milovany Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 [nm, wrong area to post ....] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Some of what is popping up here strikes me as very Worldview Weekend-ish. The only reason I know about that particular website is because of the unpleasant situation I referenced at the very beginning of this thread. I hope this isn't where this convo is going because I almost needed to take a shower after someone who wanted to "open my eyes" and "show me the truth" (because we are Anglican and apparently heretical) sent us links to it. As I said, I really, really hope we are not going there. I've got no idea what you are talking about and have never heard of that website. My comments are based on what I understand of the bible and bible prophecy. Im just saying what I believe, no one else has to believe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I would agree, Cammie. It also doesn't show the small schism that resulted in the Oriental Orthodox Church in the 400's or so. My point in posting it was to show, in the context of where this conversation has gone, the three basic branches of Christianity in general: RCC, EO and Protestant. Before we started looking into Orthodoxy seven years ago now, I had no concept of what this graphic shows at all. It was sad, really. So it has just stuck in my head as a way to visualize it. I get that. My point is I think there are many churches in the US (small churches mostly) that would argue that they are somehow separate and apart from that stream. I am constantly amazed at the variety we have in the US! You can tell people they are part of the Protestant stream...but if they don't believe it or want to believe they separately sprung up - I don't know that you can force that history on them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professormom Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I've got no idea what you are talking about and have never heard of that website. My comments are based on what I understand of the bible and bible prophecy. Im just saying what I believe, no one else has to believe it.I am really glad to hear that. (And I am saying this seriously, no snark at all.) Thanks for making that clear. I am a little sensitive to it right now. Oh and that was a general direct, not aimed at you. I wasn't really paying attention to who was saying what, just getting an overall vibe. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slache Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I've got no idea what you are talking about and have never heard of that website. My comments are based on what I understand of the bible and bible prophecy. Im just saying what I believe, no one else has to believe it. What religion are you? If you had to pick. I thought you and I agreed on everything and then you said you weren't a protestant and I'm confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Languages, yes. Nowhere does it say by "race", which is a social construct. In fact, anthropology does not back up a division of skin color. Certain people thrived in certain areas and died out in others. I'm almost too scared to reply now in case I say something deemed racist. Can I talk in terms of nations? Would that be preferable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I get that. My point is I think there are many churches in the US (small churches mostly) that would argue that they are somehow separate and apart from that stream. I am constantly amazed at the variety we have in the US! You can tell people they are part of the Protestant stream...but if they don't believe it or want to believe they separately sprung up - I don't know that you can force that history on them. I'm confused--where else would they come from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I'm almost too scared to reply now in case I say something deemed racist. Can I talk in terms of nations? Would that be preferable? I only know one kind of person who uses the term "mixing of the races". 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I'm confused--where else would they come from? If you asked them they would come from separate prophesies to the leader of that particular church, or an a spiritual understanding that led them to break with a more mainstream denomination, or a family belief that led to the creation of a house church. All I'm saying is that with many of these small groups they don't necessarily see themselves as part of a larger movement but see themselves as independently inspired by god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 What religion are you? If you had to pick. I thought you and I agreed on everything and then you said you weren't a protestant and I'm confused. It is confusing sorry. Sometimes I use the term 'Protestant' because that's what people understand and relate to if they already only see two main groups of Christians (or 3 if you're milovany :) ). So yes I do protest the Catholic Church, however there are things that I do not align myself with Protestants, and say Calvinism, ie the killing of Michael Servatus by John Calvin just for example. Some Christians protested Catholicism but still held onto some of the Catholic beliefs, like infant baptism etc. That's as simple as I can put it. So I call myself a bible believing Christian. And if I need to be more specific I will say I am Baptist. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 It is confusing sorry. Sometimes I use the term 'Protestant' because that's what people understand and relate to if they already only see two main groups of Christians (or 3 if you're milovany :) ). So yes I do protest the Catholic Church, however there are things that I do not align myself with Protestants, and say Calvinism, ie the killing of Michael Servatus by John Calvin just for example. Some Christians protested Catholicism but still held onto some of the Catholic beliefs, like infant baptism etc. That's as simple as I can put it. So I call myself a bible believing Christian. And if I need to be more specific I will say I am Baptist. Baptists technically have their line through Calvinist Separatists, aka Protestants. They divided into different types from there. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I'm almost too scared to reply now in case I say something deemed racist. Can I talk in terms of nations? Would that be preferable? How do you define "nations"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Baptists technically have their line through Calvinist Separatists, aka Protestants. They divided into different types from there. http://nonprotestantbaptists.com/TheBaptists.html 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 How do you define "nations"? It's a biblical term so I'll try to use it in the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 http://nonprotestantbaptists.com/TheBaptists.html Some of the Waldenses were more Anabaptistic, but there is no line from them to the Baptists of the Reformation not present day Baptists. Add to the fact that even Baptists today would consider them heretical. The same with many sectarian schismatics that some Baptists attempt to claim through the "Trail of Blood" view (which, ftr, has been proven to have been written with very poor scholarship). I'm very familiar with different Baptist claims as I was raised Baptist and my husband father was a Baptist pastor. I'm extremely familiar with the various schismatics and claims also from the Anabaptists who also claim them, but have zero direct connection to them and would consider them heretics on other views as well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 It's a biblical term so I'll try to use it in the same way. Based on what you said before, it does not seem you define it the same way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TianXiaXueXiao Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 http://nonprotestantbaptists.com/TheBaptists.html I read the article linked. This is a rather embellished account to put it lightly. I find the lack of evidence to support such claims rather spurious and insulting to common intellect. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I read the article linked. This is a rather embellished account to put it lightly. I find the lack of evidence to support such claims rather spurious and insulting to common intellect. It's how I understand church history. Much evidence was destroyed due to persecution and book burning. However the fact that we get to the 1500's and have over 5000 manuscripts and fragments still in agreement that don't belong to the Catholic Church testifies that there was still a great amount of believers not belonging to the Catholic Church. So they have a different lineage. One that believes in adult baptism. I think it is just convenience that some Christians want to say that those with Baptist beliefs only began at the time of the reformation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I'm not getting this "don't belong to the Catholic Church" bit. Catholics didn't use just what they supposedly "owned". They used manuscripts. They weren't "owned" by this group or that group. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Based on what you said before, it does not seem you define it the same way. Okay. I didn't know the term 'race' was racist. I was actually typing very quickly and knew I worded it awkwardly at the time. I was looking for the term 'multicultural' and it has only just come to me now. I still don't really know what I said or implied that was really racist though to push buttons? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I'm not getting this "don't belong to the Catholic Church" bit. Catholics didn't use just what they supposedly "owned". They used manuscripts. They weren't "owned" by this group or that group. The Vaticanus Manuscript was kept locked up by them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I still don't really know what I said or implied that was really racist though to push buttons? "Mixing of the races" is like a code word for people who are against interracial marriage. Since you used it, people here now think you find interracial marriage to be sinful. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Okay. I didn't know the term 'race' was racist. I was actually typing very quickly and knew I worded it awkwardly at the time. I was looking for the term 'multicultural' and it has only just come to me now. I still don't really know what I said or implied that was really racist though to push buttons? There are actual theological views that have people divided up by skin colour and heavily grounded in its own form of racism. Yes. Through history, groups have migrated and intermingled. Every group and tribe can be traced back to a variety of others that came from a variety of others, etc. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 "Mixing of the races" is like a code word for people who are against interracial marriage. Since you used it, people here now think you find interracial marriage to be sinful. Okay sorry. I absolutely do not think that. For the record. Thankyou. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The Vaticanus Manuscript was kept locked up by them. Nearly ALL manuscripts are locked up somewhere. It's how they are protected. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Nearly ALL manuscripts are locked up somewhere. It's how they are protected.It's kinda cool to live in a time when they are getting scanned and are then digitally available to scholars and translators and regular people. Eta spelling fix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The Vaticanus Manuscript was kept locked up by them. Erasmus used it as a source for his work on the Textus Receptus. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TianXiaXueXiao Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 It's how I understand church history. Much evidence was destroyed due to persecution and book burning. However the fact that we get to the 1500's and have over 5000 manuscripts and fragments still in agreement that don't belong to the Catholic Church testifies that there was still a great amount of believers not belonging to the Catholic Church. So they have a different lineage. One that believes in adult baptism. I think it is just convenience that some Christians want to say that those with Baptist beliefs only began at the time of the reformation. Church history is not such a hazy topic for such theories as this to pass muster. There are plenty of reputable universities that offer courses and texts in Church History. I don't think you will find much credibility given to the version of events put forth in that article in the classrooms of Cambridge, Oxford, Yale, etc. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Ftr, the Waldensians joined with the Reformed Protestants of the Reformation and that is where they stayed to this day. There were some sects of them that were Seventh Day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num3.htm In a statement of faith submitted to the bishop of Albano, Peter Waldo affirmed his belief in transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, and infant baptism. [13] The famed Baptist historian A.H. Newman drew the only conclusion warranted by the evidence. "Waldo and his early followers had more in common with...Roman Catholicism than with any evangelical party. His views of life and doctrine were scarcely in advance of many earnest Catholics of the time." [14] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 It's kinda cool to live in a time when they are getting scanned and are then digitally available to scholars and translators and regular people. Eta spelling fix. Agreed! If it weren't for them being protected (locked up), we wouldn't have them today. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Church history is not such a hazy topic for such theories as this to pass muster. There are plenty of reputable universities that offer courses and texts in Church History. I don't think you will find much credibility given to the version of events put forth in that article in the classrooms of Cambridge, Oxford, Yale, etc. Which part exactly are you referring to/do not believe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Erasmus used it as a source for his work on the Textus Receptus. My understanding is that he rejected it. Can you supply some proof please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Agreed! If it weren't for them being protected (locked up), we wouldn't have them today. The common people didn't have them in their day. Because the Roman Catholic Church would not allow them to be translated into the common language for the people, and any attempt to do so was met with death. So having manuscripts locked up and forbidden is not really something to celebrate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I always wonder what kind of people leave Jack Chick tracts on my car. Now I know. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Teannika, no offense (really!) but you're truly about as protestant as they come by any and all definitions that you can find in a basic dictionary. It's not a choice, it's not a definition up for debate. Protestants are Christians in the western tradition (i.e., not Eastern Orthodox) who are not Roman Catholic / under the leadership of the Pope. They protest this church and its leadership and are separate from it. There's no shame in that, no reason to not consider yourself Protestant. (And there are three main branches of Christianity, not two: Roman Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox). - - - - - - - ETA -- I confess that some Orthodox cheekily call Catholics the first protestants (having protested against the early church and having gone their own way; they might say the same thing about us), but in the way the word is used today, it's as described above. Western Christians who are not Catholic. And aside from the historical group, all of the ideas being described are part of a very specific type of Protestantism, and you can trace the threads of those ideas back to different thinkers. Though - that particular movement it seems to me is about as far from the traditional Protestant groups as it is from Catholicism or Orthodoxy. I think there were some pretty significant spiritualist and other outside influences that went into the creation of those worldviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
need2read Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The common people didn't have them in their day. Because the Roman Catholic Church would not allow them to be translated into the common language for the people, and any attempt to do so was met with death. So having manuscripts locked up and forbidden is not really something to celebrate. Neither is it something to be proud of that you think that everyone, regardless of language, education and upbringing should only use one English Bible translation that is in a form of English that is difficult for current English speakers to understand. Let alone someone who is not fluent in English. Your children being able to read it is not a valid argument; it is anecdotal and ignores the fact that being able to read the words doesn't equate to understanding them. So it leaves all these other people in the position of needing someone more educated/better at reading KJ English to explain what it means, and I fail to see how that is different from the RC church forbidding the Bible to be translated into the common languages. Common English today is different from common English in 1611. You are saying that you don't think the Bible should be translated into a version today's common people can understand. Today's common English speakers have difficulty with Shakespeare, what makes you believe that they don't also have difficulty with the KJV? And just in case you think I'm some New Age Apostate Christian, I believe everything stated in the Apostle's Creed and am a young earth creationist. I attend a Bible-believing Baptist church that preaches Salvation through faith in Christ alone. I have also extensively studied history and have thoroughly researched Bible versions to make sure that the Bible I am reading is the Word of God. I use the NASB, the ESV and the KJV and they do not disagree and I am convinced that each one is an accurate translation of Holy Scripture. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twigs Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Neither is it something to be proud of that you think that everyone, regardless of language, education and upbringing should only use one English Bible translation that is in a form of English that is difficult for current English speakers to understand. Let alone someone who is not fluent in English. Your children being able to read it is not a valid argument; it is anecdotal and ignores the fact that being able to read the words doesn't equate to understanding them. So it leaves all these other people in the position of needing someone more educated/better at reading KJ English to explain what it means, and I fail to see how that is different from the RC church forbidding the Bible to be translated into the common languages. Common English today is different from common English in 1611. You are saying that you don't think the Bible should be translated into a version today's common people can understand. Today's common English speakers have difficulty with Shakespeare, what makes you believe that they don't also have difficulty with the KJV? And just in case you think I'm some New Age Apostate Christian, I believe everything stated in the Apostle's Creed and am a young earth creationist. I attend a Bible-believing Baptist church that preaches Salvation through faith in Christ alone. I have also extensively studied history and have thoroughly researched Bible versions to make sure that the Bible I am reading is the Word of God. I use the NASB, the ESV and the KJV and they do not disagree and I am convinced that each one is an accurate translation of Holy Scripture. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk :iagree: especally the bolded. Thanks for posting 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet Crown Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The common people didn't have them in their day. Because the Roman Catholic Church would not allow them to be translated into the common language for the people, and any attempt to do so was met with death. Uh, no. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milovany Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 It is confusing sorry. Sometimes I use the term 'Protestant' because that's what people understand and relate to if they already only see two main groups of Christians (or 3 if you're milovany :) )... I know you were being cheeky, but really, it isn't just me and a few others who understand that there are three, not just two, main branches of Christianity. It doesn't help your case so very much to be so closed to reality (preferring your "understanding" over researchable fact). In the west, Catholic and protestant; in the east, Orthodoxy. Jesus was born into an eastern culture according to God's divine will, and the Holy Land is eastern to this day, so it's not easily dismissible. I hear your passion for the topic at hand, Teannika. I in fact used to share it and would take the same tack that you are taking with us here. (Lord have mercy.) But your reliance on hazy early church history, strong anti-Catholic prejudice and judgment against anyone who doesn't do Christianity the "right" way (which is based on your own personal understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures, something actually warned against in those Scriptures) just don't go over very well in presenting your arguments. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Sometimes I think that it is a bit misleading that Protestantism is so often put under one big umbrella. I don't have a problem with it if it's done with understanding that you are talking about a sort of organic historical development of ideas. But it gets a little hard to handle well when you are trying to talk about it as if it represents some sort of doctrinal unity - it really is several different movements from that perspective. And even more so with this stuff. Essentially we are talking about Biblioidolatry, and to me calling that Protestant is a bit like calling Gnosticism Orthodox. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Sometimes I think that it is a bit misleading that Protestantism is so often put under one big umbrella. I don't have a problem with it if it's done with understanding that you are talking about a sort of organic historical development of ideas. But it gets a little hard to handle well when you are trying to talk about it as if it represents some sort of doctrinal unity - it really is several different movements from that perspective. And even more so with this stuff. Essentially we are talking about Biblioidolatry, and to me calling that Protestant is a bit like calling Gnosticism Orthodox. It helps to think of it as a family tree, not an umbrella or grouping. The various denominations trace their history back to protestant groups, so are called Protestant. But that doesn't mean they have similar beliefs, and the further away the various branches are from one another the less similarity there will be. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 (edited) The common people didn't have them in their day. Because the Roman Catholic Church would not allow them to be translated into the common language for the people, and any attempt to do so was met with death. So having manuscripts locked up and forbidden is not really something to celebrate.The common people didn't have the manuscripts, because most of the common people could not read and there manuscripts would have been sold due to their value and eventually lost to all. Seriously, are you THAT ignorant of history and society?? The Catholic Church's issue was NOT the vernacular, it was too prevent just anyone from randomly "translating" and possibly inserting their own heresies or doing it poorly. These manuscripts were not, nor ever, a free for all (which would have destroyed them). Could you imagine if the manuscripts today were simply placed out on common tables and everyone was told, "here they are! Come and get them!" Do you know what would happen to them? They would be gone and never to be seen again. They would crumble to nothing. Yes, God bless those that would protect such things! Will I claim that the RCC is perfect? Of course not! We're there some people in it that did wrong? Absolutely! Just as there were Anabaptists that took over an entire city, murdering people and polygamous (Munster and a springboard for Menno's very different views) and there were certain Waldensian groups that separated husbands and wives. However, I will not claim that the RCC is Evil, the Whore of Babylon, the Anti-Christ, the holder of Satan's Sun Wafers, or some such craziness; I was raised on that garbage and a bit of maturity and learning actual history beyond what barely educated, fundamentalist preachers regurgitated of sensationalist authors and a cartoon drawing fanatic changed everything. Yes, I went to all the seminars, speeches, and read the books (Hunt, White, and Riplinger amongst them). You dig more and more and further back and you find just how messed up their scholarship is. Erasmus, yes, had issues with one of the manuscripts. It's still listed as a source he used, not completely rejected in whole. A bit of googling outside of fundamentalist websites and you can find this information. Edited November 19, 2015 by mommaduck 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet Crown Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The common people didn't have the manuscripts, because most of the common people could not read and there manuscripts would have been sold due to their value and eventually lost to all. Seriously, are you THAT ignorant of history and society?? The Catholic Church's issue was NOT the vernacular, it was too prevent just anyone from randomly "translating" and possibly inserting their own heresies or doing it poorly. These manuscripts were not, nor ever, a free for all (which would have destroyed them). Could you imagine if the manuscripts today were simply placed out on common tables and everyone was told, "here they are! Come and get them!" Do you know what would happen to them? They would be gone and never to be seen again. They would crumble to nothing. Yes, God bless those that would protect such things! Erasmus, yes, has issues with one of the manuscripts. It's still listed as a source he used, not completely rejected in whole. A bit of googling outside of fundamentalist websites and you can find this information. There was quite a lot of translation of Scripture into vernacular languages before the Reformation. (Ss Cyril and Methodius being an outstanding example; with papal blessing!) But like you say, people know how to Google, and "vernacular bible translations" is easy to spell, so I won't get longwinded. The main thing is that through most of Church history, in the West, anybody who could read, could read Latin. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Neither is it something to be proud of that you think that everyone, regardless of language, education and upbringing should only use one English Bible translation that is in a form of English that is difficult for current English speakers to understand. Let alone someone who is not fluent in English. Your children being able to read it is not a valid argument; it is anecdotal and ignores the fact that being able to read the words doesn't equate to understanding them. So it leaves all these other people in the position of needing someone more educated/better at reading KJ English to explain what it means, and I fail to see how that is different from the RC church forbidding the Bible to be translated into the common languages. Common English today is different from common English in 1611. You are saying that you don't think the Bible should be translated into a version today's common people can understand. Today's common English speakers have difficulty with Shakespeare, what makes you believe that they don't also have difficulty with the KJV? And just in case you think I'm some New Age Apostate Christian, I believe everything stated in the Apostle's Creed and am a young earth creationist. I attend a Bible-believing Baptist church that preaches Salvation through faith in Christ alone. I have also extensively studied history and have thoroughly researched Bible versions to make sure that the Bible I am reading is the Word of God. I use the NASB, the ESV and the KJV and they do not disagree and I am convinced that each one is an accurate translation of Holy Scripture. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk This! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samm Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 re: humanity evolving towards common language and purpose as in Tower of Babel era: Interesting. So the trend that you noted upthread that you see, towards the adoption of English as a common global language, is evidence of humanity uniting against God as one? Race mixing aside. This question was never fully addressed. The existence of a lingua franca is evidence of the anti-Christ? So does it follow that every Christian alive has a responsibility to learn a second language to the point of native-like fluency? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 It helps to think of it as a family tree, not an umbrella or grouping. The various denominations trace their history back to protestant groups, so are called Protestant. But that doesn't mean they have similar beliefs, and the further away the various branches are from one another the less similarity there will be. Yes, this is the best way for sure. I think this is why a historical approach to learning theology can be really effective. I like the family-tree style illustrations, I think they show the idea really effectively. But people do often seem to become confused about the nomenclature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 There was quite a lot of translation of Scripture into vernacular languages before the Reformation. (Ss Cyril and Methodius being an outstanding example; with papal blessing!) But like you say, people know how to Google, and "vernacular bible translations" is easy to spell, so I won't get longwinded. The main thing is that through most of Church history, in the West, anybody who could read, could read Latin. Took me less than two minutes. http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2009/07/15/why-did-the-catholic-church-prevent-vernacular-bible-translations/ Ftr, the Latin Vulgate WAS in the vernacular, or vulgar, language of its time. That language continued used, especially amongst the educated (those that could actually read) for a long period of time. The priests' job was to use their abilities to being the Gospel to those that were and weren't educated. People did not have time to be educated as many were just surviving. Religious education was through living (the religious calendar), oral teaching and the reading/interpreting the Scriptures to the people, hymns, and various forms of iconography and artwork (celtic crosses, stained glass, pageants/plays). The Gospel was NOT kept from the people. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Middle_Ages You'll find the Church was NOT against the vernacular at all. You WILL find that there was concern with certain translations or translators and concern with renegade perchers; the concern was heresy. One of the jobs of the Church was to prevent heresy, and definitely not to enable it's spread. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Took me less than two minutes. http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2009/07/15/why-did-the-catholic-church-prevent-vernacular-bible-translations/ Ftr, the Latin Vulgate WAS in the vernacular, or vulgar, language of its time. That language continued used, especially amongst the educated (those that could actually read) for a long period of time. The priests' job was to use their abilities to being the Gospel to those that were and weren't educated. People did not have time to be educated as many were just surviving. Religious education was through living (the religious calendar), oral teaching and the reading/interpreting the Scriptures to the people, hymns, and various forms of iconography and artwork (celtic crosses, stained glass, pageants/plays). The Gospel was NOT kept from the people. Funny how people forget that "Vulgate" means it was the vernacular!!! As in, not in Hebrew and Greek. Sigh. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.