vladimir, you have a reputation for arrogance, and this only adds to it. It is the responsibility fo the poster making such a historical assertion to document it, not those who question it.
Whether I agree or disagree is immaterial since the Church has added and subtracted materials from the index for centuries so your question is meaningless.
It is not meaningless as you either affirm or deny past actions were correct.
First, you mean the “New American Bible” and not the “American Bible”. It amazes me that Protestant anti-Catholics can’t even get the most basic things right.
More arrogance. When i said "your own official American Bible" then i am referring to the only officially approved American Bible approved for liturgical use.
There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn.” http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm
There have been revisions ot the NAB, including the NABRE but there have not been any announced plans to use the NABRE for the lectionary in the United States. The USCCB announced the approval is for "private use and study" while masses will continue to use a lectionary taken from "an earlier, modified version of the NAB translation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Bible_Revised_Edition#Completed_Revision_Release_and_Use
This are other stamped bible translations for RCs, but not for liturgical use.
Second, 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 either you are not American but which still renders the NAB to be your churches official American Bible for liturgical use, or you belong to a different Catholic rite
Third, I think you better check your source. I have the NABRE on my Kindle and the notes for the Tower of Babel (Gen 11) don’t say anything about the story being “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”. It says just “Secondarily, the story explains the diversity of language among peoples of the earth.” Perhaps you’re using the old edition? Since the very first thing I check in your post turns out to be incorrect I see no reason to bother with the rest.
I distinctly said "which teaches or did teach such things" and there is nothing incorrect in this. My source is my own 1970 stamped St Josephs edition copy of the NAB, some of which i have also seen in latter versions. as well, and you can see this is included on the online version here and other things in the Vatican source as GPH showed .. Other RCS have likewise criticized the NAB, such as seen here .
And if you had gone to the linked source, you would have seen that most notes were under "Literary Genres” which was at the beginning of the study version.
i do not know if the current study version of the NABRE says all this, but the older version clearly opposed Moses authorship of much or most of the Pentateuch (Ex. 17:14; Num. 33:2; Dt. 31:9,24-26) by subscribing to the liberal discredited JEDP source theory, with the Yahwist being, " among other things "imaginative" as seen "in the narrative of creation in Genesis (Intro... ), and the NABRE postulates this in its intro to the Pentateuch (http://usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?src=_intros/pentateuch-intro.htm) that such things as the Flood is regarded as a "composite narrative" which "ultimately draws upon an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of a great flood, preserved in the Sumerian flood story." .
Thus Rome teaches things not seen in Scripture or in contrast to it, while on the other hand RCs send us to Rome to understand the Bible, yet both its teachings and its modern view of Scripture send us away from it as the Word of God with its literal historical accounts.
I read the entire post and went to the links. When I was in Roman Catholic HS (10th grade) one semester was the OT studies class. More time was spent trying to explain away the miracles of the OT. For example the teacher spent four days on how the Red Sea crossing was not really the Red Sea but the "Reed Sea." The Israelites escaped through a low marshy point in the Reed Sea and that was why Pharoh could not get his chariots through (got stuck in the mud). We spent another 3 days on the plagues of Egypt going one by one through the 10 plagues where the teacher presented natural phenomena explanations for each plague.
All miracles were "explained away" and not once was it discussed God intervened in the natural world.
What's worse? 11th Grade NT studies. In that class I listened to lectures about how Jesus' miracles could be explained by natural phenomena as well. When I asked about the miracles of Jesus raising people from the dead, we were lectured on resusitation vs. resurrection. When I countered with "Fr. you realize Lazarus was 4 days dead in a tomb when Jesus raised Him..." I was told there was no evidence Lazarus was dead, he may have been in a coma. I kid you not.
“vladimir, you have a reputation for arrogance, and this only adds to it.”
I don’t mind being judged arrogant by those who seem to incompetent.
“It is the responsibility fo the poster making such a historical assertion to document it, not those who question it.”
I see no reason to view “responsibility” as defined by bigots like Protestant anti-Catholics.
“More arrogance.”
Nope. Just truth. “New American Bible” is clearly different than “American Bible”.
“When i said “your own official American Bible” then i am referring to the only officially approved American Bible approved for liturgical use.”
No. See, that comment IS exactly what I mean by incompetence. The New American Bible is NOT approved for liturgical use and you never made any mention of liturgical use in the first place. The scripture readings used at Mass are not the same as in the New American Bible. They’re very similar, but not the same. The ones used in Mass are more traditional renderings. This is why this is happening: http://www.adoremus.org/0812BishopsMeetingReport.html
Also, there’s no “your” about it. The New American Bible is NOT and NEVER WILL BE in any manifestation at all the Bible approved for the liturgy at my parish. It can’t be. The New American Bible (and its revisions) all date from 1970 onward. The liturgy at my parish canonically stopped at 1962. There will be no changes in the translations used.
“There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States.”
False. Again, we don’t use it at my parish and never have. Again, we’re back to incompetence and none of that incompetence is mine.
“This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See.”
Nope. As I already told you the two texts are actually different and always have been. If you want to buy a copy of that text in one volume, you have to buy this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B001GNWLXO/ref=tmm_other_meta_binding_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used&sr=&qid=
“These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God).”
All of which is STILL different than what is read at Mass - any Mass in the United States.
“There have been revisions ot the NAB, including the NABRE but there have not been any announced plans to use the NABRE for the lectionary in the United States.”
False - as shown by the first link I posted above. You’re more than a year out of date. Incompetence.
“This are other stamped bible translations for RCs, but not for liturgical use.”
Again, false. My parish has never used the NAB and never will. Our liturgy is entirely approved by the diocese and Vatican by the way.
“So either you are not American but which still renders the NAB to be your churches official American Bible for liturgical use, or you belong to a different Catholic rite”
Nope. I am an American and the NAB has never been and never will be used at my parish. And yes, I am in what is commonly called the Roman Rite.
“I distinctly said “which teaches or did teach such things” and there is nothing incorrect in this. My source is my own 1970 stamped St Josephs edition copy of the NAB, some of which i have also seen in latter versions. as well, and you can see this is included on the online version here and other things in the Vatican source as GPH showed .. Other RCS have likewise criticized the NAB, such as seen here .”
Your comment is meaningless.
“i do not know if the current study version of the NABRE says all this, but the older version clearly opposed Moses authorship of much or most of the Pentateuch (Ex. 17:14; Num. 33:2; Dt. 31:9,24-26) by subscribing to the liberal discredited JEDP source theory, with the Yahwist being, “ among other things “imaginative” as seen “in the narrative of creation in Genesis (Intro... ), and the NABRE postulates this in its intro to the Pentateuch”
Again, your comment is meaningless. The NAB has nothing to do with me or the faith in itself.
“Thus Rome teaches things not seen in Scripture or in contrast to it, while on the other hand RCs send us to Rome to understand the Bible, yet both its teachings and its modern view of Scripture send us away from it as the Word of God with its literal historical accounts.”
You’re wrong as always. Incompetence.