King James vs. Douay-Rheims Bible

[amal95]

Contarini:

…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?..

In Christ,

Edwin

Well, I’m in NJ, too. or should I …hehe

In NJ, though I’m sure the number of fundamentalist vs. other protestants isn’t high, they are still significant, enough so that myself and other catholics know many who’ve converted to those. They wouldn’t be of the type of extreme fundamentalist that I think you’re referring to, though. The fact is the large non-denom type churches are really evangelistic, to their credit, but also in an anticatholic way, not to their credit, in that they make a point of converting fallen-awy catholics who do not know their faith and are led away by the Fundamentalist errors of Catholic teachings.

 

[metal1633]

amal95:

Well, I’m in NJ, too. or should I …hehe

In NJ, though I’m sure the number of fundamentalist vs. other protestants isn’t high, they are still significant, enough so that myself and other catholics know many who’ve converted to those. They wouldn’t be of the type of extreme fundamentalist that I think you’re referring to, though. The fact is the large non-denom type churches are really evangelistic, to their credit, but also in an anticatholic way, not to their credit, in that they make a point of converting fallen-awy catholics who do not know their faith and are led away by the Fundamentalist errors of Catholic teachings.

I am in a Chicago suburb and the worlds LARGEST “non-denominational” Evangelical Church is right up the road from me. We have fundies everywhere.

 

[NightRider]

Hello,

I have heard that the DR with Fr Haydock’s commentary is supposed to be the best one. Is this true? Does anyone have any comments about this?

 

[Psalm45_9]

NightRider:

Hello,

I have heard that the DR with Fr Haydock’s commentary is supposed to be the best one. Is this true? Does anyone have any comments about this?

I have this Bible, I love it. I wouldn’t say it is the best, though, people have different opions and I do not have the new Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition Bible with Commentaries from Scot Hahn to compare. It is still a good edition of the Douay-Rheims Version.

 

[matthew1624]

Perhaps some of you can offer some thoughts on my thread at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=14782.

Thanks…

 

[Flglades]

I guess it depends which King James version you are talking about. The orginial 1608 version has all the books from the bible and is a good bible but hard to read.

So the original KJ vs DRehiems is a toss up

The revised King James version has 7 books removed but is easier to read

Revised King James Vs Douay Rehims its Rehmy all the way

 

[nbtrap]

Has anyone ever seen the Haydock revision of the DR? It’s commentary is FANTASTIC! It’ll cost you an arm and a leg in print, but it is available online here:

haydock1859.tripod.com/

It baffles me that the Challoner revision is now standard.

Edit:

Let me clarify. The Haydock version is the same as the Challoner version except for the commentary. That is, the translation is the same, as far as I know.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Has anyone ever seen the Haydock revision of the DR? It’s commentary is FANTASTIC! It’ll cost you an arm and a leg in print, but it is available online here:

haydock1859.tripod.com/

It baffles me that the Challoner revision is now standard.

Edit:

Let me clarify. The Haydock version is the same as the Challoner version except for the commentary. That is, the translation is the same, as far as I know.

That’s right. The Haydock Bible uses the Challoner revision (which is revised still more by later hands.) Haydock did not touch the translation, he merely added the notes, from all of the sources he could muster, including Challoner’s own original notes.

 

[bubbawanda]

Ok im guilty of having been stuck on KJV because its what I was raised on. I have an old family heirloom KJV and a newer one with the apocrypha. But I also very much like the Douay Rheims bible too. Im used to the Elizabethan english.
The NRSV Oxford Annotated Study bible is interesting to read the historical accounts, but im not real comfortable with the translation of verses I know well. Im pretty sure im not the only one who feels that way.
I just ordered the NASB not sure if this is used at a Catholic Church but read that it is a good translation. Is this a preferred version of parishioners?

 

[bubbawanda]

Ok im guilty of having been stuck on KJV because its what I was raised on. I have an old family heirloom KJV and a newer one with the apocrypha. But I also very much like the Douay Rheims bible too. Im used to the Elizabethan english.
The NRSV Oxford Annotated Study bible is interesting to read the historical accounts, but im not real comfortable with the translation of verses I know well. Im pretty sure im not the only one who feels that way.
I just ordered the NASB not sure if this is used at a Catholic Church but read that it is a good translation. Is this a preferred version of parishioners?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Ok im guilty of having been stuck on KJV because its what I was raised on. I have an old family heirloom KJV and a newer one with the apocrypha. But I also very much like the Douay Rheims bible too. Im used to the Elizabethan english.
The NRSV Oxford Annotated Study bible is interesting to read the historical accounts, but im not real comfortable with the translation of verses I know well. Im pretty sure im not the only one who feels that way.
I just ordered the NASB not sure if this is used at a Catholic Church but read that it is a good translation. Is this a preferred version of parishioners?

It’s an updated version of the 1901 American Standard Version, which is an American version of the Standard Version or King James text. Therefore to answer your question, no, it’s not a preferred bible in Catholic churches. US Catholic Churches use a non-published version of the NABRE (New American Bible Revised Edition,) in their liturgies. The Published version of the NABRE is not approved by the Vatican for use in the Liturgy.

Actually, the Liturgical version of the NABRE IS available in the Workbook for Readers at the Liturgy, but would only contain those readings found on Sundays and Holy Days, not weekdays. So still not the whole NT or OT.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

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.

Protestants are so PAINFULLY unaware of all the faultiness found in the KJV,
and to call it a “divinely inspired translation” is placing all those faults on God,
which is a tremble worthy implication.

 

[bubbawanda]

Yeah youre probably right about that. For me it wasnt about divinity so much as where im from. So what do Catholics think about the Holman bible? My sis has a really old ornate one.

 

[Honorius]

Protestants are so PAINFULLY unaware of all the faultiness found in the KJV,
and to call it a “divinely inspired translation” is placing all those faults on God,
which is a tremble worthy implication.

Don’t generalize. There is not a monolithic thing called Protestantism, where everyone thinks the same. It is a large spectrum. Many Protestants I know of are aware that there are other things out there and that Authorized Version means authorized for standard church use, not authorized by God.

But on to my opinion. I do not know the original languages, so cannot comment on accuracy, but as a general rule of thumb, the translation of a translation probably will not be as good as a translation straight from the original language. I put too close to call as they are both simply translations, and as such will be flawed.

 

[bubbawanda]

Why do I get the impression that the Catholics on this website really hate non catholics? I’ve never felt anything like that toward them. I have found other denims to be offensive because they were so virulently anti Catholic. Whatever happened to the concept of God calling all of us to peace?
I’m fairly open to learning the faith as Catholics see it but am wondering if this is some private club that I can watch but never become part of.:

 

[animalis]

You are acknowledged! It does not mean much coming from me if you consider much on the context of the ego. Rather, it seems well to say that unity is a quality that comes from the Blessed Sacrament thereof we celebrate and consume. The leaders of our Church call us in the church to greater conversion, in response to the call of Jesus to his church “That they may all be one…” (Jn 17:21) Our Catechism lists requirements for this call to tend to the end which our Lord walks regally with us. (cf. CCC 821)

I have been encouraged by a couple protestant pastors of their love of the Early Church Fathers. I heard an apologist on Scott Hann’s web site, say those group of leaders could be a real source of unity for all of us who are baptized, and carry the marks of the people of God (cf. CCC 782)

There are two simple things that strike me about the DR

1. The search engine on www.drbo.org is excellent
2. The names of the virtues listed on the sacred page correspond to a number of the servants’ explanations.

 

[bubbawanda]

Hey thanks!
I have a copy of the CCC and a very nice copy of Douay Rheims so I’ll go look that stuff up!
Good website!
I also voted “too close to call” because I read that both were translated from the Byzantine text or otherwise called the received text. To my best understanding. :coffeeread:

 

[Pilgrim1701]

I have both. Challoner DR, and gave in for the big anniversary and bought a KJV in 2011, with the original contents, therefore including “Aprocrpyha”/deuterocanon.
Voted for the DR, and it being a Catholic site and all it is no surprise that this is in the majority. If there were a Protestant counterpart to this site, the scales may tip in favour of the KJV I’m sure.
This seems to be a perennial question on CAF, which is the ‘best’ bible? A question that will never be resolved it would appear:slapfight:
I would conclude, for us Catholics at least, only a fully sanctioned, authoritative, translation, emanating from Rome, for the whole of the English speaking Church, could settle the question. This plethora of translations, some sanctioned for the liturgy in one jurisdiction but not another and vice versa only fuels the debate. It would be fare to conclude I think, that every modern translation has strengths and weakness to a greater or lesser degree.