“Dream on. What we have is your attempt to use “your” to refer to your mystery church versus the RCC, and assertions, and contrived contradictions versus what is documented, and what constitutes what Rome teaches, in avoiding the fact that Rome sanctioned and sanctions liberal scholarship in its approved NAB, and revisions.”
No, what we have is “you were wrong about the NAB, what is read in most parishes, the NABRE, the plans for a new lectionary, what is read at my parish, who gives approval for Bibles, the Vatican’s involvement, the fact that notes had been changed in the NABRE, and numerous other errors. I, on the other hand, made no such errors. None.” That’s all true. No amount of complaining on your part will change any of that.
“It even avoids rendering “porneia” “ as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual in places such as 1Cor. 5:1;”
The word used is “immorality” in the NABRE. The NIV uses “sexual immorality”. The context is clear that incest is the problem. The NABRE says: “It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans—a man living with his father’s wife.” So?
By the way, the RSV - and I mean the Protestant version - says simply “immorality”.
By the way, the Ignatius Study Bible, translates the verse the same way as the RSV, but has a footnote about “porneia”.
“6:13 ;”
NABRE: “The body, however, is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body;” Quite frankly it is obvious that sexual immorality is meant. So? Did you know that the paragraph heading there is “Sexual Immorality”? No, apparently not.
By the way, the RSV - and I mean the Protestant version - says simply “immorality”.
“7:2 ;”
NABRE: “but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.” Again it is clear sexual immorality is meant. What else could it be after, “Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,””?
By the way, the RSV - and I mean the Protestant version - says simply “immorality”.
10:8 ;
“Let us not indulge in immorality as some of them did...” refers to the Hebrews who “rose up to revel”. We know they engaged in sexual immorality, so what’s your point?
By the way, the RSV - and I mean the Protestant version - says simply “immorality”.
2Cor. 12:21 ;
Since the phrase used is “impurity, immorality, and licentiousness” the meaning is obvious. The footnote says, “The sexual sins recall 1 Cor 5-7.” So?
By the way, the RSV - and I mean the Protestant version - says simply “immorality”.
Eph. 5:3 ;
“Immorality of any impurity...no obscenity or suggestive talk...immoral or impure...” Seems obvious what immorality means if it is repeatedly linked to impurity.
Here the Protestant RSV says: “fornication and all impurity”.
Gal. 5:19 ;
NABRE: “Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness...” The meaning there seems obvious. So?
The Protestant RSV says: “Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness.”
Col. 3:5 ;
NABRE paragraph heading = “Renunciation of Vice”. Then the very first verse is verse 5: “Put to death, then the parts of you that are earthly, immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and the greed that is idolatry.” Seems obvious what is condemned there.
Protestant RSV says: “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.”
1 Thes. 4:3 ;
NABRE paragraph heading = “Holiness in Sexual Conduct”. First verse after that is verse 3: “This is the will of God, your holiness: that you refrain from immorality, 4that each of you know how to acquire a wife for himself in holiness and honor, 5not in lustful passion as do the Gentiles who do not know God; a 6 not to take advantage of or exploit a brother in this matter, for the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you before and solemnly affirmed. 7For God did not call us to impurity but to holiness.” So, “immorality”, “lustful passion”, “impurity”. You really don’t know what is being condemned there?
The Protestant RSV says: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity.”
“but simply has “immorality,” even though in most cases it is in a sexual context. You and the RCC lost. See the Get over it.”
And you completely failed to tell even remotely close to the whole story about how those verses appear in the NABRE. No surprise there.
So, a term that could be translated, and is perhaps best translated as “sexual immorality” is translated as “immorality” within the context of sexual immorality and you’re upset about it?
By now this is a soliloquy by a man who asserts he is right regardless of what documentation may say to the contrary. I stated that the NAB, with revised readings, was the approved Bible, as per Catholic sources, which you tried to make into me saying it was exactly the same as the published version, as if the text was exactly the same, but which not what i said , but that it had revisions. And in so trying, you made the text the issue, which was not what the examples of sanctioned liberalism i used was from, but from the approved commentary. Thus you avoided the real issue of sanctioned liberal scholarship.
The fact remains that Rome sanctioned liberal scholarship with the same stamp that you approved for censoring false teaching. You cannot deny that no matter how much you focus on to trying to find some technical error in my statements. And trying to argue the stamps came from the Bishops and the Pope or the Vatican - which publishes the NAB on its own web site - is absurd. These are bishops, and if their approval of these notes was wrong, it impugns the integrity of their overseers who are sppsd to protect the flock from false teaching, but such sanction of liberal scholarship continues.
As for the NABRE, as said, the Bishops did not announce plans for this being used for the lectionary, but the info i have stats that the Lectionary is based on the New American Bible, with revisions. The Bishops said in 2011, "Even if the bishops decide they want to use the NABRE in the liturgy, it won’t happen any time soon." And your chosen documentation site did not state it was being used but said the NAB was, incorporating texts from the RNAB, which term you said made no sense, but it was your source, while your other chosen source also said it was the NAB text, which source you thus dismissed as incompetent. But your choice of sources was not.
As for denying plans for a new lectionary, or the notes being changed in the NABRE, or the Vatican’s involvement excuse, and "numerous other errors," who knows what you see or construe here also, but it remains the Rome has sanctioned liberalism via the approved NAB, and continues to do so.
the RSV - and I mean the Protestant version - says simply “immorality”.....
As for your damage control here, what exactly do you think you are proving by invoking another poor translation choice? I can provided many Prot translations that do not used simply “immorality” for "porneia?" The issue is that NABRE is not faithful to what the word denotes, but simply renders it nondescript immorality.
Mat. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mark 7:21; John 8:41, Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25, Rom. 1:29, 1Co. 5:1 (2), 1Co. 6:13, 18, 1Co. 7:2, 2Co. 12:21, Gal. 5:19, Eph. 5:3, Col. 3:5, 1Th. 4:3, Rev. 9:21 (2), Rev. 14:8; 17:2; 17:4; 18:3; 19:2
A word which can be translated "immoral" is "akathartos," as in "unclean person" in Eph. 5:5, both general terms meaning the same thing.
And you completely failed to tell even remotely close to the whole story about how those verses appear in the NABRE. No surprise there.
This is your defense? Desperately trying to find fault with me again because i only took the time to provide live links to the verses so they could be looked up, and not more of the entire chapter? Are you still on dial up? Par for your seemingly compulsive blaming recourse in avoiding what impugns Rome. However, not only was the text easily examinable in context (use mouse and right click), but a good translation is word for word, and does not use an ambiguous general term for a word which denotes a specific type of sin.
As a Traditional type RC, i would expect you to join some of your comrades in denouncing this. But here you must defend the NABRE.