Paladin D Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 Title asks all. If it's such a horrible translation, why do we still persist in using it? Confusing world.
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 Most of the complaints are not about the translation, but about the footnotes that accompany it. As far as just the bible verses go, it is a fine translation.
P3chrmd Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 canadians use the RSV right? and europeans use the Jerusalem Bible I think!!! I think we need to pick one of those two to use!! the NAB isn't that bad...just not my fav.
Hananiah Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 I suppose this is as good a place as any to advertise that I have added a section on the book of Daniel to my critique of the NAB. [url="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/nab.asp"]The New American Bible: Is it Good for Catholics?[/url]
Christina Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Because the US Catholic Bishops want it that way. Be careful how you say, "[url="http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/4136/"]American Catholic Church[/url]" because this is not the [b]Roman[/b] Catholic Church.
cmotherofpirl Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 (edited) There is no American Catholic Church, there is the Catholic Church in America. Edited July 17, 2004 by cmotherofpirl
Apotheoun Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 17 2004, 03:59 PM'] There is no American Catholic Church, there is the Catholic Church in America. [/quote] Very well put.
Christina Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 17 2004, 02:59 PM'] There is no American Catholic Church, there is the Catholic Church in America. [/quote] Wurd
Paladin D Posted July 17, 2004 Author Posted July 17, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 17 2004, 04:59 PM'] There is no American Catholic Church, there is the Catholic Church in America. [/quote] You know what I mean. I am terrible at wording things.
Christina Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 [quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 17 2004, 05:36 PM'] You know what I mean. I am terrible at wording things. [/quote] (((((((((((((((((( Paladin )))))))))))))))))))
Tony Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 strange.. one of the reasons I like the NAB are the footnotes! and how its all organised
ironmonk Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 [quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 16 2004, 01:02 PM'] Title asks all. If it's such a horrible translation, why do we still persist in using it? Confusing world. [/quote] It is not a horrible translation. Nothing can be horrible that the Church approves. Priests spent about 23 years translating it from the original languages to modern english. The footnotes are great... many times it lists where a word might mean something different. It has great cross references to other verses in the bible. I love it. The Church approves it, and that's all I need. Some other prefer other translations, that's fine, but they have no right to say that the translation is horrible. Are they wiser than the Church? God Bless, ironmonk
cmotherofpirl Posted July 23, 2004 Posted July 23, 2004 Monk its not the translation, its the less than steller footnotes that are the problem. Its the spin.
Aloysius Posted July 24, 2004 Posted July 24, 2004 Monk says he likes the footnotes... I was surpised as well. Perhaps a discussion with citations of various examples of the good and bad parts of the footnotes is in order?
cmotherofpirl Posted July 25, 2004 Posted July 25, 2004 Monk needs a Navarre or St Ignatius Bible to see what he is missing
Colleen Posted July 25, 2004 Posted July 25, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 24 2004, 07:43 PM'] Monk needs a Navarre or St Ignatius Bible to see what he is missing [/quote] The Navarre Bible rocks.
Iacobus Posted July 25, 2004 Posted July 25, 2004 I have heard that the footnotes are "surpisingly undogmatic." But yeh. As far as the verse go it works. I tend to skip footnotes so that doesn't bug me.
Oik Posted July 26, 2004 Posted July 26, 2004 I know that when I read the NAB, I am really experiencing the phase "some things get lost in the translation." I love the NAB. I use it for reading and studying, however, I am not comfortable with a specific translation though. At times I prefer the DRV (Douy-Rhemis). I am not fond of RSV or other apporved (for private use) catholic Bibles.
ironmonk Posted July 26, 2004 Posted July 26, 2004 I use various bibles... mostly the NAB, but also the Douay-Rheims. Douay-Rheims (and others): [url="http://unbound.biola.edu"]http://unbound.biola.edu[/url] NAB: [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/"]http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/[/url] I like the adavanced searches with the USCCB's NAB, and Biola U. has a nice search tool for the Douay-Rheims. God Bless, ironmonk
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