Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible

Is Anti-Scripture

The Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB) is supposed to be a translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible. Unless otherwise noted, the following footnotes, quotes, and Bible passages are all taken from the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible found at www.drbo.org (some underlining added).

The Douay-Rheims Bible is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. (Preface dated August 24, 1989 from the Tan Books Printing)

The Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible was a godsend. It became the standard Catholic Bible in English until the mid-20th century (when the Confraternity Bible was published). [Preface from the Tan Books Printing]

The whole Douay-Rheims Bible was revised and diligently compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner in 1749-1752 A.D. The notes included in the text were written by Dr. Challoner. (www.drbo.org/intro.htm)

This Bible declares it virtuous to search the Scriptures to see if what is claimed is true. The footnote for Acts 17:11 says,

[11] More noble: The Jews of Berea are justly commended, for their eagerly embracing the truth, and searching the scriptures, to find out the texts alleged by the apostle:

In searching the Scriptures it can be seen that footnotes in this Bible are against God's Word. Not every error is listed below, but the following well exemplifies the folly found in the footnotes.

The Douay-Rheims Footnotes.

Genesis 1:26

[26] "Let us make man to our image"... This image of God in man, is not in the body, but in the soul; which is a spiritual substance, endued with understanding and free will. God speaketh here in the plural number, to insinuate the plurality of persons in the Deity.

Besides it saying nothing about “free will” (Proverbs 30:5-6), Genesis 1 is a very physical context and quite contrary to “This image of God in man, is not in the body.” The context and words dictate just the opposite. The Hebrew term (e.g. צֶלֶם [tselem]) used in Genesis 1:26 for “image” is always used for a physical image in the Old Testament (e.g. Numbers 33:52 “statues”),1 and Genesis 1:26 is no exception. The Latin term (imaginem) is likewise used for a physical image (e.g. Deuteronomy 4:16; Isaiah 40:18; 44:13 “image”).

Furthermore, Exodus 15:3 declares,

The Lord is as a man of war, . . . .

The Lord is a man. He was “walking in paradise” in Genesis 3:8. Jacob wrestled with Him in Genesis 32:24-30.2 Jesus noted They are two Men in John 8:17-18. Abraham met three Men in Genesis 18. The “our image” of Genesis 1:26 is the literal image of God, who is eternal Men.

Genesis 1:28

[28] "Increase and multiply"... This is not a precept, as some Protestant controvertists would have it, but a blessing, rendering them fruitful; for God had said the same words to the fishes, and birds, (ver. 22) who were incapable of receiving a precept.

It is indeed a blessing, but “This is not a precept”? Besides the simple imperative here (“Increase”) in the English, the Hebrew text has in Genesis 1:28 the Hebrew imperative פְּרוּ (peru, more literally, “Be fruitful,” found in this exact form also only in Genesis 1:22; 9:1, 7). The imperative is the grammatical form for a command (i.e. a precept). The Latin for “Increase” (crescite) in the Latin Vulgate is likewise an imperative. Even the LXX has an imperative (αὐξάνεσθε). This footnote denies all four.

Also, are fishes and birds really “incapable of receiving a precept”? Why then does the DRB footnote say this for Jonah 2:11?

[11] Spoke to the fish: God's speaking to the fish, was nothing else but his will, which all things obey.

Here “all things obey” includes a fish.

In 1 Kings 17:4-6 ravens are commanded by God. In Psalm 148:7-10 birds are told to “Praise the Lord” along with dragons, deeps, fire, hail, snow, ice, stormy winds, mountains, hills, trees, beasts, cattle, serpents, birds, and people.

Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons,3 and all ye deeps: Fire, hail, snow, ice, stormy winds which fulfill his word: Mountains and all hills, fruitful trees and all cedars: Beasts and all cattle: serpents and feathered fowls: Kings of the earth and all people: princes and all judges of the earth: Young men and maidens: let the old with the younger, praise the name of the Lord: (Psalm 148:7-12)4

Likewise, the sun, moon, stars, and waters are all commanded:

Praise ye him, O sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars and light. Praise him, ye heavens of heavens: and let all the waters that are above the heavens. Praise the name of the Lord. (Psalm 148:3-5a; See also Isaiah 44:23; 49:13; 52:9)

How about the wind and the sea? Are they “incapable of receiving a precept”?

And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm. But the men wondered, saying: What manner of man is this, for the winds and the sea obey him? (Matthew 8:26-27; see also Mark 4:40; Luke 8:25; Luke 17:6)?

How about the snow?

He commandeth the snow to go down upon the earth, and the winter rain, and the shower of his strength. (Job 37:6; see also verses 12 & 15)

Or, did you know?

The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee: and they were afraid, and the depths were troubled. (Psalm 76:17 [NKJV 77:16])

The mountains saw thee, and were grieved: the great body of waters passed away. The deep put forth its voice: the deep lifted up its hands. (Habakkuk 3:10)

Or, did you know, beasts teach, birds and fish tell, the earth answers?

But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee: and the birds of the air, and they shall tell thee. Speak to the earth, and it shall answer thee: and the fishes of the sea shall tell. Who is ignorant that the hand of the Lord hath made all these things? (Job 12:7-9; See also 1 Chronicles 16:31-33; Job 28:12-14, 20-22; Psalm 95:11-12 [NKJV 96:11-12]; 97:8-9 [NKJV 98:8-9]; Isaiah 55:12)

Finally, note what happens in the end.

And every creature, which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them: I heard all saying: To him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb, benediction, and honour, and glory, and power, for ever and ever. (Revelation 5:13)

Genesis 4:23

[23] "I have slain a man"... It is the tradition of the Hebrews, that Lamech in hunting slew Cain, mistaking him for a wild beast; and that having discovered what he had done, he beat so unmercifully the youth, by whom he was led into that mistake, that he died of the blows.

Not only is this an addition to the Word of God (Proverbs 30:5-6), but Scripture warns against the “tradition of the Hebrews.” Not only do they teach “doctrines and commandments of men” (Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:8-9), but Paul warns of “giving heed to Jewish fables” (Titus 1:14).

Genesis 6:2

[2] "The sons of God"... The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called sons of God from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men.

So say liars (1 Timothy 4:1-2). Since when are the descendants of Seth and Enos not children of men? Seth and Enos are not men? Of course they are, and so “children of men” includes the children of the men, Seth and Enos. And, where does the text identify Seth's or Enos' descendants as godly and Cain's ungodly? Nowhere. This is all a fable (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

The DRB footnote for Job 1:6 reads,

[6] The sons of God: The angels.-- Ibid. Satan also, etc.

So, in Genesis “sons of God” supposedly means the “descendants of Seth and Enos,” but in Job it means “angels.” This is simply not “rightly handling the word of truth” (1 Timothy 2:15).

The idea of “sons of God” or “children of God” can be found in the OT in Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 28:1 (NKJV 29:1);5 81:6 (NKJV 82:6); 88:7 (NKJV 89:6).6 In Psalm 81:6 (NKJV 82:6) “sons of the most high” are addressed and Jesus makes it clear in John 10:34-35 that men are the subject there. The Job passages reveal Satan is in the mix in Job 1 & 2, and Job 38:7 presents “sons of God” at the creation of the earth, before man is created. Psalm 28:1 (29:1 NKJV) reads in the Latin Vulgate and DRB as if it is speaking of people.7 The Hebrew (and NKJV) is not definitive.8 Psalm 88:7 (89:6) speaks in the context of the heavens. In the NT “sons of God” is always used for redeemed believers (Matthew 5:9; Luke 20:36; John 1:12; 11:52; Romans 5:2; 8:14, 16, 19, 21, 23; 9:8; Galatians 3:26; Philippians 2:15; 1 John 3:1, 10; 3:2; 5:2). So, what about Genesis?

When one compares Genesis 6 with 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6-7, it can be seen Genesis 6 are the “angels that sinned” (2 Peter 2:4) and “who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation” and “in like manner” of the Sodomites, gave “themselves to fornication” and went “after other flesh” and “took to themselves wives” (Genesis 6:2).

Genesis 6:6

[6] "It repented him"... God, who is unchangeable, is not capable of repentance, grief, or any other passion. But these expressions are used to declare the enormity of the sins of men, which was so provoking as to determine their Creator to destroy these his creatures, whom before he had so much favoured.

In other words, don't believe what it says. So, even though the Bible repeatedly speaks of God's grief and passion (Numbers 16:45; 32:10; Deuteronomy 32:16; Psalm 77:41 [NKJV 78:41]; Jeremiah 8:18-19; Hosea 11:8; etc.), “these expressions” don't mean what they say. This fosters rejection of the Word (John 1:1) in unbelief.

Genesis 8:21

[21] "Smelled"... A figurative expression, denoting that God was well pleased with the sacrifices which his servant offered.

Again, via this footnote, people are encouraged to disbelieve and reject God's Truth. The Bible says, “smelled,” but it doesn't really mean that! This is simply antichrist (antiscripture, 2 John 9), since Christ is Scripture (John 1:1, 14; Hebrews 4:12-13; Revelation 19:13); and this is against Him.

Genesis 9:21

[21] "Drunk"... Noe by the judgment of the fathers was not guilty of sin, in being overcome by wine: because he knew not the strength of it.

Well then, the next time you go to the liquor store, make sure you don't look at the label. That way you too can be ignorant of the wine and be “not guilty of sin” when you get drunk! [1 Corinthians 6:9-10]

Immediately after the above footnote we find the footnote for,

Genesis 9:23

[23] "Covered the nakedness"... Thus, as St. Gregory takes notice L. 35; Moral. c. 22, we ought to cover the nakedness, that is, the sins, of our spiritual parents and superiors.

Noah didn't sin by getting drunk, but sinned by being naked in his tent? Who says Noah even knew he was naked? Things can be committed while drunk and be unknown (e.g. Genesis 19:33, 35).

Genesis 9:25

[25] "Cursed be Chanaan"... The curses, as well as the blessings, of the patriarchs, were prophetical: And this in particular is here recorded by Moses, for the children of Israel, who were to possess the land of Chanaan. But why should Chanaan be cursed for his father's faults? The Hebrews answer, that he being then a boy, was the first that saw his grandfather's nakedness, and told his father Cham of it; and joined with him in laughing at it:

This is another Jewish fable (Titus 1:14).

Genesis 10:9

[9] "A stout hunter"... Not of beasts but of men: whom by violence and tyranny he brought under his dominion. And such he was, not only in the opinion of men, but before the Lord, that is, in his sight who cannot be deceived.

Here is another fable (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

Genesis 16:3

[3] "To wife"... Plurality of wives, though contrary to the primitive institution of marriage, Gen. 2. 24, was by divine dispensation allowed to the patriarchs: which allowance seems to have continued during the time of the law of Moses. But Christ our Lord reduced marriage to its primitive institution. Matt. 19.

There is nothing in Scripture that condemns polygamy. Jesus says nothing in regards to polygamy in Matthew 19. The subject there is not polygamy, but rather divorce (Matthew 19:3).

Genesis 32:24

[24] "A man"... This was an angel in human shape, as we learn from Osee 12. 4. He is called God, ver. 28 and 30, because he represented the person of the Son of God.

Here again unbelief is encouraged, along with a strange doctrine (Hebrews 13:9). So, if someone represents another, they can be called that other? If someone represents God, they can be called God? If that's the case, we can never know who it is. He may be called God, but, who knows, it might just be His representative!

Challoner (via his footnotes) arbitrarily decides when it is God and when it is somebody else, even when it clearly is noted as God Himself. For example, check out the footnote for Exodus 4:24.

[24] "The Lord met him, and would have killed him"... This was an angel representing the Lord, who treated Moses in this manner, for having neglected the circumcision of his younger son;

So, even though it says, “The Lord met him,” it really means “an angel representing the Lord met him.” There is one problem with that. That's not what it says.

Genesis 37:5

[5] "A dream"... These dreams of Joseph were prophetical, and sent from God; as were also those which he interpreted, Gen. 40. and 41.; otherwise generally speaking, the observing of dreams is condemned in the Scripture, as superstitious and sinful. See Deut. 18. 10; Eccli. 34. 2, 3. 9

The two passages given here to claim that the observing of dreams is sinful prove no such thing, unless you buy the erroneous translation of the Latin Vulgate. In Leviticus 19:26;10 Deuteronomy 18:10;11 and 2 Chronicles 33:6.12 the Vulgate indeed has “dreams” (somnia) for these passages, but neither the Greek (LXX) nor Hebrew has “dreams.” The Hebrew word for “dreams” (חֲלֹמוֹת [chalomot] e.g. Genesis 42:9) and Greek word for “dreams” (ἐνυπνίων [enupniôn] e.g. Genesis 37:8) are not there. What is there in the Hebrew (see endnotes for Greek) is the word for “soothsaying” מְעוֹנֵן (me`onên, e.g. Dt. 18:10).13 Jeremiah 27:9 well illustrates this. In Jeremiah 27:9 the Douay-Rheims Bible reads,

Therefore hearken not to your prophets, and diviners, and dreamers, and soothsayers, and sorcerers, that say to you: You shall not serve the king Babylon. (sic, Jeremiah 27:9)

The LXX (ἐνυπνιαζομένων)14 and Latin Vulgate (somniatores) both have “dreamers” here. But, here that is appropriate, because what is translated (in the Greek, Latin, and English) as “dreamers” is indeed the Hebrew word for “dreamers,” חֲלֹמֹתֵיכֶם (chalomotêykhem, “your dreamers”).

Moreover, what is translated here as “soothsayers” is the Hebrew word for “soothsayers,” עֹנְנֵיכֶם (`onnêykhem, “your soothsayers”),15 which is the same root word as what is found in Leviticus 19:26; Deuteronomy 18:10; and 2 Chronicles 33:6. Yet, both the Latin Vulgate (somnia) and the Douay-Rheims Bible translate it as “dreams.” It is not dreams. It is “soothsaying.”

Finally, the other passage given in the footnote is Ecclesiasticus 34:2-3.

[1] The hopes of a man that is void of understanding are vain and deceitful: and dreams lift up fools. [2] The man that giveth heed to lying visions, is like to him that catcheth at a shadow, and followeth after the wind. [3] The vision of dreams is the resemblance of one thing to another: as when a man's likeness is before the face of a man. [4] What can be made clean by the unclean? and what truth can come from that which is false? [5] Deceitful divinations and lying omens and the dreams of evildoers, are vanity: (Ecclesiasticus 34:1-5)

This passage speaks of the dreams of the wicked, which are indeed evil, as is everything else they do (Proverbs 21:4; Romans 14:23).

Therefore, whether a dream was to be “observed” or not comes down to judging whether it is of God or not (1 John 4:1-6). Indeed, “in the multitude of dreams and many words there is also vanity” (Ecclesiastes 5:7). Yet, God still works in man via dreams, though he knows it not (Job 33:14-18). Nevertheless, if God were to still use a dream in a person's life, for whatever reason He so chose, who are we to say the observing of dreams is sinful. God says no such thing (Proverbs 30:5-6).

Exodus 4:21

[21] "I shall harden"... Not by being the efficient cause of his sin; but by withdrawing from him, for his just punishment, the dew of grace that might have softened his heart; and so suffering him to grow harder and harder.

This is the doctrine of men (Matthew 15:8-9). Scripture teaches just the opposite,16 as it is written,

Why hast thou made us to err, O Lord, from thy ways: why hast thou hardened our heart, that we should not fear thee? (Isaiah 63:17)

I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7; see also Proverbs 16:4; Lamentation 3:37-38; Amos 3:6.17)

Of course, Challoner denies this as well, thus the footnote.

[7] "Create evil"... The evils of afflictions and punishments, but not the evil of sin. (footnote for Isaiah 45:7)

God explicitly says He creates evil. Challoner says no, “not the evil of sin.” Even though, both in the Hebrew, רָע (râ`), and the Latin (malum) it is the word commonly used for the evil of sin.18

2 Samuel 12:11-12 well illustrates God creates “the evil of sin.”

Thus saith the Lord: Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thy own house, and I will take thy wives before thy eyes I and give them to thy neighhour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing in the sight of all Israel, and in the sight of the sun. (sic, 2 Samuel 12:11-12)

DRB's footnote for this reads,

[11] "I will raise"... All these evils, inasmuch as they were punishments, came upon David by a just judgment of God, for his sin, and therefore God says, I will raise, etc.; but inasmuch as they were sins, on the part of Absalom and his associates, God was not the author of them, but only permitted them.

“God was not the author of them,” even though God says, “I will raise up evil.” “I will take thy wives.” “I and give them to thy neighhour.” “I will do this thing.” God is not the author of all this? That is simply foolish unbelief.

Likewise, the DRB has no faith in 2 Samuel 24:1.

And the anger of the Lord was again kindled against Israel, and stirred up David among them, saying: Go, number Israel and Juda. (2 Samuel 24:1)

The footnote for that passage reads,

[1] "Stirred up"... This stirring up was not the doing of God, but of Satan; as it is expressly declared, 1 Chron. or Paralip. 21. 1.

So, even though the Scripture says, “the anger of the Lord . . . stirred up David,” Challoner claims it “was not the doing of God.” In other words, don't believe what you read. Believe the footnote! That is downright wicked!

The footnote for Psalm 104:25 (105:25) reads,

[25] He turned their heart: Not that God (who is never the author of sin) moved the Egyptians to hate and persecute his people; but that the Egyptians took occasion of hating and envying them, from the sight of the benefits which God bestowed upon them.

The passage speaks for itself.

He turned their heart to hate his people: and to deal deceitfully with his servants. (Psalm 104:25)

Leviticus 11:3

[3] "Hoof divided, and cheweth the cud"... The dividing of the hoof and chewing of the cud, signify discretion between good and evil, and meditating on the law of God; and where either of these is wanting a man is unclean. In like manner fishes were reputed unclean that had not fins and scales: that is, souls that did not raise themselves up by prayer and cover themselves with the scales of virtue.

More fables (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

Leviticus 19:19

[19] "Different seeds"... This law tends to recommend simplicity and plain dealing in all things, and to teach the people not to join any false worship or heresy with the worship of the true God.

Wow, all that from “Thou shalt not sow thy field with different seeds.”!

Joshua 5:15

[15] "Worshipping"... Not with divine honour, but with a religious veneration of an inferior kind, suitable to the dignity of his person.

Here the translation itself is denied. It says “worshipping.” Yet, the footnote says, “Not with divine honour.” But, this is pure folly. The “dignity of his person” is divine. Joshua is told,

Loose, saith he, thy shoes from off thy feet: for the place whereon thou standest is holy. (Joshua 5:16)

This is the same thing Moses was told to do in the presence of God.

Now Moses fed the sheep of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Madian: and he drove the flock to the inner parts of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, Horeb. And the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he saw that the bush was on fire and was not burnt. And Moses said: I will go and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that he went forward to see, he called to him out of the midst of the bush, and said: Moses, Moses. And he answered: Here I am. And he said: Come not nigh hither, put off the shoes from thy feet: for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. (Exodus 3:1-5).

Judges 9:13

[13] "Cheereth God and men"... Wine is here represented as agreeable to God, because he had appointed it to be offered up with his sacrifices. But we are not obliged to take these words, spoken by the trees, in Joatham's parable, according to the strict literal sense: but only in a sense accomodated to the design of the parable expressed in the conclusion of it.

In other words, don't believe “wine . . . cheereth God” like Judges 9:13 says. The verse says it cheereth men (and men are indeed cheered by it), why not God?

3 Kings 19:17 (1 Kings 19:17)

[17] "Shall be slain by Eliseus"... Eliseus did not kill any of the idolaters with the material sword:

Here again the Word of God is rejected in favor of the folly of men. Note the passage.

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall escape the sword of Hazael, shall be slain by Jehu: and whosoever shall escape the sword of Jehu, shall be slain by Eliseus. (3 Kings 19:17)

So, even though God (vs. 15) says, “whosoever shall escape . . . shall be slain by Eliseus,” the DRB says just the opposite and says, “Eliseus did not kill any.” Somebody's lying!

3 Kings 22:22 (1 Kings 22:22)

[22] "Go forth, and do so"... This was not a command, but a permission: for God never ordaineth lies;

The very text that reveals God does indeed ordaineth lies the DRB denies. See also Ezekiel 14:9 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11.

Nehemiah 9:7

[7] The fire of the Chaldeans: The city of Ur in Chaldea, the name of which signifies fire. Or out of the fire of the tribulations and temptations, to which he was there exposed.-- The ancient Rabbins understood this literally, affirming that Abram was cast into the fire by the idolaters, and brought out by a miracle without any hurt.

Here is another Jewish fable (Titus 1:14).

The DRB translation of Nehemiah 9:7 reads,

Thou, O Lord God, art he who chosest Abram, and broughtest him forth out of the fire of the Chaldeans, and gavest him the name of Abraham. (Nehemiah 9:7)

The Latin word here is indeed “fire” (igne, Isaiah 33:14), and the Hebrew word is indeed “fire” (אוּר ['ur], e.g. Isaiah 44:16, second “fire”). This is the name of the city in Mesopotamia (Genesis 24:4, 10; Acts 7:2) in the land of the Chaldeans from which Abraham came. It is “Ur,” which in Hebrew means “Fire.”

Every other time this city name is mentioned in Scripture, the Latin Vulgate translates it as “ur” (Genesis 11:28, 31; 15:7), which is actually a transliteration rather than a translation. If it was a translation, it would indeed be “igne,” “fire.” But, for some reason Nehemiah 9:7 is the only place the Latin Vulgate translated it rather than transliterating it.

Now, all it takes is a simple read of the pertinent passages that speak of Abraham coming from this city and it can be seen that it is simply the name of the city, rather than any episode of Abraham being brought out of any literal fire. See Genesis 11:28, 31; 15:7; 24:7; Joshua 24:2-3; Acts 7:2. Thus the DRB footnote is just another regurgitation of yet another Jewish fable.

Job 3:1

[1] Cursed his day: Job cursed the day of his birth, not by way of wishing evil to any thing of God's creation; but only to express in a stronger manner his sense of human miseries in general, and of his own calamities in particular.

Here we have yet another denial of the Word of God. Note the evil Job wished to God's creation:

Let a darksome whirlwind seize upon that night, let it not be counted in the days of the year, nor numbered in the months. (Job 3:6)

God created “that night” and Job wished evil upon it. He wanted it cursed.

Let them curse it who curse the day. (Job 3:8)

Psalm 54:16 (55:15 NKJV)

[16] Let death: This, and such like imprecations which occur in the psalms, are delivered prophetically; that is, by way of foretelling the punishments which shall fall upon the wicked from divine justice, and approving the righteous ways of God: but not by way of ill will, or uncharitable curses, which the law of God disallows.

This illustrates again the persuasion not to believe the text of Scripture. When it says,

Let death come upon them, and let them go down alive into hell. For there is wickedness in their dwellings: in the midst of them. (Psalm 54:16 [55:15 NKJV])

That is most profoundly ill will towards the wicked of the worst kind. That's a most uncharitable curse upon them, desiring them to go to hell!

Likewise, note the footnote for Jeremiah 17:18.

[18] Let them be confounded: Such expressions as these in the writings of the prophets, are not to be understood as imprecations proceeding from malice or desire of revenge: but as prophetic predictions of evils that were about to fall upon impenitent sinners, and approbations of the ways of divine justice.

It says, “not to be understood as . . . desire of revenge”? Read the verse.

Let them be confounded that persecute me, and let not me be confounded: let them be afraid, and let not me be afraid: bring upon them the day of affliction, and with a double destruction, destroy them. (Jeremiah 17:18; see also verse 16)

This is clearly a desire for revenge, and Jeremiah is not unique (e.g. 2 Chronicles 24:20-22; 2 Timothy 4:14; Revelation 6:9-10). Desiring revenge is the cry of the elect, as Jesus said,

And will not God revenge his elect who cry to him day and night: and will he have patience in their regard? I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. (Luke 18:7-8a)

Psalm 57:11 (58:10 NKJV)

[11] Shall wash his hands: Shall applaud the justice of God, and take occasion from the consideration of the punishment of the wicked to wash and cleanse his hands from sin.

The just shall rejoice when he shall see the revenge: he shall wash his hands in the blood of the sinner. (Psalm 57:11)

Here again, instead of simply taking it for what it says, the footnote twists (2 Peter 3:16) the Scripture into something it is not. The text says nothing of cleansing from sin. Since when does the blood of the ungodly cleanse from sin? It is only the blood of the godly, spotless Lamb of God that cleanses away sin (John 1:29).

In Psalm 57:11 the Latin Vulgate has “their hands” (manus suas). The LXX has “his hands” (τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ [tas keiras autou]). The Hebrew has “his feet,” (פְּעָמָיו [pe`âmâyv]).

Psalm 136:9 (137:9 NKJV)

[9] Dash thy little ones: In the spiritual sense, we dash the little ones of Babylon against the rock, when we mortify our passions, and stifle the first motions of them, by a speedy recourse to the rock which is Christ.

This is more Catholic fiction. The Psalm is written in the context of literal Babylon (see vs. 1). The Psalmist is clearly desiring literal destruction. As it is written,

O daughter of Babylon, miserable: blessed shall he be who shall repay thee thy payment which thou hast paid us. Blessed be he that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. (Psalm 136:8-9)

Ecclesiastes 3:21

[21] Who knoweth: Viz., experimentally: since no one in this life can see a spirit. But as to the spirit of the beasts, which is merely animal, and become extinct by the death of the beast, who can tell the manner it acts so as to give life and motion, and by death to descend downward, that is, to be no more?

This footnote claims the spirit of the beast becomes “extinct” (i.e. non-existent) at death. Ecclesiastes 3:21 does not say that, nor does any other Scripture (Proverbs 30:5-6), but rather just the opposite is taught (see below). Note the passage.

Who knoweth if the spirit of the children of Adam ascend upward, and if the spirit of the beasts descend downward? (Ecclesiastes 3:21)

As the question reads here in the English DRB (and the LXX),19 the very question at hand (“Who knoweth . . . if the spirit of the beasts descend downward?”) the writer of the footnote seems to know and concludes, based on the spirit descending downward, this means the spirit goes extinct at death. Yet, the Bible does not teach a descending spirit goes into extinction. Ecclesiastes 3:21 says no such thing, not in the Latin, English, Greek (LXX), or Hebrew.

Animals are “living souls” (as man is a “living soul,” Genesis 2:7) and are noted as such in Genesis 1:20,20 21, 24, 30; 2:19; 9:10, 12, 15-16; Leviticus 11:10, 46; Job 12:10; and Ezekiel 47:9. Thus, as Ecclesiastes 3:21 reveals, since they also have a spirit, they are like man having body, soul, and spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23).

Moreover, the Lord is the “God of all flesh” (Jeremiah 32:27). That means He is the God of all animals. “All flesh” is a term for both animals and humans.21 Indeed,

All flesh22 is not the same flesh: but one is the flesh of men, another of beasts, another of birds, another of fishes. (1 Corinthians 15:39)

Nonetheless, the Lord is the God of all of them, and this is significant.

In Luke 20 Jesus had a conversation with the Sadducees about the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducess “deny that there is any resurrection” (Luke 20:27) and so they posed a question to Christ concerning it.

Jesus proved to them that there is indeed a resurrection of the dead by pointing to the burning bush passage in Exodus 3. He said,

Now that the dead rise again, Moses also shewed, at the bush, when he called the Lord, The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to him. (Luke 20:37-38)

Jesus' proof here is that God is called the “God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all dead and in the grave (Genesis 49:31; 50:12-13). Yet, Jesus stated they were yet alive saying, “he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to him.”

This is well illustrated in Luke 16:19-31. In Luke 16 both the rich man in Hades and Lazarus above are alive in physical bodies in the afterlife.23 The rich man is in torment, and Lazarus is being comforted. The rich man mentions Lazarus' finger and his own tongue (Luke 16:24). They are clearly both in physical bodies, yet on earth their physical bodies are dead.

So, how does all this apply to animals? Just as God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so He is “the God of all flesh.” He is the God of all men and animals, and since He “is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to him,” that means “all flesh” (animals included) live to Him. Animals die, like humans die (Ecclesiastes 3:19), but neither go into extinction. They both are alive in the afterlife after they die. For all live to Him.

Where do they go? Their earthly body returns to the earth (Ecclesiastes 3:20),24 and their spirits go up and down. For men, Ecclesiastes 12:7 says,

And the dust return into its earth, from whence it was, and the spirit return to God, who gave it. (Ecclesiastes 12:7; See also Amos 4:10-12)

The Hebrew text for Ecclesiastes 3:21 more literally reads,

Who knows the spirit of the sons of Adam that ascends up and the spirit of the beast that descends down to the earth? (Ecclesiastes 3:21; See also Proverbs 20:27; 1 Corinthians 2:11)25

In the Hebrew this verse indicates the spirit of the man goes up to God (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Amos 4:12) and the spirit of the animal goes down to the earth. No specifics are given beyond that, but one thing is clear. There are men not far away.

Philippians 2:10 (“every knee”) and Revelation 5:3 speak of men “under the earth.”26 Revelation 5:13 speaks of “every creature . . . under the earth” praising the Lamb.

Ecclesiastes 11:3

[3] If the tree fall: The state of the soul is unchangeable when once she comes to heaven or hell: and a soul that departs this life in the state of grace, shall never fall from grace: as on the other side, a soul that dies out of the state of grace, shall never come to it.

This is ridiculous! Please read the verse.

If the clouds be full, they will pour out rain upon the earth. If the tree fall to the south, or to the north, in what place soever it shall fall, there shall it be. (Ecclesiastes 11:3)

This is talking about a literal tree falling. Neither the context nor the verse itself is talking about “the state of the soul.” This is more Catholic footnote fables.

Ezekiel 47:1

[1] Waters: These waters are not to be understood literally (for there were none such that flowed from the temple); but mystically, of the baptism of Christ, and of his doctrine and his grace: the trees that grow on the banks are Christian virtues: the fishes are Christians, that spiritually live in and by these holy waters, the fishermen are the apostles, and apostolic preachers: the fenny places, where there is no health, are such as by being out of the church are separated from these waters of life.

Because “there were none such that flowed from the temple” that means there won't be? That is very foolish. Here is a prophecy of a future temple, and this footnote obscures the truth via “not to be understood literally.” There is nothing in the text to indicate that (Proverbs 30:5-6). This is more Catholic fiction and folly.

Daniel 2:44

[44] A kingdom: Viz., the kingdom of Christ in the Catholic Church which cannot be destroyed.

That doesn't even fit the verse. Note the verse.

But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.

The Catholic church, though in existence for centuries, has never and has not broken “in pieces” nor “consumed all these kingdoms.” Here we have another fable (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

Daniel 9:21

[21] The man Gabriel: The angel Gabriel in the shape of a man.27

What a profound insight! This man, Gabriel, was in the shape of a man! Amazing! Do men come in other shapes? Gabriel is also noted as having “the appearance of a man” in Daniel 8:15-16 and identified as an angel in Luke 1:19, 26.

Daniel 9:27

[27] In the half of the week: or, in the middle of the week, etc. Because Christ preached three years and a half: and then by his sacrifice upon the cross abolished all the sacrifices of the law.

The “weeks” in Daniel are years, as can be seen via Daniel 9:2, 24-25. There are a total of 490 years given in the prophecy described as “Seventy weeks” (Daniel 9:24). It literally reads in the Hebrew, seventy sevens28 (70 x 7 = 490).

Christ is killed (“slain” DRB) in Daniel 9:26, the prior verse. This is after the 7 and 62 weeks (7 + 62 = 69) of Daniel 9:25. In truth, Christ is not on the earth for but another 40 days after He is slain and resurrected (Acts 1:1-3). Thus, Christ is not around three and a half years after His death. Daniel 9:27 speaks of another week, another 7 years, after the 69 (7 + 62, Daniel 9:25-26).

Moreover, His “sacrifice upon the cross” did not abolish “all the sacrifices of the law.” They still sacrificed after His death (Acts 21:26; Hebrews 5:1; 9:9) and will yet sacrifice in the future (e.g. Ezekiel 44:10-30).

Jonah 4:1

[1] Was exceedingly troubled: His concern was lest he should pass for a false prophet; or rather, lest God's word, by this occasion, might come to be slighted and disbelieved.

Disbelieved? No, just the opposite. Jonah didn't want them to believe. Jonah hated the people of Nineveh and wanted them destroyed. This is why he fled to Tarshish. He didn't want to preach to them, lest they repent, as Jonah says.

And Jonas was exceedingly troubled, and was angry: And he prayed to the Lord, and said: I beseech thee, O Lord, is not this what I said, when I was yet in my own country? therefore I went before to flee into Tharsis: for I know that thou art a gracious and merciful God, patient, and of much compassion, and easy to forgive evil.

Jonah saw that the people of Nineveh repented (Jonah 3:10), and he didn't want God's mercy upon them! He complains knowing God is “a gracious and merciful God, patient, and of much compassion.”

Zachariah 2:4

[4] Jerusalem shall be inhabited without walls: This must be understood of the spiritual Jerusalem, the church of Christ.

This is quite sad. Those who believe such lies miss the awesome literal reality soon to be here described in these verses.

And I lifted up my eyes, and saw, and behold a man, with a measuring line in his hand. And I said: Whither goest thou? and he said to me: To measure Jerusalem, and to see how great is the breadth thereof, and how great the length thereof. And behold the angel that spoke in me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him. And he said to him: Run, speak to this young man, saying: Jerusalem shall be inhabited without walls, by reason of the multitude of men, and of the beasts in the midst thereof. And I will be to it, saith the Lord, a wall of fire round about: and I will be in glory in the midst thereof. (Zachariah 2:1-5)

Matthew 12:31

[31] The blasphemy of the Spirit: The sin here spoken of is that blasphemy, by which the Pharisees attributed the miracles of Christ, wrought by the Spirit of God, to Beelzebub the prince of devils. Now this kind of sin is usually accompanied with so much obstinacy, and such wilful opposing the Spirit of God, and the known truth, that men who are guilty of it, are seldom or never converted: and therefore are never forgiven, because they will not repent. Otherwise there is no sin, which God cannot or will not forgive to such as sincerely repent, and have recourse to the keys of the church.

By saying “seldom . . . converted” this footnote makes Christ a liar (as in 1 John 5:10), since Christ said this sin will never be forgiven. Thus, there is no such thing as a converted (i.e. saved, forgiven) person who has previously blasphemed the Spirit.

The above is akin to the footnote found for Hebrews 10:26.

[26] If we sin wilfully: He speaks of the sin of wilful apostasy from the known truth; after which, as we can not be baptized again, we can not expect to have that abundant remission of sins, which Christ purchased by his death, applied to our souls in that ample manner as it is in baptism: but we have rather all manner of reason to look for a dreadful judgment; the more because apostates from the known truth, seldom or never have the grace to return to it.

Apostates “seldom . . . have the grace to return”? The passage to which this footnote speaks teaches, like blasphemy of the Spirit, there is no return. See Hebrews 10:26-31.

Matthew 12:36

[36] Every idle word: This shews there must be a place of temporal punishment hereafter where these slighter faults shall be punished.

This is a direct attack on the atonement of Christ for the sins of mankind (1 Peter 2:24). This renders Christ's blood insufficient to cleanse from “all sin,” contrary to 1 John 1:7; etc. (e.g. Romans 6:10; Hebrews 7:27; 9:12, 28; 10:10).

Matthew 13:55

Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: (Matthew 13:55)

[55] His brethren: These were the children of Mary the wife of Cleophas, sister to our Blessed Lady, (St. Matt. 27. 56; St. John 19. 25,) and therefore, according to the usual style of the Scripture, they were called brethren, that is, near relations to our Saviour.

Where does the Bible identify these as the children of Mary the wife of Cleophas? Nowhere! The Scriptures given don't. Moreover, what would the wording be if these were actually Jesus' siblings if not “brethren,” especially in this context in which Jesus' father and mother are identified along with “his brethren” by name and “his sisters” in the next verse? Jesus' brothers and sisters are also mentioned in Mark 6:3 and His brothers in John 7:3-5. James, the Lord's brother, is mentioned in Galatians 1:19. Likewise, Jesus' mother and brothers are also mentioned in Acts 1:13.

This footnote is simply a cover to continue the unbiblical teaching that Mary continued to be a virgin after Christ was born. Such doctrine is strange (Hebrews 13:9) to the Scriptures. It is never taught therein, but explicitly noted as otherwise (brothers, sisters, Matthew 1:25).

Also, if it were true that Mary continued to be a virgin, that would be quite a sad and frustrating life for poor Joseph. He indeed kept her a virgin before Christ was born (Matthew 1:25; Ecclesiastes 3:1), but had he continued doing so, He'd be disobedient to Proverbs 5:15-19 & Ecclesiastes 9:9. Of course, sadly, that is the likely plight of the ungodly, for they seek only rebellion (Proverbs 17:11); and so do their wives (Genesis 3:16; 1 Corinthians 7:4-5).

Matthew 19:9

[9] Except it be: In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living.

Here is another commandment and doctrine of men (Matthew 15:8-9) that denies the text itself. In Matthew 19:9 Jesus says a man commits adultery if he divorces his wife and marries another, unless he does so “for fornication.” In other words, the man has not committed adultery if he divorces and remarries because of fornication. Yet, this footnote denies this by saying, “the husband cannot marry” in such a case.

Neither in Matthew 19, nor anywhere else in Scripture, does it teach a man cannot remarry after divorcing an immoral wife. This is an example of forbidding marriage (1 Timothy 4:3) when the Word does not.

Some might think Romans 7:2-3 teaches this, but it does not. It addresses a woman who marries another man while her first husband is still alive. It speaks of no divorce, nor of a man marrying a woman while his first wife is still alive. Some might think it would be the same for a man as it is for a woman, but Scripture does not teach that, and the law illustrates this.

For example, if a virgin had sex outside of wedlock, and it was not known she had until after she married, she was noted as a whore (harlot) and she was to be killed (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). There is not a single word on the man (or men) she lay with, and no such law is given for a man. If a man had sex outside of wedlock, he was supposed to marry the girl (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Actually, Romans 7:2-3 well illustrates this difference. Romans 7 explicitly condemns polygamy for a woman, but says nothing regarding a man. Likewise, neither the OT nor NT condemns polygamy for men, and men practiced it extensively in the OT (e.g. Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Caleb, David, Solomon, Gideon, etc.).

Mark 6:5

[5] He could not: Not for want of power, but because he would not work miracles in favour of obstinate and incredulous people, who were unworthy of such favours.

Here again we have, “Don't believe what it says” (i.e. don't believe the Bible). It says, “could not” in the English, Latin (non poterat), and Greek (οὐκ ἠδύνατο).29 It does not say, “would not.”

John 3:5

Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

[5] Unless a man be born again: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19.

Here the Latin Vulgate translates the Greek word γεννηθῇ (gennêthê) in John 3:5 as renatus, “born again.” The Greek word here (γεννηθῇ) is not a Greek word for “born again.” It is simply the word for “born” as the Latin Vulgate well illustrates, for example, in John 9:2 where it translates this same exact word as “nasceretur” (“should be born”).

Moreover, what is translated as “born again” in John 3:3 is not one word in the Latin or the Greek. In both it is the word for “born” and the word for “again.” In the Latin it is “natus” for born and “denuo” for “again” for “natus . . . denuo,” “born again.” In the Greek it is γεννηθῇ (gennêthê) for born and ἄνωθεν (anôthen) for “again” (or “above”).30

Thus, the Latin Vulgate, DRB, and DRB footnote are erroneous. The Greek does not say, “unless a man be born again of water,” but rather, “unless someone has been born out of water and the Spirit.” In the following verse Jesus explains what He is talking about (flesh and spirit).

John 6:64

[64] "The flesh profiteth nothing"... Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man's flesh, that is to say, man's natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.

It is true, "For if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us." Indeed, in His body (flesh) He accomplished salvation through death (Colossians 1:22) on the tree (1 Peter 2:24). That's why Jesus' words in John 6:64 must be kept in the context in which He made them, and the very next statement dictates that. He says, "The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life" (John 6:64). In other words, the words that He spoke to them (the words prior to that) are spiritual. The Catholic church says they are literal/physical/flesh. Jesus says they are not: "the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life." The flesh in the context is the flesh He spoke of earlier regarding His flesh that is to be eaten. His words are "spirit" (i.e. spiritual).

The DRB footnote further says, "'The flesh profiteth nothing' . . . Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed . . . " (bold added). The DRB supposed this upon the text. John 6 says nothing about them supposing anything. In fact, it shows just the opposite. They didn't suppose anything, for they say, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:53). They express they do not know how He could/would do it. This supposes nothing. The DRB says they supposed "Dead flesh separated from the spirit." John 6 says no such thing (Proverbs 30:6), but rather, they didn't know; and there is no supposing except in the DRB footnote. Jesus spoke of Himself as the "living bread" that is to be eaten, not the dead ("separated from the spirit") bread. Neither Jesus' words, nor the words of the people, support this "supposed" idea. The only supposing here is the DRB supposing contrary to the text.

John 9:39

[39] I am come: Not that Christ came for that end, that any one should be made blind: but that the Jews, by the abuse of his coming, and by their not receiving him, brought upon themselves this judgment of blindness.

Here again we have, “Don't believe it.” Read the verse.

And Jesus said: For judgment I am come into this world; that they who see not, may see; and they who see, may become blind. (John 9:39)

John 12:39

[39] They could not believe: Because they would not, saith St. Augustine, Tract. 33, in Joan. See the annotation, St. Mark 4. 12.

Here again, Scripture says, “they could not.” It does not say, “they would not,” and the following verse shows the reason.

[39] Therefore they could not believe, because Isaias said again: [40] He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. (John 12:39-40)

The reason given is because God blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they should not see, should not understand, and should not be converted. In other words, they could not believe, because God made sure they could not believe to ensure they would not be saved (converted).

John 13:27

[27] That which thou dost, do quickly: It is not a license, much less a command, to go about his treason: but a signification to him that Christ would not hinder or resist what he was about, do it as soon as he pleased: but was both ready and desirous to suffer for our redemption.

Here again we have, “Don't believe what it says.” Read the verse.

And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly. (John 13:27)

That is most certainly a command, as was the command in Amos 4:4.

Come ye to Bethel, and do wickedly: to Galgal, and multiply transgressions: (Amos 4:4)

John 14:28

[28] For the Father is greater than I: It is evident, that Christ our Lord speaks here of himself as he is made man: for as God he is equal to the Father. (See Phil. 2.) Any difficulty of understanding the meaning of these words will vanish, when the relative circumstances of the text here are considered: for Christ being at this time shortly to suffer death, signified to his apostles his human nature by these very words: for as God he could not die. And therefore as he was both God and man, it must follow that according to his humanity he was to die, which the apostles were soon to see and believe, as he expresses, ver. 29. And now I have told you before it come to pass: that when it shall come to pass, you may believe. (bold added)

Scripture does not separate Christ's humanity from His divinity as this footnote does. On the contrary, it declares,

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally; (Colossians 2:9)31

Acts 20:28 explicitly says God shed His blood. As God, Jesus died (Revelation 1:17-18). Thus, God died on the cross. And, Jesus meant what He said. Jesus is God (John 1:1), and He clearly states, “the Father is greater than I.” Plus note,

Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever. (Hebrews 13:8; see also 1 Corinthian 15:24-28)

Acts 15:29

[29] From blood, and from things strangled: The use of these things, though of their own nature indifferent, was here prohibited, to bring the Jews more easily to admit of the society of the Gentiles; and to exercise the latter in obedience. But this prohibition was but temporary, and has long since ceased to oblige; more especially in the western churches.

Scripture nowhere teaches this was only temporary. Blood has been forbidden since before the law in Genesis 9:4, and the reason it was forbidden has not changed.

The Latin Vulgate and DRB do not do well in translating Genesis 9:4. The DRB reads,

Saving that flesh with blood you shall not eat. (Genesis 9:4)

The Latin and DRB both leave out the word for soul. Both in the Greek (LXX, ψυχῆς) and in the Hebrew,32 the word for soul is there, but the Latin and DRB don't have it. Genesis 9:4 more literally reads (from the Hebrew),

Yet, you shall not eat flesh in its soul, its blood.33

The soul is key to understanding why God gave this commandment, and the law sheds more light on the matter.

For the life of all flesh is in the blood: therefore I said to the children of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any flesh at all, because the life of the flesh is in the blood, and whosoever eateth it, shall be cut off. (Leviticus 17:14; see also Deuteronomy 12:23)

What is here translated “life” is more literally “soul” in the Latin (anima),34 Greek LXX (ψυχὴ), and Hebrew (נֶפֶשׁ). This is why the blood is not to be eaten. It is “the soul of all flesh” (Leviticus 17:14).

Acts 20:7

[7] And on the first day of the week: Here St. Chrysostom and many other interpreters of the scripture explain, that the Christians even at this time, must have changed the sabbath into the first day of the week, (the Lord's day,) as all Christians now keep it. This change was undoubtedly made by the authority of the church; hence the exercise of the power, which Christ had given to her: for he is Lord of the sabbath.

That's a lot to conclude and assume based on a passage that simply says they met on that day. They also met daily (Acts 2:46). Scripture does not teach any such Sabbath change. The Catholic church does, but Scripture does not.

Romans 9:17

[17] To this purpose: Not that God made him on purpose that he should sin, and so be damned; but foreseeing his obstinacy in sin, and the abuse of his own free will, he raised him up to be a mighty king, to make a more remarkable example of him:

Here again this footnote dissuades the reader from believing the Bible. The whole context and point of the passage is that God used Pharao for His purposes regardless of Pharao's own disposition, as Jacob and Esau as the prior example were loved and hated before they were born, before they could do anything good or evil (Romans 9:11-13).

Furthermore, they speak of “free will” immediately after the verse that says, “it is not of him that willeth” (Romans 9:16). The Scripture says it is not. This footnote says it is.

2 Timothy 3:16

[16] All scripture,: Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.

This DRB with its footnotes well illustrates that the “true meaning” from “the interpretation of the church” is perverted.

Furthermore, it says, “we must not be content” with that which will make us “perfect” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). That's an interesting concept!

Hebrews 7:3

[3] Without father: Not that he had no father, etc., but that neither his father, nor his pedigree, nor his birth, nor his death, are set down in scripture.

So, even though it says he had no father, don't believe it!

James 5:16

[16] Confess therefore your sins one to another: That is, to the priests of the church, whom (ver. 14) he had ordered to be called for, and brought in to the sick; moreover, to confess to persons who had no power to forgive sins, would be useless. Hence the precept here means, that we must confess to men whom God hath appointed, and who, by their ordination and jurisdiction, have received the power of remitting sins in his name.

James 5:16 says “one to another.” It does not specify to the priest, but the footnote adds that. Actually, all believers in the Bible are priests. See 1 Peter 2:9 & Revelation 1:6.

Jude 9

[9] Contended about the body: This contention, which is no where else mentioned in holy writ, was originally known by revelation, and transmitted by tradition. It is thought the occasion of it was, that the devil would have had the body buried in such a place and manner, as to be worshipped by the Jews with divine honours.

Here is more fable. The “transmitted by tradition” is fantasy and so is the “It is thought . . . .”

Revelation 20:2

[2] Bound him: The power of Satan has been very much limited by the passion of Christ: for a thousand years; that is, for the whole time of the New Testament; but especially from the time of the destruction of Babylon or pagan Rome, till the new efforts of Gog and Magog against the church, towards the end of the world. During which time the souls of the martyrs and saints live and reign with Christ in heaven, in the first resurrection, which is that of the soul to the life of glory; as the second resurrection will be that of the body, at the day of the general judgment.

This is so stupid! Read Revelation 19-20 (along with chapters 6-20). These things obviously have not yet taken place. Yet, this footnote puts it into “has been” (i.e. already happened).

Also, a resurrection is “that of the body.” See 1 Corinthians 15:12-49. There is no distinction in Scripture of “that of the soul” and “that of the body.” This is simply more fable (2 Timothy 4:4).

Revelation 21:1

[1] The first heaven and the first earth was gone: being changed, not as to their substance, but in their qualities.

The Bible says “gone.” The footnote says “changed.” Who do you believe?

Revelation 20:11 declares,

And I saw a great white throne, and one sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away, and there was no place found for them.

There “was no place found for them.” In other words, they were “gone.” They no longer exist. See 2 Peter 3:10-13.

Endnotes:

a true church, P. O. Box 130, Moodys, OK 74444

1-800-HOW-TRUE; www.atruechurch.info