I
Indyann
Guest
Yes, please. I want to know the “ugly truth”, too.
Why wouldn't the Roman church allow scripture to be translated into the tongue of the people?
- Status
Z
zerinus
Guest
Why were all the early translators of the Bible into the English vernacular (Wycliffe, Hus, Tyndale, Coverdale . . .) persecuted or martyred for attempting to do so? The following website gives a synopsis of their efforts:
greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
zerinus
greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
zerinus
A
ApostateRLDS
Guest
Is this a rhetorical question, or are you actually wanting the answer?
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
I have a copy of this book. Brandon, if you are truly interested in learning I would be more than happy to send you a copy, just PM me with the request.
G
Gamera
Guest
Two major errors there. First, your examples are not “early” because English Bible translations predated Wycliff by centuries(for example, the Catholic monk Caedmon translated Scripture into Saxon English in the late 7th century, hundreds of years before the Reformers you name were born; the Venerable Bede did the same in the 8th century. These were Catholic English Bible translations). Second, the reason Tyndale and others got into trouble was not for “translating the Bible” (which was perfectly legal) but rather for translating the Bible without permission.
Z
zerinus
Guest
So you reckon one needs permission from the Catholic Church to translate the Bible, otherwise they deserve to be burned at the stake—especially when they did such a bad job of it in the Doway/Rheims Bible?
zerinus
E
elvisman
Guest
The Catholic Church wrote, compiled and canonized it - so it is also the guardian of the scriptures.
The Catholic Church has the authority, given it by our Lord Jesus Christ himself to bind and loose.
Does that answer your question?
E
elvisman
Guest
I don’t see an insult here - just a case of mistaken identity.
What I DO see here is a refusal to answer the rebuttals to your unfounded accusations and misinformation.
Why don’t you answer the many excellent replies to your original rant? Hmmmmm?
Z
zerinus
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
This doesn’t make any sense!
If he is ignorant (uneducated) then he cannot, by definition also be forked, because in order to be forked, one has to deliberately misrepresent the truth!Can’t be. He writes too well for that.
We all could, Branden, so maybe the next time you start a thread, you might consider beginning in a more charitable and less insulting manner. Ignorance can be excused, but baseless accusations cannot. You started out accusing the Catholic church. Unfortunately, you got some abrasivenss in response, but one does tend to reap what one sows.
G
Gamera
Guest
My reckoning has nothing to do with anything — I never said I approved or disapproved. I merely stated historical fact. It was never illegal to translate the Bible. It was illegal to translate the Bible without permission. The people you listed translated the Bible without permission and got into trouble for it — not for “translating the Bible,” as if translating the Bible had been illegal. It wasn’t illegal, it was legal but regulated. It had been done and done and done again, long before Wycliff was even born.
Driving a car is a regulated activity. A person needs permission (a driver’s license) in order to drive. Suppose I drove without a license and got a ticket. Should I complain that I got into trouble for driving? No, I got into trouble for driving without permission. Maybe I was unfairly denied a license, maybe not, but that’s a separate issue — to say that I got into trouble “just for driving” is to misrepresent the facts. Similarly, to say these men got into trouble “just for translating the Bible into English” is to misrepresent the facts. It wasn’t illegal to translate the Bible into English. It was just illegal to do so without permission.
G
guanophore
Guest
The magesterium of the Church, knowing that it was written by, for, and about Catholics, felt a solemn duty to protect the contents from malformation. Procedures had been set in place for quality control. This was necessary, because before the printing press, most copies were made in dark basements by long suffering monks working in candlelight. Great care was taken to ensure accuracy, so that what eventually did happen would not happen. Changes were made not only to the text, but to the canon.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Thanks for engaging me in the discussion. Maybe your reckoning doesn’t count for much, but mine does—at lest to me! And my reckoning is that no church, be it true or false, right or wrong, genuine or not, valid or not, has the right to tell anybody whether they have the right to translate the Bible or not. The most they could do would be to make their own authorized translation of the Bible; and advertise it to their adherents (and to everybody else for that matter) that it is their authorized translation, and the one which they approve of. Then it is up to others to decide which way they want to go—not to burn people for make their own translations. That is dictatorship and despotism, and entirely opposed to the spirit if not the letter of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
zerinus
G
Gamera
Guest
Fair enough. I think that as products of the 20th and 21st century, our core reaction to any type of censorship is to reject it as oppressive. Nonetheless, the popular myth that Protestant Reformers “simply wanted to put the Bible into the hands of the people” has no basis in historical fact – vernacular translations already were in the hands of the people.
T
teachccd
Guest
So then you would be perfectly fine with my saying that the Book of Mormon is a false translation authorized by a false church. If you truly are LDS, as your profile states, then you must either oppose such a thought and send more missionaries my way or follow your post above and agree that any Bible is good for the person whose organization says that it is and there is no need for the Book of Mormon for me.
I highly advise you to reread your post and then restate your thoughts. The Church of the Latter Day Saints, who comes to my door professing their faith and promoting the Book of Mormon, should be the last to point fingers at those who wish to hold to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
And speaking of dictatorship…well I won’t go there…teachccd
Z
zerinus
Guest
I think you will find that that is not historically acurate. In England there was a great thirst for reading the Bible in English. Tyndale’s translations (smuggled into England from Europe, where he was in hiding and translating) were selling like hotcakes. They were so popular, and fetched such high prices, that it made their smuggling a profitable business. Their popularity was such that all attempts by the authorities to stamp it out failed.
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
That is a totally illogical, irational, nonsensical contribution to this discussion. The LDS Church has translated the Book of Mormon into may foreign languages; but it has nothing against other people making their own independent translations if they want to. If their translations turn out to be better than the ones the LDS Church has made, good for them! If it turns out to be worse, that will be easily recognized and identified as such buy others. We have nothing to lose by other people making their own independent translations of the Book of Mormon.
zerinus
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
The problem with that, Zerenius, is that the original Book of Mormon scriptures have mysteriously disappeared. So no such translations can be made.
By contrast, even though we do not have the originals of the books of the Bible, archeological evidence strongly supports that the copies we have are good ones. Every time a new discovery is made, it tends to further confirm this. The people that copied as well as translated the books of the Bible were very careful.
In contrast, there is absolutely no archeological evidence to support even the existence of the source material for the Book of Mormon, nor is there any archeological evidence to support many references in the Book of Mormon to peoples, places, animals, food, etc., as has been cited on this forum in other posts.
G
Gamera
Guest
I’ve never seen any history book support these claims. I previously cited Henry Graham’s “Where We Got the Bible” as a book which devotes an entire chapter to vernacular translations before Wycliff. Most of those discussed are English translations. I’ve read Graham’s book cover to cover and found nothing about any “great thirst” for Tyndale’s belated English translation.
Popularity is evidence of nothing. The suggestion that something “sold like hotcakes” — like L. Ron Hubbard’s “Dianetics” — proves nothing about what did or didn’t precede it. People have a “great thirst” for the trendy fads like the DaVinci Code — again, that proves nothing. English translations of Scripture were widely available before Wycliff, let alone before Tyndale.
G
Gamera
Guest
Incidentally, while at least Zerinus is discussing his perspective, I haven’t seen the OP BrandenRush comment on the responses about Catholic English Bible translations. BrandenRush, do you have a better understanding now of pre-Reformation vernacular Scripture translations? Catholics consider sacred Scripture to be a priceless source of personal spiritual strength. Our Catechism teaches that, “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ,” CCC 133. Our Catechism also exhorts us to “frequent reading of the divine Scriptures,” CCC 133. My Catholic wife and I read one chapter of the Bible together each night. It really strengthens our Catholic faith in Jesus Christ our Savior.
- Status