The Rampant Liberalism Of The Nab

[p0lar_bear]

[quote]Seriously, how many people, if they saw a ghost, would scream, "AHHH! I see a pretenatural being!!!!" [/quote]

:haha: With the people I hang out with...it wouldn't shock me. Words like preternatural are not exactly uncommon... :haha:

[MorphRC]

I found the translation good, easy to read, and it flowed very well.

[Norseman82]

Which NAB translation are you referring to, the 1970 CCD version or the 1987 one with inclusive language?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 27 2004, 02:05 PM'] well, it's a translation of the Latin Vulgate

and the Council of Trent declared the Latin Vulgate free from doctrinal error

and think about it, the Latin Vulgate was made by St. Jerome whom God commissioned to translate the scriptures. He also more than likely had manuscripts available to him that we no longer have available to us. i mean, it's not like all these new translations are from the VERY ORIGINALS, just the oldest possible ones. I trust the Latin Vulgate, it was translated by St. Jerome and endorsed by the Council of Trent, 'tis OK to trust [/quote]
Of a truth!!!

[popestpiusx]

Vulgate, Douay, or on some occasions, the Ignatias Bible.

[Paladin D]

One thing I don't understand is this. If the [b]NAB[/b] is a horrible version, why does the American Catholic Church use it?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I found a book from TAN Books called [u][url="http://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/614/category_id/9/"]Which Bible Should You Read?[/url][/u] by Thomas A. Nelson. It compares varius versions of the Bible in English, with the D-R coming out on top.

[Chrysologus]

I am aware of no heretical statements within the NAB's footnotes. No doubt those who accuse them do so because they incorrectly believe that the Bible is infallible in matters of history, something the Catholic Church has never solemnly declared and which no modern Catholic theologians teach. The Bible is indeed infallible in matters of [i]faith and morals[/i]. The NAB footnotes frequently point out the Bible's internal, factual contradictions which fundamentalists (including Catholic fundamentalists like the ones who seem to be taking over this forum) ignore by a sheer act of blind faith. Anyway, the NAB, by all accounts, is a very scholarly translation with very useful footnotes, which is, no doubt, why the American hierarchy has chosen to use it.

I'm sure it's safe to say that the the Latin Vulgate contains no mistranslations so grievious that the text becomes heretical, but it nevertheless remains true that the Vulgate, having relied on early medieval scholarship, is severely lacking by modern standards. And given the problems inherent in using translations of translations, using any English Bible based on the Vulgate seems rather foolish indeed.

[cmotherofpirl]

The "inclusive " version has footnotes and articles that leave much to be desired.
Last I checked the Latin Vulgate is the offical translation of the Catholic Church.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Jun 29 2004, 04:19 PM'] Which NAB translation are you referring to, the 1970 CCD version or the 1987 one with inclusive language? [/quote]
I am using the newest one. However, the inclusive language is by far not its biggest problem.

[cmotherofpirl]

I am annoyed by the NT articles.

[Chrysologus]

cmotherofpirl, are there any specifics you could show me that you think "leave much to be desired"? Obviously they aren't perfect, but I highly, highly doubt there is anything in them worth riling against as Hananiah is doing.

My NAB (Old Testament text copyright 1970, New Testament 1986, Psalms 1991) doesn't use inclusive language...nor does the version used at mass, so I'm not sure what you're referring to in that matter. It's moot, though, as the Catholic Church has not, to my knowledge, spoken against inclusive language, nor would I. In fact, I support gender-inclusive language. The fact is that language evolves and, like it or not, male terms are no longer generally accepted as gender neutral. A dogged insistence on retaining them will lead to nothing good, and probably to a lot of bad. Christianity must continue to engage the world in which we live if it is to win new souls to the Lord.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Chrysologus' date='Jun 29 2004, 10:04 PM'] I am aware of no heretical statements within the NAB's footnotes. No doubt those who accuse them do so because they incorrectly believe that the Bible is infallible in matters of history, something the Catholic Church has never solemnly declared [/quote]
I address this view in the paper to which I linked at the top of this thread.

[quote]I would like to begin by giving the reader some background on the Catholic Church's perennial teaching on inspiration and inerrancy. I will let the Popes and Councils speak for themselves.

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus: "It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred... For all the books which the Church receives as Sacred and Canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not True. This is the ancient and unchanging Faith of the Church."

Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sani, Condemned proposition: "Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error."

Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus: "He also teaches that the divine inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture without distinction, and that no error could occur in the inspired text."

Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu: "It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred."

Pius XII, Humani Generis, Condemned proposition: "Immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters."

Vatican Council I, Sess. III, cap. ii, DE REV: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the Decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as Sacred and Canonical. And the Church holds them as Sacred and Canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her Authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their Author."

So we see that the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is completely immune from error. Now, some Catholics use the statement in Vatican II's Dei Verbum that the Bible "teaches without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" as support for the position that the Bible is only immune from error within a certain limited domain. However, this phrase admits of two possible interpretations: (1) the Bible is immune from error in everything it says, and everything it says God wanted there for the sake of our salvation, and (2) The Bible is immune from error in so far as it teaches about salvation, but can err when it treats of other topics. Obviously, the former interpretation harmonizes Vatican II with the larger body of Catholic Tradition, whereas the latter sets the two in opposition. Thus all faithful Catholics should adopt the former. Finally, if even that is not enough to convince the die-hard fans of Fr. Raymond Brown, the Council Fathers let it be known how they intended this phrase to be interpreted by referencing in its footnote various writings of St. Augustine, all of which endorse the total inerrancy of Scripture.

This is the position which all Catholics are bound by the Magesterium to expound and defend. In its original manuscripts the Bible is free from error in absolutely every respect. It contains no contradictions, no historical inaccuracies, and no scientific errors. (Of course, the Bible is not a science textbook, and thus it quite often employs scientifically imprecise, phenomenological language (i.e. sunrise, sunset), however this is not tantamount to error. Even modern theoretical physicists speak of sunrise and sunset, and not too many of them are Tychonians; still fewer are Platonists.) In sum, to use the words of Pope St. Clement, the Scriptures are perfect.[/quote]

[quote]and which no modern Catholic theologians teach.[/quote]
I know of several. Here is the list of contributors to a forthcoming book defending the Catholic dogma of total biblical innerancy. Fr. Michael Kelly (Ph.D.); Fr. Paul Driscoll (Ph.D.) Fr. Brian Harrison (S.T.D.); Fr. John McCarthy (S.T.D.); Ms Maria Cirurgiao, Ph.D.; Dr. Arthur Sippo; Mr. Sal Ciresi, M.A.; Mr. David Palm, M.A.; Mr. Desmond Birch, M.A.; Mr. Robert Sungenis, M.A. (Ph.D. cd). Fr. Echert of EWTN teaches this dogma as well, as does Catholic apologistand Scripture scholar Gerry Matatics.

[quote]The Bible is indeed infallible in matters of [i]faith and morals[/i]. [/quote]
This proposition has been declared heretical by numerous Popes in solemn decrees. While these statements may not be ex cathedra, they meet all of the criteria of [i]Lumen Gentium §25[/i] for infallibility by virtue of the ordinaryand universal magesterium. See above. This idea is heresy.

[quote]The NAB footnotes frequently point out the Bible's internal, factual contradictions which fundamentalists (including Catholic fundamentalists like the ones who seem to be taking over this forum) ignore by a sheer act of blind faith.[/quote]
If you read my study you will notice that I do not ignore the alleged contradictions but tackle them head on and reconcile them. Some of the contradictions in the NAB don't even exist in the original Hebrew and in faithful translations; the translators put them there. There is nothing blind about my adherence to the Tradition of the Catholic Church regarding Biblical inerrancy.

[quote]I'm sure it's safe to say that the the Latin Vulgate contains no mistranslations so grievious that the text becomes heretical, but it nevertheless remains true that the Vulgate, having relied on early medieval scholarship, is severely lacking by modern standards.[/quote]
The Vulgate is based on patristic scholarship, not medieval scholarship. St. Jerome would have had access to manuscripts far older than those extant today and also known many people who spoke Koine Greek as their native language as well as Jewish rabbis who knew Hebrew better than anyone knows it today. I'm sure that the Vulgate is in some ways more accurate than even the earliest Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in existence today. That having been said, I'm also sure that the oldest Greek in Hebrew manuscripts extant today are in many respects closer to the original autographs than the Vulgate. If I were to do a translation today I would take the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin all into account in my textual criticism. Incidentally, this is what Robert Sungenis is doing in his [i]Catholic Apologetics Study Bible[/i].

Edited June 30, 2004 by Hananiah

[MorphRC]

They fixing the dangerous footnotes, as far as I know, not the translation, the translation is fine to me minus Luke 1:28, which has been rendered for prots, the footnotes are what kill ya, they destroy any faith you had in the manuscripts.

[MorphRC]

there*