So, here's what's going on:
Tradplorable starts a thread where he all but outright states that the Challoner scripture translations are faulty, and to no one's surprise, they're faulty especially because they fail to confirm that the earth is flat, which of course is something the Church has taught always and everywhere.
.
Several have objected to Tradplorable on his unspoken premise: that the Church can universally approve of some publication which contains harmful error.
.
So then Tradplorable backpedals, without ever abandoning his initial position (which was hardly a preference for the 1610 Douai, but an outright disdain for the 'errors' of Challoner's version). He backpedals and attempts to provide support for his position by citing old Catholic periodicals.
.
What is being discussed in those is not whether or not the Challoner version is harmful, but the degree to which the translation coincides with the Douai version, with some scholars claiming that it does not deserve the term 'Douay-Rheims' because of the variance.
.
Now, I'm not a Greek or Latin scholar (and I can't make much sense of either), so I'm certainly in no position one way or another to say that the translation is equitable to whatever degree. But it doesn't matter. Translations are, of their nature, different from what they're translating. Different languages are different. Different translations, even in the same vernacular, are different (just compare a St. Joseph's and St. Andrew Missal to see how clear this is: even given the same source material, different translators will translate things differently).
.
Truth be told, there's actually a really fascinating discussion that could be had about all of this which pins around the philosophy of language, and how language, even Latin, always points outside itself to propositions of truth which would be true even if there were no languages at all, and are completely independent of language expressions at all. Moreover, the Church's infallibility in translating is a marvelous topic, given this, and also given the certain prudential decisions which go into certain translations at certain points of time, but all nevertheless guided by the Church's infallibility. There's even further interest when it comes to scripture especially because of the different senses which can be made of different passages (legitimate senses, that is) and the question of lingual accuracy versus the retention of some truth or another from one vernacular to another (for instance, Matt 1:25 'until').
.
In short, this is a very, very rich topic about which many legitimate discussions could be had!
.
But none of these are of interest to Tradplorable. He wants to show how the Church has been in error for a few hundred years, something any halfway decent Catholic would reject, despite his claims of "just wanting the truth." But he seems to fail to realize that the sources he's quoting are engaged in a scholarly controversy over whether or not certain translations, given their differences, should be called Douay-Rheims. The controversy isn't over whether or not they've allowed some significant error to creep in! That's just plain question-begging on Tradplorable's part, and clear confirmation bias. Ditto the C.E. article, which doesn't even remotely suggest what he's suggesting.
.
Topic: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims? (Read 5877 times)