Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?  (Read 1997 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DZ PLEASE

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2928
  • Reputation: +736/-775
  • Gender: Male
  • "Lord, have mercy."
Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
« Reply #45 on: October 09, 2017, 12:10:41 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Remember fellow True Catholics this should sound familiar to you, the Protestant always accuse us Catholics as changing scripture also.  


    Hmmm, I wonder how they explain the Holy Ghost who guides and keeps the Word of God in Truth.
    ... Change proves itself false every time. 

    Just talked about this too. "... every..." 

    Substance v accident.

    Guess S. Thomas Aquinas is out of a job, as well as God, and we're back to the pagans that aren't popular with the Flatulents, at least for a few minutes.
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5999
    • Reputation: +3474/-323
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
    « Reply #46 on: October 09, 2017, 01:33:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The one who changes scripture is the Protestant, not the other way around.  Holding tradition is paramount, something Challoner did not do.  Obviously.
    Yes, so why are you accusing Catholics of changing the Douay-Rheims Bible?

    You sound like Joseph Smith who believes God waited for him to be born and grow up for his role to straighten out scripture.
    While the Holy Ghost, Church and True Popes slept through it all.  


    Offline AlligatorDicax

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 713
    • Reputation: +288/-41
    • Gender: Male
    Got Latin?/Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
    « Reply #47 on: October 09, 2017, 02:00:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do you think the Challoner version's change of the word "compasse" to "globe" doesn't really matter.  I happen to think it matters a lot.

    Well, then, by all means, write a posting for your readers in which you compare those 2 translations to the corresponding text in the Vulgate, and presenting specifics, explain why your favored version is the 1 that best translates St. Jerome's Latin.

    Ohhh!  Wait!  So yet again [†], CathInfo must endure confrontation from wound-up members--lately newbies "on a mission"--who argue over translations of the Holy Bible into English, without any reference whatsoever to the Latin from which each translation is derived.

    That's because being newcomers to Catholic Tradition, they have no intellectual basis for arguing the merits of the English translation, and that's because not only do they not know Latin, but also there's no amount of even tedious effort with reference-sources that will allow them to muddle their way through the Vulgate.

    But now the situation has worsened:

    The change of Isaiah 40:22 alone has created a literal firestorm in the ghetto.

    Here we have a newbie for whom pertinacious pursuit of his mission has trampled his prudence: He doesn't even understand English!

    A "literal firestorm"!?  Really!?  All of us in CathInfo should say a prayer that Matthew & family were able to avoid not only any injuries to themselves, but also any damage to their home from that "firestorm".  I suppose Matthew had previously had the foresight to install a fire-suppression system on the CathInfo server.

    -------
    Note †: E.g., my summary reply 1/2 year ago in "General Discussion", specifically #28 to "Bible changes: check your translation" (Apr. 12, 2017, at 17:56:24"). <https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/bible-changes-check-your-translation/msg547961/#msg547961>.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17911
    • Reputation: +8176/-615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
    « Reply #48 on: October 09, 2017, 02:42:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You don't know how it works at all.

    I've read the Challoner cover-to-cover several times, and I've browsed many quotes from the Vulgate and I've never seen a significant difference.

    I've ever looked into the quotes from those (like you) pushing the original Douay Rheims -- the arguments simply didn't hold water.
    .
    But nothing Tardplorable ever has to say holds water, anyway, so what's new?
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17911
    • Reputation: +8176/-615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
    « Reply #49 on: October 09, 2017, 03:41:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Another way to look at this is to ask oneself, what would the modernists want one to believe?

    Would they want me to believe the earth is a globe?

    Or would they want me to know the truth?

    Which answer brings me closer to God Himself?

    In all cases, modernism wants me to never know the truth. That is the goal of modernism. It is the goal of the devil.
    .
    Modernism doesn't "want" anything, because Modernism is not a person. Modernism has no "goal."
    .
    For sure, the devil would win the battle if you were to believe the earth is "flat," because the devil's goal is falsehood.
    .
    For men to believe whatever is not true is the devil's goal. 
    .
    The truth brings you closer to God, and the truth is plain to see, if you simply open your eyes and look for once.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Tradplorable

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 616
    • Reputation: +110/-465
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
    « Reply #50 on: October 09, 2017, 04:09:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    But nothing Tardplorable ever has to say holds water, anyway, so what's new?
    .
    I guess Cardinal Wiseman disagreed with the two of you.
    .
    .
    He was worried about an improper use of the word "the."
    .

    Offline kiwiboy

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 519
    • Reputation: +204/-454
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
    « Reply #51 on: October 10, 2017, 01:42:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I think everyone should CALM DOWN

    and reflect on the WISE words.......







    of Elvis Presley....





    "We're caught in a trap, I can't walk out....
    Why can't  you see, what you're doing to me.... when you don't believe a  a word I say,

    We're can't go on together with suspicious minds,..."








    Eclipses neither prove nor disprove the flat earth.

    "As for whether or not I work for NASA, I'm sorry, but I fail to understand what that could possibly have to do with anything" Neil Obstat, 08-03-2017

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +736/-775
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
    « Reply #52 on: October 10, 2017, 09:11:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But isn't a morbidly curious and, possibly as consequent, suspicious intellect...?

    Never mind.
    "Lord, have mercy".


    Offline AlligatorDicax

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 713
    • Reputation: +288/-41
    • Gender: Male
    "Dominus"/Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
    « Reply #53 on: October 11, 2017, 03:00:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Did you know, as Cardinal Wiseman wrote, that the way we pray the Ave Maria now in our present day is different than the way it was prayed, and that this change came as a result of the Challoner Bible?  Read the quotes, it's very interesting.  Cardinal Wiseman was very distressed by such a small thing: changing "Our Lord is with Thee" to "the Lord is with Thee."

    A tempest in a cardinalatial teapot, methinks.

    In his chapter(?) "Catholic Versions of Scripture" (1853), His Eminence [‡] can be seen to argue both sides of the issue of literal translation.  In his discussion of "vaniloquia" (2 Tim. ii. 16), in which he prefers the translation "vain speech" in the "Rheimish" Version over the translation as "babblings" in the Challoner Version, he argues convincingly for its literal translation.

    But in the essay for which Card. Wiseman is touted in this CathInfo topic, he argues for a "Rheimish" Version translation that's not literal, but instead distorted to fit the wording to which he says Victorian-Era English Catholics had become "accustomed":

    Quote from: His Eminence Cardinal Wiseman 1853 (Essays on various subjects, p. 76--77)
    There is another alteration of more importance, especially when considered in reference to the present times, and the influence it has had upon established forms of Catholic speech.  In the first edition, in conformity to Catholic usage in England, the word "Dominus" is almost always translated by "Our Lord."  The emended text changed the pronoun into an article, and says, "The Lord."  In the Ave Maria, Catholics have always, till lately, been accustomed to say, "Our Lord is with thee;" as it is in that version, and as it was always used in England, even before that translation was made.  But, in conformity with the change of the text, we have observed of late a tendency to introduce into the prayer a similar variation, and to say, "The Lord is with thee:"  a change which we strongly deprecate, as still, cantish, destructive of the [↑p. 76/p. 77↓] unction which the prayer breathes, and of that union which the pronoun inspires between the reciter and Her who is addressed.  We have no hesitation in saying, that this difference, trifling as many will consider it, expresses strongly the different spirits of our, and other, religions.  It has never been the custom of the Catholic Church to say, "The Redeemer, the Saviour, the Lord, the Virgin;"  "Redemptor noster, Dominus noster," and so "our Saviour,our Lord,our Lady,"  are the terms sanctioned; and therefore, consecrated by Catholic usage since the time of the Fathers. [....]

    Where "first edition" apparently means the "Rheimish" Version, and phrases like "emended text" or "the change" are identified earlier in the page as "1750", thus 1 of the Challoner Versions.

    Let's look into the Vulgate and Challoner New Testament, to read what His Eminence "deprecates":

    Quote from: Ev. St. Luke (1:28/Vulg.+Chall.(1899))
    [28] Et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit : Ave [Maria] gratia plena : Dominus tecum : benedicta tu in mulieribus. [†]

    [28] And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail [Mary], full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. [†]

    This should an easy example.  Oh, wait!  I'm still debating Catholic translations of the Holy Bible into English, with people who do not know Latin!

    So I'll try to keep the explanation simple: There is no pronoun where His Eminence advocates it.  "Dominus", means at most "the Lord", with an optional definite article.  Notably in this instance, there is no phrase "Dominus noster", which would be required to supply the Cardinal with the English pronoun "Our" that he advocates.

    His Eminence fights on regardless, appealing to the authority of the agents of the distortion in the "Rheimish" translation:

    Quote from: His Eminence Cardinal Wiseman 1853 (Essays on various subjects, p. 77)
    The Rheims translators have explained their reason for their translation in a note, p. 585, as follows: "We Catholics must not say The Lord, but Our Lord; as we say Our Lady for his mother, not The Lady.  Let us keep our forefathers' words, and we shall easily keep our old and true faith, which we had of the first Christians."

    Really, now!?  The advocated pronoun simply isn't in the Vulgate!   Please direct complaints to forefathers St. Jerome, St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope Clement VIII, and maybe St. Luke himself!  At least 3 of them are certainly in Heaven: They'll hear you!

    Those who read farther in the Essays will see that His Eminence admitted to the absence of the corresponding pronoun in (whatever text he means by) "the Greek" (i.e., the original language of the Gospel of St. Luke), and the insertion of the advocated pronoun to the Syriac version that's derived from it.  The Cardinal finally concedes the situation (which is contrary to what had previously been touted in this CathInfo topic):

    Quote from: His Eminence Cardinal Wiseman 1853 (Essays on various subjects, p. 77)
    [....] If, therefore, it be considered too great a departure from accuracy in translation to restore the pronoun in the text of our version, let us at least preserve it in our instructions, and still more in our formularies of prayer.

    It would indeed be a "departure from accuracy", because what the author calls "restor[ing] the pronoun" would actually be a linguistically unjustified insertion of a word that does not exist, whether in the Vulgate or in "the Greek".  Where his reference to "our version" is, in effect, some potential future English revision that would satisfy the complaints published (in the excerpted work) by His Eminence.

    -------
    Note : "DR + LV" Luke ch. 1: <http://drbo.org/drl/chapter/49001.htm>.  In Lk. 1:28, I've taken the liberty of inserting Mary's name in gray to conform to the wording of the prayer & hymn derived from the quoted verse (doing so does not alter any other words in that verse at all).  St. Luke didn't need that insertion, because he'd already identified the woman in his preceding verse (1:27).

    Note ‡: Source as cited in "#19 on: October 08, 2017, 20:14:48".  <https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/do-you-have-the-real-douay-rheims/msg571427/#msg571427>.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16