"Real-Douay Rheims"?

[Virgil the Roman]

I have a question:

Has any one  heard of this "Real Douay-Rheims?"

Here's a link to their sight:
http://www.realdouayrheims.com

And here's a pdf sample page of their transliterated version of a the "Original And 'TRUE' Douay-Rheims."
below:

http://www.realdouayrheims.com/files/matt24.pdf

And here's a link to  an original Rheimish-1582/Rheims New Testament-Vulgate side-by-side comparison below:

http://books.google.com/books?id=D_U2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA5&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0#PPA133,M1

[The_Harlequin_King]

Been to this site before. It's basically just King James-only-ism dressed in popery.

It is true, though, that the Challoner revision is different in many ways from the original Douay-Rheims, and thus is probably better termed the Douay-Challoner edition. It's also true that Challoner took many cues from the King James Bible. I think it's ridiculous to say, though, that the King James is merely a translation of Luther's German Bible (as the site claims).

I suppose that, having not only grown up with the King James Bible but also being named after it, I'm biased toward looking at the KJV in an accepting light. And for better or worse, I'd say the KJV has made itself a cornerstone of the modern English language, along with Shakespeare. Whenever you think of Psalm 22 (23) as "the Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want", you have the KJV to thank for it.

[PaxVobiscum]

Whenever the KJV is mentioned, I remember the bumper sticker I saw.  It read:

"If It Ain't the KJV, It Ain't the Bible"   

[Gabriel]

Here is a piece of REAL stupidity from the advertisement for the REAL Douay Rheims:

"The Vulgate was in use everywhere for 1,100 years as the standard Bible of all Christians"

Is that so? The Greeks, Syrians, Armenians, et al. would all be quite surprised to learn this.

A couple of years ago I purchased the New Testament portion of Dr. Peters' edition of the Douay Rheims. I already owned the three-volume set of the original Douay, so I was able to compare them.

Honestly, I do not have a great deal of respect for the product which Dr. Peters put out, though I sympathize with his aims. He intended to preserve the pre-Challoner Douay Rheims by updating the spelling and providing a clear and readable typeface.

Unfortunately, he abandoned the single column, paragraph format with verse numbers off to the side which characterized the original edition, and used the separate verse printing which Bishop Challoner had copied from the King James Version. The layout
in the original was beautiful, and anticipated the modern versions by centuries. The Confraternity revision of the New Testament in 1941 was the first Catholic edition to return to the format used in the Rheims New Testament. In fact, the best modern editions of the KJV have also abandoned the separate verse format and gone to modern paragraphing, e.g. the Penguin Books edition, which includes the Apocrypha.

Another major flaw in Dr Peters' work is innumerable typos. This is the peril of relying on digital programs like MSW. While their spell-checking programs catch a lot of errors, they have limited dictionaries, and they cannot discern words misprinted, such as cowling for coming, or sprit for spirit.

Finally, and this is admittedly a matter of taste, the cover is very unattractive, at least to my eye.

Again, I sympathize with his aims. Hopefully an edition might be made of this historic work that would present the text in modern spelling and readable typeface, yet retain the good features of the original and be well edited, with an attractive binding.

[Rosarium]

Unfortunately, he abandoned the single column, paragraph format with verse numbers off to the side which characterized the original edition, and used the separate verse printing which Bishop Challoner had copied from the King James Version. The layout
in the original was beautiful, and anticipated the modern versions by centuries. The Confraternity revision of the New Testament in 1941 was the first Catholic edition to return to the format used in the Rheims New Testament. In fact, the best modern editions of the KJV have also abandoned the separate verse format and gone to modern paragraphing, e.g. the Penguin Books edition, which includes the Apocrypha.

There is no apochrypha. There are those called the Deutero-Canonical though, which are just as inspired as the rest of the Bible.

[Credo]

"If It Ain't the KJV, It Ain't the Bible"

Read the Bible Jesus read: the KJV.

[WhollyRoaminCatholic]

"If It Ain't the KJV, It Ain't the Bible"

Read the Bible Jesus read: the KJV.

My parents grew up in a nondenominational country church and used to joke "if the King James Version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"

[WhollyRoaminCatholic]

I've been interested in picking up a Douay.  When I search Amazon, which should I pick?  There are so many!

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw_0_5?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=douay-rheims+bible&sprefix=douay

Please explain why you picked what you picked.

[Rosarium]

I've been interested in picking up a Douay.  When I search Amazon, which should I pick?  There are so many!

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw_0_5?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=douay-rheims+bible&sprefix=douay

Please explain why you picked what you picked.

Most of those are from the same publisher.

I highly recommend that publisher for Bibles. For reference, I'm going to use their site, but you can find each Bible on Amazon: http://www.baroniuspress.com/category.php?wid=58&cid=1

If you had to get one Bible for home use and have the money, I see no reason not to get: http://www.baroniuspress.com/book.php?wid=56&bid=50

The descriptions on the page to which I linked should be enough for you to make a decision.

I own the above D-R and Vulgate, a single D-R (from a different publisher, but more or less similiar to the ones there) and a New Testament + Psalms pocket size. I have the big ones in black and the pocket size in burgandy.

[Gabriel]

Unfortunately, he abandoned the single column, paragraph format with verse numbers off to the side which characterized the original edition, and used the separate verse printing which Bishop Challoner had copied from the King James Version. The layout
in the original was beautiful, and anticipated the modern versions by centuries. The Confraternity revision of the New Testament in 1941 was the first Catholic edition to return to the format used in the Rheims New Testament. In fact, the best modern editions of the KJV have also abandoned the separate verse format and gone to modern paragraphing, e.g. the Penguin Books edition, which includes the Apocrypha.

There is no apochrypha. There are those called the Deutero-Canonical though, which are just as inspired as the rest of the Bible.

Rosarium, this sort of comment is very irksome. Do you really think I don't know that the proper term among Catholics and Orthodox is Deuterocanonical writings? I was using the term used by the KJV, since that is how they call it.

My comments were to help the original poster, whom you may recal asked for information about this edition of the Douay Rheims.. The subject was not the proper classification of the parts of the O.T. It was about the layout of the text on the page. 

A big problem with the forum is precisely the kind of "shoot him down" comments which you made. Having seen many of your posts I know you are capable of higher things.

However, just to satisfy you, I will revise my sentence: In fact, the best modern editions of the KJV have also abandoned the separate verse format and gone to modern paragraphing, e.g. the Penguin Books edition, which includes the Apocrypha (which we rightly call the Deuterocanonical books).