Why does the Vatican use the NAB on its site?

[Ray_Marshall]

**We all have seen how bad the NAB can be for someone seeking out the truth. **

Why does the Vatican insist on using it on its web site?

Also, would this be an error on an issue of Faith on the Vatican’s part? After all, the Bible is probably the most important text our Faith has. If supporting a bad Bible such as the NAB on it’s web site is not a instance of leading the laity astray in a matter of Faith, what is???

Let’s see. The laity is generally wrong. The priests are generally wrong. The Bishops are generally wrong. Now the Vatican is wrong about its choice of English Bible translations.

It sure is comforting to have the infinite wisdom of all the Dogma Cops around the Catholic Answers Forum.

What would we do without them.

I wonder if these people ever pray since they are so busy rating the Faith of those around them.

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

Or…maybe…some cant accept that some of the “smoke of satan” has krept into the NAB?

I’ll stick with the bibles that DONT try to take the divinly inspired out of the Bible:

RSV-St Ignatius
Douay Rhiems-Haydock

D-R Latin Vulgate

 

[pnewton]

I for one do find it hard to believe that the Bible on the Vatican web site (the NAB) is a work of Satan. Rather I believe that to be faithful to Rome one should be faithful to Rome and faithful in prayer for our leaders.

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

Ya know…its funny…its acknowledged that a Pope stated the Smoke of Satan has krept into the church…but yet people cant accept that ANY smoke resides or possibly comes from the vatican…I have no problem following doctrine and dogma.but NOTHING states NAB version is INFALLIBLY taught… things come from the vatican that cause confusion…FACE IT and DEAL with it…but that doesnt make one “against the church” caus questions get raised that cannot easily be explained… heads in the sand aint gonna resolve things… the NAB causes confusion in its commentary and footnotes while the older versions are FAITHFUL to ROME…so to speak…

 

[Hananiah]

Ray Marshall:

It sure is comforting to have the infinite wisdom of all the Dogma Cops around the Catholic Answers Forum.

If you disagree with the conclusions of my www.catholicintl.com NAB study please tell me where and how I am wrong.

I wonder if these people ever pray since they are so busy rating the Faith of those around them.

About an hour per day, on average, if you must know.

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

20 minutes a day 5 days a week (ROSARY)

1 Hour for Sunday Mass

+Plus Religious readings

About 3 - 4 hours a week

Just in case anyone wanted to know…sometimes I pray more and sometimes less if feeling “dry”

I

 

[Antonio_B]

James,

**We all have seen how bad the NAB can be for someone seeking out the truth. **

Why does the Vatican insist on using it on its web site?

Also, would this be an error on an issue of Faith on the Vatican’s part? After all, the Bible is probably the most important text our Faith has. If supporting a bad Bible such as the NAB on it’s web site is not a instance of leading the laity astray in a matter of Faith, what is???

I’m curious to know why you would considered the NAB a “bad” translation of the Scriptures.

Antonio

 

[Hananiah]

Antonio, see my study at www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/nab.asp
It’s all documented.

 

[Antonio_B]

Hananiah:

Antonio, see my study at www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/nab.asp
It’s all documented.

Ben Douglas seems to be saying that the commentaries on it are defective but that is not the same thing as saying that the translation is bad.

The one I normally use is the Jerusalem Bible.
**

 

[SocaliCatholic]

Illogical assumptions about the NAB.

1. The NAB Bible is “not good” relative to what “perfect” Bible?
2. There will always be critics. (heck there were critics who didn’t understand Jesus!)
3. Last I checked Bible was Word of God, but interpreted by fallible man.
4. I trust no one who claims this bible is better than yours, as much as I trust the authority of the Chruch to *interpret * it for me.
5. If perfect Bible rolled off the press lets say 1800 A.D. is “perfect” then all who came before 1800 A.D. were unable to read it.
6. The church was formed without a “perfect” bible.
7. The issue is not so much a “perfect” Bible, but fidelity to the authority of the Chruch’s teaching. Are we protestants?

 

[pnewton]

SocaliCatholic:

Illogical assumptions about the NAB.

1. The issue is not so much a “perfect” Bible, but fidelity to the authority of the Chruch’s teaching. Are we protestants?

If we were protestants we could have a perfect Bible, the King james Version. As my dad used to way, “It was good enough for Paul and Silas, it’s good enough for me, by gum.”

 

[mercygate]

robertaf:

Greetings Church

Uhhhh, who says the New American Bible is bad for us? Which one would be good then? I use about 7 different versions and the New American is still the best out there, in my opinion.

I would say if they use it, then the Vatican knows best.

Have you ever taken a class in Scripture history?

The translation chosen for the English edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the RSV-CE – in my mind, superior to the NAB. But the NAB is not a bad translation. It tends to poeticize a bit but still runs quite close to the Greek. My Hebrew isn’t up to supporting a judgment, but the NAB OT echoes the RSV fairly well. I don’t think you’ll get into trouble using the NAB.

 

[Hananiah]

Antonio B:

Ben Douglas seems to be saying that the commentaries on it are defective but that is not the same thing as saying that the translation is bad.

Antonio, while the majority of the problems are confined to the footnotes, the translation has its problems as well. See my post a little earlier in this thread on the three willful mistranslations I have discovered.

 

[Hananiah]

1. The NAB Bible is “not good” relative to what “perfect” Bible?

A Bible need not be perfect in order to be essentially faithful to the text in its translation and to the eternal Magisterium in its commentary. The RSV-CE, DRV, and Jerusalem all have their faults, but at least they meet these two qualifications. The NAB, on the other hand, doesn’t. It takes gross liberties with the text and its commentary is heterodox.

1. Last I checked Bible was Word of God, but interpreted by fallible man.

So what? Besides, the Magisterium is infallible, but the NAB contradicts Magisterial exegesis as well as solemn Papal decrees numerous times.

1. If perfect Bible rolled off the press lets say 1800 A.D. is “perfect” then all who came before 1800 A.D. were unable to read it.

What exactly are you talking about? Who here has claimed anything about a perfect Bible? Where are you getting this cockamamy idea?

1. The church was formed without a “perfect” bible.

So what?

1. The issue is not so much a “perfect” Bible, but fidelity to the authority of the Chruch’s teaching. Are we protestants?

No, but the scholars who created the NAB are. This is what I have documented in my study.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

Hananiah:

A Bible need not be perfect in order to be essentially faithful to the text in its translation and to the eternal Magisterium in its commentary. The RSV-CE, DRV, and Jerusalem all have their faults, but at least they meet these two qualifications. The NAB, on the other hand, doesn’t. It takes gross liberties with the text and its commentary is heterodox.

Your first sentence agrees with the point I was trying to make. However, no layman is in charge of telling the laity what is good and not a good Bible. They were given no Authority to do so. It is personal opinion.

So what? Besides, the Magisterium is infallible, but the NAB contradicts Magisterial exegesis as well as solemn Papal decrees numerous times.

We both agree that the Magisterium is infallible. Your point that the NAB contradicts is again personal opinion. No matter how many studies you conduct, it remains personal opinion.

What exactly are you talking about? Who here has claimed anything about a perfect Bible? Where are you getting this cockamamy idea?

While it remains the approved Bible we use in mass, there is so much NAB bashing goin on, it is only fair to assume that people are arguing from a “perfect” Bible standard. Point by point evidence of its “serious” errors is informative, but not authoritatively binding, as no such authroity has been given to the laity.

So what?

Exactly what I said. Ignoring this historical fact does not help your cause.

No, but the scholars who created the NAB are. This is what I have documented in my study.

Mute point. It is irrelevant as long as the NAB was approved by the Catholic Church for use.

I will say it again:

The issue is not so much a “perfect” version of the Bible, but fidelity to the authority of the Chruch’s teaching!

Thank you for this discussion.

 

[Antonio_B]

Hananiah:

Antonio, while the majority of the problems are confined to the footnotes, the translation has its problems as well. See my post a little earlier in this thread on the three willful mistranslations I have discovered.

If that is the case, one would hope Rome and the USCCB would do something about these errors since they are a source of confusion for those who read the Bible with accuracy in mind.

Antonio

 

[squirt]

Hananiah:

No, but the scholars who created the NAB are. This is what I have documented in my study.

And your scholarly credentials are … ?

And your study has an imprimatur? nihil obstat?

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

If that is the case, one would hope Rome and the USCCB would do something about these errors since they are a source of confusion for those who read the Bible with accuracy in mind

Yeah, you would think. Smirk

I don’t know if you’re aware, but the Church is currently in a state of doctrinal crisis. Most of the U. S. bishops are really Modernist heretics posing as Catholics, and our Holy Father, while personally orthodox, does not feel comfortable taking disciplinary actions against his brother bishops (or their projects) or even against many theologians.

There are many notable exceptions to the above description. But, unfortunately, the NAB is not one of them.

The last place a Catholic should turn to for Truth nowadays is a Catholic bishop.

 

[juanh]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Most of the U. S. bishops are really Modernist heretics posing as Catholics, and our Holy Father, while personally orthodox, does not feel comfortable taking disciplinary actions against his brother bishops

That statement is a bit on the broad side dont you think??..have you had a chance to sit down with our Holy Father and ask him his opinion on what he’s comfortable with???..have you met with “Most” of the US Bishops to gain this insight???..while you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, you should state it that way(as opinion), and not as a fact as it seemed to me you did.

 

[oat_soda]

How good can the NAB be if they translated “Hail mary full of grace” as “Hail favored one”? This is a misstranslation of the greek kecharitomene meaning always full of grace which is in harmony with the immaculate conception.

Yet another modernist error of our times, along with the priest facing the people, women readers, lay ministers of the eucharist, communion on the hand, banal profane protestant music, liturgical dancers, iconoclastism, … etc.