Author Topic: Which bible should I read? (Read 7977 times)

parentsfortruth · « **on:** July 10, 2013, 09:11:23 AM »

I've found these publications to be very helpful when refuting KJV thumpers, and the people using the "new catholic" interpretations.

Please read this: (Catholicism proved by the Protestant Bible)

http://www.olrl.org/apologetics/cathprot.shtml

Please also read this. (Which Bible Should I Read?--- from Tan Books.)

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=6677

Also, if you want a good bible, but don't have one, visit this site to use it. (Douay-Rheims version)

http://drbo.org/

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #1 on:** July 10, 2013, 09:39:00 AM »

Also, the entire Haydock Bible w/Commentary is available online here: http://haydock1859.tripod.com/index.html

Intratext of the Douay-Rheims: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0011/_INDEX.HTM

songbird · « **Reply #2 on:** July 10, 2013, 02:57:03 PM »

Be careful not to pick phrases out of context. That is what the Protestants do and then they use such out of context phrases against the catholics.

If you are in a Bible Study group, I wouldn't stick around. The catholics put the bible together, and all is translated and so Bible study groups tend to pick verses and such and tend to ask those present, "what do you think this means?" That is dangerous to be around. Catholics don't have to do that, it is already done.

StCeciliasGirl · « **Reply #3 on:** July 10, 2013, 11:38:02 PM »

Quote from: songbird

Be careful not to pick phrases out of context. That is what the Protestants do and then they use such out of context phrases against the catholics.

If you are in a Bible Study group, I wouldn't stick around. The catholics put the bible together, and all is translated and so Bible study groups tend to pick verses and such and tend to ask those present, "what do you think this means?" That is dangerous to be around. Catholics don't have to do that, it is already done.

Exactly. Bible studies should focus on what the Church and Church doctors say a book or chapter means. In fact, there are so many Church-approved resources that "study" should be someone with authority helping the group wade through all the commentary.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** July 11, 2013, 12:31:31 AM »

.

The problem with "bible study groups" is, like the concept of
"dialogue" -- people from different religions meet, and presume
from the start than no one has the truth, and they are
meeting so as to 'discover' the truth for the first time.

Very dangerous.

God's truth doesn't change. So why would anyone want
to keep on 're-discovering' so-called truth?

The only possible reason is to make this so-called truth
into something it wasn't before, which means it changes,
and so, it can't be God's truth which never changes.

Sigismund · « **Reply #5 on:** July 12, 2013, 10:22:22 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Also, the entire Haydock Bible w/Commentary is available online here: http://haydock1859.tripod.com/index.html

Intratext of the Douay-Rheims: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0011/_INDEX.HTM

You can't go wrong with this.

Matto · « **Reply #6 on:** July 13, 2013, 04:42:23 PM »

Quote from: MiserereMeiDeus

I can e-mail pdfs of scans of an original Doway Rhemes (1582 & 1609) to anyone who'd like one, free, just PM me. If I can ever find a free minute I'll put them online and post a link here.

You have the original Douay Rheims too. That's great. I have the original Douay Rheims New Testament, but not the old testament. I love the text and the notes are wonderful. They focus on refuting the errors of the protestant sects that were attacking the Church at the time. I would recommend the original Douay Rheims to anyone who asks which bible they should read.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #7 on:** July 14, 2013, 12:27:15 AM »

I crafted a perl script to search Holy Scripture
SEARCH TOOL
In the New Testament, I interpolated the Rheims English with Vulgate Latin.
Enjoy; God bless you and yours.

MiserereMeiDeus · « **Reply #8 on:** July 15, 2013, 01:42:50 AM »

I've managed to put the original 1582 & 1609 Doway-Rhemes pdfs online. You can download them from: http://www.the-freelance.com/doway-rhemes.html

shin · « **Reply #9 on:** July 29, 2013, 05:31:59 PM »

I hope someday we see the whole Douai-Rheims original up again on the web in plain text format, rather than just facsimile (large file).

I'm really grateful to read the facsimile!

It's simply more easily searchable and without the OCR difficulties of a facsimle.

It used to be up at a university website in that form, did have some OCR issues but overall pretty good impression made, but they took it down or at least down to the public.

I'd like to see it all line by line with the Latin under it.

Like this:

http://saintsbooks.net/Holy%20Scripture%20-%20Original%20Douai-Rheims%20and%20Clementine%20-%20Genesis%20-%20Chapter%20I%20-%20Sample.htm

But it's not going to happen over on SB, too much of a big project. Sigh.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #10 on:** July 30, 2013, 10:56:28 AM »

Quote from: shin

I hope someday we see the whole Douai-Rheims original up again on the web in plain text format, rather than just facsimile (large file).

I'm really grateful to read the facsimile!

It's simply more easily searchable and without the OCR difficulties of a facsimle.

It used to be up at a university website in that form, did have some OCR issues but overall pretty good impression made, but they took it down or at least down to the public.

I'd like to see it all line by line with the Latin under it.

Like this:

http://saintsbooks.net/Holy%20Scripture%20-%20Original%20Douai-Rheims%20and%20Clementine%20-%20Genesis%20-%20Chapter%20I%20-%20Sample.htm

But it's not going to happen over on SB, too much of a big project. Sigh.

May I inquire with regard to the visual format you suggest, is it your preference that the Latin is below the English, or as an alternate orientation, would it be acceptable to have the Latin to the side? I ask because it is a large project, and if I were to engage in the activity it would be best to start with the desired orientation. As it seems, I may have a head start on the project ...see at http://traditionalcatholic.net/Scripture/New_Testament/The_Holy_Gospel_of_Jesus_Christ,_According_to_St._Matthew/Chapter-24.html

As a side note, some time ago while developing a perl script to search Scripture, I discovered an interesting way to format the html code for each Bible page so that the perl script searching the html code can build virtual html representation of the search results ...try at http://traditionalcatholic.net/Scripture/Search/index.html (note, still under construction - the New Testament webpages are done, but while most the Old Testament text in English is formatted properly, none of the Vulgate Latin has been interpolated with the Douay English yet.)

At any rate, in this regard, I would be so grateful for your input.

Faithfully yours,
In Christ Jesus,
John Anthony Marie

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #11 on:** August 01, 2013, 11:44:46 AM »

Quote from: shin

It is good to see.

I find the line under line Latin and English preferable. I wonder what other folks think?

FWIW It seems to be easier on the eyes.

I started the conversion process at
http://traditionalcatholic.net/Scripture/New_Testament/The_Holy_Gospel_of_Jesus_Christ,_According_to_St._Matthew/Chapter-1.html

Let me know your opinion about the presentation.

Cathedra · « **Reply #12 on:** August 01, 2013, 06:53:57 PM »

Quote from: MiserereMeiDeus

The modern (post-18th century) "Douay-Rheims" (including the Haydock version, which differs only in having more extensive footnotes than other editions) is a significant revision of the original Doway-Rhemes. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 A.D. states:

"Although the Bibles in use at the present day by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52 . . .

The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they almost amounted to a new translation. So, also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, 'To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published.' In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version [King James]..."

The language is a bit stiff and can be a little difficult to understand at times, and the typography conventions take a little getting used to -- vv instead of w, etc. -- but the footnotes pull no punches and the whole thing is just remarkable, being a word-for-word LITERAL translation of the Vulgate.

I can e-mail pdfs of scans of an original Doway Rhemes (1582 & 1609) to anyone who'd like one, free, just PM me. If I can ever find a free minute I'll put them online and post a link here.

So the Bible at drbo.org and the one the SBC (i think it is) sells, which is the same one they have online, and the Haydock one, are worthless?

Or is the "grand alteration" just more modern and intelligible language, instead of a substantial change of meaning and words?

I compared some parts of the one at drbo.org with the one you posted, and they are almost the same.

shin · « **Reply #13 on:** August 01, 2013, 07:44:37 PM »

Well, I know of two websites that have examples to argue for the original Douai.

There's Dr. von Peter's website version, which is sold through the 'original douai' and 'real douai' websites were that argument is made there.

And then there's another fellow, a linguist, who does a comparison side by side of the words and how they were translated. Ah.. he was the fellow who I once asked for help with regarding putting it on the web but we fell out of touch. But then he is not online often. I hope he is doing well.

I see he has put forth a plain text PDF version of the original Douai on Scribd now. I didn't know about that till this moment.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76920767/Catholic-Bible-Douay-Rheims-1610-Real-Douay-Rheims-Bible-in-Txt-Format

He makes a bit of the argument there in the intro (basing it in fact partly I think on the actual commentary introductions of the original Douai).

Now where did I put the link to his blog where he does the side by side.. Let me look.

You will have to weigh these arguments as best you will, I take to the extent I may, no responsibility for presenting the possibility of them to you one way or the other. Use at your own risk, &c.

MiserereMeiDeus · « **Reply #14 on:** August 01, 2013, 09:25:07 PM »

Quote from: Cathedra

Quote from: MiserereMeiDeus
The modern (post-18th century) "Douay-Rheims" (including the Haydock version, which differs only in having more extensive footnotes than other editions) is a significant revision of the original Doway-Rhemes. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 A.D. states:

"Although the Bibles in use at the present day by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52 . . .

The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they almost amounted to a new translation. So, also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, 'To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published.' In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version [King James]..."

The language is a bit stiff and can be a little difficult to understand at times, and the typography conventions take a little getting used to -- vv instead of w, etc. -- but the footnotes pull no punches and the whole thing is just remarkable, being a word-for-word LITERAL translation of the Vulgate.

I can e-mail pdfs of scans of an original Doway Rhemes (1582 & 1609) to anyone who'd like one, free, just PM me. If I can ever find a free minute I'll put them online and post a link here.

So the Bible at drbo.org and the one the SBC (i think it is) sells, which is the same one they have online, and the Haydock one, are worthless?

Or is the "grand alteration" just more modern and intelligible language, instead of a substantial change of meaning and words?

I compared some parts of the one at drbo.org with the one you posted, and they are almost the same.

(1) I'm not a Biblical expert.
(2) I certainly wouldn't say the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims is "worthless," but I do think that the original is better. On the other hand, the Challoner is better than, say, the NAB.
(3) I suggest you take a look at Dr. Von Peters' arguments on his website ( http://www.realdouayrheims.com/ ). I have a hardback copy of his original Douay-Rheims set in modern type that I bought from lulu.com for about $200, and I think it's priceless. I've found a couple of typos, but they were obvious ones, and I could check the pdf facsimile for any that appear questionable, should I find any.