Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Perdogg

Is it really true that no one was allowed to read the Bible in vernacular, only in Latin? I confess my ignorance.

Interesting her comparison of the soul to a diamond, covered by dirt. That is 100% in line with Hindu explanation. Same analogy. Truth is truth.


9 posted on 10/07/2008 9:22:43 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: little jeremiah
"Is it really true that no one was allowed to read the Bible in vernacular, only in Latin? I confess my ignorance."

Actually, it's not true, but it is a common misconception. The Bible was translated into the vernacular by early scribes.

10 posted on 10/07/2008 9:24:42 PM PDT by redhead (Alaska--The only state in the Union with dirty Escalades, BMWs, Mercedes, and Jaguars...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: little jeremiah

The printing press was not in use until the end of St. Theresa’s life. Ergo, any copying of the bible was done by monks laboring years with pen and parchment. They didn’t bother with the “vernacular” for obvious reasons. All priests and most religious spoke and read Latin. The bible was made widely available in almost every language on earth as soon as the printing press made it reasonable to do so. Prior to the printing press,most parishes only had one bible, because it took so much work. This is why a gospel passage and an epistle passage are read at every Mass and always have been and always will be.


27 posted on 10/08/2008 1:10:52 PM PDT by Truelove (qui tacet consentit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson