How many of you have actually read the christian bible? went to the library and got myself a copy

Why not Luke for rereads?

Oddly enough, I also prefer Matthew.

Don't even bother reading the NT unless you have the Q-Source.

It isn't a word for word translation of the vulgate, but it was used in conjunction with the greek and coptic texts as to find the translation that would be the most proper. It's the kind of small details that are apparent when you start to compares different version of the book and see who and how they interpreted certain concept depending on the languages and nations, it might give you more insight on the mentality that ruled those days and how translation can fuck thing up, may it be voluntary or not. The KJV is almost fanfiction tier when compared to it to be honest, you have the read it to see it.

>the ''lord'' never ever being refered to as such but as a the ''host of host'',
why would YHWH be translated as host? the hebrew is yahweh sabaoth, normally translated as Yahweh of Hosts. the use of the "Lord" actually reflects a Jewish practice that developed during the second temple period where the name Yahweh was almost completely forbidden to be spoken and instead adonai or "lord" would be spoken as a way of showing reverence

^This.

Because he is the ''host of host'', no? I taught the entire reason why he was referred to as YH'WH was an emphasis on this wisdom, that by definition we mortal can't give ''god'' a name that would truly fit his grandeur (since in our mortality we can only perceive an infinitely small part of his glory, ''Elohim'' if I remember correctly?) and that the only way to refer to him with respect that would befit the concept of god as it is, the title brought by his deeds?

actually Yahweh is a name just like any other. the only difference is that not pronouncing it later became tradition. don't believe it was pronounced? then look at the host of hebrew words and names that include various conjugations of YHWH such as Hallelujah, Elijah, or the current prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu. anytime you see a name that ends in -iah in the bible, such as Jeremiah or Josiah, that's a corruption through translation of -yahu, much like how Yeshua became Jesus.

The OT is the cool part of the Bible. It's a sort of jewish gore movie where all kind of nasty shit happens, especially to the Goyim, like the Philisteans, by Yahve or by Yahve's command.

The NT is the bland, haram and non-kosher part of the Bible going on about Jesus and etc, a sort of New Deal with love, being nice and salvation on the centrefold.

I'm currently reading the Hawaii pidgin bible

Da time wen eryting had start, God wen make da sky an da world. Da world come so no mo notting inside, no mo shape notting. On top da wild ocean dat cova eryting, neva had light notting. Ony had God Spirit dea, moving aroun ova da watta.

Depends on which perspective you are interested in. For the Jewish perspective the Torah is the most important text but for the Christians the gospels were usually the first texts translated into other languages. The book of Y'sha`ayáhu (Isaiah) is the most alluded to in the gospels.

lol that's literally where I stopped reading, I couldn't trudge through useless heritage trees

The Torah is a different kind of literature from other bibical texts. It is the basis of the Jews religious and civil law and was transmitted through oral and textual tradition on parchment scrolls. The gospels on the other hand were probably the first books to be written in codex form and epistle means letter.

I'm converting to catholicism so I'm afraid I might have to start reading it again, are there any parts I can skip?

Most sects probably consider all the books important. See

>parts I can skip?
Probably most of what corresponds to the Jewish Ketuvim except for the Psalms and Proverbs. The minor prophets, apocrypha, and NT antilegomena also.

>someone said the old testament is mostly filler.

Proverbs is great. I'm an agnostic basically, and I even I felt some kind of eternal wisdom there.(As I did with the Sermon on the Mount tbqh).

youtube.com/watch?v=f9_V5BXaXJc

You just have to relish in the details because genealogy mattered a lot back then. Just like you have to relish in white armed Hera and the long haired Achaeans and the red shirt Trojans in the Iliad. Powerful men claimed their great x12 grand daddies were there so they better be in that damn catalogue of warriors.

Probably off-topic, but this is as good a place as any to ask this question:

I was raised Orthodox, but sometimes l contemplate converting to Catholicism. Please advise.

Why would you want to convert from a half Soviet infiltrated church that conserves medieval customs to a liberal infiltrated church with post 16th century gaudiness and modernism that is comprised these days mostly of third worlders from the global south?
>in b4 muh One
>HOLY
>APOSTLIC
>........
>Saint Peter

I started with John, but I knew the basic story of the Bible beforehand. John is probably the most beautiful book in the Bible though.

M8 I've read it and it's all filler

>It's a sort of jewish gore movie where all kind of nasty shit happens, especially to the Goyim, like the Philisteans, by Yahve or by Yahve's command.
A lot of the nasty shit actually happens on the Israelites themselves

>Random Reubenite: Hey Moshe, is it okay if we go and do this thing?
>Moses: Lol no just for asking that god's going to send a plague upon us. Levites, go kill 10,000 more Jews!

atheist phd candidate in religious studies, I had a lot of christians asking me in how to read bible, not saying I'm the absolute authority but speaking from personal experience I noticed many people struggling to read it, finding it both boring and confusing.

Delving into bible with very little knowledge about the ancient world or the style of the bible is very hard. Also reading 4 gospels side by side by topic rather than reading matthew first than the others etc is more productive. Go check TTC courses about new and old testament and also about Christainity. There are also podcasts, articles, books that comment on certain books of the bible which makes it much easy to comphrehend. Phillip Hardlan Podcast about Letters of Saint Paul for example is a marvelous peace and will make you understand the context, the historical background etc more easy. don't go read bible blindly.

it is much easier to read bible that way, moreover do check out the early christian writings, tertullian, origen, augustine, john chrysostom etc are gems that are sadly ignored by many.

I was told that Christ advocated for self defense as well as the use of the sling. Is this true?

You sir are retarded.

What do you mean by "style?"

>style
maybe not a good word, but as an example see Matthew 1-17.

or, certain nuances, Kyrie meaning both lord the god and lord in the usage of sir, so when a beggar calls Jesus Kyrie, it has a double meaning.

Again there are hundreds of not thousands of commantaries on bible, from academics to early christians, it is really a waste to skip them. thegreatcourses lectures about christianity and bible are good places to start imho, one can move on from there

I would love a Bible with a commentary from early Christian philosophers like you mentioned, know of any?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_commentaries

tbqh, I always read modern scholarship commentaries on these writings, in a way commentaries on the commentaries on the bible. Origens commentary on genesis is hard to choke on its own.

I suggest you start from modern and go back, and also start from simple to more complex. So maybe few youtube videos podcasts (again harlands religions of ancient med podcast is great and includes a lot of christian episodes) theteachingcompany lectures first than moving on to more academic writings, maybe commanteries on new testament or history of early christians etc. Than I would go to bible or early christian commentaries.

Reading Origen without back knowledge will only confuse you, you need to know what platonism is, how origen used it etc etc. Not knowing about gnosticism might confuse you when reading irenaeus. Modern scholarship can and will give you a certain dash of background information which is very helpful.

I'm not saying take everything an academic or early christian wrote as totally factual and true, but I do believe it is better to start simple and taking baby steps. Again Christian corpus is great and scholarship is extensive it is a shame that they are mostly ignored.

I took a screenshot of this, I will use it in the future. Thanks

>Born and Raised a Christian

>Read cover to cover, if you are looking to win arguments about the origins of creation read >Genesis (first book),
>Exodus you learn about the easy bake niggers.
>skip Leviticus
>numbers is more jew shit (kinda intresting stories sometimes)
>Deuteronomy is optional, its Jewish law, most of it is a repeat of what you already skipped
>Joshua and Judges = bar code the up fucker (jews kick some ass for once in history)
>Ruth is for femanists
>1,2 samuel 1,2 kings 1,2 chronicles is probably just polotics i think, Different kings while Israel wasnt doing half bad
>Anything with a name is just a prophet making prophecies mostly about the cunt on the cross
>Psalms is a bunch of poems that only rhyme in hebrew (mostly writen by king david)
>Proverbs is a bunch of proverbs, u should read
>Read anything not mentioned.

NEW TESTAMENT

>read everything if first 4 books seem repetative its because its the same story writen by different people
>Most of the books are letters writen to people
>Acts is about jesus' 12 followers getting up fucked I think
>Revelations is the end time prophecies

I haven't read holy bible in its entirety. I'm starting at genesis 1:1 and trying to get to the end of revelations through the middle..can't get past all the begats after Cain and Abel...don't know if i need to have that memorized for later parts to make sense..if you get past that can you (TRUTHFULLY) tell me whether or not i need to remember it please?

I've read the new testament.

Depending on what your purpose is it with it I'd say that's good enough

Kek.

Allthough it wouldnt hurt if more people read it and the Quran.

I'd agree that the bible should be required reading for christians.

>it wouldnt hurt if more people read the Quran
Certainly wouldn't, it would help understand that it pretty much is the parallel of modern Christians going by the old testament to the word; stonings and all.

Only educated priests should be allowed to read the bible. Otherwise you get 10,000 protestant denominations.

You don't need to remember the genealogies because they're only there to establish who the writer is talking about and where they came from that's all you need to know. With Genesis in particular it can be helpful to know that the genealogies mark a new era or passage of time.

A lot of people will say that you can gloss over the building of the tabernacle and for the most part you can, especially the second time it's recorded but you should pay extra attention to the rituals surrounding it because that stuff is referenced constantly throughout the OT. Solomon actually building the temple can be skipped completely because it's only really important to know that it was built. The entire book of Leviticus can also be glossed over, and it probably should. That's more of a law book that's meant to be referenced than anything. I don't know how anyone could read it straight through. It would be like picking up a giant book of state regulations and reading through each individual law.

Is that really a thing where Catholics prefer Matthew? That's probably my most reread book.

redpill me on the different bible versions

I read it cover to cover

You should as well. It gives historical context and a lineage of people up to Joeseph and Mary.

Jesus is the hypostasis between the blood of Abraham through his son Isaac and God, fulfilling the covenant with Abraham a second time making him in blood and in spirit the father of all nations.

The OT can be dry at times but its a good read

There is no redpilling. There is no conspiracy in bible translations. There is only your literary preference and perhaps slight theological leanings in choosing a Bible to read.

Good Protestant translations:
>English Standard Version
>King James Version
>New American Standard Bible
>New International Version (1984 text)

"Good" Catholic translations:
>Douay-Rheims Bible
>Jerusalem Bible
>King James Version (fairly popular among Catholics in the US Gulf South)
>Latin Vulgate (with English parallel)

Filthy liberal translations:
>Today's New International Version (NIV 2011 text)
>Common English Bible
>New Living Translation

Other modern translations, such as the New King James, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, or the Modern English Version, are either sub-par compared to the above mentioned Protestant version or are simply unnecessary given the strength of more popular and widespread versions.

The >edge< was not with you this time

Yeah I've heard that a lot, too bad I'm a liar.

i get respecting the work and wanting to read it cover to cover but you don't trust your own judgment/censor enough to merely skim over stuff like that?

I will say, I enjoyed how it was occasionally broken up with shit like "and then his daughters got him drunk, fucked him, and had his children".

I've heard that the Bible that Catholics use has books in it that have been removed from the Protestant bible, is this true? And if so do you have any links to any/all removed books from the Bible if they do indeed exist?
I'm asking you instead of just making a general post because you seem to really know your shit.

John > Matthew > Luke > Mark.

Yes.

Orthodox Bible is even bigger: they recognize all LXX Bible Books.

Why were certain books removed? I'm guessing because they don't agree with whatever denomination that takes them out is trying to promote?

Thomas >>>>>>> canonical gospels

even mundane stuff like the genealogies can be interesting. for example Samuel is a Ephraimite in Samuel but he has a levitical lineage in chronicles since he was a priest and at the time of its writing only those who were Levites could serve as priests

book of john

>gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html
For the general library

>gnosis.org/naghamm/got-barnstone.html
>gnosis.org/naghamm/GPhilip-Barnstone.html
>gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.html
>gnosis.org/naghamm/letpet-meyer.html
For interesting gospels

Wisdom books like Ecclesiastes are pretty great, and I think most people just skip those since they're near the end of the OT.

Can I stop you before you go all Da Vinci Code?

No, books were removed because historical doubt was cast on their inspiration. No one wants un-inspired books in their Bible, otherwise its just a book written by men, filled with the thoughts of men. Protestants have historically removed any and all books that the early church and church fathers didn't approve of. They most certainly did not remove books for any hypothetical doctrinal contradiction, or for any personal preference.

For example, Martin Luther felt that the Epistle of James shouldn't be part of the Bible. Later Lutherans and all Protestants disagreed and the 66 book canon has been preserved since the Reformation.

Start at Matthew
>how many of you have actually read the christian bible?
I'm on Job 5

Become a Christian instead

youtube.com/watch?v=mdXJzgtiM4E

>when you find the heretic.jpg

>gnosis.org

>gnosis.org

I hate when multiple Bibles are different.