Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Tradplorable on October 07, 2017, 04:22:32 PM

Title: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Tradplorable on October 07, 2017, 04:22:32 PM
If you look at your Bible at home, chances are very likely it will have a publish date of 1899.
.
.
Did you know that it is not the original Douay-Rheims?

.

Did you know that the original Douay-Rheims was suppressed for almost 200 years?



.
.
.
http://www.realdouayrheims.com/
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 07, 2017, 04:29:40 PM
https://archive.org/details/texts?and%5B%5D=douay-rheims&sort=date
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Matto on October 07, 2017, 05:29:30 PM
I have the version of the Rheims New Testament from the website in your link and I am happy with it. I have never really compared it to the Challoner revision but I find it wonderful and easy to read. I was recently reading in the Acts of the Apostles the martyrdom of St. Stephen.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Matthew on October 08, 2017, 04:18:47 PM
If you look at your Bible at home, chances are very likely it will have a publish date of 1899.
.
.
Did you know that it is not the original Douay-Rheims?

.

Did you know that the original Douay-Rheims was suppressed for almost 200 years?



.
.
.
http://www.realdouayrheims.com/

You can prefer whatever you prefer, but there's nothing wrong with the 1899 Challoner revision of the Douay Rheims.

That edition was approved by the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church, or the timeless Magisterium of the Church, which is infallible and thus good enough for me.

(Vatican II doesn't come under the ordinary Magisterium, because it was a novelty which completely broke with Tradition, and completely refused the protection of the Holy Ghost.)

There are no examples of where the Challoner revision is deficient, or changes any of the original texts in a way that is dangerous or changes the meaning. The Challoner  Douay-Rheims is slavishly accurate.

I know Latin, so I can more or less read the original Vulgate and understand it. (Sure, I might have to look up some words...) Can you say the same thing?

Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Matthew on October 08, 2017, 04:23:56 PM
What Bible Should You Read 
by Thomas A. Nelson

Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Matthew on October 08, 2017, 04:29:23 PM
I will say this:

I would bet money you haven't been a Trad as long as I have, as well as those in my family. My family's "Trad" status goes back to the very beginning of the movement. I am part of Thomas A. Nelson's extended family (he is my dad's uncle). He was a pioneer in the movement.

All of this is to say: I know -- intuitively, deeply, and essentially -- what it means to be Trad. For all the Trads I knew and grew up with, the Challoner Douay-Rheims was the best choice, and certainly did the job. If we needed to "go back further", you better believe that a large number of the Trads I grew up with WOULD HAVE.

I'll share a bit of wisdom with you: When you have an individual who is already seeking the truth at all costs, totally isolated from the non-Trad members of his family and friends, etc. do you really think he's going to stop before embracing "the real deal" like the original Douay-Rheims? Let's face it: none of his non-Trad family or friends uses an old-fashioned translation like the Challoner Douay Rheims to begin with. You think he lacks the moral courage to go all the way or something? What difference would it make? Once you're completely isolated and alone as far as religion, there's not much more you can give up.

It's like downplaying or dismissing the fortitude of the martyrs, since they only faced death for Christ, but didn't face death for Christ wearing a fool's outfit. Do you really think, if it were required or offered to them, that these fearless martyrs wouldn't don a fool's attire as well, if God asked that of them? "He who does the greater, can always do the lesser." If a man can run 100 miles, he can certainly run 100 miles plus an inch! And the distance between the NAB, NAV, KJ, etc. and the Challoner Douay-Rheims is the equivalent of 100 miles. At best, the distance between the Challoner and "original" is 1 inch.

Young upstarts from 2017 discover Tradition in one way or another and they're all fervent and excited, and attempt to out-Trad those who have been Trad literally all their lives. That, of course, is ridiculous.

Young converts are so full of zeal, they immediately go into TEACHING mode when they really need to zip their lips and open both ears, and go into DOCILE, LEARNING MODE for several years, to get caught up with what they missed out on all their lives.

Unfortunately, with pride being a basic human failing (after the Fall), this seldom happens.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Tradplorable on October 08, 2017, 05:44:47 PM
I met Thomas Nelson long ago in IL. Seemed like a nice man. The Douay Rheims' history likely has little to do with what Nelson sells. I would bet that since this 1610 original version is created per order, it is more cost effective for Nelson to sell something that is already in print.
.
.
The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 A.D. states:

Quote
    "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]. . ."
    This is what is commonly sold as the Douay-Rheims Bible. If one buys a "Douay-Rheims Bible" today it is typically a copy of the 1899 Challoner version, which is but a pale reflection of the REAL Douay-Rheims. The text does not follow the original Douay-Rheims, and it is usually found with hardly any of the voluminous notes and annotations of the original REAL Douay-Rheims.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Matthew on October 08, 2017, 05:53:01 PM
You don't know how it works at all.

They are both public domain; T.A.N. could have published either one. If he thought there was a significant difference, there was nothing stopping him from going with the "original" Douay-Rheims.

I've read that quote before, BTW. It came up on CI literally YEARS ago. It doesn't change the fact that it's an exaggeration at best. 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.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Tradplorable on October 08, 2017, 06:03:50 PM
I disagree.
.
.
All the changes matter.
.
.
The change of Isaiah 40:22 alone has created a literal firestorm in the ghetto.
.
.
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.
.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Mithrandylan on October 08, 2017, 06:14:01 PM
Well, like Luther said, one man with scripture has more authority than all the popes and councils!
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Mithrandylan on October 08, 2017, 06:25:47 PM
This general line of thinking employed by the OP-- also found in Feeneyites, and people like Michael Hoffman-- is latent modernism.  People forget that modernism manifests itself differently in different disciplines.  You see, unfortunately, traditional Catholics who behave no differently than the modernist historian, even if they do not give in to modernist philosophy or theology directly.  They implicitly deny the intermingling of the human and divine, particularly the Church's ordinary magisterium as infallible.  They simply do not believe this.  To quote from Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi:


Quote
[The modernist historians] seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses [regarding scripture], upon which they base their decision as to whether a thing is out of place or not. Judge if you can how men with such a system are fitted for practising this kind of criticism. To hear them talk about their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even glanced through the pages of Scripture, whereas the truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding imperfections in them, have thanked God more and more the deeper they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately, these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for their guide and rule, - a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves.
.
One can't help but join with the holy saint's caustic and sarcastic disdain for these people.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Tradplorable on October 08, 2017, 06:38:17 PM
This general line of thinking employed by the OP-- also found in Feeneyites, and people like Michael Hoffman-- is latent modernism.  People forget that modernism manifests itself differently in different disciplines.  You see, unfortunately, traditional Catholics who behave no differently than the modernist historian, even if they do not give in to modernist philosophy or theology directly.  They implicitly deny the intermingling of the human and divine, particularly the Church's ordinary magisterium as infallible.  They simply do not believe this.  To quote from Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi:

.
One can't help but join with the holy saint's caustic and sarcastic disdain for these people.
To say that one who prefers the original 1610 Douay-Rheims over the 1899 revision is a "modernist" is the most nonsensical statement I've heard in a while. 
.
.
Preferring what is older is not "modern," it is TRADITIONAL.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Mithrandylan on October 08, 2017, 06:52:52 PM
To say that one who prefers the original 1610 Douay-Rheims over the 1899 revision is a "modernist" is the most nonsensical statement I've heard in a while.
.
.
Preferring what is older is not "modern," it is TRADITIONAL.
.
Well, that's not what I said.  But I'm sure it's nonsensical to you because you have no idea what modernism is.  You actually sound like the reformers, with your older=traditional, primitive reductionism.  Modernism is not a rejection of "what is old."  It isn't even best put as a rejection of Tradition (though that certainly follows from modernism, no doubt).  At any rate, your error is similar to the modernist historian's error, and I quoted Pope St. Pius X to that effect. 
.
And besides, a thread titled "do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?" and your comments in this thread make it clear that it is not simply your "preference."
.
I think Matthew pegged you well. 
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Tradplorable on October 08, 2017, 07:20:53 PM
This general line of thinking employed by the OP-- also found in Feeneyites, and people like Michael Hoffman-- is latent modernism.  
I'm not a fan of Feeney or Hoffman. Your statement of so-called latent modernism is false.
.
.
You distract from the truth, and it is clear that is your intention.
.
.
If there were not significant changes made in 1899, the guy printing up the 1610 Bibles would be out of business, eh? But, he is not..
.
.
Once more, nothing but scoffing all around from those who think they know all and could not possibly be wrong about anything. Because it would take an act of humility to acknowledge that you have been deceived.
.
.
I can accurately guess that you are a globe-earther, as well.
.
What is your answer to the changing of the word "compass" to "globe" in the 1899 Bible? Does that not matter to you?
.
.
Do you believe in heliocentrism too?
.
.
If so, then it's safe to assume you have placed the primacy of Copernicus, NASA, heliocentrism, and science, over the primacy of the infallible magisterium of the Church.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Tradplorable on October 08, 2017, 07:30:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Tradplorable on October 08, 2017, 07:47:51 PM
. You actually sound like the reformers, with your older=traditional, primitive reductionism.  
Do you think Cardinal Newman and Cardinal Wiseman sounded like reformers in their objections to Challoner's revisions?
.
.
.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WI7WAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP6&lpg=PP6&dq=To+call+it+any+longer+the+Douay+or+Rheimish+Version+is+an+abuse+of+terms.&source=bl&ots=tbNbq9jfxb&sig=taaWslcp0T7rvRbGMRflVtVGOCM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiCrf6JpuLWAhXK5IMKHVb-AogQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&q=To%20call%20it%20any%20longer%20the%20Douay%20or%20Rheimish%20Version%20is%20an%20abuse%20of%20terms.&f=false
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 08, 2017, 07:53:54 PM
Quote
Preferring what is older is not "modern," it is TRADITIONAL.

Tradplor.....

Thanks for the compliment.   ;)
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Tradplorable on October 08, 2017, 07:57:35 PM
Quote
"Through what lineage does this text descend to us?"

Catholic Fortnightly Review, 1915
.
.
.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ubMOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=To+call+it+any+longer+the+Douay+or+Rheimish+Version+is+an+abuse+of+terms.&source=bl&ots=NdrJH_nrxN&sig=Hsc4fATXV6Q5LdWrfgapno618lA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiCrf6JpuLWAhXK5IMKHVb-AogQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=To%20call%20it%20any%20longer%20the%20Douay%20or%20Rheimish%20Version%20is%20an%20abuse%20of%20terms.&f=false

.
.
.
"The Douay Old Testament no longer exists as a received version of the authorized Vulgate." 
Dr. Newman; Tracts, Theological and Ecclesiastical, pp. 418
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: St Ignatius on October 08, 2017, 08:05:10 PM
Tradplor.....

Thanks for the compliment.   ;)
He's so busy twisting himself into a pretzel, you think he'll even understand your comment? 
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Tradplorable on October 08, 2017, 08:14:48 PM
Page 75:
.
.
"To call it anymore the Douay or Rheims version is an abuse of terms." Cardinal Wiseman
.
.
https://books.google.com/books?id=wfApAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=To+call+it+any+longer+the+Douay+or+Rheimish+Version+is+an+abuse+of+terms.&source=bl&ots=3Dija0RElJ&sig=GADaayXNtC27W41GMbbYuVptYTw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLk8KArOLWAhWFwlQKHdw_BdAQ6AEIQTAG#v=onepage&q=To%20call%20it%20any%20longer%20the%20Douay%20or%20Rheimish%20Version%20is%20an%20abuse%20of%20terms.&f=false
.
.
.
Read on to page 76 to see the changes that happened to the Ave Maria in his time!
.
.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Mithrandylan on October 08, 2017, 08:22:44 PM
Tradplorable,

You might have just sold me on flat-earth. Goal-post shifting like this simply isn't possible on a curve!
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Tradplorable on October 08, 2017, 08:45:29 PM
Although the Bibles in use in the twentieth century by the Catholics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) of England (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05445a.htm) and Ireland (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08098b.htm) 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03564a.htm) in 1749-52. His object was to meet the practical want felt by the Catholics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm)of his day of a Bible moderate in size and price, in readable English, and with notes more suitable to the time. He brought out three editions of the New Testament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm), in 1749, 1750, and 1752 respectively, and one of the Old Testament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14526a.htm) in 1750. The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10794a.htm), they "almost amounted to a new translation". So also, Cardinal Wiseman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15670a.htm) 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 sense remains as it was originally published". In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02141a.htm), though his three editions of the New Testament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm) differ from one another in numerous passages. The best known version published in England (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05445a.htm) in modern times was perhaps Haydock's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07160a.htm), which was first issued at Manchester (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09584b.htm)in fortnightly parts in 1811-12. The Irish (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08098b.htm) editions are mostly known by the names of the bishops (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) who gave the imprimatur: as Dr. Carpenter's New Testament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm) (1783); Dr. Troy's Bible (1791); Dr. Murray's (1825); and Dr. Denvir's(1836) — the last two of which have often been reprinted, and were circulated largely in England (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05445a.htm) and Ireland (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08098b.htm). Around the turn of the century, the issue of the sixpenny New Testament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm) by Burns and Oates of London (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09341a.htm), by its large circulation, made the text adopted therein — Challoner's of 1749 — the standard one, especially as the same was adopted in Dr. Murray's and Dr. Denvir's Bibles. In America an independent revision of the Douay Version by Archbishop Kenrick (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm) (1849-59) was much used.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Mithrandylan on October 08, 2017, 10:34:10 PM
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. 
.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: poche on October 09, 2017, 02:02:51 AM
When I have a question or a doubt about something in the Bible I refer to the Latin, Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew. .
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: hismajesty on October 09, 2017, 05:10:23 AM
I have to side with tradplorable on this one. The quotes given are pretty clear.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Tradplorable on October 09, 2017, 09:35:40 AM
The fact that there was great scandal and discussion in the 19th century about whether or not the Challoner revisions changed too much of the original Douay-Rheims, after its 200 years suppression, is likely to be news to most Catholics.

.
.
I would be the vast majority of Trads are quite unaware there was any scandal surrounding their 1899 Bibles.
.
.
.
The changes that were made were vast and numerous. They touch on many subjects.
.
.
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."
.
.
I suspect that there is probably an intentional change of the word "compasse" to "globe" in the Isaiah passage. The flat earth movement was very popular at that time. The enemies of the truth would like to squash it, no doubt.
.
.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: poche on October 09, 2017, 10:13:51 AM
The fact that there was great scandal and discussion in the 19th century about whether or not the Challoner revisions changed too much of the original Douay-Rheims, after its 200 years suppression, is likely to be news to most Catholics.

.
.
I would be the vast majority of Trads are quite unaware there was any scandal surrounding their 1899 Bibles.
.
.
.
The changes that were made were vast and numerous. They touch on many subjects.
.
.
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."
.
.
I suspect that there is probably an intentional change of the word "compasse" to "globe" in the Isaiah passage. The flat earth movement was very popular at that time. The enemies of the truth would like to squash it, no doubt.
.
.
We can always pray the hail Mary by sayng; 
Ave Maria;
Gratia plena
Dominus tecuм
Benedictu tu in mulieribus
Et benedictus fructus ventris tui. Jesus
Sancta Maria 
Mater Dei
Ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostris. Amen. 
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: happenby on October 09, 2017, 10:25:38 AM
Although the Bibles in use in the twentieth century by the Catholics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) of England (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05445a.htm) and Ireland (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08098b.htm) 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03564a.htm) in 1749-52. His object was to meet the practical want felt by the Catholics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm)of his day of a Bible moderate in size and price, in readable English, and with notes more suitable to the time. He brought out three editions of the New Testament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm), in 1749, 1750, and 1752 respectively, and one of the Old Testament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14526a.htm) in 1750. The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10794a.htm), they "almost amounted to a new translation". So also, Cardinal Wiseman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15670a.htm) 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 sense remains as it was originally published". In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02141a.htm), though his three editions of the New Testament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm) differ from one another in numerous passages. The best known version published in England (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05445a.htm) in modern times was perhaps Haydock's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07160a.htm), which was first issued at Manchester (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09584b.htm)in fortnightly parts in 1811-12. The Irish (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08098b.htm) editions are mostly known by the names of the bishops (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) who gave the imprimatur: as Dr. Carpenter's New Testament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm) (1783); Dr. Troy's Bible (1791); Dr. Murray's (1825); and Dr. Denvir's(1836) — the last two of which have often been reprinted, and were circulated largely in England (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05445a.htm) and Ireland (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08098b.htm). Around the turn of the century, the issue of the sixpenny New Testament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm) by Burns and Oates of London (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09341a.htm), by its large circulation, made the text adopted therein — Challoner's of 1749 — the standard one, especially as the same was adopted in Dr. Murray's and Dr. Denvir's Bibles. In America an independent revision of the Douay Version by Archbishop Kenrick (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm) (1849-59) was much used.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm
Bishop speaks from the 1800's and gets four thumbs down long before his words could have been seriously considered.  And people wonder why they are overrun by enemies.  They refuse to learn, listen or consider anything except their own understanding.  As Fr Hesse once said with great clarity, "they do this because they do not understand the sufferings of Christ."  
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: St Ignatius on October 09, 2017, 10:35:12 AM
Ohh whoopy... the "goddess" of flat-tardom has made a return...
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 09, 2017, 10:35:39 AM
We can always pray the hail Mary by sayng;
Ave Maria;
Gratia plena
Dominus tecuм
Benedictu tu in mulieribus
Et benedictus fructus ventris tui. Jesus
Sancta Maria
Mater Dei
Ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostris. Amen.
We can also say that we can say things in another language without actually saying what could be said in another language. 

That aside, you deserve golf-claps for a nice application of linear thinking. Kudos to you today, Che.  :applause:
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: happenby on October 09, 2017, 10:42:00 AM
Ohh whoopy... the "goddess" of flat-tardom has made a return...
You should change your forum name, you do it a disservice. 
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: St Ignatius on October 09, 2017, 11:12:44 AM
You should change your forum name, you do it a disservice.

Who are you to preach to me!? 

Am I the one forging Scripture to adorn false idols?
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: happenby on October 09, 2017, 11:18:35 AM
Who are you to preach to me!?

Am I the one forging Scripture to adorn false idols?
You don't use any proofs whatsoever, but neither will you look at the evidence.  All you can do is treat people badly in the name of defending your view.  Its obvious that if there are ANY changes in scripture between the 1500's and the 1800's, the person involved has already proven his changes at the very least, suspect of corruption.    
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 09, 2017, 11:21:33 AM
Theistic FEism... a litany of distinction fails such as, for example, between "accident" and "substance".
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: St Ignatius on October 09, 2017, 11:28:40 AM
You don't use any proofs whatsoever, but neither will you look at the evidence.  All you can do is treat people badly in the name of defending your view.  Its obvious that if there are ANY changes in scripture between the 1500's and the 1800's, the person involved has already proven his changes at the very least, suspect of corruption.    

Ohh boo-hoo... if only you could see how ridiculous  you people look...
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: happenby on October 09, 2017, 11:29:17 AM
Theistic FEism... a litany of distinction fails such as, for example, between "accident" and "substance".
Your computer must be typing for you, you make zero sense.  Is there an app for that?
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 09, 2017, 11:31:08 AM
I rest my case.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: happenby on October 09, 2017, 11:34:12 AM
Ohh boo-hoo... if only you could see how ridiculous  you people look...
Oh, do show.  Prove your point.  Nothing to the contrary of what was alleged has been provided that explains why its ok to change the meaning of scripture by translation.  Talk is cheap.  Use your whiny keyboard to prove tampering with scripture is ever permitted.    
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 09, 2017, 11:37:50 AM
For crying out loud it was just commented on them doing this, they were told, and then they go and do it, and then go "whu?"

Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: St Ignatius on October 09, 2017, 11:42:43 AM
Oh, do show.  Prove your point.  Nothing to the contrary of what was alleged has been provided that explains why its ok to change the meaning of scripture by translation.  Talk is cheap.  Use your whiny keyboard to prove tampering with scripture is ever permitted.    
I think you're being rather devious here... bottom line, you and your cronies could care less about upholding the integrity of "translation," it's all "smoke and mirrors" for defending your false religion.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: happenby on October 09, 2017, 11:47:57 AM
I think you're being rather devious here... bottom line, you and your cronies could care less about upholding the integrity of "translation," it's all "smoke and mirrors" for defending your false religion.
Translation is it?  Then why not the earlier translation prior to changes?  It is tradition that supports truth, not change. Change proves itself false every time.  Just about the time Pius X would finally come along to warn of modernism, too.  Goes to show the truth can be obvious and some people still refuse to see.  
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: St Ignatius on October 09, 2017, 11:53:40 AM
Translation is it?  Then why not the earlier translation prior to changes?  It is tradition that supports truth, not change. Change proves itself false every time.  Just about the time Pius X would finally come along to warn of modernism, too.  Goes to show the truth can be obvious and some people still refuse to see.  
Did you ever "connect the dots" as a child?  I have a feeling you didn't, because you sure the hell ain't doing it here...
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: happenby on October 09, 2017, 11:58:43 AM
Did you ever "connect the dots" as a child?  I have a feeling you didn't, because you sure the hell ain't doing it here...
So you're saying this is way above your paygrade?  
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 09, 2017, 12:03:56 PM

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.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: happenby on October 09, 2017, 12:05:43 PM
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.
The one who changes scripture is the Protestant, not the other way around.  Holding tradition is paramount, something Challoner did not do.  Obviously. 
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 09, 2017, 12:10:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: MyrnaM on October 09, 2017, 01:33:10 PM
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.  
Title: Got Latin?/Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: AlligatorDicax on October 09, 2017, 02:00:46 PM
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 (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/bible-changes-check-your-translation/msg547961/#msg547961)>.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 09, 2017, 02:42:27 PM
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?
.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 09, 2017, 03:41:36 PM
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.
.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Tradplorable on October 09, 2017, 04:09:24 PM
.
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."
.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: kiwiboy on October 10, 2017, 01:42:05 PM
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,..."






https://youtu.be/RxOBOhRECoo

Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: DZ PLEASE on October 10, 2017, 09:11:48 PM
But isn't a morbidly curious and, possibly as consequent, suspicious intellect...?

Never mind.
Title: "Dominus"/Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: AlligatorDicax on October 11, 2017, 03:00:12 PM
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 tecuм : 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 (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 (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/do-you-have-the-real-douay-rheims/msg571427/#msg571427)>.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: confederate catholic on April 11, 2019, 08:16:25 PM
alligator it seems their posts are sort of like this
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Markus on April 11, 2019, 08:48:43 PM
Tradplorable, you should remove the Elvis Presley pic from your profile. It's evil.
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Your Friend Colin on April 11, 2019, 09:32:12 PM
Tradplorable, you should remove the Elvis Presley pic from your profile. It's evil.
Elvis desecrating a Church 
https://youtu.be/ghqSmy3h02I (https://youtu.be/ghqSmy3h02I)
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: claudel on April 12, 2019, 01:18:52 PM
The topic of this thread has been considered at length in a great many earlier threads. As a rule, each new thread has contained less useful information and coherent thought than the one preceding it. Most threads, unfortunately, have had something comparable to the large-font, boldfaced table-pounding of the new arrival Quick Summary.

Anyone interested in a notably better examination of this topic should consider reading this thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?pretty;board=9;topic=25752.0), now more than five years old. Common to that thread and this one are the welcome comments of AlligatorDicax.
Title: "REAL"?/Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: AlligatorDicax on April 22, 2019, 02:44:24 PM

The topic of this thread has been considered at length in a great many earlier threads. As a rule, each new thread has contained less useful information and coherent thought than the one preceding it.

I don't recall having ever posting 1 of my fundamental issues with the docuмent that the original poster is promoting in this topic:

Quote from: www.realdouayrheims.com

Where possible the archaic spelling has been left intact to preserve the "flavor" of this historic text.

In other words, in the reprint being promoted, a reader can never be sure whether any given word is a mere reprint of its REAL by-the-grace-of-God D-RB spelling, being subjectively retained for its "flavor", or it's some modern replacement printed after transliterating it!?

That's what's being promoted as "REALdouayrheims"!?

How should readers, whose majority already understands that they're not among the average "Catholics in the pews",  feel when they discover that the promoters have paternalistically decided that they (i.e., those readers) would be completely helpless at discovering the meaning of, e.g., "diſcouerie"?
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Jaynek on April 24, 2019, 09:53:57 AM
The only question that any Catholic needs to ask about the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims is whether it was approved for the use of laity by pre-Crisis popes and bishops (and similarly whether it is currently approved by traditional bishops). The answer to this is an unambiguous yes.  There are two hundreds years of Church hierarchy, starting well before modernism was even an issue in the Church, teaching that lay people may read this without scruple.  There is no reason whatsoever to raise scruples now and the motives of those who do so are questionable.

It is possible to find past scholarly discussions which mention criticisms of both the original D-R and its revisions.  None of these has anything to do with whether lay Catholics ought to read them. They concern matters for scholars.  Personally, I prefer the Challoner, both because it is easier to understand and because the notes address Enlightenment as well as Protestant heresies.  There is no good reason at all for me not to follow this preference.

Very few Catholics are even qualified to offer an opinion on how faithful the Challoner revision is to the Vulgate.  In fact, it is famous among the knowledgeable for its extreme level of faithfulness to the Clementine Vulgate.  Given that the poster, Quick Summary, is not even capable of writing coherent English I see no reason to give any credence to his claims of expertise in Latin.  There are people on this forum (including myself) who know enough Latin to follow specific arguments claiming that the Challoner has not translated the Vulgate correctly.  If Quick Summary wants to offer examples of this alleged poor translation (and have them debunked) he should do so.  So far he has not offered a single word of Latin Vulgate in support of his absurd claims.  

Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Matthew on April 24, 2019, 11:08:56 AM
I don't know what hard drugs "Quick Summary" was on, but he must have been on something! 

Good heavens! His brain must be more addled than swiss cheese to write posts like that. If drugs weren't involved, then he was seriously mentally ill. He shouldn't be loose.

Perhaps he's celebrating the whole octave of 4/20 by smoking a whole pound of pot per day?
Title: Re: Do you have the REAL Douay-Rheims?
Post by: Jaynek on April 24, 2019, 11:11:23 AM
What on Earth is wrong with updating the spelling?
Nothing at all.  This is obvious to most people.

By the way, nothing to do with forlorn's post, but people participating in this thread should note that the first 50 or so posts were made in October 2017 and the thread was revived a few weeks ago.  The OP of the thread, Tradplorable, was banned about a month after starting this thread (for reasons unrelated to this topic) and other of the earlier participants might no longer be here.  I suggest that people who address comments made in the earlier portion confirm that their posters are still here.