Bible Reading

[Orlion]

More of a response to Linna with respect to the 6 out of 100 thread in Gen Disc. Many will say it is important to read the Bible, for religious, moral, or literature reasons. However, few have done so or have difficulty doing so. Being a grizzled veteran of Bible reading, I shall offer suggestions, and others can do the same. I imagine this can also be used as a means for people who are trying to read it to keep track and focused on that goal. So, my suggestions:

1) Remember, it is not a book. It is a collection of documents, (smaller books, if you wish). As you are reading it for the first time, try to read each book on its own without reference to any other book in the Bible. It'll make more sense that way and won't seem nearly as daunting.
2) Because it's just a collection of documents, guess what? You don't have to read it cover to cover! It's possible to do so (I've done it) but I advise against it. This is because there is:
3) Tons and tons of repetition. Sometimes within the same book. The last half of Exodus is pretty much describing the building of the temple... twice, and reading Deuteronomy after Leviticus is just a terrible idea. The Books of Chronicles and Kings pretty much go over the same events, and Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to have plagiarized from each other. This repetition is normal in collections of ancient literature. Often times, the idea is just to find out why they are telling a story that people had to be familiar with it. This is best done by:
4) Skipping around. Read the first half of Genesis and then read Matthew. One of the times I read the Bible, I had a plan where I switched between Old and New Testaments and divided the bigger books into parts (reading Psalms fifty at a time is a lot better than from beginning to end).
5) Drop off all religious connotations. Just read it like you would any other book, don't expect some instructions from God or any of that other crap. You'll miss A LOT if you do. You can always add in the life meaning searching later or after you've read the Bible, and if you do, you will have a lot more to work with. A change in perspective works wonders in illuminating tough passages of the Bible.

Finally, to answer one of Linna's questions from Gen Disc, I always tended to like the Prophetic books (Isaiah- Malachi) more than any other book. It seemed that they gave soul to the entire collection, even the New Testament. Even just reading through them once without understanding everything made the rest of the collection make more sense (The New Testament quotes Isaiah, in particular, extensively). Out of all those books, Habbakuk has intrigued me the most.

[Iolanthe]

I like Job. We did him in depth for A level Religious Knowledge. It is my only A level - failed history - too much cider the night before!

Job is Old Testament, but contains the following passage:

I am sure yt my Redemer liveth & that I shall ryse out of the earth in the last daie & shall be covered againe wth my skyne & shall see god in my fleshe whom I my selfe shall see & my eyes shall be hould & none other for nowe & this is my hope laid up in my bosome [Job 19 v25-27 – pre King James Bible]

The above extract is taken from the preamble of a will dated 1592.

Poor Job, "The Righteous Man", who couldn't understand why he was being punished when he had done nothing wrong. His "friends", Zophar, Bildad and Eliphaz were no help at all, neither was the fourth friend, Elihu, who turned up later.

As for Matthew, Mark and Luke, we took them apart, following four sources. Some of the gospels contain different versions of the same story, other stories appear in only one gospel. Mark was at the time (40 years ago) thought to be the earliest, containing small details like the grass was green at the feeding of the five thousand, and the young man in the sheet who ran naked from the garden of Gethsemene, thought to be Mark himself. Luke was a doctor and his gospel contains many of the miracles that relate to healing. Matthew has the beatitudes and the woes (sermon on the mount) etc.

Pleased my memory still works from 40 years ago

[Avatar]

It's Gen Lit Orlion, not Gen Disc.

--A

[Savor Dam]

Av, you did not have the pleasure of meeting Orlion last summer. As one who did, (indeed one who served as designated driver for him and others), let me point out that he *is* Gen Lit!

[Avatar]

I have no idea what you mean, but that does not change the fact that the thread he refers to appears in the General Literature forum, and not General Discussion.

--A

[deer of the dawn]

Thanks Orlion for encouraging the reading of what was until this millennium the world's best-selling book since printed books became available (and may be still, but some say the Qu'ran has surpassed it, at least in printing if not sales).

I encourage using any method that will get you reading it, however I do wish to comment that "skipping around" you will lose the sense of the story that begins in Genesis and continues through Revelation (Job, Psalms and Proverbs being a sort of interlude in the middle). It was not till I read the whole thing cover to cover that I got that; I thought it was just loosely-related stories.

I would also not suggest using a version like the one Iolanthe quoted, unless you're a fan of "olde" English (although it's not strictly speaking Old English, I realize). The English Standard Version is very plain; I like the New King James because it retains some of the literary qualities of the "old" King James, but more readable.

I also want to agree with Orlion-- Isaiah is probably my favorite book for reading; I read somewhere it has the largest vocabulary and most advanced grammar and usage of the whole Hebrew Bible.

Question, Orlion: If you want people to read it, not as a God-book, but as Literature, why do you want this in the Close rather than Gen Lit?

[Orlion]

Question, Orlion: If you want people to read it, not as a God-book, but as Literature, why do you want this in the Close rather than Gen Lit?

Because I can't seem to tell the difference between Gen Lit and Gen Disc

In seriousness, Western culture has slammed it into our brains that the Bible is something of an 'inerrant Word of God' that 1) It's very difficult to read it as literature & 2) the question of whether it is something divine, merely the product of religions, or something in between will arise and people will want to address it. Having this thread in the Close will make the discussion more versatile then if it is in the Gen Lit forum.

I also prefer something more King James-ish than the other 'New World Translations', but that may be because that's what I grew up on.

[Ananda]

I love reading mythology. I also really enjoyed the Bhagavad Gita quite a bit. It made a really good read. In fact, it is one of my favourite books. If people enjoyed the bible, they would probably enjoy that one, too. Both teach bhakti yoga and you could say that Krishna and Jesus are both the same archetype for love teachings. You need to find a good translation, though- avoid the one given by the hare krishna movement.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

you could say that Krishna and Jesus are both the same archetype for love teachings

Some people (like me, for example) we agree with your assessment. Others, of course, will vehemently disagree with you without even trying to consider any alternative viewpoint. *shrug*

the question of whether it is something divine, merely the product of religions, or something in between will arise and people will want to address it

Rationally, one would have to conclude that the Bible is at least partially, if not completely, the product of religions. The Hebrews were exposed to monothesim in Egypt, thanks to Ankhenaton, and some early stories (Noah, his ark, and the Flood) are predated by similar stories from other cultures. There is also evidence that both John the Baptist and Christ were either Essenes or at least influenced by Essene theology.

Even if you don't believe in God at all and never will, the Bible is still a book to be read because there are so many cultural references to it. These are far too numerous for me to list here.

[Iolanthe]

The Hebrews were exposed to monothesim in Egypt, thanks to Ankhenaton, and some early stories (Noah, his ark, and the Flood) are predated by similar stories from other cultures. There is also evidence that both John the Baptist and Christ were either Essenes or at least influenced by Essene theology.[/color]

I was taught that the Flood Story was probably picked up by the Hebrews in Babylon where they will have heard the Epic of Gilgamesh. Even Wales has a flood story. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of real history in the Old Testament, much of it backed up by archaeology. It was the history that really interested me, as I had read a lot about ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I was taught that the Flood Story was probably picked up by the Hebrews in Babylon where they will have heard the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Abraham, Patriarch of the Hebrews, was originally from Ur (as everyone knows) so they definitely heard it there. Since he was also, as far as I can tell, a reasonably successful merchant/landowner he probably knew how to read, as well.

[SoulBiter]

The Old Testament is not in exact Chronological order. I am about a year into reading the Old Testament and got about halfway through Psalms. But I will get there.

www.biblegateway.com/resources/readingp ... ogical.php

[Linna Heartbooger]

Nice, Orlion! ...I think a lot of people (esp. Christians) would be saved much grief if they went with (some version of) your advice.
In fact, that last one might not be so bad for me right about now!!

This is because there is:
3) Tons and tons of repetition. Sometimes within the same book. The last half of Exodus is pretty much describing the building of the temple... twice, and reading Deuteronomy after Leviticus is just a terrible idea. The Books of Chronicles and Kings pretty much go over the same events, and Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to have plagiarized from each other. This repetition is normal in collections of ancient literature. Often times, the idea is just to find out why they are telling a story that people had to be familiar with it.

I actually find the repetition for chasing after clues to what's going on.
Asking, "Why are they repeating this so much, anyways?"

Finally, to answer one of Linna's questions from Gen Disc, I always tended to like the Prophetic books (Isaiah- Malachi) more than any other book. It seemed that they gave soul to the entire collection, even the New Testament. Even just reading through them once without understanding everything made the rest of the collection make more sense (The New Testament quotes Isaiah, in particular, extensively). Out of all those books, Habbakuk has intrigued me the most.

Wow. I find this really neat. The prophets are a great love of mine, and their words are so neglected. (I suppose nobody likes a prophet, after all!)
Thanks for answering, too! =)

Habakkuk. Wow. That one's interesting...
"Well, there are answers alright."
(but that doesn't mean you'll like them.)

I love following individual people's stories.
I think I like following people (Jeremiah, Paul, Moses, David, Isaiah, Samuel, Ezekiel) more than necessarily.

Also... your comment about reading half of Genesis, then going and reading something else for awhile... pfft, I thought the last half of Genesis was the reward for finishing the first half of it!

[Avatar]

I like the New King James because it retains some of the literary qualities of the "old" King James, but more readable.

You mean they edited out the stuff about unicorns and whatnot.

Still, I like the King James version myself. It has a rolling grandeur that is very apt for quoting or reading aloud.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

(Not that I do much bible reading, as you might imagine. )

--A

[deer of the dawn]

I like the New King James because it retains some of the literary qualities of the "old" King James, but more readable.

You mean they edited out the stuff about unicorns and whatnot.

You got a problem with unicorns, Av?

Still, I like the King James version myself. It has a rolling grandeur that is very apt for quoting or reading aloud.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

(Not that I do much bible reading, as you might imagine. )

--A

Someone told me years ago that when writing the King James, one of the considerations was that it be in verse form which would make it memorable/memorizable, since most people couldn't afford their own copy and many could not read (not as many as you might think, though, in that particular era).

Krishna and Jesus are both the same archetype for love teachings.

Sure, but there are some very important distinctions between Jesus and Krishna. Krishna had already evolved (through oral retellings) into a god-myth by the time the Bhagavad Gita was written down. The life of Jesus was written down within decades of his life and the events are corroborated by other historical documents of the time. The Gita is a very cool and amazing story; the New Testament is documented history.

The Old Testament is not in exact Chronological order. I am about a year into reading the Old Testament and got about halfway through Psalms. But I will get there.

Take courage, SoulBiter-- you're almost exactly halfway there!!

[Orlion]

Nice, Orlion! ...I think a lot of people (esp. Christians) would be saved much grief if they went with (some version of) your advice.
In fact, that last one might not be so bad for me right about now!!

I'll give an example soon, just so that you or anyone else does not have to think that not reading the Bible as the inerrant word of God is detrimental to one's faith. (Just a common criticism, not saying you or any one else here thinks that )

I actually find the repetition for chasing after clues to what's going on.
Asking, "Why are they repeating this so much, anyways?"

This idea is particularly helpful with the prophetic and poetic writings. Since all Hebrew writing is written in parallelism, if one phrase is puzzling, the phrase before or after may elucidate the matter, since it is repeating the same concept.
History or law, it's different since (I believe) it is just written at different times... sometimes with different political philosophy. Leviticus does this where one chapter will say, "Don't do this, it'll make you unclean" and the next chapter will say "If you do this, you get killed". This should not surprise anyone since law always evolves and will get this sort of 'contradictory' repetition. It also justifies the New Testament attitude of not taking this law too seriously.

Wow. I find this really neat. The prophets are a great love of mine, and their words are so neglected. (I suppose nobody likes a prophet, after all!).....
I love following individual people's stories.
I think I like following people (Jeremiah, Paul, Moses, David, Isaiah, Samuel, Ezekiel) more than necessarily.

They are neglected, particularly the minor prophets. Which is a real shame, since it is in these books that you get a lot about the necessity of compassion than anywhere else in the Old Testament.

Also... your comment about reading half of Genesis, then going and reading something else for awhile... pfft, I thought the last half of Genesis was the reward for finishing the first half of it!

It was a reading plan found in my Spanish Bible. It was a year long reading plan where you would have read the Old Testament once and the New Testament twice. I finished it in two months. The advantage with this sort of plan is you spend more time in the easier parts to read (and there's a higher Christian focus). The disadvantage? If you haven't read the Bible before, you'll still miss stuff in the New Testament that is based directly on symbolism found in the Old Testament.

[Orlion]

Krishna and Jesus are both the same archetype for love teachings.

Sure, but there are some very important distinctions between Jesus and Krishna. Krishna had already evolved (through oral retellings) into a god-myth by the time the Bhagavad Gita was written down. The life of Jesus was written down within decades of his life and the events are corroborated by other historical documents of the time. The Gita is a very cool and amazing story; the New Testament is documented history.

The Old Testament is not in exact Chronological order. I am about a year into reading the Old Testament and got about halfway through Psalms. But I will get there.

Take courage, SoulBiter-- you're almost exactly halfway there!!

There is another key difference, I think, between the fundamental assumptions of the Bhagavad Gita and the New Testament. With respect to Krishna, it seems that there are just people who are monsters. They will always make mistakes and continue to be reincarnated into lesser and lesser forms, and there is no helping it. This seems to contradict the 'yeah, it is pretty damn hard, but it is possible' attitude towards sinners in the New Testament. Much of it seems to be intent on bringing everyone to the same level.

And that's not the entire Old Testament, SoulBiter

[Ananda]

The gita says that everyone and everything is 'That' already, so you can't take away or add to That. The forms are just perceptual, not literal.

And Deer, but both contain the myth about a 'god' and teach a liberation from the ego state through selfless love (bhakti yoga). The gita says that even Krishna is just a reflection of That while the bible says jesus and god are a literal thing. There is a little deviation, but the theme is about the same.

On a side note, I have heard about reincarnation references in the bible, some of which were taken out. There was also something about the jesus character being initially mistaken for a reincarnation of another previous character- John the baptist, I think?

And someone mentioned repetition. Try reading the upanisads! They could just replace the whole thing with 'om' and be save much paper! It is still worth reading, though. Just must be taken in little tastes.

Anyway, both books have some lovely bits in them and both are well worth the read. I also love greek mythology, too. Though the hindu works are typically my favourite.

[Iolanthe]

You mean they edited out the stuff about unicorns and whatnot.

Still, I like the King James version myself. It has a rolling grandeur that is very apt for quoting or reading aloud.

You've been listening to the Bachelors again, Av. The Unicorns went playing in the rain and missed the boat.

"We've got some green aligators and long necked geese,
some humpty back camels and some chimpanzees,
some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born,
the loveliest of them all was the Unicorn"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNfNXt7EDhs

I too prefer the King James - although I also have an RSV and a NEB.

[Orlion]

On a side note, I have heard about reincarnation references in the bible, some of which were taken out. There was also something about the jesus character being initially mistaken for a reincarnation of another previous character- John the baptist, I think?

Still there. Off the top of my head, one of them is in John when Jesus asks Peter what people say he is, Elias, Moses and John the Baptist get mentioned and then he asks Peter what he thinks he is and Peter says the "Thou art the Christ, son of the Living God".

Peter gets called Satan a few verses later Guy can never catch a break. Of course, I'm not certain Satan meant anything but 'tempter' at the time of the composition of John... it'd be close, depending on when Revelations was written, which may be the only place that associates Satan with the idea of 'the Devil' in the New Testament (though I could be wrong. The idea could also appear in Jude, 2 Peter, or one of the other Johns).