You wrote:
“Latin is a translation of the Bible.”
No, Latin is a language. The Vulgate is a translation of the Bible.
“The antiquity of the translation may fool the credulous into thinking it was the original language, but it always was and always will be a translation.”
Agreed. Have I ever stated otherwise? Let’s take a look shall we?
Post # 53: “No, it was a translation, but it had existed already for 11 centuries by the time of the Protestant Revolution.”
Post #53: “Yes, it was [a translation] - but it was 11 centuries old and was the only Bible in continuous use in the West for all that time.”
And again, in post #53: “The fact that it was a translation itself was rarely if ever an issue.”
So, there are three separate comments from me stating the obvious to us both - that the Vulgate was a translation. Yet you respond - ignoring everything I said - wrote this:
“If you cannot even keep that salient fact straight in your head there is obviously no ground for discussion with you.”
So, you have no proof about Tyndale then, right?