Below is what you wrote to which I called ad hominems...hardly a history lesson.
Who Do I Confess My Sins To?
- Thread starter Paul Christensen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
FWIW: this "Mormon" gets really really sick of the way people twist things and bash against Catholics.
And bash against every other group too.
Tell me about the East-West split and whose authority was the true one? And on what basis?
Actually, what the Bible says is...
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:20)
The constant droll of Catholic apologists accusing all of Protestantism is senseless especially from an apostate body that has outward trappings of religious form but no power towards godliness. Also it 'is not only dishonest, it's stupid, absurd and uncharitable'.
Maybe I would have been an RC if even one had shared the Gospel with me, i.e. even had the Gospel to share.
We have God's written Word and esteem it as such as it is God's view passed down in unbroken succession since the Prophets and then Apostles.(There were some tough times though under Rome's burning of translators and translations.)
zzzzzzzzzz
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Changing the topic when you are confronted and stumped is standard anti-Catholic methodology.
Catholicism is not formally anti-Protestant, but your anti-Catholicism is stupid, absurd and uncharitable. Endless division is clear evidence that Protestantism is a dismal failure, and the Bible says we are to reject those who cause division, which is the very onset of Protestantism. You deny the obvious when it is pointed out to you, you just persecute like a spoiled brat.
burning of translators??? More unproven lies. And you deny just who passed down what. You are so brainwashed and full of pride you can't even give credit to the Catholic Church for preserving the Bible in the first place. False histories and Bible origin fantasies has blinded you to the truth.
Last edited:
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
This thread should be closed. It seems to me that Catholic bashers have rule immunity.
101G
Well-Known Member
I must diagree with that statement, the truth lay with Cod, which you, I, and everyone else is subject to. and this notion to "REJECT" those who cause divisions is not true when depending on who is making the claim, for it also says, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good". and as the Church in Ephesus did, they tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars". this is what the "Roman" catholic church did ... LIED. I didn't say the catholic church, but the "ROMAN"catholic church did LIED. and one of the biggest lie they told was that woman are not to be bishops/Pastors. and we have the true original lettes of the true church to back that up that they can. as a matter of FACT, the "Roman" catholic church first BISHOP/PASTOR was a woman. and you want find that in the "Roman" catholic church archive, but it's right here in the Bible. there are many thing the "Roman" catholic church lied about, not the lay members, but the so-called leadership. not only lied but killed a many innocence people in your inquisition. and many crusades?. no wonder and thank God people "DIVIDED..... AWAY" from the "ROMAN" catholic church. NOTICE we said, "ROMAN" ..... catholic church, not the catholic church, we want to make that very clear.
PICJAG.
No it simply is a challenge to your boast of how unified and true the One Holy Catholic Church is. Again when you don’t have an answer, resort to name calling.
Do you reject the East like you reject the Reformation?
The Hebrews preserved and handed down our Scriptures long before there was a CatHolic Church...learn your biblical history.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
THE CHARGE of BURNING BIBLES
Ever since the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century, the Catholic Church has been accused of ignoring, opposing, hiding and even destroying the Bible in order to keep it from the people. Allegedly, copies of the Bible were chained to the walls of churches during the Middle Ages so that people could not take them home to read. Supposedly the Church during the Middle Ages also refused to translate the Bible into the various tongues of the common people, the vernacular languages, in order to further hinder personal Bible reading. Furthermore it is claimed that the Church even went as far as to burn vernacular Bibles.
After the 14th century when English finally became the popular language of England, vernacular Bibles were used as vehicles for heretical propaganda. John Wycliffe, a dissentient priest, translated the Bible into English. Unfortunately his secretary, John Purvey, included a heretical prologue, as noted by St. Thomas More. Later William Tyndale translated the Bible into English complete with prologue and footnotes condemning Church doctrines and teachings.
In 1528, the Bishop of London wrote to Sir Thomas More, requesting that he examine the works of certain "sons of iniquity" and explain "the crafty malignity of these impious heretics" to "simpleminded people." He sent More examples of the Lutheran writers. Tyndale was not mentioned in the letter, but his New Testament must have been among the books sent to More.
(1) St. Thomas More commented that searching for errors in the Tyndale Bible was similar to searching for water in the sea. Tyndale translated the term baptism into "washing;" Scripture into "writing;" Holy Ghost into "Holy Wind," Bishop into "Overseer," Priest into "Elder," Deacon into "Minister;" heresy into "choice;" martyr into "witness;" evangelist into "bearer of good news;" etc., etc. Many of his footnotes were vicious. For instance, Tyndale referred to the occupant of the Chair of Peter, as "that great idol, the whore of Babylon, the anti-Christ of Rome."
Even King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry's advisors: "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects." (2) Protestant Bishop Tunstall of London declared that there were upwards of 2,000 errors in Tyndale's Bible.
Tyndale, along with many Protestant-leaning scholars, resided in Antwerp, a free city, but surrounded by territory under control of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and a relative of Catherine of Aragon. Early in 1535. Tyndale became friends with Henry Phillips, a visiting Englishman. Phillips presented himself to Tyndale as sympathetic to the Lutheran cause, but plotted with the emperor's magistrates to arrest Tyndale. In May, 1535, Phillips invited Tyndale out to dinner and, upon leaving his residence, identified him to waiting guards who apprehended him. Although by this time, England had separated from the Catholic Church and Tyndale had some supporters in the government, the Church of England continued to fight against Lutheranism. Tyndale's friends appealed to the English government to intervene, but to no avail. After a sixteen month imprisonment, an ecclesiastical panel convicted Tyndale of heresy in August, 1536 and turned him over to the secular authority. In October of the same year he was executed, being first strangled and then burned at the stake BY THE NON-CATHOLIC ENGLISH GOVERNMENT, NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
Tyndale died not for the right to read the Bible, as many Protestants arrogantly claim. He was put to death by the civil judges of the father of the English Protestant Deformation, for doctrines subversive of law and order, which Dr. James Gardiner, Protestant, said "was intended to produce an ecclesiastical and social revolution of a most dangerous character. . ."(3)
It is love of the God-inspired books in the Bible that caused the Catholic Church to protect the people from counterfeit translations as ardently as the State endeavors to protect the people from counterfeit currency. The "right to read the Bible," which is a moral right, does not include imbibing such a blasphemous and distorted translation as came from the contemptible ex-Catholic pen of Tyndale. His translation was ordered to be destroyed, not because it appeared in the English language, as you assume, but because it was a faulty, corrupted translation, which was a deliberate profanation of the Sacred Text. Does this action make the Church anti-Bible?
First if the Church truly wanted to destroy the Bible, why did her monks work diligently through the centuries making copies of it? Before the printing press (before 1450), copies of the Bible were hand written with beauty and painstaking accuracy. One reason for Bibles being chained to the walls of churches is because each copy was precious both spiritually and materially. It took a monk about a year to hand copy the entire Bible, so Bibles were scarce. Paper was not used during the Middle Ages, as the first paper mill was not built until the 15th century (in England).
Every monastery had a scriptorium, a writing room, in those ages, where priests and monks diligently and lovingly transcribed Bibles. In that way the texts we have today were preserved. It is calculated to have taken 427 skins or parchments. It has been estimated that in 1518 the cost of a copy of the Bible would work out at the 1952 rate of L218 (or about $1000), for material upon which to write a single Bible(4). Hence Bibles could not be distributed then as they are distributed today.
Those chained Bibles were Open Bibles. The people who could not afford to own a Bible stood at a desk, lectern or stall in the aisles and corridors of the Catholic Churches during those Middle Ages, for there were no Protestant Churches in those days, and read those valuable open chained Bibles, to their hearts’ content. Thus we see, that chained Bibles were Bibles used for educational purposes. the Protestant misconception, gleaned no doubt from anti-Catholic sources, is as unreasonable as to conclude that telephone books, city directories and dictionaries are fastened to telephone booths, druggist counters and library tables in order to keep people ignorant of the numbers, addresses, and definitions in them.
The Church did not oppose faithful vernacular translations, Luther himself noted "it was an effect of God power, that the Papacy should have remained, in the first place, sacred baptism; secondly, the text of the Holy Gospels which it was custom to read from the pulpit in the vernacular tongue of every nation..." (5)
What the Church did oppose were heretical additions and distortions to the Bible. The Church prohibited these corrupt Bibles in order to preserve the integrity of Holy Scripture. This action was necessary if the Church is to preserve the truth of Christ's Gospel. As St. Peter in his Epistle (in the Bible) warns us, the ignorant and unstable can distort the Scriptures to their own destruction [2 Peter 3:16; see front panel].
The Catholic Church has always Protected the Bible against those who would destroy it. The great scholar G.K. Chesterton said "It was only the Roman Catholic Church that saved the Protestant truths. It may be right to rest on the Bible, but there would be no Bible if the Gnostics had proved that the Old Testament was written by the Devil, or had littered the world with Apocryphal Gospels. It may be right to say that Jesus alone saves from sin, but nobody would be saying it if a Pelagian movement had altered the whole notion of sin. Even the very selection of dogmas which the reformers decided to preserve had only been preserved for them by the authority which they denied" (Upon this Rock)THE CHARGE of BURNING BIBLES
Luther himself noted "it was an effect of God power, that the Papacy should have remained, in the first place, sacred baptism; secondly, the text of the Holy Gospels which it was custom to read from the pulpit in the vernacular tongue of every nation..." (8)
THE CHARGE of BURNING BIBLES
Ever since the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century, the Catholic Church has been accused of ignoring, opposing, hiding and even destroying the Bible in order to keep it from the people. Allegedly, copies of the Bible were chained to the walls of churches during the Middle Ages so that people could not take them home to read. Supposedly the Church during the Middle Ages also refused to translate the Bible into the various tongues of the common people, the vernacular languages, in order to further hinder personal Bible reading. Furthermore it is claimed that the Church even went as far as to burn vernacular Bibles.
After the 14th century when English finally became the popular language of England, vernacular Bibles were used as vehicles for heretical propaganda. John Wycliffe, a dissentient priest, translated the Bible into English. Unfortunately his secretary, John Purvey, included a heretical prologue, as noted by St. Thomas More. Later William Tyndale translated the Bible into English complete with prologue and footnotes condemning Church doctrines and teachings.
In 1528, the Bishop of London wrote to Sir Thomas More, requesting that he examine the works of certain "sons of iniquity" and explain "the crafty malignity of these impious heretics" to "simpleminded people." He sent More examples of the Lutheran writers. Tyndale was not mentioned in the letter, but his New Testament must have been among the books sent to More.
(1) St. Thomas More commented that searching for errors in the Tyndale Bible was similar to searching for water in the sea. Tyndale translated the term baptism into "washing;" Scripture into "writing;" Holy Ghost into "Holy Wind," Bishop into "Overseer," Priest into "Elder," Deacon into "Minister;" heresy into "choice;" martyr into "witness;" evangelist into "bearer of good news;" etc., etc. Many of his footnotes were vicious. For instance, Tyndale referred to the occupant of the Chair of Peter, as "that great idol, the whore of Babylon, the anti-Christ of Rome."
Even King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry's advisors: "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects." (2) Protestant Bishop Tunstall of London declared that there were upwards of 2,000 errors in Tyndale's Bible.
Tyndale, along with many Protestant-leaning scholars, resided in Antwerp, a free city, but surrounded by territory under control of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and a relative of Catherine of Aragon. Early in 1535. Tyndale became friends with Henry Phillips, a visiting Englishman. Phillips presented himself to Tyndale as sympathetic to the Lutheran cause, but plotted with the emperor's magistrates to arrest Tyndale. In May, 1535, Phillips invited Tyndale out to dinner and, upon leaving his residence, identified him to waiting guards who apprehended him. Although by this time, England had separated from the Catholic Church and Tyndale had some supporters in the government, the Church of England continued to fight against Lutheranism. Tyndale's friends appealed to the English government to intervene, but to no avail. After a sixteen month imprisonment, an ecclesiastical panel convicted Tyndale of heresy in August, 1536 and turned him over to the secular authority. In October of the same year he was executed, being first strangled and then burned at the stake BY THE NON-CATHOLIC ENGLISH GOVERNMENT, NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
Tyndale died not for the right to read the Bible, as many Protestants arrogantly claim. He was put to death by the civil judges of the father of the English Protestant Deformation, for doctrines subversive of law and order, which Dr. James Gardiner, Protestant, said "was intended to produce an ecclesiastical and social revolution of a most dangerous character. . ."(3)
It is love of the God-inspired books in the Bible that caused the Catholic Church to protect the people from counterfeit translations as ardently as the State endeavors to protect the people from counterfeit currency. The "right to read the Bible," which is a moral right, does not include imbibing such a blasphemous and distorted translation as came from the contemptible ex-Catholic pen of Tyndale. His translation was ordered to be destroyed, not because it appeared in the English language, as you assume, but because it was a faulty, corrupted translation, which was a deliberate profanation of the Sacred Text. Does this action make the Church anti-Bible?
First if the Church truly wanted to destroy the Bible, why did her monks work diligently through the centuries making copies of it? Before the printing press (before 1450), copies of the Bible were hand written with beauty and painstaking accuracy. One reason for Bibles being chained to the walls of churches is because each copy was precious both spiritually and materially. It took a monk about a year to hand copy the entire Bible, so Bibles were scarce. Paper was not used during the Middle Ages, as the first paper mill was not built until the 15th century (in England).
Every monastery had a scriptorium, a writing room, in those ages, where priests and monks diligently and lovingly transcribed Bibles. In that way the texts we have today were preserved. It is calculated to have taken 427 skins or parchments. It has been estimated that in 1518 the cost of a copy of the Bible would work out at the 1952 rate of L218 (or about $1000), for material upon which to write a single Bible(4). Hence Bibles could not be distributed then as they are distributed today.
Those chained Bibles were Open Bibles. The people who could not afford to own a Bible stood at a desk, lectern or stall in the aisles and corridors of the Catholic Churches during those Middle Ages, for there were no Protestant Churches in those days, and read those valuable open chained Bibles, to their hearts’ content. Thus we see, that chained Bibles were Bibles used for educational purposes. the Protestant misconception, gleaned no doubt from anti-Catholic sources, is as unreasonable as to conclude that telephone books, city directories and dictionaries are fastened to telephone booths, druggist counters and library tables in order to keep people ignorant of the numbers, addresses, and definitions in them.
The Church did not oppose faithful vernacular translations, Luther himself noted "it was an effect of God power, that the Papacy should have remained, in the first place, sacred baptism; secondly, the text of the Holy Gospels which it was custom to read from the pulpit in the vernacular tongue of every nation..." (5)
What the Church did oppose were heretical additions and distortions to the Bible. The Church prohibited these corrupt Bibles in order to preserve the integrity of Holy Scripture. This action was necessary if the Church is to preserve the truth of Christ's Gospel. As St. Peter in his Epistle (in the Bible) warns us, the ignorant and unstable can distort the Scriptures to their own destruction [2 Peter 3:16; see front panel].
The Catholic Church has always Protected the Bible against those who would destroy it. The great scholar G.K. Chesterton said "It was only the Roman Catholic Church that saved the Protestant truths. It may be right to rest on the Bible, but there would be no Bible if the Gnostics had proved that the Old Testament was written by the Devil, or had littered the world with Apocryphal Gospels. It may be right to say that Jesus alone saves from sin, but nobody would be saying it if a Pelagian movement had altered the whole notion of sin. Even the very selection of dogmas which the reformers decided to preserve had only been preserved for them by the authority which they denied" (Upon this Rock)THE CHARGE of BURNING BIBLES
Luther himself noted "it was an effect of God power, that the Papacy should have remained, in the first place, sacred baptism; secondly, the text of the Holy Gospels which it was custom to read from the pulpit in the vernacular tongue of every nation..." (8)
THE CHARGE of BURNING BIBLES
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,082
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
101G
Well-Known Member
Burning bibles, and burning people are in the past and need to be put behind. now if anything all denominations need to confess up and ask for forgiviness from God, for all have some skeleton in the closets. and who have the most, ... makes no different. sin is sin. I'm like the apostle Paul fess up and move on in the righteousness of God. Philippians 3:13 "Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before".
let God heal all of us.
PICJAG.
let God heal all of us.
PICJAG.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English actually illegal? The answer is no. The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.
Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.
It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, “Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff”). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged. All this law did was to prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.
Which, as it turns out, is just what William Tyndale did. Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.
First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.
Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a very volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation at this time would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.
Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.
Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).
And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.
The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the “father of the English Bible.” But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people.”
So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that “all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm.”
Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).
When discussing the history of Biblical translations, it is very common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don’t approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale’s or Wycliff’s. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.
And here at least Fundamentalists and Catholics are in ready agreement: Don’t mess with the Word of God.
Tyndale’s Heresy
Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.
It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, “Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff”). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged. All this law did was to prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.
Which, as it turns out, is just what William Tyndale did. Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.
First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.
Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a very volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation at this time would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.
Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.
Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).
And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.
The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the “father of the English Bible.” But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people.”
So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that “all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm.”
Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).
When discussing the history of Biblical translations, it is very common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don’t approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale’s or Wycliff’s. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.
And here at least Fundamentalists and Catholics are in ready agreement: Don’t mess with the Word of God.
Tyndale’s Heresy
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,657
- 3,592
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Ahhhhh, I see.
And YOUR references to the Catholic Church being a "cult" is NOT a personal attack??
I merely pointed out the fact that you were lying about the idea that the Catholic Church "raises" its authority OVER God and His Word.
This is a fact - there is no "ad hominem" here.
I believe this goes to the core of the issue...
Galatians 4:29 KJV
[29] But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
between children of promise and children of the flesh/those born again and those working to earn merit with God, (regardless of their religious persuasion.)
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,657
- 3,592
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Thank you for illustrating your ignorance and complete dishonesty.
It makes MY job that much easier . . .
First of all - your use of the term "Roman" Catholic Church is incorrect. "Roman" or "Latin" simply refers to the Liturgical Rite - of which there are some TWENTY that comprise the Catholic Church. NOT all Catholics are "Roman" Catholics. there are Mellkites, Maronites, Byzantines, Alexandrians, Coptics, etc. ALL are Catholics and ALL are in communion with each other.
As to your asinine charge that the first Bishop of Rome was a woman - the onus is on YOU to prove that stupid statement.
Irenaeus, writing in the middle of the 2nd century lists ALL of the Bishops of Rome from his own time all the way back to Peter, the first Bishop of Rome. Eminent PROTESTANT historian, J.N.D. Kelley, in his Oxford Dictionary of Popes, also lists Peter as the first Bishop of Rome.
So - until you can show documented PROOF for your statement about a woman being the first Bishop of Rome - we'll simply consider your moronic claim yet another work of anti-Catholic fiction . . .
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,657
- 3,592
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I confess my sins to the Church.
John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”
101G
Well-Known Member
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
The Bible before Martin Luther
Anti-Catholic literature and people who are not familiar with the Catholic Church often say that Martin Luther, a Catholic priest, but later a revolutionary and "reformer" was the first to translate the Bible from Latin to German in 1534. This misconception is so deeply embedded in the popular mind that it is not a surprise anymore to hear the Protestant view that the vernacular Bible originated with Martin Luther. It is hard to believe that there are still some Protestant believers who make this statement at the beginning of the 21st century. There are some even more weird ideas about Bible translation. Some firmly believe that the Catholic Church turned against Martin Luther because he was the first who dared to translate the Bible from Latin into German.
By digging into history, these grandiloquent "experts" would be surprised to learn that the first printed Bible was produced by Johann Gutenberg, a Catholic,--with Church approval--in 1455. Luther was born in 1483! To go further on the number of printings, there were 18 German editions of the Bible before Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg in 1517.
For a full view of translation history it is important to acknowledge that no books of the Bible were originally written in Latin. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew with some parts in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Septuagint is a Jewish translation of the Old Testament into Greek for the Jews in Alexandria who spoke mainly Greek at that time. This made it possible for the whole Bible to be available in Greek by about 100 A.D.
It is worth noticing that there were 198 editions of the Bible in the vernacular, the language of the laity; 626 editions altogether, all before the Protestant version, with the full approval of the Catholic Church. When using of the term "Bible Christian," many refer quite wrongly to Protestants only, as the Bible is a Catholic book written for Catholics, and explained only by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.
The Protestant claim of "Sola Scriptura" is a fabricated, misleading suggestion, an unscriptural invention. In history we can see that every new movement when forming a new religion, wants a so-called "new Bible." A new Bible is important for these movements partially as a break away gesture to symbolize a separation from the Catholic Church and to create a Bible which contains their ideas, teachings and explanations for their existence. This is what the heretical sect of the Cathars wanted in medieval times and what the Protestants, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, etc. did later. Changing the Biblical text is prohibited, but the above mentioned sects widely violated this rule. The discrepancies led to arguments, controversies and misunderstandings between or within these movements. The nearly 35,000 Protestant sects have different interpretation of the Bible.
It is true that vast numbers could not read but the Church was not to blame for that. However, scholars point out that even illiterate Catholics knew the basic Scriptural content of the Bible, not by reading, but through the medium of art, sculpture, sermons, Passion and Miracle Plays, etc., prepared and organized by the Church.
St. Jerome proclaimed: "The ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Jesus."
In conclusion it is highly recommended that our misled brothers and sisters dig into history deeply enough to unveil the truth. As they said in ancient Rome: historia est magistra vitae. History is the teaching Master of Life.
The Bible before Martin Luther. - Free Online Library
Anti-Catholic literature and people who are not familiar with the Catholic Church often say that Martin Luther, a Catholic priest, but later a revolutionary and "reformer" was the first to translate the Bible from Latin to German in 1534. This misconception is so deeply embedded in the popular mind that it is not a surprise anymore to hear the Protestant view that the vernacular Bible originated with Martin Luther. It is hard to believe that there are still some Protestant believers who make this statement at the beginning of the 21st century. There are some even more weird ideas about Bible translation. Some firmly believe that the Catholic Church turned against Martin Luther because he was the first who dared to translate the Bible from Latin into German.
By digging into history, these grandiloquent "experts" would be surprised to learn that the first printed Bible was produced by Johann Gutenberg, a Catholic,--with Church approval--in 1455. Luther was born in 1483! To go further on the number of printings, there were 18 German editions of the Bible before Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg in 1517.
For a full view of translation history it is important to acknowledge that no books of the Bible were originally written in Latin. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew with some parts in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Septuagint is a Jewish translation of the Old Testament into Greek for the Jews in Alexandria who spoke mainly Greek at that time. This made it possible for the whole Bible to be available in Greek by about 100 A.D.
It is worth noticing that there were 198 editions of the Bible in the vernacular, the language of the laity; 626 editions altogether, all before the Protestant version, with the full approval of the Catholic Church. When using of the term "Bible Christian," many refer quite wrongly to Protestants only, as the Bible is a Catholic book written for Catholics, and explained only by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.
The Protestant claim of "Sola Scriptura" is a fabricated, misleading suggestion, an unscriptural invention. In history we can see that every new movement when forming a new religion, wants a so-called "new Bible." A new Bible is important for these movements partially as a break away gesture to symbolize a separation from the Catholic Church and to create a Bible which contains their ideas, teachings and explanations for their existence. This is what the heretical sect of the Cathars wanted in medieval times and what the Protestants, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, etc. did later. Changing the Biblical text is prohibited, but the above mentioned sects widely violated this rule. The discrepancies led to arguments, controversies and misunderstandings between or within these movements. The nearly 35,000 Protestant sects have different interpretation of the Bible.
It is true that vast numbers could not read but the Church was not to blame for that. However, scholars point out that even illiterate Catholics knew the basic Scriptural content of the Bible, not by reading, but through the medium of art, sculpture, sermons, Passion and Miracle Plays, etc., prepared and organized by the Church.
St. Jerome proclaimed: "The ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Jesus."
In conclusion it is highly recommended that our misled brothers and sisters dig into history deeply enough to unveil the truth. As they said in ancient Rome: historia est magistra vitae. History is the teaching Master of Life.
The Bible before Martin Luther. - Free Online Library
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,657
- 3,592
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Our sin affects the WHOLE Church (1 Cor. 12:26, Rev. 2:14, 20-25) - not just ourselves and those whom we sinned against.
THAT'S why Christ gave His Apostles the power to forgive or retain sins in His name (John 20:21-23) and THAT'S why we are to confess to the Church.
- Christ's Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
- Christ's Church is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).
- Christ identifies His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).
