My post got all jumbled somehow. Here it is again, corrected:
Apparently this is the Bible version used by the Vatican website.
Here’s some of the footnotes:
“This section is chiefly concerned with the creation of man. It is much older than the narrative of Genesis 1:1-2:4a. Here God is depicted as creating man before the rest of his creatures, which are made for man’s sake. This is basically saying that Genesis contradicts itself, rather than the author going back and focusing on the events of a particular day, which they use to claim that there are many authors of Genesis, none of them being Moses.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P4.HTM
Again, more “mythology” placed into the text, as well as alleged error, according to the footnotes:
“[1-4] This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology. The sacred author incorporates it here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation - the constantly increasing wickedness of mankind.” [6:5- 8:22] The story of the great flood here recorded is a composite narrative based on two separate sources interwoven into an intricate patchwork. To the Yahwist source, with some later editorial additions, are usually assigned Genesis 6:5-8; 7:1-5, 7-10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22-23; 8:2b-3a, 6-12, 13b, 20-22. The other sections come from the “Priestly document.”
” The combination of the two sources produced certain duplications (e.g., Genesis 6:13-22 of the Yahwist source, beside Genesis 7:1-5 of the Priestly source); also certain inconsistencies, such as the number of the various animals taken into the ark ( Genesis 6:19-20; 7:14-15 of the Priestly source, beside Genesis 7:2-3 of the Yahwist source), and the timetable of the flood...
“Both biblical sources go back ultimately to an ancient Mesopotamian story of a great flood, preserved in the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic. The latter account, in some respects remarkably similar to the biblical account, is in others very different from it.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P8.HTM [1-32]
“Although this chapter, with its highly schematic form, belongs to the relatively late “Priestly document,” it is based on very ancient traditions... its primary purpose is to bridge the genealogical gap between Adam and Abraham. Adam’s line is traced through Seth, but several names in the series are the same as, or similar to, certain names in Cain’s line. The long lifespans attributed to these ten antediluvian patriarchs have a symbolic rather than a historical value. Babylonian tradition also recorded ten kings with fantastically high ages who reigned successively before the flood.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P7.HTM
Myths created to justify atrocities, so claims the footnotes:
“[18-27] This story seems to be a composite of two earlier accounts; in the one, Ham was guilty, whereas, in the other, it was Canaan. One purpose of the story is to justify the Israelites’ enslavement of the Canaanites because of certain indecent sexual practices in the Canaanite religion. Obviously the story offers no justification for enslaving African Negroes, even though Canaan is presented as a “son” of Ham because the land of Canaan belonged to Hamitic Egypt at the time of the Israelite invasion.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PB.HTM
The tower of babel an “imaginitive” story:
“[1-9] This story, based on traditions about the temple towers or ziggurats of Babylonia, is used by the sacred writer primarily to illustrate man’s increasing wickedness, shown here in his presumptuous effort to create an urban culture apart from God. The secondary motive in the story is to present an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth, as well as an artificial explanation of the name “Babylon.””
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PD.HTM
“the NAB is issued by the USCCB - which is not an official organization in the hierarchy of the Church and plays little or no role in my faith life. Neither my parish nor my pastor are under the authority of the USCCB.”
So are you Catholic? And is the Vatican website an official website for Catholics?
“Apparently this is the Bible version used by the Vatican website.”
The Vatican merely uses what was approved by the USCCB. That does not make it an endorsement.
“So are you Catholic?”
Yep.
“And is the Vatican website an official website for Catholics?”
Yep, but the material you posted isn’t.
And which add to the evidence that what Rome teaches is often open to interpretation, which censuring us for doing so.
Thus the Vatican sanctions an unofficial Bible, issued by an Episcopal Conference, these being permanent institutions, which were called for by V2, and subject to the immediate and absolute authority of the Pope, and which allowed such blatant liberalism and offers it to be read, of which and the current version still subscribes to. Then they wonder why they have sects, schism, and loses multitudes ot evangelicalism.