Timebunt gentes nomen tuum Domine
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-09-2013, 08:01 AM
RE: Timebunt gentes nomen tuum Domine
(24-09-2013 07:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-09-2013 06:54 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Conclusion? excubitor sucks at his religion.


Actually, he's quite good at his religion.

It's just that his religion isn't Roman Catholicism. Drinking Beverage

Addendum.

Conclusion? excubitor sucks at his professed religion.


You really are stickler for the details, aren't you? Dodgy

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 08:03 AM
RE: Timebunt gentes nomen tuum Domine
(24-09-2013 08:01 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(24-09-2013 07:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  Actually, he's quite good at his religion.

It's just that his religion isn't Roman Catholicism. Drinking Beverage

Addendum.

Conclusion? excubitor sucks at his professed religion.


You really are stickler for the details, aren't you? Dodgy

I only do it to annoy. Big Grin

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
24-09-2013, 08:26 AM
RE: Timebunt gentes nomen tuum Domine
(24-09-2013 03:21 AM)excubitor Wrote:  
(23-09-2013 01:41 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The old missals had Latin on one side and English on the other so anyone attending a Latin mass could understand exactly what was being said provided they could listen and read along.
This is the first post which I have liked on this forum. Good point.


E-cubed and Blowme...a match made in, er, heaven...yeah that's it.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Anjele's post
27-09-2013, 09:28 PM
RE: Timebunt gentes nomen tuum Domine
(24-09-2013 03:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Historically the Church tortured and killed those who originally tried to translate the Bible into a language understood by the people. The Roman Catholic Church did this not because Latin was a 'holy' language, but because in doing so they lost some of their earthly power; they lost their monopoly in interpreting the book (and thus the word of God as dictated by them) for the people. You no longer had to just take what the Church said at face value, you could read the Bible yourself and think for yourself and come to your own conclusions. This was a good thing, and it was fought tooth and nail by the Church and was one of the forces behind the Protestant Reformation (the dissemination of Bibles in the vulgate made easier by the printing press). It once again came down to politics and mere human power struggles.
"Historically" my foot. You are obviously a lapsed protestant. The church allowed the translation of the scripture into the vernacular for many passages and books of scripture all through history for centuries prior the reformation. The translations of Venerable Bede are an example of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_tra..._the_Bible

The church never prevented these translations and in fact encouraged them. Wycliffe came a cropper because he was a heretic and laced the scriptures with heretical commentary and attacks against the church in the margins. The same was true of Tyndale and a whole array of protestant translations.

In those days anybody who wanted to be educated and engage in any serious discourse in science, law, medicine, education, or religion learned Latin. That situation continued for a very long time after the reformation but nobody accuses science, law, medicine, education of insisting on Latin in order to control the common people by the hoarding of knowledge for political and human power reasons. Which all stands to reason that there is an unconscionable and outrageous bias against the Catholic Church at work here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2013, 09:58 PM
Sad RE: Timebunt gentes nomen tuum Domine
Yet more attempted proof by assertion, by an indoctrinated idiot.
Fail and fail again. Not one reference. Not one.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0726/p21s1.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2013, 03:58 AM
 
RE: Timebunt gentes nomen tuum Domine
(27-09-2013 09:28 PM)excubitor Wrote:  In those days anybody who wanted to be educated and engage in any serious discourse in science, law, medicine, education, or religion learned Latin. That situation continued for a very long time after the reformation but nobody accuses science, law, medicine, education of insisting on Latin in order to control the common people by the hoarding of knowledge for political and human power reasons. Which all stands to reason that there is an unconscionable and outrageous bias against the Catholic Church at work here.

[Image: 1469834-glorious_exposition_comrade_super.jpg]
Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2013, 04:48 AM
RE: Timebunt gentes nomen tuum Domine
(27-09-2013 09:28 PM)excubitor Wrote:  
(24-09-2013 03:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Historically the Church tortured and killed those who originally tried to translate the Bible into a language understood by the people. The Roman Catholic Church did this not because Latin was a 'holy' language, but because in doing so they lost some of their earthly power; they lost their monopoly in interpreting the book (and thus the word of God as dictated by them) for the people. You no longer had to just take what the Church said at face value, you could read the Bible yourself and think for yourself and come to your own conclusions. This was a good thing, and it was fought tooth and nail by the Church and was one of the forces behind the Protestant Reformation (the dissemination of Bibles in the vulgate made easier by the printing press). It once again came down to politics and mere human power struggles.
"Historically" my foot. You are obviously a lapsed protestant. The church allowed the translation of the scripture into the vernacular for many passages and books of scripture all through history for centuries prior the reformation. The translations of Venerable Bede are an example of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_tra..._the_Bible

The church never prevented these translations and in fact encouraged them. Wycliffe came a cropper because he was a heretic and laced the scriptures with heretical commentary and attacks against the church in the margins. The same was true of Tyndale and a whole array of protestant translations.

In those days anybody who wanted to be educated and engage in any serious discourse in science, law, medicine, education, or religion learned Latin. That situation continued for a very long time after the reformation but nobody accuses science, law, medicine, education of insisting on Latin in order to control the common people by the hoarding of knowledge for political and human power reasons. Which all stands to reason that there is an unconscionable and outrageous bias against the Catholic Church at work here.

Outrageous and unconscionable? No, quite rational and within the bounds of humane criticism given the history of the Catholic Church and the weakness of its theology.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2013, 05:13 AM
RE: Timebunt gentes nomen tuum Domine
(27-09-2013 09:28 PM)excubitor Wrote:  "Historically" my foot. You are obviously a lapsed protestant. The church allowed the translation of the scripture into the vernacular for many passages and books of scripture all through history for centuries prior the reformation. The translations of Venerable Bede are an example of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_tra..._the_Bible

The church never prevented these translations and in fact encouraged them. Wycliffe came a cropper because he was a heretic and laced the scriptures with heretical commentary and attacks against the church in the margins. The same was true of Tyndale and a whole array of protestant translations.

In those days anybody who wanted to be educated and engage in any serious discourse in science, law, medicine, education, or religion learned Latin. That situation continued for a very long time after the reformation but nobody accuses science, law, medicine, education of insisting on Latin in order to control the common people by the hoarding of knowledge for political and human power reasons. Which all stands to reason that there is an unconscionable and outrageous bias against the Catholic Church at work here.


And you clearly are an ignorant retard.

I'm not a lapsed anything. I was baptized as a Roman Catholic, but fell out of practice very young. I spent a long time as a simple doubter, an agnostic apatheist, until my father became a really hard-core born again Southern Baptist. That's when I started really studying theology, anthropology, logic, science, etc. to becomes the atheist I am today.


Quote:Although John Wycliffe is often credited with the first translation of the Bible into English, there were, in fact, many translations of large parts of the Bible centuries before Wycliffe's work. The English Bible was first translated from the Latin Vulgate into Old English by a few select monks and scholars.[citation needed] Such translations were generally in the form of prose or as interlinear glosses (literal translations above the Latin words). Very few complete translations existed during that time.[citation needed] Rather, most of the books of the Bible existed separately[citation needed] and were read as individual texts.[citation needed] Thus, the sense of the Bible as history that often exists today did not exist at that time.[citation needed] Instead, an allegorical rendering of the Bible was more common[citation needed] and translations of the Bible often included the writer’s own commentary on passages in addition to the literal translation.

From the Wikipedia link you listed, and I fail to see how any of this 'proves' your point. Also note the long list of [citations needed]. Also his information is listed under the 'Old English' section, when his translation was finished in 1382, centuries after the 1066 Norman conquest of England and the move from Old English to Middle English (1066-1500). You really know how to pick a winner excubitor... Drinking Beverage


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Engl...anslations

Quote:In the late 14th century, John Wycliffe produced the first complete English language Bible — often called Wycliffe's Bible. His New Testament was completed in 1380 and the Old Testament a few years later. It is thought that a large portion of the Old Testament was actually translated by Nicholas Hereford. Some 30 copies of this Bible survive, despite the fact that it was banned. From the time of King Richard II until the time of the English Reformation, Lollards who read Wycliffe's Bible were persecuted. Wycliffe's Bible was revised in the last years of the 14th century, perhaps by John Purvey. This edition was also banned and became even more popular than the first. Some 130 copies exist, including some belonging to the British royal family. All dated copies are dated before the ban.
Sample of Wycliffe's translation:

“ Be not youre herte affraied, ne drede it. Ye bileuen in god, and bileue ye in me. In the hous of my fadir ben many dwellyngis: if ony thing lasse I hadde seid to you, for I go to make redi to you a place. And if I go and make redi to you a place, eftsone I come and I schal take you to my silf, that where I am, ye be. And whidir I go ye witen: and ye witen the wey. (John 14:1-4) ”

Since the Wycliffe Bible conformed fully to Catholic teaching, it was rightly considered to be an unauthorized Roman Catholic version of the Vulgate text but with heretical preface and notes added. This slightly misleading view was held by many Catholic commentators, including Thomas More - and has continued to create confusion on the meaning of an authorised version of the Bible Authorized King James Version and the purpose of authorising an orthodox context for its translation Imprimatur.



The point seems to be that Catholic Church wanted control, and only allowed select translations of select passages that it approved of for it's own purposes. Why hadn't they supported a full and complete translation into English? If Wycliffe translation was so 'terrible', then they should have just released their own 'more accurate' Laughat translation to compete with it. Clearly there was a desire to have the Bible in English. But the Catholic Church didn't do what was good for intellectual honesty, it did what was in it's own best interest; in this case suppressing dissent and the spread of knowledge that threatened it's own power base. It's always petty human politics.

[Image: 2b5.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2013, 05:37 PM
RE: Timebunt gentes nomen tuum Domine
(28-09-2013 05:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The point seems to be that Catholic Church wanted control, and only allowed select translations of select passages that it approved of for it's own purposes. Why hadn't they supported a full and complete translation into English? If Wycliffe translation was so 'terrible', then they should have just released their own 'more accurate' Laughat translation to compete with it. Clearly there was a desire to have the Bible in English. But the Catholic Church didn't do what was good for intellectual honesty, it did what was in it's own best interest; in this case suppressing dissent and the spread of knowledge that threatened it's own power base. It's always petty human politics.

[Image: 2b5.jpg]
Of course they wanted control. What's wrong with that? Does the government want control over its people so that they live law abiding and productive lives? Of course.
What do you want? Anarchy?
Well that is what we have today in the bible translation market. Uncontrolled anarchy with every kind of corrupt variation being passed off as scripture. And who controls these various corrupt variations? The US copyright office who ensures that each new version of the bible is at least 15% different to any other version.
The church allowed every kind of translation of the scripture into English provided it was an accurate translation. It prohibited translations which were incorrect and whose margins contained errors in church teaching and doctrine. What is wrong with that?
Your error is in saying that their desire for control extended to preventing the translation of the scripture into English in order to keep the common people without any opportunity to read the scriptures. That is utterly false. Please retract your incorrect statements and claims.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2013, 05:57 PM (This post was last modified: 28-09-2013 06:53 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Timebunt gentes nomen tuum Domine
Apparently the gentleman (and I use the word loosely) feels the need to cover up the crimes against human intellectual freedom committed by his "church", (and I use that term loosely also.)

In fact, if he had ever gone to school, he would know that the Bible itself was one of the FIRST books put on the Index of Forbidden Books, in 1543, but far earlier had been banned for personal possession by the Council of Toulouse.

America Magazine (a very popular publication written by and for Catholics) agrees.
http://americamagazine.org/issue/517/art...dden-books
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Libro...ohibitorum

In fact, even in modern times, Rome was STILL actively attempting to restrict intellectual freedom, and they readily admit it.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07721a.htm

Pope Innocent III stated in 1199:
... to be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 770-771)
Source: Bridging the Gap - Lectio Divina, Religious Education, and the Have-not's by Father John Belmonte, S.J.

1229 A.D - The Council of Toulouse,
which met in November of 1229, about the time of the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition (Lat. inquisitio, "an inquiry"), to search out and try heretics, (not unlike excubitor). It ruled :

Canon 1. We appoint, therefore, that the archbishops and bishops shall swear in one priest, and two or three laymen of good report, or more if they think fit, in every parish, both in and out of cities, who shall diligently, faithfully, and frequently seek out the heretics in those parishes, by searching all houses and subterranean chambers which lie under suspicion. And looking out for appendages or outbuildings, in the roofs themselves, or any other kind of hiding places, all which we direct to be destroyed.

Canon 6. Directs that the house in which any heretic shall be found shall be destroyed.

Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Edited with an introduction by Edward Peters, Scolar Press, London, copyright 1980 by Edward Peters, ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195, citing S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents [illustrative of the history, doctrine and rites, of the ancient Albigenses & Waldenses], London, Rivington, 1832, pp. 192-194.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: