-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would Christianity be better off
- Thread starter Antibush5
- Start date
Thesavorofpan
Is not going to save you.
No. The reason why they translated the bible from Latin was to put it in a language in which everyone could read. Because in Catholism back then the only people allowed to read the bible was the priest so basically they could say whatever the hell they wanted too. But a bunch of prostants in I think 1610 decided that everyone should be able to read the bible and thats when the KJV was deceded to be translated.
Only if all Christians learned Latin.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
No. Look at all the literalists even with all the different translations we currently have.
Why would it?
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Contrary to Protestant propaganda, the RCC wasn't trying to prevent translations into the vernacular. Rather, they opposed the methods and principles being employed by rogue translators. The early translations of scripture into English, whatever virtues they enjoyed, were much less translations than polemical commentaries.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I am not sure how many Bibles have ever been translated from the latin.
Most have used earlier texts.
Most have used earlier texts.
Antibush5
Active Member
Hows about I expand on why I think Christianity would be better off without the bible being readable to the common man. It would stop bible litralists, like the westbro baptist church, there wouldn't be as many sects of Christianity, which in the end is good for a faith like that.
xkatz
Well-Known Member
I concur. It's a shame they took out some of the good books like the Gopsel of Thomas. I have heard it on audio and I really like it. If they left all the books in, the Bible I think would be even more successful.
Instead of those who take the Bible literally, you would have those who take the word of the priest literally; different format, but the same problem. And, as was the problem at the time around the Reformation, the common guy wouldn't know if the clergy was actually giving the truth.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The church has always been divided into "sects."
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
They didn't "take it out." It was never "in," since the earliest manuscript wasn't "found" until long after the canonization process. And it wasn't in Latin. Or Greek.
I think if it wasn't for the taking away of the Mystery I'd still be Christian. For instance, the reason I ever 'strayed' was to read about meditation, which wasn't talked about in my Protestant home, however since volunteering with Catholic and Anlgicans at a Spiritual counseling/drop in centre I've learned a great deal about it and it's given a me a beautiful language of connectedness to speak when I'm talking with Christian clients.
:namaste
SageTree
What do you mean when you say "better off"? That's not a simple question. Christendom would probably be more thoroughly consolidated and less factious, but it's arguable that it would also be less relevant to the modern day and Christianity could, feasibly, be dying.
But it's a moot point. How in the hell could the Church prevent translations from escaping in this modern era? Even if the Mother Church and Orthodox schismatics used Latin texts still, secularists and other schismatics would have produced a translation. EVERYTHING gets translated these days. You can find the Q'uran in English pretty easily, despite the fact that essentially all Islamic sects still say it only counts in Arabic.
But it's a moot point. How in the hell could the Church prevent translations from escaping in this modern era? Even if the Mother Church and Orthodox schismatics used Latin texts still, secularists and other schismatics would have produced a translation. EVERYTHING gets translated these days. You can find the Q'uran in English pretty easily, despite the fact that essentially all Islamic sects still say it only counts in Arabic.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Oh, neato. English is the one language that everyone understands.And the KJV is more accurate than even the original texts from which they were translated.
xkatz
Well-Known Member
Even if it wasn't in the early NT, it still could be considered Christian since a lot of the verses and sayings in the GoT are attributed to Jesus Christ. And besides, why should it matter that it was in Coptic?
Smoke
Done here.
I think Christianity would be better off if they'd never translated the Bible into Latin to start with. I think the Eastern theologians were onto something when they said that neither the Latin language nor the Latin theologians themselves were sufficiently subtle for first-rate theology.
Last edited: