Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: allmendream

You wrote:

“The Tyndall translation was forbidden by the Church.”

Please show me where the Catholic Church forbade Tyndale translation? At best it was the Church in England was it not? After all, this was an English language Bible was it not? Also, whether Tyndale’s translation was immaterial as to whether or not he was tried for translating the Bible or even if laypeople were allowed to own and read vernacular translations. You realize that, of course, right?

“The authorized translation was into Latin.”

Incorrect. In the 1520s there was no authorized translation and the Vulgate was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past.

The Vulgate only became an authorized translation or edition at the time of Council of Trent (about 1546) as a response to Protestant heresy. By that time, Tyndale was dead for years.

“Yes, Henry VIII was to show that neither side was exactly innocent of this charge of wanting to restrict or limit the dissemination or translation of the Bible, I was well aware that it was an attempt to reign in the Protestant fervor that the royals of England had unleashed and that would soon consume them.”

I have no reason to believe you were “well aware” from what you have written so far.


49 posted on 01/05/2009 6:50:51 PM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]


To: vladimir998

Was rarely thought of as a translation? And that means that it wasn’t a translation? Latin is a translation of the original Greek and Hebrew.

Tyndall fled England and was hunted down by those “faithful to the Church” because of his translations. The official charges are meaningless, his fame was as a translator and it was his infamy that led to him being a hunted fugitive brought up on charges of heresy.

It was obvious that I said “both Catholics and Protestants” and then gave an example of each, Henry VIII being so famously Protestant that I thought it went without mention, but perhaps you hail from Rio Linda?


50 posted on 01/05/2009 7:38:29 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: vladimir998

“Please show me where the Catholic Church forbade Tyndale translation?”

It wasn’t “papal,” but it was forbidden reading by Bishop Tunstall (still RC at that time) who issued warnings pf heresu to booksellers and had copies burned in public because he was uncomfortable with the idea of the Bible in the vernacular.

As a bit more background, Tyndale was a difficult guy -— attacking Henry VIII (for an “unbiblical” divorce), the Lutherans for breaking away, and the Roman Church for not adopting many of the reforms the Lutherans talked about.

In other words, Tyndale pretty well PO everyone, but, in hindsight, he had a point (or rather 3 good points).


80 posted on 01/07/2009 3:29:31 PM PST by MeanWestTexan (Beware Obama's Reichstag fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson