=============================================
These are some myths that Protestants may tell you about the origin of the Bible -- click on the myth to see my refutations!
=============================================
False Protestant Myth:
Until after the Reformation, the Catholic Church was preventing the Bible from reaching the eyes of the common people
False Protestant Myth:
False Protestant Myth:
=============================================
=============================================
These are some myths that Protestants may tell you about the origin of the Bible
=============================================
False Protestant Myth:
"If the Catholic religion had its way, we'd still be in ignorance about the Bible and enslaved to the pope."
[Culled from: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm]
=============================================
My Refutation:
So far from keeping the people in ignorance about the Bible, the Church had begun printing bibles as soon as the printing press was invented (by a faithful Catholic named Johannes Gutenberg) in 1439. For one of Gutenberg's first works was to cooperate with Cardinal Mazarin in printing 180 copies of the Bible and in distributing them widely. And that was only of the first Gutenberg bible! Many more bibles of other editions soon followed.
Now, I ask you, who do you think these bibles were being printed for? Protestants? Hardly. Gutenberg was dead before Martin Luther was born. Anyone who uses an argument like the one that is quoted above, is either ignorant of these facts, or he thinks that the Church's best attempt at suppressing the Bible was by printing the Bible -- and to take either of those positions is to forsake all credibility.
Now, I ask you, who do you think these bibles were being printed for? Protestants? Hardly. Gutenberg was dead before Martin Luther was born. Anyone who uses an argument like the one that is quoted above, is either ignorant of these facts, or he thinks that the Church's best attempt at suppressing the Bible was by printing the Bible -- and to take either of those positions is to forsake all credibility.
=============================================
=============================================
These are some myths that Protestants may tell you about the origin of the Bible
=============================================
False Protestant Myth:
"John Wyclif (1328?-1384) is probably the-best-known of these Early Reformers. ...he brought out a translation of the Bible from the Vulgate in 1382-84. This was the first English version of the Scriptures, and it enjoyed a wide circulation despite repression by the Catholic Church."
[Culled from: http://www.bible.ca/history/eubanks/history-eubanks-25.htm]
"let's review how [the Catholic Church] treated a man who simply wanted to get the Bible into the hands of the common people. In the late 1300s John Wycilf [sic] translated the scriptures from the Latin Vulgate. Some 40 odd years after his death, the Catholic religion dug up his bones and burned them calling him an arch-heretick."
[Culled from: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm]
=============================================
My Refutation:
It is a mountainous mis-characterization to say that John Wyclif "simply wanted to get the Bible into the hands of the common people" -- why should the Church condemn that, when she had applauded it in so many others? For indeed, she had already made a saint of Jerome for translating the Bible into Latin, which was the language of all the world. And she published that translation with fanfare, and had it hand-copied by her monks. And contrary to the myth above, some of her holy men, upon receiving these holiest of volumes, went right to work bringing them into the languages which they commonly spoke for the benefit of all the people.
Let me give an example of two such men. One was named William of Shoreham; one was named Richard Rolle. Both were contemporaries of John Wyclif, and both produced translations of many Scriptures decades before his own:
For comparison, here is Wyclif's Isaiah 35:1-6:
Let me give an example of two such men. One was named William of Shoreham; one was named Richard Rolle. Both were contemporaries of John Wyclif, and both produced translations of many Scriptures decades before his own:
For comparison, here is Wyclif's Isaiah 35:1-6:
Rolle's translation "was [held] in high esteem and [was] widely diffused in the century after it was written."* To make the Bible popular was his goal; for he had lamented that "[the] holy writ lay sleeping while men understood it not."** Indeed, he wrote of his own translation, "In this work I seek no strange English but easiest and commonest...so that they that shall read it, need not dread erring."*** Now here, if ever, was a man who "simply wanted to get the Bible into the hands of the common people," yet the Church did not condemn him. So, clearly, Wyclif was condemned for something else; and what was the difference?
The difference was, Wyclif boasted against the Church, whereas Rolle was a humble servant. Wyclif was a populist -- he would rather hear his own praises sung than listen to "those whom the Holy Spirit has set as bishops over the Church." (Acts 20:28) But Rolle, on the other hand, was a hermit who cared not for the things of this world, but only to serve the Church. Now who, must I ask, was better equipped to the task of the Word of God, Wyclif or Rolle? By answering you shall silence yourself, O Protestant -- for if you still say that the unholy man should have handled the holiest Book, you have blasphemed the word of the Lord; but if you say he was not qualified, then you have stood with the Church and opposed him yourself.
The only other charge was that Wyclif was called a heretic -- but he was: he denied transubstantiation. Protestants can get away with decrying the Church for teaching this; but they set up a double-standard when they lament that the Church also decries those who teach otherwise.
(* The Psalter or Psalms of David. Ed. H.R. Bramley. Oxford, 1884. Page XI.)
(** Adapted from ibid. Page 509.)
(* The Psalter or Psalms of David. Ed. H.R. Bramley. Oxford, 1884. Page XI.)
(** Adapted from ibid. Page 509.)
(*** As cited in, Unholy Hands on the Bible: An Examination of Six Major New Versions. Volume II. By Jay P. Green. Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1992.)
=============================================
=============================================
These are some myths that Protestants may tell you about the origin of the Bible
=============================================
False Protestant Myth:
"In the 1500's William Tyndale sought to translate the Bible into the language of the common people, English. He could not gain approval from the Catholic religon [sic] so he worked as an outlaw on the run in Europe, translating the Bible. He was eventually captured, condemned and executed in 1536."
=============================================
My Refutation:
You rightly say that Tyndale could not gain approval; if only you didn't omit the reason! For by Tyndale's time, there were plenty of approved bibles in circulation. Above this refutation, but on this same page, I mentioned the hundreds of copies of the Vulgate and other bibles that were being everyday shuffled from the printing presses to monastics and scholastics. The fact is, the Bible was being printed by Catholics, for Catholics, especially in Latin (which was still the most widely-read language in the world), but also in other languages, and this had been going on for over a century before Tyndale began his translation. And Tyndale was discouraged from participating in these mass-publications of Bible translations simply because there were too many Bible-versions already, a result of the even deeper problem that no one was buying the bibles that already had been printed.
Henry Graham writes about this in his book "Where We Got the Bible," where he says that it is "wild and groundless talk" to suppose a deep need for many more bibles in the 1500s. The plowmen and shepherds in the furthest countrysides were actually thirsting less for bibles and more for water to grow their crops. "And we can prove it by these simple facts," Graham says:
Henry Graham writes about this in his book "Where We Got the Bible," where he says that it is "wild and groundless talk" to suppose a deep need for many more bibles in the 1500s. The plowmen and shepherds in the furthest countrysides were actually thirsting less for bibles and more for water to grow their crops. "And we can prove it by these simple facts," Graham says:
(I) the people had to be compelled by law to buy Bibles, for Acts were passed again and again threatening the King's displeasure and a fine of 40s. per month if the Book was not purchased; (2) we have documentary evidence that inhabitants of certain parts of the country, such as Cornwall and Devonshire, unanimously objected to [Tyndale's] new translation, and that even among the clergy Reformers like Bishop Hugh Latimer almost entirely ignored the English copy and always took their texts from the Latin Vulgate; (3) printers had large stocks of printed Bibles left unsold on their hands, and could not get rid of them at any price, except under legal coercion; (4) the same edition of the Bible was often re-issued with fresh titles and preliminary matter, and new title-pages were composed for old unsold Bibles, without any regard to truth, simply to get them sold.
So you see why the undertaking of Tyndale was rejected -- the man could only be expected to add to the confusion. And the only other question remains, why did Tyndale himself end up condemned for a heretic? The answer is the same as for Wyclif: because however rightly he started, it was as a heretic that he ended. In his notes on the Book of Romans, he taught that it was Paul's will "to prove [that] all men [are] sinners" (which is true) and "that to sin is their nature," (also true), but also "that by nature they can none otherwise do than to sin."* That is a heresy that is nowhere taught in Paul's work, who states that "Gentiles who have not the law [may] do by nature what the law requires...perhaps [to] excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:14-16)
The idea that men by nature can only sin contradicts this; it is a false doctrine which Tyndale had adopted from Martin Luther, not from Paul. If I had time, I would show his (or rather Luther's) other errors which he propagated, for this example is simply the most convenient -- but suffice it to say that the man was a clear heretic who propagated his errors alongside his popular Bible-translation, mixing poison with purity for the unknowing masses. It is no wonder at all that the Church cried out at this, and found him, and stopped him, handing him over to the secular authorities, who did indeed have him executed.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that it was right to send Tyndale to his killers. But as long as we're talking facts let's get this straight: it was the idea of the government to kill Tyndale. It was not an idea of the Church. Some bishops cooperated with the government in doing this, but it is a mistake to attribute an error to the Church Herself when the fault belongs to a few bishops who had things done in a corner.
(*"A Prologue Upon the Epistle of St Paul to the Romans," by William Tyndale, as quoted at http://www.williamtyndale.com/0romans.htm)
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that it was right to send Tyndale to his killers. But as long as we're talking facts let's get this straight: it was the idea of the government to kill Tyndale. It was not an idea of the Church. Some bishops cooperated with the government in doing this, but it is a mistake to attribute an error to the Church Herself when the fault belongs to a few bishops who had things done in a corner.
(*"A Prologue Upon the Epistle of St Paul to the Romans," by William Tyndale, as quoted at http://www.williamtyndale.com/0romans.htm)
=============================================
=============================================
