Comments on: Zondervan is owned by Harper Collins

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:25:43 +0000

“Didnt most of the original translators of the KJV do their work knowing that they most likely would be tortured and executed for what they were doing.”

First of all, I think you meant to put a question mark at the end of the sentence.

Second, no the KJV is also called the Authorised Version because there was an explicit royal mandate by King James to produce a standard English language version. But you are right that earlier translators, printers and publishers in the Protestant tradition did their work in fear of persecution.

By: Simon

Simon — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:24:24 +0000

I also agree completely with you, I don’t like that Zondervan is owned by HarperCollins. It does detract from what I think of the NIV, knowing it is owned by the same company that published the Satanic Bible and the largest amount of porn in the world ,etc.

It seems sad that whoever owned it originally (presumably Christians) would sell out to that extent.

There must be a lot of Christian publishers that are non-profits, so it does not seem true to me at all that Christian materials (especially the most popular Bible translation in the world) could only ever exist to make a profit for its owners. Didnt most of the original translators of the KJV do their work knowing that they most likely would be tortured and executed for what they were doing. I don’t think that counts as making a profit (at least not a financial one, which is what we are talking about here).

Even the internet was originally created and paid for by non-profits, government, military and universities. That is probably why it is so good and works so well.

Now that the Bible is another “information resource”, that of course must be kept regularly updated, we had better keep up with the latest versions of all the important recent translations, lest we be caught out on the day of judgement reading a version of God’s word that has gone out of date!

By: Dennis

Dennis — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:32:33 +0000

I agree with you about not being happy about finding out that Zondervan is a division of Harper Collins. The owners
of Zondervan, however, sold their Christian company to a secular company for profit.

By: feshannon

feshannon — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:29:41 +0000

This is something that I found out today for the first time. I’m glad that you’re blogging about it. Did you know that Zondervan owns Biblegateway.com as well? They bought it out from a small non-profit about a year ago. Biblegateway is now a for profit website. I agree with Marvin as well that it is important to remember that “anyone who has power over Zondervan has a lot of power and influence over modern day Christian thought.” News Corporation (owned by Rupert Murdoch as well) is the largest producer of porn.

By: Marvin

Marvin — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:37:33 +0000

Oh man everyone is giving you a hard time here in the comments.

One thing I would like to add. Zondervan publishes an amazing about of the Christian literature nowadays. So anyone who has power over Zondervan has a lot of power and influence over modern day Christian thought. I think its important to at least be aware of the issue. It is interesting to think about it…

By: Jamie Arpin-Ricci

Jamie Arpin-Ricci — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 05:23:57 +0000

I hear where you are coming from. While I think your questions are important and need to be addressed, one thing that has somewhat helped me with this issue: A pagan Empire helped rebuild Jerusalem from it’s ill gained wealth (see Nehemiah).

Peace,
Jamie

By: Nathan Colquhoun

Nathan Colquhoun — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:42:07 +0000

NOOOO JOHN!!! I would not prefer that entirely
I would argue now that they are already censoring content now strictly on what makes money or not. Find me one thing that Zondervann would publish that would break even or cost them money and they are doing it because they believe in it. I realize businesses need to make money, but I want to have a bit of hope in organizations and that there is something deeper going on than pure profit seeking. I just want some balance, that’s all I’m asking for. But knowing Zondervann is part of a larger initiative to make billions in publishing books (for one man especially), it doesn’t seem to have that much merit.

By: John

John — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:14:29 +0000

So, you’d prefer that publishers pick and choose what they’d publish based on content? Which would essentially mean that the publisher becomes a de facto censor.

By: Nathan Colquhoun

Nathan Colquhoun — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:42:38 +0000

1. Monopoly was probably the wrong choice of word, point taken.

2. The problem is, there are some things that Zondervan produces that I do like, but when you put it next to Bible for people who like horses, I feel like it devalues the books I do like.

3. I never said there was anything wrong with making profit. My issue is the “selling out” factor in that they seem to be ok with also producing shit, whatever brings in the buck. When money becomes the only standard by which you judge if you would publish something or not, well that’s when I throw up some red flags for any organization.

4. The point about my last paragraph was that I’m glad that the internet has allowed the average writer to have a voice and they aren’t forced to having to be published by a massive publishing company for their voice to be heard.

I’m saying that it is unfortunate that such a massive part of Christian books (especially the Bible) is controlled by someone who doesn’t care about the message and is willing to sellout to make a buck.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 05:34:18 +0000

I assume then that you are going to contact Google, Yahoo and Microsoft and ask them to remove your name and blog from their search engine? Or is it only corporations that you don’t like do you get mad at. And the internet that you so dearly love only exists due to money and financial backing a lot of which comes from big bad corporations like Rupert murdochs. Just some food for throughg a 2 in the morning when I can’t sleep