The Rampant Liberalism of the NAB

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hananiah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hananiah

Guest
Since the NAB is so incredibly widely disseminated throughout the American Catholic Church, and since it promotes so many ideas inimical to the Catholic faith, I have felt it necessary to produce a catalogue of its heterodox statements, which contrasts the NAB to the traditional teachings of the Church as well as informs the reader how to refute its charges of error. I have finished Genesis so far. As this is a huge project which I am undertaking, I would greatly appreciate any help. Thank you.

The Rampant Liberalism of the NAB
 
I will not dispute that there are some problems, but I think you may be reading some problems that aren’t there. For example:

You said:
So, in essence, they are telling us that Genesis 3:15 is not really a messianic prophecy, and that Christians read messianic themes into the text that simply are not there. Genesis 3:15 was not originally about mankind’s redemption. Moreover, it was only later theology which regarded the serpent as the devil. This footnote is disturbing for several reasons. Obviously, it is an extraordinary and unwarranted concession to Atheists and Jews. Also, it seemingly embraces postmodern relativism, for it claims that there is validity and truth to perceptions which do not correspond to ontological reality. According to the commentators, because Christians see redemption in this passage, it can properly be understood as such, even though in reality it is not. Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas are turning over in their graves.

The footnote says, in part:
the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman’s offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.

Now, I simply did not read the entire footnote as you did. This text taken by itself simply could mean lot of things. The footnote properly points out that if you look at all Scripture taken as a whole, the meaning of that verse becomes clear. I don’t read it to say that the text didn’t mean (a), but then later came to mean (b). I think what needs to be realized is that footnotes are not expounded theological dissertations, but little explanatory notes.

I commend you for tackling any real problems, but you also seem to be digging for problems that aren’t there. To the extent you do this, it will reduce your credibility on real issues.
 
I can’t remember which council it was (it was not Ecumenical, I think) that states that anyone who finds a protestant bible must either burn it or give it to his pastor (who would dispose of it, probably by burning also). It is very hard to argue that any Bibles other than the Douay-Rheims and the Vulgate can be considered Catholic today. God bless.
 
What are your scholarly credentials so that you might be taken seriously?
 
40.png
EENS:
I can’t remember which council it was (it was not Ecumenical, I think) that states that anyone who finds a protestant bible must either burn it or give it to his pastor (who would dispose of it, probably by burning also). It is very hard to argue that any Bibles other than the Douay-Rheims and the Vulgate can be considered Catholic today. God bless.
Click to expand...
I now read the New Jerusalem Bible (I read NIV as a Protestant and then upon reverting, the NAB, but found them both seriously problematic). As far as I, a simple layman can tell, however, the New Jerusalem can be considered quite Catholic. The fact that it has few notes may make that determination easier rather than harder.

As for hananiah’s project, while there appear to be many problems with the NAB, there is always one that leaps to my mind. In fact, it is the one that finally sent me off to the bookstore for a new Bible. It is the note to Luke 2, 35:

*(and you yourself will be pierced with a sword) NAB note: Mary herself will not be untouched by the variouas reactions to the role of Jesus. *

Okay, so far so good, but then:

Her blessedness as mother of the Lord will be challenged by her son who describes true blessedness as 'hearing the word of God and obeying it."

**Mary’s blessedness will be challenged by her son?!?!?!?! **And why? Because true blessedness is “hearing the word of God and obeying it.” Hmmm. Are the writers of this note suffering from amnesia? An embellism? An anuerism of some kind? Or perhaps its something more sinister still that has caused them to forget that just a couple pages before in Luke we read about Our Lady hearing and obeying the word of God as delivered by an Archangel.

Hananiah, I am very glad you are doing this. Fight the good fight.:clapping:
 
40.png
Southernrich:
What are your scholarly credentials so that you might be taken seriously?
Click to expand...
I find this a particulary unhelpful comment. Hannaniah is not writing a doctrinal dissertation, he seems simply to be tackling this as a labor of love. One doesn’t have to be a scholar to make observations about something one is concerned about. I’m sure it’ll go through a tweaking process provided he gets some positive (name removed by moderator)ut, then the work can be judged on it’s merits.
 
40.png
Southernrich:
What are your scholarly credentials so that you might be taken seriously?
Click to expand...
I don’t need scholarly credentials to see that Popes and Councils condemned the notions which the NAB promotes. Also, I never claimed to be qualified to thoroughly critique the documentary hypothesis. But what I can do is see how this theory leads the scholars to see all sorts of contradictions in Genesis, and then show that those contradictions can be reconciled. Reconciling Biblical contradictions is not exactly an art reserved for the scholarly elite; it is one of the first things every aspiring apologist does.
 
40.png
Southernrich:
What are your scholarly credentials so that you might be taken seriously?
Click to expand...
With respect, of course Southernrich, but really- maybe this work will be the first of many “credentials.”
 
Hmmm, not good. The NAB is the only Bible I have. My wife gave it to me for Christmas.
 
I enjoy the readability of the NAB, even though I know it is a dynamic translation (extremely dynamic). You are so totally on target though with the trendy, modernistic theories expressed as fact in the footnotes. I would advise anyone reading the NAB to at least take the footnotes with a truckload of salt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top