Tyndale, the TR or the King James Bible?

[brandplucked]

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: http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVers ... 5.htm#XXVI.