[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by ICameBack

Too bad there is all that Apocrypha in there cluttering it up.

Catholics figure that since Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christian Church didn't mind the seven Deuterocanonical books "cluttering up" their Scriptures, we probably shouldn't object to such "clutter" in our Bibles today.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by g_n_o_s_i_s

That is too funny... you don't know history do you? The only institutions giving any form of education in those days were through the Catholic church.

Very true.


Highly recommended:

Thomas Woods, HOW THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BUILT WESTERN CIVILIZATION (Regnery, 2005)

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by Seydlitz77

Well literacy wasn't the problem the problem is that the Bible was not available in languages that those in the laity who could read knew how to read.

When it comes to the Bible and the Catholic Church what has to be explained is why officials refused to allow Tyndale to produce an English translation of the Bible and he was later killed for doing so.

In Tyndale's writings he said that he translated the Bible out of concern for scriptural ignorance he witnessed among Church goers; giving them a Bible they can read isn't a perfect answer to the problem but anyone should be able to see its better than leaving the scriptures in a language they can't read.

See Posts #29 and #30 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Traditio]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Try again...



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Your link seems to redirect to a missing/deleted page.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by Traditio

Your link seems to redirect to a missing/deleted page.

Sorry about that. I'll have to post the brief article here:

Tyndale's Heresy
The Real Story of the 'Father of the English Bible'
by Matthew A.C. Newsome

The new edition of the New International Version (NIV) Bible came out this year. Why is it newsworthy? Because this is the "Inclusive Language Edition," and conservative Protestants everywhere are up in arms. I read of the NIV Inclusive Language Edition while visiting family in Greenville, South Carolina. On Sunday, February 24, 2002, the Greenville News ran an article by Deb Reichardson-Moore. She wrote that the business of biblical translation can be dangerous, citing as evidence William Tyndale, whom she wrote "was burned at the stake for the heresy of translating the Greek New Testament into English in 1525." She reported that today he’s known as "the father of the English Bible."

Phrasing it this way makes it sound as if the heresy Tyndale was condemned for was the act of translating the Bible into English. This is a common mistake and often repeated. In fact, when doing a bit of research for this article, I came across several web sites on Tyndale that said just this. One stated, "Translating the Bible was considered a heresy." Another proclaimed that in 1408 a law was enacted that forbade the translation of the Bible into English and also made reading the Bible illegal.

Of course, anyone familiar with the history of the Catholic Church, which for 2,000 years has been preserving and protecting the Word of God, recognizes how ludicrous this is. It was is only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all. And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available. All Christians everywhere owe it a great debt for that.

So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English actually illegal? The answer is no. The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.

Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.

It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, "Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff"). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged. All this law did was to prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.

Which, as it turns out, is just what William Tyndale did. Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.

[1] First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.

[2] Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a very volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation at this time would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.

[3] Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).

And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the "father of the English Bible." But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people."

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale...shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).

When discussing the history of Biblical translations, it is very common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don’t approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale’s or Wycliff’s. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.

And here at least Fundamentalists and Catholics are in ready agreement: Don’t mess with the Word of God.

http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp

[Traditio]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Sorry about that. I'll have to post the brief article here:

Thanks!

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by YahuShuan

Let the Catholics speak for themselves, the ones who did that thing...

It is so very easy to post quotations from Catholic sources without having the slightest genuine understanding of the content being quoted. YahuShuan's post here is a perfect case in point. It's simply too long for me to take the time to respond to it in detail, so I'll provide the following article in reply:

"Was the Catholic Church an Avowed Enemy of Scripture in the Middle Ages?"

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[zippy2006]

Originally Posted by Spitfire

So, what's going on here? This Catholic bookseller sells Bibles! How could that be? Why haven't Jesuits shut this site down and kidnapped and tortured the people who run it?

Oh noes! So does this one!

And this one too!

And yet another!

Mind = blown!

They will promptly be excommunicated.

[Seydlitz77]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Sorry about that. I'll have to post the brief article here:

Thanks for posting that.

I have to disagree on some points though, from what I can see Tyndale only condemns the Clergy (not the Church) once in his prologues and it is the condemn the "popish" idea that recitation of the scriptures to the masses is sufficient. He only broke with the Church so that he could translate the scriptures, we have to remember by the 1500's Wycliffe's and other translations were written in what was then a very archaic form of English. The only time he mentions doctrinal dispute is when he states his printer refused to print the word resurrection and kept trying to change it in the text on him.

As for corruptions and agenda those apply to any and all translations. Greek and Hebrew do not cleanly translate into our modern languages the same way for every translator, every translator's work is affected by the meaning they think the text has and anyone who disagrees with that particular interpretation will call the text corrupt but its not technically an incorrect translation. As for having an agenda everyone has an agenda and it will affect their translation, the KJV was specifically translated so as to reinforce the authority of both the Monarch and Ecclesiastical bodies. We must have a poor opinion of the word of God though if we think that translations and agenda can drown it out, sure there are better and worse translations of scripture out there but even the worst is of use to someone who would otherwise not have access to the word of God.

I think the second point probably hits truest, religious troubles in Europe would only be fanned by readily readable translations of the scriptures. Even if the Catholic Church had made an authorized translation of the scriptures at the time, it would have become a tool through which people would question and doubt the Church. I think in one point many of the reformers were correct that to many Catholic authorities at the time had in many cases departed from the message of the scriptures. You can't teach error nearly as easily if your congregation can go read the scriptures for themselves.

I am reading Tyndale's writings and his translation of the New Testament though I haven't had time yet to really sink my teeth into it.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by Seydlitz77

...You can't teach error nearly as easily if your congregation can go read the scriptures for themselves.

Of course, the central question is according to which of the tens-of-thousands of religious traditions in existence today is your congregation reading and interpreting the Scriptures? It hardly benefits the lay believer if he is interpreting the Bible through the lens of a schismatic or heretical doctrinal tradition, rather than through that of Christ's historical Catholic Church.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[YahuShuan]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

It is so very easy to post quotations from Catholic sources without having the slightest genuine understanding of the content being quoted. YahuShuan's post here is a perfect case in point. It's simply too long for me to take the time to respond to it in detail, so I'll provide the following article in reply:

"Was the Catholic Church an Avowed Enemy of Scripture in the Middle Ages?"

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Yup, you go ahead and blow it off, there is so much more out there that people can look up for themselves, and I ain't got the time whatsoever to go over this for the fifty millionth time. You condeomn yourselves with your own words, and vinicate myself with His and that isn't even why I do so. I do it for Him. You have no idea what that entails. So blow off. With the wind you go. Enjoy the fruits of your labors. Stand your fruitless grounds. I tried with you, and my spirit is tired. So keep what you want. I can't do a thing about it. But pray.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by YahuShuan

Yup, you go ahead and blow it off, there is so much more out there that people can look up for themselves, and I ain't got the time whatsoever to go over this for the fifty millionth time. You condeomn yourselves with your own words, and vinicate myself with His and that isn't even why I do so. I do it for Him. You have no idea what that entails. So blow off. With the wind you go. Enjoy the fruits of your labors. Stand your fruitless grounds. I tried with you, and my spirit is tired. So keep what you want. I can't do a thing about it. But pray.

Hey, I know just how you feel, friend. In fact, I could simply repeat the entire paragraph above right back to you.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Seydlitz77]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Of course, the central question is according to which of the tens-of-thousands of religious traditions in existence today is your congregation reading and interpreting the Scriptures? It hardly benefits the lay believer if he is interpreting the Bible through the lens of a schismatic or heretical doctrinal tradition, rather than through that of Christ's historical Catholic Church.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Right Catechism 113 "Read the scripture within 'the living tradition of the whole Church'" But the Catechisms also say "The Church 'forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful ... to learn 'the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,' by frequent reading of the Scriptures, 'Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.'" (Catechism 133) So is that a position post Tyndale and other protestant translators (cat's out of the bag so to speak) or did the Catholic Church always encourage their congregants to strive to read the scriptures?

My point was it would be hard for the Priest to say something that is blatantly contradicted by scripture if all or most of the congregation could go home and read the scriptures for themselves. It is interesting that Luther, Tyndale, and other very early reformers had read the authorized Latin translation of the scriptures and had been trained and taught by the Catholic Church, so perhaps there is merit in early/initial reformer claims that the Church was not completely in line with scripture in regards to some of its practices and traditions at that time.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by Seydlitz77

Right Catechism 113 "Read the scripture within 'the living tradition of the whole Church'" But the Catechisms also say "The Church 'forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful ... to learn 'the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,' by frequent reading of the Scriptures, 'Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.'" (Catechism 133) So is that a position post Tyndale and other protestant translators (cat's out of the bag so to speak) or did the Catholic Church always encourage their congregants to strive to read the scriptures?

Well, Jerome, for example---who said "Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ"---wrote in the 5th century. The Church has always encouraged believers to know the written word of God as it has been authentically interpreted and genuinely understood by the historic Catholic Church.

My point was it would be hard for the Priest to say something that is blatantly contradicted by scripture if all or most of the congregation could go home and read the scriptures for themselves.

...if they would read it in light of the historic Church's authoritative teachings, yes.

It is interesting that Luther, Tyndale, and other very early reformers had read the authorized Latin translation of the scriptures and had been trained and taught by the Catholic Church, so perhaps there is merit in early/initial reformer claims that the Church was not completely in line with scripture in regards to some of its practices and traditions at that time.

Luther's error was to abandon reading the Scriptures according to the Catholic Church's authentic historical understanding, and to begin reading them through the lens of Nominalist and Humanist philosophies. Tyndale's error was in following Luther---the blind leading the blind. Likewise with the 38,000+ non-Catholic denominations and sects in existence today, with more being invented every week.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Seydlitz77]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

...if they would read it in light of the historic Church's authoritative teachings, yes.

That kind of reads to much as "if they would read it in the light of what the priest just (perhaps falsely) just said in Church."

Here's my main real beef when it comes to Catholics and Scripture. Catechisms 109-119 come under the heading "The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture" which seems promising at first but the Catechisms themselves mention more about various knowledge and learning then they do the Spirit. Knowledge and learning can be a great aid but I would think that God would provide for even His most humblest of followers who might not have the benefit of great learning to understand His Word even without the benefit of a nearby Church as sometimes people may unfortunately find themselves alone in such a situation. Why can not God's Spirit the meaning of Word as scriptures are studied?

We were filled with the Holy Ghost, and rejoiced in the God of our salvation. Our minds being now enlightened, we began to have the scriptures laid open to our understandings, and the true meaning and intention of their more mysterious passages revealed unto us in a manner which we never could attain to previously, nor ever before had thought of. (Joseph Smith History 1:73-74 Pearl of Great Price)

Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
And if it be by some other way it is not of God.
And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
If it be some other way it is not of God.
Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?
Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together. (Doctrine and Covenants 50:17-22)

If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11 KJV)

Peter understood the Scriptures and taught them by the Spirit putting to naught the superior learning in the Scriptures and the Traditions surrounding them that the Sanhedrin had. I think I prefer a Faith that allows a humble fisherman or farm boy to teach the word of God through the Spirit without the aid of the learning of the world then a Faith that frankly in my view opens itself up to Elitism among the leadership since they could more easily claim to have the necessary learning to interpret the scriptures properly.

If all your priests and resources were gone tomorrow never to return and you were alone with the scriptures would your faith continue unchanged?

Just stating my views and concerns Cruc, not an attack in any way.