Any other relations between the two? Probably a few others that don't come to my mind. If you didn't know Latin, the Latin Vulgate would be, well, Latin to you. It wouldn't mean anything. It wouldn't edify a non-Latin speaking people. You couldn't say "Amen" to it unless you were fluent in Latin. It shouldn't be your Bible unless you knew Latin. Latin wasn't an original language of Scripture. Preservation of Scripture wouldn't be the preservation of a Latin translation of the Bible. A denomination, like Roman Catholicism, could say that this Latin translation was the authoritative text of Scripture and that, my friends, would not be true. The authoritative text of Scripture would be an original language text.
Protestants and Baptists stood for an authoritative, original language text. Controversy arose between Roman Catholic theologians and Protestant ones over this issue. Romans Catholics came down on the side of the authority of the Latin Vulgate, for purposes of tradition, because it was the translation of the Roman church, and for biblical reasons Protestants and Baptists sided with the original language text.
As you read the previous two paragraphs, did you see anything that related between the position of the Catholics and the Protestants and Baptists? If you said "no," that is correct. Catholics based their position on tradition. Protestants and Baptists in this case based their positions on Scripture.
In light of the above information so far, then how does the Latin Vulgate relate any more to the King James Version? Is the King James Version still supported by many Protestants and Baptists because of tradition like the Latin Vulgate was because of tradition? Could be by some, but that is not the historical position. Churches support and advocate the King James Version because of the original language words from which it derived.
Enter opponents of the King James Version, critical text proponents, or multiple-versionists. They tell the world that you see nearly identical relations of Roman Catholicism and the Latin Vulgate as of King James Onlyists and the King James Version. They are saying that the King James continues to be supported for the same reason the Roman Catholics required the Latin Vulgate. They are saying that King James Onlyists (KJO) are being Roman Catholic here. They claim that both the Roman Catholics and the KJO are the same in that they both look to one Bible. So they say that one-Bible-ism is Roman Catholic.
In my lifetime, I have mainly heard this type of argumentation coming from left-leaning or liberal who don't have a good argument to stand on. Recently, Ann Romney, wife of Mitt Romney, wrote an op-ed, published in the Wall Street Journal, praising motherhood. In the next to last paragraphs, she wrote:
But no matter where we are or what we're doing, one hat that moms never take off is the crown of motherhood.
Michelle Goldberg, an author and Newsweek contributor, took off on her "crown of motherhood" mention on MSNBC:
I found that phrase ‘the crown of motherhood’ really kind of creepy, not just because of its, like, somewhat you know, I mean, it’s kind of usually really authoritarian societies that give out like ‘The Cross of Motherhood,’ that give awards for big families. You know, Stalin did it, Hitler did it.
Multiple version supporters attempt to smear KJO by using the same type of argument, accusing them of a type of Roman Catholicism. That is exactly what it is, a hatchet job, that they really do know is not true. This type of argumentation works like a form of propaganda that is intended to intimidate. It works, not as any kind of credible proof, but as a way to embarrass someone to move from his position. It also tosses red meat to the supporters. They get a big kick out of it, just like the feminist panel got big chuckle-chuckles out of Goldberg's snide remark about Ann Romney.
Those who use a Latin Vulgate attack either are ignorant of the position of KJO or of history, or are just devious. Protestants would not associate themselves with Roman Catholicism as some legitimate Western Christianity. Baptists never did. They rejected the Catholic position the Vulgate for the text received by the true churches, hence the received text. They applied this same title to the English translation from the received text by calling it the "received version" of God's Word. By doing so, they referred to the text from which the translation came.
The longtime usage of the Latin Vulgate by Roman Catholics does not compare to the long time usage of the King James Version by actual Christians. Catholics required the Latin Vulgate. Until the freedoms originating from the Protestant Reformation, there was not widespread challenge to Roman Catholicism. The acceptance of the King James Version wasn't forced upon anyone. The people received it because they were saved, Holy Spirit indwelt people. It's history is one of choice, not of coercion. And that choice of God's people testifies to the authenticity of the King James Version.
The Protestants and Baptists agreed that God had preserved all His Words, every one of them and all of them. They believed that there was one Bible, the one canonized by the Holy Spirit through His churches. This is the position found in the Westminster Confession and many other major confessions of those who believe in salvation by grace through faith. The Holy Spirit would testify to His people what His Words were and they agreed that those words were found in the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Textus Receptus. All accurate contemporary language translations from that text would be authentic.
The view of the Protestants and Baptists came out of a pre-enlightenment way of thinking, transcendent thought, that started with God and Who He was. They took a position that came out of the exegesis of Scripture, in complete contrast to Roman Catholicism.
The modern multiple-versionists represent a post-enlightenment thinking that begins with man's reason. It does not rely upon the beliefs of God's churches for centuries. Instead of depending on the Holy Spirit by faith, they reject what the churches received for the forensics of scientific theoriticians. They not only abandon an old and accepted Bible, but the testimony of the Holy Spirit through His churches. That's why you will never, ever hear the actual historical, biblical position from them, even mentioning to you the pages and pages of well-established and documented bibliology of the pre-enlightenment saints. They reject historical bibliology for the uncertainty of textual "scientists."
So when you hear these references to the Latin Vulgate in an attack on the King James Version, understand it for what it really is. It is a desperate smear from someone with no historical or biblical basis for his position.