The Bible is literature. Thought I'd give it a read. What's the best reading order? Front to back? Chronological? Random study guide order?
Yes, New Testament studies is completely different, and the more you study the more you realize its a different world. The associated Ehrman book with the New Testament class is a primer, and an excellent one at that that is widely available to pirate.
As far as reading the bible as literature, of course you should read it all but for enjoyment, Job, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Matthew, and James are masterpieces.
"If you believed not Moses, how shall you believe my words?"
I'm talking about historical-critical studies, not making a faith statement. IE the Christ-cult of Syria merging with the Jesus People of Jerusalem, Mark's rebellious Jewishness vs. John's Christian Zealotry, reconciling inconsistencies, etc.
Thanks, the Bible will be an interesting read.
I just learned it's more correct to call it a collection of 66 books. And that there are multiple versions. So how should I attack the (protestant) Bible? I was thinking just start at Genesis and go from there but I feel like it might dissuade me if I start with the raw old testament stuff. Is there a recommended order for people who've never picked one up before?
Read it in order. In the Old Testament the Israelites relationship with God changes throughout, the text undergoes an evolution of ideas. Also read chronologically for the thematic consistencies. God tells a lot of people not to do a lot of shit, but what are the consistent values of the Bible? The ones that you'll find a thousand pages after the first few of Genesis? The New Testament refers back to the Old repeatedly and won't seem quite so revelatory unless you see how belief systems are being altered, maintained, and turned on its head. Yes, there are a lot of boring parts. But you'll find a lot of really interesting things in there that if you hadn't read the thing yourself, nobody would have told you.
>This one? Should I treat the two testaments as completely separate?
You have to understand the intricacies of the way they are treated to understand them as a pair rather than individuals. They should, for a novice, be treated as two entirely different studies. Start with the old testament then tackle the new when you're intimately familiar.
Maybe it would benefit you, if you are impatient ro genuinely interested in christianity, to read the highlights of the new testament. Go read some Jesus for entertainment, but when you're ready to treat it as study you should go back to the old testament to understand his world and what he saw it through. Then you can more properly handle the new testament in an academic capacity.
I got alot out of this course as well, and he provides you with TONS of scholarly works to dig deeper if you so choose.
Please read the bible in two editions.
Read the King James as it is the most important book in the west, but read it alongside a critical, more literal translation. This tactic is absolutely necessary to get the most out of the book. You will not finish the Bible this year. Just start working on it at your own pace, and try your best to both appreciate the literary value of the KJV and the theology, history, etc. that becomes more apparent through a more modern translation.
Sounds good, I've tried to talk to a lot of people about learning the Bible but they're all trying to convert me from the get go. Who knew 4ch would be the best resource for studying the Bible.
Thanks man, this is exactly the kinda stuff I'm gonna get into
What more literal translation do you have in mind? I don't know much about modern translations. I have an NIV Bible that I'll work through since that was the one I was given, I'll refer to KJV verses online in parallel with the NIV.
I've literally got nothing to do all year, my job has me doing absolutely nothing so I decided I'd do some reading instead of the usual shitposting, so I'll (hopefully) be working through it quickly.
Congratulations on reading the literal and figurative cornerstone of Western literature, the same book which has guided nearly all of the West's great writers, and great minds alike.
Remember to know exactly what you're reading. This picture should help. The Bible was put together by a council of men
The Law books describe early, early, Hebrews.
I like the history books. Lots of entertaining stories.
Proverbs and Pslams are beautiful.
The prophets are included in the Bible, mostly because many times Jesus is fulfilling prophecies or giving lessons, and the reader can flip back to the prophets and read about them, to confirm Jesus' identity as the Messiah. They are also useful for teaching
Of course, the Gospels are the main focus of the Bible, and Christianity as a whole
Paul's letters are the most useful writings for a Christian, second to Jesus' words. Paul explains and teaches the Christian
Revelation is a tricky one. Many Biblical scholars believe it shouldn't have been included. But its fun to read
I've always enjoyed the KJV. It has a really interesting history
As you may know, the Bible used to be only read in Latin. Most educated men would speak some form of Latin. Latin languages like French and Spanish evolved or this very reason. Henry the 8th of England didn't really like Rome, so he printed his own Bible in English.
Over time it evolved into the King James Bible.
Over time it became the most widely printed book in English, and nearly every speaking home had a copy. There's a very, very high chance that your great grandparents (and there parents, etc etc) first learned to read English because they were taught it from a KJV Bible.
This is the reading plan I've been following, but I read two bits everyday instead of one. To be honest I'm not sure reading all these books simultaneously is effective. I feel like some of these books need to be read as a whole, while other parts can be read disjointedly. It also doesn't include the Apocrypha.
I am reading the New Oxford Annotated Bible 4th Ed with the Apocrypha. NRSV translation. I highly recommend it. It's taking a while to go through all the footnotes and context bits, but I think it's worth it. I might get a KJV bible after reading this one.
Thanks for this overview, Revelations looks fun hahaha
Wow, I didn't realise it had this much impact. This is what makes reading/studying the Bible so interesting, it's the same texts that people from hundreds and thousands of years ago also read.
I'll most likely be getting this Bible, thanks again.
I read like this:
skim twice front then back
skim important text,
skim entire text
and then read
To add to that:
Saying A, E , I , O , U
or 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
And while doing that record myself reading it.
And then read. Maybe best.
I'm looking for a Dutch version but can't find out which to pick
SV and NBG 1951 seem a bit outdated, but NBV and HSV use 'jij' instead of 'gij', which just doesn't feel like Bible to me.
Thanks, glad I still got to read it.
I had the same problem. Eventually I just started reading the Willibrord version (1978) since it was already laying around the house.
The language is somewhat archaic but not too difficult to follow. The only disappointment so far (for me) are the Psalm translations.
Torah -> History Books -> Prophets -> Apocrypha -> Gospels -> Epistles
Which is essentially the front-to-back order of a standard Protestant Bible. The Wisdom literature (i.e. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes) can be read at any point.
The New Testament depends on an understanding of the Old Testament. The Epistles depend on an understanding of the Gospels.
The Prophets depends on an understanding of the Torah, and to a lesser extent, the History books.
>I just learned it's more correct to call it a collection of 66 books.
More like eight (or so) collections of similar writings. The Torah (first five books) is one piece. The history texts are another piece. The prophets are another piece...
Also, Bibles without the Apocrypha are pleb-tier.
>I feel like it might dissuade me if I start with the raw old testament stuff.
If you don't want to read the whole thing, don't. But the raw old testament stuff is important to understanding the new testament.
You'd miss about a third of the history of the Jews. Ever hear of Hanukkah? Want to understand the religious climate Jesus lived in?
You won't get either of those from the Protestant Old Testament, which ends about 400 BC. But you will get it from 1 & 2 Maccabees.
The Apocrypha has several types of literature. You could skip Tobit and Judith without any problem. Sirach is pretty similar to Proverbs.
Also, here is a chronological order of the (Protestant) Bible:
You'll notice that it's pretty close to a front-to-back reading order.
I have Willibrord '78 at my parents' home as well, and I guess it might be the perfect middle ground (also has hilarious translation of Hebrew names, for example Job's daughters are named Tortel, Poederdoos and Kaneelbloesem instead of their Hebrew names), but I want a Bible for myself and Willibrord is quite hard to find.
Thanks for your help though!
>Congratulations on reading the literal and figurative cornerstone of Western literature, the same book which has guided nearly all of the West's great writers, and great minds alike.
Stopped there fuck your god you obvious vucnt esOUBecsnpouVFRWsNJ;f GUCK JESUS AND MOTHER JESUS WAS RAPED BY MARY WITH A TWIG AS BABY
Massively, I dont think anyone here is talking about reading for faith (and I dont know anyone of Christian faith who would tell you not to read Elijah and Daniel).
Not to mention avoiding Job ignores the question of natural evil, and ignoring Paul just doesnt make sense for any Christian reader.
Why bother? Really. The modern day equivalent, of quality, excluding relevance, would be Atlas Shrugged. The few parts of the few chapters I read convinced me that John Green is more worthwhile!
ITT: passages that trigger martin Luther
>For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also (James 2:26)
>But muh faith alone!!
He's the reason why all these born again Christians think it doesn't matter if they sin or not. As long as they subscribe to the Protestant YouTube channel they get a free pass.
>I've heard it's the most accurate bible translation
It's not. "Accurate" is a complicated and subjective term, but few scholars would prefer the New World Translation over translations widely used in academia, such as the NRSV.
The King James Version is about 400 years out of date. However, it's language has had a huge impact on English, and so it you're reading the Bible for it's literary value, you're probably better off with a King James Version..
I attend a mass in Northern New York when I'm visiting family. I've met the priest personally, and have talked to him a few times, of course in the setting of a church function or a banquet.
The thing you have to realize, is these guys are, for the most part, intellectuals. Maybe not in the same way you might think, but many of them are well verse in history, latin, greek, philosophy, and theology.
Despite their accolades, and what people of faith believe, their regular people who know a lot about their subject. They went to school for it. A lot of them are pretty easy going, intelligent, and welcoming.
They're there to answer your questions. I'd say give it a try, just please try to be respectful, and I'm sure they will be respectful as well.
I don't live in the US of A so it'll be a bit more difficult to find someone but I might give it a go. Catholic Churches will be difficult to find, there is majority protestant here. (although from what I've heard from America, they're different to your protestants)
I wish people read the bible like they believed the stories were true. Why is it when we were faithful and enlightened by this great book, we could be so great and yet when we lost our faith, we ourselves declined.
What ironic lament that a book of faith is merely literature to the overly clever, overtly cynical people of this era.
By every measure, humanity has progressed since the time of the bible, and right now we have a situation where secular societies are far more advanced in all arenas than religious ones.
Except irreligious societies soon die. Historically, cultures which lose their religion, they die themselves.
Human beings are exactly as religious as they were before, it is merely that the religiosity is directed to other things. Belief in aliens, or new age garbage.
>reading the bible
lmao god isnt even real and anyone with an iq over 110 will know this
why the fuck is the bible still sold haha? who the fuck is it for?
Even if you don't believe God is real, you can't possibly deny its cultural relevancy. References and allusions to biblical tales can be found in literature spanning back centuries. I don't believe in Greek gods either, but I still think it's important to read Iliad and Odyssey.
>my specific definition of "God" does not exist in the physical sense, therefore a large collection of teachings that has inspired millions of people to live their lives in a way that would seem correct to them for two thousand years, is not worth reading.
I guess I missed the point, then. What were you trying to say? I'm saying that both MK and the Bible are historically and culturally relevant and thus are worth the read, even for irreligious folks.
Are you aware that you even more dumb than enlightenment idiots who refused to study medieval history and texts because they thought it was irrelevant and bad?
How do you hope to understand anything if you don't want to engage in it because it's >TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN
Are you aware that your mom's dick is still in your ass from 30 years ago and you mom's ass is filled with the Pastor's which in turn is filled with Judas's sperm from over two thousand years ago?
Get your slave shit outta here nigger.
>tfw started reading the Bible almost borderline theist, expecting it convert me
>tfw not doing anything at all
How do people find faith in this?
>yeah there was this bloke who said he was the son of God
>what did he do?
>well he healed people and kept saying that you should believe in him and god or else
I can understand the belief in a God, but I don't really get the belief in Jesus.