Is the Bible an objectively good book?

Is the Bible an objectively good book?

Can it be read page to page and enjoyed?

I'm Catholic and classically-educated, so I'm familiar with most Christian themes, but I've never actually read the thing.

Yeah it's pretty good.

what's the definitive English translation?

This fucking board is dead

Nah read the Book of Revelation. More interesting...

Are the Everyman's Library version of Old and New Testament as detailed as the original KJV? And with original I meant year 1611.

There is no definitive English translation.

Unlike other books, which usually have some access to the original manuscripts or at least only have one author, the Bible is composed by many people and none of the original manuscripts of either the OT or the NT have survived. In that sense, the search for definitiveness is impossible/absurd on that basis alone, without even considering things like writing style, quality of sources used, textual criticism, etc.

If you want to understand the Bible, you will need to read multiple translations.

Boring as fuck and reddit-tier

Please answer to this post

No, since it lacks the crosslinks, the few translation notes, and the summaries that the original 1611 KJV had.

It's SHIT, because capitalising RANDOM words gets REALLY fucking ANNOYING

What? The only thing I can see this being applied to are the capitalization of God and LORD (the later is to avoid confusion as the title 'Lord' is used frequently for other people).

Why they just don't put Yahweh or Jehovah (except New World Translation, as least they have the balls to do it) is beyond me.

Reading 'LORD' and 'the LORD' instead of a name is awkward and unfaithful to the test.

Old Testament is kind of boring, but it has it's moments. It's really just a compilation of history books. New Testament is much more interesting imo.

unfaithful to the text*

I like the Jerusalem Bible a lot. But it's mostly based on French.

Which bible should I read?

Is there more than one version thats relevant to the understanding books involved in the great conversation? I'm being completely serious I don't remember much from when I was a boy and went to church so I don't even know what types of bibles there are, I only know that different churches and versions of Christianity seem to tell their own versions of the bible.

>LORD (the later is to avoid confusion as the title 'Lord' is used frequently for other people).

nah, that's not why

It's because of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH. Besides a few Bibles of the past, most don't translate it to Yahweh/Jehovah, but just translate it as if it were the word "Adonai", which is "Lord".

Because the OT was written when you had to worry about other gods. Simply calling the Abrahamic God "Lord" implies that he's the only one. Plus, "YHWH" isn't exactly a "name", so much as it's his main title -- it's really not much different from "El Shaddai" or The Almighty, for example.

IMHO, the best translation would be what "YHWH" actually means: via Exodus 3:13-16, it'd probably make sense as "He who Is" or "The One who Is". Admittedly, it's kind of an awkward translation, but it re-emphasizes that 1) it's not actually God's name and 2) God *is*, in all senses of the word.

>i'm a catholic and never read the bible

What do you recommend?

Also currently reading it.
Blatantly skipped the Books of Chronicles.

Will I regret it sempai?

If you're reading a Christian Bible (i.e. one with both the Old and New Testaments) that is sold on a wide market, I can guarantee you it's not much different from other Bibles. There are only handfuls of denotative changes between Bible translations, and most variances are due to the manuscripts used to translate, the writing styles of the translators, and the inclusion of Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books.

In a word, there aren't many/any ideological differences between Bible translations, at least as it applies to the OT and NT.

Chronicles has some different details about the same events as Kings essentially. You won't regret it, but some time you may want to go through it.

Not the other guy, but nope, you won't regret skipping Chronicles. Besides maybe Asaph (who is one of the "songwriters" of Psalms), none of the inclusions in Chronicles are particularly noteworthy.

It should be noted that Chronicles is the very last book in the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible (in a word, the historical Jewish ordering of the Old Testament), so at the very least, it was not deemed as necessary to read right after Kings.

Your best bet would be an 1873 version (The Cambridge Paragraph Bible). At the minimum, it includes the translation notes that were in the 1611 KJV.

The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible is the most recent version of it, with only minor readability changes to be more in line with standard KJV bibles (and still including the notes). However, it's like 55 USD before shipping, so there's that... And be sure, if you do try to get it, *not* to get the Penguin Classics version, which doesn't include the notes -- instead, get the version published by Cambridge themselves.

>claims to be catholic
>has never read the bible

Fuck off, m8.

>I'm Catholic and classically-educated, so I'm familiar with most Christian themes, but I've never actually read the thing.
Wha-?
That's like saying
>"I'm a classically trained Trad Catholic and I know zero Latin"
It doesn't compute.
Also, Catechism classes would have taught you that the bible is a collection of books, not 'a book', and that it comes in a variety of styles.
And since Mass includes readings from the bible you would be familiar with a great deal of the contents by simply hearing it over and over every week for your entire life.
So - I call bullshit

>unfaithful to the text
>posts Jehovah's witness bible

I was using the example of a name. All bible translations have their own interpretations.

I guess that's fair. just an odd thing to do.
I believe the reasoning is that it's translated to English; Jehovah or even the Tetragrammaton YHWH aren't English and so get translated to Lord and LORD, which was definitely a bad idea. Too many Americans forget that the Bible belonged to another people, cutting out the original names in favor of familiar ones doesn't help that fact.
However I do think it's odd that we say "Jesus", retaining the Greek translation over the original "Yeshu'a" or even English "Joshua". Never made much sense to me

From wiki, it appears to be one long game of telephone:

>The name Jesus is derived from the Latin "Iesus", a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς ("Iesous"). The Greek form is a rendering of the Hebrew ישוע (Yeshua), a variant of the earlier name יהושע (Yehoshua), in English "Joshua".

I would say the King James translation triumphed in doing exactly what they set out to do, but that the Bible's literature content gets given a massive amount of leeway due to the obvious religious significance and popularity.

Just like the Quran "Challenge" to write chapters that match any part of it in quality: From a prose perspective you probably could write something superior, but like fuck would it ever be accepted as being so by anyone

>Catholic
>never actually read the Bible
Catholic Church: the post

All right I'll check if I can get the Cambridge Paragraph Bible published in 1873 or just finally settle with the latest version of CPB, Thank you, mate.

Is this the one?

Yep, that's the one.

>you will need to read multiple translations.
Namely which?

Self-pasta from a thread a couple of days ago:

I've been wanting to read it through but I can't bring myself to it. So far I waded my way through the Pentateuch, then jumped to the poetic books which I loved, now I'm looking to read a small assortment of the historical and prophetic books before I move on to the Jesus part.

The big five start off amazingly, but it slowly goes downhill by the midpoint of Genesis, somewhere after the flood. They're repetitive and feel like a loose compilation whose editor, contrary to modern practices, didn't want to sift through the material and keep what was best and essential but rather looked to cram in as much as he could while still making a general impression of unity. The most boring parts were not, as I had been warned, the laws in Ex, Deut and Num--actually I found those quite interesting--but rather the actual narrative which seemed to me very topical, parochial, thus irrelevant. Most people would disagree though. On the whole however, the big five were worth it.

The poetic books were far better. Ecclesiastes and Job are, well, God-tier; Job does feel just as puffed up and badly edited as the above, though its form flaws are very much forgivable in light of the content. The Proverbs and Psalms have soothed and lulled me these few winter nights; "comfy" is, I believe, the board-approved term. Did I say repetitive? Can't help repeating that. Still not repetitive enough to bore me as much as the wilderness wanderings and subsequent shenanigans. As for Ecclesiastes, it should be taught in schools and read by everybody.

From the Historical books I've read last night Ruth and Esther, which were quick and fun and do not fit in with the rest anyway. They were recommended in an old archived thread. A few days ago an user was preaching about Lamentations and Isaiah. Any other worthy, hopefully short, books in the good ol' shekel-aficionados' Bible, Veeky Forums? What about the Apocrypha, anything good in there?

Oh, and another question for you Bible experts out there: when does the Holy Ghost show up for the first time? So far I haven't encountered even once those words.

Any modern translation. NRSV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, NAB, HCSB etc. All good.

Simple.
for the majority of history the primary bible was the Vulgate, which is Latin. The Latinization Yehoshua is Iesus. Since the Vulgate is about as old as Anglo-Frisian in English (and many other European languages) use variations of this.

Nah, it's BS.
See

You said multiple translations, seemingly implying that one should try more than one. I should add to my towering blog post that I'm reading the Oxford Annotated Bible which uses the NRSV translation. After this I'm planning to read what will prove to be my favourite books in the KJV. Should I try other translations than these two that are both different enough and good enough?

>Oxford Annotated Bible
You better have the Deutero-Canonical version, kohai

I've made a mess of my post. What I mean is this: after I'm done reading the NRSV annotated bible, I'm planning to read those books that will turn out to be my favourite in the KJV translation as well. Do you know of any other translations out there that are very good and significantly different from both of these two?

It has a section called the Apocrypha which specifies which of the books included are accepted by Catholics, which by the Greek Orthodox, etc. It includes Psalm 151, the additions to the book of Esther, some Ezras and Maccabees and others. Is that what you meant?

I personally don't think you need to read multiple translations, I was just recommending good ones. Sometimes reading a certain paragraph in multiple translations is good for clarification though. This can easily be done online.

Having said that, NRSV and KJV should be a good pairing.

That is basically 90% of catholics. That doesn't mean their faith is invalid, lots of people exercise their spirituality going to the church and such

Yes, but you would think people would take this shit seriously if they sincerely believe in it.

How can you not read the holy central text of your religion?

It's weird, but this is how it seems to be when raised in a religion. You are surrounded by it, so you never really feel the need to dig in, or at least I didn't. I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, and it wasn't until I was around 21 that I started actually reading the bible and seeing what I thought it was about. I stopped going to the meetings when I was about 15/16, but I've always been interested in religion.

I find that late adopters to religions can actually know more than people who were brought up in it. They seek out the texts and try to understand more instead of just blindly accepting it because it's all you know.

...

The Bible is read at church tho..

The bible was only read by members of the clergy and scholars until, like, the Reformation. Would you call a common dude during Aquinas or whoever's time not a christian?

You may have used a historical example, but the shit you've just produced is incredibly naive. You can't simply remove context - it is extremely easy to read the bible in the present day, in Aquinas' time, less so (as you have quite rightly outlined).

That's not to say I disagree with you on the overall argument, I don't think someone needs to have read the central holy texts of a religion to legitimately identify as someone of that religion. It's just that your post is a terrible way to argue it.

The parts that are good are great but most of it is an uphill slog. Very worth it as far as cultural-reference goes but it's pretty unenjoyable by modern standards.

Not to worry. Many """Christians""" haven't.

This is legitimately a massive problem, Pope Benedict made real progress on the situation then Francis fucked over all his hard work.

It's alright as a work of Fantasy.

KEK

As a work of fantasy it would be terribly boring.

The book should be read. It's meaning are symbolic and they're coming true all around us. The book has the speed of light in hit and the celestial bodies far away that's light is only now reaching earth. It's real but not literal. Like poetry you know analogy metaphor parable that stuff because the literals aren't permi5ted to understand. God's a bretty cool guy and doesnt afraid of anything but he says blasphemy is unforgivable which is a bit harsh but what do I k owyou...

Just started reading it myself

Its better than LOTR in my opinion. Its really interesting.

I'm on Exodus right now. Moses has been using a magical staff fucking egypt up like a motherfucker. He's betrayed his brother. Heartbreaking and exciting. Really surprised how much I'm actually enjoying this.

for old testament - Rob Alter (though he has yet to finish all the books)
for new testament - Richard Lattimore

From a fellow Christian, I like to read it from narrative stance. Here's the sequence I like to read:

The four gospels of Jesus Christ - Told from four different perspectives on the man Yeshua Ben Yoshef from Bethlahem. The setting is set in the surrounding city towns of Israel which is occupied by the Imperialist Legion of the Roman Army under Pontius Pilate, King Herod, and the Sanhedrin.

Go then to the story of Abraham. A man from the city of Ur. Called of G-d to go into the desert under a promise that he will have many children and land because G-d saw him as great humble man that he wanted to esteem. Nomadic, he travels a lot and sees a lot and is tested. He almost sacrifices his own son on the same hill as...you guessed it...the Temple Mount. Tada.

Continue through the rest of Genesis to Moses. Woah intense. Yeah they snuffed out Moshe out of Egypt History but he and the 12 tribes were there. Awesome wonders there. Epic.

Onto the founding of the Iron Ages of Israel. The Davidic Bloodline. The people obeying then disobeying G-d over and over again. Finally one of the most fascinating and exciting parts are the stories of the Babylonian and Persian occupation of Israel. Along with the prophets and Daniel. Follow with the smaller prophets.

Finally return to the New Testament and The Book of Acts after Jesus had come and resurrected and ascended to sit beside The LORD. Now we read the accounts of the Apostles and the growing of the Church and ending with another prophesy that is the Book of Revelation.

Next part of the series is the question of how this small sect of believers ended up taking over the hearts of the Number 1 EMPIRE of the World, Rome. Then after Constantine and so on Rome was run under a pope. WHOM THE HUNS DARE NOT CROSS FOR AN UNKNOWN REASON. Germanic tribes and the Royalty of Europe.

Bottom line: G-d made everything good and every being is given free choice. Bad decisions have consequences by principle. We made a lot and sin. Sin against each other, ourselves, and most importantly to G-d who is long-suffering and awesome and...I mean G-d!. There is redemption through the covenant. Sin brings death. Accept Jesus Christ as amendment for sin and be made clean. Grow in character and Love G-d. Amen.

Denying the Bible of it's authenticity and title of like...Planet Earth cannon lol...is denying a lot. It is a Good Book.

Calm your autism.

I mean I've never sat down with a Bible and read it page by page.

kys, you fucking faggot

how can you claim to be a catholic while never having read the bible

fuck you

What's your personal favorite version of Bible or the Bible you personally prefer over other versions?

Nah man that's the climax, you gotta have the build to it.

Read through the whole bible over the course of a month, I really enjoyed it to be honest.

I prefer the most accurate translation of the original text. and it really isnt all that accurate, NRSV and Lattimore, so I read studies on whatever I want to know more about. Which is easy, there's more written on the Bible than any other book and dozens of online Bible websites that have just about every translation, including original. I'm always sure to read up on the original Hebrew or Aramaic, the cultural and historical context, any Jewish commentary. That's more important than reading multiple translations.
I read the KJV for the dramatic biblical aesthetic.

online bibles are actually a huge resource, now that I'm thinking about it

My major criteria for a favorite would be:
1) Good/modern manuscript sources used
2) Apocrypha translated as well (at least as an addendum) -- preferably, all major Apocryphal books, not just the Roman Catholic deuterocanon
3) Ecumenical translation team, or at least, not someone(s) with an obvious ideological agenda

Minor criteria would be a mixture of readability, having some sense of seriousness, and having minimal awkwardness. (Side note: having looked "behind the scenes" at how difficult translating Hebrew/Koine Greek is, I no longer put too much weight on strict faithfulness to the texts: the books would be nigh unreadable if that were the case. In the same sense, ALL translations into English take *many* liberties in translating the original languages -- that is mostly fine, since the meaning is preserved)

Pound for pound, the NRSV is the only one that gets almost everything, and it's been my translation of choice for that reason.

These sound like great suggestions, thanks. I hope I can find them as ebooks online. I'm currently reading the NRSV as my first read, then I'll read my favourite books in the KJV.

>the NRSV is the only one that gets almost everything, and it's been my translation of choice for that reason.
Which one specifically? Can you post a picture of the one you have?

No it isn't. Firstly, it's fictional. So toss out any notion that anything in it is more realistic than a Spider-Man comic. Add to this the... plot holes basically. It is shit mythology.

Harold Bloom recommends KJV. What else you want? Go read that.

The Douay-Rheims is the most patrician translation out there & of course it is the intended translation for Catholics.

Alright thank you very much. I'll pick up a bible from the good will then.

what is your thought on ignatius the holy bible revised standard version second catholic edition?

Start reading. You don't want to have only second-hand knowledge of your own holy scriptures do you?

Read all of it - bit by bit. You should do it at least once in your life.

Mandatory:

>The Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (quoted by Jesus more than any other book)

>The Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John

Recommended:

>Poetry: Job, Psalms, Song of Songs

>Wisdom: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes

>Prophecy: Isaiah, Jeremiah (also good for studying chiastic structures, as is Joshua), Daniel, Micah, Malachi, Revelation

>Spiritual Wisdom and Warfare: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John, Colossians, and James.

>Early Church: Acts

>Other: Lamentations, Joshua, 1st and 2nd Samuel, 1st Kings, Hebrews (these are just good)

I HIGHLY recommend reading the entire thing, but I've tried to break down some of the ones I really like by category so you can go with what you feel like reading first.

Editions I like are KJV and NKJV (what I read most as a child), and NASB.

I forgot to add Ezekiel to the "Prophecy" section.

Ezekiel is really good. I especially like the early portions.

Only autists who didn't actually grow up Catholic would even dare suggest that the Bible is a 'good' read. Does Veeky Forums reddit hatred really make this many of you do all these mental gymnastics to stay contrarian as possible? What, the fucking Bible is a page turner now? You'd genuinely crack it open on a long haul flight or train ride?

Delete this board.

>You'd genuinely crack it open on a long haul flight or train ride?

if this is your measure of the value of literature i genuinely pity you

No its my measure or staying grounded in reality and not typing out sentences like "Ezekiel is really good!" Yeah, alright you fucking spastics.

Let me guess 'Normies out!!", "Reee" etc?

Trying way too hard, Veeky Forums veterans don't usually take such obvious bait. You've got to be subtle about it.

>i-if it's bait then it's not real

Wew

>Reddit: The Post

Why don't you try this shit called kill yourself?

And subtract that the history of Western Civilization and Thought were completely dependent on it's existence.

Also subtract that Abraham and Jesus have had a longer reaching influence on mankind's affairs than virtually any other human being.

Also subtract that large portions of it are archeologically and/or historically supported.

Also subtract that it's one of the oldest examples of literature we have.

Need I go on?

Oh man, he's just too cool for us guys.

The Lord of Edgelords is among us at long last.

Bequeath us thine edgy wisdom ye teen overlord.

> tipping intensifies

If you haven't read the Bible at least once you're a pseud of the highest order

Nice spooks nerds

>le stirner meme
Wow you're so witty and smart how have your 3 weeks on Veeky Forums been?

Nice post.

Really really got under everyone's skin.

Matthew 7:6 was written with you in mind. That's how providence works.

Was only targeted at one person, genius.

I read it cover to cover earlier this year. It's the third translation I've read, but I had just read the "major" books before. I found it engaging enough to keep my interest. I would sincerely recommend to accompany it with commentary or a textbook as they can greatly help your understanding.

>Is the Bible an objectively good book?
yes

>I'm Catholic and classically-educated, so I'm familiar with most Christian themes, but I've never actually read the thing.
and yet im sure you still endlessly shit on sola scriptura

Oh right, how can I tell? By the fact that you directly replied to that post? Ha ha oh yea!

On a serious note, I laughed at your post because you aren't hiding behind enough layers of irony. Your sarcasm smacks of something I can't really place but just know tastes like shit. Work on it Kouhai.

>What, the fucking Bible is a page turner now?
you're obviously new. the Bible is the only book to ever get consistently informative threads and productive discussion, and religion is almost never the focal point.
the Bible is the single most influential book in western culture, not everything is an intellectual fashion show.

There ia literally no reason to be as knee-jerkingly dismissive of the Bible as atheists who pretend to know anything about it are

I wanted to learn about the Bible because of its massive impact on Western Civilization and culture.

Read "Don't Know Much About the Bible" by Kenneth Davis. It's an agnostic book-by-book examination without all the Begats and other excruciating minutia. And it explores the real-world motivations for the lessons of the Bible.

If you are not familiar with the historical context, and the extent to which it effects the development of the old testament, then I would highly recommend this as supplemental reading