ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Explain Acts 8:37

Online Bible has a verse in Acts I never seen until today. Acts 8:37. It seems it was added to support the 'Sinner's Prayer'. When I looked in my Bible was I was correct. In the fine print it said it was not found in the older manuscripts of Acts. But only in Western Text reading. Is it in your Bible?

Join Our Christian Chat and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Nicole_Lacey on 12/8/18
     Helpful Blog Vote (1)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



Nicole_Lacey:

Two people may arrive at different conclusions based on common sense. Who can OBJECTIVELY say which is correct?

Of many Hebrew OT manuscripts, NONE include the Apocrypha. This suggests it wasn't considered canonical then. Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments from every non-Apocryphal OT book except Esther, but no Apocrypha.

It's also entirely possible God inspired editors to add to scripture later, and those edits are also considered scripture. For example, the Septuagint includes books not in the Hebrew, and some of those include extra chapters that not in the Hebrew. Might it not also be plausible that certain verses added into the New Testament after the fact may also be legitimate for similar reasons?
---StrongAxe on 12/12/18


I see some omit, but cant find anything where it was added. Isaiah 53 is omited from some OT scriptures because some Jewish folks didn't want it in their scriptures. Yet we see it was these very scriptures in Isaiah 53 that Phillip was explaining to the Eunich in Acts 8:31-40. So this proves omitting something is not the same as adding something.

But the bottom line is....can it be supported by other scripture? YES, Romans 10:9-10 say the same thing. So, in that case, I see no issue here.
---kathr4453 on 12/12/18


StrongAxe: The oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament (i.e. the Hebrew ones, e.g. from the Dead Sea Scrolls) don't include the Apocrypha either, but that doesn't stop the Catholic church from considering it to be authentic.//

???

Some Jewish's Manuscript doesn't either and we consider it authentic.

So if you found a Bible with only 3 Gospels and only 4 letters from Paul you wouldn't think those were authentic?

The CC also believes most Protestant Bibles are authentic as well.

That is authentic but incomplete.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/12/18


Who cares what or you think!

That's not how the Holy Spirit declares the TRUTH!

If I think 2 and 2 equal 5. You think it equals 7. Does it mean we are right because we believe the Holy Spirit spoke to our hearts?

NO!

The Holy Spirit rejects and is OFFENDED that we INVOLVED Him in our stupidity!

You would be also. Didn't you say you were a Teacher? Or was that Samuel?

Anywho, either you or him would be offended as well if a lad told people it was from your inspiration that he is certainty 4 and 5 equals 10!

Mormons and JW came to my home many times.

My sister and I have fed and comfort the Elders many times and even to this day.

It doesn't mean I leave my common sense at the doorstep.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/12/18


Nicole_Lacey:

Yes. Unfortunately, what YOU think are the Holy Spirit's words isn't necessarily what I or anyone else does.

Mormons say we should pray to ask the Holy Spirit whether the Book of Mormon is the Word of God. They would all tell you that they received a "Yes" answer. I'm sure you would receive a "No" answer. Just because someone thinks the Holy Spirit told them something, it doesn't mean their interpretations of what they received from the Holy Spirit was, in fact, correct.

The oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament (i.e. the Hebrew ones, e.g. from the Dead Sea Scrolls) don't include the Apocrypha either, but that doesn't stop the Catholic church from considering it to be authentic.
---StrongAxe on 12/12/18




StrongAxe: Exactly, but unless you have the ORIGINAL manuscripts (which no longer exist), how do YOU know which one of two different manuscripts is more accurate?//

Really?

Remember, I said the Holy Spirit gave you common sense.

The Christians in the 5th century DIDN'T have the Original Apostles either, but due old manuscripts, TRADITION and prayer they figure out which Gospels and other books should be in the Bible.

There were several Gospels floating around.

If all OLD manuscripts didn't have V37, but the newest manuscripts were popping up with V37 what would you conclude?

V37 was invented.

Common Sense isn't common, but you don't fool me.

YOU ARE IN THE COMMON!
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/11/18


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: The first thing Ones wants in a Bible is ACCURACY.

Exactly, but unless you have the ORIGINAL manuscripts (which no longer exist), how do YOU know which one of two different manuscripts is more accurate?
---StrongAxe on 12/10/18


StrongAxe: There is no clear indication that one of these manuscripts is obviously better or more authentic than the others.//

Better?

Who looks at a Bible to see which is better?

The first thing Ones wants in a Bible is ACCURACY.

I don't want someone's opinion of WHAT he thinks should be in the Bible.

I rather have a Bible in another language for me to translate that is accurate than an English Bible that isn't accurate.

//Which one people think is better is a matter of fallible human opinion, since no Voice from Heaven has come down to earth to tell us.//

The Holy Spirit has blessed us with COMMON SENSE.

If the OLD manuscripts do NOT have V37, WHY would you want it now?
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/10/18


Nicole_Lacey:

When I look on Bible Gateway for "Acts 8:37 in all English translations", there are 24 that include it, and 9 that omit it. It is present in most of them. I didn't check other languages, but that should be easy enough to do.

Whether a verse is included or not depends on which manuscript is used to translate it from. Bible manuscripts are thousands of years old. They are far older than modern Protestant theological practices. There is no clear indication that one of these manuscripts is obviously better or more authentic than the others. Which one people think is better is a matter of fallible human opinion, since no Voice from Heaven has come down to earth to tell us.
---StrongAxe on 12/10/18


You've asked a good question, joseph.

Our English Epistle and Gospel books are based on the RSV, corrected according to the Greek liturgical books, which is yet a third text.

The OT of the Orthodox Church is the Septuagint.

The only modern English translation of it, to my knowledge, is sthe OT of the Orthodox Study Bible.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/10/18




Cluny, I usually use Protestant Bibles when using CN. So, as I was speaking to Barb, I was surprised to see V37 the online Biblehub.

I didn't recognize that verse in Bible, but did recognize those words living in the Bible belt.

So, I went to my Bible and it didn't have those words. It had the number 37 in parenthesis next to 38.

My Bible has the Ethiopian Eunuch telling Phillip there is water and jumps to V 38 of the Baptism.

Phillip isn't questioning the Eunuch about his faith in Jesus.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/9/18


Act 8:37 -is included in The Textus Receptus, The Stephanus' edition from 1550. Which one does the Orthodox Church use Cluny?
---josef on 12/9/18


"Is it in your Bible?" Yes. I see no reason to exclude it. Acts 8:37 is backed by Rom 10:9. Should that verse be excluded as well? What version of the bible is the verse not found? How exactly is a sinners prayer defined Nicole?
---josef on 12/8/18


It is not in the TR (Received Text or Textus Receptus) used by the Orthodox Church.

Which translation that you read said this?

The debate over the TR, Byzantine Text, or Alexandrian text will never be solved on these blogs.

There are good arguments for and against all of these, as well as their variants.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/8/18


It seems since many Christians have told Protestants the Sinner's Prayer is made up, and not in the Bible they inserted the verse 37 in the Bible.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/8/18


Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.