Opinions on Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They did complete the Confraternity translation of all the Old Testament books in 1969 but the entire Confraternity translation of the Old Testament was never published as part of one complete bible.

If one could get a completed Confraternity Bible–both Old and New Testaments–and if all the names in it were the English familiar ones and if it contained the old conservative notes–there wouldn’t be many complaints about it.

Imagine that same bible with the New Grail Psalms.

You wouldn’t have to change a lot about it to have what I think would be a great bible–one that could be used in the lectionary.

I’m not saying that such a bible as that would be perfect–I am saying that it would be more in the ballpark of an ideal translation then anything else we currently have.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
They did complete the Confraternity translation of all the Old Testament books in 1969 but the entire Confraternity translation of the Old Testament was never published as part of one complete bible.

If one could get a completed Confraternity Bible–both Old and New Testaments–and if all the names in it were the English familiar ones and if it contained the old conservative notes–there wouldn’t be many complaints about it.

Imagine that same bible with the New Grail Psalms.

You wouldn’t have to change a lot about it to have what I think would be a great bible–one that could be used in the lectionary.

I’m not saying that such a bible as that would be perfect–I am saying that it would be more in the ballpark of an ideal translation then anything else we currently have.
Click to expand...
Start e-mailing the USCCB (start a campaign) and request that they publish this version as an option for Catholics who are not crazy about the current NABRE.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
They did complete the Confraternity translation of all the Old Testament books in 1969 but the entire Confraternity translation of the Old Testament was never published as part of one complete bible.

If one could get a completed Confraternity Bible–both Old and New Testaments–and if all the names in it were the English familiar ones and if it contained the old conservative notes–there wouldn’t be many complaints about it.

Imagine that same bible with the New Grail Psalms.

You wouldn’t have to change a lot about it to have what I think would be a great bible–one that could be used in the lectionary.

I’m not saying that such a bible as that would be perfect–I am saying that it would be more in the ballpark of an ideal translation then anything else we currently have.
Click to expand...
CalCatholic said:
Start e-mailing the USCCB (start a campaign) and request that they publish this version as an option for Catholics who are not crazy about the current NABRE.
Click to expand...
Great idea, both of you! Since the NAB/RE generates operating funds for the USCCB, why not license the bible out? We have seen so many members here express concerns/questions/frustrations with the NAB and RE, the JB and others, that it is high time for “higher criticism” to take a powder, so to speak.

One wonders how the primitive faith struggled on for nearly two millennia without the “polishing” of higher criticism.
 
po18guy said:
Great idea, both of you! Since the NAB/RE generates operating funds for the USCCB, why not license the bible out? We have seen so many members here express concerns/questions/frustrations with the NAB and RE, the JB and others, that it is high time for “higher criticism” to take a powder, so to speak.

One wonders how the primitive faith struggled on for nearly two millennia without the “polishing” of higher criticism.
Click to expand...
Or why not just use the NABRE notes as simply a resource, which is what it is, in combination with other ones that Holy Mother Church provides? Why not use it in conjunction with the Catechism, the Church Fathers, and other texts with commentaries, like the Navarre? Why not just end all the complaining and simply be happy that we have a ton of resources at our disposal? The Church has embraced the historical-critical method as a useful and indispensable tool for understanding the bible. This isn’t my opinion, but rather the teaching of Dei Verbum, the PBC document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Verbum Domini, as well as the personal writing of our beloved Pope Emeritus. As with any tool, it has its limitations, but again, the Church has provided many tools for our personal understanding of the Holy Scriptures.
 
Or why not just use the NABRE notes as simply a resource, which is what it is, in combination with other ones that Holy Mother Church provides? Why not use it in conjunction with the Catechism, the Church Fathers, and other texts with commentaries, like the Navarre?

Bingo!

That’s exactly what I do these days. I read my Douay-Rheims or whatever but have my NAB nearby. I don’t have to RELY on the notes of the NAB alone. But sometimes, when studying a particular verse, I may read the Douay text and then check the NAB to see if it offers any additional insight. Many times, even if I disregard the secular-sounding commentary, the cultural and linguistic comments are very enlightening.

I may have said this before but… I find that when I go grab the Greek interlinear, I see that the NAB is often (not always) doing a good job of conveying the Greek, even if it sounds “clunky” to me. In other places, the Douay is rendering things closer to the Greek and the NAB is just off, whether due to political correctness or other concerns.

It should be pointed out, for those who are bible nuts… :eek:

… I may not even be justified in checking the translations this way because what I call “the Greek,” is truly the modern Greek compilations on which they base the NASB, NIV, etc. It is possible, and hardcore D-R fans would argue, that the D-R is in fact more accurate because it is based on what the Vulgate contained and both the Vulgate, and whatever Greek texts it was based on, are far older and more complete than anything the King James version or modern bible translators ever dreamed of! Phew. I love my bible!

Thank you Jesus.
 
mccorm45 said:
Or why not just use the NABRE notes as simply a resource, which is what it is, in combination with other ones that Holy Mother Church provides? Why not use it in conjunction with the Catechism, the Church Fathers, and other texts with commentaries, like the Navarre? Why not just end all the complaining and simply be happy that we have a ton of resources at our disposal? The Church has embraced the historical-critical method as a useful and indispensable tool for understanding the bible. This isn’t my opinion, but rather the teaching of Dei Verbum, the PBC document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Verbum Domini, as well as the personal writing of our beloved Pope Emeritus. As with any tool, it has its limitations, but again, the Church has provided many tools for our personal understanding of the Holy Scriptures.
Click to expand...
I have both the NAB and NAB/RE on my shelf. I refer to therm almost hesitatingly, as any book that cannot call Mary full of grace - even solely in deference to Tradition - just gives me pause. Frankly, there are many protestant bibles on that same shelf that I place as much trust in. Catholics, who were once cautioned against the errors in the KJV, are now well served by it - even better if it contains the Deuterocanon. What utter irony.

Knowing the strengths as well as the limitations of both the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur also help in discernment. They are good signs but are not guarantees of accuracy, only against moral and doctrinal error. They do not pronounce on matters of translational strength or weakness.

In our relativistic culture, we need clarity more than ever. For that reason, the D-R, the Knox or a Confraternity is normally in my hands.
 
I can understand the arguments for and against the NABRE. I own a copy of the NAB, but I rarely use it anymore and even though the OT of the NABRE is an improvement, the NT is still the same as in the NAB and therefore I don’t see the need to spend more money on the NABRE.

Personally, I have collected several bibles over the years all in an attempt to find a bible that I can use solely as my personal bible for study and daily reading. Unfortunately, I have yet to find “the One”. Mainly because as so many others have stated, there is no perfect translation and every publisher takes a different approach as to what they want to add as far maps, type settings, font, prayers, daily devotionals, notes, resources, etc, etc.

I can see why many Catholics still turn to Protestant bibles for study and daily readings. Go to a store like Berean (which I think is called LifeWay now) and you can find hundreds of different bibles from translations like the NIV, ESV, NASB, the NLT, etc, etc. Yet, it doesn’t stop there, you can find versions for men, women, fathers, mothers, police, military, fire fighters, teens, married couples and the list goes on. Each version offering daily meditations, specific prayers and scripture readings for certain situations in ones life, uplifting stories written by pastors, authors and study guides all designed to help the reader deepen and strengthen their faith.

Turn to Catholic bibles and you find they are lacking in this area. I have seen certain versions of the NAB and NABRE where the publishers have made attempts at broadening their appeal by creating these types of bibles, but they are still sorely lacking and most Catholics don’t favor the NABRE enough to buy one any way.
 
As for the translations and which ones are superior to others, I think the jury is still out. From what I’ve seen and read, especially on this forum, many conservative and traditional Catholics will still only pickup a DR bible or it’s equivalent; such as a Confraternity Bible or Knox Translation. I’ve read the arguments against using the RSV-CE and even the RSV-2CE, but I have found it to be a very good bible. I know many Catholics don’t like the protestant origins of these bibles, but I haven’t found anything in them that would cause a Catholic, even one not fully versed in his or her faith, to be lead astray.

If anything a bible like the RSV-2CE would only bolster ones faith and give the reader a better understanding of scripture. When compared to protestant bibles I think the RSV-2CE would be the equivalent of the ESV and the NABRE could probably be compared to the NIV.

The argument that one should just accept the NABRE at face value because it is Catholic in origin and given to us by the Church is a poor reason and one shouldn’t use that as their sole reason for reading it. The NABRE has its pros and cons and unfortunately I think the cons outweigh any upside the bible might have.

Yet, even more traditional bibles such as the DR and Confraternity bibles aren’t without their flaws as well. When you go line by line you can pick apart any bible and find verses that are poorly translated, verses that are more accurate to the original language and verses that although may not accurately translate the original language do a better job of reflecting the meaning. For example in the DR, the Confraternity and even the ESV, Matthew 16:18 is still translated with the word *hell *and not *hades *or powers of death, even though according to most scholars *Hell *is not the correct rendering of that verse.

We all have verses that we love and have memorized and yet there are others that when we read them they are like nails on the chalk board and we can’t stand to hear them. For many, those verses may be the sole reason as to whether one will buy that bible or not; Isa 7:14 being a prime example.

When I was reading the book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre; in Chapter 2 (What Were the Jewish People Waiting For?) he quotes Luke 9:28-31 (…And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus, which, he was to accomplish at Jerusalem.) However, in my Confraternity Bible it reads (…who, appearing in glory, spoke of his death, which he was about to fulfill in Jerusalem.) And the DR bible reads (…Appearing in majesty. And they spoke of his decease that he should accomplish in Jerusalem.)

I think the difference in using exodus instead death is significant as Dr. Pitre explains: “Although some versions of the Bible say that Jesus spoke of his “departure,” the actual Greek word here is exodos, “exodus.” Both translations are essentially correct; exodos means “a going out” or “departure,” and was used to refer to the exodus from Egypt and as a euphemism for death. But, in a first-century Jewish context, Luke’s selection of this particular word is pregnant with meaning. For it provides us with an essential clue as to when the new exodus would actually be fulfilled: during Jesus’ passion and death in Jerusalem.”

So as I found, no translation, no matter how beloved, is perfect.
 
Crusader13 said:
I can understand the arguments for and against the NABRE. I own a copy of the NAB, but I rarely use it anymore and even though the OT of the NABRE is an improvement, the NT is still the same as in the NAB and therefore I don’t see the need to spend more money on the NABRE.

Personally, I have collected several bibles over the years all in an attempt to find a bible that I can use solely as my personal bible for study and daily reading. Unfortunately, I have yet to find “the One”. Mainly because as so many others have stated, there is no perfect translation and every publisher takes a different approach as to what they want to add as far maps, type settings, font, prayers, daily devotionals, notes, resources, etc, etc.

I can see why many Catholics still turn to Protestant bibles for study and daily readings. Go to a store like Berean (which I think is called LifeWay now) and you can find hundreds of different bibles from translations like the NIV, ESV, NASB, the NLT, etc, etc. Yet, it doesn’t stop there, you can find versions for men, women, fathers, mothers, police, military, fire fighters, teens, married couples and the list goes on. Each version offering daily meditations, specific prayers and scripture readings for certain situations in ones life, uplifting stories written by pastors, authors and study guides all designed to help the reader deepen and strengthen their faith.

Turn to Catholic bibles and you find they are lacking in this area. I have seen certain versions of the NAB and NABRE where the publishers have made attempts at broadening their appeal by creating these types of bibles, but they are still sorely lacking and most Catholics don’t favor the NABRE enough to buy one any way.
Click to expand...
I agree with almost all of what you wrote. Overall, we need better, more dynamic bibles like our Protestant brothers. They blow us away on the beauty of the bible, from leather cover to cover…literally.

I would say that your last comment is a bit off, since having taught scripture for a decade, the overwhelming translation that Catholics in the US use is some form of the NAB. They may or may not know much about translations, but that is the one they have.
 
Crusader13 said:
As for the translations and which ones are superior to others, I think the jury is still out. From what I’ve seen and read, especially on this forum, many conservative and traditional Catholics will still only pickup a DR bible or it’s equivalent; such as a Confraternity Bible or Knox Translation. I’ve read the arguments against using the RSV-CE and even the RSV-2CE, but I have found it to be a very good bible. I know many Catholics don’t like the protestant origins of these bibles, but I haven’t found anything in them that would cause a Catholic, even one not fully versed in his or her faith, to be lead astray.

If anything a bible like the RSV-2CE would only bolster ones faith and give the reader a better understanding of scripture. When compared to protestant bibles I think the RSV-2CE would be the equivalent of the ESV and the NABRE could probably be compared to the NIV.

The argument that one should just accept the NABRE at face value because it is Catholic in origin and given to us by the Church is a poor reason and one shouldn’t use that as their sole reason for reading it. The NABRE has its pros and cons and unfortunately I think the cons outweigh any upside the bible might have.

Yet, even more traditional bibles such as the DR and Confraternity bibles aren’t without their flaws as well. When you go line by line you can pick apart any bible and find verses that are poorly translated, verses that are more accurate to the original language and verses that although may not accurately translate the original language do a better job of reflecting the meaning. For example in the DR, the Confraternity and even the ESV, Matthew 16:18 is still translated with the word *hell *and not *hades *or powers of death, even though according to most scholars *Hell *is not the correct rendering of that verse.

We all have verses that we love and have memorized and yet there are others that when we read them they are like nails on the chalk board and we can’t stand to hear them. For many, those verses may be the sole reason as to whether one will buy that bible or not; Isa 7:14 being a prime example.

When I was reading the book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre; in Chapter 2 (What Were the Jewish People Waiting For?) he quotes Luke 9:28-31 (…And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus, which, he was to accomplish at Jerusalem.) However, in my Confraternity Bible it reads (…who, appearing in glory, spoke of his death, which he was about to fulfill in Jerusalem.) And the DR bible reads (…Appearing in majesty. And they spoke of his decease that he should accomplish in Jerusalem.)

I think the difference in using exodus instead death is significant as Dr. Pitre explains: “Although some versions of the Bible say that Jesus spoke of his “departure,” the actual Greek word here is exodos, “exodus.” Both translations are essentially correct; exodos means “a going out” or “departure,” and was used to refer to the exodus from Egypt and as a euphemism for death. But, in a first-century Jewish context, Luke’s selection of this particular word is pregnant with meaning. For it provides us with an essential clue as to when the new exodus would actually be fulfilled: during Jesus’ passion and death in Jerusalem.”

So as I found, no translation, no matter how beloved, is perfect.
Click to expand...
Exactly! I think the key is to find a translation you like to read from, knowing the pros and cons, and simply just read the written word of God. By the way, the NABRE, along sigh the RSV-2CE, do translate that passage from Luke 9 correctly.
 
no translation is perfect and that is the reason we have multiple translations. I have dozens of bibles and dozens of translation. when I read Hebrew scripture I use a Tanak and my Jewish study Bible along with Torah commentaries. with NT my go to is RSV. Don’t like archaic Shakespearean language. It’s tough enough to get some verses without the onus of out dated language.
the best version of the bible would be to read it in the original languages.Greek,Hebrew.
the only way to get the real skinny on what is really being said. not being able to read Hebrew and limping through Greek ,I have to rely on the English translations. Honestly , I would not want to be a translator of scripture- it is incredibly difficult. And however you translate it someone is always going to say it’s wrong. A now win situation for the
poor translators.

When I have trouble with clarity of a particular verse, I go to my parallel Bible- it always helps.

Gehenna is closer actually to what jesus would have used-hell being non Greek in origin.
which shows how difficult translating into English is. Do you use a word that is more familiar to your audience? Or do you try to get as close to the "original " as possible?
 
mccorm45 said:
I agree with almost all of what you wrote. Overall, we need better, more dynamic bibles like our Protestant brothers. They blow us away on the beauty of the bible, from leather cover to cover…literally.

I would say that your last comment is a bit off, since having taught scripture for a decade, the overwhelming translation that Catholics in the US use is some form of the NAB. They may or may not know much about translations, but that is the one they have.
Click to expand...
You’re right, my statement was based more upon the polls and opinions expressed on this site and instead it came across as more of a blanket statement for the entire Catholic population across the US. I don’t have the figures or data as to which bible Catholics across the US prefer, but I’d be willing to bet that the NAB or some version of it is right at the top.

I’m not anti NAB/NABRE and I can’t in good faith try to talk someone out of using it simply because I don’t find it fulfilling to me. I just get more out of using other bibles and that includes the protestant originating RSV-CE. 😃

Yet as I mentioned in my earlier posts, I’m sure someone can go through my RSV-CE/RSV-CE2, my DR and my Confraternity Bible and take those to task on certain verse renderings as well. I truly feel that in the end it won’t make a difference which catholic version of the bible you read or which protestant version with apocrypha you preferred.

If any of you are like me, I literally spent more time researching and reading books about the bible and which versions are the best; rather then spending my time actually reading the bible itself! :banghead: I looked at it as trying to find the right tool for the job before actually starting the project.

However, the project (reading the bible itself) is what mattered the most and the tools (the bible versions) will all help to get the job done in the end, no matter how you choose to translate your favorite passage! 👍
 
Great points.

Allow me to suggest a few books, to anyone who finds this stuff fascinating (as I do!) and would like to know more about how translation works and the difficulties they face. There are many great books but here are a couple that are fun to read and not especially thick:

Translating Truth: The Case For Essentially Literal Bible Translation
by Grudem, Ryken, et al.

(Gets into the pros and cons of dynamic versus formal approach, with an admitted slant towards formal)

Where We Got the Bible by Rev. Henry Graham

(Very Catholic perspective on how the bible came together and the dangers of the rash of protestant translations following the reformation. He likes the Douay- Rheims.)

Enjoy and have a safe and blessed holiday. 👍
 
Crusader13 said:
You’re right, my statement was based more upon the polls and opinions expressed on this site and instead it came across as more of a blanket statement for the entire Catholic population across the US. I don’t have the figures or data as to which bible Catholics across the US prefer, but I’d be willing to bet that the NAB or some version of it is right at the top.

I’m not anti NAB/NABRE and I can’t in good faith try to talk someone out of using it simply because I don’t find it fulfilling to me. I just get more out of using other bibles and that includes the protestant originating RSV-CE. 😃

Yet as I mentioned in my earlier posts, I’m sure someone can go through my RSV-CE/RSV-CE2, my DR and my Confraternity Bible and take those to task on certain verse renderings as well. I truly feel that in the end it won’t make a difference which catholic version of the bible you read or which protestant version with apocrypha you preferred.

If any of you are like me, I literally spent more time researching and reading books about the bible and which versions are the best; rather then spending my time actually reading the bible itself! :banghead: I looked at it as trying to find the right tool for the job before actually starting the project.

However, the project (reading the bible itself) is what mattered the most and the tools (the bible versions) will all help to get the job done in the end, no matter how you choose to translate your favorite passage! 👍
Click to expand...
Amen!
 
For all you NABRE lovers who hate its notes just get The New African Bible.

It is the NABRE WITHOUT the NABRE notes–it has different notes by African contributors.

I wonder if the USCCB is fishing around to see if people would like the NABRE without its notes? I wonder if the finished product that they’re aiming at years from now will also revise the notes?

Here is what I think would make the NABRE palatable for people.
  1. Use the New Grail Psalms
  2. Use “Virgin” instead of “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14
3)Use “In the beginning God” in Genesis 1:1

4)Use “Hail Mary Full of Grace” in Luke 1:28
  1. Use “In the person of Christ” instead of “In the presence of Christ” in 2 Corinthians 2:10.
  2. Use the word “Hell” in the NABRE. Jesus was speaking of the concept and doctrine of it and not merely the physical location of a smoking trash pile in Jerusalem. Many English speakers will never take seriously a bible that does not contain the word Hell.
  3. At least do something about the most offensive notes.
These are just a few suggestions–the world wouldn’t end if they were adopted–the bishops have the final say over the NABRE–not the biblical scholars. If just these suggestions were followed the NABRE wouldn’t be beloved by all but it would at least be palatable to most.

Shouldn’t palatable to most be a goal of the NABRE?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
4)Use “Hail Mary Full of Grace” in Luke 1:28
Click to expand...
OK, so this may seem to be an incredible nit but should it not be “Hail, Full of Grace”? The name “Mary” was added later to help explain to folks who were new to the faith what the “Hail Mary” prayer was all about. I’ve believe this is important because at that time (Annunciation) the greeting “Hail” was generally (always?) followed by a title. Thus “Full of Grace” becomes God’s title for Mary (God’s title because Gabriel is God’s messenger). This can be an important element when talking to our Protestant brother and sisters about Mary’s sinlessness.
 
I could barely stand “Hail Full of Grace” instead of “Hail Mary Full of Grace” because it would be vastly superior to “Hail favored one”.

I’m a “Full of Grace” fan. I think that most Catholics probably are, too.

When we as Catholics evangelize Protestants and tell them about Mary–“Full of Grace” enlightens them more about the Catholic faith than “Hail favored one” does.

Many people can be favored by God. How many of them can be called "Full of Grace’?
 
Seeking accurate translation is one thing. But we ought to beware of seeking translations that render verses “the way I like it,” or “to make my argument stronger.” This is exactly the mentality that led to protestant translations weeding out words like priest, altar, bishop, penance, and more, and the dumping of several Old Testament books, following the reformation.

If an argument can be made, based on either the Hebrew, Greek, the Latin, that a particular rendering is logical, that’s great. But if we just “want” a bible to say it the way we like it, we may as well do a new translation that says:

“You are Peter, the first pope, and on you I will build my church, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church…” Matthew 16:18, Dodge Pursuit Translation :confused:

As Catholics, we understand that Jesus may just as well have said all that, because scripture and Sacred Tradition make it clear. But, the fact is, no Greek or even Latin copies exist that suggest such a reading.

See what I mean?

Isa 7:14 is a great example, so often brought up around here…

Anyone who has looked into the translation issue knows what’s going on here. One could argue that the Hebrew simply says “young woman.” However, one could just as easily argue that the context suggests woman of marrying age, yet not with a man, therefore virgin is accurate. So, as with much of scripture, it’s not as easy as just “translating what’s there,” but the translator must consider context, cultural background and Hebrew idiom. That being said, the church has always understood the proper meaning of this verse to refer to the Virgin Mary and therefore a messianic prophecy. We consider Hebrew, Greek Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, Jewish culture… bingo.

On the other hand, if one only looked at a Hebrew text currently preferred by scholars, and pointed to that verse, one would see “young woman.” So those seeking to disprove the gospel (Jews of the first centuries AD) or modern secular “experts” will point to that and translate virgin out of their bibles.

Does that make sense?

Check Genesis 1:2 in your favorite bibles. Is the Holy Spirit a person of the Trinity, actively cooperating in the creation of all things, or is he simply “wind?”

Have a blessed and healthy July 4th!
 
Dodge_pursuit said:
Check Genesis 1:2 in your favorite bibles. Is the Holy Spirit a person of the Trinity, actively cooperating in the creation of all things, or is he simply “wind?”
Click to expand...
I will say I prefer ‘Spirit of God’ but also like the following different renderings for my reading enjoyment:

“Breath of God” (Knox) - Brings a nice symbolic link to creation and the commissioning of the apostles in John 20:22-23 (… and he breathed on them…)

“Divine Wind” (New Jerusalem Bible) - I think it’s a nice compromise to those who want to use ‘wind’ in the phrase, yet focus on there being a link to the Almighty.

[Note, I do not like NRSV’s ‘wind from God’ - it just sounds clunky. Even NABRE’s ‘mighty wind’ reads better when read]

But, I guess that’s why I have a growing bookshelf of translations…
 
Dodge_pursuit said:
Where We Got the Bible by Rev. Henry Graham

(Very Catholic perspective on how the bible came together and the dangers of the rash of protestant translations following the reformation. He likes the Douay- Rheims.)

Enjoy and have a safe and blessed holiday. 👍
Click to expand...
Neat. 🙂 Thanks for this. Very helpful thread for me.
Jerry-Jet said:
I could barely stand “Hail Full of Grace” instead of “Hail Mary Full of Grace” because it would be vastly superior to “Hail favored one”.

I’m a “Full of Grace” fan. I think that most Catholics probably are, too.

When we as Catholics evangelize Protestants and tell them about Mary–“Full of Grace” enlightens them more about the Catholic faith than “Hail favored one” does.

Many people can be favored by God. How many of them can be called "Full of Grace’?
Click to expand...
This is still the most surprising thing for me as I’m just dipping my toes into these differences - not finding it in the NAB. But, as a very recent protestant, I didn’t really have much issue with Mary as perhaps other protestants might.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top