[bibleprotector]

The Word of God was in many forms of the Scriptures before 1611, whether its letters, words and/or sounds match the English of the King James Bible or not. The fact is that many times Hebrew and Greek do not look nor sound like English, yet we know that the Scripture must have been true when it was first written. And the Gospel went forth to many nations. Therefore, the truth of the meaning of words is what counts. As much as copies of Scriptures were sufficiently accurate people were able to believe and be saved.

Because of variations in Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and editions, the translators of 1604-1611 judged what words did or did not belong to the Scripture. They also consulted other versions and translations to help. And besides this, they decided upon what was the best English word to use, and how the English rendering might best present the actual and intended meaning of the original. Given that they were revising six other English Bibles which had done the same thing, and with the process of checking and rechecking involved, it is not hard to see that these learned men got it right.

The Word of God was scattered in many places from the Early Church, and the Bible was not presented perfectly in one volume before 1611. But it was there, present in Earth, and sufficiently well presented in many copies. Correct readings, and particularly with the Protestant English translations, many correct givings of the sense. But no single Bible was fully right.

It would be wrong to count the purification of the English Bible as somehow descending from the Gothic Bible.
1. The Gothic language is not an ancestor to English. (Both have a common Germanic language ancestor.)
2. The Gothic version does not have any direct or particular baring on the Protestant English Bibles. (The Gothic Bible is a small and acceptable branch in the Bible version tree.)
The KJB will be slightly similar to the Gothic because both are of the German language group, and both Bibles come from Byzantine sources. But that is it.

The English people were specially chosen of God to bring His Word to the world. It is evident that the Gothic people have an entirely separate history, in Sweden, Spain and Austria, etc. (= Visigoths and Ostrogoths).

The seven purifications spoken of in Psalm 12 have been easily applied to seven English Bibles, which has nothing to do with the Gothic Version.

At best, to make strong links to the Gothic is wishful thinking (which is unscientific and not fitting Scripture), and at worst is because of an entirely wrong view of God’s use of the British people, for though the greatest people of God are found of us, we are not biologically descended from Abraham, but from Ashkenaz.

Our English Bible has come to us from the highest pedigree, the Eastern Greek Church and the Jewish Masoretic scholars. However, neither Jewish nor Orthodox error mars our Bible, because that the furnace of Earth, as spoken of in Psalm 12, has completed its work, so that we have a seven-time purified English Bible. First was Tyndale, whose work was incomplete, and the last was the Authorized Version, which was the complete and perfect text and translation of the Scripture, not only for Christians in England, but set forth for the whole world.

The highest form of Christianity is not hidden somewhere in the times of the Goths. It came out from the Reformation in England. It has shone like a city on a hill in the USA. And it is in the ends of the earth in Australia. "This is the LORD's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes." (Ps. 118:23). Our heritage is to hold the end of this scarlet thread of God's chain of providence.

[Gord]

Thank you for the history. Very interesting and a good foundation for a more detailed study.

[PeterAV]

Matthew states:
1. The Gothic language is not an ancestor to English. (Both have a common Germanic language ancestor.)[/quote]
*******
Riplinger represents the Gothic as part of the seven Bible periods that had pure spring waters. IAOTW 852
*******
She also acknowledges that the English language has Germanic roots.pg866.
*******
Gail further shows the Gothic to match up with the AV much of the time.
Cambridge clearly states that the Gothic is of the Byzantine tradition.
During the 4th and 5th centuries, the Gothic Bible was the Bible of choice in much of Europe and Africa.
This language was yet spoken in style as late as the 16th century.
*******
Gail also shows a comparison between the AV and the modern perversions [that I call slop rags] In the list, she includes the Gothic Bible.
She picks on the NT of the Bible and compares.
*******
Ephesians 3:14 of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Modern dishrag perversions? zippo = OMIT
Gothic pre-AD 350 fraujins unsar Iesuis Xristaus=
*******.............Lord....of our..Jesus Christ
*******
1 Cor. 16:22 Lord Jesus Christ
Modern perverted ditch face washers..=zippo=OMIT Jesus Christ
Gothic; fraujan Isus Xristu
*******
This continues for some 45 pages.
*******
Even some of the spellings are similar.
Gothic: bidai yah fastubnya
prayer and fasting
Modern? zippo=OMIT
*******
The Goths translated very well in the time of Christ and the result is available in the Gothic Bible of the 4th century.
*******
To say that "Just because the English language is of Gemanic background negates the Gothic/English lineage Bible" is not sound.
At the time of Christ, the Goths were in Europe.
In fact, our language can be seen right in the Gothic text, and it was no doubt there in degree at the time of Christ.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

[bibleprotector]

The points are:
a. the Gothic Version is of the Tradition Text, and is an early Version witness for the correct renderings as presented in the KJB.
b. The Gothic langauge, which has a remote similarity to English, was spoken at the time of Christ.

But the KJB did not come FROM the Gothic Version, and the English language did not come from Gothic. Saxon was also spoken at the time of Christ. The King James Bible (New Testament) actually comes primarily from Byzantine Greek copies (and importantly is a revision of pre-existing English Bibles, while taking into account many other sources.)

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

the Gothic Version is of the Tradition Text, and is an early Version witness for the correct renderings as presented in the KJB.

We should be a little guarded in claims about manuscripts where we do not have a lot of text extant. The Syriac Peshitta (where we do have the full text) is similarly a witness for the Traditional Text in many readings (75-80% TR vs Alex readings) yet in many particulars it does not support the TR/KJB, including the Pericope Adultera and 1 Timiothy 3:16 and a number of other important verses. Thus the Peshitta was a translation from a "mixed" Greet text. Similar is likely true with the Gothic, where we do know based on one extant (partial) early manuscript, Codex Argenteus of the sixth century, that the Pericope Adultera is absent (the ending of Mark, not surprisingly, is included). If somebody has access to more text it would be extremely excellent to go through some or all of Brandon's "Magic Marker" page to determine the percent of TR/Alex agreement. That was how I got the Peshitta number, which is accurate.

Overall the Gothic, like the Peshitta, is "strongly Byzantine" (Waltzman) and joins the Peshitta in that regard as an excellent witness for our Bible against the corrupt alexandrian text. They both show, along with the early writer quotes, that the alex text was to a large extent only a corrupt aberration. However we should be aware that some King James Bible defenders (including Gail Riplinger) can oversimpify the textual issues in the desire to make a simplified "2-lines" presentation. Jack Moorman has a lot of excellent material in his "2-lines" chart, however you really need to be ready to go a bit deeper. This is one reason why I emphasize the excellence of the Reformation Bible scholarship as a key to understanding and expressing the purity and perfection of our Bible, including the historical development of the pure Bible and its victory over the RCC and counter-reformation texts.

Shalom,
Steven