You wrote:
“Psalters. NOT entire Bibles. Wycliffe did the entire Bible.”
Some historians affirm that, others do not. In nay case Wycliffe produced a translation of a large chunk of the Bible. It is debatable whether any single person could translate all of scripture in just a few short years in the 13th century. It is most likely that several people worked on what is now called “Wyclife’s Bible”.
“Wycliffe was hated by the Catholic Church.”
Nope. Quite frankly most Catholics never knew who he was - then or now. His heresies - which were numerous - were hated. People who are hated by almost every living human being around them do not die in their sleep in their beds.
“Ever read about what they did to his bones?”
Absolutely. Great idea too. It should probably happen more often. Please note, however, that your question there undermines your previous claim. He died in about 1386. His bones were not finally dug up until about 1427. If he was hated by almost everyone around him - the Catholic Church - then why did it take 50 years to do that?
“And Tyndale & his translation were also hated, and lived in hiding until Tyndale was betrayed to his death.”
Tyndale lived in hiding before he began his translation. He was a heretic after all.
“Again, true. I’m talking about BIBLES, not psalters.”
Psalms are part of the Bible and you can’t prove Wycliffe translated all of the Bible either.
“Every BIBLE translated in English vernacular from Wycliffe to Tyndale is Wycliffe’s translation (and his followers).”
Do you have any proof that Wycliffe even translated all of scripture himself? Was he aided by anyone? Do you have any evidence he used no other translations?
“NO OTHER translation of the Bible into the vernacular has been found.”
Oh, so that means none existed and that “Wycliffe’s Bible” was absolutely solely his product? Nope, sorry, there’s no logic there.
“No, I say it is foolishness to claim that Wycliffe’s opponents falsely accused him of translating the Bible.”
No, it would be foolishness to say that someone who lived hundreds of years ago - and was a scholar fluent in Greek and Latin - knew nothing about where his Bible came from.
“I say it is foolishness to think that the Lo0llards didn’t know who translated the scriptures they kept at risk of death.”
There was no risk of death. No Lollard was at risk of death for possessing a book, any book. I have already shown that in previous threads. You seem to be making things up out of thin air.
“And it is foolishness to believe a Catholic apologist, 500 years after the fact, suddenly realized what no one on either side had realized for 500 years - that Wycliffe’s translation was REALLY made by a true but unknown Catholic, and Wycliffe stole it.”
Are you making up something else out of thin air? More and others knew of Bibles in the vernacular THEN. I am not making up anything. Gasquet is not making up anything either.
“True. PARTS! But we were discussing entire Bibles, and NO ONE did that into English (whatever form it existed as) until Wycliffe, and no one else until Tyndale.”
As you claim, but cannot prove. We have no copies of the whole Bible. That doesn’t mean one was not made.
“No one did the entire New Testament, except Wycliffe & his followers, until Tyndale.”
There several problems there: 1) Wycliffe never wrote in English in his entire life. He wrote in Middle English, a language which only came into its own in about 1300. Since we know gospels existed in England in the vernacular since at least the 8th century, it is entirely possible someone prepared an entire New Testament in Middle English before Wycliffe. Remember, the claim for Wycliffe is that he produced the whole Bible in ME, not just the NT in ME.
“I’m accusing you of making blatantly false statements.”
And yet you seem utterly unable to show that they are false.
“More made no attempt to hide what he did.”
He didn’t do anything wrong so why would you expect him to hide anything?
“Catholic apologists have tried to hide what “saint” More did, and to do so they have LIED.”
Please document your claim there. Or will you fail at that as well?
“More wrote 9 volumes about his opposition to Tyndale, and More was not a subtle writer.”
And how many posts have you posted? And are you subtle?
“He pursued Bible believing Christians and had them tortured and burned for disagreeing with the Catholic Church.”
Nope. First, heretics do not believe in the Bible. Second, if he pursued them, he did so for their heresy. Third, no could be tortured and burned for merely disagreeing with the Church.
“More was an evil man who wanted to keep scripture out of the hands of commoners - a policy the Catholic Church followed for hundreds of years.”
No such policy ever existed. And that’s exactly why you fail to ever document it. You will fail to document it now as well. Is it evil to slander a saint and Christ’s Church and then fail - again - to even remotely document those false claims? Is that evil?
“If he was hated by almost everyone around him - the Catholic Church - then why did it take 50 years to do that?”
Because the English nobility appreciated his stand against the Catholic Church owning great riches...
“Tyndale lived in hiding before he began his translation.”
No, he went into hiding AFTER his translation of the New Testament. He went abroad in 1524/25, since translating it without permission in England would lead to his death - it had been outlawed in 1408. While his travels aren’t entirely known, he seems to have gone into hiding about the time his first edition of the NT was published.
“Psalms are part of the Bible and you can’t prove Wycliffe translated all of the Bible either.”
Psalters are small parts of the Bible, and I have repeatedly posted on this thread that the translating was done by Wycliffe and his followers.
“Do you have any proof that Wycliffe even translated all of scripture himself? Was he aided by anyone? Do you have any evidence he used no other translations?”
I indicated in previous posts on this thread that he probably did NOT translate the entire Bible all by himself. He was certainly aided, and a revised edition leaned heavily on work by his followers. And there was no complete translation anywhere in English for him to use as help.
Perhaps you should read about Wycliffe before blathering about him.
“There was no risk of death. No Lollard was at risk of death for possessing a book, any book. I have already shown that in previous threads.”
They most certainly were. I have a book that consists of the trials in one city of Lollards. The 1408 Oxford Constitutions made owning scripture translated in the vernacular without permission punishable by death.
Again, this is not open to dispute. The text of the Oxford Constitutions can be read. I suggest you do so.
Try reading here:
http://www.archive.org/stream/lollardbibleothe00deanuoft/lollardbibleothe00deanuoft_djvu.txt
The digitization is lacking, but it addresses More’s error about Wycliffe.
“More and others knew of Bibles in the vernacular THEN.”
What they knew of were translations by Wycliffe. Again, no translation of the entire Bible or entire New Testament into English has been found dating before Wycliffe, or apart from him prior to Tyndale.
If you wish to claim they exist, then you need to find one. Those More mentioned by owner were all Wycliffe’s.
“Since we know gospels existed in England in the vernacular since at least the 8th century, it is entirely possible someone prepared an entire New Testament in Middle English before Wycliffe.”
None has been found or claimed to exist. And Wycliffe wrote in the English available to him. I refuse to add Middle to all my posts. The fact remains it was a vernacular translation, meant for commoners, and also used by nobility. No other translation has ever been found.
“First, heretics do not believe in the Bible.”
Sorry, but the Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations for hundreds of years because they feared what men would realize when they read the scriptures - that Catholic doctrine is not found in scripture, and that it frequently conflicts with scripture.
“No such policy ever existed. And that’s exactly why you fail to ever document it. “
It isn’t open to debate. It was widely taught, and many died for defying it. If you don’t know enough about history to know that, then you need to step away from FreeRepublic and learn.
According to the British Library:
“Christians continued to be governed from Rome by the Pope during medieval times. Church services were conducted in Latin throughout the Christian world, and translation of the Latin Bible into the vernacular, in other words the local language anyone could understand, was actively discouraged.
None the less, by Tyndale’s day, vernacular Bibles were available in parts of Europe, where they added fuel to the popular questioning of religious authority initiated by the monk Martin Luther - a religious crisis known as the Reformation, which resulted in the splitting of Christianity into Catholic and Protestant Churches.
In England, however, under the 1408 Constitutions of Oxford, it was strictly forbidden to translate the Bible into the native tongue. This ban was vigorously enforced by Cardinal Wolsey and the Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas More, in an attempt to prevent the rise of English ‘Lutheranism’. The only authorised version of the Bible was St Jerome’s Latin translation, known as the ‘Vulgate’, made in the fourth century and understood only by highly-educated people.”
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/tyndale.html
Or you can read what Thomas More wrote, if you don’t mind reading 9 volumes of dishonesty.