Was the Old Latin Version pure and in agreement with the KJV?

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I cannot answer that, because I have not been following the discussion because there are other discussions going on that have significantly more interest for me.

So his EDIT divisive are meaningless to you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The 2016 book The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts by H. A. G. Houghton has some of the most recent research and information concerning the Old Latin manuscripts and Latin Vulgate manuscripts. This book is a more scholarly source for information concerning the Old Latin than KJV-only author David Cloud's book is. David Cloud likely has not examined any Latin manuscripts himself.

What quote from Houghton do you consider particularly relevant?
And why?

Where do you thing Hugh Houghton contradicts the quote from David Cloud?

“the Scripture was also preserved in the Latin” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). ... “the witness of the Latin manuscripts and other versions have significance in determining the text of Scripture, because these were even more commonly used by the churches through the Dark Ages than the Greek” (p. 219).

Does Hugh Houghton include all the Old Latin references to the heavenly witnesses?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Not nearly as devoid of meaning as your openly deliberate put-down posts are. They say nothing at all about the topic - They're just personal.

Wrong.
You are not reading the thread.

Look at my posts #2, #4 and #6.

All substantive, all to point.

And then Rick moved to blah-blah.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Since you are only interested in deficient quote-mining,
You EDIT Personal comments It seems that you are trying to accuse me of what others accuse you. Perhaps I provide the quotations that you ignore and avoid because they do not support your unproven, non-scriptural KJV-only theory.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

imJRR

Well-known member
Wrong.
previously edited


Nope - 100% right and accurate and true, and here's why: My post was in direct reference to your posts that are just open, deliberate put-down posts. The posts have no real, actual content in them regarding the topic - they say nothing at all about the topic - They're just personal put-downs of another poster; nothing more. And with the above, they continue. Pathetic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
My post was in direct reference to your posts that are just open, deliberate put-down posts. The posts have no real, actual content in them regarding the topic - they say nothing at all about the topic

What is the topic that you think I am missing?
Make sure you check my posts 2,4,6. Also 22.

Be very specific.

Thanks!
 

imJRR

Well-known member
Translation: you have nothing specific.

My post was both specific and 100% on target and said all it needed to say. If you wish to imagine and post the above in order to pervert my post to your liking, that is your choice.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
My post was both specific and 100% on target and said all it needed to say. If you wish to imagine and post the above in order to pervert my post to your liking, that is your choice.

EDITED BT MOD I pointed to you to my posts with lots of substance on the topic of the Old Latin and the AV. You ignore those posts and say "they say nothing at all about the topic". Then you refuse to say what is supposedly missing. Wacky. And your posts are simply posturing, of no substance.

You even admitted you do not know the topic.

imJRR:
I cannot answer that, because I have not been following the discussion because there are other discussions going on that have significantly more interest for me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

imJRR

Well-known member
No, the imagination/delusion is on the part of your post above; and here's why that's true: The posts of mine that I am referring to are #s 23 and 27. Evidently, the moderators agree with the assessment given there, considering the editing of your posts (such as #21) that has happened. As for the topic of the Old Latin and AV, you bolded the wrong part in quoting me in the above. The thing that is most important to understand is the reason for my not following the discussion.
 

TC Calvinist

Active member
KJV-only authors have identified the Old Latin Version as being pure and in agreement with the 1611 KJV. Here are examples of assertions by KJV-only authors that have not proven to be true.

Peter Ruckman included the Old Latin Version in his line of good Bibles (Bible Babel, p. 82; Monarch of the Books, p. 10). In his commentary on Psalms, Ruckman listed “the Old Latin” as the fifth installment (I, pp. 70-71). Peter Ruckman claimed: “Many times, the Old Latin agrees with the Textus Receptus in its Old Testament renderings” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 93). Will Kinney wrote that “an educated guess would be that God preserved His perfect words in the Old Latin Bibles” (Flaming Torch, April-June, 2003, p. 18). William Grady suggested that the Old Latin “was also closely allied to the Textus Receptus” (Final Authority, p. 35). David Sorenson maintained that the Old Latin “was translated from the Received Text” (Touch Not, p. 79). David Cloud asserted that “the Scripture was also preserved in the Latin” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). David Cloud maintained that “the witness of the Latin manuscripts and other versions have significance in determining the text of Scripture, because these were even more commonly used by the churches through the Dark Ages than the Greek” (p. 219). Gail Riplinger referred to “pure Old Latin Bibles” (In Awe, p. 704). Alan O’Reilly referred to “faithful early translations such as the Old Latin” (O Biblios, p. 2). Jeff McArdle wrote: “Those old Latin Bibles (not including the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome) were the words of God given to God’s people in their own language” (Bible Believer’s Guide, p. 25). Jack Chick listed the Old Latin as a Bible that was “exactly copied and correctly translated” (Next Step, p. 8). Gary Miller indicated that the Old Latin was one of the “faithful translations of both the Old Testament and New Testament” (Why the KJB, p. 40). Donald Clarke maintained that the KJV is “in harmony” with the ancient versions that he mentioned which included the Old Latin (Bible Version Manual, pp. 18-20). He contended that the Old Latin Bibles “agree with the King James Bible of 1611” (p. 19).

Given there wasn't even a "pure Old Latin line" (whatever that's even supposed to mean), the answer is obviously "no."

Nothing from prior to 1611 matches the KJV directly, which should give anyone pause to make the claim that it is somehow "preserved."
A person can make an argument for "restored" though epistemologically there's no explanation beyond "faith" for this. A modern person could use the very same method to claim that mantle for the NIV.
 

Shoonra

Active member
Is "Old Latin" the same as "Italic"?? If so, while "many times" the Italic version agrees with the TR, there are some instances where it does not.
 

Conan

Active member
The Old Latin and Italic are the same. The Old Latin is considered "western text". The KJV is considered Byzantine text, with some Old Latin occasionally mixed in.
 

Conan

Active member
To clarify, the Byzantine Text is what makes the KJV accurate. The Old Latin makes it inaccurate.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
There are spots where the Old Latin preserves a superb early text, carried through the Vulgate and the AV and Reformation Bibles. Acts 8:37 is a superb example. The Greek text is minority in support on the verse. The heavenly witnesses is quite similar.
 
Top