King James vs. Douay-Rheims Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Archbishop_10-K
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Archbishop_10-K

Guest
Any thoughts on this? Let’s go solely by translation, and assume the KJV was authorized by the Church and still had the deuterocanonicals. Almost all Protestants seem to think that the KJV is the bomb, and I was wondering if our DRV matches up to it.
 
Archbishop 10-K:
Any thoughts on this? Let’s go solely by translation, and assume the KJV was authorized by the Church and still had the deuterocanonicals. Almost all Protestants seem to think that the KJV is the bomb, and I was wondering if our DRV matches up to it.
Click to expand...
The KJV was translated from texts that dated no earlier than the 12th century A.D. The texts were in such bad shape that the compilers of the texts and the translators of the KJV used…thats right, the Vulgate and the DRB, to make corrections. Some passages in the KJV were not even translated, just lifted directly from the DRB.
 
40.png
metal1633:
The KJV was translated from texts that dated no earlier than the 12th century A.D. The texts were in such bad shape that the compilers of the texts and the translators of the KJV used…thats right, the Vulgate and the DRB, to make corrections. Some passages in the KJV were not even translated, just lifted directly from the DRB.
Click to expand...
OH NO, it wasn’t handed to King James by GOD himself! :eek:

Kotton :rolleyes:
 
God bless everyone who loves their Bibles (KJV or DRV), reads their Bibles and tries their best to live according to their Bibles.

Just remember that some non-Christians may not read any other version of the Bible but our lives. As such, mine is a very poor translation that needs great improvement.

I once met a Christian man in Jacksonville FL who was so extreme in his support of the authorized KJV. I’m sure neither of us knew that the original KJV included the deuterocanonical books.

He thought that the KJV was “it” and any other translation was worthless.

I asked him what Bible God had provided to Spanish-Speaking people. He told me that he had never thought about that.

For right now, I really like the NAB best. But many Bibles are very good. Its a shame that Protestant Bibles are missing so many good footnotes that Catholic Bibles have.
 
i would say the king james Bible is beautifully written.

but even as a protestant (which i was), i preferred the NASB or the NRSV to the King James. even if the translation were GREAT, the archaic language in which it’s written is too many steps removed from our modern day english - and takes the message a step away from our understanding it.

i’ve heard nothing but good about the DR, and have found it to be extremely accurate.
 
I personally enjoy the DR better. I have that on my computer along with the RSVC with on my desk. Last year a bunch of Protestants were handing out free KJV bibles. I showed them my Ignatius bible and told them the differences. They thought it was just the deutercanonicals. I explained some of the differences in translations. I also explained to them the formation of the OT canon. Many had no clue about this. They probably didn’t expect a Catholic college student at a public University to have any knowledge of the Bible. I was glad to be late to class to spread the Truth. 🙂
 
Any major differences between KJV and DRV? I noticed that the DRV makes sure to use the words “priest” and “bishop” where applicable, as well as “full of grace” as opposed to “highly favored.”
 
Looks like the DRV is really owning up on the KJV now. I’m the one who voted the last, since I’m undecided right now and just wanted to see the results without clicking all the time.
 
As far as the New Testament is concerned…I applaud the KJV for being MORE honoring of Mary than the NAB…even our RSV CE…why?

In Luke…KJV has the beautiful “Blessed art thou among women” after Gabriel says “Hail Full of Grace” another verse used in the Hail Mary…the DR contains it… in some footnotes in RSV CE it is talked about…but at least KJV has that stance…yes, they use…favored one…but the NAB waters that down as well…which again… confuses me…as to why protestants cant see Mary as she truly is…blessed among women.
 
I have found that Protestants are King James Onlyists because the NIV and other versions delete sentences. However, the Douay-Rheims Bible contains sentences that are not even found in the King James Bible, so it baffles me why they would not see the older Latin Vulgate as more authoritive when it comes to translation of scriptures, then the King James Bible whose texts dates back only to the middle ages.
 
KJV:
1 Corinthians 11
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Douay:
1 Corinthians 11
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

My KJV-only acquaintances start squirming when they are forced to confront that verse.

Peace in Christ…Salmon
 
My “official” Bible is a Confraternity Version (Old and New Testaments- it’s out of print:( ) which was the Church’s last attempt to update the Douay Rheims (DR). Alas, the project was left unfinished (several OT books left intact) and work started on the NAB. While being more modern (and readable) the NAB has been a dis-service to Catholic laymen (especially the book intros and some of the notes).

The best things about the DR and KJV is that they give you many more words, phrases and even whole verses that modern Bibles drop out. Also, the DR is the only Catholic bible free from the stain of liberalism. The RSV has always been considered to be a liberal bible in evangelical circles. It tells you how bad the Catholic bibles have gotten if our RSV-CE is considered a conservative bible (and compared to the rest it is!)

My only complaint about the DR is the translations of names and places in the OT makes it hard for a former evangelical like myself to follow the stories. I can understand Isaia is Isaiah (that’s easy), but sometimes I have to go back to other bibles to see who is being talked about in the text.

Thus my vote for the KJV.
 
Not trying to hijack the thread or anything, but can a French-speaker approximate the pronunciation of “Rheims?” I’ve bicycled through that city, but I’m still not sure about the pronunciation.

Don’t even ask me about Ghent in Flemish-speaking Belgium (same trip)! 😛

DaveBj
 
One thing that I am disappointed in with both the DR and the KJV is that they use the term Hell for both of the Greek terms Hades and Gehenna. The distinction between Hades, a.k.a. Purgatory and Gehenna a.k.a. Hell, is an important one in that it helps to establish the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. Several Protestant versions, including the NIV, do make the distinction, althought most Protestants I’ve talked to don’t (obviously) understand the distinction or have really never noticed it.
 
Even though I voted “too close to call” I prefer the King James Version over the DR. They are both very good but the KJV is that much better in style. The KJV must have “something” about it because even today it is still the second largest selling Bible translation on the market. Not bad for a 393 year old translation in a market glutted with dozens of newer Bible translations. Some here have remarked that the KJV was based on “later” manuscripts than new Bible translations. That is no longer true. The latest manuscript finds actually vindicate the underlying Greek of the KJV. Though you don’t hear much about it the Greek Text underlying the KJV is actually OLDER and far outnumbers in textual witnesses the Greek text modern Bibles are based on. In other words the Greek text of the KJV is far older and the numbers of these older text types outnumber the modern Bible Greek texts 9 to one. I think that the reason modern Bible translators have for this disconnect of admitting quietly that the KJV translators chose the right Greek text, yet refuse to use the older, better, and “majority” text is because for years they staked their academic reputations on the theory that the KJV Greek text was “inferior” to the alleged and now disproven theory that the Greek texts used in the new Bible translations was “better and more accurate and older” than the KJV Greek text. Roast Crow with a slice or two of Humble pie are difficult to eat. In Christ, jurist12
 
:Almost all Protestants seem to think that the KJV is the bomb, :

Wrong. Probably a minority of Protestants these days use the KJV, though I don’t have statistics. Among evangelicals the NIV is probably the most popular, while among “mainline” churches the NRSV is favored. Others may use the NASB or the RSV, and a large number rely on some sort of paraphrase such as the Living Bible or the Message. The KJV is the classic translation of English-speaking Protestants, and a large number of fundamentalists and a much smaller number of traditionally or aesthetically-minded non-fundamentalists continue to use it (I grew up with it and still have a lot of affection for it, but I use various versions).

I have to wonder why people on this board consistently identify Protestants as a whole with extreme fundamentalists. I grew up around fundamentalists, so I certainly know they exist and are a significant part of the religious landscape. But they aren’t a majority of Protestants (not the kind who use the KJV and think Catholics aren’t Christians–“fundamentalists” as the media defines them may possibly be, or at least close to half). Furthermore, most Catholics live in parts of the country where fundamentalists are not numerous. I grew up in a very fundamentalist region (East Tennessee), but there were hardly any Catholics there. Now I live in a region where there are lots of Catholics (New Jersey), but there are hardly any fundamentalists. These are not populations that generally live in large numbers side by side. So why do most Catholics on this board identify Protestants overwhelmingly with fundamentalists?

I can think of two possible reasons for this. One is that you get most of your information about Protestant religious beliefs from the Internet (you are obviously, by definition, the sort of people who frequently use the Internet), and fundamentalists do live in proximity to Catholics on the Internet, because they frequently show up on Catholic boards and because a google search for Catholicism will turn up fundamentalist anti-Catholic sites as well as Catholic ones. I suppose it’s also possible that you are aware of lots of off-line fundamentalist propaganda as well because it’s so shrill and so often directed against Catholics, but it still seems to me that geography would be a limiting factor.

So the second possibility is that many of you come from parts of the country where there are not many Catholics, which also tend to be the areas where there are lots of fundamentalists. That makes sense, because people who feel isolated from like-minded believers are likely to show up on the Internet. So I wonder how representative you guys are of Catholics nationwide? Maybe I should start a poll . . . .

I may be wide of the mark. There are plenty of places where Catholics and fundamentalists rub shoulders–large cities, for instance. And fundamentalists are so noisy that maybe they still seem like a majority even when they are anything but.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
I have not yet met a Protestant who did not have the highest respect for the KJV as an extraordinary translation, even if they do not regularly use it. That is what I meant. It is kind of like how some Catholics may have extreme regard for the Latin Vulgate even though they don’t regularly use it.
 
Contarini said:
:Almost all Protestants seem to think that the KJV is the bomb, :

Wrong. Probably a minority of Protestants these days use the KJV, though I don’t have statistics. Among evangelicals the NIV is probably the most popular, while among “mainline” churches the NRSV is favored. Others may use the NASB or the RSV, and a large number rely on some sort of paraphrase such as the Living Bible or the Message. The KJV is the classic translation of English-speaking Protestants, and a large number of fundamentalists and a much smaller number of traditionally or aesthetically-minded non-fundamentalists continue to use it (I grew up with it and still have a lot of affection for it, but I use various versions).

You state that a minority of Protestants use the KJV. According to the Christian Booksellers Association sales statistics the KJV is, last time I checked, the number two selling Bible translation in the US. Cambridge University Press, perhaps the largest quality Bible Printer in the UK sells more KJV translations than any other that they publish. The NIV is the number one selling translation in the US according to the Christian Booksellers Association but the older RSV, of which there are only three publishers that still print it, Cambridge Universty Press, Oxford University Press in the UK and Ignatius Press in the US, don’t even show up on the Christian Booksellers Association sales statistic list. As far as the NRSV goes while it is the favoured translation of the liberal University Scholars and some if not most liberal Mainline Protestant Churches no Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christian Denominations will have anything to do with it and again it doesn’t even show up on the Christian Booksellers Association sales list. In Christ, jurist12
Click to expand...
 
I like most all, the more translations you have the better you can understand the intended message. I have a soft spot for the New Living Translation. It’s a paraphrased translation, and in most cases carries quite close to the NAB. But it sure is hard to beat KJV or the Amplified Bible for reading aloud.

Has anyone tried to read the New KJV, whoo that is hard reading.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top