Abundance of Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliff

[RccWarrior]

Still looking for the link RccWarrior.
tulc(an Anabaptist, we were burned by almost everyone back then)

Hey, knock yourself out Tulc

 

[RccWarrior]

So, still copied from a site, yet no credit given?

Again, my statement towards the post in question still stands.

Did it perhaps dawn on you I have studied the Bible, if you care to take a look at my education on my CF page, you are more than welcome.

 

[picnic]

No. No heretic will EVER change the doctrines given us by the Apostles. This is what you don't seem to understand:
It only remains now to show by contrast the calm, dignified, and reverent action taken by the Catholic Church, towards her own book. In 1609 the Old Testament was added, and the Catholic Bible in English was complete, and it is called the Douai Bible. It is the ONLY really complete Bible in English, for it contains those seven Books of the Old Testament that were, and are, omitted by the Protestants in their editions. So that we can claim to have not only the pure, unadulterated bible, but the whole of it, WITHOUT addition or subtraction; a translation of the Vulgate, which is itself the work of St. Jerome in the fourth century, which, again, is the most autoritative and CORRECT of ALL the early copies of Holy Scripture. The greatest scholar of his day, who had access to manuscripts and authorities that have now perished, and who, living so near the days of the Apostles, was able to produce a copy of the inspired writings, which, for correctness, can never be equalled.

That still doesn't answer the question about how one is supposed to check the teachings of the church (and in the case of the laity, who didn't understand Latin, in the middle ages they didn't have access to scripture to check.

How do you know a doctrine is given to you by the apostles other than by the church saying so? Early Christians checked the apostles teachings by searching the scriptures (see the examples of the Bereans).

Also, maybe you can answer this as it often gets ignored by others. Why does the Orthodox Bible have more books than the Catholic Bible?

 

[HiredGoon]

These cut & pastes by RccWarrior are so full of hateful pretentious rhetoric, logical fallacies, historical errors and half-truths, I find it incredible anyone would actually believe this stuff.

 

[RccWarrior]

These cut & pastes by RccWarrior are so full of hateful pretentious rhetoric, logical fallacies, historical errors and half-truths, I find it incredible anyone would actually believe this stuff.

Typical answer..they are not hateful, but truth. I am sorry, but this is history. And of course you wouldn't believe it, perhaps you should reread it again. Are you sure you should erase Rcc at the beginning of this post, instead label it the heretics and go on with how hateful pretentious rhetoric, historic errors, and half-truths? Because that is just what they were.

 

[RccWarrior]

Oh, and they are not cut and pasted..

 

[RccWarrior]

That still doesn't answer the question about how one is supposed to check the teachings of the church (and in the case of the laity, who didn't understand Latin, in the middle ages they didn't have access to scripture to check.

How do you know a doctrine is given to you by the apostles other than by the church saying so? Early Christians checked the apostles teachings by searching the scriptures (see the examples of the Bereans).

Also, maybe you can answer this as it often gets ignored by others. Why does the Orthodox Bible have more books than the Catholic Bible?

Not much of a difference between Bibles.. the Roman Catholic church and the Greek Orthodox all have the same 27 books in the New Testament and the same 39 in the Old Testament.
The only difference is the Apocrypha, a collection of uninspired writings written during the "silent centuries" (400 B.C.-27 A.D.). Christians reject the Apocrypha as inspired and view all those books as secular uninspired history written by men without the aid of God. Roman Catholc has but 3 books that are NOT in the Greek Orthodox Bible. just 3. they are:
1 Esdras
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Psalm 151.
Hope that helps.

 

[S Walch]

Did it perhaps dawn on you I have studied the Bible, if you care to take a look at my education on my CF page, you are more than welcome.

*yawns*

And?

Want a medal?

You still haven't answered my question: Have you read Wycliffes Bible translation?

If not, go read it at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=1&version=53

Oh, and they are not cut and pasted..

They seem remarkibly similar to the site I linked too. In fact, most of your wording is exactly the same.

Typical answer..they are not hateful, but truth. I am sorry, but this is history.

Again, what you've posted isn't History at all, but a mixture and twisted piece of rubbish regarding two great people who had the guts to translate the Scriptures into the common tongues of their own people.

Two people that cared what there fellow country men knew regarding the Scriptures, which are in fact, very good translations of the Scriptures.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Good evening: the level of rhetoric and sarcasm has reached a critical mass on this thread. Please observe the forum rules and treat one another as you would wish to be treated.
Thanks in advance
Rdr Iakovos

 

[RccWarrior]

*yawns*

And?

Want a medal?

You still haven't answered my question: Have you read Wycliffes Bible translation?

If not, go read it at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=1&version=53



They seem remarkibly similar to the site I linked too. In fact, most of your wording is exactly the same.



Again, what you've posted isn't History at all, but a mixture and twisted piece of rubbish regarding two great people who had the guts to translate the Scriptures into the common tongues of their own people.

Two people that cared what there fellow country men knew regarding the Scriptures, which are in fact, very good translations of the Scriptures.

I am sorry S Walch, but I tell the truth and to answer your question, I could never read a doctrine that I know is utterly filled with lies and absurdities. Why would I read his Bible translation when I know it wasn't by the hand of God? I am trying to be as nice as I possibly can but honestly, it is what it is.

 

[RccWarrior]

But they weren't two great people, even King Henry VIII disagreed. Did you not read my posts? Are you afraid they make sense? People cannot just come in and change doctrine that has been in the church of Rome for 2,000 years. The church will in fact protect it. You will NOT change the Word of God because You think there is a problem somewhere.

 

[tulc]

Why would I read his Bible translation when I know it wasn't by the hand of God? I am trying to be as nice as I possibly can but honestly, it is what it is.

Honestly? Doesn't matter if you haven't (although I doubt most of us could tell the difference between Wycliffe's and other translations) You don't want to read it? Fine, but your arguments would carry more weight if you made the effort to do so. As it is you just seem to have swallowed whole whatever was told you.
tulc(just an thought)

 

[RccWarrior]

Honestly? Doesn't matter if you haven't (although I doubt most of us could tell the difference between Wycliffe's and other translations) You don't want to read it? Fine, but your arguments would carry more weight if you made the effort to do so. As it is you just seem to have swallowed whole whatever was told you.
tulc(just an thought)

Well, that's your opinion and frankly, I don't care about it. My arguements should carry weight of the existence of historical facts proven down til this day, but you cannot or will not see them. Would you read a Bible written by Frank Sinatra, or PAul McCartney? No, because they are not equipped as translators, and may put errors in it...same thing.

 

[S Walch]

Sorry, but John Wycliffe was very equipped as a translator.

There is nothing wrong with Wycliffe's translation of the Latin Vulgate of the New testament, but you refuse to see that because it goes against this silly belief of yours you have against Him.

You have not read it at all, so you have no right to say that it's a bad translation.

 

[HiredGoon]

Well, that's your opinion and frankly, I don't care about it.

It's comments like that where you completely lose any shred of credibility. Why should anyone consider what you write when you won't return the favor. Not to mention your laughable propagandistic use of historical half-truths. But, go ahead and keep knocking down your straw men, and insulting anyone who would dare to disagree with you.

 

[tulc]

Well, that's your opinion and frankly, I don't care about it.

I suspect that wasn't ment as a put down so no harm no foul!

My arguements should carry weight of the existence of historical facts proven down til this day, but you cannot or will not see them.

No, more that I see another side to the argument and think there are some valid arguments to me made for it.

Would you read a Bible written by Frank Sinatra, or PAul McCartney? No, because they are not equipped as translators, and may put errors in it...same thing.

Not exactly, if they, Sinatra and McCartney wrote a book about music I'd read it, because they would then be writing about something they know, Wycliffe was more then capable of doing the translating. See the difference? Again just because you don't want to read it doesn't mean it's not worth reading.
tulc(hopes your day is blessed!)

 

[RccWarrior]

It's comments like that where you completely lose any shred of credibility. Why should anyone consider what you write when you won't return the favor. Not to mention your laughable propagandistic use of historical half-truths. But, go ahead and keep knocking down your straw men, and insulting anyone who would dare to disagree with you.

And it's comments like yours which make me want to tell the truth

 

[RccWarrior]

Sorry, but John Wycliffe was very equipped as a translator.

There is nothing wrong with Wycliffe's translation of the Latin Vulgate of the New testament, but you refuse to see that because it goes against this silly belief of yours you have against Him.

You have not read it at all, so you have no right to say that it's a bad translation.

I really am sorry and beg to differ as I've already explained to you all about Wycliff's shannanigans. King Henry VIII even disagreed with him.

 

[S Walch]

I really am sorry and beg to differ as I've already explained to you all about Wycliff's shannanigans. King Henry VIII even disagreed with him.

Henry VIII also had 100's of people killed.

Do you really think I give too hoots what Henry VIII thought about Wycliffe?

You know, seeing as though Henry VIII never mentioned anything about Wycliffe anyway, seeing as though Wycliffe had died 100 years before Henry VIII was born.

Methinks you're getting Wycliffe and Tynsdale mixed up

And oh, I guess Henry VIII and the Roman Catholic Church aren't all too different.

You know, with the killing of innocent people and such.

Edit:

Also, just because I'm English, don't even assume for one second that I really care about what King's or Queen's of England have said concerning other people.

King's and Queen's have no authority over what I think.

Just like the Pope.

 

[RccWarrior]

Henry VIII also had 100's of people killed.

Do you really think I give too hoots what Henry VIII thought about Wycliffe?

You know, seeing as though Henry VIII never mentioned anything about Wycliffe anyway, seeing as though Wycliffe had died 100 years before Henry VIII was born.

Methinks you're getting Wycliffe and Tynsdale mixed up

And oh, I guess Henry VIII and the Roman Catholic Church aren't all too different.

You know, with the killing of innocent people and such.

Edit:

Also, just because I'm English, don't even assume for one second that I really care about what King's or Queen's of England have said concerning other people.

King's and Queen's have no authority over what I think.

Just like the Pope.

Now I think you've crossed the line with your insults to my beloved Pope, the successor to Peter himself, and the fact you don't understand the Catholic church, but you hear it from your pastors misleading you and on anti-Catholic sights. I am done with my thread, I told you everything you need to know, if you want to turn the other way, that is your problem not mine. I suggest you reread everything about Tyndale, Wycliff and the others. I am just glad I am who I am. I am happy there are 1.5 billion Catholics in spite of everything you and others say bad about my church. Next time you go to church, ask yourself what am I missing. Peace.