Croix de fer,
**You wrote: **
[Quoting Jesus C2709 misquote of what he thought was the Douay-Rheims-Challoner reading]: ***
“And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
SHE will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.” ***
First, if you are going to quote the D-R Bible then please quote it correctly. The D-R Bible actually says: "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel" – Genesis 3:15, Douay Rheims Bible
The Douay-Rheims Bible is the FIRST and ORIGINAL translation to English from Vulgate which proceeded the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scriptures. Therefore the verse including the feminine pronouns is CORRECT contrary to what some Catholics have said on here. Also what Jimmy Akins purports really has no merit… he is not the final authority on Holy Scripture, its origins and the teaching of the Church.
Back to Genesis 3:15 – “Thee” is the serpent (Satan) and the “woman” is Mary. “Her seed” is Christ and “thy seed” is the evil and works born from Satan. “She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel” is Christ defeats Satan and saves us after Mary accepts the Fathers will and plan for her to bear His Son - our Savior. In other words, the enmities between thee (Satan) and the woman (Mary) is the diametrical opposition between Satan (a fallen angel whom denied God; a seducer and corrupter) and Mary (“kecharitomene” original Greek text meaning “full of grace” as exclaimed by the Angel Gabriel; a woman completely humble, obedient and loving to God); and again, the woman (Mary) crushing the head of the serpent (Satan) is Mary accepting God’s will and plan for her to bring Christ into the world to save us. Only Christ saves us but Mary chose to accept the Father’s will for her to bear Christ. Mary does nothing but lead people to Christ… her only interest and role is to lead people to Christ as she is full of the Holy Spirit and cannot do any wrong. Satan hates Mary because she is “full of grace” and does only the will of God. As a side note, “kecharitomene” is a description only given to Mary and NO other person in the Bible, and it was exclaimed by the Angel Gabriel.
//“the Douay Rheims also removes many other words of the Bible, adding things like 'penance” to fit the Catholic views"//
Absolutely wrong. In fact, The King James version is not only guilty of removing words but ENTIRE BOOKS from the Bible just to fit protestant views…views from men whom were basically Bible “menu pickers” and have NO Apostolic Succession granted by Christ. The Douay Rheims Bible preceded King James (A.V. or any other) and all other Bibles. The D-R is the original Bible translated to English and written in English… plain and simple.
It is good to see such zeal for our faithful and venerable Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version of the Bible!
If Jesus C2709 is such an advocate of the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.) of the Bible, one wonders why on earth he modernised the pronouns, which both our Douay-Rheims and A.V. Bibles both use (“t” pronouns for the singular, “y” pronouns for the the second person singular and plural). In his strawman quote of what he tries to pass off as the Douay-Rheims-Challoner reading of Gen. 3:15 he misquotes it in other ways, too; either he was too lazy to look up the verse in the Douay-Challoner Old Testament, or he does not even have a copy of the Catholic Bible version that he is berating. This kind of thing only undermines Jesus C’s own credibility. However, his contempt for the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version was so obvious, that others who replied to him had not bothered to belabour that particular point (and I am
glad that you, at last, did so).
Please, Croix, do not undermine, in turn, your own credibility by making the foolish claim that the A.V. Bible omits the deutero-canonical writings (so-called “Apocrypha”). The A.V. right from its first edition, first printing, included all of them (plus, as well, the three of these writings, omitted from the Douay English Bible, that appear merely in the Clementine Latin Vulgate’s appendix). It was not the fault, and it was not the intention, of the A.V.'s royal sponsor, its translators, or ots early publishers to omit those writings from the Bible! Rogue publishers and printers
later and improperly excised them from their unauthorised editions of the Authorised Version. Their omission was** not **the fault of those who conceived and executed the translation, nor of the English monarchy, which for many decades prosecuted those who released, thus maimed, their illicit editions of the A.V.
I have an edition of the Clementine Latin Vulgate Bible that omits the deuterocanonical writings. It was published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. Does that mean that the Latin Vulgate is defective, because some publisher dared to leave out part of it? Of course not! The same is the case with sectarian-oriented and truncated editions of the A.V. Bible. It is not “the A.V.'s fault”, as some wrongly wrongly would have it, rather, it is the fault of those who deface the A.V. in this way.
I’ll leave to others comments on other aspects of your very interesting posting.
Pax, Jerry Parker*
