Replies

“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.”

So, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan”?

“The fact remains that Rome sanctioned liberal scholarship with the same stamp that you approved for censoring false teaching.”

False. 1) The “liberal scholarship” you are complaining about does not appear in the liturgy. The liturgy is approved by the Church. 2) Notes in a Bible are approved within the country which publishes the Bible unless there is some sort of odd circumstance. Look inside a copy of The African Bible (1999). It uses the 1991 NAB text. That’s right, an African Bible that uses a New American text. Then look at the imprimatur and nihil obstat – because it has different notes than any NAB. What do you see?
Nihil Obstat – Fr. Pelin T. D’Souza (censor)
Imprimatur – John Njue (a Kenyan bishop).
No Vatican official was involved.

“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.”

An error by a single bishop, or even a number of bishops, in no way “impugns the integrity” of the Church. We don’t rely on just a single bishop or on a handful of bishops. Also, as I already noted to you, the description of the Tower of Babel which you were so vexed about – even though it has nothing to do with your sect and is not in your Bible – has been changed. So why are you upset?

“As for the NABRE, as said, the Bishops did not announce plans for this being used for the lectionary,…”

Again, I posted to you the announcement of Cardinal Dolan. Just a year or two ago he announced that the NABRE OT and a revised NAB NT will be the basis for a new lectionary and in fact a new Bible which people would actually be able to purchase.

“… 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.””
Announced plans is not the same thing as “now” or “soon”. Earlier you wrote as is “announced plans” was the same thing as “now”. Now you are writing as if it the same thing as “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.”

And I was still right on all counts. First, it will not be the NAB that will be used – for the NABRE is here. The NAB NT will be revised and no longer be the NAB 1970 nor the NAB 1986. Second, there is no such thing as the RNAB for one immediately has to ask which NAB is the RNAB? Is it the 1986 or the 1991? Wouldn’t that have to be RNAB 1986 and RNAB (2) 1991? And yes, the source on that score was incompetent. And yes, my choice of that source was not. All I needed to show was that there was an announcement out there - one you apparently knew nothing about – to show who was really incompetent. I succeeded easily.

“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.”

You have yet to show any evidence of that either. Seriously, do you have any at all?

“As for your damage control here,…”

There was no damage to control. Your attempt to. . . well, I have no idea what you were really attempting to do because, as usual, you accomplished nothing no matter what the attempt was about. If you want to complain about the translation of the NAB or NABRE or the Protestant RSV, okay, fine, do so, but why would it matter to you what Catholics read? Also, since all the verses in question are clearly rooted in the context of “sexual immorality” you seem to have no point at all.

“…what exactly do you think you are proving by invoking another poor translation choice?”

Whether or not you consider it to be a poor translation choice is immaterial. Who cares if you do? Also, again, the context in each passage you cited makes it clear that sexual immorality was the point. And, when the NAB 1986 NT is revised, I would not be surprised if the translation is changed. Why don’t you do something constructive and write the translators a letter about it if you care so much about it?

“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.”

Always in the context of sexual immorality. Again, you keep avoiding that point.

“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 yet porneia in each and every verse you posted about it is clearly in the context of sexual immorality. So your comments are – as usual – meaningless. Again, write the translators a letter. I’m sure they already got one about this from Monsignor Pope in 2010 anyway!

“This is your defense?”

That you failed again? Sure. Why not? It’s true.

“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?”

Nope. I said nothing about you providing only live links to specific verses. I pointed out that you said nothing about the fact that all the verses involved are clearly in the context of sexual immorality.

“Are you still on dial up?”

You sure seem to be.

“Par for your seemingly compulsive blaming recourse in avoiding what impugns Rome.”

Except nothing here impugns “Rome” or the Vatican or the Church.

“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.”
If it was so easy to examine the verses in context maybe you should have. If you had you would have noticed how all of the verses in context were clearly about sexual immorality. You would have seen that some of the verses even came immediately after Chapter Headings like “Sexual Immorality”. Now, if you really think those verses should be translated as “sexual immorality”, great. But so what? That’s just your opinion and says nothing about the texts in question since all of the verses were clearly in the context of sexual immorality.

“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.”

And again, you’re wrong. I’m all for translating “porneia” as “sexual immorality”. What I am not for is a Protestant anti-Catholic – or anyone else - pretending that the context for each of those verses doesn’t make it clear that it’s about what it is: sexual immorality. I have several problems with the NAB and its various editions and revisions. I, in fact, am probably harder on the text and its notes, than you are. What I am not for is falsely claiming that the notes were approved by “Rome” or the Vatican when it was actually done right here in the U.S.A. – just as I already showed was done with the New African Bible in Kenya. So, I can criticize the fact that the word “siesta” was used in the NAB (2 Sam 11:2), but what I won’t do is pretend that its use was sanctioned by “Rome” to pave the way for illegal immigrants from south of the border or some such nonsense. I think I do know someone here, however, who would pretend that was the case.

“The fact remains that Rome sanctioned liberal scholarship with the same stamp that you approved for censoring false teaching.” False. 1) The “liberal scholarship” you are complaining about does not appear in the liturgy.

No, this is just another of your many contrived charges of falsehood, I never said it was part of the liturgy - you are the one who resorted to that in trying to charge me with falsehood. I said it was sanctioned by the stamps given to the NAB, the approved Bible with its later modifications. Then later you

As I just showed you, a Bible with a whole new set of notes – different from any NAB in existence – was given a nihil obstat and imprimatur by local Kenyan clergy. No Vatican officials were involved as far as I can tell. ...An error by a single bishop, or even a number of bishops, in no way “impugns the integrity” of the Church.

That is another false polemic, as it does indeed impugn the integrity of Rome, as they are the overseers of such and allowed their sanction, and there is no record of any censure of these Bishops for such notes, and instead, the Vatican itself supplies them!

the description of the Tower of Babel which you were so vexed about – even though it has nothing to do with your sect and is not in your Bible – has been changed. So why are you upset?

You are the one who seems to be worked into a lather, salivating to find an error. And one of your contrived charges of errors was to say i was incorrect in charging this Tower of Babel note to the NAB, yet as i pointed out, what i said was "teaches or did teach such things via the NAB, which "such things" still are taught.

"As said" refers to what the conference of Bishops said, and as for your link that has plans for future use of the NABRE, i said that this did not show that it was being used. That it might be is irrelevant, unless the Scripture readings themselves show liberal scholarship, not simply in approved notes.

I was still right on all counts. First, it will not be the NAB that will be used

"Still right?" The issue is not what will be used, but that of the approved NAB, with modifications, and its stamped notes. A revised lectionary based on any edition of the NAB still leaves the NAB to be the approved Bible.

Second, there is no such thing as the RNAB..yes, the source on that score was incompetent.

As with the other one, bot being the only two sites you used for documentation.

to show who was really incompetent. I succeeded easily.

All I needed to show was that there was an announcement out there

Rather, you needed to show that the New American Bible is not approved for liturgical use, even by revised readings based on any edition of it, and that instead another Bible was approved, and all you did is show a future use of the NABRE was expected. I chose to believe Catholic sources which state that the NAB is the approved text, with revised lectionary readings.

If you were technically arguing that the NAB is not the approved Bible for use in the lectionary, even if the readings are based upon an edition of the NAB, then i could allow that with proof, but that does not change at all the fact that liberal scholarship was and is sanctioned by Rome, even as by the stamps of the bishops, which was my point.

There was no damage to control.

Agreed, as it was attempted DC, which again was in vain.

why would it matter to you what Catholics read?

Irrelevant, but it testifies to you having long ago lost the issue while trying to find errors.

My exchange with you began with my challenging your "freely given" permission as being an undocumented assertion, which you refused to provide aside from mentioning some Cardinal, a discredited 19th century historian (you told me to do research, so i did), while i provided more (mostly Catholic) documentation of the restrictive nature of gaining permission, requiring permission from the pope or the Sacred Congregation of the Index.

You then affirmed RC refusal to give an imprimatur or nihil obstat to anything that is contrary to the Catholic faith, to which i asked if you concurred with Rome giving the same sanction liberal schlarship, which i went on to document via the stamped NAB with its notes. And more recent editions with some of the same.

Thus in the light of your advocation of the stamps to censure false teaching, the fact that Rome sanctions false teaching by it is a matter to me.

Also, since all the verses in question are clearly rooted in the context of “sexual immorality” you seem to have no point at all.

Are you serious or a liberal? When God names specific sins so should we, rather than 10 just commandments not to be "immoral." You want to justify using an ambiguous (as re what manner of immorality) term for a specific sin, and the fact that these are in the context of sexual immorality confirms that. ~

Why don’t you do something constructive and write the translators a letter about it if you care so much about it?

Typical deflection tactic. Maybe i will ask the Bishops.

The rest of your post is reiterated sophistry. Rome sanctions liberalism via its staff, and its own site provided it. You can deal with it.