Does ANYONE like the NABRE?

[po18guy]

No scathing replies, I just disagree with most of your critiques. I feel the most reckless of them is: “Fact: the NAB was done with the substantial involvement of secular theologians. Based on the fruits of their labors, it appears that some of them were/are modernist secular theologians. A Presbyterian pastor was even consulted! IMO, a King James Version is far better for demonstrating Catholic doctrine.” Would you like to show “facts” to back up that assertion? In particular the secular theologians that you speak of.

And in regards to having a Protestant as part of the translating team, your issue is with the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum:

1. Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament which is called the septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books.** And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.**

First: If you like the NAB and NAB/RE, good on you! And, very clearly you do. Secondly, a “reckless” post invites a scathing reply.

I have many translations and the difference between the NAB and its immediate predecessor is immediately apparent and substantial. First, look right up front in your NAB/RE. This is not a secret! The OT editors in the 1970 edition were, with a few exceptions, ordained clergy with upper level theological degrees. The NAB OT is closely related to the Confraternity Bible OT (1941-1969), a translation that was finished just before the NAB was adopted. Therefore, much of their work was a revision of the just-completed work of the CCD on the Confraternity OT/NT translation.

But, look at the listings for the 1986 and 1991 revisions: Here, we see the increasing number of secular (i.e. non-ordained, non-clerical, laity) involvement. If they are not titled as “Rev.” or “Most Rev” or “Rev.Monsignor”, then they are laity. And, their fields of study are not listed. They may have been perfect for the job, but who knows?

You want to know what is really striking? “Higher criticism” tends to downplay the spiritual aspects of the text, while stressing human understanding. Fine. We all know that. When I open my Douay-Rheims or any of the various Confraternity Bibles (any and all of them), right between the introduction and the book of Genesis is the prayer to the Holy Spirit - to be recited before reading the scriptures. The Holy Spirit should guide us in our scripture reading, should He not? The associated indulgence is also listed.

When we look at that same place in the NAB and RE, there is no such prayer. The prayer to the Holy Spirit has been replaced by the names of the men and women involved in the translation (including the identity of the word processor!). No mention of any indulgence. Really?

What happened to the Holy Spirit? What happened to the indulgence?

Does no one else see the influence of the “spirit of Vatican II” here?

 

[mccorm45]

First: If you like the NAB and NAB/RE, good on you! And, very clearly you do. Secondly, a “reckless” post invites a scathing reply.

I have many translations and the difference between the NAB and its immediate predecessor is immediately apparent and substantial. First, look right up front in your NAB/RE. This is not a secret! The OT editors in the 1970 edition were, with a few exceptions, ordained clergy with upper level theological degrees. The NAB OT is closely related to the Confraternity Bible OT (1941-1969), a translation that was finished just before the NAB was adopted. Therefore, much of their work was a revision of the just-completed work of the CCD on the Confraternity OT/NT translation.

But, look at the listings for the 1986 and 1991 revisions: Here, we see the increasing number of secular (i.e. non-ordained, non-clerical, laity) involvement. If they are not titled as “Rev.” or “Most Rev” or “Rev.Monsignor”, then they are laity. And, their fields of study are not listed. They may have been perfect for the job, but who knows?

You want to know what is really striking? “Higher criticism” tends to downplay the spiritual aspects of the text, while stressing human understanding. Fine. We all know that. When I open my Douay-Rheims or any of the various Confraternity Bibles (any and all of them), right between the introduction and the book of Genesis is the prayer to the Holy Spirit - to be recited before reading the scriptures. The Holy Spirit should guide us in our scripture reading, should He not? The associated indulgence is also listed.

When we look at that same place in the NAB and RE, there is no such prayer. The prayer to the Holy Spirit has been replaced by the names of the men and women involved in the translation (including the identity of the word processor!). No mention of any indulgence. Really?

What happened to the Holy Spirit? What happened to the indulgence?

Does no one else see the influence of the “spirit of Vatican II” here?

The prayer to the Holy Spirit is something a publisher would add, not the translation. I even own a couple NAB’s from Oxford that include prayers, including the one to the Holy Spirit. Again, this has nothing to do with the translation.

I also wonder why you seem unwilling to accept a translation with lay participation? There are plenty of faithful lay biblical scholars out there who could be a great asset to any translation committee. All of the most recent revisions of the NABRE have had a good balance of lay and clerical involvement. And you insinuated in the previous comment that these lay translators were quite possibly ‘modernist secular theologians.’ You know, as well as I know, what you are suggesting when you label them in that way.

Then your issue with the Spirit of Vatican II comment is strange since you did not address my actual quote from Vatican II on Protestant participation in translation.

 

[CalCatholic]

The prayer to the Holy Spirit is something a publisher would add, not the translation. I even own a couple NAB’s from Oxford that include prayers, including the one to the Holy Spirit. Again, this has nothing to do with the translation.

Exactly, my NABRE from Catholic Book Publishing (St. Joseph edition) has the ‘Prayer to the Holy Spirit’ and the indulgences in the front of the Bible.

 

[po18guy]

The prayer to the Holy Spirit is something a publisher would add, not the translation. I even own a couple NAB’s from Oxford that include prayers, including the one to the Holy Spirit. Again, this has nothing to do with the translation.

Was it simply a poor publishing choice, then? Why do you seem to be blowing this off? If the Holy Spirit does not lead us, some other spirit does. Does this not concern anyone?

I also wonder why you seem unwilling to accept a translation with lay participation?

I just don’t like the multiplicity of perceived weaknesses in the NAB.

There are plenty of faithful lay biblical scholars out there who could be a great asset to any translation committee. All of the most recent revisions of the NABRE have had a good balance of lay and clerical involvement.

You shall know them by their fruits. Who slipped those horrible notes in there? Some passerby?

And you insinuated in the previous comment that these lay translators were quite possibly ‘modernist secular theologians.’ You know, as well as I know, what you are suggesting when you label them in that way.

How do you explain the sudden changes from all prior Catholic bibles? If those notes do not edify, what is their actual purpose?

Then your issue with the Spirit of Vatican II comment is strange since you did not address my actual quote from Vatican II on Protestant participation in translation.

Do we even agree on what the “spirit of Vatican II” is? I want to be in the same page.

You must agree that the Church has had some problems since Vatican II. NOT in the documents, but in their implementation. Verb, not noun. Can we at least agree on this?

 

[Contarini]

My position is exactly the reverse of po18guy’s.

I find the translation execrable and the notes mediocre. I think it’s a good thing to bring historical criticism to the attention of Catholic readers, and I don’t think the notes are heretical, but they are too uncritical in accepting conventional historical-critical theories.

Translating “ruach Elohim” as “a mighty wind,” on the other hand, was totally unappropriate for a translation intended for liturgical use.

Edwin

 

[po18guy]

My position is exactly the reverse of po18guy’s.

I find the translation execrable and the notes mediocre. I think it’s a good thing to bring historical criticism to the attention of Catholic readers, and I don’t think the notes are heretical, but they are too uncritical in accepting conventional historical-critical theories.

Translating “ruach Elohim” as “a mighty wind,” on the other hand, was totally unappropriate for a translation intended for liturgical use.

Edwin

I would hope that you appreciate the Knox Translation.

As to the subject at hand, it seems that some may not be drawing a distinction between fidelity to the Magisterium and fidelity to the product of a local Bishops conference. I read either the Knox Translation, D-R or Confraternity in preparation for mass only to be then deflated by the pallid translation used in the US liturgy.

Since the NAB is set at an 8th grade reading level, it is in a class with the NIV, being “dumbed-down.” Execrable, you say?

Historical-critical is fine within its limits. I believe that those limits were being learned in the development of the NAB.

 

[mccorm45]

Was it simply a poor publishing choice, then? Why do you seem to be blowing this off? If the Holy Spirit does not lead us, some other spirit does. Does this not concern anyone?
I just don’t like the multiplicity of perceived weaknesses in the NAB.
You shall know them by their fruits. Who slipped those horrible notes in there? Some passerby?
How do you explain the sudden changes from all prior Catholic bibles? If those notes do not edify, what is their actual purpose?
Do we even agree on what the “spirit of Vatican II” is? I want to be in the same page.

You must agree that the Church has had some problems since Vatican II. NOT in the documents, but in their implementation. Verb, not noun. Can we at least agree on this?

Yes, I actually firmly believe that it is a publishing choice. Those who were responsible for the NAB have nothing to do with what prayer goes or does not go on the inside cover of a Bible. They also have no say in whether or not the publisher includes bible maps, concordance, or the full lectionary readings.

Again, your assertion of them being “modernist” secular theologians is just not true. And again, we both know what you are suggesting by calling them “modernist”, meaning unfaithful, not “real Catholics.” I have met a few of the scholars who have been associated with the NAB in various ways, and can tell you that they are take both their faith and their love of scripture very seriously. If your complaint about the notes is that they are too historical- critical, at times, for the average Catholic, then I don’t have a problem with what you are saying. If you are arguing that that they are heretical, led by ‘modernist’ scholars who happened to slip them by the bishops on multiple occasions over the years, I simply don’t accept that.

Finally you bring up the whole “spirit of Vatican II” complaint. You have not defined what you mean by that, so I can’t agree with you. If we are looking at simply Scripture since Vatican II, I think the council has been highly successful. We have a liturgy that has more readings and provides as greater sample of the entire Bible. The Mass has always been scriptural, of course, but the greater emphasis on readings for the OT and other NT texts is very good. We are not Marcionites. There are also a greater number of translations for use, many of them made with cooperation from our Protestant brothers and sisters, hence the previous Dei Verbum quote that you haven’t addressed. We also have a lot of great resources out there for study and prayer, including Verbum bible software, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, the Catholic Study Bible NABRE, St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, Little Rock Catholic Scripture Study, etc… And, we also have wonderful publishers like Baroinus Press, who not only publish beautifully made Douay and Knox Bibles, but also re-print Aquinas’ Cantena Aurea.

So, no, I think Vatican II, in both word and spirit, has been a very good thing in the area of Scripture.

 

[CalCatholic]

Yes, I actually firmly believe that it is a publishing choice. Those who were responsible for the NAB have nothing to do with what prayer goes or does not go on the inside cover of a Bible. They also have no say in whether or not the publisher includes bible maps, concordance, or the full lectionary readings.

Again, your assertion of them being “modernist” secular theologians is just not true. And again, we both know what you are suggesting by calling them “modernist”, meaning unfaithful, not “real Catholics.” I have met a few of the scholars who have been associated with the NAB in various ways, and can tell you that they are take both their faith and their love of scripture very seriously. If your complaint about the notes is that they are too historical- critical, at times, for the average Catholic, then I don’t have a problem with what you are saying. If you are arguing that that they are heretical, led by ‘modernist’ scholars who happened to slip them by the bishops on multiple occasions over the years, I simply don’t accept that.

Finally you bring up the whole “spirit of Vatican II” complaint. You have not defined what you mean by that, so I can’t agree with you. If we are looking at simply Scripture since Vatican II, I think the council has been highly successful. We have a liturgy that has more readings and provides as greater sample of the entire Bible. The Mass has always been scriptural, of course, but the greater emphasis on readings for the OT and other NT texts is very good. We are not Marcionites. There are also a greater number of translations for use, many of them made with cooperation from our Protestant brothers and sisters, hence the previous Dei Verbum quote that you haven’t addressed. We also have a lot of great resources out there for study and prayer, including Verbum bible software, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, the Catholic Study Bible NABRE, St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, Little Rock Catholic Scripture Study, etc… And, we also have wonderful publishers like Baroinus Press, who not only publish beautifully made Douay and Knox Bibles, but also re-print Aquinas’ Cantena Aurea.

So, no, I think Vatican II, in both word and spirit, has been a very good thing in the area of Scripture.

Amen!!!

 

[MarkInOregon]

Hell no! Gehenna? What is that, and how does today’s Catholic relate to a valley near Jerusalem where fires burnt? Is “hell” really that offensive or frightening to use in print?

Which translation is more literal Hell or Gehenna ?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[porthos11]

Which translation is more literal Hell or Gehenna ?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

It’s Gehenna.

 

[pnewton]

Does no one else see the influence of the “spirit of Vatican II” here?

I see only a positive influence on this issue. At least we have more Bibles out there to read and more choices to fit different needs. You like the DR? Good. Some here like the NAB. Which Bible is best? The one that is read the most.

 

[pnewton]

Which translation is more literal Hell or Gehenna ?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

I can’t tell you how many times I have had it explained the “descended into Hell” part. On this one topic, more literal is better. Hades and Gehenna have two very separate meanings.

 

[po18guy]

I see only a positive influence on this issue. At least we have more Bibles out there to read and more choices to fit different needs. You like the DR? Good. Some here like the NAB. Which Bible is best? The one that is read the most.

I have a D-R. I read it occasionally. Very sadly, I also have several editions of the Catholic Bible which immediately preceded the NAB (the 1941-1969 Confraternity or CCD bible). It is not only a 100% Catholic translation, but is worlds better in the notes and book introductions. If the NAB is all you have, fine. But, in comparison, it pales with those which have gone before it.

The oldest and largest human organization on earth, the Church which traces back to Christ and which contains the best theologians on earth, can certainly do better in a bible translation.

That was all that I am trying to say.

 

[po18guy]

Which translation is more literal Hell or Gehenna ?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Which means more to today’s Catholic, and coincidentally, is also doctrine?

Hell.

No one has ever told me to go to gehenna.

 

[po18guy]

Yes, I actually firmly believe that it is a publishing choice. Those who were responsible for the NAB have nothing to do with what prayer goes or does not go on the inside cover of a Bible.

I had no idea that bible publsihing was so random! Amazing. I find it odd that each and every one of the publishers (and there were many) of the prior bible all included this prayer.

Again, your assertion of them being “modernist” secular theologians is just not true.

You say so. Therefore, it must be so.

Finally you bring up the whole “spirit of Vatican II” complaint.

Please see below for a definition of what we are trying to speak of.

…And, we also have wonderful publishers like Baroinus Press, who not only publish beautifully made Douay and Knox Bibles, but also re-print Aquinas’ Cantena Aurea.

You completely lost me here.

So, no, I think Vatican II, in both word and spirit, has been a very good thing in the area of Scripture.

The “spirit of Vatican II” is a worldly spirit, of which Pope Paul VI spoke (“the smoke of Satan enters the Church through the fissures”), and which was - since the 1960s - influencing the Church and leading her members astray. He spoke of the spirit’s influence on the hierarchy.

Now, if Pope Paul VI was as irrational as you seem to think my opinions are, well, I cannot help you. The evil one is real. He hates all that is good and holy. He influences the Church from both inside and out. This is the “spirit of Vatican II”

You honestly see no problems in the Church since 1965? The incessant sex scandals, the blurring of the Gospel, the soft-pedalling of contraception, divorce and re-marriage, abortion and various other core teachings? The wayward religious order members who have moved beyond Christ - embracing the new age - yet demand that Christians support them? I hope and pray that you see at least some of this. What caused these problems? Bad karma? A biorhythmic triple low?

Your Dei Verbum assertion is a red herring. It did not speak of, command, or even hint that the Apostolic Tradition should be discarded in translating from the original tongues. It did in no way suggest that footnotes in the bible should question the accuracy of those same scriptures, or suggest that any portion of the Gospels were fabricated.

The controversial content of some footnotes in the NAB/RE is precisely an example of the influence of what Pope Paul VI saw as the “smoke of Satan”.

I hope and pray that you at least ponder my comments before discarding them completely. I have learned much of this from ordained members of the clergy - those who have an inside view.

 

[mccorm45]

I had no idea that bible publsihing was so random! Amazing. I find it odd that each and every one of the publishers (and there were many) of the prior bible all included this prayer.

You say so. Therefore, it must be so.
Please see below for a definition of what we are trying to speak of. You completely lost me here.
The “spirit of Vatican II” is a worldly spirit, of which Pope Paul VI spoke (“the smoke of Satan enters the Church through the fissures”), and which was - since the 1960s - influencing the Church and leading her members astray. He spoke of the spirit’s influence on the hierarchy.

Now, if Pope Paul VI was as irrational as you seem to think my opinions are, well, I cannot help you. The evil one is real. He hates all that is good and holy. He influences the Church from both inside and out. This is the “spirit of Vatican II”

You honestly see no problems in the Church since 1965? The incessant sex scandals, the blurring of the Gospel, the soft-pedalling of contraception, divorce and re-marriage, abortion and various other core teachings? The wayward religious order members who have moved beyond Christ - embracing the new age - yet demand that Christians support them? I hope and pray that you see at least some of this. What caused these problems? Bad karma? A biorhythmic triple low?

Your Dei Verbum assertion is a red herring. It did not speak of, command, or even hint that the Apostolic Tradition should be discarded in translating from the original tongues. It did in no way suggest that footnotes in the bible should question the accuracy of those same scriptures, or suggest that any portion of the Gospels were fabricated.

The controversial content of some footnotes in the NAB/RE is precisely an example of the influence of what Pope Paul VI saw as the “smoke of Satan”.

I hope and pray that you at least ponder my comments before discarding them completely. I have learned much of this from ordained members of the clergy - those who have an inside view.

We are talking about scripture here, and it’s development since the Second Vatican Council. So, that is why I try to stick to actually quoting what the Church taught there and in subsequent documents. If you want to bring up other issues, like the sex abuse scandal, perhaps this isn’t the forum for it.

You still did not address my question to you about Dei Verbum 22 and qualifications of those in the translation of this Bible. Instead you bring up other issues and quote unnamed sources.

Here is another thing to consider, since you quoted Paul VI’s comment on the “smoke of satan.” If you look at any original New American Bible from 1970, as well as some of them published today, you will find an Apostolic Blessing dated to September 18, 1970 by…Pope Paul VI. He didn’t seem to have a problem with it, and to be honest the notes and translation itself of the current NABRE is vastly superior to the original one.

Mind you I am not saying the NAB, or it’s notes, are perfect. I am saying that there is not modernist plot behind them. We can certainly argue about particulars, but to say there is a plot behind these that is contrary to the mind of the Church, as witnessed in all the main scripture documents since the council, I think fails understand what the Church teaches about the Written Word.

 

[pnewton]

Here is another thing to consider, since you quoted Paul VI’s comment on the “smoke of satan.”

The irony is that smoke of Satan is distrust of the Church, not modernism. It wasn’t said by the Pope directly, but only referenced in a homily. It has to be one of the most twisted and misused quotes I have seen.

Referring to the situation of the Church today, the Holy Father affirms that he has a sense that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” There is doubt, incertitude, problematic, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation. There is no longer trust of the Church; they trust the first profane prophet who speaks in some journal or some social movement, and they run after him and ask him if he has the formula of true life.

catholicstand.com/109/

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/the_smoke_of_sa.html

 

[po18guy]

We are talking about scripture here, and it’s development since the Second Vatican Council. So, that is why I try to stick to actually quoting what the Church taught there and in subsequent documents. If you want to bring up other issues, like the sex abuse scandal, perhaps this isn’t the forum for it.

God’s word is unchanging, and all translations must, first and foremost, seek to preserve its absolute integrity, otherwise its meaning develops (progresses) and it slowly becomes man-made.

From page iv of the introduction to the 1967 Papal Edition of the Confraternity Bible:

“Translations of the Bible are absolutely without error only in so far as they accurately express the ideas as written by the inspired writerin the original language.”

Scripture does not err. Translations do.

If you do not see the influence of modernism in the NAB and its notes, I simply cannot help you. We can argue why it is in there, but it is clearly there.

Rather, show us even a tiny bit of reactionary influence in the NAB. Double dog dare.

You still did not address my question to you about Dei Verbum 22 and qualifications of those in the translation of this Bible.

Where does Dei Verbum require non-Catholics to participate? Where does Dei Verbum excuse a lack of prudential judgment in selecting those who disagree with us? I seek to be enlightened.

Here is another thing to consider, since you quoted Paul VI’s comment on the “smoke of satan.” If you look at any original New American Bible from 1970, as well as some of them published today, you will find an Apostolic Blessing dated to September 18, 1970 by…Pope Paul VI. He didn’t seem to have a problem with it, and to be honest the notes and translation itself of the current NABRE is vastly superior to the original one.

Is this not a rationalization? The imprimatur is little more than permission to print* The Nihil Obstat gives assurance only that moral or doctrinal error is not present.

What does that mean? It means that the translation can be weak and/or sloppy, but does not directly contradict the faith. This is the difference between teaching that Mary is not full of grace (error), and of failing to teach that she is full of grace (sloppiness). The first case will be condemned, while the other may still receive approval. I would hope that you see the difference. The Nihil Obstat does not comment on the accuracy or completeness of the translation.

That is the point of this entire thread. Rather than address the weakness of the NAB/RE, and desire better, why turn your guns on those who disagree with you?

Why defend a squishy translation** unless that squishiness allows one to massage doctrine in this age of rampant social “progress”? There are many Catholic translations, of which you are aware, as you have named them. Bearing those others in mind, why select this particular one?

This is a question, not an accusdation.

Since you have convinced yourself that the Bishops have no control over the content of the NAB, why do you think that Pope Paul VI knew the entire content (i.e. notes) and approved of it?

Mind you I am not saying the NAB, or it’s notes, are perfect.

Hard to tell, based on your defense of it.

I am saying that there is not modernist plot behind them.

So you do believe that modernists exist. What do they do? Sit around all day and lament their lack of influence?

No! They are activists. That is their nature. They get involved. They drive change. Hope and change. That sort of stuff. I do not say that they “plot” (to use your term). Rather, they are influenced by a power greater than themselves. And it may not be the power that you think it is.

“The devil’s greatest trick was to convince us that he does not exist”

• Charles Baudelaire

We can certainly argue about particulars,

Isn’t that the point of this thread?

but to say there is a plot behind these that is contrary to the mind of the Church

So, the devil does not exist? Do not look at the human level - look at the spiritual level.

I think fails understand what the Church teaches about the Written Word.

Yes, those who disagree with you must fail to understand. What poor slobs!

I very strongly suggest that you investigate the spiritual realm a bit more, as it incessantly impacts you, me and the entire Church. Now that is a plot.

blog.adw.org/2013/07/four-common-tactics-of-the-devil/

• Monsignor Ronald Knox, from the introduction to his scripture translation.
  **Jimmy Akin, chief of apologetics at Catholic Answers.

 

[po18guy]

Back to a prior post. Here is but a single reason why I do not favor the NAB/RE:

Luke 1:28 (NAB/RE) "And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

Acts 6:8 (NAB/RE) “Now Stephen, filled with grace and power, was working great wonders and signs among the people.”

So, Stephen is filled with grace, but Mary apparently is not. We clearly need to change the prayer of the Church: “Hail, Stephen, full of grace”

Is this the best that the American Catholic Church can do?

 

[Contarini]

I would hope that you appreciate the Knox Translation.

I do. In fact, my grandmother (very anti-Catholic in many respects, but quirky and capable of recognizing genuine piety even in religious traditions she disliked) loved it and introduced me to it quite early.

We don’t disagree on the translation, I think. You call it “squishy” and I would agree. Where we differ is on the notes, and thus on the relative value of the notes and the translation. I think the notes are good as study helps but ought not to be taken uncritically.

What I’m having a problem with is the idea that the Vatican tolerates blatantly heretical notes in the primary American Catholic translation because the Church “plays the long game.” That argument works if we’re talking about “squishiness,” but not if we’re talking about outright heresy.

I may be too hard on the translation. I haven’t actually used it much. I think the comparison with the NIV is good. I know the NIV better and dislike it thoroughly.

But in the end the more Bibles, and the more different exegetical helps, people have access to, the better.

As to the subject at hand, it seems that some may not be drawing a distinction between fidelity to the Magisterium and fidelity to the product of a local Bishops conference.

Perhaps. I brought up the USCCB not to argue that people should be '“faithful” to the NAB but to suggest that the Vatican was unlikely to allow the USCCB to recommend a set of notes that had outright heresies, as opposed to having lesser problems.

Edwin