Posted on 01/21/2005 4:38:06 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Christians and Lions PING!
Move on.....(not .org)
I guess they should have poised it as an ad for pedophilia.
It's beyond decadence-it's evil.
It's conduct like this that pushed me from agnosticism to Christianity. It's the Eighth Proof of the existence of God.
This trash called Rolling Stone comes to me free of charge. Yes I do run a Wedding DJ service, but I have never paid for it. It simply goes in the trash.
I have thought for some time that the existence of Satan is easier to prove than most religious ideas.
Anybody know the difference between the TNIV and the NIV?
I'm familiar with the NIV, but not the newer one.
And it's certainly shouldn't be a surprise that they would reject God and His Word.
You are absolutely correct. Par for the course. Yet let's be clear; they have every right not to accept advertising that wouldn't (in their view) have a positive impact on their readership.
By the same token, I wouldn't expect American Rifelman to accept an ad for Bowling for Columbine.
"Rolling Stone has the right to reject anything thaey want."
Apparently I missed the part where someone challenged their rights. The point is, this action should be publicized to exemplify the manifest hostility of the left media toward traditional values in general and Christianity in particular...sabotaging of America which has barely been answered as yet.
Yeah -- so what?
This decision merely reinforced the fact that their rag is cowardly, dishonest, pretentious garbage while it's content caters to the orgaistic, drug, homo, leftist culture.
Since when does rejecting material not deemed consistant with a publications theme considered "manifest hostility"?
Ridiculous.
Rolling Stone is not the place to reach a young demographic. My aunts and uncles read it!
Your point being?
I was just wondering the same thing, if anyone knows anything about this bible.
Here's your chance to educate yourself, kid.
Go back and actually read the article, to begin with.
Then, explain the facts as they are presented without alluding to a posture of hostility toward the object of the ad, ie an edition of the Bible. If you can do that without looking ridiculous yourself, I'll be glad to acknowledge it.
If you're as smart as you think you are, you'll shut up and take a lesson.
Yah. I have a few different xlations, but the NIV was my favorite. Good use of proper english without being dated or PC.
Anyway, what's going on with it is the logical conclusion of "dynamic equivalence." When you translate something, there are two ways you can try to translate it - as literally as possible, or thought-for-thought. The old NIV tried to be somewhat more thought-for-thought, without becoming a paraphrase.
The new tNIV's biggest change is to eliminate gender-specific pronouns where a modern writer would not use them. For instance, rather than address "brothers," "brothers and sisters" are addressed. "People" instead of "man" in some contexts.
It effectively communicates the message, and won't offend the feminists. But I wouldn't rely upon it for close exegesis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.