How many of you have READ the bible?

I mean for educational purposes, out of personal curiosity, whatever. How many of you have actually read it, cover to cover? I've attempted to a couple of times, different versions...I just can't do it.

:evilgrin:

the begots.

when I used to go to church (it was mandatory for me), I would read the Bible. All my friends would just read Revelations because of the visuals, but I would real Genesis, Exodus, Revelations, and the Gospels. I wasn't really into the Old Testament.

Parts of it read like a soup opera. The rest of it is very boring geneology, some bad history, confusing prophecy, and a whole lot of "thou shalt nots", and "thou shalts"

why?

I know loads of people who have, it makes me wonder if those who have are in the majority or if I just have too many nerdy friends. ;)

I personally can't make heads or tails of it, the begats aside, there's just too many contradictions (to my mind, anyway).

I keep hearing people say the bible contradicts itself, but whenever I ask the question, someone says "like the priests who have sex with children."

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Or for a listing comparing verses:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml

If you want to dive into a couple in detail:
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1990/4/4contr90.html

totally misplaced post lol

Pardon me, I'm a bit confused. What arguments are you referring to? Someone asked for bible contradictions, and I posted some links. Not sure what you mean... :shrug:

I answered totally wrong post.. I blame it on society

some one asks you for inconsistencies and you post someone else's rather juvenile analysis. This guy compiled the kind of arguments I would expect from a precocious teenager.

Did you ever play the game telephone? Did you ever read historical events from several different perspectives? If there are two different version of a particular battle of WW2 does that mean it didn't happen? Finally, everyone knows that the Stories of Adam and Eve and the creation are stories told in a manner that people could understand to explain something much more complex. Finding inconsistencies in those stories are hardly the condemnation of the bible you seem to wish they were.

I don't believe that the inconsistencies and contradictions are even necessary to reject the bible. I did so just based upon what the stories said, taking them literally and/or figuratively as necessary.

But not everyone knows that stories like Adam & Eve aren't meant to be taken literally. If you're a fundamentalist who believes in the inerrancy of the bible, ANY inconsistency is a huge problem - even if it's just the same story from a different perspective.

Juvenile? There's some pretty good analysis in there, but if you want to dismiss it with a wave of your hand that's OK. A thorough reading of the bible raises a lot of hard questions for Christianity.

None of the accounts of the Easter story jibe.

Matthew's lineage of Christ is transparently rigged to suit a certain purpose.

Shall I continue?

several times. Modern English translations/versions are preferable and easier to read than older King James versions with the thee's and thou's.

read some parts when I was a kid and forced to, can't remember any of it now though

When I was younger looking for answers I read several versions, skipping the begats mostly. For the life of me I can't find the version these fundies are so fond of.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=721542>
Here is a small sampling of this thing.
2:10, "A shrew came to the Son of the Empire and said, “The people, they are like deaf men. You may be empty, but if you appear full they will not know the difference.”
The shrew of course is Roves.
5:3-4, "But from this dust was formed a New Creature. It had nine horns, then ten, then nine again. It smelled the blood of the Child of Empire and struck him. But the New Creature also struck itself, horn scraped against horn."
This prophecied the 9 (10) Democratic candidates.
So on and so on, check out this wonderful new addition to every liberal's Bible.

Not a single mention of the Texas Chimp. Seeing as how YHWH "talks to him", you'd think he'd at least have a cameo on the good book.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=721542>
DU Apoc 2:6-13
"The Son of the Empire arose from the heat of hell. He called out in a loud voice for the blood of the Wolf’s second, the Man of Hope. The One Who Owns, that is the one who is like a second to the Empire’s Son, but is in fact the first, told the Empire’s Son,
“Hide your face from the people, or they will surely flock to the one the Wolf has chosen, the one who is beloved by the nations. Fear the Man of Hope, for he offers progress, which we do not have.”
And that is how the Son of the Empire put on the guise of compassion.
The two powers, the Son of the Empire, with his face veiled with falsehood, and the Man of Hope, struggled, and fought. They struck mighty blows upon one another.
A shrew came to the Son of the Empire and said, “The people, they are like deaf men. You may be empty, but if you appear full they will not know the difference.”
So they continued to fight. The blue and red bled upon one another.
At this point a bird, bleeding blue, came to me and said, “Hark Locke, to the South the battle was lost. By taunt and trick did we lose the day? Yes, that is how. Cry sorrow, sorrow, yet let good prevail.”
I said to him, “Surely not. But it was true, the Man of Hope disappeared, his face covered with fur and failure.

I have read most of it more than once. I even have verses memorized from when I was a kid and went to church three times a week, including Girl's Auxillary before Wed. evening services and Vacation Bible School in the summer.

I think I understand it fairly well from one perspective (the one I grew up with) and I disagree with that view.

I know some of the differences in the various versions of the story of Jesus in the four Gospels, and the impact of Jesus and the formation of Christianity from the Acts of the Apostles.

I know the different churches Paul addressed in the various letters in the New Testament (Protestant version), and the sort of issues Paul was supposedly addressing in those letters (again, from the church of my youth's pov.

As far as the Old Testament, my church emphasized Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Proverbs, Psalms, Job, and some archetypal stories, all of them of men, except for Eve, Sarah, Lot's wife, and Rachel and Leah as they related to their hubbie, iirc.

I am coming around to a better appreciation of Christianity as a revolutionary movement of its time which is totally unrelated to the way it has been perverted by the fundamentalists I grew up with.

For instance, I think it is fair to say that Jesus would be considered a "godless" commie by them, based upon his life's actions, as would be the apostles.

I think Jesus would totally agree with a fierce devotion to the separation of church and state, with the church choosing not to exercise power in any state institution, but rather eschewing material power for spiritual power.

As all the great religions know, the merger of the two inevitably corrupts and destroys the power of good and creates a false religiousity as a guise for the acquistion of power at the expense of the most vulnerable in any society.

This, basically, was the earthly lesson Jesus imparted, imho.

He was way ahead of Machiavelli, and his observations were put to good uses, while Machiavelli's were used to exercise earthly power and destroy the real power of religion.

I was in GAs in the 1970s after they changed the name from Girl's Auxillary to Girls in Action. :-)

Did the Bible School thing every year too at more churches than I can remember. Our parents got rid of the kids nearly all summer by shipping us from one church to another. :-)

Had to read the entire Bible more than once for Sunday School. Thought it was boring in places at the time but it comes in really handy now to know the book when fighting with fundamentalists who have not read it. :evilgrin:

all of them cover to cover.

Just call me ultra-nerdy, ugly little swizzle-stick.

incredibly intelligent, curious and enlightened. 3 languages! I have a hard enough time with English!

:bounce: :yourock:

Even if you aren't religious you should have read the bible.. It should be a basic thing to have read it, considering our whole civilization basicly evolved around it.

you'd know nothing in your civilization evolved from it.

Our world was shaped through the dark ages.. the inquisition, all those european religious wars.. the crusades, that people fled to the US for religious freedom etc etc..


I'd love to hear the arguments that nothing came from that.

Thanks.

I vividly remember a professor castigating a graduate seminar because most of my fellow students were ignorant of it (particularly the KJV) She rightly pointed out that you are going to miss a whole hell of a lot of allusions in the work of others.

so I would be able to recognize the allusions and analogies used in so much great literature.

and I still read some of it every now and then.

it's closer to reality.

:bounce:

...I ended up an atheist.

That sounds terribly familiar...;)

I've read it, parts anyway, I was just saying I've never been able to read it as a cohesive whole. As someone upthread mentioned, I probably should being that it's relevant to so much in our culture. But the time I have spent reading it threatened to turn my staunch agnosticism into athiesm with a quickness.

of the primitive culture in which they were penned. It is interesting noting the extreme contrast between the Old and New Testaments, but one theme they have in common is the ultimate destruction and humiliation of the "enemy." In the OT, this was mainly the unfortunate tribes competing with the Hebrews for the same parcel of land. In the NT, it's now everyone who disagrees with Christianity, and it's an eternal destruction and punishment in hell. Granted, not all Christians read it like that, but the Christians with the most political power do.

I'm not quite finished; the only section I have left is Prophets, and that's such a difficult section, I don't look forward to going back to it (particularly since my bookmark fell out and I don't remember where I left off). But I have also read and studied some parts of it on more than one occasion.

I read it completely a couple of times. Most of my high school years, I read parts of it every night. Then, I joined the Bible quiz team and memorized entire chapters. I'm not good with referencing though. I am a rather spiritual type and Christianity is my religion. I think that the believer should read scripture for themselves and pray upon it. I generally see pastors as someone with a good education in their religion but not an ultimate authority on it. I look on them more as professors rather than a "holy person" which they may or may not be. I haven't been going to church though since I've moved to this community.

cover to cover... twice.

I was into it for the stories and the writing... not to save my soul or anything.

I've seen them in hotels and at church and stuff. But I've never actually read it.

How's it end, did the butler do it?

Went to Sunday school and we read it and I also was in a chirch group that read and talked about it but I do not know if that mean I have been start to finish the whole book.It is a long book. I do not mean that in jest.

more than once
cause I could

would rate it PG 17

One semester was the Old Testament and the second semester was the New Testament. What was nice is the profs gave us the background so that you had a better idea of what the original meaning of the words were as well as some historical background about the times where it was appropriate. I don't regret it and it has come in handy through the years every time some bible thumper tries to push God's word on me.

For example, one time in a campground, some guy tried to tell me I was going to hell because I was drinking a beer. He went on a rant about drinking, smoking and gambling being the devil's work. I was able to counter with Jesus changing water into wine in the wedding at Cana. It shut him up and he stomped away angry.

think that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.

from cover to cover. Not at all one time, though. It's a great read and I believe in everything that is said in it. (I'm not a right-wing religious nut, though. :) )
Sting

The bible has some pretty interesting stories.. so if you're not religious but interested in history you'll get some interesting views on how the world in a roman occupied state was etc

Skipped begot, begats, begones, berids, bequeths etbecetera, but have read it, some sections repeatedly, over the years.

Mostly for online debates. I figure it's good to know what the hell they're talking about:-)

translated into English.

it was just too ridiculous

KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!


seriously, it is something many people INTEND to do, but somehow don't get past a few passages. For those who have, what version did you read?

Read it when I was 11, just after quitting Sunday school. Took my time, alternating between the King James and NIV versions.

Pretty much solidified my atheism, and I don't care much to look at it these days. :-)

Also material from various other religions - including some things written by Mohammed. I like the original of his note to the Christians in Egypt that which suggested they surrender to him – and then follow him (it’s in Istanbul).

Reading the New Testament just depressed me. Reading what Jesus said was quite inspiring and very liberal; yet I see those same words being used to justify the killing and hatred of others.
I want to believe that people will learn to see that there is no hate or call to hate in the Bible..but I doubt it.

all of it at one time or another.

Like with other literature, it makes it a lot easier if you get some idea of what drove the authors to write each book, and what the between-the-lines story of each section is. I'm not talking about commentaries to individual books, rather broad overviews.

Lawrence Boadt, "Reading the Old Testament" is a good overview. You can read each section, then read the books of the Bible they refer to. There are several similar books for the Christian/New Testament, but I can't think of the one I used long ago. The best place to look is to see what local secular universities are using in their Bible and NT courses.

P.S. I find the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) the best translation as far as using language that is both modern (as in not archaic, rather than "Jesus was a righteous dude and they were all stoked, it was groovy" translations), intelligent (avoiding the above example), and retaining some indication of poetic structure (there's no substitute for KJV Psalms).

most of the people who have read the bible are atheist and the ones who go to church have not read it.

A lot of us who are believers have read it, cover to cover.

Bake

a few different translations. Took me quite a while each time and learned something new each time. Really want to read the Koran next.

Found a lot of pertinant things in what Jesus spoke of.

Many who "read" the bible often do no such thing. They get there 'Book learnig" from someone else. A for instance is, "Thou shalt not kill, really reads in Hebrew, You shall not murder". Huge difference between the two.

There are inconsistencies, such as The world being created in 6 days. Kind of hard to do without a sun until the fourth "day". But then again further down the road, we are told that on day is a thousand years to God, and a thousand years are as a day. Shows me that God makes his own time in the universe. After all, other than the earth, there are no other 24 hour days that we know of.

Bottom line, there is nothing wrong with following the teachings of Jesus, even if you are not a 'hard core believer'. The idea of love, truth, justice, mercy are timeless and basically the core of democratic/liberal/progressive ideals.

O8)

but never actually completed the whole thing. I have not finised the Koran either or the Bagavad Gita. After a while I just run out of interest.

But then I don't consider myself a Christian or anything else for that matter.

Leviticus was drier than the wilderness the Israelites were stomping through, but I made it through. Read it all in the course of graduating from preacher school.

:)

from the age of 9-13 I went to a private religious school and we read the bible everyday. It is actually interesting, some good stories in it. Some of the books/chapters are much more difficult and boring to get through than others, it varies. I like the New Testment better than the Old, all those "begats" :scared: :-) Also the Revised is easier reading than the King James Version.

I got taught a lot of it via church and parents and acquaintances as a kid. I realized I was not a Christian in my late teens, and I read up a lot when culties and fundies intrigued me with their really delusional misinterpretations.

I decided the Book of Revelations doesn't belong into the Christian canon very early on. Then that the New Testament as a whole is, as some claim, generally redundant with the Hebrew Bible (aka Old Testament) though simpler, of course. The Apocrypha are interesting, but it's pretty clear why they were left out of the HB too. (The Book of Mormon is a lot of fun, too, if you're ever short on pseudo-Biblical amusements. It's amazingly kooky- you can't parody it, no one would be able to tell the difference.)

I enjoy reading in what remains, which is pretty exactly the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, occasionally. The story of Ancient Israel, up to about the Book of Nehemiah, mostly bores me now with the exception of the Book of Ruth, which is deeply touching to me. The Book of Esther is a wierd travesty- arguably it's the remains of an ancient cartoon book, gussied up. (The rationale for putting such a book into the HB canon is supra-Biblical, in my opinion, with a transparently bad text needed in order to make the overall point.) The rest of the Wisdom Literature (Job through the Canticle (Song of Solomon)) is where I read these days, when I do. Those people lived and felt intensely, and got their minds around a lot of life; to me their voices speak compellingly if one meets them emotionally. Prophets, though, I avoid- they're too confusing on a superficial level, and very hard if one really tries to understand what is really being talked about and what for.

And from that it's hard for me to agree with a lot of what passes for Christianity, and in some cases Judaism. In any case, much or most of the way the contents of the Bible have been construed in churches and such I have been to. If one reads it with compassion and with understanding of its Semitic cultural context, it is a heroic and deeply- painfully- truthful book full of passion, compassion, and commitment to what is good- as well as how much wrong people do.

It is imho very hard to explain what it really says about (the) godhead- I don't believe people who claim it asserts the existence and authority of the God of theism have gotten it right. You can probably find any God you like somewhere in its pages, even if the theist variety works fairly well as a blanket notion or shorthand. My impression is that a God whose only existence in the world lies in the rare individual psychological experience that transforms the subject is the serious one, the rest that parades through as images are kind of ornamental or just instrumental simplifications we may not have to take entirely literally. And the four names of God in the Hebrew text do seem to suggest this, with one of them far more important than the rest and not even to be mentioned out loud.

So I love it, I think for what it is. Maybe for the many wonderful people I know whose lives blend into and out of its words, its voice, who live parts of it that are wonderful. I do remember when it was misused against me, as a false authority really only masking the opinions and desires of people who wanted things from me that were wrongful. But they'd use writings by Marx or Mao or Confucius or Mohammed or Skinner or Freud in exactly the same ways if we had been born into some other cultural context. As for people becoming disbelievers in the simple theist God they were told was contained in the Bible upon reading it, declaring themselves agnostic and atheistic as a result is a reasonable response in my opinion. That kind of God isn't solidly in there. But other kinds, perhaps, though in the present cultural moment we would not necessarily use the word God to describe it/them.

but not all at once.

it took me some time and contemplation.

over the years, all in English.

I've never read it cover to cover, as if it were a continous novel. The books included in the Bible weren't written that way way so I've never felt the need to see them that way. I've read certain books at certain times. All of them at one point or another. I guess I've used it more like a reference book, looking up particular stories over the years when I've been curious about a particular person or character.

The inconsistencies are really a reflection of the humans who wrote these pieces, especially the gospels. You've got 4 different people relaying their versions of the story.

The xtain "Bible" we have to day is the product of a committee, The Council of Nicea in 325.

At this point, I'm more curious about the Nag Hammadi texts.

.

At least the New Testament. I prefer the "Good News" version because I like its reader-friendly language. In preparing for Bible Study class I use the RSV.

years ago. It breaks it down into small sections for daily reading. The one I had broke it down into a small Old Testament, New Testament and Psalms reading for each day. It made it really easy.

and lead Bible study and all that jazz...
Some of it is pretty dang dry, but there are certain passages that always bring me joy or comfort as well.

And talk about a preachy book! Everyone's a sinner
...'Cept this guy.:D

to read frequently. Had OT and NT in college. Fascinating stuff, good to know...

Revelations STILL baffles the hell out of me, though - I think that was included by mistake. The guy was clearly out of his gourd.

the writer of Revelations (supposedly the same author as The Gospel of John), was stoned out of his gourd on something. What I don't know, but it clearly is his white rabbit. :crazy:

for quite some time, apparently without sleep. I believe he was hallucinating. He was also very elderly at the time he produced Revelations.

...that I once conversed with online, the apocholyptic tale in revelations was a very common one amongst 1st century Jewish cults.(of which there were several. Christianity is only the best known of them; the Maccabees being the second widest known thanks to their stand at Masada) It was doubtful that John the Beloved was writing anything very original; he was just retelling a common fable, and dressing it up with a little 'Jesus'.

She gave me some documentation for that, which, unfortunately I've long since lost it. (which is what happens when your un-backed up computer crashes).

or most of it, anyway.

I was actually religious at one time. I got better.

My Father was a Pentecostal preacher, I didn't have much choice.

And it was the King James version.