The Douay version is one used by the RCC. There are other versions I suppose. Histor is part of discussing the Bible for it’s ideas were from older History.
The Douay version is one used by the RCC. There are other versions I suppose. History is one way of checking if something was true or not. Sorry for the double post.
Since Kent Week’s found the Pharaoh Ramses the 2d was Pharaoh during those times, He has found the many son’s of the Pharaoh as well. They also know the date and Have found the skull of the Pharaoh’s eldest son. Look up Kent Weeks and you will possibly find a lot of information.
I have heard many scholars say the word Red Sea was wrong. t means Sea of Reeds in correct translations , and some scientists have shown that the power of a wind strong enough to keep the sea open, would also knock down even a very strong man, let alone a child , woman or lean man. They have also shown the housing places where the slaves were supposed to have been kept, and found many writings on stones to show they were well paid.
There is a lot of controversy about the Exodus and newer methods have helped scientists find more about it. Some also say that they think the people who fought the Egyptians fleeing could have been a rebel group. There is no sign of a large group of people living in the desert that long, and if it was 40 years there would surely be signs of them living there.
Not since the 1940s in the US, at least. The current standard bible translation used by American Catholics is the New American Bible, and the current standard bible translation used by British Catholics and Catholics in most of the rest of the English speaking world is the Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible. More conservative Catholics tend to use the Ignatius Bible, which is the Catholic version of the Revised Standard Version.
Heretic! 
I as given a Douay version in 1952, A King James version several years ago. That was when I realized there were other translations. know the RC different version was out by the 70’s. It set me to wonder how many different versions there were through the ages.
I wouldn’t rely on any translations published earlier than the 1970s for textual analysis - and would preferably use one of the more modern translations recommended here. (I personally prefer the New Revised Standard version in most cases, but it is generally instructive to compare multiple translations).
Older versions, especially the KJV and Douay’s, are beautiful literature but there have been way too many improvements in our understanding of biblical languages and far too many new discoveries of ancient manuscripts in the meantime for them to be reliable for textual criticism.
The important thing to remember about the Douay-Rheims is that its not meant to be used for accuracy.
Part of why it was written was to fight against fundamentalism. The King James was put out in support of biblical literalism, the Douay-Rheims against it. In some older versions the introduction to Revelations suggests that whoever wrote it was on hallucinogens.
It wasn’t supposed to be read literally, as Sola Scriptura is one of the aspects of Protestantism it was written to oppose. Its intended as literature, to be beautiful and get morals/themes across, not to be believed in or taken seriously.
Which is why of the old [pre-20th Century] bibles, it has the best introductions for critical analysis as they cared about the history and context while the KJV just presents the text on its own.
Today probably the Jerusalem or Knox are better for Merit as Literature. But really none of the old translations should be used for accuracy in original intent, or really any of them.
Kings is a good example of where even before the long lost Jewish/ancient hebrew copies were written down severe political censorship and editing had changed things. [Alot of the Confusion over whether David or Jonathan was king comes from there having been two versions. Which were mixed together on being restored.]
So really theres never going to be an accurate to the original translation.
This can explain the many different translations. Even so there are things in all Bibles that are not necessarily facts. Humans wrote it and we humans do err and it also seems that some of the translations were made to try to make things like people desire, more than what is true. It looks to me that a lot was after the fact.
As I remember, Charleston Heston did indeed close the Red Sea on top of Yul Brenner … and the horse he rode in on. What are you people talking about?
It’s helpful to have a symbolic “passover” ceremony when bringing slaves into freedom. Whether Moses had the Hebrews pad around the Sea of Reeds, or indeed the Red Sea was at low tide (sea levels were lower then) doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that it is better to love God and be free than to love Isis and bound. 40 years is about right for changing the mindset of a society, two generations. I’m using a strictly spiritual interpretation of this passage, so look into your own heart and cast down those cords that bind you … part the Red Sea as it were.
I swear, I’m not smoking marijuana right now.
Nobody can possibly know who was Pharaoh during “those times” because nobody knows when “those times” were since there’s no evidence of any exodus at all. The exodus is a myth. As you mention yourself, there no evidence of it ever happening. Nor can it be linked to any known event. It’s completely preposterous to give a date or a name.
On the other hand, finding people ready to make a lot of stuff up and throw around random hypothesis is pretty easy and will result in a documentary/book that will have appeal for the viewers/readers. Much more than telling them “we don’t know anything about this exodus thing, so let’s talk about the accuracy of the depiction of wildlife in the bible instead”.
The only reason why Ramses II is mentioned is because he’s famous, he controled Canaan and he build a new capital (Pi-Ramses) while the bible says that the Hebrews worked on Pharaoh’s city or something to that effect. But there is zero evidence he had anything to do with, or that anything happened under his reign related to the Hebrews or the exodus. Any statement to the contrary is a bunch of huey.
The exodus is an undated legend, not even within a margin of several centuries. There’s no reason to assume it’s anything more than a myth without any historical basis. And even if you want to believe it has to be based on something, the only thing you could tell is that this “something”, whatever it is, must have happened before the 8th century BC. Pick any Pharaoh before that and you’re equally likely to have guessed right (assuming that the “something” had in fact any relation with a Pharaoh, rather than, say, being a half remembered Hittite story replaced in a context more familiar to the Hebrews telling it many centuries later).
I agree there’s no evidence of 100,000’s of slaves all left Egypt at the same time, but to say not one single Cannaanite slave ever escaped Egypt is even less credible. Seems a case of oral history that “grew in the telling”. George Washington never chopped down his father’s cherry tree, but the lesson “I cannot tell a lie” is still valid.
If it DID happen as described in the Bible, why do you think pharaoh’s most trusted and loyal scribes would record the event faithfully?
Where was anything recorded in Egyptian writings of any thing about the Exodus? There is no prof that Moses even was a real human, some say they took the name Moses from the Egyptian Tut-Moses.