The Old Latin Version and the KJB Readings

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Dec 24, 2003.

  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Old Latin Version and the King James Bible Readings

    There are at least 17 entire verses omitted from the New Testament in such modern versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, and the NASB. The NIV omits all 17 of these verses, while the RSV, ESV omit even more, and the NASBs vary from one edition to the next, omitting all these verses in some editions and replacing some of them in others.

    All these seventeen whole verses are found in the ancient Old Latin Version which dates from around 157 A.D., and was in use through the 1500's.

    Here is a list of these verses which are found in the Authorized King James Holy Bible, and in the ancient Old Latin Version, but are omitted in the modern versions based on the very different Westcott-Hort Greek text. The following verses are found in all, most or some of the few remaining Old Latin manuscripts. There undoubtedly were hundreds if not thousands of such Old Latin Bibles in existence throughout the centuries, but today we have only a few remaining, partial copies.

    Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

    Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

    Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall recieve the greater damnation."

    Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

    Mark 9:44-46 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched...into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

    Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

    Mark 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

    Luke 9:55-56 "But he turned and rebuked them, AND SAID, YE KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF. FOR THE SON OF MAN IS NOT COME TO DESTROY MEN'S LIVES, BUT TO SAVE THEM. And they went to another village." All the capital lettered words are missing from the NIV, NASB, RSV.

    Luke 17:36 "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

    Luke 23:17 "For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast."

    John 5: 3b - 4 "waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

    Acts 8:37 "And Phillip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

    Acts 9:5-6 "And he said, Who art thou Lord? And THE LORD SAID, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS. AND HE TREMBLING AND ASTONISHED SAID, LORD, WHAT WILT THOU HAVE ME TO DO? AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HIM, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." All the capital lettered words are missing in the NASB, NIV, RSV, but found in the Old Latin and the KJB.

    Acts 15:34 "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."

    Acts 24:6-8 "Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, AND WOULD HAVE JUDGED ACCORDING TO OUR LAW. BUT THE CHIEF CAPTAIN LYSIAS CAME UPON US, AND WITH GREAT VIOLENCE TOOK HIM AWAY OUT OF OUR HANDS, COMMANDING HIS ACCUSERS TO COME UNTO THEE; by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him." Again, all the capital lettered words are omitted in the modern versions.

    Acts 28:29 "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

    Romans 16:24 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

    1 John 5:7-8 "For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." Again, all the capital lettered words are missing in the NASB, NIV, RSV, but are found in the Old Latin manuscripts and in the King James Bible.

    The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia of 1915 has this to say concerning the early Latin and Syriac translations of the Holy Bible.

    "The claim of Christianity to be the one true religion has carried with it from the beginning the obligation to make its Holy Scriptures, containing the Divine message of salvation and life eternal, known to all mankind. Accordingly, wherever the first Christian evangelists carried the gospel beyond the limits of the Greek-speaking world, one of the first requirements of their work was to give the newly evangelized peoples the record of God's revelation of Himself in their mother tongue. It is generally agreed that, as Christianity spread, the Syriac and the Latin versions were the first to be produced; and translations of the Gospels, and of other books of the Old and New Testament in Greek, were in all probability to be found in these languages before the close of the 2nd century."

    The Syriac Peshitta: For my article dealing with the King James Bible readings found in this ancient version, please see my article at:

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Syriac.html

    In his book Final Authority William P Grady quotes John Burgon on pages 33-34 concerning the reliability of a version over any single manuscript. "I suppose it may be laid down that an ancient Version outweighs any single Codex, ancient or modern, which can be named: the reason being, that it is scarcely credible that a Version can have been executed from a single exemplar (copy). A second reason for the value of ancient versions is in their ability to exhibit a text which antedates the oldest Greek manuscripts. Readings which are challenged in the Authorized Version for their non-existence in the 'two most ancient authorities' (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, fourth century) are frequently discovered in the Syrian and Latin translations of the second century."

    In his book An Understandable History of the Bible Rev. Samuel Gipp Th.D confirms this fact. He writes: "The Old Latin Vulgate was used by the Christians in the churches of the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albegenses and other fundamental groups throughout Europe. Jerome's translation was not used by the true Biblical Christians for almost a millennium after it was translated from corrupted manuscripts by Jerome in 380 A.D. Even then it only came into usage due to the death of Latin as a common language, and the violent, wicked persecutions waged against true believers by Pope Gregory IX during his reign from 1227 to 1242 A.D."

    David Fuller confirms this fact: "It is clearly evident that the Latin Bible of early British Christianity was not the Latin Bible (Vulgate) of the Papacy."

    The Italic Bible (AD157) "Italy, France and Great Britain were once provinces of the old Roman Empire. Latin was then the language of the common people. So the first translations of the Bible in these countries were made from the Greek Vulgate into Latin. One of the first of these Latin Bibles was for the Waldenses in northern Italy, translated not later than 157 AD and was known as the Italic Version. The renowned scholar Beza states that the Italic Church dates from 120 AD. Allix, an outstanding scholar, testifies that enemies had corrupted many manuscripts, while the Italic Church handed them down in their apostolic purity."

    In spite of all this factual evidence for the genuine readings found in the King James Bible, there are those today who promote the multitude of conflicting bible versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV. These men do not believe that any text, be it Hebrew or Greek, or any Bible translation is the complete, inerrant, inspired words of God. Among these are men like James White, Gary Hudson, and Doug Kutilek.

    Gary Hudson, who himself is a severe critic of the King James Bible, tries to downplay the importance of the Old Latin manuscripts, but at least he gives us this valuable informatiion concerning the existing O.L. manuscripts. "An actual count reveals 61 Old Latin manuscripts that are extant. This information may be found by comparing pp. 712-716 of the Nestle-Aland 26th Edition Greek Text (Appendix 1:B, "Codices Latini"), with the UBS3 (pp. xxxii-xxxiv). The Old Latin mss.are listed by their corresponding content (Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse). Of the 61 extant mss. (very fragmented in their contents), 30 contain the gospels; 14 the Acts; 19 the Pauline epistles; 12 the catholic epistles; 8 the Apocalypse."

    Doug Kutilek likewise tries to minimize the importance of the Old Latin version by listing 26 divergent readings "gleaned practically at random", in an effort to discount the testimony of this ancient version to the readings found in the Authorized King James Bible. Here is the site of his article - http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/waldensian.htm

    Mr. Kutilek states: "First, by no stretch of the imagination could the Old Latin version or versions, in its various Italic, African, or European forms, be honestly identified as Byzantine in text." He then proceeds to list 26 examples in an attempt to overthrow the testimony of the ancient Old Latin version which agrees so much with the readings found in the King James Bible as opposed to the modern versions.    

    Here is Mr. Kutilek's list along with some of my additional comments. You will notice that most of Mr. Kutilek's examples are quite insignificant and in many of these the Old Latin readings are divided, some siding with the KJB and others not. You will also notice that he mentions only 11 or 12 of the Old Latin manuscripts; not the readings for the others among the 61 copies mentioned by Gary Hudson.

    Mr. Kutilek starts by saying: "To illustrate the often wide departure of the Old Latin from the received text. I submit the following examples:

    Matthew 1:7,8--5 of 8 Old Latin manuscripts (OL mss.) read "Asaph" instead of the received text's "Asa."

    Matthew 1:10--5 of 8 OL mss. read "Amos" for "Amon."

    Matthew 1:18--all 10 OL mss. lack "Jesus."

    Matthew 6:13--7 of 11 OL mss. lack the doxology, and only 1 of the remaining 4 reads precisely as the received text.

    What Mr. Kutilek fails to mention is that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "FOR THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER. AMEN." though omitted by the NASB, RSV, NIV, are found in over 1000 Greek copies compared to just 10 that omit these precious words. They are found in some of the Old Latin copies as well as the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian, Gothic, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Gothic ancient versions as well as quoted by several Church Fathers. The reading is undeniably genuine, yet the NASB, NIV omit these words.

    Matthew 6:15--8 of 11 OL mss. lack "their trespasses."

    Matthew 23:19--9 of 11 OL mss. lack "fools and."

    Mark 1:2--all 9 OL mss. read "Isaiah the prophet," instead of "the prophets." (Actually, Nestle-Aland lists one of the Old Latin texts "r" as reading "in Isaiah and in the prophets")

    Luke 2:14--all 12 OL mss. read "of good pleasure," with the Vulgate and the Vaticanus Greek manuscript against the received text. (The KJB reading is not just the Received Text, but is the Majority reading found even in Sinaiticus correction, Vaticanus correction, numerous uncial copies (capital letters), the Syriac Peshitta, Siniatic, and Harclean versions, the Coptic Boharic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, and Ethiopian versions)

    Luke 24:3--7 of 11 OL mss. lack "of the Lord Jesus."

    Luke 24:6--7 of 11 OL mss. lack "he is not here but was raised."

    Luke 24:9--8 of 11 OL mss. lack "from the tomb."

    Luke 24:36--all 10 OL mss. either add "it is I; do not be afraid" to the phrase "and he said to them, peace be unto you," (3 of 10), or else they lack the entire clause (the other 7). What Mr. Kutilek fails to mention here is that the reading: "Jesus himself stood in the midst of them AND SAITH UNTO THEM, PEACE BE UNTO YOU", is found in the Majority of all texts, but the NASB omitted all the capital letter words in all editions from 1960 through 1977. It was only in the NASB 1995 update version that some NASBs decided to put these words back into the text. The 1995 Update version I have does not contain these words, but others have told me that their copies do. Mr. Kutilek also did not mention that two of the Old Latin texts were later changed to omit the words.

    Luke 24:52--6 of 9 OL mss. lack "him."

    John 5:32--5 of 8 OL mss. read "you" instead of "I."

    Romans 6:11--9 of 10 OL mss. lack "our Lord."

    Here the reading: "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ OUR LORD" is found not only in the Majority of all texts, and in Sinaiticus, and C, but also in the Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian, and Slavonic. It is the NASB, NIV, RSV that omit the words "our Lord" based on a minority reading.

    Romans 8:1--all 10 OL mss. lack "but after the spirit;" in addition, 2 of these mss. also lack the clause "who walk not after the flesh."

    Mr. Kutilek has given us some false information here regarding the readings of the Old Latin versions. According to the Nestle-Aland's most recent critical text, the phrase "but after the Spirit" is found in two of the Old Latin copies (ar, and o) and obviously most of them contain the phrase "who walk not after the flesh." Therefore the Old Latin texts do witness to the complete KJB reading.

    Romans 8:1 in the King James Bible reads: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, WHO WALK NOT AFTER THE FLESH, BUT AFTER THE SPIRIT." The words in capital letters are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, the Syriac Harclean, Georgian, and Slavonic ancient versions. The NASB, NIV, RSV all omit these words, again, based on a minority reading.

    I Corinthians 6:20--none of the 11 OL mss. have the Byzantine addition, "and in your spirit, which are God's." Again Mr. Kutilek shows his bias by referring to the words as "the Byzantine addition". The facts are that the reading: "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, AND IN YOUR SPIRIT, WHICH ARE GOD'S." is found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Armenian, and Latin Vulgate ancient versions. The NASB, NIV, RSV continue to omit these words based on a minority reading.

    I Corinthians 7:5--all 10 OL mss. lack "fasting and."

    The reading found in the KJB "except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves TO FASTING and prayer" is found in the Majority of all Greek texts, as well as Sinaiticus correction, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Gothic, Slavonic, and Latin Vulgate ancient versions. The NASB, NIV, RSV omit the words because not found in the minority texts.

    I Timothy 3:16--all 10 OL mss. have a relative pronoun, "that which," instead of the Byzantine reading "God."

    The correct reading of "GOD was manifest in the flesh" is found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including Sinaiticus correction, Alexandrinus, C correction, the ancient Georgian, and Syriac Harclean versions, as well as some Latin Vulgate copies. The Vaticanus text, upon which the NASB, NIV, RSV base their reading, doesn't even make grammatical sense in Greek. The NASB, NIV say "HE appeared in a body". Well, so what? We all have appeared in a body, but the KJB reading teaches that Jesus Christ was GOD manifest in the flesh. Even a Bible critic like James White thinks the KJB reading is to be preferred. James White does not believe in any inspired, complete, inerrant Bible version or text on this earth, but in his book The KJV Controversy, even he admits on page 207 "In fact, I prefer this reading, and feel that it has more than sufficient support from the Greek manuscripts."

    Hebrews 10:38--7 of 8 OL mss. add "my."

    James 2:20--8 of 9 OL mss. read "idle" instead of "dead."

    James 4:4--all 9 OL mss. lack "adulterers and."

    James 5:20--all 8 OL mss. add "his" to "soul."

    I Peter 3:15--all 7 OL mss. read "Christ" instead of "God." Throughout this list Mr. Kutilek presents, he is cherry-picking certain words in select verses in an attempt to prove the Old Latin more closely matches the readings found in the NASB, NIV, and RSV. The reading of GOD as found in the KJB in this verse is that of the Majority of all texts. Mr. Kutilek presents his case based on only 7 mixed Old Latin portions that still remain out of the hundreds if not thousands of copies that once existed, many of which in all likelihood read exactly like the King James Bible does today. Yet Mr. Kutilek conveniently fails to mention all the readings found in the remaining Old Latin copies that support the KJB in contrast to the NASB, NIV.

    For instance, here in the very next verse of 1 Peter 3:16 "whereas they speak evil OF YOU, AS OF EVILDOERS" is omitted by the NASB, NIV, yet found in the Majority as well as the Old Latin copies. In 1 Peter 4:14 "ON THEIR PART HE IS EVIL SPOKEN OF, BUT ON YOUR PART HE IS GLORIFIED" is missing from the NASB, NIV, yet is found in the Old Latin and Majority. In 1 Peter 5:2 "Feed the church of God which is among you, TAKING THE OVERSIGHT THEREOF" is missing in the NASB, NIV, yet found in the Old Latin, Majority and KJB. Again in both 1 Peter 5:10 and 14 the word JESUS is missing in the NASB, NIV, but is found in the Old Latin copies. When we compare the 17 or so entire verses that are omitted by the modern versions in the New Testament, we see that they all are found in both the King James Bible and in the Old Latin copies. The general text of the few remaining Old Latin copies give overwhelming evidence for the authenticity of the readings found in the Authorized Version. This is why Doug Kutilek and Gary Hudson have tried to convince us that the Old Latin texts are very different from the King James Bible, when in reality, they give convincing support for these readings as being older than the corrupt Greek copies upon which the modern versions are based.

    I John 3:1--all 7 OL mss. add "and we are," as do the Vulgate, Vaticanus, and many other authorities.

    The reading found in the KJB is: "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God." This is the reading of the Majority of all Greek texts, but the NASB, RSV, and NIV add the words "and we are".

    But for some mysterious reason, when we get to the most important verse omitted in 1 John by the NASB, NIV, RSV, Mr. Kutilek fails to mention this. That verse is the Trinitarian formula found in 1 John 5:7-8. The KJB reads: "For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." Here the NASB, RSV, NIV omit all the capital letter words, yet they are found in all the Old Latin copies.

    I John 3:5--all 7 OL mss. lack "our."

      Mr. Kutilek concludes with these words: "These 26 examples gleaned practically at random from the apparatus of The Greek New Testament, 3rd edition, 1975, published by the United Bible Societies, represent only a small fraction of the Old Latin departures from the received text (as well as from the Byzantine text). Very many more could be listed, but surely these are enough to refute the false claim that the Old Latin in any of its forms is Byzantine in text type."

    I seriously doubt that Doug Kutilek "gleaned practically at random" his minor selections in an effort to prove to us that the Old Latin version is not "in any of its forms a Byzantine text." Do you really think Mr. Kutilek is an impartial judge in these matters, or does he have an agenda to promote himself as the Final Authority of what God did or did not say? Other equally qualified scholars have examined the same evidence and arrived at a very different conclusion than that of men like James White, Gary Hudson, and Doug Kutilek.

    For me and thousands of other King James Bible believers, we will trust God to have fulfilled His promises to preserve His inerrant words. We believe what our Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

    Will Kinney
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Will -

    Where was this originally printed? (details, dates, author of each part, etc)

    Have to admit that as soon as you quoted Gipp as a basis FOR your argument and decry Doug Kutliek (who has proven more errors of the "only" group than anyone else I know), you caused me to shake my head and wonder where you were coming from.

    And the basis of the argument - that the old Latin and Syriac are better than the oldest Greek - might be held by some "onlies", but not by anyone in the world I know.

    Other versions, translations, possible ante-nicene quotations, et al PALE compared to hard extant copies of the actual NT in Greek.
     
  3. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    He claims to have written it himself:
    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/articles.html

    That's right. I got a couple of quotes from some other people, but I did the research and looked up the verses and the critical notes myself and put the article together.

    He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

    I will leave it at that.

    Will K
     
  5. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I just read a few articles and it is clear that you have quoted other men. Let me just say that I know of very few scholars who would even write things like you suggested that you have researched. If you have researched you have not documented your sources much. From what I have seen the internet and many other books that are written on this subject are written by men who have an agenda. So many I know have personally told me they would not "waste" their time. They spend their time teaching and doing research and interacting with other scholars.

    I noticed the article on phileo and agapao and couldn't disagree with you more. I believe that you do not understand the diference between the two. An English translation will not give that difference. It is more cultural. Doing what the English does is like doing the same thing to como estas? and como esta? in Spanish. They translate the same but are very different in meaning.
     
  7. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    I honestly didn't mean it that way - I apologize if it sounded like I doubt the guy. I really in no way do. I've read his stuff before.
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I was the original questioner. I read a couple of "his" articles and realized there was material in there that was not original. So was giving him a chance to explain.

    He did. That's all.
     
  9. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alternatively, there are at least 17 verses added to the KJV because they were imported from the Old Latin version, a text notorious for its expansions, paraphrases, harmonizations, and addition of extrabiblical material (most likely based on oral traditions). For example, some Old Latin sources mention a light at Jesus' baptism, while others have the heavenly voice saying "This is my beloved Son, today I have begotten you" (Lk. 3:22). The Old Latin text of Acts is significantly longer, containing numerous paraphrases and additions. And the Old Latin sources for 1 John contain a number of Comma-type additions and expansions:


    1 Jn. 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him [[if we have been made perfect in him.]] -- This addition is supported by the Greek Psi; Old Latin t; Vulgate MSS; Augustine Homilies on First John 1.9; Pseudo-Augustine; and Bede.

    1 Jn. 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever [[just as God himself remains forever.]] -- This addition is supported by the Old Latin t; Vulgate MSS; Coptic Sahidic MSS; Augustine Homilies on First John 2.14; Cyprian On the Lord's Prayer 14; and Lucifer of Cagliari.

    1 Jn. 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you [[so that you may know that you have an anointing.]] -- This addition is supported by Augustine Homilies on First John 3.12

    1 Jn. 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son [[whom he sent upon earth as a Saviour. And the Son gave testimony on earth fulfilling the Scriptures; and we offer testimony since we have seen him, and we proclain to you that thus you may believe.]] -- This addition is supported by Beatus, Ad Elipandum 26; Vulgate MSS; and Armenian MSS.

    1 Jn. 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come [[and put on flesh for our sake, and suffered, and rose from the dead; he took us up]], and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. -- This addition is supported by Vulgate MSS, Julian of Toledo, Hilary of Poitiers, Pseudo-Augustine, and Virgilus of Thapsus.


    If we are going to add passages to the Scriptures based on their presence in the Old Latin, then we would have to add *scores* of other verses not found in the TR/KJV. For example, consider the variant in Lk. 3:22, where the heavenly voice at Jesus' baptism says "You are my beloved Son, this day I have begotten you." Below is a partial list of sources which support this reading:


    Greek MS -- D (5th C)

    Old Latin MSS -- a (4th C.), b (5th C.), c (12th-13th C.) d (5th C.), ff1 (10th C.), l (7th-8th C.), r1 (7th. C.)

    Latin Fathers --

    Justin Martyr (2nd C.):

    ...but then the Holy Ghost, and for man’s sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and there came at the same instant from the heavens a voice, which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him: ‘Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee;’ [the Father] saying that His generation would take place for men, at the time when they would become acquainted with Him: ‘Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten thee.’” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue 88)

    For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, ‘Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,’ is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, (Justin Martyr, Dialogue 103)

    Methodius (3rd C.):

    Now, in perfect agreement and correspondence with what has been said, seems to be this which was spoken by the Father from above to Christ when He came to be baptized in the water of the Jordan, “Thou art my son: this day have I begotten thee;” for it is to be remarked that He was declared to be His Son unconditionally, and without regard to time; for He says “Thou art,” and not “Thou hast become,” showing that He had neither recently attained to the relation of Son, nor again, having begun before, after this had an end, but having been previously begotten, that He was to be, and was the same. But the expression, “This day have I begotten thee,” signifies that He willed that He who existed before the ages in heaven should be begotten on the earth — that is, that He who was before unknown should be made known. (Methodius, Banquet of the Ten Virgins 8.9)

    Hilary of Poitiers (4th C.):

    His baptism this intimation of His inherent Sonship was heard as a voice bore witness from Heaven: — Thou art My Son; this day have begotten Thee. (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 8.25)

    Nor are we left in doubt how He was thus anointed with the Spirit of God and with power, when we listen to the Father’s voice, as it spoke when He came up out of the Jordan, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee. (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 11.18)

    Lactantius (4th C.) :

    When He first began to reach maturity He was baptized by the prophet John in the river Jordan, that He might wash away in the spiritual layer not His own sins, for it is evident that He had none, but those of the flesh, which He bare; that as He saved the Jews by undergoing circumcision, so He might save the Gentiles also by baptism — that is, by the pouring forth of the purifying dew. Then a voice from heaven was heard: “Thou art my Son, today have I begotten Thee.” Which voice is found to have been foretold by David. And the Spirit of God descended upon Him, formed after the appearance of a white dove. (Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4.15)

    Augustine (4th-5th C.):

    But once more, with respect to that rendering which is contained in some codices of the Gospel according to Luke, and which bears that the words heard in the heavenly voice were those that are written in the Psalm, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee;” although it is said not to be found in the more ancient Greek codices, yet if it can be established by any copies worthy of credit, what results but that we suppose both voices to have been heard from heaven, in one or other verbal order? (Augustine, Harmony of the Gospel 2.14)

    He tells us that the person of whom he spoke at the outset as the son of David was baptized by John, and became the Son of God on this particular occasion, when about thirty years old, according to Luke, when also the voice was heard saying to Him, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee.” (Augustine, Reply to Faustus 23.2)


    So here we have a reading in the Old Latin which has *far* better attestation than many of the Old Latin readings which appear in the TR/KJV, yet it is not included. If the TR/KJV advocates are going to be consistent, they would have to admit this reading and *many* others like it into their texts.
     
  10. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    The vast majority of these are corruptions based on harmonization to parallel passages (Mt. 17:21//Mk. 9:29; Mt. 18:11//Lk. 19:10; Mt. 23:14//Mk. 12:40, Lk. 20:47; Mk. 7:16//Mt. 11:15, 13:9, 43; Mk. 4:9, 23; Lk. 8:8; 14:35; Mk. 9:44-46//Isa. 66:24; Mk. 11:26//Mt. 6:15; Mk. 15:28//Lk. 22:37; Lk. 17:36//Mt. 24:40; Lk. 23:27//Mt. 27:15, Mk. 15:6, Jn. 18:39; Ac. 9:5 //Ac. 26:14; Rom. 16:24//Rom. 16:20). The remainder are additions of extra-biblical material of the kind found elsewhere in Old Latin sources (especially the longer Western text of Acts) but which did not make it into the TR/KJV primarily because Erasmus chose not to add them.
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    "Brandplucked" is Will's handle on Yahoo and some other boards. Though we disagree on the versions issue, I must say Will is honest about the authorship of whatever he posts. If he says it's his, you can count on it.(and know to whom to respond)
     
  12. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Archangel, I am well aware that the Latin versions became corrupted and differed among themselves. This is well documented. There undoubtedly existed hundreds if not thousands of Old Latin manuscripts that we no longer have today.

    You can find divergent readings in the few that remain today, but there is withing even what little we have today strong evidence for the readings of the KJB that existed 200 years before your Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came on the scene. Would you care to compare just these two "oldest and best" and see how radically different they are from even each other?

    You have no inspired, complete, infallible Bible, Arch. I know it and so do you. You make a pious pretense of being a defender of the faith, but you have no final authority other than your own mind.

    You like the NASB? Well, check this out, particularly the latter parts. This is where your beloved scholars will lead you. And by the way, I did write this myself :)


    Luke chapter 24 - Which Bible is inspired?

    This simple study of Luke 24 should show to any sincere and open mind that all the Bible versions on the market today cannot all be the inspired words of the living God.

    We shall look at the texts used and the variations that are found among the King James Bible, the New American Standard, the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. None of them are in total agreement, and the changes may surprise you.

    In verse 3 we read: “And they entered in, and found not the body OF THE LORD JESUS.” These last words “of the Lord Jesus” are omitted by the RSV and NRSV. Only manuscript D omits these words. They are still in the NIV and NASB.

    In verse 6 “HE IS NOT HERE, BUT IS RISEN” is omitted in the RSV, because not in D only, though found in all others, but the NRSV puts these words back in their version. They are also found in the NIV and NASB.

    The whole of verse 12 is again omitted in the RSV. “Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes LAID by themselves, and departed, WONDERING IN HIMSELF at that which was come to pass.” This verse is put back in by the NRSV.

    It is also found in the NASB and NIV, but the NASB and NIV have omitted the word LAID. This word is keimena and is in the majority, A, TR. and P75 which predates by more than 100 years both Sinaticus and Vaticanus which omit this little word, and so the NIV/NASB omit it too, though it is found in the Catholic Douay Version as also in the KJB.

    The part about “he departed, wondering in himself” is the same in the NKJV and NIV, but the NASB has rendered this as “he went away TO HIS HOME, marveling at that which had happened.” There is no word for home here in any text.

    We now jump all the way over to verse 32 where things really begin to pick up in this little study. I love this verse. It says in the KJB: “Did not our heart burn WITHIN US, while he talked with us by the way, AND while he opened to us the scriptures?”

    Here Vaticanus omits the words “within us”. But they are found in Sinaticus, the majority, A and TR. In this case the NASB and NIV reject B and follow N. You see, these so called “oldest and best” manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone, yet they are the main ones used by the NASB, NIV,RSV and NRSV to omit about 7% of the New Testament from the King James Bible.

    If you were to put all these omitted words together, it is like removing more than all five chapters of 1 Peter and the three chapters of 2 Peter from the Holy Bible. But in this same verse, that little word AND, or kai is omitted by both N & B, and the NASB also omits it, but the NIV retains it.

    Verse 36 says: “And as they thus spake, JESUS himself stood in the midst of them, AND SAITH UNTO THEM, PEACE BE UNTO YOU.” Here the word JESUS is omitted by Sinaiticus / Vaticanus and the NASB but it is found in the majority, A and the NIV.

    The Last part of this verse “And saith unto them, peace be unto you” is omitted by the NASB and the RSV. Yet these words are in the NIV and the NRSV! They are found in all Greek copies including P75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A and majority. They are also found in the Revised Version and the American Standard Version of 1901, the predecessor to the NASB. So why does the NASB omit these words? Because they are not in one Greek manuscript referred to as D.

    The NASBs from 1960 to 1977 omitted these words, and have a footnote which says: “SOME ancient mss. insert”. SOME? Is the word “some” a fair description of “all except one”? In 1995 "some" NASBs again added "and said unto them, Peace be unto you", and "some" did not! The 1995 copy I have does not have them, but another Christian told me the one he has does include the words. Consistency is not the NASB's strongpoint.

    Verse 40 is a very interesting example. “And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.” This entire verse is omitted in the NASBs from 1960 to 1972, and by the RSV. But it is in the NIV, and the NRSV. The NASB of 1977, and the 95 update have again included this verse they previously left out, but now they have it in brackets, thus casting doubt on its authenticity.

    The New KJV also casts doubt on this verse by its footnote which reads: “Some printed New Testaments omit this verse.” Do you see how all this undermines confidence in God’s word. Whom do you suppose would want us to ask “Yea, hath God said?” Yet this verse is in the majority, P75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic Sahidic and Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopian and Georgian ancient versions.

    Once again, only manuscript D omits this verse. Why did the NASB omit this entire verse in eight of its editions, and then put it back in 1977? Not because of any new evidence discovered in a cave somewhere; the evidence is still the same.

    Are you beginning to get the picture? These modern scholars change their opinions every few years on a whim. They have no final authority. They do not believe that any Bible is inspired today. They tell us that no Bible is perfect and all have errors. If you accept their view, it seems God has not been able to fulfill His promises to preserve His words for us today.

    The originals are long gone, and all they can do is try to approximate what they think may have been the true words of God. Yet they do not agree among themselves about which texts to include nor how to translate them. All these bibles differ in hundreds of verses throughout both Testaments. No wonder the world laughs at our “inspired Bible”.

    Again there are some words left out of verse 42. Here we read: “And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, AND OF AN HONEYCOMB.” The NASB and NIV omit these words because not found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A and D. Yet they are found in every text both uncial and cursive except 8. It is so quoted by at least 18 ancient church fathers, many long before Vaticanus and Sinaticus were even written, and in 8 ancient versions. Yet the NASB, NIV, RSV and NRSV omit them. They are however found not only in the KJB and many others but also in the Catholic Douay version.

    Verse 44 says: “These are THE words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you.” Here only Vaticanus adds MY words, instead of THE words. MY is not found in Sinaticus, the Majority nor in Douay, yet the NASB and NIV have MY words.

    In verse 46 the words “AND THUS IT BEHOVED Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day” are removed in the NASB and NIV, though they are found in the Majority of Greek texts, A and 24 uncials.

    The NASB and NIV disagree with each other again in the next verse. “And that repentance AND remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations...” This little word AND is kai, and is found in the Majority, A, C, D the Douay, Revised Version, the ASV and the NIV. But the NASB has followed Sinaiticus, Vaticanus with eis instead of kai and has “repentance FOR remission of sins”.

    Verse 49 says: “And BEHOLD, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city OF JERUSALEM, until ye be endued with power from on high.” Here the word BEHOLD is in Vaticanus, and majority, A and C and in the NASB. But Sinaticus omits it and so does the NIV!.

    You see, they don’t agree even among themselves. The word JERUSALEM is also omitted by the NASB and NIV, though found in the majority and A.

    Verse 51. “And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, AND CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN.” These last 5 words, “and carried up into heaven” are found in the NIV, the Revised Version, the ASV and the NRSV. But they are omitted by the RSV and the NASBs from 1960 to 1977. They are in P75, the Majority, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus. Only D omits these words yet the NASBs for nine editions omitted the fact of the ascension of our Lord. But wait, now the 1995 edition of the new and improved NA$B has put them back in for us. Now we can get the late$t in $cholar$hip. So, were the previous NASBs not the inspired words of God, but now in 1995 it is?

    We are not quite done beholding the marvels of modern scholarship. Just a couple more brief examples.

    In the next verse the reaction of the disciples at seeing our risen Lord ascend into heaven was that “they WORSHIPPED HIM AND, returned to Jerusalem with great joy.” Here again the NASBs from 1960 - 1977 omitted the words WORSHIPPED HIM AND, and has merely “And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”

    Nothing about worshipping Jesus Christ, which of course is strong testimony to the fact that He is God in the flesh, because we may only worship God. The RSV also omits this phrase, but the NRSV puts it back in and so does the 1995 NASB. Again only D omits these words.

    You should be able to see by now that the so called “science of textual criticism” is about as scientific as throwing darts at a dart board, and the modern scholars are nothing more than the blind leading the blind.

    The last verse in chapter 24 of Luke has two changes in the NASB and NIV. Here the word PRAISING is omitted by the NIV and NASB because not in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, though in the majority, A and many ancient versions. The very last word of this chapter AMEN is also left out of the NASB and NIV. This is because it is not in Sinaticus. But the word is in Vaticanus, A and the majority!

    Do you see the total lack of consistency here. Sometimes they follow Sinaticus, other times Vaticanus, sometimes they follow D, and then change back again from one edition to another. And the NIV and NASB still do not agree with each other nor the RSV with the NRSV.

    Are you a Bible of the month club member, or are you settled on the Rock of God’s true revelation found in the unchangeable King James Version?

    The KJB text has never changed in almost 400 years. There were some minor printing errors, which have been caught and corrected, and the spelling of some words has changed, like Sonne to Son, but the text itself, both in Hebrew and Greek, and the resulting English translation has not changed at all.

    It is the fulfillment of God’s promises to preserve His inspired, inerrant words. God knew what would become of the English language and how the KJB would be used to carry His words to the farthest regions of the world during the time of the great missionary outreach.

    Every legitimate revival in the history of the English speaking people has been accomplished using the King James Bible, and millions have been converted through its use. God has not failed to preserve His words and we can believe and trust them with all our hearts for time and eternity.

    “Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.” Jeremiah 6:16

    Will Kinney
     
  13. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Robycop, you are right, we do differ on the Bible Version issue, but I appreciate your comments about my putting together the articles I post.

    Sure, I quoted three or four other people, but I made that very clear in the article. If I had written those things myself as my own opinion, they would have jumped on me for not validating the research. Then if I post what others have said, including a Bible Encyclopedia, I get slammed for "plagarizing".

    But I did the study on my own. I looked up the verses, compared versions, and examined the critical notes in the Nestle-Aland texts.


    The main point of the Old Latin Version article is to show there is abundant historical evidence in both the Old Latin and the Syriac Peshitta for many of the readings found in the King James Bible, and these readings existed some 200 years before the Textus Corruptus of Vaticanus/Sinaiticus were made. And these two (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) differ between themselves just as much as all the Old Latin versions do.

    So if you tell me not to hang my hat on the Old Latin (which I don't anyway), the same applies to your "oldest and best" Sin-Vat.

    I have an inspired, complete, infallible Book in the King James Holy Bible and I sure won't be tossing it away or trying to "correct it" in this lifetime, thank you very much.

    Will K
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,164
    Likes Received:
    322
    Will!

    No TR, no Old Latin, no Vulgate, no Aleph/B.

    Where was the pure Word of God until 1611?

    HankD
     
  15. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    The mere existence of an ancient reading Old Latin doesn't mean it's authentic. There's also equally strong evidence for Old Latin "readings that existed 200 years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus" which did *not* make it into the TR/KJV (like "today I have begotten you" in Lk. 3:22). The issue can be summed up in a single question: why is it that relatively well-attested Old Latin readings like Lk. 3:22 were rejected in the TR/KJV while other Old Latin readings with far worse attestation like "book of life" in Rev. 22:19 were accepted? Answer: because of the textual decisions of Erasmus.
     
  16. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will,isn't it amazing how they ALWAYS pull that one out of their hat when the get their "cage rattled"? It never fails [​IMG]
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,164
    Likes Received:
    322
    It also amazing and never fails that "they" (the KJVO) are not able to intelligently answer it except with an ad hominem.

    HankD
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will,isn't it amazing how they ALWAYS pull that one out of their hat when the get their "cage rattled"? It never fails [​IMG] </font>[/QUOTE]I'll see that
    anonomous poster and raise him a:

    Where was the pure Word of God
    from 1611 until 1769?
    :confused:

    And not to let anything rest for long [​IMG]

    Where was the pure Word of God
    before Gail Riplinger?
    :confused:
     
  19. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will,isn't it amazing how they ALWAYS pull that one out of their hat when the get their "cage rattled"? It never fails </font>[/QUOTE]Yup, the truth never fails. It's always best to pull that one out early to silence the errant. They never have an adequate answer.
     
  20. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's an answer - we don't have to know how or where in order for God's promises of preservation to be true. Should we believe everything God says, or just that subset of things we can adequately prove to ourselves, things that look "true enough" for us to affirm without looking foolish to the world?

    Btw, "rattling their cage" was insulting and uncalled for. MV proponents aren't dumb animals.
     

Share This Page

Loading...