Probly all the pedo scandals
Catholics are evil fags

>>24831268
>Probly all the pedo scandals
So Protestants are innocent of these scandals?

Whatd the quick rubdown on the Douay-Rheims?

The only time I see it mentioned is in comment sections by deranged Catholics who rant about Gods word being distorted, and usually something about Vatican II is mentioned shortly after.

>>24831338
Original Douay is kind of hard to read, it has a lot of Latin words kind of forced into English. There is a slightly more modern version where it actually sounds English. Overall decent translation especially if you like/trust the Vulgate.

>>24831412
The Challoner isn't really even a good translation of the Vulgate, it has a lot of parts lifted from the KJV

>>24831253
It’s the Bible I’m currently reading.

>>24831253
I love bait threads, I love them so much I'm responding even

>>24831338
It's the earliest full English translation of the Bible, at least the New Testament. It was translated by Catholic priests rather than by Anglican authorities like the KJV. Also, I don't think Wycliffe's Bible counts because it wasn't complete. Like >>24831412 said, it's a very strict translation of the Vulgate so the text feels exceptionally Latinate even compared to the KJV

>>24831253
Made obsolete by the New Jerusalem Bible (1985)

>>24831669
older than the Tyndale? or was that NT only

>>24831412
agreed. it may not be my absolute favorite for reading, but I am glad I did end up with a copy. its interesting

>>24831669
>It's the earliest full English translation of the Bible, at least the New Testament.
That's just wrong. Besides Wycliffe whom you mentioned, there Coverdale's, Matthew's, Henry VIII's Great Bible, Taverner's, the Geneva, and the Bishop's Bible that came out before the Rheims.
>Also, I don't think Wycliffe's Bible counts because it wasn't complete.
He finished the NT and the OT was done by Purvey.

>Like >>24831412 # said, it's a very strict translation of the Vulgate so the text feels exceptionally Latinate even compared to the KJV
That only applies to the 1610 DR, the modern DR revision by Challoner is basically a new translation based on the KJV. See John Henry Newman's review of it here:
>Looking at Dr. Challoner's labours on the Old Testament as a whole, we may pronounce that they issue in little short of a new translation. They can as little be said to be made on the basis of the Douay as on the basis of the Protestant version. Of course there must be a certain resemblance between any two Catholic versions whatever, because they are both translations of the same Vulgate; but, this connection between the Douay and Challoner being allowed for, Challoner's version is even nearer to the Protestant than it is to the Douay; nearer, that is, not in grammatical structure, but in phraseology and diction.
https://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/douayrheims.html