Re: BREAKING - The Vatican attacks "intelligent design"
- From: "Googler" <GOOGLE.4.godfatha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 9 Nov 2005 15:09:13 -0800
David Ewan Kahana wrote:
> Googler wrote:
> > David Ewan Kahana wrote:
> > > Googler wrote:
> >
> > <<...>>
> >
> > > > Sometimes, it even *constructed* a written language when
> > > > none existed in order to have a Bible version that people could
> > > > comprehend.
> > >
> > > When was the first time that this happened? I haven't heard
> > > of it before.
> >
> >
> > Actually, this happened many times. A notable example was the
> > introduction of the Cyrillic alphabet as a written form of Slavic
> > languages. "Cyrillic" is named after (Saint) Cyril, a missionary to
> > the Slavs, who was one of the early users if not one of the developers
> > of that alphabet. Whoever may have actually produced it, the alphabet
> > was developed so that a written Slavic version of the Bible could be
> > made available.
> >
>
> Thanks very much for that, and thanks to rossum.
>
> > <<...>>
> > >
> > > > When - and where - widespread literacy in common languages became the
> > > > rule, the Church had no problem with people reading the Bible, so long
> > > > as good translations were available.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This I think happened only long after the damage had already
> > > been done. The Church had lost it's battle to keep the Bible
> > > out of popular hands.
> >
> > That is your interpretation of events, and not actually supported by
> > the historical evidence. By 500 AD, hundreds of translations and
> > versions of the Bible existed.
>
> I'm confused here ... you now seem to be claiming that
> widespread literacy in hundreds of languages was already the
> rule in 500 CE. Earlier on, you claimed that literacy was
> very uncommon until 1800 CE:
Please read what I wrote. Here it is in simplified form
Fact 1: There were hundreds of versions of the Bible in vernacular
languages over a period of many centuries. Keep in mind, too, that
in antiquity, educated people learned to read Latin or Greek (or both).
Fact 2: When people could read any version - Latin, Greek, or
whatever - there was never any problem with them doing so.
Fact 3: Some versions were not re-copied as their languages became
disused and ultimately became lost. And as time went on, versions in
other languages were introduced. But the total number does run into
the hundreds.
Fact 4: Few people could read well - in any language - before 1800AD.
Therefore, the idea for a long time was that the educated few could
read to the illiterate many - in whatever language would make sense to
them. But there was never a bar to someone reading for oneself if one
were capable of doing so.
I see nothing confusing in those statements.
>
> What evidence exists that vernacular translations of the
> Bible were widely circulated, i.e., that `popular' versions
> existed in 500 CE?
I suggest you do your own research. An Internet search would be a good
place to start.
FYI, the early Latin versions of the Bible were considered to be in the
"vernacular" since the 'educated' folk of antiquity all understood
Greek. In the Western Empire, Latin eventually became the language of
the educated, but in the Eastern Empire it remained Greek.
Jerome produced a 'learned' version of the Latin Bible in about 400 AD
because there were no accurate translations available, but there were
earlier Latin versions that can be called "popular".
In the Eastern Empire, the Bible had already been translated into many
other languages by then. In Western Europe, translations into other
'vernaculars' soon followed.
<<...>>
> There is no contradiction at all between the existence of
> versions in the vernacular and what I've said. Translations
> into the vernacular may well have existed, but it certainly
> does not follow that they were `popular' in the sense of
> being circulated to all or even to many of the lay people.
This makes no sense.
The physical books that contained Bible versions were "circulated" to
the people who could read them. What would be the point of
"circulating" a book to someone who can't read it?
Books were for a long time quite expensive to produce, so they wouldn't
be passed around willy-nilly. That went for all books, Biblical or
non-Biblical.
When books became cheaper to produce, they became more widely
"circulated".
Is there anything actually difficult to understand here?
>
> Additionally, it is not simply my inference that the Church
> at some times certainly wanted to keep the Scriptures out of
> popular hands. The link I provided regarding the Old English
> translations of the Hexateuch points to explicit statements
> by the translator in the preface, suggesting that there were
> real dangers in letting the ignorant read popular
> translations of the `Old Testament.'
There was always a concern that the Bible especially should be
accurately translated, and that inaccurate translations should be
corrected. If that is what you mean, fine. However, I don't see the
relevancy of this.
<<material snipped>>
>
>
> > Why translate it into so many languages otherwise?
> >
>
> If almost no one could read or write these languages at the
> time the translations were made, as you've claimed before,
> then why do you think it was done?
So that those who *could* read would do so for those who couldn't. I
don't see why that is so hard to understand. Seems pretty
straightforward to me.
And I never wrote "almost no one" could read - that is your spin - I
wrote "few" could read.
>
> I've already explained why translations were made: I
> suggested that the reason for making translations was so
> that bishops, monks, nuns and other churchmen who were
> taught to read, would be able more easily to learn to
> understand the Bible, and then to communicate such
> interpretations of Scripture of as they thought to be
> appropriate to the laypeople.
Nonsense - anyone who could read, whether "churchman" or not, could do
so. In fact, those who could read were actually obliged to read the
Bible to those who couldn't.
> If what I've said can be proven false by evidence, I'll
> abandon my understanding.
I thought I had already done that. What specific part of the
evidence do you not understand?
>
> For my part, I think that the version of history you provide
> is internally contradictory and that you are attempting to
> avoid the considerable historical evidence that shows that
> the Church did at various times *explicitly* forbid the
> possession of Scripture by the laity.
Please provide the historical reference to such a doctrine that would
support your assertion. Since you highlight *explicitly*, you should
be able to produce the "explicit" historical reference.
So far, all you have presented is the opinion of some individual
writers, who while they may have been quite sincere in what they were
saying, in no way were presenting a doctrine.
> Why do that at all if the Church was happy to have the Bible
> read by everyone?
>
I will await your historical references.
By the way, this topic has already been hashed out in this very forum.
Thank you for your reply
.
- References:
- BREAKING - The Vatican attacks "intelligent design"
- From: Cyde Weys
- Re: BREAKING - The Vatican attacks "intelligent design"
- From: Paul J Gans
- BREAKING - The Vatican attacks "intelligent design"
- Prev by Date: Re: If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision
- Next by Date: if you dont have a functioning system
- Previous by thread: Re: BREAKING - The Vatican attacks "intelligent design"
- Next by thread: Re: BREAKING - The Vatican attacks "intelligent design"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
