The Bible

How much does the Bible enrich your reading?

Is it worth reading in order to appreciate western works of literature?

And if so, which version

I really know nothing about this

Pic unrelated

when you read it, make sure you understand the context which it is written

I'd recommend reading the New Testament at least. Maybe at least one gospel and Paul's letters

people who don't know shit will say to read the KJV. Its a good translation, but the base text of the ESV and NASB is more reliable, if you care about that.

Idk how much it will enrich your reading. If anything I'd recommend reading it for historical reasons rather than anything else.

King James for Idioms, NSRV for content.

Thanks

Is the I-Ching the eastern literature equivalent of the bible?

p. much this
But also understand that the core language of the bible, Hebrew, was dead for around 400 years before it was "translated" into the modern form we know now, and much of what we have is complete guesswork. Because of this large chunks of the bible make no or little sense in context and you shouldn't be expecting a concise treatise so much as the collected ramblings of a bronze-age culture with an epilogue written by adherents more removed from the text itself than is often credited.

>Is it worth reading in order to appreciate western works of literature?

Definitely. Not knowing Biblical references will hamper you with a lot of literature. In addition, the narratives and poetry of many sections are fine literature in their own right. Some parts are more important than others, and a full reading will take a long time. Be sure to read the 4 gospels, the letter of Paul to the Romans, the Book of Genesis, the first part of Exodus (up to the ten commandments) and the Psalms. Read more if you are interested.

> And if so, which version

Going by your post I'll assume you want to look at the Bible as literature rather than Divine truth. If that's the case, read the KJV (King James Version) because it is generally regarded as the best for poetry and literary beauty in the English language. If you want a more accurate translation, go with the NRSV, though it lacks the KJV's majesty.

>much of what we have is complete guesswork
false

Fact. We have what are grammar- and syntax-wise more or less complete translations, but much of the original meaning is completely lost as the majority of phrases and words are simply being translated through post-revival Hebrew into English and then cross-referenced with other, more robust texts like the Greek gospels. The problem is that these language separations also represent huge changes of time and culture which makes our understanding of the modern text a patchwork of half-measures. Add to this many of the long lasting bastardizations of the text in the KJV which have become inseparable from the western christian canon and you get a translation that is more art than science.

No. The I-Ching is one of the Chinese classics, which has a high reputation in Confucianism, but it is not like what the Bible is to Christians or the Koran to Muslims. It is one of a selection of highly regarded texts by ancient masters, not the core of a religion. Still worth reading if you want to get into Chinese culture and religious history.

>eastern literature equivalent of the bible?
Check out the Bhagavad Gita

give me a source

>Ignoring the fact that scholars have worked for centuries to improve translation and create an accurate picture of the Hebrew text.

If what you were saying is true, biblical scholars would have huge disagreements about what different sections of the texts say or mean, which isn't the case. Unless you just mean that a translation in English will have different linguistic structure and emphasis than the original Hebrew/Greek, which is of course true.

I agree with you, but
>In addition, the narratives and poetry of many sections are fine literature in their own right.
is wrong. The "poetic" parts are in comparison to actual poetry pretty basic (it is a translation after all) and the nuances of the narratives only eye-opening in comparison to even older religious texts to see a development. Reading the Bible is boring for the most part, but worth it to understand references in modern culture (not just literature)

I think the poetry in the bible is good entry level poetry for someone new to the genre. Got me into poetry at least

Great, I only just read it in my early twenties and was underwhelmed, but as an entry into different poetry it seems well suited.
Thank you for showing me that angle of those texts.

>the base text of the ESV and NASB is more reliable
Yeah if you like reading texts found in Gnostic libraries that were probably edited to work in heresies.

I can't read the KJV because the mormons use it in their brainwashing ritual.

Then again anyone reading the book of mormon probably will believe it regardless because they're looking for something internally.

I fear such a book was designed to brainwash you so I'll never read it.

The bible must be helping me subconsciously. It is very hard for me to read the bible for more than an hour. I'm not even sure I understand anything I've been reading

What bible should I read if I'm a Catholic?

Anything that contains the deuterocanon aka "apocrypha".

You should have an idea of what happens in the Bible because virtually all Western literature is tied to Christianity in some way or another. You probably don't need to read the thing cover-to-cover unless you're really interested in it for it's own sake.

wtf are you talking about

Douay Rheims master race

Why are bible threads always posted with this image?

Haven't posted on Veeky Forums for a while, but I distincly remember bible threads always having this image from star wars, am I mad?

To the pertinent question, yes, it's probably about as fundamental as the Illiad

Not him but. All the churches (and early Christians) used to rely on the greek texts, because of secularism this is considered old-fashioned, thus most modern translations use the oldest non-greek sources. Which were not used by early Christians to begin with.

The most influential work in the entire western world, absolutely necessary in terms of understanding many other works in the canon.
Even if you're a fedora tipper, you need to read it.

I never denied the effort to improve the accuracies if the text, but no amount of editing is going to fix the core impossibility of maintaining narrative integrity through a 400 year language/culture death.
Also, while many elements of the original Hebrew are now bettet understood they are relegated to apocrypha or simply left out of the mainstream publications (such as the naming convention for God and its cultural/direct religious significance, preserved in more orthodox jewish denominations but omitted from even the footnotes of most Christian Old Testaments. Similarly, references to explicit Hebrew mythology that are now better understood are left in their bastardized KJV forms).

The point I'm trying to get across to OP is that a simple straight readthrough of the Bible is only going to generate more loose ends in need of clarification than it will direct answers and he shouldn't go in expecting to suddenly understand the Western canon better for having read the Cliff Notes.

the NASB and ESV don't use non greek sources.

That guy in the OP's pic is called Holo Bibbel - hence the punny use of the image. He was a good friend.

>"""""apocrypha"""""""

I am OP and you made me google that

Next time you can start a thread with this guy, he's was an even better friend.

I read the CEV when I was a teen. I got a lot out of it. Reason why is because my parents only read the Reina Valera translation.

...