Abundance of Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliff

RccWarrior said:

No, because I've already explained it in my above quotes. did you read it? And that didn't happen the way you think it did.

Click to expand...

RccWarrior said:

My dearest S Walch. The Bible you quote is not the true Bible of Jesus Christ, so why would I read it? The true Bible has 73 seperate books 46 in the Old Testament, and 27 in the New.
When you open YOUR book, you will find 7 complete Books awanting---that is 7 books FEWER than there are in the Catholic Bible, and 7 fewer than there were in every collecton and catalogue of Holy Scripture from the fourth to the sixteenth century. Their names are Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 MAccabees, II Maccabees, together with 7 chapters of the Book of Esther and 66 verses of the third chapter of Daniel, commonly caled 'the song of the Three Children', (Daniel iii., 24-90 Douai version). These were deliberately cut out, and the Bible bound up without them. The criticisms and remarks of Luther, Calvin, and the Swiss and German Reformers about these 7 books of the Old Testament show to what depths of impiety those unhappy men had allowed themselves to fall when they broke away from the True church.

Click to expand...

RccWarrior said:

Common sense just tells me that when you TRANSLATE something, you really could be just putting your own wording into it. Correct? I mean, back then you could of said the Bible was just about anything, right? Any word could of been inserted. No? Just like Luther did with the word "only", in which he added..come on..what is it that you don't get? And please stop being so angry. It is history, not my fault.

Click to expand...

S Walch said:

Why do you refuse to answer a single one of our questions?

Show us where in Wycliffe's translation of the Latin Vulgate into English where he erred and mistakenly translated a Latin word into the wrong English one.

You claimed that Wycliffe had changed the Word of God.

Prove it.

Click to expand...

I already told you in posts 22, 34 and 99.

Click to expand...

post 22 said:

You don't understand it because you won't see the facts here. No matter how much of history is truth, you still cannot recognize it.
In defense of my church, we will discuss Wycliff's death. Why then did she condemn Wycliff, one of her own priests, for translating it into English, and forbid her people to read his version of the Sacred Scriptures?? Because John Wycliff's version of the bible was not a correct version, and because he was using it as a means of corrupting the people's faith and of teaching them false doctrine; and it seems to me at least that that was a perfectly good reason for condemning it. For, please observe, that while the church approves of the people reading the Scriptures in their own language, she also claims the right to see that they really have a true version of the Scriptures to read, and not a mutilated or false or imperfect or heretical version. She claims that she alone has the right to make translations from the original languages (Greek or Hebrew) in which the Bible was written. She declares she will not tolerate that the people should be exposed to the danger of reading copies of Scripture which have changed or falsified something of the original Apostolic writing; which have added something or left out something;
Her people must have the correct Bible, or no Bible at all.
At first, he caused notoriety by taking part with the State against the claims of the Pope in regard to tribute money and benefices. But of course in a few years, went even further and began to oppose the church not only in matters of policy or government, but in things of faith. Being accused of preaching novel and uncommon doctrines, he was at the instance of Pope Gregory XI, summoned before the archbishop in 1378, and inhibited from teaching any further on the matters in dispute. No more proceedings were taken against him until 1381 when again he started. He attacked the Friars and Religious Orders with great bitterness; impugned transubstantiation, and seemed to advocate the theory that was peculiarly Luther's, ridiculed Inndulgences and flooded the country with pamphlets and tracts reeking with heresy. He was a "Lollard". The Lollards were a religious sect which rose in Germany in the beginning of the 14th century, and differed many points of doctrine from the Church of Rome, more especially as regards the Mass, Extreme Union, and Atonement for Sin.
Now, I ask any unprejudiced person, was this the kind of man to undertake the translation of the Bible into the common language of the people? Was he likely to be trusted by the church at that time to produce a thoroughly Catholic and free from all error or corruption---a man, notoriously eccentric, guilty of heretical and suspicious teaching, attacking the church in its authorities from the Pope down to the Friars. The question answers itself.
You may cry out that Wycliff was right and Rome was wrong in doctrine; that he was a glorious reformer and 'morning star of the Reformation' but this is not the point.
Wycliff was heretical in the eyes of Rome; that he produced a version for the purpose of attacking the Catholic church of that day, and of spreading his heresies; and to blame the church for forbidding him to do so. and for condemning his version, is about as sensible to blame an author for interdicting someone else from publishing a copy of his work that was full of errors and absurdities. The Catholic church certainly will NEVER allow a version of Holy Scripture (which is her own book) like that of Wycliff to go forth unchallenged, as if it were correct and authoritative
Once you grasp the Catholic Church's doctrinal position in regard to the Bible and the Rule of Faith, you will have no difficulty in accounting for her uncompromising hostility to versions like wycliff's, and for her action in condemning the Bible Societies which spread abroad a mutilated, corrupt, and incomplete copy of the Holy Scriptures with the design of undermining the faith of Catholics.

Click to expand...

post 34 said:

Wycliff, Luther, tyndsale, all heretics who tried BUT FAILED to change the doctrines of the one true church. Let's talk Tyndale now:
So much then for John Wycliff and his unhappy version. the next man of any consequence we are confronted with is another favorite of the Reformers, another 'martyr' for the Bible, William Tyndale.
His treatment is also flung in our teeth by critics, as fresh evidence of rome's implacable hatred of the open Bible. Did she not persecute and burn poor Tyndale, and consign his copy of the Scriptures in English to flames? So here again, we must show how wise and consistent was the action of the Catholic church in England in regard to Tyndale and his translations, and clear her absolutely from the slightest shadow of suspicion of hostility to God's Written word.
How could the bible be printed in 1456? Did not Luther discover it for the first time in 1507??? However, joking apart, the fact remains that we now have in our historical review arrived at the point where we bid farewell to copies of the Bible written by hand, and have to consider only those that were turned out by the printing press from 1456 onwards. On Protestant principals it must seem a pity that the Lord waited so many centuries before He invented printing machines to spread Bibles about among the people; and it seems also very hard on all preceding generations that slipped away without this lamp to their feet and light unto their path.
Tyndale (and Luther) were born almost a hundred years after Wycliff died, that is in 1484. He was a priest (as the world just had Catholic christians back then), he was seized of getting the Bible printed in England. Tyndale was utterly unfitted for such a great work. He says HIMSELF he was 'evil favoured in this world, and without grace in the sight of men, speechless and rude, dull and slow witted.' He had NO special qualifications of the task of translation. He was a mediocre scholar, and could not boast of anything above the average intellect. He was acting entirely on his own account, and without authorization from ecclesiastical superiors, either in England or in Rome. Go further to say he was acting in disobedience to the decision of higher authorities.
Unable therefore to proceed with the work in his own land because of ecclesiastical prohibition, Tyndale goes abroad, and after much wandering about settles in Worms, where in 1525 the Bible was printed and smuggled into England. At once it was denounced by the Bishop of London, and I do not deny the fact that copies of it were burned ceremonially at St. Paul's Cross. Why? Because it was a false and erroneous anti- Catholic version of the Holy Scriptures. It was full of Lutheran Heresies. Tyndale had fallen under the influence of the German Reformer, who by this time revolted from Rome. About 1522, he had been suspected and tried for heresy; he had declared "I defy the Pope and all his laws"; and he actually embodied in his English version, Luther's notes and explanation of texts, which were full of venom and hatred against Rome as an egg is full of meat. "It has long been a notorious fact", says Mr. Allnat (In his Bible and the Reformation) "That all the early Protestant versions of the Bible literally swarmed with gross and flagrant corruptions." Willful and deliberate mistranslation of various passages of the Sacred text, and all directly aimed at the Catholic Church which the 'Reformers" were most anxious to uproot.
Has the Catholic Church not as a matter of fact put a copy of the CORRECT copy of the Bible into the hands of her children in their own language in the Douai version?

Come on people, wake up..

Click to expand...

post 99 said:

To you it would be rubbish as we are not the same faith. It has nothing to do with hatred. It has to do with history. Tyndale and Wycliff, same thing, is explained in my Theology of the Bible, I shall not repeat myself. Go back and read it again, maybe it will penetrate this time. And he wasn't martyred for JUST giving the English language. And if he did translate it in the way you say, if Wycliff was the first to publish it in English, how in the name of reason can it be true at the same time that Luther, more than 100 years afterwards, discovered it? You see? People must decide which story you are going to tell, for one is the direct contradictory of the other. Wycliff OR Luther, let it be; but Wycliff AND Luther together?? That is impossible. And Tyndale was born almost a hundred years after Wycliff died around 1484.
And Dore quoted saying '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.

Click to expand...

Why don't you want to know about the deficiencies of the Protestant bible, or rather what errors were removed, or how the Catholic church Compiles the New testament??

Click to expand...

You are losing here because you are focusing on one thing you think I cannot answer when I already have.

Click to expand...