Posted on 03/17/2005 10:52:18 PM PST by deepFR
Bible created especially for girls age 13-16 that includes profiles of fictional teenagers discussing oral sex, lesbianism and "dream" guys is drawing sharp criticism from some Christian parents who say such material should not appear alongside Scripture.
The "True Images" Bible, published by Zondervan, promises on its dustcover to "strengthen your relationship with God, family, friends and guys."
While the book includes the entire text of the New International Version of the Bible, it's the "over 1,000 relevant and compelling notes and articles" that have critics upset.
The "In Focus" profiles are peppered throughout the text of the Bible and deal with subjects like sex, pregnancy, alcoholism, dating, homosexuality, depression, pornography and flirting.
An introduction in the Bible explains its goal: to present to young girls "true images": "God's message about who you are in his eyes."
The "In Focus" article on sex appears amidst scriptural regulations on offerings in the book of Leviticus. It profiles the fictional girl "Ashley" and is entitled "Casual or Not?"
While the message of the profile is to save sex for marriage, critics aren't convinced the frank-talk approach is appropriate for young teens.
Discussing her friend "Emma," Ashley says, "The story is that she had oral sex with a guy friend of ours last week. Just for fun. They're not dating, although they've always flirted with each other a lot. Emma took one look at my face this morning, and she knew I knew."
Emma goes on to claim that oral sex "is not even sex," but Ashley disagrees, saying, "God's definition of sexual purity covers much more than intercourse."
Following Ashley's narrative is a warning that "the physical and emotional effects of oral sex are similar to intercourse," along with tips for dealing with friends who are engaging in the practice.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Wasn't there an article not long ago on FR about Zondervan wanting to place ads in Rolling Stone that were - well, didn't seem very reverential, and then Rolling Stone nixed them anyway?
Can't remember details, but it also said something about their translation as well.
Apparently you have missed the "Todays NIV" controversy, the crux of which is that the bible has been misinterpreted and given incorrect meaning - and mass-marketed to the unknowing public.
But of course, you are certain that there is no danger that the bible can be easily misinterpreted.
People have used the "bible alone" to sanction the KKK, the holocaust, "gay marriage", sodomy, snake-handling, absolute pacifism, child abuse, and wife battery, to name but a few evils.
If the "bible alone" were enough, then preaching to the baptised is a waste of time. But we both know it is not.
We have pastors and preachers because the "bible alone" has, since the beginning of time, been recognized as "not enough".
Scripture backs this up by mandating that we have an organized church made up of humans with authority to interpret and bind the faithful.
You have your man-made traditions (and extra-biblical spin of what the bible means) but deny it. Whereas Catholics have always claimed that Christ actually gave the Church authority and used that authority to safeguard and spread the good news.
how the heck is snake handling "evil" - misguided maybe - but hardly evil
Evils have shown up from time to time in the Catholic numbers as well. Evils which often have more a lack of bible than a surfeit of bible to blame. Protestants and evangelicals have no monopoly on evils.
It would help a lot if parents had a strong enough relationship with God they knew how to teach the Bible to their children.
Even though "abortion" isn't mentioned per se, the act of causing death to the unborn is clearly sanctioned for severe penalty in Leviticus.
I'm sorry. I was wrong re: Leviticus, that's mentioned in Exodus 21:22
"Sorry Smartaleck, Jesus clearly meant judging another individual, which I did not do at all."
Right, and the Democrats support the individual troops but not the military. Sorry, but the sum of the parts equal the whole.
false doctrines? Like what?
"See post #69, for a small sampling"
Yes I've seen that BS before. I've also come to understand that many people confuse rites, rituals, symbols, icons, engraven images.
By these standards in #69 we shouldn't have a Congressional Medal of Honor as it is an icon used to worship a false God.
Where in the bible does it state to have an organized church...
The organized church and the current papal situation was derived from Rome was eatablished as a nation state with a spiritual head...
Can't find that in the good boook
Those aren't Biblical terms, but rather Elizabethan attempts to translate Biblical terms. Anything we can do to remove the antiquated language barriers is a good thing.
Find me a teenager who can use concupiscence in a sentence. Very few can.
Agree, but they might ought to skip Genesis 38.
You are welcome.
The organized church and the current papal situation was derived from Rome was eatablished as a nation state with a spiritual head...
Can't find that in the good boook
You bring up some interesting points -how could the first Christians found one Church that still exists today if all the details were not included in the "good boook" they collected and compiled?
BUMP!
I have a working knowledge of Greek. Many of those words are antiquated in that they are no longer used in English, and they are attempts to translate broader Greek words.
For instance, "fornication" is a word I have yet to hear a teenager who hasn't been brought up reading a King James Version (a very tiny minority of teenagers, believe me) use that word. Say "sexual immorality," and they will be able to understand it. In the Greek, pornea encompasses that broader concept, anyway.
Similarly, "lasciviousness" is a word I have never encountered outside of the King James Version; "hedonism" would be a fair approximation.
They need to learn. Give them enough credit to be able to learn new vocabulary. What would you advise if teenagers are completely illiterate?
My point is that we should not be too attached to the antiquated King James renderings when there are equally, or more, valid renderings that are more easily understood. Frankly, I could care less if they don't know the King James' terms. Firstly, illiteracy isn't a religious issue, but rather a educational, economic, and societal one. Christianity endured 1400 years before the invention of the printing press; it does not require universal literacy. Secondly, I would argue that someone who doesn't recongize a word that passed out of usage 400 years ago is not illiterate.
The Bible was not given merely for light reading or entertainment value. It is meant to be studied, memorized, meditated upon, and applied.
True enough; however, antiquated renderings are not the Word of God. Rather, it is the meanings of the words (i.e., the thoughts they were meant to convey). Strictly speaking, the King James Version is not the Word of God; it is, rather, a fairly good approximation of what the Word of God is in Greek and Hebrew. There are other fairly good approximations out there too; we should not be overly attached to any.
My basic point is this this: words and language chage; God's laws and his teachings do not. We should not be so slavishly devoted to mere English words that we actually obscure the clear teachings of God. Anything that conveys the truth of God in language people actually use and understand is okay in my book.
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.