I want to read the Bible.Should I read the old testament if I

haha epic bait dude

No.

Read The King James Bible

for the gospels, read:

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

all in the New Testament

>>1460308
Why should I read the Bible in English? I'm not that fucktarded.

>>1460332
>I'm not that fucktarded.

You probably are if you thought the gospels were in the old testament.

and that's ignoring the major sign of fucktardery

>>1460334
I'm not OP, check the poster count. But reading the Bible in English is the epitome of being a dumbfuck.

>>1460334
i am op
>>1460332
that is not op

>>1460342
lad I don't give a shit

>>1460304
I wouldn't suggest reading it cover to cover like you would a novel, as there are some VERY dull parts that would simply wear you out. You can read it in 365 days at a relaxed pace by following a yearly plan. Here is an example: http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/reading-plans/

For getting the historical basis of things, you can read Genesis - Leviticus, and Joshua - Ezra. Obviously, you should read one of, if not all four, of the gospels of Jesus. For a good gist on the bulk of Christian theology, read Acts and the letters of Paul (Romans - Philemon). And, of course, read Revelation.

>>1460350
Fucktards generally don't

Read the psalms snd book of Job

>>1460342
Why?

>>1460401
If you don't read the Bible in Greek you might as well just give up and become an atheist. I'm not even trying to be a memester right now, it's just how it is, regional translations were a mistake. Especially shit like KJV that tagged on shitty mistranslations from the Vulgate like that Lucifer thing.

>>1460304
Almost all the good poetry and stories are in the Old Testament. The New Testament is okay, but nothing special outside of Revelation. You can get most of the interesting aspect of Jesus' life from edited summaries.

>>1460304
If you want to "just" read it I advice you to read the Evangelium if however you want to study it you need both OT and NT as there are a ton of references between them

That cleared up what is what.Thanks.

>>1460396
ouch dude I'll need a burn heal

>>1460415
>not reading the OT in Classical Hebrew and Aramaic

holy shit dude is your IQ 12

>>1460736
>implying there's any NT text written in Aramaic

All the originals are in Greek.

>>1460748
>implying there's any NT text written in Aramaic

I'm not, although some scholars argue parts are Greek translations of Aramaic.

The Book of Daniel has Aramaic chapters, and the Book of Ezra is in Aramaic.

>>1460781
I was talking about NT since this thread is about Jesus though. When it comes to OT it's best to read it in Hebrew and contrast it to the Septuagint due to all the shit the codifiers managed to alter in the Masoretic canon.

>>1460304
If you plan to read exodus, read these first.


Exodus 1:11 capturing and enslaving the hebrews. “...My soldiers were as lions are with their spoil, having serfs.
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/kamose_inscription.htm
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/courses/historyofegyptone11/files/19104137.pdf search “: four”

Exodus: The Ipuwer papyrus
http://ohr.edu/838
http://neilixandria.com/index.php/Admonitions_of_Ipuwer

Shiphrash slave list, Brooklyn 35.1446, two women preventing the genocide of Hebrew children. Exodus 1:15-21 and other names Menahem, Isaachar, Usher.
http://www.academia.edu/1797600/Two_Faces_of_Resheph_in_Egyptian_Sources
http://www.jstor.org/stable/595513?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://books.google.com/books?id=FpqBAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA432&dq=Papyrus+Brooklyn+35.1446&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc6ezf17rMAhUS5mMKHa2RD-IQ6AEITjAI#v=snippet&q=28&f=false ??

death of infants. “The mistresses of Avaris shall not conceive,”
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~afutrell/w%20civ%2002/kamose.html

Merenptah Stele. First ever mention of Israel.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/merenphatvictorystele.htm

putlockerr.me/tt3464018-watch-Patterns-of-Evidence--The-Exodus-online-putlocker.html

>>1460304
>if I just want to read the Jesus parts?

There's no Jesus parts in the OT. Read the letters of Paul, then the Gospels, including the "apocryphal" Gospel of Thomas. Paul's letters came first and so have precedence over the Gospel accounts.

File: 1449614364919.jpg (64KB, 640x458px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x458px

>>1460415
>regional translations were a mistake

>>1460342
>>1460415
There are alternate translations than the KJV. The Oxford Annotated Bible for instance uses the RNSV translation, which is more literal, and includes alternate translations for words with contested translatons; it's meant for academic study.

>>1461776
>>1460342
>>1460415

The KJV is actually one of the best, it's based on deep scholarship and preserves meaning very well. But the best way to read the Bible is in an interlinear version, such as http://biblehub.com/interlinear/

>>1461809
As I recall it was written with a distinct political slant. Meant to justify both a specific form of clergy and a specific form of monarchy. It's a masterpiece of literature, and probably good enough for basic scholarship, but I'd still recommend a proper academic version over it.