“The World” according to William Tyndale

[atpollard]

So pretty much EVERYONE has both heard and participated in at least one discussion that devolved … sorry, I meant revolved … around the word “WORLD” in Scripture and whether God was speaking of “all without exception” or “all without distinction”. [sigh].

This is not that.

Has anyone ever heard of William Tyndale’s position on that issue? (FYI: Yes, the Tyndale that was killed for translating the Bible into English).

From what I read, Tyndale believed that WORLD literally means WORLD … like the mountains and trees and little bunny rabbits. He believed that the Covenant was not between God and men, but a covenant among the “persons” of God. God made a “very good” world and mankind had made God’s world very bad. The problem started when man was given dominion over the earth, and took the world down with him. So fixing the world requires fixing man. God created an internal covenant and a plan to restore His creation to “very good”. Saving men is just a means to an end.

Just curious if anyone else had ever come across this idea and if it had a name as a heresy. (Most new ideas do.)

 

[Josheb]

Has anyone ever heard of William Tyndale’s position on that issue? (FYI: Yes, the Tyndale that was killed for translating the Bible into English).

From what I read, Tyndale believed that WORLD literally means WORLD … like the mountains and trees and little bunny rabbits. He believed that the Covenant was not between God and men, but a covenant among the “persons” of God. God made a “very good” world and mankind had made God’s world very bad. The problem started when man was given dominion over the earth, and took the world down with him. So fixing the world requires fixing man. God created an internal covenant and a plan to restore His creation to “very good”. Saving men is just a means to an end.

Just curious if anyone else had ever come across this idea and if it had a name as a heresy. (Most new ideas do.)

I'm interested.

Can you provide examples from Tyndale supporting each assertion?

 

[Josheb]

The first mention of "world" in the NAS Bible is 1 Sam. 2:8.

1 Samuel 2:5-10
"Those who were full hire themselves out for bread, but those who were hungry cease to hunger. Even the barren gives birth to seven, but she who has many children languishes. The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up. The LORD makes poor and rich; He brings low, He also exalts. He raises the poor from the dust, He lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with nobles and inherit a seat of honor; for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and He set the world on them. He keeps the feet of His godly ones, but the wicked ones are silenced in darkness; for not by might shall a man prevail. Those who contend with the LORD will be shattered; against them He will thunder in the heavens, the LORD will judge the ends of the earth; and He will give strength to His king and will exalt the horn of His anointed."

Notice a distinction is being made between the earth and the world (Hebrew = eres and tebel), so it does not appear the two can be treated synonymously. Furthermore, while the verse might be understood to speak to all people at all times, including those who have circumnavigated the globe and those who have observed it from outer space.... it was written and understood by a people who lacked that knowledge and experience so from the perspective of the original recipients it meant the world they knew (which is not the same as the "known world").

In contrast and comparison, the first time the word is used in the New Testament is Mattew 4:8.

Matthew 4:8-11 ESV
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’ Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him.

The Greek here is "kosmou." Tis and Luke's account of the same episode (Lk. 4:5) are the only time "kingdoms" and "world" are in the same verse, and while "kingdoms" and "earth" are found many times together in the OT they never occur together in the NT (at least not in the NAS).

One last observation for now. Jesus stated his kingdom is not of this world (Jn. 18:36) but it was, nonetheless, and the earth and in the midst of those in attendance when he preached.



Presumably we can agree anything Tyndale taught in contradiction to these facts is an error on his part and anything he taught consistent with these texts is correct. Yes?

 

[atpollard]

I'm interested.

Can you provide examples from Tyndale supporting each assertion?

Nope … it came from a secondary source (actually, it might be a tertiary source). It was an article on a book and the book was called something close to “The Theology of William Tyndale”. (Undoubtedly a NY Times best seller ). According to the article, the book compiled a systematic theology of William Tyndale from his various letters and commentaries within his translations.

It only caught my attention because of all the online “Donnybrooks” I had witnessed over verses like John 3:16 and whether ”world” means (not just Jews) or (every person without exception) in those salvific verses. This was a completely different Point Of View, and THAT ALONE made it interesting.

 

[Josheb]

Nope … it came from a secondary source (actually, it might be a tertiary source). It was an article on a book and the book was called something close to “The Theology of William Tyndale”. (Undoubtedly a NY Times best seller ). According to the article, the book compiled a systematic theology of William Tyndale from his various letters and commentaries within his translations.

It only caught my attention because of all the online “Donnybrooks” I had witnessed over verses like John 3:16 and whether ”world” means (not just Jews) or (every person without exception) in those salvific verses. This was a completely different Point Of View, and THAT ALONE made it interesting.

Ah.... appreciate that info.

Because I'm not a big fan of second-, third-, and further-hand sources when an original source is available, I'd be happy to discuss scripture's use of the word "world," and Tyndale's views thereof, but any discussion of others' views should come accompanied with some evidence that is their view, lest we become culpable of committing the error that is to be corrected . I would be amenable to discussing a specified point of view if one of the critics could be quoted and used as a generic representation of at least one avenue of dissent, even if the author is not present to clarify, explain, and defend their words.

I trust the little bit I posted gives sufficient evidence for the premise the one word, "world," is used diversely in scripture and, therefore, some degree of exegesis is always in order to see if the word should be read literally, with its normal meaning in everyday usage, and when it should be read contextually with some limitation, application, or significance. I have not read Tyndale first-hand (even though I have some of his stuff in my Kindle). I Googled his view of covenant and found a plethora of sites (both critics and promoters) affirming his ardent adherence to what we now call Covenant Theology but that is not particularly surprising. I'll see what I have by him and post what I find.

 

[Frank Robert]

Has anyone ever heard of William Tyndale’s position on that issue? (FYI: Yes, the Tyndale that was killed for translating the Bible into English).

I looked up Tyndale on the EhrmanBlog. Here is what Bart wrote:

Is the King James Bible Actually the William Tyndale Version?​

Many, possibly most, people don’t realize that the King James Bible was not the first translation of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament into English. There were seven major translations published earlier, and all of them to a greater or lesser extent (almost always greater) were dependent on the one(s) that came before them. The first, greatest, and most influential was the translation by William Tyndale. It was also the riskiest. It cost Tyndale his life.​

​

In 1408 a law had been passed in England making it illegal to translate or to read the Bible in English without official ecclesiastical approval; this was in response to the translation activities connected with (pre-Reformer) John Wycliffe and his followers, whose English rendering was not from the original Hebrew and Greek, but from the Latin vulgate. By the time of Tyndale in the early 16th century, it was possible to learn Greek at Oxford, and just possible to pick up Hebrew, and he did so.​

​

Tyndale was refused permission to publish a translation in England, so he went to Germany and did it there. His New Testament, from the Greek, was published in 1526; an improved second edition came out in 1534. He translated the Pentateuch and Jonah from the Hebrew before he was betrayed by an overly zealous countryman and handed over to authorities. He managed to continue his translation in prison, where he finished Joshua to 2 Chronicles. But that’s where his story ended. He was condemned to death and was strangled then burned at the stake in 1536.​

​

The above are first 3 paragraphs.​

 

[Josheb]

I looked up Tyndale on the EhrmanBlog. Here is what Bart wrote:

Is the King James Bible Actually the William Tyndale Version?​

Many, possibly most, people don’t realize that the King James Bible was not the first translation of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament into English. There were seven major translations published earlier, and all of them to a greater or lesser extent (almost always greater) were dependent on the one(s) that came before them. The first, greatest, and most influential was the translation by William Tyndale. It was also the riskiest. It cost Tyndale his life.​

​

​

In 1408 a law had been passed in England making it illegal to translate or to read the Bible in English without official ecclesiastical approval; this was in response to the translation activities connected with (pre-Reformer) John Wycliffe and his followers, whose English rendering was not from the original Hebrew and Greek, but from the Latin vulgate. By the time of Tyndale in the early 16th century, it was possible to learn Greek at Oxford, and just possible to pick up Hebrew, and he did so.​

​

Tyndale was refused permission to publish a translation in England, so he went to Germany and did it there. His New Testament, from the Greek, was published in 1526; an improved second edition came out in 1534. He translated the Pentateuch and Jonah from the Hebrew before he was betrayed by an overly zealous countryman and handed over to authorities. He managed to continue his translation in prison, where he finished Joshua to 2 Chronicles. But that’s where his story ended. He was condemned to death and was strangled then burned at the stake in 1536.​

​

The above are first 3 paragraphs.​

Curious question Ehrman asks but how is it relevant to Tyndale's view of "world"?



I'll try to keep this digression brief: have you ever read Ehrman's book, "God's Problem"? How about "Misquoting Jesus,"? Has that been read? Have you listened to his lectures of the proto-gospels, or any of his lectures at Great Courses? I'm mostly curious about your view(s) of "God's Problem." Thx

 

[Frank Robert]

Curious question Ehrman asks but how is it relevant to Tyndale's view of "world"?

Bart says that... "some scholars have shown that something like 93% of the King James Bible is actually simply Tyndale. Verse after verse it is virtually the same, with a word or three different, in many places." If that is true, it should be possible to glean Tyndale's world view from the many translations of his work.

I'll try to keep this digression brief: have you ever read Ehrman's book, "God's Problem"? How about "Misquoting Jesus,"? Has that been read? Have you listened to his lectures of the proto-gospels, or any of his lectures at Great Courses? I'm mostly curious about your view(s) of "God's Problem." Thx

I have read several of Bart's books including "Misquoting Jesus" and just started on "Lost Christianities" which I think contains information on the photo-gospels. I haven't listened to the lectures. I will check them out.

I just ordered "God's Problem." What do you suggest I look for when I receive the book?

 

[Josheb]

Bart says that... "some scholars have shown that something like 93% of the King James Bible is actually simply Tyndale. Verse after verse it is virtually the same, with a word or three different, in many places." If that is true, it should be possible to glean Tyndale's world view from the many translations of his work.

That likely means "Tyndale translation," not "Tyndale doctrine." If either translation explains what "world" means there'd be no debate.

I have read several of Bart's books including "Misquoting Jesus" and just started on "Lost Christianities" which I think contains information on the photo-gospels. I haven't listened to the lectures. I will check them out.

I just ordered "God's Problem." What do you suggest I look for when I receive the book?

Ehrman wrote the book following his mother's torturous death to cancer. He had difficulty with classic theodicy and lost his faith, moving from a conservative evangelical fundamentalist to an agnostic. He explains much of this in the book so I'm not spoiling anything. I found he missed some very basic concepts in scripture and orthodox Christian thought, but I do not want to spoil your reading of the book so how about you read the book and when done come back to this thread and give me your take because if you garner the same things I got from my reading then it goes to understanding a lot about Ehrman's views and their veracity. It won't do much for answering the op's inquiry, but I'd appreciate your pov on Ehrman.

 

[donadams]

Why did they delete scripture?
Dan 13 & 14

Negating the word of God

 

[atpollard]

Why did they delete scripture?
Dan 13 & 14

Negating the word of God

Daniel didn't write it? [just a guess ... that was the reason most of the non-scriptural apocryphal additions were deleted.]

For the record, who are "THEY" you accuse of deleting scripture? [William Tyndale or the KJV Bible?]

• I am ignorant about the details of the Tyndale Bible, but the KJV Bible included (and some printings still include) the apocryphal works [Daniel 13 & 14 may or may not be among them, I do not read the apocrypha] ... it was the PUBLISHERS that removed the extra books because people buying the Bibles did not want them. Publishers are in the business of printing what will sell and people vote with their dollars.
• The real question, then, is why did Christians stop reading Daniel 13 & 14 and start buying Bibles without those chapters in preference to Bibles with those chapters? The KJV Society, the Translators and the Printers had NOTHING to do with that!
• Where was the Holy Spirit, protecting the CHURCH and the WORD during that time?

Perhaps GOD allowed it because it was His will.

• Why then would it be the will of God to remove Daniel 13 & 14?

Now THERE is a question worth asking!

 

[donadams]

Daniel didn't write it? [just a guess ... that was the reason most of the non-scriptural apocryphal additions were deleted.]

For the record, who are "THEY" you accuse of deleting scripture? [William Tyndale or the KJV Bible?]

• I am ignorant about the details of the Tyndale Bible, but the KJV Bible included (and some printings still include) the apocryphal works [Daniel 13 & 14 may or may not be among them, I do not read the apocrypha] ... it was the PUBLISHERS that removed the extra books because people buying the Bibles did not want them. Publishers are in the business of printing what will sell and people vote with their dollars.
• The real question, then, is why did Christians stop reading Daniel 13 & 14 and start buying Bibles without those chapters in preference to Bibles with those chapters? The KJV Society, the Translators and the Printers had NOTHING to do with that!
• Where was the Holy Spirit, protecting the CHURCH and the WORD during that time?

Perhaps GOD allowed it because it was His will.

• Why then would it be the will of God to remove Daniel 13 & 14?

Now THERE is a question worth asking!

The English Bible society has no such authority!

 

[atpollard]

The English Bible society has no such authority!

I can find no record of any "English Bible Society" ever existing.
Did you mean the "British and Foreign Bible Society" founded in 1804 to translate the bible into Welsh so Welsh speakers could read the Word of God for themselves?

In any event, the KJV was translated by committees of Church of England Clergymen [which the RCC recognizes], printed by the "King's Printer" and included the complete Apocrypha [so yes, Daniel 13 & 14 were in there].

You appear to be "talking smack" out of ignorance.
Who removed what?

The real question is "Why did YOU (Rome) canonize Daniel 13 & 14 knowing that Daniel did not write it (therefore, it is not part of the OT Scripture)?" What right do you add to the word of God that which God did not tell the "prophet" to speak?

The other Catholic Churches do not agree with your sacred canon.
We (protestants) embrace the 66 books that ALL CHURCHES agree are "God breathed".
We offer no malice to your reading any other books that you might please to, we just ask the freedom to allow us to "not read" the books that our conscience condemns us if we treat them as "holy".

 

[donadams]

I can find no record of any "English Bible Society" ever existing.
Did you mean the "British and Foreign Bible Society" founded in 1804 to translate the bible into Welsh so Welsh speakers could read the Word of God for themselves?

In any event, the KJV was translated by committees of Church of England Clergymen [which the RCC recognizes], printed by the "King's Printer" and included the complete Apocrypha [so yes, Daniel 13 & 14 were in there].

You appear to be "talking smack" out of ignorance.
Who removed what?

The real question is "Why did YOU (Rome) canonize Daniel 13 & 14 knowing that Daniel did not write it (therefore, it is not part of the OT Scripture)?" What right do you add to the word of God that which God did not tell the "prophet" to speak?

The other Catholic Churches do not agree with your sacred canon.
We (protestants) embrace the 66 books that ALL CHURCHES agree are "God breathed".
We offer no malice to your reading any other books that you might please to, we just ask the freedom to allow us to "not read" the books that our conscience condemns us if we treat them as "holy".

The apostolic cannon is 73 complete books God breathed along with the apostles themselves! Jn 20:21-23

How do we truth from error? Scripture alone no!

The apostles! Acts 2:42 1 Jn 4:6

 

[atpollard]

The apostolic cannon is 73 complete books God breathed along with the apostles themselves! Jn 20:21-23

How do we truth from error? Scripture alone no!

The apostles! Acts 2:42 1 Jn 4:6

You are talking nonsense.

Some of the apostles were dead before the FIRST NT letter was written. All but John were dead when the last book was written. All had been dead and turned to dust when the canon was settled. The apocrypha was not granted "inspired status" until the last 200 years (and is still not recognized by the EOC).

Even Saint Jerome, rejected the Apocrypha as inspired ... and he translated the Bible into Latin for the Church!

 

[donadams]

You are talking nonsense.

Some of the apostles were dead before the FIRST NT letter was written. All but John were dead when the last book was written. All had been dead and turned to dust when the canon was settled. The apocrypha was not granted "inspired status" until the last 200 years (and is still not recognized by the EOC).

Even Saint Jerome, rejected the Apocrypha as inspired ... and he translated the Bible into Latin for the Church!

We still have apostles

2 John 1:12
Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, andspeak face to face, that our joy may be full.

 

[atpollard]

We still have apostles

2 John 1:12
Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

You do realize that, all BOLD TEXT ASIDE, the word "apostle appears NOWHERE in the verse you quoted. The verse is not talking about APOSTLES (then or now). The verse has NOTHING to do with the uninspired writings appended to the words of Daniel. You seem to just select scripture at random and shout "Victory!"

You are an embarrassment to a church that has carried the torch of Christ for two millennia. Good grief man, at least make sense.

 

[donadams]

You do realize that, all BOLD TEXT ASIDE, the word "apostle appears NOWHERE in the verse you quoted. The verse is not talking about APOSTLES (then or now). The verse has NOTHING to do with the uninspired writings appended to the words of Daniel. You seem to just select scripture at random and shout "Victory!"

You are an embarrassment to a church that has carried the torch of Christ for two millennia. Good grief man, at least make sense.

That’s written by the “APOSTLE JOHN”!

To know truth must come to the apostles 1 Jn 4:6 must hear the apostolic church Matt 18:17
Apostolic church the light of the world Matt 5:14
Apostolic church the pillar of truth! 1 Tim 3:15