Sans Scripture, Evolution?

[Tomk80]

http://www.restorationfoundation.org/volume_3/32_6.htm

100 AD romans were not jewish.

 

[Nathan Poe]

100 AD romans were not jewish.

An inconvenient fact which will, no doubt, take a hike.

 

[Tiberius]

AV, let me rephrease my question so that there is no chance that you can misunderstand (although I suspect you are simply dodging the issue).

At what point in history were people able to have their own personal Bibles in their homes to read instead of only being able to hear priests reading the Bible in church? People as in the common populace?

Now just answer the question.

 

[Tomk80]

An inconvenient fact which will, no doubt, take a hike.

No doubt. It's getting busy on the hiking trails.

 

[Psudopod]

My Bible is complete, though; the fact that scientists contend that nothing is complete causes problems with them, as they try and apply that to the Bible, and think that the Bible should be updated as well. Only it doesn't work that way.

That's fine, the bible might be complete. But it doesn't contain every piece of knowledge avaliable to humanity, does it? Again, this isn't a problem with the bible - it's job isn't to layout the periodic table, or the structure of the atom etc. But when man works something out for himself, he's not omnicient, so he isn't going to have all the answers at once.

 

[AV1611VET]

At what point in history were people able to have their own personal Bibles in their homes to read instead of only being able to hear priests reading the Bible in church? People as in the common populace?

How would I know?

If I had to guess, I would say 100 AD --- and if "priests" were reading the Bible in church, you can bet they were reading them at home as well. If I was a "priest" back then, I'd make sure the members of my congregation had One too.

 

[Tomk80]

How would I know?

If I had to guess, I would say 100 AD --- and if "priests" were reading the Bible in church, you can bet they were reading them at home as well. If I was a "priest" back then, I'd make sure the members of my congregation had One too.

Well, you weren't a priest back then and people didn't have scripture at home back then (given that the bible as such didn't exist until 200 years later). Paper was expensive, written documents were never mass-produced (no printing press) and only few people could read.

People didn't get personal bibles at home until after 1500, when Luther wrote when of the first translations of the bible to a language people actually could understand (in his case, German). Before that, all bibles were in latin, and hence incomprehensible to anyone not reading latin (ie, everybody except those few who had either a religious or political education). Only after that, in the 1600s, did bibles in the native tongue of the general population become available. Books only became available to the general populace after the 1400's with the invention of the printing press and movable type.

Really, how can you be so ignorant about this? (this is a serious question of me by the way, how can you not know this?)

 

[AV1611VET]

That's fine, the bible might be complete. But it doesn't contain every piece of knowledge avaliable to humanity, does it?

Does yours? Does it even contain 1/10 of 1%? For instance, does your McGraw-Hill Bible, Astronomy Edition, contain information on photosynthesis? Or does the McGraw-Hill Bible, Geology Edition contain information on NSAIDs?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

How would I know?

If I had to guess, I would say 100 AD --- and if "priests" were reading the Bible in church, you can bet they were reading them at home as well. If I was a "priest" back then, I'd make sure the members of my congregation had One too.

Quote:

In the 1490’s another Oxford professor, and the personal physician to King Henry the 7th and 8th, Thomas Linacre, decided to learn Greek. After reading the Gospels in Greek, and comparing it to the Latin Vulgate, he wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians.” The Latin had become so corrupt that it no longer even preserved the message of the Gospel… yet the Church still threatened to kill anyone who read the scripture in any language other than Latin… though Latin was not an original language of the scriptures.

As i though, the bible is nothing but a bad translation, but which version is correct.

i submit both to be equally wrong

 

[Psudopod]

Does yours? Does it even contain 1/10 of 1%? For instance, does your McGraw-Hill Bible, Astronomy Edition, contain information on photosynthesis? Or does the McGraw-Hill Bible, Geology Edition contain information on NSAIDs?

I don't have a bible. The sum of human knowledge isn't located in one place.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, you weren't a priest back then and people didn't have scripture at home back then (given that the bible as such didn't exist until 200 years later). Paper was expensive, written documents were never mass-produced (no printing press) and only few people could read.

And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Now granted, this wasn't the completed Scriptures at the time, but I don't see your point, anyway.

So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

AV your faith is defernatly in the words of men.

Quote

This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press. A typographical discrepancy in Ruth 3:15 rendered a pronoun "He" instead of "She" in that verse in some printings. This caused some of the 1611 First Editions to be known by collectors as "He" Bibles, and others as "She" Bibles. Starting just one year after the huge 1611 pulpit-size King James Bibles were printed and chained to every church pulpit in England; printing then began on the earliest normal-size printings of the King James Bible. These were produced so individuals could have their own personal copy of the Bible.

John Bunyan


The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them. While many Protestants are quick to assign the full blame of persecution to the Roman Catholic Church, it should be noted that even after England broke from Roman Catholicism in the 1500’s, the Church of England (The Anglican Church) continued to persecute Protestants throughout the 1600’s. One famous example of this is John Bunyan, who while in prison for the crime of preaching the Gospel, wrote one of Christian history’s greatest books, Pilgrim’s Progress. Throughout the 1600’s, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King’s Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible.

LINK

 

[AV1611VET]

Quote:

In the 1490’s another Oxford professor, and the personal physician to King Henry the 7th and 8th, Thomas Linacre, decided to learn Greek. After reading the Gospels in Greek, and comparing it to the Latin Vulgate, he wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians.” The Latin had become so corrupt that it no longer even preserved the message of the Gospel… yet the Church still threatened to kill anyone who read the scripture in any language other than Latin… though Latin was not an original language of the scriptures.

As i though, the bible is nothing but a bad translation, but which version is correct.

i submit both to be equally wrong

The prevailing Scriptures in 1490 was the AV1389 Wycliffe Version - in English. It was the KJV of It's time, and I'm sure there were people who were WVO - (Wycliffe Version Only).

 

[Nathan Poe]

Now granted, this wasn't the completed Scriptures at the time, but I don't see your point, anyway.

I don't see anything in those passages which mentions reading. Anyone who knows the Bible half as well as you claim to should know that it was passed on orally long before anyone put it to paper.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It was the KJV of It's time

So it was a mistraslated screwup as well?

 

[Tomk80]

Now granted, this wasn't the completed Scriptures at the time, but I don't see your point, anyway.

The point I and everybody has been making is fairly simple.

People couldn't read. They didn't have bibles, nor scriptures. They just had to take as given what was passed on to them by word of mouth by the few people who could read and write. Even if they could, until around 1300/1400 when people began to translate bibles into english, even if those people could write they wouldn't be able to understand, given that the texts were not in their native tongue.

How hard can it be to understand that?

 

[AV1611VET]

America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible.

That is correct --- the Geneva Bible, of which I have a copy, was God's choice for the Pilgrims and early America. Why? I don't know, but after independence was declared from England, the King James Version took the throne as God's choice for the world.

ETA: just FYI, we are not, nor ever have been, Protestants.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't see anything in those passages which mentions reading. Anyone who knows the Bible half as well as you claim to should know that it was passed on orally long before anyone put it to paper.

And again, what is the point you're making?

 

[Nathan Poe]

That is correct --- the Geneva Bible, of which I have a copy, was God's choice for the Pilgrims and early America. Why? I don't know, but after independence was declared from England, the King James Version took the throne as God's choice for the world.

Could it be because popularity, not God, was behind it?

 

[AV1611VET]

How hard can it be to understand that?

Not hard to understand at all. Do I believe it though? Not for a second.