Why do a lot of Bibles forget Acts 29?
No Bible “forgets” Acts 29.
Acts 29 doesn’t exist except as a late-Nineteenth-Century forgery.
It doesn’t appear in any of the many extant Greek manuscripts of Acts.
It isn’t referenced or quoted from by a single one of the Early Church Fathers (or anyone else prior to 1871)—when they otherwise quoted from Scripture so extensively that it’s been said one could reconstruct well over 90% of the New Testament from patristic quotations alone.
There isn’t even a Greek manuscript of the 1871 document. At least, not one that anyone can see or verify.
The proponent/”editor” of the 1871 document claims it was translated by a second man who (according to the proponent) himself claimed to have received it from a secret archive in Constantinople at the behest of Sultan Achmet.
But literally no one has actually seen any physical evidence of this.
It has all the veracity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s conceit (not intended to be taken seriously, in his case) that The Lord of the Rings is merely his translation into English of The Red Book of Westmarch—an anthology volume consisting of Bilbo’s and Frodo’s memoirs, along with supplemental material, passed down the ages from Middle Earth.
And, as with so many agenda-driven forgeries, it just so happens to contain a multitude of verses that very clearly and specifically attest to the distinctive beliefs of the “British Israelism” movement.
Basically, it’s the “fusty Victorian white guys” version of the “Black Hebrew Israelites”—a conspiracy-minded ideology that believes that the inheritance of Biblical Israel does not repose in modern-day Jews (or at least, not solely in Jews) but rather in the ethnic contingent of the conspiracy movement (in this case, the peoples of the British Isles), and that there has been a vast, collusive effort by maleficent forces to conceal this fact.
In other words, all reputable Bibles exclude the so-called “Acts 29” for the same reason that reputable editions of the Talmud mysteriously exclude The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Because both “excluded” texts are ham-handed forgeries in the service of execrable and insupportable ideologies.
Original Question:
“Why do a lot of bibles forget Acts 29?”
Shaleem Christian
No Bible “forgets” Acts 29.
Acts 29 doesn’t exist except as a late-Nineteenth-Century forgery.
It doesn’t appear in any of the many extant Greek manuscripts of Acts.
It isn’t referenced or quoted from by a single one of the Early Church Fathers (or anyone else prior to 1871)—when they otherwise quoted from Scripture so extensively that it’s been said one could reconstruct well over 90% of the New Testament from patristic quotations alone.
There isn’t even a Greek manuscript of the 1871 document. At least, not one that anyone can see or verify.
The proponent/”editor” of the 1871 document claims it was translated by a second man who (according to the proponent) himself claimed to have received it from a secret archive in Constantinople at the behest of Sultan Achmet.
But literally no one has actually seen any physical evidence of this.
It has all the veracity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s conceit (not intended to be taken seriously, in his case) that The Lord of the Rings is merely his translation into English of The Red Book of Westmarch—an anthology volume consisting of Bilbo’s and Frodo’s memoirs, along with supplemental material, passed down the ages from Middle Earth.
And, as with so many agenda-driven forgeries, it just so happens to contain a multitude of verses that very clearly and specifically attest to the distinctive beliefs of the “British Israelism” movement.
Basically, it’s the “fusty Victorian white guys” version of the “Black Hebrew Israelites”—a conspiracy-minded ideology that believes that the inheritance of Biblical Israel does not repose in modern-day Jews (or at least, not solely in Jews) but rather in the ethnic contingent of the conspiracy movement (in this case, the peoples of the British Isles), and that there has been a vast, collusive effort by maleficent forces to conceal this fact.
In other words, all reputable Bibles exclude the so-called “Acts 29” for the same reason that reputable editions of the Talmud mysteriously exclude The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Because both “excluded” texts are ham-handed forgeries in the service of execrable and insupportable ideologies.
Original Question:
“Why do a lot of bibles forget Acts 29?”
Shaleem Christian
Why do a lot of Bibles forget Acts 29?
No Bible “forgets” Acts 29.
Acts 29 doesn’t exist except as a late-Nineteenth-Century forgery.
It doesn’t appear in any of the many extant Greek manuscripts of Acts.
It isn’t referenced or quoted from by a single one of the Early Church Fathers (or anyone else prior to 1871)—when they otherwise quoted from Scripture so extensively that it’s been said one could reconstruct well over 90% of the New Testament from patristic quotations alone.
There isn’t even a Greek manuscript of the 1871 document. At least, not one that anyone can see or verify.
The proponent/”editor” of the 1871 document claims it was translated by a second man who (according to the proponent) himself claimed to have received it from a secret archive in Constantinople at the behest of Sultan Achmet.
But literally no one has actually seen any physical evidence of this.
It has all the veracity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s conceit (not intended to be taken seriously, in his case) that The Lord of the Rings is merely his translation into English of The Red Book of Westmarch—an anthology volume consisting of Bilbo’s and Frodo’s memoirs, along with supplemental material, passed down the ages from Middle Earth.
And, as with so many agenda-driven forgeries, it just so happens to contain a multitude of verses that very clearly and specifically attest to the distinctive beliefs of the “British Israelism” movement.
Basically, it’s the “fusty Victorian white guys” version of the “Black Hebrew Israelites”—a conspiracy-minded ideology that believes that the inheritance of Biblical Israel does not repose in modern-day Jews (or at least, not solely in Jews) but rather in the ethnic contingent of the conspiracy movement (in this case, the peoples of the British Isles), and that there has been a vast, collusive effort by maleficent forces to conceal this fact.
In other words, all reputable Bibles exclude the so-called “Acts 29” for the same reason that reputable editions of the Talmud mysteriously exclude The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Because both “excluded” texts are ham-handed forgeries in the service of execrable and insupportable ideologies.
Original Question:
“Why do a lot of bibles forget Acts 29?”
Shaleem Christian
Arabic
French
Spanish
Portuguese
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Russian
Romaian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Greek
हिन्दी