Ranchers.net Bull Session

This week in Christian History

Any topic that doesn't fit in one of the other Boards.
User avatar
TexasBred
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 4296
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:11 pm
Location: Heart of Texas

Postby TexasBred » Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:27 pm

burnt wrote:It isn't clear from your comment what it is that we are to be comparing. The passage quoted above was taken from Eugene Peterson's paraphrase, "The Message", which is not considered to be a translation as such.

However, is it not rather ironic that Tyndale's excellent and effective work of translation is being subjected to criticism when the actions of the "church" - murder, no less - were a clear violation of the teachings of Christ?

I do not know what Tyndale may have done during his work of translation, or how it may have affected the Gospel message for good or otherwise.

I believe that the Bible as we have it is perfectly capable of communicating God's message and story to us and will accomplish His purposes. And what we have today is a direct result of the work of men like Tyndale and Wycliffe.

Therefore, any criticism of his work could be seen an the equivalent of justification of the murder of William Tyndale. Or, at the very least, a clumsy distraction from his unjustifiable killing.


What we actually have today is a direct result of Tyndale wanting the uneducated to interpret scripture. Like Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch "He said to him, "Do you really grasp what you are reading?" "How can I," the man replied, "unless someone explains it to me?". Protestantism has been splintering every since and continues to do so at an alarming rate as individual congregations even disagree with other congregations of the same denominations on the interpretation of scripture and with no one in authority except those who are self proclaimed.
Nothing but a beggar trying to show other beggars where I found bread.

User avatar
Martin Jr.
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:30 pm
Location: north central Nebraska

Postby Martin Jr. » Mon Oct 06, 2014 9:05 pm

by Matthew A. C. Newsome




Featured eBook



Free eBook: Liturgical Year 2013-2014, Vol. 5

Document Information

Description:
This is an examination of William Tyndale's translation of the Bible (1525) and the reason why he was condemned for heresy.
Larger Work:
This Rock
Pages: 18 – 19
Publisher & Date:
Catholic Answers, Inc., San Diego, CA, December 2002


The new edition of the New International Version (NIV) Bible came out this year. Why is it newsworthy? Because this is the "Inclusive Language Edition," and conservative Protestants everywhere are up in arms. I read of the NIV Inclusive Language Edition while visiting family in Greenville, South Carolina. On Sunday February 24, 2002, the Greenville News ran an article by Deb Richardson-Moore. She wrote that the business of biblical translation can be dangerous, citing as evidence William Tyndale, whom she wrote "was burned at the stake for the heresy of translating the Greek New Testament into English in 1525." She reported that today he's known as "the father of the English Bible."



Phrasing it this way makes it sound as if the heresy Tyndale was condemned for was the act of translating the Bible into English. This is a common mistake and often repeated. In fact, when doing a bit of research for this article, I came across several web sites on Tyndale that said just this. One stated, "Translating the Bible was considered a heresy" (our-world. CompuServe.com/homepages/geoff_whiley/tyndale.htm). Another proclaimed that in 1408 a law was enacted that forbade the translation of the Bible into English and also made reading the Bible illegal (britannia.com/bios/tyndale.html).



Of course, anyone familiar with the history of the Catholic Church, which for 2,000 years has been preserving and protecting the word of God, recognizes how ludicrous this is. It was is only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all. And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available. All Christians everywhere owe it a great debt for that.



So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English illegal? The answer is no. The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.



Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.



It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of Scripture existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, "Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff"). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but encouraged. All this law did was prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.



Which, as it turns out, is just what William Tyndale did. Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.



First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of Scripture at that time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Laws had to be enacted to force people to buy them.



Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.



Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.



Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and went to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).

And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the "father of the English Bible." But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that, "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people."

So troublesome did Tyndale's Bible prove to be that in 1543 — after his break with Rome — Henry VIII again decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."



Ultimately, it was the secular authorities who proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas — not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (the Douay-Rheims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).

When discussing the history of biblical translations, it is common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don't approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale's or Wycliff'ss. These were corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.

Here at least Fundamentalists and Catholics are in ready agreement: Don't mess with the word of God.

User avatar
TexasBred
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 4296
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:11 pm
Location: Heart of Texas

Postby TexasBred » Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:40 am

Protestants ban the reading of the Bible

Interestingly Protestants did officially ban the reading of the Bible.

“1543 was to bring its own catastrophic set-back for the cause of reform, the notorious Act, passed on 10th May, "for the advancement of true religion"... Severe penalties were therefore imposed on those who had or kept any books containing doctrines contrary to those authorised since 1540. The Act targeted unauthorised versions of the scriptures, in particular Tyndale's New Testament, and it forbade altogether the reading of scripture in private by "women… artificers, prentices, journeymen, serving men of the degrees of yeomen or under, husbandmen or labourers.", though noble and gentlewomen might read the Bible in private. Persistent clerical offenders against this Act might be burned, laymen were subject to forfeiture of goods and perpetual imprisonment.”
(Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars pp432-433)
Nothing but a beggar trying to show other beggars where I found bread.

burnt
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 6627
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:57 am
Location: Mid-western Ontario

Postby burnt » Tue Oct 07, 2014 7:52 pm

It's likely news to many to learn that "common" people are endangering their souls by reading their bibles.

It was the failures of institutionalized religion that led to the Reformation.

However, the Reformation, as necessary as it was, should never be equated with "transformation", which is what Christ calls His disciples to.

It is shocking and frightening to contemplate why the "church" is so often averse to truth and light.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root". Henry D. Thoreau.

User avatar
TexasBred
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 4296
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:11 pm
Location: Heart of Texas

Postby TexasBred » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:55 am

burnt wrote:It's likely news to many to learn that "common" people are endangering their souls by reading their bibles.

It was the failures of institutionalized religion that led to the Reformation.

However, the Reformation, as necessary as it was, should never be equated with "transformation", which is what Christ calls His disciples to.

It is shocking and frightening to contemplate why the "church" is so often averse to truth and light.


Actually it was the desire of the leading protestors to each be his own "Pope" that led the revolution. The new protestants immediately began fighting and killing the each others followers and preaching a different gospel, all claiming to be led by the same Holy Spirit. There was certainly no transformation among the protestants.

The Reformation destroyed the unity of faith and ecclesiastical organization of the Christian peoples of Europe, cut many millions off from the true Catholic Church, and robbed them of the greatest portion of the salutary means for the cultivation and maintenance of the supernatural life. Incalculable harm was thereby wrought from the religious standpoint. The false fundamental doctrine of justification by faith alone, taught by the Reformers, produced a lamentable shallowness in religious life. Zeal for good works disappeared, the asceticism which the Church had practised from her foundation was despised, charitable and ecclesiastical objects were no longer properly cultivated, supernatural interests fell into the background, and naturalistic aspirations aiming at the purely mundane, became widespread. The denial of the Divinely instituted authority of the Church, both as regards doctrine and ecclesiastical government, opened wide the door to every eccentricity, gave rise to the endless division into sects and the never-ending disputes characteristic of Protestantism, and could not but lead to the complete unbelief which necessarily arises from the Protestant principles. Of real freedom of belief among the Reformers of the sixteenth century there was not a trace; on the contrary, the greatest tyranny in matters of conscience was displayed by the representatives of the Reformation. The most baneful Caesaropapism was meanwhile fostered, since the Reformation recognized the secular authorities as supreme also in religious matters. Thus arose from the very beginning the various Protestant "national Churches", which are entirely discordant with the Christian universalism of the Catholic Church, and depend, alike for their faith and organization, on the will of the secular ruler. In this way the Reformation was a chief factor in the evolution of royal absolutism. In every land in which it found ingress, the Reformation was the cause of indescribable suffering among the people; it occasioned civil wars which lasted decades with all their horrors and devastations; the people were oppressed and enslaved; countless treasures of art and priceless manuscripts were destroyed; between members of the same land and race the seed of discord was sown. Germany in particular, the original home of the Reformation, was reduced to a state of piteous distress by the Thirty Years' War, and the German Empire was thereby dislodged from the leading position which it had for centuries occupied in Europe. Only gradually, and owing to forces which did not essentially spring from the Reformation, but were conditioned by other historical factors, did the social wounds heal, but the religious corrosion still continues despite the earnest religious sentiments which have at all times characterized many individual followers of the Reformation.
Nothing but a beggar trying to show other beggars where I found bread.

burnt
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 6627
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:57 am
Location: Mid-western Ontario

Postby burnt » Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:44 pm

What you are saying is correct - most of the reformers did not distance themselves enough from the example of the Roman Catholic church.

Luther was practically psychotic in his approach toward his opponents. Zwingli, an ardent opponent of the Anabaptists, died in battle protecting his town. Calvin pursued the death warrants that saw his detractors killed, etc.

On the other hand, the vast majority of the Anabaptists showed a spirit of tolerance and kindness toward those who hated and wanted to kill them.

One example is Dirk Willems who was being pursued, by his persecutor, across a pond in wintertime. When his heavier, would-be captor broke through the ice and faced imminent drowning, the fleeing man turned around and saved his enemy's life.

For this kindness, his enemy turned him over to the authorities who soon had him put to death.

http://www.gracegems.org/C/persecution_ ... ptists.htm

Who showed the spirit of Christ?

Indeed , the best witness to the changed lives of the Anabaptists came from the lips of their fiercest persecutors who claimed that anyone who lived such virtuous lives had to be hypocrites since no one could actually be that Christlike. (Bullinger?)

Were there those of them who missed the mark? Of course there were, Muntzer being the most notable - and there still are those. However, it does not require close examination to understand that such like have abandoned the very ideas which set the Anabaptists apart from the rest of the reformers.

However, the majority of them, in that day, were known to live the kind of lives that mirrored the life of Jesus Christ. It is unfortunate that, in these times, that many of those who profess Anabaptist moorings have discarded the principles that characterized their earliest forerunners.

There are many wrong beliefs that the Reformers carried forward with them, failing to make a clean break with the very institution that they saw as corrupt and misguided.

For instance, as much as the mainstream reformers claimed to believe in the priesthood of all believers (which is indeed a Biblical principle - 1 Peter 2:9)) they sure did not practice it. Rather, they asserted what they believed to be their "God-given" authority, just like the much-abused system that they had hoped to forsake, using it to pronounce death sentences on those who challenged their self-adopted "power"

Whose power is it that pronounces hatred and death, rather than love and blessing?

This discussion characterizes what the Reformation was all about, it appears.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root". Henry D. Thoreau.

User avatar
Martin Jr.
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 4184
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:30 pm
Location: north central Nebraska

Postby Martin Jr. » Thu Oct 09, 2014 5:25 am

I just feel fortunate that I am Catholic, and follow the teachings of the church that have been handed down from the Apostles with no change in doctrine.

There may have been people in the church that made mistakes, but there is no error in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

The Protestant Reformation was brought on more by changes in society than anything the church did. People had become ready to throw off the old serf system of government and to denounce any form of authority.

User avatar
TexasBred
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 4296
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:11 pm
Location: Heart of Texas

Postby TexasBred » Thu Oct 09, 2014 12:02 pm

Martin Jr. wrote:I just feel fortunate that I am Catholic, and follow the teachings of the church that have been handed down from the Apostles with no change in doctrine.

There may have been people in the church that made mistakes, but there is no error in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

The Protestant Reformation was brought on more by changes in society than anything the church did. People had become ready to throw off the old serf system of government and to denounce any form of authority.


All you have to do is turn the tv on today and see the exact things happening that the RCC of the middle ages was accused of doing. Nothing but begging for money, money, money, multi-milliionaire tv preachers most with a very shady history, exorbitant lifestyles, trying to literally scare people "down the aisle" with all this "Left Behind" baloney. And it's spreading !!!!!!!!!!!! Thank God we are having a great revival in the Roman Catholic Church.
Nothing but a beggar trying to show other beggars where I found bread.

burnt
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 6627
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:57 am
Location: Mid-western Ontario

Postby burnt » Sun Oct 12, 2014 5:24 pm

October 12, 1949: "American missionary and martyr Jim Elliot wrote in his journal: 'For my generation I must have the oracles of God in fresh terms.' " (StudyLight.org)

What is fresher or more convincing than words of understanding backed by a life that matches and supports the spoken words?

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus." (Acts 4:12, ESV)

October 13, 1670: "In Virginia, slavery was banned for Negroes who arrived in the American colonies as Christians. (The law was repealed in 1682.)" (SLO)


October 15,1784: "Birth of Thomas Hastings, American sacred composer. Hastings was an albino afflicted with extreme nearsightedness, yet from his pen came such enduring hymn tunes as TOPLADY ("Rock of Ages") and ORTONVILLE ("Majestic Sweetness Sits Enthroned")." (SLO)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM7gt_cSxjw

October 18, 1931: "English apologist C.S. Lewis wrote in a letter: 'The [Christian] "doctrines" are translations into our concepts and ideas of that which God has already expressed in language more adequate, namely the actual incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection.' " (SLO)

Was Lewis saying that there is no need or use for holding doctrines - I don't think so.

However, what he might have meant is that one can cling to the most sound doctrines yet still be missing the mark if that person does not have the equivalent underlying experience which is possible only through having the life of Christ within oneself.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root". Henry D. Thoreau.

User avatar
TexasBred
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 4296
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:11 pm
Location: Heart of Texas

Postby TexasBred » Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:03 pm

burnt wrote:However, what he might have meant is that one can cling to the most sound doctrines yet still be missing the mark if that person does not have the equivalent underlying experience which is possible only through having the life of Christ within oneself.


That is what we Catholics call "Works".........living the faith you proclaim.
Nothing but a beggar trying to show other beggars where I found bread.

burnt
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 6627
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:57 am
Location: Mid-western Ontario

Postby burnt » Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:49 pm

A view to the musical talent born this week in October throughout the centuries...

October 19, 1545: Giovanni Giovenale Ancina (Italy) - Angel dal ciel disceso

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPG-fUwmaA0

October 20, 1828: "Birth of American lawyer Horatio Gates Spafford. In 1873, upon learning of the drowning of his four daughters following a ship collision in the Atlantic, Spafford penned the lines to the hymn, "It is Well With My Soul." " (StudyLight.org)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX_50AERr8M

October 20, 1892: "Birth of Harry Dixon Loes, sacred music educator. A writer of gospel songs and choruses, it was Loes who composed the hymn tune REDEEMER ("Up Calvary's Mountain, One Dreadful Morn")." (SLO)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhPzRlKh4Hk

And yet another composer born October 20, 1908: "Birth of Stuart Hamblen, country songwriter who flourished during the 1950s. His best-remembered Christian songs include "Known Only to Him," "Beyond the Sunset," and "It Is No Secret." " (SLO)

A favorite song of many performed by our own Canadian great, Anne Murray - "It is no Secret"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoVFTMtm-mI

October 21, 1808: "Birth of American Baptist clergyman Samuel Francis Smith. Credited with writing over 100 hymns, Smith is best remembered as the author of "America" ("My Country, 'Tis of Thee"), written at age 23, while a student at Andover Seminary." (SLO)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKZg_ZB4SkU

October 25, 1564: "Birth of Hans Leo Hassler, sacred composer. The first notable German musician educated in Italy, Hassler left a rich musical legacy, including the hymn tune PASSION CHORALE, to which the Church now sings, "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded." " (SLO)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M4uUJibpvw
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root". Henry D. Thoreau.

burnt
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 6627
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:57 am
Location: Mid-western Ontario

Postby burnt » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:41 am

October 26, 1963 "One month before his death at age 65, English apologist C.S. Lewis wrote in a letter addressed to a child: 'If you continue to love Jesus, nothing much can go wrong with you, and I hope you may always do so.' " (StudyLight.org)

Really? "Nothing much can go wrong..."?

What about those who have suffered much or even died because they loved Jesus more than their own life? There are horrible reports coming from ISIS-controlled territories about children being beheaded just because they love Jesus.

Of many others who died because they would not renounce their faith. Of those close to us who suffered greatly or died untimely deaths even though they professed strong faith in Jesus Christ.

Indeed, in the Old Testament account of God's theodicy (intervention in human affairs) and Job's sufferings, his "comforters" charged that his troubles were a result of his sins against God - "confess them and he will bless you again!" How wrong they were.

In light of these harsh realities, was C.S. Lewis speaking blindly or giving false hope to this child when he wrote those seemingly banal words?

We know Lewis's reputation would preclude such a conclusion - he knew of what he spoke.

Because having faith in Jesus Christ does not give his followers a free pass from trouble or suffering in this life - not at all. And that is not what Lewis meant when he offered his words of reassurance to a child.

Christian believers who expect that faith provides a shield from want or suffering are misguided - it has never been so. Since the earliest times of faith, faithful ones have always suffered from the same tragedies as those around them who profess no such faith.

Can God offer special protection to his children? Of course he can, should it suit the purposes of his Kingdom. There are may accounts - Biblical and modern - of miraculous interventions that would support such a statement.

However, we have even the words from Scripture that would provide a stark reality about faith and suffering - "In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted...." (2 Timothy 3:12, NIV) - therefore, want or suffering should come as no surprise to a person of faith.

Indeed, the psalmist/shepherd, David, chosen by God to be the future king of Israel, said this - "You have kept count of my tossings; put my tears in your bottle. Are they not in your book?" (Psalm 56:8, ESV)

What we can take assurance from is the knowledge that regardless of our earthly and temporal circumstances, God always guards the souls of those who love and seek him. Whatever our lot in this life, our eternal destiny is never in doubt if we come to him in faithful obedience!

Therefore, Lewis's words are correct, but before we can understand them, it requires a shift in view beyond the temporal to the eternal.

Thank you Lord, for your faithful care!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWPlKIIDuM0
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root". Henry D. Thoreau.


Return to “Everything Else”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest