Forbidden Books: The Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeckert79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jeckert79

Guest
I looking for the reason why in a book I’m reading it mentions that the Bible was on the on the “forbidden book list” in 1543 and in 1229. It makes mention of a council banning the Bible in 1229 due to a heresy in Southern France (so the Bible was only banned in Southern France) and why at the council of Trent (or was it only non-Catholic versions). Just a little confused please point me in the right direction.

Thanks!
 
In the book your reading did it mention the exact translations that were forbidden? Did it mention the poor translation and theological errors that those translations supported?
 
From catholic.com/library/catholic_inventions.asp

Item: “Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia . . . [A.D.] 1229.”

This looks rather damaging, but Boettner has his history completely wrong. The first thing to note is that the Index of Forbidden Books was established in 1559, so a council held in 1229 could hardly have listed a book on it.

The second point is that there apparently has never been any Church council in Valencia, Spain. If there had been one, it could not have taken place in 1229 because Muslim Moors then controlled the city. It is inconceivable that Muslims, who were at war with Spanish Christians, and had been off and on for five centuries, would allow Catholic bishops to hold a council in one of their cities. The Christian armies did not liberate Valencia from Moorish rule until nine years later, 1238. So Valencia is out.

But there is another possibility, and that is Toulouse, France, where a council was held in 1229. And, yes, that council dealt with the Bible. It was organized in reaction to the Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims). Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation.
 
GASP Could it really be that an objective scholarly mind like Boettner actually got it wrong? Well now I don’t know WHO I can trust! :nope: :rolleyes:
 
Keating says, in Catholicism & Fundalmentalism, “No authentic Bible was ever put on the Forbidden Book List in 1543.”

What were the forbidden Bibles at this time?
 
The so-called “Wicked” Bible that commanded “Thou shalt commit adultery” and the “Murderer’s” Bible that gave Mk 7:27 as “But Jesus said unto her, let the children first be killed.” The one by William Tyndale that was so bad that even Henry VIII called it “crafty, false, untrue” but then again, he had his own innovative version written.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top