Is he correct? How should someone who is only interested in reading

Reading the Bible while only looking at it as literature will remove all the literary value it had.

>no Job
Shit list

>>9616518
elaborate

File: 6a00e3981f1e3988330168ebec82de970c-500wi.jpg (26KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x333px

>The Arabian Nights: Tales of 1,001 Nights: 3 Volumes (Penguin Classics) - 2592 pages
>The Bible (Penguin Classics) - 2000 pages
>War and Peace (Penguin Classics) - 1440 pages
>Michel de Montaigne - The Complete Essays (Penguin Classics) - 1344 pages
>The Count of Monte Cristo (Penguin Classics) - 1276 pages
>The Recognitions (Penguin Classics) - 976 pages
>Moby-Dick or, The Whale (Penguin Classics) - 720 pages

>>9616523
for real, what the fuck? Who could make a required book list of the Bible and not include Job?

File: 1488676191164.jpg (45KB, 680x451px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 680x451px

>Suggestion is to not read KJV
>Suggestion is to not read the entirety the first time through
>Doesn't include Job
He is obviously a fucking idiot.

Native English Speaker: Read entirety of KJV first time through, for further study pick up an annotated version.

If you are an atheist just read the wiki and don't waste your time (or risk saving yourself)

Start with the New Testament, then Proverbs and Psalms

>>9616892
More salvation for you, right? Shouldn't every Christian want people to come to God?

File: anime.png (246KB, 2518x562px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 2518x562px

>>9616906
Its hard enough getting "Christians" to come to God, have to cut our losses.

>>9616601
Where's Atlas Shrugged?

>>9616518
deep

>>9616503
First, if youre reading the bible for /lit/ you want the king james version. Second, read the new testament then the old. Simple as that.

Read the KJV if you want to read if for its literary beauty and influence

don't listen to pseudo-catholic shitposters

get a good kjv like the Norton which has about 1000 pages of supplementary material

File: why.jpg (21KB, 372x260px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 372x260px

>>9616892
>>9616518
Sincere question: why are the (presumably) christians in this board so salty about atheists reading the Bible? I've seen this in many other threads. Why?

File: 1488404891271.png (216KB, 500x463px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 500x463px

>>9617261
Why we read is just as important as what we read.

>>9617261
I typically assume it's because they haven't a solid understanding of its history, the way that it fits into their tradition, or any understanding of hermeneutics. Without a working understanding of these, I suspect you can't stand up to either legitimate critique or silly mockery. If your approach to the Bible is "cuz jaysus said it," then I expect you get snippy and defensive.

File: letipp.jpg (46KB, 416x359px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 416x359px

>>9617313
This guy knows

>>9616601
Your moby dick is fucked


Mine was 4-500 pages

>>9617261

Why read any book that you've decided a priori to reject? You might as well save yourself the trouble and check out one of the many critical fedora summaries.

File: Blake_ancient_of_days.jpg (201KB, 767x1092px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 767x1092px

>>9617281
So if one reads to appreciate the text but not believe in it, one should not read at all? Do christians, then, not read The Qu'ran, or The Dhammapada or The Analects?

>>9617381
The book itself is not being rejected, only deity represented within it. I understand that this causes the stories to be seen as such: stories, rather then events that actually happened, but this doesn't — in my opinion, at least — diminishes their teachings and messages, not to mention the actual text, which remains the same however one perceives it.

>>9616503
>>9616503
Absolutely read the KJV. Its the most referenced in terms of classic literature regardless of what it leaves out or adds in

>>9617506
>The book itself is not being rejected, only deity represented within it
John 1

File: euphoric.jpg (29KB, 680x382px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 680x382px

>>9617506
Religions can find understanding within each other.

Atheism is incompatible/antithetic with spirituality and thus makes any and all scriptures incomprehensible.
Whether an atheist reads the entire Bible or reads the wikipedia summary for each of the books it doesn't make a difference.

It is comical anyone can choose to be atheist without reading any scriptures in the first place.

>>9617261
>>9616892
Not a christian (not really an atheist either) and I think absolutely everyone in the western world should read the bible. It's absolutely the key text to understanding western culture, and there's so much you can gain from it even if you don't accept it's metaphysical assertions.

>>9617636
That's a good point, but sort of ignores everything else I said.

>>9617683
A wikipedia summary and the actual book are completely different texts, and the delivery can change the meaning of the message entirely.
Also, why assume that an atheist is incapable of putting himself in the place of a christian when reading the Bible? I understand that many don't, out of spite for religion or simple-mindedness, but if an atheist is willing to read a religious text, I would assume he is also willing to empathise with a religious person when reading it.

Please note that I'm just asking about the act of an atheist (or non-christian, for that matter) reading a religious text, not trying to make an discussion on atheism in general, so I'm not going to address the "comical" thing.

>>9617281
Thats a pretty ironic thing for a Catholic to say

File: 1443467066725.jpg (25KB, 249x230px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 249x230px

>Don't read the King James - it wasn't a very good translation
>recommends papist bible
Like fucking clockwork

>>9618099
The worst part is the "it's not complete" nonsense, where they try to confuse people with a simplistic take on the issue of canon. Even if you want to consider the apocrypha as canon, the KJV translated them as well and there are still editions of the KJV apocrypha published today, so he's even wrong on that.