Is he correct...

Where's Atlas Shrugged?

deep

First, if youre reading the bible for Veeky Forums you want the king james version. Second, read the new testament then the old. Simple as that.

Read the KJV if you want to read if for its literary beauty and influence

don't listen to pseudo-catholic shitposters

get a good kjv like the Norton which has about 1000 pages of supplementary material

Sincere question: why are the (presumably) christians in this board so salty about atheists reading the Bible? I've seen this in many other threads. Why?

Why we read is just as important as what we read.

I typically assume it's because they haven't a solid understanding of its history, the way that it fits into their tradition, or any understanding of hermeneutics. Without a working understanding of these, I suspect you can't stand up to either legitimate critique or silly mockery. If your approach to the Bible is "cuz jaysus said it," then I expect you get snippy and defensive.

This guy knows

Your moby dick is fucked

Mine was 4-500 pages

Why read any book that you've decided a priori to reject? You might as well save yourself the trouble and check out one of the many critical fedora summaries.

So if one reads to appreciate the text but not believe in it, one should not read at all? Do christians, then, not read The Qu'ran, or The Dhammapada or The Analects?

The book itself is not being rejected, only deity represented within it. I understand that this causes the stories to be seen as such: stories, rather then events that actually happened, but this doesn't — in my opinion, at least — diminishes their teachings and messages, not to mention the actual text, which remains the same however one perceives it.

Absolutely read the KJV. Its the most referenced in terms of classic literature regardless of what it leaves out or adds in

>The book itself is not being rejected, only deity represented within it
John 1

Religions can find understanding within each other.

Atheism is incompatible/antithetic with spirituality and thus makes any and all scriptures incomprehensible.
Whether an atheist reads the entire Bible or reads the wikipedia summary for each of the books it doesn't make a difference.

It is comical anyone can choose to be atheist without reading any scriptures in the first place.

Not a christian (not really an atheist either) and I think absolutely everyone in the western world should read the bible. It's absolutely the key text to understanding western culture, and there's so much you can gain from it even if you don't accept it's metaphysical assertions.

That's a good point, but sort of ignores everything else I said.

A wikipedia summary and the actual book are completely different texts, and the delivery can change the meaning of the message entirely.
Also, why assume that an atheist is incapable of putting himself in the place of a christian when reading the Bible? I understand that many don't, out of spite for religion or simple-mindedness, but if an atheist is willing to read a religious text, I would assume he is also willing to empathise with a religious person when reading it.

Please note that I'm just asking about the act of an atheist (or non-christian, for that matter) reading a religious text, not trying to make an discussion on atheism in general, so I'm not going to address the "comical" thing.

Thats a pretty ironic thing for a Catholic to say

>Don't read the King James - it wasn't a very good translation
>recommends papist bible
Like fucking clockwork

The worst part is the "it's not complete" nonsense, where they try to confuse people with a simplistic take on the issue of canon. Even if you want to consider the apocrypha as canon, the KJV translated them as well and there are still editions of the KJV apocrypha published today, so he's even wrong on that.