Posted on 03/31/2024 11:43:15 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
i believe there have been, and are, millions of saved real Christians in the catholic church, all the church denominations,
in spite of the false doctrine taught. .
Tynedale was not burned at the stake, he was strangled before his body was burned at the stake.
He had been ordained a Catholic priest, but he started to believe in and spread heretical ideas similar to those of Martin Luther and spread those ideas around. Before trying him, the Church had a Catholic theologian work with Tynedale for a year trying to get him to reject his heretical views.
Thus, from the Catholic point of view Tynedale was a heretic and he was defrocked and so ruled, and then he was executed by the Catholic civil government of Flanders for sedition, just as were many other Protestants by Catholic governments and Catholics by Protestant governments (in England in about equal numbers).
Consider one newer translation which has “inclusive language.” Now some people,, including the Anglicans, are considereing gender neutrality towards God!
A lot if people consider this soet of thing to be bad and even heretical translation, just as Tynedale’s translation of words used for church to congregation, priest to elder, do penance to repent, etc., were considered bad and heretical translation.
_____________________
In fact, far from being against translating Sacred Scripture into the vernacular, the Catholic Church approved of and used the Vulgate for centuries, when Latin was used to communicate all over Europe as a common, or *vulgar*, language.
Even so, translation of parts of the Bible in England began around 670, when Caedmon, who worked at a monastery, made songs of some Bible stories, followed by Bishop Ailhem who translated the Psalms and so on through the next few centuries as various parts of the Bible were translated.
In all your posts you don’t seem to be capable of having a charitable, respectful Christian discussion, but rather come across as a hostile and angry person. I suggest you work on that before you presume to witness to Christ. See my tagline. Repeat as necessary.
Yeah.
If they were not King James Bibles, then they weren’t real Bibles anyways, so. . .
Just sayin’. . .
but dealing with jew haters and false teachers like you has eroded my patience to nill
i will not pull my punches anymore
you and your teachings regarding israel are demonic
even if you appear as an angel of light.
( but but but didnt we...?) spit.
Your posts were never civil or Christian. Then you started harassing me. Now you’re stalking me after a two week-old thread. I told you more than once I didn’t want you posting to me because you seem incapable of holding a civil, Christian conversation as you’ve proven with his post. Please find something else to to with your hate and rage.
Actually it wasn't about "having an English language bible" - it was for his beliefs like the denial of the soul,
Was translating the Bible into English actually illegal? The answer is no.
many English versions of the Scriptures already existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, “Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff”).
Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the “father of the English Bible.” But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people.”
Cuz - “A Woman Rides the Beast” — have you read this? I did, and it’s full of fluff, and that’s putting it generously.
In this book he displays all the usual signs of poor scholarship, innuendo, and baseless speculation that make the following of fundamentalist prophecy experts an amusing though frustrating pastime.
When he does respond to the refutations of his positions by Catholic apologists, he cites as “evidence” books written by other authors who cite the same faulty evidence. The reliance upon friendly secondary sources (and even anti-Christian sources who happen to be aiming at Rome for the moment) is particularly shoddy.
Throughout the book, Hunt fails to verify his claims from relevant primary source documents. There is simply no effort put forth to see if the information he quotes from secondary works are accurate or placed in context.
Let me start off with the first error in the book - Hunt’s first argument is that the whore “is a city built on seven hills.” He identifies these as the seven hills of ancient Rome. This argument is based on Revelation 17:9, which states that the woman sits on seven mountains.
To get the passage to say that the woman sits on seven hills, Hunt inserts the words “or hills” into the King James Version (KJV) text from which he quotes. He cites Revelation 17:9 as follows: “And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains [or hills], on which the woman sitteth.”
You see that - he ADDED to the words of the book of revelation despite the book explicitly saying not to!
He then completely forgets that there are multiple cities built on 7 hills - including Jerusalem - Jerusalem’s seven hills are Mount Scopus, Mount Olivet and the Mount of Corruption (all three are peaks in a mountain ridge that lies east of the Old City), Mount Ophel, the original Mount Zion, the New Mount Zion and the hill on which the Antonia Fortress was built.
And the Vatican hill is NOT one of the “7 hills of Rome”.
I can go on about the continuous errors in Hunt’s book - have you researched them, cuz?
As a side note, Hunt wrote his "Beast" book based upon the earlier, even more infamous book, "Babylon Mystery Religion," by Ralph Woodrow. A number of years ago, Hunt publicly disavowed Woodrow's book as full of errors and fabrications. Last I heard, Hunt is still a professional anti-Catholic, but the basis of his "authority" --which is to say his book--on Catholicism is pretty much shot to bits.
Interesting, I didn’t know that!!!
I should also add that Woodrow’s book, in turn, was inspired by the even earlier and even more scurrilous work, “The Two Babylons” (1853, by Alexander Hilsop) published at the height of Nativist and anti-Catholic sentiment in this country. It’s all documented in Karl Keating’s apologetics classic, “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” (1988, Ignatius Press). It was shortly after the publication of Keating’s book that Hunt disassociated himself from Woodrow’s book.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.