/lit/ - Literature

Read it as historical narrative for the first part and as a teaching for the second part.

Look up passages if you want to find out how it connects

You should know everything that happens already through cultural diffusion or else you're probably a moron. The bible is fucking awful and no one should ever bother reading it. There is approximately no evidence at all for christ and it's in general a massive waste of time about how to keep a large population of ancient people in-line and alive.

>>4888637
>missing the point entirely

>>4888640
There is no point. "wow don't he a shithead, oooooh". Culturally it's irrelevant as, like I said, if you somehow do not know the events of the bible by adulthood you're a moron and it will not be of use to you to attempt to read it.

The Bible is a passing fad.

>>4888644
>wow don't he a shithead, oooooh

>>4888655
So what's the actual point then? The logistics of slavery? Everything is a "metaphor" once it has an explanation except jesus even though there's no shred of proof he ever lived? "it's important because it is even though my only point is 'ur wrong'"?

You're just disagreeing. There is no reason to read the bible. It's all fake and if you have not picke up all of the events and stories by the time you're old enough to make this OP you wil get -nothing- from it.

Enjoy wasting your time on a sand cult.

>>4888668
Of course there's no point in reading the Bible. There's no point in reading Joyce or Kierkegaard or Pynchon, either. Actually, there isn't any objective "point" to reading anything at all.

We read things because we want to. That's it. Be it out of a thirst for knowledge, a hunger for perspective, or a desire for culture, we read things because we want to.

OP here wants to read the Bible. The "point" isn't what matters whatsoever.

There's no reason to be so upset that somebody wants to do something that you don't want to do yourself.

Read some works on Israelite+Judaean history.

For a unit I took, I bought A History of Ancient Israel and Judah by Miller and Hayes, The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman, and A Biblical History of the Bible by Povan, Long and Longman. I'm sure any decent work will do (be wary of that last one).

Maybe instead of focusing more on history and archaeology and such, you might try a book on the literary composition of the Bible. I can't recommend anything yet, sorry.

I'm not telling you to go through all of these before opening the Bible again, of course, but I'm sure a little will give you the requisite grounding. I read the first few chapters of the first text by Miller and Hayes before reading the first few books of the Bible, then read some more of the text, then some more of the bible etc.

I know it seems like a lot of background reading to do, but as someone who was practically clueless regarding the bible, it was necessary for me, and although I haven't even finished the Old Testament, my appreciation, understanding, and all round enjoyment are what they would never have been had I jumped into the Bible without any prior knowledge of it. I guess I can only give you my experience.

>>4888637
This level is blatant ignorance is comical for a lit board.

>>4888695
This should be stickied.

>>4888626

I was raised in a Christian family. I've never read the bible from cover to cover, but I could tell you what happens in pretty much every story just from years of sermons and Sunday school. You probably don't need to read the whole thing cover to cover.

>>4889159

Sorry, I meant to elaborate on that. You can probably open up the bible and read certain books or sections of the bible. The sequence is not super important if you're a white person because you probably already known the gist of the bible in a chronological sense.

If you would like to read cover to cover, you should get a good study bible. The kind that has footnotes (life application if you want to know how passages of the bible relate to Christian life or maybe a scholarly one if you want another perspective). The good Life Application bibles have huge footnotes that make all the subtleties easy to understand and explain how they relate to you.

>>4889172
>Life Application

OP says he is not religious and is interested in the book for its historical and cultural import, he doesn't need to be told what the story of the man who butchered his concubine means for his relationship with Republican Jesus. OP, get a New Oxford Annotated Bible. It's in a readable translation and its annotations are actually about the book instead of being proselytic garbage.

>>4889172

pic related. As you can see, each book is prefaced with chronology and background. When you get to the actual texts, footnotes often take up half the page, so they are quite exhaustive. If you're reading alone, you'll probably need it because actual Christians tend to go to church to get their interpretation of the bible. If you know nothing about the bible, you'll need notes.

>>4889111
Since you seem new here, you should realize the population of /lit/ at any given time has a sizable number of drifters from other boards who come wanting: 1) a book that's like eva/true detective/whatever, 2) verification that gaming/music/whatever is really as worthwhile as literature, or 3) to talk about some popular book/intro to philosophy/politics/whatever topic they just discovered, and then a portion of those stick around for an uncertain amount of time just to shit-post.

>>4889176

What would this historical and cultural import be exactly? All you really need to know is how these passages are interpreted. I feel like the only reason someone would read the people for cultural reasons, is so they can understand literature like Moby-Dick and in that case, you'd need to understand how the stories relate to Christian life as parables.

I would start with the New Testament, because it's way more relevant to modern Christianity and Christian thinking, and because it communicates *a lot* of things in a relatively short page count.

I like to research the context behind Bible passages so that I can fully understand what they're trying to communicate, but I haven't exactly found a Perfect Compendium of Biblical Contexts.

>>4889187

That's every board. Except /tv/ has it much worse than /lit/. Most people seem to be crossposters with limited film knowledge.

>>4888626
With a notepad out ready to take notes on all the shit that doesn't make sense.
>ooh edgy le tip
Okay fine here's how it's done
>Pick up bible
>Realize the bible is shit-tier mythology. At most there's a guy who kills a bunch of people with a jawbone, like one giant, and the book of Revelations
>Put it down and read some fucking awesome mythology like Greek gods fucking each other and sending offspring down to battle minotaurs and gorgons and monsters and shit.
But 4srs just pick up one of those study bibles and read along with the footnotes, if your set on studying the bible
Or you could read pic related for shits and giggles.

>>4889187
I'm not opening the thread but I'm pretty sure the guy you're quoting is talking about me.

I like modernism and postmodernism and history. That doesn't make the bible not worthless to adult, non-christians. The message is lost to the ages, the main character didn't exist, the morals are outdated, the stories are common knowledge.

It's a shit.

>>4889534

Jesus did exist. There's more case for that than Homer's existence. It's just not likely he was the son of god.

>>4888626
Read genesis exodus job proverbs ecclesiastes daniel and the new testament. Note memorable passages. That's enough, you don't want to become a minister I guess

>>4888626
>Cover to cover
How do you plebs even think books work? Would you try to read any other book by just reading selected passages and skipping back and forth between chapters, and then go on to have the audacity to claim that you've read the book?

Really, what the fuck do you even think you're doing?

Maybe you're just too pleb to read the Bible son.

>>4888626
You read the bible when you are confident enough as to know what parts will help you. If you read every family tree there's not really much point, but if you can't find other books outside of the basic editions then you'll lose important stuff.
Reading the bible is like reading ulyses, and you don't do that only one time and get the full experience.

>>4888626
Never read it entirely but I suppose you shouldn't have to read them chronologically. And there's probably tons of theological guides out there, pick one. To get a great philosophical taste of it, read the Ecclesiastes, a really short and insightful book.

>>4889584
except the bible is not one book, you fool.

>>4888695
This guy knows what's up.

>>4889619
Are you really this retarded? I mean really, HURR IT'S 66 BOOKS DURR

Shut the fuck up you basic pleb. It is one book, and it's meant to be read as one book. If it wasn't you've be able to pick up a book of Ruth at B&N with your mocha latte.

>>4888695
I really feel that if people keep explaining this we're gonna get a great 4chan in 3 or 4 more years.

>>4888653
*tips trilby*

>>4889153
>>4889641
>Wow, that guys defense was so good.

It was essentially "Dude, it's all subjective, people should read it because they want to!"

But if I started the same thread and said "Guys, I want to read Harry Potter, but I find it so hard to get through, how do I do it?" Nobody would be using this defense.

That alone should be enough to show that this guy's defense isn't really valid either.

So why read the Bible? Why is it more worthy of defense than Harry Potter, or 50 Shades, or whatever /lit/ would normally hate. What *actual* arguments are worth being made for its substance other than "Do it 'cause you want to."

If I were to make that defense, the only thing I could say is that certain parts of the Bible make for interesting mythology. So if you like studying myths, and all of the reasons those myths may have arisen, the Bible may be interesting to you.

But otherwise, that anon was basically correct, the Bible isn't a particularly good read. I wouldn't call it elegant prose. It's just a mythology which stuck thanks to historical accidents. It won't even give you deep cultural insight, especially not the OT. So much of that remains unread and out of the public eye.

OP should just read the Divine Comedy.

>>4888695
>Actually, there isn't any objective "point" to reading anything at all.
I agree so much I stop agreeing.

>>4889646

I've seen a critical poll of the greatest books that included Book of Job on its own. The right people consider them separate books. The only reason it's packaged as one book is because together they constitute the teachings of Christianity. You can buy the gospels on their own or the NT on its own.

>>4889658
Parts of it have, if not elegant prose, a strong and distinctive and worthwhile style. Yes, a lot of it (especially the OT) is devoted to mind-numbingly dull genealogy, or tedious religious laws, or plodding chronicles. I wouldn't recommend anyone read the whole thing. But there are parts of it that have stylistic value and there are parts that have strong cultural relevance. The idea that there's nothing of worth in Genesis or Exodus, or Job or Ecclesiastes, or John, or 1 Romans - this is not tenable to me.

Also I don't have any problem with people reading Harry Potter if they find it fun but that's just me.

>>4889683
>Or John

Le god gift his only 1 liek dis if u cri evry tiem ;_;

No srsly it realed!

>>4889689
for real?

for real real?

>>4889689
Revelations is pretty fucking neat

>>4889658
>poor summarization using buzzwords
>straw man argument
>using 4chan's ignorance as an example of why a defense is untrue

why

Although I personally find it very regrettable, the influence of judeo-christian tradition on the development of western civilization is undeniable and very much alive to this day. Obviously the bible is a foundational book for western tradition of thought. One has to be a really vulgar intellectual like Dawkins to dismiss the importance of this book on culture and historical development as irrational ramblings of either deluded or hungry for power madmen. There are very serious points the book tries to make, codified for its time, and then reinterpreted over and over again to suit the needs of whoever was in power or trying to seize it. For me, one of the most interesting aspects of the bible is how JC represented a revolutionary break from the ruling ideology of the times, to the point it is still relevant two thousand years later. I suggest you only read the actual book for reference and find good commentary on whatever particular aspects of the book you find interesting: philosophical, antrophological, religious, political, cultural, whatever, you get the point. Good luck, OP, just don't take it too seriously and start believing it, ok?

"You know everything if you were raised Christian anyway" is completely false
The stories everyone knows from the Bible are from Genesis, Exodus and other first few books from OT
I have no idea about all the Jewish kings and what happens after they settle in the promised land or whatever
And I didn't even know about the book of job before I came to /lit/

>>4889658
>I wouldn't call it elegant prose.

"I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

>being this fucking ignorant

>>4889974
I'm sorry for being a massive fag. I'm real steamed about the history of YHVH being a tribal war god and the lack of any real evidence for Jesus. A muslim friend explained to me that there are misunderstandings of the same basic message.

I get that, but I don't know if I agree abrahmic religions are "the way/light/whatever".


Maybe I have just blasphemed so much I'm afraid to even try ;^(

>>4890059
The evidence for Jesus's existence and crucifixion by the authorities is virtually undeniable
You might as well deny the existence of every major ancient figure
I know it's very tempting to pretend he didn't exist so you can convert people but guess what, it's bullshit

>>4890064
The only secular evidence I have ever seen was from either 64 or 84AD, and merely referred to christians as a quaint cult. Can you show otherwise?

>>4890073
> In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

>Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

> Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

>>4889658

>why read the most influential text in History

>>4890093
>exmormom.com
>wankgate.com
>socialanxietysupportgroup.com

>>4890101
Nice argument.

>>4890108
Four "non-biased" modern sources that are basically titled "Muh Jesus" eloquently summed up the total lack of evidence as having 'virtually no support'?

People citing contemporary christian sources on a dubiously named wikipedia article does not mean very much.

>>4890073
I don't have links on hand, but there are historical records of an actual Jesus. Romans loved their paperwork.

Basically no matter how you feel about the New Testament, it's fairly certain there was a Jew by the name of Jesus who was part of a particular subsect of Judaism and proselytized his beliefs.

Anyone who doesn't believe Jesus was at least a man may as well disavow the existence of Socrates and countless other ancient figures.

>>4890116
Sure bro, "if I don't like the references I can just ignore them"

>>4888668
The fact that you didn't take it seriously, doesn't mean that everyone else has done so throughout history. A major part of Western civilization is based upon biblical and church teachings. It's not real for you, but it was real for a lot of others, who have shaped the world in ways you will never even be able to dream of doing yourself. To see what motivated them, to see what their world was like, and to understand where you come from, is pretty nice to know.

The whole atheist ''fuck duh bible'' culture is strange to me, because from what I can tell, they always appreciate Norse mythology and Greek mythology, but hate Palestinian mythology because mommy and daddy pretend that God is a sky santa that gives them presents if they ask him nicely. Even though it's just mythology nontheless.

>>4889534
You've watched Zeitgeist, haven't you?

>>4890135
The bias is painfully clear. I know a number of people who are bitter towards Christianity but okay with various pagan systems, and some even defend other monotheistic faiths.

Atheists need to check their culture privilege

>>4889646
The bible was only put into ''one book'' hundreds of years after the gospels had been written, and they were bound, read, and distributed individually during the most important ages of forming christianity.

But keep trying, darling. Your caps lock and curse words are definitely a sign of your profound understanding of things.

>>4890124
One of the quotations is just a christian saying anyone who doubts christ is ridiculous. Are you joking?

>>4890138

>>4890138
>>4890166
Okay now that we've established the several year old fact that zeitgeist is retarded, can you actually address anything here? Of just post shitty contemporary sources and ad-hom?

>>4890185
Or*

Probably should be "or are you going to", anyway.

>>4888626
The King James Bible has some impressive prose.

Start with the New Testament as the Old can be a bit long winded, however Genesis is quite poetic.

>>4890361
Avoid New International Version at all costs.

With the help of pic related

>>4889997
>a couple of authors in this massive tome have a distinct style

It was bound to happen. The Bible's "greatness" has nothing to do with literary prowess. It's barely literature at all.

>>4890093
If there was ever a good example of argument by authority, this is it. No argument, just "every qualified person says so" in a fucking circle.

The best evidence we have for Jesus's existence is the Bible itself. And in the Bible only 4 (in reality 3) books are from self-proclaimed "first hand accounts".

I don't have a position on the issue. The question isn't really interesting to me. But the outright rejection of the question as valid rubs me the wrong way.

>>4892745
You should probably kill yourself

>>4888668

>>4888668
*tips fedora*

>>4888626
I'm afraid you've been rused. "bible is most important book" is like "ITAOTS is GOAT", it's just an inside joke.
by all means read it if you're into religion study and/or mythology, but otherwise, I suggest you spend your time reading something you're actually interested in.