Need help in addressing

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sir_Knight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sir_Knight

Guest
History is not my strong point. Can anyone comment / help me address the following …I have chronicled in past posts the two NT sources that all of the extant manuscripts we have today in Greek came from for the most part, Antioch and Alexandria. Both lines of this Bible took totally different courses over the centuries. The Catholic Bibles and most especially the Latin Vulgate came from the Alexandrian line which was rejected by the King James Bible translators. In such, the Catholic Bible and the King James Bible have very different manuscripts from which either were translated. Many focus on the accuracy of the translations, but the real issue is what manuscripts did they use as there source documents.

In addition, there is much more behind the scenes when we look into the historical context of the Bible and how we have it in English today. It seems that one website caught a lot of people’s attention of which I apologize if it got this thread off topic. I always try to find confirmatory sources above and beyond my simple opinion alone. The point is that the Roman Catholic church has banned all Protestant Bibles from which I study every day. I understand that many would consider this a simple topic, but it is not since many people have died preserving the Antioch line of the Bible over the centuries, many of which were killed during the Roman Catholic inquisition.

I have myself been taken aback by the very cavalier attitude that several have towards that Roman Catholic inquisitions starting in 1216 AD by the decree of Pope Innocent III only ending in open in 1826. I have quoted direct sources such as the council of Trent, the Papal Bull itself unleashing the Dominican and Franciscans upon the Abligensian people. I have further quoted from writers of that period of time who LIVED through the inquisition most notably Foxes Book of Martyrs which is not the simple abridged version seen in book stores today. It is actually several volumes and several thousand pages in size chronicling thousands of faithful men willing to die at the stake simply for reading the word of God in English.

History is complete on this issue, yet many today wish to revise the true trail of blood of the martyrs of Christ who have faithfully preserved God’s Holy Word during the time of the Roman Catholic inquisition in much the same manner as the president of Iran denies the holocaust. If we are to truly discuss the topic at hand, “Where did the get the BIBLE?,” then all of these issues are actually quite relevant. The story of the Bible in the English tongue is replete with the shed blood of many faithful men such as William Tyndale who was tried, convicted and sentenced to death by the Roman Catholic inquisition. 90% of the NT in the King James Bible came from Tyndale’s translation nearly a century before.

Today, political correctness is the unwritten and actually at times written law of the land, but in the land of truth, it is at times hard to look and see what is really there. Our Forefathers were not so, they dealt with hard issues and didn’t mince their words. I prefer the latter myself. I would hope that all the posts on the inquisition would not go ignored since the entire history of the last thousand years of English speaking people and where we truly got our Bible are intertwined with this history as well. I would just as much hope that people will look into the truth of the inquisition and where we did get our Bible for themselves.
 
I think you’re overemphasizing the differences between the Antiochian and Alexandrian manuscripts. This is a common mistake that was probably also made by those who drove the Inquisition. I would invite you to compare a Douay Rheims bible with a King James Bible. There just isn’t that much difference.

That being said, this thread has great potential for shedding some light on the Inquisition, especially for those of us who don’t know nearly as much about it as we should.
 
Which part of the silliness did you want to focus on? This is so full of anti-Catholic rhetoric it’s difficult to discern what the writers point might be.

Despite the author’s assertion that “all of these issues are actually quite relevant” the inquisition has diddlysquat to do with the validity of current English translations of the bible.

Is the writer trying to assert that the Catholic Church was repressing the “true” text being preserved by the “Abligensian people” which came form the “Antioch line” of the bible?

Really?

What in the world this could possibly have to do with an English version of the bible is beyond me?

Chuck
History is not my strong point. Can anyone comment / help me address the following …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top