Two New Bibles Preach A Hip, Eco-Friendly Gospel

[Sniffles]

WTF is this???

Two new Bibles targeting a young, hip — even secular — audience are hitting bookstores. One is a slick, illustrated version of the New Testament; the other is an environmentally friendly edition that takes advantage of the popularity of the green movement.

If you didn't know this was a Bible you might think The Book was a "goth" magazine, or perhaps something you'd find in a doctor's office. The front cover is a close-up of a translucent green eye, caked with black makeup and staring eerily from the page. On the back is a photo of a faceless figure wearing a black hooded sweat shirt.

Two New Bibles Preach A Hip, Eco-Friendly Gospel : NPR



Back in the day these wretched pieces of shit would've been used more properly as fuel for burning heretics!

 

[nozflubber]

The history of the printed word is an economic history..... you actually think there's integrity? or supposed to be?

 

[kuranes]

This guy is a new voice ( to me ) in conservative circles, and he makes more sense than a lot of the "old guard" do. Richard Cizik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Didums]

Jesus wants YOU to buy a hybrid!

 

[Valiant]

Jesus himself would like to buy a hybrid!

 

[cafe]

I don't see how this kind of thing is that different from all the pagan holidays that have been absorbed and revamped by the church.

Also, we are charged with guardianship of the earth and part of the Old Testament law includes instructions for letting the fields lie fallow every seven years, which might indicate, without too much of a stretch, that God cares about the land, even if only as a support to the people.

 

[MissMurder]

I'm not really seeing anything terribly wrong with these Bibles. I think it's silly to buy a Bible that has passages pertaining to the keeping of the Earth highlighted in green, but I'm not into the whole "green" fad to begin with.

Coffee table books do end up getting read an awful lot, simply due to being there. People are bored, open it, read it. If the goal is to make the Bible more accessible, more beautiful, and easier to get in touch with without changing the core message, I think it's fine.

 

[Eileen]

Why would this be offensive? It's just the Bible in a couple new forms. It's not as if the Bible hasn't been modernized/made more relevant before.

 

[SillySapienne]

Lol, just lol.

 

[ajblaise]

Do these new Bibles contradict the New Testament or are they compatible with it? I can see why a Christian would get offended if it was the former.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

It seems like a couple of neat ideas. Of course there is no telling if these ideas will have any staying power (probably not), but one never knows until they try.

 

[Journey]

Even if every word in these books adhere to my personal favorite version of the Bible, they are offensive to me as a Christian. They are crass commercialism of something that is Holy. They push social agendas of the producers and promote dissension. One is wrapped in a cover I wouldn't wrap my garbage. The other has a misleading cover about the real content. They are offensive.

 

[nozflubber]

Yeah, as if a bible has to be "themed" in order for there to be some type of better purpose! With green lettering and 21st century goals, it can be a useful book again folks! lol

gotta love infjs!

 

[Sniffles]

Even if every word in these books adhere to my personal favorite version of the Bible, they are offensive to me as a Christian. They are crass commercialism of something that is Holy. They push social agendas of the producers and promote dissension. One is wrapped in a cover I wouldn't wrap my garbage. The other has a misleading cover about the real content. They are offensive.

This is pretty much my view as to why I'm disgusted with this.

My only hope is that most of these attempts turn out to be flops in the end. The paradox always is that the more "relevant" you try to make Holy Scriptures, the more irrelevant it actually becomes.

 

[ajblaise]

Even if every word in these books adhere to my personal favorite version of the Bible, they are offensive to me as a Christian. They are crass commercialism of something that is Holy. They push social agendas of the producers and promote dissension. One is wrapped in a cover I wouldn't wrap my garbage. The other has a misleading cover about the real content. They are offensive.

This is pretty much my view as to why I'm disgusted with this.

So how do you two feel about someone re-writing the bible to make and sell a children's version?

 

[Night]

I find the issue entirely uncontroversial.

Religion and politics are intermingled entities. Welcome to human culture.

Trying to broaden one's audience by pursuing unfertilized avenues should be an exciting opportunity for conversion, not an excuse to draw petty lines of personal division.

 

[Sniffles]

So how do you two feel about someone re-writing the bible to make and sell a children's version?

That depends. Give me an example. I still have the Childrens' Bible I had as a kid.

 

[ajblaise]

That depends. Give me an example. I still have the Childrens' Bible I had as a kid.

Well you know, your average kid's bible with all the pictures and the really short and simplified text.

 

[Sniffles]

Well you know, your average kid's bible with all the pictures and the really short and simplified text.

Would you care to provide some examples of such as I originally asked?

In theory at least, this is appropriate for first-graders, but not young adults. There's a point in life when one must proceed from the kiddy Bible to the real deal. It's called growing up.

Although sadly this concept is being neglected terribly, so now you have overgrown children walking around untill their mid-40s.

 

[JocktheMotie]

As long as they don't undermine the real Bible's content I don't really see what the big deal is.