A charge worthy of conviction

Pure Catholic propaganda. Instead of gullibly accepting the words printed on a RCC site, why don't you do some actual research. First your quote says:
In the 7th Century a Roman Catholic Monk named Kademan from the town of Whitby in Yorkshire, translated a very large portion of the bible into the language spoken in England at the time.

Now tell me, what was the "language of the time"? It certainly wasn't English! English didn't even exist at that time. Even Wycliffe's Bible is difficult to read by our standards. The RCC' quote about these ancient translations is bogus. English is a relatively new language. It didn't exist in the seventh century and eighth century, thus making the above argument moot. I challenge you to look up the men you referenced, find examples of their work, and see what they looked like (not translations of their work), but the actual work in the language in which they wrote.

 

Without the printing press there would not have been a Reformation back when it happened.

 

So you say. I now claim your own standards here, DHK. Prove me wrong or I am correct! (How does that feel?)

Such accusations...why do you always lead with your chin, DHK?

Clearly, you can't stay focused long enough to completely read my posting before you feel compelled to start flailing away (with wild gesticulations I surmise) at the keyboard. You missed this didn't you...

In the future it would be prudent to fully digest the writings of others before you walk out on that limb - only to have it fall off beneath you.

Peace!

 

Beowulf was written between 750 and 800.
Here is a manuscript that dates back to 1000,

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans serif][SIZE=+1]Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans serif]5 [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans serif]monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra [/FONT]http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~beowulf/main.html

Can you honestly call it English?
Can you read it?
What language is it?
Do some research and find out?

The fact remains that Tyndale's Bible is the first Bible translated into English, translated from the Greek and Hebrew. This is an indisputable fact. It is history. It is a history that cannot be denied.

 

I've never heard of this Kademan. However, English was used but an earlier form of it. I had to memorize Chaucer introduction to the Cantabury tales in old or midieval english. -
Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye
That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
So priketh hem Nature in hir corages
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke.

Thats as far as I can get. Its been a while. However, 7th century english did exist. The Anglo-saxon helm of sutton heralds back to then. I think there was probably a combination of viking and anglo-saxon languages back then created for the political climate of England. Wasn't St. Bede around back then along with King Althelstan?

 

Check the site that Lori referenced. Your quote seems to be almost exactly the same--same information, same wording. I wonder if that is called plagiarism.

I'll ask you again: Why not do some actual research on the English language, but especially the English Bible and its history. Your knowledge seems to be woefully lacing in this area.

I answered your post. English, as we know it today, did not exist at that time. Your point is moot.

I fully understood what you said, and answered all your objections appropriately. It would be good if you didn't swallow the Catholic lie hook, line and sinker.

 

Chaucer lived 1343-1400, around the same time as Wycliffe did. Go back and read the original of Beowulf. There is no resemblance. There was no English in the 700's. Look it up! Can you read the rendition of Beowulf that I posted? Can you tell me what language it was written in? It was originally written in the 8th century, whereas Chaucer wrote in the 14th Century. That is a big difference.

 

Just because english developed significantly doesn't mean it didn't exist. I'm certain a modern greek person would not say greek didn't exist 2,000 years ago because its not even similar to modern greek. English is a developing language that began with the Anglo-saxon tribe and as they incorporated other languages into their tounge it developed in sound and form. Thats why you can find german words, latin words, french words, Gaelic words, as well as specifically anglo saxon words in the language of english. Just like if you were to go to chaucers time you would have no way of communicating with him you wouldn't say you or he weren't speaking english. So Bede to Chaucer english changed so much they wouldn't understand each other as well. BTW I've read Beowulf and no its nothing like modern english though very viking in its construction.

 

First, People who can read modern Greek can also read Koine Greek. There is not much difference. Only in speaking is there a difference. The difference would be akin to us trying to speak in Shakespearean language. I can read the KJV with no problem; the problem arises if I try to speak correctly in it during a conversation. That is the only difference.

Second, I seriously doubt if you read "Beowulf," in its original. It has been translated so we can understand it in English. Yes Beowulf itself has been translated into English. Do some study on it. Have you read what I posted above? I think the answer is No. You have read this ancient poem in modern English, and it still difficult to understand. I too had to do the same exercises.

These all have no bearing on the facts.
William Tyndale was the first one to translate the Bible into the English language from the Hebrew and Greek. This fact is indisputable no matter how many red herrings are brought into this discussion.

 

I've been to greece and there is a greater disparity in language than you suppose. Its much greater than modern english than shakesperean. I know Beowulf has been translated into modern english it was originally writen like this
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,

Which shows the viking influence on lthe language its still old english. For instance nis Þaet heoru stow means That is not a pleasant place. Now of course I didn't translate that myself but I've seen the old text and need the modern english text to understand it. But thats how much the language has developed over the years. England has constantly been influenced by many conqurors unlike greece. Not as many conqurerors and not as many changes but the language has still change that Koine greek is a dead language. Modern Greeks could nowhere near understand it. However, I can read shakespear and know exactly what he's talking about.

 

The Greek alphabet has not changed. I can read Koine Greek, the Greek of the NT, and translate it. I can also read modern Greek and translate it. As far as the NT written in modern Greek and Koine Greek there is not much difference. The alphabet is the same.

There is a world of difference between the Old English of Beowulf and modern English. Not even the alphabets resemble each other.

Again what does this red herring have to do with the fact that Tyndale was the first person to translate the Bible into the English language from the Hebrew and Greek?

 

And what version of English would that be -- Middle English? That's nothing but bed-wetting at best, and it is completely intellectually disingenuous. You should be ashamed.

Peace!

 

Well, you are making the accusation, so why not get off of your lazy rear end and prove it. I think that we all know the reason...

So sad.. you haven’t the intellectual prowess to even engage on a salient level, thus you resort personal slurs... Sweet!

Oh right... so English as "...we know it today..." just fell from the sky as a gift from God. How uttelry pathetic!

You either understand nothing that I said, or you are completeley intellectaully dishonest. Based upon you previous rants, I presume it to be the latter.

Peace!

 

No, Tyndale's Bible is not considered Middle English any more than the King James Bible is. Here is an example of Tyndale's Bible:

Here is an example of the same passage in the 1611 KJV

As you can see there is not much difference.

 

The greek alphabet has not changed because there hasn't been as many conquerors of Greece as of England changing their alphabet. However, Modern Greek is far divergent from ancient Greek than is modern english to shakesprean english. I think the comparison is closer to modern english and Chaucers english. But still you seem to think only the modern incarnation of a language is what that language is. But you are wrong. English has undergone changes throughout its history. And it doesn't just go back to tyndale.

 

You are the one that tried the trick of blaming persecution on the local authorities as if the church was not demanding, controlling and commanding that action. Your own RC leadership refutes your argument.

Then you complain that this has something to do with the dark ages and the inquisition??

Then I posted the statements from your own Catholic leadership showing that these actions of condemning fellow Catholics - fellow Christians was in fact a Church action.

As for your claim that the Bible was readily available in the venacular to the English before Wycliff's translation - we have yet to see the response to that.

How is it "I" am to be blamed - because I keep pointing out the fact that the burning of the Bibles and the restriction of the material from the public - was taking place in the dark ages?

in Christ,

Bob

 

People who were able to read in the Middle Ages could read Latin. This is why the Church found little need to reproduce the bible in any other language. However, the Church did, in fact, put editions into the hands of the people in their own language. History tells us that there were editions of the bible in French, Nowegian, Italian, Hungarian, Danish for the common man even before the printing press. The lie that Wycliff was the very first to put an English version in the hands of the people is pretty easily dis-proved. The monk Caedmon of Whitby gave great portions of the bible in the common language of the people. That was in the 7th century. I believe Thinkingstuff mentioned in the next century we had the translations of St. Bede who died while he was translating the gospel of John. Then you had Eadhelm, Bishop of Sherborne; of Guthlac and Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island; these were all in Saxon and was the only language understood by the people at that time. King Alfred was working on the Psalms when he died. You have also got the Book of Durham and the Rushworth Gloss which were also very popular.


It was only after 1066 and the Norman Conquest that Middle English became the language of England. I suppose all this is 'more Catholic lies.'

 

What KIND of bibles were being burned Bob?? Ones full of errors maybe?
If all the 'New World' translations of the bible were gathered up and burned, would that bother you Bob??

 

The following is from Chapter 11 of Bishop Henry G. Graham's book "Where We Got The Bible: Our Debt To The Catholic Church".

(The following preface is in the Authorized Version many of you hold so dear)

"Moreover, the 'Reformed' Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, says, in his preface to the Bible of 1540: 'The Holy Bible was translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof there remaineth yet divers copies found in old Abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking that few men now be able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old and out of common use, because folks should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found.' Again, Foxe, a man that Protestants trust, says: 'If histories be well examined, we shall find, both before the Conquest and after, as well before John Wycliff was born as since, the whole body of Scripture by sundry men translated into our country tongue.' 'But as of the earlier period, so of this, there are none but fragmentary remains, the "many copies" which remained when Cranmer wrote in 1540 having doubtless disappeared in the vast and ruthless destruction of libraries which took place within a few years after that date.' These last words are from the pen of Rev. J. H. Blunt, a Protestant author, in his History of the English Bible; and another Anglican dignitary, Dean Hook, tells us that 'long before Wycliff's time there had been translators of Holy Writ.' One more authority on the Protestant side, and I have done: it is Mr. Karl Pearson (Academy, August, 1885), who says: 'The Catholic Church has quite enough to answer for, but in the 15th century it certainly did not hold back the Bible from the folk: and it gave them in the vernacular (i.e. their own tongue) a long series of devotional works which for language and religious sentiment have never been surpassed. Indeed, we are inclined to think it made a mistake in allowing the masses such ready access to the Bible. It ought to have recognised the Bible once for all as a work absolutely unintelligible without a long course of historical study, and, so far as it was supposed to be inspired, very dangerous in the hands of the ignorant.'"

 

They were called the Dark Ages for more than one reason. Not only did you have the RCC with its stranglehold on all of Europe and everywhere else it had its claws, but literacy was practically nonexistent. Only the nobility and very rich were educated and could read and not all of them were schooled in Latin. Even those that could read Latin would not have had access to the bible as it was in the hands of the Church. Up until the invention of the printing press in 1436 all books had to be copied by hand and were extremely expensive.

Care to share your sources? Before 1436 everything was by hand and just because a translation was made does not mean it was distributed. Since the people could not read it wouldn't have mattered a whole lot, anyway.

You keep missing the key phrase... "English version". The 7th century was not English. See DHK's example of Beowulf. Can you read it? No, because it is not recognizable as English. I could hold up my bible and say that Moses was the first to write the bible in English because Genesis is the first book of the bible but it would be just as ridiculous as your claims.