You are crazily fond of asserting that I do not understand this or that, with no apparent evidence.
Sorry I don’t know why else you would ignore my explanations.
But this thread is not about moral relativism, so I am not going to drag this out any further
unless you will actually address the issue of what definition of ‘moral relativism’ you are using that would exclude your assertion that [killing someone for translating the Bible] would be moral in
that culture but not in
this one.
As has been repeatedly pointed out. He was executed for treason/sedition. I hold that then and now such crimes can justly be handled with the death penalty.
So killing someone for sedition can be moral then and now.
The bible translation was a side note to the whole thing, a piece of evidence among many.
Back on topic I still do not know what previous Bible you were referring to. Or, if this is the case, what evidence other than a specific Bible prompted you to assert that a previous [modern?] English Bible existed.
sorry this is the best I can do.
The second period coincides with the Anglo-Norman time, extending from the tenth to the thirteenth or fourteenth century. During this time, French or the Anglo-Norman dialect reigned supreme among the upper classes, and in academic and official circles, while English was confined to the lower classes and the country-districts. The Bible renderings during the twelfth, thirteenth, and early fourteenth centuries were in French, whether they were made in England or brought over from France. Before the middle of the fourteenth century the entire Old Testament and a great part of the New Testament had been translated into the Anglo-Norman dialect of the period (cf. Berger, “La Bible française au moyen âge”, Paris, 1884, 78 sqq.). As to English work, we may note two transcripts of the West-Saxon Gospels during the course of the eleventh century and some copies of the same Gospels into the Kentish dialect made in the twelfth century. The thirteenth century is an absolute blank as far as our knowledge of its English Bible study is concerned. The English which emerged about the middle and during the second half of the fourteenth century was practically a new language, so that both the Old English versions which might have remained, and the French versions hitherto in use, failed to fulfil their purpose.
Fourteenth century and after
The third period extends from the late fourteenth to the sixteenth or early seventeenth century, and has furnished us with the pre-Wyclifite, the Wyclif, and the printed versions of the Bible.
(1) Pre-Wyclifite Translations
Among the pre-Wyclifite translations we may note:
The West Midland Psalter, probably written between 1340 and 1350; some attribute it to William of Shoreham. It contains the whole Psalter, eleven canticles, and the Athanasian Creed, and is preserved in three manuscripts (cd. Bülbring, “The Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter”, I, London, 1891).
Richard Rolle’s (d. 1349) English version of the “Commentary on the Psalms” by Peter Lombard spread in numerous copies throughout the country (cf. Bramley, “The Psalter and Certain Canticles…by Richard Rolle of Hampole”, Oxford, 1884).
Here belongs a version of the Apocalypse with a commentary; the latter was for some time attributed to Wyclif, but is really a version of a Norman commentary from the first half of the thirteenth century. Its later revisions agree so well with the Wyclif version that they must have been utilized in its preparation.
The Pauline Epistles were rendered in the North Midlands or the North; they are still extant in a manuscript of the fifteenth century.
Another version of the Pauline Epistles, and of the Epistles of St. James and St. Peter (only the first) originated in the south of England somewhere in the fourteenth century (cf. the edition of A.C. Paves, Cambridge, 1904).
A scholar of the north of England translated also commentaries on the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke.
Several manuscripts preserve to us a version of the Books of Acts and the Catholic Epistles, either separately or in conjunction with a fragmentary Southern version of the Pauline Epistles and part of the Catholic Epistles, mentioned under (5). Cf. A.C. Paves, “A Fourteenth-Century English Biblical Version”, Cambridge, 1904.
Besides these versions of particular books of Holy Scripture, there existed numerous renderings of the Our Father, the Ten Commandments, the Life, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ, and of the parts read on Sundays and Feastdays in the Mass. In general, if we may believe the testimony of Archbishop Cranmer, Sir Thomas More, Foxe the martyrologist, and the authors of the Preface to the Reims Testament, the whole Bible was to be found in the mother tongue long before John Wyclif was born (cf. “American Ecclesiastical Review”, XXXII, Philadelphia, June, 1905, 594).
And that applies to Protestant rulers as well. If I’m wrong, then please show me that verse in the NT where it states it’s justifiable to strangle & murder someone for doing what Tyndale did. The fact you responded “oversimplifed” rather than objectively acknowledging that was horrific really concerns me. 
