T
tobinatorstark
Guest
The Douay-Rheims version of the Bible. What do you think about it?? Like it and why?? Dislike it and why?? Please no mentioning of that the language is too archaic and hard to understand. Thanks
- Status
D
Derwin_James
Guest
I like the Douay-Rheims. I like multiple translations of the Bible, and I appreciate having one with the older style English. In fact, I used it to propose to my wife. 
A
AMDGtoo
Guest
I too have multiple translations of the Bible. And I love the language of the Douay-Rheimes–so poetic. And I love the Catholicity of it. No “wishy-washy” Luke 1:28 with Mary being “highly favored” (IMO we all are “highly favored” by reason of our Baptisms. 
) The Douay-Rheimes has Mary being “full of grace” same as our “Hail Mary” prayer.
) The Douay-Rheimes has Mary being “full of grace” same as our “Hail Mary” prayer.
J
juliamajor
Guest
The archaic language is a problem- have same to say about KJV. Love Shakespeare but sometimes I don’t get it-because of the idioms and slangs and common usage of the day that we just don’t use.Same with KJV or DR.it is an obstacle whether you like it or not. Doesn’t mean it’s a poor version just a bit difficult. use my parallel bible and parallel NT to clear up and haziness I find in scripture. I have read all kinds of versions but I like my RSV CE- it’s clearer to me and I don’t find it pedantic or pedestrian …It’s really a personal choice.- But I find it easier to teach with.
D
Dempsey1919
Guest
I love the Douay-Rheims Bible.
One of the main reasons for this is that I love the Elizabethan English; I like the flowery prose and the old-fashioned renderings. I find the language to be very poetic. The language is ancient, and it connects me to my Catholic forefathers. For many generations, the Douay was the only version of Scripture that many people knew.
Another reason I like the Douay-Rheims is because of it’s historical importance. During the Reformation, the English speaking Catholics needed their own trustworthy version of Scripture; and to that end, the Douay-Rheims was created. For over 300 years, the Douay was the Bible of choice for the English speaking Catholics.
Also, the Douay is a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate, which has been the official translation of the Roman rite for 1500 years (although there have been several revisions over the years). As such, the Douay perfectly expresses Catholic doctrine in an unbiased manner.
The Douay is a great Bible, but it shouldn’t be placed on a pedestal. Newer translations are also very good, and sometimes even better because they are easier to understand. I would hate to see any Catholic becoming a “Douay-Rheims Onlyist” in the same way that there are Protestant “King James Onlyists.” However, the Douay should have a place on every Catholic’s bookshelf in my opinion, if only because of it’s historical significance and importance.
One of the main reasons for this is that I love the Elizabethan English; I like the flowery prose and the old-fashioned renderings. I find the language to be very poetic. The language is ancient, and it connects me to my Catholic forefathers. For many generations, the Douay was the only version of Scripture that many people knew.
Another reason I like the Douay-Rheims is because of it’s historical importance. During the Reformation, the English speaking Catholics needed their own trustworthy version of Scripture; and to that end, the Douay-Rheims was created. For over 300 years, the Douay was the Bible of choice for the English speaking Catholics.
Also, the Douay is a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate, which has been the official translation of the Roman rite for 1500 years (although there have been several revisions over the years). As such, the Douay perfectly expresses Catholic doctrine in an unbiased manner.
The Douay is a great Bible, but it shouldn’t be placed on a pedestal. Newer translations are also very good, and sometimes even better because they are easier to understand. I would hate to see any Catholic becoming a “Douay-Rheims Onlyist” in the same way that there are Protestant “King James Onlyists.” However, the Douay should have a place on every Catholic’s bookshelf in my opinion, if only because of it’s historical significance and importance.
L
lak611
Guest
I like the poetic language of the D-R. I dislike the different numbering of the Psalms and the different names of the books and people in the Old Testament. For instance, I prefer “Noah” not “Noe.” I also prefer “Hosea” rather than “Osee.” “Chronicles” is also preferable to me rather than “Paralipomenon.”
C
Christy_Beth
Guest
I agree with the previous post. Except for the language. I have found it useful for looking up certain passages. Sometimes I just need something more than my NAB.
K
KingAlfred
Guest
I’m thinking of buying a D-R soon.
P
patrick457
Guest
I assume you’re talking about Dr. Richard Challoner’s revision of the Douay-Rheims, right?
If so, I like the Challoner Douay-Rheims for the usual reasons: the English used, and its poeticism.
The original Douay-Rheims followed the Latin closely in order that no doctrinal error should creep in or the true sense of the Holy Spirit be missed (in their words). Dr. Robert Witham, who published a revision of the Rheims NT in 1730 with Challoner as censor (this was before Challoner himself also revised the text), mentioned that while the original translation is to be praised as it was a true and literal translation and not a paraphrase, he thought that they 'followed too scrupulously the Latin, even to the placing of words.’
Critics even mocked this fact, saying the Catholic Church under the circumstances was finally forced to print a Bible, yet intentionally made it obscure and hard to understand!
Here is a table of some differences:
(Numbers 6:17) 1609 Douai Old Testament: “The ram he shal immolate for a pacifique host to the Lord, offering withal the baskette of azymes and the libamentes that by custom are dew.”
Challoner: “The ram he shall immolate for a sacrifice of peace offering to the Lord, offering at the same time the basket of unleavened bread, and the libations that are due by custom.”
(Matt. 3:1-2) 1582 Rheims New Testament: “And in those dayes cometh Iohn the Baptist preaching in the desert of Iewrie, & saying, 'Doe penance; for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.’”
Challoner: “And in those days cometh John the Baptist preaching in the desert of Judea, and saying: Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
(Matt. 4:20) 1582 Rheims NT: "But they incontinent leaving the nettes, followed him."
Challoner: “And they immediately leaving their nets, followed him.”
(Mk. 14:51) 1582 Rheims NT: “And a certaine young man folowed him clothed with sindon vpon the bare”
Challoner: “And a certain young man followed him, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body” (originally “cloathed with a linnen cloath over his naked body”)
(Rom. 5:14) 1582 Rheims NT: “But death reigned from Adam vnto Moyses, euen on them also that sinned not after the similitude of the prevarication of Adam”
Challoner: “But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam”
(1 Corinthians 12:3) 1582 Rheims NT: “Therefore I doe you to vnderstand that no man speaking in the Spirit of God, saith anathema to IESVS. And no man can say, Our Lord IESVS; but in the holy Ghost.”
Challoner: “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man, speaking by the Spirit of God, saith Anathema to Jesus. And no man can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost.”
(Philippians 2:5-7) 1582 Rheims NT: “For this thinke in your selues, which also in Christ IESVS, who when he was in the forme of God, thought it no robberie to himself to be equal to God, but he exaninated himself, taking the forme of a seruant, made into the similitude of men, and in shape found as man.”
Challoner: “For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man.”
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Yes I was talking about the Challoner revision. Thanks for listing some scripture passages to compare the original with Challoner. When I started reading the Bible I used the NAB kept hearing about the Douay-Rheims so I bought a copy and I absolutely love it. I mainly read it the most simply because I get more out of it than I did with the NAB. Not to say that the NAB is a bad translation, but I just seemed to understand it better. Everyone here seems to knock the NAB quite a bit and praise the RSV-CE. I have a hard time of thinking about reading the RSV-CE. Something tells me that a Protestant based Catholic Bible is just not a good choice. There is nothing wrong with it but I just don’t recommend Catholics reading it and should stick with exclusively Catholic Bibles. I am glad some of you feel strongly the way I do about the Douay-Rheims . I feel so good about this Bible.
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
I also like the fact that the DR predates the KJV.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
yes the Douay-Rheims does predate the King James, but neither were the first English Bible translation. The King James is easy to follow for me if I so choose to read a Protestant Bible. The Rheims NT was text that King James compared in translating its NT. The OT wasn’t available at the time they translated the King James, as they both overlaped in translating Bibles. The King James does differ in some spots. I don’t proclaim D-R only or that KJV only is acceptible but those seem like really good translations. I also like the Wycliffe Bible. I have read some from studylight.org. I wish it was still in print. Much better in my opiniion (only my opinion) that the King James
- Status