New American Bible and Douay-Rheims comparison - An eye opening video series

In the ongoing quest to understand the changes that have taken place inside the Church since the reforms of Vatican II - I came across this video series highlighting some of the changes made in the translation and compilation of the NAB bible.
I was very surprised by these changes to be quite honest and also by the lack of citations in the footnotes of the NAB.
If you like me are interested in understanding what has changed since the Vatican II councils you would be well served to give these videos a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB9wsq--mkdMRA0uVeDWA7QH2gyQ9OOlG

 

One thing others may find interesting and may have noticed in their study of the NAB Bible over the years is the seeming contradictions in some scriptures relating to the phrase Morning Star.
I personally wondered about this exact example of a contradiction ever since I first read it almost 30 years ago. In fact, as a young man I asked my then Protestant pastor about this and he could not explain it. Nor could he tell me who the Morning Star was that Our Lord would give those who hold fast to His ways. It was only when I saw this video series that I then understood why the contradiction is there.

NAB Isaiah 14:12
12 How have you fallen from the heavens, O morning star, son of the dawn! How are you cut down to the ground, you who mowed down the nations!

DR Isaiah 14:12
[12] How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?

Why does the NAB refer to Lucifer as The Morning Star? Well, apparently the translation for Lucifer does permit it to be translated as Morning Star. But, why do the two bible version use wildly different translations for the same word? Is this carelessness? It seems this would be a pretty big deal given that the Morning Star we all know is referred to in the Litany of Laredo of Our Blessed Mother for example as Morning Star and in fact is referenced other places as well in the Bible.
Also, the NAB as we see with the Litany of Laredo does not seem to match up with the tradition or teaching of the Catholic Church. This becomes more obvious when one reads Revelation 22:16 in which both versions now use the same translation. Why is the NAB now referring to the Morning Star as Jesus when it had previously used this translation for Lucifer.

NAB Rev 22:16
16"I, Jesus, sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the root and offspring of David, the bright morning star."

DR Rev 22:16
[16] I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and stock of David, the bright and morning star.

So it seems that the NAB is careless in its translations and it does the same thing yet again;

NAB Rev 2:26-28
26 '"To the victor, who keeps to my ways until the end, I will give authority over the nations.
27 He will rule them with an iron rod. Like clay vessels will they be smashed,
28 just as I received authority from my Father. And to him I will give the morning star.

DR Rev 2:26-28
[26] And he that shall overcome, and keep my works unto the end, I will give him power over the nations. [27] And he shall rule them with a rod of iron, and as the vessel of a potter they shall be broken, [28] As I also have received of my Father: and I will give him the morning star.

The Church has always interpreted this to mean Our Blessed Mother. The Litany of Laredo was approved in 1587. This is long held Catholic teaching and tradition.

Ark of the covenant, pray for us
Gate of heaven, pray for us
Morning star, pray for us
Health of the sick, pray for us
Refuge of sinners, pray for us

Clearly Our Lord, Jesus is giving those who hold fast to His ways His Blessed Mother as we all know and Hope in. There are many more examples of why the NAB ought to be seriously questioned and IMO no longer used.

 

I like DRB better for the same kind of reasons that I prefer (and recommend) the KJV for Protestants. Fewer modernist revisions, mistakes, mistranslations, and omissions.

 

Thank you for those examples. Also the judgement of God against satan is very different in each of these scripture translations. God talking to the serpent NAB Genesis 3:15
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel. versus DR Genesis 3: 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. ++++++++++
The whole role of the Virgin Mary as crushing the head of satan is obscured in the NAB translation.

 

Can someone straighten me out. Is the "morning star" sometimes reference to Our Lord and sometimes, the same is speaking of Mary? Is this the
verse about Mary?

Revelation 2:28
As I also have received of my Father: and I will give him the morning star."

 

Here, from the KJV, makes no sense, what a -complete- change from the DR. I did not know there were anti-Marians back then. Since Mary is rejected as the "woman" , does Our Lord end up being called "it?"

Genesis 3:15 King James Version (KJV)
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

Lucifer and the fallen angels recognize Our Blessed Mother and according to many exorcists are fearful of even the mention of her because should she choose to and in accordance with God's will she can deliver a child made in the image of God from the scourge of Satan and his minions in the blink of an eye, returning them to where they came.
King Henry VIII like many of the men and women of our day was diabolically narcissistic.
A large portion of mankind who calls themselves religious insult her and mock the Holy Spirit, her Son, and God the Father in their actions and words. In fact, is it not they who have this enmity? I wonder if they have ever stopped to wonder why they denigrate Her.
Was it not in part their influence in VII and afterward in the translating of the NAB which changed these long held Catholic Traditions and Teachings. OOPS! Just a little mis-translation, nothing to see here.
Do they not hold the belief that mankind is hopelessly and helplessly lost to sin and not capable of redemption, that works are pointless to the point of wanting to remove books from the bible, that all man made institutions are hopelessly corrupt, who ignore and mock the sacraments, that we all ought to sin boldly instead of striving to DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER and the Son who said repeatedly; Go and sin no more. Forgive them Father for they know not what they do. We must remain in Charity in spite of knowing all this. We must be as innocent as doves and as wise as serpents.

Pay close attention the next time you watch a religious movie on the life of Jesus and notice how it handles Our Blessed Mother. From the Annunciation to the Wedding at Cana. You will notice these things if you pay attention now as well since most of them are not Catholic and do not teach the truth.

 

Don, I want to point out something that is mentioned in the video that you posted above, some revisions have been made to the NAB and the USCCB does not use the NAB but they use the revised edition of it which is the NABRE.

Of the three biblical verses that you have highlighted in your post, only the first one has been revised and this is the version that the USCCB uses, the version from the NABRE,

ISAIAH 14:12 How you have fallen from the heavens, O Morning Star,* son of the dawn! How you have been cut down to the earth, you who conquered nations!I http://usccb.org/bible/isaiah/14​

I find this to be very interesting but Jimmy Akin does not appear to be considerably concerned and the video states that he just considers the NAB to be a lousy translation. I wonder if Jimmy Akin is happier with the revised edition, NABRE.

I normally quote from Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) but I did notice the variance when I posted the Gospel recently from the USCCB site. I remember someone on MOG telling me to stick with DRA.

Most of the points in the video in relation to the NAB or actually the NABRE are in regards to footnotes and I believe that some of these things will only become fully clear after we die.

Edited to add:

Recently, I was thinking of the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary and how the movie the Passion of the Christ includes these 5 mysteries and then I was thinking of Mel Gibson's new movie which will be about the Resurrection of Christ. I began wondering if Mel Gibson will include the Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary in this next movie and how wonderful it would be if he did. This new movie would then honor both Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother. So, I have been praying that this new movie will in fact include the 5 Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary.

 

Oh me too Carol, I was thinking about this the other day in fact and wouldn't it be incredible if it did? I am sure that Our Lady will play heavily into it whatever he does. Mel Gibson has his own boatload of issues that seem to play out in the public eye from time to time but he did a very great service IMO when he made that movie. It is my favorite and brings me near to tears about every time I watch it. I hope that the next is every bit as good if not better. I need to add him to my prayer list for this.

Thank you for the additional information on the DR and NAB. I have relied pretty heavily on the NAB both in book and online formats so this was eye opening to me and really got my attention. I will be changing that though and I want to find a print version that has the Latin Vulgate in side by side fashion so that I can study it.

 

If you are referring to the video Don posted, the commenter is NOT Jimmy Akin, in case anyone else was confused.
Also, he is actually very unhappy with the translation (this is a series on the NAB of which Don posted only one video) that I've watched several times over before. I also highly recommend his Smoke of Satan series if anyone who has no personal vendetta would like an excellent history/analysis of Vat2.

 

I'm glad you posted Don. I came across this awhile ago and immediately switched to the DR after I checked my NAB and found many of these problems. As the other videos in this series point out, there are many other additional errors and problems, especially in the book of Tobit. Wow. So much of it missing in the NAB including the part referring to contraception.

 

DM, Just to clear things up, I realize that the commentator is not Jimmy Akin but at the 3:10 minute mark the commentator uses a partial quote from Jimmy Akin in which Mr. Akin is speaking of the NAB.

I normally use BibleGateway.com for scripture and I use the DRA translation. They do have a version of the NAB but only the NABRE which is what the USCCB is currently using. I realize now that the Vatican appears to be using the NAB, I am not sure why they would not use the NABRE like the USCCB. I find this to be a little strange.

I am not familiar with the commentator on the video or any of his videos, do you know who the commentator is? Thank you.

I found the following post from Jimmy Akin from January 2005 which appears to be the source for the quote included in the video which Don posted above. It is a little old now but it may be helpful to others here, http://jimmyakin.com/2005/01/the_new_america.html . I also see that Jimmy Akin recommends the RSV:CE translation of the bible, I never realized this until now.

Btw, a nice feature of BibleGateway.com is that a particular verse can easily be compared in all English translations of the bible that they have available which is quite a few. For example, https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah 14:12 .

 

Thanks for this thread Don!

I think it's an important one. I haven't watched the video yet, but I bookmarked it and will as soon as I can. I stick with the DR because I just don't trust the modern tweaking they are doing with the new translations. It is too bad because I love to learn and we do have access to a lot of information that earlier generations didn't. Unfortunately I don't trust the people doing the disseminating of that information. One thing to be careful of is the footnotes in newer editions. They can be misleading to the faithful. I am speaking broadly here, not to any specific translation. Some are better than others.

 

Thanks WBTW!

This is an important change they are making to newer editions. Defeating the entire point of the battle between Mary and the snake and thus to a major overarching theological theme of Catholicism.

 

Don and DivineMercy, I have not been able to determine who the commentator is in the video(s) which are the subject of this thread and I am wondering if either of you know who he is? The author of the video is "Ascent of Mount Carmel" and that is all that I could find about the video(s) at the moment. Thank you again.

I happen to like the Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin very much and I found the following interview of him with Patrick Coffin which may be helpful,

Jackie, I also recalled the following from Jimmy Akin which may be helpful to you and others here including Don since he also had questions about the Morning Star in scripture,

Who (or What) Was Lucifer?
by Jimmy Akin http://jimmyakin.com/2015/10/who-or-what-was-lucifer.html
in Apologetics, Bible, Bible History, Church Fathers

Recently I got a query from someone wondering about an anti-Catholic video that claimed “the pope’s deacon” invoked Lucifer during the Easter Vigil liturgy and referred to Jesus as his Son.

Of course, that’s not what happened, but to understand what really did happen, you need to know a few things about “lucifer.”

What does the word lucifer mean?

It’s a Latin word derived from the roots lux (light) and ferre (to carry).

It means “light-bearer” or “light-bringer,” and it was not originally used in connection with the devil.

Instead, it could be used multiple ways. For example, anybody carrying a torch at night was a lucifer (light-bringer).

It was also used as a name for the Morning Star (i.e., the planet Venus), because this is the brightest object in the sky other than the sun and the moon. As a result, Venus is the first star seen in the evening (the Evening Star) and the last star seen in the morning (the Morning Star).

Venus is also known—in English—as the Day Star because it can be seen in the day.

Because its sighting in the morning heralds the light of day, it was referred to by Latin speakers as the “light-bringer” or lucifer.

So there was no connection with the devil?

No. In fact, it was used as an ordinary name. Thus in the 300s, St. Lucifer of Cagliari was a defender of the deity of Christ and of St. Athanasius against the Arians.

Another bishop in the 300s—Lucifer of Siena—also bore this name.

Is the symbol of the Morning Star used in any surprising ways?

Yes. The Bible uses it as a symbol for Jesus Christ. In the book of Revelation, we read:

“I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star” (Rev. 22:16).​

(Spoiler alert! This is going to play a key role in what we have to say about the liturgy.)

So we shouldn’t freak out just because we see references to the words “lucifer” or “light-bringer” or “morning star”?

No. They have no intrinsic connection to the devil. In fact, they may be used—as in Scripture itself—as symbols of Jesus Christ.

How did this word get connected with the devil?

It’s based on a passage in the book of Isaiah. Chapter 14 of that book contains a taunt (a kind of ancient insult song or poem—like you might find at a modern rap battle) against one of the oppressors of Israel: the king of Babylon.

It predicts his downfall, but it also depicts his pride, which sets him up for the downfall.

Thus we read:

How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low! (Is. 14:12).
​

In the Latin Vulgate, that’s:

Quomodo cecidisti de caelo,
lucifer, fili aurorae?
Deiectus es in terram,
qui deiciebas gentes.
​

The king of Babylon thus fancies himself as something high and mighty—like the Day Star itself—but God brings him low in the end.

In this passage the reference to the Day Star/the Morning Star/lucifer is thus an ironic allusion to the king of Babylon’s prideful self-image.

But surely we’re talking about the human king of Babylon—not the devil. Doesn’t the passage refer to him as a man who dies?

Yes. This passage explicitly refers to the king of Babylon as a man (Heb., ’ish) who conquered kingdoms:

Those who see you will stare at you, and ponder over you:

“Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?” (Is. 14:16-17).
​

It also refers multiple times to his decay after death and how he will not lie in his own tomb!

Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, the sound of your harps;
maggots are the bed beneath you, and worms are your covering” (Is. 14:11).

All the kings of the nations lie in glory, each in his own tomb;
but you are cast out, away from your sepulcher, like a loathed untimely birth (Is. 14:18-19).
​

So we’re talking about a human king—at least in the literal sense of the text.
​

continued...

 

continued from above...

How did this passage get connected with the devil?

Some of the early Church Fathers took it that way.

They compared the pride that the king of Babylon displays in the passage (“I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High”; Is. 14:14) with the pride of the devil.

They also compared the fall of the king of Babylon to Jesus statement that he “saw Satan fall like lightning” (Luke 10:18)—though in context that passage refers to the defeat of the devil in the ministry the apostles just engaged in.

It is legitimate to use the spiritual sense of this text as an application to the devil, but many people have lost sight of the literal sense of the text, which applies to the human king of Babylon.

Worse, in the popular mind “Lucifer” has simply become a name for the devil, and that causes problems when people who only know this use encounter other uses of the term—as in the Latin liturgy.

Is thus just a Catholic interpretation?

No. In fact, the Protestant Reformers Luther and Calvin acknowledged it.

Luther wrote:

12. How you are fallen from heaven, Lucifer! This is not said of the angel who once was thrown out of heaven but of the king of Babylon, and it is figurative language. Isaiah becomes a disciple of Calliope and in like manner laughs at the king. Heylel [the Hebrew word used in the text] denotes the morning star, called Lucifer and the son of Dawn. “Heaven” is where we are with our heads, and that is obviously above the ground, just as that most powerful and extremely magnificent king was once above, but now his lamp is extinguished (Luther’s Works 16:140; Preface to the Prophet Isaiah, ch. 14).
​

Calvin as quite hostile to the application of this passage to the devil, writing:

12. How art thou fallen from heaven! Isaiah proceeds with the discourse which he had formerly begun as personating the dead, and concludes that the tyrant differs in no respect from other men, though his object was to lead men to believe that he was some god. He employs an elegant metaphor, by comparing him to Lucifer, and calls him the Son of the Dawn; and that on account of his splendor and brightness with which he shone above others. The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables (Commentary on Isaiah at 14:12).
​

So what have anti-Catholics claimed about the Easter Vigil liturgy?

Some have claimed that “the pope’s deacon” invoked Lucifer and described Jesus as the devil’s Son.

This claim is based on translating part of the Easter Vigil liturgy this way:

Flaming Lucifer who finds mankind;
I say O Lucifer, who will Never be defeated.
Christ is your Son, who came back from Hell;
shed his peaceful light and is alive and reigns in the world without end.
​

What’s the real story?

The pope does not have a personal deacon, though deacons can sing the part of the Easter Vigil liturgy known as the Exsultet, Easter Proclamation, or Paschal Proclamation. (Exsultet is its first word in Latin: “Let them exult!”)

You can read about it here.

The Exsultet is part of a ceremony involving the Paschal Candle, which symbolizes the light of Christ.

In Latin, the relevant part of the Exsultet reads:

Orámus ergo te, Dómine,
ut céreus iste in honórem tui nóminis consecrátus,
ad noctis huius calíginem destruéndam,
indefíciens persevéret.
Et in odórem suavitátis accéptus,
supérnis lumináribus misceátur.

Flammas eius lúcifer matutínus invéniat:
ille, inquam, lúcifer, qui nescit occásum.
Christus Fílius tuus,
qui, regréssus ab ínferis, humáno géneri serénus illúxit,
et vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum.
​

In good English (as opposed to the incompetent translation given by the anti-Catholic commentator), this means:

Therefore, O Lord,
we pray you that this candle,
hallowed to the honor of your name,
may persevere undimmed,
to overcome the darkness of this night.
Receive it as a pleasing fragrance,
and let it mingle with the lights of heaven.

May this flame be found still burning by the Morning Star:
the one Morning Star who never sets,
Christ your Son,
who, coming back from death’s domain,
has shed his peaceful light on humanity,
and lives and reigns for ever and ever.
​

Up to the first reference to the Morning Star, this passage of the Exsultet is asking God to let the Paschal Candle continue to give light, so that it still be burning in the morning (“May this flame be found still burning by the Morning Star”).

Then the prayer pivots to re-conceive of the Morning Star not as the literal one in the sky but as Jesus Christ himself, based on the symbol in Revelation 22:16 (“the one Morning Star who never sets, Christ your Son”).

It is a moving, poetic prayer to God—not an invocation of the devil.​

 

Thank you, Carol! That helps a good deal!

 

So the Morning Star is Christ, Mary, and symbolically, in Isaiah, Satan?

 

gracia, I believe that what Jimmy Akin is saying is that the Morning Star is synonymous with Lucifer and the name Lucifer does not always represent the devil. Jimmy Akin is also saying that the Morning Star in scripture can either represent something good like Jesus Christ or something bad like the king of Babylon and this depends upon the context in which they are used. I'm glad that we have Catholic Apologists like Jimmy Akin to help explain these difficult things.

 

Just had a look at my kindle where I have the (Harper) NRSV Catholic Edition Bible:

Genesis 3:15 "I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head and you will strike his heel."​

and the New American Bible, Revised Edition 2011:

Genesis 3:15 "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel."​

From the the notes on Gen 3:15 in the NAB, RE 2011:

"They will strike...at their heel: the collective antecedent for "they" and "their" is the collective noun "offspring", i.e. all the descendants of the woman. Christian tradition has seen in this passage, however, more than unending hostility between snakes and human beings. The snake was identified with the devil (Wis 2:24; Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seemed implied in the verse. Because "the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil" (1 Jn 3:18), the passage was understood as the first promise of a redeemer for fallen humankind, the protoevangelium. Iranaeus of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130-200), in his Against Heresies 5.21.1, followed by several other Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse as referring to Christ, and cited Gal 3:19 and 4:4 to support the reference. Another interpretative translation is ipsa, "she", and is reflected in Jerome's Vulgate. "She" was thought to refer to Mary, the mother of the messiah. In Christian art Mary is sometimes depicted with her foot on the head of the serpent.
​