Are you proud to have The Bible as your holy book?

[CarlinKnew]

Do you think it's a good book? Does it represent your faith accurately?

Finally forced myself to read it cover to cover, all 1,750 pgs of my KJV ebook, and it would be an understatement to say I'm not impressed. Probably 90% of it is either repetitive (practically word for word) or trivial (geneologies, measurements...)

I wonder how many times the Old Testament states that following the law will lead to you spreading your seed gloriously, and disobeying the law will lead to death by "the sword, pestilence, or famine," or in the New Testament that faith leads to eternal life and lack of faith leads to destruction. If you removed all repitition of those statements you'd probably cut the length of the bible in half.

There are some interesting stories and some pearls of wisdom, but most of the book is petty, is it not?

 

[Bob Dixon]

Finally forced myself to read it cover to cover

That's your problem there.

I'd've stopped reading right there if I were slightly less patient than I am.
Seriously.

 

[CarlinKnew]

That's your problem there.

I'd've stopped reading right there if I were slightly less patient than I am.
Seriously.

My problem is that I read it?

 

[fallingblood]

Do you think it's a good book? Does it represent your faith accurately?

Finally forced myself to read it cover to cover, all 1,750 pgs of my KJV ebook, and it would be an understatement to say I'm not impressed. Probably 90% of it is either repetitive (practically word for word) or trivial (geneologies, measurements...)

I wonder how many times the Old Testament states that following the law will lead to you spreading your seed gloriously, and disobeying the law will lead to death by "the sword, pestilence, or famine," or in the New Testament that faith leads to eternal life and lack of faith leads to destruction. If you removed all repitition of those statements you'd probably cut the length of the bible in half.

There are some interesting stories and some pearls of wisdom, but most of the book is petty, is it not?

It is not. Reading the Bible, cover to cover, generally is a mistake. Simply because it doesn't give a clear picture. The organization is somewhat haphazard. More so, the KJV is a bad choice anyway, as it simply is a bad translation for today.

One major problem, especially with the OT, is that it is hard to really judge what one is reading without some background information. That is why a nice study Bible can go a long way. We can look at the Book of Esther for example. It's satire. However, reading the the work without that knowledge does cause some considerable problems. Or the Book of Job. It is a theological argument that cites an older tradition in order to show how it is wrong. It questions tradition. Without knowing that though, and the composition of the work, the book does make sense as it should. This is true for most of the OT, and NT as well.

As for repetition, there is of course some. However, I don't see it even being close to 90%.

 

[Nehustan]

I'm quite proud of having a nice maroon calf skin KJV sitting on my book stand on my prayer mat...

 

[CarlinKnew]

It is not. Reading the Bible, cover to cover, generally is a mistake. Simply because it doesn't give a clear picture. The organization is somewhat haphazard. More so, the KJV is a bad choice anyway, as it simply is a bad translation for today.

One major problem, especially with the OT, is that it is hard to really judge what one is reading without some background information. That is why a nice study Bible can go a long way. We can look at the Book of Esther for example. It's satire. However, reading the the work without that knowledge does cause some considerable problems. Or the Book of Job. It is a theological argument that cites an older tradition in order to show how it is wrong. It questions tradition. Without knowing that though, and the composition of the work, the book does make sense as it should. This is true for most of the OT, and NT as well.

As for repetition, there is of course some. However, I don't see it even being close to 90%.

Most of the OT isn't very complicated (neither is the NT): a king or a nation "does that which is righteous in the sight of the LORD" and is rewarded, or they worship idols and are punished. And that happens over, and over, and over again.

Either that or the procedures for sacricing animals are described at the length of pages and pages. Or we get to read a 10 pg long description of a tabernacle, or a giant geneology, or descriptions of laws or wars. I don't think any amount of Bible study is going to enrich those parts, which make up the vast majority of the book.

I didn't know the book of Esther was satire. From what I remember that was one of the somewhat interesting books. Knowing that it's satire doesn't really change my impression of the Bible though; why would it?

 

[CarlinKnew]

I'm quite proud of having a nice maroon calf skin KJV sitting on my book stand on my prayer mat...

Ooh, maroon calf skin. Sounds lovely.

 

[Penumbra]

Do you think it's a good book? Does it represent your faith accurately?

Finally forced myself to read it cover to cover, all 1,750 pgs of my KJV ebook, and it would be an understatement to say I'm not impressed. Probably 90% of it is either repetitive (practically word for word) or trivial (geneologies, measurements...)

I wonder how many times the Old Testament states that following the law will lead to you spreading your seed gloriously, and disobeying the law will lead to death by "the sword, pestilence, or famine," or in the New Testament that faith leads to eternal life and lack of faith leads to destruction. If you removed all repitition of those statements you'd probably cut the length of the bible in half.

There are some interesting stories and some pearls of wisdom, but most of the book is petty, is it not?

When I was a kid I was raised to be a monotheist in the sort of Abrahamic sense (nominally Catholic). I only had mild familiarity with the Bible- reading only parts of it at a time, attending Sunday school and Mass, etc. I knew at the time that I didn't believe most of it and that there were violent parts, but figured some of it was inspired and such.

When I actually took the time to research it and read it, I was like, "Well that's certainly not my god, at all. Almost none of this has any value or relevance to me."

 

[CarlinKnew]

When I was a kid I was raised to be a monotheist in the sort of Abrahamic sense (nominally Catholic). I only had mild familiarity with the Bible- reading only parts of it at a time, attending Sunday school and Mass, etc. I knew at the time that I didn't believe most of it and that there were violent parts, but figured some of it was inspired and such.

When I actually took the time to research it and read it, I was like, "Well that's certainly not my god, at all. Almost none of this has any value or relevance to me."

For sure, I can understand that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Bible as a holy book as fine as long as you're not interpreting it.

 

[CarlinKnew]

The Bible as a holy book as fine as long as you're not interpreting it.

Oh snap, I feel the burn.

 

[Neil P]

Do you think it's a good book? Does it represent your faith accurately?

Finally forced myself to read it cover to cover, all 1,750 pgs of my KJV ebook, and it would be an understatement to say I'm not impressed. Probably 90% of it is either repetitive (practically word for word) or trivial (geneologies, measurements...)

I wonder how many times the Old Testament states that following the law will lead to you spreading your seed gloriously, and disobeying the law will lead to death by "the sword, pestilence, or famine," or in the New Testament that faith leads to eternal life and lack of faith leads to destruction. If you removed all repitition of those statements you'd probably cut the length of the bible in half.

There are some interesting stories and some pearls of wisdom, but most of the book is petty, is it not?

You don't sound as someone who has read it "cover to cover." If so, you certainly would not have simply dismissed it as repetitive, seeing that it spans 2000 years. The creation story is worth nothing to you? The flood is nothing? The table of nations is meaningless? The foundation of Avaris is hardly worth mentioning? Tiglith pelesar was nobody? Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of the Levant is spurious rumor?

Hm... ok. No problem

 

[CarlinKnew]

You don't sound as someone who has read it "cover to cover." If so, you certainly would not have simply dismissed it as repetitive, seeing that it spans 2000 years. The creation story is worth nothing to you? The flood is nothing? The table of nations is meaningless? The foundation of Avaris is hardly worth mentioning? Tiglith pelesar was nobody? Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of the Levant is spurious rumor?

Hm... ok. No problem

Said most of it is repetitive. Not sure what you're getting at.

 

[Levite]

Most of the OT isn't very complicated

Actually, it's quite complicated. That's one of the reasons why we say that the Written Torah is only half the picture. One requires the Oral Torah to even begin to understand what one is supposed to get out of Torah as a whole, and of course there are literally thousands of years' worth of commentary of various kinds, exploring level after level of meaning, and interpreting and re-interpreting law and tradition with passing years....

To simply read the text of the Hebrew Bible is not to truly understand it, either in theology or practice. To read it in translation-- the KJV translation, no less, which is not always so accurate-- all the more so.

And to answer the OP question, I suppose I am proud that the Tanakh is my holy book, though that is not the same as being proud of the most literal, surface reading of every single verse or passage in the book.

 

[Neil P]

Said most of it is repetitive. Not sure what you're getting at.

Quite simple, I am "getting at" your somewhat careless characterization of the most influential written text in history. Is the Rigveda repetitive? How about the Zend Avesta? If you say "yes," then i would conclude all religious texts are "repetitive" and "petty." If you say "no," then your criticism is only against Christianity, yes? So which is it?

 

[Penumbra]

Said most of it is repetitive. Not sure what you're getting at.

Considering that the Bible is not a work by one person with a centralized message, but instead a collection of books by many people over a very long long period of time, one should expect points to be repeated.

The Bible is repetitive in the same way that a museum is repetitive in the numbers and types of art. We don't generally judge a museum as one big concept, to be judged for elegance and conciseness- we view it as a container of individual pieces to look through, some of which may be related to another in some way.

If we take all Greek philosopher works and package them as one bundle, we'll have repetition. If we take all Renaissance writers and package them as one bundle, we'll have repetition.

 

[fallingblood]

Most of the OT isn't very complicated (neither is the NT): a king or a nation "does that which is righteous in the sight of the LORD" and is rewarded, or they worship idols and are punished. And that happens over, and over, and over again.

Either that or the procedures for sacricing animals are described at the length of pages and pages. Or we get to read a 10 pg long description of a tabernacle, or a giant geneology, or descriptions of laws or wars. I don't think any amount of Bible study is going to enrich those parts, which make up the vast majority of the book.

I didn't know the book of Esther was satire. From what I remember that was one of the somewhat interesting books. Knowing that it's satire doesn't really change my impression of the Bible though; why would it?

It is very complicated. Just looking at the plethora of work on the subject, as well as the various notes to the actual Hebrew, it simply shows how complicated it is. Especially considering that in many instance, the exact meaning of the Hebrew isn't known anyway.

Then to understand the work fully, one needs to have a certain degree of background information. Looking at just the creation stories, it is very helpful to know something about Mesopotamian creation myths as well. Such as the Enuma Elish. Not to mention that there are two creation myths in the Bible that say different things, and were written for specific reasons. Even the story of Babel (notice, that in the story, the Tower really isn't mentioned, even though the story has been traditionally called the Tower of Babel) is somewhat complicated. Especially if you try to read it in the context of the previous two chapters.

Going to the NT, just on Paul, there is a plethora of work. Simply because it is not very simple. They are difficult works, especially since they are translated, and much is left out in translation.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Actually, it's quite complicated. That's one of the reasons why we say that the Written Torah is only half the picture. One requires the Oral Torah to even begin to understand what one is supposed to get out of Torah as a whole, and of course there are literally thousands of years' worth of commentary of various kinds, exploring level after level of meaning, and interpreting and re-interpreting law and tradition with passing years....

To simply read the text of the Hebrew Bible is not to truly understand it, either in theology or practice. To read it in translation-- the KJV translation, no less, which is not always so accurate-- all the more so.

And to answer the OP question, I suppose I am proud that the Tanakh is my holy book, though that is not the same as being proud of the most literal, surface reading of every single verse or passage in the book.

How many levels of meaning are there in a statement that says do as the lord says or you and your family will die by sword, disease, or famine. How many levels of meaning are there in descriptions for building a tabernacle. Those types of passages make up the majority of the book.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Quite simple, I am "getting at" your somewhat careless characterization of the most influential written text in history. Is the Rigveda repetitive? How about the Zend Avesta? If you say "yes," then i would conclude all religious texts are "repetitive" and "petty." If you say "no," then your criticism is only against Christianity, yes? So which is it?

Is it a characterization? I think it's a pretty accurate description. And this is about the Bible so I don't know why you're bringing up other texts.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Considering that the Bible is not a work by one person with a centralized message, but instead a collection of books by many people over a very long long period of time, one should expect points to be repeated.

The Bible is repetitive in the same way that a museum is repetitive in the numbers and types of art. We don't generally judge a museum as one big concept, to be judged for elegance and conciseness- we view it as a container of individual pieces to look through, some of which may be related to another in some way.

If we take all Greek philosopher works and package them as one bundle, we'll have repetition. If we take all Renaissance writers and package them as one bundle, we'll have repetition.

I don't think those comparisons are accurate at all. A lot of the Bible is repetition of the same exact message or occurance of events, sometimes word for word. Repetition isn't my only criticism but also the triviality of it: geneologies, descriptions of war booty, animal sacrifice procedures, etc. I realize it's a collection of books; I think it's a bad collection.