Do you like the NABRE; why/ why not

  • Thread starter Thread starter CountrySteve
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CountrySteve

Guest
Just as the thread title says , I’ve been reading the NABRE for a little while now and I’ve come to greatly like it actually 🙂 Hopefully the update it in light of liturgiam authenticam so it can be used in liturgy.
 
I have NAB and /RE, but only rarely consult them. Why? Just off the top of my head:
  1. Mary is not full of grace, but Saint Stephen the Martyr is.
  2. You will die of old age before finding the word “hell” in it.
  3. Paul did not forgive sins in the person of Christ, but rather, only in His presence.
  4. Many of the footnotes have no place between the covers of a bible, IMO. To even suggest that Luke fabricated or ‘copied and pasted’ Mary’s Magnificat is repugnant. Read the footnotes for Luke 1:45 and following.
To tell you the truth, I am currently reading a Revised English Bible, and I find it superior to the NAB/RE. At least its UK Catholic contributors were defending the faith.

The more I read and know of modern criticism, the more I love Saint Jerome.
 
po18guy said:
I have NAB and /RE, but only rarely consult them. Why? Just off the top of my head:
  1. Mary is not full of grace, but Saint Stephen the Martyr is.
  2. You will die of old age before finding the word “hell” in it.
  3. Paul did not forgive sins in the person of Christ, but rather, only in His presence.
  4. Many of the footnotes have no place between the covers of a bible, IMO. To even suggest that Luke fabricated or ‘copied and pasted’ Mary’s Magnificat is repugnant. Read the footnotes for Luke 1:45 and following.
To tell you the truth, I am currently reading a Revised English Bible, and I find it superior to the NAB/RE. At least its UK Catholic contributors were defending the faith.

The more I read and know of modern criticism, the more I love Saint Jerome.
Click to expand...
Which verses are you talking about for number three?

Pax
 
CountrySteve said:
Which verses are you talking about for number three?

Pax
Click to expand...
2 Corinthians 2:10

The NAB/RE is approved, but it is good to remember that no Catholic bible has ever been “unapproved.” Thus, the D-R is as great as ever for those who prefer it, the Knox is excellent (Archbishop Sheen holding it to be the best), as is the Confraternity. The RSV-SCE is no slouch, either. The Jerusalem is also loved by many. As I probably stated, a Revised English Bible w/Apocrypha is my current reader. At least as good as the NAB/RE, as I see it - and no horrible notes.

As time goes on, I am favoring the Vulgate-based translations more and more. The Church has defined the Vulgate as a sure translation of the ancient texts. I do not believe it has done so with any other translation (perhaps the Nova Vulgata?).

A living faith can best be preserved in a dead language, and that is exactly what the Church has done.
 
The word “Hell” should be in an English translation of the bible!
 
I have the NABRE (2011) and I like it. I find it easy to read and I like their cross-references. I’d prefer they were at each verse and not put together at the end of the Chapter.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
The word “Hell” should be in an English translation of the bible!
Click to expand...
Excellent point. Funny that, with the “spirit of Vatican II” leading so many astray in the 1960s and following, that the very word “hell” was banished/excluded from the American Catholic bible.

Some will vociferously assert that Jesus actually said “Gehenna”, which is true. Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnom, was infamous in Judah at the time, as a place where children were sacrifice in fire to false gods. But, “Gehenna” is not docrtine. Hell is.

Has anyone, anywhere, ever told you to “go to Gehenna”?
 
I like the NABRE and use it everyday as my main Bible. I have the Oxford large print edition, two study Bibles and a one with a zipper (for travel). I also use the RSV-2CE, Jerusalem and REB Bibles.
 
I have not used the NABRE yet. After seeing the NAB - which is basically a clunky version of the RSV with modernist, relativist, liberal notes - I lost interest in the NABRE.

Pity the NAB came from the Confraternity Version. That’s actually a pretty nice version of the Bible. (Actually, in point of fact, the NAB’s Old Testament is (except for Genesis, I think?) the CV’s Old Testament.

I generally use the RSV-CE - which flows better than the NAB (yes, quite sips tea) and the CV New Testament.
 
Use yes, particularly like no. Some of the footnotes remind me too much of the new age universalist rubbish they dished up at university.
 
abucs said:
Use yes, particularly like no. Some of the footnotes remind me too much of the new age universalist rubbish they dished up at university.
Click to expand...
The “sore thumb” of those footnotes might just be for Luke 1:46-55. The authors assume that Luke fabricated (or “copied and pasted”) Mary’s Magificat and inserted it in the Gospel because it fit nicely. Are you kidding me?

Please, someone, anyone, tell me how this does not deconstruct the Gospel from historical record to charming novel? It is not the Holy Spirit that drove these notes.
 
po18guy said:
It is not the Holy Spirit that drove these notes.
Click to expand...
:ehh:

I’m not a huge fan of some of the notes, not that they are heretical, but they are vague and definitely not for me. But I rarely read footnotes anyway, at least in Bibles, so overall I really enjoy the NABRE. It’s the Bible I use, and I also like the RSV-2CE. It’s another one I recommend. 🙂
 
po18guy said:
The “sore thumb” of those footnotes might just be for Luke 1:46-55. The authors assume that Luke fabricated (or “copied and pasted”) Mary’s Magificat and inserted it in the Gospel because it fit nicely. Are you kidding me?

Please, someone, anyone, tell me how this does not deconstruct the Gospel from historical record to charming novel? It is not the Holy Spirit that drove these notes.
Click to expand...
Yes. My Catholic feminist professor got us to read a passage in the Old Testament and then the Magnificat. She was trying to get us to come to the conclusion that Luke ‘cut and pasted’ the material to ‘fill up space’, This was set within a broader designed curriculum to get students to lose respect for the New Testament as historically reliable documents.

I spoke to her afterwards and she was quite proud that whereas the Bishop had expressly forbidden the faculty to teach such things as ‘cut and paste’ that professors like her were ‘smart enough to get around Church interference’. If they could get a student to make some vague allusion to similarity then the professors felt they could go into their preaching routine because they were responding to a student’s question. Of course the professors did everything possible to direct, coax and encourage such a question.
 
CrossofChrist said:
:ehh: I’m not a huge fan of some of the notes, not that they are heretical, but they are vague and definitely not for me. But I rarely read footnotes anyway, at least in Bibles, so overall I really enjoy the NABRE. It’s the Bible I use, and I also like the RSV-2CE. It’s another one I recommend. 🙂
Click to expand...
abucs said:
Yes. My Catholic feminist professor got us to read a passage in the Old Testament and then the Magnificat. She was trying to get us to come to the conclusion that Luke ‘cut and pasted’ the material to ‘fill up space’, This was set within a broader designed curriculum to get students to lose respect for the New Testament as historically reliable documents.

I spoke to her afterwards and she was quite proud that whereas the Bishop had expressly forbidden the faculty to teach such things as ‘cut and paste’ that professors like her were ‘smart enough to get around Church interference’. If they could get a student to make some vague allusion to similarity then the professors felt they could go into their preaching routine because they were responding to a student’s question. Of course the professors did everything possible to direct, coax and encourage such a question.
Click to expand...
I am deficient in many areas. However, I can easily sense the spirit that is driving all such de-construction of the Gospel. And, a certain amount of spiritual blindness has lead portions of Church off the rails - oddly enough, coincidental with VII. Now, VII was a much-needed pastoral council, but someone sensed an opportunity.
 
po18guy said:
2 Corinthians 2:10

The NAB/RE is approved, but it is good to remember that no Catholic bible has ever been “unapproved.” Thus, the D-R is as great as ever for those who prefer it, the Knox is excellent (Archbishop Sheen holding it to be the best), as is the Confraternity. The RSV-SCE is no slouch, either. The Jerusalem is also loved by many. As I probably stated, a Revised English Bible w/Apocrypha is my current reader. At least as good as the NAB/RE, as I see it - and no horrible notes.

As time goes on, I am favoring the Vulgate-based translations more and more. The Church has defined the Vulgate as a sure translation of the ancient texts. I do not believe it has done so with any other translation (perhaps the Nova Vulgata?).

A living faith can best be preserved in a dead language, and that is exactly what the Church has done.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, we have such a wealth of translations 🙂

something I’ve never thought of, but seen mentioned in another thread on the NABRE; is as American Catholics, since the NABRE is used in the liturgy; shouldn’t it not be are main Bible for reading to stay in sync with the Church?
 
CountrySteve said:
Yes, yes, we have such a wealth of translations 🙂

something I’ve never thought of, but seen mentioned in another thread on the NABRE; is as American Catholics, since the NABRE is used in the liturgy; shouldn’t it not be are main Bible for reading to stay in sync with the Church?
Click to expand...
While I use the NABRE a lot at church, I also use the RSV-2CE Lectionary for my daily reading. I use the NAB based lectionary for Sunday’s because it is what we hear in mass, and I use those readings for my Sunday RCIA sessions. Other times I will take a compact Jerusalem or REB Bible to work to read at lunch. I have always liked using multiple translations and comparing them.
 
CountrySteve said:
Yes, yes, we have such a wealth of translations 🙂

something I’ve never thought of, but seen mentioned in another thread on the NABRE; is as American Catholics, since the NABRE is used in the liturgy; shouldn’t it not be are main Bible for reading to stay in sync with the Church?
Click to expand...
Neither the NAB nor the NAB/RE are used in the liturgy without modification. The editions that are for sale to us are not the liturgically approved editions. The modifications are mostly in language, (i.e. the extensive gender inclusion) but as can be seen, the NAB is one of the most revision-intensive translations that I am aware of.

One thing to keep in mind is that no single translation hits the bull’s eye. For general, and the weekly readings, I find it good to read from a variety of translations, as they bracket the bull’s eye and may give you a better sense of the center of the target.
 
I have it but, rarely use it. "For a child is born to us, a son is given to us;
upon his shoulder dominion rests.They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero,
Father-Forever, Prince of Peace." Isa 9:5 NABRE
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top