Douay Rheims Vs King James Version Vs Tyndales Bible

Hello, I was raised Catholic although as a kid I did not take it serious nor did I try to find out what is right or wrong on my own because as kid I did not worry about which religion was right and what bibles were translated correctly. Anyways now that I am older I have been researching more and more about the bible trying to make sure I know what to believe.
I will always believe in God/Jesus no matter what, I am saying I am trying to find ways to find the right bible as best as I can to the most accurate point.

I spent a few hours researching about when what bibles where made, who made them, what time period they came, how they were translated and I would like to hope I made good progress.

Based on my research I had 3 Bibles of which I thought where the closest bibles (as far as I could tell) although I am Catholic I do not let any bias get in my way because I believe in finding the truth no matter if I am wrong or right as long as I find it. So here were the three bibles I had down on my list so far from what I was researching. Correct me if I am wrong on anything.

#1 Douay Rheims Original Translation to English 1610 (Translated from the Vulgate)
#2 King James Version 1611 (Translated from Douay Rheims/Tyndale/Hebrew/Greek)
#3 Tyndale’s Bible 1525-1536 (1st English Translation from Hebrew/Greek)

I will tell you why I choose those 3 as my top 3 to pick from.

First off all the Douay Rheim’s was translated from the Vulgate which was a revised version of the Vetus Latina which I understand is the Latin’s who translated the original Hebrew/Greek Testaments, there for the Douay Rheim Original should be very accurate.
I DID NOT choose the Revised Douay Rheim because I don’t like the fact of people keep changing translations after they have been translated once.

Second, I choose the King James version as one of the more accurate ones because as I understand it King James seen there was errors in other bibles so tried to translate the bible using parts from even the Douay Rheim which I was considering accurate and Tyndale’s Bible which I was saying seemed king of accurate along with they translated from Greek/Hebrew. I choose the King James version as one because the fact that King James had all the best bibles to learn from and translate from that he maybe had more accurate choices to choose from since most likely the Catholics were accurate in the Original Douay Rheim. I understand KJV took out 7 Books.

Third, I chose Tyndale’s Bible because he was the 1st person ever to translate strait from the Hebrew/Greek text and translate it into English even before the Douay Rheims was translated into English. This means Douay Rheims was a translation of a revised translation while Tyndale’s bible was just a strait translation into English.

I am really interested in reading the ORIGINAL Douay Rheims translation but it seems when I check online I can only find the REVISED Douay Rheims which I do not like as much because it makes me think more mistakes can go on from it being translated so many times, in fact when I was researching about the Douay Rheims I read that they tried to revise the revised Douay Rheims and they changed it so much that it was not even considered the Douay Rheims any more.

That is why I really want to find the oldest accurate translation of the bible, I do not want to have alot of translations of more translations where more mistakes can happen. That is why I am asking which bible to you guys seems to be the oldest while being the most accurate.

I was thinking I would like the ORIGINAL Douay Rheims but it seems I cannot find it online.

My question : How much does the Douay Rhimes by Richard Challoner change, because I really do not want to buy a translation that is not even the same as what the original Douay Rhimes stood for, I am trying to get the most accurate bible I can find even if its harder to read. :blush:

These old translations might feel more comfortable since they are older and use older English, but more accurate they are generally not. Recent translations often make use of scholarship and resources (things like the dead sea scrolls) completely unavailable centuries ago. Many are direct Hebew/Greek to contemporary English translations that make no use of the Vulgate or any previous English translation.

My advice, pick more recent ones you are comfortable with and go from there.

I think it’s great that you are so conscientious about reading the Bible. :thumbsup:

I would caution, though, not to get too distracted by the various translations. Yes, there are differences between all the translations, and some of them are substantial. But we don’t want to fall into the trap of thinking that one translation is the divinely inspired English translation and the rest are tools of Satan. :stuck_out_tongue: (This sounds over-the-top, but there are those out there who really do take it that far.)

Every translation has strengths and weaknesses. The best translation is the one you will read. :slight_smile:

Not to downplay the weaknesses of certain translations. But I think a better approach is to simply be aware of those weaknesses rather than set ourselves up to thinking that one translation is perfect. And if you come to a passage that sounds funny, look at other translations. And look at what the Church has to say about it (since she is Scripture’s only infallible interpreter).

Regarding the two versions of the Douay-Rheims, my reading on the subject has given my the impression that the Challoner version owes more to the King James Version than to the original Douay-Rheims. It’s really its own thing.

Yes but that Vulgate (which is actually the Clementine Vulgate) has now been replaced with the Nova Vulgata, which incorporates all the recent archaeological findings.

Of note:

The Nova Vulgata does not contain some books found in the earlier editions but omitted by the Canon promulgated by the Council of Trent, namely the Prayer of Manasses, the 3rd & 4th Book of Esdras (sometimes known by different names: see naming conventions of Esdras) and the Epistle to the Laodiceans.

That’s debatable. IMHO, Challoner’s edition is built atop of the original D/R. However, he is not afraid to use particularly well turned (and accurate) phrases used in the KJ. After all Challoner was translating for an English nation which was AWASH in KJ bibles. Everyone knew them and could quote from it. Handel’s Messiah uses it. So why should Challoner choose to reject perfectly good English phraseology which conformed to the original D/R? He didn’t. Secondly, English had by Challoner’s time become much more universal in its appeal to all people, from intellectuals to humble servants, therefore some of his phraseology may only APPEAR to be taken from the KJ bible.

Personally I consider Challoner’s revision to be a very excellent updating of the original D/R bible, which in many of the readings is practically verbatim.

The Clementine version of the Bible was not released until AFTER the entire D/R bible had been translated. The 1582 NT certainly, and the 1609 OT was translated way back when the NT was, but could not be printed until later for lack of funds. Scholars are unsure WHAT Vulgate Gregory Martin used to translate the D/R, but they acknowledge that it was certainly a most accurate one. Additionally, the Hebrew and Greek translations were referred to during the translation of the Vulgate. Martin was also a Hebrew and Greek Scholar. Challoner used the Clementine version of the Vulgate when revising the D/R

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