What are your thought on this translation of the bible?

Douay-Rheims Bible. I’m curious.

I have one. I use it. I like it fine, I guess. Then again, I am no Biblical Scholar.

I smell bait.
Why do you ask? What do you think of it?

I have one, with a companion volume of “Lives of the Saints” an old lady Catholic friend left me when she died. Her son and daughter in law brought them to me…she had a note placed in them to get them to the “nice Quaker man” that they had introduced her to when she came to dinner with my friends while visiting from back east.

I like the DRV, I’m Catholic just as an FYI

I don’t want to derail the thread but what inflection should I read in your **[FONT=“Arial”]bold red **and bold blue fonts? I notice you use them regularly in your posts.

I thought of doing it like this just for fun bold red and bold blue but decided against it.[/FONT]

Yo Pub. How cool is it that someone did that for you. I’d be honored if it were me

Not that you’re not, just saying is all.

I do prize them and I do feel honored. Her son was happy for me to have them. They have a nice brown leather like cover, the Bible has a cross on it, the “Lives of the Saints” has a design of some sort. I use the DR at times to review a different translation as it compares to the RSV. I have them in a prominant place in my book collection…right along with my books of Quaker history and theology.

LOL! I have always thought it was done out of boredom…:wink:

Welcome to the forum, Amongst Strangers!

Go Ravens! Go Navy! Beat Army! Go O’s! Save the Bay!:thumbsup:

From what I can tell with my limited Latin, it’s a scrupulously accurate rendering into English of the Clementine Vulgate.

Now, this opens a can of worms about how accurate the Clementine Vulgate is, and how far it might deviate from St. Jerome’s original magnum opus.

I have not the slightest idea on these issues.

No bait. I was using the CAB study bible (blue with the Chalice on cover) and I liked it very much. I was wondering how it could be compared to it or the Jerusalem bible or NIV or the many many others. I was curious.

hehehehe but - HEY, can’t you read my sig block??

It’s: Go Steelers. I was in the Army. The Orioles and Michael Jackson have something in common: They all wear One Glove for no reason. Bay? There’s a bay that needs saving? :stuck_out_tongue:


Have you read it? What do you think of it?

For emphasis - and I like colors . . .:wink:

**In that case - I humbly retract my remark!:wink: **
Some people post questions like that just to lure others into an argument.

Anyway - think it’s a wonderful and beautifully written.

That too!

No argument. But was wondering about comparison. Is it a translation of the Vulgate? or does it use several sources like the NIV. Does it have a good study guide coponent?

Steelers…:tsktsk: Beat Army!:slight_smile:

It is a very reliable, very literal (word-for-word, no editorializing or doctrinal interpretation) translation of the Latin Vulgate, which for about 1500 years was the official bible of the Catholic Church.

Yes - the DRB is a faithful translation of the Vulgate. As far as I know, it doesn’t depend on other sources. There are better Catholic study bibles around though.

As far as study bible, one of the best is the Navarre bible from the University of Navarre in Spain.

For liturgical use here in the states, the New American Bible is the only English version approved.

It was last printed in (IIRC) the 1680s. So my first reaction is: why do people insist on calling the Challoner revision of it the DR ? :slight_smile: They are vastly different - the D-R was heavily Latinate: “He exinanited Himself” for “He emptied Himself” (Philippians 2) is apparently typical of its English. Bishop - then Monsignor - Graham thought the Challoner Bible would outlast the AV, to judge from his book "“How We Got the Bible”. Well, maybe - but what he could not foresee was the flood of Biblical translations since the 1940s. Biblical scholarship has changed so much since 1911 (when he wrote his book - 1911 was the tercentenary of the AV) that something more accurate is needed than the old Bibles. As for Biblical scholarship since 1609-11 (when the Douay OT & the AV were published) - there’s no comparison; English itself has changed. The problem is that the Bible is different things to different people - that’s partly why there is “KJV-onlyism” & “Challoner-onlyism”. :frowning:

Archaic English may be appropriate in some parts of the Bible - a “high style” for liturgical texts may be appropriate, & the NEB of 1970 adopts such a style, at least when addressing God. But for the NT letters it’s inappropriate: inasmuchas the inditing thereof unto them that be abroad and far sundered from him that writeth them-unto…etc., obscures the fact that the NT letters are letters, for ordinary folk, in everyday language.

To keep using Bibles that hide what is being said in a mist of beautiful but barely comprehensible verbiage is to defeat the purpose of the NT; it’s a disservice to its authors. If God had meant the books to be incomprehensible, they would be in cuneiform, or possibly in Chinese script.

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.