The Highway

Zondervan

Posted By: John_C

Zondervan - Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:08 PM

Shoud we be weary of Zondervan.

I read where the Rolling Stone has decided, after first refusing, to run an ad for the TNIV Bible. Zondervan is promoting it as the Bible for the young.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Zondervan - Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:38 PM

Quote
John_C said:
Shoud we be weary of Zondervan.

John,

I'm not clear on what you mean by being "weary"? Did you intend to write, "leery", perchance? Are you asking if Zondervan is a publishing house which people can have confidence in that they publish conservative and biblically solid materials?

In His Grace,
Posted By: John_C

Re: Zondervan - Wed Jan 26, 2005 12:07 AM

Yes, I meant leery.

And, can we trust Zondervan. The TNIV Bible with its gender-neutral bent is not a trustworthy translation. I'm trying to remember when the controversy arose. Did Zondervan agreed not to publish the Bible when they pulled it, or what was the agreement?
Posted By: Henry

Re: Zondervan - Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:15 AM

I read the article in World back when is happened. Basically, Zondervan had plans to do the Bible. The Evangelical community caught on, there was a big uproar, and they eventually had a summit where Zondervan pledged (I think in writing) not to publish a gener-neutral Bible. But then they went on ahead in secret, eventually kind of popping the new translation on the market with little warning.

I'm not sure if World magazine has their archives online, but the article was called the Stealth Bible.

Beyond this, I would say that Zondervan's credibility as a "Christian" company is suspect from the get-go by the fact that they are a division of a for-profit secular company (HarperCollins).
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Zondervan - Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:13 PM

Isn't this a case of trying to serve two masters? I pity poor the Zondervan executive who is torn between his duty to God to provide honest translation and his duty to stockholders to maximize sales to itching ears. The solution to this dilemma is for bible merchandising companies to get out of the business of sponsoring bible translations and return translation to individuals and churches who serve only God. And, of course, the only way this will happen is if Christians refuse to purchase bibles with commercial copyrights.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Zondervan - Wed Jan 26, 2005 5:55 PM

Zondervan carries a lot of Willow Creek, Hybels, and LaHaye, and yes, the TNIV, etc. resources. However, they also carry some C.S. Lewis tapes, William D. Mounce and Daniel B. Wallace Greek books, D.A. Carson, Moisés Silva and some other notable authors. Thus, maybe a good name for them is Truth and Consequences (that is the consequences of carrying bad material). Unfortunately, very few publishers carry ALL good material.
Posted By: Reformation Monk

Re: Zondervan - Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:22 PM

I work at a Christian bookstore now and Zondervan is by far the leading seller in bibles at my store. Out of all the translations as you can guess, the NIV is the biggest seller. The NIV study and Life Application bibles are the most popular. But they also carry other translations of course.

There is also the Bible dictionary's and concordances. They also provide good children's bibles and books. I don't know anything about the company but the one thing I can say is that there are allot of other Christian title publishers that print less edifying material. There is allot of trash that we sell at the store I work in. It's funny because most of the stuff people bring to the counter I don't approve of, but it's not for me to judge. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I do however think that the NIV New Reformation Study Bible is a good bible. But I'm finding that I'm starting to prefer my NKJV Reformation Study bible the most.

Y.B.I.C,

Dave.
Posted By: Gileskirk

Re: Zondervan - Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:08 AM

I'm usually not one to weigh in on an argument on Zondervan, but in when it comes to profitability I must point out that they are not alone.

One of our local Bible and Christian book publishers is a for profit company. So for all of you Thompson Chain, Nelson Study, and McArthur Study Bible readers Thomas Nelson is listed on the NYSE and are part of the S&P Small Cap 600.

Certainly individuals make income in professional ministry. Pastors, church staff, counselors, et. al. All of the folks who write the books ultimately do it to make money. Is there a difference? What does the Bible say about making money? I know there are statements such as serving two masters and the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, but what is truly out there with regards to making money? More than a couple of verses which can easily be misconstrued.

Does it go farther even? Is it wrong for the Christian to be in profit making business at all? Morally should there be money to made from healthcare? Construction? Groceries? All aspects of human life that can be constituted necessary, but we profit from those industries. Is that okay?

Just for clarity- I do not work for Thomas Nelson. I work for a much bigger, more evil company wink that is not in the Christian publishing business. I simply want to get the facts out about other publishers in the business and in turn find out what the Bible, the ultimate authority, says in regards to this.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Zondervan - Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:08 PM

Yes, some of those other publishers do have some filth....

IMO the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible definitely has the better notes in it. When it finally comes out in ESV it will of course be better (notes are being updated as well). Though it presently is in NIV only I use it with a ASV or NASV and it works just fine. There is also talk of the notes being released by Libronix software.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Zondervan - Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:13 PM

Quote
ForSBCReform said:
Certainly individuals make income in professional ministry. Pastors, church staff, counselors, et. al. All of the folks who write the books ultimately do it to make money. Is there a difference? What does the Bible say about making money? I know there are statements such as serving two masters and the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, but what is truly out there with regards to making money? More than a couple of verses which can easily be misconstrued.

Does it go farther even? Is it wrong for the Christian to be in profit making business at all? Morally should there be money to made from healthcare? Construction? Groceries? All aspects of human life that can be constituted necessary, but we profit from those industries. Is that okay?


The workman is worthy of his hire (Luke 10:7) and the Lord has ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:14).

The executives of big corporations, the writers and translators they hire, and the proprietors of book stores that sell their merchandise are just earning a living. They have a right and duty to market and sell books that will earn the stockholders a profit including bibles. They are not living of the gospel; they are living off the marketplace. If they do not market or sell TNIV, it is only because they may lose an unacceptable number of customers by doing so.

The men who run church publishing houses, their writers, and book store managers operate under a completely different business paradigm. They serve one Master not many. They market and sell only books that are God pleasing no matter what the marketplace is calling for. They live of the gospel not the marketplace.
Posted By: 4Ever_Learning

Re: Zondervan - Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:13 PM

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Yes, some of those other publishers do have some filth....

IMO the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible definitely has the better notes in it. When it finally comes out in ESV it will of course be better (notes are being updated as well). Though it presently is in NIV only I use it with a ASV or NASV and it works just fine. There is also talk of the notes being released by Libronix software.


The wait is over: http://www.monergismbooks.com/reformationstudybible.html
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Zondervan - Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:20 PM

The Reformation Study Bible is NOT the same Bible, though it is a good one..... The editor of the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible is Dr. Richard Pratt, not R.C. Sproul. While Sproul has the better translation (at present), the notes are better in Pratt's.
Posted By: 4Ever_Learning

Re: Zondervan - Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:46 PM

oops, My mistake. ;^) Sorry.
I have both but prefer the original Reformation Study Bible the best(NKJ)over the SRSB (NIV) But I do like the helps ad confessions that the SRSB has.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Zondervan - Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:05 PM

If people only really knew how Bible committees work now a days they would just stick with the ASV or NASV..... One would think that when it comes to Bible Translation and making a new improved Bible that is would be one of the holiest events of all times. One would rightly expect trained men in the languages and theology and much prayer and even fasting. In reality though many of the recent translations all have: (1) marketing deadlines, (2) compromises on the meaning of certain texts (one notable one is the way Psa 23:6 actually reads in Hebrew, but because of the traditional reading it has not been changed…), (3) the way a text is sometimes stated is by a majority vote vs. that much talked about exegesis of the text, etc. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />

Example: When the ESV was being translated when it came to vs 6 of Pas 23 the translators knew that “Forever,” literally meant “for length of days,” ….. through all the days. However, this posed a problem with some—because of the Psalms use at funerals. Since, the Hebrew phrase would have to be explained at funerals (and they actually reasoned…. who would desire to market a Bible which could not be used without complications at funerals or at deathbeds....) it was decided to use the term “Forever” instead of the literal translation with a footnote which states, “Hebrew for length of days”.
Posted By: Wes

Re: Zondervan - Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:40 PM

Don't get upset Joe. Just remember we still have the authorized version and if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul it should be good enough for you and me. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" />


Wes <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Zondervan - Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:44 PM

Quote
Wes said:
Don't get upset Joe. Just remember we still have the authorized version and if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul it should be good enough for you and me. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" />


Wes <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> good 'ol King Jimmy, surely thou jestest <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" />

And for those who are wondering about older Bible translations ...... (look at the spelling, word order, etc.):

Quote
1st Ed. King James (1611): "For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."

Rheims (1582): "For so God loued the vvorld, that he gaue his only-begotten sonne: that euery one that beleeueth in him, perish not, but may haue life euerlasting"

Geneva (1560): "For God so loueth the world, that he hath geuen his only begotten Sonne: that none that beleue in him, should peryshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."

Great Bible (1539): "For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in him, shulde not perisshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."

Tyndale (1534): "For God so loveth the worlde, that he hath geven his only sonne, that none that beleve in him, shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe."

Wycliff (1380): "for god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perisch not: but haue euerlastynge liif,"

Anglo-Saxon Proto-English Manuscripts (995 AD): “God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."
Posted By: John_C

Re: Zondervan - Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:53 PM

If my memory is correct, the initial Reformation Study Bible (the New Geneva Study Bible) was slated to use the NIV translation, but because of some legal snags, they changed to the NKJV.
Posted By: Wes

Re: Zondervan - Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:09 AM

Quote
J_Edwards said:

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> good 'ol King Jimmy, surely thou jestest <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" />


I thought that was rather obvious when I wrote that Paul approved it. [Linked Image]


Quote
J. Edwards wrote:

And for those who are wondering about older Bible translations ...... (look at the spelling, word order, etc.):

Quote
1st Ed. King James (1611): "For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."

Rheims (1582): "For so God loued the vvorld, that he gaue his only-begotten sonne: that euery one that beleeueth in him, perish not, but may haue life euerlasting"

Geneva (1560): "For God so loueth the world, that he hath geuen his only begotten Sonne: that none that beleue in him, should peryshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."

Great Bible (1539): "For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in him, shulde not perisshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."

Tyndale (1534): "For God so loveth the worlde, that he hath geven his only sonne, that none that beleve in him, shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe."

Wycliff (1380): "for god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perisch not: but haue euerlastynge liif,"

Anglo-Saxon Proto-English Manuscripts (995 AD): “God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."


The spelling and word order didn't make them inaccuate though. It just made them hard to read. Isn't that what motivates the scholars today to draft newer versions? The problem with the scholars today is that they seem to spend more time making it more readable by interpreting the text and offering their commentary rather than faithfully translating from the original language. This is where our paraphrase versions come from. I know that you can read some greek so you know the difficulties in translating from the original language to english and putting the sentence structure in order.

I have a copy of the orginal 1599 Geneva Bible. Just like you noted above it's rather hard to read. However mine even reads a little different that your quote above from the 1560 version.

Quote
"For God fo loueth the world, that hee hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that whofoeuer beleeueth in him, fhould not perifh, but haue euerlafing life." (1599)

Posted By: Wes

Re: Zondervan - Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:14 AM

Quote
John_C said:
If my memory is correct, the initial Reformation Study Bible (the New Geneva Study Bible) was slated to use the NIV translation, but because of some legal snags, they changed to the NKJV.


I've heard the same thing. Apparently Zondervan didn't want to publish it. I'm really glad they didn't and Thomas Nelson did because I love my New Geneva Study Bible and I'm quite pleased with the NKJV.
Posted By: jfschultz

Re: Zondervan - Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:28 AM

Quote
Wes said:
Quote
John_C said:
If my memory is correct, the initial Reformation Study Bible (the New Geneva Study Bible) was slated to use the NIV translation, but because of some legal snags, they changed to the NKJV.


I've heard the same thing. Apparently Zondervan didn't want to publish it. I'm really glad they didn't and Thomas Nelson did because I love my New Geneva Study Bible and I'm quite pleased with the NKJV.


As I recall hearing the group that originally backed the NGSB has a license from Zondervan to print a NIV Bible but went out of business. The group that picked up sponsoring the effort did not.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Zondervan - Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:52 AM

Joe

I think I must be missing something. I have before me both the NASB and the KJV. The NASB reads "forever" and the KJV reads "for ever". Isn't this the same as the example you gave from the ESV that reads "forever"?

I feel a little silly asking this because I know you posted this for a reason, but I have looked and looked and still don't see your point.

I would rather risk looking silly than be silly by not asking.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/moron.gif" alt="" /> Besides I am among friends, am I not?

Tom
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Zondervan - Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:37 PM

Quote
Tom said:
Joe

I think I must be missing something. I have before me both the NASB and the KJV. The NASB reads "forever" and the KJV reads "for ever". Isn't this the same as the example you gave from the ESV that reads "forever"?

I feel a little silly asking this because I know you posted this for a reason, but I have looked and looked and still don't see your point.

I would rather risk looking silly than be silly by not asking.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/moron.gif" alt="" /> Besides I am among friends, am I not?

Tom

Tom,

Many translations use the word "forever," that is the problem—people are use to it....., however it does not give you the fuller picture of what the author is conveying. "Length of days" or "through all the days" is more literal. Now, think about it for a moment. You are preaching and use the phrase "through all days." However, when do those days begin, when do they end? Does this mean ONLY my days upon earth, or does it mean all my days on earth and heaven, or....Then comes the questions are there literal days in heaven? If not, then what type of days is Psalms 23 speaking of? It is “important” to understand the Hebrew use of "days" (look it up in TWOT, BDB, or HALOT and follow their word studies). Questions, questions, questions at the funeral, etc.

One of the most important features of this phrase is that while it does speak of the future it also brings you “back” to Genesis 1 where God created “day” (not “only” forward like in our normal thinking of “forever”). Thus, it brings you back to the perfect creation, the Adamic Covenant (Hos 6:7), etc. Moreover, the word “forever” is more futuristic in its usage and honestly hard for anyone to actually conceive of in their mind, since they have no reference point to it…… We can philosophize concerning the term, however never "fully" experience "forever", however a day is something we have experienced and thus “I shall dwell in the house of the LORD through all days." As you can see much of Hebrew is very picturistic—theology and words you experience (truly a beautiful language). Moreover, God gave us the literal translation for a reason.... Thus, in summary, there are several questions that could arise from the literal translation (and that should arise from the translation to help us better understand the text), however for the sake of simplicity the term "forever" is used and thus you miss part of the meaning of the terms...... easy right? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Tom

Re: Zondervan - Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:49 PM

Joe

I understood that part, but what I didn't understand is why you didn't say the same thing about all English Bibles.
Yet you said you recommend only the AV and the NASB, which also use "forever".

Tom
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Zondervan - Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:01 PM

Quote
Tom said:
Joe

I understood that part, but what I didn't understand is why you didn't say the same thing about all English Bibles.
Yet you said you recommend only the AV and the NASB, which also use "forever".

Tom

Tom,

I was using the "recent" ESV as a singular example of Bible translation "in general today." The "exact" same reasoning was not necessarily used to obtain other translations, though they may use the same term (some didn't even discuss it, some see forever = length of days and see no conflict at all, etc). The ESV story was readily on my mind (a Tremper Longman OT class) and moreover, labeled as an example. The point of the post and the example was to demonstrate what I consider a non-biblical attitude in Bible Translation today. IMO the ASV and the NASB are still closest to the originals.... though they even miss it at times...
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Zondervan - Mon Jan 31, 2005 6:45 PM

Just bought the whole TNIV yesterday in hardback. Started in Genesis and am going to read the whole thing through. So, I am reserving judgement.
Re: NGSB. I was under the impression they originally wanted to do it in the NAS but ran into snags, and then got stuck into the NKJ(which is an excellent trans).
I just hope when the ESV one comes out in March, the PRINT won't be so abominable.
© 2020 The Highway