|
|
Post by alfie on May 23, 2009 10:59:19 GMT -5
Scary. But let's go back to Martin Luther. Why did he change the Bible and why did almost all protestants follow in his footsteps by using the Bible with books removed? Even protestants that are non-Lutheran have followed this man made tradition. Most of them don't realize it though, so it isn't their fault. Like, the quote at the bottom of your posts, alfie, it makes sense now. If you disagree with scripture, just take it out and then you don't have to listen to the authority of popes and councils. Luther gave the common folk the Bible in their native language not in Latin. Would you please tell me what good it did to have a Bible chained in a Catholic Church for the people to read when it was written in Latin? Few people spoke Latin except the higher ups in the Church. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense using Latin in the church when people didn't understand anything that was being spoken but I guess that was why they had so much art in the church. They could have been translating the Bible instead. Luther was well aware that the possibility of many churches would occur when people were given the Bible to read but he felt the salvation message was so evident that most people would understand it and that was the most important thing in the bible. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 23, 2009 11:12:44 GMT -5
Actually, before 1440 when there was no printing press (and no Protestant churches) the only way for the "common folk" to hear the Bible was in a Catholic Church. Since Spanish, French, Italian are so similar to Latin, it was not difficult at all for them to understand the meaning of what was read. Additionally, the priests gave a "sermon" explaining the meaning of the scriptures.
It is completely untrue to say that Luther was the first to give the Bible in their native tongue. It was a Catholic who first printed the Bible to make it available to the masses, and at least 626 editions of the Catholic Bible were printed by the Church, and of these many were in various European languages.
Actually, Luther wouldn't have had any Bible at all, had the Catholic Church not faithfully copied and preserved it through the ages.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2009 11:22:43 GMT -5
Actually, before 1440 when there was no printing press (and no Protestant churches) the only way for the "common folk" to hear the Bible was in a Catholic Church. Since Spanish, French, Italian are so similar to Latin, it was not difficult at all for them to understand the meaning of what was read. Additionally, the priests gave a "sermon" explaining the meaning of the scriptures. It is completely untrue to say that Luther was the first to give the Bible in their native tongue. It was a Catholic who first printed the Bible to make it available to the masses, and at least 626 editions of the Catholic Bible were printed by the Church, and of these many were in various European languages. Actually, Luther wouldn't have had any Bible at all, had the Catholic Church not faithfully copied and preserved it through the ages. Yep. 100% completely true (not open for personal interpretation). ;D But, if a 66 book bible existed before the 16th century, I'd like to see it. I have to give Alfie props for telling the truth in one respect...she called their bible their "own" bible and that's true. The 66 book bible was geared towards non-universal denominational Christians. That cannot be denied as factual by both Catholic or Protestants.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2009 11:29:27 GMT -5
Luther gave the common folk the Bible in their native language not in Latin. A) Latin was the "common" language of people that could actually read (as English is today). B), Luther's bible was in German. (what about the other common folk?) These books were prohibitively time consuming to produce. Each book took years to hand write. They were protected. There was no printing press back then. And...there were no other Churches to keep them in "but" Catholic Churches because there were no other Christians before Catholics before the Protestant Revolt. And, most people that could read read in Latin. Most of the world was illiterate back then. It wasn't the "speaking" of Latin that the Bible was read in Church. It was taught in the language of the region (and not all regions spoke "German"). Again, The Bible was taught in the languages of those who were attending the services, but they couldn't force everybody to learn Latin. Most people were poor back then and there were no schools to teach them. Actually, they did. The Catholic Church was the first Church to translate The Holy Bible into every language and in fact, it was a Catholic who invented The Printing Press and his first commission by The Pope was to begin immediately begin printing Holy Bibles to be distributed around the world. That's why he only translated it in German?  |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 25, 2009 23:13:30 GMT -5
I love Martin Luther quotes.
Here's a good one:
"We are compelled to concede to the Papists (Catholics) that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all."
Martin Luther, commentary on St. John.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrstain on Jun 9, 2009 20:39:05 GMT -5
Actually, before 1440 when there was no printing press (and no Protestant churches) the only way for the "common folk" to hear the Bible was in a Catholic Church. Since Spanish, French, Italian are so similar to Latin, it was not difficult at all for them to understand the meaning of what was read. Additionally, the priests gave a "sermon" explaining the meaning of the scriptures. It is completely untrue to say that Luther was the first to give the Bible in their native tongue. It was a Catholic who first printed the Bible to make it available to the masses, and at least 626 editions of the Catholic Bible were printed by the Church, and of these many were in various European languages. Actually, Luther wouldn't have had any Bible at all, had the Catholic Church not faithfully copied and preserved it through the ages. Right on! Folks need to stop spreading the myth that there were no vernacular translations of God’s written word prior to the 16th century. The first complete vernacular translation that comes to mind for me is the Vulgate (for the common people) which was translated into Latin by St. Jerome in the 4th century. This vital action was even recognized by the translators of the 1611 Authorized Version (aka KJV) who stated in the preface, “ There were also within a few hundred years after CHRIST translations many into the Latin tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many countries of the West, yea of the South, East, and North, spake or understood Latin, being made provinces to the Romans.” Going forward in time, and moving out to the edge of the Empire, there was a vernacular translation of some portion of scripture by Caedmon (an English monk) in the 7th century. In the 8th century there are translations by the Venerable Bede who died while translating the Gospel of John and some say he probably translated the entire bible into the language of the day. In the same century there was also Eadhelm, the Bishop of Sherborne who translated the Psalms and there is Egbert who translated the four Gospels. There were many, many more translations in the common tongue over the centuries and this is actually detailed quite nicely in a place that many Protestants will be surprised to learn – the preface of the 1611 KJV. You'd think as much love they have for the KJV they would actually read the thing. Anyway, far from being imprisoned, the scriptures have been released upon the common tongue since the founding of the Church. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 9, 2009 21:07:09 GMT -5
Welcome to the forum, mrstain.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jun 9, 2009 21:26:33 GMT -5
Yes welcome mrstain. :waving:
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jun 9, 2009 21:51:20 GMT -5
Yes..welcome Mrstain! How about you tell us about yourself...you can do this in the general forum!
|
|
|
|
Post by mrstain on Jun 11, 2009 16:38:19 GMT -5
Thanks for the welcome, everyone! This looks like an interesting Catholic forum and I hope you don't mind if I pop in every now and then.
I'm Southern Baptist raised, by the grace of God, and now I'm receiving many more graces in the Church Jesus founded. Thanks be to God!
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jun 11, 2009 17:12:20 GMT -5
A baptist converted Catholic. This will be interesting Yes please stop in, it will be nice to see what you have to say. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jun 11, 2009 21:01:47 GMT -5
Yes, what a conversion! My husband is southern baptist...but stubborn and wont convert, but he attends my Catholic church so we can go as a family. Im raising my son Catholic...he did not have a say lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 12, 2009 8:24:02 GMT -5
Actually, before 1440 when there was no printing press (and no Protestant churches) the only way for the "common folk" to hear the Bible was in a Catholic Church. Since Spanish, French, Italian are so similar to Latin, it was not difficult at all for them to understand the meaning of what was read. Additionally, the priests gave a "sermon" explaining the meaning of the scriptures. It is completely untrue to say that Luther was the first to give the Bible in their native tongue. It was a Catholic who first printed the Bible to make it available to the masses, and at least 626 editions of the Catholic Bible were printed by the Church, and of these many were in various European languages. Actually, Luther wouldn't have had any Bible at all, had the Catholic Church not faithfully copied and preserved it through the ages. Right on! Folks need to stop spreading the myth that there were no vernacular translations of God’s written word prior to the 16th century. The first complete vernacular translation that comes to mind for me is the Vulgate (for the common people) which was translated into Latin by St. Jerome in the 4th century. This vital action was even recognized by the translators of the 1611 Authorized Version (aka KJV) who stated in the preface, “ There were also within a few hundred years after CHRIST translations many into the Latin tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many countries of the West, yea of the South, East, and North, spake or understood Latin, being made provinces to the Romans.” Going forward in time, and moving out to the edge of the Empire, there was a vernacular translation of some portion of scripture by Caedmon (an English monk) in the 7th century. In the 8th century there are translations by the Venerable Bede who died while translating the Gospel of John and some say he probably translated the entire bible into the language of the day. In the same century there was also Eadhelm, the Bishop of Sherborne who translated the Psalms and there is Egbert who translated the four Gospels. There were many, many more translations in the common tongue over the centuries and this is actually detailed quite nicely in a place that many Protestants will be surprised to learn – the preface of the 1611 KJV. You'd think as much love they have for the KJV they would actually read the thing. Anyway, far from being imprisoned, the scriptures have been released upon the common tongue since the founding of the Church. Out standing explaination! (and welcome aboard!) |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 12, 2009 9:39:32 GMT -5
Thanks for the welcome, everyone! This looks like an interesting Catholic forum and I hope you don't mind if I pop in every now and then. I'm Southern Baptist raised, by the grace of God, and now I'm receiving many more graces in the Church Jesus founded. Thanks be to God! Welcome "home". ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 12, 2009 12:38:16 GMT -5
Yeah, welcome home! I'm convert too (easter 2008)
peace
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 12, 2009 13:15:05 GMT -5
Yes, what a conversion! My husband is southern baptist...but stubborn and wont convert, but he attends my Catholic church so we can go as a family. Im raising my son Catholic...he did not have a say lol. Do you ever attend his Baptist Church? Just curious. |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 12, 2009 13:16:21 GMT -5
Yeah, welcome home! I'm convert too (easter 2008) peace I'm home.... and I'm far away from Rome. |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jun 12, 2009 13:28:50 GMT -5
Yeah, welcome home! I'm convert too (easter 2008) peace I'm home.... and I'm far away from Rome. I'm Home....and I'm far away from Methodisms....far far away from heresies! LOL ;D In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by mrstain on Jun 12, 2009 15:19:22 GMT -5
Yeah, welcome home! I'm convert too (easter 2008) peace I'm home.... and I'm far away from Rome. Yes. It's good to be home, but we should not so easily forget the homes & heritage of our parents, grandparents, on and on back in time. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jun 12, 2009 15:19:23 GMT -5
Yes, what a conversion! My husband is southern baptist...but stubborn and wont convert, but he attends my Catholic church so we can go as a family. Im raising my son Catholic...he did not have a say lol. Do you ever attend his Baptist Church? Just curious. I attended his Baptist church for his sister's baptism.... thought the music was a lil loud....the priest "acted" like he would cry and all of a sudden he was not during his speech. Really did not like the fakeness of it. I was not impressed at all. Plus had problems with the church staff concerning my son because my X mother in law would take him there to sunday school sometimes and she registered him under her lastname and so on. The church would not release to me the original registration form, because i wanted to see it in writing what she had done. They are crooked...could not even get a response from the pastor. |
|
