Today, I was able to copy down the passage I was writing about yesterday in such a piecemeal fashion.
Again, the following is from page 788 of Gail Riplinger’s In Awe of Thy Word . . .
Wycliffe Used a Corrupt Latin Vulgate
The verse comparison charts in this book dispel the myth that Wycliffe and his followers used a corrupt Bible translated from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.
The myth that Wycliffe had no access to the original languages is discounted by Wycliffe himself who said that he had access to Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts which were in “complete agreement” with the Old Latin text he followed. He adds, “[T]he Jews were dispersed among the nations, taking with them their Hebrew manuscripts. Now this happened . . . that we (Christians, not Wycliffe and his fellow editors, specifically–CHK) might have recourse to their manuscripts as witnesses to the fact that there is no difference in the sense found in our Latin books and those Hebrew ones” (Truth, p. 157). He also makes reference to manuscripts being “corrected according to the Greek exemplar.” Once Jerome’s text was corrected, there was “complete agreement of his translation [Wycliffe’s] with the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts” (Truth, pp. 143,157 et al.).
Now, I ask you, do not Wycliffe’s words, as quoted in this paragraph, sound like generic statements stretched illogically by Riplinger to provide pseudo-proof of the point she’s attempting to make?
Can’t wait until I get my hands on Wycliffe’s On the Truth of Holy Scripture! Notice the excerpt from the introduction and table of contents provided by Medieval Institute Publications on their website:
“Wyclif sought the restoration of an idealized past even if that meant taking revolutionary steps in the present to recover what had been lost. His 1377-78 On the Truth of Holy Scripture represents such an effort in reform: the recognition of the inherent perfection and veracity of the Sacred Page which serves as the model for daily conduct, discourse, and worship, thereby forming the foundation upon which Christendom itself is to be ordered.”-from the Introduction
Part One: The Veracity of Scripture
Part Two: The Authority of Scripture
Part Three: The Divine Origin of Scripture
Part Four: Scripture as the Law of Christendom
In other words, the scope of Wycliffe’s book as outlined by MIP lends no credence to the idea that Wycliffe was commenting about the materials he had at hand in his own personal effort to translate the Word of God into English. Yet this is exactly how Riplinger uses Wycliffe’s words. Radical King James Onlyists like Riplinger, don’t want their readers to think critically, but they are compelled by true scholarship to look like they do by providing footnotes that, when examined, only serve to demonstrate how weak their case is.