[annalex]

When Tyndale was convicted, by the way, England was already Protestant, so thank your own co-religionists for his conviction.

First reputable translation of the Bible into English was Catholic Douay Rheims (NT: 1582, OT: 1609-1610). King James translatuion was completed in 1611.

Yes, history is important. Those who know it, tend to be Catholic.

[ealgeone]

Oh good grief.

[Springfield Reformer]

When Tyndale was convicted, by the way, England was already Protestant, so thank your own co-religionists for his conviction.

Well, under an oversimple view that all dissidents from Rome are Protestant, that might be true.  But Henry didn't break with Rome over justification by faith, and the arrangement for Tyndale's death no doubt had more to do with Tyndale recapitulating the role of John the Baptist in accusing Henry in the divorce of Catherine.  But in any event Henry was a Defender of the Faith as so named by the pope, as he had so ably argued for the Catholic understanding of the seven sacraments.  The Church he created was Catholicism sans pope, aka Anglicanism, and at that time was not in substance a Protestant body, certainly not in the Lutheran or Calvinist sense.  And IIRC, the "heresy" of Tyndale was justification by faith, a hallmark of the true reform movement.  So it becomes very awkward to say he was condemned by the reformed for believing what the reformed believed. More reasonable to say he was condemned by Henry for agreeing with the Catholics on divorce and agreeing with the Reformers on justification.  In short, those who killed Tyndale I would not count among my co-religionists nor would any evangelical here.  Preposterous.

First reputable translation of the Bible into English was Catholic Douay Rheims (NT: 1582, OT: 1609-1610). King James translatuion was completed in 1611.

Well, "reputable" is one of those subjective terms, isn't it.  Odd too how such "disreputable" works as Tyndale's were actually the base translation underneath the hood of the D-R:

Elsewhere, however, the English wording of the Rheims New Testament follows more or less closely the Protestant version first produced by William Tyndale in 1525, though the base text for the Rheims translators appears to be the revision of Tyndale found in an English and Latin diglot New Testament, published by Miles Coverdale in Paris in 1538. Furthermore, the translators are especially accurate in their rendition of the definite article from Greek to English, and in their recognition of subtle distinctions of the Greek past tense, neither of which are capable of being represented in Latin. Consequently, the Rheims New Testament is much less of a new version, and owes rather more to the original languages, than the translators admit in their preface. Where the Rheims translators depart from the Coverdale text, they frequently adopt readings found in the Wycliff bible, as this version had been translated from the Vulgate, and had been widely used by English Catholic churchmen unaware of its Lollard origins.

Available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible

Yes, history is important. Those who know it, tend to be Catholic.

Wishful thinking.

Peace,

SR

[metmom]

Those who know it, tend to be Catholic.

Those who know the Bible tend to be Christians.

[Elsie]

Yes, history is important. Those who know it, tend to be Catholic.

Seven churches in Asia.