- May 19, 2015
- 125,550
- 28,531
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Acts doesn't hold up poor education as a good thing, but comments that peopel were amazed at what was coming from these country bumpkins.
Ahhh.....what other option would you like to have seen?None of the options was satisfactory.
Yes, thank you. In those two documents religious is used primarily as an adjective and does not appear as a noun until well into the documents at which time it seems to be a type of shorthand for religious (members or people). Do you think this is a result of translation difficulties from Latin to English or just a colloquialism common to Catholicism in general? It does seem to be of relatively recent origin, at least as far as I have observed it.
Perhaps you can tell us what translations were available of what exactly in the English of Tyndale's day? A Saxon or Old English Version is no more in Tyndale's Early Modern English than a Latin one is. Bearing in mind that this was a period when the English language was rapidly changing and many older translations like the Lollard bibles, which weren't very good in the first place being very literal translations out of latin, were pretty unreadable by Tyndale's period. To make a fair assessment we need to consider what exactly was available, what the period and quality of the english was, how accessable it was, how available and at what price.I did a keyword search and found that the term was used at the Council of Vienne in the 1300s, so it seems to be used in that context as a noun at least that long.
Council of Vienne 1311-1312 A
And just so LLOJ doesn't think I'm still sidetracking his thread...I would like to say that I did vote in the poll. Tyndale was wrong to consider himself superior interpreter of Scripture. Modern Protestants try to make it out that "Tyndale wanted a vernacular translation and the Catholic Church did not." That is fanciful history. There were numerous vernacular Old English translations done by Catholics prior even to Wycliff who long preceded Tyndale. Tyndale was opposed not for merely wanting a vernacular translation but for translating in such a way that the Church considered it fallacious. It was even filled with Tyndale's personal commentary condescending of the Catholic Church.
Update Tyndale's spelling and its still a very good, readable and reliable New Testament today, and it was very cheap and available. Could similar be said for anything that was already out there in Tyndale's England?
I've already insisted on distinguishing between the particulars of the Catholic church in Tyndale's time and place and what has been true of the Catholic church always and everywhere. There have been times and places the Catholic church has been at the forefront of making the bible accessable, and times and places where it has resisted that. Tyndale's England was one of the latter, and it was in light of that and other issues within that local church, at least some of which were genuine issues that he believed would be solved by good teaching and access to scripture, that he did what he did.If you were 100% right about Tyndale, it does not change the fact that the Catholic Church has wrongfully been accused of not wanting vernacular translations, which was the point. Because the Church didn't think Tyndale should make a new translation doesn't change that.
Would make for an interesting threadIf you were 100% right about Tyndale, it does not change the fact that the Catholic Church has wrongfully been accused of not wanting vernacular translations, which was the point. Because the Church didn't think Tyndale should make a new translation doesn't change that.
I noticed that a big Schism happened not too long after Joan D'Arc was burnt at the stake also .. was there a thread for that?
Was Tyndale the only Reformer to go against Roman Catholic dogma/doctrines?
And how do others here view him? Thanks
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html
A clergyman hopelessly entrenched in Roman Catholic dogma once taunted Tyndale with the statement, “We are better to be without God’s laws than the Pope’s”.
Tyndale was infuriated by such Roman Catholic heresies, and he replied, “I defy the Pope and all his laws.
If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!”
There is only one "resurrection" I hope forYeah totally closed .. hard to resurrect those eh? hehehe .
I think there was a guy named waldo who opted to give his wealth to the poor instead of the pope and was on the run for a long time ..
Sid anyone mention the Cathars? I think they were the first defiers to be met with violence, anyway. I'm pretty sure the Waldensians were victimized as well.
The Two Swords doctrine is what happened.It's in the Bull titled "Unam Sanctum".whatever happened to . we do not fight with carnal weapons . but with spiritual weapons that break down arguments that set themselves up against the knowledge of God?
doesn't the resort to physical violence demonstrate the views you were defending were being defended by your carnal nature? what substance do they have then?
We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal”
The swords being referred to are a customary reference to the swords yielded by the Apostles upon Christ's arrest, which were said to have been buried next to the Apostle Peter. Early theologians believed that if there are two swords one must be subordinate to the other. It then became a spiritual hierarchal ladder, the spiritual judges the secular "on account of its greatness and sublimity, while the lower spiritual power is judged by the higher spiritual power, etc. Thus, it was concluded, the temporal authorities must submit to the spiritual authorities, not merely on matters concerning doctrine and morality: "For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgment if it has not been good."
The Bull ends with:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.]"
Who you gonna believe an Oxonian professor or the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH!
Besides, how has all that separation worked out for you all, you know, with Wesley and the bishops and all that?
I can see why the bishop wouldn't want Tyndale translating the Sacred Scriptures. His translation betrays his theological agenda as. All this proves to me is that the Sacred Scriptures need a guardian and an authentic interpretter. I mean, given the number of translations available to us today, where does it end? Anyone can skew the Word to whatever end they please.
I disagree. I think the word Church encompasses all those things. You ever read the vast Lumen Gentium on the dimensions of the Church (I know you've read other stuff like Spe Salvi)? Perhaps Catholics have a more dynamic understanding of the word "Church" that more closely resembles ekklesia.
But would you say there is a better English word to use for ekklesia?
Should we ignore any claims from a Catholic website, is that the rule?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?