"Literacy was limited in the middle and dark age to only the very few and most historians would attest to that fact."
Odd, then, that as soon as Wycliffe and Tyndale did their translations, that people risked their lives to buy and distribute them.
"Calling Tyndale's translation a “Good translation” is a prime facile example of the prideful private interpretation employed to deceive the faithful."
Tyndale was the basis for the KJV New Testament. The KJV was the basis for the revised Douay-Rheims Challoner in the 1700s.
Tyndale's translation is still available, and I use it regularly. If you don't own one, here is the 1526 edition - feel free to tell me what error you find, and the heresy:
Nice try but no cigar. Your assertion that "People risked their lives to buy and distribute" in no manner supports your fallacious contention that literacy was pervasive and not confined to the privileged few in the middle and dark ages. What objective historical support can you offer to categorically support your contention literacy in any universal sense existed during this period? None, since literacy beyond the upper crust did not exist in the middle and dark ages.
As for Tyndall , the theological flaws in his works are bandied about in most secular objective histories of this period and I would suggest you immerse your in the history of the period before making any more misinformed statements.
Of course we are all still waiting for an informed reply asked by the originator of this thread concerning the infallibility of Luther in defining what books belong in the bible. It is a sad commentary that ones of your ilk cannot and will not answer these legitimate questions since your position rests with an imperfect foundation and thus is logically incoherent
