Your View's on the NAB

[Jerry-Jet]

I don’t defend the proposition that there would be no spiritual detriment to a person using the RSV-CE if they didn’t use anything else.

I do defend the proposition that there would be no spiritual detriment to a person using the Douay Rheims if they used nothing else!

 

[porthos11]

I don’t defend the proposition that there would be no spiritual detriment to a person using the RSV-CE if they didn’t use anything else.

I do defend the proposition that there would be no spiritual detriment to a person using the Douay Rheims if they used nothing else!

See? This is the kind of spiritual pride we have long been speaking of, that somehow those of us who do not prefer the Douay are in some kind of spiritual deficiency, unlike themselves.

 

[juliamajor]

I don’t defend the proposition that there would be no spiritual detriment to a person using the RSV-CE if they didn’t use anything else.

I do defend the proposition that there would be no spiritual detriment to a person using the Douay Rheims if they used nothing else!

That’s got to be the silliest thing anyone has ever said - RSV-CE is detrimental to your spiritual health-so those that use the DR are pure of heart and they can’t get something wrong.Wow the DR gives you God Like characteristics- you are so hung up on form and not substance. you practice biblalitry- you worship and give a book characteristics that don’t belong to books even the bible. A book can’t be detrimental to your spiritual life. What You learn and how you act is what is damaging to your supernatural health. God’s word means nothing( no matter which translation) if they are not taken into your mind and spirit.If you don’t act and live the word that translation availeth nothing.

 

[mccorm45]

I don’t defend the proposition that there would be no spiritual detriment to a person using the RSV-CE if they didn’t use anything else.

I do defend the proposition that there would be no spiritual detriment to a person using the Douay Rheims if they used nothing else!

By that rationale, if we figure that the Holy Scriptures are given to us like medication by the Church and the Church has approved (prescribed) for reading the various modern translations for our spiritual health…then one must conclude that we have a malpractice suit against our Doctor, the Church, for encouraging us to take medication that will make us sick!

 

[tobinatorstark]

See? This is the kind of spiritual pride we have long been speaking of, that somehow those of us who do not prefer the Douay are in some kind of spiritual deficiency, unlike themselves.

That is just his thought so just leave it at that

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I think that because the Catholic Church has taught that the Vulgate does not err in matters of doctrine.

Other translations such as the RSV-CE do err in matters of doctrine because they do not contain the Fullness of Truth–only part of the truth.

Can they be used? Of course.

If someone uses them exclusively and does not fully know the teaching of the Catholic Church could they be spirtually detrimental?

Yes!

As for medicine the RSV-CE is a medicine that can be used but does have doctrinal side effects.

Vulgate based translations do not have doctrinal side effects.

And the Catholic Church through its teaching can certainly give medicine such as the RSV-CE with its side effects because the magisterium’s teaching can correct itsw sideside effects.

The real comparison would be between a medicine with side effects and one with no side effects.

You wouldn’t win a case against a doctor because he gave you an approved medicine with side effects versus one without side effects.

You might enquire of the doctor if it would be better if you did in fact use the medicine with less side effects.

The doctor spoke at Trent and said to use the Vulgate

The doctor said it could be used in all disputations.

I trust that doctor far more than I do the Protestant “scholars” who came up with the RSV.

 

[patrick457]

I think that because the Catholic Church has taught that the Vulgate does not err in matters of doctrine.

Other translations such as the RSV-CE do err in matters of doctrine because they do not contain the Fullness of Truth–only part of the truth.

Can they be used? Of course.

If someone uses them exclusively and does not fully know the teaching of the Catholic Church could they be spirtually detrimental?

Yes!

As for medicine the RSV-CE is a medicine that can be used but does have doctrinal side effects.

Vulgate based translations do not have doctrinal side effects.

And the Catholic Church through its teaching can certainly give medicine such as the RSV-CE with its side effects because the magisterium’s teaching can correct itsw sideside effects.

The real comparison would be between a medicine with side effects and one with no side effects.

You wouldn’t win a case against a doctor because he gave you an approved medicine with side effects versus one without side effects.

You might enquire of the doctor if it would be better if you did in fact use the medicine with less side effects.

The doctor spoke at Trent and said to use the Vulgate

The doctor said it could be used in all disputations.

I trust that doctor far more than I do the Protestant “scholars” who came up with the RSV.

Good thoughts. However, what about John Wycliff’s translation of the Bible? Is it safe to use that since, after all, it is made from the Vulgate?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

A translation can be made “from the Vulgate” and still butchered and not reflect the Vulgate just as much as a translation based upon “original”(exactly how original is original?) language texts.

 

[garysibio]

I think that because the Catholic Church has taught that the Vulgate does not err in matters of doctrine.

The Vulgate about which Trent spoke has changes over the years. The changes have been minor and I don’t believe any doctrinal errors have been introduced into the Vulgate, but the possibility exists that one could in the future.

Also, lack of doctrinal errors does not equate to a lack textual errors. If it did, there would be no need to make any changes in the Vulgate.

Other translations such as the RSV-CE do err in matters of doctrine because they do not contain the Fullness of Truth–only part of the truth.

Be specific. What errors are you talking about.

No Bible, including the Vulgate, contains the fullness of truth. If it did then the Church’s rejection of Sola Scriptura would be an error.

If someone uses them exclusively and does not fully know the teaching of the Catholic Church could they be spirtually detrimental?

Yes!

Regardless of which version you use, if you study the Bible apart from the teachings of the Church, you risk error.

Gary

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thanks- you explained in succinctly(something I can’t do lol) and clearly.

That must be a first ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I can’t say anything against Confraternity because I haven’t read it. I have seen on, but haven’t read one. But I am sure it is an excellent translation. BTW has anyone here ever use Knox’s translation of the Vulgate

Yes. ​

My exposure to the Confraternity Version is limited to a harmonising edition of the gospels, edited in the 50s (I think). And to the NCE names from it - which are somewhere between the forms in the Challoner Bible & the familiar Protestant forms