Abundance of Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliff

[sunlover1]

...Wycliffe and Tynsdale - Two very fine Englishmen I might add, who did not try in anyway to change the Scriptures. The RC Church murdered and desecrated two innocent men, who cared deeply for their fellow countrymen's souls.

This is what the enemy does. Tries to stop the Word of God from finding it's place in our hearts.
Is this true?
These guys were killed for getting Bibles out?
Or was there a real reason one might think they were heretics?
sunlover

 

[RccWarrior]

Firstly, It's S. Walch.

Second of all, the "truth of Catholicism" is that it's not all true.

Thirdly, there have been many historical posts by Protestants on this forum, and your pre-judgement of protestants, and EO members, is very showing in all of your posts.

You expect people to listen to your posts, yet don't wish to listen to there's in return, and then yell at us when we posts historical fact and then arrogantly claim that Roman Catholics, and Roman Catholics only post historical information, when it just isn't true, especially with regards to your posts.


All this thread was was an attack against Protestants, with no historical backing in your first post, or subsequent posts following, and your "learning" at whatever University or whatever you've been to in italy has turned you into an arrogant person, like it has done many people who seem to think that because they've been to a famous university/college, that everyone else is therefore a moron because they haven't been to one.

Very sad indeed, especially with your disturbing comment that you would quite happily kill anyone who is considered to have "changed the Word of God".

I do truly hope that that isn't what Roman Catholicism teaches.

Well, judging from other posts by some very well-respected Roman Catholics on this forum, I'm glad it isn't one.

This isn't an attack on Protestanism. It is historical truth and you can't face it. And why do Protestants always think they are being attacked? Catholics are very deep in history and Tradition. Non-Catholics only seem to quote Scripture and nothing more. Now you know where the Bible has come to be. Isn't history interesting?
You can focus on my killing for Christ, I need not change my mind. Just like St. Peter did. And I may add, if Jesus walked with me back then as a person, and someone tried to attack him, then yes, I would of killed for him. That is what I meant, but you can take it however you'd like, Jesus knows what I meant, and is very pleased. That's all I care about. By the way, we all owe our debts to the monks...

 

[S Walch]

That all depends on whether you think RccWarrior's musings on page one concerning these two men were worth considering them heretics who tried to change the Word of God.

 

[RccWarrior]

That all depends on whether you think RccWarrior's musings on page one concerning these two men were worth considering them heretics who tried to change the Word of God.

Listen S Walch, even if I were not a Catholic, I would have to believe this as true because what I've said I have backed everything up. People just cannot come in, interpret the Scriptures to what they think it means and try to change them. It really is that simple. If The Roman Catholic church already has the Scriptures, the Word of God from pen of Apostle, then who has the right to come in and change it? Wycliff? Tyndale? Luther? No. The Word of God cannot be changed with speculation and heresy. That's it. I'm sorry.

 

[S Walch]

Listen S Walch, even if I were not a Catholic, I would have to believe this as true because what I've said I have backed everything up. People just cannot come in, interpret the Scriptures to what they think it means and try to change them. It really is that simple. If The Roman Catholic church already has the Scriptures, the Word of God from pen of Apostle, then who has the right to come in and change it? Wycliff? Tyndale? Luther? No. The Word of God cannot be changed with speculation and heresy. That's it. I'm sorry.

The point you're not getting, RccWarrior, is that Wycliffe and Tynsdale did NOT TRY TO CHANGE THE WORD OF GOD.

ALL they did was translate it into the ENGLISH LANGUAGE of the time that they lived.

They did not translate it incorrectly or tried to change what the Scriptures said.

All they did was translate it.

Is that evil?

Is that wrong?

No, it isn't.

Wycliffe and Tynsdale didn't die because they changed the Word of God, no matter what you say or think, as the evidence of their translations of the Scriptures show, which you have never read, so you have absolutely no room to comment on anything regarding Wycliffe and Tynsdales translation of the Scriptures.

Edit:

Comparison: Matthew 18:15-20

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. - KJV

But if thy brother sinneth against thee, go thou, and reprove him, betwixt thee and him alone; if he heareth thee, thou hast won thy brother. And if he heareth thee not, take with thee one or twain, that every word stand in the mouth of twain or three witnesses. And if he heareth not them, say thou to the church. But if he heareth not the church, be he as an heathen and a publican to thee. I say to you truly, whatever things ye bind on earth, those shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever things ye unbind on earth, those shall be unbound also in heaven. Again I say to you, that if twain of you consent on earth, of every thing whatever they ask, it shall be done to them of my Father that is in heavens. For where twain or three be gathered in my name, there I am in the middle of them. - Wycliffe NT

Moreover yf thy brother treaspace agenst the. Go and tell him his faute betwene him and the alone. Yf he heare the thou hast wone thy brother: But yf he heare the not then take yet with the one or two that in the mouth of two or thre witnesses all thinges maye be stablisshed. If he heare not them tell it vnto the congregacion. If he heare not ye congregacion take him as an hethen man and as a publican. Verely I say vnto you what soever ye bynde on erth shalbe bounde in heven. And what soever ye lowse on erth shalbe lowsed in heven. Agayn I say vnto you that yf two of you shall agre in erth apon eny maner thynge what soever they shall desyre: it shalbe geven them of my father which is in heven. For where two or thre are gathered togedder in my name there am I in the myddes of them. - Tyndale NT


Anything "heretical" in those passages, RccWarrior?

 

[tulc]

You can focus on my killing for Christ, I need not change my mind. Just like St. Peter did. And I may add, if Jesus walked with me back then as a person, and someone tried to attack him, then yes, I would of killed for him. That is what I meant, but you can take it however you'd like, Jesus knows what I meant, and is very pleased. That's all I care about. By the way, we all owe our debts to the monks.

Pleased? This Jesus?

28Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
30Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

and here:

49When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
51And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

That Jesus would be pleased you want to kill for Him?
tulc(finds that...doubtful)

 

[tulc]

I forgot to put this one up!

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 39 But I say to you, that ye against-stand not an evil man; but if any smite thee in the right cheek, show to him also the other;
40 and to him that will strive with thee in doom, and take away thy coat, leave to him also thy mantle [leave thou to him and thine over-cloth];
41 and whoever constraineth thee a thousand paces, go thou with him other twain. [and whoever constrain thee a thousand paces, go thou with him other two.]
42 Give thou to him that asketh of thee [Forsooth give to him that asketh of thee], and turn thou not away from him that will borrow of thee.
43 Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say to you, love ye your enemies, do ye well to them that hate you, and pray ye for them that pursue, and slander you [and pray ye for men pursuing, and falsely challenging you];
45 that ye be the sons of your Father that is in heavens, that maketh his sun to rise upon good men and evil [that maketh his sun to rise on good and on evil men], and raineth on just men and unjust.
46 For if ye love them that love you, what meed shall ye have? whether [the] publicans do not this thing?
47 And if ye greet your brethren only, what shall ye do more? do not heathen men this? [And if ye greet, or salute, your brethren only, what moreover shall ye do? whether and pagans do not this thing?]
48 Therefore be ye perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

tulc(seems to fit)

 

[RccWarrior]

Pleased? This Jesus?

and here:

That Jesus would be pleased you want to kill for Him?
tulc(finds that...doubtful)

Well tulc, you'd find anything I say doubtful anyway because you don't understand the message.

 

[tulc]

Well tulc, you'd find anything I say doubtful anyway because you don't understand the message.

Ahhh! Can you please explain it then?
tulc(I'm all about understanding other people!)

 

[RccWarrior]

Again I will attest to Wycliff's heresies. John Wycliff's version of the Bible was NOT a correct version, and because he was using it as a means of corrupting people's faith and of teaching them FALSE DOCTRINE. Wycliff was heretical in the eyes of Rome; that HE PRODUCED a heretical version for the purpose of attacking the Catholic church of that day, and of spreading his heresies the Catholic church would never allow a version of Holy Scripture (which is her own book) like that of Wycliff go forth unchallenged. even King Henry expelled his Bible. He despised it!
Wycliff had no special qualifications for the task of translation. He was a mediocre scholar, and could not boast of anything above the average intellect. He was actin entirely on his own, with no Ecclastical approval from either England OR Rome for that matter. He made a FALSE AND ERRONEOUS AND ANTI-CATHOLIC VERSION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. IT WAS FULL OF LUTHERAN HERESIES. Mr. Allnat said "THAT ALL THE EARLY PROTESTANT VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE LITERALLY SWARMED WITH GROSS AND FLAGRANT CORRUPTIONS. MISTRANSLATION OF VARIOUS PASSAGES OF THE SACRED TEXT. the Bishop of London counted 2,000 errors in Tyndale's Bible 'made in Germany'.
If the Catholic church didn't protect it, she would have been sinfully neglectful of her guardianship over the Word of God.
even in the 10th and 13th centuries some heretics called Waldenses and Albigenses revolted against all authority, and overran the country, spreading their wild and blasphemous doctrines. They taught, among other things that there were two Gods, no Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Eucharist, that there was no forgiveness for sins after baptism, and no Resurrection of the body.
Don't forget Luther added the word 'only' to St. Paul's words to fit in with their new fangled notion about 'justification by faith only'

 

[tulc]

Don't forget Luther added the word 'only' to St. Paul's words to fit in with their new fangled notion about 'justification by faith only'

Ahhh! Been here?
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html
tulc(thought it was interesting)

 

[S Walch]

...Wycliff go forth unchallenged. even King Henry expelled his Bible. He despised it!

Which "Henry" is this, RccWarrior?

Seeing as though the King at the time of Wycliffes Translation was King Richard II.

I'd check your "History" again.

 

[Tertiumquid]

Ahhh! Been here?
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html
tulc(thought it was interesting)

Blessings to you!
James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

 

[RccWarrior]

Which "Henry" is this, RccWarrior?

Seeing as though the King at the time of Wycliffes Translation was King Richard II.

I'd check your "History" again.

Oh, I know my history. The fact that all nations were certainly converted by the Roman Catholic Church, for there were no other to send missionaries to convert anybody, this is really a valuable admission. the translators of 1611, then, after enumerating many, converted nations that had the Vernacular Scriptures, come to the case of England, and include it among the others. 'Much about that time', they say (1360), even in our KING RICHARD the Second's days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable in that age...So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Crowmwell in England (or others)...but had been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation.
In the year 1531 KING HENRY VIII, with the advice of his Council and prelates published an edict that 'The translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects'.
King Henry also declared to the people in 1543 that 'All manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of crafty, false and untrue translation of Tyndale, along with any writings containing doctrine contrary to that of the King, SHALL BE CLEARLY AND UTTERLTY ABOLISHED, EXTINGUISHED, AND FORBIDDEN. WRITINGS AGAINST THE HOLY AND BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR, AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE DAMNABLE OPINIONS OF THE ANABAPTISTS.
Remember if you read my posts well enough, you'll remember that William Tyndale was born ALMOST A HUNDRED YEARS after Wycliff died. There are your answers.

 

[sunlover1]

Oh, I know my history.

Did you know, RccWarrior, that the rcc disallowed any Bibles to be distributed to any laity at one time?


Canon 14.
We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

The Word of God was written for all of us.

Matthew 23:13
...for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

 

[RccWarrior]

Did you know, RccWarrior, that the rcc disallowed any Bibles to be distributed to any laity at one time?


Canon 14.
We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

The Word of God was written for all of us.

Matthew 23:13
...for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

well, that was because there was a class of books floating about before 397 A.D. which were never acknowledged as of any value in the church, nor treated as having Apostolic authority, seeing that they were obviously false and spurious, full of absurd fables, superstitions, puerilities, and stories and Miracles of Our Lord and His Apostles which made them a laughing-stock to the world. Of these some have survived, and we do have them today, to let us see what stamp writing they were; most have perished. But we know the names of about 50 Gospels (such as the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Thomas and the like) about 22 Acts (Like the Acts of Pilate, Acts of Paul and Thecla, and others), and a smaller number of Epistles and Apocalypses. These were condemned and rejected wholesale as 'Apocrypha'--that is, false, spurious, uncanonical.

Whatever The Roman Church needed to do to protect the Bible, even if temporarily not given out to the laity, she did it to protect Holy Scripture.

 

[S Walch]

Oh, I know my history. The fact that all nations were certainly converted by the Roman Catholic Church, for there were no other to send missionaries to convert anybody, this is really a valuable admission. the translators of 1611, then, after enumerating many, converted nations that had the Vernacular Scriptures, come to the case of England, and include it among the others. 'Much about that time', they say (1360), even in our KING RICHARD the Second's days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet
to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable in that age...So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Crowmwell in England (or others)...but had been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation.
In the year 1531 KING HENRY VIII, with the advice of his Council and prelates published an edict that 'The translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects'.
King Henry also declared to the people in 1543 that 'All manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of crafty, false and untrue translation of Tyndale, along with any writings containing doctrine contrary to that of the King, SHALL BE CLEARLY AND UTTERLTY ABOLISHED, EXTINGUISHED, AND FORBIDDEN. WRITINGS AGAINST THE HOLY AND BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR, AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE DAMNABLE OPINIONS OF THE ANABAPTISTS.
Remember if you read my posts well enough, you'll remember that William Tyndale was born ALMOST A HUNDRED YEARS after Wycliff died. There are your answers.

But your post was talking about Wycliffe, not Tyndale.

You really need to make it clear who on earth you're talking about in your posts.

Also, do you remember me mentioning to you about the use of paragraphs?

Not only that, if you had actually bothered to do some study regarding Tyndale, you'll know that the edict put against him by Henry VIII, as asked of him by his "advisers" was due to his advisors disliking Tyndale, and made up lies against Tyndale that Tyndale had spoken things against the crown.

I suggest you actually read the Biography of William Tyndale, instead of your propeganda about him.

I'd also like to ask you to provide a source for where you get your "information" - be it a book or a website.

http://www.williamtyndale.com/0foxewilliamtyndale.htm

You should buy the book by David Daniell, "The Bible in English".

There's a reason why he dedicates the book To the Memory of William Tyndale, translator of genuis, martyred for giving English readers the Bible from the Original Languages.

A quote from Tyndale himself regarding his translation of the Bible:

"I call God to record against the day we shall appear before our Lord Jesus, that I never altered one syllable of God's Word against my conscience, nor would do this day, if all that is in earth, whether it be honor, pleasure, or riches, might be given me."

Tyndale was a great man, and I will not let a single person like you who posts hate and utter rubbish regarding him get away with it.

The same for John Wycliffe.

 

[sunlover1]

well, that was because there was a class of books floating about before 397 A.D. which were never acknowledged as of any value in the church, nor treated as having Apostolic authority,

Oh, I believe there were such books, but no, this is speaking of the Old and New Testaments:

Canon 14.
We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

 

[RccWarrior]

But your post was talking about Wycliffe, not Tyndale.

You really need to make it clear who on earth you're talking about in your posts.

Also, do you remember me mentioning to you about the use of paragraphs?

Not only that, if you had actually bothered to do some study regarding Tyndale, you'll know that the edict put against him by Henry VIII, as asked of him by his "advisers" was due to his advisors disliking Tyndale, and made up lies against Tyndale that Tyndale had spoken things against the crown.

I suggest you actually read the Biography of William Tyndale, instead of your propeganda about him.

I'd also like to ask you to provide a source for where you get your "information" - be it a book or a website.

http://www.williamtyndale.com/0foxewilliamtyndale.htm

You should buy the book by David Daniell, "The Bible in English".

There's a reason why he dedicates the book To the Memory of William Tyndale, translator of genuis, martyred for giving English readers the Bible from the Original Languages.

A quote from Tyndale himself regarding his translation of the Bible:

"I call God to record against the day we shall appear before our Lord Jesus, that I never altered one syllable of God's Word against my conscience, nor would do this day, if all that is in earth, whether it be honor, pleasure, or riches, might be given me."

Tyndale was a great man, and I will not let a single person like you who posts hate and utter rubbish regarding him get away with it.

The same for John Wycliffe.

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.

 

[RccWarrior]

But your post was talking about Wycliffe, not Tyndale.

You really need to make it clear who on earth you're talking about in your posts.

Also, do you remember me mentioning to you about the use of paragraphs?

Not only that, if you had actually bothered to do some study regarding Tyndale, you'll know that the edict put against him by Henry VIII, as asked of him by his "advisers" was due to his advisors disliking Tyndale, and made up lies against Tyndale that Tyndale had spoken things against the crown.

I suggest you actually read the Biography of William Tyndale, instead of your propeganda about him.

I'd also like to ask you to provide a source for where you get your "information" - be it a book or a website.

http://www.williamtyndale.com/0foxewilliamtyndale.htm

You should buy the book by David Daniell, "The Bible in English".

There's a reason why he dedicates the book To the Memory of William Tyndale, translator of genuis, martyred for giving English readers the Bible from the Original Languages.

A quote from Tyndale himself regarding his translation of the Bible:

"I call God to record against the day we shall appear before our Lord Jesus, that I never altered one syllable of God's Word against my conscience, nor would do this day, if all that is in earth, whether it be honor, pleasure, or riches, might be given me."

Tyndale was a great man, and I will not let a single person like you who posts hate and utter rubbish regarding him get away with it.

The same for John Wycliffe.

But me as a Catholic will sit around while you and yours talk bad about Mary, the Mother of God? And she is nowhere near Tyndale whatsoever.