M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
I heard a protestant talk about Tyndale and how he shows the Catholic Church to be a horrid corrupt institution of man. Who is Tyndale? And what went on with him and the Church? Thanks and God bless.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
ttg
Guest
William Tyndale decided to write his own version of the bible along with some help from Martin Luther. Tyndale didn’t have the qualifications to translate the bible into English and was specifically told not to do so. In fact, writing your own version was illegal at the time and had been so since 1408 when John Wycliff wrote his corrupt bible.
Protestants will vehemently insist that he was executed for translating the bible into English, but he could have left it in Latin and still have been executed. Whether the punishment fit the crime may be up to debate, but the fact remains that he was well aware he was committing heresy by changing the bible to fit his agenda, and he knew he was brazenly committing a crime.
Protestants will vehemently insist that he was executed for translating the bible into English, but he could have left it in Latin and still have been executed. Whether the punishment fit the crime may be up to debate, but the fact remains that he was well aware he was committing heresy by changing the bible to fit his agenda, and he knew he was brazenly committing a crime.
M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
What was his Agenda? How was he changing the bible?William Tyndale decided to write his own version of the bible along with some help from Martin Luther. Tyndale didn’t have the qualifications to translate the bible into English and was specifically told not to do so. In fact, writing your own version was illegal at the time and had been so since 1408 when John Wycliff wrote his corrupt bible.
Protestants will vehemently insist that he was executed for translating the bible into English, but he could have left it in Latin and still have been executed. Whether the punishment fit the crime may be up to debate, but the fact remains that he was well aware he was committing heresy by changing the bible to fit his agenda, and he knew he was brazenly committing a crime.
S
scylla
Guest
Since the Bible is the Word of God, it must be respected and not misrepresented, unfortunately William Tyndale took it upon his own authority to translate the Bible, regardless of possibly blaspheming God and misrepresenting His Holy Bible.
King Henry VIII had him executed. In those days blasphemy was much taken much more seriously, so was disrespect and loyalty to the King, which resulted in Tyndale’s death. Salvation was considered more important than life back then, whereas nowdays life is usually given more consideration than salvation.
That is the reason for so many people being killed as Protestants and Catholics were killed for their beliefs.
In Christ
Scylla
King Henry VIII had him executed. In those days blasphemy was much taken much more seriously, so was disrespect and loyalty to the King, which resulted in Tyndale’s death. Salvation was considered more important than life back then, whereas nowdays life is usually given more consideration than salvation.
That is the reason for so many people being killed as Protestants and Catholics were killed for their beliefs.
In Christ
Scylla
R
rr1213
Guest
Much of Tyndale’s translation eventually was used in the King James Version of the Bible. His problem was translating the bible into the vernacular at a time that the Catholic Church desired only for the latin Vulgate to be used. For a more balanced exposition of Tyndale than the posts above, please see the following:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale
D
DianJo
Guest
Not True - the Church herself commissioned many bibles to be copied in the vernacular long before Tyndale and Luther. I believe the first vernacular bible was around 1100 AD. I’m probably off on that date but it was still many, many years before the so called reformers. There were many languages in circulation before the reformers.Much of Tyndale’s translation eventually was used in the King James Version of the Bible. His problem was translating the bible into the vernacular at a time that the Catholic Church desired only for the latin Vulgate to be used. For a more balanced exposition of Tyndale than the posts above, please see the following:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale
The Church had no problem with bibles in the vernacular at all. The problem was that people like Tyndale and Luther and others before them (the Albegensians) translated incorrectly because they were not trained to do such things. They translated because they had agendas to fulfill - to make the bible say what they thought it meant. Therefore the translations were faulty and they succeeded in changing the plain meaning of scripture to fit their personal interpretations. That’s why those bibles were burned.
It was and is the job of the Church to protect the truth of scripture and to see that the faithful have a true copy of the Word of God - not some faulty interpretation.
R
rr1213
Guest
Correct translations like the Vulgate for instance? Where, due to Jerome’s incorrect translation from the Hebrew, Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai was said to have “horns” rather than his face shining? Or, again due to incorrect translation, John the Baptist was held to be crying “do penance” in the Wilderness as opposed to “repent”? Both of these mistranslations, for example, were pointed out by Erasmus (who remained Catholic of course) during the time period of the Reformation. The truth is that the Catholic Church did not want lay persons to be able to read the bible. There are at least two rational reasons that the Church could have taken this action: (1) the Church was afraid that untrained, dumb, lay people would misunderstand the Scriptures; or (2) the Church was afraid that not-so-dumb lay persons might see that the Church had not faithfully taught them what was contained in the Scriptures. Make a choice. The Anglican Church did the same thing for a period of time after Henry VIII’s break with Rome.Not True - the Church herself commissioned many bibles to be copied in the vernacular long before Tyndale and Luther. I believe the first vernacular bible was around 1100 AD. I’m probably off on that date but it was still many, many years before the so called reformers. There were many languages in circulation before the reformers.
The Church had no problem with bibles in the vernacular at all. The problem was that people like Tyndale and Luther and others before them (the Albegensians) translated incorrectly because they were not trained to do such things. They translated because they had agendas to fulfill - to make the bible say what they thought it meant. Therefore the translations were faulty and they succeeded in changing the plain meaning of scripture to fit their personal interpretations. That’s why those bibles were burned.
It was and is the job of the Church to protect the truth of scripture and to see that the faithful have a true copy of the Word of God - not some faulty interpretation.
T
Tiny_Montgomery
Guest
false dichotomy based on a false assumption (“the Catholic Church did not want lay persons to be able to read the bible”).The truth is that the Catholic Church did not want lay persons to be able to read the bible. There are at least two rational reasons that the Church could have taken this action: (1) the Church was afraid that untrained, dumb, lay people would misunderstand the Scriptures; or (2) the Church was afraid that not-so-dumb lay persons might see that the Church had not faithfully taught them what was contained in the Scriptures.
R
rr1213
Guest
I’m afraid that the assumption is not false, but factual. The reasoning behind the position of the Church on the issue may be open to debate.false dichotomy based on a false assumption (“the Catholic Church did not want lay persons to be able to read the bible”).
T
Tiny_Montgomery
Guest
it’s factual, eh?I’m afraid that the assumption is not false, but factual. The reasoning behind the position of the Church on the issue may be open to debate.
okay, tell me the facts.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Your two options are neither charitable. The fact of the matter is that prior to the invention of the printing press, literacy in Christendom beyond what we would call 1st grade level today was less than 10% and may have been as low as 3-5%. Despite your attempt to defane the Church with a motive, the fact of the matter illiteracy was the issue. What is your motive to have such attribute such an uncharitable motive to the Church?Correct translations like the Vulgate for instance? Where, due to Jerome’s incorrect translation from the Hebrew, Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai was said to have “horns” rather than his face shining? Or, again due to incorrect translation, John the Baptist was held to be crying “do penance” in the Wilderness as opposed to “repent”? Both of these mistranslations, for example, were pointed out by Erasmus (who remained Catholic of course) during the time period of the Reformation. The truth is that the Catholic Church did not want lay persons to be able to read the bible. There are at least two rational reasons that the Church could have taken this action: (1) the Church was afraid that untrained, dumb, lay people would misunderstand the Scriptures; or (2) the Church was afraid that not-so-dumb lay persons might see that the Church had not faithfully taught them what was contained in the Scriptures. Make a choice. The Anglican Church did the same thing for a period of time after Henry VIII’s break with Rome.
J
John_Henry
Guest
The original translation into Latin was a translation into the vernacular. And there were, as you say, many translations into later vernaculars before the Reformers. Such facts don’t fit very conveniently into Protestant agendas though, and so get quietly ignored.Not True - the Church herself commissioned many bibles to be copied in the vernacular long before Tyndale and Luther. I believe the first vernacular bible was around 1100 AD.
J
John_Henry
Guest
Old lies die hard.The truth is that the Catholic Church did not want lay persons to be able to read the bible.
J
JPrejean
Guest
It was well before that. As even the Wikipedia article on Tyndale notes, vernacular translations dated back to the 7th century (the Venerable Bede’s English version of the Gospels was an example).I believe the first vernacular bible was around 1100 AD. I’m probably off on that date but it was still many, many years before the so called reformers
That more or less summarizes the problem. In that respect, it was little different than a translation that would come out of the Watchtower. When you are deliberately choosing to translate passages in order to create the impression that your opponents’ position can’t be found in the text, that is hardly supportable. As to the sinister implications, the fact that the Church not only allowed but supported Erasmus’s own efforts at translation demonstrates quite clearly that they weren’t opposed to translation by people who weren’t out to push a theological agenda.They translated because they had agendas to fulfill - to make the bible say what they thought it meant.
The truth is that the Catholic Church didn’t particularly care either way apart from people deliberately editing the Bible to push their own theological agenda, and they had ample evidence of people doing so in the form of the admitted heretic Wyclif. If they had thought that Luther and Tyndale had anything better in mind, they would not have had any opposition. Ironically, there were already better German translations available at the time that were widely available, so in Luther’s case, there wasn’t even a need for his translation.The truth is that the Catholic Church did not want lay persons to be able to read the bible.
At least you admit that there are other reasons. Granted, the other reasons pretty much defeat your point, but you have the virtue of admitting the possibility of other reasons, which is something.There are at least two rational reasons that the Church could have taken this action
I don’t think the Church was the least bit worried about the people reading the Scriptures, because no one who was “dumb” and “untrained” could read. They just didn’t want people to perceive the misrepresentations of Luther and Tyndale as being reflective of the actual Scripture.(1) the Church was afraid that untrained, dumb, lay people would misunderstand the Scriptures
Given that there were plenty of Greek and vernacular translations floating around at the time, this would just have been silly. Anyone who could read could read Latin, and the Church did nothing to suppress proficiency in other languages (indeed, Erasmus is a good example of people doing just that). Perhaps the most glaring flaw in your reasoning is that the Greeks had the same soteriological beliefs that you condemn, and … well … they spoke Greek and had the Scriptures in Greek!(2) the Church was afraid that not-so-dumb lay persons might see that the Church had not faithfully taught them what was contained in the Scriptures
Let’s get past conspiracy theories about the Catholic Church wanting to keep the Scriptures in Latin to protect their unbiblical practices and start dealing in reality, OK?
J
JPrejean
Guest
You’re confusing facts and reasons yourself. The fact was that they suppressed Tyndale’s translation. You’ve invented the reason that they allegedly wanted to keep “the Bible” from the laity, a reason that the factual record makes clear cannot have been the actual reason for the suppression.I’m afraid that the assumption is not false, but factual.
R
rr1213
Guest
Ok, I’ve posted a number of links, most of which Catholics should find to be acceptable source material, which address the issue. Honestly, you will see that there is support for BOTH what I posted and the Catholic positions stated above. As is often the case, it appears that the truth lies somewhere in the middle between the extremes. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church on numerous occasions has restricted both translations into the vernacular and the reading of the Scriptures by laymen.
First, you might find this interesting from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned….”
"It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, “Dominici gregis”, the Index of Prohibited Books. According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate. The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice….Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors……In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm. "
newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm
I personally find it offensive on a number of levels that the Church would limit any lay persons’ reading of Scripture in the vernacular, even if the action is taken in the “best interests” of the readers. The Scriptures were written to be read. With the possible exception of Paul, the early Christians were not known to be learned people but, instead, simple people. To paraphrase Scripture, these early Christians to whom the letters were written (in the vernacular by the way) were the foolish and simple ones of the world, not the “learned” men for whom the Church believed could profit from the practice.
See also below:
catholicapologetics.net/tbitc-1
reason.com/0112/cr.mg.revolutionary.shtml
First, you might find this interesting from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned….”
"It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, “Dominici gregis”, the Index of Prohibited Books. According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate. The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice….Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors……In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm. "
newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm
I personally find it offensive on a number of levels that the Church would limit any lay persons’ reading of Scripture in the vernacular, even if the action is taken in the “best interests” of the readers. The Scriptures were written to be read. With the possible exception of Paul, the early Christians were not known to be learned people but, instead, simple people. To paraphrase Scripture, these early Christians to whom the letters were written (in the vernacular by the way) were the foolish and simple ones of the world, not the “learned” men for whom the Church believed could profit from the practice.
See also below:
catholicapologetics.net/tbitc-1
reason.com/0112/cr.mg.revolutionary.shtml
S
scylla
Guest
The reason why the assumption that Catholics would want to hide the Bible because it is contrary to the faith is a common lie and easily refuted by any thinking person.
If the Bible was contrary to the faith then no Catholic Bible scholar would in good concience stay in the Church. Yet there are thousands upon thousands of well learned priests who read, copied and studied the Bible for hundreds of years, even before Martin Luther came around. If this assumption was true then we would have had the thousands of denominations that exist today after a few hundred years of Sola Scriptura within the first thousand years of Christianity. Since the Catholic Church fully believes the Bible is God’s truth, it has always been very cautious of it’s mis-representation.
It is like the protective father staying in the room as his daughter watches a movie with her boyfriend.
Attributing motives to a group you do not belong to is bearing false witness. The Catholic Church exists to maintain truth, to say that it has other intentions is to twist truth and attribute a motive that the Catholic Church does not hold.
This would be like me saying that Protestants want everyone to worship the devil. Most Protestants want people to read the Bible and follow Jesus. This is what I learned at Calvary Chapel.
To attribute a different motive than what they profess is wrong.
In Christ
Scylla
If the Bible was contrary to the faith then no Catholic Bible scholar would in good concience stay in the Church. Yet there are thousands upon thousands of well learned priests who read, copied and studied the Bible for hundreds of years, even before Martin Luther came around. If this assumption was true then we would have had the thousands of denominations that exist today after a few hundred years of Sola Scriptura within the first thousand years of Christianity. Since the Catholic Church fully believes the Bible is God’s truth, it has always been very cautious of it’s mis-representation.
It is like the protective father staying in the room as his daughter watches a movie with her boyfriend.
Attributing motives to a group you do not belong to is bearing false witness. The Catholic Church exists to maintain truth, to say that it has other intentions is to twist truth and attribute a motive that the Catholic Church does not hold.
This would be like me saying that Protestants want everyone to worship the devil. Most Protestants want people to read the Bible and follow Jesus. This is what I learned at Calvary Chapel.
To attribute a different motive than what they profess is wrong.
In Christ
Scylla
R
rr1213
Guest
I’ve not borne false witness. Look at what I said in my previous posts:The reason why the assumption that Catholics would want to hide the Bible because it is contrary to the faith is a common lie and easily refuted by any thinking person.
If the Bible was contrary to the faith then no Catholic Bible scholar would in good concience stay in the Church. Yet there are thousands upon thousands of well learned priests who read, copied and studied the Bible for hundreds of years, even before Martin Luther came around. If this assumption was true then we would have had the thousands of denominations that exist today after a few hundred years of Sola Scriptura within the first thousand years of Christianity. Since the Catholic Church fully believes the Bible is God’s truth, it has always been very cautious of it’s mis-representation.
It is like the protective father staying in the room as his daughter watches a movie with her boyfriend.
Attributing motives to a group you do not belong to is bearing false witness. The Catholic Church exists to maintain truth, to say that it has other intentions is to twist truth and attribute a motive that the Catholic Church does not hold.
This would be like me saying that Protestants want everyone to worship the devil. Most Protestants want people to read the Bible and follow Jesus. This is what I learned at Calvary Chapel.
To attribute a different motive than what they profess is wrong.
In Christ
Scylla
“The truth is that the Catholic Church did not want lay persons to be able to read the bible. There are at least two rational reasons that the Church could have taken this action: (1) the Church was afraid that untrained, dumb, lay people would misunderstand the Scriptures; or (2) the Church was afraid that not-so-dumb lay persons might see that the Church had not faithfully taught them what was contained in the Scriptures. Make a choice.”
If you look at the citations I posted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, it would appear that my suggested possibility no. 1 above was pretty much on the money. Option no. 2 is admittedly a bit more cynical, but not unreasonable when you consider that Catholic doctrine and Protestant doctrine differs greatly on a number of issues and, with respect to those areas of disagreement, Catholic doctrine is usually the one that is relying on Holy Tradition as opposed to the plain reading of Scripture. From a Protestant perspective of course. Nor was the Catholic Church the only one to do this, witness the same actions taken by the early Anglican Church as I noted in the same post. Neither position, charitable or otherwise, is morally or theologically defensible.
J
JPrejean
Guest
And you might want to present the context for the quote, which makes the REASON for the Pope’s statement in this regard quite obvious.First, you might find this interesting from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The second document belongs to the time of the Waldensian and Albigensian heresies. The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular.”
The danger to the laity is in the Waldensian, Albigensian, Cathar, and Lollard inventions being passed off as “translations.” The Catholics never had a problem with the Bible being read, only heretical propaganda being passed off as the Bible.
They weren’t limiting the reading of Scripture except among people who weren’t capable of distinguishing whether what they were reading was Scripture or not. Surely you aren’t saying that you want people to read false Bibles passed off in the name of Sacred Scripture!I personally find it offensive on a number of levels that the Church would limit any lay persons’ reading of Scripture in the vernacular, even if the action is taken in the “best interests” of the readers. The Scriptures were written to be read.
J
JPrejean
Guest
On the contrary, the article you cited proves it to be hooey. They were not worried about the laity misunderstanding the Scriptures. They were worried about the laity being deceived into believing that something was Scripture when it wasn’t.If you look at the citations I posted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, it would appear that my suggested possibility no. 1 above was pretty much on the money.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.