Battle of the Bibles - Present Truth

In 1583, while writing to a Jesuit, Dr Fulke mentioned that Bishop Lindanus had
written a whole book on how he longed to have the
"errors, vices, corruptions, additions, detractions, mutilations, uncertainties,
obscurities, pollutions, barbarisms and solecisms of the Vulgar Latin translation
corrected and reformed".
He also quoted a monk, Isidarius Clarius, as saying that the Catholic Latin
Vulgate was:
'full of errors, almost innumerable" (Fulke, "Defence of Translations of the Bible"
(1583) p 62, cited in, "Our Authorised Bible Vindicated", p 49).
It was from this Latin Vulgate that the Douay Bible was translated into English
(1609) in order to counter the English Protestant Bibles flowing from Tyndale's
translation which relied on the Greek Testament of Erasmus. These Bibles were
branded and burned by Rome as, "Waldensian Bibles" because they had a common
pedigree. When in 1611 the King James Version appeared, it too had a pedigree similar
to the "Waldensian Bibles" or the Itala, for they are all of the traditional Received Text
line.
As the Rheims-Douay Bible (1582, 1609) was circulated in an attempt to
counteract the "Waldensian Bibles", many differences were apparent. Yet, it did not
contain the blatant discrepancies that would have existed had the Rheims Douay
slavishly followed Constantine's Eusebius Bible.
But this is exactly what happened when in 1881 Westcott and Hort reverted to
the Greek Text of Eusebius by using the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, for these are
considered to be two surviving Constantine Bibles.
There is a second reason why the Douay Bible of today agrees more often with
the KJ V than with many of the modern versions. Let the Roman Catholics explain why:
"The version now in use has been so seriously altered that it can be scarcely
considered identical with that which went by the name of the Douay Bible ... Although
the Bibles in use at the present day by the Catholics of England and Ireland are
popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly called; they are founded
with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions by Bishop Challoner in 1749-1752 ...
The changes introduced by him are so considerable that, according to Cardinal
Newman, they almost amounted to a new translation. So, also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote,
'to call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been
altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published. In
nearly every case, Challoner's changes took the form approximating to the Authorised
Version "' ("The Catholic Encyclopedia", Article Douay Bible).
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Here we have an implied admission by
Rome that her Latin Vulgate is inferior to the Received Text. So, in an attempt to gain
credibility in the English-speaking world, she was willing to modify what she has
consistently claimed to be the true text!
We have noted the way in which revised versions have built on the doubts
injected into the Revised Version by Westcott and Hort. Yet, amazingly, we later find the
Roman Catholic Jerusalem Bible often adopting the errors of the RV and RSV thus
placing itself at variance with the Douay!
To explain this, we must remember the crafty way in which the Roman Cardinals,
Wiseman and Newman, brought about the so-called revision of the KJV. They let alleged
Protestants do the odious work which they themselves, as open converts to Catholicism
dare not undertake - namely, to insinuate the corrupt Bibles of Eusebius and Jerome into
16