Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Trotter you and DHK need to work on etymology and english a bit. Beowulf was written in old english just because you can't identify the words doesn't mean it wasn't english. It was an early form of english
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A charge worthy of conviction
- Thread starter ReformedBaptist
- Start date
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Also Trotter you forget a major part of history. How the Cyrillic Alphabet came to be. Two Greek Christian Brothers born in Thessaloniki Cyril and Methodius brought christianity to the slavs in 890. They adapted letters to the slavic languages so that they could have a bible in their own language. Also note as far as the english bibles
So there is some dissention as to your primary statement.
There was a period in the history of England where no English was spoken at all. It was called "proto-English. It consisted of Latin mixed with different Germanic languages.
Later as the language evolved there was a period where Old English was spoken. The most famous surviving work from the Old English period is the epic poem "Beowulf," which is unreadable in its original form by the common English speaking person today. Old English does not look like or sound like modern English today. Old English was spoken until somewhere in the 12th or 13th century.
Then the English language was influenced by North Germanic tribes when the Vikings settled in Northern England. They spoke Norse. The Norman Conquest had also influenced the language. The introduction of Christianity brought Latin and Greek words into the language.
For 300 years after the Norman Conquest the Norman Kings spoke one of the languages called "Anglo-Norman"--a variety of Old Norman used in England. It originated from a dialect of Old French. This began the period of the Middle English. Middle English was heavily influenced by these two: Anglo-Norman and Anglo-French. It also was influenced by Celtic languages. Chaucer wrote in the middle English period.
Modern English began around the 15th century. In 1604 the first English dictionary was published.
This is a summary of information that you can find from Wikipedia here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_language
First the Cryllic alphabet is not the English alphabet and therefore not English.
Second, Wyclif translated a Bible into the English language but it was from Latin.
Third. This has been my statement all along and it is indisputable fact.
William Tyndale was the first man to translate the Bible into the English language from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts
On this point you cannot prove me wrong. It is a fact of history as sure as 2 + 2 = 4.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
On your very last point you are correct but you've previously included a statement that the bible was not translated into the common vernacular of the people before the reformation. This isn't true which is my point about the Cryllic Alphabet. Also you are wrong about Beowulf not being english.
Both Wycliffe and Tyndale were before the Reformation. What Bible, in English, was before Wycliffe, and still in the English language.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldhelm
--No mention of him was ever made of him translating the Scriptures. If he did it would have been into Latin, not English. English did not exist as a language at that time.
Here is what you don't understand. Look at the history of the Bible from one source:
http://isv.org/musings/history.htm
It was Wycliffe that first translated the Bible into the English language for the common person, that all may be able to read it. This feat had never been accomplished before.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
So apparently we are all supposed to be surprise when catholic sources promote Catholic views of history, as if that is the new standard for objectivity.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
In Germany alone - there were over ten different local dialects. Martin Luthor's translation into German - enabled the Germans and Austrians to finally agree to one dialect.
The short-sighted notion that as long as "someone" can read latin then the rest of the public does not need a book written in the venacular is not as difficult to see through as a few may have at first imagined.
in Christ,
Bob
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
No your quote shows that he translated the bible into Old English which was the english vernacular of that day. How hard is that for you to understand? Beowulf was in old english vernacular of that day as well. So Both Bede and Aldhelm translated the bible from latin (comon translation of the day) into old english. Wycliffe came centuries later as did Tyndale. Tyndale impressed by Erasmus translated from the greek. But your observation that previous comon vernacular bible did not exist is wrong. As saying old english was not english. Certainly different from modern english but it was english of that day.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
1. Aldhelm and Bede only translated small portions of the Bible not the whole Bible.
2. They translated into old english 500 years before Wycliff. It was not the same english as the venacular of Wycliff's days.
3. Wycliff's motivation was to get the Bible into the hands of the common people since at that time they did not have it. He was killed for that.
Tyndale wanted a direct translation from the original source languages into english.
The only two early translations that CAN be argued as being full Bible translations and argued to be close enough to each other so that the public still spoke the same venacular between those two translations - is Wycliff and Tyndale.
So why was the RCC so bent on destroying them?
in Christ,
Bob
2. They translated into old english 500 years before Wycliff. It was not the same english as the venacular of Wycliff's days.
3. Wycliff's motivation was to get the Bible into the hands of the common people since at that time they did not have it. He was killed for that.
Tyndale wanted a direct translation from the original source languages into english.
The only two early translations that CAN be argued as being full Bible translations and argued to be close enough to each other so that the public still spoke the same venacular between those two translations - is Wycliff and Tyndale.
So why was the RCC so bent on destroying them?
in Christ,
Bob
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
The fact is it was in the vernacular of the day. So now that is aside why did the Catholic Church kill Wycliff and Tyndale. The question is was it the Catholic Church or the Civil Authorities? Note he (Wycliff) was blamed for the peasants revolt of 1381. He lost the protection of John of Gaunt and an enemy rose to power William Courtenay who conviened the earthquake synod he was accused of 24 acts of which 10 were heresy (he believed in an invisible church, he attacked monasticism, and he had a low view of the papacy) of which the English Authority considered the Wycliff translation to
and what the leaders of the day called
. Tyndale is similar to this history. Not that it was right but then in those days church and state were not seperated.
This is the truth of the matter and what I have affirmed from the beginning of the this conversation or thread.
He was not killed. he died of natural causes. In time, if he had lived, he might very well have been executed. But it would not have been over the issue of Bible translation. Wycliffe did't even do any translating as such. The two different translations that bear his name were translated by his friends.
Does the second so-called Wycliffe Bible have both the Old and New Testaments? I know Tyndale did not have both completed in his work.
I think the second Wycliffe translation and Tyndale's New Testament use different forms of English. Tyndale's is early modern. Wycliffe's uses the kind of English style as Chaucer's.They were contemporaries.
Last edited by a moderator:
Though this is called (technically) Old English, one can see that it is not really English at all. It certainly wasn't "vernacular" as very few could read it--not then; not now:
Aldheim (640-709 A.D.) may have translated part of the Scripture from Latin into this language, but this language is not English. It has a Cryllic alphabet. The people of that time could not read it, and thus one cannot say it was "vernacular," at least not in written form. This was the time of the Dark Ages, a time when the RCC purposely kept the common person in the dark (illiterate) for fear of having the power of the Word of God in their hands. From here go through the Dark ages and beyond the Reformation and see the pains that they took (even the burning of Tyndale's Bibles) to keep the Word of God from the people. Illiteracy was just one method.
[/FONT]
Because they put the Bible into the hands of the people--into the vernacular--something that had never been done before in the English language. Wycliffe and Tyndale translated the Scriptures into the English language so that the English population could read the Scriptures. This was an accomplishment never done before.
It was a state-church. They were one and the same.
Similar to what I posted before. Tyndale died or was martyred for his beliefs; beliefs about the heresies of the Catholic Church. It is typical for the RCC to blame Wycliffe for the peasants revolt. The accusation is unfounded.
BillySunday1935
New Member
Originally Posted by DHK View Post
snip...
This was the time of the Dark Ages, a time when the RCC purposely kept the common person in the dark (illiterate) for fear of having the power of the Word of God in their hands.
Talk about propaganda!! You really should be a writer for Jack Chick.
snip...
This was the time of the Dark Ages, a time when the RCC purposely kept the common person in the dark (illiterate) for fear of having the power of the Word of God in their hands.
Talk about propaganda!! You really should be a writer for Jack Chick.
To Lori and Billysunday:
I did my research before I posted (unlike others I know). The Dark Ages began shortly after the Fall of the Roman Empire (382 A.D). That is the point at which most historians put the start of the Dark Ages. It continued for about 1200 years after that. There is such a thing as a search engine. I highly recommend it to you.
I did my research before I posted (unlike others I know). The Dark Ages began shortly after the Fall of the Roman Empire (382 A.D). That is the point at which most historians put the start of the Dark Ages. It continued for about 1200 years after that. There is such a thing as a search engine. I highly recommend it to you.
from
http://listverse.com/2008/06/09/top-10-reasons-the-dark-ages-were-not-dark/
I believe that we can safely say that the period of man’s history from 476 AD to 1000 AD is the most maligned of all. This period, known to historians as the Early Middle Ages, is still referred to by most laymen as the Dark Ages. In fact the term “dark ages” is almost as ancient as the period itself – it was coined in the 1330s by Petrarch, the Italian scholar, to refer to the decline of Latin literature. It was later taken by the protestant reformers (16th century) and then the members of the Englightenment (18th century) as a derogatory term with much broader implications, because they saw their own “enlightenment” as absent from the earlier period. Hardly a fair judgement on the past. Fortunately for modern students of history, the term is now officially known as the Early Middle Ages – a name which has no connotations at all. So, having given you the background on the terms, here are ten reasons that the dark ages were, in fact, a period of great progress and light.
http://listverse.com/2008/06/09/top-10-reasons-the-dark-ages-were-not-dark/
I believe that we can safely say that the period of man’s history from 476 AD to 1000 AD is the most maligned of all. This period, known to historians as the Early Middle Ages, is still referred to by most laymen as the Dark Ages. In fact the term “dark ages” is almost as ancient as the period itself – it was coined in the 1330s by Petrarch, the Italian scholar, to refer to the decline of Latin literature. It was later taken by the protestant reformers (16th century) and then the members of the Englightenment (18th century) as a derogatory term with much broader implications, because they saw their own “enlightenment” as absent from the earlier period. Hardly a fair judgement on the past. Fortunately for modern students of history, the term is now officially known as the Early Middle Ages – a name which has no connotations at all. So, having given you the background on the terms, here are ten reasons that the dark ages were, in fact, a period of great progress and light.