This day, two days and 487 years ago, a stake pierced the heart of rome.

3,073 Views | 50 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by Jabin
codker92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In the annals of religious history, few figures stand as prominently as William Tyndale. A scholar, linguist, and devout clergyman, Tyndale's relentless pursuit to translate the Bible into English forever altered the religious landscape of England. His life's work not only provided the English-speaking world with direct access to the Scriptures but also laid the foundational stones for future translations, including the revered King James Version.

The early 16th century was a period of religious upheaval. Martin Luther's 95 Theses in 1517 ignited the Protestant Reformation, challenging the authority and practices of the Catholic Church. The call for reform echoed throughout Europe, and England was not immune to these transformative ideas. At the time, the Bible was available primarily in Latin, a language understood by the educated few. The common people relied on clergy interpretations for spiritual guidance. Tyndale believed that this monopoly over the Word of God deprived laypeople of personal engagement with their faith. He famously declared to a clergyman, "I defy the Pope and all his laws... If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plow shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost."

Tyndale sought permission from the Bishop of London to translate the Bible into English. His request was denied, reflecting the Church's fear that an English Bible could fuel dissent and challenge ecclesiastical authority. Undeterred, Tyndale resolved to continue his work outside England, setting the stage for a life marked by exile and constant peril.

Tyndale faced immense challenges in his translation efforts. Printing presses were monitored, and his works were considered heretical. He constantly moved between cities like Hamburg, Antwerp, and Marburg to evade capture. Despite these obstacles, Tyndale's translation was meticulous. He strived for clarity and readability, coining phrases and terms that have endured in the English language. Words like "Passover" and "scapegoat" are attributed to his linguistic creativity.

The circulation of Tyndale's English New Testament alarmed the Catholic Church and King Henry VIII. They viewed it as a direct threat to their authority and the unity of the Church. In 1529, Tyndale's works were officially banned, and efforts to capture him intensified. Sir Thomas More, a staunch Catholic and advisor to the King, became one of Tyndale's most vocal critics. More penned tracts condemning Tyndale as a heretic, accusing him of deliberate mistranslation to promote Protestant doctrines.

After 16 months of incarceration, Tyndale was tried for heresy. Despite his scholarly defense and the intercession of influential supporters, he was condemned. On October 6, 1536, Tyndale was strangled and then burned at the stake. His final prayer was reportedly, "Lord, open the King of England's eyes." This poignant plea underscored his hope that the Scriptures would eventually become accessible to all Englishmen.

Tyndale's translation had a profound impact on the English language. His choices of words and phrases enriched the vernacular, contributing to the expressive capacity of English. Phrases like "let there be light," "the powers that be," and "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" became integral to English literature and discourse.

Tyndale's work fueled the Protestant Reformation in England by empowering individuals to read and interpret the Bible independently. His translations undermined the Church's control over religious knowledge and practices, promoting ideas of personal faith and salvation through scripture. The legacy of Tyndale's translation endures in modern Bible versions. His commitment to accuracy and clarity set high standards for biblical scholarship. The King James Version, one of the most influential Bible translations, owes much to Tyndale's pioneering efforts. Tyndale became a martyr for religious freedom and the right to access sacred texts. His life symbolizes the struggle against oppressive authorities that restrict knowledge and personal belief. Tyndale's story continues to inspire advocates for freedom of expression and religious liberty.
Rongagin71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A Christian perspective song in Tyndale's memory.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He deserved it. It's Sacred Tradition to have the Bible only read in Latin.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Counterpoint

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/tyndales-heresy

if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).

And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the "father of the English Bible." But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people."

So troublesome did Tyndale's Bible prove to be that in 1543after his break with RomeHenry again decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideasnot because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).

When discussing the history of Biblical translations, it is very common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don't approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale's or Wycliff's. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't believe the Protestant Reformation can be seen to have bore any fruit.

Impossible to believe that the further fractioning of the Church and its removal as an authority in the West was positive in anyway.

This is not something to celebrate.

It's clearly gone great so far.








AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Counterpoint...This is Roman Catholic white washing. Rome hunted Tyndall and others down and brutally murdered them.



His translation was not wildly inaccurate and remained largely unchanged by the time of the KJV.

Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

Counterpoint...This is Roman Catholic white washing. Rome hunted Tyndall and others down and brutally murdered them.



His translation was not wildly inaccurate and remained largely unchanged by the time of the KJV.




Counter counterpoint, burning at the stake was a very common punishment for heresy, catholic or not.

When John Calvin wasn't busy claiming Jesus was actually Michael the Archangel, he was having his friend John Servetus apprehended and put to death, ultimately by burning at the stake (even though Calvin wanted him beheaded)
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Counter counterpoint, burning at the stake was a very common punishment for heresy, catholic or not.


The regularity of a punishment does not alter its brutality.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

Quote:

Counter counterpoint, burning at the stake was a very common punishment for heresy, catholic or not.


The regularity of a punishment does not alter its brutality.


But since there is no higher power in this world, why should we care about the brutality of a punishment at all? Seems like society at the time found it to be totally fine, and since societal norms are how we judge right and wrong, what's the big deal?

Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Banned said:

Sapper Redux said:

Quote:

Counter counterpoint, burning at the stake was a very common punishment for heresy, catholic or not.


The regularity of a punishment does not alter its brutality.


But since there is no higher power in this world, why should we care about the brutality of a punishment at all? Seems like society at the time found it to be totally fine, and since societal norms are how we judge right and wrong, what's the big deal?




Something something tribal empathy sky man
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Banned said:

Sapper Redux said:

Quote:

Counter counterpoint, burning at the stake was a very common punishment for heresy, catholic or not.


The regularity of a punishment does not alter its brutality.


But since there is no higher power in this world, why should we care about the brutality of a punishment at all? Seems like society at the time found it to be totally fine, and since societal norms are how we judge right and wrong, what's the big deal?




People brought up in a wholly Christian society deemed this an appropriate punishment. To burn a human being to death for believing the wrong things. You're trying to argue that there is universal morality which Christianity explains. Clearly Christianity doesn't have a consistent moral standard, unless you're saying burning a human to death (one of the most horrific deaths imaginable), is moral when the crime is wrongthink.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

The Banned said:

Sapper Redux said:

Quote:

Counter counterpoint, burning at the stake was a very common punishment for heresy, catholic or not.


The regularity of a punishment does not alter its brutality.


But since there is no higher power in this world, why should we care about the brutality of a punishment at all? Seems like society at the time found it to be totally fine, and since societal norms are how we judge right and wrong, what's the big deal?




People brought up in a wholly Christian society deemed this an appropriate punishment. To burn a human being to death for believing the wrong things. You're trying to argue that there is universal morality which Christianity explains. Clearly Christianity doesn't have a consistent moral standard, unless you're saying burning a human to death (one of the most horrific deaths imaginable), is moral when the crime is wrongthink.


No. I'm simply tired of people with no objective moral source getting upset about people doing things that go against their morals. It's all subjective, and in this particular case, in the past. Not saying you can't give your 2 cents or anything, but genuinely can't see why it would matter to you at all. Maybe I'm wrong here about your stance, so I'll ask: do you see any reasons or methods for the death penalty as valid in our time?

ETA: I'll further ask if you believe there should be any criminal charges for "misinformation" or "disinformation".
Rongagin71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

The Banned said:

Sapper Redux said:

Quote:

Counter counterpoint, burning at the stake was a very common punishment for heresy, catholic or not.


The regularity of a punishment does not alter its brutality.


But since there is no higher power in this world, why should we care about the brutality of a punishment at all? Seems like society at the time found it to be totally fine, and since societal norms are how we judge right and wrong, what's the big deal?




People brought up in a wholly Christian society deemed this an appropriate punishment. To burn a human being to death for believing the wrong things. You're trying to argue that there is universal morality which Christianity explains. Clearly Christianity doesn't have a consistent moral standard, unless you're saying burning a human to death (one of the most horrific deaths imaginable), is moral when the crime is wrongthink.
One of the reasons to do it was exactly because it was so horrible.
It was intended to intimidate and "scare people straight".
Even then, people knew it wasn't right and in part went Protestant
as a counter-reaction. But then the Protestants sometimes did it
and justified it as being done to those who had done it to others.
The Catholic Hierarchy knew it was unpopular and tried to reduce
the time it took for death to occur by placing sacks of gunpowder
around the necks of their victims. This also produced a Hellish flash.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

The Banned said:

Sapper Redux said:

Quote:

Counter counterpoint, burning at the stake was a very common punishment for heresy, catholic or not.


The regularity of a punishment does not alter its brutality.


But since there is no higher power in this world, why should we care about the brutality of a punishment at all? Seems like society at the time found it to be totally fine, and since societal norms are how we judge right and wrong, what's the big deal?




People brought up in a wholly Christian society deemed this an appropriate punishment. To burn a human being to death for believing the wrong things. You're trying to argue that there is universal morality which Christianity explains. Clearly Christianity doesn't have a consistent moral standard, unless you're saying burning a human to death (one of the most horrific deaths imaginable), is moral when the crime is wrongthink.


It makes plenty of sense. People are a product of their environment, and the logic behind burning at the stake is easily followed.

16th century mindset hat on

-Heresy is bad because it both insults God and puts souls at risk if any believe the heresy

- Heretics are destined for hell being outside the body of Christ

- Hell is a place of unquenchable fire

- Since they are already destined to burn for eternity, why not burn them publicly and use their death as a cautionary tale for budding heretics?

You have no problem explaining savage behavior from all manner of 3rd world country or citizen, why not our backwards ancestors?
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So the point apparently went right over your head. The appeal folks like you always make is to an "objective morality" grounded in your religion. The problem is there's no evidence of agreement on what that objective morality actually entails across 2000 years. You can work to justify why they behaved as they did, but it comes down to arguments about culture, time, place, and a variety of influences. Oh, and they absolutely believed they were following the objective morality and truth as revealed in the Bible. Just like you do. But unless you're claiming burning humans alive who disagree with you is an objective good, then there's some disconnect about what objective truth in Christianity means.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

So the point apparently went right over your head. The appeal folks like you always make is to an "objective morality" grounded in your religion. The problem is there's no evidence of agreement on what that objective morality actually entails across 2000 years. You can work to justify why they behaved as they did, but it comes down to arguments about culture, time, place, and a variety of influences. Oh, and they absolutely believed they were following the objective morality and truth as revealed in the Bible. Just like you do. But unless you're claiming burning humans alive who disagree with you is an objective good, then there's some disconnect about what objective truth in Christianity means.


Yes there is, and it's obvious. They knew burning people was bad, which is why they reserved it for what they considered the most heinous crime; we still consider heresy and blasphemy the most heinous crime, we just don't execute people for it. The morality has not changed, we don't presently believe that blasphemy or heresy is good or even neutral; it is still very bad. We just disagree on the punishment, which is not a question of morality but prudence
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Counterpoint

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/tyndales-heresy

if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).

And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the "father of the English Bible." But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people."

So troublesome did Tyndale's Bible prove to be that in 1543after his break with RomeHenry again decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideasnot because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).

When discussing the history of Biblical translations, it is very common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don't approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale's or Wycliff's. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.


Are there examples of what heresy he had in there?
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Counterpoint...This is Roman Catholic white washing. Rome hunted Tyndall and others down and brutally murdered them.



His translation was not wildly inaccurate and remained largely unchanged by the time of the KJV.




Counter counterpoint, burning at the stake was a very common punishment for heresy, catholic or not.

When John Calvin wasn't busy claiming Jesus was actually Michael the Archangel, he was having his friend John Servetus apprehended and put to death, ultimately by burning at the stake (even though Calvin wanted him beheaded)

Ah, but here's the thing. Nobody looks at Calvin, Luther, or any other protestant as some sort of infallible figure or group.

But Rome makes a claim. To have an infallible magisterium that's guiding the church with a pope who speaks for God at its head.

A group that now claims the death penalty is against God's will, yet had no problem historically murdering people.

You don't get to claim your magisterium as some guiding force only when it benefits you. You get to own their horrible views as well.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Counterpoint...This is Roman Catholic white washing. Rome hunted Tyndall and others down and brutally murdered them.



His translation was not wildly inaccurate and remained largely unchanged by the time of the KJV.




Counter counterpoint, burning at the stake was a very common punishment for heresy, catholic or not.

When John Calvin wasn't busy claiming Jesus was actually Michael the Archangel, he was having his friend John Servetus apprehended and put to death, ultimately by burning at the stake (even though Calvin wanted him beheaded)

Ah, but here's the thing. Nobody looks at Calvin, Luther, or any other protestant as some sort of infallible figure or group.

But Rome makes a claim. To have an infallible magisterium that's guiding the church with a pope who speaks for God at its head.

A group that now claims the death penalty is against God's will, yet had no problem historically murdering people.

You don't get to claim your magisterium as some guiding force only when it benefits you. You get to own their horrible views as well.


Rome doesnt make the claim, Rome follows the claim made by Christ. The only power the Church has was given to it by Christ. Again, the death penalty is not a matter of faith and morals, it's a subset of our philosophy on life. That's like saying the church teaching on nuclear missiles has changed. You're taking a narrow event and evolving guidance as a wholesale change.

Life should always be protected except in extreme circumstances. Recent popes have argued the circumstances are no longer extreme due to the lack of deterrence of the death penalty and modern incarceration efficiency. If killing a person who is no risk to escape and whose death doesnt deter more killing why do it?
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper's partially right on this.

Christianity does believe in absolute moral standards, allowing us to evaluate the conduct of Christians in the past.

There is no way to justify actions such as burning at the stake or the form of slavery practiced in the US South in light of the teachings of Christ. There is no way to justify the orgies held in the Vatican or the impregnation by the pope of his own daughter.

Do you really believe that Christ, if present at the burning of a so-called heretic or the brutal whipping of a slave, would have said "that's OK, keep it up, go get 'em"? Or if he'd walked into the Vatican during an orgy, he would have OK'd it?

Where Sapper is wrong and perhaps inconsistent is that although he denies the absolute moral standards of Christianity and God, he believes that his personal moral standards are absolute. The source of his standards and why they are absolutes are a mystery. Many thinkers, even secular ones, have recognized that standards and morality such as Sappers are derived from Christianity. One doesn't find many (any?) people with those standards in non-Christian or pre-Christian cultures.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seems the accusation was basically that he was a Lutheran, and his translation reflected that. Here's an article that is pretty good.

http://www.tyndale.org/tsj22/hooker.html

Unsurprisingly the areas of critique are how he translated "church" "priest" "righteousness" "justify" "love" -- basically the argument du jour.

I will say that it seems a huge amount of mischief has come from how that word dikaiosune righteousness / justice made it into English, and depending on your own views it can be stretched to mean one thing or another. It seems in some way Tyndale is the father of this problem. Since I - although not a Roman Catholic and having no allies really on either side of the Reformation debates - am not sympathetic to Tyndale's theology, it seems to me that there is some mischief here simply in the fruit the tree bore over the next few centuries.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jabin said:

Sapper's partially right on this.

Christianity does believe in absolute moral standards, allowing us to evaluate the conduct of Christians in the past.

There is no way to justify actions such as burning at the stake or the form of slavery practiced in the US South in light of the teachings of Christ. There is no way to justify the orgies held in the Vatican or the impregnation by the pope of his own daughter.

Do you really believe that Christ, if present at the burning of a so-called heretic or the brutal whipping of a slave, would have said "that's OK, keep it up, go get 'em"? Or if he'd walked into the Vatican during an orgy, he would have OK'd it?

Where Sapper is wrong and perhaps inconsistent is that although he denies the absolute moral standards of Christianity and God, he believes that his personal moral standards are absolute. The source of his standards and why they are absolutes are a mystery. Many thinkers, even secular ones, have recognized that standards and morality such as Sappers are derived from Christianity. One doesn't find many (any?) people with those standards in non-Christian or pre-Christian cultures.
Absolutely. Christians are one group that never gets to pull the "things were just that way back then" card. Our standard for goodness is timeless, and our examples of Christ and the saints don't change with the times. We can and should judge all Christians based on that standard, regardless of context, culture or setting. We are citizens of a different kingdom with different rules and different customs than the rest of the world, and we can't use the influence of the world as an excuse
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
well, I just went down a rabbit hole on how common or not common burning at the stake was...and it was way more common than I expected and I am very sad now.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Counterpoint...This is Roman Catholic white washing. Rome hunted Tyndall and others down and brutally murdered them.



His translation was not wildly inaccurate and remained largely unchanged by the time of the KJV.




Counter counterpoint, burning at the stake was a very common punishment for heresy, catholic or not.

When John Calvin wasn't busy claiming Jesus was actually Michael the Archangel, he was having his friend John Servetus apprehended and put to death, ultimately by burning at the stake (even though Calvin wanted him beheaded)

Ah, but here's the thing. Nobody looks at Calvin, Luther, or any other protestant as some sort of infallible figure or group.

But Rome makes a claim. To have an infallible magisterium that's guiding the church with a pope who speaks for God at its head.

A group that now claims the death penalty is against God's will, yet had no problem historically murdering people.

You don't get to claim your magisterium as some guiding force only when it benefits you. You get to own their horrible views as well.


Rome doesnt make the claim, Rome follows the claim made by Christ. The only power the Church has was given to it by Christ. Again, the death penalty is not a matter of faith and morals, it's a subset of our philosophy on life. That's like saying the church teaching on nuclear missiles has changed. You're taking a narrow event and evolving guidance as a wholesale change.

Life should always be protected except in extreme circumstances. Recent popes have argued the circumstances are no longer extreme due to the lack of deterrence of the death penalty and modern incarceration efficiency. If killing a person who is no risk to escape and whose death doesnt deter more killing why do it?

The death penalty is not a matter of faith and morals? You mean Rome believe that the church could ignore the 5th commandment when it wanted? Support murder of heretics when it made sense or when murder was just a common punishment?"

That is a claim you're saying Christ made?

The second paragraph is just Rome washing to cover up for popes disagreeing. There's nothing scriptural to support this arbitrary position and further, you have nobody centuries ago justifying murder in this manner. Not even you attempted to justify it this way initially.

So I can easily say Calvin was wrong. Shoot, I can say Luther was wrong for mistakes he made.

Can you say that your magisterium was wrong for issuing papal bulls and decrees saying that murdering heretics was acceptable?
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I thought about editing my post to add this, but will just make another post.

The claim that:
Quote:

Recent popes have argued the circumstances are no longer extreme due to the lack of deterrence of the death penalty and modern incarceration efficiency. If killing a person who is no risk to escape and whose death doesnt deter more killing why do it?

It's not scriptural at all, but I could find agreement with this for the mentally insane who are a true threat to society.

But what was Tyndall's crime?

He disagreed with Rome. He printed a Bible in English. I'm not aware of him murdering anyone. Or stealing or anything nefarious. He simply disagreed with Rome and for that he was burned at the stake.

We have modern Bibles printed with all kinds of nonsense. Are you suggesting we throw bible editors into jail that print stuff Rome doesn't like? That would be the only consistent interpretation of your claim.

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tyndale was not executed for his translation efforts. He also wasn't tried or executed by the roman catholic church. He also wasn't killed by being burned at the stake - he was strangled, and then his body was burned.

He's become a martyr saint for Protestants, and in people take great liberty with his hagiography acting as if English translations didn't exist before him and would not exist but for him.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Seems the accusation was basically that he was a Lutheran, and his translation reflected that. Here's an article that is pretty good.

http://www.tyndale.org/tsj22/hooker.html

Unsurprisingly the areas of critique are how he translated "church" "priest" "righteousness" "justify" "love" -- basically the argument du jour.

I will say that it seems a huge amount of mischief has come from how that word dikaiosune righteousness / justice made it into English, and depending on your own views it can be stretched to mean one thing or another. It seems in some way Tyndale is the father of this problem. Since I - although not a Roman Catholic and having no allies really on either side of the Reformation debates - am not sympathetic to Tyndale's theology, it seems to me that there is some mischief here simply in the fruit the tree bore over the next few centuries.



Thanks for the link, I'll have to dive into it when I have time.

swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm anti-death penalty, but I admit that Scripturally the death penalty is a permissable action for the government to take. Rome really played fast and loose with government vs church though...so .. well.. meh.

I do not believe that permission includes torture or sadism though.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

as if English translations didn't exist before him and would not exist but for him.


I'm no scholor but almost every source I look up says he was the first.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Counterpoint...This is Roman Catholic white washing. Rome hunted Tyndall and others down and brutally murdered them.



His translation was not wildly inaccurate and remained largely unchanged by the time of the KJV.




Counter counterpoint, burning at the stake was a very common punishment for heresy, catholic or not.

When John Calvin wasn't busy claiming Jesus was actually Michael the Archangel, he was having his friend John Servetus apprehended and put to death, ultimately by burning at the stake (even though Calvin wanted him beheaded)

Ah, but here's the thing. Nobody looks at Calvin, Luther, or any other protestant as some sort of infallible figure or group.

But Rome makes a claim. To have an infallible magisterium that's guiding the church with a pope who speaks for God at its head.

A group that now claims the death penalty is against God's will, yet had no problem historically murdering people.

You don't get to claim your magisterium as some guiding force only when it benefits you. You get to own their horrible views as well.


Rome doesnt make the claim, Rome follows the claim made by Christ. The only power the Church has was given to it by Christ. Again, the death penalty is not a matter of faith and morals, it's a subset of our philosophy on life. That's like saying the church teaching on nuclear missiles has changed. You're taking a narrow event and evolving guidance as a wholesale change.

Life should always be protected except in extreme circumstances. Recent popes have argued the circumstances are no longer extreme due to the lack of deterrence of the death penalty and modern incarceration efficiency. If killing a person who is no risk to escape and whose death doesnt deter more killing why do it?

The death penalty is not a matter of faith and morals? You mean Rome believe that the church could ignore the 5th commandment when it wanted? Support murder of heretics when it made sense or when murder was just a common punishment?"

That is a claim you're saying Christ made?

The second paragraph is just Rome washing to cover up for popes disagreeing. There's nothing scriptural to support this arbitrary position and further, you have nobody centuries ago justifying murder in this manner. Not even you attempted to justify it this way initially.

So I can easily say Calvin was wrong. Shoot, I can say Luther was wrong for mistakes he made.

Can you say that your magisterium was wrong for issuing papal bulls and decrees saying that murdering heretics was acceptable?


No, the death penalty is a small facet of a much larger holistic pro-life ethos. Christ gave the church the power to bind and loose; if you have a problem with that, take it up with him. As to your last statement, my church doesn't ascribe to the innovation that is Sola Scriptura, so the fact that scripture does explicitly state what the church's teaching on the gas chamber or lethal injection is might be an impediment to you, but not to us; as we have over a thousand years of discourse on the subject from St Ambrose and St John Chrysostom to St Thomas Aquinas and St Pope John Paul II.

Popes can disagree all they want, they frequently do so. What matters is that they cannot change truth, and the truth is that the death penalty has always been acknowledged as a legitimate means of punishment when circumstances dictate, and is now being argued that circumstances no longer dictate its use. That's it.

With regards to the execution of heretics, I'm sure there were some cases in which they were done unjustly. Most of the executions were undertaken by the state and not the church, and the heretics were executed for being rebels and leading revolts. I don't think executing heretics is an objective wrong, it's likely just in some cases. I think there are likely more prudential ways of handling heresies now;
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

I thought about editing my post to add this, but will just make another post.

The claim that:
Quote:

Recent popes have argued the circumstances are no longer extreme due to the lack of deterrence of the death penalty and modern incarceration efficiency. If killing a person who is no risk to escape and whose death doesnt deter more killing why do it?

It's not scriptural at all, but I could find agreement with this for the mentally insane who are a true threat to society.

But what was Tyndall's crime?

He disagreed with Rome. He printed a Bible in English. I'm not aware of him murdering anyone. Or stealing or anything nefarious. He simply disagreed with Rome and for that he was burned at the stake.

We have modern Bibles printed with all kinds of nonsense. Are you suggesting we throw bible editors into jail that print stuff Rome doesn't like? That would be the only consistent interpretation of your claim.




Who actually put Tyndale to death?
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

I don't think executing heretics is an objective wrong, it's likely just in some cases.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Venerable Bede was translating scripture to English in the late 600s. Tyndale didn't even do the first full English Bible - that's Coverdale.

Excuse I was backward. Coverdale was the first complete *printed* English Bible. Wycliffe was the first complete in 1382.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Related: everyone needs to read this:

https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

And then say to yourself "huh. I never knew all that detail. the commonly told story is almost completely useless and untrue".

And then realize that almost everything we know in history is exactly like that every time.

And then realize that histories / hagiographies like in the OP are almost completely useless and untrue.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Related: everyone needs to read this:

https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

And then say to yourself "huh. I never knew all that detail. the commonly told story is almost completely useless and untrue".

And then realize that almost everything we know in history is exactly like that every time.

And then realize that histories / hagiographies like in the OP are almost completely useless and untrue.
Yes! The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown! Such an entertaining read. And very informative.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.