What is the Most accurate Bible Translation

[Manfred]

Thanks for the website. Is the “Challoner Douay Rheims” the updated translation of the Douay Rhiems. All respects, but why would you read Ron Conte’s version instead of that version. Is there a specific reason?

The Challoner revisions occurred in the mid-1700’s, and updated the original 1582 Rheims NT and the 1609 OT. So, at best, Challoner brings us up to A.D. 1752.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Thanks for the website. Is the “Challoner Douay Rheims” the updated translation of the Douay Rhiems. All respects, but why would you read Ron Conte’s version instead of that version. Is there a specific reason?

I see Manfred has given you the best info on Challoner, let me add a little on Ron,s version.
As I see it, Ron has taken a new look at the Clementine Vulgate, and using Challoner as a guide, made a new translation into ‘modern’ English. It has to be said to the lovers of DR, and to some extent, KJV, that the early, and still the revised translations were excessively slavish to the Latin, resulting in some very wierd expressions in places. By taking a fresh look at the Latin, and applying context in place of slavish literality, Ron’s English reads much better, though the abandonment of 2nd singular is a shame.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Voco proTatiano: What do you think is the most accurate CATHOLIC version of the Bible and what changes in that favorite Catholic version that you liked the best would you make changes in it for it toi be a really great bible?

I guess what I’m asking is if it were only up to you: What would the Vooco Protatiano version of the Bible look like?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco proTatiano: What do you think is the most accurate CATHOLIC version of the Bible and what changes in that favorite Catholic version that you liked the best would you make changes in it for it toi be a really great bible?

I guess what I’m asking is if it were only up to you: What would the Vooco Protatiano version of the Bible look like?

I think, from the above posting, you already know, but if you need an illustration, why not look at the eBook that you can download from my webspace.
It is translated from a Latin Harmonised Gospel, which I believe to be substantially the work of Tatian or his alias, Ammonius. The vorlager he compiled from would have been the AD 200 Vetus Latina Gospels, which are for the most part, (85%), identical with St Jerome’s work, and I used the Douay Rheims Gospels as a translation tool, only altering the English when it was:
1/ not compliant with the Latin source text,
2/ inaccurately interpreting the declension of a Latin word,
3/ translating a Latin word or phrase literally, when context indicated otherwise, or,
4/ slavish translation resulted in an obscure phrase, (Latinism)
In some cases, I have gone too far, and will have to back-track, in some cases I have not gone far enough, and will have to revise.

I entered this thread with a question which no-one has chosen to answer, only to pick at my useage of ‘G_d’.
The question, which is relevant to the eBook, is this:
When Hebrews use the word, which is translated into Latin as ‘genuit’, and into English therefore as ‘begat’, they oftentimes do not refer to the physical act of procreation, but rather to the completion of the child by acknowledging paternity before the priest and congregation, for circumcision, in the case of a boy.
Hence, in many cases, the word is better translated as ‘acknowledged’
Can this context be applied to St John’s useage of the word translated into Latin as ‘unigenitum’ and into English as ‘Only Begotten’?
It would make a great deal of sense, for then we have G_d publickly acknowledging Jesus as “My Son” on at least two occasions, namely:
The Baptism of John, and
The transfiguration.

 

[ak_lavenderlady]

I have quite a collection of different versions of the bible. I have the Moffat Bible, which as an example for John 1:1 it reads:

In the beginning was the Word…and the Word was 'DIVINE". Other Bible versions read: and the Word was “GOD”.

So far, I tend to gravitate towards the interlinear Hebrew-Greek Bible that comes in 4 volumes. It gives you a word per word literal translation in Hebrew for the O.T. and Greek for the N.T., then to the side of the page it gives you the transliteration. Text font size is rather small though and I have to use my reading glasses.

**I also really like The New Jerusalem Bible, as well as, the Peshitta Aramaic Bible. ** I have the Jehovah Witness version of the Bible and find many contraditions in what other versions read. One example, is where it says in 2nd Peter that the world will eventually be “DISOLVED” in most versions used in Protestant and Catholics Bibles, the Jehovah Witness Bible says “DISCOVERED”.

The reason I joined this forum is because I want to get the Douay-Rheims, but can’t decide between the Baronius version or the Challoner, or the D-R with commentary by Catholic Treasures?

I have other versions too numerous to mention. But it really doesn’t matter which version you have; what matters is that whatever version you possess, you apply God’s commandments, counsel and truth to your everyday life. In a nutshell, loving God with all your heart, mind and soul and loving and desiring for your neighbor what you would want for yourself.

 

[demerzel85]

The reason I joined this forum is because I want to get the Douay-Rheims, but can’t decide between the Baronius version or the Challoner, or the D-R with commentary by Catholic Treasures?

Both Loreto Publication and Baronius Press sell the Challoner revision of the Douay Rheims. It you are looking for the 1582 Rhemes & 1611 Douai, there is a transliteration on realdouayrheims.com/ A fresh facsimile is also coming out soon.

If money is not an issue the Haydock Douay Rheims is highly recommended.