[quote="PeaceInChrist, post:8, topic:313990"]
I don't mind the NAB. I have many Catholic friends who are orthodox and devout, who use the NAB. I also have many friends who have left the Church, who never read the Bible anyway. I am not aware that the translation negatively effected them. It is possible, I suppose. As to Protestants, I HIGHLY doubt that a switch in translations will appeal to many Protestants. Our dogma is what they attack most, and they will accuse us regardless of the translation. If it has "Catholic" in the name (like the RSVCE2), then it becomes heretical and part of the great Babylon.
However THIS did irritate me: the stance she took against the bishops. In reading the early Church Fathers, I have discovered that, while communication was so limited in the early Church, the local bishop was of utmost importance. Even now, when communication is better and, and the churches can be addressed instantaneously through email and electronic communication (rather than hand-delivered epistles), the position of bishop still demands utmost respect. We should not be so quick to condemn the bishops for their decision of using the NAB: if the Catholic laity had been doing their part for the last century or so (as the parents are the primary source of catechesis), the faith of Catholics would be far stronger, and they would not lapse at the current rate because of a dynamic equivalent Bible (if it is because of the Bible at all).
Even if there are legitimate concerns with the NAB (much of the notes come to mind), the bishops should not be slandered. Rather, the issue should be brought to the attention first of parish priests, and by the priests to the bishop of the diocese, and by the bishop to the conference of bishops, and if the conference fails to address anything, then to the Vatican. This should be done while respecting the bishops as our shepherds. We must be obedient to them in all things, except when they go against dogma (and even then, the same steps must be taken: local pastor > local bishop > council of bishops/archbishop > Vatican).
Ignatius of Antioch: "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God."
"Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, (Matthew 24:25) as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself."
Please, if you have any qualms about the NAB, then by all means, let them be known. Take them to your parish pastor and request that he address the bishop. But, for the sake of obedience to the Authority that Christ has given the bishops, be silent on blame and on gossip as to their motives and competence. The author's tone towards the bishops was unacceptable.
There is much wisdom in what you write. I would also recommend that people actually compare verses between the translations. Rarely, particularly on this site, do people actually look at a wide variety of passages to do a comparison. Most only look at Is 9:5 or Luke 1:28 to justify their complaints against the NAB. In reality, the NAB is not all that bad, and I always reference it with the RSV when doing study. There are a number of places, like in the Gospel of John, where it is superior to the RSV: Jn 1:18, 'Amen' sayings, and the 'I AM' sayings for example. The NAB is not going to win any literary awards to be sure, and a handful of the notes need to be reworked, but overall the claims against this translation are oftentimes highly exaggerated.