KJV or Douay Rheims

[zunshynn]

Is it true that the Douay Rheims was out before the KJV?

Especially from sources that protestants won't suggest has been written by Catholics to rewrite history?

Edited November 1, 2005 by zunshynn

[franciscanheart]

[Nathan]

The Douay-Rheims Version predates the King James Version by a few years.

Of course, I prefer the DRV. For one, I find it easier to read -- the language is clearer to me, less archaic. And it has all 73 Books. And it doesn't contain the errors that the KJV does. It's a better all-around English-language translation.

Side note: I run into a lot of KJV-only Protestants, and their basis for being KJV-onlyists is a little bizarre. Some belief about God inspiring the KJV translators throughout the process, making it the only true Word of God...?

Goes to show what people start believing when they have no authoritative source of teaching.

[phatcatholic]

its an historical fact that the DRV came first. both objective and/or protestant sources are unanimous on this point:

[b]1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica[/b] [emphasis mine]
[url="http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/BER_BLA/BIBLE_ENGLISH.html"]http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/BER_BLA/BIBLE_ENGLISH.html[/url][list][b]Bible English[/b]

[. . .] In the English College of Rhemes, 1582." The Old Testament had been " long since " completed, but " for lacke of good meanes " (Preface to the New Testament), its appearance was delayed [b]till 1609-1610, when it was published at Douai[/b]. [. . .] The strongly Latinized vocabulary of this version was not without its influence on the next great venture in English translations of the Bible, the Authorized Version[/B].' The English Bible, which is now recognized as the Authorized Version wherever the English language is spoken, is a revision of the Bishops' Bible, begun in 1604, and [b]published Authorized in 1611[/b]. [. . .]
[/list]
[b]Encarta Encyclopedia[/b]
[url="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566700_13/Bible.html#s62"]http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566.../Bible.html#s62[/url][list][b]Bible[/b]

[. . .] VIII. The Bible In English

[. . .]B. The Douay and Other Roman Catholic Versions

The Douay or Douay-Rheims (spelled also Douai-Reims) Bible, completed between 1582 and 1609, was commonly used by Roman Catholics in English-speaking countries until the 1900s, when it was considerably revised by the English bishop Richard Challoner. [. . .]

C. The King James Version and Its Revisions

In 1604 King James I commissioned a new revision of the English Bible; it was completed in 1611. [. . .]
[/list]
[b]Columbia Encyclopedia[/b]
[url="http://www.bartleby.com/65/bi/Bible.html"]http://www.bartleby.com/65/bi/Bible.html[/url][list][b]Bible[/b]

[. . .] English Translations of the Christian Bible

[. . .] The greatest of all English translations was the Authorized Version (AV), or King James Version (KJV), of 1611, made by a committee of churchmen led by Lancelot Andrewes and composed of many of the finest scholars in England. The beautiful English of this version has had great influence and is generally ranked in English literature with the work of Shakespeare. The phraseology of much of it is that of Tyndale. The Douay, or Rheims-Douay, Version was published by Roman Catholic scholars at Reims (New Testament, 1582) and Douai, France (Old Testament, 1610); it was extensively revised by Richard Challoner. [. . .]
[/list]
[b]Christian Cyclopedia[/b]
[url="http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=b&word=BIBLEVERSIONS"]http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/d...d=BIBLEVERSIONS[/url][list][b]Bible Versions[/b]

[. . .]9. The RC version pub. in Fr. at Reims (NT 1582) and Douai (OT 1609–10) was based on the Vulgate and was very literal.

10. The King James Version of 1611 (also called Authorized Version) resulted from a suggestion by John Rainolds* at the Hampton* Court Conference* James* I, interested in theol., ordered that a tr. be made of the whole Bible consonant to the original Hebrew and Greek, to be used in all chs. of Eng. [. . .]
[/list]
[b]International Standard Bible Encyclopedia[/b]
[url="http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T3101"]http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T3101[/url][list][b]English Versions[/b]

[. . .] 16. Rheims and Douai Version:
[. . .] The New Testament was issued from Rheims in 1582 and the Old Testament from Douai in 1609. [. . .]

17. The Authorized Version:
[. . .] Impressed with the importance of their task, the revisers worked strenuously at it for two years; and nine months more were devoted to revision by a special committee consisting of two members from each center, and in 1611 the result of the work appeared. [. . .]
[/list]
[b]The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge[/b] [emphasis mine]
[url="http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=schaff&bookID=encyc02&page=138&view="]http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=...&page=138&view=[/url][list][b]Bible, English Versions[/b]

[. . .] 5. The Douai Bible.

The Roman Catholic fugitives on the Continent now prepared an English version and published the New Testament at Reims in 1582; the Old Testament followed in two volumes at Douai in 1609-10 (the first edition of the "Douai" Bible; cf. Gregory Martin, A Discoverie of the Manifold Corruptions of the Holie Scriptures by the Heretikes of our Daies, etc., Reims, 1582; William Fulke, A Defence of the Sincere and True Translations of the Holie Scriptures . . . against . . . Gregorie Martin, London, 1583, ed. C. H. Hartshorne for the Parker Society, Cambridge, 1843). [. . .] The long interval between the publication of the two Testaments was due to lack of means as [b]the translation of both was completed before 1582.[/b] [. . .]

6. The Authorized Version.

[. . .] After years of labor (although some say that the work really began only in 1607 and lasted but two years and a half), during which some passages were wrought over fourteen or even seventeen times, the version appeared in 1611 in two folio editions, set up and printed at the same time so as to have a large number of copies very quickly; in the same year a duodecimo edition came out, of which only one copy (in the Lenox Library, New York City) is said to be known, and in 1613 what is called the second folio edition. [. . .]
[/list]
[b]Easton's Bible Dictionary[/b]
[url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/EastonBibleDictionary/ebd.cgi?number=T3768"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/Ea...gi?number=T3768[/url][list][b]Version[/b]

A translation of the holy Scriptures. [. . .]

6. The history of the English versions begins properly with Wyckliffe. [. . .] Next in order was the Geneva version (1557-1560); the Bishops' Bible (1568); the Rheims and Douai versions, under Roman Catholic auspices (1582,1609); the Authorized Version (1611); and the Revised Version of the New Testament in 1880 and of the Old Testament in 1884.
[/list]
[b]Holman Bible Dictionary[/b]
[url="http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T923"]http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T923[/url][list][b]Bible, Translations[/b]

[. . .] Roman Catholics brought out their Rheims New Testament in 1582 and then the Old Testament in 1610. The period of Elizabeth was the time of England's greatest literary figures.

With Elizabeth's death and the coming of King James I to the throne at the Hampton Court Conference in January 1604, the king accepted the proposal that a new translation be made. The outcome was the King James Version of 1611. [. . .]
[/list]
that should be more than enough proof.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[StColette]

DRV rocks!

[tojo]

I do believe there were a few other (worse?) (Protestant?) English versions before the KJV also.

The KJV-only people are out of there mind. They are almost without exception super-fundamentalists, and often attend independent churches, having a belief like the KJV being the only inspired English translation of the Bible doesn't work in their own theological system, (because the Bible doesn't and couldn't teach it and they believe [i]sola scriptura[/i]), let alone make actual sense.

[beatty07]

it's especially embarassing to them that the original KJV is not in print anywhere and hasn't been for years. The only one you can get has been substantially altered from the 1611.

This is a pretty funny satire of the KJV-only view. About halfway down it gets really good.

[url="http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/bookman1.htm"]http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/bookman1.htm[/url]

Edited November 5, 2005 by beatty07

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Nov 5 2005, 01:47 AM']it's especially embarassing to them that the original KJV is not in print anywhere and hasn't been for years.  The only one you can get has been substantially altered from the 1611.

This is a pretty funny satire of the KJV-only view.  About halfway down it gets really good.

[url="http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/bookman1.htm"]http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/bookman1.htm[/url]
[right][snapback]779418[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
woh, that site has some aweosme articles you can use to refute KJV-onlyism