Hand me a Douay-Rheims Version please.
I agree...the edited "readers Digest" version aka KJV leaves a lot to be desired....It is a very good interpretatio0n, as far as it goes, but you cannot edit out entire chapters because you might doubt their validity. The church did just fine for 1,600 years before the "revolters) (notice I didn't say reformers)decided that they, not Jesus, knew better as to what should be in the bible...pathetic
“Hand me a Douay-Rheims Version please.”
The Douay-Rheims normally sold is a revision of the KJV done in the 1700s.
“Much of the text of the 1582/1610 bible, however, employed a densely latinate vocabulary, to the extent of being in places unreadable; and consequently this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate apocrypha), in 1750. Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was in fact a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible rigorously checked and extensively adjusted for improved readability and consistency with the Clementine edition of the Vulgate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible
It might be more accurate to say Challoner changed the translation to match his theology, since the underlying Greek text didn’t support the changes...but then, the Catholic Church says the Vulgate is more accurate than the original.