Many will look at this question and say, "The Catholic Church didn't want people to read the bible and know the truth." This is the stupid answer based in protestant ignorance and prejudice. The fact of the matter is, that many countries didn't even have a stable language base nor did they share common words or written words to represent many things. But if you think that the King James Bible was the first bible in English, you better go back and read the history books. There were several translations before King James. Do you think French was stable enough, or German, to make accurate translations? There were no printing presses until Guttenburg. The technology of mass production of books didn't exist yet. Yet the church buildings told the biblical stories in glass, stone and liturgy.
2007-11-30 16:27:23 · 14 answers · asked by hossteacher 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
One person has commented that the Catholic Church burned people at the stake for translating the bible. Now please give Time, Location, Official Church Teaching. You made the statement now prove it! Is it your prejudice or is it truth? If its truth then give the details not generalizations.
2007-12-01 02:02:41 · update #1
The Mass was in latin because latin is also a language used in the bible and in biblical times. Latin remained the universal language of Europe. It crossed country bounderies. Latin has taken on a mystical element in the Tridentine Mass and continues to do so. The Church did not use Latin to keep people ignorant. To say it did, shows a lack of understanding for the history of languages. European languages were very unstable up unitil about the 14th century. Study Elizabethan English for example.
2007-12-01 02:05:48 · update #2
Quite frankly, because in the Middle Ages, there were very few people who could read ... at all.
^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^
2007-11-30 16:34:00 · answer #1 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You answered part of the question yourself, because the printing press wasn't invented and therefore couldn't "mass produce" Bibles.
Therefore, most Bibles had to be copied by hand. By rule, if a scribe made even the smallest mistake, they would trash the whole thing and start over. Sucked if they screwed up the Amen in Revelation 22:21.
Then the bulk of the literate world spoke Latin so the need for other languages wasn't that great. It wasn't until after the fall of Rome and other languages started to take root and offshoots of Latin started to rise that there was a need for other translations.
As far as English translations, William Tyndale was put to death for translating the Bible into English so the common man could read it. The first Coverdale Bible had on one of it's pages a WT in remembrance of him. That was roughly 80 years before the KJV.
2007-12-01 00:38:40 · answer #2 · answered by Acts 4:12 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good question with some really prejudiced and bigoted answers.
Goodness why do we keep repeating things about others that aren't true but support our own opinions. This is so dishonest.
Support your ideas with good arguments. It's so easy to misrepresent your opponent by creating a straw man. You start your arguments by misstating the ideas or position of the folks you disagree with, what they truely believe and practice and you then misrepresent the facts of history and then point out how wrong they are.
It's not honest.
It's no way to support or argue your position.
It is harmful to good conversation among people of differing ideas and values who want to engage in honest debate or interesting conversation.
Go ahead and express your dislike of Christians or atheist or Catholic or Moslem's but at least have the decency to get your facts right.
This question is really interesting and we all might learn important things if we stop promoting ignorance and bigotry!
2007-12-01 00:52:13 · answer #3 · answered by patrick m 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually the Chinese had printing available, as in block printing - so they could make multiple copies.
No one had the forethought or the access, to have the Bible printed in China...
Countries would of course, be stable with their languages - relatively, English was not the prominent language of the world, etc. No one seems to agree with you about this point.
In those times - the Church did have power and control, such that Galileo held back his manuscript until such time that it didn't matter to him, if he got executed for it.
You think about the teddy named Mohammed today in the middle East - well, Christianity and it's churches had that kind of mentality back then.
2007-12-01 01:22:59 · answer #4 · answered by TruthBox 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Catholic church burned some people at the stake for translating the bible such as Tyndale. They didn't do it however because they wanted to keep people from the truth. What they wanted to was maintain their hold over the flock much the same way the religious leaders feared Jesus when he walked the earth. No doubt they wanted to keep heretics at bay as well. Were you unaware of this historical fact? Well here is a reference for you. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/williamtyndale.htm I wonder how Jesus felt about this?
2007-12-01 00:38:51 · answer #5 · answered by Edward J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, lots of versions, several *dozen* of which were approved by the Roman Catholic Church
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm
As mentioned, Latin was (for centuries) the "lingua franca" of the Christian world. Indeed, only after French became the "common language" (and coined the term) did Latin fall out of favor. I, myself, have met a foreign-born physician who earned his way through medical school *in the U.S.* by giving lectures in Latin (prior to WWII).
Nevertheless, shortly after the printing press became widespread, approved versions in the vernacular (I have read that there were 40 in Italian alone!) became widespread. English versions were a *very* late arrival (1500s for 1st complete translation, 1609 for 1st approved by the Roman Catholic Church).
Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/
2007-12-02 01:24:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
if you honestly believe that major european languages were not 'stable' enough to take a translation of the bible during the middle ages i wonder what language people were reading when they read:
the canterbury tales (english)
le roman de la rose (french)
la divina comedia / il decamerone (italian).
perhaps you need to think again.
the catholic church certainly did not want people to read the bible in their own language. jan hus was excommunicated for a number of reasons, but mainly for preaching to the people and telling them bible stories in their own language (czech). hus was nearly two hundred years before the kjv.
2007-12-01 00:40:38 · answer #7 · answered by synopsis 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The why was the Mass given in Latin?
If the church really wasn't trying to hide the truth from the congregation, which of course they were. Maybe you need to learn more about the church you so clearly worship.
2007-12-01 00:33:38 · answer #8 · answered by L.C. 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Bibles were hard to come by before the printing press.
2007-12-01 01:34:44 · answer #9 · answered by Lafurniture 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very few knew how to read and to write. So the story was dictated by a few intellectuals if you want to call them that and so the story goes as they saw fit.
2007-12-01 00:39:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the first translation of the Bible in latin was the Vulgate
2007-12-01 00:35:12 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋