Why we have the bible in English (despite the RCC)

[psalms 91]

It is good that we can read them much better than some mans interpretation

 

[visionary]

The Darby Bible was first published in 1890 by John Nelson Darby so how is it really one of the first English bibles??
Unless DRB stands for another bible??

Anglo-Saxon Proto-English Manuscripts (995 AD),
Wycliff (1380),
Tyndale (1534),
Great Bible (1539),
Geneva (1560),
Rheims (1582),
1st Ed. King James (1611),
Robert Aitken's Bible (1782),
Jane Aitken's Bible (1808),
Noah Webster's Bible (1833),
English Hexapla New Testament (1841),
Robert Young's "Literal" Translation (1863),
The "English Revised Version" Bible (1885)

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Darby Bible was first published in 1890 by John Nelson Darby so how is it really one of the first English bibles??
Unless DRB stands for another bible??

Anglo-Saxon Proto-English Manuscripts (995 AD),
Wycliff (1380),
Tyndale (1534),
Great Bible (1539),
Geneva (1560),
Rheims (1582),
1st Ed. King James (1611),
Robert Aitken's Bible (1782),
Jane Aitken's Bible (1808),
Noah Webster's Bible (1833),
English Hexapla New Testament (1841),
Robert Young's "Literal" Translation (1863),
The "English Revised Version" Bible (1885)

DRB is Douay Rheims Bible

 

[visionary]

DRB is Douay Rheims Bible

Ok... so not the first, just one of many.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ok... so not the first, just one of many.

Well, I did say "DRB and KJV are really about the first bibles in the kind of English that folk today can still read." not many people can cope with

• Wycliff (1380),
• Tyndale (1534),
• Great Bible (1539),
• Geneva (1560).

 

[Pedrito]

It would appear the Tallguy88's (Post #12) knowledge of his church's history is somewhat lacking when he said:

Why would the RCC deem the Ten Commandments heretical? We have them too. We number them differently than most modern Protestants (the Bible doesn't actually number them or make reference to "ten" commandments), but the content is the same.

It is easy to look at the church today and project its modern approach to the Bible back into the past. But that approach is invalid.

It is undeniable that formerly the Scriptures in any language other than Latin were stated to be heretical, as were excerpts from them in English, and people were being burned at the stake for possessing them.

I believe MoreCoffee would admit that at times during its history the Roman Catholic Church (relatively recently renamed “Catholic Church”) was more evil than good. However, I doubt he would draw the conclusion that those periods (that evil) disqualifies the Catholic Church in its present form from claiming to be God's true representative church on Earth (whatever terminology is used to express that).

 

[Pedrito]

As for (Post #17):

Also, Foxe's book is polemical and partially exagerated. It's not untrue, but it doesn't mention that Protestants did much the same and worse to Catholics, both in England and on the Continent. Nobody was blameless during that time period.

two things can be pointed out.

1. The minor point: who started it? The Catholic Church – persecuting people who had the evil intention of worshipping God as the Apostolic Church had worshipped Him, and of having a direct relationship with God without the intermediary necessity of priests and dead people.

2. More importantly, the statement made – “Nobody was blameless during that time period” – is spot on. None of the persecuting organisations was representing God. The Roman Catholic Church, if it ever had a mandate from God, renounced it at that time. It was acting in deliberate disobedience to God – much like shaking its fist in God's face.

When I was in Primary School (years 3-6) many moons ago there was one Catholic kid in our year. Just one. We didn't care what he was – he was just one of us. But he was continually conscious that he should not have been there. He was supposed to be in Catholic school, but his parents could not afford it.

We got lots of insights from him about his religion. One was his reporting to us whenever the priest came to his house to demand money to help their relatives in Purgatory. His parents always gave what the priest asked, because they were afraid of him and what he could do to them if they didn't.

If that sort of thing no longer happens (and I don't think it does), then that simply shows how much the church has changed even since the mid 1950's.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If it makes some folk feel better to believe in myths - such as the Catholic Church in England forbidding translations into English - then okay. But the truth is that the first Anglo-Saxon gospels and psalms were translated by faithful Catholic Christians and the first surviving English bible was translated by an English Catholic (albeit a man accused of heresy in his life time and found guilty of heresy after his death).

 

[Alithis]

I think he was killed because he really insulted and upset Henry VIII but no doubt his religious opinions also made him a heretic and many nations in the sixteenth century killed people for heresy. I do not see how his translation work (mainly in the new testament) solved any problem that needed to be solved.

not killed .. "murdered"! for correctly translating the bible .. the accusation of heresy was ,like the accusations which crucified Christ ,FALSE . so don't perpetuate that false accusation and show that you agreed with it .

 

[Alithis]

I believe that Henry VIII managed to kill around 80,000 Catholic Englishmen during his reign; of course the claim he made was that they were traitors but since he redefined "traitor" to mean people who did not agree to his divorce, would not attend the new "Church of England", or did not acknowledge him as supreme head of the church in England he discovered that all his Catholic subjects were apt to be "Traitors".

and that shows that henry VIII was in no way a disciple of the lord jesus .. neither sides were -this record of wrongs is plain evidence of that .
what we do know is that the reason rome greatly discouraged reading the bible in (any ) local translation is that they considered the understanding of it was to be gained by intellect (they still do so today), having not the Spirit of God they did not ,and still do not, understand that its comprehension comes not from the intellect but from GOD himself .they were concerned it wold bring a splintering of the church they considered only themselves to be . but that merely translates to- they were actually concerned they would lose control of the uneducated unintellectual masses .
in reality when the common man read the scriptures and responded obediently to them .. there came a new wave of the presence of God , and the outpouring of His spirit on entire new generations . and a new spread of the Gospel throughout the whole earth with the manifestation of the power of God in healings and salvation and the manifest gifts of the Spirit .. all absent from rome and all occurring due to GOD ,by his spirit giving understanding to the common people reading his own word .rather than having it drip fed to them incorrectly by man .( (as many prosperity teachers also do in our present day .. drip feeding misrepresented out of context verses to masses of people who refuse to read it for them selves repent of their sin and seek god first over all the things of man .

 

[MoreCoffee]

and that shows that henry VIII was in no way a disciple of the lord jesus .. neither sides were -this record of wrongs is plain evidence of that .

...

Yet the bible you use with its 66 books is largely the invention of men who followed Henry VIII's path from divorce and murder to separating from the Catholic Church and embracing heresy.

 

[Alithis]

lol no it wasn't ... all scripture is given by inspiration of God and was penned long before they were born .. nice try at twisting things .

 

[MoreCoffee]

lol no it wasn't ... all scripture is given by inspiration of God and was penned long before they were born .. nice try at twisting things .

Meh ... opcorn:

 

[Pedrito]

There is an acid test that can be applied to MoreCoffee's statement in Post #28:

If it makes some folk feel better to believe in myths - such as the Catholic Church in England forbidding translations into English - then okay.

Does history record anyone ever being burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church (or civil authorities acting on that church's behalf) in England for possessing any portion of the Bible in English?

If the answer is no, then MoreCoffee's use of the word “myths” is justified.

If the answer is yes, then moreCoffee's use of the word “myths” is itself mythological, and I would strongly suspect that he already knew that.


Now, for example, the book “The English Hexapla” published by Samuel Bagster and Sons, London, in 1841, on Page 39 (if my reference is correct), recounts how six men and one woman were burned at the stake at Coventry on 4th April, 1519, specifically in a place called the Little Park.

It is recorded that the men were burned alive on the charge of having taught their children and families the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments in English. The woman was executed in excruciating agony for having the Lord's Prayer, the Articles of the Faith and the Ten Commandments, all in English, in her possession.

So, all MoreCoffee is requested to do is either demonstrate unequivocally that those executions and the reasons for them are not a matter of historical record, or admit that his (I assume his) stand has not been based on truth, and that his statement reproduced above is merely a dishonest diversionary tactic.

What could be simpler?

 

[Josiah]

Some thoughts.....

1. For a long time, the GREEK Bible served well. But eventually, translations came to be useful as fewer and fewer Christians spoke/read/understood Greek. There were MANY, MANY translations prior to the printing press. Some of these had "official" sanctions (the Vulgate for example), some not. But my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the history of Christianity is NOT that there was some clear, persistent REBELLION against translations in the RC or EO denominations, per se. Both actually sanctioned translations.


2. I think what some have rejected are translations which IN THEIR OPINION twisted and confused the message. Translations can be faithful or unfaithful. The embrace of that possibility is not limited to Catholics. Note the "KJV Bible ONLY" crowd in Protestantism.... the fuss over the RSV in the mid 20th Century or the later debate between NIV lovers and ESV lovers.... the fuss over "the Living Bible". Protestants actually seem to get angry over translations viewed as unfaithful more than Catholics.


3. I think PART of the reason (in addition to #2), just PART of the reason for the RC Denomination's anger over Wycliff, Tyndale and others but not only that the RCC's opinion was that these were UNFAITHFUL and thus wrong, but over the emphasis of these men that the Bible should be INTERPRETED (based on their perhaps own biased translations - not the original Hebrew and Greek) by each INDIVIDUAL. In this, I tend to stand with the RCC, but then note that the RCC is more guilty of this than any other on the planet (see the Catholic Catechism # 85 where the RCC permits ONLY ONE to interpret Scrpture - itself). I have a rather Eastern view here (shared by some Protestants) that the Bible belongs to US and should be interpreted by US - not (the RCC view, and sadly also it seems Wycliffs) that self may designate self as the individual interpreter. As I understand it, the RCC's fuss was not ONLY over what it saw as a poor, unfaithful, wrong translation (perverting the Bible) but also the suggestion that each individual may appoint self as the authoritative interpreter.



Just my half cent..... as one very much fallible and accountable....


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Alithis]

There is an acid test that can be applied to MoreCoffee's statement in Post #28:


Does history record anyone ever being burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church (or civil authorities acting on that church's behalf) in England for possessing any portion of the Bible in English?

If the answer is no, then MoreCoffee's use of the word “myths” is justified.

If the answer is yes, then moreCoffee's use of the word “myths” is itself mythological, and I would strongly suspect that he already knew that.


Now, for example, the book “The English Hexapla” published by Samuel Bagster and Sons, London, in 1841, on Page 39 (if my reference is correct), recounts how six men and one woman were burned at the stake at Coventry on 4th April, 1519, specifically in a place called the Little Park.

It is recorded that the men were burned alive on the charge of having taught their children and families the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments in English. The woman was executed in excruciating agony for having the Lord's Prayer, the Articles of the Faith and the Ten Commandments, all in English, in her possession.

So, all MoreCoffee is requested to do is either demonstrate unequivocally that those executions and the reasons for them are not a matter of historical record, or admit that his (I assume his) stand has not been based on truth, and that his statement reproduced above is merely a dishonest diversionary tactic.

What could be simpler?

indeed -