What books of the bible should I read and in what order?

What books of the bible should I read and in what order?
Fedoras need not reply

Other urls found in this thread:

nakedbiblepodcast.com/naked-bible-63-introducing-leviticus/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Ecclesiastes
Genesis
Ephesians
Jonah
Luke
Acts
John
Job
Psalms
Revelations

In this order.
This is all you really need. Everything else are just filler stories or ancient tribal rules that aren't relevant unless you're a historian looking into tribal Hebrew culture.

at a minimum, weave these two lists together concurrently

OT:
Genesis
Job
Exodus
Ecclesiastes
Deuteronomy
Ruth
Joshua
Song of Songs
1-2 Samuel
Isaiah
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Jonah
Malachi
(also sprinkle the Psalms throughout, either a few at a time or a book [I-V] at a time)

NT:
Luke-Acts
Romans
Galatians
Ephesians
James
Matthew (concurrent to or close to Isaiah)
1 Corinthians
Philippians
Colossians
John
Revelation

Also get hold of a timetable, especially for the OT books

No Judges? Judges is solid gold.

>always a critic
Yes, Veeky Forums, Judges is very good but it fell on the other side of the line I drew

I liked both lists (not sure which one you are) but Judges has some of the most famous stories of the Bible and interesting. Like why Deuteronomy and not Judges?

My list is . Pardon my defensiveness; I should anticipate 'But what about' (and you didn't tell me to Judas myself even). My argument for Deuteronomy is that it concludes Moses' story, sets up the entry into the Promised Land in Joshua, and presents the Mosaic Law (important, e.g., in context of its fulfillment in Jesus) in a way that's maybe more palatable for a newcomer than Leviticus. But yes, Judges has Samson, Deborah, and Gideon, which are great

Okay, that's very understandable. I was adding it in because it seemed like your list was focusing on accessibility and cultural importance (both contemporary and biblically) and Judges fills all three categories nicely imo.
I thought your ordering on NT was interesting, Paul was always a bit preachy for me (also I felt like he was probably closeted but that's just my read on it). I liked reading the gospels before the epistles on past read throughs but interweaving the chapters as close to chronologically as possible. I know it's a bit complicated for a first timer but I think it helps so that they don't just gloss over the contextual differences between each apostles take on a given event.

That is a good point about Paul. I tried actually not to have him that early, but I had a hard time editing down his epistles I included, and I wanted to get him in before James. I think maybe what I should have done (especially after thinking more about Moses and the Law) was to include Hebrews and have it as the first epistle, concurrent with Deuteronomy, and maybe take out Galatians and maybe Ephesians and Colossians
As for the Gospels, I understand what you're saying about weaving the Gospel accounts together, but I like the idea of letting the individual accounts stand on their own for the sake of their respective structures, emphases, and so on. Matthew, for example, does some fascinating things structurally (such as its five discourses and its repeated mention of fulfillment of the OT) to emphasize its focus on its Jewish audience (cf. Luke's targeting of a 'Greek' reader).

The biggest thing I noticed with the gospels was how much of a suck up John was, that's and the Jewish vs gentile targeting of Matt and Luke are both more evident, but I do see your point on keeping them separate. If you're doing the interweaving of OT and NT with your lists, I'd switch Ruth and Isaiah mostly because iirc Ruth stands on its on pretty well and Isaiah while it is a doorstop, is heavily referenced in the NT (maybe key selections?). And I'd keep in Galatians if I were you, if focuses on fulfillment of Mosaic Law. Ephesians I can get, it's more about belief structures than anything imo. But yeah, solid list otherwise.

cover to cover

Also, what translation do you use? I've only read King James Version and a few chapters of the NIV.

Good luck when you hit leviticus and Isaiah and proverbs and psalms.

Ruth is absolutely necessary. Very short, written like a novel.

That's my point it stands alone really well so you could sequence it in a less vital spot.

I know bb, just backing you up.

>Psalms
>One of the best parts of the bible
>Shit

>mfw read all of Leviticus recently

And the posts of the tabernacle shall 3 cubits long and be constructed of fine wood....

Dear God.

Numbers isn't no better either.

I need a list of essential books to read because this repetitive shit is off putting.

I'll go back to the unessential books but I'd like all the important ones out of the way first.

Honestly, this thread has some good suggestions, knows his shit and you have my opinions as well. What are you reading the Bible for? Academic understanding, faith building, learning western/Christian mythos/beliefs, etc I can rec different things based on what you're trying to achieve.

I'm reading it because I am generally interested in it and like theology and if it does awaken in me a belief then so be it - I'd like to read it and digest it myself and form my own full opinion on it instead of from snippets and quotes.

You can skip leviticus, numbers, and maybe songs(its all Hebrew poetry, the quality varies based on translation). If you want a full view of it it's kinda hard not to read most of it on your first time. I've read cover to cover 3 times and studied books in various orders enough to equate 4 or 5 more read throughs, there's still a bunch I miss out on.
Isaiah is heavy and crazy dense.
Proverbs and psalms are good but dry? (best analogy I've got is they're like reading through a joke book rather than reading a comedy if that makes sense)
Job is one of my favorites in the old testament, great story, great themes.
Judges is exciting and fun
Later books of the Bible (maybe around hosea) it starts to be largely historical and ramp up to the NT with Malachi
The Gospels are readable are some of the most rewarding to read. Read through them and then read the chapters from each chronologically and compare how each author writes about events (John's a suck up).
Acts is a fun read and shifts things to Saul/Paul (he converts and changes his name).
Epistles are all letters from Paul to various churches, very mixed bag. Paul's biases come out here (spoiler: he really hates sex)
Revelations is an acid trip with more interpretations and symbolism then anything in the Bible (except maybe Isaiah).
That's my quick rundown off the top of my head. I don't know what version you use but if you are used to KJV I recommend getting your hands on an lds Bible. They have cross-referenced pretty much the whole thing by topics and have a decent chronology established so it's really useful for analysis.

Sweet, thanks man.

No worries man, fuck that was a pain in the ass to type on mobile. You better enjoy the fuck out of your thees and thous

All 73 in order

I would start with the four gospels
John would be the best to start with, as it is the best book in the bible in terms of telling people how to be saved (by believing on Jesus Christ for their salvation)

Read all of them. There's no point to read a book other than from cover to cover.

Fedora here.

Most bibles have a bible study guide in the front that gives you a year long reading plan. It chops up the books a little so you don't have to slog through some of the more boring bits all in one go. It allows you to contrast different aspects of the work. It's not a novel and there's no real reason to read it in any particular order.

The main translation I deal with is the NRSV, simply because that's the one my church body uses. Previously I was in a church body that used the NIV, so that's my second one. I think maybe I still prefer the NIV.
I'm not 100% sold on any single translation. In terms of sheer flow/beauty of words, nothing surpasses the KJV (once one gets past the archaic language; the NKJV modernizes the Thees and Thous, but it's not the same). One major issue is that the Textus Receptus on which it's based doesn't always represent the best understanding of the Greek manuscript evidence for the NT, namely the last several centuries of scholarship and discovery.
I've been somewhat frustrated with how loose the NRSV is, sometimes even losing genuine insight in favor of modernization. (An example I came across recently is Psalm 1. A literal rendering of v.1 would be something like 'Happy/Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand on the road of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers.' Note how there's a definite progression in the verbs -- walk, stand, sit -- and how it indicates a progression toward an entrenched habit. On the other hand, the NRSV reads: 'Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners tread, or sit in the seat of scoffers'. The treatment of the verbs is a total mess: it garbles the logical progression, for no apparent reason. Also note how it changes to the plural even though the Hebrew is specifically singular, changing a discussion of an individual journey of faith into a communal one. I'm all in favor of that, in its proper place, and it does come up in places like Jn 16. But not here. Also, the NRSV seems especially weak in dealing with Greek participles, a really important feature of the language.)
The NASB touts itself as being an especially faithful yet readable translation, but it does things like changing biblical units of measurement into American ones, in the process ruining the symbolic significance of certain passages like in Revelation. (The worst: the significance of '12,000 stadia' [12x10^3] and '144 cubits' [12x12] are lost in favor of '1,500 miles' and '72 yards', the second especially egregious since one of the 12s is distorted into a 6, which connotes incompleteness and evil, kind of a bad idea when describing the New Jerusalem. Not that the measures [or the vision itself] ought to be taken literally; but that's part of the problem with the fundamentalist American impulse behind the NASB. And I see that the NRSV thinks splitting the difference by using the mile and cubit measures is a good solution.)
Needless to say, I'm not a big fan of paraphrases like The Message.
tl;dr: check several translations and try to triangulate past the problem areas. Bible Gateway is a good resource for this

Conversely to the rest of the thread, here are some of the books more easily skipped:

In the OT, definitely Leviticus, as well as Numbers. 1-2 Chronicles is something of a tl;dr of the entire OT, but it's worth getting more in detail in the other books; it's kind of like flying over a stadium as opposed to attending in person. I suppose Obadiah is the least essential of the prophets given its length.

In the NT, I suppose Paul's Pastoral Epistles (i.e., addressed to individuals--Timothy, Titus, Philemon) aren't as essential in general as the general ones. 2-3 John and Jude too. (1 John is very good and worth a comparison to the Gospel of John [not that there's agreement that they're written by the same John, but there are intriguing parallels].) I guess Ephesians maybe among the general epistles, but it's good too. The Gospel of Mark is the shortest and least detailed of the Gospels (it does get right to the point though), and its content is basically covered by the other Synoptics (Matthew and Luke) in particular.

The plans for the tabernacle are given in Exodus. The boring parts of Leviticus are largely the first 7 chapters about sacrifices and offerings.

There's a scholar in ancient near eastern history that did a podcast-series on Leviticus which really makes you appreciate the book and makes it very bearable, if not interesting to read. If anyone is interested in understanding the stranger aspects of Leviticus, I'd highly recommend giving it a try:
nakedbiblepodcast.com/naked-bible-63-introducing-leviticus/