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.
You wrote:
“Your quote was direct “the Vulgate (Latin Bible) was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past”.”
But earlier you said this: ““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’.”
See post #64 if you don’t believe me.
In other words, you claimed I said this: “They didn’t THINK of it as a translation.”
When I actually said this: “Incorrect. In the 1520s there was no authorized translation and the Vulgate was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past.”
And in any case I was not only 100% correct, but you have no even attempted to show how I was wrong nor have you presented a single shred of evidence to back up your erroneous claims about Tyndale.
“I am not making up what you said. You said it. Post #49. A completely accurate quote.”
No.
This is what I wrote:
“Incorrect. In the 1520s there was no authorized translation and the Vulgate was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past.”
That is not the same quote as this (which you created):
“They didn’t THINK of it as a translation.”
“I never claimed there was a Catholic “authorized” or “mandated” English translation.”
I never said you did. However, in post #8, you said made a comment about both Catholics and Protestants trying to suppress translations of scripture and said this “Burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English.”
Since it was unclear as to whether you were talking about Latin or English because your comment was so vague I made the following comments:
“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.”
There was no way for you to assert an English language mandated Bible after those points if you wished to be taken seriously. Please note, however, that I asked, “So EXACTLY what are you talking about. Please don’t make sweeping generalization without specific evidence,” because your comment was so imprecise to say the least.
“That is your invention in a lame attempt to avoid dealing with what I actually said.”
You said nothing that I did not deal with. Remember, you are wrong on all counts here. Even if you were asserting that there was a mandated or authorized English version - and I never said you did say that - you are wrong. And you did say there was a mandated or authorized Latin version and that was untrue until 1546 and the actual Bible in question was not produced for decades afterward. In either case, you would be wrong.
It can’t get much simpler than that.