Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete  (Read 2986 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline happenby

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2768
  • Reputation: +1022/-1610
  • Gender: Female
Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
« Reply #60 on: September 19, 2018, 01:34:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Being overly literal is a bad thing.  A translation can be literal to a point that interferes with the comprehensibility of the result.

    For example, look at the first sentence of the Bible:
     in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram

    A completely literal translation is: "In beginning created God heaven and earth."  This is bad English.
    Sorry, this is no argument at all because the original Douay in English does not say "in the beginning created God heaven and earth".  This comparison makes no accounting for the differences in sentence structure in language.  Latin works differently than English and this was accounted for in the original Douay, obviously. Accusing the original Douay of error in this matter shows contempt or ignorance, either of which produces error.  

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21900
    • Reputation: +19219/-112
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #61 on: September 19, 2018, 01:36:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • We already know how much Jaynek hates the literal Bible because it would force her to drop many of her erroneous beliefs.

    Talk about beating a dead horse.
    Meanwhile, something tells me that certain archaic D-R fans are all about Flat Earth, and that's their real motivation.
    DO NOT go there; I'm just saying.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1022/-1610
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #62 on: September 19, 2018, 01:38:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Who gives a rat's behind?  Unless they also borrowed its protestant heresy-inspired mis-translations, I couldn't care less.

    The King James version isn't all bad; and yes you can quote me on that. It just so happens that the King James was a beautiful work of English literature. So if they borrowed certain English turns-of-phrase, that would be completely acceptable for a Catholic bible. As long as the translation is still faithful to the Vulgate, it's fine.

    Seriously, do you think the King James bible reads like a Superman comic or something, with similar content? There are only some problematic issues with certain parts of that translation.

    Guess how conservative the Anglican church was back when the King James translation was made? I'll give you a hint: they didn't have female bishops yet.

    By your argument I have to give up the Rosary, because Annibale Bugnini said the Rosary a few times, and he was a Freemason. He probably made the Sign of the Cross on multiple occasions -- we Catholics gotta ditch that habit as well. Because we don't want to "borrow from Annibale Bugnini's habits."

    You know what expression comes to mind?
    "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater."
    It's been repeated multiple times.  No one is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  No one is taking Hank's position. The information provided remains interesting even some choose to ignore it.  

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3037
    • Reputation: +1428/-770
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #63 on: September 19, 2018, 01:40:28 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • The King James version isn't all bad; and yes you can quote me on that. It just so happens that the King James was a beautiful work of English literature.
    I agree.  Even though this is not much publicized by Anglicans, the KJV drew on the D-R as a source.  Other than a few places where the KJV distorted the translation to support their heresies, it is overall quite accurate.  And, as you say, it is is renowned for its beauty.
    Most sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before you, eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which your loving Heart is

    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1201
    • Reputation: +479/-1401
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #64 on: September 19, 2018, 01:43:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Meanwhile, something tells me that certain archaic D-R fans are all about Flat Earth, and that's their real motivation.
    DO NOT go there; I'm just saying.
    Nobody did.


    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3037
    • Reputation: +1428/-770
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #65 on: September 19, 2018, 01:46:14 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Sorry, this is no argument at all because the original Douay in English does not say "in the beginning created God heaven and earth".  This comparison makes no accounting for the differences in sentence structure in language.  Latin works differently than English and this was accounted for in the original Douay, obviously. Accusing the original Douay of error in this matter shows contempt or ignorance, either of which produces error.  
    I gave an exaggerated example to make the problem clear.  A completely literal translation creates an ungrammatical and/or awkward result.  When a critic complains that a translation is too literal, that is what he is talking about.  

    This is a completely different issue from how literally one ought to take Scripture as the Word of God.  

    For the record,  I completely accept traditional Catholic teaching concerning Scripture.
    Most sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before you, eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which your loving Heart is

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1022/-1610
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #66 on: September 19, 2018, 01:55:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I gave an exaggerated example to make the problem clear.  A completely literal translation creates an ungrammatical and/or awkward result.  When a critic complains that a translation is too literal, that is what he is talking about.  

    This is a completely different issue from how literally one ought to take Scripture as the Word of God.  

    For the record,  I completely accept traditional Catholic teaching concerning Scripture.
    Conversely, the dynamic version (that is, the translation into the vulgar) also produces changes in meaning.  That's why I'd much rather check my understanding against a lesser version while using the more precise version rather than the other way around.  Or, as moderns do, not check at all. 

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3037
    • Reputation: +1428/-770
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #67 on: September 19, 2018, 02:09:05 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • Change of circumstances and/or modern language is no excuse, otherwise, communion for the divorced and remarried, which stands on this principle, is perfectly fine.  Moderns always cite "change" for the purpose of changing what is Catholic.
    Besides, no one is saying the Challoner isn't acceptable.  Just that there are even more precise versions which reflect the original more perfectly.  As an aside, some notable Catholics of good authority actually believe the differences between the two are even more dramatic than that.  This reminds me of the Novus Ordo argument, that there's no need to go back to TLM and there is nothing wrong with the New Mass because bishops approved it.  <sigh>    
    Language change is a key concept when discussing translation issues.  This has nothing whatever to do with modernist attempts to change doctrine.  A person who does not understand how language change works is not in a position to offer a knowledgeable opinion on translations.  Similarly, change of circumstances affects what material will be most useful in the notes and commentary.  This too is unrelated to attempts to change doctrine.

    There is no good reason to claim that the original D-R is a "more precise version which reflects the original more perfectly."  This is nothing like the well-supported arguments for showing that the Tridentine Mass is superior to the Novus Ordo.  A better analogy for these false claims about the original D-R is the absurd claim that Catholics ought to receive Communion in the hand because this was the practice of the early Church.  Earlier does not mean better.  Claiming that it does is the error of antiquarianism.
    Most sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before you, eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which your loving Heart is


    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1022/-1610
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #68 on: September 19, 2018, 02:33:58 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!6
  • Language change is a key concept when discussing translation issues.  This has nothing whatever to do with modernist attempts to change doctrine.  A person who does not understand how language change works is not in a position to offer a knowledgeable opinion on translations.  Similarly, change of circumstances affects what material will be most useful in the notes and commentary.  This too is unrelated to attempts to change doctrine.

    There is no good reason to claim that the original D-R is a "more precise version which reflects the original more perfectly."  This is nothing like the well-supported arguments for showing that the Tridentine Mass is superior to the Novus Ordo.  A better analogy for these false claims about the original D-R is the absurd claim that Catholics ought to receive Communion in the hand because this was the practice of the early Church.  Earlier does not mean better.  Claiming that it does is the error of antiquarianism.
    Cardinals Newman and Wiseman disagree with you when they tell us that the original Douay and the Challoner are significantly different, and therefore, the Challoner is not as accurate. As the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia reveals "  '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 tells us the meaning changed.  And the differences brought to light in the two manuscripts by these cardinals is proof that one is not the same as the other in actual content. The sources are reliable, the differences manifest, yet, you refuse to consider their warning.  That's entirely up to you, but exaggerating or playing semantics as you're doing here, in order to prove what you belief, won't change things. 

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3037
    • Reputation: +1428/-770
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #69 on: September 19, 2018, 02:52:08 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • Cardinals Newman and Wiseman disagree with you when they tell us that the original Douay and the Challoner are significantly different, and therefore, the Challoner is not as accurate. 
    I have not denied that the Challoner version is different from the original version. It does not, however, follow that different means more accurate.  The Challoner is so accurate that scholars have used it to reverse translate in order to recreate its original Latin source.

    You cannot seem to tell the difference between scholarly criticisms and a warning to avoid a work.  These Cardinals you cite did not question the ecclesiastical approval given to the Challoner.  These were scholars writing for scholars, not raising matters that should concern lay people.

    It is wrong to create scruples were the Church has taught we should not have scruples.
    Most sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before you, eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which your loving Heart is

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21900
    • Reputation: +19219/-112
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #70 on: September 19, 2018, 02:59:44 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!2
  • You talk about your "armchair theologian" -- here we got an "armchair Scripture scholar" with no formal training in Latin, Greek, Scriptural exegesis, etc. 

    She read an article somewhere once, and that makes her an expert.

    Priceless!

    The Challoner version is just fine. It is approved by the Church, and extremely accurate, with the same meanings as the equivalent Vulgate text. I haven't seen any lists or cases where the Challoner distorts or gives a different meaning. But I can read and understand the Vulgate; what do I know?

    I'm locking this thread.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


     

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