Your View's on the NAB

[porthos11]

Pope Pius XII and Pope Paul VI were wonderful people and they had wonderful encyclicals. In fact Pius XII’s encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu” is considered to be one of the best encyclicals written I have seen it time and again on this forum where people use this encyclical in all battles to defend the RSV-CE. They act like no other encyclical exist. “Divino Afflante Spiritu” made some excellent points, but I don’t think that this encyclical would endorse such a translation like the RSV-CE nor would Pope Pius XII or Pope Paul VI.

DAS is not used the defend the RSV. It commands the study, under pain of the “stigma of levity and sloth” of the original languages, which you and Jerry-Jet have spoken virulently against.

Liturgiam Authenticam commands that Scripture readings be made primarily from the original languages, again, which you and Jerry-Jet have viciously debased, with the Nova Vulgata as a point of reference for diverging manuscript traditions. The Nova Vulgata is NOT Jerome’s Vulgate.

These documents, especially DAS, clearly and unequivocally state that the original languages have more “weight and authority” than translations.

Then spend some years studying Hebrew and Greek, like some of us actually have to varying degrees. Counter-check the critical editions against the RSV. THEN maybe you will have some idea as to whether the RSV is as evil as you claim it is.

Deal with that.

 

[juliamajor]

DAS is not used the defend the RSV. It commands the study, under pain of the “stigma of levity and sloth” of the original languages, which you and Jerry-Jet have spoken virulently against.

Liturgiam Authenticam commands that Scripture readings be made primarily from the original languages, again, which you and Jerry-Jet have viciously debased, with the Nova Vulgata as a point of reference for diverging manuscript traditions. The Nova Vulgata is NOT Jerome’s Vulgate.

These documents, especially DAS, clearly and unequivocally state that the original languages have more “weight and authority” than translations.

Then spend some years studying Hebrew and Greek, like some of us actually have to varying degrees. Counter-check the critical editions against the RSV. THEN maybe you will have some idea as to whether the RSV is as evil as you claim it is.

Deal with that.

I think these guys sell these Bibles!

 

[tobinatorstark]

DAS is not used the defend the RSV. It commands the study, under pain of the “stigma of levity and sloth” of the original languages, which you and Jerry-Jet have spoken virulently against.

Liturgiam Authenticam commands that Scripture readings be made primarily from the original languages, again, which you and Jerry-Jet have viciously debased, with the Nova Vulgata as a point of reference for diverging manuscript traditions. The Nova Vulgata is NOT Jerome’s Vulgate.

These documents, especially DAS, clearly and unequivocally state that the original languages have more “weight and authority” than translations.

Then spend some years studying Hebrew and Greek, like some of us actually have to varying degrees. Counter-check the critical editions against the RSV. THEN maybe you will have some idea as to whether the RSV is as evil as you claim it is.

Deal with that.

Me and Jerry-Jet are not saying the RSV-CE is evil, were just saying it’s Protestant based and not Catholic based. I don’t want a Protestant Bible, I want a true to word Catholic Bible. Weather it may be the D-R, Confraternity or Knox’s translation of the Vulgate or the Vulgate itself. I don’t want a Protestant based Bible and I am not going to recommend a Protestant based Catholic Bible to a Catholic

 

[tobinatorstark]

also when you say Das. Not exactly sure what you are talking about. The encyclical I wanted to refer to wasn’t the encyclical I thought it was. I was trying to refer to “Spe Salvi”. But it isn’t the encyclical I thought it was

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I do believe that some Catholics DO want a Protestant based bible because they do not truely beliebve the Catholic faith–it isn’t sophisticated enough for them.

They actually believe the “scholars” who taught them not to believe it in school!

None of those fine people was a saint like Jerome–none of them lived a life of heroic virtue–and many of them have problems with many aspects of the Catholic faith.

Real scholarship is not a bad thing–just don’t tell me that agendas don’t hide under the mask of scholarship.

And don’t tell me that the translation choices of “scholars” do not involve in anyway their own personal theology.

And by the way–why is it IMPOSSIBLE to show photographic evidence of the exact “original texts” that so many here extol?

And why is it IMPOSSIBLE to show why one variant ancient original text is used instead of another original language text variant?

Saying the RSV comes from the truest and most correct choice of original language variants is absolute hogwash!

The real question is never ancient original language texts–it’s WHICH of those original language texts–which oif their variaents that one uses.

And that is the REAL rub! It is quite possible to CHOOSE whatever varients and whatever shading of words in ambiguous cases so that one reinforces their own theology!

Saying there isn’t BIAS in the RSV is a silly as saying there is no BIAS in the New york Times!

One would extol their schiolarship–one would extol their journalism–and both would claim to be telling the truth!

That doesn’t mean that simple people of more limited intelligence couldn’t tell that even though they might be telling some of the truth–that they weren’t telling all of it!

I don’t believe the textual choices of the RSV are the right choices.

I never will and that doesn’t make me stupid!

And believing in the doctrinal truth of the Vulgate does not make one stupid either.

And “Use” of any bible does not equate to approval of all its textual choices and that can’t be swept away by appealing to “scholarship” or “original language texts”.

What about all of the “original language texts” that don’t agree with the RSV’s texts?

What about all the Protestants who disagree with its choices?

Exactly who nominated that particular group of Protestants in the 1950s to be more qualified than anyone else to translate the bible?

Their authority is ZERO! St. Jerome was at least commissioned by the pope. The Pontifical Bible Commiussion was authorized by Pope Pius XII to revise the Psalms.

The devil is always in the details. If you can control what is in the scripture and if you can control what is taught in seminaries–then you can produce priests and bishops who will move the church in the way you want it to go.

Satan knows this and tries to attack the Catholic Church forever in this way.

I would respect RSV lovers more if they were intellectually honest enough to admit that in some places they just get the Bible wrong! If they then proceed to say that in other places they get it better than any other bible–I could believe that!

Anyone that believes that the RSV is not Protestant biased does not know what they are taking about.

And no matter who promotes it here its deficiencies will always be proclaimed so that people who do not know of them can come to the Fullness of the Truth!

 

[tobinatorstark]

I do believe that some Catholics DO want a Protestant based bible because they do not truely beliebve the Catholic faith–it isn’t sophisticated enough for them.

I to believe some do feel that way

And by the way–why is it IMPOSSIBLE to show photographic evidence of the exact “original texts” that so many here extol?

I have been wondering this myself. Honestly the ones that have been saying that it is impossible to show photographic evidence are just shooting their mouth’s off to to get you to see things their way

And why is it IMPOSSIBLE to show why one variant ancient original text is used instead of another original language text variant?

What are even the names of these so called texts

Saying the RSV comes from the truest and most correct choice of original language variants is absolute hogwash!

Absolutely

Saying there isn’t BIAS in the RSV is a silly as saying there is no BIAS in the New york Times!

I don’t believe the textual choices of the RSV are the right choices.

neither do I

What about all of the “original language texts” that don’t agree with the RSV’s texts?

What about all the Protestants who disagree with its choices?

There are quite a few of them

The devil is always in the details. If you can control what is in the scripture and if you can control what is taught in seminaries–then you can produce priests and bishops who will move the church in the way you want it to go.

Satan knows this and tries to attack the Catholic Church forever in this way.

I would respect RSV lovers more if they were intellectually honest enough to admit that in some places they just get the Bible wrong! If they then proceed to say that in other places they get it better than any other bible–I could believe that!

Anyone that believes that the RSV is not Protestant biased does not know what they are taking about.

Totally true
And no matter who promotes it here its deficiencies will always be proclaimed so that people who do not know of them can come to the Fullness of the Truth!

 

[Rogerteder]

although it was a mistake on the movies it was not on the NAB. I have talked to many priest and other religious around and they have all said that the most accurate English translations are the NAB and RSV, ecsially (spelling?) the footnotes.

Hey little man you need to go to Bob Sungenis’ web site and see his commentary on the NAB–he’ll set you straight

 

[juliamajor]

I do believe that some Catholics DO want a Protestant based bible because they do not truely beliebve the Catholic faith–it isn’t sophisticated enough for them.

They actually believe the “scholars” who taught them not to believe it in school!

None of those fine people was a saint like Jerome–none of them lived a life of heroic virtue–and many of them have problems with many aspects of the Catholic faith.

Real scholarship is not a bad thing–just don’t tell me that agendas don’t hide under the mask of scholarship.

And don’t tell me that the translation choices of “scholars” do not involve in anyway their own personal theology.

And by the way–why is it IMPOSSIBLE to show photographic evidence of the exact “original texts” that so many here extol?

And why is it IMPOSSIBLE to show why one variant ancient original text is used instead of another original language text variant?

Saying the RSV comes from the truest and most correct choice of original language variants is absolute hogwash!

The real question is never ancient original language texts–it’s WHICH of those original language texts–which oif their variaents that one uses.

And that is the REAL rub! It is quite possible to CHOOSE whatever varients and whatever shading of words in ambiguous cases so that one reinforces their own theology!

Saying there isn’t BIAS in the RSV is a silly as saying there is no BIAS in the New york Times!

One would extol their schiolarship–one would extol their journalism–and both would claim to be telling the truth!

That doesn’t mean that simple people of more limited intelligence couldn’t tell that even though they might be telling some of the truth–that they weren’t telling all of it!

I don’t believe the textual choices of the RSV are the right choices.

I never will and that doesn’t make me stupid!

And believing in the doctrinal truth of the Vulgate does not make one stupid either.

And “Use” of any bible does not equate to approval of all its textual choices and that can’t be swept away by appealing to “scholarship” or “original language texts”.

What about all of the “original language texts” that don’t agree with the RSV’s texts?

What about all the Protestants who disagree with its choices?

Exactly who nominated that particular group of Protestants in the 1950s to be more qualified than anyone else to translate the bible?

Their authority is ZERO! St. Jerome was at least commissioned by the pope. The Pontifical Bible Commiussion was authorized by Pope Pius XII to revise the Psalms.

The devil is always in the details. If you can control what is in the scripture and if you can control what is taught in seminaries–then you can produce priests and bishops who will move the church in the way you want it to go.

Satan knows this and tries to attack the Catholic Church forever in this way.

I would respect RSV lovers more if they were intellectually honest enough to admit that in some places they just get the Bible wrong! If they then proceed to say that in other places they get it better than any other bible–I could believe that!

Anyone that believes that the RSV is not Protestant biased does not know what they are taking about.

And no matter who promotes it here its deficiencies will always be proclaimed so that people who do not know of them can come to the Fullness of the Truth!

Yeah pal-stop seeing Satan were he isn’t or accusing people of disloyalty.That really is very Unchristian.you do a heck of a lot of judging.You judge people who DON’T believe just like you that certain bibles are Satanic. How foolish to judge people by the bible they use.I personally don’t care which bible you use. I don’t think it’s any of my business. But once you go to an adversarial position- (satan means adversary,opposer)then I will respond.Stay with the Vulgate,sleep with it dream with it.DR-good for you.But questioning translations and those who translate giving them ulterior, nefarious motives smacks of bigotry. Protestant translators,Jewish translators are not to be trusted? They are evil? Satanic?trying to trick us deceive us. ? I guess all those scholars(including popes,bishops,seminarians) are all being deceived and are deceivers!? My Diocese is NY- and whatever you may believe it’s very conservative.Our new priests are versed in Latin,the correct rubrics,and are very Traditional. Hate to tell you they use the RSV and have used it in scripture study. Lets get those folks out! they’ve been tainted.? so you and those who read the DR or Vulgate are the only faithful ones- part of the Remnant? that’s pretty sad to look at your fellow Christians and even worse fellow Catholics with a jaundiced eye.Seeing where they err, checking, what must , by your own canon,their shortcomings!! Hate to break this to you but Catholics have always had learned scholars,believe in education and expanded and created universities all over the world. Our religious probably the most learned and sophisticated.In Divino Spiritu Afflante Pius 12 mentions the new archaeological and textual evidence.So argue with him or Paul6 or JPII.Yes texts unknown to Jerome do exist and if you Google them and Google images you’d probably find them.Try getting a grip and leave those who want to use the NAB ,RSV, AV,NLT,NET,Knox,NASBetc.to those who earnestly try to seek God and His Church through the Word

 

[tobinatorstark]

Yeah pal-stop seeing Satan were he isn’t or accusing people of disloyalty.That really is very Unchristian.you do a heck of a lot of judging.You judge people who DON’T believe just like you that certain bibles are Satanic. How foolish to judge people by the bible they use.I personally don’t care which bible you use. I don’t think it’s any of my business. But once you go to an adversarial position- (satan means adversary,opposer)then I will respond.Stay with the Vulgate,sleep with it dream with it.DR-good for you.But questioning translations and those who translate giving them ulterior, nefarious motives smacks of bigotry. Protestant translators,Jewish translators are not to be trusted? They are evil? Satanic?trying to trick us deceive us. ? I guess all those scholars(including popes,bishops,seminarians) are all being deceived and are deceivers!? My Diocese is NY- and whatever you may believe it’s very conservative.Our new priests are versed in Latin,the correct rubrics,and are very Traditional. Hate to tell you they use the RSV and have used it in scripture study. Lets get those folks out! they’ve been tainted.? so you and those who read the DR or Vulgate are the only faithful ones- part of the Remnant? that’s pretty sad to look at your fellow Christians and even worse fellow Catholics with a jaundiced eye.Seeing where they err, checking, what must , by your own canon,their shortcomings!! Hate to break this to you but Catholics have always had learned scholars,believe in education and expanded and created universities all over the world. Our religious probably the most learned and sophisticated.In Divino Spiritu Afflante Pius 12 mentions the new archaeological and textual evidence.So argue with him or Paul6 or JPII.Yes texts unknown to Jerome do exist and if you Google them and Google images you’d probably find them.Try getting a grip and leave those who want to use the NAB ,RSV, AV,NLT,NET,Knox,NASBetc.to those who earnestly try to seek God and His Church through the Word

Were not saying the RSV-CE is Satanic. If it was I wouldn’t want any church to to read from it. It is most certainly not Satanic. Also we are not judging you by the Bible that you use. We just don’t see it as a fit in the Catholic Church. For the fact that no one can even give us any proof of the texts that were used in translating the RSV are better and more accurate just leads me to think that these “texts” don’t even exist. No one can even tell me what names these text possess. I stay with the Douay-Rheims because I trust it. If you trust the RSV-CE, use it. You just aren’t going to find me recommending it all. We aren’t questioning anything that Pius XII said in “Divino Afflante Spiritu”. It is one of the best encyclicals written in the last 200 years, along with Providentissmus Deus. How can we do a google search for these text when, we don’t even have the name of the text?? Makes sense to me. Anyone who wants to read whatever translation they want is free to do so. Again you are not going to find me supporting a Protestant based Catholic Bible. Why should I promote Protestantism in the Catholic Church?? There are translations that I desire to read outside the Douay-Rheims.

 

[juliamajor]

Were not saying the RSV-CE is Satanic. If it was I wouldn’t want any church to to read from it. It is most certainly not Satanic. Also we are not judging you by the Bible that you use. We just don’t see it as a fit in the Catholic Church. For the fact that no one can even give us any proof of the texts that were used in translating the RSV are better and more accurate just leads me to think that these “texts” don’t even exist. No one can even tell me what names these text possess. I stay with the Douay-Rheims because I trust it. If you trust the RSV-CE, use it. You just aren’t going to find me recommending it all. We aren’t questioning anything that Pius XII said in “Divino Afflante Spiritu”. It is one of the best encyclicals written in the last 200 years, along with Providentissmus Deus. How can we do a google search for these text when, we don’t even have the name of the text?? Makes sense to me. Anyone who wants to read whatever translation they want is free to do so. Again you are not going to find me supporting a Protestant based Catholic Bible. Why should I promote Protestantism in the Catholic Church?? There are translations that I desire to read outside the Douay-Rheims.

You better start reading Jerry-jet post
"The devil is always in the details. If you can control what is in the scripture and if you can control what is taught in seminaries–then you can produce priests and bishops who will move the church in the way you want it to go.

Satan knows this and tries to attack the Catholic Church forever in this way."In Divino- Pius saids that better texts are now available and knowledge of language and archaeology that was unknown in Jerome’s time( of course I’m paraphrasing)/ as far as Codices and Papyri, unlike Santa Claus and the Easter bunny they do exist Viginia!/ here’s just a few - but they exist in the hundreds.Bodmer Papyri.Chester Beatty Papyri.Colt,Egerton,Michigan,Oxyrhynchus,Princeton,Rylands- Codices-Alexandrinus,Sinaiticus,Vaticanus,Argentes, ambrosianus. so if the chuch says it’s fit for me why would you oppose her? I find it hard to believe that you didn’t know that other texts really existed. Which ones were used?- I don’t know but I there are hundreds of sections, pieces ,bits &codices papyri.It’s extremely complex and time consuming.as far as googling all you gotta do is put biblical codices, or papyri and up they pop. make sense?Put Oxyrhynchus and google images and - they’ll be a picture. consult Catholic-resources website by Father Felix Just and search through. he’ll even answer questions!Good hunting

 

[juliamajor]

The Oxy codex ia made up of various texts- type Oxy>Revelation image and you’ll get iit

 

[tobinatorstark]

Satan is always attacking the Catholic church any way he possibly can. Satin is always attacking those who believe in the Lord. He will find ways to make you believe otherwise.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

There is No problem using ancient texts that have been found that were not available to St. Jerome.

The problem is knowing whether or not they are more reliable than what he used.

IF they are Jerome’s work can certainly be improved upon.

But what if One recently discovered ancient text is at variance with Many texts that may be found only a few years later?

Are you going to tell me that the Accurate way to translate would be to simply use whatever text is the most ancinet?

And who would be a competent authority to make that judgement?

Would it be one that viewed the ancient texts through the window of Protestant theology or would it be one who looked through the window of the Vulgate and the church’s witness over the centuries?

And don’t give me any no window at all–that same argument could be used by the same people that say they’re only interested in the Historical Jesus–you know–those people that think that the lens of faith should be jettisoned in searching for the historical Jesus–that is equally absurd!

And yes I do know that there are Many sources–that is entirely the point–someone has to choose which of those sources is the most accurate.

And what I am saying is that I don’t trust the Protestant scholars and their choices.

Why should I?

And no–the Holy Father nwould never say that he approved of ALL of their choioces either!

I’m not for Vulgate only or Douay Rheims only–but I am saying that I don’t trust non Catholics to improve the text of the bible against the Vulgate when it comes to texts that affect doctrine.

And I have no problem with the Nova Vulgata and if it’s choice of any text is the same as the RSV’s then in THAT INSTANCE–yes I would have no problem with the RSV’s choice of text.

That does not mean however that I would wholesale endorse every textual choice that the RSV made–the holy Father wouldn’t–and to insinuate that one is not being a faithful Catholic if they don’t buy off on every RSV textual choice is absurd!

 

[juliamajor]

Satan is always attacking the Catholic church any way he possibly can. Satin is always attacking those who believe in the Lord. He will find ways to make you believe otherwise.

Satin has always been one of my favorite materials. Don’t always see Satan where plain ole human weeknesses will do. Besides how is RSV and the Churches use of it Satan’s work

 

[tobinatorstark]

I never said that the RSV and the Church’s use of it is the work of Satan. I am talking the so called discoveries of the texts that are supposed to be “better and more accurate” The conclusion that they are more accurate and all of sudden all the Bible has a major overhaul

 

[porthos11]

I never said that the RSV and the Church’s use of it is the work of Satan. I am talking the so called discoveries of the texts that are supposed to be “better and more accurate” The conclusion that they are more accurate and all of sudden all the Bible has a major overhaul

Again, the simple reason is this:
**
Because the Catholic Church sez so.**

Why does that not matter to you?

 

[juliamajor]

There is No problem using ancient texts that have been found that were not available to St. Jerome.

The problem is knowing whether or not they are more reliable than what he used.

IF they are Jerome’s work can certainly be improved upon.

But what if One recently discovered ancient text is at variance with Many texts that may be found only a few years later?

Are you going to tell me that the Accurate way to translate would be to simply use whatever text is the most ancinet?

And who would be a competent authority to make that judgement?

Would it be one that viewed the ancient texts through the window of Protestant theology or would it be one who looked through the window of the Vulgate and the church’s witness over the centuries?

And don’t give me any no window at all–that same argument could be used by the same people that say they’re only interested in the Historical Jesus–you know–those people that think that the lens of faith should be jettisoned in searching for the historical Jesus–that is equally absurd!

And yes I do know that there are Many sources–that is entirely the point–someone has to choose which of those sources is the most accurate.

And what I am saying is that I don’t trust the Protestant scholars and their choices.

Why should I?

And no–the Holy Father nwould never say that he approved of ALL of their choioces either!

I’m not for Vulgate only or Douay Rheims only–but I am saying that I don’t trust non Catholics to improve the text of the bible against the Vulgate when it comes to texts that affect doctrine.

And I have no problem with the Nova Vulgata and if it’s choice of any text is the same as the RSV’s then in THAT INSTANCE–yes I would have no problem with the RSV’s choice of text.

That does not mean however that I would wholesale endorse every textual choice that the RSV made–the holy Father wouldn’t–and to insinuate that one is not being a faithful Catholic if they don’t buy off on every RSV textual choice is absurd!

Honey you really gotta stop making those giant leaps.You go from A to Z in a nano second!What a biblical scholar/translator does is way more complex then looking at one document.It’s looking at hundreds of them and trying and working toward the truest text possible.That’s what Augustine said and that’s what the documents say and that is true of any honest true scholar- they are searching for the best and truest documents. That’s why a broad board is better- everyone can keep each other on their perspective toes.And as far as the most ancient documents being better? Pure hogwash-actuall the BAR had an article about it saying older isn’t always truer or better.Hundreds of scholars and in the case of the RSV-CE the church does. Do you really believe that the Church is made up of ignorant, unknowing dupes.You got a pretty low opinion of their scholarship and their wisdom?JPii and B16 used it- so I guess they were just getting hornswoggled by underhanded Protestant scholars!! Because no matter how you slice it that’s what you’re saying in your vehement posts.I guess our guys are just a bunch of dummies-without guile and disloyal to boot.!Oh what a wicked devious generation!You can’t trust those Protestants- nor those Jews and you positively can’t trust those Orthodox Biblical scholars!! There all agin’ us

 

[juliamajor]

I tried to edit but it didn’t work so if it’s disjointed-blame the program " Hundreds of Scholars and more importantly the Church trusts the RSVCE- so who am I to argue?"Good enough for the Vatican good enough for me. I don’t need a Nihil obstat or imprimataur from any one else.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Good for you. I don’t care for the RSV-CE so I will stay away from it.

 

[juliamajor]

Good for you. I don’t care for the RSV-CE so I will stay away from it.

Well finally-I don’t care for the DR but I defend you’re right to use and read it without any spiritual detriment-AMEN:thumbsup: