F
Fidelis
Guest
Carried over from a previous, off topic, thread.
Even though Tyndales tactics made him resemble the Jehovah’s Witnesses, of course, he was not* literally* a JW (that sect not being invented until the mid-19th century).However, if you look at all the factors in his case, he was by any definition a heretic. And don’t forget: at that time and place, being a heretic was not just a religious error, but because it could and did lead to violence and rebellion, it was a crime against the State. Political, cultural and religious revisionism aside, like it or not, that is a fact. Society as a whole took religion much more seriously than we do today.
It is pretty much impossible to find a biography of him that is completely impartial. This is because Protestants have made him out to be a folk hero in their efforts to legitimize their existence and as a stick to bash Catholics. It doesn’t help that they tend to completely remove the event from the context of the times in which they occurred. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to those who actually lived in those times, not those who pass judgement on them and their motives with 2000 years removed 20/20 hindsight.
Catholics, in reaction to this, when they try to fill in the omitted facts, simply come across as defensive in their attempts to give the other side of the story. Popular histories like you hear in school and see on TV tend to take the Protestant angle. It is easier for those sources to repeat the myth than to dig for facts, and makes for a more titillating retelling.
What one must do, consequently, is look at it with a true historian’s eye: consider the times these events occurred; the people, current events, culture, politics, average educational level, and society as a whole. Then look at it from more than one perspective, and draw your conclusions from that.
Here are two articles about Tyndale and his errors – what we might call “the rest of the story.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp
catholicapologetics.net/apolo_52.htm
Don’t swallow anti-Catholic propaganda, from whatever source, whole and uncritically. Without preconceptions, consider what you read, balance it with what you already know, THEN draw your conclusions.
For readers to **truly **determine for themselves, they need to get both sides of the story.NPS, Zooey, and Fidelis;
Here is my source on Tyndale: “How We Got the Bible”, by Neil R. Lightfoot, Ph.D. from Duke Univ. who is the Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Abilene Christian University in Abilene Texas. pp 176-180
Further I am providing the link to the text of Tyndales actual translation, (available online, imagine)
wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/
So other readers can determine for themselves whether Tyndale did commit the gross error that you have alleged. Maybe they will see your undocumented and unsupported assertions to be nothing more than calumnous slander against a Christian saint.
Even though Tyndales tactics made him resemble the Jehovah’s Witnesses, of course, he was not* literally* a JW (that sect not being invented until the mid-19th century).However, if you look at all the factors in his case, he was by any definition a heretic. And don’t forget: at that time and place, being a heretic was not just a religious error, but because it could and did lead to violence and rebellion, it was a crime against the State. Political, cultural and religious revisionism aside, like it or not, that is a fact. Society as a whole took religion much more seriously than we do today.
It is pretty much impossible to find a biography of him that is completely impartial. This is because Protestants have made him out to be a folk hero in their efforts to legitimize their existence and as a stick to bash Catholics. It doesn’t help that they tend to completely remove the event from the context of the times in which they occurred. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to those who actually lived in those times, not those who pass judgement on them and their motives with 2000 years removed 20/20 hindsight.
Catholics, in reaction to this, when they try to fill in the omitted facts, simply come across as defensive in their attempts to give the other side of the story. Popular histories like you hear in school and see on TV tend to take the Protestant angle. It is easier for those sources to repeat the myth than to dig for facts, and makes for a more titillating retelling.
What one must do, consequently, is look at it with a true historian’s eye: consider the times these events occurred; the people, current events, culture, politics, average educational level, and society as a whole. Then look at it from more than one perspective, and draw your conclusions from that.
Here are two articles about Tyndale and his errors – what we might call “the rest of the story.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp
catholicapologetics.net/apolo_52.htm
Don’t swallow anti-Catholic propaganda, from whatever source, whole and uncritically. Without preconceptions, consider what you read, balance it with what you already know, THEN draw your conclusions.