The Bible is unreadable

[Virgil]

Do most people, apart from their faith, enjoy reading the bible? I loved hearing the stories of the bible as a child. As an adult, I sometimes find it an effort to "plow through the scriptures". It is not a matter of language; not in, at least, the same way that the "Paradise Lost", the "Canterbury Tales" or Goethe are. It is not a matter of belief, for many of the same accounts are reflected in other texts around the world.
What are your thoughts?

You're assumption is that it's a work of literature. Any literary interest is purely secondary. The writers were not there to enetertain.

[mal4mac]

You're assumption is that it's a work of literature. Any literary interest is purely secondary. The writers were not there to enetertain.

Some parts are very entertaining! (Parts of Ecclesiastes, Job, some Psalms...) As literature is about getting the right words in the right order, then 'the best' Biblical authors would have been foolish to not make this interest of paramount importance, surely? It would be strange if they had thought it not worth bothering to express their belief using their best literary efforts. That much of the Bible is unreadable is probably down to second rate writers, collaters, priests, and what have you, sticking their oars in...

[Virgil]

Some parts are very entertaining! (Parts of Ecclesiastes, Job, some Psalms...) As literature is about getting the right words in the right order, then 'the best' Biblical authors would have been foolish to not make this interest of paramount importance, surely? It would be strange if they had thought it not worth bothering to express their belief using their best literary efforts. That much of the Bible is unreadable is probably down to second rate writers, collaters, priests, and what have you, sticking their oars in...

First you claim the Bible is unreadable in the very first post here, and now you profess to understand what is going on in the minds of the writers in their expression. "Surely it is strange" you say? You claim not to understand it and now you say it is strange? You aren't looking for help in understanding it. You are looking to find fault. {edit}

[JCamilo]

the only time I read something similar was Coleridge talking that prose is the right words at the right momment, and poetry the best words at the best momment.
Order would be very foolish, the order depends on intention and idiom. Legal Literature have different order than a poem, or Alice in the Wonderland, Scientific Literature as well, a dictionary another order, etc. A few books of the bible have multiple authors, "editors" and the text had origem in the oral tradition. The order or words used in a oral narration is not the same for written texts, even in the old times, imagine in the world of best-selling prose or journalism?

[MarkBastable]

But to advise in such a way as to not read the single most important book of western culture is incredibly ignorant.

I agree - and I'm a committed and happy atheist. The influence of the Bible is so profound that its literary merit is pretty secondary to its cultural importance - and that alone is reason enough to read it.

Also, some of the language in the Bible is damn good - and although it may be antique, it's not antiquated. Many expressions from the King James Version are part of everyday idiom, and references to Bible stories, with or without the direct quotation from a given version, are scattered throughout our shared use of both figurative and literal language. I'd bet that no literate English speaker makes it through a week without citing, consciously or otherwise, two or three Biblical references.

On top of which, the Bible isn't a book - it's a library. And, like most libraries, it contains some good stuff, some dull stuff, some relevant stuff and some moribund stuff.

I'm not saying one should read it daily. But you'd have to be pretty incurious not to read it at all. Apart from anything else, if you're going to set yourself up in opposition to Christianity, it makes sense to be familiar with the other guy's training manual.

[gbrekken]

I'm not ingnoring all that's been recently written here, but wish to add, augment. I think I made the point on "hanged" in a private message instead of a post here. The usage in Matthew is singular, non-occurring elsewhere in the canonical script. Neither concordance, lexicon, interlinear, etc. is going to give you much eye-opening understanding. I can imagine hanging on a single point, ala heri-keri, hence the bowels gushing out. I've no proof of the original intention of the word, and nothing within the script itself to support my somewhat imaginative belief in the non-contradictory nature of truth per se. This would be a prima facia case for going outside the text to find uses outside the primary text (secular sources at time of translation), in order to understand the primary. I'm not suggesting Cliff notes, but the fact that at times (such as in unique verbal occurrences), outside sources can support further understanding. Maybe I don't belong here; I understand so little, and can mis-understand so much.

[Virgil]

I agree - and I'm a committed and happy atheist. The influence of the Bible is so profound that its literary merit is pretty secondary to its cultural importance - and that alone is reason enough to read it. If you're going to set yourself up in opposition to Christianity, it makes sense to be familiar with the other guy's training manual.

Also, some of the language in the Bible is damn good - and although it may be antique, it's not antiquated. Many expressions from the King James Version are part of everyday idiom, and references to Bible stories, with or without the direct quotation from a given version, are scattered throughout our shared use of both figurative and literal language. I'd bet that no literate English speaker makes it through a week without citing, consciously or otherwise, two or three Biblical references.

On top of which, the Bible isn't a book - it's a library. And, like most libraries, it contains some good stuff, some dull stuff, some relevant stuff and some moribund stuff.

I'm not saying one should read it daily. But you'd have to be pretty incurious not to read it at all.

Thank you for that Mark. I think you are right on in your understanding of it.

I'm not ingnoring all that's been recently written here, but wish to add, augment. I think I made the point on "hanged" in a private message instead of a post here. The usage in Matthew is singular, non-occurring elsewhere in the canonical script. Neither concordance, lexicon, interlinear, etc. is going to give you much eye-opening understanding. I can imagine hanging on a single point, ala heri-keri, hence the bowels gushing out. I've no proof of the original intention of the word, and nothing within the script itself to support my somewhat imaginative belief in the non-contradictory nature of truth per se. This would be a prima facia case for going outside the text to find uses outside the primary text (secular sources at time of translation), in order to understand the primary. I'm not suggesting Cliff notes, but the fact that at times (such as in unique verbal occurrences), outside sources can support further understanding. Maybe I don't belong here; I understand so little, and can mis-understand so much.

You certainly do belong here gb. Absolutely other sources in explcating the work are warrented. There is a two thousand year history of commentary that has been built up and re-commented upon. I have a disagreement with my Evangelical Christian friends. For them the bible is the sole root of all sources of knowledge and that frankly will only tie one up into knots. Life and experience does not work by human logic and reason, and neither does history or transcendental understanding of the divine, and to pin oneself down to a complex text of multiple authors, varying histories, and different experiences is a condition for failure. The two thousand year commentary (actually even more than two thousand years because of old testament commentary - actually what was Christ but a commentator on the old testament? - amoung other things) in itself is not complete and can never be complete. Whether one is an atheist or a believer, human experience is not founded on reason and rationality, but an evolving conception. And therefore the bible itself, layered across centuries, book upon book, experience upon experience, is an aesthetic representation of life itself.

[blazeofglory]

Thank you for that Mark. I think you are right on in your understanding of it.


You certainly do belong here gb. Absolutely other sources in explcating the work are warrented. There is a two thousand year history of commentary that has been built up and re-commented upon. I have a disagreement with my Evangelical Christian friends. For them the bible is the sole root of all sources of knowledge and that frankly will only tie one up into knots. Life and experience does not work by human logic and reason, and neither does history or transcendental understanding of the divine, and to pin oneself down to a complex text of multiple authors, varying histories, and different experiences is a condition for failure. The two thousand year commentary (actually even more than two thousand years because of old testament commentary - actually what was Christ but a commentator on the old testament? - amoung other things) in itself is not complete and can never be complete. Whether one is an atheist or a believer, human experience is not founded on reason and rationality, but an evolving conception. And therefore the bible itself, layered across centuries, book upon book, experience upon experience, is an aesthetic representation of life itself.

I too feel the Bible is one of the evolutionary processes and steps of human understanding about the world and himself and the Bible is not the final truth and Jesus is one of the many thinkers like Plato, Russel., Sartre and the like!

[soundofmusic]

You're assumption is that it's a work of literature. Any literary interest is purely secondary. The writers were not there to enetertain.

You are right, of course, Virgil. I sometimes think, however, that it would be wonderful for the stories and parables to be placed in literary form (aside from the King James bible) for adults and children. Most christians I know really have no deep seated understanding of the bible; that is why they become so confused when stories such as DaVinci Code are released.

[Virgil]

You are right, of course, Virgil. I sometimes think, however, that it would be wonderful for the stories and parables to be placed in literary form (aside from the King James bible) for adults and children. Most christians I know really have no deep seated understanding of the bible; that is why they become so confused when stories such as DaVinci Code are released.

Actually I believe there are collections where they've gathered such stories. I think I had one somewhere once. I just did a search in Amazon for bibble stories and came up with this: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?ur...=bible+stories. Over 58,000 results actually!

[mal4mac]

I agree - and I'm a committed and happy atheist. The influence of the Bible is so profound that its literary merit is pretty secondary to its cultural importance - and that alone is reason enough to read it.

Also, some of the language in the Bible is damn good - and although it may be antique, it's not antiquated. Many expressions from the King James Version are part of everyday idiom, and references to Bible stories, with or without the direct quotation from a given version, are scattered throughout our shared use of both figurative and literal language. I'd bet that no literate English speaker makes it through a week without citing, consciously or otherwise, two or three Biblical references.

On top of which, the Bible isn't a book - it's a library. And, like most libraries, it contains some good stuff, some dull stuff, some relevant stuff and some moribund stuff.

I'm not saying one should read it daily. But you'd have to be pretty incurious not to read it at all. Apart from anything else, if you're going to set yourself up in opposition to Christianity, it makes sense to be familiar with the other guy's training manual.

Some of the stuff is so dull and so moribund that it makes it unreadable "as a whole", I would argue. Have you read it all? If not, you have not disproven my thesis that it is unreadable "as a whole". The only people I have heard say they have read it all are extremely highly motivated Christians--most recently some Jehovah's witnesses, and even they admitted it was really hard slog.

To oppose Christian arguments with atheist arguments it's the actual arguments that need to be engaged with, not some dusty manual--every Christian sect has its own interpretation of that manual anyway. No atheist need read the Bible to argue against Christian dogmas. Do you think creationists have read Darwin's Origin? No. So if they can argue against atheists without reading their "bible", why should we read theirs?

If you really want to, you can read the 100 Minute Bible to get reasonably familiar with "the other guys traning manual" -- no need to torture yourself by reading the whole thing. Though even the 100 Minute Bible is a tough chew in places! But I did finish it. So I *have* read the Bible!

Actually I believe there are collections where they've gathered such stories. I think I had one somewhere once. I just did a search in Amazon for bibble stories and came up with this: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?ur...=bible+stories. Over 58,000 results actually!

But many of these are for small kids, or are re-tellings by second-rate writers out to make a fast buck, or have other factors counting against them. Few have any literary merit at all for adult readers. The most promising abridgement I found was "Testament" by Philip Law. But I still found myself grinding to a halt on reading it.

Which of these 58 000 collections of Bible stories come closest to maintaining most of the literary merits of the original?

[MarkBastable]

If you really want to, you can read the 100 Minute Bible to get reasonably familiar with "the other guys traning manual"

I don't need to. I was brought up with it.

Though even the 100 Minute Bible is a tough chew in places! But I did finish it. So I *have* read the Bible!

You're the kind of person who flicks through the comic strip Hamlet and thinks he's read Shakespeare, aren't you?

[Virgil]

But many of these are for small kids, or are re-tellings by second-rate writers out to make a fast buck, or have other factors counting against them. Few have any literary merit at all for adult readers. The most promising abridgement I found was "Testament" by Philip Law. But I still found myself grinding to a halt on reading it.

Which of these 58 000 collections of Bible stories come closest to maintaining most of the literary merits of the original?

I have no desire to respond to any of your statements any longer here. You aren't here to understand. You are here to undermine. I really don't care whether you understand it or not.

[Scheherazade]

I think this thread has become unreadable too with all the personal comments and bickering going on.

Such comments and disrespectful/intolerant attitude towards those who do not share your views will lead to infraction points in future.