The native language in Italy and many surrounding countries during the Roman Empire was Latin. The Bible was translated from original manuscripts into this Roman/Latin language at a very early date. Missionaries that were NOT Roman Catholic, but from the Asia Minor/Syrian area, carried this Bible all over Europe --Italy, France and Celtic England.
(The English language did not exist in the first centuries AD)

These Bibles were already widely distributed BEFORE Constantine's time.

So yes, these Roman/Latin Bibles were probably the first translations into the common language of the people that didn't speak Greek.

These Roman/latin bibles were not the same as the Latin Vulgate that Jerome translated. Jerome already had the corrupted Greek manuscripts ordered by Constantine.

So yes, the Waldenses carefully preserved the "unadulterated" scriptures -- as did many further east who possessed the Received text of scripture.


And of course -- having the scriptures was a huge protection against unbiblical theories that were being taught. That is also true.

Please show that Ellen White meant to say, as you intend it to mean, that the Waldenses had the Bible unadulterated rather than what it reads at face value, the truth unadulterated.

History itself shows that.
You want "proof" quotes -- why not just look at history.

How does one have "truth unadulterated"?
The best way is to get the unadulterated message.

And why would you defend the Catholic Bible?
Again we need to look at the history.

Why do you think the Catholic church was so opposed to the Protestant translations, and made her own translation from the Vulgate, to counter the Protestant translations?

It wasn't the Catholic church who preserved the Bible, -- read in Revelation 12 where the true church was.

These people "in the wilderness" had the Roman/Latin Bible (the Latin that was the language of the people in the west during the Roman Empire time). Those Bibles were translated from the received text years before Constantine came along.



Notice what the Catholic Church thinks of the Reformation Bibles --



They then speak of the KJV Version, but again point out it does not support Catholic doctrine.



So even by Catholic admission --
They didn't want a Bible supporting PROTESTANT Theology, they wanted a Bible supporting Catholic theology.

About 20 minutes into the video Veith speaks about the corruption of the Bible.

Veith refers to a text showing the Apostle Paul's mentioning this.

Veith, 25 minutes into the video said that the RCC is basically Arian in their beliefs.

He stated that based this on the fact that the Vulgate is Arian and that the pope had declared the Vulgate infallible.

Veith basically said that the Battle of the Bibles is in reality the continuing of the Battle about Jesus Christ.

Veith stated at about the 30 minute mark in the video, that it isn't the KJV against the other versions of the Bible, but it is the Received Text manuscripts versus the other manuscripts.

It is, therefore, the Battle of the Manuscripts, which has resulted in the Battle of the Bibles in regards to those Bibles that use the other manuscripts over the Received Text manuscripts.

The video has two parts.

Part 1 ended at 47:18 with Part 2 beginning at 47:23.

I found Part 1 full of interesting information.

Still need to watch Part 2.

My question was for you to show how Ellen White meant to say what you wanted her to say. Saying history shows us what Ellen White meant to say is like comparing "apples to grapefruit".

I'm not sure I'm defending the "Catholic Bible". Apples to grapefruit.

Maybe you can help dedication out in a similar way. Can you show how when Paul speaks about "corrupt the word of God" means the versions of scriptures rather than what the people were saying the word of God meant?