The Nature Biscuit Bible

Here is a quote from Archbishop Desmond Tutu to a forward to a new translation of the Bible:

"His (Jesus) supreme work is to reconcile us to God and to one another, and indeed, to reconcile all of us to God's creation. It is possible to have a new kind of world, a world where there will be more compassion, more gentleness, more caring, more laughter, more joy for all of God's creation, because that is God's creation. And God says, "Help me, help me, help me realize my dream."

This is from the Green Bible, an NRSV translation that places text of scripture that are of importance to the environmental crisis in green (of course).  For those that are interested, the NRSV comes from the KJV.  The KJV begat the American Standard Version, which begat the Revised Standard Version, which begat the New Revised Standard Version. 

So, what passages are in green you wonder?  I am glad you asked.  Here is a selection that I found skimming this Bible.

Genesis 1, 2:1-12.  This is an interesting selection.  Genesis 2:11-12 mentions the river Pishon and the land around it.  It is in green.  The next verse the river Gihon, and is not in green. Are some rivers more green than others?  Ah well, moving on.

Daniel 2:22  
"He reveals deep and hidden things, He knows what is in the darkness, and light dwells with Him."

I am not sure what about this verse is "green". Any ideas?

Matthew 4:4

"But He answered 'It is written, one does not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes for the mouth of God.'"

Green?  I guess.

2nd Corinthians 2:17

"For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ."

A good verse.  I have no problems with it, but how is it green?  

I could go on. My point is that this version of the Bible is being published to push an environmental agenda. No surprise there, and I doubt that the publisher and editor would disagree. Is this really going to change the debate on environmentalism?  Printing a Bible on recycled paper with soy ink (maybe the Matthew 4 passage can be interpreted by us as actually eating the Bible?) may make a few people feel good about making a difference, but that is all it will do. Including an essay in the Bible entitled "Jesus is coming--Plant a Tree!" may make Al Gore smile, but does it make any difference to supposed anthropogenic global warming?

No.  

In the preface to the Green Bible, it describes how passages were chosen.  One of the reasons is 

"How all the elements of creation-land, water, air, plants, animals, humans-are interdependent."

Is that statement true? No.  The sun, center of our solar system, is not interdependent on humans.  Yet it most certainly is part of creation.  Or maybe they are just referring to creation here on earth?  Even then the statement does not work. While human beings are certainly dependent on water for life, water is not dependent on us to exist. For items to be interdepentent they would need to depend on each other, yet water and humans do not seem to. Humans can affect water quality, but the water still exists.  It is still water.  Without water, humans do not exist. That seems to be a very odd form of interdependence.  A casual read of Genesis would seem to indicate that water and humans were not created in a manner that would cause both to mutually depend on each other.  In fact, water seems to be around before humans. Yet if we are mutally dependent on each other, how did that happen? 

I could continue but you get the point. Christians should care about the environment. That is a given.  But the priorities and philosophy behind much of the work of this Bible do not appear to be consistent or factual.  Skip this Bible and simply enjoy God's creation, instead of reading why you should feel guilty for destroying it.