1610 Real Douay Rheims Bible and Ancient Language bibles
I want to throw out there a few ideas for bible modules which are lacking in the free bible software world :
Old Latin bible
Old English portions
Dead Sea Scroll bible
Old Ethiopic bible
Old Slavic bible
Old Glagolitic bible
*probably not much different from Slavic, but interesting font*
Old Albanian portions
Old Armenian bible
Old Georgian bible
Coptic OT fragments
Old Saxon fragments
Old and Middle French and German bibles, etc
Old Nubian portions (soon I will put this online as a txt presentation)
If anyone knows where I could find them, that would be great, please tell.
and modules for the Old Persian Behistun inscription
and Hammurabi's Law Code
would be interesting, though I rather think the reading of Pagan Literature has gotten out of hand the last 400 years, and I consider Pagan writings written by Satan himself.
These ancient bibles are very useful for serious seekers of Heaven and The Truth, as the ancients were God-fearing, reverent, and accurate in their translations of their source texts, even as these were often corrupt, unlike all modern translators. Studying their translations could teach us most valuable things about how to find and treat The Holy Bible.
Speaking of which, the 1610 Douay-Rheims is very sorely lacking. The 1780 Douay-Rheims is very different, to a fault. If this is done, I recommend original spelling given the occaisional linguistic difficulty of modernisation of spelling. But both might be attempted. For Good Catholics, I don't know if ecclesiastical approval is required to simply re-type it, consider seeking out the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, as they seem unlikely to tell you nonsense and disobedience to the true teaching. You should know how to find those faithful to The Commandments.
Is there some way to include the 1610 footnotes as pop-ups ? Maybe they could be included after the verse, or in a non-bible module or in a bible module in the appropriate verse line.
Aside from these, such is The Holy Bible, that for study and comparison purposes I call for the typing up of Church-approved translations (which are real translations, I don't consider the New American Bible, Confraternity, or even 1752 to be real bibles*) and authoritative Latin manuscript variations. For Catholics, and also for all men, we have the Clementine, it must be checked. But we should get into there the 1610, for I say the 1752 is a mis-represenation of Catholicism.
*Lest anyone ignorant may be shocked, I may be in error here, but I think the 1752 Douay-Rheims and newer Catholic translations (along with all Protestant translations) are fake Bibles, based on how they mistranslate Latin, Hebrew, or Greek. I don't know how to explain this yet regarding the Imprimatur, which I have only once found to be given in error (in some obscure 2000s Filipino prayer book). What I am sure of is that I have found discrepancies, notably in the 1752, such that I don't think it's a real translation, and at least I would always recommend that the 1582/1610 and Clementine always be used instead.
***
I must go soon and do not get to the internet very often. Could someone copy this my statement and add it to the thread under which it would be more properly filed ? I could not find such a thread in my haste.
I also hope no one edits or deletes my post, I cannot help any of you without being myself, and I am decidedly traditional Catholic (which is in truth not SSPX or sede or any such heresy/schism). May the Tridentine return. Some scholars are from the Protestant Churches 1520, some from the Orthodox Churches 1054AD , some maybe even from the Eastern Churches 454AD. I am from the Catholic Church 33AD, which is more than Roman Rite, it is all 7 Rites, and I know why the Ethiopic Mass is the way it is, which is of greater importance than most reading this will know in this life.