NEW BIBLE FROM WACK BISHOPS!
#41
At least they keep showing themselves for who they are.  Enemies of the Faith.  More and more people will see the ridiculousness of it all and keep filling up the SSPX, ect.  pews.  They keep making it easier to explain how they are wrong.  Given enough rope, they will hang themselves.  They've taken on the BVM now.  It's on.  :titanic:
Reply
#42
All the changes do is make an already horrible version of Scripture (translation, introductions*, footnotes) that much worse.  Anyone who has a mature faith will know to reject it.  So, we must concentrate on helping those who are less-instructed and who would be more likely to use such an abomination.  And no, I don't think that word is too strong for a "Catholic Bible" which rejects the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (1907-27) and which also suggests that the Church may be fallible (see its footnote to Mark 6:3).


* "The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark ... The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Matthew 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem" (NAB, Introduction to the Gospel according to St. Matthew).  http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/intro.htm

Compare the above with Denzinger 2148-51.  :realmad:  http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma22.php

Anyway, the changes from "virgin" to "young woman" and "holocaust" to "burnt offering" both bother me.  And is it still possible for the Bible to be further 'feminized' in the future?  Is there anything they haven't 'caught' yet that could 'scandalize' some women?  :puke:
Reply
#43
It seems to me, since the Nazi genocide against Jewish people was called "Holocaust" due to the significance of that word in Scripture, changing it in Scripture actually diminishes the significance of using that word to describe the genocide.

That being said, they're probably thinking that the word "holocaust" has acquired such negative connotations (ie a very evil act) that calling sacrifices offered to God a word with evil connotations could give the wrong idea.

As for bad NAB footnotes, the first one I ever noticed was the one for 1 Cor. 3:15. The note says the verse does not refer to Purgatory, yet the CCC cites it as referring to Purgatory (CCC 1031, note 605). Later, Pope Benedict went into some depth explaining this verse as referring to Purgatory in Spe Salvi, par. 46.
Reply
#44
I'm not going to presume malicious intent on the part of the bishops.  I think they're simply making changes to comply with the suggestions of those biblical scholars who write the NAB.  I fully agree that booty can be changed to spoils (and I like that better).  As for the other changes, I'll simply presume good faith.  Most of the changes reflect changes to the Old Testament, and as those who take Hebrew know, the language is often imprecise (and you often have to work really hard to understand what the text is saying).  So from a purely translational perspective, "virgin" and "young woman" could be equivalent translations in Hebrew.  I think its a little ridiculous if people think that this is the first step in the USCCB undermining belief in the Virginity of Mary.  Our tradition dictates the proper interpretation of the text, and that is unchanging regardless if words are substituted.  Nor has the USCCB or the Vatican issued anything thus far that says one can disagree with the forementioned Marian dogma.

I say if you want to criticize the NAB, don't do it from the assumption that the writers are secretly heretics (which couldn't be proven).  Instead, criticize the translation and prose itself.  The NAB Psalms have terrible prose.  When I read the letters of Paul in the NAB, there is poor sentence structure in many places.  I actually stop and wonder: "Why was he such an effective preacher if he spoke like this?"  The translators of the NAB basically wanted a strict word-for-word literal translation (I suppose because they wanted it to aid scholars).  However, such a strict translation occasionally fails to grasp the mood of the text (which older English bibles, like the DR and even the KJV did so well).  As one my professors commented: "Its like met up when they were finished, and asked themselves: 'How can we make is sound uglier?' ".  We don't even use the NAB in our Scripture classes here at the seminary for that and other reasons.
Reply
#45
(03-03-2011, 03:16 PM)dymphna17 Wrote: At least they keep showing themselves for who they are.  Enemies of the Faith.  More and more people will see the ridiculousness of it all and keep filling up the SSPX, ect.  pews.  They keep making it easier to explain how they are wrong.  Given enough rope, they will hang themselves.  They've taken on the BVM now.  It's on.  :titanic:

:drowning:
Reply
#46
(03-03-2011, 03:59 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: That being said, they're probably thinking that the word "holocaust" has acquired such negative connotations (ie a very evil act) that calling sacrifices offered to God a word with evil connotations could give the wrong idea.

Exactly.  Language is fluid and a word can acquire a totally different context in another time.  For example, "negro" would have been an appropriate substitute for "black" a few hundred years ago.  However, nowadays, "negro" has acquired a racist meaning in common language.  So if you're in church and you hear the priest say "I am negro, but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem...", what are you going to immediately think?  You'll get a picture contrary to the intent of the text.

The same could be said for holocaust.  Eighty years ago?  Its synonymous with "burnt offerings".  Now, it almost exclusively refers to Hitler's mass genocide.  It doesn't help people enter into the text if they hear David offering "holocausts".  Instead of seeing the beautiful image of the King of Israel offering sacrifices to God as a king and priest, they're going to think of Auschwitz and gas chambers.  The change in the text is pastoral decision, and not necessarily one done for inter-religious concerns,
Reply
#47
(03-03-2011, 04:22 PM)MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote: Instead of seeing the beautiful image of the King of Israel offering sacrifices to God as a king and priest, they're going to think of Auschwitz and gas chambers.

Or...

People will actually learn that words can have more than one meaning. Scripture shouldn't be changed because some people are illiterate.
Reply
#48
Why would the jews change the word holocaust when it was so specific to them and their history?  Are they equating what happened in Germany to the holocausts of old?  So those who died in Germany were/are to be considered a perfect offering to God?  Sorry if this has already been answered and I missed it.

Genocide would clearly be the better term in regards to meaning.
Reply
#49
If you don't think that these changes in regards to 'Holocaust' were done for, as you say, "Inter-Religous reasons", MeaMaximaCulpa, all I can say is keep dreaming.

But even that is going too soft. It comes from Dialogue with the Jews which is a one way street. And in case you haven't noticed, The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is always the one doing the U-Turns, or putting the car in reverse.

Gee, I have an idea, how about Father Smiley giving a sermon on the Levitical Priesthood, the Lamb of God, and spotless offerings to God without blemish? The Zombies in the pews might actually learn something. Perish the thought!

Agnus Dei, Qui tollis peccatta mundi, miserere nobis.
Reply
#50
(03-03-2011, 03:16 PM)dymphna17 Wrote: They've taken on the BVM now.  It's on.  :titanic:

Looking to history, we see that when her will is fullfilled, enormous good comes about (e.g., St. James's work in Spain led to a fiercely loyal Catholic state, fervent prayer of the Rosary prevented Muslim conquest of Rome.)

Indeed, when ignored what do we see?  France's famine (19th century crop failures) as one example and another, though indirect was the Protestant revolt that increasingly besmirch the Virgin Mary leading to the most severe depopulation and destruction in modern history  in parts of Europe (30 Years War.)

Church leaders have openly defied her instructions to consecrate Russia, but instead find the time to mutilate Scripture in a way that distorts her role.  It's on is right! 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)