Paladin D Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 I'm curious as to what's wrong with the NAB translation. I've come to like it pretty well. Is it the translation itself, the footnotes, or what? Thank you.
ironmonk Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Nothing is wrong with it. The Church approves it. Some prefer other translations, but it is wrong to think we are wiser than the Church. God Bless, ironmonk
Cam42 Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 20 2005, 11:39 PM']I'm curious as to what's wrong with the NAB translation. I've come to like it pretty well. Is it the translation itself, the footnotes, or what? Thank you. [right][snapback]651967[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The footnotes are sometimes called into question, because they don't necessarily fall in line with tradtional thought, due to the use of Protestant biblical scholars. With that being said, there is nothing inherently wrong with them, they are simply a differing viewpoint. And they can be ignored, if so desired.....they are not binding on the faith or the inerrancy of the Sacred Scripture itself.
cmotherofpirl Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 I think the Navarre or St Ignatius footnotes are much better
kateri05 Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 although the translation has def. been approved, i thought that the footnotes had not been? ironmonk, maybe you know if thats true.
cmotherofpirl Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Footnotes are not infalliable, so I stick with the ones containing traditional Church teachings.
Cam42 Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='kateri05' date='Jul 21 2005, 01:24 AM']although the translation has def. been approved, i thought that the footnotes had not been? ironmonk, maybe you know if thats true. [right][snapback]652133[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That is true.
kateri05 Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 exactly, my point cmom hence why i'm trying to desparately find a good bible for my husband and i!
LittleLes Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 20 2005, 11:49 PM']The footnotes are sometimes called into question, because they don't necessarily fall in line with tradtional thought, due to the use of Protestant biblical scholars. With that being said, there is nothing inherently wrong with them, they are simply a differing viewpoint. And they can be ignored, if so desired.....they are not binding on the faith or the inerrancy of the Sacred Scripture itself. [right][snapback]652089[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: The New American Bible enjoys three imprimaturs attesting that nothing, including the footnotes, are contrary to official Catholic doctrine. But, for example, the NAB footnotes admit that Matthew was in error when he had Jesus riding on two animals, an ass and a colt, entering Jerusalem. So Jesus wasn't stunt riding after all. Of course, biblical scholas have admitted this for years. A number of the foot notes point out the errors in the texts, and that rattles the nerves of some who want to claim complete inerrancy in scripture. Even the Catholic Catechism doesn't make that claim anymore.
Paladin D Posted July 21, 2005 Author Posted July 21, 2005 Thanks for the replies, I'll becareful with the footnotes.
Cam42 Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 21 2005, 07:32 AM']RESPONSE: The New American Bible enjoys three imprimaturs attesting that nothing, including the footnotes, are contrary to official Catholic doctrine. But, for example, the NAB footnotes admit that Matthew was in error when he had Jesus riding on two animals, an ass and a colt, entering Jerusalem. So Jesus wasn't stunt riding after all. Of course, biblical scholas have admitted this for years. A number of the foot notes point out the errors in the texts, and that rattles the nerves of some who want to claim complete inerrancy in scripture. Even the Catholic Catechism doesn't make that claim anymore. [right][snapback]652256[/snapback][/right] [/quote] No one has questioned that LittleLes......
cmotherofpirl Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Maybe because he doesn't rep the Catholic Church, he is being ignored.
ironmonk Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 21 2005, 08:32 AM']RESPONSE: The New American Bible enjoys three imprimaturs attesting that nothing, including the footnotes, are contrary to official Catholic doctrine. But, for example, the NAB footnotes admit that Matthew was in error when he had Jesus riding on two animals, an ass and a colt, entering Jerusalem. So Jesus wasn't stunt riding after all. Of course, biblical scholas have admitted this for years. A number of the foot notes point out the errors in the texts, and that rattles the nerves of some who want to claim complete inerrancy in scripture. Even the Catholic Catechism doesn't make that claim anymore. [right][snapback]652256[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Sorry, but you are mistaken. [b]107 [/b] The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and [b][u]without error [/u][/b]teach that truth which God, for the [u][b]sake of our salvation[/b][/u], wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72 The bible is totally without error. The bible's teachings are totally without error in the fact of how the teachings are in regards to the faith. Physical details such as one or two donkey's are irrelevant when it comes to the point being made - or that the smallest seed in the world is not a mustard seed, things were written so people would understand them and get the lesson - not a detailed account of the things that don't matter in regards to our salvation. Things could have been lost in translations, there are variants of even the oldest documents. They were kept in the seven major Churches, copied time and time again by hand... errors in translation happen, but minor errors in translation does not mean that the bible is not without error... it's the teachings (faith related) that are without error. God Bless, ironmonk
Apotheoun Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 The footnotes in the NAB are merely the opinions of the scholars who wrote them, and no one is obliged to agree with them.
LittleLes Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 21 2005, 10:05 AM']Sorry, but you are mistaken. [b]107 [/b] The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and [b][u]without error [/u][/b]teach that truth which God, for the [u][b]sake of our salvation[/b][/u], wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72 The bible is totally without error. The bible's teachings are totally without error in the fact of how the teachings are in regards to the faith. Physical details such as one or two donkey's are irrelevant when it comes to the point being made - or that the smallest seed in the world is not a mustard seed, things were written so people would understand them and get the lesson - not a detailed account of the things that don't matter in regards to our salvation. Things could have been lost in translations, there are variants of even the oldest documents. They were kept in the seven major Churches, copied time and time again by hand... errors in translation happen, but minor errors in translation does not mean that the bible is not without error... it's the teachings (faith related) that are without error. God Bless, ironmonk [right][snapback]652437[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: (1) Please note the qualifier Vatican II added. "For the sake of our salvation." Not all scriptural teachings on faith and morals are now claimed to be correct. (2) I'm afraid not. Chattel slavery ,in which the slave and all his children are the possession of the owner, is taught to be morally legitimate by Leviticus. It is a moral teaching that is in error and has been changed. Also, the moral prohibition of loaning for interest was in error and has been dropped. There are others too, but these two are the best know. (3) And the "must have been lost in translation" ploy is rather unconvincing. These are errors. Pope Leo XIII (about 1893) was the last pontiff to insist on total inerrancy (not just matters of faith and morals). See Providentissimus deus on the web. LittleLes
cmotherofpirl Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Pal asked for information , not a debate, so this thread was moved here. There is no debating on this board.
StColette Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 21 2005, 11:23 AM']Pal asked for information , not a debate, so this thread was moved here. There is no debating on this board. [right][snapback]652598[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Thanks Cmom
phatcatholic Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 [url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm"][b]this article[/b][/url] on catholic translations says this about the NAB:[list][b]4.1 New American Bible or NAB (1970)[/b]. Translated from the original languages by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine according to the principles of Vatican II for use in the liturgy. It was the basis of the American Lectionary from the 1970s until 2002. A good translation, but it was criticized for its changing of some traditional and familiar expressions, such as "full of grace". [b]4.2 NAB with Revised New Testament (1986)[/b]. A restoration of some traditional familiar phraseology. Unfortunately, it also included some mild inclusive language. No longer widely available, owing to the publication of the revised Psalms (see next entry). [b]4.3 NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991)[/b]. It was due to the use of vertical inclusive language (re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States. [b]4.4 Modified NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (2000-2002)[/b]. This title is of my own invention. It does not refer to any currently available Bible, but to the NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised NT, as modified by a committee of the Holy See and the Bishops for use in the liturgy. It is the text found in all current Lectionaries in the U.S.. The Holy See accepted some use of inclusive language, where the speaker/author intended a mixed audience (e.g. "brothers and sisters", instead of the older "brethren"), but rejected it in references to God or Christ, and man, where the word has anthropological and theological significance (e.g. Psalm 1:1, with reference to Adam and Christ). Whether a Bible will be made available having these modified NAB texts is not known at this time. Since they do not extend to the entire Bible, it is possible that none will be, as that would require further editing of the underlying NAB text. [/list]i hope that helps pax christi, phatcatholic
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