I Read the Douay Rheims Bible - Is It Good?

I took on a challenge to read the Douay Rheims in six months. I’ve always wanted to read a translation based on the Latin Vulgate and I had a choice between the Knox and the Douay. In the end the Douay won out. So how was it? Check out this video to find out. If you want a nice copy of a Douay Rheims Bible, check out Baronius Press, they have three size options.
www.baronius.com/douay-rheims...
Regular Size Review:
• Douay-Rheims, Standard...
Large Size Review:
• Baronius Press - Douay...
Apocrypha Reading Experience:
• I Read the Catholic De...

[@ronanjm]

I really appreciate that even though you’re Protestant and don’t seem to have any plans of conversion, you give Catholic Bibles and the Deuterocanon a fair shake and don’t insert your own theology into honest reviews of Bibles and translations. Respect to you and Glory to Christ.

[@odessaxmusicclips6028]

Well said. I agree.

[@DiesIstNichtEinstein]

To see you give the Douay-Rheims a fair shake sparks much joy. For centuries before the explosion in Bible translations this was *the* singular English version for Anglophone Catholics, the equivalent of the Authorized Version used by the Reformed groups. I will also admit to personal bias as this topic is near and dear to me - I have the very Bible you recommend in the description on my bedside table.

[@Rev.DavidJTowns]

i admire your bravery to speak up about things that matter to you, and showing no fear in reviewing different translations. GOD Bless

[@LNR65]

I’ve found the Douay Rheims to be the most “mystical” of all the Bible translations I’ve so far read. Considering it is also the only Pre-Schism translation ever commissioned as well as it being a translation from an actual Saint also lends to it credence. It could actually be considered the only translation true to the Early Church that was still united as the Latin Vulgate is both Pre-Schism and Pre-Protestant Reformation.

[@adolphCat]

How is that considering the innovative nature of St. Jerome's translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew and not as the early Church from the Septuagint?

[@LNR65]

@@adolphCatThe early Church used the Septuagint, but the only translation made by the Church is the Douay Rheims. The Latin Vulgate is also the only translation made by a Saint of the Church both East and West.

[@adolphCat]

@@LNR65 Really, have you ever even talked to Christians from other areas of the World. I have actually traveled to other parts of the World. Sorry, many parts of the Church never adapted or read the Latin Vulgate. The Church is way bigger than Western Europe. Did you ever hear about Sts. Cyril and Methodius they made a Translation of the Bible for the Slavic Nations not based on the Latin Vulgate.

[@LNR65]

@@adolphCatThey didn't translate the full Bible to include the Old and New Testaments and Apocrypha as St Jerome did.

[@adolphCat]

@@LNR65 Different Churches had from the beginning Different Old Testament Canons. What is the point? Some having more books others less books. Many geographical regions of the Church never adapted St. Jerome's Translation and are entirely unfamiliar with it. Latin is mostly confined to Western Europe and parts of Africa. Christians have been form the beginning speakers of many languages. Some Churches in the Middle East still speak Aramaic and use Aramaic as a Liturgical Language. The Church is way bigger than Western Europe that you seem fixated upon. Travel learn speak to Christians from different parts of the World. And you know what they also have Saints even if they are not know in the West. Christianity is not a Western Religion and for many centuries the vast majority of Christians didn't speak Latin and didn't live in the West.

[@-GodIsMyJudge-]

One of the things (amongst many) that I love about the original 1609 Douay-Rheims is that every time the word "messiah", "The LORD's annointed", or any other variation occurs in the OT the word is translated as Christ. Making it considerably easier to see the typological foreshadowings of Jesus that prefigure His incarnation. That being said, I also really enjoy the Challoner Revision because it adopts a lot of the wording/phrasing from the Authorized King James (which I can't help but love for it's poetic and powerful use of the English language).

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

For viewers, it is good to remember that the Rheims-Douay version was translated and edited by Catholics in exile who were under threat of death in England, as were all Catholics. As well, "apocrypha" is a pejorative that was assigned to the scriptures by "reformers" - chief among whom was Martin Luther who simply did not like the theology in the books and downgraded them on his own perceived authority. Saint Jerome initially resisted them, but later came to embrace them and quoted from them. The Catholic AND Orthodox churches have ALWAYS used those books, as did observant Jews before Christ. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, which means "Church" or "Assembly" book., which is a hint as to its pre-Christian use.

[@justin_messer]

It should be remembered that this is the 1899 American revision. The Catholic Bishop’s conference wanted a version of the Douay Rheims that conformed to American spelling standards of the turn of the last century.

[@IzakD8]

The Church still uses the word neophyte to this day. We call anyone who is a newly baptized convert to the faith a neophyte. I learned that when I was converting to Catholicism in RCIA in 2021.

[@howardslayton1151]

It almost sounds like a Mormon term.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Ha ha. You are thinking of Nephi.

[@edr8082]

Also note that when Bathsheba went to speak to King Solomon it reads He bowed to her and she was brought a Throne and then he sat on his throne. Today’s rendering is she is given a chair. But it was originally always a throne. As the mother of the king she was Queen mother. As with Solomon he had several wives and only 1 mother. Thus the mother was the Queen and trusted advisor to the king.

[@rosalynforte509]

Hi Tim. Just to let you know, if you didn’t already, but with Moses referral to the ‘horns’, Michelangelo’s marble sculpture of Moses , Moses has horns coming out of his head. Just thought I’d mention that. Love your Bible reviews. I have several different publications of the Douay-Rheims Bible and yesterday I watched your review of the Loreto Publication. I was so impressed with your review and especially the large font and the artwork, I ordered it from Amazon, and it arrived in the mail today. One day shipment. And I LOVE this Loreto Publication. Thanks again for the great reviews. God bless! 💜✝️✡️🙏🏻😊

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Yes! I’ve seen that statue! It’s wild. I’m so glad you are happy with your Loreto. It’s a great edition.

[@mancal5829]

As a Catholic, I find the use of the word "holocaust" perfectly fine to mean sacrifice. My mind does not go directly to the happenings around WWII.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I can respect that. But for most of us, we have it get used to it.

[@mancal5829]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I understand. It's probably because Protestants do not use it and it's not in some English Bible translations, such as the KJV. I have heard it all my life, within a religious context, so that is why it is not strange to me. God bless!

[@gilbertculloden87]

Good review as usual! I would add for those interested that the 1754 Challoner Douay Rheims (ie the one that most Catholics use) was practically a new translation compared to the 1582 Rheims NT and the 1610 Douay OT. Challoner shifted the text closer to the KJV every chance he got. For instance from Revelation: Rev. 1:15 (Rheims 1582): and his feet like to latten, as in a burning furnace. And his voice as of many waters. Rev. 1:15 (KJV 1611): And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. Rev: 1:15 (Challoner DR 1754): And his feet like unto fine brass, as in a burning furnace. And his voice as the sound of many waters. I just chose a verse at random to illustrate, but you can see how every change Challoner introduced pushed it closer to the KJV I haven't read either the Challoner Douay Rheims or the 1582 Rheims New Testament all the way through yet, but both are interesting to look through from time to time. However, be warned that the 1582 Rheims New Testament has extremely harsh notes about Protestants (though good citations to church fathers)

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I’d like to own a copy of the original DR. But I don’t see any in print or even for sale.

[@markkromer1238]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I think there's.pdf online

[@redsorgum]

I found one in mint condition for a few dollars at my library used book store. It's a smoother read than the Douay Rheims.

[@MrJDadBlack]

I love this channel and I love Holy Scripture! I wanted to share that the translation relating to Moses being horn with the glory of God isn’t a mistake, it actually does hold significance to the meaning of what God’s “horn” or “horns” means, especially to ancient Jewish custom. A “horn” is also seen as what is used or formed as a part of a shepherd’s rook, it is a weapon used by a shepherd to defend his sheep against enemies and predators. Moses is a messianic figure in salvation history, he is a "shepherd" of Gods people, "the Jews." So either translation is correct; only one is more detailed as to the image of Moses authority given him by God over the Jews. He is the one leading the Lords flock through the desert, etc. Thank you for loving Gods Word, and enlightening us to the various joys of Holy Scripture! May the Lord bless you!

[@g.esquibel2709]

Gotta love the double Amens! --“Amen, amen, I say unto you: He that believeth in me hath everlasting life.”

[@g.esquibel2709]

Just one more😊-“Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM.” Looking forward to your revue!

[@richarddunn9286]

As someone who was very curious about translation differences in the douay rheims, thank you for the comprehensive commentary!

[@LBCBrandon]

Great info as always! Thanks for sharing your experience. This one’s a bit further down the list for me, but I’ll get there eventually!

[@mikehoward455]

Excellent information, thank you Tim.

[@SearchingTheArchives]

Great video - I try to also point out certain peculiarities and insights from the Douay Rheims (and it's wonderful notes) in my videos. God bless you Tim

[@cardbunny4317]

We appreciate this review.. we have used Haydock Douay Rheims for many years along with our other translations NLT, ESV, CSB, NRVSCE

[@nikolaysoviet]

The Book of Tobit chapter 6 : verses 20 21 22 The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) ? DOESN'T HAVE these verses . why? .

[@-GodIsMyJudge-]

Is your Haydock Douay-Rheims one of the modern reproductions or an antique copy? I've been seriously contemplating snagging one of the large tooled leather editions from the mid 1800s but sadly there aren't many on the market.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

While it doesn’t have all the artwork, it is a copy of an older edition. I can’t say exactly which one, but it has all the commentary and notes and such.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

By the way I’ve done a couple reviews of it where you can see several details if you want to look it up.

[@cardbunny4317]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews thank you so much …we will watch

[@jamestrotter3162]

Since Jerome was using the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of his day to translate into Latin, those manuscripts likely would have been closer to the autographs from the first century. Is it possible that because of this, his translation into Latin might contain some words that might not be found in later handwritten manuscripts from the Hebrew and Greek? Just speculating.

[@petercooleman2480]

It’s less speculative then you think, that is the case. The question ofcourse being which are of that nature. Then there is the setting, common understanding of someone of his station in that era, his particular nature, etc. These days quite a niche undertaking but I’m quite sure it will come back

[@ericcerna4286]

Concupiscence is understood as an effect of original sin that remains after baptism. The waters of baptism cleanse us of original sin itself, but concupiscence remains as a lingering effect. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death … as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence” (No. 1264, emphasis in original).

[@brendaboykin3281]

Thank you, Brother Tim 🌹🌹🌹🌹

[@djlclopez128]

Thanks for your review! I've always wondered about this translation and now I feel more confident that I'll enjoy it! Personally, I have really been enjoying the CSB lately. I feel that it's not too different from the ESV and it's very easy to understand while you're reading. I also recently got the NLT but I am really struggling with it. The NLT takes away ALL elegant language and really dumbs down the Bible, it actually makes it more difficult to get the verses in my head. Many times I find myself looking into one of my formal translations for real clarification on certain sections and the NLT adds extra words into verses that kind of stretch out the meaning. I'm still trying, because I want to read through each translation but man it's VERY difficult with the NLT.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

The NLT is about as close to the line of paraphrased as you can get while still being a translation. It has its place, but I prefer a more formal translation.

[@duke927]

You are very Ecumenical. It is much appreciated. I enjoy your reviews. Thank you. FYI Most Bibles came with the Douay-Challoner OT and the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine revisions of the Vulgate New Testament (1941) prior to the publication of the NAB completed in 1970. After about 1965 some of the OT had been translated by the Confraternity. The translation was completed in 1969 but the excellent Vulgate translations was abandoned to the Masoretic texts, Greek, maybe some other sources for the NAB (inflicted with the Historical-Critical method and with modernist unfaithful commentary in my opinion). My mother gave me a Bible in 1963 when I was 12 or 13 (which I still have and use). The OT was the Douay-Challoner and the NT was confraternity. Thank You again.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I have one of the ones with the Confraternity New Testament. I wouldn’t exactly consider myself ecumenical. I’m clearly Protestant. I just don’t see the purpose of using video reviews to be combative.

[@duke927]

I understand and agree but you are very even handed and seem to like some of these non Protestant bibles take care:)

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I do really enjoy them!

[@duke927]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I know this is three months old. But the Apocrypha aka the Deuterocanonical books which is 11 extra books in the OT was a part of the KJV for about a hundred years until the anti-Catholic influences had them taken out. I do like Baruch (Ecclesiasticus) and Wisdom. I recommend to all my mostly Baptist friends to read 1st Maccabees. Which is to me a treatise on how a tyrannical ruler can cause much suffering and pain and there really is nothing new under the sun. Thank You:)

[@odessaxmusicclips6028]

Can't wait to hear what you have to say about this amazing translation which came out just before the KJV 1611. In my opinion, it is the best translation out there. All 73 books too.

[@lynnscott162]

The apocrypha were not accepted by the Jews, to whom the sacred scriptures were entrusted. Jesus and the disciples never quoted from them . Jesus said his church was founded on the 12 apostles. Their writings were accepted and circulated. The apocrypha were not. Those extra books were added later to justify practices related to Mary , alms giving for the dead and praying for the dead. Ravenous wolves secretly introducing heresies… You know there is a curse on those who add to or take away from Gods word? And now it’s not even another book, it’s been added right up in the sacred scriptures as if it also is the inspired word of God! Do you know what Apocrypha means? It means questionable. Questionable content or origin. There are historical and geographical errors, and the content sometimes contradicts biblical doctrine. Not on par with scripture at all.

[@odessaxmusicclips6028]

@@lynnscott162 Maybe you should read MATHEW 23:37, LUKE 13:34 - quoting 2 ESDRAS 1:30 , also, Jesus didn't quote from many books from the old testament, does that mean they are irrelevant? ALSO the "Apocrypha" ( Deuterocanonical books ) were finally removed in 1820 by protestants because they backed up Catholic dogma ( So you actually had these books in your Bibles for almost 400 years! ) ... Dogma specifically about praying to and for the dead in 2 MACCABEES 12:45 for example.

[@t.d6379]

​@@lynnscott162shallow historical understanding, not surprising at all.

[@pmlm1571]

@@lynnscott162 That's amazing! Every single example you give is false: the opposite is true in each case. Wow. Maybe read outside your comfort zone on the Deuterocanonicals.

[@mts0628]

Most Catholics have never heard of the word concupiscence either unless they are Traditional and [we] hear it during a homily. A lot! The sin of pride and the sin of concupiscence is what has led the world to where we are today. God Bless!

[@fr.johnwhiteford6194]

I believe the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims incorporated many KJV renderings, in order to improve the beauty of the text.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Possible. I’d really like to get an original.

[@Hild1]

I love the Douay Rheims version, though the commas are unusual for me, especially as primarily German speaking reader.

[@wildhunt3302]

The Textus Receptus wasn’t completed when the kjv was being translated so the translators pulled from other sources, one of which was the Douay Rheims.

[@t.d6379]

St. JEROME knew what he was doing and knew The Holy Church that Jesus established here on earth. The history behind the DRB is just incredible, during the persecution and times of the English Martyrs! Thank you.

[@R6FTW59]

Great video 👍🙏🙌

[@cherylschalk9106]

The Challoner Douay Rheims is my favorite Bible.

[@Mark3ABE]

Translations from the Vulgate are interesting. St. Jerome did not always get it exactly right. For example, when the Philistines stole the Ark of the Covenant, they were visited with plagues. St. Jerome translated these plagues as “haemorrhoids and mice”. However, the original Hebrew probably referred to “buboes” (the swellings in the groin caused by the bubonic plague) and rats (the Hebrew word for rat is the same as that for mice). In his own translation from the Vulgate, Monsignor Knox adds in his footnote that the Vulgate is probably wrong, since the Philistines would not have been so badly afflicted if they were only suffering from haemorrhoids. What is interesting, from an historical point of view, is that the translators of the King James Bible chose to translate the Hebrew in exactly the same way as St. Jerome had done, even though they must have known that the better translation would have been bubonic plague and rats. The reason that they would have done so would have been that the Vulgate had been in use for over a thousand years and they would have considered that it might cause a scandal if they translated a passage which was so well known to the Faithful in a different way. However, what is interesting is that, if they had translated the passage correctly by reference to the Hebrew, then, when there was the next outbreak of bubonic plague, those reading their translation might, finally, have worked out that bubonic plague and rats went together. When there was an outbreak of bubonic plague, the authorities adopted the policy of “shutting up of houses” so that everyone, both healthy and infected, in the house when a case occurred was locked in with a constable at the door to prevent anyone from leaving. However, this achieved nothing, since the rats, which carried the plague, could still come and go! If the Biblical passage had been correctly translated by the King James translators, then the authorities might have taken action to eradicate the rats which spread the plague.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

@@Mark3ABE thanks for this comment! Really enjoyed it.

[@AmericanShia786]

The DR translation has historic value for. I read it along with KJV and ESV, since all three have a translation of the Apocrypha. Being raised Roman Catholic, I had read the Apocryphal long before going back to Church in the mid 1980s at a Charismatic Pentecostal Holiness Church. 1st Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach I read every year along with the canonical Bible. Anglicans and Lutherans do that as well. All and all, these several videos you made on Catholic Bible are quite good. You always manage to impart quite a bit of information clearly in just a few minutes. Excellent work!

[@AmericanShia786]

Please forgive the bad grammar. I neglected to proofread before adding the comment.

[@capybarapullup1233]

become catholic

[@t.d6379]

No such thing as a Catholic Bible, its just The Bible. Protestant Bible is a thing as they removed 6 books due to the traditions of men.

[@MycoKing]

I was brought up on the Douay-Rheims. I clearly remember the black and white illustrations.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Yes, the artwork in the center between the testaments is very nice!

[@deeman524]

Good Job! Thanks!

[@liamciappara7070]

I try read it yet sometimes as a developing mind in Christ I struggle to read the douey rheims version, I shall try!

[@computron808]

I`ve heard the King james authors borrowed,some words and phrases,from the Douay Rhiems Bible..

[@pmlm1571]

Yes, the KJV translators had, first, the DR whole New Testament in English in front of them for years; and, second the DR Old Testament in English too, one year before they got the first KJV out.

[@ISayToMyself]

Very interesting. Thank you for posting this.

[@woogy1131]

I personally love the Douay- Rheims.

[@johnenglish4652]

I have the Baronius Press version somewhere - I read some of it, but didn't particularly like it. I think that some of the Apocryphal readings, when published for RC guys are woven into the books the RCs believe they were originally part of. For instance, I think "The four young men"(not sure of that title) is actually a part of Daniel in the OT, in RC Bibles. Thanks for the video - interesting.

[@RayNewmanPMP]

In the Old Testament sacrifices were eaten in a communal meal. A few sacrifices were fully consumed by fire - these sacrifices are known as holocausts. Because of Original Sin we suffer from weakness in our will, intellect, and passions and are inclined to sin. This inclination to sin is called concupiscence. Hope this helps!

[@jamestrotter3162]

Another point to consider. 1st John 5:7, which is not in nearly all modern Bibles, because it's claimed that it isn't in the earliest Greek manuscripts, is in the Douay Rheims as well as the KJV and translations based on the Textus Receptus. I'm not disputing that it isn't found in most all Greek manuscripts except for some much later copies. I can understand why that might apply to the KJV and the Textus Receptus, but for Jerome to include it in his Latin translation seems to indicate that it might have been in the Greek manuscripts of his day, unless he actually didn't include it in the Latin, and maybe it was added in later editions? I'm just asking.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I noticed this about several supposed disputed passages. It lends great credibly to the TR.

[@cooltaylor1015]

I annotate my bibles with a ballpoint pen(occasionally pencil) and a light colored highlighter.

[@djlclopez128]

Also, would you possibly consider doing a review of the ESV Reformation Study Bible? They look very beautiful but I am just not sure what to think, thank you!

[@djlclopez128]

Also! Humble Lamb has a Kickstarter right now for a new NASB Bible called HISTORY study Bible! You should check it out, you'd be one of the first ones to review it! God bless!

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I review for Humble Lamb so I’ll be reviewing that one.

[@charjohnnyo3655]

Thank you for video. It's great to see all translations continue to properly translate God's word.

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

King James Bible is translated from the MT and not the Greek Septuagint. It has all the errors Present in the current Masoretic Text which is absent in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

😏

[@t.d6379]

Very true.

[@scottelliott6491]

Much of the rendering of phrases is directly from Tyndale

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I have no reason to doubt you.

[@RENALDO.]

You're right the Douay rheims/challoner revision, does read a little like the 1611 KJV. Bishop Challoner wanted to move the revision as close to the 1611 as the Latin would allow. 📖👍🏼

[@lynnscott162]

Why even use a translation based on another translation done in a hurry by one man who according to historians was a poor translator, although that’s all they had! Today we have scholars trained in the original languages. Teams of usually 100 meet, discuss, hash out the most accurate translation for our time in words common to use. Enjoy the old cumbersome translation for a hobby. But why not avail yourself of one of the many new translations for your daily use ? You know, horse and buggy vs comfy ride with air conditioning🥰

[@RENALDO.]

I hear ya, I do have modern translations that I use daily and scholars do help with there translations. But they also miss things. For example: "Amen, Amen." is said by Jesus 25 times in the gospel of John? When Jesus said "Amen, Amen." it was, * "a certain oath of His." It meant that whatever Jesus said after that oath, was not symbolic, not a parable, but a statement of truth that needed to be clearly heard and understood by the disciples. A truth so strong it sent many of his disciples away leaving only the 12 (John 6:66-67). "Amen, Amen" was never translated from the Hebrew to: the Greek or the Latin or the English tongue. It was purposely kept "Amen, Amen." * "so it might be the more esteemed" Scholars miss that and now instead you have: "truly, truly" or "truly" or "verily, verily", etc . . Its literally correct, but it's not what Jesus said; what Jesus said was "Amen, Amen." Its things like that, the faithfulness, the piety that you will only find in the old translations. Sorry about the long reply, I couldn't make it any shorter 🙂 * the two quotes are taken from 1582 douay rheims, in the annotations for chapter 8:34

[@MM-jf1me]

​@@RENALDO.That's very interesting; I didn't know that. Thank you for sharing your long comment!

[@computron808]

what brand makes the larger font Bible ? This is my favorite version !!!

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I mentioned the large print in this video. Baronius Press has one, but its a big one.

[@computron808]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews thank u !!!

[@nikolaysoviet]

The Book of Tobit chapter 6 : verses 20 21 22 The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) ? DOESN'T HAVE these verses . why? .

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

No idea. I am not familiar with the New Jerusalem Bible.

[@terrysbookandbiblereviews]

I would like to read the Douay Rheims someday.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

It was a goal of mine for years! I am really glad to have this feather under my cap!

[@amptown1]

You and me both! It's so cool how he reads the different translations

[@thechampvc]

How do you compare it to the KJV since their so close in age?

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Mostly similar, but where it’s different it’s DIFFERENT.

[@woogy1131]

Esther has 16 chapters in D-R. Not 3 or 10 like KJV or St Joseph's bibles.

[@mj-gb6tr]

Which edition is that top one? Doesn’t look like baronius press?

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

It is. I had it rebound by ICA Bibles.

[@binyamin3716]

You must check out the unrevised duoay rheims

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I have a copy now.

[@MM-jf1me]

​@@anickelsworthbiblereviewsI'm curious what your thoughts are on it once you've finished reading through it.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

That’s gonna take a while. Ha.

[@lynnscott162]

How did Gen 3:15 read? “____ shall bruise your head And you shall bruise his heel.” Other Bibles have “he” Douey-Rheims used “she”.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I forgot to address that one. Strange rendering.

[@DiesIstNichtEinstein]

The existing Hebrew text has masculine pronouns and verb form (where the seed is being spoken of); the Greek has neuter/masculine (“autos”); the Latin textual and commentary traditions witness examples of both the neuter/masculine (“ipsum”) and the feminine (“ipsa”, where the woman is being spoken of). A notable and unusual outlier to this general trend is St Ephrem the Syrian, who seems to be aware enough of a feminine rendition of the verse in the Syriac to allude to it in one of his hymns on the Nativity (“The Lord said that He saw Satan fall from heaven. That accursed one had exalted himself but he was cast down from his high place. The foot of Mary trampled on him who had struck at Eve won her heel. Blessed is He, Our Lord Jesus Christ, who laid the devil low by His holy birth.”) Challoner’s note on the passage- “Ipsa”, the woman: so diverse of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin; others read it “ipsum”, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head. From Haydock’s commentary on the verse- The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus. Whether the Jewish editions ought to have more weight with Christians, or whether all the other manuscripts conspire against this reading, let others inquire. The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Septuagint agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and hence we may argue with probability, that the Septuagint and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin. We believe, however, with St. Epiphanius, that "it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure." We know that all the power of the mother of God is derived from the merits of her Son. We are no otherwise concerned about the retaining of ipsa, she, in this place, that in as much as we have yet no certain reason to suspect its being genuine. As some words have been corrected in the Vulgate since the Council of Trent by Sixtus V. and others, by Clement VIII. so, if, upon stricter search, it be found that it, and not she, is the true reading, we shall not hesitate to admit the correction: but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine.

[@Lothric.Knight]

Maybe i have x-ray vision but i see lots of ghosting thu them pages

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Camera always makes it worse than it is.

[@user-bv4sj2gq7g]

How about Gen 3:15?

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Yeah. That’s a wild one.

[@Dwayne_Green]

thats so funny! One of our congregants brought in an old Duey Reims bible from the 1800s and wanted me to take a look at, one of the first things I notices was its King Jamesish language.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I’d love to get my paws on an old edition.

[@kennethmcdonald9736]

The Douay removes scriptures. The KJV in Romans 11:6 reads "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." The Douay removes half of this from the bible, and the footnote goes even further by "explaining" we are saved by works if they are done by a Catholic.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

There’s definitely Catholic bias in a few places.

[@pmlm1571]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Please, why is this Catholic "bias"? I looked this verse up and find that many, most, bibles do not tack on the phrase present in the KJV-- "otherwise work is no more work." I expect this is a KJV addition coming from some variant being rejected by most translations. And a Catholic "bias" will be a 2000-year-old "bias." I'd like to see an example of a Catholic translation which significantly changes to another translation just because of protestantism. notes aside. But examples are rife of protestant translation choices which diverge from the Vulgate--the ancient Latin based on the most ancient Hebrew -- and amazingly the departures serve novel protestant doctrines. I enjoy your videos, having just discovered you, and am surprised and edified by how open you are to Catholic bibles and bible scholarship. I do think, with the Dead Sea Scrolls and other discoveries, also taking more account of the Samaritan Pentateuch, we are closer than ever to a faultless copy of the work of the biblical human authors. God bless you.

[@kevinohiggins3868]

Maybe read brenton's next :]

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Septuagint?

[@kevinohiggins3868]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews ye, since the Douay is Old-Timey Vulgate-based, I thought a Old-Timey Septuagint would be a good complement to it. Don't worry about doing it if you don't want to tho haha.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

@@kevinohiggins3868 I have a copy, I’ve used it for reference. It is a long term goal for sure.

[@ArchangelsBookClub]

Slime in the 1600s would have meant mud.

[@jamessheffield4173]

What about the Jerusalem Bible?

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

That one is currently not on my list but you never know.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Thanks. Blessings.

[@Mark3ABE]

@@jamessheffield4173 The Jerusalem Bible is a modern translation made from the original texts. It was made after English Catholics wanted a modern, readable, version of the Bible in “English” English (rather than in American English). The translators relied, to some extent, on the earlier French translation “Le Bible Jerusalem” for translating style. It has been used in the Lectionary in the English Church for about fifty years. In Advent this year it is to be retired and replaced by a new Lectionary using the ESV since the Jerusalem Bible does not comply with the norms for Biblical translation set out in 1943, by Cardinal Bea and approved by Pope Pius XII in Divono Afflante Spiritu (direct, literal, word for word translation from the original languages). For this reason, the Jerusalem Bible was never used for teaching and study purposes in the English Catholic Church. The RSV was used for these purposes - now replaced by the ESV.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@Mark3ABE Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?

[@Mark3ABE]

@@jamessheffield4173 I am not quite sure of your point. If you are saying that the Jerusalem translation is not the most reliable, then, of course, that is accepted by the Catholic Church in England, which has decided to retire it, for that reason. Currently, the ESV is considered by most Christians, of most denominations, to be the most reliable translation, so this is the translation which has been chosen to replace the Jerusalem translation. However, at the same time, the Catholic Church distinguishes between “theological error” and “critical error”. By “critical error” is meant the translation is not a literal, word for word, translation from the best of the available original manuscripts. By “theological error” is meant that the translation would mislead the reader in essential matters of faith and morals. All of the translations which have, in the past, been approved by the Catholic Church are considered to be free from theological error, so may still be read by the Faithful, if they wish.

[@SaneNoMore]

I appreciate you pointing out the oddities of the translation but the "Is it Good?" ... do you ever say it's not. You seem to think every translation is good, but I admit I haven't seen all your videos yet.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

What can I say, I’ve enjoyed every translation I’ve read so far. There are a couple translations I offer my criticisms, but so far I have enjoyed them all. I did make a video addressing my favorites and why, but it’s probably due an update.

[@lanbaode]

Catholics who love and promote the Douay-Rheims are not unlike the Protestants who are KJV-onlyists.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I wouldn’t know. I don’t have much interaction with them.

[@user-hy2du8fg6l]

The LORD's Prayer, Matthew 6:13 Doouay-Rheims 1899 And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen. Matthew 6:13 KJV And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. Let your Discernment be your guide to Bible accuracy. Enoch (Priest & Prophet)

[@RevDavidReyes]

Different base text

[@eternalhalloween1]

DOUAY RHEIMS ☘️ Love it. Just not the best. JERUSALEM (1966) 🔘 Ok. But overrated. GOOD NEWS (1966) 🤔 Great for beginners! RSV Catholic Ed. (1966) ✝️ My personal favorite! NEW AMERICAN (1970) 👺 Well, it will get the job done. NRSV (1989) 😒 This WOKE PC version should be burned! RSV Catholic 2nd Ed. (2006) ✝️ Surprisingly well done! Bravo!

[@alanhowe1455]

You could certainly evangelise a DR-using Roman Catholic by employing this Bible. But otherwise, my advice would be not to waste time reading it when there are so many better translations out there.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I cannot conceive it ever being a waste of time to read God’s Word. Reading various translations and traditions has been very rewarding for me as a man of faith and a pastor.

[@markmarley2556]

The word "evangelise" only occurs in English as it was brought into English usage from Latin by the DR bible. Another thing you can thank Catholics for.

[@alanhowe1455]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I agree to the extent that you - or I - have the discernment to tell whether this Roman Catholic translation from the Latin is entirely faithful - or not. However, I would definitely not recommend Christians in general to read it because there are far better translations out there, both old (KJV) and new (NKJV, ESV, etc). For example, Galatians 3:6 in the DR reads: 'As it is written: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.' Compare that rendering (which obscures the biblical teaching on justification by faith alone) with the KJV: ' Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' God bless you, though, brother.

[@alanhowe1455]

@@markmarley2556 Where does the DR Bible feature the word 'evangelise', please?

[@markmarley2556]

@@alanhowe1455 Luke 8:1.

[@SoldierofChrist9]

It's a corrupt bible ...

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I read it, and in have read 13 other translations. I saw a mistake or two, but I didn’t see corruption.

[@alanhowe1455]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews How do you react to the DR on Galatians 3:6? And how about Matthew 3:2: 'Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand'? ...when the proper translation is NOT 'do penance', but 'repent'. To 'do penance' is to perform an act or a set of actions out of repentance for sins committed, i.e. an outward show . Repentance is much more fundamental because it means a inner spiritual change of heart, turning away from sin and towards God. There is a fundamental difference between what the DR Bible teaches through mistranslation (thus propagating false Roman Catholic doctrine) and more faithful translations, of which there are many. Even the modern Roman Catholic translation, the NAB, knows that this is a deliberate mistranslation! If the DR version isn't a corruption of the original, I don't know what is! Modern Roman Catholic scholarship knows that this translation cannot stand and has corrected it accordingly because Bible translation has to begin with the original language, i.e. Greek, not Latin.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I meant to mention that. Hard to get everything in, in 5 minutes. It can mean repentance so I don’t have a huge issue with it.

[@alanhowe1455]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Hi Tim: if I may beg to differ - it's not that it can mean repentance. It *does* mean repentance, and doesn't mean penance, which is a concept alien to the the Bible. Now you and I, as experienced readers of Bibles, may be able to spot the problem, but I just don't think it's sensible to recommend the DR to the unwary or undiscerning.

[@markstinnett6970]

@@alanhowe1455 Good catch. That is a very real criticism of the DRB. It would appear that Jerome, in the translation of the Vulgate, was introducing into the text the doctrine of penance, instead of preserving a more accurate translation. Even our English word 'repentance' has multiple meaning (according to Webster) choices which can make the doctrine of repentance confusing to the average reader. The literal meaning of the Greek text is 'change of mind,' or 'change of perception.' That is a rather significant difference when compared to 'penance.'

[@tomoth77]

This a translation of a translation. Never a good idea. No modern bible does that.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

This is a translation of a very ancient translation. Technically every bible at least references the Vulgate and the Septuagint.

[@WantedArgonianMale]

The Latin Vulgate was declared the official Latin Bible at the Council of Trent