Paladin D Posted February 18, 2004 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.
M.SIGGA Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 I love the NAB. Paladin what edition do you have?
Paladin D Posted February 18, 2004 Author 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.
Paladin D Posted February 18, 2004 Author 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?
foundsheep Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 I dont think the problem is in the footnotes, I think its just in the translations of some words.
Hananiah Posted February 18, 2004 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.
M.SIGGA Posted February 18, 2004 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.
cmotherofpirl Posted February 18, 2004 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
God Conquers Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 hahahaha! Catholic Teaching about Creation Evolves! hahaha.... I love it.
M.SIGGA Posted February 19, 2004 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.
Aloysius Posted February 19, 2004 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:
Hananiah Posted February 19, 2004 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.
M.SIGGA Posted February 19, 2004 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.
Hananiah Posted February 19, 2004 Posted February 19, 2004 I highly doubt they were taught wrong. Wait so now you're a literalist?
M.SIGGA Posted February 19, 2004 Posted February 19, 2004 Wait so now you're a literalist? When it comes to quoting my grandparents yes - I have no reason to lie about anything like. To add, my father was instructed by the Sisters of the Holy Family and he was taught the exact same way in the 1950s.
M.SIGGA Posted February 19, 2004 Posted February 19, 2004 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. So is Pope Paul VI (Sept. 18, 1970) preface of the NAB baloney? "On all who have contributed to this translation, and all who seek in its pages the sacred teaching and the promise of salvation of Jesus Christ our Lord, we gladly bestow our paternal Apostolic Blessing." This is after his preface, so why would the Pope give a fallible book his Apostolic Blessing? How can you discredit something approved and directly blessed by the Pope?
Hananiah Posted February 19, 2004 Posted February 19, 2004 When it comes to quoting my grandparents yes - I have no reason to lie about anything like. I never said you were lying. You said that your grandparents were taught to believe that creation occurred in six literal days. I said ok, perhaps their teachers were wrong; perhaps creation didn't actually occur in six days. This is after his preface, so why would the Pope give a fallible book his Apostolic Blessing? How can you discredit something approved and directly blessed by the Pope? Well, he isn't speaking ex cathedra here, and Pope Leo XIII taught something different, so I'm just choosing between 2 fallible statements (btw, one is in line with 2000 years of Catholic teaching, the other is not). Pope St. Gelasius denied transubstantiation, and if I were alive in the year 500 I would have disagreed with him.
M.SIGGA Posted February 19, 2004 Posted February 19, 2004 Why would the Pope administer an Apostolic Blessing to something that is might be spiritually dangerous to read? Wouldn't the teachings of Paul VI be more developed than Leo or even Gelasius? I'm only asking this because the NAB is the only Bible I have used since I made my First Communion and it's what I was taught out of since then too. It's also my source for my extensive notes that I've taken for years and I've never found anything wrong with it. I can understand saying it's notes might not be as extensive as the St. Ignatius Bible, but to say the actual translation of the Scriptures are flawed and flat out wrong is a worry-some argument in my opinion. If you say both are fallable, then what does it really matter at all what Leo, Gelasius, or Paul said in the first place?
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 19, 2004 Posted February 19, 2004 (edited) Historical criticism, form criticism, etc. is a mess. I have a number of Bible's and biblical commentaries and they all disagree substantially in a lot of ways. I tend to judge the worth of a commentary based on the "camp" the authors of it belong to. Who is the main editor of the commentary you have? If I know of him/her maybe I can give you my feedback on their school of hermeneutics and their presuppositions. Their are different versions of the NAB with different commentaries. (yes, the NAB itself has 'evolved' over the years). The most common in the states is probably the "Catholic Study Bible" by Oxford University Press. It's a disappointment in my mind. They publish a "Jewish Study Bible" which I think is vastly superior. Edited February 19, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum
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