Since he last thrrad was Hyjacked...

I am doing Historical researhc on english Bible versions translated into english.

So, I am seeking if their where any pre-wycliffe Bibles in eixstance.

I heard form soem their where, if so, can anyone help with this? I am lookign for pre-wycliffe.

Thanks.

(END NOTE: I do nto wan tot be attacked or discuss variosu poitns of Protesntantism, sicne protestants dotn exist before the 1500's...)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 21, 2005

Answers

Response to OLDE ENGLISH BIBNLES-AGAIN

Since he last thrrad was Hyjacked...

I am doing Historical researhc on english Bible versions translated into english.

So, I am seeking if their where any pre-wycliffe Bibles in eixstance.

I heard form soem their where, if so, can anyone help with this? I am lookign for pre-wycliffe.

Thanks.

(END NOTE: I do nto wan tot be attacked or discuss variosu poitns of Protesntantism, sicne protestants dotn exist before the 1500's...)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 21, 2005.

ZAROVE -- I believe that these links (mainly the first 2) will provide you with the requested information.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bibles-books/index.html http://www.biblecollectors.org/bible_collections.htm http://www.davidclachman.com/biblist/webbib2.htm

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 22, 2005.

Posted with spacing this time! ZAROVE -- I believe that these links (mainly the first 2) will provide you with the requested information.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html

http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bibles-books/index.html

http://www.biblecollectors.org/bible_collections.htm

http://www.davidclachman.com/biblist/webbib2.htm

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 22, 2005.

Thanks. Still seems wycloiffe mad the firts english translaiton in the 1380's though, so no compelte Binles befo him...

At leats that are knwon.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.

Isn't Wycliffe's translation just of the New Testament? This wouldn't really be considered a "Bible" either, would it?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.

No, wycliffe tranlated the entre Bible. From the Latin Vulgate.

Here is an online, if not perfect, ranscription of it. The late one, 1395.

http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/wycle.htm

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.

Z,

I have a feeling this thread will be hijacked, too.

-- Kev (fnatc@k.w), February 22, 2005.

Zarove,

Thanks for that. It's nice for me to know that he translated the complete Old Testament and not the abbreviated Protestant one, given his sentiments were flaky, at least he knew what was the Word of God.

Z,

Uh oh, you are starting the process yourself. The next thing that will break out is the question of whether the thread is going to be "hyjacked" or "hijacked". Both have their plusses and minuses of course, and both are equally acceptable. And if you were to trace their roots, you'd find they both have the same source, so are both the same, although they are quite different, much like two parts of the Trinity (which is not accepted by Mormons) are different beings and yet the same. I don't know what the third rail of this Trinitarian analogy would be perhaps "Hydrox", but that can be worked out as well, given time, dedication, and free-association.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.

Ah.... barf. That "Z" should have been "Kev"

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.

Frank,

I really don't have any preference between "hyjacked" or "hijacked." I think they both work quite ok. Zarove likes "hyjacked." I think you might have convinced me that Mt. Everest is actually in Kansas. Some people say that Mormons are racist.

-- Kev (fnatc@k.w), February 22, 2005.

Good god, talk about people making money exploiting religeon...

"Offered at 2.75 Million Dollars"

:|

-- Tom Dootson (tojado@gmail.com), March 03, 2005.

Tom, I knwo yo arent a beeliver, byt do you omow that spelling it god instead of God started as a mean to insult Christains?

likewise, tis bad grammer. God in this context is a proper noun.

Please refrain form the lower case G. I knwo you don beleive in God, btu why do somehtign that offends?

Likewise, this isn "Makign money off religion".

any book form that period that is hand-copied and that has an impact on historical development woidl naturlaly be worth a lot of money.

I mean, shakespere folio's are in the upper thousands if not millions themselves. is that "makign money off rleigion"?

I think yor just complainign becaus you want to complain.

You want to rpove rleigion is nothign btu a scam so you inflate matters lke these, ignorign the fac tthat secular works are likeswise treated...

Keep in mind no one will use as a stiudy Bile a firts eition Wycliffe Bible, takign it to bed, thumbing trogh it, and markign in it. No one wodl dare.

Also keep in mind acutally readable Bibles are now given away for free...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 03, 2005.

I know, some kind soul handed me one the other day.

I'm sorry if my unrelentful spelling of God offended you, it was not intended.

But seriously, you cannot question my grammar after a post like the previous... now i'm not sure if you have problems or whatever so i'm just going to leave it without disecting it...

I was stating though that somewhere someone is making money of religeon... and it's indesputable...

-- Tom Dootson (tojado@gmail.com), March 06, 2005.

1: I am dyslexic.

2: Peopel are makig moeny on antiquities. Not rleigion.

Relaly, you are merley seekign a reaosn to justify your scorn of religion, in this case syaign tis all aout money. But if this where a first folio Choucer selign at a steep privce, you widltn even bat an eye.

People make money on old things. This old thing happens to be a rleigiosu tem. its not peopel; makign moeny on rleigion.

-- ZArove (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 06, 2005.