Douay Rheims and New Versions.

[GodisgraciousR325]

Dear readers,

Here is a list of changes that are found in the Douay (1582, 1609) that are changed or omitted as the so called "verisons" of the modern Bible era.

Revelation 22:14 - "wash your robes" instead of "do his commandments."

Revelation 22:6 - "holy" is omitted.

Revelation 21:24 - "of them which are saved" is omitted.

Revelation 20:12 - "God" changed to "throne."

Revelation 19:1 - "honour" and "the Lord" omitted.

Revelation 17:10 - "And there are serven kings:" is omitted.

Revelation 17:1 - "unto me" is omitted.

Revelation 16:17 - "of heaven" switched to "of the throne."

Revelation 16:14 - "of the earth and" omitted .

Revelation 15:3 - "saints" changed to "ages."

Revelation 15:2 - "and over his mark" omitted .

Revelation 14:15 - "for thee" omitted.

Revelation 14:12 - "here are they" omitted.

Revelation 14:8 - "city" omitted.

Revelation 14:1 - "his name" added by Douay/Latin.

Revelation 12:12 - "the inhabiters of" omitted.

Revelation 11:8 - "our" changed to "their."

Revelation 11:14 - changed "God" to "Lord;" likely copied from Zechariah 6:5.

Revelation 11:4

Revelation 8:13 - "angel" turned to an "eagle."

Revelation 8:7 - third part of the earth" added by Douay/Latin.

Revelation 6:17 - "his" changed to "their."

Revelation 5:14 - "worshipped" changed to "fell down."

Revelation 5:10 - "kings" changed to "kingdom."

Revelation 5:4 - "read the book" changed to "open the book."

Revelation 3:4 - "even" omited.

Revelation 2:15 - "which thing I hate" is omitted.

Revelation 2:13 - "I know thy works" omitted .

Revelation 2:9 -"works, and" omitted.

Revelation 1:20 - "which thou sawest" omitted.

Revelation 1:11 - "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and," omitted.

Revelation 1:9 - "Christ" omitted.

Revelation 1:6 - "kings" changed to "kingdom."


Even the Douay is like any other bible (beside the NWT) that says John 1:1, John 3:16 dosen't mean its right, why use an critical txt bible when can just read a Catholic bible?

The LXX have Acryophal books and so is the Critical text.

Take care,

Shawn

- Gospel is only Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ who is God manifested in the flesh who shed his blood for the whole world he so loved on that cursed tree and died and rose again on the 3rd day.

Saved by faith in his blood and have everlasting life apart from works, lest any man may boast.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

Checked with list of Revelation of St. John the Divine here:

KJV Comparison Page

 

[Logos1560]

First-hand testimony and evidence from one of the KJV translators would acknowledge or affirm the use of the 1582 Rheims NT in the making of the KJV.

Ward Allen observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying up on the example of the Rheims Bible" (Bois, Translating for King James, pp. 10, 62-63). The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [“willing in humility”] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [“willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion”] ( p. 63). Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims?

W. F. Moulton stated: "The Rhemish Testament was not even named in the instructions furnished to the translators, but it has left its mark on every page of their work" (History of the English Bible, p. 207).

Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Ward Allen and Edward Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29). About 1 Peter 1:20, Ward Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18). Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30).

KJV defender Laurence Vance admitted that the 1582 “Rheims supplies the first half of the reading” in the KJV at Galatians 3:1 and that the “Rheims supplies the last half of the reading” at Galatians 3:16 (Making of the KJV NT, p. 263).

 

[Logos1560]

It is most likely that the KJV translators obtained their knowledge of the Rheims New Testament from a book by William Fulke which compared the Rheims N. T. side by side with the Bishops'.

In his introduction to a 1911 facsimile reprint of the 1611, A. W. Pollard maintained that "probably every reviser of the New Testament for the edition of 1611" possessed a copy of Fulke's book that "was regarded as a standard work on the Protestant side" (p. 23). John Greider observed that “This work [by Fulke] was studied by the translators of the 1611 Bible” (English Bible Translations, p. 316). Peter Thuesen pointed out: “William Fulke’s popular 1589 annotated edition of the Rheims New Testament, though intended as an antidote to popery, in reality had served as the vehicle by which some of the Rhemists’ Latinisms entered the vocabulary of the King James Bible” (In Discordance, p. 62). David Norton noted that KJV translator William Branthwaite had a copy of “Fulke’s parallel edition of the Rheims and Bishops” in his personal library (KJB: Short History, p. 64). Norton also pointed out that the Bodleian Library in 1605 had a copy of Fulke’s edition of the Rheims and Bishops’ New Testaments (Ibid.).

Even KJV-only author Gail Riplinger confirmed that the KJV translators had William Fulke’s book with these verse comparisons, but she in effect ignored the evidence that they followed some of the renderings of the Rheims (In Awe, p. 536).

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

Dear Logos,

The fake versions will have some truth to them, yes, did use the margin in Douay and they used the voluntarily since that is what is likely implied by the Greek.

There is truth, not everything a athesist and false religion say is false, they can be smart and be right.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

It is most likely that the KJV translators obtained their knowledge of the Rheims New Testament from a book by William Fulke which compared the Rheims N. T. side by side with the Bishops'.

In his introduction to a 1911 facsimile reprint of the 1611, A. W. Pollard maintained that "probably every reviser of the New Testament for the edition of 1611" possessed a copy of Fulke's book that "was regarded as a standard work on the Protestant side" (p. 23). John Greider observed that “This work [by Fulke] was studied by the translators of the 1611 Bible” (English Bible Translations, p. 316). Peter Thuesen pointed out: “William Fulke’s popular 1589 annotated edition of the Rheims New Testament, though intended as an antidote to popery, in reality had served as the vehicle by which some of the Rhemists’ Latinisms entered the vocabulary of the King James Bible” (In Discordance, p. 62). David Norton noted that KJV translator William Branthwaite had a copy of “Fulke’s parallel edition of the Rheims and Bishops” in his personal library (KJB: Short History, p. 64). Norton also pointed out that the Bodleian Library in 1605 had a copy of Fulke’s edition of the Rheims and Bishops’ New Testaments (Ibid.).

Even KJV-only author Gail Riplinger confirmed that the KJV translators had William Fulke’s book with these verse comparisons, but she in effect ignored the evidence that they followed some of the renderings of the Rheims (In Awe, p. 536).

There is literally no issue, if the Greek said it, they put it and also, maybe there were other versions also said it in foreigj languages.

Yes, they did have access to the Douay, the margin shew the alternatives, it didn't say they were right, they were put so the reader know they did it right.

Luther had the Ltin Vulgate parrel to his Greek, the critical text is basically the same as the T.R. when its not corrupted.

The same verses in any manusript are rendered 99% the same way or meaning.

A atheist can quote something right, dosen't mean I have to come up with a new word or such.

Also, voluntarily in religion is not the same as what the KJB is saying and its just that one word.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

Matthew 6:13 - ending omited in Douay, also quoted in Preface about its not authentic.

This is my last message on this fourm, farewell.

 

[Logos1560]

In his book edited by D. A. Waite, H. D. Williams asserted the following as one of his criteria for translating: “Under no circumstances should a version which is not based upon the Received Texts be used as an example” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 230). Troy Clark claimed that the Douay-Rheims “was translated strictly from the Critical Text Latin Vulgate bible of Rome,” and he listed it in his “Critical text” stream of Bibles (Perfect Bible, pp. 267, 296). Mickey Carter listed the 1582 Douay [Rheims] on his “corrupted tree” of Bibles (Things That Are Different, p. 104). Benjamin Wilkinson listed the Rheims on his corrupted stream of Bibles, and he referred to it as the “Jesuit Bible of 1582” (Our Authorized Bible, p. 43). H. D. Williams maintained that “the Douay-Rheims Bible is based upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate” (Word-for-Word, p. 42). Peter Ruckman acknowledged that “the textual basis of the Douay-Rheims is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate,” but he also claimed in his endnotes that “the Greek text of the Rheims Jesuit bible was the Westcott and Hort Greek text” (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 162, 517). Peter Ruckman referred to “the Greek text of Rome (Jesuit Rheims)” (King James Onlyism, p. 46). Peter Ruckman mentioned “Satan’s interest in reinstituting the Dark Age Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight, p. 2). Jim Taylor asserted that “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate generally agrees with the Westcott and Hort Text” (In Defense of the TR, p. 204). James Sightler maintained that Jerome “gave us the Latin Vulgate which was based on Greek manuscripts of the Vaticanus type” (Testimony Founded, p. 12). Michael Maynard asserted: “As a whole, the 16th century Vulgate edition was regarded as agreeing strongly with Vaticanus” (Historical Defense, p. 9). James Sightler claimed: “Jerome had used manuscripts resembling B and Aleph to prepare the Vulgate,” and “There are many other instances where the Rheims-Douay approaches the reading of the critical text” (pp. 130, 131). J. J. Ray asserted: “In the minds of those who are well informed; the Latin Vulgate; the Vaticanus; the Sinaiticus; the Hexapla; Jerome; Eusebius; and Origen; are terms which are inseparable” (God Wrote Only One Bible, p. 19). J. J. Ray claimed that “Jerome’s Vulgate is largely in agreement with these two manuscripts [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus]” (p. 20). Terence McLean alleged: “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate came directly from the fifty Bibles made up by Eusebius from the deity-denying text of Adamantius Origen” (History of Your Bible, p. 32). James Rasbeary declared: “The Douay-Rheims is, of course, very corrupt, just like its source text and the men that translated it” (What’s Wrong, p. 137). James Rasbeary alleged that “they [two ancient manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] are no different than the Catholic Vulgate produced by Jerome” (p. 160). David Daniels asserted that the Jesuits “made the Rheims-Douay” (Did the Catholic Church, p. 111). David O’Steen claimed: “The Catholic Rheims Bible of 1582 was an English translation based on the corrupt Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome” (Study Notes, p. 97).