Beware the NIV Teen Study Bible

[KiwiChristian]

- The Teen Study Bible gives a standard dictionary definition of "sex", but the "alternative definition" is disgusting. Remember this is aimed directly at impressionable Christian teenagers. The "alternate definition" (1993 edition) for "sex" is "—another fun thing mean adults tell teenagers to keep away from."

The 1998 edition of Zondervan’s Teen Study Bible changed the "alternative definition" for "sex". It took five years – but hallelujah, somebody at Zondervan finally woke up (or maybe somebody actually read a King James Bible. . . it COULD happen. . .) Of course, the "alternative definition" in the 1998 lacks much to be desired when compared to God’s serious warning of fornication. The 1998 "alternative definition" for sex reads "a three-letter word with some really l-o-n-g consequences". )

- Another troubling "alternative definition" is given for "prayer". The great preacher John Wesley said, "God does nothing but in answer to prayer". The Teen Study Bible’s "alternative definition" for prayer? "prayer —talking to the ceiling and wondering if anybody’s listening.".

- The Teen Study Bible "alternative definition" for "church" is "what you have to get dressed up for so you can be bored for an hour at a morning service". Now, that is really helpful to get teenagers interested in church?

The 1998 edition of the Teen Study Bible changed the "alternative definition" for witnessing to "telling your friends about God and sometimes having them laugh at you."

[Gentle Heart]

Whoa!  That is absolutely horrific! I agree with you in that these "alternative definitions" especially the one dealing with sex is disgusting and totally unworthy of being in a Teen Bible of all things. Who are these editor's who would think that these alternative meanings would help get teens interested in Church, prayer, and witnessing? Just reading them it's obvious that they would have the opposite effect. In their attempts to sound hip and in tune with teens they have disgraced the Word of God. Thanks for sharing. I hope that youth workers, Sunday school teachers, and parents will investigate these teenage Bibles to see what is being written in them...and then perhaps even lodge some complaints (something has to be done). This was very shocking to me, especially for one who has taught teenagers and been involved in youth ministry in the past. I am definitely going to pass on this information. Kudos and blessings to you!

Edited March 27, 2018 by Gentle Heart
typo

[Heleadethme]

On 3/27/2018 at 2:42 AM, KiwiChristian said:

- The Teen Study Bible gives a standard dictionary definition of "sex", but the "alternative definition" is disgusting. Remember this is aimed directly at impressionable Christian teenagers. The "alternate definition" (1993 edition) for "sex" is "—another fun thing mean adults tell teenagers to keep away from."

The 1998 edition of Zondervan’s Teen Study Bible changed the "alternative definition" for "sex". It took five years – but hallelujah, somebody at Zondervan finally woke up (or maybe somebody actually read a King James Bible. . . it COULD happen. . .) Of course, the "alternative definition" in the 1998 lacks much to be desired when compared to God’s serious warning of fornication. The 1998 "alternative definition" for sex reads "a three-letter word with some really l-o-n-g consequences". )

- Another troubling "alternative definition" is given for "prayer". The great preacher John Wesley said, "God does nothing but in answer to prayer". The Teen Study Bible’s "alternative definition" for prayer? "prayer —talking to the ceiling and wondering if anybody’s listening.".

- The Teen Study Bible "alternative definition" for "church" is "what you have to get dressed up for so you can be bored for an hour at a morning service". Now, that is really helpful to get teenagers interested in church?

The 1998 edition of the Teen Study Bible changed the "alternative definition" for witnessing to "telling your friends about God and sometimes having them laugh at you."

Shocking.  Another "seeker friendly" approach.  It is SO misguided and is very FAR from being the way of Christ and His word.  How far the church has fallen, it makes me weep.

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On 3/27/2018 at 3:42 AM, KiwiChristian said:

- The Teen Study Bible gives a standard dictionary definition of "sex", but the "alternative definition" is disgusting. Remember this is aimed directly at impressionable Christian teenagers. The "alternate definition" (1993 edition) for "sex" is "—another fun thing mean adults tell teenagers to keep away from."

The 1998 edition of Zondervan’s Teen Study Bible changed the "alternative definition" for "sex". It took five years – but hallelujah, somebody at Zondervan finally woke up (or maybe somebody actually read a King James Bible. . . it COULD happen. . .) Of course, the "alternative definition" in the 1998 lacks much to be desired when compared to God’s serious warning of fornication. The 1998 "alternative definition" for sex reads "a three-letter word with some really l-o-n-g consequences". )

- Another troubling "alternative definition" is given for "prayer". The great preacher John Wesley said, "God does nothing but in answer to prayer". The Teen Study Bible’s "alternative definition" for prayer? "prayer —talking to the ceiling and wondering if anybody’s listening.".

- The Teen Study Bible "alternative definition" for "church" is "what you have to get dressed up for so you can be bored for an hour at a morning service". Now, that is really helpful to get teenagers interested in church?

The 1998 edition of the Teen Study Bible changed the "alternative definition" for witnessing to "telling your friends about God and sometimes having them laugh at you."

They are probably just trying to be funny, giving definitions that your average unsaved teen might normally use. But I would agree that this is inappropriate for a study bible

[GandalfTheWise]

On 3/27/2018 at 1:42 AM, KiwiChristian said:

- The Teen Study Bible gives a standard dictionary definition of "sex", but the "alternative definition" is disgusting. Remember this is aimed directly at impressionable Christian teenagers. The "alternate definition" (1993 edition) for "sex" is "—another fun thing mean adults tell teenagers to keep away from."

The 1998 edition of Zondervan’s Teen Study Bible changed the "alternative definition" for "sex". It took five years – but hallelujah, somebody at Zondervan finally woke up (or maybe somebody actually read a King James Bible. . . it COULD happen. . .) Of course, the "alternative definition" in the 1998 lacks much to be desired when compared to God’s serious warning of fornication. The 1998 "alternative definition" for sex reads "a three-letter word with some really l-o-n-g consequences". )

- Another troubling "alternative definition" is given for "prayer". The great preacher John Wesley said, "God does nothing but in answer to prayer". The Teen Study Bible’s "alternative definition" for prayer? "prayer —talking to the ceiling and wondering if anybody’s listening.".

- The Teen Study Bible "alternative definition" for "church" is "what you have to get dressed up for so you can be bored for an hour at a morning service". Now, that is really helpful to get teenagers interested in church?

The 1998 edition of the Teen Study Bible changed the "alternative definition" for witnessing to "telling your friends about God and sometimes having them laugh at you."

How about if we at WCF start rising above posting and applauding what are potentially uncredited "Christian" smear pieces?   How about if we all hold ourselves to the highest standards of integrity and honesty?   How about if we would post information in context and not cherry-picked bits and pieces that may or may not accurately portray what someone is saying?  How about if we would at least attempt to find the original author of a piece before posting it?

The info in the OP appears in several different KJV-only sites without attribution as to who originally wrote it or when they wrote it.  Did anyone notice that the definition of sex that everyone is horrified about has not been published in about 20 years?   Reading the OP carefully this sentence is included:

The 1998 edition of Zondervan’s Teen Study Bible changed the "alternative definition" for "sex". It took five years – but hallelujah, somebody at Zondervan finally woke up (or maybe somebody actually read a King James Bible. . . it COULD happen. . .) Of course, the "alternative definition" in the 1998 lacks much to be desired when compared to God’s serious warning of fornication. The 1998 "alternative definition" for sex reads "a three-letter word with some really l-o-n-g consequences". )

Here are the questions I want to see answered before I will decide what I think about this.

1. What are these "alternative definitions"?  Are they meant to be definitive statements?   Are these alternative definitions pointing out common errors in thinking?

2. What is the context?  These graphics are obviously part of a larger body of teaching.  What is that larger teaching?

 

I'm not posting this to defend what is shown.  I don't know what to think about the NIV Teen Study Bible because I do not have one in my hands to actually look at and judge the teachings on sex, prayer, and church without seeing the actual pages and context for myself.   I am questioning if what is shown is taken in appropriate context and actually reflects what is being taught or if the "alternative" definitions are highlighting misconceptions about the actual teaching.  

I for one do not jump onto witch hunt band wagons anymore.  For the first decade or so that I was a Christian I participated in this sinful behavior of passing on innuendoes and accusations based on cherry-picked content meant to show someone in the worst possible light.  I was in essence lying about what someone was intending to say and passing those slurs and accusations on to mislead other Christians.  In the 3 decades or so since I repented of that sin, I've been watching zealous Christians commit that very same sin.  My sense is most do it ignorantly with good intentions, but it is sin nonetheless.  Being right at times does NOT excuse those times which anyone is falsely accused.

By holding ourselves to a high standard of integrity and honesty and digging into the facts of a matter before rushing to judgement, we can retain our ability to properly judge right from wrong as well as eliminate those times we are falsely accusing someone of something they did not say.

[LadyKay]

I looked on Amazon and took a look inside a pre-view copy of this Bible. From what I have read it seems it is using sarcasm to get the point across. An example is while it does say 

alternative definition" for "church" is "what you have to get dressed up for so you can be bored for an hour at a morning service".  It is then followed by saying  "if you want to stop being bored in church, then start by listing to the sermon." Followed by a few other bits of advice. The same is for the bit about witnessing to your friends. The meaning being yeah, your friends may laugh at you. But here is what you can do.  

You really need to see the whole picture here. Before tossing things into the fire. 

[frienduff thaylorde]

8 hours ago, LadyKay said:

I looked on Amazon and took a look inside a pre-view copy of this Bible. From what I have read it seems it is using sarcasm to get the point across. An example is while it does say 

alternative definition" for "church" is "what you have to get dressed up for so you can be bored for an hour at a morning service".  It is then followed by saying  "if you want to stop being bored in church, then start by listing to the sermon." Followed by a few other bits of advice. The same is for the bit about witnessing to your friends. The meaning being yeah, your friends may laugh at you. But here is what you can do.  

You really need to see the whole picture here. Before tossing things into the fire. 

IF that bible makes lite of sin ,  its bye bye time for it .    jokes , sarchasams,  no wonder lots of churches are less and less serious about anything .

 

[KiwiChristian]

12 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

How about if we at WCF start rising above posting and applauding what are potentially uncredited "Christian" smear pieces?   How about if we all hold ourselves to the highest standards of integrity and honesty?   How about if we would post information in context and not cherry-picked bits and pieces that may or may not accurately portray what someone is saying?  How about if we would at least attempt to find the original author of a piece before posting it?

The info in the OP appears in several different KJV-only sites without attribution as to who originally wrote it or when they wrote it.  Did anyone notice that the definition of sex that everyone is horrified about has not been published in about 20 years?

 

Yes, i mentioned the change. It took how many years to change? What about the other definitions? You ok with those? Oh, thats right, you wont read it.

Who CARES who originally wrote something? Is what is being written true? THATS the issue.

 

So, instead of bashing the source, focus on what was said. But, you won't.

 

12 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

  Reading the OP carefully this sentence is included:

The 1998 edition of Zondervan’s Teen Study Bible changed the "alternative definition" for "sex". It took five years – but hallelujah, somebody at Zondervan finally woke up (or maybe somebody actually read a King James Bible. . . it COULD happen. . .) Of course, the "alternative definition" in the 1998 lacks much to be desired when compared to God’s serious warning of fornication. The 1998 "alternative definition" for sex reads "a three-letter word with some really l-o-n-g consequences". )

Here are the questions I want to see answered before I will decide what I think about this.

1. What are these "alternative definitions"?  Are they meant to be definitive statements?   Are these alternative definitions pointing out common errors in thinking?

 

 

Please tell me. I say no, they are not.

12 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

 

2. What is the context?  These graphics are obviously part of a larger body of teaching.  What is that larger teaching?

 

I'm not posting this to defend what is shown.  I don't know what to think about the NIV Teen Study Bible because I do not have one in my hands to actually look at and judge the teachings on sex, prayer, and church without seeing the actual pages and context for myself.

 

Of course you are defending it.

Then don't answer at all. lets not spiral off onto another topic which people do when they DONT have an answer or they do have an answer but are afraid or ashamed of it.

 

12 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

 

 

  I am questioning if what is shown is taken in appropriate context and actually reflects what is being taught or if the "alternative"

definitions are highlighting misconceptions about the actual teaching.  

 

 

I for one do not jump onto witch hunt band wagons anymore.

 

 

Do you stand for ANYTHING then?

 

12 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

 

 For the first decade or so that I was a Christian I participated in this sinful behavior of passing on innuendoes and accusations based on cherry-picked content meant to show someone in the worst possible light.  I was in essence lying about what someone was intending to say and passing those slurs and accusations on to mislead other Christians.  In the 3 decades or so since I repented of that sin, I've been watching zealous Christians commit that very same sin.  My sense is most do it ignorantly with good intentions, but it is sin nonetheless.  Being right at times does NOT excuse those times which anyone is falsely accused.

By holding ourselves to a high standard of integrity and honesty and digging into the facts of a matter before rushing to judgement, we can retain our ability to properly judge right from wrong as well as eliminate those times we are falsely accusing someone of something they did not say.

 

[KiwiChristian]

3 hours ago, frienduff thaylorde said:

IF that bible makes lite of sin ,  its bye bye time for it .    jokes , sarchasams,  no wonder lots of churches are less and less serious about anything .

 

And thats exactly what the NIV does.

[KiwiChristian]

13 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

They are probably just trying to be funny, giving definitions that your average unsaved teen might normally use. But I would agree that this is inappropriate for a study bible

Since when do we need to change the gospel or the Bible to suit people? 

 

Its the PEOPLE that the gospel and Bible changes!