The Douay-Rheims Bible, a Reproduction of the 1899 Edition of John Murphy Company

[@RGrantJones]

In fairness, I should add some examples that show the Douay-Rheims in agreement with the modern "New Age" versions. In addition to Matthew 6.13 (when it omits the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer), the Douay-Rheims concurs with the Westcott & Hort tradition in Matthew 19.17 ("Why askest thou me concerning good?") and in Luke 2.14 ("peace to men of good will").

[@stanfordespedal9251]

Re Luke 2:14 - "Peace to men of good will" reflects the Vulgate / Alexandrian text, though I prefer the Byzantine reading and the KJV translation here. Here's the problem with the Douay rendering, as I see it. The genitive case, in both Greek and Latin, is often used in an adjectival way, and that sense fits best here, understanding bona voluntatis as signifying favor, as the Latin - like the Greek efthokia[s] - allows. Hence I would like to propose a rendering of the genitive reading of this text as follows Christ is our peace (Eph. 2:14) and Adam's race is favored above all by the incarnation of the Son. Unfortunately the literalistic character of the Douay - both 1582 & 1752 - suggests the idea that God's "Shalom" is restricted only to those who have good will. The problem is not in the Latin, but in the English, because we have lost an adjectival use for the genitive 'of'. Have you considered doing an episode on the Knox Version, republished by Baronius Press in 2012?

[@FernandoSerna1654]

@@stanfordespedal9251 What do you think of the Knox translation???

[@ultimouomo11]

@@stanfordespedal9251 The verse in question is not included in the oldest biblical manuscripts. We actually find the phrase in ancient Liturgical use as a short doxology (praise response) to the Lord’s Prayer. . It is likely that a scribe familiar with the liturgy added the doxology to Sacred Scripture while copying the Our Father passage, and it found its way into later translations of the Bible itself. So, it seems that English Protestants unwittingly kept a traditional Catholic prayer in their Bible. *Nothing Wrong with That!*

[@abhishekconstantinewinches9907]

R. Grant Jones, Douay Rheims Bible is english translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible, which was published in 405 AD. There were no Westcott and Hort kind of textual critism in those times.

[@MouseCheese2010]

For anyone interested in a Douay Rheims Bible, I'd recommend the one published by Baronius Press. It's a complete retypset using the same font and layout as the 1899 edition so it's classic but also very crispy and clean. Its also line matched and all the original maps are digitally redrawn. My only complaint is that the leather edition is very stiff and feels kinda cheap. But it's also only around $50 brand new so for the price it's not bad at all

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the recommendation, Gengar. Baronius Press also publishes the Knox translation, don't they? Do you have a copy? If so, what do you think of it? I've heard good things about the quality of the translation, but I don't know much about the paper, printing, and binding.

[@MouseCheese2010]

R. Grant Jones I don't own a Knox Bible but I'd suspect the quality would be very similar to their Douay Rheims. I have their printing from 2008 and besides the stiff leather, the quality is pretty good. The spine is sewn and the paper is nice and not too thin. The printing is a little light however and almost looks like the letters are a dark grey instead of black. Again, my printing is from 2008 so their printing methods may have have changed since then. They also have sample pages on the Baronius website of their Knox and DB bibles to look at layout.

[@SpritMatterMan]

I purchased Baronius Press: The Holy Bible Douay-Rheims Version with the Biblia Sacra Just Vulgatam Clementinam. It is a beautiful bible with the Douay Reims on one page and on the opposite page the Just Vulgatam Clementinam. It is fantastic to compare the English with the Latin, I do admit I have a fondness for the Latin and it helps me at least to go deeper into the Greek. Much Love in the Lord.

[@RGrantJones]

@@seanwu3293 - I now have a copy of their Knox translation. I hope to post a review of it within the next few months. Thanks for commenting!

[@sandygrogg1203]

Gengar I need large print... I found large sized, but not large, or giant print. Any suggestions?

[@corym8358]

The most impressive thing about this presentation is that you still have your receipt from 1986.

[@joehinojosa8030]

I got a Baronius Press Douay. Love it. Like stepping into a Time Machine.

[@Tout-Le-Monde02]

You really have some unique bibles to review. Your channel is very unique. Great job!

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you!

[@t3knoman00]

Thank you for having this channel, I have found my faith coming full circle. As someone who came from catholic family. I must be grateful for Protestants denominations for inspiring me to return to Christ, overtime it led me right back to the Catholic Church and some of that is because of a channel like yours, saying "hey you know there is more books" which led me down along rabbit hole to long to explain. In fact even the most recent direct translation at least infers what what was originally said in Mathew 15:39, I'm talking NLT. Thank you go again.

[@craigmouldey2339]

I appreciate the verse comparisons you show.

[@raphaelamor]

Baronius Press, London has a much nicer Versions of the D-R. Bible, desk-top size and pocket sized Versions. 100% better than that cheap TAN one you reviewed. Thanks though for the superb Review.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks, raphaelamor. I hope viewers see your comment and take a look at the Baronius Press editions. I have their Knox Version, which I hope to review at some point.

[@FernandoSerna1654]

@@RGrantJones I would love to see a review of the Knox Bible. But while you get to that, may I ask your impressions of Knox's translation? Thanks for all of your fine work.

[@RGrantJones]

@@FernandoSerna1654 - Thank you for those kind words. Regarding Knox's translation, I haven't spent enough time with it to have impressions worth expressing.

[@acardnal]

Mr. Jones, can you provide me a link or reference to the "biblical translation continuum chart" that you used in this video or perhaps it was another video (RSV-2CE?). I've Googled for it but cannot locate that specific chart. Thanks.

[@mariaelenavillagomez4881]

Someone can answers what's the perfect bible for catholic version english approbation with vatican roman was signature please. Blesses you and thank you. I want to learn more.

[@djcorner7747]

Great review. FYI... 1. It is a glued binding. I own one or two of these. 2. Saint Benedict Press (who purchased TAN) still prints nice paperback, imitation leather and leather editions. (1935302027, 1935302051) Peace.

[@anthonylowder6687]

I just purchased the Douay Rheims Bible as the same one in the video however the preface is more up to date by the current publishers and doesn't have the preface as the one you have in the video

[@markwiygul6356]

Thank You for posting an excellent review of a Douay-Rheims Bible :-) Are there any pre-1750s, pre King James influence (pre Challoner Revision) versions available for the public to read?

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the kind comment, and for the question! There is this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4SbnY15bbCtgsU .

[@christinerosenquist7657]

Thank you for this review. It helps answer so many questions for me.

[@australiainfelix7307]

Excellent review. Well worth viewing. Thank you.

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

Tan Books did an amazing job with the 1989 version. The newest printing released this year now has red lettering.

[@manfredcaranci6234]

Mr Jones, near the end of your very fine video review you make mention of a document from the Council of Trent, which exalted the Latin Vulgate edition over any other Latin translations, as well as the then-current Hebrew/Greek manuscripts, some of which had not been well preserved. I do concur that what was proclaimed by the Council in 1563 should still be true today. However, Pius XII's encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) states: "21. And if the Tridentine Synod wished "that all should use as authentic" the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which "had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church." Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical." I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation of this statement.

[@geraldparker8125]

I have the original edition from which TAN reprinted this Bible. (I have TAN's hardbound reprint, too.) The original binding was not really all that attractive, but it has held up to use, despite paper inferior to the TAN reprint. The TAN paperback reprint of this Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible is one that I own also and it really is sturdy and attractive, so far as paperback Bibles go.

[@geraldparker8125]

In addition to TAN's reprints and the original edition from which TAN reprinted this Challoner Bible, I also have the Catholic Truth Society's edition, measuring small in size but very pudgy in depth, of the Douay-Rheims-Challner Bible. There are numerous small differences in wording from what was current in the U. S. of A. and in Canada. I like both very much, but I rather prefer the North American text that TAN reprints.

[@geraldparker8125]

Keep in mind that Challoner did his work before the First Vatican Council, which reinforced teachings about Papal supremacy, authority, and the like. Bp. Richard Challoner in his time was not obligated by the First Vatican Council's pronouncements to accept the tachings re. St. Peter and his "successors", so there is little wonder that Challoner's text and notes are not offensive to Protestants (Lutheran, Presbyterian/Reformed) or even to sectaries (Baptists, Pentecostals, and that disgraceful ilk).

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the interesting information on the other editions. I find Challoner much more irenic than the original contributors, no doubt.

[@danieljoshua4352]

When it comes to explaining the quality of the content in the bibles, this channel is the best. Yes, the videos are long but if you need to know what's IN the book, you gotta spend some time. Never disappointed. Enjoyed the pun intended on pope Francis. Perhaps some one needs to tell him that the heaven is not for "good" people but for the people washed in the blood of Christ.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks very much, Daniel, for those kind words!

[@danieljoshua4352]

@@RGrantJones also would you please consider doing a review on how douay rheims Bible differs from KJV kinda bibles? Heard that the word "repentance" in KJV is "do penance" in DR bible. Also heard a lot of word in DRB supports catholic theology. Just wanna know how effective they were in translating the originals. Thanks in advance 😊

[@RGrantJones]

@@danieljoshua4352 Thanks for the suggestion! I like the idea, but it may be some time before I can produce it. Another thought I had just now was to contrast the original Rheims NT with Challoner's revision. And then of course one could compare the original Rheims NT to the KJV NT, or to the Geneva Bible NT.

[@danieljoshua4352]

@@RGrantJones Great. Go a head. Your idea is much better than mine. Let the videos be made sequentially. I will be looking forward for your videos. BTW, thanks for accepting my suggestion 🙏

[@zackbuzza583]

Christ's suffering, death and Resurrection is sufficient. I am a Catholic and don't believe in faith alone but that we are saved by God's Grace. It is by the Grace of God that we repent, remain in Faith and keep the Commandments. We have free will and can cooperate with or reject God. Without His Grace we would not repent and we would be lost in sin.

[@judgehenry4157]

Is this the version of the Douay-Rheims that you would recommend for someone new to the translation and week eyes?

[@RGrantJones]

The font isn't exactly large. But all of the Douay-Rheims editions with which I'm familiar are printed in a font about this size.

[@acardnal]

Very good review. I particularly enjoyed the verse comparisons between the 1881 Wescott Revised Version/Douay-Rheims/KJV. Very elucidating!

[@sylvaindurand4451]

Interesting review. Although it is not in the Douay-Rheims, the longer ending to the Lord's prayer is part of the liturgy. So the KJV has a small bit of the mass in it's pages;-)

[@RGrantJones]

Very similar language appears a couple of times in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as well. My first grade teacher may have said something about how the phrase was true, but it just wasn't part of the prayer in the Bible. I think she was mostly interested in getting me out onto the playground so she could hold her catechism class.

[@HandJvlogs]

Well, the Longer Ending is present in the modern Pauline Mass. It was not present in the Tridentine Mass, nor the Sarum Mass. It’s more likely that the Missal has a bit of the KJV in it, rather than vice versa.

[@markwiygul6356]

Interesting! Which is generally considered an "easier read" the King James Version, or the Douay-Rheims-Bible? I suppose the 1899 DRA is the only one in Print.

[@RGrantJones]

With the caveat that I haven't compared the two in a comprehensive manner, my impression is that Challoner's revised Douay-Rheims is an easier read.

[@ultimouomo11]

The Original Douay-Rheims realdouayrheims.com

[@beheadedchristian]

I bought the Saint Benedict version recently and there is no book of Nehemiah?

[@RGrantJones]

Nehemiah may be called 2 Esdras.

[@manfredcaranci6234]

@@RGrantJones Or NehemIAS.

[@hassanmirza2392]

Sir, you acquire best Bibles in the world. Always worth watching. In Bible it is written 'The Spirit of God was on the face of waters'. In Quran there is a similar statement 'His throne was on the face of waters'. ^_^ Btw, compared to a modern NRSV and RNJB, how much is the difference between them and Douay-Rheims Bible, when it comes to accuracy of content? Is this ancient Bible still reliable to read? And since you mentioned Hell, according to Christian teachings, is hell eternal or not? In Quran it is written again and again that heaven will be eternal, and hell will be 'lasting' (meaning depends on interpretation). In one place there is a hint that hell might not be eternal. That is a hopeful statement.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for commenting, Hassan! Many conservative Catholics use the Douay-Rheims because it's based on the Latin Vulgate, which the Catholic Church declared to be authentic at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. I don't read Latin, but I'm told that the Douay-Rheims is a good, literal translation of the Vulgate. In the 20th century, Catholics began to use translations made directly from the original languages. That's one of the chief differences between the Douay-Rheims and the two translations you mentioned. The other is the Douay-Rheims' archaic language (thee, thou, hast, hath, etc.). It was updated in the 1750s, but it still sounds archaic to modern ears. I have no problem reading it, but I grew up with the King James Version. Most Christians would tell you that hell is eternal. Some hope no one will be sent there; others hold that hell is temporary. Still others think that there is no hell per se, just a lake of fire in which the wicked will be annihilated.

[@hassanmirza2392]

@@RGrantJones A non-eternal hell makes sense. No hell means that bad people described in Bible will never be punished. Makes little sense. An eternal hell seems not just. But only God knows more. I was reading that maybe ancient Jews didn't believe in hell. This can't be correct I guess? OT must be mentioning hell somewhere.

[@hassanmirza2392]

Also, in heaven and hell, according to Quran, humans will get a same or similar body as on this planet, it will not be a metaphysical experience but a human one (both bodily and metaphysical). Both places will be and enhanced (heaven) or degraded (hell) version of earth (which is called a garden in both Quran and Bible).

[@samuelcuna1526]

I AM SAMUEL SANCHEZ CUNA I WOUD LIKE TO BUY THIS BIBLE DOUAY VERSION HOW CAN I PROCES SIR / MAM?

[@convertorburn]

I have the exact same Bible. Did you sell it & that's why I have the same Bible, or is it simply a coincidence?

[@RGrantJones]

Lol. No, I haven't sold it.

[@user-bv4sj2gq7g]

I just purchased the Baronius Press edition with the side by side Clementina Vulgata. I wanted to have a copy of this very important Catholic Bible, in spite of the egregious misrendering of Gen 3:15.

[@mikkis668]

Thank you, these review are both helpfull and interesting (... in a nerdy way 😂)

[@RGrantJones]

You're right -- there's no denying their nerdy character! Someone called them punctilious, and I think that wraps them up fairly well.

[@mikkis668]

@@RGrantJones 👍 and we like them. ( I've bougt two Bibles, Didache and Douay-Rheims, after watching your reviews, even if english is not my first language.)

[@anthonylowder6687]

Does TAN still sale this particular Bible?

[@rubenh7106]

Do you have a link where we can order a copy?

[@RGrantJones]

Ruben - no, sorry. Tan still produces the Douay-Rheims, but the current editions aren't exactly like this one. But you could check their web site. www.catholiccompany.com/douay-rheims-c465/ Someone commenting here recommended Baronius press: www.baroniuspress.com/category.php?wid=58&cid=1 That may be your best choice. I have a copy of their Knox Bible, and it seems to be constructed well. Another mentioned St. Benedict Press. www.saintbenedictpress.com/index.php/ministry-resources/bibles.html .

[@samuelcuna1526]

Bibili sans ako ng Bible DOUAY ERSION AKO PO SI SAMUEL SANCHEZ CUNA PAPANO PO ANG PROCESO SA PAGBILI MAM/ SIR?

[@2ndTrapkat5123]

wow ! i will be on the hunt for this one it is a beauty.

[@amyk6403]

In context with the notes on the supremacy of Peter in Colossians, what is the implication of the following statement, "What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours?" (John 21:22 NAB) This pericope genuinely confuses me. I feel that John's explanation doesn't fully cover the meaning that Jesus intended. Perhaps Jesus is making a veiled reference to rivalry between the Apostles? Or John is attempting to expose Peter's immaturity, at this point in his life, while maintaining humility?

[@doreenvandermerwe2027]

I have a Douay-Reims hardcover Benediction Classics Oxford the print is very small.

[@titomaghuyop4258]

How can we avail?

[@FernandoSerna1654]

Would you elaborate a bit more on your comments at the end of this wonderful video when you comment that you would be "side vacantist"....and that if you were a Roman Catholic you would read the DRC Bible because of the statement of the Council of Trent...Thank you!!!

[@RGrantJones]

On the second point, since Trent stated that no one should dare or presume to reject the Vulgate under any pretext whatever, I would feel safe using a translation based on it. By contrast, modern textual criticism provides only probable decisions regarding which variant to put in the text. With respect to sede vacantism, the remark was meant as a comment about my personality rather than the opening statement of an argument regarding the validity of post-Vatican II papal elections. I'm somewhat conservative when it comes to religion. If I were a Roman Catholic, I suspect I would have trouble reconciling some of the acts and statements of the more recent popes (especially Francis) with traditional Roman Catholicism. If these popes don't hold the faith once and for all delivered to the saints, they aren't Catholics; and a non-Catholic cannot be pope.

[@FernandoSerna1654]

R. Grant Jones Thank you for the clarification. I am Roman Catholic and conservative in my leanings. But my problem with the Catholic Traditionalists is their fascination with a restored Christendom with its dangerous underbelly. Blessings to you. Do you belong to a particular Protestant denomination?

[@RGrantJones]

@@FernandoSerna1654 - Blessings to you as well. I'm most comfortable with Anglicanism. Can you explain what you meant by "dangerous underbelly"?

[@FernandoSerna1654]

@@RGrantJones I deeply appreciate the Anglican way. I think that there can be a lusting after wanting our social structures to be an extension of the church to the degree that we create idols in our own image and then convince ourselves we are spreading the gospel.

[@RGrantJones]

@@FernandoSerna1654 - thank you for the explanation.

[@manfredcaranci6234]

Grant, a couple of comments: (1) where the KJV translators did not have a decent Greek ms on which to base their NT, they simply used the Latin Vulgate; and (2) when Challoner made his revisions, he moved away from the convoluted Latinate English and more in the direction of the KJV, which was likely more readable. My point being, that any similarities between the D-R and the KJV were NOT coincidental. To reiterate, the KJV translators used the Latin Vulgate, and Bp. Challoner borrowed renderings from the KJV.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for commenting, Manfred! What you write is true.

[@fnjesusfreak]

There are actually 3 NT text types, rather than 2: the third type, the "Western", is the basis for the Vulgate, and has different interpolations from the Byzantine type, for example Matthew 7.29 reads "For he was teaching them as one with power, and not as their scribes *and Pharisees"* - 25.1 adds "and the bride", John 3.5 says "and the Holy Spirit" instead of merely "and the Spirit" and there are a couple other additions.

[@RGrantJones]

Didn't Westcott and Hort originally have a "neutral" text type, represented by B? And wasn't there a Caesarean type as well? I'm not sure how much weight to put on these types, since they're a product of the pattern recognition powers of human critics -- especially since some of those critics were interested in finding a way to discredit a large number of Greek manuscripts. Maybe it's time for the mathematicians to get involved. They might be able to determine how the texts group in a multi-dimensional space. I'm not clear on how representative the Latin used by the Douay-Rheims translators is of the Greek manuscripts W&H termed Western. I'm not even sure how close the DR's Latin basis is to Jerome's original Vulgate. But this certainly is an fascinating topic. Those are interesting examples of the DR Latin differentiating itself from both the modern eclectic text and the TR. I may have to use them in a future video, if the opportunity arises. I notice that Lamsa's Peshitta agrees with the DR in the first two (the Matthew passages).

[@fnjesusfreak]

It's certainly true that some of the quirks in the Clementine Vulgate formed in Latin originally. (For example, the word "tree" - lignum - becoming "book" - librum - could not have happened in Greek, but could easily happen in Latin. Also, the Comma Johanneum as I mentioned.) A more "critical" Vulgate, I think, was used by the translators of the Confraternity NT of 1941, which was sort-of the ASV of Catholic translations and is a bridge between the Challoner and the NAB.

[@gypsylane8723]

Great review, thank you

[@MaggieCandy999]

This Bible is beautiful. I wish my Baronius Press one had crosses on it.

[@titomaghuyop4258]

How can we avail that Bible?

[@RGrantJones]

Tito - I don't understand your question. Are you asking how to acquire it? If so, I'm sorry to say that it's no longer in print. You could search sites like eBay.

[@sebathadah1559]

In my own walk in faith I have found that most bibles say the same thing more or less. I have found that I actually like the more "masculine" translation of the Douay Rheims. However the the protestant church has a solid point when they say that bibles translated from the original language is important. I personally believe that it is important to maintain this translation. Its harsher language is more to the point...even if it is a bit dated.

[@sebathadah1559]

I prefer it over the NIV and the other "new age" translations full of asterisk that pepper the pages like machine gun fire.

[@principecrociato1085]

@@sebathadah1559 Lol, good way to put it.

[@wjm5972]

have an identical copy myself

[@convertorburn]

I was about to say. I was pleasantly surprised when I looked up Douay Rheims Bible out of curiosity to see the exact same Bible I have. I'm not even exaggerating, I wouldn't be too surprised if it is the exact same Bible.

[@amyk6403]

I had the same phonic experience!

[@samuelcuna1526]

I WOULD LIKE OREGINAL DOUAY BILBLE VERTION APPS

[@k.v.v.k.6635]

Go to 1 Corinthians 6: 19 - 20 It says the Holy Spirit, not Ghost, as many in the US used.

[@franesustic988]

It's sad that there is no English translation of the Stuttgart Vulgate (critical edition of the Latin Vulgate, now 5th edition), because it is as close as you can get to original Jerome writings, and that is a big deal since he was the "textual critic" of the late 4th century. Do we have better manuscripts than they had in the 16th century? Of course. Do we have better manuscripts than someone in 4th century? Not even close. There is a German translation that came out recently, but that's it for now. p.s. : Regarding the sede-Francis issue.. Anglicans shouldn't be throwing stones.. glass houses and the like. And, Dimond bros are stubborn, obstinate heretics that have origins in a cult leader that was excommunicated (by Pius XII) prior to the Vatican2 for his nonsense.

[@livingwithfaithbiblereview3413]

Nice, i have a Douay-Rheims from bestcatholicbible.com. It's considered a "large print" and the text block appears identical but mine is a very very cheap genuine leather. I agree with you regarding the translation itself. I wish it was a sewn binding so i could have it re-bound.

[@RGrantJones]

It appears to me that Catholic publishers are imitating the worst aspects of Protestant Bible production, particularly the thin paper and the faded red letters. Protestant publishers seem in the most part to have dropped glued bindings over the past decade or so, but maybe the Catholic publishers have kept that bad practice as well. In about 2006, I bought a very nice St. Joseph NAB in imitation leather. Thick paper, nicely printed. No show through. Then they revised the NAB, and the NABs I see in stores now look cheaply produced on thin paper with horrid red letters.

[@fnjesusfreak]

Also the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5.7b-8a) shows up first in Vulgate manuscripts.

[@Airik1111bibles]

I love the whole "Jesuit new age bible version deception conspiracy's" that the kJV onlys love to use when defending their cause. Forget wearing horse blinders, they burned out their eyeballs all together. When it comes to catholic influence in the making of their idol, they completely shut off their brain.😁 Believe me I was one and know first hand BUT in my day the whole Catholic idea hadn't taken root yet like it has in the last 10 years. Nice review the spacing is very nice esp if you like having room to underline .

[@fnjesusfreak]

They're mostly just parroting Gail Anne "God And" Riplinger.

[@RGrantJones]

I think it comes down to a desire for certainty. The people who cling to KJV Onlyism can't deal with the uncertainty caused by multiple, differing manuscripts, and the uncertainty over the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek. Cutting directly to the KJV eliminates those anxieties, though I have to suspect uncertainty over the meaning of the KJV must remain, at least in some passages! KJV Onlyism also relieves any anxiety one might feel over doubts about the canon. If it's in the KJV, and not in a separate "apocrypha" section, it's in the Bible. I watched a bit of a video yesterday in which the KJV Only announcer attacked James White's criticism of the KJV/TR in the last six verses of Revelation. The announcer didn't address White's point, that Erasmus had translated the section from the Latin into Greek because he didn't have a Greek text. Instead, he argued that White hated those verses because they include "whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." White, being a Calvinist, must detest those verses! The argument was nonsense, of course. White's ESV includes very similar language. And no Calvinist I know of has the slightest difficulty in agreeing that whosoever will can come. So, no Catholic conspiracy argument in that video, but just about as much solid evidence and sound logic.

[@fnjesusfreak]

Agreed, except that isn't White's translation of choice the NASB95? ;)

[@RGrantJones]

LOL. Is it really? That shows how little I know about James White!

[@Airik1111bibles]

R. Grant Jones I don't think he has a translation of choice, he uses an I-Pad as his "Authority" clearly he is an Alexandrian Wizard😉

[@pilate3944]

Mr, Jones, your observation as a non-Catholic of the vacancy of the seat in Rome is edifying to me as a Traditional Roman Catholic. A non-prejudiced outside view based on scriptural comparison and investigation helps reveal the actual truth in the state of the Roman Catholic Church at present.

[@spykezspykez7001]

You do realise the critical text does not have the doxology to the Lord’s Prayer, right? Do you know why there’s a doxology in Protestant bibles?

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the questions, spykez spykez! But I must say that I'm puzzled that you ask them, given what I said in the video. The answer to both of your questions is, "Yes, of course."

[@spykezspykez7001]

Well, I do not understand why you’re comparing it to new age bibles.

[@RGrantJones]

@@spykezspykez7001 - have you heard of King James Onlyism?

[@spykezspykez7001]

I have heard of that, but never encountered them. So, I suppose I’ve never really thought them serious. Until now, I guess? Doesn’t matter, ultimately, we will never know. One wonders what the church or Christianity as a lump sum will look like in a further two thousand years, assuming our civilisation does survive that long. What distortions will it further have?

[@spykezspykez7001]

The stigma of “new age” also meant that the first association when I saw that term coupled with bible was “The Message” Lol

[@GM-uy3cm]

Look up vaticancatholic.com to see the true Catholic faith.

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for the comment! The Dimond brothers also have a KZbin channel that contains many fascinating videos.

[@richardosborne2067]

Geneva 1560 the only one

[@Freddy-Da-Freeloadah]

I used to have a copy of the Douay Rheims. Paperback... I gave it away. I remember the Lords Prayer: "...give us this day our trans-substantial bread..." Yeah, the paper back copy, was pretty low quality... IMHO

[@emperortbw402]

The greek word that is translated as "daily" in Luke and supersubstantial (not transubstantial) in Matthew is completely unknown outside of the Lord's prayer. Jerome, being not quite certain of it's meaning (as we still are today) chose to translate it as "daily" like some of the vetus italia translations had previously, but chose, in the same context, in Matthew to translate it literally from its parts. The word was ἐπιούσιος which is a compound of ἐπι, meaning above, on, or for (or in latin: in, pro, or super) and ούσιος meaning substance or essence, therefore Jerome calqued it into Latin as super (over) + substantialis (substance) = 'supersubstantialis' and the Douay Rhiems took that into english as the loanword 'supersubstantial'. Brant Pitre, a popular author and scholar teaching at Notre Dame seminary, suggests in his book 'Jesus and the Last Supper' the translation 'supernatural' as this follows the morphology of ἐπιούσιος literally, and unlike most favored modern suggestions, comports well with the way the word was understood by many ancient christians. He sets this alongside three other common interpretations: 'Daily', 'for existence', and 'for tomorrow'. He notes that all of the above are consistent with this being a reference to the manna from heaven supernaturally given to sustain the Israelites existence daily throughout the wanderings in the desert, and also for the next day in advance of the sabbath. We, of course, know from John 6 that Jesus is the true manna from heaven, so this appears as a eucharistic petition, as maintained by the fathers and all the the most ancient traditions both east and west, as well as a petition for our more mundane wants.