For example, in Luke’s account of the Lord’s Prayer some manuscripts add "Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth." King James vs. NIV? A later copyist, however, might move that sentence into the main text of Mark or Luke, believing it to have been there originally since it made the accounts agree more closely. We see that the passage was in common use long before the existing Greek manuscripts were ever copied. Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. The reason this verse is so important is that it speaks to Jesus being God, something that the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny. latest CAN YOU READ ACTS 8:37 FROM YOUR NEW WORLD TRANSLATION? And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. NewLight2. Consider how this might develop. by african GB Member Here's a list of all verses thus affected: Jehovahs witnesses/ Why is (Acts 8:37 ) missing in your NWT? q2) why do you use the westcott and hort text, which originates from the roman catholic church, and use it to translate your New world translation? Anyone have an experiance they would like to share? Once saved, always saved, if you stay saved! Certainly this conjecture is as possible as the various explanations offered by those who reject the reading. [4] Likewise, Cyprian quotes the first half of the verse in writing, "In the Acts of the Apostles: 'Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? – Acts 8:37 (KJV). Yet, the weight of evidence suggests that this was interpolated from Matthew’s account, and it is omitted from Luke 11:2 in modern translations of the Bible. And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (NASB) John 21:25, New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson, New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust, The Holy Bible, New International Version© 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles, Reina-Valera © 1960 Sociedades Bíblicas en América Latina, New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation, Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info, No, basically the same explanation in the 1989 Reasoning book (entry NWT). For some persons it may seem shocking to hear that certain words, phrases and even whole verses appearing in widely used Bibles are not authentic. So he might add the sentence in the margin. In studying the Bible I came across some verses that are left out but that are in the King James Version, such as Matthew 18:11; 23:14; Luke 17:36. This was particularly the case in the first few centuries of Christianity, when copying was done by [whoever happened to be around and was smart enough to know how to write at least fairly well], rather than by trained copyists. If the text were genuine, why would any scribe wish to delete it? Rather than have the Scriptures only in the Latin translations long used in the Roman Church, scholars began to clamor for copies in Greek, the language in which the "New Testament" was written. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *. "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still." 119. A scribe who was very familiar with Matthew’s Gospel might, when copying the Gospel of Mark or Luke, tend to use the wording he knew so well from Matthew. From the Jehovah’s Witnesses website: However, we take Jesus at his word when he said: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) So we do not worship Jesus, as we do not believe that he is Almighty God. Where ever one lands on this verse, it is not really a "King James Only" issue. q1) what do you think of the doctrines of the roman catholic church? I don't understand why it is that you wanted this verse as a 'proof text', because JW's accept that Jesus was the SON of God, but reject the belief that Jesus IS God. This verse has been either eliminated or retained with an explanation that the verse does not appear in the best ancient manuscripts.