Not everything is a “plot” willed by the forces that be.

Not everything, but surely more than you're aware of.  100% surely.

Not everything, but surely more than you're aware of.  100% surely.

Indisputably.

Logic 101

You are making a claim. You don’t challenge your opponent to prove the contrary before first providing evidence to support your claim.

A link to a website by an unknown person
with questionable credentials (“Dr” William G. von Peters is a world prominent physician practicing Alternative and Oriental Medicine, writer and educator) and a lack of formal training in the academic field he is critiquing does not establish a claim.

I could have sufficed with a “Ha! Good one” and that would have been more than enough.

I never made any claims I left the web link for anyone to look into themselves. 
As for being ‘unknown’ or ‘questionable credentials’ that could be said of any web owner posting any information. Reader discretion always advised. 

“Possibly” referring to something that may or may not be, the “Douay too” referring to the subject of discussion which is willful textual corruption. This constitutes a claim.

You left the web link as a supporting piece of evidence to your post which clearly implied the possibility of “tampering” in the Douay Bible.

Lastly, no the same cannot be said about any web owner posting any information. Some websites are run by professionals, academics, scholars, etc that have credence to their claims by virtue of authority, references, and the ability to prove their claims directly by way of their experience.

People leave links here all the time. You don’t have to click if you don’t want to. But trying to discredit information on a topic before you’ve even looked into it isn’t very smart. 
By the way, do you consider NASA as the foremost authority on all things ‘space’? Because if you do that would explain your last paragraph. 

I verified a substantial part of the statements on http://realdouayrheims.com/ .

Several translation examples show that the modus Lutherus (Christ systematically removed) indeed is used (as verified on drbo.org). Two quotes from 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia are correct. I didn't find anything inapplicable or unfounded.

Also, they correctly quote Cardinal Newman. He says that Challoner is "in the direction of the Protestant version", that Haydock uses Irish Dr. Troy version, commented by Newman: "we doubt whether he is further from the Protestant version than Dr. Challoner."


US$60 for a PDF (AT plus NT plus Douay Catechism of 1649) is not nothing. But probably I'll invest the dollars. Why? Beside the translation, original commentary.

I verified a substantial part of the statements on http://realdouayrheims.com/ .

Several translation examples show that the modus Lutherus (Christ systematically removed) indeed is used (as verified on drbo.org). Two quotes from 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia are correct. I didn't find anything inapplicable or unfounded.

Also, they correctly quote Cardinal Newman. He says that Challoner is "in the direction of the Protestant version", that Haydock uses Irish Dr. Troy version, commented by Newman: "we doubt whether he is further from the Protestant version than Dr. Challoner."


US$60 for a PDF (AT plus NT plus Douay Catechism of 1649) is not nothing. But probably I'll invest the dollars. Why? Beside the translation, original commentary.

It's good that you verified the statements from the article that Carissima posted.

To just further add a comment or two about that article - it says that of the twenty-one times that the name of Christ appears in the REAL Douay Old Testament, the name of Christ has been taken out of the Challoner and Haydock Old Testament thirteen times. The word "annointed" is substituted for the name of Christ. Five examples of this are provided about halfway down the article page.

The real English translation (from the 1500's if I recall correctly) of the Douay was never allowed into England after the Reformation,  so Challoner and then Haydock undertook to make a translation for the English-speaking world, but it wasn't always correct. We English-speakers don't have a choice - we only have the Challoner or Haydock version.

I too might buy the version (supposedly from the original Douay) sold on that website. It may be a good investment.

The original Douay-Rheims Bible in old English is available on archive.org:

1610 A.D. Douay Old Testament, 1582 A.D. Rheims New Testament

Scroll down for download links (PDF, PDF with text, ...)

Thank You!