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.
“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).
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.
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.Since you are only interested in deficient quote-mining,
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
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.
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.
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).