The original KJV and the Douay-Rheims

  • Thread starter Thread starter searn77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

searn77

Guest
I have somewhere online that the deuteorocanonical (apocrypha) books in the original KJV contains more books than the Douay-Rheims bible. I know that the Douay-Rheims bible doesn’t separate all the apocryphal books and some get included into other books (like Daniel for example) but I wasn’t sure if the KJV has more books than the DR. Does anyone know? Or am I wrong?
 
[By the way, I meant to type the word “read” in the OP first sentence after it said “I have” but I went past the 20 minute time limit for editing posts. I also wanted to put this in the OP but because of the time limit, I’m putting it as a reply]

And also, I was thinking about picking up a new bible that was either going to be the DR or the Third Millenium bible. The Third Millenium bible is basically the original KJV with the deuteurocanonical books in a seperate “Apocrypha” section but it also replaces some of the vocabulary that doesn’t make sense to today’s reader. For example, it takes out the word “astonied” and replaces it with the word “stunned”. Besides that, it still has the same word-for-word interpretation with the KJV and even has the same chapter reviews and cross references. But my question is, does the Douay-Rheims bible contain any words like “astonied” that wouldn’t be understood by today’s reader? If it doesn’t contain many words that wouldn’t be understood by today’s reader, and if it contains just as much of the deuteorocanonical books as does the Third Millenium bible, I would like to buy the DR bible (just because I want a small pocket bible and there aren’t any small pocket bibles for the Third Millenium version). Any thoughts?
 
Go with the Douay-Rheims. I would give another look towards the KJV or the Third Mellenium Bible
 
i agree w/ Tob - but i’m Catholic, so…

Well, i’ue neuer read the ChallonerDR, but i know for a fact that the older DR has:
“astonied”, (this you know:))
“twain”, (today’s twice)
“stones” (today’s testicles, :rolleyes:seeLeuiticus22:24),
“priuy” (today’s restroom)
“dragon” (today’s snake, a few times in Exodus)

heck, right now i’m studying Wiclif’s transl. which is way too 14thcentury:
“chiualry” (today’s army)
“knights” (today’s soldiers)
“twei” (today’s number two)
etc…
 
Yeah I would have to go with the Challoner translation just because I would get hung up on the words of the original Douay-Rheims. But still I don’t know if there are many words in the Challoner version that I wouldn’t know. And another thing the Third Millenium bible does that I like is it uses just the one translation of names. For example, it uses Elijah instead of Elias, Jeremiah instead of Jeremias, Hezekiah instead of Ezechias, etc. I really would like to get the Third Millenium bible but first I want to get a pocket bible that contains some of the deuterocanonical books that the Orthodox have.

I would love to find a bible (espesially a pocket bible but really any type of bible) that kept the same form of writing as the Douay-Rheims/Challoner revision/King James translations with all of the “thees, thous, speeketh, heareth, etc” but updated some of the non-used words (like “astonied”) so I wouldn’t have to use a dictionary, and also contained all of the deuterocanonical books that the Orthodox hold including 3&4 Maccabees and Psalm 151. But I don’t think one exists. The closest one to it would have to be the RSV Oxford one that contains all of the deuterocanonical books. But I have read that the translation is bad and that it only uses the archaic “thees, thous, arts” when referencing God and it doesn’t even use these at all of the references.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top