Anyone taken in by the Straightway "New Douai Rheims Bible"?

[po18guy]

Surfing around, I noted this version on sale at a famous on-line auction site. It purports to be a modern version of the original 1582-1609 (pre-Challoner) Rheims-Douai bible re-rtyped with modern spelling, punctuation and grammar. Hmmmm. Reading the description reveals that this version is sold by “Straightway Ministries” which is apparently a protestant/non-denom group. OK, so? They have taken it upon themselves to strip it of the seven Deuterocanonical books, using the pejorative term “apocrypha.” Since their agenda is not historical accuracy, but anti-Catholicism, who knows what other errors have been inserted into what has been a standard edition of God’s word? Sad.

Caveat emptor.

 

[Zooey]

OUch! Now that makes me really :banghead::banghead::banghead:.
Shame on them!!

 

[po18guy]

It is certainly a shot across the bow, huh? A link to a discussion of the bible in a blog. They are listed on eBay as well. Does “Straightway” suppose that they are smarter than Bishop Challoner, who revised the original? Either that, or they have an anti-Catholic agenda. Ya’ think?

If this keeps up, I’m going to publish NIVs with the Deuterocanon! “The First Complete NIV ever!!!”

 

[COPLAND_3]

Thanks for sharing the link, I was not even aware of this, I need to look into it because it may effect my project because of copyright of the name.

 

[po18guy]

Thanks for sharing the link, I was not even aware of this, I need to look into it because it may effect my project because of copyright of the name.

I believe that the D-R is in the public domain, as I doubt any ® holder would license such butchery.

 

[Zooey]

It is certainly a shot across the bow, huh? A link to a discussion of the bible in a blog. They are listed on eBay as well. Does “Straightway” suppose that they are smarter than Bishop Challoner, who revised the original? Either that, or they have an anti-Catholic agenda. Ya’ think?

If this keeps up, I’m going to publish NIVs with the Deuterocanon! “The First Complete NIV ever!!!”

I’m guessing anti-Catholic agenda.
And I have to wonder how much other tampering they may be doing to other publications…

 

[CatholicFireman]

Always check for the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Sad and infuriating, but frankly, I think much more damage is done by the billions of other “Bibles” in circulation which are not true Bibles. If you go to a mainstream bookstore, 99 to 100% of the “Bibles” will be heretical. If you Google “Bible,” you’re going to get a zillion links to heretical websites. The vast majority of people don’t know what they’re missing. Now *that *is sad an infuriating.

 

[TimothyH]

The reviews on Amazon are not flattering.

The home page for the producer of the Bible is newdouairheimsbible.com/index.html. They don’t seem anti-Catholic.

I wouldn’t buy the Bible. There are simply better Bibles out there for the money.

-Tim-

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Surfing around, I noted this version on sale at a famous on-line auction site. It purports to be a modern version of the original 1582-1609 (pre-Challoner) Rheims-Douai bible re-rtyped with modern spelling, punctuation and grammar. Hmmmm. Reading the description reveals that this version is sold by “Straightway Ministries” which is apparently a protestant/non-denom group. OK, so? They have taken it upon themselves to strip it of the seven Deuterocanonical books, using the pejorative term “apocrypha.” Since their agenda is not historical accuracy, but anti-Catholicism, who knows what other errors have been inserted into what has been a standard edition of God’s word? Sad.Caveat emptor.

I can’t imagine protestants ever wanting an edited Douay Rheims when they already have the KJV. This is bound to be a failed experiment on their part.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Excluding the footnotes is certainly unfortunate on their part because the original Douay-Rheims footnotes are excellent and abundant, not to mention excluding the Deuters is even worse. I must say that the few photos of their layout looks nice. There is already a published version of a retyped DR of 1609 with Deuters and footnotes, but it appears to be hard to find in print.