[Pyro7480]

I think Protestants did quite well in the good old USofA after having wrenched the bible from the hands of those that didn't allow the ordinary man to read it

The "ordinary man," that you refer to, even up until 19th century, couldn't read. Literacy did not become widespread until then. Also, before this time, if you were literate, there was a good chance that you could read Latin as well. Up until the Protestant "Reformation," the Bible was available for anyone to read in Latin, since it was the intellectual language of the time. The problem the Church had with vernacular translations wasn't with the translations themselves, it was the fact that most were bad translations.

[Scotswife]

"The "ordinary man," that you refer to, even up until 19th century, couldn't read. Literacy did not become widespread until then. Also, before this time, if you were literate, there was a good chance that you could read Latin as well. Up until the Protestant "Reformation," the Bible was available for anyone to read in Latin, since it was the intellectual language of the time. The problem the Church had with vernacular translations wasn't with the translations themselves, it was the fact that most were bad translations."

Good point.
And I'll add some more.
Up until the invention of the printing press, churches needed to guard their copies of the scriptures from theft so they could be read to the faithful at mass.
Scriptures were copied by hand and generally were only available to churches and those wealthy enough to purchase copies.
So...it is a lie that the Catholic Church denied access to scriptures.
Like you pointed out - the Church had to root out BAD copies that contained error - and the faithful listened to the Word at mass.
That's beside the point that the original manuscripts were preserved, translated, and declared divinely inspired by the Catholic Church to begin with.

[safisoft]

The problem the Church had with vernacular translations wasn't with the translations themselves, it was the fact that most were bad translations.

So, William Tyndale was executed for doing a bad translation! That is revisionism of the highest order.

But, while we are talking about bad translations the Vulgate is certainly one that most scholar's sniff at.

There is a long line of people murdered under the auspices of the "Holy Roman Church" who would like to have a word with you about your "understanding" of history.

[Paulus Invictus]

Ecclesiastical history contends that ordinary Catholics in the Middle Ages were not allowed to read the scriptures, even if they knew Latin into which the Vulgate had been translated by Jerome. According to most sources, reading the scriptures was anathema unless you happened to be a Bishop or higher. Many priests in England had never seen the scriptures, much less read them.

It took people like Luther, Wycliffe and especially Tyndale to translate the scriptures from Greek to German and English. Then the common folk were able to read the scriptures and compare Biblical teachings to those of the Catholic church, then the German and English Reformation began. For translating the scriptures, Tyndale was garroted and then burnt at the stake. The man responsible for that abomination was none other than St. Thomas More, the highest prelate in England at the time and counselor to Henry VIII.

[patriot_wes]

"Up until the Protestant "Reformation," the Bible was available for anyone to read in Latin, since it was the intellectual language of the time. The problem the Church had with vernacular translations wasn't with the translations themselves, it was the fact that most were bad translations."

Absolute 1000% revisionist HOGWASH!