Talk:Revised English Bible
 | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
[Untitled]
editThis review was misleading, and probably a violation of NPV. It mentioned primarily the gender neutral language, using loaded language like "political correctness". In fact gender neutral language is not the major change from the NEB, nor does the REB go as far as others in gender neutrality. In fact most of the changes from the NEB were to remove some of the NEB's more idiosynractic translations, and thus push it closer to NRSV, NIV, etc. I'm not a Bible scholar myself, but online reviews from those who are seem generally positive.
I have tried to provide a more balanced review, while leaving as much of the original language as possible, including the criticisms. I'm actually not sure where the comment about flat language came from. There were a couple of comments like that about the NEB when it first came out, but most comments I've seen about the style of the REB have been positive.
This is still far from a complete review, but at least it's more in tune with the usual Wikipedia approach.
I'd be curious where the 31% deviation from the NA text comes from. Given that most of the text of the NT is uncontroversial, a 31% deviation is pretty serious. The review in Novum Testamentum certainly indicated that they didn't always follow the NA judgements, but nothing that extreme. I wonder if the 31% refers just to passages on which there is serious disagreement. Even there, it seems like a high number. I also wonder about the 22% paraphrase rate. The detailed reviews I looked at suggested that it was phrase by phrase. That's not the same thing as paraphrase. I'm reluctant to touch those numbers, since I have no basis for making a judgement, but I'm very suspicious.
Non-evangelical?
editOne can hardly call the REB "non-evangelical" simply because it has "young woman" instead of "virgin". Where does this come from? -- 41.177.9.68 (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good catch. Besides, it's hardly clear how a translation could be non-evangelical unless it was something like the New World Translation.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Egregious errors in the NEB?
editThis article on the REB says one of its goals was to "to correct what have been seen as some of the NEB's more egregious errors (for examples of changes, see the references)." Which references? Wouldn't a footnote be better here? Does such a list of "more egregious errors" exist? Gcampbel (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm here to ask the same question. Possibly the information was removed by an over-zealous editor? Dadge (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I ask the same question. Roryjohnston (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)