E
excubitor
Guest
The KJV Only crowd are correct in pointing out the implementation of modern critical translations of the Bible has resulted in corrupting the scriptures instead of preserving them. The DR is a correct, faithful and literal interpretation of the Latin, just as the KJV is a correct, faithful and literal interpretation of the Greek.Challoner’s acceptable – I doubt you could find a pre-Challoner DR, and it would be highly inferior both textually and in terms of the scholarship even if you could. I don’t even know if Challoner’s exact edition is still printed, I’d imagine they’ve all had some editing done.
BTW, if what is in the DR is actually “100% different” than in other standard Bibles reflecting more recently available sources and more modern scholarship, then the DR is most likely wrong, unfortunately. Make sure you don’t fall into the trap that the King James Only crowd does and think that some translation is divinely guided!
Also I have grave misgivings to see the West abandon the Latin as the foundational language of the scriptures, and adopting the Greek. I am not suggesting that the Greek is wrong, but the Latin has a far more consistent and well preserved heritage than has the Greek. Nor am I convinced that the Greek is the original language of the scriptures. It seems incomprehensible that Paul would write the letter to the Romans in Greek and not in Latin. Just as it is incomprehensible to me that he would write the letter to the Hebrews in Greek and not Hebrew.
As for the modern translations I have no doubt that they have been corrupted by modern textual criticism techniques. Most of these techniques are devised by men to judge the received scriptures as being defective and faulty, these critics who are very often not even Christian, let alone Catholic, then arbitrarily select their favoured reading from a variety of disparate ancient texts. Then they add further variation to the translation by using dynamic equivalence (which is basically paraphrasing) to the translation. This is thought for thought translation rather than word for word translation. This is very dangerous because the translator can impose his own ideas and bias about what he thinks the passage is saying upon the translation, rather than allowing the reader to make this judgement.
The modern translations and the butchered Greek Westcott & Hort / Nestle Aland modern Greeks from which they are translated are twisted products of modernism which has racked the church for over one hundred years. I would tolerate them as devotional texts maybe, but in any serious Bible Study we should rely upon the authority of the DR and the excellent orthodox marginal notes therein.
