The Rampant Liberalism Of The Nab

[conservativecatholic]

I like the New American Bible; however, the Douay-Rheims Bible is much more beautifully written.

[P3chrmd]

Hi Conservative Catholic,

I agree that the NAB is NOT AS BAD as everyone seems to be making it out to be! The study notes are what is mostly liberal...not the translation itself!

But I prefer The Jerusalem Bible over any other!

[Hananiah]

[quote]I see nothing wrong with the NAB. The NAB came directly from the oldest versions of the original languages.[/quote]
That's all well and good but so far I have found three occasions whereupon the NAB deliberately mistranslates Scripture in order to create errors. The footnotes also charge Scripture with egregious errors and contradictions ad nauseum. Read the whole article, and follow along with your NAB Bible.

[quote]The Vatican approves it.

I accept it.

Don't get tied up in translations, look at the lessons taught. Our Church cannot be wrong. The NAB is approved.

Who here is wiser than the Church?[/quote]
No one. That is why you are bound to accept the decrees of the ordinary and universal Mageterium and the extraordinary Magesterium which I quote near the top of my essay. The NAB has bishops behind it, yes. It even has a modest nod from Pope Paul VI. However it blatantly contradicts the solemn and binding decrees of every Pope between Leo XIII and Pius XII. [i]Part[/i] of the ordinary Magesterium can be wrong. As we learn from the Arian heresy 80% of the world's bishops can be wrong. But the ordinary and universal and extraordinary Magesterium is infallible. Either the Bible is free from error in every respect, or the Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ. If there is one error in the Bible Mary might as well have had 10 children with Joseph as far as the authority of the Catholic Church is concerned.

[quote]Nothing in the NAB contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches.[/quote]
It most certainly does. And I have proven it.

Edited July 8, 2004 by Hananiah

[Hananiah]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 7 2004, 03:53 PM'] The Church teaches that the bible is free from error in its teaching, NOT every respect. [/quote]
Let's see who is right.

[quote]Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus: "[b]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[/b]... 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 [b]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. [i]This is the ancient and unchanging Faith of the Church.[/i][/b]"

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 [b]every one, free from every error.[/b]"

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

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

Pius XII, Humani Generis, Condemned proposition: "[I]mmunity 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, [b]they have God for their Author.[/b]"[/quote]
Can God make mistakes, Ironmonk? If God wrote the Bible, and the Bible has one error, it would mean that God has made a mistake.

[quote]If that were so, it would mean that Christ was not God... for...
1.  God cannot be wrong.
2.  If Christ was God, He cannot be wrong.
3.  Christ stated that the mustard seed was the smallest seed.
4.  The mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed.[/quote]
You're being as pedantic as an atheist. Jesus is referencing the fact that the mustard seed was the smallest seed which his audience would have known about.

[cmotherofpirl]

Are you a literalist?

[Hananiah]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 8 2004, 01:09 AM'] Are you a literalist? [/quote]
I believe that the Bible has several layers of meaning. It can be read in the literal sense, the spiritual sense, and the anagogical sense. [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100110.htm"]It's in the Summa[/url]

That doesn't mean that the literal sense can contain errors.