Mixing too many colours bring a shade of Grey…



I have just come across something about the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, that does not surprise me one bit. Check out this first.

Now read Rudd’s address to the parliament about this particular bible…

Because they actually have come up with the world’s best compromise – don’t cut out, just colour in, and I think that reflects a marvellous history and pre-school training. I don’t know about you, but I was always much better at colouring in than cutting out. I’ve never managed to stay within the lines. Every time I’d go to pre-school with kids who were four or five, they always managed to stay within the lines unlike myself. I always used to just go over the edge.

But this actually overcomes the Jefferson and Wallis challenge, because you don’t have the problem of cutting out and then creating a problem for yourself on the reverse side of the page. It’s just coloured in.

But when you actually flip through this, as I did last night at The Lodge, and see the extraordinary shadings of orange all the way though, it catches your eye, and I’m sure that’s what those who have put together this particular edition of the Bible have had in mind.

So, we have a Red Letter Bible for those Red Letter Christians. We have an Orange Bible for those who are into Liberation Theology. We also have a Red, White a Blue Bible for the far American Repulican right. We have a Green Bible for those environmental concerns.

One person wrote about all the multi-coloured bibles that are being promoted. And he brings up some valid questions…

1. Is ‘highlighting’ parts of Scripture fundamentally different to adding extra bits to a Bible?

2. the marketing of single-issue Bibles heightening the public’s distrust of the text by implying we can get the Bible to say whatever we want?

3. Does the positive PR that promotes Bible reading to non-Christians out-weigh other concerns?  [source]

One commenter put it brilliantly when they said…

Single-issue Bibles, to me, detract from the central message of the Bible and encourage bad biblical interpretation. They highlight verses relating to one issue at the expense of others which proves to our critics that Christians are about cherry-picking through the Bible. It also seems to discourage the use of literary and historical contents as key components of biblical interpretation. Your example of the Green Bible is proof positive that we ought not engage in the business of publishing single-issue Bibles, as this Bible seems to assert that the environment is the interpretive key to the Bible, which clearly it isn’t.

In the very last commandment in the Bible God resolutely tells us not to add to nor take away from His Word.

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book”
       —Revelation 22:18-19

His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself (Psalm 119:160). My question would be, when over-emphasising parts of the bible over other parts does this destroy the whole counsel of God and His message to mankind?

Maybe it’s time we had:

* The "Substitutionary Atonement" bible
* The "Sufficiency of Scripture" bible
* The "Money is not your God" bible