The NEB is easy to read. It is in the language and idiom we learned at school. A story-narrative or record of speech comes alive with the flow and meaning of the event as it happened.
The A.V. “sounds religious” and suits a “church”, but we suspect that the average person sitting in a meeting is often no wiser after listening to the chapter read. This would be especially true of visitors to our public meetings.
Would it be heresy to suggest that we have spent many hours listening to expositions which were mainly explanations of words which have changed meaning since the days of King James? With the NEB open we often have the passage clearly explained, long before the speaker has made his point.
The manuscripts used in the NEB include the “Dead Sea Scrolls” and many other fresh sources of Hebrew scholarship and it is not tied in any way to the phraseology of any previous version. (The AV was 80% Tyndale.)
Chapter headings and verses do not intrude, the text being divided according to the subject matter. Poetry and quotations are set out clearly.
We might, of course, wish for better marginal references and a Concordance, but we
think the advantages outweigh the drawbacks for most purposes. What do you think?
"Why I like the N.E.B." has started the ball rolling on quite a good topic. The conclusions are sound and practical and worthy of note. However, I believe there is here a major point for consideration. To what extent is the N.E.B. more effective in making us wise unto salvation. I have a good reason for suggesting that this point be included when commenting on this very important subject.
Nearly 50 years ago I fulfilled a marriage vow by opening my A.V. (the only version we had) and beginning to read in earnest. Seven years later after having a look at many denominations, I was determined that by prayer and seeking and knocking there was truth to be found. Three years later, with an equally determined partner, we were baptised into Christ with the promises of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ringing in our ears and a knowledge of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God with which we were only vaguely acquainted at the beginning.
Yes, we did find the A.V. abrupt, words had changed meaning over the years, but not impossibly so. One became aware that it was necessary to explore word meanings and it was a delight and a blessing to experience spiritual discernment. When lost in the wilderness with apparently no one to advise, we learned the value of the parable of the importunate man. When there is a challenge one finds whether he is really a seeker.
To your second paragraph, brother, I would say that the language of the A.V. appeals as dignified, serene, "religious" as compared with secular works, but nevertheless reverent and thrilling to many of the older generation.
We, too, suspect that the average person sitting in a meeting is often no wiser after the chapter is read from any translation because the reader forgets that his part is just as important to the listener as the words of the principal speaker and should be read to give a crystal clear message.
Yes, I enjoy other translations, but always go back to the A.V. for general reading.
As some key to my thoughts in general, may I say in conclusion, that to hear the Diety addressed as "YOU" makes me wonder whether this could encourage irreverence.
Luke 13:5 – “Except ye repent you shall all likewise perish”