When the printing press was invented, did the Church try to prevent the bible being published so as to limit who could read the word of God?

Yes, there was a pretty widespread debate about whether the ordinary people could comprehend scripture if it were translated into vernacular languages. It was not an unfounded fear, if by "comprehend" you mean "read in the same manner as the Catholic Church." Many people did not. The first vernacular translations of the Bible were followed by a great deal of religious and societal upheaval, at least partially connected to the general public being exposed to a scripture, and especially a Jesus Christ, that seemed fundamentally in conflict with the existing feudal social structure in Europe and with the operations of the Church.

Absolutely.  But the "Church" you are referring to was the Catholic Church.  A great book that discusses this ishttp://http://www.christianbook.com/foxs-book-of-martyrs/miles-stanford/9780310243915/pd/0243912?item_code=WW&netp_id=105428&event=ESRCG&view=details.  It recounts the death of those that fought to bring the bible to the people and others who stood up to the Church State system.    The Church was very concerned with lay people being able to read the bible and compare it to the teachings of the church.  Government leaders were brought into this as the Catholic Church was in bed with most leaders and governments.  There were even laws that prohibited the owning or reading of a bible unless you were clergy.  The penalty was death.   What failed as an attempt to control the masses by prohibiting the sharing of GOD's word has succeed by making so many versions of the bible and different versions of Christianity that it is almost impossible to know what is real and what is false.    If you can't control you confuse.  That is the greatest feat of Satan. http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product_slideshow?sku=0243912&actual_sku=0243912&slide=2&action=Previous

The history of transcribing, printing, translating, and publishing the Bible is a topic in which I have very little experience, but I will try my best to at least do some good research and try to shed some light on the topic. The idea that the Church did not want laymen to read the Bible is, I think, not quite accurate. The fact is, during the middle ages, churches and monasteries were also facilities for education. People would come from everywhere to learn to read, write, and sing at the church or monastery. Because of this fact, it is understandable that one would conclude that the church hoarded knowledge, and did not let anyone else, or any other schools, have it. Actually, we have the Church to thank for preserving and teaching basically everything that was known in the West, so that we didn't start from square one in the Renaissance. There is substantial evidence that points to the fact that throughout the Middle Ages, the Church continued to make many copies of the Bible, and those copies were in Latin, which was the people's language. In fact, the name for the Bible translated into Latin was "Vulgate," from the word "vulgus," or "common people." This is the same word from which we get "vulgar," though it has a slightly different meaning. So it's clear that translations of the Bible were made for common people to read. All this is before the printing press. The fact that the only people who could read the Bible were taught by the Church does not indicate a conspiracy, it just means that no one could learn how to read and write from anyone else. Now, on to the printing press. We've already said that, even before the printing press was invented, there were many copies of the Bible. Wikipedia states that the standard printing press was invented or established in 1454. Before this, though, Mr. Gutenberg began work on a press in 1436, and his printing of the so-called Gutenberg Bible was first made available to the public by 1454 - 55. The Gutenberg Bible was written in Latin, which again is the language of the people. After this, people began to talk about translating the Bible into other languages, mostly German and English. It is true that the church severely persecuted people who wanted to translate the Bible. I can't imagine a good excuse for the church to act in such a way, but my guess is that the Church held the Bible to such high esteem, and held other more vulgar languages to such low esteem, that it was unthinkable to translate the Bible into such a primitive, 'dirty' language as English. To me, it wasn't about keeping the Bible from being read; it was about keeping the Bible holy and sacred by not allowing translation into those more primitive languages. Not saying that's the correct way of thinking, though. Anyway, Luther was the first to call bull on the Catholic Church on Halloween 1517, and nailed those theses to the door like a boss. He translated the New Testament into German in 1522, using a thoroughly revised and conclusive manuscript made by Erasmus a decade earlier. Then he translated the Pentateuch (1523), another edition of the NT (1529), and finally the entire Bible (1530's) in German. William Tyndale, the "architect of the English language," translated and published the first English edition by 1526. These publishings caused the church to lose a lot of power and influence and, like any other big business, they were pissed. Let's just say for now that the behavior and actions of the Catholic Church during this period of time, to their Christian brothers and sisters, was abominable. The church in Geneva, Switzerland translated another English version in 1557 to educate the families of the Christians who were exiled from the Church. The Church responded by finally publishing a shoddy English translation in 1582. The translation was so bad and corrupted because it used pre-Erasmus Latin sources, and Erasmus had corrected a lot of errors and corruptions. Have you ever translated something from English to Chinese, and then back to English? Yeah, it's like that. The Geneva Bible, which by now had become the favorite of Protestants like John Calvin and Martin Luther, was used very widely by now, and the Anglican church decided to make another, more authoritative translation, thanks to the sponsorship of the new King James. The translators used many different sources in the translation, and published the first pulpit-sized copies in 1611. Once every church in England had one of these bad boys on their pulpits, they started printing normal-sized Bibles so people could have a personal copy. The King James Bible became the most printed book in the world.

It is true the Catholic church did not want it's people reading and interpreting the Scriptures on their own without reference to what understanding was approved in it. That is quite understandable…the Bible isn't People magazine that is instantly comprehensible to every Tom and Mary who could read a little. That said, they certainly approved of the laity knowing the scriptures and had no problem in general with them reading it so long as it was done responsibly. The big problem arose with the dawn of the printing press. There was a diocese in Northern Italy that was being trouble by a very very bad popular Protestant attempt at translation being passed about (it really was bad). So the local bishop banned it and laid down some prohibitions dry up possession and the reading of this spurious translation. Other neighboring dioceses soon began to follow suit and before many years had passed some had gotten the idea that the Catholic Church was forbidden it's laity to read the Scriptures.  One can't say that in some places that idea took hold, but that was never the intent. The ban was of a very bad unapproved Protestant translation.  Over time translations on both sides in vernaculars got better, but the sense that reading the Bible and studying it was the province of priests and monastics, and generally not for laity became commonly believed.  That said, if a person wet a faithful Catholic able to attend most services of his Church and having a full round of services available to him, then over the course of two or three years he would hear most of the NT and much of the OT read several times. So the content was available, even if the reading of it was more restricted (rightly or wrongly).