You wrote:
“Latin is a translation of the Bible.”
No, Latin is a language. The Vulgate is a translation of the Bible.
“The antiquity of the translation may fool the credulous into thinking it was the original language, but it always was and always will be a translation.”
Agreed. Have I ever stated otherwise? Let’s take a look shall we?
Post # 53: “No, it was a translation, but it had existed already for 11 centuries by the time of the Protestant Revolution.”
Post #53: “Yes, it was [a translation] - but it was 11 centuries old and was the only Bible in continuous use in the West for all that time.”
And again, in post #53: “The fact that it was a translation itself was rarely if ever an issue.”
So, there are three separate comments from me stating the obvious to us both - that the Vulgate was a translation. Yet you respond - ignoring everything I said - wrote this:
“If you cannot even keep that salient fact straight in your head there is obviously no ground for discussion with you.”
So, you have no proof about Tyndale then, right?
Tyndall was tried and executed by Catholics for “heresy”. His most famous heresy, and the one that had him flee England, was the translation of the Bible into English.
Many translations of the Bible have been forbidden by the Church's index of forbidden books.