Was translating the bible into the common language a good/bad thing ?

Question

For a long time people were not allowed to read the thing

It was a lot easier for the Priesthood to control the masses


Was it a good move that it was translated into a common launguage or not so much ?

Answer 1

Not much of a history buff, are you.
For centuries the Bible was read aloud in the original Greek (the common language of the people) every week, in its complete form.

The problem is that you assume that the Bible held the same authority in the early Church that it does today. The truth is, before the invention of the printing press, the Bible was not the final authority in the Church - quite the contrary.

You guys always crack me up - claiming that the Bible was used to control the masses 1600 years before it had the authority to do so.

Answer 2

The Church seems to have veered back and forth on the matter of translating the Bible into the vernacular. In times when there was no threat of heresy, it seems to have been acceptable to make the Bible available in the local languages. (Even so, St. Augustine, in the fourth century, had serious misgivings about St. Jerome's translating the Bible from Greek into Latin!) The Venerable Bede (673-735) translated the Gospel of John into Old English--dictating the last sentence, according to tradition, on his deathbed. There were several other English translations before the King James Version--those of John Wycliffe, Miles Coverdale, and William Tyndale, and possibly others. As for King James, he didn't translate the Bible himself but commissioned the translation to be done by many scholars. You can actually see slight differences in usage in different parts, because the language was changing. There's a tradition, too, that one of the translators was a rather well-known playwright who was married to a woman named Anne Hathaway.

Answer 3

I think it was a great thing! Because people could finally read God's message to them for themselves.

Do you know what a struggle it was to get the bible translated into common languages? Luther was the first - he translated it into German - John Wycliffe was the first man to translate the bible into the English language.

Wycliffe was persecuted by the Catholic church for translating the bible into English. He copied the manuscripts by hand and after his death, the Catholic church dug up his body and burned it along with every copy of the bible they could find that he had translated. They scattered the ashes into the sea.

There is an organization called Wycliffe today ( http://www.wycliffe.org) Their goal is to translate the New Testament into every language on the planet by 2025 so that everyone in the world can experience the bible in their native tongue. Do you think they'll make it?? :)

Answer 4

Let me preface this by saying that my primary language for Biblical studies for over 20 years has been Koine Greek, the language of the New Testament. The FIRST "English" translation of scripture dates to 735, when Bede was preparing a translation of John's Gospel from his deathbed. The FIRST COMPLETE BIBLE in English was a collaboration ORGANIZED BY John Wycliffe in the 1380's. This version was created WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING THE "CHURCH" and was "OFFICIALLY" CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH, though the New Testament gives no one that right... NOTICE, THIS BIBLE was COMPLETED about 220 YEARS BEFORE THE SO-CALLED "KING JAMES VERSION."

It amazes me that, though it was built upon a "common language" translation of the scriptures, the catholic church could so strongly oppose later attempts to translate scripture as the "common language" changed. The ORIGIN of the New Testament in the first broadly understood common language tends to support continuing efforts to translate it into the language of each new generation of Christians.

Many people attack the trend common to several newer English versions to render language in an INCLUSIVE WAY. When Peter used the word translated "brothers," or, "brothers and sisters" in more modern translations, HE WAS USING AN INCLUSIVE WORD. The English language has changed in recent years to the point that inclusion MUST BE EXPLICITLY STATED TO BE UNDERSTOOD. The translators are in no way altering the original MEANING with this reading, since the term was then understood to be INCLUSIVE.

As a translator, I recognize that the language of today's teens and young adults IS NOT THE SAME as the language I studied in school. As the "target language" CHANGES, newer, updated translations are needed to allow new generations to UNDERSTAND THE MEANING as the writers intended.

Answer 5

Translating the Bible into the common language is a good thing. Otherwise how could people read and understand it? The Scriptures were originally written in a language that people could understand. Today they should still be in a language that people can understand. That means translation.

Answer 6

Anything that lessens control over the masses is a good thing , since I consider myself to be amongst the masses.People already dont think for themselves enough . The major obstacle is that they dont realize that they let others dictate what they should know and believe.

Answer 7

obviously, it was a good thing to translate not only the bible but also the holy books of other religions, because now not only its followers but the others can also be aware of the teachings of various religions, thus helping in elimination of prejudices and racism..

Answer 8

It was a wonderful thing. It allowed people to learn about God themselves and not rely on a corrupt clergy. This brought about the Reformation.

Because people wanted to be able to read God's word for themselves, it promoted literacy.

Answer 9

the bible is confusing because it would speak in noun verb, and since we talk that way in america it makes it much more confusing than it has to be I like the niv version even though im not entirley sure if Im a christian, I dont think its fair to use confusion to scare people into doing what you want when you know thereis a way to explain it in a way that make s sence, what do you have to hide you know.

Answer 10

It really should only be in Hebrew or Aramaic, since it loses such a ridiculous amount in translation, even when in Latin. It's like reading a whole 'nother book!!