How lovely that a Priest would tell you where to start reading the Bible "because it's conversational and lets the rest of the Bible fall in place" Rest in Peace Father Gruner.
Anything based on the Vulgate is better by far than all these so called Catholic bibles based on the RSV. The RSV is just another name for the KJV. For me I like the Douay-Rheims and the CPDV. This is a modern translation of the Vulgate and highly recommend it.
Agreed. The CPDV is a very good companion to the DR. And states it is based on the old Vulgate. So far I have only found one passage where the DR was noticeably better, so definitely use the DR as your primary.
The confraternity version is the most easily understandable translation that’s based in the vulgate. From what I understand, it also uses the original Greek and Hebrew as a reference to remedy any issues/loss caused by a second layer of translation. It’s a shame it was never finished, but I really wish that more modern prints were made based on the confraternity, supplementing the incomplete Old Testament with the Douay.
Actually this comment has helped me look into the confraternity Bible and decide on it. I have the DR Challoner and was thinking about also getting the knox. Looking at the confraternity and seeing different vintage versions of it is just like finding hidden Catholic patrimony of forgotten treasures. I will purchase the Confraternity Version in complete volume as it is one of the best catholic translations directly from the vulgate and one of the biggest 'what ifs' of our catholic bibles.
@@elcompalex31 I heard that the haydock (which uses the DR) is a great and faithful commentary, knox seems interesting, but there are some questionable an unfaithful translation chioces, i can't remember the exact passages though, maybe interesting for the notes and a different view on scripture, kinda shocking there is not a DR with modern spelling for ease of read, or just a whole new translation.
Take a look at this book. '' The Four Gospels at a Glance. That sums up a lot. The puzzles (verses) are put together nicely. All questions resolve themselves. And the whole thing without comments from the author. It came out late last year. In the various comparison tests, it always comes out as the winner. A real helper for the reader. I can only recommend. Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition: www.amazon.com/-/es/Douay-Rheims-Dra/dp/3752623675/ref=sr_1_4?__mk_es_US=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD% C3% 95% C3% 91 & crid = 2SSY6ZWMVBPUF & dchild = 1 & keywords = the + four + gospels + at + a + glance & qid = 1619626380 & sprefix = the + four + gospels + at +% 2Caps% 2C246 & sr = 8-4
What I particularly like about DR is how they translated the second part of Exodus 3:14: He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS hath sent me to you. This HE WHO IS is a much smarter translation than I AM hath sent... as found in RSV and its followings
Yes. You'll find significant differences from one to the other. I have 3 Bible apps, and sometimes read and compare to the Douey-Rheims. But a big help are the Bible commentaries. The most extensive one is the Regina Caeli app.
Definitely agree with the Douay-Rheims. There are other pre-vatican 2 alternatives... There is the beautiful Knox Versions....and the incomplete Confraternity bible. Both attempted to bring up the latin vulgate into a modern translation. There is the Jerusalem bible that came out in french in the 1950s, and then in english in 1966. I would say the Jersualem bible is on the "cusp" of bad modernization.
Yeah the JB definitely has problems and is not based on the Vulgate at all. I've also encountered problems with the Knox compared to DR. And even milk toast Taylor Marshall warns it has modernism in it. I hear the 1942 confraternity New testament translated from the vulgate also has some modernist changes. I still sometimes look at all of those to compare with the DR., but always give precedence to the DR.
@@williamearle6281 I agree, Ronald Knox made some odd word choices, which is too bad, he was a great writer but took things too far. I think his methodology was okay looking at the bible translation based on trying to translate the meaning of whole paragraphs versus each work/sentence. But there are problematic issues. No translation will be perfect. Even the douay-rheims has contradictions between the old and new testament.
Darth Tiberius Nope Ho is he He is She in Hebrew Both can be correct He refers to Jesus Christ who destroyed the works of the devil at the cross She refers to Mary, remember Mary bore Jesus Christ She crushed the head of the serpent Did you ever see the miracle of Guadeloupe? It’s an image of Mary crushing the head of the serpent
The current edition of the Douay Rheims has typos, parts of verses missing and mistranslations in several places. You can verify this by reading the book English Versions of the Bible by Father Hugh J Pope.There is the Original and True Douay Rheims, the Challoner revision, the Knox Bible, the Catholic Public Domain Version and the Confraternity Bible.There are several Vulgate parallel Bibles. There are the Masoretic Text,Septuagint,Peshitta, Geez, Coptic and other versions of the Bible.Some Bible translations are bad, some are mediocre and some are excellent.
Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu said one should translate the Bible from the original languages with reference to other ancient languages especially the Vulgate Faithful copies of originals are just as faithful of the original. For the Tanakh Old Testament one should translate from Hebrew. For the Deuteronical Books translate from the Septuagint, Peshitta and Hebrew texts. For the New Testament translate from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Cross reference the Vulgate.
Pius XII also permitted falsifying the translation of the Good Friday prayer. Modernism and selling out to the Zionist lobby didn't start instantly with V2. There was a slippery slope, and Pius X warned us about this, as did Leo the 13th via his Saint Michael vision. My impression is the last solid pope died in 1922.
A very useful text is the commentary collection by Fr. George Leo Haydock which places summary notes at the foot of each page of the Bible. For more extensive commentary, we recommend the works of Cornelius a Lapide. God bless you. www.amazon.com/Douay-Rheims-Testament-Savior-Jesus-Christ/dp/0962099430 www.amazon.com/Douay-Rheims-Testament-Holy-Catholic-Bible/dp/0962099449 www.ecatholic2000.com/lapide/untitled-170.shtml
I have an app, Regina Caeli, that has commentary on each Bible passage from George Haddock, St. Augustin, St. John Christostom, etc. And there's an app that's just George Haddock called Catholic Commentary. It makes my Bible reading much more productive. Thank you, FC, for the links.
Take a look at this book. '' The Four Gospels at a Glance. That sums up a lot. The puzzles (verses) are put together nicely. All questions resolve themselves. And the whole thing without comments from the author. It came out late last year. In the various comparison tests, it always comes out as the winner. A real helper for the reader. I can only recommend. Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition: www.amazon.com/-/es/Douay-Rheims-Dra/dp/3752623675/ref=sr_1_4?__mk_es_US=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD% C3% 95% C3% 91 & crid = 2SSY6ZWMVBPUF & dchild = 1 & keywords = the + four + gospels + at + a + glance & qid = 1619626380 & sprefix = the + four + gospels + at +% 2Caps% 2C246 & sr = 8-4
Please let me know if something better comes along but for now there is on Lulu the Dr William von Peters transcription of the original DR into modern typeface and spelling including all the notes in the original. However, it was pointed out there is a passage in Genesis that alters the ages of certain patriarchs to match the septuagint numbers. The Amazon reviewer said he couldn't find any other discrepancies but this one discrepancy puts everything else in question. It certainly would make a nice companion to the poor quality facsimile from Lulu. Also, does anyone know if the 1635 edition of the Old testament has different notes from the 1610 edition? I got the 1635 thinking it might have additional notes. And does anyone know if there is a better quality facsimile of the original now available?
If you can, learn Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. There are some interlinear translations and translations linked to Bible lexicons. You can download many apps and books linked to a lexicon and concordance. This is in no means to take every word of a translation as true. Check it out and check the bias of a translation. Learn the faith and be careful of red flags of error in a translation.
Instead of struggling with 500 years old English no one speaks today, or Challoner’s editorials and gibberish borrowed from the King James version of the Bible, there is a version of the Bible that was praised, among others, by bishop Fulton Sheen, and used by him profusely. Bishop Sheen loved it. It is the translation of the St Jerome’s Vulgate by Msgr Ronald Knox. He was one of the most influential Catholic intellectuals and apologist of the 20th century. It is written in proper English, in fact quite poetic and timeless, reverent (unlike modern translations), and is without obscurities and ‘what that in fact means?’ passages that many Bible translation leave us with, while we scratch our heads. His translation is written before the Vatican II, which is another big plus. Look for the Knox Bible, it was reprinted recently by Baronius Press. If nothing else, read it together with Douay.
+Zvonimir Tosic How does "In princípio creávit Deus cælum et terram" mean "God, at the beginning of time, created heaven and earth"? Or "Et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona : et divísit lucem a ténebris", "God saw the light, and found it good, and he divided the spheres of light and darkness"? These actually mean "In the beginning God created heaven, and earth" and "And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness" There are a lot of interpretive, inserted words. I don't like that one bit. Especially since every nuance has theological and doctrinal significance. They may not be wrong, just misleading. Words like 'of time' and 'spheres of' are not in the original texts and don't belong there. That was just from the very first verses of the Bible. The Douay-Rheims Challoner is probably the best translation of _Vulgate_ out there for devotional reading. If you can't make sense of it, you are reading the Bible too quickly to appreciate or benefit from what's written in it, with all due respect. If you take your time parsing the older English, you will learn more and extract more from the Word of God. It has the additional benefit of being more holy (in the 'set apart' sense, being older English) and is, I believe, more reverent than modern translations, including the Knox which is very paraphrastic and interpretive (so-called 'dynamic' translations which no one interested in theology or what God actually said really needs). Pax.
duke rufus But the Douay-Rheims of today is the Challoner edition, which came after the King James and borrowed heavily from it. However, it’s still much better than anything coming out today.
The language of the King James Bible, as you put it, was merely high Elizabethan English, or Court English, as some prefer to term it. It was used for a lot of other things besides the King James Bible. Contrary to popular notion, the use of the 'thee', 'thou', 'thy', etc. and all of the corresponding verb inflections is not difficult to understand. One study even read parts of the King James to uneducated and stupid (probably IQ's below 80) people. They could easily understand what the KJV was saying. In fact, these inflections are actually helpful in arriving at the proper understanding of many passages. The Church did not choose to use Elizabethan-like English just to to make their translation like the King James version. (Honestly, you believe that this would have been an influencing factor for Douay-Rheims given the times.) No, they did it because that language conveyed meaning and was considered beautiful and fitting for use in an English Bible translation. It is ironic that in both the Catholic Church and in heretical Protestantism, Modernists used the same arguments against King-James-like English to campaign for "newer" translations of the Bible. Or course, there real problem was not with the style of the English; they merely wanted an opportunity to weaken certain clear statements in Scripture. I'm certainly not saying the Archpb Sheen was a Modernist, but in this he was, as many others, influenced by Modernist propaganda. The King-James-like language does, in cases, pose mild difficulties, but certainly not enough to justify an new translation. Yes, the Protestant King James was created by heretics, but it stands out in English literature as a gem of Elizabethan English. Most Protestant translations of the Bible are pretty bad, constantly introducing hard-to-justify, anti-Catholic twists in their translation. The King James itself has a few choice examples of anti-Catholic axe grinding in its text. One choice example: "Hail, full of grace ..." was translated "Hail, thou who art highly favoured ..." This translation, or course, has no justification in any Latin or Greek text of the NT; the King James translators clearly didn't want to translate the Angelic Salutation properly due to their heretical understanding of Mary. Even so, as Protestant Bible translations go, the King James is not all that bad. Most of the newer Protestant translations are far, far worse, both in technical terms and in terms of anti-Christian bias. The Kings James also suffers from poor textual sources in several places, something the the King James translators themselves were well aware of.
if the douay rheims is so good....why does the catholic church use the NASB? Personally i like the Douay Rheims...but when i spoke to the priest of my local parish he had no idea what was even in the Douay Rheims...dudes like 69 years old.
Possibly you will get a different answer -- on this and many other important topics -- from a traditional priest. God bless you. sspx.org/en/mass-locator
@Sebat Hadah, NASB is a protestant Bible. Get your facts right. Catholic Church uses Douay Rheims Bible, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, Revised New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible Revised Edtion.
You are confusing the Protestant New American Standard bible with the "Catholic" Revised New American Bible. Too bad the former does not have the Deuterocanon, because it's actual better than the latter.
What about the Hebrew Bible? Many can read the Hebrew Bible in it's original language. If you just spend a little time every day you can learn how to read it in the original language in a reasonable amount of time. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we know the modern Hebrew Bible is about 99% accurate and any discrepancies are due to the fact the Dead Sea scrolls were possessed by a sect called the Essenes and some fragments were either destroyed or not not found, e.g. the Book of Esther. Try Hebrew. It's literally the language G-d spoke to Moses in. Read the original.
The Fatima Center o wow!!! Was not even expecting a response from the video so soon. Thank you for letting me know. I actually ordered the Douay Rheim Bible. I will be getting it soon. Thank you for the video! God Bless!
Protestants removed certain books from the Bible. The books were removed because they reinforced Catholic teachings and they did not want this. What is there, in the KJV though, is very good.
Besides omitting whole books, Protestant Bibles contain many -- oftentimes deliberate -- mistranslations. While the KJV may not be notoriously offensive in this regard, it nevertheless contains its share of anti-Catholic prejudice (such as in translating the angel's salutation to the Blessed Virgin Mary with the words "highly favoured" rather than "full of grace").
With the experience of 40 years of teaching in Asia, US, Pacific and New Zealand, I agree with most of the credible Bible teachers of today, the New Revised Standard Version is the best one currently for teaching.
Be careful with the RSV translation, it deletes words and passages,i.e. Matthew 17: 21 it deletes "and fasting." AND Mk 9:29, again it deletes "and fasting" and in Luke 1:28 they have it rendered,"Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you," when in fact it should be,"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you." And in Genesis 3:15 should read,"she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." You see how the RSV and NAB and KJV bibles all change the significance of Mary and her role in salvation.
@@jaqian Yes, I use the Rheims-Douay and the Confraternity edition, now out of print, and the closest to the Vulgate. You can used copies. I found a 1942 edition with the pre-modernist footnotes. You can get used ones on Amazon.
The NRSV is problematic. It is far more free than the RSV, and, if that weren't bad enough, it is heavy on gender-inclusive language. If you find the D-R to be a bit obscure in some parts - remember, Jerome's original Vulgate is no longer extant, and was copied thousands of times throughout the centuries, and there are differences among the multitude of copies - then you're better off using the RSV-CE, but, please, do not fool yourself into thinking the NRSV is the best for ANYTHING.
St. Jerome was a holy man, but not a great scholar. (1) He was totally taken in by the Masoretic text, a version of the Hebrew Scriptures that had constructed by apostate Jews hundreds of years after the coming of Christ. In fact, the real truth to come out of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that these apostate Jews had indeed tampered with the Hebrew text in ways that were unfavorable to the Church. (One example, from Isaiah, where the Jews substituted the Hebrew word for "young woman" for the word 'virgin' in a prophetic passage referring to Mary.) (2) St. Jerome also did not understand what the Hexapla was, and as a result, Jerome totally discounted the Septuagint as a reliable source of the OT scriptures. Jerome wrongly claimed that the Septuagint could not be trusted in that the Hexapla made it clear that their were multiple divergent versions of the Septuagint. But this was only partially true. Origin created the Hexapla to demonstrate that apostate Jews (and Christian heretics) were tampering with the accepted text of the Septuagint, twisting things to support their errors. The first column of the Hexapla was the true, accepted version of the Septuagint. The NT authors presumably had full access to both the Hebrew and the Septuagint, and yet, they chose to quote OT scripture from the Septuagint most of the time. St. Jerome's scholarship was so bad here that it continued it even influenced the textual choices of Protestant heretics centuries down the road, who also discounted the Septuagint in their translations using St. Jerome's erroneous statements as their justification. Although it sometime appears otherwise, the Church does not canonize saints because of their scholarship but because of their personal holiness.
@@cr1513 Sorry, I'm not even sure what you're talking about. None of what I said has anything to do with a Counsel of Jamnia, or any other counsel for that matter. What I said is based upon St. Jerome's own words and actions regarding his acceptance of the flawed Masoretic text. The primary point is that St. Jerome was totally fooled by the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament. The Masoretic Hebrew is not an authentic representation of the ancient Hebrew scriptures; it was a reconstruction which the authors claimed was based upon "oral tradition." This reconstruction took place hundreds of years after the coming of Christ, without access to any known Hebrew text. Up until the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls (in modern times), it was believed that all copies of the ancient Hebrew Text were lost during the times when the Romans sacked Jerusalem. Indeed, Hebrew was not widely used by Israelites of the Diaspora. Most Jews of the Diaspora lived in Hellenistic cultures. They did not speak Hebrew nor is there any evidence that they even studied Hebrew. They used the Septuagint (aka, the LXX, a translation of the Hebrew into Greek) in their synagogues. Most, about 80% of the quotations from the Hebrew scriptures that appear in the New Testament are taken from the Septuagint. Of the remaining 20%, about 10% are taken from the Hebrew, the rest could go either way. The point being that even the New Testament authors primarily quoted the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. St. Jerome had a copy of the Septuagint in the form of the first column of the Hexapla, but chose to use the questionable Masoretic Hebrew instead. St. Jerome's very comments on the subject make it very clear that he did not understand what the Hexapla was or why it had been created in the first place. Actually, this is just the worst cast of St. Jerome's poor scholarship. Also -- and this is not at all difficult to verify should you care to -- the Church does not selects saints for their worldly deeds, but quite specifically, for their spiritual characteristics and spiritual works. St. Jerome would have been made a saint even he had never produced a single word of translation. Even most books written by saints do not have Magisterial authority.
![NOSFERATU - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nulvWqYUM8k/mqdefault.jpg)
How lovely that a Priest would tell you where to start reading the Bible "because it's conversational and lets the rest of the Bible fall in place" Rest in Peace Father Gruner.
Anything based on the Vulgate is better by far than all these so called Catholic bibles based on the RSV. The RSV is just another name for the KJV. For me I like the Douay-Rheims and the CPDV. This is a modern translation of the Vulgate and highly recommend it.
Agreed. The CPDV is a very good companion to the DR. And states it is based on the old Vulgate. So far I have only found one passage where the DR was noticeably better, so definitely use the DR as your primary.
Just picked up 1914 edition of the DR. What a find! Love reading that version. Why doesn't the church use it in our liturgy if it is highly valued?
The confraternity version is the most easily understandable translation that’s based in the vulgate. From what I understand, it also uses the original Greek and Hebrew as a reference to remedy any issues/loss caused by a second layer of translation. It’s a shame it was never finished, but I really wish that more modern prints were made based on the confraternity, supplementing the incomplete Old Testament with the Douay.
Im stuck between Confraternity or Knox
Actually this comment has helped me look into the confraternity Bible and decide on it. I have the DR Challoner and was thinking about also getting the knox. Looking at the confraternity and seeing different vintage versions of it is just like finding hidden Catholic patrimony of forgotten treasures. I will purchase the Confraternity Version in complete volume as it is one of the best catholic translations directly from the vulgate and one of the biggest 'what ifs' of our catholic bibles.
@@elcompalex31 I heard that the haydock (which uses the DR) is a great and faithful commentary, knox seems interesting, but there are some questionable an unfaithful translation chioces, i can't remember the exact passages though, maybe interesting for the notes and a different view on scripture, kinda shocking there is not a DR with modern spelling for ease of read, or just a whole new translation.
Yes, I have been reading Douay Rheims version ever since...
Take a look at this book. '' The Four Gospels at a Glance. That sums up a lot. The puzzles (verses) are put together nicely. All questions resolve themselves. And the whole thing without comments from the author. It came out late last year. In the various comparison tests, it always comes out as the winner. A real helper for the reader. I can only recommend.
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition: www.amazon.com/-/es/Douay-Rheims-Dra/dp/3752623675/ref=sr_1_4?__mk_es_US=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD% C3% 95% C3% 91 & crid = 2SSY6ZWMVBPUF & dchild = 1 & keywords = the + four + gospels + at + a + glance & qid = 1619626380 & sprefix = the + four + gospels + at +% 2Caps% 2C246 & sr = 8-4
which one? ;) the OG or the 1899?
What does OG mean?
Original or the 1899?
The truth said again.
I love Douay-Rheims. :)
Given the times, I think it's a good idea to make sure all your loved ones have a bible.
Pray for us Fr Gruner RIP
What I particularly like about DR is how they translated the second part of Exodus 3:14: He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS hath sent me to you.
This HE WHO IS is a much smarter translation than I AM hath sent... as found in RSV and its followings
Amen and I like Ex 3:14, "I Am who Am"(DR) instead of "I Am who I Am"(RSV) also.
Yes. You'll find significant differences from one to the other. I have 3 Bible apps, and sometimes read and compare to the Douey-Rheims. But a big help are the Bible commentaries. The most extensive one is the Regina Caeli app.
Textual criticism done correctly is good. Higher criticism can open up a can of worms.
Definitely agree with the Douay-Rheims.
There are other pre-vatican 2 alternatives... There is the beautiful Knox Versions....and the incomplete Confraternity bible. Both attempted to bring up the latin vulgate into a modern translation.
There is the Jerusalem bible that came out in french in the 1950s, and then in english in 1966. I would say the Jersualem bible is on the "cusp" of bad modernization.
Yeah the JB definitely has problems and is not based on the Vulgate at all. I've also encountered problems with the Knox compared to DR. And even milk toast Taylor Marshall warns it has modernism in it. I hear the 1942 confraternity New testament translated from the vulgate also has some modernist changes. I still sometimes look at all of those to compare with the DR., but always give precedence to the DR.
@@williamearle6281 I agree, Ronald Knox made some odd word choices, which is too bad, he was a great writer but took things too far. I think his methodology was okay looking at the bible translation based on trying to translate the meaning of whole paragraphs versus each work/sentence. But there are problematic issues. No translation will be perfect.
Even the douay-rheims has contradictions between the old and new testament.
The big test is Genesis 3:15 'she'.
He and She are the same word in Hebrew.
the footnotes in the niv kind of reveal it could really go either way cause some manuscripts have "he", while others have "she".
Darth Tiberius
Nope
Ho is he
He is She in Hebrew
Both can be correct
He refers to Jesus Christ who destroyed the works of the devil at the cross
She refers to Mary, remember Mary bore Jesus Christ
She crushed the head of the serpent
Did you ever see the miracle of Guadeloupe?
It’s an image of Mary crushing the head of the serpent
I use a Douay Rheims Bible. It SOUNDS like " the Word of God"
Ironically, KJV onlyists say the same
@@bastionofthefaith92 The probably like Shakespeare as well
Jerome von Stridon was from Serbia/Croatia. Serbians are Sarmatians. They came from Sumer/Iran. They still have access to these old texts.
What about the spanish and french version?
The current edition of the Douay Rheims has typos, parts of verses missing and mistranslations in several places. You can verify this by reading the book English Versions of the Bible by Father Hugh J Pope.There is the Original and True Douay Rheims, the Challoner revision, the Knox Bible, the Catholic Public Domain Version and the Confraternity Bible.There are several Vulgate parallel Bibles.
There are the Masoretic Text,Septuagint,Peshitta, Geez, Coptic and other versions of the Bible.Some Bible translations are bad, some are mediocre and some are excellent.
Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu said one should translate the Bible from the original languages with reference to other ancient languages especially the Vulgate
Faithful copies of originals are just as faithful of the original.
For the Tanakh Old Testament one should translate from Hebrew.
For the Deuteronical Books translate from the Septuagint, Peshitta and Hebrew texts.
For the New Testament translate from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
Cross reference the Vulgate.
Pius XII also permitted falsifying the translation of the Good Friday prayer. Modernism and selling out to the Zionist lobby didn't start instantly with V2. There was a slippery slope, and Pius X warned us about this, as did Leo the 13th via his Saint Michael vision. My impression is the last solid pope died in 1922.
Is there a Douey-Rheims study Bible I could purchase?
A very useful text is the commentary collection by Fr. George Leo Haydock which places summary notes at the foot of each page of the Bible. For more extensive commentary, we recommend the works of Cornelius a Lapide. God bless you.
www.amazon.com/Douay-Rheims-Testament-Savior-Jesus-Christ/dp/0962099430
www.amazon.com/Douay-Rheims-Testament-Holy-Catholic-Bible/dp/0962099449
www.ecatholic2000.com/lapide/untitled-170.shtml
I have an app, Regina Caeli, that has commentary on each Bible passage from George Haddock, St. Augustin, St. John Christostom, etc. And there's an app that's just George Haddock called Catholic Commentary. It makes my Bible reading much more productive.
Thank you, FC, for the links.
Take a look at this book. '' The Four Gospels at a Glance. That sums up a lot. The puzzles (verses) are put together nicely. All questions resolve themselves. And the whole thing without comments from the author. It came out late last year. In the various comparison tests, it always comes out as the winner. A real helper for the reader. I can only recommend.
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition: www.amazon.com/-/es/Douay-Rheims-Dra/dp/3752623675/ref=sr_1_4?__mk_es_US=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD% C3% 95% C3% 91 & crid = 2SSY6ZWMVBPUF & dchild = 1 & keywords = the + four + gospels + at + a + glance & qid = 1619626380 & sprefix = the + four + gospels + at +% 2Caps% 2C246 & sr = 8-4
May God bless your Work
Please let me know if something better comes along but for now there is on Lulu the Dr William von Peters transcription of the original DR into modern typeface and spelling including all the notes in the original. However, it was pointed out there is a passage in Genesis that alters the ages of certain patriarchs to match the septuagint numbers. The Amazon reviewer said he couldn't find any other discrepancies but this one discrepancy puts everything else in question. It certainly would make a nice companion to the poor quality facsimile from Lulu. Also, does anyone know if the 1635 edition of the Old testament has different notes from the 1610 edition? I got the 1635 thinking it might have additional notes. And does anyone know if there is a better quality facsimile of the original now available?
If you can, learn Hebrew, Aramaic,
Greek and Latin.
There are some interlinear translations and translations linked to Bible lexicons.
You can download many apps and books linked to a lexicon and concordance.
This is in no means to take every word of a translation as true.
Check it out and check the bias of a translation.
Learn the faith and be careful of red flags of error in a translation.
Those editions are based on much later Rabbinic reworkings of the scripture many centuries after the old Vulgate.
Instead of struggling with 500 years old English no one speaks today, or Challoner’s editorials and gibberish borrowed from the King James version of the Bible, there is a version of the Bible that was praised, among others, by bishop Fulton Sheen, and used by him profusely. Bishop Sheen loved it.
It is the translation of the St Jerome’s Vulgate by Msgr Ronald Knox. He was one of the most influential Catholic intellectuals and apologist of the 20th century. It is written in proper English, in fact quite poetic and timeless, reverent (unlike modern translations), and is without obscurities and ‘what that in fact means?’ passages that many Bible translation leave us with, while we scratch our heads. His translation is written before the Vatican II, which is another big plus.
Look for the Knox Bible, it was reprinted recently by Baronius Press. If nothing else, read it together with Douay.
Zvonimir Tosic That is helpful, thanks Zvonimir
+Zvonimir Tosic
How does "In princípio creávit Deus cælum et terram" mean "God, at the beginning of time, created heaven and earth"?
Or "Et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona : et divísit lucem a ténebris", "God saw the light, and found it good, and he divided the spheres of light and darkness"?
These actually mean "In the beginning God created heaven, and earth" and "And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness"
There are a lot of interpretive, inserted words. I don't like that one bit. Especially since every nuance has theological and doctrinal significance. They may not be wrong, just misleading. Words like 'of time' and 'spheres of' are not in the original texts and don't belong there.
That was just from the very first verses of the Bible.
The Douay-Rheims Challoner is probably the best translation of _Vulgate_ out there for devotional reading. If you can't make sense of it, you are reading the Bible too quickly to appreciate or benefit from what's written in it, with all due respect. If you take your time parsing the older English, you will learn more and extract more from the Word of God. It has the additional benefit of being more holy (in the 'set apart' sense, being older English) and is, I believe, more reverent than modern translations, including the Knox which is very paraphrastic and interpretive (so-called 'dynamic' translations which no one interested in theology or what God actually said really needs).
Pax.
The douay reims came before the king james so it wasnt copied from the king james.
duke rufus But the Douay-Rheims of today is the Challoner edition, which came after the King James and borrowed heavily from it. However, it’s still much better than anything coming out today.
The language of the King James Bible, as you put it, was merely high Elizabethan English, or Court English, as some prefer to term it. It was used for a lot of other things besides the King James Bible. Contrary to popular notion, the use of the 'thee', 'thou', 'thy', etc. and all of the corresponding verb inflections is not difficult to understand. One study even read parts of the King James to uneducated and stupid (probably IQ's below 80) people. They could easily understand what the KJV was saying. In fact, these inflections are actually helpful in arriving at the proper understanding of many passages. The Church did not choose to use Elizabethan-like English just to to make their translation like the King James version. (Honestly, you believe that this would have been an influencing factor for Douay-Rheims given the times.) No, they did it because that language conveyed meaning and was considered beautiful and fitting for use in an English Bible translation. It is ironic that in both the Catholic Church and in heretical Protestantism, Modernists used the same arguments against King-James-like English to campaign for "newer" translations of the Bible. Or course, there real problem was not with the style of the English; they merely wanted an opportunity to weaken certain clear statements in Scripture. I'm certainly not saying the Archpb Sheen was a Modernist, but in this he was, as many others, influenced by Modernist propaganda. The King-James-like language does, in cases, pose mild difficulties, but certainly not enough to justify an new translation.
Yes, the Protestant King James was created by heretics, but it stands out in English literature as a gem of Elizabethan English. Most Protestant translations of the Bible are pretty bad, constantly introducing hard-to-justify, anti-Catholic twists in their translation. The King James itself has a few choice examples of anti-Catholic axe grinding in its text. One choice example: "Hail, full of grace ..." was translated "Hail, thou who art highly favoured ..." This translation, or course, has no justification in any Latin or Greek text of the NT; the King James translators clearly didn't want to translate the Angelic Salutation properly due to their heretical understanding of Mary. Even so, as Protestant Bible translations go, the King James is not all that bad. Most of the newer Protestant translations are far, far worse, both in technical terms and in terms of anti-Christian bias. The Kings James also suffers from poor textual sources in several places, something the the King James translators themselves were well aware of.
if the douay rheims is so good....why does the catholic church use the NASB? Personally i like the Douay Rheims...but when i spoke to the priest of my local parish he had no idea what was even in the Douay Rheims...dudes like 69 years old.
Possibly you will get a different answer -- on this and many other important topics -- from a traditional priest. God bless you. sspx.org/en/mass-locator
The Priest at my local parish uses Douay Rheims for the Sermon. He is more traditional though.
@Sebat Hadah, NASB is a protestant Bible. Get your facts right. Catholic Church uses Douay Rheims Bible, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, Revised New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible Revised Edtion.
You are confusing the Protestant New American Standard bible with the "Catholic" Revised New American Bible. Too bad the former does not have the Deuterocanon, because it's actual better than the latter.
It doesn't use the NASB. It uses the NAB Bible.
What about the Hebrew Bible? Many can read the Hebrew Bible in it's original language. If you just spend a little time every day you can learn how to read it in the original language in a reasonable amount of time. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we know the modern Hebrew Bible is about 99% accurate and any discrepancies are due to the fact the Dead Sea scrolls were possessed by a sect called the Essenes and some fragments were either destroyed or not not found, e.g. the Book of Esther. Try Hebrew. It's literally the language G-d spoke to Moses in. Read the original.
Was this priest sspx?
No, Father Gruner was a diocesan priest whose full-time work was directing Our Lady's Apostolate, "The Fatima Center." God bless you.
The Fatima Center o wow!!! Was not even expecting a response from the video so soon. Thank you for letting me know. I actually ordered the Douay Rheim Bible. I will be getting it soon. Thank you for the video! God Bless!
What about the King James Version?
Of course Catholics will desire (as they are obliged in conscience) to use a Catholic rather than a Protestant version of the Bible.
Protestants removed certain books from the Bible. The books were removed because they reinforced Catholic teachings and they did not want this. What is there, in the KJV though, is very good.
Besides omitting whole books, Protestant Bibles contain many -- oftentimes deliberate -- mistranslations. While the KJV may not be notoriously offensive in this regard, it nevertheless contains its share of anti-Catholic prejudice (such as in translating the angel's salutation to the Blessed Virgin Mary with the words "highly favoured" rather than "full of grace").
ah yes - and Genesis 3:15
Missing 7 books
With the experience of 40 years of teaching in Asia, US, Pacific and New Zealand, I agree with most of the credible Bible teachers of today, the New Revised Standard Version is the best one currently for teaching.
Be careful with the RSV translation, it deletes words and passages,i.e. Matthew 17: 21 it deletes "and fasting." AND Mk 9:29, again it deletes "and fasting" and in Luke 1:28 they have it rendered,"Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you," when in fact it should be,"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you." And in Genesis 3:15 should read,"she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." You see how the RSV and NAB and KJV bibles all change the significance of Mary and her role in salvation.
The RSV is a modern rendition of the KJV and for that reason I think it is flawed as a basis for a Catholic Bible.
@@carltonpoindexter2034 I hate that most modern "Catholic" bibles are based on the RSV which is just another name for the KJV.
@@jaqian Yes, I use the Rheims-Douay and the Confraternity edition, now out of print, and the closest to the Vulgate. You can used copies. I found a 1942 edition with the pre-modernist footnotes. You can get used ones on Amazon.
The NRSV is problematic. It is far more free than the RSV, and, if that weren't bad enough, it is heavy on gender-inclusive language. If you find the D-R to be a bit obscure in some parts - remember, Jerome's original Vulgate is no longer extant, and was copied thousands of times throughout the centuries, and there are differences among the multitude of copies - then you're better off using the RSV-CE, but, please, do not fool yourself into thinking the NRSV is the best for ANYTHING.
St. Jerome was a holy man, but not a great scholar. (1) He was totally taken in by the Masoretic text, a version of the Hebrew Scriptures that had constructed by apostate Jews hundreds of years after the coming of Christ. In fact, the real truth to come out of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that these apostate Jews had indeed tampered with the Hebrew text in ways that were unfavorable to the Church. (One example, from Isaiah, where the Jews substituted the Hebrew word for "young woman" for the word 'virgin' in a prophetic passage referring to Mary.) (2) St. Jerome also did not understand what the Hexapla was, and as a result, Jerome totally discounted the Septuagint as a reliable source of the OT scriptures. Jerome wrongly claimed that the Septuagint could not be trusted in that the Hexapla made it clear that their were multiple divergent versions of the Septuagint. But this was only partially true. Origin created the Hexapla to demonstrate that apostate Jews (and Christian heretics) were tampering with the accepted text of the Septuagint, twisting things to support their errors. The first column of the Hexapla was the true, accepted version of the Septuagint. The NT authors presumably had full access to both the Hebrew and the Septuagint, and yet, they chose to quote OT scripture from the Septuagint most of the time. St. Jerome's scholarship was so bad here that it continued it even influenced the textual choices of Protestant heretics centuries down the road, who also discounted the Septuagint in their translations using St. Jerome's erroneous statements as their justification. Although it sometime appears otherwise, the Church does not canonize saints because of their scholarship but because of their personal holiness.
This whole comment is just a big unjustified rant against St Jerome...
@@cr1513 Sorry, I'm not even sure what you're talking about. None of what I said has anything to do with a Counsel of Jamnia, or any other counsel for that matter. What I said is based upon St. Jerome's own words and actions regarding his acceptance of the flawed Masoretic text.
The primary point is that St. Jerome was totally fooled by the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament. The Masoretic Hebrew is not an authentic representation of the ancient Hebrew scriptures; it was a reconstruction which the authors claimed was based upon "oral tradition." This reconstruction took place hundreds of years after the coming of Christ, without access to any known Hebrew text. Up until the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls (in modern times), it was believed that all copies of the ancient Hebrew Text were lost during the times when the Romans sacked Jerusalem. Indeed, Hebrew was not widely used by Israelites of the Diaspora. Most Jews of the Diaspora lived in Hellenistic cultures. They did not speak Hebrew nor is there any evidence that they even studied Hebrew. They used the Septuagint (aka, the LXX, a translation of the Hebrew into Greek) in their synagogues.
Most, about 80% of the quotations from the Hebrew scriptures that appear in the New Testament are taken from the Septuagint. Of the remaining 20%, about 10% are taken from the Hebrew, the rest could go either way.
The point being that even the New Testament authors primarily quoted the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. St. Jerome had a copy of the Septuagint in the form of the first column of the Hexapla, but chose to use the questionable Masoretic Hebrew instead. St. Jerome's very comments on the subject make it very clear that he did not understand what the Hexapla was or why it had been created in the first place.
Actually, this is just the worst cast of St. Jerome's poor scholarship. Also -- and this is not at all difficult to verify should you care to -- the Church does not selects saints for their worldly deeds, but quite specifically, for their spiritual characteristics and spiritual works. St. Jerome would have been made a saint even he had never produced a single word of translation. Even most books written by saints do not have Magisterial authority.
@@Wen-ve8nx Did the Masoretic text even exist in Jerome's lifetime? Every source I can find says it began to be assembled during the 6th century.
I own a red letter Douay-Rheims Bible.