"Douay-Rheims-onlyism."? You've got to be kidding!!

[bgwilkinson]

"As amusing as King James-onlyism may sound, some people take it very seriously. There is even a Catholic equivalent, which we might call "Douay-Rheims-onlyism." The Douay-Rheims version, which predates the King James by a few years, (the complete KJV was published in 1611, but the complete Douay-Rheims in 1609) was the standard Bible for English-speaking Catholics until the twentieth century."

Above quoted from: Section What is the Best Bible? paragraph 6.

    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/bible-translations-guide

Talk about wacky wackos. Who would have believed we even have DROs?

"So, which Bible is the best? Perhaps the best answer is this: The one you’ll read."  paragraph 8

A factual article from the Catholic prospective.

 

[Izdaari]

There are actually quite a few Douay-Rheims Only people, all Catholics of course.

I have a D-R in my collection, and it isn't bad. It's at least a little easier to understand than the KJV.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

"So, which Bible is the best? Perhaps the best answer is this: The one you’ll read."  paragraph 8

Not every readable Bible is good, but that is the best answer, IMO. 

 

[SAWBONES]

And not only are there Roman Catholic "Douai-Rheims Onlyists", there are German Lutherans who believe in "Luther Bibel Onlyism".

'Tis true.

In our desire for spiritual certainty, we so wish for absolute precision in a Bible translated into our own native language, that some of us start to believe in fables about particular translations.

Each of the versions so far mentioned has a substantial history, and thus seems to its own particular group of adherents to carry the weighty authority of tradition (unlike all these new "upstart" Bible translations  ), but we have too often observed how KJVO types and others of similar ilk have missed the meanings of God in the Scriptures in their insistence upon enshrining  particular old-fashioned words and phrases which sometimes obscure rather than elucidate the meanings of the Bible.

 

[bgwilkinson]

And not only are there Roman Catholic "Douai-Rheims Onlyists", there are German Lutherans who believe in "Luther Bibel Onlyism".

'Tis true.

In our desire for spiritual certainty, we so wish for absolute precision in a Bible translated into our own native language, that some of us start to believe in fables about particular translations.

Each of the versions so far mentioned has a substantial history, and thus seems to its own particular group of adherents to carry the weighty authority of tradition (unlike all these new "upstart" Bible translations  ), but we have too often observed how KJVO types and others of similar ilk have missed the meanings of God in the Scriptures in their insistence upon enshrining  particular old-fashioned words and phrases which sometimes obscure rather than elucidate the meanings of the Bible.

Some seem to be so blinded (willful blindness) by their KJVO dogma that they are unable to comprehend the Word of God in our current vernacular English. Its a bit like covering the Word of God with a fog.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

I have a D-R in my collection, and it isn't bad. 

Greetings Idzaari !

Important point: textually, the Rheims NT is far, far superior than the modern versions from the Critical Text.  The Latin Bibles were a part of the development of the pure Reformation Bible, while Vaticanus-primacy is a total disaster.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[christundivided]

Hi,

I have a D-R in my collection, and it isn't bad. 

Greetings Idzaari !

Important point: textually, the Rheims NT is far, far superior than the modern versions from the Critical Text.  The Latin Bibles were a part of the development of the pure Reformation Bible, while Vaticanus-primacy is a total disaster.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

Codex Vaticanus primacy? Only in your mind.....