When looking to know the contents of a historical document that has been copied and altered a tremendous number of times, it's pretty good sense to look for the copy that is chronologically closest to the original, and the least modified.
In the case of the Douay Rheims, St Jerome who was fluent in the original languages, and had access to original manuscripts of scripture no longer in existence, translated word for word from the original languages, into Latin, before the year 400 AD, if I remember correctly. That translation was called the Latin Vulgate (of St. Jerome). Then, at a much later date, the college at Douay and that at Rheims each translated one... the old or new testaments... word for word into English, which combined make the Douay Rheims Bible. So it's been translated only twice, basically. Both translations were done with a mind to getting the most accurate translation possible, NOT changing or interpreting it. So although the English translations did not happen till much later in history, it is still pretty much the most accurate translation there is. (There are one or two others that come close.)
Other translations of the Bible had books or verses or chapters taken out or added to suit the teachings or beliefs of various sects over time, had meanings changed in what remained, and so on. But if you go back to the roots, there wouldn't BE a Bible, without THAT (original, Latin Vulgate) Bible. So that's (the Latin Vulgate, that is) the source of everything we have, now.
I figure I'll go right to the source, rather than take chances with something that has been changed or edited all over the place. Modern translations are often disfigured to the point of meaning something completely different from the original! To say nothing of the added/subtracted books and verses and so on! Not many people seem to think about it, though. What do you trust? What was originally there? Or something changed by folks that came by later on and wanted it to mean what they wanted it to mean? Seems pretty straightforward to go for the original, to me.
Hmm... I prefer www.drbo.org actually.
When looking to know the contents of a historical document that has been copied and altered a tremendous number of times, it's pretty good sense to look for the copy that is chronologically closest to the original, and the least modified.
In the case of the Douay Rheims, St Jerome who was fluent in the original languages, and had access to original manuscripts of scripture no longer in existence, translated word for word from the original languages, into Latin, before the year 400 AD, if I remember correctly. That translation was called the Latin Vulgate (of St. Jerome). Then, at a much later date, the college at Douay and that at Rheims each translated one... the old or new testaments... word for word into English, which combined make the Douay Rheims Bible. So it's been translated only twice, basically. Both translations were done with a mind to getting the most accurate translation possible, NOT changing or interpreting it. So although the English translations did not happen till much later in history, it is still pretty much the most accurate translation there is. (There are one or two others that come close.)
Other translations of the Bible had books or verses or chapters taken out or added to suit the teachings or beliefs of various sects over time, had meanings changed in what remained, and so on. But if you go back to the roots, there wouldn't BE a Bible, without THAT (original, Latin Vulgate) Bible. So that's (the Latin Vulgate, that is) the source of everything we have, now.
I figure I'll go right to the source, rather than take chances with something that has been changed or edited all over the place. Modern translations are often disfigured to the point of meaning something completely different from the original! To say nothing of the added/subtracted books and verses and so on! Not many people seem to think about it, though. What do you trust? What was originally there? Or something changed by folks that came by later on and wanted it to mean what they wanted it to mean? Seems pretty straightforward to go for the original, to me.