Any Protestants read the Douy Rheims Bible instead of the King James Bible?


#1

Out of curiosity, any Protestants here read the Douay Rheims Bible written in 1609?

Note: King James Bible was written in 1611. The language of both books are similar, except that the Douay Rheims Bible has the deutro-canonical books


#2

I don’t understand all the hype with the KJV. Some scholars think that King James I may have actually been Catholic. He had leanings towards Rome in terms of politics. I know for a fact that King James II was Catholic…

In Pax Christi
Andrew


#3

Are you sure? I think he is Protestant than Catholic.


#4

The KJV is a bit difficult to read. I prefer the NIV or RSV, although I am considering picking up a translation that has the Apocrypha/DC books to read.


#5

It doesn’t hurt to read the deutrocanonical books. They were often quoted in the NT.

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html


#6

I was raised Southern Baptist, but have been Eastern Catholic for 27 years now. I have read the Jerusalem Bible for many years, but have started reading the DR Bible. I really think it is because I was raised on the old KJ and I connect with the language of the DR. So for myself it is really not hard to understand, it is comfy :smiley:


#7

I also grew up on the KJV…
I read the Douay & the RSV-CE more than any other versions. I really like the Douay. I do wish that someone would standardize the names of books, & numbering of verses, especially in the Psalms, the way they have in the Ignatius RSV that I have. It would make it easier to naviagate.
I had thought about buying a KJV 1611, which has the *whole *Bible in it, instead of lacking in the OT, but then my nonagenarian Douay took a turn for the worse, & I replaced it with a new Baronius. It is :thumbsup: exactly the same,:thumbsup: page for page, as the old one I had loved so much!!

I like the fact that the Douay follows so close to the Latin. (My mother was a Latin teacher; that is important to me!!) Maybe someday, I will get a Vulgate. In the meantime, I am very happy to use Douay over KJV any day!!


#8

I like the Douay-Rheims too. The only things I don’t like about it are the different names of some of the books (for example, Osee instead of Hosea) and the different numbering of the Psalms (everybody knows the 23rd Psalm, but in the Douay-Rheims, it’s actually the 22nd). I always make sure I have another translation handy in case the names of the books or numbering of the Psalms messes me up. I like it better than the KJV also, and I have a KJV with the Apocrypha (as well as one without). I do like having the KJV with the Apocrypha because there are a few books that are recognized by the Orthodox Churches but not the Catholic Church that are included in it.


#9

lak611 said:

" I do like having the KJV with the Apocrypha because there are a few books that are recognized by the Orthodox Churches but not the Catholic Church that are included in it."

Would you please give us a detailed list of which books you are referring to that are "missing from the Catholic Book?:confused:


#10

I read none of them! Instead, I read the Koiné-greek one (Novum testamentum) :smiley:
Apart from that, I (and the rest of the Christians in Norway - Lutherans as well as Catholics) read the Norwegian translations based on these Greek manuscripts. The bible-society in Norway is ecumenical to the core.

The KJV have no special position among Lutherans in my country.


#11

From what I can tell, there are some minor differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Canon. Here’s a few examples:

"ORTHODOX HAVE MORE CHAPTERS

Some Orthodox Christian Bibles also include several more additional texts deemed apocryphal by both Protestants and Roman Catholics, including Greek Ezra (or 1 Esdras), Apocalypse of Ezra (or 2 Esdras), 3 and 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, and the Prayer of Manasseh."

findarticles.com/p/articl…6/ai_n16165803

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible


#12

I read the online version - www.drbo.org.


#13

Ditto! I was raised Southern Baptist, but I have only been a confirmed Catholic since Easter. The DR was an easy switch for me, but I still love the KJV.


#14

Very nice! Thanks for the link.:thumbsup: It is now in my favorites.


#15

Thanks for the post! I was not online to answer the question myself.


#16

Not “instead of” but “along side of” at times. Of course, the Douay Bible that most Roman Catholics grew up with is not actually the original Douay-Rheims but is the Rheims-Challoner version, edited in the early 1700’s. It’s practically the only version of the Douay version widely extant, and it was revised to conform with textual sources that the KJV and the original Douay-Rheims did not use. It was also revised in the direction of the stylistically-better KJV translation. Which makes Roman Catholic claims that the Douay Bible is “older than” the KJV a tad dishonest. (Of course, the currently-extant version of the KJV is also a revision; however, the revisions of the KJV affected only spelling changes and minor revisions in grammar; the Challoner revisions to the Douay amount in many places to an actual re-translation). Here’s a wikipedia overview:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims

At one point I had a link to the original Douay-Rheims translation. If I can find it I will provide that. (AHA!!! Founds it!!!)

realdouayrheims.com/

[quote=Harpazo]I don’t understand all the hype with the KJV. Some scholars think that King James I may have actually been Catholic. He had leanings towards Rome in terms of politics. I know for a fact that King James II was Catholic…
[/quote]

King James was not a Roman Catholic. (And he was NOT homosexual, by the way, despite a persistent Internet rumor to the contrary: see the following):

jesus-is-lord.com/rumors.htm

King James I was a champion of the Protestant faith. The issues surrounding the KJV debate are complex. Basically, the KJV (and the original Douay-Rheims indirectly, because it was based upon the Vulgate) is based upon the Textus Receptus, the manuscript tradition received from earliest times even by the early Church Fathers. The Rheims-Challoner and later translations are based upon revisionist texts, on the argument that we have older manuscript copies of those revisionist texts. The debate is over which are more reliable. See also the following articles:

jesus-is-lord.com/kinginde.htm

jesus-is-lord.com/#kjv

biblebelievers.com/KJV_Defended_Hills.html

bookshop.biblebelievers.com/category_s/36.htm

Hoe this helps!


#17

Just a slight correction:

The Douay-Rheims which is available today is a 1752 revision, which is substantially different from the 1609 Rheims-Douay. Also, the 1611 KJV includes the deutro-cannonicals.


#18

Do you think there are those version online available?


#19

Are you asking if the original 1609 Douay-Rheims and the original 1611 KJV are available online?


#20

Yes


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.