Was Bible possesion banned by the Catholic Church?

[Hobie]

Hobie, you lost me right there. The T.R. didn't come into existence until the early 1500s.

Notice it says "which was later to be called".

There are basically only 2 lines through history of Bible versions, the true text which became know as the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) on which the true believers used in the Early Church and later in the Reformation and its Bibles...
"Tyndale New Testament 1526-1530.
"Coverdale Bible 1535.
"Matthew Bible 1537.
"Great Bible 1539.
"Geneva Bible 1560-1644.
"Bishops' Bible 1568.
and which also the King James Version is based.

And then you have those which picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text), the Codex Alexandrian, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus which clearly show they had been deleted and changed in many parts and purposely done from a predisposed idea or false views of Gnosticism they had picked up in Alexandria.

Here is a good description of how the corruptions were looked at in the book LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton which gives a easy to understand explanation...

"...There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:

-Accurate Copies

These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.

They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.

-Corrupted Copies

These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.

The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Alexandrian manuscripts, such as the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus the Majority Text."

The Minority Texts were corrupted by Egyptian Gnosticism mostly in
Alexandria with many changes, which are mostly deletions. The Gnostics were a group that did not believe in the virgin birth, that Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus was resurrected to heaven, that Jesus was the Creator, or that Jesus made atonement for our sins.

There are many alterations in the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text), the Codex Alexandrian, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years.

The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures and contradict themselves throughout. Here is some more background on the corruption of the Minority Text from another site....

"...almost all modern English bibles translated since 1898 are based on the Minority Text (this includes the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New Century Version, the Good News Bible, etc.). These bible versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts in existence, or about .1% of all manuscripts, which is why it's also known as the "Minority text.".

The two most prominent manuscripts of the Minority Texts are the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus....These Minority Texts frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the Majority Text, and also contained many obvious and flagrant mistakes. Up until the late 1800s, the Minority Texts were utterly rejected by Christians.

The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside because of their numerous errors....

The Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. Words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible...."

"...One of the manuscripts that make up the Minority Text is the Vaticanus. The Vaticanus was found in 1481 in the Vatican library. The other manuscript is the Sinaiticus. The Sinaiticus was found in 1844 in a trash pile at Saint Catherine's monastery, and rescued from a long (and well-deserved) obscurity. It has a great number of omissions and has many words and phrases marked out and re-written. Both of these manuscripts are from Roman Catholic origin...." http://www.ecclesia.org...

Westcott & Hort picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts and created a version based on what was a changed, deleted or heavily edited & thus corrupted Alexandrian text.

 

[robycop3]

The KJVO myth is phony as a Ford Corvette. While this is not the place to discuss it, I'll be glad to in the correct sub-forum.

And the NKJV, which is basically the KJV with many of its goofs & booboos corrected, uses the TR.

As for the "Alex" mss. we weren't there when they were made, & we don't know who made them, when, or what sources they used. Same could be said for mosta the "Byz" mss. So, don't be too hasty to criticize mss. GOD preserved, same as He did those you prefer.

However, I DO agree with you that the RCC fought hard against the common people having access to the Scriptures for themselves.

 

[RCommando]

This thread is the best evidence in favor of the Catholic Church banning lay people from the Scriptures.

 

[Christforums]

Curious what others here think about

This thread is the best evidence in favor of the Catholic Church banning lay people from the Scriptures.

Which practice didn't stop there. Example, the notion of rebelling from tyrannical rule was vented by the KJV which were obvious in the Reformers notes surrounding the pages of the Geneva bible.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you know what the first book Johannes Gutenberg (a Catholic) printed on his newly invented movable-type printing press?

That would be in Latin. The Church of Rome was determined to keep the Bible away from ordinary people.
The sad fact was that many of the priests didn't know Latin either and recited the Latin liturgy without the faintest idea what it meant.

 

[Adonia]

That would be in Latin. The Church of Rome was determined to keep the Bible away from ordinary people.
The sad fact was that many of the priests didn't know Latin either and recited the Latin liturgy without the faintest idea what it meant.

Most of the "ordinary people" of the time were illiterate, so what was the point of them having the Bible to read?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Most of the "ordinary people" of the time were illiterate, so what was the point of them having the Bible to read?

This is a common misconception. During the 14th and 15th centuries, more and more people learned to read, as can be seen by the large numbers of books written and purchased, especially, but by no means exclusively, after the invention of printing. Piers Plowman and Canterbury Tales were both written in English around 1375. If only priests could read, they would have been written, if at all, in Latin.
If you want corroboration for this from a Roman Catholic source, read Duffy, the Stripping of the Altars.

 

[Hobie]

This thread is the best evidence in favor of the Catholic Church banning lay people from the Scriptures.

I don't think that was its purpose in anyway...

Historian J. A. Wylie said this:
'It is idle in Rome to say, "I gave you the Bible, and therefore you must believe in me before you can believe in it." The facts...conclusively dispose of this claim. Rome did not give us the Bible. she did all in her power to keep it form us; she retained it under the seal of a dead language; and when others broke that seal, and threw open its pages to all, she stood over the book, and unsheathing her fiery sword, would permit none to read the message of life, save at the peril of eternal anathema' J.A. Wylie, History of Protestantism Volume 1 (Virginia: Heartland Publications, 2002): 58.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think that was its purpose in anyway...

Historian J. A. Wylie said this:
'It is idle in Rome to say, "I gave you the Bible, and therefore you must believe in me before you can believe in it." The facts...conclusively dispose of this claim. Rome did not give us the Bible. she did all in her power to keep it form us; she retained it under the seal of a dead language; and when others broke that seal, and threw open its pages to all, she stood over the book, and unsheathing her fiery sword, would permit none to read the message of life, save at the peril of eternal anathema' J.A. Wylie, History of Protestantism Volume 1 (Virginia: Heartland Publications, 2002): 58.

Why did the Sda, just likke JW, create their own Translation that added into many places ellen white statements and teachings?

 

[Adonia]

I don't think that was its purpose in anyway...

Historian J. A. Wylie said this:
'It is idle in Rome to say, "I gave you the Bible, and therefore you must believe in me before you can believe in it." The facts...conclusively dispose of this claim. Rome did not give us the Bible. she did all in her power to keep it form us; she retained it under the seal of a dead language; and when others broke that seal, and threw open its pages to all, she stood over the book, and unsheathing her fiery sword, would permit none to read the message of life, save at the peril of eternal anathema' J.A. Wylie, History of Protestantism Volume 1 (Virginia: Heartland Publications, 2002): 58.

More gobbledegook from Mr. Wylie and you. Both of you are ignorant of who compiled the New Testament as the world now knows it. You cannot change nor ignore the historical record.

 

[MarysSon]

History shows what they went through and who put them through it, so although it may be a 'bit much' for you, it shows the truth of the matter. Here are some key points which helped turn the tide in this battle over Bible possession, very good...

"The Bible was a banned book. The Church knew they dared not let people read God's Word for themselves.

To those who hungered and thirsted to know the Truth of the Bible, the situation seemed hopeless. Europe had become a dark and dangerous place. But light was starting to shine from the darkness. Glimmers of hope were starting to arise. A new dawn of Truth was starting to emerge from the shadows. Despite the Bible still being a banned book, a sequence of events were starting to emerge which would make the translation of the Bible into English, not just a possibility, but an inevitability. The Bible was coming, and coming in an exciting way, to the people of Great Britain and the English-speaking world. These were events which changed history. And history is still feeling its effects.

First, in 1450, the Printing Press was invented. Whereas John Wycliffe and his followers had to produce hand-written manuscripts of his Bible translation, the printing press allowed Bibles to be (painstakingly and meticulously) typeset, but then hundreds of copies made. This made it possible to vastly increase the supply of Bibles.

Second.. the printing press was starting to be used to good effect. Printed copies of the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) were being produced, albeit at great effort and expense. Copies of the New Testament in Greek and Latin were also being produced, as were Polyglot Bibles. Each one had to be personally authorized by the Pope. But these printed Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts allowed scholars in Universities to have access to the Holy Scriptures like never before - even if it was "only" in the Original Languages of the Bible, rather than the language of the common people.

Third, although the Spanish Inquisition was still in full sway and the Pope claimed universal authority over the whole of Christendom, elsewhere in Europe the Church's authority was being questioned and challenged as never before. Like Wycliffe before him, in Germany, Martin Luther and his followers were starting to read and translate the Bible for themselves, armed with the printed copies of the Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts that were now rolling off the printing press. And like Wycliffe, they too could clearly see the gaping chasm between what was written in the Bible, and the beliefs, doctrines, practices and excesses of the Catholic Church."... William Tyndale's 1525 Bible translation

I was banned on this forum for a several weeks for exposing anti-Catholic lies – so I don’t think I’ll be on here long after this post. Suffice it to say that your shoddy “history” is chocked full of LIES, to say the least. This site is just another example of blatant anti-Catholicism run amok.

First, you need to understand that about 85-90% of the population was functionally illiterate when the Church put restrictions on reproducing Bibles at the Council of Toulouse in the 13th century. MOST people had neither the need nor the desire to own a Bible that they couldn’t read in the first place.
STRIKE ONE . . .

Secondly – they were HANDWRITTEN at the time and took many years to complete – so they were VERY expensive to come by. MOST people couldn’t afford a Bible even if they wanted one, which were chained to pulpits to keep them from being stolen because of their value.
STRIKE TWO . . .

The idea that anybody was out to death for translating a Bible into English is simply revisionism. The Church had already translated many of the books into English on SEVERAL occasions prior to Tyndale or Hus.
STRIKE THREE – you’re OUT.

The NUMBER ONE reason that the Church took action and banned the unauthorized reproduction of Bibles was because of the perverted versions being copied that contained not only mistakes – but outright HERESY.

The Church, being the guardian of the Scriptures and the deposit of faith (2 Tim. 1:14) was 100% correct in her action.
Do your HOMEWORK . . .

 

[Yeshua1]

I was banned on this forum for a several weeks for exposing anti-Catholic lies – so I don’t think I’ll be on here long after this post. Suffice it to say that your shoddy “history” is chocked full of LIES, to say the least. This site is just another example of blatant anti-Catholicism run amok.

First, you need to understand that about 85-90% of the population was functionally illiterate when the Church put restrictions on reproducing Bibles at the Council of Toulouse in the 13th century. MOST people had neither the need nor the desire to own a Bible that they couldn’t read in the first place.
STRIKE ONE . . .

Secondly – they were HANDWRITTEN at the time and took many years to complete – so they were VERY expensive to come by. MOST people couldn’t afford a Bible even if they wanted one, which were chained to pulpits to keep them from being stolen because of their value.
STRIKE TWO . . .

The idea that anybody was out to death for translating a Bible into English is simply revisionism. The Church had already translated many of the books into English on SEVERAL occasions prior to Tyndale or Hus.
STRIKE THREE – you’re OUT.

The NUMBER ONE reason that the Church took action and banned the unauthorized reproduction of Bibles was because of the perverted versions being copied that contained not only mistakes – but outright HERESY.

The Church, being the guardian of the Scriptures and the deposit of faith (2 Tim. 1:14) was 100% correct in her action.
Do your HOMEWORK . . .

Is that why Rome burned at the stake those who tried to translate into the common language the scriptures, and also burned alive those who tried to teach the true Gospel?

 

[MarysSon]

Is that why Rome burned at the stake those who tried to translate into the common language the scriptures, and also burned alive those who tried to teach the true Gospel?

Apparently you didn't R*E*A*D my post.

Go back and read it.
I explained that many spurious and outright heretical versions were being privately translated.

You are also making the false claim that "Rome" burned at the stake those who tried to translate the Scriptures. "Rome didn't burn anybody at the stake. Executions of heretics were usually done by kings and heads of state who thought they were doing the "right" thing on behalf of the church.
To put it plainly - heresy was bad for commerce in a kingdom because it usually meant that heretical offshoots would rebel against the governments and disrupt the order of the kingdom.

YOU and @Hobie and a few others here desperately need to crack open a history book and learn about the past instead of simply making things up as you go along.
It's embarrassing . . .

 

[Walpole]

Is that why Rome burned at the stake those who tried to translate into the common language the scriptures, and also burned alive those who tried to teach the true Gospel?

If you are going to try and discuss this topic, you need to do your homework. You won't be able to get away with rewriting history or making erroneous assertions based on your own prejudices.

If you do your homework, you will learn the Church had no authority to execute anyone for heresy. Rather, in medieval Europe, the state ruled by what they believed were Divine right and this includes Protestant sovereigns as well. Thus heresy was considered an act of sedition, which was therefore punishable as a capital crime. Even in a few Western countries today, sedition is still punishable as a capital crime. The Church was merely used by the State to determine if one was a heretic or not.

Capital punishment was much more widely used in the Middle Ages than it is today. You cannot therefore not use a 21st century juridical mindset to judge medieval Europe. If you want to discuss whether the State's prosecution of heresy was ineffective, that's a valid position (and one to which I would agree). However, that's about the extent of any argument you can put forth, had you done your homework. Furthermore, it's an argument one would have to put forth against all states in the Middle Ages, including Protestant ones.

 

[Yeshua1]

If you are going to try and discuss this topic, you need to do your homework. You won't be able to get away with rewriting history or making erroneous assertions based on your own prejudices.

If you do your homework, you will learn the Church had no authority to execute anyone for heresy. Rather, in medieval Europe, the state ruled by what they believed were Divine right and this includes Protestant sovereigns as well. Thus heresy was considered an act of sedition, which was therefore punishable as a capital crime. Even in a few Western countries today, sedition is still punishable as a capital crime. The Church was merely used by the State to determine if one was a heretic or not.

Capital punishment was much more widely used in the Middle Ages than it is today. You cannot therefore not use a 21st century juridical mindset to judge medieval Europe. If you want to discuss whether the State's prosecution of heresy was ineffective, that's a valid position (and one to which I would agree). However, that's about the extent of any argument you can put forth, had you done your homework. Furthermore, it's an argument one would have to put forth against all states in the Middle Ages, including Protestant ones.

So the RCC did burn them, but do not judge that, as acceptable for those times?

 

[Walpole]

So the RCC did burn them, but do not judge that, as acceptable for those times?

No. Obviously neither read my post nor did your homework on this subject.

Do your homework before you try and discuss this topic.

The STATE punished people for heresy, which was considered sedition and a capital crime. This was the case for not just Catholic states, but also Protestant ones as well.

History 101 stuff here!

 

[Yeshua1]

No. Obviously neither read my post nor did your homework on this subject.

Do your homework before you try and discuss this topic.

The STATE punished people for heresy, which was considered sedition and a capital crime. This was the case for not just Catholic states, but also Protestant ones as well.

History 101 stuff here!

Rome was in full agreement though, correct?

 

[Walpole]

Rome was in full agreement though, correct?

Full agreement? In medieval Western Europe, there was no separation of Church and State. Sovereigns ruled by Divine right.

"Rome's" involvement was to determine if someone was teaching heresy, which again was considered sedition and therefore a capital crime (capital crimes were punishable by death, just like here in the United States). When the State's religion was Protestantism, the State looked to the various Protestant sects to determine "heresy", e.g. someone not believing in faith alone and doing things like participating in the Mass. Heresy was considered a seditious act because it threatened the State and the eternal salvation of the citizenry. It was the State's mandate to safeguard the common good of its citizenry.

If you are going to judge medieval Catholic states for punishing heresy as an act of sedition, you must also do so with Protestant states, otherwise you are being hypocritical and guilty of a double-standard.

Google ---> "German Peasants War of 1524" to see the connection in Protestant states between heresy and sedition.


Do. Your. Homework.

 

[Yeshua1]

Full agreement? In medieval Western Europe, there was no separation of Church and State. Sovereigns ruled by Divine right.

"Rome's" involvement was to determine if someone was teaching heresy, which again was considered sedition and therefore a capital crime (capital crimes were punishable by death, just like here in the United States). When the State's religion was Protestantism, the State looked to the various Protestant sects to determine "heresy", e.g. someone not believing in faith alone and doing things like participating in the Mass. Heresy was considered a seditious act because it threatened the State and the eternal salvation of the citizenry. It was the State's mandate to safeguard the common good of its citizenry.

If you are going to judge medieval Catholic states for punishing heresy as an act of sedition, you must also do so with Protestant states, otherwise you are being hypocritical and guilty of a double-standard.

Google ---> "German Peasants War of 1524" to see the connection in Protestant states between heresy and sedition.


Do. Your. Homework.

yes or no, did Rome kill those who they saw as heretics due to them teaching true gospel, or translating into common language the Bible?

 

[Walpole]

yes or no, did Rome kill those who they saw as heretics due to them teaching true gospel, or translating into common language the Bible?

Let me help you since you seem to not be reading my posts.

No, the STATE executed those found guilty of heresy, which was considered an act of sedition and a capital crime in BOTH Catholic and Protestant states.