Where did I say anything about your opinion of the TNIV? If you think I ever said anything about your interpretation, then you must have been misreading me, which might explain a few things.

In your comments section. You said: “The reason you can’t see it is because you were looking for something against those who oppose the TNIV.”

Nope. I wasn’t. Actually, I think the TNIV, like the NIV, is a paraphrase – and not a very good one. I prefer literal translations.

What I WAS looking for, was substantiative evidence of what you were saying. I read your post, and went straight to their post, to “see if it was so”. So, I read what you were saying about their anti-TNIV leanings – and even tried to make the connection – which I did – but only in their word “Considering” – which I read as “in consideration of”. When applied, contextually, I get a sense that they do, actually, not think highly of the TNIV – however, the wording does not, in any way, suggest to me any sort of accusation that TNIV supporters would be, in their opinion, “anti-Christian”.

Here’s why.

When you take this sentence apart:

By initially rejecting the ad, Rolling Stone unwittingly created a swirl of media attention that Zondervan believes will significantly increase sales.

You get this.

“By initially rejecting the ad”

This is the cause, for whatever comes next. “By” is referring to something later in the sentence.

“Rolling Stone unwittingly created a swirl of media attention”

This is what the clause including “by” is referring to. So, obviously, the rejection by Rolling Stone is what caused the swirl of media attention.

Now, add the next:

“that Zondervan believes will significantly increase sales.”

So, as a result of this media attention, caused BY the rejection of the ad, they will garner more sales.

Now, what do we say about the next sentence?

Considering the TNIV’s gender-inclusive language, Rolling Stone’s anti-Christian agenda may yet realize some fruit.

“Considering” – 1. To think carefully about.
2. To think or deem to be; regard as.
3. To form an opinion about; judge
4. To take into account; bear in mind
5. To show consideration for
6. To esteem; regard.
7. To look at thoughtfully.

Which is it? There’s 7 different options. I took it to mean “to think, deem to be regard”, (or possibly “bear in mind”) as this _usually_ means “refer to holding opinions or views that are based on evaluation.”

So, “evaluating”, paraphrased, seeing as World dislikes the TNIV, would be “despite”, to me. Or something to that effect. Since you assert they are anti-TNIV (which, honestly, I didn’t bother to check. I only have so much time), I took on your word – and interpreted the “considering” as a subtle dig at Zondervan. Not much else, though. At least not to “eXtreme character assassination” levels, like you’re proposing.

When you take the prior sentence into consideration, you can have two clauses to choose from, as regards this part: “may yet realize some fruit” – not including your assertion that Rolling Stone, and their anti-Christian behavior is the “fruit” that is borne.

You can pick “swirl of media attention” -or- “significantly increase sales”. Now, either way, it doesn’t HAVE to be a judgeent/value statement. The “swirl of media attention” referred to in the previous sentence would seem to imply that the next sentence, which includes the word “consider”, as seen above, would be “considering” the media attention, or the “increased sales”. Now, either one could be simply a statement of fact – not a judgement of the TNIV.

How? “media attention” could be countered against the _negative_ media attention, as I’ve previously explained, and counteract it – thus working positively for Zondervan – and “bearing fruit”, in that regard. Or, as I also said, the “discrimination” aspect, since people support ministries which are discriminated against, many times, would result in increased sales – thus “bearing fruit” for Zondervan.

My issue is the assumption that “bearing fruit” is referring to anything other than the issues that are addressed, that COULD link to the points above. The “anti-Christian” comment is directly solely at Rolling Stone’s actions. In nothing else is it referred to, by sentence structure. In either of the above practical ways, Zondervan would benefit – by a counter in publicity, and in increased sales. Rolling Stone’s characterization in the article is a complete side comment. NOT the central thesis.

It is used only as explanation for WHY there was media attention – and, thus, potential increased earnings. Yes, there was irony – but in the fact that an overtly anti-Christian action would result in postive reaction, for the Christian group.

So, anyway – Fisk time.

I now finally understand what your interpretation is even saying.

Well, sorry for the obfuscation. I’ll try to be more illuminatory in my next dialectic. (humor :D)

I read it on my blog and here, and I failed to see how the words there could even possibly mean that.

Just as I’m trying – with significantly bleary eyes, to attempt to read the fine print you’re apparently finding between the lines, to arrive at your meaning!

Then I read it again in your comment on the post itself, and after looking back and forth between your comment and the text, I can now see how you can stretch the words to mean that.

Well, I find it significantly more of a stretch to place a side comment about “anti-Christian” rock magazines into the framework of a strident denunciation of Zondervan, and their supporters, as “anti-Christian”. Considering the comment “anti-Christian” was made about Rolling Stone , for crying out loud.

It doesn’t seem very likely, given the highly negative attitude toward the TNIV over there, that selling more copies would be considered fruit.

Even though the sentence, when read literally, says that – and that the only other “fruit” possible (unless you butcher their grammar like a hog farmer harvests pork chops, or accuse them of the same) is the media attention clause?

It also doesn’t seem very likely that “Considering the TNIV’s gender-inclusive language” can mean “despite the TNIV’s gender-inclusive language”.

Well,I was going by your assertion that they are anti-TNIV. If you read the sentence literally, fruit is put into a positive light. If they say “despite” that language, that Zondervan is possibly going to salvage their sales, then I’d say that would qualify – wouldn’t you? You’re making the connection between “anti-Christian” and Zondervan – where none exists in the sentence.

That’s the part that seems like a stretch to me. It seems to me to be more a causal relationship. Because of the gender-inclusive language, it will bear more fruit, and what it will be bearing more fruit for is the anti-Christian attitude of the magazine. That’s my argument from the text.

Not if you read the text, instead of applying a prior conception to it beforehand. It SAYS that Rolling Stone’s inadvertent “swirl of media attention” will increase sales, according to Zondervan. If you know that this swirl of positive attention will create sales – will that not be a counter to the negative media attention (“Considering the TNIV’s gender-inclusive language”), and thus “bear fruit” for Zondervan?

Even if it turns out that I misread it, you have to admit that virtually everyone has read it the way I did.

I don’t care what “everyone else” thinks. “Everyoen else” thought Titanic was “way cool!”. I thought it sucked. I’m rather independently minded, and I tend to take the literal road as much as possible. So, what “everyone else says” has no bearing on this whatsoever. It’s a non-sequitur.

You are the only person to disagree with my interpretation out of every single one of the many who have commented here or elsewhere on my post, including those who have agreed with me and those who said extremely harsh and unfair things about me.

So? What does it matter what “everyone else thinks”? You’re saying it like it’s some telling point. “even if I misread it” – then, actually, that means that “everyone” who agreed with you (and, by the way, not everyone did – those who disagree wth you, are, in fact, disagreeing with you about what you said sentence means, AS WELL AS your reaction to it. Andrew, from Weapons of Warfare, for example, said virtually the same thing I am, at the end of his post.)

All the others, whether they agree with my view on its signficance or not, agree with my interpretation of it. Andrew does. Joe Carter does. Rebecca does. David M. does. Rey does. That doesn’t mean our interpretation is right, but it does show that it’s a much more obvious interpretation than you’ve been making it out to be, and I really had to struggle even to see how the words could mean what they must mean if your interpretation is right, so it’s not as obvious as you’re making it sound.

I never said it was obvious, or anything of the sort. I asserted it was incorrect. I don’t care who else says the same thing as you. I’m saying that the construction of the sentence precludes World calling anyone but Rolling Stone “anti-Christian”, and that the basis of your assertion that World is equating Zondervan with “anti-Christian” is sketchy, at best, and flat out incorrect, at worst.

I don’t see how it makes a difference that the subject of the sentence is the name of the magazine, because the form of the sentence doesn’t carry all its meaning.

Yeah, there’s those pesky words, too – especially where they are in a possessive, which means, exactly, and precisely, what it purports to mean – that Rolling Stone is the “anti-Christian”. The link you are trying to make, with “fruit” equating to “anti-Christian” is very, very sketchy.

If the sentence means “because of the gender-inclusive language, it will bear more fruit for the anti-Christian attitude of the magazine”

Uh, except it doesn’t. It doesn’t at all. It mean that it will bear fruit for ZONDERVAN, because both of the available clauses which would result in “bear fruit”, unless you butcher the grammar involved, would give you positive results for Zondervan – NOT Rolling Stone. I’d be slightly… ok, completely.. inclined to say that “bearing fruit”, in a Biblical sense, or otherwise, is a positive thing – especially for the subject of the sentence – which happens to be Zondervan, and the positive benefits Rolling Stone “UNWITTINGLY” created for Zondervan, by opposing their ad.

, then it doesn’t matter that what’s explicitly referred to as anti-Christian is the magazine.

Minor point, not relevant, and, missing the real one, to be honest. Plus, “doesn’t matter” is sort of a blanket statement. I obviously think it matters, and I think it SHOULD matter, since you have to connect that reference to Rolling Stone as anti-Christian, to the “bearing fruit” clause to result in your interpretation. It STILL doesn’t make sense. The major point was that the reference to BENEFITS GAINED was to ZONDERVAN, and the positive benefits Rolling Stone granted TO Zondervan, by opposing them. Which, when you’re speaking of “bearing fruit”, would be the two positive benefits gleaned for Zondervan – positive media attention, and increased sales.

If the TNIV is bearing fruit for that

Except that it is not – and you’d have to butcher the grammar of the sentence prior to even approach that interpretation – because, Rolling Stone is mentioned only as a reason FOR the positive benefits Zondervan has received.

, then the translation philosophy that they refer to as bearing fruit for an anti-Christian agenda had better itself be something with anti-Christian consequences.

I covered how “considering is used”. If you want to make it tie to a comment made about an inherently anti-Christian magazine, instead of the two primary clauses in the sentence, that’s your perogative. However, the focus is on “media attention”, and “increased sales” – not the reason those two things occurred. When you couple “bearing fruit” to “anti-Christian”, it doesn’t make sense, either grammatically, or ideologically, unless you automatically assume that the two central foci of the previous sentence were the throw-away portions of it – which I highly suspect is not the case. Furthermore, when you pair “media attention” (ie: free advertising – ironic, since the subject of the controversy was the rejection of the advertisement, not to mention that it is rejection by an anti-Christian magazine – thus, worked counter to Rolling Stone’s purposes) with “bearing fruit”, it makes sense. When you pair “increasing sales” with “bearing fruit”, it makes sense.

Pairing “anti-Christian”, out of the major clauses in that sentence, is a non sequitur. The “considering” clause is a non-essential portion, also – which can mean only two things:

1. That it is “considering” the media attention, (which would also make sense of the mention of the gender issue, because this good press counters the bad press it received from the flap over the translation in the first place) or the sales – which, as the sentence progresses, states “bearing fruit”, is just as likely.
-or-
2. That it ignored completely both of the preceding, thus leaving media attention and sales out on a limb, butchers the grammar as shown above, and concentrates on a hatchet job of a Bible publisher, by calling them “anti-Christian”.

What’s more likely, ladies and gentlemen?

World = hatchet job?

World = reporting news?

*sigh*

Can we PLEASE get on to, oh, I dunno. Apologetics?

I hate writing freaking posts like this. It’s boring, it’s senseless that I have to write them in the first place, and senseless that we’re making connections that don’t make sense, and trying to twist sentences into pretzels.

It’s annoying.

I’m writing on Francis Schaeffer tomorrow. I’ve been reading “The Evangelical Disaster”, and it’s much more interesting than the intramural firefight over the TNIV that’s spilling over into the blogdom.

This isn’t a new fight. The only new thing is Rolling Stone, being Rolling Stone.

Well, that’s not new either.