You wrote:
“I said “Both Catholics and Protestants have sought to control access to the Bible and authorized translations and forbidden translations and sought to determine who was allowed to read it or read it aloud to people.””
Then you said:
“Your response was that “the Vulgate (Latin Bible) was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past””
No.
Your point was in post #41.
My response to Post #41 was in post #47.
This is EXACTLY what I wrote in response to the comment you reposted above:
“There was no “authorized” or for that matter “mandated” English translation mandated by the Catholic Church. Only Protestants produced such a thing in English. So EXACTLY what are you talking about. Please don’t make sweeping generalization without specific evidence.
“The Douay Rheims Bible was issued a Cum Privilegio as were all Catholic books approved by the local ordinary. It was never mandated by the Vatican or the Catholic Church in council as the necessary or obligatory Catholic Bible for English readers, however. There was also no English hierarchy of bishops to mandate such a thing until at least a full century and a half after its publication and I have no idea if that ever even happened.”
That was my response to your comment in ITS ENTIRETY. I did not mention the Vulgate at all in my response to your comment. NOWHERE IN THAT SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO YOUR SPECIFIC COMMENT DID I EVER ONCE MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THE VULGATE. Nowhere. Not once.
In fact - IN THAT ENTIRE POST - I do not think I ever once mentioned the Vulgate. NOT ONCE.
So why do you claim otherwise?
How fair is that?
Have I ever inaccurately quoted you?
Have I ever once claimed you made a response to a comment when in fact you didn’t?
Nope. But you’ve now done all of that to me. Why?
You responded with post #48.
To that I responded with post #49.
It was in POST #48 THAT you posted this: “The authorized translation was into Latin.”
I accurately responded with (in post #49): “Incorrect. In the 1520s there was no authorized translation and the Vulgate was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past.”
Everything in that quote is 100% undeniably true.
1) You were incorrect in saying, “The authorized translation was into Latin.” for there was no such authorization.
2) In the 1520s there was no authorized translation.
3) The Vulgate was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past. That doesn’t mean that no one knew it, it’s just that it was so long ago, the fact rarely was thought to matter and rarely mentioned.
So, not only was everything I said 100% true, but the comment you said I responded with to your comment at the top of this present post is just not the case!!!
“Rather weak sauce.”
The weakness - as I demonstrate with documentation above - is all yours. You’re now reduced to falsely claiming I responded to your specific comment in a way I never did.
Why would you say that when it is so clearly not the case?
“It doesn’t matter what you or the ignorant “think” about the translation of the Bible into Latin.”
Actually it does matter if we’re talking about controversy about translations since the Vulgate was a translation. And that is EXACTLY what we were talking about. The only way it wouldn’t matter is if the Vulgate were not a translation. Are you now changing your story and claiming the Vulgate is not a translation? Make up your mind. Be consistent.
“It is a translation, and it was the “official” translation that the Catholic Church liked to send out with its Priests and have transcribed by hand by its Monks.”
It was not an official translation until 1546. I asked you before to prove it was an “authorized” or “official” translation before that time and you provided exactly no evidence at all. It was not an official translation UNTIL AFTER TYNDALE DIED. By then, monks weren’t doing much copying of Bibles by hand.
Before you claim I never asked for that proof, here is what I said and the post #: “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.” (post #49)
“Several translations of the Bible into the vernacular languages have made it onto the Catholic Church’s list of prohibited books.”
Several? No, probably many. They were made by heretics who incorporated heretical notes or distorted the text to make heresy more acceptable. What the Index of Forbidden Books - which did not exist until at least the time of the Council of Trent - did not do was ban vernacular translations for being vernacular translations. Nor can you present proof of such.
“I stand by my original statement, while you have had to defend your statements with the rather weak ‘They didn’t THINK of it as a translation’.”
Not only did I - easily - refute your original statements, but I never falsely claimed you said something you didn’t, nor did I make a single error, nor did I fail to provide proof of assertions as you did. Even now, you can’t get what I said right. I never said: “They didn’t THINK of it as a translation’.” I said: “Incorrect. In the 1520s there was no authorized translation and the Vulgate was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past.”
Can I make a suggestion? In the future it might help your side to actually use reputable historic references (for you used none), reputable history books (for you used none; have you ever read any?), and to actually accurately quote who you’re dealing with. FreeRepublic.com is a very easy to use website. There is no reason for anyone to misquote anyone or make false or inaccurate claims about posted comments.
Your quote was direct “the Vulgate (Latin Bible) was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past”.
I am not making up what you said. You said it. Post #49. A completely accurate quote.
I never claimed there was a Catholic “authorized” or “mandated” English translation. That is your invention in a lame attempt to avoid dealing with what I actually said.
http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/about_database/index_librorum.html
The first “Index of Forbidden Books”, banned for their heretical or ideologically dangerous content, was drawn up by order of Pope Paul IV and published in 1559 by the Sacred Congregation of the Roman Inquisition. The Sacred Inquisition acting as the zealous guardians of the Faith, executed their office with severity. Intellectuals were pursued vigorously for their acceptance of Protestant doctrines, or for heretic ideas. The most famous banned author is undoubtedly Galileo (1633). The objective of the lists were to protect the orthodoxy and ward of significant challenges to the teachings of the canonical texts. With the invention of the printing press in Europe in the middle of the 15th Century, the problem of control increased. As more books were written, copied and increasingly widely disseminated, subversive and heretical ideas were spread beyond control.
But also printers and booksellers faced the same dangers of persecution. In the late 16th century, a great number of Dutch printers chose to flee to Switzerland and Germany
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
1515 the Lateran council formulated the decree De Impressione Librorum, which required that no work should be printed without previous examination by the proper ecclesiastica’ authority, the penalty of unlicensed printing being excommunication of the culprit, and confiscation and destruction of the books.
Editions of the text of the Scriptures are permitted for purposes of study; translations of the Bible into the vulgar tongue have to be approved, while those published by non-Catholics are permitted for the use of scholars