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

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You refer to the false prologue not really by Jerome. The original Vulgate by Jerome did not have the [bracketed] words.

Both statements are against the evidence.

Other than simply quoting your secondary source textcrit handlers, what is your primary source evidence for both claims?

If this is out of your league, simply acknowledge you do not know.
 

Conan

Active member
Both statements are against the evidence.

Other than simply quoting your secondary source textcrit handlers, what is your primary source evidence for both claims?

If this is out of your league, simply acknowledge you do not know.
It is the truth. You do not know because you reject all the evidence. Both statements are fact. You reject the dual facts because they go against the extra words in [brackets] that came from non original Latin scribes. The words were never in the Greek. They are an intrusion from the Latin.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
It is the truth. You do not know because you reject all the evidence. Both statements are fact. You reject the dual facts because they go against the extra words in [brackets] that came from non original Latin scribes. The words were never in the Greek. They are an intrusion from the Latin.

Do you even know the text of the Vulgate Prologue?

Please, stop the diversion of repetition, with a claim you know nothing about.
Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Conan

Active member
It was not written by Jerome, but falsely attributed to him. The extra words were not in the earliest manuscripts of Jeromes Latin Vulgate. Therefore it was not even in the original Latin Vulgate.
 

Conan

Active member
It was not written by Jerome, but falsely attributed to him. The extra words were not in the oldest latin vulgate manuscripts, so we know the prologue was not written by Jerome. The extra words are not even original to the Latin Vulgate, but crept in from old latin manuscripts.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
If any of the readers actually knows anything about these two topics (or want to learn) please hare awy.

Thanks!
 

logos1560

Well-known member
If any of the readers actually knows anything about these two topics (or want to learn) please hare awy.
Perhaps readers may wonder whether you know the facts or want to learn the truth.

Because you make claims does not mean that they are true. You provided no documented, primary, compelling, convincing evidence against the two statements that you claimed were supposedly against the evidence. You seem to expect others to trust blindly your unsupported, unverified claims.
 
Last edited:

Conan

Active member
His claims are false. The falsely attributed prologue to Jerome tries to appeal to the johannine comma as
being genuine but scholars know it's false because in the same bible that it is found the Johannine comma is not in its text. The prologue claims something that is not in its text.

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one
 

TC Calvinist

Active member
Both statements are against the evidence.

Other than simply quoting your secondary source textcrit handlers, what is your primary source evidence for both claims?

If this is out of your league, simply acknowledge you do not know.

It's funny how bold you are against everyone else but you carefully choose not to engage me. Nevertheless, since you're now neck deep into taunting, let's see how much you know. This is primary source stuff, and it's important.

Καὶ εὐθὺς ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος παραγίνεται Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα καὶ μετ' αὐτοῦ ὄχλος μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων παρὰ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων. ὁ δὲ ἰαθεὶς οὐκ ᾔδει τίς ἐστιν, ὁ γὰρ Ἰησοῦς ἐξένευσεν ὄχλου ὄντος ἐν τῷ τόπῳ.

1) How many genitive absolute participial constructions occur in the above passage?

2) Where are they?

This is first semester stuff, so since you wrote the following comment, I'm sure you'll answer this question just fine.

The grammatical, stylistic and internal evidences massively support the originality in the Greek.

You are claiming to understand Greek grammar here, so this first semester Koine question should not be difficult for you at all.

The fact that you are not familiar with these evidences is understandable, as you are played by the textcrits.

Let's see how much firsthand stuff you know yourself.

I usually don't go here, but since you opted to taunt, let's see your base level of knowledge. You're the one making claims about Greek grammar, so first semester stuff should be child's play for you.
 

TC Calvinist

Active member
If any of the readers actually knows anything about these two topics (or want to learn) please hare awy.

Yes, I do.

1) It was written well after Jerome.

2) All anyone would have had to do to prove the point was simply whip out the original Vulgate Jerome wrote to prove it. Nobody did this because it didn't have it, which means Jerome didn't have it AND he didn't write the Prologue.

And to my knowledge, not a single Latin scholar holds that position.

What is becoming more clear with each post, though, is the fact that you continue to write as if the Latin Vulgate was one monolithic whole, when it wasn't.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
2) All anyone would have had to do to prove the point was simply whip out the original Vulgate Jerome wrote to prove it. Nobody did this because it didn't have it, which means Jerome didn't have it AND he didn't write the Prologue.

Who can whip out a text that is not extant?

Logic 101.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
What is becoming more clear with each post, though, is the fact that you continue to write as if the Latin Vulgate was one monolithic whole, when it wasn't.

Huh? You just make things up.

The Latin Vulgate mss. support the heavenly witnesses verse in about 95% of its manuscripts.

Since you show no real understanding of the Vulgate Prologue, I'll consider giving it a thread of its own, to help get contributions from other readers.
 

Conan

Active member
Pseudo-Jerome, Prologue to the Catholic Epistles
Many Vulgate manuscripts, including the Codex Fuldensis, the earliest extant Vulgate manuscript, include a Prologue to the Canonical Epistles referring to the comma.

If the letters were also rendered faithfully by translators into Latin just as their authors composed them, they would not cause the reader confusion, nor would the differences between their wording give rise to contradictions, nor would the various phrases contradict each other, especially in that place where we read the clause about the unity of the Trinity in the first letter of John. Indeed, it has come to our notice that in this letter some unfaithful translators have gone far astray from the truth of the faith, for in their edition they provide just the words for three [witnesses]—namely water, blood and spirit—and omit the testimony of the Father, the Word and the Spirit, by which the Catholic faith is especially strengthened, and proof is tendered of the single substance of divinity possessed by Father, Son and Holy Spirit.77[97]

The Latin text is online.[98] The Prologue presents itself as a letter of Jerome to Eustochium, to whom Jerome dedicated his commentary on the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel. Despite the first-person salutation, some claim it is the work of an unknown imitator from the late fifth century.[3] (The Codex Fuldensis Prologue references the Comma, but the Codex's version of 1 John omits it, which has led many to believe that the Prologue's reference is spurious.)[99] Its inauthenticity is arguably stressed by the omission of the passage from the manuscript's own text of 1 John, however that can also be seen as confirming the claim in the Prologue that scribes tended to drop the text

 

Conan

Active member
had the comma
Huh? You just make things up.

The Latin Vulgate mss. support the heavenly witnesses verse in about 95% of its manuscripts.

Since you show no real understanding of the Vulgate Prologue, I'll consider giving it a thread of its own, to help get contributions from other readers.
You are the one who makes things up. The Greek never had the comma. The Syraic (all versions) never had the comma. Nor the Coptic, Gothic, Georgian, Armenian, nor any other ancient Language but Latin. And it is not even found in the oldest Latin witnesses showing it to be non-original even to the Latin. All Greek manuscripts agree, whether Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, Ceasarean, and all independants and mixed manuscripts, they do not include the johannine comma. The reason is clear. John the Apostle did not write them in 1st John. They were added by some Latin scribes later. But the Latin was to late to infect all the ancient versions as they were translated from The Original Greek, of at least another language that had been. You are the one who makes stuff up and denies the evidence.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Latin scribes.

You are not following. You asked me to whip out the original text of Jerome.

I pointed out that it is not extant, your request was simply impossible. And then you came to a totallly illogical, nonsensical conclusion.

2) All anyone would have had to do to prove the point was simply whip out the original Vulgate Jerome wrote to prove it. Nobody did this because it didn't have it, which means Jerome didn't have it AND he didn't write the Prologue.

Try to be logical. Thanks!
 
Top