Posted on 10/25/2013 1:32:26 PM PDT by Gamecock
"I defy the pope and all his laws; and, if God spares me, I will one day make the boy that drives the plow in England to know more of the Scriptures than the pope does!" So said translation pioneer William Tyndale.
Born near Dursley, Gloucestershire, UK, between 1484 and 1496, Tyndale developed a zeal to get the Bible into the hands of the common man—a passion for which he ultimately gave his life.
Educated at Oxford and Cambridge, Tyndale became fluent in at least seven languages. In 1522, the same year Luther translated the New Testament into German, Tyndale was an ordained Catholic priest serving John Walsh of Gloucestershire. It was during this time, when Tyndale was 28 years of age, that he began pouring over Erasmus’ Greek New Testament. The more he studied the more the doctrines of the Reformation became clear. And like a great fire kindled by a lighting strike, so Tyndale’s heart was set ablaze by the doctrines of grace:
By grace . . . we are plucked out of Adam the ground of all evil and graffed in Christ, the root of all goodness. In Christ God loved us, his elect and chosen, before the world began and reserved us unto the knowledge of his Son and of his holy gospel; and when the gospel is preached to us openeth our hearts and giveth us grace to believe, and putteth the spirit of Christ in us: and we know him as our Father most merciful, and consent to the law and love it inwardly in our heart and desire to fulfill it and sorrow because we do not.
Rome’s Opposition to an English Translation
Nearly 200 years earlier, starting in 1382, John Wycliff and his followers (known as Lollards) distributed hand-written English translations of Scripture. The Archbishop of Canterbury responded by having Wycliffe and his writings condemned.
But Rome was not finished. In 1401, Parliament passed a law making heresy a capital offence. Seven years later, the Archbishop of Canterbury made it a crime to “translate any text of the Scripture into English or any other tongue . . . and that no man can read any such book . . . in part or in whole." The sentence was burning. Across Europe, the flames were ignited and the Lollards were all but destroyed. Rome was determined to keep God’s Word out of the people’s hands.
. . . as a boy of 11 watched the burning of a young man in Norwich for possessing the Lord’s Prayer in English . . . John Foxe records . . . seven Lollards burned at Coventry in 1519 for teaching their children the Lord’s Prayer in English.
John Bale (1495-1563)
Rome was not finished with Wycliffe either: 44 years after his death, the pope ordered Wycliffe’s bones exhumed, burned, and his ashes scattered.
Tyndale was truly in great danger.
Tyndale’s End
Fearing for his life, Tyndale fled London for Brussels in 1524 where he continued his translation work for the next 12 years. Tyndale’s time in exile was dreadful, as he describes in a 1531 letter:
. . . my pains . . . my poverty . . . my exile out of mine natural country, and bitter absence from my friends . . . my hunger, my thirst, my cold, the great danger wherewith I am everywhere encompassed, and finally . . . innumerable other hard and sharp fighting’s which I endure.
On the evening of May 21, 1535, Tyndale was betrayed to the authorities by a man he trusted, Henry Philips. For the next 18 months, Tyndale lived a prisoner in Vilvorde Castle, six miles outside of Brussles. The charge was heresy.
The verdict came in August, 1536. He was condemned as a heretic and defrocked as a priest. On or about October 6, 1536, Tyndale was tied to a stake, strangled by an executioner, and then his body burned. He was 42 years old. His last words were, “Lord! Open the King of England’s Eyes!”
Tyndale’s Legacy
Tyndale’s translations were the foundations for Miles Coverdale’s Great Bible (1539) and later for the Geneva Bible (1557). As a matter of fact, about 90% of the Geneva Bible’s New Testement was Tyndale’s work. In addition, the 54 scholars who produced the 1611 Authorized Version (King James) bible relied heavily upon Tyndale’s translations, although they did not give him credit.
Tyndale is also known as a pioneer in the biblical languages. He introduced several words into the English language, such as Jehovah, Passover, scapegoat, and atonement.
It has been asserted that Tyndale's place in history has not yet been sufficiently recognized as a translator of the Scriptures, as an apostle of liberty, and as a chief promoter of the Reformation in England. In all these respects his influence has been singularly under-valued, at least to Protestants.
That was decided a long time ago by the Catholic Church.
Even Protestant Bibles now include the Apocrypha in the back of them.
Please check out the full conversations above. It seems there is some confusion on the official RC bible in use today. Please catch up.
There is only one version of Christian Bible (RC excluded) and that is a version of the church of England Authorized KJV with Apocrypha. But we digress. The matter of the Apocrypha is on another thread.
**All of which is STILL different than what is read at Mass - any Mass in the United States.**
How do you know this? Have you attended Mass lately?
We have secret agents in the pews now and then. Just to keep an eye on the tunnel building to Rome. When the ushers are not looking we nick a missal or two. But since they are posted here on FR we don’t have to risk that again.
No, actually wasn’t. He made so many errors.
No, striving to trying to prove me wrong may be all that matters, but the truth is what matters, and the fact is that the documentation teaches it is still the New American Bible even with revisions, versus your mystery Bible.
“Wrong? Amazing. You claim to be a Catholic in the Roman rite (the liturgical rite used in the Diocese of Rome in the Catholic Church), …”
No. It is not restricted to the Diocese of Rome. See, this is the sort of mistake that amazes me when an anti-Catholic – who will insist he actually knows what he is talking about – makes it. How could you be so wrong?
How could you be so desperate? Because your church is indicted for teaching liberalism? Now read what i said again. The portion at issue is carefully placed in parenthesis to distinguish from what you said, and does not say it is restricted to the Diocese of Rome, but used in it, and which confirms it is a Roman Catholic church, which is your claim! But you claim your church is some sort of nonconformist church in order to deny the NAB was the English text approved by the RC church for use in the United States, as if i had to mean your particular church.
No. Information about my parish will not be given to you. It’s just that simple. If I attend the Roman Rite I am in the Roman Church. Again, how can you not understand something so simple
I do understand how simple it is, meaning you cannot deny the NAB was approved, as said, except as meaning your particular church, even though you will not allow us to test your assertion, as if you are above examination. Like father like son.
“A mystery church and a mystery Bible.”
To you, yes. Deal with it. I have seen how mentally unstable Protestant anti-Catholics are. I see no reason to possibly endanger the people at my parish.
Rather, this is irrational paranoia if you are serious, but which is a rather desperate excuse, and the actual name of your church was not even necessary. Meanwhile we have closer RC churches to attack the people, if we were known for such, but it is not me who has papal sanction for torture and the murder of theological dissidents on my side.
The “church for the Roman Catholic church in America”? You’re not even making sense.
I am not very sure what makes sense to you, but as is well evidenced around here, the Roman Catholic church is in America, and the "NAB being the English text approved by the Church for use in the United States" by the USCCB (as stated) pertains to the Roman Catholic church, not the Anglicans.
“Even if for your church that is not the case.”
What? Again, you’re not making sense.
It is your refusal to ID your specific strand of Roman church that makes no real sense, while that a church of the Roman rite can differ in aspects from those under the USCCB is not the dispute, even if we cannot verify it.
..Amazing mystery Bible.”
No mystery about – except for you.
Yes, me, the one you are debating, and cannot substantiate you claim, if basically irrelevant, and make it the focus in avoiding the real issue that Rome sanctioned the use of the NAB with its liberal notes.
There is no “Bible for RC churches in America”. Parishes can buy whatever Bible they want.
Ignoring context will not score you any points.
“But if anyone and their documentation disagrees with with vladimir’s assertions, then they must be incompetent.”
Agreed
“ Yikes!”
It’s simply true.
Absolutely in-credible! Vladimir has simply spoken, the matter is settled!
Rather than waste time reading and responding to the rest, this is where i decide this exchange will end. Your attempts to find some error in technicalities and degree of sophistry in so doing while avoiding the issue that was my point has been manifestly evidenced.
Which issue is that Rome while you support Rome's censorship, she sanctions liberal scholarship. That remains the fact, as is that the documented evidence states the NAB was "the English text approved [RC] Church for use in the United States" by the USCCB, and is, with revisions.
The End.
How do you know this? Have you attended Mass lately?
That statement was made by vladimir998, who (to be consistent) would call you incompetent for not following the tread or disagreeing with him.
Yes, cast not your polemics before cats!
They have, well, it depends..., but past restrictions and the modern sanction of liberalism testifies to the lower class Scripture has under Rome, and thus it was not until faced with the authority of Scripture being supreme that Rome provided an indisputable canon, ending the disagreements that continued thru the centuries over some books, and right into Trent among scholars. Contrary to the often used canard that it was all settled fine from the 4th c. until Luther as a maverick dissented.
Perhaps he can send his buddy Matt Slick the data you seek and you can get it from Matt:)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3083643/posts?page=229#229
Too bad you weren’t pinged here.
“Too bad you weren’t pinged here.”
Yeah, that’s happened more than once in this thread already. No surprise.
That was indeed a hasty oversight, as she was responding to my post, and did not include you, thus i just sent her to your post who made the statement if she wanted to object. But warned her that as she mistook your statement for mine and challenges your statement, then to be consistent, she also would be considered incompetent.
“But warned her that as she mistook your statement for mine and challenges your statement, then to be consistent, she also would be considered incompetent.”
No, I don’t see how she’s incompetent for asking a question. She asked how you (really meaning me) would know what was read at every Mass in the U.S. Quite frankly I am willing to bet that Salvation believes that I would know what is read at every Mass in the United States whereas you have proven that you do not know. The incompetence in question then would not be mine or hers, but once again, yours.
Meanwhile, it remains that despite your intense effort trying to find technical faults, which avoided the real issue, Catholic sources affirm the NAB is the Bible that was approved the the Bishops for liturgical use in the United States, and even with its revised edition and readings the fact is that Rome sanctioned and sanctions liberal scholarship via the NAB and its notes. Thus the protest against it by some of your own.
That "Catholic presumption" was also that every man, woman and child Albigensian should be murdered without mercy.
And that is exactly what was done. So of course, the Cathars aren't exactly around to correct your presentation of their beliefs. Not that you should be questioned, of course - 40 years of mass murder and absolute extinguishing of an entire race in NO way should make Catholics want, or need, to villify or damn or misrepresent those they slaughtered, in order to justify that slaughter. For of course, the interpretation of the of the murderers of the beliefs of those they murdered is the gold standard in understanding those beliefs.
As for the rest of your ridiculously over-the-top misrepresentation of, let's face it, absolutely every other spiritual path on the planet, during every period of human history... well, LOL, it's noted.
I must say, your absolute lack of humility is truly breathtaking.
Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified for humanities sins, and you are in full support of the slaughter of anyone who doesn't interpret Jesus' sacrifice in the way you do.
Yep, you were exactly why He hung on that cross. But not for the reason you think.
“Rather, she challenged the statement, mistaking it for mine, despite the contest and my careful formatting distinctions, which mistake itself would (to be consistent) be called incompetence if done by a Prot.”
No. I see no incompetence whatsoever in her question. I see plenty of it in your posts.
“Meanwhile, it remains that despite your intense effort trying to find technical faults, which avoided the real issue, Catholic sources affirm the NAB is the Bible that was approved the the Bishops for liturgical use in the United States, and even with its revised edition and readings the fact is that Rome sanctioned and sanctions liberal scholarship via the NAB and its notes. Thus the protest against it by some of your own.”
You were still wrong. You were wrong repeatedly and will continue to be so.
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.