Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radio Replies First Volume - Protestants and the Bible
Celledoor.com ^ | 1938 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

Posted on 07/14/2009 7:45:58 AM PDT by GonzoII

Protestants and the Bible



559. In any case you have to admit that Protestants have more love for Scripture than Catholics. We owe the rediscovery of the Bible chiefly to the early Protestants.

I deny absolutely that Protestants love Scripture more than Catholics. Nor was the Bible ever re-discovered. Through all the centuries it had been carefully transcribed and preserved in Catholic monasteries, and was there already for Luther and others to broadcast.

560. To whom am I indebted for my English Bible?

You are indebted to many collaborators. Between 1525 and 1536 William Tindale translated into English various Greek and Latin copies of the Bible which had been made by Catholic monks, copies which could be traced back to the original Scriptures. Cromwell was not satisfied with Tindale's translation, so commissioned Miles Coverdale to make a new one. Coverdale used and perfected to some extent Tindale's version, and published the "Great Bible" in 1539. Not satisfied with this, a committee of Anglican Bishops revised it, and in 1568 published what is known as the "Bishops' Bible." This was also faulty, and King James 1st of England ordered a new revision. Taking as their basis the Bishops' Bible, a committee oi 47 revisers whose names are not known produced what is known as the "Authorized Version" in 1611. In 1881 a new revised version was published, correcting some 5,000 mistakes in the Authorized Version. Further revision of this "Revised Version" is being demanded.

Thus you owe your English Bible to many unknown revisers, the Bishops of 1568, Miles Coverdale 1539, Tindale 1525, Monastic copyists through the ages, and thence to the originals.

561. Have Catholics a true copy of the Bible as used by Protestants?

Protestants have not a true copy. Their copy contains many mistranslations and omits complete Books. The Catholic Church provides a substantially true copy or version in English for her own subjects.

562. You speak of mistranslations. Do you accuse the Protestant translators of grossly infamous conduct in tampering with the text?

I do. Dixon, in his Introduction to Scripture says, "That the early Protestant translations were full of gross errors no unprejudiced Protestant will now deny, and that these errors were willful, Ward, in his Errata, satisfactorily proves." Bishop Ellicott, in his book, "Considerations on the Revision of the English Version," says that the translation "yields erroneous doctrinal inferences not to be drawn from the original." Blunt, in his "Key to the Knowledge and Use of the Bible," says, "The characters of the translators were not such as to command the respect of men." Robert Gell, chaplain to Archbishop Abbott, one of the revising committee, wrote of the discussions, "Truth was often outvoted. Dogmatic interests were in some cases allowed to bias the translation. The Calvinism of one party, the prelatic views of another, were both represented at the expense of accuracy."

563. What books are omitted from the Protestant Version?

Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the two Books of Machabees, and the various sections of other Books.

564. Is not the Douay Version a poorer rendering into English than the Protestant Version, apart from its Romish viewpoint?

The Douay Version has not a "Romish" viewpoint in the sense of having been deliberately accommodated to Catholic teaching. It is a substantially true Version which, because true, necessarily indicates the Catholic Church as the true Church. For that is the truth of Scripture. From a literary point of view, it is a less beautiful translation than that of the Authorized Version. But why? Merely because it is a more exact translation. When a foreign language, classical or modern, is translated into English, the more one clings to the text, the less purely literary beauty one attains in the new language. To obtain a more beautiful rendering one must translate more freely, thus more or less forfeiting the exact sense of the original. But in the matter of God's Word, we want, not so much literary beauty, but just what God intended. And for that, the Douay Version far surpasses the Authorized Version, despite its rather awkward literary structure at times.

Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History
KEYWORDS: catholic; radiorepliesvolone

Historical Context of "Radio Replies"


By markomalley

If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.

It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.

While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.

And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.

A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.

Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.

The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.

1 posted on 07/14/2009 7:45:58 AM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C.

"I was brought up as a Protestant, probably with more inherited prejudices than most non-Catholics of these days.  My parents were Anglican and taught me the Angelican faith. My 'broad-minded' protestant teachers taught me to dislike the Catholic Church intensely. I later tried Protestantism in various other forms, and it is some thirty years since, in God's providence, I became a Catholic. As for the 'open, free, sincere worship' of a Protestant Church, I tasted it, but for me it proved in the end to be not only open, but empty; it was altogether too free from God's prescriptions."

Eventually, Leslie became a priest of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.

In 1928, Fr. Rumble began a one-hour 'Question Box' program on 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. radio on Sunday evenings that was heard all over Australia and New Zealand. For five years he answered questions on every subject imaginable that had been written to him from all over that part of the globe. His first show began with a classic introduction:

"Good evening, listeners all. For some time I have been promising to give a session dealing with questions of religion and morality, in which the listeners themselves should decide what is of interest to them. Such a session will commence next Sunday evening, and I invite you to send in any questions you wish on these subjects . . . So now I invite you, non-Catholics above all, to send in any questions you wish on religion, or morality, or the Catholic Church, and I shall explain exactly the Catholic position, and give the reasons for it. In fact I almost demand those questions. Many hard things have been said, and are still being said, about the Catholic Church, though no criminal, has been so abused, that she has a right to be heard. I do not ask that you give your name and address. A nom de plume will do. Call yourself Voltaire, Confucius, X.Y.Z., what you like, so long as you give indication enough to recognize your answer."

"By the summer of 1937, the first edition of Radio Replies was already in print in Australia, financed by Rt. Rev. Monsignor James Meany, P.P. - the director of Station 2SM of whom I am greatly indebted."

"I have often been mistaken, as most men at times. And it is precisely to make sure that I will not be mistaken in the supremely important matter of religion that I cling to a Church which cannot be mistaken, but must be right where I might be wrong. God knew that so many sincere men would make mistakes that He deliberately established an infallible Church to preserve them from error where it was most important that they should not go wrong."

Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty

I broadcast my radio program, the Catholic Radio Hour,  from St. Paul, Minnesota.

I was also carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on the Catholic Faith, Radio Replies proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. As many of us street preachers have learned, it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners, but what you get into their hands to read. The questions Fr. Rumble had to answer on the other side of the planet are same the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign."

I realized that this priest in Australia was doing exactly the same work I was doing here in St. Paul. Because of the success of his book, plus the delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe, I got in contact with him to publish a cheap American edition.  

It doesn't take long for the imagination to start thinking about how much we could actually do. We began the Radio Replies Press Society Publishing Company, finished the American edition of what was to be the first volume of Radio Replies, recieved the necessary imprimatur, and Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen agreed to write a preface. About a year after the publication of the first edition in Australia, we had the American edition out and in people's hands.

The book turned into a phenomena. Letters began pouring into my office from every corner of the United States; Protestant Publishing Houses are requesting copies for distribution to Protestant Seminaries; a few Catholic Seminaries have adopted it as an official textbook - and I had still never met Dr. Rumble in person.

To keep a long story short, we finally got a chance to meet, published volumes two and three of Radio Replies, printed a set of ten booklets on subjects people most often asked about, and a few other pamphlets on subjects of interest to us.

Fr. Carty died on May 22, 1964 in Connecticut.

"Firstly, since God is the Author of all truth, nothing that is definitely true can every really contradict anything else that is definitely true. Secondly, the Catholic Church is definitely true. It therefore follows that no objection or difficulty, whether drawn from history, Scripture, science, or philosophy, can provide a valid argument against the truth of the Catholic religion."



Biographies compiled from the introductions to Radio Replies, volumes 1, 2 and 3.

Source: www.catholicauthors.com

2 posted on 07/14/2009 7:46:20 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fidelis; Atomic Vomit; MI; Sir_Humphrey; dsc; annalex
 Radio Replies

Radio Replies Ping

FReep-mail me to get on or off

“The Radio Replies Ping-List”

ON / OFF


3 posted on 07/14/2009 7:47:05 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The Radio Replies Series: Volume One

Chapter One: God

Radio Replies Volume One: God’s Existence Known by Reason
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of God
Radio Replies Volume One: Providence of God and Problem of Evil

Chapter Two: Man

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Man & Existence and Nature of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Immortality of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Destiny of the Soul & Freewill of Man

Chapter Three: Religion

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Religion & Necessity of Religion

Chapter Four: The Religion of the Bible

Radio Replies Volume One: Natural Religion & Revealed Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Mysteries of Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Miracles
Radio Replies Volume One: Value of the Gospels
Radio Replies Volume One: Inspiration of the Gospels

Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 1]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 2]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 3]
Radio Replies Volume One: New Testament Difficulties

Chapter Five: The Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume One: The Religion of the Jews
Radio Replies Volume One: Truth of Christianity
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature and Necessity of Faith

Chapter Six: A Definite Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume One: Conflicting Churches
Radio Replies Volume One: Are All One Church?
Radio Replies Volume One: Is One Religion As Good As Another?
Radio Replies Volume One: The Fallacy of Indifference

Chapter Seven: The Failure of Protestantism

Radio Replies Volume One: Protestantism Erroneous
Radio Replies Volume One: Luther
Radio Replies Volume One: Anglicanism
Radio Replies Volume One: Greek Orthodox Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Wesley

Radio Replies Volume One: Baptists
Radio Replies Volume One: Adventists
Radio Replies Volume One: Salvation Army
Radio Replies Volume One: Witnesses of Jehovah
Radio Replies Volume One: Christian Science

Radio Replies Volume One: Theosophy
Radio Replies Volume One: Spiritualism
Radio Replies Volume One: Catholic Intolerance

Chapter Eight: The Truth of Catholicism

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The true Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Hierarchy of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The Pope
Radio Replies Volume One: Temporal Power

Radio Replies Volume One: Infallibility
Radio Replies Volume One: Unity
Radio Replies Volume One: Holiness
Radio Replies Volume One: Catholicity
Radio Replies Volume One: Apostolicity

Radio Replies Volume One: Indefectibility
Radio Replies Volume One: "Outside the Church no salvation"

Chapter Nine: The Catholic Church and the Bible

Radio Replies Volume One: Not opposed to the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: The reading of the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: Protestants and the Bible

4 posted on 07/14/2009 7:48:38 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
To whom am I indebted for my English Bible?

God.

5 posted on 07/14/2009 8:00:47 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Interesting post. For today’s discussions and answers on Catholicism I recommend Relevant Radio. It is based in the mid-west and available on-line, if you don’t have a station in your area. RR programming is varied and includes Q & A sessions about the Catholic Faith at various times in the day and various days of the week. Go to Relevantradio.com for a schedule.

I listen to RR in the car when the news gets just too heavy, and I particularly like to listen when I’m mowing my lawn which is several acres in depth and breadth. I have a set of noise blocking headphones that incorporates a radio (Stanley at your hardware store) and I just slap them on, tune in, and away I go. I do believe that I do a better job on the lawn when listening to RR.


6 posted on 07/14/2009 8:02:17 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Thanks for the info.


7 posted on 07/14/2009 8:06:41 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody; GonzoII
To whom am I indebted for my English Bible?

God.

Amen ! Brother.

And all the Jews, all of which believed in the Messiah, who penned it.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
8 posted on 07/14/2009 8:18:08 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

****This was also faulty, and King James 1st of England ordered a new revision. Taking as their basis the Bishops’ Bible, a committee oi 47 revisers whose names are not known produced what is known as the “Authorized Version” in 1611. ****

NOT KNOWN!?

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE
KING JAMES VERSION TRANSLATORS

I. The First Westminister Company—translated the historical books, beginning with Genesis and ending with the Second Book of Kings.

Dr. Lancelot Andrews
Dr. John Overall
Dr. Hadrian Saravia
Dr. Richard Clarke, Dr. John Laifield, Dr. Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffry King, Richard Thompson
Dr. William Bedwell

II. The Cambridge Company—translated Chronicles to the end of the Song of Songs.

Edward Lively, Dr. John Richardson, Dr. Lawrence Chaderton
Francis Dillingham, Dr. Roger Andrews, Thomas Harrison, Dr. Robert Spaulding, Dr. Andrew Bing

III. The Oxford Company—translated beginning of Isaiah to the end of the Old Testament.

Dr. John Harding, Dr. John Reynolds
Dr. Thomas Holland, Dr. Richard Kilby
Dr. Miles Smith, Dr. Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough

IV. The Second Oxford Company—translated the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation of St. John the Divine.

Dr. Thomas Ravis, Dr. George Abbot
Dr. Richard Eedes, Dr. Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile
Dr. John Peryn, Dr. Ralph Ravens, Dr. John Harmar

V. The Fifth Company of Translators at Westminster—translated all of the Epistles of the New Testament

Dr. William Barlow, Dr. John Spencer, Dr. Roger Fenton, Dr. Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins, Michael Rabbet, [Thomas(?)] Sanderson

VI. The Sixth Company of Translators at Cambridge translated the apocryphal books.

Dr. John Duport, Dr. William Brainthwaite, Dr. Jeremiah Radcliffe
Dr. Samuel Ward
Dr. Andrew Downes, John Bois
Dr. John Ward, Dr. John Aglionby, Dr. Leonard Hutten
Dr. Thomas Bilson, Dr. Richard Bancroft


9 posted on 07/14/2009 10:43:20 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (La commedia e' finita!. Now it's serious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012

God and the Jews “penned” the English Bible?


10 posted on 07/14/2009 10:46:49 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

***Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the two Books of Machabees, and the various sections of other Books. ****

The original 1611 KJV had all these in it. They were removed later by others, but not by the first translators of the 1611.

You can still get these in a separate printing.


11 posted on 07/14/2009 10:48:16 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (La commedia e' finita!. Now it's serious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

***You are indebted to many collaborators. Between 1525 and 1536 William Tindale translated into English various Greek and Latin copies of the Bible which had been made by Catholic monks, copies which could be traced back to the original Scriptures. Cromwell was not satisfied with Tindale’s translation, so commissioned Miles Coverdale to make a new one. Coverdale used and perfected to some extent Tindale’s version, and published the “Great Bible” in 1539. Not satisfied with this, a committee of Anglican Bishops revised it, and in 1568 published what is known as the “Bishops’ Bible.” This was also faulty, and King James 1st of England ordered a new revision.***

From the translator to the Reader 1611 KJV preface
...
• 2 Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,..... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.


12 posted on 07/14/2009 10:57:50 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (La commedia e' finita!. Now it's serious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

You can still get these in a separate printing.

I’m glad to hear that but sad to say they’ve lost Scriptural authority among Protestants.


13 posted on 07/14/2009 11:23:43 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

NOT KNOWN!?

Were they known and listed in the 1611 edition?


14 posted on 07/14/2009 11:26:30 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Were they known and listed in the 1611 edition?

Did they have to be when there are so many books that list them?

http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0059.htm

The Learned Men

The Translators of the Authorised Version of the Holy Bible in English A.D. 1611


15 posted on 07/14/2009 11:40:13 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (La commedia e' finita!. Now it's serious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

“560. To whom am I indebted for my English Bible?”

You are indebted to the Church who steadfastly preserved the bible for 1500 years.

The translators of the Authorized edition themselves acknowledge the fact that Wycliffe didn’t produce the first english bible, like Luther didn’t produce the first german bible. And the first book ever printed was, guess what, the Bible at the command and by the expense of the Church.

You won’t find the english versions predating the reformation because when Henry VIII ordered the looting and burning of the churches and monasteries they were destroyed.


16 posted on 07/14/2009 11:42:43 AM PDT by lucias_clay (Its times like this I'm glad I'm a whig.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Did they have to be when there are so many books that list them?

If that be the case than an oversight must be attributed to the the two Fathers.

Nonetheless they are still good reading.


17 posted on 07/14/2009 11:47:41 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lucias_clay

“You won’t find the english versions predating the reformation because when Henry VIII ordered the looting and burning of the churches and monasteries they were destroyed.”

You won’t find them because the people who produced them were killed by the Roman Church for it. Producing and distributing an English (or any other vernacular) Scripture was tantamount to high witchcraft, heresy and apostacy and worthy of a hideous death at the stake.


18 posted on 07/14/2009 11:53:48 AM PDT by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

It must take an incredible amount of hubris, or purposeful ignorance of history, for a Roman theologian to look at an English language Bible and thank the Roman Church for its existence.

Should we thank George Wallace for the ending of segregation?


19 posted on 07/14/2009 11:57:30 AM PDT by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

It must take an incredible amount of hubris, or purposeful ignorance of history, for a Roman theologian to look at an English language Bible and thank the Roman Church for its existence.

No, it’s just plain historical fact. No Catholic Church no Bible in any language.


20 posted on 07/14/2009 12:06:09 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

You realize that the protestants were engaged in precisely the same thing you accuse the Church of ?

Burning Bibles,
Hanging, Beheading, Torturing, Burning of corpses all because of the Christian faith of their victims,
Destroying libraries and books because they were “superstitious”

You realize that even the translators of the KJV ( Authorized Edition ) in 1611 declared that Wycliffe was not the first to translate into English. That they also used the large number of vernacular translations the Church produced as the basis of their justification of their own translation and that this was published in the KJV ?

You are no doubt aware that many of the folks in Foxes portrayed as “a humble preacher” killed for his faith was in leauge with folks who had sworn, and were led by preachers and self proclaimed prophets to destroy all castles, monestaries, all Lords and were taxing and raising their own armies right before they “humble preachers” were attacked by the existing rulers.

I know you do not realize it and you will not believe me. But someday look up a non protestant source of history.


21 posted on 07/14/2009 12:48:04 PM PDT by lucias_clay (Its times like this I'm glad I'm a whig.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

They remained in printings of the KJV until the 1820s when the Bible societies removed them. Though they may have had prefaces objecting to them.

There was one or two single runs of the KJV about 8 years after 1611 without but then they were right back in there.

Yes it is sad they lost authority for protestants since Christ and the Apostles all used them as scripture in the scripture of the New Testament.

Protestants ironically accept post Christian Jewish Tradition over Church Tradition even though the same Jewish tradition denied the Saviour himself.


22 posted on 07/14/2009 12:58:38 PM PDT by lucias_clay (Its times like this I'm glad I'm a whig.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lucias_clay
For those interested: The Third Millennium Bible comprises all the books contained in the A.D. 1611 Authorized Version including the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical Books), placed in the same order as in the original. All are carefully updated and presented in modern, easy-to-read format, making it truly A Bible for all of Christendom

23 posted on 07/14/2009 1:05:29 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: lucias_clay

Look, I know some Protestants did some pretty awful things to Catholics, anyone who resembled a Catholic (like Archbishop Laud), and even each other. There’s no excuse for it.


24 posted on 07/14/2009 1:24:00 PM PDT by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

***“You won’t find the english versions predating the reformation because when Henry VIII ordered the looting and burning of the churches and monasteries they were destroyed.”

You won’t find them because the people who produced them were killed by the Roman Church for it.***

Name just one person killed by any Catholic Church for producing an English language bible. One will do.

The first English language Scripture that we know of was done by a great Doctor of the Church - the Venerable Bede whose translations are now lost. His Gospel of John was translated into Old English just before 735.


25 posted on 07/14/2009 5:10:16 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lucias_clay

***Yes it is sad they lost authority for protestants since Christ and the Apostles all used them as scripture in the scripture of the New Testament.***

I had a conservative (and Irish) Church of Christ preacher bark in my face that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for me.

I agreed with him on the spot.


26 posted on 07/14/2009 5:46:47 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

“Name just one person killed by any Catholic Church for producing an English language bible. One will do.”

William Tyndale. He was the first person to produce an English langauge Bible translated directly from Hebrew and Greek texts. He did this work in Worms and brought the Bibles to England. For this Cardinal Wolsey condemned him as a heretic and demanded his arrest. He was betrayed in Germnay, tried and suffered martyrdom at the stake.


27 posted on 07/14/2009 5:56:14 PM PDT by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

***“Name just one person killed by any Catholic Church for producing an English language bible. One will do.”

William Tyndale. He was the first person to produce an English langauge Bible translated directly from Hebrew and Greek texts. He did this work in Worms and brought the Bibles to England. For this Cardinal Wolsey condemned him as a heretic and demanded his arrest. He was betrayed in Germnay, tried and suffered martyrdom at the stake.***

Applause. Let us now examine the good burgher Tyndale’s fate. He wrote a bad translation even though a Catholic priest, and against Church orders. He published it. And ran. Now, who had him arrested and executed? King Henry VIII. After he overthrew the Church in England. No Catholic apologist, he.

For extra bonus points, why don’t you tell us why the anti Catholic Henry had Tyndale executed in Belgium?


28 posted on 07/14/2009 6:12:01 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

Actually, Henry VIII was very devoted to Catholic doctrines. Check out the Six Articles.

A couple of more: John Hus. John Rogers.

The first English language Bible allowed by the Catholic Church was the Rheims Bible (1582), which was translated directly from the Vulgate. The work of Tyndale, Rogers, Erasmus, etc had been translated directly from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (the original languages of the Bible).


29 posted on 07/14/2009 6:30:12 PM PDT by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

AMEN.


30 posted on 07/14/2009 7:24:44 PM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012

Amen again.


31 posted on 07/14/2009 7:25:25 PM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Thank you!


32 posted on 07/14/2009 7:26:13 PM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

***I had a conservative (and Irish) Church of Christ preacher bark in my face that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for me.****

That’s because the Church of Christ believes all the early church fathers were “campbellites”. ;-D

And the Cooneyites say they were theirs.
And the baptists claim they were origionally Baptists.And so on and so on.


33 posted on 07/14/2009 7:31:53 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (La commedia e' finita!. Now it's serious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

***Actually, Henry VIII was very devoted to Catholic doctrines. Check out the Six Articles.***

Some of the doctrines. The point is that the Tyndale incident was three years after Henry took over the English Church. He had no love for the Pope and did not follow his orders. Tyndale was not executed by the Pope or on his orders; he was not even executed regarding the bible that he published.

Jan Hus was not executed for publishing an English language Bible. He was executed for publishing the inflammatory and heretical “De sex erroribus” (which he posted on the wall of the Bethlehem Chapel in Prague), and “De ecclesiâ”. He went before the Council of Constance and was convicted of spreading heretical doctrine.

John Rogers was not executed for publishing an English language Bible. He was executed for treason against the Crown and for heresy against the Church (the nature of the Church and the Sacraments).

***The first English language Bible allowed by the Catholic Church was the Rheims Bible (1582), which was translated directly from the Vulgate.***

Mostly, that is correct.

***The work of Tyndale, Rogers, Erasmus, etc had been translated directly from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (the original languages of the Bible).***

There is a whole lot of information as to where these guys got their information. I’ll try to address it when I have more time.
The first English language Bible allowed


34 posted on 07/15/2009 10:41:31 AM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

******I had a conservative (and Irish) Church of Christ preacher bark in my face that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for me.****

That’s because the Church of Christ believes all the early church fathers were “campbellites”. ;-D

And the Cooneyites say they were theirs.
And the baptists claim they were origionally Baptists.And so on and so on.***

Largely correct. I believe it was another CofC preacher in Texas that informed me (while on the subject of Spanish speaking in the US), that if English was good enough for Jesus it was good enough for us.

Two preachers in the CofC, same justification for two different points.

The CofC is an interesting phenomenon. The notable Sidney Rigdon, a chief writer of doctrines along with Campbell fils, went over to the Mormons and became the chief theologian for Joseph Smith.


35 posted on 07/15/2009 10:45:08 AM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

So it was perfectly acceptable to execute people for disagreeing with Catholic doctrines?


36 posted on 07/15/2009 1:32:19 PM PDT by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

***So it was perfectly acceptable to execute people for disagreeing with Catholic doctrines?***

Realistically speaking, the Church did not put people to death. Upon conviction of heresy against the Christian God, the person was turned over to the civil authorities to handle them as the civil law was written.

I believe that the Second Helvetic Confession in Chapter 30 says: Therefore, let him draw this sword of God against all malefactors, seditious persons, thieves, murderers, oppressors, blasphemers, perjured persons, and all those whom God has commanded him to punish and even to execute. Let him suppress stubborn heretics (who are truly heretics), who do not cease to blaspheme the majesty of God and to trouble, and even to destroy the Church of God.

Here is a difference between the Catholics’ treatment of heretics and certain Protestants’.


37 posted on 07/17/2009 1:17:15 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: lucias_clay

“Yes it is sad they lost authority for protestants since Christ and the Apostles all used them as scripture in the scripture of the New Testament.”

No, Jesus and the Apostles did NOT quote from the Apocrypha.


38 posted on 08/10/2009 7:55:00 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

bump


39 posted on 08/10/2009 8:41:25 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

You know I grew up hearing that myself and even telling it to other people believing it to be the truth.

It may surprise you that even the venerable King James Bible itself as originally published included cross references between the apocrypha and the new testament. This was something known to the translators of the King James Version but somewhere along the way that was removed and now we find many sincere people claiming it was never used. There remains in my Cambridge edition of the KJV a single cross reference between Hebrews and 2 Maccabees, though the bound volume I have does not include the apocrypha.

For one example of Paul relating a teaching directly from the apocrypha compare Romans 1:18-24 with Wisdom of Solomon 13:1-10. You can find both texts available online.

In fact Christ teaches directly from Wisdom of Solomon as related in Matthew. You will find references to the apocryphal works, in the same way as they refer to other scripture,

Peace to you.


40 posted on 08/10/2009 4:50:29 PM PDT by lucias_clay (I got feathers whose got tar ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: lucias_clay

Cross references and quotes are not the same. A cross reference just means the same topic or word appeared elsewhere, and no one denies that some parts of the Apocrypha are IAW scripture. In fact, the rule of thumb seemed to be that they were good for general reading, but not good for doctrine or teaching.

There are close to 300 quotes from the OT in the New.

Jude has this referencing the Apocrypha: “14It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Of course, Paul also quotes pagans: “28for “’In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “’For we are indeed his offspring.’ “ - Acts 17

And, “12 One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” - Titus 1:12.

See a chart of many of the quotes here:

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

All told, there are good reasons for the Protestant (and Jerome’s!) reluctance about the Apocrypha.


41 posted on 08/10/2009 5:11:55 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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