What is the best Douay Rheims Holy Bible version I could purchase today?

Need to keep it under $100   :thinking:

If you're looking to keep costs down, I suggest a used book store.  I found a nice Bible at such a store from the early 50s for about $10.

In terms of the Bible text, it doesn't really matter.  THe DRV is the DRV regardless of the edition.  I would strongly encourage you to get the Haydock version if you can.  The commentaries are first rate.  

Found this good read:

What is the REAL Douay-Rheims Bible?

http://www.realdouayrheims.com/

There seems to be a difference between the Douay Rheims of 1582 and 1609-10 to the 18th & 19th Century Challoner-Douay revisions, which is what most people think of as the Douay-Rheims.

Yes, I started reading the REAL Rheims NT in Lent of this year.  I am near the end now.  It is a direct translation from the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome.  The Rheims NT was finished in 1582.  It includes commentary, much of which is directed against the Protestant errors.  I chose to read this version because the Haydock-Challoner version had made a looser translation to make it more readable.  I understand that the H-C version has great commentary from the various Fathers of the Church.  I will probably read that version on my next go around.  I don't know to what degree the H-C version departs from the sense of the Real Douay-Rheims.  But, considering the errors that have sprung up in Protestantism and the New Church, I would tend to go to the 1582 translation.

Found this good read:

What is the REAL Douay-Rheims Bible?

http://www.realdouayrheims.com/

There seems to be a difference between the Douay Rheims of 1582 and 1609-10 to the 18th & 19th Century Challoner-Douay revisions, which is what most people think of as the Douay-Rheims.

Heaven help us all. It is less than five months since the last extended "discussion"—mostly consisting of slanders against honorable and orthodox Catholic scholars and prelates—of the various versions of the Douay-Rheims Bible disfigured these pages, and now we are on the brink of seeing yet another one aborning!

Please, please, Cantarella, before you write anything more, follow the link supplied above and read the thread; it should take you about an hour. I recommend that you take especial heed of the few really sound comments on the thread, most of them coming from a gentleman whose name hereabouts is AlligatorDicax. Note, too, that the principal apologist for ignorance and slander was a commenter called Cathedra. Before the thread dried up, Matthew banned him for (1) dogmatic SVism and (2) having multiple proxy accounts. One of the latter, Vinikias, took up his alter ego Cathedra's diabolic cause before his identity was discovered by Matthew and he too was banned.

Most important of all, please don't believe the rubbish about the "original" DR being "literal" and subsequent versions or modifications of it being "interpretive" or worse. These slanders come from people with little Latin, less Greek, and not even a syllable of Hebrew. It is literally—not figuratively, literally—impossible to pronounce authoritatively on a translation's literalness or accuracy or faithfulness without at least a working knowledge of the source language. As you'll see if you read the linked thread, Cathedra and the other slanderers had no other tongues whatsoever—and to speak the plain truth, their English composition was piss poor, too.

Happy reading.

Quote from: Cantarella

Found this good read:

What is the REAL Douay-Rheims Bible?

http://www.realdouayrheims.com/

There seems to be a difference between the Douay Rheims of 1582 and 1609-10 to the 18th & 19th Century Challoner-Douay revisions, which is what most people think of as the Douay-Rheims.

Most important of all, please don't believe the rubbish about the "original" DR being "literal" and subsequent versions or modifications of it being "interpretive" or worse. These slanders come from people with little Latin, less Greek, and not even a syllable of Hebrew. It is literally—not figuratively, literally—impossible to pronounce authoritatively on a translation's literalness or accuracy or faithfulness without at least a working knowledge of the source language. As you'll see if you read the linked thread, Cathedra and the other slanderers had no other tongues whatsoever—and to speak the plain truth, their English composition was piss poor, too.

Happy reading.

The 1611 KJV with "f" instead of "s" is the real Bible, the 1700's re-translation is a fraud. Oh wait, what? This is a Catholic website? Sorry I misread "Real DR Bible" as "real KJV bible". Sorry I thought I was a bat :cussing: insane baptist on protestant forum. Please ignore this post. I got my alter egos mixed up. It sometimes happens when Catholics "Catholicize" non-denominational baptist conspiracy theories.

What's next? Old Testament Jєωs drank grape juice instead of wine?

Thank you,  Claudel. I will surely read that thread before making any decision on what Bible to purchase.

 :reading: