Article: The Old Latin versions and the KJB by Will Kinney

From Textus Receptus

Jump to: navigation, search

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. These 17 whole verses are also found in the Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible. The point of this study is to show how all of the major disputed textual readings are found this ancient Bible version that is approximately 200 years older than the Greek texts used in the translation of most modern bible versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, and the new ESV all of which are based primarily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.

Listed in this study are the principal disputed 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.

Dr. Jeffrey A. Young, Ph.D, writes in his article "An Examination of Modern New Testament Text Criticism Theory and Methods" :The Peshitta (a translation into Syrian) was produced early in the second century. It is possible that this translation was in the hands of Saint John. There are 350 copies extant of this translation, and they support the traditional text. The old Latin translation that was in use when Jerome prepared the Vulgate was translated much earlier than 300 A.D. because 50 copies are still extant dated between 300 and 400 A.D. This translation is also a witness, prior to the fourth century, that testifies to the authenticity of the traditional text."

His entire article can be found here:

Those who reject the King James Bible as being the complete, inerrant, inspired, and pure words of God often demand of us to show them where any perfect Bible existed before 1611. It is my contention that a very good "educated guess" is that God had previously preserved His inerrant words among the Bible believing, persecuted group of Christians known as the Waldensians, who trace their history from around 120 A.D. to the time of the Reformation. Their Bible was known as the Italic version.

The critical text apparatus of the UBS usually lists only about 10 Old Latin manuscripts of the hundreds if not thousands that once existed. The vast majority of these Old Latin Bibles are no longer with us but were either burned by the Catholic persecutors or turned to dust with age.

Let's do the math. Found within these few remaining Old Latin copies are every one of the major disputed verses in the New Testament. Though men like Doug Kutilek try to discount the similarity between the Old Latin readings and the King James Bible by "practically at random" selecting individual words and phrases, he is basing his conclusions on only 1 to 10% of the evidence that once existed.

Even with these 10 or so remaining partial Old Latin manuscripts, about 90% of the minor disputed readings in the King James Bible are found to exist. We cannot "prove" beyond all doubt that the hundreds or even thousands of other Old Latin manuscripts contained all the readings found in the King James Bible, but it is quite probable that they did. God said He would preserve His words through history, and we believe He has done so.

Brother Kent Hovind, a creationist and a KJB believer, gives a good illustration. He was once talking to a large High School group about the existence of God and an atheist said there was no "proof" of His existence. Mr. Hovind asked the young man if he knew everything. The youth admitted that he didn't know everything. Mr. Hovind then asked him if he knew half of everything. The young man said No, he didn't. Then Mr. Hovind said, Well, let's suppose you do know half of everything. Do you think that God could exist in that half of everything that you do not know?

Just as no one knows exactly what "the originals" said, because they no longer exist, we do have evidence that points us in the right direction, and we have the promises of God that He would preserve His words. I believe God's inerrant words were once found within the majority of the hundreds of Old Latin copies and now are found in the King James Bible.

The Principal Disputed Verses in the King James Bible

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, ESV, 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:

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."

Brother Jack Moorman has written an excellent book called Forever Settled. He is a strong King James Bible defender and he discusses the relationship between the Old Latin Version and the King James Bible. Mr. Moorman says there are 35 portions of the Old Latin Version ,(not 61, as Mr. Hudson affirms) and he lists them in his article which can be seen here:

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 provides this 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 -

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 (or the 35 listed by Jack Moorman).

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." Note: Some O.L. mss. read Asaph and others have Asa. The UBS text reads Asaph, but unfortunately for Mr. Kutilek, the NASB, NIV, RSV read ASA like the KJB, but the NRSV, ESV now read Asaph. It looks like the modern versions can't agree among themselves either.

Matthew 1:10--5 of 8 OL mss. read "Amos" for "Amon." Note: Here again the UBS text reads Amos, but the NIV, NASB still read Amon, while the RSV, NRSV, ESV have Amos. Ooops.

Matthew 1:18--all 10 OL mss. lack "Jesus." Note: This is no big deal and hardly consistent with the rest of the N.T. since there are many times when the KJB and the OId Latin retain the name Jesus where the NIV, NASB omit it.

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." Note: This one is very interesting. Sinaiticus omits "their trespasses: and so does the UBS text, the NRSV, and the NASB. However "their trespasses" is found in the Majority of Greek texts and Vaticanus, and is included in the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, and the NIV. Figure this one out if you can. Scholars are not known for their consistency.

Matthew 23:19--9 of 11 OL mss. lack "fools and." Note: Here "fools" is found in Vaticanus and the Majority, yet Sinaiticus omits it and so do the UBS text, NASB, and NIV.

Mark 1:2--all 9 OL mss. read "Isaiah the prophet," instead of "the prophets." Note: Actually, Nestle-Aland lists one of the Old Latin texts "r" as reading "in Isaiah and in the prophets" The reading in the KJB is "in the prophets" and this is the Majority reading, but "in Isaiah the prophet" is found in the NASB, NIV, RSV, based on a minority reading.

Luke 2:14--all 12 OL mss. read "of good pleasure," with the Vulgate and the Vaticanus Greek manuscript against the received text.

Note:The KJB reading, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, GOOD WILL TOWARD MEN" 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. Actually neither the NASB, nor the NIV translate their errant UBS text correctly. The NASB says: "peace among men with whom He is pleased", while the NIV renders it as: "peace to men on whom His favor rests", both of which are paraphrases of a bad text.

Luke 24:3--7 of 11 OL mss. lack "of the Lord Jesus." Note: Again the Old Latin texts are divided, and the RSV, NRSV omitted these words, but they are included in the NASB, NIV, and the ESV put them back in too!

Luke 24:6--7 of 11 OL mss. lack "he is not here but was raised." Note: Here the RSV omitted these words, but the NRSV put them back in.

Luke 24:9--8 of 11 OL mss. lack "from the tomb." Note: I don't know where Mr. Kutilek got this information, because it is not in the UBS or Nestle footnotes.

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." Note: This info is not in the UBS text either.

John 5:32--5 of 8 OL mss. read "you" instead of "I." Note: Here again Mr. Kutilek's information is mixed up. The UBS text shows 5 O.L. texts reading "you know", but Sinaiticus original also said: "you know". Some texts even say "we know", while most Greek texts say "I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true", including 5 Old Latin manuscripts listed by the UBS footnote. So it would be 5 against 5 O.L. texts here, not 5 of 8.

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 found in Vaticanus but not Sinaiticus.

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, ESV 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, ESV 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.

"GOD was manifest in the flesh" is the reading found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1539, Bishop's bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557-1602 and every other English Bible up until the time of the Revised Version of 1881. It is also the reading of the Italian Diodati 1649, Luther's German 1545, the German Schlacter 1951, the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996, all Spanish Reina Valera's from 1569 to 1995, and the Modern Greek N.T. used throughout the Greek Orthodox churches in the world today.

Marty Shue has written a very good article on this verse and documents the overwhelming textual and early church testimony that confirms the authenticity of this reading. You can see it here:

The Vaticanus text, upon which the NASB, NIV, ESV 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." Note: The reading of: "MY JUST ONE shall live by faith" is in the NASB, NIV, BUT Mr. Kutilek gives some misleading information here. Some Old Latin mss. say "MY just shall live by faith", but other O.L. mss. say "the just shall live by MY faith", while others have "the just shall live by faith" exactly as the Majority and the KJB have it.

James 2:20--8 of 9 OL mss. read "idle" instead of "dead." Note: Mr. Kutilek again doesn't give us the correct information. Sinaiticus reads "faith without works is DEAD", and so do the Majority of all texts and the KJB. The UBS text and the NASB, NIV follow Vaticanus which reads: "faith without works is USELESS", but one O.L. text as well as P74 says: "faith without works is EMPTY", AND the UBS text only shows 2 Old Latin texts as reading "idle", not 8 as Mr. Kutilek affirms. So, I don't know where he got his information.

James 4:4--all 9 OL mss. lack "adulterers and." Note: The UBS text as well as the NASB, NIV omit "adulterers and", but the critical apparatus only shows 4 O.L. mss. as omitting these words, not all 9. It doesn't mention the other O.L. texts one way or another. "Adulterers" is found in the Majority of all Greek texts as well as the KJB.

James 5:20--all 8 OL mss. add "his" to "soul." Note: Here the UBS text reads "His soul from death" and so does the NASB, but the NIV merely has: "will save HIM from death. The Nestle text shows 3 Old Latin texts as well as Sinaiticus reading: "save HIS SOUL from death", while Vaticanus and one O.L. mss. say "shall save a soul from HIS death". As for the other 4 of the 8 O.L. mss. no mention is made of them one way or the other.

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 more 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, the Old Latin copies, and in other Greek manuscripts. The general text of the few remaining Old Latin copies gives 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 200 years 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, ESV 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." Note: Again, I don't know where Mr. Kutilek got his info. The UBS text shows only 3 Old Latin mss. that omit the word "our" from "he was manifested to take away OUR sins." The interesting thing here is that the word "our" is found in Sinaiticus as well as the Majority of all Greek texts, and it is in the NIV. However Vaticanus omits the word and so does the NASB.

It definitely appears Mr. Kutilek has no inspired, inerrant text to offer us and his multiple modern versions can't even agree among themselves. So he casts up vapour and smoke in an attempt to prove the King James Bible is somehow wrong and we can never really know for sure what God has said. This tactic is alarmingly similar to the one used by the serpent who asks the first question recorded in the Holy Bible - "Yea, hath God said...?"

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, Rick Norris, and Doug Kutilek.

For me and thousands of other King James Bible believers, we confidently trust God has fulfilled His promises to preserve His inerrant words in a Bible we can actually hold in our hands, read, memorize, and believe every word. We take literally what our Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Where do you stand on this most important issue?

Will Kinney

Other Artilces by Will Kinney

Other Artilces by Will Kinney in the Textus Receptus database ~

Old Testament

Genesis Genesis 1:28 Replenish or Fill? - Genesis 6:6 Can God repent? - Genesis 22:1 Did God "Tempt" Abraham? Exodus Exodus 20:13 Thou Shalt Not KILL - Exodus - the Israelites "borrowed" of the Egyptians Numbers Numbers 22 Why was God Angry with Balaam? Job Bible Babel in Job - a comparative study 1 Samuel 1 Samuel 13:21 "a file" a "pim" or "two-thirds of a shekel"? 2 Samuel 2 Samuel 21:8 Michal or Merab? - 2 Samuel 21:19 Who Killed Goliath? 1 Kings 1 Kings 20:38 ashes upon his face - 1 Kings 22:38 "washed his armour" or "while the harlots bathed" NKJV Nonsense Psalms Psalm 8:5 Lower than the Angels, or a little lower than God? - Answering Doug Kutilek's anti-Preservation in Psalm 12 - Psalm 74:8 the synagogues of God; Psalm 77:2 my sore ran in the night - Psalms 1 How Different the Versions! - Psalms 2 How Different the Versions! - Psalms 3 How Different the Versions! - Psalms 4 How Different the Versions! - Psalms 5 How Different the Versions! Proverbs NKJV Bible Babel in Proverbs - Bible Babel in Proverbs Isaiah Isaiah - a Comparative Study - Does God Create Evil? Isaiah 45:7 Jeremiah Jeremiah 8:8 the pen of the scribes is in vain - Jeremiah 27:1 Jehoiakim or Zedekiah? - Ezekiel Ezekiel 29:7 Hebrew, Greek or Syriac? Hosea Hosea - a Comparative Study

New Testament

Did Jesus Tell Them to Take a Staff or Not? Matthew Is Matthew 23:14 Scripture or not? - Matthew 27:44 cast in teeth Mark Gospel of Mark - a Modern Version Mix-up Luke Is "cousin" wrong in Luke 1:36 - Luke 17:36 Is it inspired Scripture or not? John John 1:18 the only begotten Son Acts Act 3:19 times of refreshing; 7:20 Moses was exceeding fair - Acts 9:5-7 hear the voice; 7:20 exceeding fair - Acts 5:30 slew and hanged; 19:20 word of GOD - Acts 13:33 this day have I begotten thee - Acts 19:9 DIVERS were hardened, and believed not - Acts 19:35 Diana or Artemis? Jupiter, Zeus or Heaven? - The So-called "Science" of Textual Criticism. Science or Hocus-Pocus? Gospels through Acts Romans James White discussing Romans 6:17 Philippians Textual Studies in Philippians 2 Timothy 2 Timothy 3:16 Inspiration of God or God Breathed? Hebrews The Book of Hebrews - a Comparative Study 1 Peter 1 Peter - Shifting Sands of Scholarship 1 John And These Three Are One Article defending the inclusion of 1 John 5:7. - 1 John 5:7 These three are one Jude The Book of Jude - James White's "inferior" texts Revelations Revelation 13 Confusion - Vials or Bowls in the book of Revelation - Rev.16:5 and SHALT BE; 5:8-10 redeemed US - Revelation 17:8 "the beast that was, and is not, and YET IS" - Acts 28:13 We Fetched a Compass; 1 Tim5:4 Nephews - Matthew 24:3; Hebrews 9:26 End of World or Age?

Modern Versions

Bible Babel 1 - Bible Babel 2 - Bible Babel 3 - Bible Babel 4 - The Oldest and Best Manuscripts? - Every Man for Himself Bible Versions - the HCSB, NET, ESV, TNIV, NKJV - The Inerrancy of Scripture - are you a Bible believer or a Bible agnostic? - True Bible? - Modern Versions Teach Racism - Modern Versions Teach Pride as a Virtue - Do Ghosts Exist? Modern Versions say Yes ESV The English Standard Version 2001 NASB The Ever Changing NASB's NKJV NKJV Word Changes - When the NKJV departs from the TR - The New KJV is a Hack Job Translation - NKJV vs KJB Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah - Is the NKJV the same as the KJB? - Don't go on Safari with a New KJV Translator - The NKJV is a Poor Substitute for the True Bible - NKJV vs KJB Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah - NKJV Bible Babel in Proverbs

King James Word Definitions

Lucifer - Jehovah - Unicorns - Is the word "Easter" an error in the King James Bible? - Are the words "CHURCH" and 'BISHOP' wrong? - Hell and Damnation in the King James Bible - "By and by" versus "the-by-and-by" - Servants or Slaves? - Is "charity" an error in the KJB? - The Grace of God Destroyed - "Would to God" - Another alleged 'error' bites the dustIs "bottles" an inaccurate word in the King James Bible?

King James Bible

Is King James onlyism Scriptural? - Does the KJB only position "blow up"? - What About Those Printing Errors in 1611? - Does the King James Bible depart from the Hebrew Texts? - Why do you King James Bible onlyies Attack the word of God? - The Historic Confessions support the KJB position - Can a Translation be Inspired? - The Old Latin versions and the KJB


NO LXX Part 1 - NO LXX - the Fictitious Use of Septuagint

Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls Fiasco

Hebrew Text

The NIV, NASB reject the Hebrew Texts - NIV, NASB reject Hebrew texts Part 2 - How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies

Greek Text

"The Greek" and Hebrew Games

Gender Inclusive Versions

Gender Inclusive Versions Dealing with the TNIV

Answering Critics

E mail exchange with Bible Agnostic Doug Kutilek - John MacArthur - Pastor with NO Infallible Bible - A Bible Believer's Response to James Price's book King James Onlyism - a New Sect - A King James Bible Believer's Response to Rick Norris' book 'The Unbound Scriptures' - 17 Parts

Part 1 - The "logical" Premise of Mr. Norris

Part 2 - Those Dreadful Archaic Words

Part 3 - Imperfect men, Perfect Bible

Part 4 - Revision

Part 5 - Printing Errors and Spelling

Part 6 - Inspiration and Inerrancy

Part 7 - Alleged Errors in the King James Bible

Part 8 - Let Me Count The Ways

Part 9 - Beasts or Living Creatures?

Part 10 - Mules or Hot Springs?

Part 11 - "Digged down a wall" or "hamstrung an ox"?

Part 12 - Steel, brass, copper, bronze - Paper or Plastic?

Part 13 - The Usual Suspects

Part 14 - The Preservation of the words of God

Part 15 - KJB Only versus Latin Vulgate Only Argument

Part 16 - Where Was the Word of God Before 1611?

Part 17 - Final Thoughts

External Link

Personal tools