There's easier translations to read that ones like the KJV with very archaic wording. The NIV and ESV are usually easier to understand, though some like The Message translation might go too far in making the words accessible.
He didn't say anything about the deliberately archaic writing, but you're right about that. However, I read the Good News translation, but I don't know how it holds up in comparison.
"What's out there? What's waiting for me?"
Well, he mentioned "begats" passages so I assumed he was talking about the language. As for the books themselves many are interesting, though almost everybody ends up skipping through the latter half of Exodus to Deuteronomy.
She, actually. :) I actually grew up reading mainly the Revised Standard Version, which is fairly accessible. The majority of Bible is just not very interesting reading, regardless of which version you read. Chronicles is as boring as shit. It just always sticks in my head as the "begats passages", because my high school Bible class (I went to a private school) used KJV.
My alignment is Chaotic Cute.
This reminds me of one Peanuts strip that was mostly Linus (I believe) reciting one of those passages on stage. I forget the punchline.
"What's out there? What's waiting for me?"
So basically you're better off looking up a synopsis on Wikipedia?
For most of it? Yes. Are there some great passages in the Bible? Sure. A portion of it is absolute poetry. But over 90% of the time, you just need to know the overview to understand the references and reading the actual passages isn't worth the time.
My alignment is Chaotic Cute.
You mean Revelation, not Revelations, right? In any case, which version you're reading has a lot to do with the flow of the reading. I like the archaic words in the KJV, but not everyone does.
The genealogies get a lot of ire, but are a miniscule part of the Bible. What makes the Bible difficult is that relatively little of it is a straight historical narrative, while much is taken up with poetry (psalms, song of solomon), prophets (Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc), abstract ruminations (ecclesiastes, proverbs), law (numbers, deuteronomy), and letters without context (most of the NT). To add to that, it is not all paced the same. Some of the history is terse to the point of needing footnotes to understand, while stories like Job just go on and on without much happening. If that weren't enough, some of the interesting stories are repeated, like the gospels and kings/chronicles.
It's really not one of those things that you should read straight through, or without some good footnotes.
Actually, I personnally found it very enjoyable to read, and even occasionnally read parts just for the sake of it; Then again, I am probably a special case^^'
I suggest giving "The Jefferson Bible" a go, even if you're not religious.
I tried reading the King James once. I got through Creation and Noah, and then it was just lists and lists of people, so, yeah...
If you're going to put up a review of something, MAKE SURE IT HAS A PAGE FIRST!Leave a Comment:
Important to know; A pain to read - a non-religious review
No one can doubt the immense influence the Bible has had on imagery in literature, art, film and TV. Nor can its influence on history be set aside. It is vitally important to be familiar with the Bible to understand these things. That said, it's a giant slog of a read. I doubt anyone but biblical scholars has really really read the whole thing. (If nothing else, I suspect most people only skim the "begats" passages).
If you're not familiar with the stories, get a Children's Bible and read that. You'll get the most important bits. The only thing that's probably not in there that you might want is Revelations, which is much more manageable than the whole darn Bible. Frankly, unless you're really into art history, literary analysis, etc, do you really need any more than the core stories? Probably not.