Rollingstone changes mind on Bible ad

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

coemgen

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Oct 31, 2002
Messages
3,962
Location
Black and White Town
This was on cnn.com

GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan (AP) -- Rolling Stone magazine has reversed itself and agreed to accept an advertisement for a new translation of the Bible.

After first rejecting the advertisement, Rolling Stone sent Zondervan a contract for a half-page ad in the rock magazine's February 24 issue, said Doug Lockhart, executive vice president of marketing at the nation's largest Bible publisher.

Lisa Dallos, a spokeswoman for Rolling Stone publisher Wenner Media LLC, said Tuesday that the company had "addressed the internal miscommunications that led to the previous misstatement of company policy and apologize for any confusion it may have caused."

Grand Rapids-based Zondervan, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, had bought space in the magazine months ago as part of an ad campaign for a new Bible translation aimed at young people, called Today's New International Version.

But about two weeks ago, Zondervan said it was told that Rolling Stone's policy was not to accept advertisements for religious materials.

Lockhart said the contract sent to Zondervan does not require any changes to the ad, which features a contemplative-looking young man and says the new Bible is "written in today's language, for today's times -- and it makes more sense than ever."

"We're thrilled," Lockhart said.

Other media outlets that agreed to carry the ad include Modern Bride, The Onion, MTV.com and AOL, Lockhart said. AOL, like CNN.com, is a unit of Time Warner.

Watcha think?
 
I have no problem either way. I don't buy or read Rolling Stone anyway (I think it's rather useless).
 
I agree with Indra, but I have a little more respect for them because of their latest decision.
 
I think RS sucks too, but I think it's neat they changed their mind. (even though I don't particularly like the TNIV version of the Good Book.:wink:
 
Zondervan took a lot of heat when they released the NT portion of this translation.

At least they admit they have an agenda in their translation....
 
Just for the record BVS, I didn't get up in arms about them not running the ad inthe first place - I think a media outlet should make it's own decisions on that. However, I think it's cool they're running an ad for a Bible in their publication, even though I don't like the translation.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I find it interesting that those that got all up in arms about RS not running the ad to begin with probably wouldn't exactly like this version of the Bible anyways.

This version is labeled as the "gender-neutral" version.

"It obscures the seriousness of the judgement on homosexuals"

Here take a look:

http://www.salemthesoldier.us/TNIV_the_controversy.html


Here's what they claim:

http://www.tniv.info/abouttnivbible.php

I also watched the informational video, it was interesting.
 
The Bible should be more gender neutral than it is, because the original Greek/Hebrew uses gender neutral pronouns. Unfortunately, modern English has no gender neutral pronoun, so, traditionally, it defaults to "he." Zealots, though, tend to take that gender-neutral "he" literally, even though it is not appropriate.

Melon
 
Back
Top Bottom