I bet you don't know this one

[max-greece]

Who said there was an earlier English translation?

We're making progress. There was no earlier English translation because the Englishman Wycliffe and his buddies wrote the Bible.

Now pay attention: There were a number of assorted manuscripts floating around. Even the Vulgate was written by Englishmen as a gift to the Pope. But it was Wycliffe and his buddies that wrote the Bible as we now know it. After that everyone else conformed to Wycliffe's version and they updated the language over time and even added some new ideas. As I referenced before, the Pope who wrote his version added about 2,000 deviations.

Well I'm confused.

You appear to be arguing that there was no English translation of the Bible until the Bible was translated into English?

Isn't that, kind of, obvious?

You do accept that there were versions of the bible in other languages before that date don't you?

[Mudhammam]

Hey pickup, I prolly am beyond forgiveness, but I know that if you look deep into your heart, you'll find the courage to forgive my silly remarks. You're a smart sensible man, but I love the way you start off cool, cerebral, PC, and by the end you're ripping new arseholes in your respondees! He he

PS, have you shot your brother yet? Just checking? Hehe

Lmao. I have little patience for feigned intelligence. And no, my brother and I made up.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

We're making progress. There was no earlier English translation because the Englishman Wycliffe and his buddies wrote the Bible.

Now pay attention: There were a number of assorted manuscripts floating around. Even the Vulgate was written by Englishmen as a gift to the Pope. But it was Wycliffe and his buddies that wrote the Bible as we now know it. After that everyone else conformed to Wycliffe's version and they updated the language over time and even added some new ideas. As I referenced before, the Pope who wrote his version added about 2,000 deviations.

---

Well I'm confused.

You appear to be arguing that there was no English translation of the Bible until the Bible was translated into English?

Isn't that, kind of, obvious?

You do accept that there were versions of the bible in other languages before that date don't you?

I've always said that there were scraps of assorted manuscripts floating around but they were not the Bible. If they were all you have to do is to provide a source for a certified authentic complete copy. That should be easy to do.

[Jenny A]

Who said there was an earlier English translation?

We're making progress. There was no earlier English translation because the Englishman Wycliffe and his buddies wrote the Bible.

Now pay attention: There were a number of assorted manuscripts floating around. Even the Vulgate was written by Englishmen as a gift to the Pope. But it was Wycliffe and his buddies that wrote the Bible as we now know it. After that everyone else conformed to Wycliffe's version and they updated the language over time and even added some new ideas. As I referenced before, the Pope who wrote his version added about 2,000 deviations.

*rolls eyes*

The Vulgate was primarily the work of St. Jerome who translated the Bible into Latin in the late 300s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate Jerome was born in Stridon near Dalmatia. He was not English. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome

The Vulgate did not become the Catholic Church's official version until the mid 1500s at the Counsel of Trent.

Martin Luther translated the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into German in the 1500s. He did not base his translation on the Vulgate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

The King James Version translated the Bible into English form Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek in the 1600s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version It was the work of team of just under fifty English scholars.

[LostLocke]

The Vulgate was primarily the work of St. Jerome who translated the Bible into Latin in the late 300s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate ....

I can't be the only who followed the header link to the Lancelot-Grail Cycle, and found that page far more interesting..... can I?

[Mudhammam]

Jenny, Wyrd of Gawd wants SOURCES.
You can cite or link any number of complete biblical manuscripts that predate the English translation for him, and he'll say:
"But I want sources." Meanwhile, if you ask him for one in which he bases his erroneous claims on, he buckles and is unable to think of anything to say except, "Well you should be able to figure it out."
Conversation with him is literally less productive than talking to a wall.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

We're making progress. There was no earlier English translation because the Englishman Wycliffe and his buddies wrote the Bible.

Now pay attention: There were a number of assorted manuscripts floating around. Even the Vulgate was written by Englishmen as a gift to the Pope. But it was Wycliffe and his buddies that wrote the Bible as we now know it. After that everyone else conformed to Wycliffe's version and they updated the language over time and even added some new ideas. As I referenced before, the Pope who wrote his version added about 2,000 deviations.

*rolls eyes*

The Vulgate was primarily the work of St. Jerome who translated the Bible into Latin in the late 300s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate Jerome was born in Stridon near Dalmatia. He was not English. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome

The Vulgate did not become the Catholic Church's official version until the mid 1500s at the Counsel of Trent.

Martin Luther translated the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into German in the 1500s. He did not base his translation on the Vulgate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

The King James Version translated the Bible into English form Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek in the 1600s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version It was the work of team of just under fifty English scholars.

It's wonderful that you agree with me! By your own statement Jerome's Vulgate wasn't an official Bible. It was just a collection of stories. And the other people came after Wycliffe.

Thanks for your support.

[Jenny A]

*rolls eyes*

The Vulgate was primarily the work of St. Jerome who translated the Bible into Latin in the late 300s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate Jerome was born in Stridon near Dalmatia. He was not English. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome

The Vulgate did not become the Catholic Church's official version until the mid 1500s at the Counsel of Trent.

It's wonderful that you agree with me! By your own statement Jerome's Vulgate wasn't an official Bible. It was just a collection of stories. And the other people came after Wycliffe.

Thanks for your support.

My do we like to misrepresent others don't we? The Vulgate did become the Catholics official version and I said so. The Vulgate was a complete translation of the Old and New Testaments. Not just a collection of stories. It did become the Catholics official version.

Wycliffe translated the Vulgate, making his work a English translation of a Latin translation. http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-englis...e-history/ The King James Bible translated the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and did not rely of the Vulgate.

Wycliff did not invent the Bible.

If you have the remotest interest in how the New Testament was actually canonized and preserved and copied over time and where Jerome and others got copies of the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to translate, I recommend Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

This discussion proves how indoctrinated even self-professed atheists are in the ethnocentric Jewish religious fairy tale. They are incapable of not believing it and, when pushed, will defend it with as much vigor as any true believer. While they claim that the stories are nonsense they accept them as true and fight off any other explanation. They simply refuse to use critical thinking skills when discussing religion because of the extensive brain washing they have been exposed to. They accept every word as being true and literal. They simply refuse to think about any other explanation for the stories or how they came to be.

It's like people who believe that the Shroud of Turin is authentic, or that comets brought all of the water to Earth, or that the Big Bang created the Universe. The typical atheist simply can't analyze complex issues. They just follow the leader and accept the party line.

[Mudhammam]

Wyrd of Gawd has to be a Christian pretending to be an atheist to give the portrayal that they are typically as ignorant as him.