Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Nope, you got that backwards ! The minority texts are less than 5% of known texts with, deletions, additions, dropped verses, and fooled with by many scribes over many years not to mention the many disagreements between the minority texts. The minority texts are a product of Gnostics who never believed what they were translating.

Just for context, we are talking about the Greek texts here. The 5% figure is accurate. The Gnostic claim is a bit broad.

The Latin and Syriac and versional texts are generally more consistent, and often support the Greek Byzantine majority texts.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
The Latin and Syriac and versional texts are generally more consistent, and often support the Greek Byzantine majority texts.
Can you provide clear evidence to support your claim?

There are textual differences between the Old Latin texts and the Greek Byzantine majority texts. The Old Latin translations are placed in the Western family of texts, not in the Byzantine family. Compared to a typical Byzantine text, the Old Latin has some additions and omissions. Perhaps the Latin translations differ more often than they support the Byzantine Greek text.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Can you provide clear evidence to support your claim?

There are textual differences between the Old Latin texts and the Greek Byzantine majority texts. The Old Latin translations are placed in the Western family of texts, not in the Byzantine family. Compared to a typical Byzantine text, the Old Latin has some additions and omissions. Perhaps the Latin translations differ more often than they support the Byzantine Greek text.

They are far closer to the Greek Byzantine and Received Texts that are any Alexandrian mss (basically Vaticanus).

There are thousands of Latin mss., the Old Latin is a few dozen, and they were largely the base for the Vulgate.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
That may be your biased or subjective opinion, but you provide no sound, compelling evidence for your unsupported assertion.

All you have to do is run down the corruptions of the modern versions and you will find that large numbers of them are not missing in the Western text. A good start is the 24 verses missing in the Mark ending and the Pericope Adulterae, that are properly in the Geneva editions and the AV and all the Reformation Bible editions.

The next step would be to look at the other c. 20 verses missing in the corruption versions.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
All you have to do is run down the corruptions of the modern versions and you will find that large numbers of them are not missing in the Western text. A good start is the 24 verses missing in the Mark ending and the Pericope Adulterae.

The next step would be to look at the other 20 verses missing in the corruption versions.

You again present mere unsupported opinion without evidence to back it up. The Old Latin translations put in the Western family are known for having a number of additions as well as some omissions. Would you suggest the Byzantine text has some of the same additions as the Old Latin has?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You again present mere unsupported opinion without evidence to back it up. The Old Latin translations put in the Western family are known for having a number of additions as well as some omissions. Would you suggest the Byzantine text has some of the same additions as the Old Latin has?

Relatively minor, compared to the two sections, and these phrases that were in some Old Latin were generally fixed in the Vulgate text of 400 AD by Jerome. Which gives us most of the c. 10,000 Latin mss.

What about the 24 verses of the Mark ending and the Pericope Adulterae?
Do you have any idea whether they are scripture?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Are these differences in Old Latin manuscripts all minor and insignificant?

Edward Hills observed that the Old Latin version omitted Luke 24:12 (KJV Defended, p. 123). Joseph Bosworth indicated that the Old Latin sometimes omitted a whole verse such as Matthew 23:14 (Gospels, p. xi). Burgon as edited by Miller noted that Matthew 23:14 was omitted by some copyists, “and this error was repeated in the Old Latin versions” (Causes of Corruption, p. 38). H. A. G. Houghton asserted: “There are also a number of instances of verses missing from Old Latin gospel books, such as the whole of Luke 5:39 and Luke 23:17 and Jesus’ prayer for forgiveness in Luke 23:34” (Latin NT, p. 164). Bruce Metzger claimed that John 7:53-8:11 is absent “from several Old Latin manuscripts (a f l* q)“ (Text, p. 223). Alexander Souter maintained that at Luke 24:36 “the words ‘Peace be unto you’ are absent from all unrevised Old-Latin texts” (Text, p. 49). David Cloud indicated that the reading “which” instead of “God” at 1 Timothy 3:16 is found in most Latin manuscripts including the Old Latin (Faith, p. 394). Edward Hills acknowledged that the Western text (the Latin versions) at 1 Timothy 3:16 “reads, which was manifest in the flesh” (KJV Defended, p. 137). In a footnote, KJV-only author Floyd Jones acknowledged that “Dr. Letis informs us that no Byzantine Old Latin is known to be extant” (Which Version, p. 105, footnote 8). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “There is no evidence that the Old Latin read filius in 1 John 5:7, nor any solid evidence that the Old Latin contained 1 John 5:7 at all, though [Frederick] Nolan can give us a few seems, and mights, and might have beens” (Olde Paths, April, 1994, p. 93).

Arthur Voobus asserted: "The textual complexion of the Old Latin version is marked by the boldest departures from the received text" (Early Versions of the NT, p. 47). F. C. Burkitt contended that “the fact that our Latin authorities [or manuscripts] often conspire together in variants found in hardly any extant Greek MS was early noticed” (Old Latin, p. 5). Burkitt maintained that “the earliest Latin versions contained a text of the Gospels enriched by additions” (p. 52). KJV defender Edward F. Hills included the Old Latin Version in the Western family of texts (Believing Bible Study, p. 68).

Kevin James pointed out that “the Old Latin has many disagreements among its surviving manuscripts” (Corruption, p. 26). The Oxford Companion to the Bible noted that the existing Old Latin manuscripts “exhibit many variations among themselves” (p. 753). William McKane pointed out that Jerome maintained that “the corrupt tradition of the [Old] Latin New Testament manuscripts can be cured only be resort to the original Greek” (Selected Christian Hebraists, p. 39). Wilbur Pickering asserted that “the 8,000+ MSS of the Latin Vulgate are remarkable for their extensive discrepancies, and in this they follow the example of the Old Latin MSS” (God Has Preserved, p. 24; Identity of the NT Text IV, p. 107). At Luke 24:4-5, Bruce Metzger maintained that "the Old Latin manuscripts present no fewer than twenty-seven variant readings" (Early Versions, p. 322). Bruce Metzger wrote: “At Luke 2:14 all Old Latin manuscripts read omnibus bonae voluntatis (‘to men of goodwill’)“ (p. 330). Metzger noted that Old Latin manuscripts have some additions to the text such as the addition at Matthew 3:16 in manuscript a and the long addition at Mark 16:4 in manuscript k” (Bible in Translation, p. 31). Scrivener indicated that the Old Latin m “reads Jesus Christ” instead of “God” at Acts 20:28 (Plain Introduction, II, p. 375). According to Edward Hills, the Old Latin added the following at Acts 23:24: “For he feared lest the Jews should seize him and kill him and he meanwhile should be accused of having taken a bribe” (KJV Defended, p. 122). Edward Hills listed several additions found in the Old Latin manuscripts at Matthew 3:15, Matthew 20:28, Luke 3:22, Luke 6:4, Luke 23:53, John 6:56, Acts 15:20, and Acts 23:24 (Believing Bible Study, pp. 46-47; KJV Defended, pp. 121-122) and also several omissions (BBS, pp. 69-70; KJV Defended, p. 123).
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The Old Latin mss. favor the Pericope Adulterae on a 2-1 ratio. The Vulgate is basically fully with the verses.

The rest is mostly some phrases that were fixed in the Vulgate and its 10,000 mss. 27 variants is not a lot in 8,000 verses, the Alexandrian texts have THOUSANDS of corruptions.

And I never said they were "minor and insignificant". Any comparison is to the 45 full verses chopped out by the corruption versions. And the Old Latin errors were largely fixed in 400 AD in the Vulgate.

The statement by Glenn Conjurske (1947-2001) is totally absurd, and is an example of your posting nonsensical error. There are early Old Latin mss. that directly have the heavenly witnesses, along with citations like those of Cyprian. You show that you do not care about real scholarship by including false statements. Maybe Glenn wrote that early, when the information was less easily available.

It is true that on 1 Timothy 3:16 the Latin mss. have a different text than both the corruption versions and the pure Received Text editions. This is well known. The corruption verse text is far worse, since it is a solecism.

What about the 24 verses of the Mark ending and the Pericope Adulterae?
Do you have any idea whether they are scripture?
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
The rest is mostly some phrases that were fixed in the Vulgate and its 10,000 mss.

KJV-only authors place the Latin Vulgate of Jerome on their corrupt tree of Bibles or in their corrupt stream of Bibles. Here are some statements by KJV-only authors.
Troy Clark claimed that the Douay-Rheims “was translated strictly from the Critical Text Latin Vulgate bible of Rome,” and he listed it in his “Critical text” stream of Bibles (Perfect Bible, pp. 267, 296). Mickey Carter listed the 1582 Douay [Rheims] on his “corrupted tree” of Bibles (Things That Are Different, p. 104). H. D. Williams maintained that “the Douay-Rheims Bible is based upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate” (Word-for-Word, p. 42). Peter Ruckman acknowledged that “the textual basis of the Douay-Rheims is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate,” but he also claimed in his endnotes that “the Greek text of the Rheims Jesuit bible was the Westcott and Hort Greek text” (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 162, 517). Peter Ruckman referred to “the Greek text of Rome (Jesuit Rheims)” (King James Onlyism, p. 46). Peter Ruckman mentioned “Satan’s interest in reinstituting the Dark Age Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight, p. 2). Jim Taylor asserted that “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate generally agrees with the Westcott and Hort Text” (In Defense of the TR, p. 204). James Sightler maintained that Jerome “gave us the Latin Vulgate which was based on Greek manuscripts of the Vaticanus type” (Testimony Founded, p. 12). James Sightler claimed: “Jerome had used manuscripts resembling B and Aleph to prepare the Vulgate,” and “There are many other instances where the Rheims-Douay approaches the reading of the critical text” (pp. 130, 131). J. J. Ray asserted: “In the minds of those who are well informed; the Latin Vulgate; the Vaticanus; the Sinaiticus; the Hexapla; Jerome; Eusebius; and Origen; are terms which are inseparable” (God Wrote Only One Bible, p. 19). J. J. Ray claimed that “Jerome’s Vulgate is largely in agreement with these two manuscripts [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus]” (p. 20). Terence McLean alleged: “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate came directly from the fifty Bibles made up by Eusebius from the deity-denying text of Adamantius Origen” (History of Your Bible, p. 32). James Rasbeary declared: “The Douay-Rheims is, of course, very corrupt, just like its source text and the men that translated it” (What’s Wrong, p. 137). James Rasbeary alleged that “they [two ancient manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] are no different than the Catholic Vulgate produced by Jerome” (p. 160). David Daniels asserted that the Jesuits “made the Rheims-Douay” (Did the Catholic Church, p. 111).
 

logos1560

Well-known member
The statement by Glenn Conjurske (1947-2001) is totally absurd, and is an example of your posting nonsensical error.
You fail to prove your allegation to be true. Glenn Conjurske was better informed than you are, and I have found him to be a more reliable source than you are. You accept the nonsensical error of human KJV-only reasoning.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You fail to prove your allegation to be true. Glenn Conjurske was better informed than you are, and I have found him to be a more reliable source than you are.

Nonsense.
Today everyone knows about

Freisinger Fragments
Legionensis
Speculum

Examples of Old Latin mss.

And I like much of the writing from Glenn Conjurske, you just happened to quote a doozy blunder. He mentions Frederick Nolan, yet those mss. mentioned above were not available when Nolan wrote! Proving the worthlessness of your quote.

And you show no knowledge of the heavenly witnesses evidences.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The statement quoted concerned 27 variants in only two verses, not in 8,000 verses.

Fair enough, and rather irrelevant. Two differing texts can have a dozen small variants in a verse or two, and there are maybe 15-20 Old Latin Luke texts.

The number of actual significant phrase variants in the Old Latin is small, as long as you leave out the wild stuff in Codex Bezae, which was a creative writer going to town.

Btw, many of your quotes above are false. You have a habit of deliberately quoting error. That is not scholarship, that is deception. The Conjurske quote was interesting, because it was sincere, and about the wonderful heavenly witnesses vers, and the quote was totally false.

What about the 24 verses of the Mark ending and the Pericope Adulterae?
Do you have any idea whether they are scripture?
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
H. A. G. Houghton noted: “The Latin translation of the New Testament is not a word-for-word equivalent which can easily be retroverted to reconstruct its Greek source” (Latin NT, p. 143). Houghton maintained that “certain elements of Greek cannot be rendered directly into Latin” (p. 147). Houghton claimed: “The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Latin New Testament were copied in the fourth century” (p. 19). Houghton asserted that “even in the earliest Latin tradition there is a degree of harmonizing interference” (p. 144). Houghton claimed that “the earliest Latin version was the loosest, often paraphrasing and sometimes even omitting material which appeared to be superfluous” (pp. 143-144). Houghton pointed out several examples of interpolations, glosses, or additions in Latin manuscripts (pp. 158, 159, 161, 163, 167-169, 174, 179). For one specific example, Houghton referred to “the lengthy interpolation at Matthew 20:28 of a text resembling Luke 14:8-10, present in many Old Latin codices as well as some Vulgate gospel books” (p. 80; see also pp. 158-159). Houghton asserted that “the Latin tradition of the Catholic Epistles is characterized by interpolations to an even greater extent than the Pauline Epistles” (p. 179). Houghton noted that “knowledge of the looseness of early translators should caution against using versional evidence to reconstruct Greek forms which are not preserved” (Latin NT, p. 146).
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Btw, many of your quotes above are false. You have a habit of deliberately quoting error.
You fail to identify to which quotations you refer. Were you referring to my accurate quotations of what KJV-only authors have claimed? Are you admitting that KJV-only authors make false claims?

You fail to prove your claims against the quotations to be true. You may have a habit of making unproven and even false allegations and claims.
You do not provide proof for what you allege. It is erroneous KJV-only reasoning that believes assertions that are not true that would deceive.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
H. A. G. Houghton noted: “The Latin translation of the New Testament is not a word-for-word equivalent which can easily be retroverted to reconstruct its Greek source” (Latin NT, p. 143). Houghton maintained that “certain elements of Greek cannot be rendered directly into Latin” (p. 147). Houghton claimed: “The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Latin New Testament were copied in the fourth century” (p. 19). Houghton asserted that “even in the earliest Latin tradition there is a degree of harmonizing interference” (p. 144). Houghton claimed that “the earliest Latin version was the loosest, often paraphrasing and sometimes even omitting material which appeared to be superfluous” (pp. 143-144).

That is agreeing with my point about corruptions in the 2nd century. See the Scrivener quote.

Thanks!
 
Top