David, thank you for that letter.What about: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.
That entire line is missing in the NIV, where it has 36 & 38, but no 37. Line 37 teaches believer's baptism, making sure that the person is already saved before baptizing them. Without line 37, then baptismal regeneration can be inferred. Baptismal regeneration is where people are told to get baptized in order to be saved, exactly like people were falsely told to get circumcised in order to be saved in Acts 15. Our outward physical works, like Cain's, cannot bring about a spiritual new birth.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
They should not have removed the line. People had been reading that line for hundreds of years, and then recently it is removed, with the number 37 actually missing also, showing that there had been a line 37 there, before. Why would someone believe that it was all right to remove a line of scripture? Is it because someone very wise and knowledgable asked them, "Yea, hath God said"? Then proceeded to tell them that great, noble, and godly scholars are using older, and thus better manuscripts, which do not have this line in it. First, by getting someone to doubt whether the Bible they have in their lap, that their father, grandfather, and great-grandfather also had, is not really the word of God - that great, great men of scholarship have said that it was inaccurately mistranslated here, and was incorrect there, etc.
Once someone can be convinced to doubt the Bible in their lap, even a little, then they are ready for the next step. They are next convinced that only the first, handwritten copies are the inspired scriptures, and that subsequent copies decay like rotting flesh, introducing errors as they copy and recopy. The example of the party game, where one person tells a story, then that person passes it on to another, who then passes it on to another - then after more than twenty iterations, the story is compared to the first iteration of the story, exposing embellishments & eliminations along the way. The person now, accepting this theory, unconsciously accepts that the LORD was powerful enough to inspire his scripture in the first, handwritten copy, but was not powerful enough to preserve his word pure throughout the generations.
Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
The unconscious spiritual ramification of accepting the new "scholarly" theory that only older manuscripts are therefore better because they are closer to the first hand written copies, is that the LORD did give his inspired scripture once, but it has since decayed and is therefore lost. Then surprisingly, the scholars come to the rescue, they with prowess, intellect, and command of ancient, dead languages, will do their best to bring us as close as possible to those handwritten first autographs - and since they have convinced us that we cannot trust every jot and tittle of the Bible in our laps, that we can at least trust them, the scholars, to let us know, to the best of their ability, what God really said.
Why would we think that the written word of God would die like that, in contradiction to Psalm 12:6-7, and also to remain "buried" for two thousand years, by the "Dead" Sea? When the incarnate Word of God did not stay buried, but is alive forever more, nevermore to die, why would the written word of God, not be as alive today as it was two thousand years ago? Why did we buy the scholarly way that inspiration died with the original hand written autographs? If we cannot believe that the LORD could preserve his word perfectly and fully, as pure and inspired as when it was first written down, then how can we believe that he can preserve us forever? He has magnified his word above all his name, and if we think him unable to keep that perfect and pure forever, even after its translation, then how dare we think that he will keep us perfect after our translation (I Thessalonians 4:13-18)?
It is not the Greek language that makes the new testament of the word of God alive, perfect, pure, powerful, or inspired - but it is that omnipotent and omniscient God himself, who "infinitely" condescends to speak to man in words which man can understand - that God himself who first gave language to Adam - that God himself who confounded that language at Babel, hence Koine Greek was merely an eventual result of that confounding - that same God who spoke by the mouth of an unlearned fisherman on Pentecost, so that men of many different languages could all hear the word of God from that fisherman at the same time in their own languages - that same God who spoke creation into existence - to think that the hands of that God were tied, so that only Koine Greek could contain his word adequately - is folly in the least and blasphemy at the most.
The original autograph was inspired because that God inspired it, and the promised preserved word of God today is still as perfectly inspired, because that same God preserved it so.I have a copy of it, and apparently so do you, David. I wonder how many others believe that they have a copy of the perfect, pure, and inspired word of God, every jot and tittle?Too bad for those who have been talked out of it.Gino