Acts 8:37

Acts 8:37

Acts 8:37
(KJV) 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.
(NIV) Omitted
(ESV) Omitted
(RSV) Omitted
(NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) - Omitted
(NAB-Roman Catholic) - Omitted - “Look, there is some water right there. What is to keep me from being baptized?” (This verse is half of verse 36)
(NASB) [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] (NASB adds footnote stating “Early mss do not contain this verse”
(NKJV) Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (NKJV adds the following center footnote (“8:37 NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition”)

Textus Receptus
eipen de o jilippoV ei pisteueiV ex olhV thV kardiaV exestin apokriqeiV de eipen pisteuw ton uion tou qeou einai ton ihsoun criston

Effect
Acts 8:37 is another verse which met its doom in the 2nd century. It is omitted in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It is also omitted in the NIV, ESV, RSV, NWT, and NAB. The NASB and the NKJV are more subtle in the way they attack this verse. The NASB places brackets around the verse and then states without any qualifying evidence that “Early manuscripts do not contain this verse.” This statement is very vague and really means nothing since all manuscripts are early. What is the definition of early? 1st century, 2nd century, 5th century? The NKJV (New King James Version) is also very subtle in its attack. The center column of the NKJV is Satan’s playground and on this verse it states, “NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition.” The NU Text they are referring to is the Nestle Aland Text (N) and the United Bible Societies Text (U). Both of which are heavily based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. So the NKJV claiming to be a revision of the King James, is another false version which, according to Dr. D.A. Waite in his research, which I have in my possession, departs from the Textus Receptus in 2,000+ places. Now the second half of their claim. What Western texts? What is the Latin tradition? Is it referring to Jerome’s corrupt Latin Vulgate of the 4th century, is it the Old Latin Vulgate c. 90-150 A.D., or is it Roman Catholic tradition?

There are 5255 extant manuscripts and unless one studies the manuscript issue, they will never know that statements such as “Oldest and Best” or “Early Manuscripts” refer to the two corrupted manuscripts of the 4th century, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. In fact, the modern translations are based on only 45 manuscripts which are less than 1% of all manuscripts. This means that the modern versions have completely and intentionally disregarded over 99% of the manuscripts. Zane Hodges authored a text in a book called “The Majority Text” which is also a misnomer. He only used 414 manuscripts which is only 8% of the extant manuscripts. How could that be considered the majority? Christians must begin to question these things, it is necessary that they do.

Acts 8:37 is another testimony that Jesus is the Son of God. By the Ethiopian Eunuch using the word “is” (present tense in Greek) instead of “was” he was stating a fact that Jesus is alive. His resurrection was doubted by many but here the Scripture is stating that He is alive plus it is another scriptural testimony of Jesus being the Son of God, a title of Divinity. This is why the Gnostics would have ripped it out of the text, simply because they did not believe that God, being good, could dwell in a sinful, corrupted human body. They did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God only a good human being, plus that He only became Christ at His birth without pre-existence. This verse is in the Old Latin Vulgate of 90-150 A.D. which was a direct copy from the original autographs.


Back