-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Acts 8:37 James Snapp Jr
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
Why would anyone waste two hours on an unknown claim?
1) Acts 8:37 is not part of the inspired text, but the addition does illustrate how some in the early church viewed a "confession of faith." [From the NET footnote]
2) Luke 23:34a is missing in many early and diverse witnesses. Since it parallels Acts 7:60, the statement is historically accurate, even if a scribal addition here. [From the NET footnote]
1) Acts 8:37 is not part of the inspired text, but the addition does illustrate how some in the early church viewed a "confession of faith." [From the NET footnote]
2) Luke 23:34a is missing in many early and diverse witnesses. Since it parallels Acts 7:60, the statement is historically accurate, even if a scribal addition here. [From the NET footnote]
37818
Well-Known Member
Don't waste your time.
You have your evidence.
88% of the mss of Acts 8 omit Acts 8:37.
The little 6.2% mss of Acts 8:37 can be traced to second century textual evidence, as I understand it. It being the older text than it's omission.
Which are only some 10.7%mss omitting the 89.3% mss Luke 23:34 reading.
Last edited:
A lot of this just depends on how you view Manuscript traditions. If you trust Syria and Byzantine minuscule textual tradition then you accept these verses, typically.
I personally accept these. I see no contradictions with the rest of scripture with these. Editing happened with the writing of the bible, and God works through editing.
See Ezek 1:1 vs 1:2-3