S Walch
-
This is the second time you've said something similar to this, and I am still confused as to what on earth you are talking about.
I haven't mentioned anything about Luther, nevermind him "discovering" something.
Just what on earth are you talking about?
Edit:
Also, RccWarrior, you also seem to be quoting from this website:
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham13.html
Let's do a bit of mix and match.
From the website:
'there was no anxiety whatever for an English version excepting among a small minority of the people', and 'the universal desire for a Bible in England we read so much of in most works on the subject existed only in the imagination of the writers'. Dr. Brewer, another Protestant, also scoffs at the idea. 'To imagine,' he says, 'that ploughmen and shepherds in the country read the New Testament in English by stealth, or that smiths and carpenters in towns pored over its pages in the corner of their master's workshops, is to mistake the character and acquirements of the age.' There has, in short, been a great deal of wild and groundless talk about the intense desire of the people of that century to devour the Scriptures. And we can prove it by these simple facts, that (I) the people had to be compelled by law to buy Bibles, for Acts were passed again and again threatening the King's displeasure and a fine of 40s. per month if the Book was not purchased; (2) we have documentary evidence that inhabitants of certain parts of the country, such as Cornwall and Devonshire, unanimously objected too the new translation, and that even among the clergy Reformers like Bishop Hugh Latimer almost entirely ignored the English copy and always took their texts from the Latin Vulgate; (3) printers had large stocks of printed Bibles left unsold on their hands, and could not get rid of them at any price, except under legal coercion; (4) the same edition of the Bible was often re-issued with fresh titles and preliminary matter, and new title-pages were composed for old unsold Bibles, without any regard to truth, simply to get them sold. I do not see how we can resist the conviction that there was really no extensive demand for English Bibles among the mass of Christians at that time in England, whether clergy or laity, and that the design of spreading them wholesale among the masses was borrowed from the Continent which was then in a perfect ferment of Religious and Civil Revolution. Hence you can understand at once how Tyndale's proposal was viewed with suspicion and disfavour by the Bishops, and himself refused any assistance or encouragement from Tunstall, Bishop of London, and other prelates. And when we further bear in mind (as the Athenaeum pertinently remarked, 24th August, 1889) that this irresponsible private chaplain had become already known as a man of dangerous views, who was exceedingly insulting in his manner, unscrupulous, and of a most violent temper; that in postprandial discussions he repeatedly abused and insulted Church dignitaries who were present; that with him the Pope was anti-Christ and the harlot of Babylon, whilst the monks and friars were 'caterpillars, horseleeches, drone-bees, and draff,' we shall not be vastly astonished that these dignitaries did not evince much enthusiasm in pushing on Mr. Tyndale's scheme.
From your post:
'there was no anxiety whatever for an English version excepting a small minority of the people', and the universal desire for a Bible in England we read so much of in most works on the subject existed only in the imagination of the writers. Dr. Brewer, another Protestant, also scoffs at the idea. "To imagine", he says " that ploughmen and shepherds in the country read the New Testament in English by stealth, or that smiths and carpenters in towns pored over its pages in the corner of their master's workshops, is to mistake the character and aquirements of the age". There has been a great deal of wild and groundless talk about the intense desire of the people of that century to devour the Scriptures. And I can prove it by these simple facts. 1.) The people had to be compelled by law to buy Bibles, for Acts were passed again and again threateningthe King's displeasure and a fine of 40's per month if the Book was NOT purchased. 2.) We have DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE that inhabitants of certain parts of the country, such as Cornwall and Devonshire, unanimously objected to the new translation and that even among the clergy Reformers like Bishop Hugh Latimer almost entirely ignored the English copy and always took their texts from the Latin Vulgate. 3.) Printers had large stocks of printed Bibles left unsold on their hands, and could not get rid of them under any price except with legal coercion.
Now you can understand at once how Tyndale's proposal was viewed with suspicion and disfavour by the Bishops, and himself refused any assistance or encouragement from Tunstall, Bishop of London or other prelates. And that this irresponsible private chaplain had already become known as a man of dangerous views, who was insulting in manner, unscrupulous, and of a violent temper, that in postprandial discussions, he repeatedly abused and insulted Church dignataries who were present; that the Pope was the Anti-Christ, whilst the monks were caterpillars, horseleeches and draff, we shall not be vastly astonished that these dignataries did not evince much enthusiasm in pushing on Mr. Tyndale's scheme.
You know, it would be nice, as you have literally just copied and pasted literally word for word from here, to point to the website where you actually get your information from.
Edit #2:
In fact, checking over the other pages of this website, you have literally copied many things word for word from this website concerning every single post you have done in this thread.
Honestly, do you take all of us for fools?
This website uses no sources for it's information, so I'm going to take it, and you, as literally posting utter rubbish.
Either tell me the sources you have actually used for your information, or stop posting from this website, which also has not given any sources for it's information, and mentions several people that no one else seems to have heard of.
Dr. Brewer - what's he a "Dr." of?
Upvote
0
