In what order should I read the Bible?

In what order should I read the Bible?

Other urls found in this thread:

psoberoi.github.io/stepanov-civilization/civilization.html
amazon.com/Jewish-Bible-JPS-Guide/dp/0827608519
myjewishlearning.com/article/the-order-and-the-ordering-of-biblical-books/
amazon.com/New-Oxford-Annotated-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0195289609/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=0268QMWH13ZR1A034VXT
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

cover to cover

Definitely do this if it's your first time reading it.

If you do this, you will quit before the end of the genealogies, I guarantee it. To be frank, some books just aren't worth reading. I listened to a ~20 hour podcast on the Old Testament and decided from there what books I would read. I ended up reading Joshua (5 out of 10), Judges (8/10), Job (7/10), Proverbs (4/10, Ecclesiastes (9/10), Song of Solomon (6/10), Isaiah(7/10), Ezekiel (7/10) Jonah (9/10), and Malachi (8/10).

All in all quite fun to read, but am I ever going to read the whole of Exodus or Deuteronomy? Fuck no.

Imagine thinking that Judges is better than Job

Read from the Old Testament and the New Testament concurrently

The various books are from several different genres. In the OT, There are the historical books (the Torah, Joshua, Judges, Kings), prophets, and 'wisdom writings' such as Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs.

In the NT, there are the Gospels (sometimes Acts is grouped with them as Historical, especially since it's basically a continuation of Luke), the epistles (letters), and apocalyptic (Revelation).

You could read a book from a given genre and then switch around among genres. Maybe you could divide up the Psalms (into its five divisions for example) or sprinkle them among your other reading; same with Proverbs

Oh and you might save the prophetic books until you've made some progress in the OT history since they are largely tied to the later time period of the OT. For the Gospels, I recommend actually reading Mark first, since it's generally believed to be the first one written. Luke and Acts would be good back to back, but that's a fairly long stretch; maybe one of Paul's letters between them. Matthew goes especially well with Isaiah

Judges was fun as hell, and I liked most of the characters there. Job started out better and is probably better written, but I didn't like the conclusion. I wasn't raised with a religion, so I didn't know how it would end beforehand, and to me it seemed like there would be a big payoff at the end. When Job starts asking all those heartfelt questions and Yahweh answers by saying ''do you control the thunder?" "did you create the stars?" "can you tame this sea-monster" I was really disappointed.

Read the ones that interest you. I usually tell people to start with John's Gospel, and read the New Testament in whatever order you feel like. You'll be surprised at how fast you get through the NT.

Step it up son .

I was under the impression that reading the OT was very useful (but not essential) for the NT, since much of it, especially from the Four Evangelists, reference events written in the OT. Is that not true?

Don't listen to any of these posters, OP.

First, read the Gospels in the order they are in the Bible. They're in that order for a good reason. Then read the rest of the New Testament in order. Then flip back to Genesis and read the Old Testament. Then read the Apocrypha if your Bible doesn't have it. Then reread the Gospels and the New Testament.

There. You've just read the Bible properly. I won't go over my reasoning for this order, but only because I'm pressed for time.

Then read the Catechism and start dipping into the writings of the Church Fathers. Join a church and start rereading the Bible according to the liturgical calandar. Stay away from the Pseudepigrapha and Gnostic writings for now until you're familiar with the Canon.

Exodus is an amazing story. Why wouldn't you read that?

In order, but you can be selective:

psoberoi.github.io/stepanov-civilization/civilization.html

Old Testament
Genesis
Exodus
Samuel 1 and 2
Kings 1 and 2
Jonah
New Testament
Luke
Acts

>They're in that order for a good reason
If that's the case then why not read the entire Bible in proper order cover to cover? Serious question btw

You have to do this Don't be selective. Don't read it like an after-school special. Try to figure out what the author of each book is trying to achieve, not what nuggets of enlightenment he has for you.

The only acceptable deviation from this is to read it chronologically. The prophets run more (but not strictly) longest to shortest instead of chronologically, and it pays to know which seldon crisis they are responding to. But Genesis through Chronicles should be read in order, and if you need some spice in there, you can read psalms alongside any of Samuel forward.

Just be patient, and when it's not working for you as theology, read it as history and vice-versa. Whatever you do don't listen to this guy . The modern man is conditioned against the new testament and has learned to make it invisible to himself. But approached through its own lineage it's quite marvelous in the way it rolls up much of the tension in the older tradition.

When you say he has to read it cover to cover, which order are you saying he should read the OT in?

NT is more important, especially the Gospels. OT should be read in light of the NT, especially the Gospels. You can skip over portions of the OT altogether and not miss much. NT is also shorter with fewer drier bits so OP is more likely to actually get through it. A reading of the OT primarily just deepens your understanding of the NT. If you're going to read one part of the Bible, read the Gospels, so start there if you plan to read the whole thing. Read the OT just to fill in gaps in your understanding. I wouldn't recommend someone read the Silmarillion before the Lord of the Rings.

Speak for yourself. Not everyone is a modernist.

I don't think it matters unless you have a good study version of the Bible which has a helpful introduction to each book.

>weading is wittewawy too hawd.

>OT should be read in light of the NT,
Dead on. I agree with your post in general, but I think you're undervaluing the OT. It's more useful for a Christian to think of the Bible as a single body of Divine revelation. Paul said "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

I agree with your points for someone who is curious about Christianity, or is a new Christian. OP will get the most out of his reading if he starts with one of the Gospels. But an established Christian needs to read all Scripture.

>If that's the case then why not read the entire Bible in proper order cover to cover?
Because the Gospels are ordered that way for a reason that is different from the ordering of the rest of the Bible.

Matthew provides the best introduction to Jesus. Mark reinforces that with a slightly different perspective. Luke is terrific and drives it all home. But then John kicks your understanding up to a whole other level and is best left for last, even though it interrupts Luke-Acts. The order in the Canon is the best order possible. That doesn't necessity apply to the Old Testament or the Pauline Epistles in themselves, or in the case of the OT in relation to the NT for reasons I went over in my other post.

If you wanted to read the NT chronologically, you'd have to read the Pauline Epistles before the Gospels since they're older than the Gospels. That would be dumb. You're better off reading the Gospels and Acts first, then the Epistles (no opinion as to interior order), then Revelation.

We're in agreement. I don't mean to undersell the OT.

You have 2 options.
QUICK OPTION:
Read Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms and Isaiah, then read the whole NT cover to cover. These books are the most important books to read, as they are the books that are quoted and alluded to more than any other books throughout the NT. If you do so via this route, you will miss a lot of the historical books (aka former prophets), and will therefore need to find a way to fill in the rest of the history of the OT. there's lots of super easy to read evangelical publishings that will at least be adequate for understanding the larger narrative of the OT, despite their obvious bias.

If you want to be a total idiot and also skip through the NT then I begrudgingly recommend reading Luke-Acts, John, Romans, Hebrews and Revelation. this is a dumb idea though, you should just read the whole NT ffs.

BEST OPTION. The Bible is unquestionably not written in historical order. In order to make the most out of reading it and follow the narrative, read the books of the bible in their narrative order, as follows:
Torah and Former Prophets ("historical books):
Genesis through to 2 Kings
Pre-Exilic Prophets:
Isaiah 1-39, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah
Wisdom literature + Psalms:
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, Psalms
Exilic Prophets: Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel
Second Temple Era/Return from Exile:
Ezra, Nehemiah
Post-Exilic Prophets:
Isaiah 39-66, Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
Finish the OT by reading Chronicles, which serves well as an overview of the whole OT, almost as a recap.
Then just move on and read the whole NT.
I know more than the average punter about the bible so if you want recommendations for commentaries for any books of the bible, feel free to ask and I will provide a recommendation when I return from work in a few hours.

>fucking Jonah as good as Ecclesiastes
>Proverbs below fucking everything

What is wrong with you
Those are literally the two best books in the OT

For someone who's clueless about Biblical history and where the books fit in (like the difference between pre and post Exilic Prophets) and the historical context of everything, are there any short overview of it? And would you be able to explain why the books of the OT are placed in non-chronological order? Is there some throughline between, say, Daniel and Hosea that explains why they're put next to each other despite apparently being so far apart historically?

Also, what's your opinion of The Apocrypha, both in its usefulness of reading and where it should fit in, within the context of that list?

>former prophets
They're still prophets.

Lurker coming out
I agree with
Currently trotting through Numbers and this shit makes me want to kill myself. I don't give a shit how many goddamn cubits a piece of fucking fabric has to be but the LORD does.

There's an incredible about of symbolism in the 'boring' parts. For example, when the Tabernacle and the Ark with its coverings are described in Numbers, you hear about cloths of blue, purple, and scarlet, along with gold objects. In the Apocalypse, the Great Whore is arrayed in purple, scarlet, and gold-- no blue. What does this mean? What is the significance of blue? Pay attention to the 'boring' parts.

"In what order should I put on my trousers?"
"In what order should I eat my M&Ms?"
"In what order should I blow my nose?"
You people are pathetic.

Thanks user! I will keep that in mind but I examples like this are what make OPs question a difficult one. I'm currently under the belief that it depends on how you want to use the knowledge you gain from reading it. For example, I think if you want to argue with ignorant religious folk, then cover to cover is more than sufficient. If you want more than a redditors understanding of it you need to read it multiple times and in different orders. So I guess my question to OP is what do you want to gain from reading the bible?

>"In what order should I eat my M&Ms?"
Tell me. I need to know this.

>tfw I intentionally eat the colors as evenly as I can to maintain a good ratio between them at all times but I never thought about it until now and cannot explain why I would give a shit about it

You buy the new oxford annotated bible and read it page by page. It's intetesting and fun and you'll learn a lot.

Alphabetical, you troglodyte

By Former Prophets I'm referring to the proper term for the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. Are you under the impression I was talking about something else?

I thought that part was incredible.

This, why are there any responses other than this? It was constructed that way for a reason.

The following book would give a helpful overview of some of the issues you've raised. amazon.com/Jewish-Bible-JPS-Guide/dp/0827608519
You'll find a free (small) excerpt linked here, which engages with some of your questions: myjewishlearning.com/article/the-order-and-the-ordering-of-biblical-books/
But essentially, the books of the Bible are placed in the order we find them because the Christian OT has just copied the order of the Septuagint (LXX for shorthand, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible in the 3-2nd Century BCE). The Septuagint translators chose to change the order of the bible, for reasons I do not know.

Your Daniel and Hosea question is easier though. In the book order of the LXX, their is an attempt at chronology that comes in two waves. Firstly, the Chronology of the Major Prophets, going, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel (with Lamentations between Jeremiah and Ezekiel due to it's original attribution to Jeremiah). This is close enough to chronological. Then the chronology restarts with the Minor Prophets, with the first 6 being prophets from the period of Assyrian Power, the next 3 at the time of the decline of Assyria and the last 3 post exile.
Does this help answer your question?
In the reading order I gave above Isaiah is split into two because everyone who isn't a fundamentalist christian with a phobia of pseudepigraphica (writing a text in the name of a past significant figure) is convinced that 39-onwards are written by (a) different author(s)

Do you know what reason?

Recommend a translation/edition, please.

It really does depend what you're looking for, if you're looking for the standard scholarly translation, you should but the New Oxford Annotated Bible (New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha), found here: amazon.com/New-Oxford-Annotated-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0195289609/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=0268QMWH13ZR1A034VXT

Obviously with any translated text, unless you're going to learn the originals you will need more than one translation to get a better understanding of what the text is saying. For comparison translations, use the NASB. For fun, add in the ESV, a translation with a particular Evangelical Calvinist bible, but works well in some places (not the Moses/Pharaoh interaction in Exodus though don't even get me started). Also try the recent New Testament translation by David Bentley Hart, an Orthodox scholar who's attempted to give a translation of the bible using language that steps away from any doctrinal bias, attempting to clearly state what the text says without interpreting it through a theological lens (an obviously impossible task but interesting nonetheless).

No, ask G-d he wrote the fucking book

This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard someone say about the bible.

Don't read it cover-to-cover on your first read-through. Anyone who says that are try-hard pseud cunts (inb4 MUH SACRIFICE SYMBOLISM, I know, I'm re-reading the Torah right now). Without the context of why that stuff is so important, you'll get bored as shit.

There is no definitive way to read it, but a narrative read-through can add perspective to where the other parts fit in. For example, a lot of the Torah is about Temple rituals and foreshadowing Israel's political situation. That stuff is a bit meaningless if you don't know that later Solomon builds the Temple, that Israel gets surrounded by enemy nations, and what exactly the Babylonian exile is.

Something like this will work for an overview, then you can go back and read the other stuff. It'll especially put the prophets into contexts:

Genesis
--just remember the genealogies connect different parts of the story, don't worry too much about them yet
Exodus 1-24, 32-34, 40
--this skips the Tabernacle blueprints, just google 'Tabernacle' to see some reconstructions of it
Numbers 9-36
--this includes some religious and societal laws, which will give you a taste of what the rest of the Torah is like
Deuteronomy 34
--just the death of Moses, basically a prologue to Joshua
Joshua
--the first of the purely narrative Old Testament books, usually called the historical books
Judges
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
Ezra
Nehemiah
1 Maccabees
--not in the Protestant canon
Luke
--one version of Jesus' ministry
Acts
--the sequel to Luke, about Jesus' apostles after his ascension to heaven

This is sound advice

So swallow my disbelief and start reading at Genesis. Ditch itvafter chapter 2 because there's already too much logical inconsistency, childish astronomical understanding and unbelievable plot devices. And if you don't want humankind to have knowledge of good and evil, why the fuck create a tree to reveal that knowledge? That's just the sadistic act of an evil god.

enough to see it's a mind control manual disguised as innocuous symbolism

Mind control... For what purpose?

>So swallow my disbelief
There's your problem. Don't swallow your disbelief. Did you swallow your disbelief before you red the Iliad?

Cover to cover. If you don't have time, skip the genealogies (mostly in Exodus) and the laws (mostly in Leviticus) and Malachi.

This is why the Bible was banned from the public.

First the Ms and then the other Ms

That isn't so much "well you don't know anyway so there" as it is "Even in my infinite wisdom the bounds of your own perception and understanding prevent you from learning the answers you seek, you must walk by faith"

The tree didn't do anything. It was a test and a lesson.

You should definitely look into Milton's thoughts on the fall of man, one of history's greatest literary works was written about it. Also, it's obvious you are going into this biased, even though you're claiming not to. Think a little deeper than surface level.

i-it was just a joke buddy

We should just have a religion board for this website at this point.

>Song of Solomon 6/10
>Ezekiel and Isaiah anything but a 10
>not even reading the whole OT
>listening to a podcast about a book instead of reading it

The only books I can honestly say a first-time reader of the Bible should skip are Numbers and Deuteronomy, as well as the whole New Testament. I suggest reading a bit of history and a lot of Greek mythology to see the interweaving between ancient Near-Eastern myth and European myth, and seeing that Judaism and Christianity are nothing more than outcroppings of ancient Pagan religions. Reading the New Testament first like many people ITT are recommending destroys any chance of an objective, historically accurate reading of the Bible.