Why I Still Think Acts 8:37 is an Important Verse

Personally, I'm still a moderate King James Only-ist. I still think Acts 8:37 is an important verse. Now, I was thinking whether or not I should really avoid the KJV Only movement already. I mean, I've decided to dump Chick Publications and Jesus-is-Savior for their inconsistencies. Now, I decided to consider the existence of Acts 8:37 in the King James Version. Others simply put it in the footnotes saying that some manuscripts do and some manuscripts don't contain the verse.

I'd consider the sequence of Acts 8:36-38 which says:

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.

Personally, I think the verse is of utmost importance. Meanwhile, CARM.org mentions these two evidences for and against Acts 8:37:

The Evidence Against the Verse 

The verse is absent in Papyrus 45 (third century), Codex B and Codex א (early fourth-century) Codex A and Codex C (both fifth century), Papyrus 74 (seventh century), Codex L (eighth century) and Codex P, Ψ, Uncial 049, and minuscule 33 (all ninth century), and numerous other later Greek manuscripts from the tenth century on through the middle ages. Indeed, the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts do not have this verse. Some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate also lack the verse, as do the vast majority of the Syriac tradition (including all the earliest copies) and the vast majority of the Coptic manuscript tradition. It is also lacking in some Ethiopic copies. 

The Evidence For the Verse 

This verse is preserved in a number of different forms. The earliest version appears almost exclusively in Latin copies. It is found in some Old Latin manuscripts, itm (fifth century), itr (eighth century), itar (ninth century), and in some later Latin copies from the Middle Ages. It is also found in one eleventh-century Greek Minuscule, some late Syriac copies, and in Armenian and Georgian manuscripts. There are minor variations between these witnesses. A second form of the verse is found in just one copy, the Greek/Latin diglot Codex E (sixth century). Both the Greek and the Latin text of this manuscript contain the second version. A third and much later version (the version found in the KJV) can be seen, with some minor variations, in Minuscule 307 (tenth century), 945 (eleventh century), 323, 610, 630 (twelfth century), and a small number of even later Greek copies. The Old Latin manuscript itt (ninth century) and a small number of later Latin copies from the twelfth century forward also contain this version. Additionally, few Coptic copies read this way, as do some later translations like the Georgian, Slavonic, and many Ethiopic. A fourth version of the verse is present only in Minuscule 629 (14th century), and yet another version was added into Minuscule 88 by a later scribe (Minuscule 88 did not originally contain the verse at all).

So why do I suggest that modern versions still put the verse in the footnotes or at least with brackets? Personally, I think the sequence really makes more sense if Acts 8:37 was there. The claim that the other older manuscripts didn't have them and others say it has them is important. The Ethiopian eunuch asks why he's hindered to be baptized. Then we see that the Ethiopian eunuch was later baptized. However, we're not told why he's hindered. We see the importance that the Ethiopian had to be checked if he believed the Gospel.

At this point, I just wonder whether or not some of the omitted verses in modern translations were later placed as footnotes but were mistakenly added? After all, the older manuscripts didn't start dividing the books of the Bible by chapters and notes.