Why did the Church care so much about translating the Bible into

Catholics often criticise Protestantism for being a political religion, but what other non-political reason did the Church give for preventing translations?

File: 1476843659842.jpg (30KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x381px

They are dumbass hypocrites. What else?

Because they didn't want regular people to read it for themselves, only elites and church members. They wanted to be able to censor inconvenient parts and add on a lot of bullshit.

Look what some of the first protestant sects did and believed in. The Catholic theocracy realized the dangers of letting the dumb plebs read heavily allegorical works as literal truth without any education on the matter.

http://www.thelocal.de/20140328/16th-century-mayhem-in-muenster-with-jan-van-leiden-expat-dispatches-the-local-germany

Have you seen some of the translations? they clearly didn't go far enough and should have banned translation into Latin.

>>2041736

/thread

I mean for fuck's sake, the Latin Vulgate has the exact same Hebrew word translated very differently in two adjacent verses (Gen 2:25-3:1) and not a word of explanation.

>>2041644
Why don't just censor it's translations?

>>2041774
As cynical as they were, I'm of the opinion that most of the higher-ups in the church sincerely believed the Bible was the word of God, even if they didn't take it 100% literally.

>>2041774
Because they changed bullshit they said with whoever gave them the biggest sack of gold or land.

If you asked them, they'd probably tell you it's about Fidelity to the true Messages.

Medieval Translations could be iffy, and even the Vulgate is kind of fucked up.

Plus, how do you know that what they're preaching is true unless you speak German? For all you know, they could be preaching about Thor.

File: Stuttgart_Psalter_fol23.jpg (234KB, 1019x645px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1019x645px

>>2042444
>For all you know, they could be preaching about Thor.
They kind of did that early on.

>>2041797
>they didn't take it 100% literally
They didn't?

>>2042606
Not in the modern sense. The idea that earth is just 6000 years old was controversial, and they picked and chose which parts of Leviticus to follow.

>>2042720
>The idea that earth is just 6000 years old was controversial
Yeah, some people thought it was 5000 years old.