Scripture on our hands

[gus]

Please go to almost any older Catholic Church

Scripture will come alive in the art work even for you.

Christians of earlier times probably could not read but they certainly could understand. It’s only with your elitist rebellion that you have denied the scripture to everyone

 

[cornerstone]

[the Bible is not just the new testament.

13When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially

the parchments
2 Timothy 4:13
i do not know wich ones of you i should answer to anymore, really.
cause Scott LaFrance says All Jewish males were literate but Jimmy there says “He is very correct almost all people could not read”.
Paul there had HIS OWN copy of scriptures. He did not only rely on oral tradition.
but it is ok the catholic church knows bettter than God Almighty who told Isaiah and Jeremiah to write down His word to server as testimony for all generations.

 

[mercygate]

** All Jewish males were literate, as they were required to be able to read the Sacred Scriptures at the temple**.

Why do people persist in claiming that the Apostles were “simple” fishermen?

The rate of literacy in first-century Palestine was higher than it is in New York City today.

 

[mercygate]

cornerstone:

about my statement that the Catholic church was never interested on making scripture available to common people
There is nothing un-historical or untrue about this.
Instead of encouraging others to inform themselves i think you should do it yourself. next thing you are going to say is that the inquisition was also a “popular canard”.
3 names for anyone reading this.
Desiderius Erasmus.Martin Luther: Casiodoro Reyna. find how the catholic church help them in their translations.

Here ya go, cornerstone:

The Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian long before Martin Luther gave out his Lutheran Bible. Seven hundred years before the birth of Luther we had an English translation. At the end of the seventh century we have in the English tongue the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby. In the next century we have the well-known translation of Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow. The Preface of the Authorized Version refers to previous translations of the Scriptures into the language of the people and after speaking of the Greek and Latin Versions, it says, “The Godly learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which they themselves understood, Greek and Latin . . . but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they. They provided translations into the Vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under Heaven did shortly after their conversion hear Christ speaking unto them in their Mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only but also by the written Word translated.”

The usual belief is that the Church kept the Bible in Latin so that the masses could not read it, and thereby discover the wiles of priestcraft. That nobody but priests could read the Bible is nonsense. There were just two classes of people in the Middle Ages: those who could read, and those who could not read. Those who could read Latin and were perfectly content with the Scriptures in Latin, and those who could not read Latin could not read at all. So why should the Church prior to the spread of education in the vernacular translate the Bible from Latin for them? Latin was then the language of all cultured men and it was the common language of Europe. Students heard their lectures in Latin and they talked Latin. Retreats to nuns were preached in Latin and they understood the discourses. Hence, Latin was not a dead language but a living one. If the Church desired to keep the Bible from the people then why did the Church translate the Bible out of Greek into Latin and call the Vulgate Version of the fourth century the “Bible of the People”?

 

[Genesis315]

Why do people persist in claiming that the Apostles were “simple” fishermen?

The rate of literacy in first-century Palestine was higher than it is in New York City today.

I think the claim that people like cornerstone are trying to make is that the Catholic Church has consistently tried to deny people Scripture. For them, this doesn’t include the Catholic Church pre-Council of Nicea. I think their main beef is with medieval pre-reformation Europe, but unfortunately, literacy rates were incredibly low in that time. No peasant could read.

The Church has tried to make Scripture available in the best way it could given the time period. Today, everyone can own and read a Bible. Back then, due to logistics only a few people could own one and even fewer could read it.

Think of it this way: why would the Church hide Scripture? To deceive everyone? If this was the case, why would the Church now let everyone have Bibles? It’s not like any Church Teachings have changed since the days when people were “denied” their own Bibles. To say the Church had some agenda to keep Bibles away from the common folk just makes no sense.

 

[Absalom]

[the Bible is not just the new testament.

13When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially

the parchments
2 Timothy 4:13
i do not know wich ones of you i should answer to anymore, really.
cause Scott LaFrance says All Jewish males were literate but Jimmy there says “He is very correct almost all people could not read”.
Paul there had HIS OWN copy of scriptures. He did not only rely on oral tradition.
but it is ok the catholic church knows bettter than God Almighty told Isaiah and Jeremiah to write down His word to server as testimony for all generations.
I’m not exactly sure why anyone should be answering you, either, since you seem to be avoiding the very problem with the argument of sola scriptura, which is that the NT was not an extant document until the third century. Yes, yes, the OT did exist, and yes, yes, Paul had a copy, but if you talk to most people who adhere to sola scriptura, they act like the old testament doesn’t matter anymore, anyway (if you don’t believe me, just listen in on a catholic defending a particular doctrine from a passage of the OT to a protestant). This is why you can go to a Bible book store and buy a copy of just the NT, but not a copy of just the OT. I, myself, have a copy of the NT (New King James Version) on CD.

I will be the first in line to admit that the Catholic Church has not always had the best track record IN DAY-TO-DAY OPERATION. Even the best of us screw up (case in point: Peter, the first Pope).

By the way, not all of the medieval Popes were against vernacular Bibles. Innocent III was for it, but the rest of the bishops of the time feared that translations would result in heresy. Want an example of how translation can result in heresy?

“In the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was “A” God.”

• New World Translation of the Bible

“In the beginning, the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

• most other translations

Now, I’m not attacking Jehova’s Witnesses here, but that little difference in translation makes a HUGE difference in the meaning, which means that somebody has it VERY wrong, whether it’s the Witnesses or everybody else.

God Bless.

 

[mercygate]

Genesis315:

The Church has tried to make Scripture available in the best way it could given the time period. Today, everyone can own and read a Bible. Back then, due to logistics only a few people could own one and even fewer could read it.

Just to toss a little salt into the stew, an antiques dealer, who specializes in mediaeval and renaissance manuscripts, told me that in today’s dollars, the cost of one pulpit bible in the 12th Century would be around US $500,000. You had to kill thousands of sheep to make the parchment, and that’s before the cost of having a half dozen monks copy it it out by hand.

Reputable Protestants don’t claim that the Church kept the Scriptures away from the people.