43 replies to this topic

[journey]

I might be missing something here. What's wrong with the official version of the DRB available for download from within e-Sword?

[dauex]

I might be missing something here. What's wrong with the official version of the DRB available for download from within e-Sword?

 

Please be so kind as to review page 1 post  #10;  page 2  #11;  page 2 #12 of this thread 

 

The DR NT was first published in 1582

The DR OT was first published in 1609

In about 1750 it was updated by Challoner who made it read more like the KJV.

 

The official E-Sword version is a copy of the Challoner version   1750 (or so)

 

The posts above show three examples of differences between the two versions.  Gen 1:5; Psa 1:1 and Mat 2:1

 

There are source files posted on the internet that CLAIM to be the 1609/1582 version but are really the 1750 version.

The problem is that the title page of all DR including the Challoner versions read as 1609 / 1582 with the comments that they are Challoner versions hidden several pages inside. [[some do have it on the title page but not all - fun]]

 

The person who started this thread (or chain) got fooled into using one of those versions.

I posted three sample 1609 / 1582 PDF pages - am hoping that someone can OCR them and then the rest of the 2872 pages.

 

By the way - other then I don't like the changes Challoner made there is nothing wrong with the DR in E-sword

Just as long as you understand you have the version of 1750 and not the original 

Edited by dauex, 24 February 2013 - 07:51 PM.

[journey]

Please be so kind as to review page 1 post  #10;  page 2  #11;  page 2 #12 of this thread 

 

The DR NT was first published in 1582

The DR OT was first published in 1609

In about 1750 it was updated by Challoner who made it read more like the KJV.

 

The official E-Sword version is a copy of the Challoner version   1750 (or so)

 

The posts above show three examples of differences between the two versions.  Gen 1:5; Psa 1:1 and Mat 2:1

 

There are source files posted on the internet that CLAIM to be the 1609/1582 version but are really the 1750 version.

The problem is that the title page of all DR including the Challoner versions read as 1609 / 1582 with the comments that they are Challoner versions hidden several pages inside. [[some do have it on the title page but not all - fun]]

 

The person who started this thread (or chain) got fooled into using one of those versions.

I posted three sample 1609 / 1582 PDF pages - am hoping that someone can OCR them and then the rest of the 2872 pages.

 

By the way - other then I don't like the changes Challoner made there is nothing wrong with the DR in E-sword

Just as long as you understand you have the version of 1750 and not the original 

 

I'm well aware of the contents in this thread. That's why I asked the question.

[dauex]

I posted three sample 1609 / 1582 PDF pages - am hoping that someone can OCR them and then the rest of the 2872 pages.

 

By the way - other then I don't like the changes Challoner made there is nothing wrong with the DR in E-sword

Just as long as you understand you have the version of 1750 and not the original 

The 2872 pages include not only the Bible text but a complete detailed Catholic study Bible. Both the 1609 / 1582 and the Challoner 1750 [the 'official' E-Sword version] versions were the official English language Bibles accepted by the Catholic church.