Examples of NAB liberal commentaries (plenty of examples)

[morey]

Hi all

I found examples of NAB liberal commentaries on Catholic Apologetics International web site (founded by Robert Sungenis)

Below is the link to a detailed criticism of NAB written by Ben Douglass
catholicintl.com/catholicissues/nab1.htm

Printable version
catholicintl.com/catholicissues/nabprint.htm

If the NAB is approved by the US bishops, there must be many reasons for it. I am not questioning Ben Douglass expertise. I am no Bible expert so, I can neither defend the NAB, nor approve or not disapprove what Ben Douglass says.

It’s is like many of the teachings of the Church are so misunderstood, and there are a lot of anti-Catholics, but sincere, who attack the Catholic Church for things they do not yet understand.

Do we know the reasons why the US bishops approve the NAB ? Since there is no perfect translation, it would be nice to have NAB scholars and US bishops on this forum to explain the approval of NAB to us.

I guess what I mean is we might want to hear from NAB scholars and US bishops (if that is at all possible so we could have both sides of the story.

Thanks

 

[serendipity]

I’m sorry that this is not an answer to your quesion, but rather an additioanl question (in a sense), but what I don’t understand is why all the Bishops from the English-speaking countries did not agree on one interpretation for their liturgies.

 

[sweetchuck]

morey:

Hi all

I found examples of NAB liberal commentaries on Catholic Apologetics International web site (founded by Robert Sungenis)

Below is the link to a detailed criticism of NAB written by Ben Douglass
catholicintl.com/catholicissues/nab1.htm

Printable version
catholicintl.com/catholicissues/nabprint.htm

If the NAB is approved by the US bishops, there must be many reasons for it. I am not questioning Ben Douglass expertise. I am no Bible expert so, I can neither defend the NAB, nor approve or not disapprove what Ben Douglass says.

It’s is like many of the teachings of the Church are so misunderstood, and there are a lot of anti-Catholics, but sincere, who attack the Catholic Church for things they do not yet understand.

Do we know the reasons why the US bishops approve the NAB ? Since there is no perfect translation, it would be nice to have NAB scholars and US bishops on this forum to explain the approval of NAB to us.

I guess what I mean is we might want to hear from NAB scholars and US bishops (if that is at all possible so we could have both sides of the story.

Thanks

I don’t understand the legitimacy of that claim since the NAB is **the **translation used on the Vatican Web site.

vatican.va/archive/bible/index.htm

Maybe it’s “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals” (1Cor 6:9) that bothers him about the translation.

 

[Journeyman]

looked the part of the article dealing with Genesis. The footnotes in Genesis 14 do, in fact, seem rather odd. The article states—

Footnote 14:22: See usccb.org/nab/bible/gene…sis14.htm#foot8
From Page 4 of the Ben Douglas Article:

This is quite simply amazing. According to these commentators Melchizedek worshipped a false God. Recall that this is the man whose most excellent priesthood, according to the book of Hebrews, prefigured the priesthood of Christ, and whose sacrifice of bread and wine prefigured the sacrifice of the Mass! [28] Yet apparently he offered this sacrifice to a god named el-elyon, who is to be distinguished from the true God YHWH. This is blasphemy. The only interpretation available to one who accepts the book of Hebrews as canonical is that Melchizedek worshipped the one true God but simply called Him by a different name.

If anyone looks at the 14:22 footnote in the NAB, does it seem strange to be saying that Melchizadek was worshipping a false god?