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?

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.

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.

Ironically, KJV onlyists say the same

@@bastionofthefaith92 The probably like Shakespeare as well

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Those editions are based on much later Rabbinic reworkings of the scripture many centuries after the old Vulgate.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.