the amazing Greek-Onlyism theory that says all New Testament autographs and preservation must be in Greek

[Steven Avery]

I think the pre-Vulgate mss in Latin are usually categorized as "Italic". There are quite a few such mss, but I don't think any church anywhere is now still using them in preference to the Vulgate.

True. Vetus Latina is a broad-based description, Italic is sometimes considered a subset of the Old Latin.

 

[christ_undivided]

There are specific manuscripts that are a pre-Vulgate text. The Speculum is a simple example. Any quote that come from before c. AD 400, like that of Priscillian will be pre-Vulgate. Cyprian's Latin text was pre-Vulgate. Just to give a couple of simple examples.

The Vetus Latina......

Do you prefer the Vetus Latina's plentiful copies of 1 Esdras that witness to the work of the seventy? Are you using this yourself?

 

[Steven Avery]

The Vetus Latina......
Do you prefer the Vetus Latina's plentiful copies of 1 Esdras that witness to the work of the seventy? Are you using this yourself?

My references on this thread have been NT.

 

[logos1560]

A whole Bible translation includes both OT and NT. The Old Latin was a translation of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

If around 2/3 of the text of the Old Latin version [the Old Testament] is dismissed and avoided, perhaps it would in effect call into question the reliability of the other 1/3 [the New Testament].

 

[Shoonra]

I doubt that the canonical NT was first written in Hebrew (or Aramaic). One reason is set forth in Eusebius, History of the Church (I quote from the 1967 Penguin edition). In chapter 3, § 25, Eusebius speaks of spurious writings proposed for the NT canon:

"Moreover, some have found a place in the list for the 'Gospel of the Hebrews', a book which has
a special appeal [M.R. James translates as "the especial delight"] for those Hebrews who accepted Christ."

It seems to me that it wouldn't be so special to Jewish readers unless there wasn't any other part of NT literature available in their familiar language.

 

[Maestroh]

Note though that not one of Rick's verses actually has the text given.

Can YOU give us the verse that tells the rest of us where this so-called preservation occurs?

I mean, you're making a lot of demands on others but carefully excluding yourself.....and YOU ARE THE ONE CLAIMING PRESERVATION, nobody else is......where does this tells us about how this happens?

Plus Rick can not accept the simple fact

I think you need to go back and learn the difference between a FACT and an OPINION.

that New Testament preservation included Latin and Syriac,

They did?
According to what passage?

I mean, you're the one demanding others meet some sort of invisible standard here so it's not too much to ask you to do the same.

both of which contributed to the Reformation Bible,

Where is this Reformation Bible thing of which you speak?

Is this an actual, hold in my hands thing or is it invisible like that mythical allegory thing you're always accusing people of?

since that would violate his supposed scriptural proofs.

Chapter and verse that mention "Reformation Bible."

Thanks!

 

[Steven Avery]

You can get a secondary nod, after Doug Kutilek, for giving the argument contra the Wilkinson two streams error. Afaik, you never gave Doug Kutilek proper credit.

After Doug Kutilek and Glenn Conjurske.

 

[Steven Avery]

I doubt that the canonical NT was first written in Hebrew (or Aramaic). One reason is set forth in Eusebius, History of the Church (I quote from the 1967 Penguin edition). In chapter 3, § 25, Eusebius speaks of spurious writings proposed for the NT canon:

"Moreover, some have found a place in the list for the 'Gospel of the Hebrews', a book which has
a special appeal [M.R. James translates as "the especial delight"] for those Hebrews who accepted Christ."

Eusebius reports from Clement of Alexandria that Hebrews was written by Paul in Hebrew, and was translated by Luke to Greek.

 

[Shoonra]

First, there is good reason to doubt that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Second, if a book intended for Jews in Hebrew ever existed, how come there is not the slightest remainder of it now.

 

[Steven Avery]

First, there is good reason to doubt that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Second, if a book intended for Jews in Hebrew ever existed, how come there is not the slightest remainder of it now.

It exists in the Greek (possibly Luke’s translation of Paul).

Np Hebrew NT texts survived from before the medieval era.

 

[Steven Avery]

If around 2/3 of the text of the Old Latin version [the Old Testament] is dismissed and avoided, perhaps it would in effect call into question the reliability of the other 1/3 [the New Testament].

The Old Latin OT is a translation from the Greek OT.
I have not heard of any verses where it adds special insight.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Rick Norris Greek Onlyism for the New Testament Autographs and Preservation

ONLY the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek Originals were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and He did not extend His inspiration beyond that to ANY translation!

 

[Unbound68]

By “original text,” he meant Greek, the language in which the Apostles wrote. (David Daniels, “Who Faked the World’s Oldest Bible?,” pg. 43, Kindle edition)