/lit/ - Literature

>>11725887
You don't create a religion that takes over most of the known world without having world class literature

>>11725887
>Christfags and Fedorafags: don't bother answering.

What does this mean

>>11725893
>popular = good

>>11725900
Don't play dumb.

I think both are good. The Bible is more accessible, especially since it consists of many books so it has something for everyone. The disjointed style of the Quran puts off a lot of readers, but I think it's quite powerful once you've familiarized yourself with the religion through other books.

>>11725887
>im a radical centrist!!

>>11725927
Literally what does my question have to do with politics you dunce

>>11725968
I'll answer your question OP, since everyone else here is gues bult faggot: No, both are not. Both are absolute tripe and filled with repetition and total nonsensical stories that boil down to your average run of the mill good fortune story. Religious, non historical texts are some of the worst reads out there. avoid at all costs

>>11725887
>in terms literary merit
There is none. Reading excerpts and/or relevant parts and the psalms is more than enough. Absolutely no point in reading the whole thing. Book of chronicle for example is literally just a list of names. How people spend their whole life studying this book is beyond me but then again I am just a dumb little non regilious anon. Can't speak for the quran but it is most likely the same shit.

>>11725887
No, none at all.

>>11726026
>>11726054
>>11726066
>>11725887
t.

>>11725887
I've yet to meet an informed person who thinks the Quran is worth reading in translation, but I wouldn't know

>>11725887
the book of Daniel is fucking gold in the King James version

>>11726085
If you get an annotated version with commentary, it is certainly beneficial to read it in translation if you want to know about Islam outside of memes

No. It’s objectively shit. It’s borderline unreadable.

>>11725887
It has some great books (genesis, exodus, job, kings 1, jonah, most of the NT) but it has some slow ones too (leviticus, chronicles)
The bible is one of the most important books in western canon anyways

>>11725903
When something stays popular over 2 millennia then yeah usually its pretty fucking good

ecclestiates, proverbs, and revalations have some of the best thinking and metaphor out of all books

and while reading the bible is an oblique and miserable experience, it will also teach you symbolic literacy, which is needed more than ever today

>>11726054
Only a brainlet would say what you just said.

>>11725887
I speak both Arabic and Hebrew. Read the Quran fully, read half (scattered) of the Hebrew Old Testament.
Quran - Epic poems telling men to fear and obey God, with some Hebrew mythology in between. It is impressively written and very rewarding to read in Arabic. Translations would be boring if you aren't a monotheist.
Bible - Hebrew mythology and history (inaccurate one at that) with some divine rules here and there. Written in a boring matter, translations can actually be better than the original. The stories are rich though and reading through them is interesting. If you skip around, the Bible can be fun.
Keep in mind that most people recommending you the Bible in /lit/ are fundie christfags who are equivalent to people who watch porn for the plot.

>>11725887
Bible is a massively entertaining read, not least because of its influence on later Western culture

I would say half the bible is really good and the other half is just a pain in the ass to read

>>11726507
>he doesn’t unironically enjoy Leviticus and Numbers
NEVER
GONNA
MAKE IT

>>11725887
the old testament has some great stuff although i wasnt able to appreciate it until i read some of it for class as a sociopolitical and cultural text instead of a religious text and heard my professor lecturing it. new testament isnt worth reading though it is mostly a religious text.

>>11725893
>>11726116

The problem with this assessment is that it overlooks the fact that all these people were indoctrinated and forced into reading it.
If someone convinces you that a certain book contains the literal word of God then chances are you are going to consider it the greatest and most important thing written, ever.
But the question is, can it stand on its own, or does it need all the myth and prestige built around it for it to be even worth the paper its printed on?

In short, it is the most shilled book in all of history, so popularity is a wildly deceiving measure

>>11726715
this

>>11726116
even though in an absolutist position your premise is objectively false, that you use "usually" makes it even weaker. try to justify and include caveats in your popular = good argument all you want, it's still shit at the end of the day.

this isn't to say from a literary perspective the bible, or the koran, aren't good, just that you need a better argument if you're going to claim such.