The NAB translation/footnotes

[Paladin D]

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]

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]

[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]

I think the Navarre or St Ignatius footnotes are much better

[kateri05]

although the translation has def. been approved, i thought that the footnotes had not been? ironmonk, maybe you know if thats true.

[cmotherofpirl]

Footnotes are not infalliable, so I stick with the ones containing traditional Church teachings.

[Cam42]

[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]

exactly, my point cmom hence why i'm trying to desparately find a good bible for my husband and i!

[LittleLes]

[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]

Thanks for the replies, I'll becareful with the footnotes.

[Cam42]

[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]

Maybe because he doesn't rep the Catholic Church, he is being ignored.

[ironmonk]

[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]

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]

[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