What do you think is more accurate in translation the Douay-Rheims version or the KJV of the bible?

Question

and why????

Answer 1

neither, both don't include the burnt Gospel's

Answer 2

Not that much difference except that the Douay-Rheims have the 7 additional Old Testament books.

I became a Catholic reading the KJV.

At the time of Christ there were Hebrew and Greek speaking Jews and the Old Testament manuscripts were in both languages. However, there were no Hebrew manuscripts for the 7 books that are not in the KJV and the Jewish scribes excluded them. The Gospel of St. Matthew has more references and quotations of Old Testament prophecies than any of the 4 gospels and I understand all come from the Greek rather than the Hebrew.

At the Reformation at first the Protestant scholars included the 7 books but eventually excluded them. The Catholic Church reaffirmed the 7 books at the Council of Trent.

Answer 3

Is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion? No. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Some "Bible" Christians insist that a "pillar" (the Church) was created to "hold up" another structure (the Bible). They claim the Bible is the structure being held up according to this passage. Well, if that is the case, how did the early Church "hold up" the Bible for the first three to four hundred years when the Bible Itself didn't even exist? Also, even if the Church is only a "pillar" holding up the Bible, doesn't that mean that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture rather than the individual?
Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, No (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals' "different" interpretations of the Bible.

Answer 4

The Rheims-Douay version is a translation of the Vulgate of St. Jerome, as I remember. It, along with the KJV, are both fairly reliable. However, if I were to buy a new Bible, I think I'd look to the Jerusalem Bible or the New American Bible for accuracy in translation. There are others, but these two are what I would choose.

Answer 5

Both have their good points and their bad points.
Both used the latin Vulgate as the primary text, but the KJV also used some Greek and Hebrew texts available in their time.

The oldest manuscripts only dated back to the 8 - 9 century AD

As to the comment about the NWT please note:

In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said:
"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

New Testament:

While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.

“Here at last is a comprehensive comparison of nine major translations of the Bible: King James Version, New American Standard Bible,

New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Amplified Bible, Today's English Version (Good News Bible), Living Bible, and the New World Translation.

The book provides a general introduction to the history and methods of Bible translation, and gives background on each of these versions. Then it compares them on key passages of the New Testament to determine their accuracy and identify their bias. Passages looked at include:

John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1

Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University


Which ever bible you use, I find it's best to cross reference many different ones to get a better understanding of the orginial.

Answer 6

Neither are extremely accurate by today's standards, but the King Jimmy at least made an attempt to come to grips with the Hebrew and Greek of the Old/New Testaments. The Douay Rheims was entirely a translation of the already faulty Latin Vulgate, which was basically not a translation, but a rewriting of the Bible to conform with Roman Catholic dogma. As such, the Douay Rheims is little better than the JW's "New World Translation," again not a translation but a rewriting.

Answer 7

Douay-Rheims

Answer 8

It's difficult to say.

First, we have to establish the text-type that we consider most accurate and authoritative. The NT has the Western, Caesarean, Byzantine, and Alexandrian text-types. Most scholars agree that the Alexandrian text-type is the oldest, but the Orthodox Church uses the Byzantine text-type in our Church (though not exclusively).

If you want the text-form that is probably oldest, then you would go with the Douay-Rheims. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, which is more akin to the Alexandrian text-type (look in Luke and compare the Lord's Prayer). If, however, you think we should keep the text form that the Church stabilized it into, then you would select the KJV, because the KJV most closely resembles the Byzantine text-type. This isn't so in all things. The Byzantine text doesn't include a number of verses or has them differently (i.e. it doesn't have I John 5.7).

The Douay-Rheims, though, is translated from Latin, not from Greek. It, therefore, has Latinisms and variations in the meanings of the words that depend, not on Greek, but upon Latin peculiarities. Simply by the virtue of being translated from Greek, the KJV has an advantage in regard to representing the original tenses and sense.

The KJV, though, is translated with a deliberate and pronounced anti-catholic agenda. For instance, Jesus addresses His Mother in Jn 2.4 with "Woman what have I to do with thee?" Anglicans didn't like Marian devotion, so they changed the meaning of the passage (look at the variations in Protestant translations on this verse; it's a clear sign they're avoiding something). The Douay-Rheims translates it literally as "Woman, what is that to me and to thee?" The actual text in Greek is "τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι" and the Latin reflects this literally "Quid mihi et tibi, mulier." The only reason to mistranslate it is to avoid the implications that Jesus did something irrelevant to His mission, simply because He loved His mother, and she loved the wedding's guests and hosts.

The Douay-Rheims translates the Greek words ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος as "bishop" and "deacon" in reference to Church offices. This, however, is not as unfounded as it seems. The former was transliterated into Latin as episcopus. When it was translated into Old English, it lost the ending, because it was unnecessary. This makes "episcop." The initial "e" was dropped, hardening the word, and the "sc" in OE was the spelling for the sound we represent with "sh" (hence we use the word "ship" instead of "scip"). Thus, the word "bishop" is actually the same Greek word. The same thing happened with πρεσβύτερος. It went into Latin as presbyterus, was shortened to the slang prester, which lost the ending and came into English as prest, with a long "e," our word "priest." Also, since they were not Latin words, but Greek words transliterated, then treating them as titles like this was unavoidable.

The deciding factor over whether you accept this as a sound translation depends entirely on your theology. If you accept the development of Church offices and traditional terms as good, then this is good. Notice that this is sometimes done in the KJV, but because the words have more fluidity in Greek (they are Greek words, after all), it is not done often and only with "bishop." This, however, can lead to uncertainty about the issue of "priest," and you can see it in all the rhetoric about the supposedly pagan origins of Roman Catholic priesthood.

Then there is also the issue of the Apocrypha. The Catholics kept it in the Christian Bible, and the Protestants jettisoned them from the Protestant Bible. The KJV takes a sort of middle-road approach (it represents an early period, when there was still controversy over jettisoning part of the Bible) and put them in the middle between the Testaments, but most KJVs today don't retain them. If the Apocrypha is important to you as part of the Bible, then it gives heavy weight to the Douay-Rheims.

Both translations suffer from some critical flaws that all English Bibles go into, but this should be sufficient for you.

Answer 9

NEITHER

The Ol' Hippie Jesus Freak
Grace and Peace
Peg

Answer 10

Stay with the KJV all the rest are junk.