I’m going to read one of these Bibles

I like the notes in the OSB because a lot of them are quotes or references to certain Church fathers so it's easy to look them up and do a deeper dive into a verse you have questions about.

She's an Eastern Catholic and part Greek or something. And it's not like the Septuagint or Christological footnotes are anti-Catholic. Catholics should actually imitate it and take their cues from it.

If anything, Catholics themselves should be ashamed of their own bibles (not the DR), like the NAB, which is just as skeptical and higher-criticism based as the Oxford Bible mentioned here.

Wildly unpopular opinion: especially for its day, NIV made a lot of really good translation decisions.

Eastern Catholics are still Catholics. Æsthetics are the only real difference between them and the Latins.

Out of curiosity, which Douay Rheims version is the best? It's my understanding there have been many revisions of it, and I'd like to pick the most accurate version possible, not one that's simply easier to read (I have the RSV2CE for that). As with the KJV, I'd normally assume the oldest edition is the most authentic one, however I'd rather not take that chance.

Read the Douay Rheims Challoner 1752. It's my favorite!

Attached: urdmnl1ktay21.jpg (750x629, 45.19K)

catholicebooks.wordpress.com/2017/09/30/online-ebook-haydocks-catholic-bible-commentary-1859-edition/

Get the Rick James Version for faithful blacktholics.

Attached: MI0000663525.jpg (500x500, 38.47K)

Many thanks for the suggestions. I'll go with the RJV.

To further clarify, the DRC1752 is almost the same as the original, it just removed some heavy latinisms (basically almost untranslated latin words) and that's about it. I'm not sure if the original DR is readily available, since the DRC1752 is almost the official standard version. The other version I know of is the DRA1899, it's some american edition and it's a bit weird. It's the only DR available on BibleGateway though, so that's why it comes up sometimes. The DRC1752 is available on Bible.com and the Bible.com (YouVersion) app.

I like the DR because it was the first English Bible translation (at least part of it pre dates the KJV), it's free from Masonic influences, and yes I think the Vulgate is probably the best source for the Bible. Modern scholarship has been a disaster! There is nothing against faith and morals in either the DR or the Vulgate, so I am confident it's not kooky. Even the RSV2CE is weird, not to mention dry. For example it translates pneuma as life, but it's clearly soul. "What profits a man if he gains the world but loses his … life?" That loses the whole coolness of that line. Even the RSV (and ESV) translates it as soul, but the RSVCE (and 2CE) changes that to life. Which is ugly and is not impactful, and misses the point. I can repeat that line to a non believer and they get the impact when you say loses your soul. The DR of course does use soul and says

Attached: frenmily.png (758x769, 20.51K)

Nice, the DRC1752 sounds like a solid translation then. While digital copies are great and all, I have trouble sitting down and reading anything but a physical book, so I'll try to find a decent 1752 for sale online.
Not surprised, given how all American Bibles seem to be pozzed (even the RSV2CE). I'll avoid it.
Yeah, I've got the YouVersion Bible app and made the 1752 my chosen translation after reading your post. The English does look surprisingly readable… I don't think I would've bothered with the RSV2CE if I had known, but oh well. The Douay-Rheims will definitely replace my Protestant KJV's place on the shelf once it arrives. Many thanks user!

Can I ask what you think about the Knox Version?

Glad to hear it! As for the DRC1752s that you can buy, from there's I think just two which are of small size, and then one with the side by side with Latin. I think if I'll purchase a hardcopy it will be that one. I have a RSV2CE hardcopy but I never read it unfortunately. It's weird that the pages are large so the New testament is only a very few pages at the very end of the book and it also makes reading it very awkward. All of Revelation/Apocalypse is like 10 pages or something. Just something I noticed :)

I find the Knox translation to be far too much of a figurative/paraphrasing type translation to me. Basically it just doesn't sound like the Bible at all. For example one key style of the Bible is the "And somethign something. And something something. And something else" - know what I mean? You can tell it from here if you haven't seen it before catholicbible.online/ - it has them side by side.

It removes words like firmament for sky, and just all sorts of strange choices. Even if you don't know Latin you can easily see it in the side by side translation of how it's just strange to me.

Primarily I would say the style is just so different from what sounds like a Bible. The DR is a lot closer translation of the Latin. It's basically a direct translation, keeping the same style of the Vulgate. I like the impact that the DR has (most of the time) and find it's nicer for quoting to people, and the Catena Aurea, Lapide's Commentary and Haydocks Commentary all follow the Vulgate/DR, so it is just the easiest for me. I think it's more important for us to study the commentaries than trying to read the Greek and come up with our own interpretations that are usually wrong.

What I do if I find something in the DR that is hard for me to understand, I look it up in the RSVCE to just get the gist of it. Rarely had to look up the Knox version.

Yes, I've got my eye on a "Black Genuine Leather" Douay-Rheims, which appears to be a 1752.
I noticed the hardcover in English and Latin, however the official site is of out of stock (they sell it for $80), and other retailers I've viewed sell them for at least 3 times that price. I'd rather have a smaller leather-bound Bible like my old KJV anyway.
Yeah, the tiny NT was the first thing I noticed after purchasing it. It's a shame Ignatius Press used such large pages… they could have at least merged the OT and NT Study Bible version together to make the RSV2CE thicker (justifying the page size), but ah well.

Ignatius Press makes a RSV2CE New Testament study bible. Not only is it huge (it's bigger than the RSV2CE hardcover despite only being the NT) but the study notes are top notch. Well worth it if you're looking for a New Testament.

Attached: 81gsvt5MG7L.jpg (1656x2500, 497.03K)

they're working on a old testament too, but isn't gonna be done anytime soon.

Orthodox Study Bible of course.

I recommend the Orthodox Bible. Lots of useful notes and historical/theological context provided inside

I personally wouldn't buy any new commentaries because they are all totally pozzed. Reading the Catena Aurea, Haydock and Lapide (what is translated) and Aquinas' commentaries is more than I could ever ask for.

OSB

If you had to choose between those two the OSB would be your best bet

Hey, brief update… So the DRC I ordered came today, but it appears to be an 1899, not the 1752 I thought it'd be. Is there anything explicitly wrong with the 1899 revision?

It reads more like the KJV, make of it what you will.
see also

I'm not seeing that thus far. Comparing various passeges to the DRC 1752 I have downloaded and the KJV 1611, the 1899 seems almost identical to the 1752 in everything but punctuation, wheras the KJV is similar in some language but clearly a different translation. I'll have to read it more thorlughly, but so far it seems like a 1752. American grammar isn't even used (e.g. "armour" instead of armor).

The Douay-Rheims version and translations like it removes the prophecy of the Son in Psalm 2:12.

Meanwhile, D-R:
RSV: Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh,

1 John 4:3
>KJV: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:

Acts 2:30

John 4:42

The KJV is missing the following verse from Psalm 145.
The KJV omitted prophesy about the Incarnation in Psalm 40:6. The KJV denies the deity of Christ in Deuteronomy 32:43, by omitting a sentence about the angels of God worshiping Him. The KJV neglects to mention the prophesy about the blind having their sight restored in Isaiah 61:1. The prophesy regarding the Gentiles trusting in the name of Jesus Christ is omitted in Isaiah 42:4. There are countless errors in the KJV simply because it is based on the corrupt Masoretic text, with a few major prophesies (e.g. Isaiah 7:14, Psalm 21:17) being changed to reflect the Latin Vulgate; the Christ-hating Masoretes made their slander of Christ too obvious in those passages, Protestant goyim noticed, ironically adopted the Catholic Church's translations instead, and yet were still left with a corrupt, untrustworthy text.

Is this a copy of the claims from that old image that gets posted around here constantly? I have the text for all of that below:

Psalm 148:2
Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.

Isaiah 29:18
And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.

Psalm 22:16
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Zephaniah 3:11-12
In that day shalt thou not be ashamed for all thy doings, wherein thou hast transgressed against me: for then I will take away out of the midst of thee them that rejoice in thy pride, and thou shalt no more be haughty because of my holy mountain.
I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the LORD.

Psalm 72:17
His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.

Psalm 34:20
He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

Psalm 69:21
They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

Micah 5:2
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Isaiah 53:5
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Luke 2:33
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

There is no missing verse, you can tell because the verse numbers proceed evenly and Psalm 145 is divided into verses based on the 21 letters of the alphabet.
Rest of the claims are already answered above.
Isaiah 7:14 in the KJV is an accurate translation of what the original Hebrew says, nobody accepts the modern Jewish translation of that passage. And I think you know that, which is why you had to try to make up that story to explain it away in the first place.

It's based on the original, pre-Masoretic Old Testament which is the original language received text of the Old Testament. The Masoretes or what they wrote are not even relevant. Someone must have misled you on that point. Are there other memes have you been told to think?

And most importantly, what does that change the fact of all those removals I listed in the DRV? How does any of this change that? You've got a version with flaws. So why would you respond by trying to claim another translation has flaws? You realize that you just implied that you agree those are unauthorized removals, since you didn't attempt to answer for them?

Attached: BibleKJV.jpg (320x240, 27.2K)

You can post random verses all day long, but that doesn't change the fact the KJV has omitted specific prophesies in specific passages (e.g. Deuteronomy 32:43, which you couldn't explain). It is not a perfect or even the best translation; far from it. The vast majority of copies don't even contain the deuterocanon, which is a boatload of missing prophesy in itself.

Attached: Fnu9IWIl.jpg (640x407, 44.33K)

–Much of the text of the 1582/1610 bible employed a densely Latinate vocabulary, making it extremely difficult to read the text in places. Consequently, this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions of 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate apocrypha), in 1750. Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Version rigorously checked and extensively adjusted for improved readability and consistency with the Clementine edition of the Vulgate. Subsequent editions of the Challoner revision, of which there have been very many, reproduce his Old Testament of 1750 with very few changes. Challoner's New Testament was, however, extensively revised by Bernard MacMahon in a series of Dublin editions from 1783 to 1810. These Dublin versions are the source of some Challoner bibles printed in the United States in the 19th century. Subsequent editions of the Challoner Bible printed in England most often follow Challoner's earlier New Testament texts of 1749 and 1750, as do most 20th-century printings and on-line versions of the Douay–Rheims bible circulating on the internet.

More information here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay–Rheims_Bible#Publication

Attached: Douay–Rheims Ephesians 3 Comparison.jpg (1272x947, 449.27K)

Interesting, thanks user. In 1899, I noticed the notes promoting YEC in Genesis, which is an unfortunate addition only found in the American editions I'm sure, however the text seems virtually identical to the 1752. I don't know how deep the KJV influences go in both versions, however I haven't noticed any of Masoretic influences the KJV has. Also, I forgot to address something this lad said:

The Masoretic text is completely missing a line that would fall after Psalm 145:13, and the KJV (which, all mental gymnastics aside, is based off the Masoretic text) reflects that. Of course, sites such as KJV Today claim that other texts simply "supply an extra line"… top kek! It's sad how KJVOnlyists would sooner call scripture they don't like "extra lines" rather than concede that their translation has flaws.
kjvtoday.com/home/is-the-kjv-missing-a-line-in-psalm-14513
The verse numbers proceeding evenly only further suggests the KJV is based off the corrupt MT, rather than the verse being intentionally omitted by the translators. It's an inherently flawed text.
A line starting with one of those letters of the alphabet, nun, is completely absent from the KJV and its Masoretic source text.

There was also this review which might be the same one you have.
youtu.be/Rk6FE_sw5tM

My Douay was made by Saint Benedict Press and therefore has a different appearance (pic related), but otherwise they appear to be identical versions, yep.

Attached: 0611191237a.jpg (3264x1836, 2.4M)

YEC is the only correct position. Every single Church Father agrees with YEC. St. Augustine is a Hyper YEC, believing that everything was created in an instant (which he is incorrect, because he used the Vetus Latina, an incorrect old Latin translation of the Bible, pre Jerome). Vatican I said that no one should dare to interpret the Bible in contrary to the consensus of all Church Fathers. Non-YEC incorrectly try to poison the well saying "St. Augustine wasn't a literalist". No one is a literalist, they were all YEC.

God is like an author, like a programmer, like the best programmer ever. Creating the world through random death is stupid and makes no sense. Also it renders Genesis as one of the stupidest and most misleading books in the whole Bible. Everything becomes "this but not really". Death entered the world because of sin "except, not really" and so on.

Attached: k4sdbybt9a231.jpg (750x513, 59.98K)

Psalm 148:2 (KJV) it was the very first verse I quoted.
Sure it is, it's an authoritative translation. It doesn't remove Christ from Ephesians 3:9 or Acts 2:30, as I've shown by posting the verses in parallel.

Not inspired prophecy. It's missing some false prophecy perhaps, but it has all of the inspired.
Also that table is no different than saying the book of Enoch must be inspired since it took a piece of the book of Jude out of it where it quotes Enoch and then you claim it was the source.

Why?
So then why does Psalm 37 do the same thing where it has 21 letters and doesn't have Ain.

But you've proven something important here. You recognize that the verses are supposed to be ordered alphabetically in Hebrew, that implies the source has to be in authentic Hebrew.
You also claim that the added line fulfills this, which is probably also what the forger of the line thought he would do. But all he really did was copy line 17 and change the first word to נֶאֱמָ֥ presumably, which translates to faithful (ex: Num. 12:7). Of course, the translators of this wouldn't add an extra verse number here, since they wanted their version to be easy to use, so they just crammed it into verse 13, thus making it the only verse with two lines.

He probably wasn't aware that Psalm 37 has a similar feature.
Anyway, what's the explanation for Ephesians 3:9, 1 John 4:3, Acts 2:30 and so on? Those are some extremely serious unauthorized removals that all collectively write off the divinity, incarnation and personhood of Jesus Christ. That's why I brought them up. I guess since you haven't claimed D-R is authorized, that means you agree these things are lacking. The only question then is, why don't you affirm the one true word of God? Scripture is the inspired word of God. Two contradicting versions didn't both come from the same God. One must be wrong. So why aren't you saying which one?
I've shown problems and rather than you trying to explain your actions, you just turn around and try to claim that nobody has the accurate scriptures. Well sorry, I disagree. I'm different, I use the preserved original language sources and I know exactly what is accurate and what is not and the D-R is not accurate. I know that Psalm 119:160 is true when it says every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. That's the difference between you and me. I know that Matthew 24:35 is true when it says Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Because I have his words now. I also believe 1 Peter 1:23-25, Isaiah 59:21, Psalm 12:6-7 and Proverbs 30:5-6. Anyone who says or who even thinks that we don't have it, disbelieves all these things. They disbelieve the prophecy about the preservation of the eternal word of God. So, they go around telling everyone to accept something lesser and tolerating contradictions in their own Bibles.

Church allows either postion, YEC is demonstrably false but one can believe in pink fluffy unicorns dancing on rainbows if they want to, no sin.

Agreed, NIV is a solid translation and it's a shame that so many people turned to reading more difficult translations and possibly gave up on reading the Bible altogether

The DRV also contains those same verses, so the question remains: why has the prophesy in Deuteronomy 32:43 been completely removed in the King James Version? If you can't specifically address why DEUTERONOMY 32:43 in particular is lacking this prophesy, I cannot in good faith believe that the KJV is the "one true word of God".
No, I'm just saying the Scriptures within the KJV are less accurate than that of the DRV.
You're in possession of the original Scriptures, fluent in Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and (in the case of the LV) Latin, and know better than every other translator over the last few thousand years? And, with all of that taken into consideration, you have come to the conclusion that the most accurate form of Christianity is to be Protestant, in direct opposition to the Church founded by Jesus Christ, reject all Christian tradition against the wishes of St. Paul, and idolize the Bible of a homosexual and Mason? How very interesting.

Don't bother with these kooks. They literally think the Apostles wrote the TR.

Attached: Biblle.jpg (806x1024, 240.11K)

It's simple, Hebrews 1:6 is actually referencing Psalm 148:2. No missing prophecy at all.
Sure, I'll be glad to. Hebrews 1:6 doesn't literally say this is written in Deuteronomy. If you actually read Hebrews 1:6, it simply says "he saith," so Hebrews 1:6 actually is a quote of Psalm 148 and of the specific part that I mentioned.
This isn't too uncommon either, because for isntance Hebrews 2:9 quotes Psalm 8:5, just to give another example. Hebrews 7:17 quotes Psalm 110:4. And Hebrews 10:5-9 quotes Psalm 40:6-8.
I'll gladly defend scriptures no matter what happens. My whole point in the post you replied to is that you don't claim there is one. You just try to criticize anyone else who proposes the truth without holding anything to be true yourself.
You haven't done so because you don't even attempt to show what scripture is definitively and for all time supposed to say. For instance, the D-R also doesn't have the altered Deuteronomy 32:43 in it either.
When I pointed out the inconsistencies with the D-R you didn't even dispute it, you just tried to imply somehow that the original version of the verses I used is no better than it. This is what people who don't follow preservation typically do, just try to say nobody has it. They just say nobody has the definitive truth, while themselves holding multiple conflicting versions.
I didn't make my own translation so how can that be my position?
I'm not interested in changing the subject right now either. They'll delete my posts saying I was going off topic.
The fact that the D-R removes Christ from Ephesians 3:9, Acts 2:30 or 1 Timothy 3:16 ought on its own face to show the truth from an error. If it doesn't I have little reason to think anything else will convince you according to the saying, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Who says prophesy can't be mentioned more than once? Deut. 32:43 in the KJV lacks any mention of the angels worshiping the Son of God, when it SHOULD, and not only that, it also changes the context of the last verse from "purging the land of His people" to "being merciful to the land of His people" in regards to how God would treat the children of Israel. The Masoretics must have had a good laugh when they butchered that verse out of spite for Christians.
Nonsense. God is true. His Church is true. The Word is true. Some sodomite king's translation of the Word isn't as true as God, His Church, or the Word (which has been present since the beginning, not only 400 years ago). I'd encourage you not to make an idol out of a fallible translation that was created 1,600 years after Christ and has as many errors (if not more) than the DRV.

Like I said though, it's not missing the reference. It's indisputable that the Psalms are constantly talking about Jesus, especially once you see examples the New Testament putting it all in place but even before that you could have known.
Do you mean that literally? Because the first and only occurrence of the term the Son of God in the Old Testament is in Daniel 3:25. Which the modern versions also change to "a son of the gods."
But if you mean the implicit Son of God as spoken of through the Psalms then yes, this prophecy is there. Hebrews 1:6 goes to Psalms.

I should also mention that Psalm 2:12 contains a prophecy specific to Him. But modern versions will say in the footnote that "the Hebrew is unclear" because they mistranslate bar as meaning correction— even while translating it as "son" in Proverbs 31:2. Anything either based on a faulty source or simply mistranslated will leave out the (literal word) Son in Psalm 2:12.
Also Psalm 2:12 is the place where you can see the prophecy about "the Son" and placing your trust in Him as is elsewhere said of the LORD in places like 2 Samuel 22:31 and in multiple Psalms, and of God in 1 Chronicles 5:20, and even of the word of God in Proverbs 30:5. Also note Proverbs 30:4 mentions the son again. So Psalm 2:12 connects the Lord, God and the word of God with the Son! Since they all say to trust in him.
This is in contrast to the striking lack of any missing prophecy in the originals. At least, if there is, I've never heard of it before.

The first mention of hell in the Bible is in Deuteronomy 32:22 in regards to backslidden Israel. I'm not sure why you think placing it again later in the same passage is necessarily clearer.
Also getting into the Biblical meaning of Israel and the elect is going off course here. Jesus Christ will inherit the land and he is of course heir of the promises.
You know it's strange how the part about them going to hell a few verses earlier is unchanged. It's also funny how, one time, the Jews tried to erase scripture that spoke badly of them in Jeremiah chapter 36. Yet nobody was able to destroy it. I believe in a living God that is able to protect his sacred scripture (thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name) from being destroyed. Also that's what Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:23-25, Isaiah 59:21, Proverbs 30:5-6, Psalm 12:6-7 and Psalm 119:160 say.
And one last thing on this, 2 Timothy 3:15 states that he has known the holy scriptures from a child. So then since they had it then and it's never been lost since then, how would any changes to it escape sanction? Even if you don't believe God preserved it (please believe), how did that happen? Do you really think that one day everyone just suddenly forgot what the Old Testament said one day? Because if so, that's really no better than what the modern version translators say.
English has only been around that long though. The original languages and others existed before this timeframe. It's not a complicated picture. Anglo-Saxon and early Middle English really aren't the same language as modern English after all. Really what's so confusing about this? It's a translation into English from the original languages.
Do you now suggest that one can't understand Scripture unless they fully learn Hebrew and Greek? Is this now what we're complaining about?

You should have just started with saying no translation is allowed, then we could all be literate in Hebrew, Syriac-Aramaic and Greek before coming here.

So are you saying to learn anything without fully learning the original Hebrew, Syriac-Aramaic and Greek? This was a really roundabout way of finally getting to your point about rejecting even the concept of translations of words.

So you now agree the D-R has errors in it as I've pointed out. Now the disagreement remains in the fact that the unchanging word of God is preserved to this day and that the authorized Bible which is of the same is infallible. Whereas any translations (in any language) that deviate from the same original sources are therefore objectively and demonstrably wrong.

I'll be back soon to defend anything further that comes up.

The RSV2CE and ESV are more accurate than the NIV and fluid enough for someone planning to read something of that nature and length. It's not like one would want Tolkien or Harry Potter to be paraphrased or simplified.

RSV2CE sounds dry and terrible. It reads like a grade schooler wrote it. Just read the Douay Rheims (DRC1752). ESV reads better than the RSV2CE but it's Protestant and so should be burned. In fact the RSV is anyways a Protestant translation that the Catholic Edition makes WORSE in some places. DR is all Catholic the way it should be. Why do you want heretics translating the Bible?

The Church worked in cooperation with the translators to make the RSVCE2, and it's the standard English bible for clergy to use for private study. Also, I don't find it dryer than any other translation of the bible. Outside of the Wisdom texts and some of the Prophets and sayings of Christ, the bible isn't really supposed to be poetic and artsy outside of being reverent.

Personally, I think you should read both and the OSB (which has received imprimatur for Eastern Catholics at the very least). that way you get the full perspective of all major versions of the scriptures (Hebrew, the Vulgate, and the Septuagint) translated into English. At least if you're like me and are kind of a "geek" for Church history.

I've read as much by the Apostolic, Desert, Greek, and Latin Fathers as I can find online or for purchase, as well as a ton of medieval Catholic literature and legends (ie Le Morte d'Arthur, Charlemagne's Paladins, Canterbury Tales,Catholic legend collections, The Golden Legend, etc.). I was already a huge history buff pre-conversion, and the infant church is just so fascinating to me because we never learn about it in school, Catholic or otherwise. Also, I love asceticism and that's the dominant philosophy in that time period.

Deuteronomy is, which makes your Bible about as "true" as The Message. Honestly, I should have saved myself the keystrokes and listened to . Sola scriptura all falls apart once you realize there is no perfect Bible translation - you realize this, and will therefore never concede that the KJV is just another flawed translation (by an unrepentant sodomite and adulterer, no less).

It's not like reading the NIV precludes you from reading other translations. Sure, you can argue that it takes away time better spent but then you may as well read the original transcripts if you care so much for accuracy and authenticity

I would recommend going with the KJV

Like I said, they look readable for the most part which makes reading something less literal pretty much unnecessary. If you're going to read another translation besides those, a more difficult one would be time better spent, or one based on another textual tradition like the Septuagint and the Peshitta.

I don't care so much for how fancy or pretty it may sound as much as it being precise. I'm not really in the camp of those who are interested in seeing yet another remake of the Bible narrative. The more modern translations like the RSV and ESV are also popular in large part simply because they're easier to read. That said the DR and other archaic style translations are more accurate to the word often. If even more diligent effort were given to a translation it could sound surprisingly lofty and refined in some places and rustic and vague in others. The original Douay Rheims sought to render every word as it was, even if it appeared vague.

As for Protestant translations, the Douay-Rheims was largely dependent on them. It and was not a work from scratch. It was revised to agree with the Vulgate where others differed. Not to mention also the Challoner revision. Now that Vulgate exclusivity is no longer the position of the Catholic Church, the need to rely on other source texts has become imperative.

Orthodox Study Bible has it right - KJV for the the New Testament and Septuagint for the Old Testament.

global.oup.com/academic/product/the-new-oxford-annotated-bible-with-the-apocrypha-revised-standard-version-expanded-ed-9780195283358

The DRC1752 is very easy to read and barely sounds archaic, except for the hath thou and thees sometimes. It's nothing like the KJV1611 which is pretty unreadable at times in my experience.

Is this an attempt to troll? It was the original D-R that was rather difficult. see

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life: and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Can you show proof of the imprimatur because I’m not seeing anything online.

You guys have a pretty good thread going on here.

Attached: christ.jpg (172x232, 36.75K)