and acknowledging it doesn't are two different things. The fact your have never openly acknowledged such..... proves you are dishonest? You only deal in half truths and conjecture. You KJVOists attempt to hide any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs.

Let me give you a honest example. John Gill openly acknowledged The Syriac does not contain the verse. However, he argues for its inclusion.  This is being honest with the evidence. Something you know nothing about. Nothing.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Cud, you are the brazen liar who claimed that I thought for years that the Peshitta contains Acts 8:37.  Since I am familiar with Gill, and Tremellius and Gutbier and others, and wrote extensively on the topic of Acts 8:37 evidences, and never once anywhere in the world claimed that the Peshitta contained Acts 8:37, you have the burden to support or retract your claim. You claim to mind-read my beliefs, without even a smidgen of support in my extensive writings on the topic, you need some evidence.

Your only "evidence" for your lie is that there was an error in a post by Will Kinney, an article I never referenced, and which was immediately and promptly corrected as soon as the error was pointed out. My most reasonable service was to assist Will, his most gracious integrity was to accept the correction and change the article.

As you remain a brazen liar, I consider your posts worthless.

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

For those interested in how the Peshitta is generally a witness to the Byzantine text over the Alexandrian corruptions, see my study referenced on the textualcriticism forum:

[textualcriticism] Peshitta confluence with the Greek TR/Byzantine text
Steven Avery - July 6, 2007
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/3254

Since the original forum with the study has purged the post, I would have to find it in my archives.  The results were about 75% agreement with the Byzantine over the Alexandrian in a triangular comparison.

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

Here is a summary I gave of early evidences for Acts 8:37:

[TC-Alternate-list] "The Byzantine Greek text should be established from Greek manuscripts."
Steven Avery - August 13, 2010
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/3396

"Example .. a person who has a balance scale that looks at 200 AD patristics, powerful internal consistency evidences, paradigms that see omissions are far more likely than additions, and the Old Latin manuscripts ..  all as particularly significant .. would say very clearly .. Acts 8:37 is scripture."

The context is showing the superiority of the Received Text over the Byzantine Text theory that only looks at the Greek mss (except in tie-breaker mode).

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

As you remain a brazen liar, I consider your posts worthless.

And since you brazenly lie by claiming orthodox Trinitarianism says that "Jesus is not a human person," shall we do the same with yours?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

by claiming orthodox Trinitarianism says that "Jesus is not a human person,"

I showed you that already from Berkhof and Craig.  How many more before you accept that I properly represented ortho Trin doctrine.  There are quotes from many making the same point.

You are allowed to say, in ortho Trin doctrine, that Jesus put on a human nature, but saying he is a human person is strictly prohibited.

Incidentally, why do you continue to write, again and again, as if that is my belief?  Very strange.

Here is another.

Christian Dogmatics, Volume 1
Sixth Locus - Carl E. Braaten
http://books.google.com/books?id=JguVWFCXe2QC&pg=PT545

Today it sounds strange to learn that orthodox christology entails the denial that Jesus was an individual human person. ....

And see the response by Paul Althaus on that page. So, once again, do you agree with orthodox Trinitarian chrisotology? That denies "that Jesus was an individual human person".

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[PappaBear]

[quote author=Carl E Braaten, "Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 1"]The Calvinist zeal for the distinction of the natures was backed by the old-fashioned Nestorian logic.  If the Logos is divine, then it could not limit itself to the flesh of Jesus.  Accordingly, the Calvinists taught that the Logos, being infinite, must exist extra carnem (outside the flesh) and not be limited by its union with the flesh.  The Heidelberg Catechism states: "Because the divinity is everywhere present, it must follow that it is indeed outside its adopted humanity and yet none the less also in the same and remaineth in personal union with it."  Among Lutherans this doctrine was dubbed the extra-Calvinisticum.  It implied a very loose linkage between the Logos and the man Jesus of Nazareth and led to a theology of glory, opening the door to exalted language about the Logos apart from its enfleshment.  The Lutherans countered with a theology of the cross, holding that the Logos can only be known in the flesh.  So they coined the phrase "totus intra carnem and numquam extra carnem" (wholly in the flesh and never outside the flesh).[/quote]

I've noticed that about these Calvinists here.  There is a large amount of undue emphasis on "the Logos."  But I did not see how it related to the versions issue.  The above now makes more sense out of it.  They are just following their idol-god. 

Is this book and writer something you would recommend?

One more statement some may find interesting about these christological discussions is here:  "The term 'divine neature,' he [Schleieirmacher] argued, had been borrowed from pagan philosophy and was therefore ill-adapted to express the being of God in Christ."  So he thought trinitarianism is somehow borrowed from the pagans? 

 

[christundivided]

Hi,

Cud, you are the brazen liar who claimed that I thought for years that the Peshitta contains Acts 8:37.  Since I am familiar with Gill, and Tremellius and Gutbier and others, and wrote extensively on the topic of Acts 8:37 evidences, and never once anywhere in the world claimed that the Peshitta contained Acts 8:37, you have the burden to support or retract your claim. You claim to mind-read my beliefs, without even a smidgen of support in my extensive writings on the topic, you need some evidence.

Your only "evidence" for your lie is that there was an error in a post by Will Kinney, an article I never referenced, and which was immediately and promptly corrected as soon as the error was pointed out. My most reasonable service was to assist Will, his most gracious integrity was to accept the correction and change the article.

As you remain a brazen liar, I consider your posts worthless.

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

For those interested in how the Peshitta is generally a witness to the Byzantine text over the Alexandrian corruptions, see my study referenced on the textualcriticism forum:

[textualcriticism] Peshitta confluence with the Greek TR/Byzantine text
Steven Avery - July 6, 2007
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/3254

Since the original forum with the study has purged the post, I would have to find it in my archives.  The results were about 75% agreement with the Byzantine over the Alexandrian in a triangular comparison.

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

Here is a summary I gave of early evidences for Acts 8:37:

[TC-Alternate-list] "The Byzantine Greek text should be established from Greek manuscripts."
Steven Avery - August 13, 2010
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/3396

"Example .. a person who has a balance scale that looks at 200 AD patristics, powerful internal consistency evidences, paradigms that see omissions are far more likely than additions, and the Old Latin manuscripts ..  all as particularly significant .. would say very clearly .. Acts 8:37 is scripture."

The context is showing the superiority of the Received Text over the Byzantine Text theory that only looks at the Greek mss (except in tie-breaker mode).

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

How difficult is it for you to understand what I'm asking. Quote where I said YOU believed such for years.  I asked you to show me one quote from hundreds of quotes you made concerning the issue..... where you acknowledge The Syriac does not contain the verse in question. Again, its one thing to be honest and provide the evidence to the contrary....and it is another thing to ignore it and never share said evidence.

In defense of Will Kenney you even attempted to claim he was correct by saying a later translation does indeed contain the verse. You even appealed to a 13 century Ethiopian rendering to claim he was right about the Ethiopian text.

You're the one being a brazen lair.

I think it's pretty clear to those here..... just who's posts are worthless. I have no problem being scold by a heretic Oneness infidel. I consider it an honor. Thanks

 

[christundivided]

Hi,

by claiming orthodox Trinitarianism says that "Jesus is not a human person,"

I showed you that already from Berkhof and Craig.  How many more before you accept that I properly represented ortho Trin doctrine.  There are quotes from many making the same point.

You are allowed to say, in ortho Trin doctrine, that Jesus put on a human nature, but saying he is a human person is strictly prohibited.

Incidentally, why do you continue to write, again and again, as if that is my belief?  Very strange.

Here is another.

Christian Dogmatics, Volume 1
Sixth Locus - Carl E. Braaten
http://books.google.com/books?id=JguVWFCXe2QC&pg=PT545

Today it sounds strange to learn that orthodox christology entails the denial that Jesus was an individual human person. ....

And see the response by Paul Althaus on that page. So, once again, do you agree with orthodox Trinitarian chrisotology? That denies "that Jesus was an individual human person".

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

You are being entirely dishonest. I posted the contents of a creed that you claimed said Jesus wasn't human person. You then refuse to detail where it says such. You're a dishonest hack.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=Carl E Braaten, "Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 1"]The Calvinist zeal for the distinction of the natures was backed by the old-fashioned Nestorian logic.  If the Logos is divine, then it could not limit itself to the flesh of Jesus.  Accordingly, the Calvinists taught that the Logos, being infinite, must exist extra carnem (outside the flesh) and not be limited by its union with the flesh.  The Heidelberg Catechism states: "Because the divinity is everywhere present, it must follow that it is indeed outside its adopted humanity and yet none the less also in the same and remaineth in personal union with it."  Among Lutherans this doctrine was dubbed the extra-Calvinisticum.  It implied a very loose linkage between the Logos and the man Jesus of Nazareth and led to a theology of glory, opening the door to exalted language about the Logos apart from its enfleshment.  The Lutherans countered with a theology of the cross, holding that the Logos can only be known in the flesh.  So they coined the phrase "totus intra carnem and numquam extra carnem" (wholly in the flesh and never outside the flesh).

I've noticed that about these Calvinists here.  There is a large amount of undue emphasis on "the Logos."  But I did not see how it related to the versions issue.  The above now makes more sense out of it.  They are just following their idol-god. 

Is this book and writer something you would recommend?

One more statement some may find interesting about these christological discussions is here:  "The term 'divine neature,' he [Schleieirmacher] argued, had been borrowed from pagan philosophy and was therefore ill-adapted to express the being of God in Christ."  So he thought trinitarianism is somehow borrowed from the pagans?
[/quote]

It really pitiful that your only defense of Avery...... is you don't like Calvinists?

 

[FSSL]

...especially since Lutherans (e.g., Braaten) are ALSO Trinitarians.

It is comical to see PappaBear getting hung up on the doctrine of the Trinity after all of his posturing on the other thread.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

You are being entirely dishonest. I posted the contents of a creed that you claimed said Jesus wasn't human person. You then refuse to detail where it says such. You're a dishonest hack.

And now to teach cud, putting aside his other integrity problems, which are legion.

(Actually this is more for our other readers, even FSSL has been surprisingly responsive in the discussion, what ever happened to Old Slippery?  Cud has been hopeless.)

Read the thread, I never claimed that the concept that Jesus is not a human person is written in the Athanasian Creed.  This orthodox Trinitarian understanding actually develops out of Chalcedon (as a response to the Nestorian heresy) and this is the view accepted by orthodox Trinitarians. 

Granted, this is far away from scriptural terminology, as is the idea that Jesus is not a man.  However, it is orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.  Each believer sympathetic to Trinitarian doctrine then has to decide if they want to be an orthodox Trinitarian.

ie. If you do not accept that Jesus is not a human person, you are not an orthodox Trinitarian.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Quote where I said YOU believed such for years.

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

As I said, you are a brazen liar.

At this point you are on de facto ignore. You are simply cud the liar, if there is any reason to reference you.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[christundivided]

Hi,

Quote where I said YOU believed such for years.

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

As I said, you are a brazen liar.

At this point you are on de facto ignore. You are simply cud the liar, if there is any reason to reference you.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

If it moves the discussion along, I will apologize for this "error". I was referencing the fact that you have, for many years, believed that Acts 8:37 is found in The Syriac. You consider "The Syriac" to include a late 5th century translation". Most do not. You then defend yourself by referencing exclusively the "Peshitta". They way you parse terms is less than ideal. Its hard to pin you down to much of anything. I will say again, that you have provided no evidence that you have every admitted Acts 8:37 is not part of the "The Syriac". You simply claim you have never said it was part of the Peshitta. A honest person would share all the evidence. Many KJVOist, including yourself, simply endlessly trumpet anything they think makes their case without mentioning any evidence to the contrary. This is being dishonest.

 

[christundivided]

Hi,

You are being entirely dishonest. I posted the contents of a creed that you claimed said Jesus wasn't human person. You then refuse to detail where it says such. You're a dishonest hack.

And now to teach cud, putting aside his other integrity problems, which are legion.

(Actually this is more for our other readers, even FSSL has been surprisingly responsive in the discussion, what ever happened to Old Slippery?  Cud has been hopeless.)

Read the thread, I never claimed that the concept that Jesus is not a human person is written in the Athanasian Creed.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

We'll let your own words speak for you...

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/teaching-the-trinity-from-the-niv/msg50847/#msg50847

Pierre Caroli made a similar argument against Calvin, especially emphasizing his refusal to subscribe to the Athanasian Creed.  Even in his later years, even in l'affaire Michael Servetus, afaik Calvin never subscribed to that creed nor did he use that creed as a sine qua non of orthodoxy, with or without Chalcedonian components.

However, I am very happy to agree that I do not accept the "Orthodox understanding of the Trinity", especially noting that the orthodox understanding insists that Jesus is not a human person.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

If it moves the discussion along, I will apologize for this "error". I was referencing the fact that you have, for many years, believed that Acts 8:37 is found in The Syriac. You consider "The Syriac" to include a late 5th century translation".

This is still a lie, now a bit less brazen.  As I never claimed, discussed or thought that Acts 8:37 was in "the Syriac", other than in the printed editions starting with Tremellius (1510-1580), followed by Gutbier. The edition of Aegidius Gutbier was 1664.

And I was well aware that Tremellius (1569 edition, Hebrew characters) and Gutbier were criticized by some for restoring the heavenly witnesses in their printed editions of the Peshitta, sans Syriac manuscript support.  My understanding is that we have the same situation with Acts 8:37 as with the heavenly witnesses, I am doing some checking to confirm details on the two editions, and yes, my memory is accurate.

Tremellius is said to have placed in Acts 8:37; 15:34 and 28:29, which are not in the Peshitta canon.  Here is confirmation on Gutbier.

Characteristics of the Peshito Syriac Version of the New Testament (January 1, 1851)
Josiah W. Gibbs
http://archive.org/stream/jstor-3217924/3217924#page/n5/mode/2up
... Acts 8:37. These words are probably wanting in all the manuscripts; but they are found in some editions, as Hutter, 1599; Gutbier, 1664; Schaaf. 1717 ....

The little complication about the Harklean was new to me (it is still unclear as to what exactly is involved, margin entries, manuscripts, or both) just as was seeing the Will Kinney needed correction. 

If the Harklean is manuscripts, it is rather significant, since the Harklean translation came from a period when the Critical Text folks claim the Greek manuscripts did not generally have Acts 8:37.  And I have never referred to the Harklean as "the Syriac".

As I explained, "the Syriac" would include  lots of different evidences, and it is a term to be avoided, except where there is real unanimity.  You could say "the Syriac manuscripts are not known to have the heavenly witnesses verse".  (Note the word 'manuscripts', there is an ECW Syriac evidence for the verse). Or "the Syriac manuscripts, except one Old Syriac, includes the traditional Mark ending" and you would be referring to literally hundreds of manuscripts.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[christundivided]

Hi,

If it moves the discussion along, I will apologize for this "error". I was referencing the fact that you have, for many years, believed that Acts 8:37 is found in The Syriac. You consider "The Syriac" to include a late 5th century translation".

This is still a lie, now a bit less brazen.  As I never claimed, discussed or thought that Acts 8:37 was in "the Syriac", other than in the printed editions starting with Tremellius (1510-1580), followed by Gutbier. The edition of Aegidius Gutbier was 1664.

And I was well aware that Tremellius (1569 edition, Hebrew characters) and Gutbier were criticized by some for restoring the heavenly witnesses in their printed editions of the Peshitta, sans Syriac manuscript support.  My understanding is that we have the same situation with Acts 8:37 as with the heavenly witnesses, I am doing some checking to confirm details on the two editions, and yes, my memory is accurate.

Tremellius is said to have placed in Acts 8:37; 15:34 and 28:29, which are not in the Peshitta canon.  Here is confirmation on Gutbier.

Characteristics of the Peshito Syriac Version of the New Testament (January 1, 1851)
Josiah W. Gibbs
http://archive.org/stream/jstor-3217924/3217924#page/n5/mode/2up
... Acts 8: 37. These words arc probably wanting in all the manuscripts; but they are found in some editions, as Hutter, 1599; Gutbier, 1664; Schaaf. 1717 ....

The little complication about the Harklean was new to me (it is still unclear as to what exactly is involved, margin entries, manuscripts, or both) just as was seeing the Will Kinney needed correction. 

If the Harklean is manuscripts, it is rather significant, since the Harklean translation came from a period when the Critical Text folks claim the Greek manuscripts did not generally have Acts 8:37.  And I have never referred to the Harklean as "the Syriac".

As I explained, "the Syriac" would include  lots of different evidences, and it is a term to be avoided, except where there is real unanimity.  You could say "the Syriac manuscripts are not known to have the heavenly witnesses verse".  (Note the word 'manuscripts', there is an ECW Syriac evidence for the verse). Or "the Syriac manuscripts, except one Old Syriac, includes the traditional Mark ending" and you would be referring to literally hundreds of manuscripts.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

Humm.... Its not worth it. It really isn't. You'll never get it and you'll never change your methods.

By the way.... Kenney hasn't changed his article and I'd say he probably never will.....

Before you slither on out the door..... Do you mind answering my question about baptizing in the name of Jesus Alone? Would you support such? or would you support baptizing in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost?