View Single Post
  #5  
Old 04-29-2008, 01:00 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by againstheresies
So in your opinion Wycliffe was a corrupt translation that should have been rejected.
Hi against, .. it is very unhelpful for your own understanding to rush to dismissively place words in other folks' mouths that they never spoke.

Wycliffe's Bible was part of the Reformation process - a process that both brought the Bible to the ploughman and brought forth the true text of the Bible in languages throughout the world. So who are you saying should have 'rejected' Wycliffe's work ? What English Bible was available that they would have 'rejected' it for in the 1400s ? Who here has said that no Bible is superior to a Bible version with impurities, even with our hindsight ?

Please note that even textually the Wycliffe Latin-to-English translation is far superior to what is put out today in the version marketplace of corruption. His Bible includes the Pericope Adultera and the ending of Mark as fully and truly God's word, with no false accusation that these sections are the corruption of man, and he includes major verses like Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma as scripture. By difficult labors Wycliffe gave us the best Bible he was able to give, and paved the way for Tyndale and the Reformers to continue the work more excellently. Only when those further efforts came to fruition in the 1500s and 1600s were men in a position to 'reject' (ie. accept what had become available and was superior) the resulting Bible version of Wycliffe for the far superior Tyndale Bible, and those Reformation Bibles which continued to refine and purify the English Bible. Which is what actually occurred. Did Desiderius Erasmus and William Tyndale and Stephanus (Robert Estienne) and Theodore Beza and John Calvin and Lancelot Andrewes accuse John Wycliffe in his labors, in his bringing forth the Bible into English ? Or did they simply appreciate his efforts as a forerunner of their own labors, a necessary and proper and excellent prelude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by againstheresies
How about the other four?
Since your concept on Wycliffe was politically dismissive and quite dubious, I tend to doubt that you can have the proper appreciation for the wonderful four predecessor English Bibles you listed that all helped prepare the way for the majestic and pure and perfect King James Bible.

Every one of those four versions you mention are vastly superior to the versions sold in the marketplaces of corruption today. Each one had a role as part of God's providential design to make available to the ploughman his pure and perfect word. Each one then decreased, as the pure and perfect word of God, the King James Bible, increased to its place of majesty and clarity and acceptance as the Holy Bible, the word of God.

Shalom,
Steven

Last edited by Steven Avery; 04-29-2008 at 01:08 AM.