William Tyndale (Reformation Day 2013)

Wittenberg Door ^ | October 2013

[boatbums]

Oh, how precious! Admitting one made an error but blaming it all on the Protestants anyway.

Any chance you still have any of those links to the “faulty” Protestant renderings you relied upon back then?

[boatbums]

Latin was the official language of the empire. No matter what the "common local" language was the Latin served as the international language. Much as English is the standard language for airline pilots today. It was also the language for the law.

The native language of the Romans was Latin, an Italic language the grammar of which relies little on word order, conveying meaning through a system of affixes attached to word stems.[201] Its alphabet was based on the Etruscan alphabet, which was in turn based on the Greek alphabet.[202] Although surviving Latin literature consists almost entirely of Classical Latin, an artificial and highly stylized and polished literary language from the 1st century BC, the spoken language of the Roman Empire was Vulgar Latin, which significantly differed from Classical Latin in grammar and vocabulary, and eventually in pronunciation.[203] While Latin remained the main written language of the Roman Empire, Greek came to be the language spoken by the well-educated elite, as most of the literature studied by Romans was written in Greek. In the eastern half of the Roman Empire, which later became the Byzantine Empire, Latin was never able to replace Greek, and after the death of Justinian, Greek became the official language of the Byzantine government.[204] The expansion of the Roman Empire spread Latin throughout Europe, and Vulgar Latin evolved into dialects in different locations, gradually shifting into many distinct Romance languages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome#Language)

[GeronL]

The native language of the Romans was Latin, an Italic language the grammar of which relies little on word order, conveying meaning through a system of affixes attached to word stems.

What would that language look like in English? Are there examples?

[boatbums]

I think you are correct. If anything, this exchange you have been having proves that arguing for the sake of arguing and not having to actually explain what one means is a tactic designed to exasperate one’s opponent and to be able to claim some semblance of victory only if one gets the last word. Goofy, I know!

I agree completely with what you have been saying concerning grace versus works. That Papists have to redefine words and play a guessing game of which definition they are secretly imagining, only proves that they are really stymied by the obvious contradiction in what they claim they believe and what their "official" party line says they do. When faced with the Holy Scriptures as well as some of the early church "fathers" and how they already addressed the same arguments, the bag of tricks gets brought out and childish antics of name calling and pouting is all they have left!

[boatbums]

What would that language look like in English? Are there examples?

The grammar of Latin, like that of other ancient Indo-European languages, is highly inflected; consequently, it allows for a large degree of flexibility in choosing word order. For example, femina togam texuit, "the woman wove a toga," which is the preferred word order, could be expressed as texuit togam femina or togam texuit femina. In each word the suffix: -a, -am and -uit, and not the position in the sentence, marks the word's grammatical function. Word order, however, is generally subject–object–verb, although variations on this are especially common in poetry and express subtle nuances in prose.[1]

In Latin, there are five declensions of nouns and four conjugations of verbs (although some words are inflected according to irregular patterns). Latin does not have articles and so does not generally differentiate between, for example, "a girl" and "the girl": puella amat means both "a girl loves" and "the girl loves". Latin uses prepositions, and usually places adjectives after nouns. The language can also omit pronouns in certain situations, meaning that the form of the verb alone is generally sufficient to identify the agent; pronouns are most often reserved for situations where meaning is not entirely clear. Latin exhibits verb-framing, in which the path of motion is encoded into the verb rather than in a separate word or phrase; e.g., exit (a compound of ex and it) means "he/she/it goes out." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_grammar

I studied Spanish for several years in high school and college and it is one of those "Romance" languages that originated with Latin. Spanish also places adjectives after the noun it modifies such as la casa blanca (the house white) is translated as "the white house" in English. Conjugation of verbs is also tricky. That's why Latin was taught in schools when I was a kid because it was the basis of so many languages that came after it. English is said to be one of the hardest languages to learn for non-native English speakers and I think it is possibly due to the influx of so many other languages that became part of it. Oriental languages, to me, are what I would call especially difficult languages to learn because they don't use the same alphabets, sounds or root words.

[BlueDragon]

What would that language look like in English? Are there examples?

German. It would look like German, where words stretch for several paragraphs.

[GeronL]

lol

[GeronL]

The way you describe it sounds a little like Korean, I study it a little. The word order is also subject, object, verb.

I joked that this makes them more patient, having to wait to see what happens.

It’s a bad joke.

It can also be pretty unspecific about things like The girl, a girl etc

[boatbums]

I don't think it's a "bad" joke - it's true!

If you could totally immerse yourself into a foreign language - where it's all you hear, read and speak - it teaches you to think in that language rather than mentally translate it into your native tongue. So when you hear "casa" you don't think the word "house" you just understand it as a house. I always thought that would be cool to be that fluent.

When I visited Portugal, I thought Portuguese was the hardest language I had ever heard. I may not speak much French, but I know when someone is speaking French when I hear it. The same with Italian or German, but I had no idea what language I was hearing the first time I heard someone speaking Portuguese. It has many words similar to Spanish but it includes German-sounding words and even a touch of Japanese! They claim it was because they had been conquered so many times by so many different nations. I did learn some of the basics like "good morning", "where is the bathroom" and "two cold beers, please". :o)

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“If you could totally immerse yourself into a foreign language - where it’s all you hear, read and speak - it teaches you to think in that language rather than mentally translate it into your native tongue. “

---

Chomsky, even though he is a commie, has lots of good ideas on language acquisition, at least for a child’s first language. Nevertheless, I think his ideas on Universal Grammar (that there is an innate language learning ‘store of knowledge’ in the brain, separate from the other processes of the mind), which is activated through immersion, can teach you a lot about how to acquire another language. Learning and acquiring are two different things by the way, and it is that “acquisition” which you are speaking of when you mention understanding “casa’ for what it is, without having to translate it into your first language.

People can go many years studying the grammar of a language, and they may “learn it,” but they’ll never acquire it until they actively use it in social interactions.

[verga]

If you could totally immerse yourself into a foreign language - where it's all you hear, read and speak - it teaches you to think in that language rather than mentally translate it into your native tongue

That is the way I am learning ASL, from a deaf teacher that refuses to even let us speak in class. everything is either ASL, pantomime, or drawing.

[verga]

Obviously everyone with a brain defines merits and works as meaning the same exact thing.

No not really. dictionary.com gives these definitions.

mer·it [mer-it] noun

1. claim to respect and praise; excellence; worth. 2. something that deserves or justifies a reward or commendation; a commendable quality, act, etc.: The book's only merit is its sincerity.

3. merits, the inherent rights and wrongs of a matter, as a lawsuit, unobscured by procedural details, technicalities, personal feelings, etc.: The case will be decided on its merits alone.

4. Often, merits. the state or fact of deserving; desert: to treat people according to their merits.

5. Roman Catholic Church . worthiness of spiritual reward, acquired by righteous acts made under the influence of grace.

earn

1 [urn] Show IPA

verb (used with object) 1. to gain or get in return for one's labor or service: to earn one's living.

2. to merit as compensation, as for service; deserve: to receive more than one has earned.

3. to acquire through merit: to earn a reputation for honesty.

4. to gain as due return or profit: Savings accounts earn interest.

5. to bring about or cause deservedly: His fair dealing earned our confidence.

work

[wurk] Show IPA noun, adjective, verb, worked or ( Archaic , except for 29, 31, 34 ) wrought; working. noun

1. exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something; labor; toil.

2. something on which exertion or labor is expended; a task or undertaking: The students finished their work in class.

3. productive or operative activity.

4. employment, as in some form of industry, especially as a means of earning one's livelihood: to look for work.

5. one's place of employment: Don't phone him at work.

[dangus]

Vladimir’s point was actually mostly correct; Emperor Charles III had Tyndale executed, but it was absolutely due to King Henry VIII’s insistence, which he was obliged to follow due to the treaty.

[dangus]

The fact that he was executed for condemning Henry VIII also makes the lead sentence of this article false: “a passion for which he ultimately gave his life.”

[vladimir998]

“Apparently this is the Bible version used by the Vatican website.”

The Vatican merely uses what was approved by the USCCB. That does not make it an endorsement.

“So are you Catholic?”

Yep.

“And is the Vatican website an official website for Catholics?”

Yep, but the material you posted isn’t.

[vladimir998]

“Oh, how precious! Admitting one made an error but blaming it all on the Protestants anyway.”

That’s how it happened. Let me give you an analogous example: the Catholic Church taught that the earth was flat. I was taught that repeatedly - in textbooks, television programs, movies, newspaper articles, etc. The whole idea is a complete myth - essentially a myth invented by and nourished by Protestant anti-Catholics. Read this book by a world famous medieval historian if you want the proof: http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Flat-Earth-Columbus-Historians/dp/027595904X

“Any chance you still have any of those links to the “faulty” Protestant renderings you relied upon back then?”

Links? Look for yourself.

[boatbums]

“Any chance you still have any of those links to the “faulty” Protestant renderings you relied upon back then?”

Links? Look for yourself.

Not an unexpected answer. We pretty much know by now that any reference to all-myth-all-the-time Protestant Anti-Catholic "sources" you say you relied upon to base your polemics are just as imaginary.

Once again, you continue to blame "Protestants" for even inventing the myth that the Catholic Church taught a flat earth view yet the blurbs from the book says:

Inventing the Flat Earth is Jeffrey Burton Russell's attempt to set the record straight. He begins with a discussion of geographical knowledge in the Middle Ages, examining what Columbus and his contemporaries actually did believe, and then moves to a look at how the error was first propagated in the 1820s and 1830s—including how noted writers Washington Irving and Antoinne-Jean Letronne were among those responsible. He shows how later day historians followed these original mistakes, and how this snowball effect grew to outrageous proportions in the late nineteenth century, when Christians opposed to Darwinism were labelled as similar to Medieval Christians who (allegedly) thought the earth was flat. But perhaps the most intriguing focus of the book is the reason why we allow this error to persist.

So, rather than "Protestants" creating the myth, it was Darwinists (hardly Christians) who propagated that ALL Christians held to a "flat earth" and there were plenty of REAL references from the early middle-ages that held to a spherical earth including Columbus and those who went before him. Nobody was picking on the poor, ol' Catholics! If you actually DO some objective research for a change, you would find that the idea of a flat earth was held by many ancient civilizations LONG before Christianity came to exist. Here, you can do some research for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

[boatbums]

The fact that he was executed for condemning Henry VIII also makes the lead sentence of this article false: “a passion for which he ultimately gave his life.”

That Tyndale wrote a treatise condemning Henry's intended divorce, was not why he was executed. A simple search online would show you that he was tried for "heresy" and it was the "Holy Roman Empire" which arrested and executed him. Here are a few starting points: http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/tyndalebio.htm and http://www.biographyonline.net/spiritual/william-tyndale.html.

[vladimir998]

“We pretty much know by now that any reference to all-myth-all-the-time Protestant Anti-Catholic “sources” you say you relied upon to base your polemics are just as imaginary.”

That’s completely false. Again, what about the whole “flat earth was taught by the Catholic Church” myth? Do you doubt for a second that Protestants were the ones who cut that nonsense into American textbooks, magazines, newspapers, etc.? Seriously, it started with Washington Irving and his “biography” of Columbus. He simply made up the story.

“So, rather than “Protestants” creating the myth, it was Darwinists (hardly Christians)...”

You’re really embarrassing yourself. Irving came out with his book in 1828. Origin of the Species was published THIRTY ONE YEARS LATER in 1859. Do I have to spell out your error at this point? The story was already floating around and being used - BY PROTESTANTS - years before there was such a thing as Darwinists.

As the people at creation.com note:

“One major high school textbook, widely used for almost a half century in public schools, claimed that when Columbus applied for financial support to sail west to reach the East Indies, the ‘learned council declared the plan too foolish for further attention.’25 These educated churchmen concluded that Columbus’ goal was ‘absurd’ because it is foolish ‘to believe that there are people on the other side of the world, walking with their heels upward, and their heads hanging down’, adding that a ship could not travel there because ‘The torrid zone, through which they must pass, is a region of fire, where the very waves boil.’25”

What textbook was that? Steele, J.D. and Steele, E.B, A Brief History of the United States, American Book Company, A Barne’s Historical Series, New York, p. 21, 1885

creation.com continues: “The idea was uncritically repeated in mass media publications for decades. A Newsweek article claimed that when the

‘ … Catholic Church condemned Galileo in 1632 for his heretical notion that the earth was a round globe hurtling through space about the sun, its effort to maintain the traditional Ptolemaic, flat-earth system was already doomed. The age of exploration was more than a century old, and men were roving all over the planet without falling off the edge.’16

Now, since you apparently have never read Russell’s book I suggest you actually do so rather than assume you know it because of a blurb about it. The anti-Catholic angle is so clear in it’s story (i.e. story of the flat earth) that it is even cited for such in Mark A. Largent’s Breeding Contempt: The History of Coerced Sterilization in the United States published in 2011! See the endnotes on page 173.

[dangus]

Your history is not at all incorrect, but it does not contradict what I wrote as you seem to believe it does. Tyndale was in the HRE in exile from Henry VIII. He was sought becuase of Henry VIII. He was found due to the compensated spying of one of Henry VIII’s countrymen. He was arrested on charges brought up by Henry VIII. He was kept a prisoner because Henry VIII demanded it. His heresy was a civil matter, not a religious one, because it involved a king, Henry VIII. His heresies did not include calling the king an adulterer (that wouldn’t be a matter of heresy), but neither did they in any way, shape, or form relate to translating the bible, or promoting reading of either the bible or his bad, politicized translation of it.