Replies

More claimed Tyndale erred in translating using love, repent, congregation and elder. More also knew enough Greek to know that Tyndale was right. Thus, More lied.

The KJV is flawed, because King James had the translators support church structure over the truth, noting, “No bishop, no king”. Like More, King James cared more for power than truth.

“In 1408 the English clergy, meeting at Oxford under the direction of Archbishop Thomas Arundel, passed what are known as the “Constitutions of Oxford.” These laws outlawed the reading and translation of the Scriptures into the English vernacular without the permission of the bishop. The laws declared the English translation of the Bible to be illegal. Those who were discovered with copies could be charged with heresy. The Constitutions of Oxford remained in effect for nearly one hundred and thirty years until King Henry VIII licensed the Matthews Bible to circulate in 1537.”

http://www.solagroup.org/articles/historyofthebible/hotb_0006.html

You wrote: "More claimed Tyndale erred in translating using love, repent, congregation and elder. More also knew enough Greek to know that Tyndale was right. Thus, More lied." False. More was fluent in Greek. He could speak it, read it and write it. He was far from the only person who criticized Tyndale's translation. "The KJV is flawed, because King James had the translators support church structure over the truth, noting, “No bishop, no king”. Like More, King James cared more for power than truth." No, the KJV is flawed because the translators had fewer old mss. to use. The mss. they relied on were sometimes faulty. We'll soon see one error plastered all over the place for Christmas: Luke 2:14, KJV Bible: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." Anyone who looks at the Greek of the vast majority of mss. knows that is not the proper translation. You, through a Protestant source, claimed: "The laws declared the English translation of the Bible to be illegal." False. This is what Arundel wrote (please not the comments in bold): Item, It is a dangerous thing, as witnesseth blessed St. Jerome, to translate the text of the holy Scripture out of the tongue into another; for in the translation the same sense is not always easily kept, as the same St. Jerome confesseth, that although he were inspired, yet oftentimes in this he erred: we therefore decree and ordain, that no man, hereafter, by his own authority translate any text of the Scripture into English or any other tongue, by way of a book, libel, or treatise; and that no man read any such book, libel or treatise, now lately set forth in the time of John Wickhiff, or since, or hereafter to be set forth, in part or in whole, privily or apertly, upon pain of greater excommunication, until the said translation be allowed by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the council provincial. He that shall do contrary to this, shall likewise be punished as a favourer of error and heresy. Thus, your source is lying. All someone had to do was not do it on his own authority and receive approval for it. It was not illegal to produce an English translation, therefore.