The New Catholic Answers Bible

[jjones]

The bottom line is the Catholic Answer Bible is a good Bible. As a catechist at the Cathedral, we use this Bible to teach and we give one to everyone that enters the catechumenate to assist them in learning the Word.

Just begin reading and amazing things begin to happen. Make it a daily habit. Get any good translation (NAB, NSRV), with study notes that explain and help you understand the Word and then make it a daily habit to join God everyday for a few minutes.

The Holy Spirit is in the Word and will strengthen you and bless you every time you seek Him. Prayer, Bible study and Mass are three basic habits that will bring you closer to God.

May the Lord’s peace be with you.

 

[Ignatius]

The bottom line is the Catholic Answer Bible is a good Bible. As a catechist at the Cathedral, we use this Bible to teach and we give one to everyone that enters the catechumenate to assist them in learning the Word.

Just begin reading and amazing things begin to happen. Make it a daily habit. Get any good translation (NAB, NSRV),

Again, I would avoid the distortion of the gender blending language of the NRSV.
That is why the Navarre Study Bible uses not the NRSV, but the RSV is much better.

 

[milkbar]

Again, I would avoid the distortion of the gender blending language of the NRSV.
That is why the Navarre Study Bible uses not the NRSV, but the RSV is much better.

milkbar:

Objectionable because it was changed to suit current politics rather than to faithfully convey an English translation of the Word of God.

Can you please show me a specific instance of the original text being truly gender-specific but the translation using gender-neutral language?

I ask because I’m sure I recall a few instances of someone thinking a translation refers to one or the other gender to the exclusion of the other, and the original text actually using language intended to be gender-neutral.

So I’m wondering if this is a case of us being used to male-centric language and not liking the change in translation when the original text wasn’t quite so male-centric.

Hijacking the thread, sorry… but I’d like to know which of these two translations is actually better, RSV or NRSV. I’ll look into it on my own as well.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

Again, I would avoid the distortion of the gender blending language of the NRSV.
That is why the Navarre Study Bible uses not the NRSV, but the RSV is much better.

Can you please show me a specific instance of the original text being truly gender-specific but the translation using gender-neutral language?

You’ve got it backwards, you won’t find anyone messing with the gender specific pronouns before the 1970’s. Prior that there was too much respect for the Word of God to intentionally play with it to satisfy temporal political concerns.

 

[cmharter]

We use it along with the CCC to teach an adult faith formation Bible Study. Our parish buys these two resources for everyone who joins the study. It helps Catholics defend their faith - immensely. We also use a Bible study guide each semester. This semester we are using Mike Aguilina’s book SHARING CHRIST’S PRIESTHOOD.

Mary & Chris

revert - convert couple 2006

 

[Ignatius]

Objectionable because it was changed to suit current politics rather than to faithfully convey an English translation of the Word of God.

Exactly, The common practice of English historically has been to use male nouns and pronouns (man, mankind, he) when referring collectively to human beings, regardless of sex. In recent decades some feminists have claimed that this is offensive to them. Whether in the secular arena or in the Church, almost no resistance has been offered to this forced development of language, and few are even aware of what is at stake, Thankfully, the Holy See has resisted the tide and clearly drawn the lines on what is unacceptable. What is unacceptable to the Magisterium, however, is the use of inclusive language in collective terms for human beings which have an anthropological significance, or, in terms for God or Christ (vertical inclusive language). So, human nature is called *man or mankind. *
The problem with vertical inclusive language with respect to Christ is similar. Destined to be the New Adam Christ is prophetically anticipated in certain Hebrew texts which play on the word adam as both the name for the human race and the name of the first member of that race. A good example, which can be a test of a text to see if it has objectionable inclusive language, is Psalm 1. It should read “Happy the man who follows not the counsel of the wicked” (or similar). Inclusive language versions will replace “man” with “one” or “mortal” or some variation. The Holy See has rejected this as contradicting the messianic references to Christ implicit in the text, where man refers not only to David the author of the psalm, but back to Adam (the man) and forward to Christ (Son of David and Son of Man). Finally, the use of vertical inclusive language for God is likewise unacceptable. It is therefore certain that God has revealed Himself in a certain way and that we must first respect His sovereign decision, and second try to understand it. One of the difficulties is that as the debate has gone forward, it has become clear that many feminists do not respect the Word of God. Since this overthrows Divine Revelation’s authority, and many dogmas of the faith with it, it cannot and should not be accommodated in any way. Certainly, the Holy See has taken that stance, it is not acceptable to change the Word of God.

More here:ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm#inclusive

 

[promiseland]

Hi, new member here!



When they ask me “What is your religion, are you catholic?”
My answer is this, “No. I’m not. I’m Very…
Very Catholic”

 

[jjones]

absolutely agree, i use the navarre bible with commentaries for both my study of scripture. One thing, though, the navarre bible i have ising the revised standard version, not the nrsv which has objectionable retranslation using gender neutral language. If they used the nrsv it would not be a suitable study aid.

i stand corrected. The rsv, not the nrsv…jjones

 

[MyCatholicHeart]

Quote: Originally Posted by ignatius
A good example, which can be a test of a text to see if it has objectionable inclusive language, is Psalm 1. It should read “Happy the man who follows not the counsel of the wicked” (or similar). Inclusive language versions will replace “man” with “one” or “mortal” or some variation. The Holy See has rejected this as contradicting the messianic references to Christ implicit in the text, where man refers not only to David the author of the psalm, but back to Adam (the man) and forward to Christ (Son of David and Son of Man).
The New Catholic Answer Bible is the NAB version, which is the version approved for use in the readings for Mass, correct? Psalms 1 in that version reads “Happy those who do not follow the counsel of the wicked…” Why is this the version we use in the readings if it includes objectionable gender neutral language?