NAB seems better to me over time

[brianmichael]

^
|
|
(_/)
()
(> <) ???

anyway, I love the 1970AD NAB esp. the St. Anthony Guild hardback and the 1977AD Concordance

 

[CalCatholic]

^
|
|
(_/)
()
(> <) ???

anyway, I love the 1970AD NAB esp. the St. Anthony Guild hardback and the 1977AD Concordance

I just found a 1970 NAB in genuine leather, in very good condition for $10.95, plus shipping.
The 1970 Psalms are much better than the current ones.

 

[KShaft]

Ya know, I got used to being in Baghdad after a while and didnt think it was too bad after a while.
Until I got back to Germany and got to live in a Hotel for two months. It was like coming from hell to living like a prince. Id say “coming back from a third would country” but thats not really an exaggeration… You see the parallel here? NAB being forced down your throat / almost any other translation.

If you want to see just how awful a translation it is, the best thing is to is to bring a good translation such as the RSV or DR to mass, and try to read along with the reader or priest during the scripture or Gospel reading. I literally cringe every time I listen to it and wonder why they chose that simple word there and then an overly descriptive one in another spot (and inappropriate as if they are a college kid trying to sound intelligent and instead making an *** of himself), all the while having the rhythm and fluidity of a 3rd grade elementary school concert. More like a train wreck.

Its a piece of **** plain and simple.

 

[Steel_Pinwheel]

Indeed. Luke 1:28 is my pet peeve in any Bible.Although the RSV-CE is the closest to what it should be in modern Bibles

The RSV-CE puts the correct translation of Luke 1:28 in the footnote and the traditional Catholic translation in the text. What should it be? Accurate or traditional? With the Vatican’s modern preference for translations from the original language rather than from the Vulgate, “full of grace” is gone from the NAB and other modern translations.

 

[brianmichael]

The 1970 Psalms are much better than the current ones.

(_/)
()
(> <)

 

[Manfred]

Ya know, I got used to being in Baghdad after a while and didnt think it was too bad after a while.
Until I got back to Germany and got to live in a Hotel for two months. It was like coming from hell to living like a prince. Id say “coming back from a third would country” but thats not really an exaggeration… You see the parallel here? NAB being forced down your throat / almost any other translation.

If you want to see just how awful a translation it is, the best thing is to is to bring a good translation such as the RSV or DR to mass, and try to read along with the reader or priest during the scripture or Gospel reading. I literally cringe every time I listen to it and wonder why they chose that simple word there and then an overly descriptive one in another spot (and inappropriate as if they are a college kid trying to sound intelligent and instead making an *** of himself), all the while having the rhythm and fluidity of a 3rd grade elementary school concert. More like a train wreck.

Its a piece of **** plain and simple.

You’ll get no argument from me.

And thank you for your service to our country!

 

[KShaft]

You’ll get no argument from me.

And thank you for your service to our country!

Yeah. Just my job. Thank the good Lord its not any more HAHA!

I shouldn’t throw that out there like that, but I can’t resist with the sarcasm(and that was a pretty extreme example, I mean maybe a Japanese or Vietnamese prison camp might be worse but I cannot say that I have been to those unlike the land of Babylonia).

Now some people might think thats very unsaintly. However coma I beg to differ; seeing how St. Jerome was, and we are talking about a bible translation here!!!

Have a good one.

 

[grndslm]

The RSV-CE puts the correct translation of Luke 1:28 in the footnote and the traditional Catholic translation in the text. What should it be? Accurate or traditional? With the Vatican’s modern preference for translations from the original language rather than from the Vulgate, “full of grace” is gone from the NAB and other modern translations.

Catholics would deem it necessary to rewrite the Greek texts to include “full of grace”, as found in their official Latin Vulgates.

Is this not correct?

 

[Salvatore123]

grndslm,

What you just raised is the primary issue I raised in an on-going, very detailed thread about which bible, if any, is the most accurate.

To quickly summarize, NO ONE knows what Jerome was looking at when he compiled the Latin Vulgate. We can assume with a high degree of probability that he was looking at the Old Latin bible manuscripts, which would have been translations of the Greek or Aramaic original renderings (depending on which book of the NT you are referring to).

I have never seen a Latin translation that does not use the phrase “gratia plena”. The Latin translation of that verse is “full of grace”.

Again, although not a certainty, I seriously doubt that Jerome made THAT one up. People always debate what the true meaning of the Greek word is for that passage (saying that the Greek phrase for “highly favored” really means the same as “full of grace”), but Catholic dogma SPECIFICALLY uses “gratia plena” in the Immaculate Conception dogma.

So I don’t know if “rewriting Greek texts” is actually what was or is being done. I think the use of “gratia plena” and “full of grace” are perfect descriptions of what Mary possessed when she agreed to conceive Christ.