NationStates Jolt Archive

Religion set aside.

Do you think the Bible is a good book? Why or why not?

I'm waiting for the sequel to come out before finalizing an opinion.

It is good, in my opinion, with one caveat:
The writing style. If you don't like it, you won't like reading it very much.

yes I do.

Taking religion out of it, it gives you a view of an ancient society, and how dispite being shown the way many times, still rebel and get smacked around. Then, when an even easier answer is given, the same thing happens, people twist and destort and still need a good b*tch slap.

Its got some good points, and parables. Its got some good examples of a good life as well as not so good life. I do enjoy proverbs, example: It is better to live in the desert then in the house with a nagging wife.

No it is confusing and tedious. I read the cliff notes for the old testament and learned a few things though.

Read the song of songs, a beautiful love poem. Or proverbs, a collection of wise sayings.

Violence, sex, magic, war.

Why not?

Example of proverbs 17

4 A wicked man listens to evil lips;

a liar pays attention to a malicious tongue.



5 He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker;

whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished.



6 Children's children are a crown to the aged,

and parents are the pride of their children.



7 Arrogant [b] lips are unsuited to a fool-

how much worse lying lips to a ruler!

Well, I'm currently on my first reading of the Bible, and I'm only up to Judges, but my opinion thus far of the "Good Book" is that it really isn't...

Setting aside all content matters, and focusing strictly on writing and construction, the Bible is a terrible, terrible book...

It's annoyingly repetitive (often repeating the same phrase twice in the same sentence), it often reads like a laundry list (and I mean often...), and it's pretty boring most of the time...

And the times where it picks up, it generally skims through everything... I've read through all of these stories that I've known through other means, and I was under the impression from those other introductions to these stories that they were much longer and more detailed... In the actual book, though, most of them are contained in a page or two, and don't contain nearly all of the detail I've learned elsewhere... How are people reading all of this extra garbage into these things (unless the book revisits them later in more detail, and I just haven't gotten that far yet)?

So yeah, as far as being written well is concerned, the Bible is very far from it...

In fact, I think that it's so bad, that if it wasn't a book I really wanted to read, I'd have long since put it down (something I've never done)...

Yup it is. Though some books can be totally confusing or absurdly boring.

Like book of NUMBERS. How can anybody read about Numbers and names of people going down the generations? Or Deuteronomy.. Laws laws laws laws laws.. *Yawn*

The bible is not one book, but a collection of them written in very different styles and different authors. There's plenty of good stuff in it, but some other parts are plain crap. Since there is no option for 'so-so' or 'partially good', I'll take "didn't read", since I really didn't read the whole bible and so can't judge it as one unit.

If you pay attention, you'll see some of the fundies try to justify the crap parts by giving as an argument the worthy parts. The tactic doesn't really work.

I like the bit where Jesus and Moses fight off the Romans with machine guns

My real point is that if you had the choice between the Bible and another modern book that was actually created to entertain, then no-one other than the over religious would sit down and start at Genesis.

what a great point. looks like a sure killed that argument

I don't like the way its written, so i find the story hard to get into.

The Bible is "the good book." For instance, author Peter Gomes wrote "The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart."

Why is it the good book? It is known as "the good book" because it helps humans understand God.

The language is poor, the the use of outside sources is frivolous, the added interpretations are plain unfounded. For a book that is supposed to decribe reality the Bible sucks big time.

I'm waiting for the sequel to come out before finalizing an opinion.

The sequel to the Bible would be the Koran and the sequel to the Koran would be the Kitab i Iqan.

The writing style of the Bible is a headache IMO

Wouldn't the New Testament technically be the sequel?

Wouldn't the New Testament technically be the sequel?

Very true. Then the Koran and then the Kitab i Iqan.

Badly written. If you kill off your lead character then stick to it, don't contrive to have them come back in a ludicrous manner. The New Testament was just an early version of Dallas.

The writing style of the Bible is a headache IMO

No question it is a difficult read. Of course, remember this was written a very long time ago by many diferent "authors" who were not writing to a modern audience. How were they to know that a future audience would have such a short attention span.

Badly written. If you kill off your lead character then stick to it, don't contrive to have them come back in a ludicrous manner. The New Testament was just an early version of Dallas.

Well they were'nt expecting people to make mores stories, it's like Fanfics basically. It'll never be as good as the real thing, but it does have it's points. :p

Well they were'nt expecting people to make mores stories, it's like Fanfics basically. It'll never be as good as the real thing, but it does have it's points. :p


Definitely. Much agreed.

I might have enjoyed it more if soemone hadnt spoiled the ending for me.

The new testament really killed the bible. At first it was all 'God did this, God destroyed that, that woman wrecked humanities chance' and so on. But then they changed it for a newer audience who wanted peace and love. The new testament was a poor sequel. They should have just carried on with the same formula and had God do more plagues and city destroying. And Jesus was a really poor character. They should have had more Moses like characters, I liked that guy.

I like the bit where Jesus and Moses fight off the Romans with machine guns

Yes, that was a good part.
But hey... Revelations is a pretty good part of the Bible.whereas most parts of the "good book" bore me, Revelations scares me. :rolleyes:

I might have enjoyed it more if soemone hadnt spoiled the ending for me.

I quite liked the ending. That last section was a return to the good bits of the old testament. Don't read the new testament. Just skip to revelations.

Interesting thread.
I read the bible as an atheist, and I read it carefully. there are actually a lot of interesting stories etc in there, particularly in the more obscure books within it. However, I have alsoread a few of the books that were cut out of the bible, centuries ago, and they are even better than the ones that were left in. They really got me thinking about religion and god and all of christianity's history.
Fascinating stuff.
:cool:

I like revalations. it's cool. when I was younger, my mum always found me the plagues during the boring bits in weddings.

Interesting thread.
I read the bible as an atheist, and I read it carefully. there are actually a lot of interesting stories etc in there, particularly in the more obscure books within it. However, I have alsoread a few of the books that were cut out of the bible, centuries ago, and they are even better than the ones that were left in. They really got me thinking about religion and god and all of christianity's history.
Fascinating stuff.
:cool:
What do you mean with "obscure books" ?

What about the Koran? To anyone that's read it, how would you rate the book? Is it a good read? I also heard you have another book, the Chronicles of Muhhamad or something? Sounds like a kick ass adventure story. :D

Ha ha! Spoiled the ending. That's good. ;)

It is good to read, yes, but if you want a novel, it's terrible. Since it isn't a novel, though, that's hardly a point against it. It is an historical document-- a collection of lists, geneologies, legal documents, occasionally mutually inconsistent myths, a few wild tales of derring-do, and the life of Jesus tacked on the end as a bonus. If you're interested in the roots of Western culture, it really must be read in its entirety-- even Leviticus and Deuteronomy (don't bother to feel guilty about wearing mixed fibres or all those years you went to church wearing glasses. Some theologian somewhere will have argued those little rules away).

I keep the Oxford Study Bible and the Catholic Study Bible about the house for reference, and I keep meaning to get hold of a proper paper copy of the King James... I didn't used to like it, but I'd like to look at it again.

What about the Koran? To anyone that's read it, how would you rate the book? Is it a good read? I also heard you have another book, the Chronicles of Muhhamad or something? Sounds like a kick ass adventure story. :D

I never got around to reading the Koran but I shall do it at some point. Atleast Muhammed is like a real person and doesn't go around performing crazy stunts like that Jesus guy. Giving him magic powers just wrecked the new testament for me.

no, in my eyes its pretty crappy...
for one its totally biased, written by a whole heap of people who exaggerate and inflate the truth. its been around for two thousand years, and to truly think it hasnt been changed, and is identical to the original text is ridiculous. on top of that many of the original books have been taken out over time and marked apocryphal cause a bunch of high up leaders want the bible to sound how they want it to. simply... the bible is but now the switching and swapping of languages, and the removing of books to create a contradictory rabble of many writers.

What about the Koran? To anyone that's read it, how would you rate the book? Is it a good read? I also heard you have another book, the Chronicles of Muhhamad or something? Sounds like a kick ass adventure story. :D

I have not read the entire Koran, but I think it is an easier read than the OT. It is difficult from a Western perspective because we are so unfamiliar with the culture and history of the people. I am totally unfamiliar with the Chronicles of Muhammed. There are thousands of traditions that are attritubed to Muhammed and often times carry as much or more weight than the Koran. These traditions are written down in a book or books. The Kitab i Iqan I have read. It was written to a Muslim to help explain certain terms in the Koran such as: clouds, heaven, hell, return. For instance references to clouds and the return of Muhammed was meant to mean the things that keep us from recognizing the proofs of the return of the Messenger or Prophet. Just as there was a great expecation of Christ's return in the middle 1800's there was an similiar expectation of Muhammed's return at the same general time.

no, in my eyes its pretty crappy...
for one its totally biased, written by a whole heap of people who exaggerate and inflate the truth. its been around for two thousand years, and to truly think it hasnt been changed, and is identical to the original text is ridiculous. on top of that many of the original books have been taken out over time and marked apocryphal cause a bunch of high up leaders want the bible to sound how they want it to. simply... the bible is but now the switching and swapping of languages, and the removing of books to create a contradictory rabble of many writers.

One thing to keep in mind that there isn't really just ONE bible; there are so many translations that you have to find the one that goes back to the original text (and yes, there are still copies of the 'old' (or Hebrew-Aramic) and 'new' (or Greek) testaments. They are written in, you guessed it, Hebrew, Aramic, and Greek.

Although it is true that many times religious leaders have altered the bible (example, the russian orthadox church in the 1800's), there are so many translations that I'm sure you can find one that has most or all of its parts in it.

There are some books, such as the books of the Macabee's (a period of ruling kings of Judah that I believe spanned from the book of Malachi to the first century) that have not been part of many translations; this is because there isn't really any proof that they were written by the prophets, although they are valuble for their historical record.

no, in my eyes its pretty crappy...
for one its totally biased, written by a whole heap of people who exaggerate and inflate the truth. its been around for two thousand years, and to truly think it hasnt been changed, and is identical to the original text is ridiculous. on top of that many of the original books have been taken out over time and marked apocryphal cause a bunch of high up leaders want the bible to sound how they want it to. simply... the bible is but now the switching and swapping of languages, and the removing of books to create a contradictory rabble of many writers.

Well, yes. It's just my opinion, but I think that if you approach the Bible with the conviction that it is the inalterable word of God, you're making it very hard work for yourself just to read the bloody thing and you're probably in for some serious confusion. If, on the contrary, you take it as a piece of history, a collection written (and altered) over a great long period of time by a great many human beings, about their relationship with God, amongst other things, and what they think God is, it not only makes a lot more sense, but you will get a lot more out of it-- and this you can do whether you believe in God or not. It is very helpful to take things in context: a lot of the Bible isn't at all relevant to us, but it would have been extremely relevant to people at the time. Take, for example, the injunction that the Jews are not to eat pork or shellfish, because God has declared them unclean. It so happens that at the time and in the geographical location, it was extremely dangerous and often deadly to eat pork or shellfish, because they often contained toxic bacteria and horrific parasites. So if God shows up and says 'Look, guys, don't eat those', well, that's a pretty decent and responsible thing for God to do for his chosen people. If the Bible were still being written today, we might very well have a 'Thou shalt not give out thy personal details over the Internet; I am the Lord thy God' somewhere.

I don't really think that the Bible is evaluable as 'good' or 'crappy' as a book. It's an important manifestation of human interest and therefore is interesting in itself. If you're interested in that sort of thing.

It is very helpful to take things in context: a lot of the Bible isn't at all relevant to us, but it would have been extremely relevant to people at the time. Take, for example, the injunction that the Jews are not to eat pork or shellfish, because God has declared them unclean. It so happens that at the time and in the geographical location, it was extremely dangerous and often deadly to eat pork or shellfish, because they often contained toxic bacteria and horrific parasites.

I understand exactly what you are saying here. There are social laws and spiritual laws. The social laws change from age to age as the needs of humanity change. The spiritual laws remain the same; they may take slightly different wordings, but they are in their essence the same.

One thing to keep in mind that there isn't really just ONE bible; there are so many translations that you have to find the one that goes back to the original text (and yes, there are still copies of the 'old' (or Hebrew-Aramic) and 'new' (or Greek) testaments. They are written in, you guessed it, Hebrew, Aramic, and Greek.

Although it is true that many times religious leaders have altered the bible (example, the russian orthadox church in the 1800's), there are so many translations that I'm sure you can find one that has most or all of its parts in it.

There are some books, such as the books of the Macabee's (a period of ruling kings of Judah that I believe spanned from the book of Malachi to the first century) that have not been part of many translations; this is because there isn't really any proof that they were written by the prophets, although they are valuble for their historical record.
Well, how original is "original" ? The Hebrew texts that made it into the Bible or the (much) earlier works from which those Hebrew texts were copied or by which they were influenced?

Without religion
I think that it is great.
It has poetry, history, law, and, although 'tis excluded in thread, religion
Its poetry is very inspirational
and its laws would help but sume are not needed
and its history is fun to read :D

Well, how original is "original" ? The Hebrew texts that made it into the Bible or the (much) earlier works from which those Hebrew texts were copied or by which they were influenced?

Of course you can't have the first of the first manuscript. The copies that we have now are most likely done by the Jewish scribes of the time. If you look into jewish tradition, scribes were well trained copyists. And they weren't the only ones. Kings, for one example, had to copy out the law (leviticus) exactly.

There are more than one set of the old and new testament written in their original languages. This is how errors in the text can be checked, as well as authenticity through script style, accuracy, carbon dating, etc. So although there is no 'one' original, there are accurate copies that can be checked against each other.

It's like if you had a copy of of a Shakespear play, just because it wasn't the first edition doesn't mean that the text is influenced or screwed up, even though the plays are over 400 years old.

The Bible is okay as far as a collection of folktales go. But the Mahabharata, now that kicks ass

Taking religion out of it, it gives you a view of an ancient society.

If you want a view of "ancient society" you're going to have to go back further than the bible. :)

I understand exactly what you are saying here. There are social laws and spiritual laws. The social laws change from age to age as the needs of humanity change. The spiritual laws remain the same; they may take slightly different wordings, but they are in their essence the same.

Precisely-- which is why you see so much similarity in the essential aspects of a great many of the world's religions and ethical traditions. Cultures and epochs change the mechanics of what human beings do from day to day, but there is an aspect of religion that transcends these nuts and bolts and is more about what it is to be human. There's far more to it than that, of course, for better and very much for worse.

Eh, I'm not too into it. Poor narrative, worst plot.

Pratchett is better ;)

Eh, I'm not too into it. Poor narrative, worst plot.

Pratchett is better ;)

Pratchett kicks ass.

To read the Bible as a book is very much as reading the manual for a japan-made VCR or DVD player.. Not much fun and you wouldn't understan more then the "Make sure the DVD player is turned ON"-part...

Sure. Some part of the Bible could be read as a book; Job for example. But you still wouldn't get the point if you wouldn't know how to read it... Many people think thatits easy to read the Bible and that anyone can do it.. I say that it can take years before you really can read it as it has to be read with the understanding that almost all part is in someway there for a reason and not only to fil the book with words..

Never read it. don't think I ever will.

Wouldn't the New Testament technically be the sequel?

But it was originally planned as a trilogy.

For being the Good Book, the Bible ain't a very good book. There's no stylistic consistency. It makes Moby Dick look streamlined as a cruise missile. There's no real continuity of plot, except through family linkage and the fact that this character "God" seems to be watching everything. In that light, it might be like some other picaresques, such as Tom Jones or Don Quixote. There was no effort made at suspension of disbelief. In fact, the author seems to attempt the opposite: to encourage the reader's faith over their reason in accepting the story. In that way, it's like the bar story where your buddy says, "trust me," then lays out some truly unbelievable bullshit. There's too much time given over to who begat whom. It makes Faulkner's most crowded family novels look as simple as Ozzie and Harriet. With the exception of Jesus, who arrives pretty late in the story, there isn't much time given over to character development. Those characters that are developed (such as this "God") aren't particularly believable. I mean, the whole omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient thing aside (how are we supposed to invest in a character who can't be surprised from time to time? Not much room for cliffhangers), God seems to be a different guy every time you turn a page. One moment, he's kind and forgiving. Next moment, he's all fire and brimstone and pillars of salt. It doesn't even read like the same author.

I didn't find it entertaining. It's disjointed, probably because of how many authors went into writing it. It's boring. Yes, a book about genocide, rape, incest, mutilation and murder can be boring. Note that I have only read the bulk of the OT and the 4 gospels, not the whole thing.

Sorry it doesn't entertain you people, but thats not what its for. Not exactly the best lines to judge it on dont you think.

Personally, I think it is just as a good book as Homer's Odysee, with more different characters. I've actually just read the Books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, the Great Flood) and some stories out of the New Testament (the life of Jesus, for all those who don't know...). It is kinda entertaining if you aren't too conserned with the religious basis (in both extremes: every word is true; or the whole thing is a big load of ****)...

Great read.. Leviticus and Numbers... captivating stuff. A librarians dream

Personally, I think it is just as a good book as Homer's Odysee, with more different characters. I've actually just read the Books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, the Great Flood) and some stories out of the New Testament (the life of Jesus, for all those who don't know...). It is kinda entertaining if you aren't too conserned with the religious basis (in both extremes: every word is true; or the whole thing is a big load of ****)...
"the Great Flood" is a book of Moses? Must have missed that one. And make sure that you read stuff about a) the historic environment in which the events described in the Bible really happened and b) how trustworthy those are who much later wrote down stories about these events.

It's a bit preachy for my liking.

If you want a view of "ancient society" you're going to have to go back further than the bible. :)

I figured 6000 years would be far enough....I guess not, whats anceit? prehistoric? as in before writing?

No.

1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 1:3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 1:4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 1:7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 1:8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 1:9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 1:10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 1:13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 1:14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

I rest my case.

Sorry it doesn't entertain you people, but thats not what its for. Not exactly the best lines to judge it on dont you think.
And yet that was the criteria set forth in this thread. :fluffle:

The books of Moses are funny. But the rest of it is just boring.

As someone else said the Bible is actually a collection of books.

Religion set aside, it offers everything Shakespeare if not more in English. Foreshadowing, irony, etc. It also offers wonderful excamples of how to live and as said before a great deal of history and the way things were done.

It's not very funny, unless it's illustrated with LEGOS! (http://www.thebricktestament.com/)

Though a complete atheist, I enjoy parts of the old testament. If "God" as described in the old testament proved his existance to me, I'd certainly become converted.

To be honest, the new testament god is a bit crap in comparison, cutting right down on all the gratuatous humanity-tormenting. (Of course not including the grand finale, where he utterly mullers the entire human race.

It's not very funny, unless it's illustrated with LEGOS! (http://www.thebricktestament.com/)

Ah, the Reverend. He also wrote and co-starred in Vendetta: A Christmas Story. I have that film, it rocks.

The Reverend Brendan Powell Smith (http://www.thereverend.com/)

"the Great Flood" is a book of Moses? Must have missed that one. And make sure that you read stuff about a) the historic environment in which the events described in the Bible really happened and b) how trustworthy those are who much later wrote down stories about these events.

"The Great Flood" is in Genesis which was written down by Moses.

Also, the Bible does invole alot of killing yes but I think it's more about how ppl are. We haven't changed except for how we do the things that our ancestors did.

I didn't think the criteria in the thread was whether the Bible was entertaining, but whether it was 'good'. I'm assuming that meant to ask if it was a exemplary work of literature.

The many different books in the Bible each have a different style, and should be judged by its effectiveness in that style.

Books like the Song of Solomon or Job are actually amazingly good samples of Hebrew poetry. It was meant to be repetitive doesn't rhyme on purpose. It was a rhyme of meaning, not sounds. (besides most of us aren't reading it in Hebrew anyway, and wouldn't know even if it did rhyme originally)

Books in the new Testament have been recognized even in modern times as amazing literature. Harvard used to use Romans as an example of logical argument. Paul was educated as a Roman citizen and Jewish lawyer and wrote like it.

So it depends on which parts you are reading.

As far as some modern retellings of the stories goes, adding lots of details, some are cultural details that we no longer understand because of the distance between us and that culture. Some are just a lot of made up stuff that they threw in to be more interesting. Some are based on comments made in the New Testament about the Old Testament, which clarified or explained some of the events.

It also depends on which version you're reading. I grew up with the King James, but I do know it can be horrible to try and read if you don't know where to start or what you're looking for. I vote for the New American Standard or the New English Standard if you are looking for one that tries its best to reflect the original languages and still be readable today.

Ballast, doorstop, paperweight, draught excluder, flower pressing tool. etc

Its a horrid read- even as a collection of stories and poems- because its had TOO MANY EDITORS!!

Ballast, doorstop, paperweight, draught excluder, flower pressing tool. etc

Nice thin pages. Good for rolling cigarettes too.

Badly written. If you kill off your lead character then stick to it, don't contrive to have them come back in a ludicrous manner. The New Testament was just an early version of Dallas.
ROFL!

It's a good read if you tend to appreciate a schizophrenic's perspective.
Jumps around a lot. Conflict resolution is at times flummoxing. Conflicts between "witnesses" daunting and one of those kinda things a person should gloss over as contradiction goes ....
the end sucks though. I couldn't really connect on that whole "vision" thing and that nice guy turned evil prick guy thing was already taxing enough (in reverse) from the OT-NT transition.
Good passages in Psalms and Proverbs, however.

On a somewhat related note, I read somewhere that Mel intends a book form of the Passion of the Christ ... isn't that somewhat heretical (never mind artistic license issues he took for the movie)?
If ALL THOSE OTHER VERSIONS of the "word" weren't enough .... sheesh.
:rolleyes:

There is a great deal of wisdom contained in its pages, but you have to read it cover to cover to understand.

There is a great deal of wisdom contained in its pages, but you have to read it cover to cover to understand.

I have read it from Gen to Rev, more than once. Ive read it in chronological order. Ive read different versions and translations. My conclusions: Great thin pages, ideal for rolling cigarettes!

I voted no because as a story, it doesn't have much literary merit. Incidentally, that's one of the best arguments against it being legend: It's simply not good enough.

There is a great deal of wisdom contained in its pages, but you have to read it cover to cover to understand.
There are easier ways to put yourself in an altered state.

Religion set aside.

Do you think the Bible is a good book? Why or why not?


Not a good book.


It is very bad for your mental health.

Yar.