Replies

“Your assertion that “People risked their lives to buy and distribute” in no manner supports your fallacious contention that literacy was pervasive...”

Good point. People risked their lives to get something they couldn’t read...

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“What objective historical support can you offer to categorically support your contention literacy in any universal sense existed during this period?”

That wasn’t my contention. There were more than enough literate people to create a demand, and the Catholic Church chose deliberately not to fill it. They left people who could read hungering for the word of God, because they feared what would happen when commoners DID read God’s Word.

“As for Tyndall , the theological flaws in his works are bandied about in most secular objective histories of this period...”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one ever came up with any, which is why his work ultimately was the basis for the DR Catholic Bible...at least, the DR Bible most Catholics know, which used the KJV as its basis and then adjusted for Catholic theology.

“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.”

That has been answered at least 100 times on this thread. YOU choose to shut your eyes and not read the answers. But then, you shut your eyes to the Word of God, since your church theology is more important to you than the ‘breath of God’!

The Tynsdale version was not the basis for the KJV.

The text of the Bishops' Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops' Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. In addition, later scholars have detected an influence on the Authorized Version from the translations of Taverner's Bible and the New Testament of the Douay-Rheims Bible.

The Douay-Rheims was completed in 1609, making it older than the KJV, which was not published until 1611. The fact that the Rheims New Testament was published in 1582 meant that it appeared almost thirty years before the KJV

in preparing the KJV, the translators made use of the Douay New Testament and adopted many of its readings in preference to those of other English editions. The KJV in many places thus bears a Douay "slant" absent from prior translations.

King James Onlyists frequently argue that the KJV is superior because it is based on the Textus Receptus (translation by Erasmus, a Catholic monk), yet it also took bits from the D-R which is based on the Latin Vulgate.

The fact is that Bible versions on both sides of the confessional divide influence each other. This is because serious translators don’t read only works done by one side. Sometimes one "side" came up with a way of better capturing what’s written in the original language, and when that happens the serious translator wants to know about it, and edit his translation. So just as the original Douay came to influence the KJV, the KJV itself came to influence the Douay-Rheims.

The process of defining canon begins with the heretic Marcion, who decided the Old Testament didn’t belong in the Bible as he felt that the OT God was not the same as the God described by Christ. In fact, to a cursory reading of the Bible, it can seem that way -- look at the descriptions of the OT God -- rules, attack these folks, destroy this and that and God as described in the NT, a God of love.

Marcion edited out sections of the Gospel of Luke and of Paul’s epistles he felt Judaism had influenced. He also decided the Gospel of Luke and Paul’s letters were the only sacred texts