How can NIV be a bible for “the whole church”?

by clayboy on September 22, 2009 · 5 comments

in Scripture

Peter Kirk offers a helpful analysis of the FAQ about the N2IV. As I remarked in the comments on Peter’s post, there seems to me to be an inescapable conflict between the answer to 21:

The Committee on Bible Translation has no plans at the present to produce a translation of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books

and the answer to question 25

The NIV is, and always has been, conceived as a Bible for the whole church.

It seems to many of us that a Bible for the whole church must translate these books, and any Bible that does not include them (in one place or another) is necessarily committing itself to one group of denominations.

Bookmark and Share

{ 5 comments }

John Hobbins September 23, 2009 at 06:53

A very clear contradiction indeed. But in this evangelical Protestants are like, rather than unlike, their Roman Catholic and Orthodox sister churches. See my comment on the preceding post.

Joel H. September 23, 2009 at 14:03

“N2IV.” I think it’s perfect. Did you invent that?

clayboy September 23, 2009 at 14:51

As far as I know – although I’m sure someone else has had the same idea :)

Lue-Yee Tsang September 24, 2009 at 19:11

So the evangelical world (as represented by the NIV committee) is uncatholic, the Romanists are uncatholic, and the Eastern Christians are uncatholic.

clayboy September 24, 2009 at 20:19

I’m sorry – I’m not sure who you’re responding to, or what point you’re making.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: