Douay-Rheims Alone?

  • Thread starter Thread starter landon13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

landon13

Guest
Hello all,

I have been thinking a lot lately about switching to using the Douay-Rheims Bible alone. So, I was curious, who all here uses just the DR as their main Bible for study and prayer? I know this would be a huge change from my current NIV usage, but my journey in tradition feels like its leading me to this.

Also, what version of the Douay-Rheims do you own?

Pax
 
I do not use the DR at all. Not a big fan of the language.

I use the revised NAB for most things, as it is the version used at Mass in the US.

In my studies, I tend to use the Catholic edition of the NRSV.
 
I use the Douay Rheims 95% of the time for daily reading and devotion. I have a number of other versions which I do use from time to time, but I always return to the DR. I like the way it reads. I like the 100% Catholic notes. I like the fact it was the Bible used by the Church for a very long time. It just “feels” right.

As far as the version. I have a few copies, but my favorite is the Baronius Press version. It’s a nice edition with a sewn binding, good intro’s etc.
 
I mostly use the Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition, but I often cross check passages with other Bible versions, including the DR. My DR is the Bishop Challoner revision put out by TAN Books some years ago.
 
I generally use tbe DR for reading, and when I study scripture I study the Haydock commentaries which are based on the DR. Additionally, I find tbe Knox Bible very edifying. I often use the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition if I’m discussing scripture with others or to compare passages. It’s not good to be too attached to one translation, but if something is quoted to me from a version of Scripture other than those three, I will always end up comparing it to the wording in either the DR, the RSV or the Knox. All translations have a bias, so any version specifically produced to promote a non-Catholic religion (The King James Version comes to mind) is something I avoid.

The bible on my nightstand that I read in order to dive into the Word of God for daily reflection, is the DR version from Baronius Press.
 
LordHaveMercy said:
I generally use tbe DR for reading, and when I study scripture I study the Haydock commentaries which are based on the DR. Additionally, I find tbe Knox Bible very edifying. I often use the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition if I’m discussing scripture with others or to compare passages. It’s not good to be too attached to one translation, but if something is quoted to me from a version of Scripture other than those three, I will always end up comparing it to the wording in either the DR, the RSV or the Knox. All translations have a bias, so any version specifically produced to promote a non-Catholic religion (The King James Version comes to mind) is something I avoid.

The bible on my nightstand that I read in order to dive into the Word of God for daily reflection, is the DR version from Baronius Press.
Click to expand...
I would pick the KJV over the DR any day.
 
I try to use a readable, accurate translation that is acceptable to the U.S. bishops. I don’t find the DR very readable, and it is not the most accurate translation, so I don’t bother with it.
 
I have read it, and I have no objection to using it. And for converts from “KJV onlyism”, they may find comfort in it. That said, it is very difficult for me to read because of the archaisms, and my preferred version is RSV CE.
 
As has been echoed, prefer RSV-CE, or NRSV, but like to refer to multiple versions. Have DR on this tablet along with 4 other versions.

Blessings,
Stephie
 
It’s my main Bible. Occasionally I’ll look at the RSV-CE or NABRE, if there some verse I’m having trouble with due to the archaic language.
 
I have the RSV-CE but am currently reading my new DR St Benedict press. I love it

The Didache Bible may be my next one!
 
I voted “other”. It’s not that I never use it, but saying "I use it in addition to another version " would make it sound like I use it more than I actually do. :o

I know I have a print copy somewhere on my bookshelf, but I primarily use the one that comes with Verbum Bible software, which is the D-R with Challoner revisions. I use the RSV-CE and RSV-2CE the most with the NABRE not far behind. I tend to use the Haydock commentary a lot more than the actual D-R translation.
 
Teabag said:
I have the RSV-CE but am currently reading my new DR St Benedict press. I love it

The Didache Bible may be my next one!
Click to expand...
The Didache Bible comes in both NABRE and RSV-2CE editions. So you’ll have to choose. 🙂
 
I can’t understand the Word of God in the DR bible version, but sometimes I check it out of curiosity in comparison with another version like the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE) in BibleGateway. But physically, I read the Spanish version of the Jerusalem Bible and another Spanish version called Biblia de America (that has Our Lady of Guadalupe in the front). The English in the DR version is so complicated for me to understand, I can read it but I don’t learn nor retain anything I just read.
 
SyroMalankara said:
Why? On the surface they seem to be very similar. We do they diverge, in your opinon?
Click to expand...
The DR is translated from the Latin (which itself is already a deal-breaker for me, which is also why I do not own a Knox), and has too many Latinisms for my taste, in terms of both structure and spelling (I cannot stand reading about Elias and Eliseus, or Noe and the Flood, or Josue and the walls of Jericho. Or “The Lord ruleth me…”). “Thees and thous” do not make the language similar. I find it an irritating read.

The Authorized Version (and the Book of Common Prayer) became pillars of the modern English language for a reason: they are both elegantly composed and literary. Echoing what someone else said, the DR is Latin masquerading as English.

While not my favourite, I will take the NAB over the DR. But part of the reason I favour the RSV above others is not only for the quality of its translation, but because it is the direct, “official” if you will, descendant of the King James Version.

My attitude towards the DR is not merely a translation I least favour. My feelings towards it are negative. As in, I actually dislike it.
 
LordHaveMercy said:
I generally use tbe DR for reading, and when I study scripture I study the Haydock commentaries which are based on the DR. Additionally, I find tbe Knox Bible very edifying. I often use the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition if I’m discussing scripture with others or to compare passages. It’s not good to be too attached to one translation, but if something is quoted to me from a version of Scripture other than those three, I will always end up comparing it to the wording in either the DR, the RSV or the Knox. All translations have a bias, so any version specifically produced to promote a non-Catholic religion (The King James Version comes to mind) is something I avoid.

The bible on my nightstand that I read in order to dive into the Word of God for daily reflection, is the DR version from Baronius Press.
Click to expand...
I find the Knox BIble very intriguing. And definitely worth reading.
 
I only use the Douay-Rheims Bible because of its strict accuracy in regards to translation from the Vulgate, and I am quite fond of the language. I sometimes will reference the Vulgate as well as the Douay-Rheims.
 
porthos11 said:
The DR is translated from the Latin (which itself is already a deal-breaker for me, which is also why I do not own a Knox), and has too many Latinisms for my taste, in terms of both structure and spelling (I cannot stand reading about Elias and Eliseus, or Noe and the Flood, or Josue and the walls of Jericho. Or “The Lord ruleth me…”). “Thees and thous” do not make the language similar. I find it an irritating read.

The Authorized Version (and the Book of Common Prayer) became pillars of the modern English language for a reason: they are both elegantly composed and literary. Echoing what someone else said, the DR is Latin masquerading as English.

While not my favourite, I will take the NAB over the DR. But part of the reason I favour the RSV above others is not only for the quality of its translation, but because it is the direct, “official” if you will, descendant of the King James Version.

My attitude towards the DR is not merely a translation I least favour. My feelings towards it are negative. As in, I actually dislike it.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you on the aspects of the D-R that make it difficult for me to read. But with regards to it being based on the Vulgate, I think there can be value in such translations.

While it can be true that a translation of a translation isn’t going to be as good as a translation of the original, I think the Vulgate is different since it is such an ancient translation. Reading translations of the Vulgate can help in getting a sense for how many in those early centuries interpreted Scripture. Since they were much closer to those biblical languages than I am, it can be enlightening.

Just throwing that out there as another way to look at it. 🙂
 
Joe_5859 said:
I tend to agree with you on the aspects of the D-R that make it difficult for me to read. But with regards to it being based on the Vulgate, I think there can be value in such translations.

While it can be true that a translation of a translation isn’t going to be as good as a translation of the original, I think the Vulgate is different since it is such an ancient translation. Reading translations of the Vulgate can help in getting a sense for how many in those early centuries interpreted Scripture. Since they were much closer to those biblical languages than I am, it can be enlightening.

Just throwing that out there as another way to look at it. 🙂
Click to expand...
The Nova Vulgata would have some information the Clementine did not. However, AFAIK there is no English translation (not literal anyway) that uses it as a base.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top