Talk:New English Bible

Page Layout
Hi everyone, I've recently added an image and info-box to this article, but the rest of the page is starting to look a bit cluttered. Does anyone have any ideas for improving the layout of this page? Michael2 11:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

New Revision and Expansion
I think you are right about the New Testament image, I believe it should be either moved very carefully, or just removed altogether. It isn't exactly adding much to the content of the article like the full bible image. StudiosusTheologiae 21:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a revision. I haven't read it in detail, but judging by the headings and length, the article looks very in-depth. Maybe I'm biased since I added the NEB image, but I just wonder if the New Testament picture should be moved to further down in the article. In my opinion, it's "stealing the limelight" from the Bible image. Especially since the article is talking about the whole Bible, not just the New Testament printing. Perhaps the New Testament picture could be moved to the final paragraph beneath the 'Translation' subheading (which focuses on the New Testament) Michael2 11:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have revised all of the existing information and integrated it into an expanded content article. If you spot any problems, please let me know or fix them yourself. Everything seems to be in decent order. If the edit is just not good, lets all fix it up. I have chosen to use the word "committee" throughout, although the NEB translators referred to themselves as "Panels", because of the relative familiarity of the term committee to most people, and the fact that it conveys, equally well as "panels", the sense of the situation. StudiosusTheologiae 14:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to Remove "Problems"
At this point, it appears that it may be necessary to remove the problems or criticisms section of this article.
 * Rationale: Unless the relevant section may be expanded upon and transformed into a useful addition to this article it presently remains otiose. The information is not worthwhile, nor is it the domain of an encyclopedia article to provide detailed textual commentary regarding the effectiveness of a translation. If the NEB is mired in issues concerning the translation itself, then it should be noted. I doubt whether it should be doted upon.

I invite challenges to this proposition. Does the "Problems" section need to be removed? --StudiosusTheologiae (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New English Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150724114610/https://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_const_2003/Title_II_Worship.pdf to http://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_const_2003/Title_II_Worship.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Apocrypha link?
Would it help readers to make 'Apocrypha' a link to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha WorstDancer (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)