any one readed the New American Bible?

Question

Confessions of the New American Bible
The New American Bible is an official Christian Bible. Yet it contains many points of interest and value to the Muslim caller to Islam. Every caller who intends to use the Bible for Dawah should get a copy of this Bible. Get especially (if you can) the St. Joseph Medium Size Edition.

The introduction to this Bible includes an article entitled: How to Read Your Bible. This article makes a lot of valuable points. I reproduce for your edification some of the main points offered in that introduction. Everything listed in the points below is directly asserted in the article itself or implied therein. I have only summarized. I did not improvise. Where I use my own words I still represent the ideas of the authors. Often, you will notice the presence of quotations marks. These mark off the included words as the words actually used by the editors of the New American Bible, St. Joseph Medium Size Edition. The article from which the points are drawn is found on pages 17 to 35 of the introduction. Consider these points; use them politely and wisely.

What the Scholars confess about the Bible in General
The Bible is not necessarily the most read book or the best understood book.

The Bible was inspired by God. But "This does not mean that God dictated His message as a businessman dictates a letter to a secretary. God takes the author as he is and leaves him free to choose his own means of communication."

"Some authors chose existing folk tales and even beast fables to bring out their point."

There is a difference between INSPIRATION and REVELATION. The entire Bible is inspiration but not the whole Bible is revelation. The authors of the Bible were inspired to search for meaning in life and in the events of history. The search for answers was inspired, but the answers found were not necessary revealed by God. But some of those answers are written in the Bible by the human authors. Some of what they wrote clearly cannot be attributed to God. "Think 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."

An example of such atrocities is in Judges1:1-18. Read it for yourself.

The Bible is a collection of many books of different kinds. "A major disadvantage is that these books are not put together systematically as the books of a modern library."

"Edifying interpretation of events" is "often intermingled" with history.

"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 Bible contains "Beast Fables." Examples: Genesis; Numbers 22, 22-35.

Speeches of persons in the Bible are not necessarily what the persons said. "It is the inspired author who wants to state something by putting these words into the mouth of a person with authority."

The book known as Acts of the Apostles in the Bible often puts words into the mouths of its characters.

The description of the heavens and the earth in Genesis, chapter 1, is not necessarily a true description. That description is conditioned by the time and culture in which it was written. "Do not be shocked about this!"

"The sacred writers attribute quite a number of human characteristics to God." This too is "conditioned by time and culture."

The Psalms are a collection of poems full of feeling. Psalm 137, verses 8 and 9 pronounces a blessing on one who grabs a Babylonian baby and dashes it against a rock. In this psalm "The feeling, the thought, the total poem is inspired (guided) by God, though it is not necessarily revealed truth!" But this is not the only Psalm which is not necessarily revealed truth. To find out for yourself, "Read some psalms!"

What the scholars confess about the Gospels in particular
"What did the authors of the Gospels do? In the congregations, mainly in the cities around the Mediterranean, they found scores of narratives about Jesus, the beloved Founder of the Christian faith. The writers took those narratives and frequently even remolded and refashioned them to bring out the lesson they wanted to teach."

Therefore the four Gospels are not really biographies of Jesus. They are "digests of Christian teaching concerning the risen Lord Jesus."

"A remarkable fact is that for a long time Christians misunderstood" this truth about the Gospels.

The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel chapter 1, verses 1-17, is not an absolutely true genealogy. First, Matthew took it perhaps from the family of Joseph. Second, "the sacred writer refashioned this document to a list of three times fourteen ancestors."

"Reading the Gospels, one should distinguish historical facts from theological elaboration."

The Gospels often represent Jesus in controversy and conversation. "One may ask: Was Jesus involved in these conversations? Did He answer exactly as related in the Bible? It is not certain."

There may be some true events and "controversies which supplied the background materials for the conflict stories of the Gospels. But as these accounts now stand, they are literary forms used by the Gospel writers in their catechisms to bring out what they had to tell the opponents of early Christianity."

Matthew tells us that baby Jesus was taken to Egypt. This is not necessarily true. But since Israel had been in Egypt, and since Israel was God’s chosen one, Matthew placed Jesus in Egypt to convince his readers that Jesus was the real Israel. "This is a strange literary device, but the ancient writers loved to work with this kind of figurative speech."

"It is difficult to know whether the words or sayings attributed to [Jesus] are written exactly as He spoke them."

"True, the Gospels are based on sound historical facts as related by eye-witnesses, but both deeds and words of Jesus are offered to us in the framework or theological interpretation."

Did Jesus say the things which the Gospels report? "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"

The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, chapters 5 to 7, was delivered by Jesus while he was on a mount – or was he? Matthew only represented the matter such in order to show that Jesus was like Moses who received the law on Mount Sinai. Jesus was not really on a mountain. This is only a figurative device used by Matthew.

"Walk into a modern library, you will find all the books neatly arranged under fiction and non-fiction. It is not that simple in the library called the Bible. How does one know whether one deals with history or some form of figurative speech?" To begin with you should always be disposed to follow the teaching authority of the Church."

"The signature of a bishop in your Bible assures you that opinions, expressed in footnotes and introductions, reflect what is generally accepted as sound doctrine in the Catholic tradition."

"Knowing that early Christians mistakenly expected Christ’s second coming during their own lifetime, helps you to understand 1 and 2 Thessalonians." The first of these two books in the Bible is written under the said mistaken expectation.

"The Hebrews [who wrote the Bible] were restless searchers for meaning in our human condition. Reading their inspired literature should challenge you to go on with a faithful search for meaning in your own situation."

There you have it folks. A collection of confessions of the scholars who edited the New American Bible. The words within quotation marks are their own. All the ideas are their own. Some of the said ideas they have explicitly stated; others they clearly imply. Words within square brackets were inserted where necessary to make the points clear. Use these points to help convince Catholics.

The title page of this Bible shows that the book is "authorized by the Board of Trustees of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine" and "approved by the Administrative Committee/Board of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops" and the "United States Catholic Conference." It is published by the Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, 1986. The Bible contains all the necessary Catholic certification: the Nihil Obstat, and the Imprimatur from the Archbishop of Washington. And, oh, yes! A letter from the Vatican, including the signature of the Pope, appears in the preface to guarantee the reliability of this Bible for Catholics.

Protestants and others may not be convinced by the confessions. They may object that these are not their own scholars. Yet many Protestant scholars have reached the very same conclusions. But that is the subject for another article. Notice, however, that you can always argue that the points above are admitted by friends of the Bible. Even one who does not recognise the authority of Catholic Bishops will have to admit that they are nevertheless friends of the Bible. Their testimony above cannot be discounted so easily.

Answer 1

Earth, Vol. II

Let’s begin by putting “two of every sort (of animal) into the ark,” and then … Oh, wait. Was that “two of every sort,” as per Genesis 6:19, or seven of clean and two of unclean animals, as per Genesis 7:2-3?

Hmm. Well, we’ve got up to 120 years to think about it, because that’s the limit of the human lifespan, as per God’s promise in Genesis 6:3. So, just like Shem …

Oops. Bad example. Genesis 11:11 states, “Shem lived five hundred years…”

Oookay, forget Shem. So, just like Noah … Double Oops. Genesis 9:29 teaches, “So all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.” So let’s see, Genesis 6:3 promised a lifespan limited to a hundred and twenty years, but a few verses later both Shem and Noah broke the rule?

Whoa, time out.

Let’s look at Old Testament dates from a different angle. Here’s Genesis 16:16: “Abraham was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abraham.” Genesis 21:5 tells us, “Now Abraham was one hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.” So let’s see, one hundred minus eighty-six, subtract the six from the first ten, nine minus eight … I get fourteen. So Ishmael was fourteen when Isaac was born.

A bit later, in Genesis 21:8, we read, “So the child (Isaac) grew and was weaned.” Now, weaning in the Middle East takes two years, according to ethnic custom. So tack two onto fourteen, and Ishmael was sixteen before Sarah ordered Abraham to cast him out (Genesis 21:10).

Fine.

So far.

A couple more verses, and Genesis 21:14-19 portrays the outcast Ishmael as a helpless infant rather than an able-bodied, sixteen-year-old youth, as follows:

So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water; and putting it on her shoulder, he gave it and the boy to Hagar, and sent her away. Then she departed and wandered in the Wilderness of Beersheba. And the water in the skin was used up, and she placed the boy under one of the shrubs. Then she went and sat down across from him at a distance of about a bowshot; for she said to herself, “Let me not see the death of the boy.” So she sat opposite him, and lifted her voice and wept.

And God heard the voice of the lad. Then the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said to her, “What ails you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad and hold him with your hand, for I will make him a great nation.”

Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water. And she went and filled the skin with water, and gave the lad a drink.”

A sixteen-year-old youth described as a “boy” or a “lad?” In a time and place when sixteen year-olds were commonly married and awaiting their second or third child while supporting a growing family? In addition to being hunters, soldiers and, albeit rarely, even kings on occasion? Sixteen years equated to manhood in Ishmael’s day. So how exactly did his father give the sixteen year-old “boy,” Ishmael, to Hagar? And how did she leave him crying (i.e., “the voice of the lad”) like a helpless baby under a shrub? And how, precisely, did his mother lift him up and hold him with her hand? Lastly, are we truly expected to believe that Ishmael was so frail that his mother had to give him a drink, because he was unable to get it himself?

Uh, yes, that’s the gist of it. That’s what we’re supposed to believe.

But wait, there’s more.

2 Chronicles 22:2 teaches that “Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king….” Hunh. Forty-two years old. Hardly seems worthy of mention. Unless, that is, we note that 2 Kings 8:26 records, “Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king …” So which was it? Forty-two or twenty-two?

Let’s take a hint from the Bible. 2 Chronicles 21:20 teaches that Ahaziah’s father, King Jehoram, died at the age of forty.

Ahem.

King Jehoram died at the age of forty and was succeeded by his son, who was forty-two? In other words, King Jehoram fathered a child two years older than himself? Arithmetic, according to Mickey Mouse, is “Being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes.” But between the reader’s toes and all appendages of the family cat, there’s no way to make sense of these figures. And while the logical conclusion approaches ramming speed, 2 Chronicles 22:1 points out that Ahaziah was King Jehoram’s youngest son, for raiders had killed all Jehoram’s older sons.

So if Ahaziah was two years older than dear departed Dad, how many years did his older brothers have on their father?

Obviously, 2 Chronicles 22:2 can’t be trusted and 2 Kings 8:26, which teaches that Ahaziah was twenty-two when he became king, must be the correct version.

So King Jehoram died at forty (2 Chronicles 21:20) and was succeeded by Ahaziah, who was twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26). Which means King Jehoram was eighteen when Ahaziah was born, and roughly seventeen when he was conceived. Not only that, but Jehoram had older sons (2 Chronicles 22:1), so he must have started his family at the age of fifteen or less. So much for Ishmael having been a helpless lad at the age of sixteen. It was a time when teenagers were men.

But what about 2 Chronicles 22:2, which states that Ahaziah was forty-two when he assumed the throne?

A copying error, no doubt.

But that’s not the point.

Isaiah 40:8 claims that “the word of our God stands forever.” This assertion doesn’t excuse copying errors, or any other error, regardless how slight. In fact, according to Isaiah 40:8, any “word” which has not “stood forever” is disqualified as having been from God.

Which should make us question the authorship.

If “the word of our God stands forever,” and the “word” of Ahaziah’s age doesn’t stand the test of time, whose word is it? God’s or Satan’s?

Don’t look now, but even the Old Testament seems uncertain on this point.

2 Samuel 24:1 reads, “Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’” However,
1 Chronicles 21:1 states, “Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.”

Uhhh, which was it? The Lord, or Satan? There’s a slight (like, total) difference.

Talk about identity theft.

But seriously, the mistake is understandable. After all, it’s pretty hard to know who you’re talking to, when you can’t put a face to revelation. And, as God said in Exodus 33:20, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.”

So there we have it.

No man can see God’s face, and live.

Well, except for Jacob, of course. As Genesis 32:30 states, “So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: ‘For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.’”

And we mustn’t forget Moses, as per Exodus 33:11: “So the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.”

So no man can see God’s face, and live.

Except for Jacob and Moses.

But God didn’t mention that exception, did He?

So maybe He changed His mind.

And then again, maybe not.

Answer 2

Good thing I'm not catholic or protestant then isn't it.

What was the point of this? You lost me half way through.

I'll give you a real insight as to how I study a bible. Although I buy study bibles of all differant kinds seldom do I read anything the editor's of said bible have written. They have a slanted world view that comes from whatever persuasion their particular school taught.

I use Lexicons and Historical commentary from books that I have found that give a fairly unbaised view of the times in which the bible was to have been lived.

I believe what I believe not because some Priest or Pastor told me what my marching orders are but because I have studied it out.

Answer 3

Only the 1611 King James Bible[as for English translations] hasn't been polluted by occultists.Don't have a problem with other King James since then,but no other "versions" are accurate.Little changes here and there that are poisonous and used adeptly by atheists to show so-called contradictions in God's Word.Every time I read of them,it is usually qoutes from false Bibles.Even the NKJ is off-base.The worst is the NIV.

Answer 4

Yes, I read the New American Bible.......and also the Douay-Rheims Bible.

I intend to read the Jerusalem Bible also








Lectio Divina (means "Divine Reading" and refers specifically to a method of Scripture reading practiced by monastics since the beginning of the Church.

The early centrality of reading of Sacred Scripture, and then meditating and praying over its meaning, is evident in the 48th chapter of the Rule of St. Benedict (A.D. 480-453), a book written by the Great Saint to guide monastic life.

But it was an 11th c. Carthusian prior named Guigo 1 who formalized Lectio Divina, describing the method in a letter written to a fellow religious. This letter, which has become known as Scala Paradisi -- the Stairway to Heaven -- describes a 4-runged ladder to Heaven, each rung being one of the four steps in his method of Bible reading. Those steps, and Guigo's brief descriptions of them, are:


lectio (reading): "looking on Holy Scripture with all one's will and wit"

meditatio (meditation): "a studious insearching with the mind to know what was before concealed through desiring proper skill"

oratio (prayer): "a devout desiring of the heart to get what is good and avoid what is evil"

contemplatio (contemplation): "the lifting up of the heart to God tasting somewhat of the heavenly sweetness and savour"

Through the practice of Lectio Divina by monastics in group settings, three other steps are sometimes added to the four above such that the steps become:


statio (position)

lectio (reading)

meditatio (meditation)

oratio (prayer)

contemplatio (contemplation)

collatio (discussion)

actio (action)

Answer 5

Should we accept any guide book that removes from us our divine Birth Right ? The church says prophets performed Miracles. But really what would we call such a person today?
Genetic deviant, Mutie, Freak, Hellspawn,? Even Jesus Himself would hear these today.

Answer 6

You must also understand that all the study helps, explanatory notes, and introduction to this Bible are the opinions of its Roman catholic editors and is "not inspired" by God. Anything they include or say is merely "their opinion", and is not to be confused with scripture or Christianity.

Answer 7

Hopefully you are aware that the information you are quoting is an introduction added by the publisher, and not a part of the Bible itself. Much of what it contains is contrary to the content of the Bible itself.

Answer 8

LMAO.

Judging from the fact that you used the word "READED" in your question, I'd bet every cent I have that that was a good copy and paste job. I didn't bother to read the whole thing, but I was afraid to anyway, after seeing the word "READED". Dude, seriously. It's too frickin' long. Next time, paste something shorter when you pretend to write stuff yourself, ok?