FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Is the New American Bible the worst thing ever created, ever?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Every time I read it or hear it, I laugh and feel nauseated at the same time.  It seems perfectly engineered to make people hate reading the Bible.  Not only is the language stilted, but it feels like it was written at a second grade level.  I'm not a huge fan of attempting to read the D-R either, but at least that has a certain validity and pride of place.  

Big Brains know that Knox is superior.  I will read the RSV2CE as well, but Knox is clearly king.
(11-16-2019, 08:20 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: [ -> ]Every time I read it or hear it, I laugh and feel nauseated at the same time.  It seems perfectly engineered to make people hate reading the Bible.  Not only is the language stilted, but it feels like it was written at a second grade level.  I'm not a huge fan of attempting to read the D-R either, but at least that has a certain validity and pride of place.  

Big Brains know that Knox is superior.  I will read the RSV2CE as well, but Knox is clearly king.

I don't think the New American is the worst thing under the sun, but it is quite evil.
(11-16-2019, 08:20 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: [ -> ]Every time I read it or hear it, I laugh and feel nauseated at the same time.  It seems perfectly engineered to make people hate reading the Bible.  Not only is the language stilted, but it feels like it was written at a second grade level.  I'm not a huge fan of attempting to read the D-R either, but at least that has a certain validity and pride of place.  

Big Brains know that Knox is superior.  I will read the RSV2CE as well, but Knox is clearly king.

My biggest problem with the NAB is the terrible, heretical, skeptical footnotes.  In case you haven't seen this before, here are just *a few* examples (59 pages worth) of problems with the notes.  The introductions are awful as well, rarely affirming traditional authorship or dating of Sacred Scripture.

https://www.saveourchurch.org/thenewamer...risies.pdf
The NWT, CEB, NLT, and NIV are even worse.
(11-16-2019, 09:57 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: [ -> ]The NWT, CEB, NLT, and NIV are even worse.

Do any of them claim to be Catholic? The NAB does. We're forbidden from reading non-Catholic Bibles anyway, so who cares how bad they are?
(11-16-2019, 09:53 PM)LionHippo Wrote: [ -> ]My biggest problem with the NAB is the terrible, heretical, skeptical footnotes.  In case you haven't seen this before, here are just *a few* examples (59 pages worth) of problems with the notes.  The introductions are awful as well, rarely affirming traditional authorship or dating of Sacred Scripture.

https://www.saveourchurch.org/thenewamer...risies.pdf

You know, the thing is that the dating and general scriptural history that they give is deeply outdated scholarship anyway.  I question whether it was ever "good" scholarship, but it was prevalent and in vogue during the 60s-80s.  The best, current scholarship elevates traditional dating.  The fact that I learned about the 60s scholarship in Catholic school was one of the things that fostered some truly intense hatred in my heart.  

A few years back I studied all of this very in depth.  I wish I had some good resources for learning more about John's Gospel and Johannine Christianity.  Some of the academic sources I read said that it is arguably one of the earliest gospels, contrary to the crap taught in the 60s.
(11-16-2019, 11:19 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2019, 09:53 PM)LionHippo Wrote: [ -> ]My biggest problem with the NAB is the terrible, heretical, skeptical footnotes.  In case you haven't seen this before, here are just *a few* examples (59 pages worth) of problems with the notes.  The introductions are awful as well, rarely affirming traditional authorship or dating of Sacred Scripture.

https://www.saveourchurch.org/thenewamer...risies.pdf

You know, the thing is that the dating and general scriptural history that they give is deeply outdated scholarship anyway.  I question whether it was ever "good" scholarship, but it was prevalent and in vogue during the 60s-80s.  The best, current scholarship elevates traditional dating.  The fact that I learned about the 60s scholarship in Catholic school was one of the things that fostered some truly intense hatred in my heart.  

A few years back I studied all of this very in depth.  I wish I had some good resources for learning more about John's Gospel and Johannine Christianity.  Some of the academic sources I read said that it is arguably one of the earliest gospels, contrary to the crap taught in the 60s.

Another problem with the NAB is that while the original sources were translated into latin by St. Jerome (old vulgate), and the Douai-Rheims testaments were translated into english from the old vulgate...the NAB is translated from copies of the greek (i.e., copies of the septuagint), aramaic and hebrew scriptures that were generations later (copies) from the sources of St. Jerome. 

For some reason it is fashionable to revert to these copies without reference to the old vulgate, and you end up with evil oddities (that the USCCB calls "excellent", by the way) like the NAB of 1970, and NABRE.
I think if I tried, I could get some form of the word "copy" in that comment a few more times.

:cool:
When I went through RCIA years ago the NAB was the version I was given and all I remember thinking was that the notes within it were utterly faithless and that if I followed their logic I couldn't possibly even be Christian. It was atrocious.  I got rid of it and haven't looked back.  I too love the Knox Bible, but mostly for the Gospels and Epistles. It's the best for those as far as I'm concerned.  For sheer readibility and flow I still prefer the KJV(I love hieratic English and have no protestant baggage that would make me hate it like some)  or NKJV to be honest, but no one makes the Gospels and Epistles come alive like Knox. 


Only commentary worth reading in my opinion is Patristic or Neo Patristic. The Bible is a seamless whole with a rich tradition of commentaries and exegesis that is not hazardous to one's faith. NAB commentary and notes reads like the worst of faithless historical critical scholarship, and as others have mentioned, much of it is now outdated.
(11-17-2019, 01:48 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]Only commentary worth reading in my opinion is Patristic or Neo Patristic. The Bible is a seamless whole with a rich tradition of commentaries and exegesis that is not hazardous to one's faith. NAB commentary and notes reads like the worst of faithless historical critical scholarship, and as others have mentioned, much of it is now outdated.

I agree with you on this.

For my own part, I love the Douai-Rheims, both the original and the Challoner revision.
Pages: 1 2 3 4