Some thoughts on acts 8:37

Acts 8:36-38 King James Version (KJV
acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
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.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

 Earlier this week on a facebook group I was debating the superiority and inspiration on the text receptus. Another facebook user challenged me about this specific text "I assume you believe as well that Acts 8:37 was taken out of many bibles based on a conspiracy, yes?"

Here is my response.

Acts 8:37 is part of the textus Receptus Greek, greek manuscript E08 and the western Latin tradition. 9not to mention the early english translations (tyndal, wycliff. matthew, geneva. AV etc.) and any TR based translation.
We don't have it in the alexandrine text. Nor do we have it in 10% of the Byzantine text which we call a "majority".  (or Majority text by von Sodon)


  So obviously what must have happened is that Jerome, unbeknownst to his employer pope damasus was a raving baptist!  He was insecure about lack of biblical grounds for believers baptism and He wanted his priest to be thoroughly equipped in the roman catholic doctrine of believer's baptism!  They even made just 1 greek manuscript supporting acts 8:37 to cover their tracks.
  This was a very important conspiracy because they missed the previous conspiracy at Constantinople to conflate the text. Probably because Westcott and Hort were the first ones to hear of such a conflation.
   Now since we do not have the originals, if we deny that God is Sovereign and did not preserve the text perfectly in at least one copy.  Then we have no authority to claim what the canon consist of.  Nor What original manuscripts consist of.
  Besides the lack of authority the evolving text advocates to deny whether scriptures are inspired.  They also have to claim knowledge about manuscripts which they have not personally studied, which includes:

A. The majority of the Byzantine texts.

B. future manuscripts which are waiting to be discovered.

C. Manuscripts which have worn away out of decay

D. Manuscripts which were put to flames in times of persecution.


  We also have to assume that men of the past were incapable of accesses information back then. When they may have possessed information which we don't have.
Eventually when looking at manuscripts we have to put a prejudice over which group is more likely to be right.
   So if it is between the alexandrine church infiltrated with Gnosticism and adhering to neo-Platonism or whether it was the school of Antioch which had a good Christian tradition alongside a strong Jewish scribal influence, where the full deity and complete humanity were strongly held up.  I will side with antioch.
If this issue is between the Byzantine's and the textus receptus then I will side with the textus receptus. They would had to have motive to go against the Byzantine textus receptus. The Byzantine empire would be corrupted by Eastern Orthodoxy. Yet the protestants held to the gospel of grace.

John Calvin's assistant Theodore beza is reported to have gotten information from the ancient Waldenses. That they had received their text from antiochan missionaries in the 2nd century. This preserved their text better.  The church is the pillar and ground of truth 1timothy (3:15) and I find the Waldenses to be a true church while the Catholics and alexandrines are not.