The Douay-Rheims Bible

[josephdavid]

Can anyone tell me what is written below is true and what source is this from? I received this from an anti-Catholic who is spewing garbage on the internet. So if you know the source that would also be appreciated becuase I am smelling plagurism.

The Douay-Rheims Bible, also known as the Rheims-Douai Bible or Douai Bible and abbreviated as D-R, is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English.

The New Testament was published in one volume with extensive commentary and notes in 1582. The Old Testament followed in 1609–10 in two volumes, also extensively annotated. The notes took up the bulk of the volumes and had a strong polemical and patristic character. They also offered insights on issues of translation, and on the Hebrew and Greek source texts of the Vulgate.

The purpose of the version, both the text and notes, was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation which was heavily influencing England. As such it was an impressive effort by English Catholics to support the Counter-Reformation.

This Bible contains the added books of the Apocrypha not contained in the accepted 66 books of the Christian Bible.

The added Apocraphyl books are Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch in the Old Testament and the books of the New Testament are the same, but some contain Apocraphyl text added into them.

These were not added until the 17th Century.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Verbatum from Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible

 

[Cranch]

Verbatum from Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible

Except for the last three lines of nonsense.

josephdavid - the description you quote seems accurate except for those last three sentences which were tacked on by your anti-Catholic. The full Catholic canon of biblical books has been in place for 1600 years. This includes the Deuterocanonicals, improperly called Apocrypha by Protestants. No books have been “added”. In fact it is the Protestants who have removed the seven Deuterocanonical books. I’m sure the silly reference to the 17th century is meant to be to the Council of Trent (wrong century, 1545–1563). It was there that the biblical canon recognized for millennia was formally listed by the Church; not for the first time by the way.

 

[Sir_Knight]

josephdavid, tell your anti-Catholic friend that the early editions of the King James version of the bible INCLUDED the Deuterocanonicals. Catholics did not ADD books to the bible. Instead, protestants REMOVED books from the bible. Removing books from the Bible is a serious matter, and is specifically condemned in Revelation 22.

You may also want to ask him why he follows a version of the OT that is accepted by Jews who REJECTED Jesus and cursed Christ’s followers while rejected a version of the OT that was accepted by jews who followed Christ?

Does he truly think that the these Jews who rejected Chirst were more properly guided by Holy Spirit as to which OT to follow than those Jews who accepted Christ?