“Dynamic equivalence” gives me a pain! Unfortunately the current translation used in the US Catholic Church (the NAB, but I call it the ‘Yoda Translation’ because of its clunky English) is chock full o’ that stuff.
Twice a week I read the Scriptures at Mass. My biggest challenge is not wincing when I hit the more egregious passages.
Actually, i began my Bible reading after i became manifestly born again (while still Catholic) with the Living Bible, but which i rather quickly was lacking the majesty if you will, of what the Bible ought to be if from God. Likewise the Good New Bible which i also tried, among others. I honestly liked the NAB in comparison with such paraphrases, and i used to be a lector myself. But after a KJV was given me at a Baptist church which i had later begun attending, then i became attached to it, reading it constantly, and now i use nothing else, though i do look sometimes at what others say, as well as check out what the original language is said to mean. And in so doing you realize how difficult translation can be and the knowledge, etc., it overall requires.
But as i think you known (have we discussed this before?) the problem with the NAB is not simply translation, but the approved notes, (NAB published by the Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, copyright 1970-77 and 1986 [some differences]; Nihil Obstat, and the Imprimatur from the Archbishop of Washington) which is evidence of V2’s liberal swing.
And regarding such stories as Judges 1:1-18 and of the “holy wars of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine, The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional.”
It also relegates Old Testament stories of supernatural events such as Gn. cps 2-4; 6-8; 11 (creation, the Flood, Tower of Babel) to being allegorical folk tales, and stories such as Num. 22 (Balaam’s vocal donkey) to being a fable, while Gn.12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), 12-50 (records of Abraham and Joseph) Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) are stories which are “historical at their core,” “historical novels,” while overall the author simply used “traditions” to teach a religious lesson. (Literary Forms”)
Its “Conditioned thought patterns” (p. 20) hermeneutic also paves the way for the specious argumentation of feminists who seek to negate the headship of the man as being due to condescension to culture, a very dangerous hermeneutic.
It speculates that some of the miracle stories of Jesus in the New Testament may be adapted from similar ones in the Old Testament,” (St. Joseph edition, 1970; How to read your Bible, 6f, 13e, f, g. and i) which i think infers they really did not happen.
It likewise states that “Matthew tells us that baby Jesus was taken to Egypt. This is not necessarily true,” but that Matthew placed Jesus in Egypt to convince his readers that Jesus was the real Israel. And that he may have only represented Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, to show that Jesus was like Moses who received the law on Mount Sinai.
Where does it stop?
“The Bible is God’s word and man’s word. One must understand man’s word first in order to understand the word of God.”
The Church was so firmly convinced that the risen Lord who is the Jesus of history lived in her, and taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus’ sayings.” The words are not Jesus but from the Church.
“Can we discover at least some words of Jesus that have escaped such elaboration? Bible scholars point to the very short sayings of Jesus, as for example those put together by Matthew in chapter 5, 1-12”
However, comparing Scripture with Scripture, it is seen that the Holy Spirit refers to such accounts which Rome delegates as fables as being factually literal. “The serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety” (2Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9), and Balaam’s donkey did indeed speak (2Pet. 2:16), and Jonah did indeed spend 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale (Mt. 12:40), and Israels history is always and inclusively treated as literal. And it is a slippery slope when historical statements are made out to be literary devices.
Muslims have taken advantage of the NAB’s liberal hermeneutic to impugn the veracity of the Scriptures, but who also misunderstand inspiration, while the Qur’an is guilty of what they charge. http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/nab.htm.
Of course, i was just told on another forum by a liberal student at a Lutheran sem that since i attribute the first five books to Moses “it almost seems useless to continue this conversation.”