Good grief.
YOU wrote (post 101) “From the Douay-Rheims it says....”
I pointed out that it “is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English.” Normally, double translations aren’t the most accurate. And the Douay-Rheims you quoted was made in response to the Reformation.
Yes, the Latin Vulgate is older, but it has many texts - as do the Greek and Hebrew. Modern translations - which I’ve used - take all that into account in trying to figure out what the original manuscripts would have been.
Neither of us is qualified to debate the quality of various texts used in translating the Bible. From what I’ve read, the Catholic Church, in the 1500s, tried to set in stone what is the authoritative text - by decree, not scholarship.
That is fine if you are arguing with other Catholics, but doesn’t count for much when you cite scripture to non-Catholics. If you have reason to believe the texts used by the NIV / ESV etc are bogus, feel free to lecture me. Otherwise, I’ll go with the best scholarship of folks who have devoted their lives to studying the basic Greek & Hebrew texts.
“Yes, the Latin Vulgate is older, but it has many texts “
Some that were lost after St. Jerome wrote them. Sorry you guys missed those.
“From what I’ve read, the Catholic Church, in the 1500s, tried to set in stone what is the authoritative text - by decree, not scholarship.”
From what I’ve read, the translators of your text were not able to see some of what St. Jerome saw and omitted others.
“That is fine if you are arguing with other Catholics, but doesn’t count for much when you cite scripture to non-Catholics.”
Yeah, it’s a pity that some non-Catholics don’t understand their history is slanted their way. Kind of like debating with Al Gore. Their truth is only their truth.