Posted on 10/25/2013 1:32:26 PM PDT by Gamecock
"I defy the pope and all his laws; and, if God spares me, I will one day make the boy that drives the plow in England to know more of the Scriptures than the pope does!" So said translation pioneer William Tyndale.
Born near Dursley, Gloucestershire, UK, between 1484 and 1496, Tyndale developed a zeal to get the Bible into the hands of the common man—a passion for which he ultimately gave his life.
Educated at Oxford and Cambridge, Tyndale became fluent in at least seven languages. In 1522, the same year Luther translated the New Testament into German, Tyndale was an ordained Catholic priest serving John Walsh of Gloucestershire. It was during this time, when Tyndale was 28 years of age, that he began pouring over Erasmus’ Greek New Testament. The more he studied the more the doctrines of the Reformation became clear. And like a great fire kindled by a lighting strike, so Tyndale’s heart was set ablaze by the doctrines of grace:
By grace . . . we are plucked out of Adam the ground of all evil and graffed in Christ, the root of all goodness. In Christ God loved us, his elect and chosen, before the world began and reserved us unto the knowledge of his Son and of his holy gospel; and when the gospel is preached to us openeth our hearts and giveth us grace to believe, and putteth the spirit of Christ in us: and we know him as our Father most merciful, and consent to the law and love it inwardly in our heart and desire to fulfill it and sorrow because we do not.
Rome’s Opposition to an English Translation
Nearly 200 years earlier, starting in 1382, John Wycliff and his followers (known as Lollards) distributed hand-written English translations of Scripture. The Archbishop of Canterbury responded by having Wycliffe and his writings condemned.
But Rome was not finished. In 1401, Parliament passed a law making heresy a capital offence. Seven years later, the Archbishop of Canterbury made it a crime to “translate any text of the Scripture into English or any other tongue . . . and that no man can read any such book . . . in part or in whole." The sentence was burning. Across Europe, the flames were ignited and the Lollards were all but destroyed. Rome was determined to keep God’s Word out of the people’s hands.
. . . as a boy of 11 watched the burning of a young man in Norwich for possessing the Lord’s Prayer in English . . . John Foxe records . . . seven Lollards burned at Coventry in 1519 for teaching their children the Lord’s Prayer in English.
John Bale (1495-1563)
Rome was not finished with Wycliffe either: 44 years after his death, the pope ordered Wycliffe’s bones exhumed, burned, and his ashes scattered.
Tyndale was truly in great danger.
Tyndale’s End
Fearing for his life, Tyndale fled London for Brussels in 1524 where he continued his translation work for the next 12 years. Tyndale’s time in exile was dreadful, as he describes in a 1531 letter:
. . . my pains . . . my poverty . . . my exile out of mine natural country, and bitter absence from my friends . . . my hunger, my thirst, my cold, the great danger wherewith I am everywhere encompassed, and finally . . . innumerable other hard and sharp fighting’s which I endure.
On the evening of May 21, 1535, Tyndale was betrayed to the authorities by a man he trusted, Henry Philips. For the next 18 months, Tyndale lived a prisoner in Vilvorde Castle, six miles outside of Brussles. The charge was heresy.
The verdict came in August, 1536. He was condemned as a heretic and defrocked as a priest. On or about October 6, 1536, Tyndale was tied to a stake, strangled by an executioner, and then his body burned. He was 42 years old. His last words were, “Lord! Open the King of England’s Eyes!”
Tyndale’s Legacy
Tyndale’s translations were the foundations for Miles Coverdale’s Great Bible (1539) and later for the Geneva Bible (1557). As a matter of fact, about 90% of the Geneva Bible’s New Testement was Tyndale’s work. In addition, the 54 scholars who produced the 1611 Authorized Version (King James) bible relied heavily upon Tyndale’s translations, although they did not give him credit.
Tyndale is also known as a pioneer in the biblical languages. He introduced several words into the English language, such as Jehovah, Passover, scapegoat, and atonement.
It has been asserted that Tyndale's place in history has not yet been sufficiently recognized as a translator of the Scriptures, as an apostle of liberty, and as a chief promoter of the Reformation in England. In all these respects his influence has been singularly under-valued, at least to Protestants.
“Nope. You did not define “earn”. You posted something other than the definition. Try again.”
I think this pretty much settles that Catholics, in general, are irrational, and are just concerned with you bowing to their Leftist Pope.
“When you tell me where I ever said “we actually become as holy as Christ...” we might be able to move forward.”
Well that settles it. Catholics don’t know what their own theology means on any significant level.
Your failure was inevitable.
“Your failure was inevitable.”
The inevitably of your arguments to consist of “It is because I say so, and no, I can’t explain why it is so, and I won’t try to respond to anything you say, but I might repeat myself” is your failure. Sadly, it’s typical of Catholic apologetics on this forum!
“Well that settles it. Catholics don’t know what their own theology means on any significant level.”
The correct answer is I never said “we actually become as holy as Christ...” nor did I even imply it, or suggest it, or even hint at it. Still, Protestant anti-Catholics have to fall back on their only strategy: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/england/lecture4.html
In the end, this is what you resorted to: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/england/lecture4.html
“The correct answer is I never said “we actually become as holy as Christ...” “
In that event, will you go ahead and answer my questions?:
How am I lying? If the infusion of Christ’s holiness or righteousness in us, does not actually make us Holy or righteous, then what is it for then? I’m not putting words into your mouth. I’m asking you to be consistent with the meaning of words.
What does it mean to be “holy?” or to be “righteous”? God is described as Holy. God is perfect. Therefore, why is it that the “holiness” of man is something that is not also perfect?
And why does Christ say that no one is good, except for Him?
Luk_18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
And what does it mean when Paul declares that none are actually righteous?
The only logical conclusion is that we are not righteous, but are considered righteous because of our faith in the sight of God. In fact, none of our good works are even our own, but are given to us directly by God who is the true author of them. Therefore man has no merits at all, but is utterly sinful in the sight of God, and are blessed to have the actual merits of Christ alone whose perfection is imputed onto us.
Therefore, Christ’s righteousness is not infused in us. It is imputed onto us, exactly as the scripture says:
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Can you respond to this? Or is this too hard to respond to?
I am busy, and that is your job when making assertions, and which applies to such in the rest of your post.
“If one justifies RC censorship in the past then he must explain why that is not necessary now.”
I believe it is necessary now. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Catholic Church refusing to publish, pay for, give an imprimatur to, or provide a nihil obstat to any material whatsoever, any translation whatsoever, any book, any DVD, any CD, any document, website, etc. that is contrary to the Catholic faith. Why would you have a problem with that?
Then you disagree with Rome now allowing readership of materials it once forbade, while giving the stamp the commentary in your own official American Bible which teaches or did teach such things as ,
that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: the footnotes on which state, in part, “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”) are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson.
the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," but overall the author simply used mere "traditions" to teach a religious lesson.
Think of the ‘holy wars’ of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional." It also holds that such things as “cloud, angels (blasting trumpets), smoke, fire, earthquakes,lighting, thunder, war, calamities, lies and persecution are Biblical figures of speech.”
On Gn. 1:26 states that “sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth,” thus negating this as literal, and God as referring to Himself in the plural (“Us” or “Our”) which He does 6 times in the OT.
Likewise, the current footnote regarding the Red Sea (Ex. 10:19) informs readers regarding what the Israelites crossed over that it is literally the Reed Sea, which was “probably a body of shallow water somewhat to the north of the present deep Red Sea.” Thus rendered, the miracle would have been Pharaoh’s army drowning in shallow waters!
It likewise explains as regards to the sons of heaven [God] having relations with the daughters of men, as “apparently alluding to an old legend.” and explains away the flood as a story that “ultimately draws upon an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of a great flood.” Its teaching also imagines the story as being a composite account with discrepancies. The 1970 footnote on Gen. 6:1-4 states, “This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology.” It goes on to explain the “sons of heaven” are “the celestial beings of mythology.” - http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#Remarks
Somehow that was from the .net site rather than the more updated .com. sorry.
Were are dealing with over 500 years later, and while this issue is rather peripheral in the light of the rest of my post, further research states,
he first printed translation of the Bible into Italian was the Malermi Bible in 1471 from the Latin version Vulgate. Other early Catholic translations into Italian were made by the Domenican Fra Zaccaria of Florence in 1542 (the New Testament only) and by Santi Marmochino in 1543 (complete Bible).[1] Protestant translations were made by Antonio Brucioli in 1530, by Massimo Teofilo in 1552 and by Giovanni Diodati in 1607 who translated the Bible from Latin and Jewish documents; Diodati's version is the reference version for Italian Protestantism. This edition was revised in 1641, 1712, 1744, 1819 and 1821. A revised edition in modern Italian, Nuova Diodati, was published in 1991. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_Italian
Show me where I ever claimed “we actually become as holy as Christ...”.
When you said that we are infused with the righteousness of Christ. If the righteousness of Christ does not make us as righteous as Christ, once infused into us, then can you please tell us what it is you actually mean, and answer all my other questions in that post?
Hey, we’ve come full circle!
“I am busy, and that is your job when making assertions, and which applies to such in the rest of your post.”
No, look it up on your own. I think it is important for Protestant anti-Catholics who are terribly ignorant do some research.
“Then you disagree with Rome now allowing readership of materials it once forbade,”
Whether I agree or disagree is immaterial since the Church has added and subtracted materials from the index for centuries so your question is meaningless.
“...while giving the stamp the commentary in your own official American Bible which teaches or did teach such things as ,”
First, you mean the “New American Bible” and not the “American Bible”. It amazes me that Protestant anti-Catholics can’t even get the most basic things right. Second, the NAB is issued by the USCCB - which is not an official organization in the hierarchy of the Church and plays little or no role in my faith life. Neither my parish nor my pastor are under the authority of the USCCB. Third, I think you better check your source. I have the NABRE on my Kindle and the notes for the Tower of Babel (Gen 11) don’t say anything about the story being “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”. It says just “Secondarily, the story explains the diversity of language among peoples of the earth.” Perhaps you’re using the old edition? Since the very first thing I check in your post turns out to be incorrect I see no reason to bother with the rest.
Show me where I ever claimed “we actually become as holy as Christ...”.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
My post got all jumbled somehow. Here it is again, corrected:
Apparently this is the Bible version used by the Vatican website.
Here’s some of the footnotes:
“This section is chiefly concerned with the creation of man. It is much older than the narrative of Genesis 1:1-2:4a. Here God is depicted as creating man before the rest of his creatures, which are made for man’s sake. This is basically saying that Genesis contradicts itself, rather than the author going back and focusing on the events of a particular day, which they use to claim that there are many authors of Genesis, none of them being Moses.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P4.HTM
Again, more “mythology” placed into the text, as well as alleged error, according to the footnotes:
“[1-4] This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology. The sacred author incorporates it here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation - the constantly increasing wickedness of mankind.” [6:5- 8:22] The story of the great flood here recorded is a composite narrative based on two separate sources interwoven into an intricate patchwork. To the Yahwist source, with some later editorial additions, are usually assigned Genesis 6:5-8; 7:1-5, 7-10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22-23; 8:2b-3a, 6-12, 13b, 20-22. The other sections come from the “Priestly document.”
” The combination of the two sources produced certain duplications (e.g., Genesis 6:13-22 of the Yahwist source, beside Genesis 7:1-5 of the Priestly source); also certain inconsistencies, such as the number of the various animals taken into the ark ( Genesis 6:19-20; 7:14-15 of the Priestly source, beside Genesis 7:2-3 of the Yahwist source), and the timetable of the flood...
“Both biblical sources go back ultimately to an ancient Mesopotamian story of a great flood, preserved in the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic. The latter account, in some respects remarkably similar to the biblical account, is in others very different from it.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P8.HTM [1-32]
“Although this chapter, with its highly schematic form, belongs to the relatively late “Priestly document,” it is based on very ancient traditions... its primary purpose is to bridge the genealogical gap between Adam and Abraham. Adam’s line is traced through Seth, but several names in the series are the same as, or similar to, certain names in Cain’s line. The long lifespans attributed to these ten antediluvian patriarchs have a symbolic rather than a historical value. Babylonian tradition also recorded ten kings with fantastically high ages who reigned successively before the flood.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P7.HTM
Myths created to justify atrocities, so claims the footnotes:
“[18-27] This story seems to be a composite of two earlier accounts; in the one, Ham was guilty, whereas, in the other, it was Canaan. One purpose of the story is to justify the Israelites’ enslavement of the Canaanites because of certain indecent sexual practices in the Canaanite religion. Obviously the story offers no justification for enslaving African Negroes, even though Canaan is presented as a “son” of Ham because the land of Canaan belonged to Hamitic Egypt at the time of the Israelite invasion.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PB.HTM
The tower of babel an “imaginitive” story:
“[1-9] This story, based on traditions about the temple towers or ziggurats of Babylonia, is used by the sacred writer primarily to illustrate man’s increasing wickedness, shown here in his presumptuous effort to create an urban culture apart from God. The secondary motive in the story is to present an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth, as well as an artificial explanation of the name “Babylon.””
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PD.HTM
“the NAB is issued by the USCCB - which is not an official organization in the hierarchy of the Church and plays little or no role in my faith life. Neither my parish nor my pastor are under the authority of the USCCB.”
So are you Catholic? And is the Vatican website an official website for Catholics?
Oops, somehow my comment on the first footnote got joined into the footnote when I corrected it. Click the first link to read that particular footnote in its isolation. The rest of the footnotes are fine though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.