USCCB issues new Old Testament on wednesday during Holy Week

  • Thread starter Thread starter PUP
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PUP

Guest
This just makes me sick!

msnbc.msn.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life/42703635

The USCCB came out with a new Revised Catholic Old Testament that gets rid of the masculine gender like Peter will become a fisher of “people” instead of “men” and “forefathers” is changed to “ancestors” etc. and the worst is Mary is no longer called a Virgin but a “young maiden”. Why is our modern church going farther and farther left,liberal and Jewish? They even say that this version can not be used in Mass but can be for Bible Study. Why publish this? Why are our Bishops bowing down to the left wing, liberal, feminist and Zionist movement? They have been doing this and watering down the words of God for decades. Next they will say that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he said “eat my flesh”. This will make more liberals happy! Can you see the Jews just laughing at us saying “We told you the prophecy of Mary being a virgin was untrue”.
 
PUP said:
This just makes me sick!

msnbc.msn.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life/42703635

The USCCB came out with a new Revised Catholic Old Testament that gets rid of the masculine gender like Peter will become a fisher of “people” instead of “men” and “forefathers” is changed to “ancestors” etc. and the worst is Mary is no longer called a Virgin but a “young maiden”. Why is our modern church going farther and farther left,liberal and Jewish? They even say that this version can not be used in Mass but can be for Bible Study. Why publish this? Why are our Bishops bowing down to the left wing, liberal, feminist and Zionist movement? They have been doing this and watering down the words of God for decades. Next they will say that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he said “eat my flesh”. This will make more liberals happy! Can you see the Jews just laughing at us saying “We told you the prophecy of Mary being a virgin was untrue”.
Click to expand...
The translation was striving to be more accurate with contemporary terms. People instead of men is more accurate to contemporary terms because when the term “Fishers of Men” was used it was meant to apply to all of mankind, and in modern English that usage of men is no longer common outside of Church language. If you have studied French of Spanish you would know that every single noun has a gender ascribed to it, but in English that is not the case. Likewise every noun in Greek has a gender and words like forefathers just happened to be masculine, changing it to a gender neutral term is actually more true to the translation because it was never meant to be held exclusively to men.

Likewise the prophecy regarding Mary literally translated DOES become young woman. There is no way the Church is going to change its position on Mary’s virginity, but that doesn’t mean it should be expected to make insertions into the translation. There will be a footnote for the translation as well.

The Bishops know what they are doing, they didn’t sign off on this translation without thinking about, and they certainly aren’t liberal. Part of being a Catholic is learning to accept that the Church isn’t a democracy and sometimes trusting the hierarchy is something we are required to do.
 
PUP said:
This just makes me sick!

msnbc.msn.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life/42703635

The USCCB came out with a new Revised Catholic Old Testament that gets rid of the masculine gender like Peter will become a fisher of “people” instead of “men” and “forefathers” is changed to “ancestors” etc. and the worst is Mary is no longer called a Virgin but a “young maiden”. Why is our modern church going farther and farther left,liberal and Jewish? They even say that this version can not be used in Mass but can be for Bible Study. Why publish this? Why are our Bishops bowing down to the left wing, liberal, feminist and** Zionist** movement? They have been doing this and watering down the words of God for decades. Next they will say that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he said “eat my flesh”. This will make more liberals happy! Can you see the Jews just laughing at us saying “We told you the prophecy of Mary being a virgin was untrue”.
Click to expand...
I think that Patrick rather ably dealt with the translational issues, as well as the fact that we must trust and obey the Magisterium.

But whatever you may think of liberals and feminists, (and the changes described do seem, a priori, to yield to them) adding “Zionists” to the mix just makes you seem like a conspiracy kook; Zionists just don’t have power over the Catholic Bible!🤷

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.
 
When in doubt, always follow the Pope and the Magisterium, not the USCCB.

In fact, the Pope had to remind that Conferences of Bishops are supposed to serve Bishops not usurp their authority.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-bishops-conferences-should-serve-bishops-not-replace-them/

People do not need to use NAB (New American Bible).

There are excellent Catholic Bibles out there that are sold through Ignatius Press and EWTN catalogs such as:
JERUSALEM BIBLE,
NAVARRE BIBLE,
DOUAY-RHEIMS,
CLEMENTINA VULGATA,
RSV-CE.

Remember that the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” first published in the USA in March 2000 - is the only catechism from the Magisterium.
 
PUP said:
This just makes me sick!

msnbc.msn.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life/42703635

The USCCB came out with a new Revised Catholic Old Testament that gets rid of the masculine gender like Peter will become a fisher of “people” instead of “men” and “forefathers” is changed to “ancestors” etc. and the worst is Mary is no longer called a Virgin but a “young maiden”.
Click to expand...
I think you need to check your sources more carefully.

First, the verse about about “fishers of men”, Mark 1:17 is in the New Testament, not in the Old Testament. Second, the current NAB version of Mark 1:17 is

Jesus said to them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

Third, the version being discussed in these passages is a Protestant Bible, the NIV 2011.

Fourth, the discussion about “forefathers” and “ancestors” is also in the section describing the NIV 2011.

Fifth, the NAB/NABRE nowhere says that Mary is not a virgin – see Luke 1:27: the virgin’s name was Mary. What did change was a passage in Isaiah 7:14, which has a footnote that carefully notes all interpretations of the verse. When the verse is quoted in a messianic context in Matthew 1:23, it is quoted as: *“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.”

*Sixth, the NABRE was issued on Ash Wednesday, not the Wednesday of Holy Week.
 
Yeah, Pup. I agree with Geddie and the other posters. Can you explain the “Zionist” comment?

There are lots of good translations. I prefer Knox, for the most part. It’s the most Chestertonian.
 
The original poster here seems to think that “Zionists” and “Jews” are calling the shots at the USCCB. Mooph. Your obsessions are showing, sir.

And, as others have pointed out, there’s little to be gained debating a set of concerns all of which are factually off base.
 
ANNE_2 said:
People do not need to use NAB (New American Bible).
Click to expand...
Exactly. Or any other translation, for that matter.

This is not directed to you personally as you already probably know this, but partly because of the changing and evolutionary nature of languages, no translation is infallible. Explanations, such as those that go along with the translations, are an entirely different matter. For example, take the directive “patem sub ore.” If you want to “accurately” translate it, it would be “paten under the mouth,” but if you were to give a server an instruction you would more carefully say “the communion paten under the chin.” Explanations apply to Bible passages too.
 
Also, to make another point, the word “maiden” is generally understood to mean “virgin”, at least traditionally. As opposed to “maid”, which just means “girl, young woman”.
 
  1. The UACCB is not the Magisterium
  2. Notice the USCCB has no approval from the Magisterium or the Vatican
  3. How does replacing “mankind” make it gender neutral? Mankind is gender neutral. They want to get rid of “humankind” because human has the last 3 letters of “man”. That is why they want to get rid of “mankind”. It sounds like patronizing the feminist movement to me.
Here is a good excerpt:

a further claim of Jewish apologists is that if Isaiah 7:14 had a
virgin in mind Isaiah would have used the Hebrew word bethulah (†L‡oeƒ), a more specific Hebrew term for a virgin. That fact notwithstanding, what it misses is: (a) as almah (†NL”) is used seven times in the Hebrew bible (Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Ps. 68:25; Pr. 30:19; Song. 1;3; 6:8; Is. 7:14), in no passage does the context refer to a woman who is married or has had sexual relations, hence, the word could easily be used of Mary; and (b) many of the seven passages specifically indicate that almah refers to an unmarried woman who has had no sexual relations. For example, in Gen. 24:43, almah is used of Rebecca before she is married to Isaac. Yet in the same context (Gen. 24:16), Rebecca is also referred to
as a bethulah (“An exceedingly beautiful maid, a virgin, and not known to man”). The interchange of almah and bethulah shows that the former was also understood as a virgin. Additionally, Rebecca is also called a naarah (†š”’) (“maid”) in the same passage, which is used elsewhere to designate a virgin (e.g.,Deut. 22:15-29 in which the husband suspects his wife was not a virgin prior to marriage). Notsurprisingly, naarah and bethulah are also interchanged (Deut. 22:23, 28; Judg. 21:12; 1Kg. 1:2; Sir. 2:3).Hence, the argument is totally destroyed. What gives is that for centuries Jews have either been misreading their own Hebrew bible or deliberately fabricating the evidence against the Blessed Virgin Mary. The above information isn’t hard to find. All it takes are a few cross-checks of the Hebrew words.

The usage of almah in Pro. 30:19 also refers to a virgin. In this passage, “the way of a man with a maid (almah), ” who is assumed to be a virgin since she is unmarried, is contrasted in the next verse, Pro. 30:20, with an
“adulterous woman (isha)” who is understood as married but having sexual relations with other men. The usage of almah in Song. 1:3 leads to the same conclusion, since in the context the maidens are attracted to the loving man of Solomon’s Song, implying they are refraining from sexual relations with him so that the loving man can be intimate with his one and only lover. The above passages also show that almah refers to more than identifying a girl or young woman. Almah has procreative overtones, referring in the main to a young woman who has the potential of engaging in sexual relations but who has refrained for one reason or another. This connotation, of course, would also fit the Blessed Virgin Mary who, tradition holds, took a vow of celibacy. The above analysis is
confirmed by the fact that the LXX translates the Hebrew almah with the Greek parthenos (parqevnoV) (“virgin”) in both Gen. 24:43 and Is. 7:14, showing that the Alexandrian Jews understood the latter term to be identical with the former. Moreover, the LXX rendering includes the Greek article hJ in the phrase hJ parqevnoV as does Matthew,
following the article † in the Hebrew of Is. 7:14 †NL”† (ha-almah). Hence, the “sign” is not merely “a virgin,” that is, she is not any young woman who shall conceive by normal means, but “the virgin.” The stature engendered by the article coincides with the testimony of the greatness of her offspring (cf. Mic. 5:3; Is. 8:8; 9:5-6; 11:1-10).
 
You seem to have a very strong wish to be offended with this translation. That seems to me to say more about you than about it.

The solution is simple: don’t read it.
 
PUP said:
This just makes me sick!

msnbc.msn.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life/42703635

The USCCB came out with a new Revised Catholic Old Testament that gets rid of the masculine gender like Peter will become a fisher of “people” instead of “men” and “forefathers” is changed to “ancestors” etc. and the worst is Mary is no longer called a Virgin but a “young maiden”. Why is our modern church going farther and farther left,liberal and Jewish? They even say that this version can not be used in Mass but can be for Bible Study. Why publish this? Why are our Bishops bowing down to the left wing, liberal, feminist and Zionist movement? They have been doing this and watering down the words of God for decades. Next they will say that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he said “eat my flesh”. This will make more liberals happy! Can you see the Jews just laughing at us saying “We told you the prophecy of Mary being a virgin was untrue”.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Peter is in the Old Testament.
 
Bible Reader (who posted on this thread, and with whom we - meaning myself and others - have had a good discussion about the changed in Isaiah 7:14) will, I believe, concur with my feelings on the matter:

If it is a matter of strict interpretation of what word was actually used in the ancient Hebrew text of Isaiah, then even traditionalist/conservative orthodox Catholics (such as myself) have to admit that it was probably “almah” and not “bethulah”.

Now, WHY did the USCCB choose to change a 450+ year old wording in 2011 is an entirely different matter . . . 😦

Remember, it was the USCCB/ICEL that revised and was told to revise again, THREE TIMES their “Psalter” back in the early 1990’s before Rome finally said, “enough - we will do it!” And Rome did - they formed a special committee whose sole purpose was to prepare a Psalter for use at Mass in the United States and has been in use during Mass and will continue to be used until the Revised Grail Psalms “take over” this coming Advent.

I think it speaks volumes about the leanings of the USCCB/ICEL when they have to be told to revise their revision of the Psalter THREE TIMES and finally have it taken away from them 😦
 
Wow, there is another post about the new OT changing “virgin” to “young woman” and most of the comments are utter disgust for this change. They even say this is to please the liberal modern church and the jews in there ecumenical outreach. You can see it here
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=542844. As for the comments about it is our duty to trust the hierarchy, I believe in trust but verify. I trust the USCCB and then verify it with 2,000 years of magisterium, councils, Church Fathers, and when they are in direct conflict it is every Catholic’s duty to question the hierarchy according to Canon law.
Why do you think that after 2,000 years of theology and magisteriium and Church Fathers that the USCCB believes that the correct Hebrew translation is young woman? Do they have some new revelation that ST Jerome or any Church Father or Council did not possess? Do they think that the Jews of Alexandria did not know what they were doing when they translated the Hebrew into Greek and said “Virgin”? That would be saying the Septaguent is not inspired and has mistakes that the USCCB in their wisdom is going to correct. The USCCB promotes the old covenant is still valid for the Jews and that Catholics are no longer to preach or convert the Jews to Christianity and now this. Ca was asked this question and Karl Keating answered :
“
Over the next 20 years, will things get better or worse in the Church?
”
A:

Much better. The troublemakers are getting old and are losing influence. They can’t find enough fresh recruits. Only orthodox groups are growing. Result: The Church is headed for a springtime.
Karl Keating
I would like to hear Karl’s take on this. I can only imagine what the troublemakers are getting old and dying means and orthodox groups are growing. I don’t think changing virgin to young woman is very orthodox.
 
every single detail in OP is mis-stated, misunderstood or just plain wrong

why not start over with a link to a story that gives the actual factual story of 1)the revisions to the NAB and 2) the revisions to the English translation of the Roman missal, and begin a discussion from that vantage.

OP seems to have posted simply to give a springboard to his own agenda, which has nothing to do with either topic, not very honest, not very helpful, not very conducive to a productive discussion. Anti-semitic language especially that uses epithets such as “zionist” are not welcome on this forum and will quickly be reported to the mods.

If OPs actual topic is the authority of the USCCB he should start a thread on that topic, and if he references and actual bona fide link it should contain truth, not half truth and lies.
 
PUP said:
Wow, there is another post about the new OT changing “virgin” to “young woman” and most of the comments are utter disgust for this change. They even say this is to please the liberal modern church and the jews in there ecumenical outreach. You can see it here
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=542844. As for the comments about it is our duty to trust the hierarchy, I believe in trust but verify. I trust the USCCB and then verify it with 2,000 years of magisterium, councils, Church Fathers, and when they are in direct conflict it is every Catholic’s duty to question the hierarchy according to Canon law.
Why do you think that after 2,000 years of theology and magisteriium and Church Fathers that the USCCB believes that the correct Hebrew translation is young woman? Do they have some new revelation that ST Jerome or any Church Father or Council did not possess? Do they think that the Jews of Alexandria did not know what they were doing when they translated the Hebrew into Greek and said “Virgin”? That would be saying the Septaguent is not inspired and has mistakes that the USCCB in their wisdom is going to correct. The USCCB promotes the old covenant is still valid for the Jews and that Catholics are no longer to preach or convert the Jews to Christianity and now this. Ca was asked this question and Karl Keating answered :
“
Over the next 20 years, will things get better or worse in the Church?
”
A:

Much better. The troublemakers are getting old and are losing influence. They can’t find enough fresh recruits. Only orthodox groups are growing. Result: The Church is headed for a springtime.
Karl Keating
I would like to hear Karl’s take on this. I can only imagine what the troublemakers are getting old and dying means and orthodox groups are growing. I don’t think changing virgin to young woman is very orthodox.
Click to expand...
I think it quite unfair that you blame the Jewish Zionist liberals for changes made in the translation of a Catholic bible. The changes were introduced as a result of a simple mix up following a Council of the Elders of Zion meeting. 🤷

As for the Septuagint, the Rabbis translated the Torah (the first five books of Moses) into Greek and not the prophets. At any rate, in order to insure that their translation was not tampered with, they placed 15 key passages in the Talmud Tractate Megilla 9a-9b so that they could always be compared to the original translation. In the current version of the Septuagint Christian translators have altered and falsified 13 of the 15 original passages listed in the Talmud.

The use of the word alma was translated to “parthenos” which Christians claim always means virgin. However, in the Septuagint version of Genesis the word “parthenos” is used in reference to a non-virgin, a young woman (Dinah) who had been raped (Genesis 34:2-3) .

Except for this one passage, in all other places in the Christian bible the Alma was correctly translated to “young woman” and the word betulah to the word virgin (check your Christian bibles at Genesis 24:16,Leviticus 21:3 and Leviticus 21:3).

Linguistically, even if we could connect the word with virginity it would merely mean a virgin who gave birth. This does not imply that that the woman was a virgin at the time of conception but rather that like all Jewish women of that era she was a virgin when she married and then conceived in the usual way.

Finally, the concept that Jews are unable to understand and translate their own scriptures is more than amusing. As is the claim that Jews tempered their translation to prevent it supporting Christian theology that a god took human form and came down to earth after being born from a virgin mother and a divine father.
 
chosen_people said:
I think it quite unfair that you blame the Jewish Zionist liberals for changes made in the translation of a Catholic bible. The changes were introduced as a result of a simple mix up following a Council of the Elders of Zion meeting. 🤷
Click to expand...
Someone who can’t recognize sarcasm is likely to pick up this ball and run with it, you know.:rolleyes:
 
Your obsession with “the Jews” and your conviction that “some people” saying that this one translational change is to please “them” borders on pathology, in my opinion, PUP.
 
Here is what the feminists and Jews are saying:

Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz of Jews for Judaism praised the change from “virgin” to “young woman,” calling the former rendering a “translation error used by missionaries to convert Jews.”

In addition, the latter portion of Proverbs 31 will be entitled “Poem on the Woman of Worth” in the NABRE, rather than “The Ideal Wife.”

“Women will like this: being measured by their own accomplishments, not in terms of a husband’s perspective,” said Sperry

The USCCB is not only contemporary but they are now politically correct.
 
PUP said:
Here is what the feminists and Jews are saying:

Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz of Jews for Judaism praised the change from “virgin” to “young woman,” calling the former rendering a “translation error used by missionaries to convert Jews.”

In addition, the latter portion of Proverbs 31 will be entitled “Poem on the Woman of Worth” in the NABRE, rather than “The Ideal Wife.”

“Women will like this: being measured by their own accomplishments, not in terms of a husband’s perspective,” said Sperry

The USCCB is not only contemporary but they are now politically correct.
Click to expand...
I have no idea if Mary Sperry considers herself a “feminist”, rather you should use her title: Associate Director at USCCB Publishing. Given that she is in charge of communications for USCCB Publishing, it is little surprise that she likes the new NABRE. The quote you attribute to her is not particularly feminist.

Also, Mary Sperry is an individual woman, not the “the feminists”; similarly, Bentzion Kravitz is an individual Jew, not the “Jews.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top