Paladin D Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Is it just me or... are the foot-note things in my NAB Bible (the content that tells which each passage means basically) so far identical with the Vatican.va's site NAB? If these foot-note things are full of errors... why would they be on a Vatican site? So far I compared Revelation chapter 1, I'll have to try and compare other sections of the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.SIGGA Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 I love the NAB. Paladin what edition do you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin D Posted February 18, 2004 Author Share Posted February 18, 2004 I love the NAB. Paladin what edition do you have? Edition? Mine is... The New American Bible by Catholic World Press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin D Posted February 18, 2004 Author Share Posted February 18, 2004 I'm extremely sorry to bring this whole subject again in another thread, but because of this "discovery", is it safe to trust the NAB? Well, since mine is (by the looks of it) identical to the Vatican.va's footnotes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foundsheep Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 I dont think the problem is in the footnotes, I think its just in the translations of some words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin D Posted February 18, 2004 Author Share Posted February 18, 2004 Hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hananiah Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 The commentary in the NAB was done by the translators, so it's pretty much the same in every edition. The commentary in Revelation isn't so bad. It's mainly the OT where it contradicts traditional Catholic exegesis. Leo XIII's encyclical PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS is representative of perrenial Catholic teaching. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii...us-deus_en.html But since the divine and infallible magisterium of the Church rests also on the authority of Holy Scripture, the first thing to be done is to vindicate the trustworthiness of the sacred records at least as human documents, from which can be clearly proved, as from primitive and authentic testimony, the Divinity and the mission of Christ our Lord, the institution of a hierarchical Church and the primacy of Peter and his successors. According to the NAB, Scripture is not reliable as a human record. For example, it teaches that God did not command the invasion of Palestine, but rather that Israelites hundreds of years later decided to retroactively ascribe those wars to the influence of a deity in order to justify the crimes they committed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.SIGGA Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 The NAB footnotes is just pointing out to Catholics to understand context. For instance my grandparents were taught almost like fundamentalists believe about the Creation Story in the 1930s and it isn't anymore. Also most historical accounts were not totally realized at the time of Pope Leo. The teaching isn't different, it has just evolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 (edited) Catholic teaching does not evolve, it develops. Evolution is a changing from one thing to another, development implies an underlying continuity. The Navarre, the St Ignatius and the New English Bible all have much better footnotes than the NAB. Edited February 18, 2004 by cmotherofpirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 hahahaha! Catholic Teaching about Creation Evolves! hahaha.... I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.SIGGA Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Catholic teaching does not evolve, it develops. Evolution is a changing from one thing to another, development implies an underlying continuity. The Navarre, the St Ignatius and the New English Bible all have much better footnotes than the NAB. I used the wrong word, but this is what I meant. thanks for correcting me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 how is that 'developement' what's the underlying thing? 1- Israelites commanded to go to war, 2- Israelites committed war crimes in unjust wars and later ascribed these things to God... :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hananiah Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 For instance my grandparents were taught almost like fundamentalists believe about the Creation Story in the 1930s and it isn't anymore. Perhaps their teachers were wrong. However, I think erring on the side of literalism is far less dangerous to the state of one's eternal soul than erring on the side of liberalism. And the commentary in the NAB most certainly does err on the side of liberalism. It teaches that the Bible contains moral and theological errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.SIGGA Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Perhaps their teachers were wrong. However, I think erring on the side of literalism is far less dangerous to the state of one's eternal soul than erring on the side of liberalism. And the commentary in the NAB most certainly does err on the side of liberalism. It teaches that the Bible contains moral and theological errors. They were all 4 taught by recently canonized St. Katerine Drexel's Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament who were extremely orthodox and still are today and it was when the order was relatively new. I highly doubt they were taught wrong - also most historical criticisms at that time dealing with contextual studies w/ biblical revelations were off limits to the laity in Catholic schools and religious teachers back then. Religious education came straight from the Baltimore Catechism which doesn't offer any contextual arguments. It says "this Original Sin and this is why..." which is nothing like Catholic religion classes today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hananiah Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I highly doubt they were taught wrong. Wait so now you're a literalist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now